The big bang
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-12-2013, 06:53 PM
RE: The big bang
0 >BANG!> something > EVERYTH I NN GGG !!

is observable and measurable from the second arrow on - which is why the theory was proposed and accepted. It's the "before" part that's unprovable, which is why creationists hide God in there. His last refuge, poor old guy. He used to live just uphill from his people-of-the-month and has been chased farther and farther away as they gave him bigger powers. You don't want the only guy with a key to the red box anywhere near the red box. Tragic, really.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peterkin's post
16-12-2013, 07:51 PM
RE: The big bang
(16-12-2013 11:03 AM)DeavonReye Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 10:14 AM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  time & space started with the big bang.

there was no place for 'something' before the big bang to take place
there was no time before the big bang.

look up Neil deGrasse Tyson on youtube, he can usually explain things in ways that my little brain can understand.

I hear this a lot, . . . but it doesn't seem to make sense. How can there be "no time" . . . at ANY time in history? It may work mathematically, but can it actually work in reality? An event [expanse, Big Bang] will occupy time. Before that event, time was still moving even if nothing was happening. Just my thoughts on the topic from a non-physicist mind.

According to relativity theory Time is relative to Space (which is why Physicists use time as a 4th dimension). It works in real life. Your GPS among other things wouldnt work if it didnt account for relativity. So back before there was space there is no time.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djkamilo's post
16-12-2013, 09:37 PM
RE: The big bang
(16-12-2013 06:53 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  It's the "before" part that's unprovable, which is why creationists hide God in there. His last refuge, poor old guy. He used to live just uphill from his people-of-the-month and has been chased farther and farther away as they gave him bigger powers. You don't want the only guy with a key to the red box anywhere near the red box. Tragic, really.

The God of the Gaps called to complain that his quarters are getting cramped.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Paleophyte's post
16-12-2013, 11:16 PM
RE: The big bang
(16-12-2013 06:53 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  0 >BANG!> something > EVERYTH I NN GGG !!

is observable and measurable from the second arrow on - which is why the theory was proposed and accepted. It's the "before" part that's unprovable, which is why creationists hide God in there. His last refuge, poor old guy. He used to live just uphill from his people-of-the-month and has been chased farther and farther away as they gave him bigger powers. You don't want the only guy with a key to the red box anywhere near the red box. Tragic, really.

Nice to see you round again, Peterkin Smile

Humankind Dodgy (a total misnomer)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 11:30 AM
RE: The big bang
(16-12-2013 07:51 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  According to relativity theory Time is relative to Space (which is why Physicists use time as a 4th dimension). It works in real life. Your GPS among other things wouldnt work if it didnt account for relativity. So back before there was space there is no time.

It's a very hard concept to understand [admittedly]. I'm afraid that even a Physics 101 class wouldn't get into these levels of understanding. But yeah, . . . in no way would I put "a god" in the "we don't know" part.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DeavonReye's post
17-12-2013, 11:53 AM
RE: The big bang
(16-12-2013 09:37 AM)RaisdCath Wrote:  OK....once again, I heard this "argument" advanced last nite at a dinner party I attended. It goes something like this....."no matter how far back you go, there had to be an intelligent creator. For instance, given the "big bang", what existed before it to give it the impetus to go "bang"? So.... at the beginning, there had to be something outside the laws of nature we know who created the substance that went "bang"...and that is god."
Now....I didn't engage, for I would have been "one among many" and it would have spoiled the time I spend ogling the girls/ladies in their seasonal finery....but still.
How about helping me come up with a simple, quick, steady answer to this "argument" that will clearly define "believers" from us.....but still leave me plenty of time for copious ogling??
Thanks to all.....

This is the first causal argument or otherwise known as the Cosmological argument.

Incorporating Aristotle's notion of a "prime mover" into Summa Theologica and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas famously formulated his version of the cosmological or "first cause" argument. According to this argument, the things which we see around us now are the products of a series of previous causes. But that series cannot go back in time forever. Thus there must be some first cause which was not itself caused by anything else. And that first uncaused cause is God. The argument can be put more formally as follows:

1. Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
2. Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
3. Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.
There are several problems with this argument. The most crucial objection to the argument itself is that unless we know that premise 2 is true, the argument fails. If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, every thing could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes—multiple gods, say—or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?" you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question—"Why is there something rather than nothing?"—remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?

Of course, the traditional cosmological arguments offered by Aquinas and others have largely been supplanted by contempory versions of the argument, such as the Kalam cosmological argument, cosmological arguments based on big bang and quantum cosmology, and arguments based on philosophical considerations concerning time and causation.

or to put it simply, reply with "what created god?"..if their reply is god has always existed, reply with "then why couldnt the universe have always existed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 02:07 PM
RE: The big bang
(16-12-2013 01:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Now on the "surface" of that expanding balloon, a new balloon forms which itself undergoes inflation(that initial rapid expansion in a tiny fraction of a second) then after achieving a certain size continues to expand more slowly. This process goes on and on for eternity. Basically somewhere in the universe, there is always part of it undergoing inflation.....No matter how far back you go....there is always part of the universe big banging away. One advantage of such a model is it allows for entropy to eternally increase.

1) That's never been observed to happen anywhere in the observable universe so there's no compelling reason to believe that it ever has.

2) It would likely be a spectacularly bad idea. The initial Big Bang works pretty well because space and time are expanding into nothingness, so far as we know. Any subsequent "little bangs", for lack of a better term, would need to expand within the existing space-time. That's going to be a bit pesky. Making room for the new space-time is going to require extreme space-time curvatures, over-writing of old space-time by the new, mingling of the two space-time domains or something equally hideous. From what we know of cosmology this should be pretty easy to detect and pretty damned catastrophic. The energies released would be visible from the opposite side of the visible universe as some of our most distant neighbors (hopefully) were reduced to an expanding blast-wave of plasma and elementary particles several hundred million light-years in diameter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
17-12-2013, 06:38 PM
RE: The big bang
And the "raisins" can't even see one another anymore. Or has dark matter displaced, rather than merely obscured, the rising-dough analogy?
Doesn't matter.
Thing is, we really don't know, and neither do the cosmologists and physicists who offer these fanciful explanations. They measure the parts of the universe they can see or hear with ever-more-sophisticated instruments, and I believe every word of the resulting descriptions. However, there is more universe than we can see and hear, or will ever be able to measure. Therefore, I take with a generous pinch of salt any projection beyond observable phenomena - especially regarding first causes. Guesses - even the most strictly scientific ones - have been proved wrong a couple of times, and it may happen again.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 07:04 PM
RE: The big bang
(16-12-2013 09:37 AM)RaisdCath Wrote:  How about helping me come up with a simple, quick, steady answer to this "argument" that will clearly define "believers" from us.....but still leave me plenty of time for copious ogling??
Thanks to all.....

Ok. When they say this:
Quote:"no matter how far back you go, there had to be an intelligent creator. For instance, given the "big bang", what existed before it to give it the impetus to go "bang"? So.... at the beginning, there had to be something outside the laws of nature we know who created the substance that went "bang"...and that is god."

You ask "Why?"

Works every time.

"Everyone is alone. Everyone is empty. People no longer have need of others. You can always find a spare for any talent. Any relationship can be replaced. I had gotten bored of a world like that."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 08:43 PM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2013 08:52 PM by Jeffasaurus.)
RE: The big bang
Regarding the issue of no time prior to the big bang, it concerns gravity. As gravity increases it slows down time. In fact, our satellites in geosynchronous orbits have to be recalibrated regularly to compensate for the lower gravity off planet. Within the massive density of a black hole, time slows down to a mere crawl. Compress the entire universe into a single point as it was prior to the Big Bang, and the gravity will be so intense that there would be no passage of time whatsoever.

That is why you frequently hear that nothing happened prior to the Big Bang. It's simply based on our concept of what time is.

When asked if God created the universe Stephen Hawking replied, "no, because he didn't have time."

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Jeffasaurus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: