# What do you think caused the BIG BANG?



## mr t

I was born and raised Catholic and I lost my faith late in highschool. Later after going to a silent retreat with my dad and praying about certain problems I had been dealing with for a long time, the problems seemed to work themselves out by the end of the 3 day retreat. That started to build my faith. But still have my doubts like everyone should. Even Mother Teresa had doubts about her faith documented in her journals.

I shared that information because I am a person growing in faith. Although I do not agree with a lot of what is said on this forum i've always found it interesting to seek out different opinions. Thats one reason I think this is a fascinating forum because it clashes with my personal beliefs but there a many valid questions brought up so I look to lurk around and watch the atheists :um.

Haha just kidding of course.

Anyway to the topic of discussion:

*What do you think caused the big bang?* I believe it was the beginning of creation by God.

What do you personalize believe caused the beginning of the universe? I understand if I get a ton of I dont knows because its more of a philosophical question than anything.

Definitely not here to flame/troll or whatever. Everyone has the right to their own beliefs of course.

I believe people should be judged on how they lived and if they left the world even just a tiny bit better off than it was.

I also thought this was an interesting question because their is no proven answer of course. I know what christians believe about it but what do you personally believe caused the big bang and the expansion of the universe?


----------



## mr t

no answers?

Did i come across as offensive?


----------



## Toppington

mr t said:


> *What do you think caused the big bang?* I believe it was the beginning of creation by God.





mr t said:


> I believe it was the beginning of creation by God.





mr t said:


> God.





mr t said:


> *God.*





mr t said:


> *God.*


Social Anxiety Forum > Recovery > *Agnostic* and *Atheist* Support

I don't mean to be a smartass, but this would be better suited for Social Anxiety Forum > Discussion > Agnosticism, Atheism and Religion.


----------



## MsDaisy

I think it was someones science experiment gone awry.


----------



## mr t

oh sorry, i didnt realize i posted under the wrong section! 

my bad


----------



## huh

No one knows, though I doubt the answer will be God.


----------



## Monkeydudecorollabro

Hey man,

The big bang theory is exactly that, a theory.
I reckon there's far too much that we don't know about existence to be making assumptions about what created the universe.
Scientists feel the need to try and explain/categorize/define everything, which I believe just isn't going to happen.
Sure they can split the atom, define protons and electrons and break them down or whatever, but after that? It goes on and on, they're never going to get to the bottom of it.

If you're looking for a faith, I would definitely go for Buddhism. Try looking up Alan Watts.

I'm not trying to be an *******, but christianity will only end up preventing spiritual growth.


----------



## mr t

Monkeydudecorollabro said:


> Hey man,
> 
> The big bang theory is exactly that, a theory.
> I reckon there's far too much that we don't know about existence to be making assumptions about what created the universe.
> Scientists feel the need to try and explain/categorize/define everything, which I believe just isn't going to happen.
> Sure they can split the atom, define protons and electrons and break them down or whatever, but after that? It goes on and on, they're never going to get to the bottom of it.
> 
> If you're looking for a faith, I would definitely go for Buddhism. Try looking up Alan Watts.
> 
> I'm not trying to be an *******, but christianity will only end up preventing spiritual growth.


Oh yea and the theory of evolution is just "only a theory". Its a theory and not a law or fact because you cant test it, prove it, and replicate the experiment. Freshen up on the scientific method.

The big bang theory is the most widely accepted explanation of how the universe started. Ever heard of the cosmic radiation background aka the smoking gun of the big bang. You could simply read about it on wikipedia and the evidence for it. If we cant replicate something and prove it happened it cannot go past being a theory.

My astronomy professor supports this theory 100 percent and he worked with the Nobel prize winning team that proved that the universe was expanding, worked with last Nobel prize winning team on research, and recently was the first to discover what EXACTLY happens to cause a supernova. Bradley Schafer, LSU. I think ill take his word for it, and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

Yes atoms can be broken down into quarks etc... but maybe they will find the fundamental subatomic particle. The large hadron collider in Sweden is trying to do exactly that.

As for christianity preventing spiritual growth thats absolutely ridiculous. What evidence would you have to support this than your own experience with it or evangelical christians, who are NOT the majority of christians.

Buddhism to build faith in God? Buddhist teachings do not involve faith in a god.

I'm not saying christianity is right and buddhism isnt. Its your life, do what floats your boat. Just need to correct you on a few things.


----------



## Minipurz

mr t said:


> The large hadron collider in Sweden is trying to do exactly that.


Its in Switzerland, not Sweden


----------



## FastLad

God had a level 5 nandos and farted shehehhehehe


----------



## jonny neurotic

I don't think there *WAS* a "Big Bang". A great expansion perhaps(an expansion that is still ongoing), but expansion from what? From a singularity: an infantecimal point: 0 temporospacial dimentions. And where is the universe headed? "Cold Death". All matter will be reduced to photons and what was the first particle to precipitate from the big bang? Photons. As photons have no mass spacial dimentions become irrelevant and as a photons velocity is C, time stands still for them. When all matter becomes photons the infinite becomes the infantecimal: the universe will be reduced to a singularity once again, and the whole process starts anew.

Eternal expansion and contraction with some amazing stuff happening for a few trillion(perhaps, IDK) years in between...


----------



## jonny neurotic

mr t said:


> Oh yea and the theory of evolution is just "only a theory". Its a theory and not a law or fact because you cant test it, prove it, and replicate the experiment. Freshen up on the scientific method.


It is you who needs to "freshen up" my friend. Laws and theories are two sperate things. It is not that a theory becomes a law once it has been tested sufficiently. The Newton's "Theory of Gravitation" is not a scientific "Law" but you cannot get around the *fact* of gravity. Just as you cannot get around the fact of random mutation or the blantantly obvious(if you spend some time actually thinking about it) natural selection. These facts among *many* others(you could read some books abotu it sometime rather than creationist propaganda) all come together to produce the Theory of Evolution.

Now why don't you take this discussion else where before I flag your troll self. This is not a science forum nor is it a forum for atheists and religionists to battle it out, it is an atheist and agnostic support forum, so take it elsewhere. There is already a thread on single cellular organisms and evolution that I started as an answer to a question from a thread that had been closed. Why not go and comment on it. I think you will find me a difficult one to thrash with your pathetic misunderstanding of basic scientific concepts.

I rest my case...

PS. this is not a forum for prosthletyzing your ridiculous "faith", and I for one will fight you...


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

a massive projection of fear and guilt


----------



## meeps

mr t said:


> Oh yea and the theory of evolution is just "only a theory". Its a theory and not a law or fact because you cant test it, prove it, and replicate the experiment. Freshen up on the scientific method.


Laws explain only the process of certain phenomena while theories are more broad and include laws as their foundation to integrate natural phenomena into a larger explanatory model. The theory of evolution includes microevolution, which has been observed.

*LAW *
1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

*THEORY*
1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).


----------



## sickofshyness

I actually heard that a Jesuit Priest is the person who came up with the term BIG BANG for the theory?


----------



## meeps

Fred Hoyle coined the term "big bang". He was not a Jesuit priest. He rejected the theory.


----------



## mr t

jonny neurotic said:


> It is you who needs to "freshen up" my friend. Laws and theories are two sperate things. It is not that a theory becomes a law once it has been tested sufficiently. *The Newton's "Theory of Gravitation" is not a scientific "Law"* but you cannot get around the fact of gravity. Just as you cannot get around the fact of random mutation or the blantantly obvious(if you spend some time actually thinking about it) natural selection. These facts among many others(you could read some books abotu it sometime rather than creationist propaganda) all come together to produce the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Now why don't you take this discussion else where before I flag your troll self. This is not a science forum nor is it a forum for atheists and religionists to battle it out, it is an atheist and agnostic support forum, so take it elsewhere. There is already a thread on single cellular organisms and evolution that I started as an answer to a question from a thread that had been closed. Why not go and comment on it. I think you will find me a difficult one to thrash with *your pathetic misunderstanding of basic scientific concepts.*
> 
> I rest my case...
> 
> PS. this is not a forum for prosthletyzing your ridiculous "faith", and I for one will fight you...


*Did i say I didnt believe in evolution?* Evolution is a theory but its what happened. Theres really not debate about that.

I'm a senior biology major at university and have always accepted evolution.

I'm sure I know more about evolution than you do, so dont bother explaining it to me. You know, *taking courses like biology, genetics, microbiology, ecology and evolutionary theory from professors, not just reading about it on the web.* You assume that because I'm christian that I believe in "creationist propaganda".

The Catholic Church believes God created the universe, not that he created the earth in the beginning and put people on it lol.

Find me an article about called "Theory of Gravitation". Id love to read about that theory

Its actually called *"Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation".* It is a law and there is an equation to solve for gravitational force between two objects. Nice try though.

Fg=Gm1m2/r2

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

I stand corrected, yea the hadron collider is in switzerland.


----------



## Define Lies

According to stephen hawking, the big bang was created by sub atomic particles interacting with negative matter (or am I missing something?).


----------



## mr t

sickofshyness said:


> I actually heard that a Jesuit Priest is the person who came up with the term BIG BANG for the theory?


Georges Lamitre was a Belgian priest and a professor of physics at Catholic Univeristy of Leuven. *He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.*

Guess priests are total idiots right? They are brainwashed by the Church and reject science!


----------



## jonny neurotic

mr t said:


> *Did i say I didnt believe in evolution?* Evolution is a theory but its what happened. Theres really not debate about that.


Ok. I realise the point you were making but it still doesn't get around the fact that you are prosthletizing on behalf of your religion. Why else bring this to the agnostic and atheist forum. Take it to the science forum if you want to discuss science; take it to the religion forum if you want to discuss religion; but please do not get the two confused. You can argue all day about how there must be a god to have "sparked" the "Big Bang" but so far as _Jeebus Chris, born of a virgin, died for our sins, raised from the dead, etc._ is concerned you have not a shred of proof. If you want to argue about archeology, in that regard, then please, take it to another forum(indeed another website entirely). But whatever your arguments you cannot get around the fact that your faith is exactly that, FAITH. Not science...



> I'm a senior biology major at university and have always accepted evolution.


You impress no one with your appeals to authority. Whatever credentials you want to present, your religion is still irrational.



> I'm sure I know more about evolution than you do, so dont bother explaining it to me. You know, *taking courses like biology, genetics, microbiology, ecology and evolutionary theory from professors, not just reading about it on the web.*


The arrogance of the religious knows no bounds. So you know more on evolution than I? Well that may be but you still have all your work ahead of you if you want to sell your religion as science. Forget about the big bang will you and tell me this; how do you know that _Jeezis_ died for our sins? Not because there is a shred of evidence for it, but because you believe it as a matter of faith. So take your arrogant appeals to authority else where and if you want to discuss any scientific theories in any meaningful way then take it to those who specialise in them. I doubt you will find much agreement on the religious aspect with them. What *DO* your professors think about your nonsense faith? Hmmm?



> The Catholic Church believes God created the universe, not that he created the earth in the beginning and put people on it lol.


Yes, but that is a new thing. What was the catholic churches view on the earth orbiting the sun when men of reason had figured that out? And what does the church tell people in parts of Africa that are stricken with AIDS? They tell them that condoms, far from just being ineffective at preventing AIDS, actually increase your chances of contracting the HIV.

Well good luck with your rhythm method and your eternal "falling on your face" infront of your master in the hereafter... _lol indeed_



> Find me an article about called "Theory of Gravitation". Id love to read about that theory
> 
> Its actually called *"Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation".* It is a law and there is an equation to solve for gravitational force between two objects. Nice try though.
> 
> Fg=Gm1m2/r2


Yes, and that law forms part of a theory, right? Just like the laws of thermodynamics form parts of theories thereon. What* is* your point? That I am not studying science so I am "stupider" that you? OK so tell me what the equation is for original sin?


----------



## jonny neurotic

Monkeydudecorollabro said:


> The big bang theory is exactly that, a theory.
> I reckon there's far too much that we don't know about existence to be making assumptions about what created the universe.





mr t said:


> Oh yea and the theory of evolution is just "only a theory". Its a theory and not a law or fact because you cant test it, prove it, and replicate the experiment.


After having reread I realsie the point your were so ingraciously trying to make, mr t, but (despite my disdain for the pejorative use of the term theory) I find myself in agreement with Monkeydude on this one. There is far more substantiating evidence for evolution than the "Big Bang". As far as I understand it beyond a certain point the numbers do not, as it were, "add up". The big bang theorists still have their work ahead of them, although, to be fair, that is nothing compared with the work any given religious fanatic will have in proving their "revealed wisdom"...











When I look at Roni Ancona(the black haired woman in the second clip) I am reminded of the words of Jeebus;



> But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart - _Matthew 5:28_


*Pfft!*


----------



## masterridley

If we accept that God created the universe,
we are forced to ask who and why created God?

If the other person says that noone created him and that
God always existed, then we can reply that the universe
may have always existed just as well and we're done.

You see, what prompts the 1st question is the theory that no
effect can be without a cause. But by accepting a cause-less
God, we're essentially avoiding to answer the original question!


----------



## Remnant of Dawn

I've actually put much thought into this myself, because there seems to be no possible logical solutions.

I've considered a god, of course, but this leaves us with the question: who created this god?

The big bang theory, aside from being the best show of all time, also attempts to explain this, and while it is likely true at least to some extent, it also does not explain how an infinitely dense particle came into being in less than an absolute void. It cannot explain, as nothing can nor likely ever will, how existence itself (not life, or Earth, or our universe), came into being.

The only other thing I can think of is something like a closed loop, where someone from some time in existence travels back in time and creates all the world (including him or herself). This, of course, doesn't really make sense either.

So my answer is I don't believe anyone truly understands this or ever will.


----------



## Resonance

mr t said:


> *What do you think caused the big bang?*


I have no idea, I used to like the suggestion that the universe was a cyclical process of 'big bangs' and 'big crunches' going on and on for eternity, but that idea has now been largely discredited. The 'cause' of the big bang, if there can even be a such thing as a cause when there is no time, is probably beyond human comprehension.


----------



## millenniumman75

Toppington said:


> Social Anxiety Forum > Recovery > *Agnostic* and *Atheist* Support
> 
> I don't mean to be a smartass, but this would be better suited for Social Anxiety Forum > Discussion > Agnosticism, Atheism and Religion.


So people think God created the heavens and the Earth - Space is still expanding.....

They just said God. Sheesh.


----------



## jonny neurotic

millenniumman75 said:


> So people think God created the heavens and the Earth - Space is still expanding.....
> 
> They just said God. Sheesh.


The OP was prosthletyzing. Does that not contravene the rules of this forum?


----------



## Pennywise

Well the Big Bang wasn't literally a bang (explosion), but more of a gradual swelling and expansion. This was (and still is) caused by dark energy, a form of matter that causes the universe to constantly expand.


----------



## fredbloggs02

The big bang is the prominent paradoxical myth of our age as I understand it. I've heard more convincing theories, more interesting theories as to how premises like "beginning" and "end" might lose themselves without the help of infinity. The creation myth I've yet to track down in Ancient Greek myth except from Ovid who was Roman, so he must have hoiked it from somewhere else. Plato was a rogue philosopher more concerned with keeping order than anything else, so if he mentioned it, I can only imagine he framed it with a moral twist; I don't expect any enlightenment there as far as true, but perhaps freedom from something else. I have heard explanations as to how the Sciences superficially divided categories came about from the presocratic philosophers which were interesting. How the presocratics thought is precious to me because they were men before the categories. I think, if at bottom this desire instilled to know of a beginning which lends itself to the Christian creation myth were a psychological question, perhaps we were all indoctrinated at some point in history at a precise time abruptly, and it is reversible. Where today most chase the beginning of the universe, many of those men were not so disposed. All creation myths I've heard, while they are interesting appear similarly groundless assertions; however poetically appealing they are to me I'd hesitate to wager on the true of any as I understand truth now; though I feel I can tell when one was invented with wicked intent.


----------



## Keith

The first cause is unknowable, therefore i like to believe that its all part of an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. Using the big bang theory to prove or disprove god is absolutely pointless, and will never yield an acceptable conclusion of the universe's ultimate causation.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

the only thing that caused the big bang..........

was panic


----------



## engram

I think aliens caused the big bang. It must have been the aliens for sure.


----------



## DesperateOne

Even scientists are questioning the whole theory these days. It's understandable, because how could something come from nothing? Singularity is not the answer, it's an excuse.


----------



## Arawhon13

Nothingness is an impossible abstraction that, in a weird sense, can't "exist". The bottom layer of reality is the quantum foam where particles appear and disappear millions of times a second. The big bang probably originated out of that bottom layer.


----------



## The Sleeping Dragon

Please note: I'm speculating wildly and I'm an atheïst. I don't acually believe the following. Also I'm not a scientist or have any degrees so please take that into account. If this seems silly to you because you have enjoyed a better education than so be it. I just like to toy with the idea.

Maybe the universe is created by the imploding force of the universe that came before ours. It refreshes itself. It's a fact - correct me if I'm wrong - the know universe is stretching. So at some point the balloon has to burst. The universe will implode. Our particles are the same when we are dead so we would be reshuffled every time the universe is formed again. Takes a googleplex years or more to reform to an intelligent life form but when you have infinite time, it could be probebly if the theory would be true.

Or the universe wouldn't implode but explode after expanding to a certain limit. After all the universe is expanding to _somewhere_. Maybe this _somewhere_ is a place where more universes excists next to ours. Maybe a universe can multiply after expanding to its limit. Maybe that's what the big bang was. Another universe who expanded and 'burst' because it reached the limit it could expand. Maybe this limit could be another universe.


----------



## ugh1979

Arawhon13 said:


> Nothingness is an impossible abstraction that, in a weird sense, can't "exist". The bottom layer of reality is the quantum foam where particles appear and disappear millions of times a second. The big bang probably originated out of that bottom layer.


Bingo. I was just about to say that.

My current favoured way of viewing 'the big question' is that if on the smallest scales everything consists of particles popping in an out of existence, then it's easy to scale that up to universes 'popping' in and out of existence in a multiverse. The actual scales are irrelevant.

Maybe everything is just a quantum wave or waves or branes existing in timeless higher dimensions, and it's the interactions of these waves/branes/particles that are the points of creation for the universes which we exist in and can in turn observe and experience.

Too many people get caught up in asking what was before the big bang, when it's likely there was no before. The question is like asking what is north of the north pole. The arrow of time is almost definitely not multi-universal, with each universe having it's own start and arrow of time.

I have no problem accepting that everything is essentially happening 'now'.


----------



## barchaetone

masterridley said:


> If we accept that God created the universe,
> we are forced to ask who and why created God?
> 
> If the other person says that noone created him and that
> God always existed, then we can reply that the universe
> may have always existed just as well and we're done.
> 
> You see, what prompts the 1st question is the theory that no
> effect can be without a cause. But by accepting a cause-less
> God, we're essentially avoiding to answer the original question!


The problem with your argument is that you are considering cause and effect. Cause and effect can only exist if time exists. The Big Bang involved (and still involves) the unfolding and expansion of matter, space, and time. That which exists beyond the expanding universe (if it could even be said to "exist") does not have matter, space, or time. If God lived entirely within the Universe, he would be subject to time, and the question "Who caused/created God" would make sense. But if he exists outside of creation (the orthodox Christian view) then "cause and effect" cannot apply to God. There is no need, nor can there even be, a cause for God, because God, being and living outside time and space itself, is not held hostage to time.


----------



## The Silent 1

I don't think proclaiming "god" as the agent behind the big bang has any place in a scientific study, unless you are going to say what "god" actually is. Keep in mind we only have a concept of god because for years now, people have had this idea that other beings live in the sky and dictate the laws of the universe. It seemed like the most plausible way to describe things.

But if you were asked by a scientist "what is god?" What would you say? If you say, god is the creator, then you've simply stated what god does, not what he is. If you say god is some higher "being", you would need to give some description for this being and how it exists. I've heard some refer to god as a higher mind or consciousness, but as far as we know minds are the products of brains, so where does this mind come from?

Others say that god exists outside of time. First off, even if we accept that this god exists outside our universe, whos to say there isn't another realm of space time that god is in? That would mean he isn't immune to time either. But furthermore the concept of existing outside of time may not make sense. The decision to create something is a process as is any action or thought that one takes. A being that is not in time could not take any such action and couldn't interact with our world in any way. To accept god exiting outside of time, we would need to show such a thing is possible and that one could actually function in such a way.

Saying god is behind the big bang is just answering a mystery with another mystery. I could just as easily say that "the force" from Star Wars is the true cause of all things and it'd make about as much sense and have as much evidence. In fact I could just make up a word like "woo-woo" or "sipnap" and say that created the universe. If asked what these things are, I could construct a logically consistent explanation and be just as justified as the theists who claim "god" did it.


----------



## CarlSagan

mr t said:


> *What do you think caused the big bang?* I believe it was the beginning of creation by God.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Seems like god is getting smaller all the time...


----------



## andy1984

i don't really believe in the big bang personally. i don't want a new creation myth. i just want to live in the present.


----------



## ugh1979

andy1984 said:


> i don't really believe in the big bang personally. i don't want a new creation myth. i just want to live in the present.


Fair enough, for some people ignorance is bliss. They just don't really care or think about such things. Nothing wrong with that I guess.


----------



## Essexboy

Frankly the big bang theory makes much less sense to me than any religion.

There has to be a sentient force behind it. I'm unsure if that's god but whatever it is it's a force beyond the comprehension of any of us.


----------



## The Silent 1

Essexboy said:


> Frankly the big bang theory makes much less sense to me than any religion.
> 
> There has to be a sentient force behind it. I'm unsure if that's god but whatever it is it's a force beyond the comprehension of any of us.


What about the theory doesn't make sense to you? All its doing is tracing back the expansion of our universe to the singularity which we currently can not fully explain. The big bang doesn't go much past that, and we know the universe is expanding and pretty much all of the scientific community accepts that. You shouldn't assume that there HAS to be a sentient force. The best answer right now should just be to accept that we don't know how it happened, but to look for rational scientific answers.

As far as a sentient force being behind it, there are scientific ideas about the big bang that would require no such thing. And of course if your going to postulate a sentient force you would have to explain just what exactly that is, other wise you've answered nothing.


----------



## andy1984

The Silent 1 said:


> What about the theory doesn't make sense to you? All its doing is tracing back the expansion of our universe to the singularity which we currently can not fully explain. The big bang doesn't go much past that, and we know the universe is expanding and pretty much all of the scientific community accepts that. You shouldn't assume that there HAS to be a sentient force. The best answer right now should just be to accept that we don't know how it happened, but to look for rational scientific answers.
> 
> As far as a sentient force being behind it, there are scientific ideas about the big bang that would require no such thing. And of course if your going to postulate a sentient force you would have to explain just what exactly that is, other wise you've answered nothing.


i don't really get it - why trace the universe that we cannot explain back to a singularity that we cannot explain? i mean i get it - scientists like to do sciencey things and this is sciencey. but meh. whatevs.

it just seems to me that the prevailing zeitgeist/religion/cult needs a creation myth because the mob/rabble/followers are always wanting the explanation of where they came from. they find this to be a great status symbol for their beleifs and it makes them feel like they can now explain anything, or will soon be able to explain anything, thanks to their wonderfully enlightened belief system.


----------



## The Silent 1

andy1984 said:


> i don't really get it - why trace the universe that we cannot explain back to a singularity that we cannot explain? i mean i get it - scientists like to do sciencey things and this is sciencey. but meh. whatevs.
> 
> it just seems to me that the prevailing zeitgeist/religion/cult needs a creation myth because the mob/rabble/followers are always wanting the explanation of where they came from. they find this to be a great status symbol for their beleifs and it makes them feel like they can now explain anything, or will soon be able to explain anything, thanks to their wonderfully enlightened belief system.


Well, the universe can't fully be explained obviously, but large parts of it have been and we're learning things all the time. We don't really understand the singularity yet though. But this isn't a creation myth, this is science and its backed by evidence and research. Thats quite different than making up a creature called god and saying it created the world through magic.

Why care? Well some care about truth and pursue knowledge. Perhaps some of the discoveries we make will change the way we view life. We can't explain it all yet, but maybe we will someday. If scientists didn't do sciency things, we wouldn't be where we are now.


----------



## andy1984

The Silent 1 said:


> Well, the universe can't fully be explained obviously, but large parts of it have been and we're learning things all the time. We don't really understand the singularity yet though. But this isn't a creation myth, this is science and its backed by evidence and research. Thats quite different than making up a creature called god and saying it created the world through magic.
> 
> Why care? Well some care about truth and pursue knowledge. Perhaps some of the discoveries we make will change the way we view life. We can't explain it all yet, but maybe we will someday. If scientists didn't do sciency things, we wouldn't be where we are now.


well its a scientific creation myth, but its still a creation myth.


----------



## The Silent 1

andy1984 said:


> well its a scientific creation myth, but its still a creation myth.


A myth is a traditional story that gets passed down. The big bang is an explanation, not a myth. Myths are not based in evidence or logic and are usually recognized as being dubious if not outright false. Are you really equating a complex, evidence based scientific explanation for the universe with "A magic, invisible being did!"


----------



## Frunktubulus

The Big Foreplay.




Not my joke, but I liked it.


----------



## Patriot

Wait, I thought god made everything 5000 years ago?! And the flying spaghetti monster created Dubstep?


----------



## albrecht

Patriot said:


> Wait, I thought god made everything 5000 years ago?! And the flying spaghetti monster created Dubstep?


Are you sure? I'm pretty sure Shiva invented dubstep, because he's the king of dancers and he has those four hands that go between the turntable, the mixer, the drum machine, and the computer at the same time.


----------



## andy1984

The Silent 1 said:


> A myth is a traditional story that gets passed down. The big bang is an explanation, not a myth. Myths are not based in evidence or logic and are usually recognized as being dubious if not outright false. Are you really equating a complex, evidence based scientific explanation for the universe with "A magic, invisible being did!"


i think both explanations are founded in custom/values. scientists customarily accept a hypothesis based on one system of evaluation and religious ppl apply a separate evaluation. neither is founded on anything more solid than the other, both being based on faith in a certain system of evaluation/values whose only basis for belief is the brute fact of its existence. you have this faith therefore you deny the validity of any other belief system.

sure, there is a difference between myth and theory, which seems to be important to you. but as far as i can see, epistemologically they share the same status.

i am not interested in either a creation myth, or a creation or origination theory such as this one. though i guess i'd be interested in something related to origins if it were based on my values if thats possible but i'm not sure what kind of creation/origin idea would fit my values if any.

so i guess what i mean is i don't really care for the available myths or the big bang theory, though i recognise them to be valid answers from within certain frameworks/paradigms/what-have-you. i kind of don't think you should be so dismissive of the creation myths but i can see why you would be and thats perfectly valid from your perspective. i just respect faliblists more because i think they are more open minded and mentally agile and i think it would be of value if you thought about the possibility that you might be wrong in some way, not necessarily logically but ethically or pragmatically or some other way.

i realise that this is my own value judgement and just as unfounded as any other position, and its not my intention to change your mind. i just think that writing about it will help me and maybe you can help me clarify my position (which you have already done) if you have anything more to say about it. again, thats just my own value judgement but also therefore i have to act on it because its what i believe. if that makes sense.


----------



## ugh1979

andy1984 said:


> i think both explanations are founded in custom/values. scientists customarily accept a hypothesis based on one system of evaluation and religious ppl apply a separate evaluation.


Scientific answers are founded in custom/values. They are based on empirical evidence, where as religious people make their explanations based on fairy tales and blind faith.



> neither is founded on anything more solid than the other,


Nonsense, scientific explanations are far more credible as they have tangible evidence to back their claims up.



> both being based on faith in a certain system of evaluation/values whose only basis for belief is the brute fact of its existence. you have this faith therefore you deny the validity of any other belief system.


Scientists frequently evolve to new better theories as we learn more. That's what means science will always be more relevant, enduring and more powerful than religion, who have static theories that can't change.

It's survival of the fittest and religion is the lame duck.



> sure, there may be a semantic difference between myth and theory if you want to define them a certain way. but as far as i can see, epistemologically they share the same status.
> 
> i am not interested in either a creation myth, or a creation or origination theory such as this one. though i guess i'd be interested in something related to origins if it were based on my values if thats possible but i'm not sure what kind of creation/origin idea would fit my values if any.


What does your personal values have to do with the point of creation?

It sounds very strange that you aren't interested in our history unless it's 'based on your values'. :?



> so i guess what i mean is i don't really care for the available myths or the big bang theory, though i recognise them to be valid answers from within certain frameworks/paradigms/what-have-you. i kind of don't think you should be so dismissive of the creation myths but i can see why you would be and thats perfectly valid from your perspective.


Only a fool would count the ancient creation myths as valid options for the truth, and when you follow scientific method they are quickly discarded and other creation ideas which have under pinning evidence are focused on until a likely truth is nominated.



> i just respect faliblists more because i think they are more open minded and mentally agile and i think it would be of value if you thought about the possibility that you might be wrong in some way, not necessarily logically but ethically or pragmatically or some other way.


There's a difference to being open minded and having quality control to dismiss nonsense in favour of more likely options. Scientific method is always open to being wrong so readily changes once a new more likely truth is revealed.


----------



## andy1984

ugh1979 said:


> Scientific answers are founded in custom/values. They are based on empirical evidence, where as religious people make their explanations based on fairy tales and blind faith.


you admit that scientific answers are based on custom/values, which includes empirical evidence. you argue that religious customs/values are less good, based on... that you happen to have scientific values. you have no argument here beyond that.

so basically you agree with me, both science and religion are based on custom/values/whatever  and they are therefore equally groundless or grounded by their brute fact of existence, whichever way you want to look at it.



ugh1979 said:


> Nonsense, scientific explanations are far more credible as they have tangible evidence to back their claims up.


same as above, science is more credible as far as you are concerned because of the scientific values (evidence, which is a fairly integral value of science) which you believe in. its pretty much saying science, therefore science.



ugh1979 said:


> Scientists frequently evolve to new better theories as we learn more. That's what means science will always be more relevant, enduring and more powerful than religion, who have static theories that can't change.


ok, evolution of theories is a part of the customs/values of science. it doesn't really add anything to your argument. this is as persuasive as saying that the bible is true, and thats why (a particular set of) religious values are better.



ugh1979 said:


> It's survival of the fittest and religion is the lame duck.


you seem to be using a scientific theory (evolution, survival of the fittest) to justify science. for a scientific theory to have any power of justification science should be verified first. so this is begging the question surely.



ugh1979 said:


> What does your personal values have to do with the point of creation?


my personal values are a kind of fairly fundamental belief. if i am to accept any new belief about anything its going to need to be fairly coherent with my pre-existing beliefs. so whatever i believe about the point of creation is going to depend on my personal values.



ugh1979 said:


> It sounds very strange that you aren't interested in our history unless it's 'based on your values'. :?


i don't think this is strange at all. thats the same as saying its strange that you are not interested in interpreting the entire history of mankind from a religious point of view - its not your point of view so why would you do that? or that you're not really interested in studying the bible, or discovering what jesus looked like. science places importance on a causal chain, which you might like to follow back to the big bang, while a religious person might place importance on a certain text. this is not strange, but something i notice all the time and expect.



ugh1979 said:


> Only a fool would count the ancient creation myths as valid options for the truth, and when you follow scientific method they are quickly discarded and other creation ideas which have under pinning evidence are focused on until a likely truth is nominated.


a fool as defined by someone with certain values. calling people with different values to your own fools does not in any way elevate your values beyond theirs. only a fool would not ask god for forgiveness for their sins because otherwise they will go to hell.



ugh1979 said:


> There's a difference to being open minded and having quality control to dismiss nonsense in favor of more likely options. Scientific method is always open to being wrong so readily changes once a new more likely truth is revealed.


again, stating what your scientific customs/values are doesn't elevate them beyond anyone else's customs/values. for example one way of having quality control to dismiss nonsense could be to have a literal interpretation of the bible. this way many different (nonsensical) interpretations of the bible could be discounted and the truth accessed more accurately. is this an argument for believing in a religion or is it just a description of what someone might believe?

you haven't convinced me to change my mind - and i don't think you will, but if you think you can i'd like to see what you have to say.

i mean, understand what you're saying - you believe in science - and therefore you're committed to discounting anything else. and thats great. i have different values to you and will argue towards a different conclusion. i just haven't decided if its pointless posting more arguments or if i will learn anything from continuing to do so. if we have at least some values which are similar in this subject then sharing more about our ideas might lead to some changes in one or the other. i don't know. its easy for me to compare one thing that i don't believe in with another thing that i don't believe in, i'm sure i'd be more biased if i was discussing something i really did believe in, and thats why i get to pretend to be all post-modern. otherwise i'd be saying no, this is the way it is, **** you. i think my argument is, given that i can argue that different beliefs that aren't my own, and which have followers who are extremely adamant that they are correct and others are wrong, seem to be equally grounded/groundless, i should never allow myself to take such an extreme attitude with my own beliefs. there is always room for doubt, and it is reasonable to respect other people and their beliefs even though they may seem counter-intuitive to me. i should not be surprised or frustrated by such beliefs, i should expect them, and greet them with open curiosity.

^ and i should also realise my own tendency to reduce everything to a philosophical problem, just like i imagine a chemist would tend to want to reduce everything to a chemical problem, etc. just because its my solution doesn't make it the solution.

and finally to answer the OP's question, i don't believe that my powers of cognition can follow a causal chain so vast as to have knowledge of whatever processes caused the big bang if such an event ever actually took place.


----------



## ugh1979

andy1984 said:


> you admit that scientific answers are based on custom/values, which includes empirical evidence. you argue that religious customs/values are less good, based on... that you happen to have scientific values. you have no argument here beyond that.
> 
> so basically you agree with me, both science and religion are based on custom/values/whatever  and they are therefore equally groundless or grounded by their brute fact of existence, whichever way you want to look at it.


I'm not agreeing with you. A scientific theory biased theory is still far more valid than open based on stories.



> same as above, science is more credible as far as you are concerned because of the scientific values (evidence, which is a fairly integral value of science) which you believe in. its pretty much saying science, therefore science.


Yeah, evidence shows they are the theories to follow.



> ok, evolution of theories is a part of the customs/values of science. it doesn't really add anything to your argument. this is as persuasive as saying that the bible is true, and thats why (a particular set of) religious values are better.


Nonsense. Maybe you just don't under the physics theories so have to accept the child like fantasy answers religion offers.



> you seem to be using a scientific theory (evolution, survival of the fittest) to justify science. for a scientific theory to have any power of justification science should be verified first. so this is begging the question surely.


It has.



> my personal values are a kind of fairly fundamental belief. if i am to accept any new belief about anything its going to need to be fairly coherent with my pre-existing beliefs. so whatever i believe about the point of creation is going to depend on my personal values.[\quote]
> 
> That makes you sound very close minded. The reality could be anything so you need to be open to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think this is strange at all. thats the same as saying its strange that you are not interested in interpreting the entire history of mankind from a religious point of view - its not your point of view so why would you do that?
> 
> a fool as defined by someone with certain values. calling people with different values to your own fools does not in any way elevate your values beyond theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> If what they are saying is insane nonsense then it's very appropriate to call them fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, stating what your scientific customs/values are doesn't elevate them beyond anyone else's customs/values. for example one way of having quality control to dismiss nonsense could be to have a literal interpretation of the bible. this way many different (nonsensical) interpretations of the bible could be discounted and the truth accessed more accurately. is this an argument for believing in a religion or is it just a description of what someone might believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All religion is man-made nonsense, so it can be dismissed instantly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you haven't convinced me to change my mind - and i don't think you will, but if you think you can i'd like to see what you have to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure I won't, but in time I can only hope you mature and evolve your thought levels to that of a modern human adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i mean, understand what you're saying - you believe in science - and therefore you're committed to discounting anything else. and thats great. i just have different values to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK. As I say, I hope you can grow up and abandon the juvenile theories and learn about reality.
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot

albrecht said:


> Are you sure? I'm pretty sure Shiva invented dubstep, because he's the king of dancers and he has those four hands that go between the turntable, the mixer, the drum machine, and the computer at the same time.


Everybody knows Shiva was in the old testament and we don't use it anymore.


----------



## The Silent 1

andy1984 said:


> i think both explanations are founded in custom/values. scientists customarily accept a hypothesis based on one system of evaluation and religious ppl apply a separate evaluation. neither is founded on anything more solid than the other, both being based on faith in a certain system of evaluation/values whose only basis for belief is the brute fact of its existence. you have this faith therefore you deny the validity of any other belief system.


No, one explanation is founded in research and evidence and the other is based on the whims of some man. Scientists base their research off peer review, which means everyone trying their hardest to prove you wrong. If your idea holds up than it moves on to the next stage unless we find something later that changes things. This isn't faith. Religious faith is "Believe this holy book because it comes from god and you know god is real because of this holy book". Science is "I have an idea based on evidence and I want everyone to try and prove me wrong. Oh so the idea holds up? Ok it appears to be accurate, lets stay with this unless we find new evidence that says otherwise". You can't possibly be comparing these two things.



andy1984 said:


> sure, there is a difference between myth and theory, which seems to be important to you. but as far as i can see, epistemologically they share the same status.


The difference is huge.



andy1984 said:


> i am not interested in either a creation myth, or a creation or origination theory such as this one. though i guess i'd be interested in something related to origins if it were based on my values if thats possible but i'm not sure what kind of creation/origin idea would fit my values if any.


And scientists are interested in truth regardless of where it leads.



andy1984 said:


> so i guess what i mean is i don't really care for the available myths or the big bang theory, though i recognise them to be valid answers from within certain frameworks/paradigms/what-have-you.


Truth is not a relative concept.


andy1984 said:


> i kind of don't think you should be so dismissive of the creation myths but i can see why you would be and thats perfectly valid from your perspective. i just respect faliblists more because i think they are more open minded and mentally agile and i think it would be of value if you thought about the possibility that you might be wrong in some way, not necessarily logically but ethically or pragmatically or some other way.


I can be dismissive of things written by men in ancient times whose knowledge was no where near what ours is and whose work is not based in evidence. Not all ideas are created equally.


andy1984 said:


> i realise that this is my own value judgement and just as unfounded as any other position, and its not my intention to change your mind. i just think that writing about it will help me and maybe you can help me clarify my position (which you have already done) if you have anything more to say about it. again, thats just my own value judgement but also therefore i have to act on it because its what i believe. if that makes sense.


I understand, but I really think you should consider what your saying. Your view of science and how it works seems very skewed if you honestly put it on equal footing with religious faith.


----------



## Nada

God blew it up on the toilet and thus the universe was born. That's my theory and I'm sticking with it.


----------



## andy1984

Nada said:


> God blew it up on the toilet and thus the universe was born. That's my theory and I'm sticking with it.


where did the toilet come from?


----------



## John316C

i dont know what causes the B-B it could have been caused by anything. everything past beyond that point is speculative. a giant purple dinosaur could have caused the big bang who knows! because EVERYTHING is absolute speculation beyond the big bang.


----------



## Nada

andy1984 said:


> where did the toilet come from?


Where did God come from? He just magically appeared and so did the toilet.


----------



## andy1984

Nada said:


> Where did God come from? He just magically appeared and so did the toilet.


but how do you know which is god and which is the toilet? maybe its all around the wrong way.


----------



## Nada

andy1984 said:


> but how do you know which is god and which is the toilet? maybe its all around the wrong way.


Because... I am god 8)


----------



## Twelve Keyz

God farted


----------



## andy1984

Nada said:


> Because... I am god 8)


:nw


----------



## The Sleeping Dragon

> The real problem with this question of what caused the big bang is ultimately a biological one; our brains have evolved to assume that everything has a cause, we can't imagine any event ever not having one.


----------



## aphity

> The real problem with this question of what caused the big bang is ultimately a biological one; our brains have evolved to assume that everything has a cause, we can't imagine any event ever not having one.


Good point of view. I assume, that if there were no dimensions before the Big Bang, time and space did not exist. If time did not exist, Big Bang does not need a "reason" - because reason should be in the past... but there was no past! 

Of course, Big Bang is only theory like some people said on first page of topic. As far as I understand scientists, this theory is slowly becoming considered as wrong by most of them... but we don't have better theory yet. And Big Bang model works quite good for most of current scientific goals.


----------



## ugh1979

aphity said:


> Good point of view. I assume, that if there were no dimensions before the Big Bang, time and space did not exist. If time did not exist, Big Bang does not need a "reason" - because reason should be in the past... but there was no past!


Indeed. Cause may not precede effect where time doesn't not exist.



> Of course, Big Bang is only theory like some people said on first page of topic. As far as I understand scientists, this theory is slowly becoming considered as wrong by most of them... but we don't have better theory yet. And Big Bang model works quite good for most of current scientific goals.


No actually there aren't many scientists proposing much else that isn't at least very similar.

As usual with science, it's rare for big theories to be completely wrong, just a different take on them. Science is a process of evolution of ideas. Not throwing it all out and starting from scratch.


----------



## jonny neurotic

andy1984 said:


> i don't really believe in the big bang personally. i don't want a new creation myth. i just want to live in the present.


I'm with you on that one. The definition of secular is "worldly and temporal". As opposed to infinite and eternal.

Worldly and temporal: here and now. I am a secularist. I don't care how it all began or how it will end and I don't care about what imperceptible planes of existence anyone may wish to conjour up: I only care about the here and now. That's my religion...


----------



## aphity

ugh1979 said:


> As usual with science, it's rare for big theories to be completely wrong, just a different take on them. Science is a process of evolution of ideas. Not throwing it all out and starting from scratch.


Hm, in general (evolution) you're right. But it is often, that new theory provides new model, which is much more precise than the old one. Like in case of Newton's Laws of Motion - it works good in macro scale, but in micro-scale, it gives result which are different than actual. In this case, you need to use quantum mechanics and STR (special theory of relativity) to get better results.

i think it may happen in case of Big Bang too - we all see that Universe is growing, and it useful in the calculations to assume it all has grown from one point. But in the future, better theory would replace this assumption, in the same time increasing accuracy.


----------



## ugh1979

aphity said:


> Hm, in general (evolution) you're right. But it is often, that new theory provides new model, which is much more precise than the old one. Like in case of Newton's Laws of Motion - it works good in macro scale, but in micro-scale, it gives result which are different than actual. In this case, you need to use quantum mechanics and STR (special theory of relativity) to get better results.
> 
> i think it may happen in case of Big Bang too - we all see that Universe is growing, and it useful in the calculations to assume it all has grown from one point. But in the future, better theory would replace this assumption, in the same time increasing accuracy.


Mentioning Newton is a good example as he is still a corner stone of physics. Yes he was wrong about many things but formed the foundation for modern physics. Science builds on the shoulders of giants. Also, being wrong can be just as valuable as being right, as scientific method is often a process of elimination.


----------



## aphity

ugh1979 said:


> Mentioning Newton is a good example as he is still a corner stone of physics. Yes he was wrong about many things but formed the foundation for modern physics. Science builds on the shoulders of giants. Also, being wrong can be just as valuable as being right, as scientific method is often a process of elimination.


I agree, good elimination is better than sticking to something just because it was good enough in the past. I may be wrong, but I suppose Big Bang theory will be replaced with something better, rather soon than later


----------



## ugh1979

aphity said:


> I agree, good elimination is better than sticking to something just because it was good enough in the past. I may be wrong, but I suppose Big Bang theory will be replaced with something better, rather soon than later


I think it's more likely it will just be an evolution of the theory, as the theory currently has enough ambiguity to go in many directions.


----------



## rapidfox1

God.


----------



## aphity

ugh1979 said:


> I think it's more likely it will just be an evolution of the theory, as the theory currently has enough ambiguity to go in many directions.


Maybe... No one knows how many surprises are waiting for us in the physics area. This is why I love science - you never know which of amazing discoveries will show up tomorrow


----------



## ugh1979

aphity said:


> Maybe... No one knows how many surprises are waiting for us in the physics area. This is why I love science - you never know which of amazing discoveries will show up tomorrow


Likewise. I love reading New Scientist each week to keep up to date with the latest research.


----------



## To22

Skepticism and imagination


----------



## AnotherRawAddict

God farted. Then created talking apes and gets mad when they have their own opinion.


----------



## Witan

Right now, this seems to be the best explanation for the paradox of "something" coming from "nothing":





tl;dr - quantum fluctuations


----------



## whattothink

Infinity


----------



## McdonaldMiller

I like your topic but just would like to reply to one part.



mr t said:


> I believe people should be judged on how they lived and if they left the world even just a tiny bit better off than it was.


Who is the judge? For it to be fair would not the person need to be all knowing?
Everyone's reality is different and people are misunderstood for their actions often.


----------



## arnie

Everything that science hasn't quite yet explained:

God did it.


----------



## Kon

mr t said:


> *What do you think caused the big bang?*


This model below is pretty interesting. The author tries to reconcile: 



> How is there a universe when the seemingly two only options for its lifetime, finite or infinite, both result in contradiction?


He ends up arguing thar time must be cyclic so that existence can be both eternal and finite: 



> How is there a universe when the seemingly two only options for its lifetime, finite or infinite, both result in contradiction? Moreover, what good is the main argument of this paper if the idea of an eternal universe is so clealy fundamentally flawed? However, there is actually a third, lesser-known option. In a universe in which time is cyclic, the universe is without beginning or end, exists eternally, and yet, in relation to time is also finite.


*On a Finite Universe with no Beginning or End *
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612053.pdf

*Why there is something rather than nothing-The finite, infinite and eternal* 
http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1205/1205.2720.pdf


----------



## The Sleeping Dragon

Michael Bay


----------



## BlazingLazer

Andy Dick


----------

