The 2 most popular beliefs on this planet is god which always existed and the big bang which came from nothing. what those 2 concepts have in common is they dont have creators they are self created and they both needed absolutely nothing to be created.which one is right is not important but agreeing that what i just explained is what both concepts have in common and they both lead to a bigger answer.
The bigger answer is that based on both theorys there has to be different laws/rules,dimensions realms were one of those theorys would have to be true. so we got it down to 2 answers i would say 90% of the world believes or not but 2 answers it could possibly be we should agree on what they have in common and agree that both theorys lead to different universal laws were up could be down, or a whole universe could be made of water,ice,fire or where time and space dont exist or works faster or slower different than our realm of reality. but even if you disagree i hope you enjoy my thoughts and think deeply about the perspective.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
You've missed one very important point. The big bang is proven, and your god isn't. So the question really is "where did the big bang come from?" We can prove that big bang existed and COULD have come from nothing. We cannot prove that there ever was or is a god. So your little logic experiment has failed. We cannot agree that your god and the big bang came from the same place, simply because we can only speculate how the big bang happened and where it came from, but there is NO proof what so ever that any god ever existed or exist.
Another important difference:
God is the beginning and the end of the story, no ifs or buts. There are can be no questioning, no thinking. God is a roadblock on our path to understanding the universe.
The Big Bang is a scientific theory based on the best evidence available and subject to modification or rejection if better evidence is found as a result of continued questioning and thinking.
In fact god and the Big Bang theory have absolutely nothing in common.
God does not have to be the roadblock to knowledge? This is close minded thinking. Perhaps the reason God never reveals “himself” is that we are meant to evolve and discover the universe on our own in order to reach the next level of consciousness. This notion that if you believe in a God you will all of a sudden loose all curiosity about how things works is false.
God and the Big Bang Theory have nothing in common? They both indicate the universe had a finite beginning.
The big bang theory can be objectively evidenced, no objective evidence can be demonstrated for any deity, so your claim a deity "indicates something" is nonsense. Unless of course you can in fact demonstrate some objective evidence for any deity or deities?
@Jordan
You may not have noticed so let me point this out for you.
You are defining your god out of existence. Keep going and I am going to call you and others that think like you "atheist but don't know it."
Don't believe me?
"God exists outside of space and time." (And yet people still pray to it and find evidence of god all over! Contradict much?)
"God never reveals “himself” is that we are meant to evolve and discover the universe on our own in order to reach the next level of consciousness."
Insert made up monster/fairy/goblin/yeti etc etc etc into that and realize your exact same argument for "god" 'works' for any idea you or I could make up on the spot. Why does any idea work here? Because you description of god defined it out of existence. There is absolutely nothing that separates your god idea from a near infinite number of made up ideas we human brains can dream up.
------------------------------------
Uh go read up on the big bang theory before you spout out comparisons, (or lack of.)
Here is a hint: the big bang theory does not in anyway state that it is "THE" beginning. It just the beginning of the known/observable universe and what happened "after" something else we do not yet understand or know anything about. We have no way currently to "see" what was before. (All though excitingly enough, some brilliant scientist ARE working on that!)
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Andrewcgs - "we got it down to 2 answers"
Well actually there is a lot more than 2 answers. The universe could have been laid as a giant egg by a magical bird yesterday and when it hatched it has false age. There are lots of explanations like this. However only one of them (the big bang) has any evidence for it.
Furthermore---no matter what you have been told on television---the big bang theory is not a theory about the creation of the universe. It is a theory about the evolution laws of an isotropic homogeneous expansion; that is: it starts with the universe already existing and being isotropic and homogeneous. The confusion comes from people mixing up an event called the big bang (perhaps some kind of creation event) with the big bang theory (isotropic homogeneous expansion). It's actually rather boring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Ro...
---------------------
Andrewcgs - "agree that both theorys"
"God did it" is not a theory.
I think you guys are misunderstanding my perspective. I said there are 2 most POPULAR beliefs on this planet either you believe in god or dont. I also said that which one is right is not important 2+2=4 and 1+3=4 that answer is more important than the equation itself. weather or not which one can be proven was not my point in making this thread i was speaking theoretically if both were possible than both theorys would come from absolutely nothing and would be a common trait and would lead to another answer of different universal laws as a guarantee which is something i think we should agree on as well so if you think god and science dont have nothing in common your wrong and let me state that i am not religious and my views on gods are untraditional and guys try not to be bias to your personal beliefs and whos right or wrong and proof i agree with you but just be open-minded about it thats the only way to get to supreme truth what ever that may be
At this point in time the most popular God belief is in a single deity. However, for much of historical time when humans created gods they created pantheons of gods. If it is possible for the universe to be created by a god then it is possible for the universe to have been created by more than one. If you are a monotheist then we have to ask which single deity do you propose as creator? Jahweh , Allah, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda? Would each creator(s) have to have separate laws to explain their presence. If so, how do you discern between the data? If the Big Bang is the explanation then we have been amassing ever more accurate data to explain the event and based on that data the future of the universe is ever more predictable. That is a far more complex comparison than 2+2=4 or 1+3=4.
We ARE being open minded. Requiring proof is NOT being close minded. The fact is that the big bang has evidence to support it. The god theory has NO evidence whatsoever. There is nothing in common between the two. You are trying to say that the big bang and god are similar because of their cause, which is completely false. God was made up out of pure fantasy, imagination. The big bang is a theoretical conclusion based on known facts. There is nothing in common in that. If you can't understand that, then there is n helping you. You can't grasp critical thinking, a requirement for intelligence. No matter how much you try to revise the facts, the facts are plain to see by the most casual observer. God is imagination, and the big bang is a theory based on scientific fact.
It doesn't matter what god you believe in or not in this point i am trying to make all i am saying is that a god would have to always exist all true gods will have that trait of being self created like the big bang claims to be and the answer both opinions point to is different universal laws were things that apply to this reality might apply differently or not at all were something can always exist or come from absolutely nothing which both opinions are scientifically impossible and both concepts goes against the universal laws you guys keep making points about things i am not talking about i am trying to be very specific
Andrewcgs:
The Big Bang Theory does not propose something from nothing. Various theories propose a singularity , multi-verse, membrane. The physicists have yet to decide. The god who creates himself matches your something from nothing model.
Your contradiction above : "... a god would have to always exist all true gods will have that trait of being self created..."
How can something that always exists self create themselves? Not logical.
Being self created mean that you would need absolutely nothing to be created which is what i am stressing both concepts have in common not a specific time that is not a contradiction and my point to this topic is neither one of these options are logical thats what they have in common and they have similar conclusions of different universal laws has to be the answer there is no other answer with a higher percentage of probability than the one i am explaining if you would stop trying to figure out were i am wrong and actually think about what i am saying you will understand
---------------------
Andrewcgs - "Being self created mean that you would need absolutely nothing to be created"
Not really sure that is true.
----------------------
Andrewcgs - "neither one of these options are logical"
Not really sure that is true, either.
----------------------
Andrewcgs - "they have similar conclusions of different universal laws"
Not really sure what that even means.
----------------------
Andrewcgs - "there is no other answer with a higher percentage of probability than the one i am explaining"
I'm extremely skeptical of this claim, so again: not really sure that is true.
----------------------
The whole thing seems pretty wishy-washy to me:
It can be a hard concept to grasp at first it can get really deep. somthing always existing needing absolutely nothing to be created theoretically is true and the fact thats a common trait of the big bang as it stance right now is also true.so pretty much guys im way past big bang i know what caused it and how and if there is a god i know exactly where he is
I think perhaps delusions of grandeur. I can see from your posts you neither understand elementary physics or logic. You seem to think we do not understand . That what you propose is too profound for our primate brains to grasp. The simple matter is I disagree with you. I do not find your premises logical or convincing.
Yep, delusions of grandeur for sure!
Nope this seems like a place were know it all athiest roam logic is all in my post the fact of preconceived judgement is blocking your understanding just like religious people i never experienced it with an athiest i have heard about it i believe in science and what i am explaining is science that has yet to be explained on a mass scale so if you only give certain people the power of intelligence than you will not understand what i am explaining
Science that has yet to be explained? How did you come across this information?
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions
------------------------
------------------------
Wikipedia - "[Grandiose delusions] are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful."
Andrewcgs - "guys im way past big bang i know what caused it and how"
Andrewcgs - "if there is a god i know exactly where he is"
Andrewcgs - "what i am explaining is science that has yet to be explained"
------------------------
Wikipedia - "The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a r̲e̲l̲i̲g̲i̲o̲u̲s̲, s̲c̲i̲e̲n̲c̲e̲ ̲f̲i̲c̲t̲i̲o̲n̲a̲l̲, or supernatural theme."
It probably isn't fair for us to sit here and offer a totally unprofessional diagnosis based on a few paragraphs posted on a internet forum; but damn, it sure seems like a perfect fit.
------------------------
------------------------
But anyway, I for one am willing to give what you have to say a second look, provided you start over, clearly explain each point, and answer questions. While I'm certainly no grammar nazi; your posts typically consist of 1 giant run-on sentence with no punctuation. Combine this with the complicated nature of the topic you are speaking on, and the outcome is almost assured to be word salad. So let's try not to do that.
Now you are not only being illogical but arrogant. Ignorance causes that, so we can conclude where you are at. Most of the people on this forum are very well educated, well informed, and can grasp just about everything. Your problem is that you can't grasp reality. Logic is beyond you. You made an argument in your initial post. You were taken to task exposing the flaws in your idea and just don't want to admit it. So to defend yourself, you have embarked on calling the audience ignorant. You aren't explaining science in any way shape or form.
Here is a basic explanation of the big bang: http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html
This explanation is based on fact. Facts tested by independent means, meaning that they have been scrutinized and verified.
God, on the other hand, has never been scrutinized nor verified. Your "theory" defies logic. It's not that we don't understand your concept, it's that we know that it is flawed and illogical.
@ mykcob4
I have tried to understand the big bang, but am smart enough to admit that I don't understand, and have many questions. I hope you, or someone, can help me with these questions.
1. Before the big bang there was no space, time, or matter?
2. The big bang is the beginning of the universe?
3. The singularity is before the big bang? It was infinitely hot and dense? What was infinitely hot and dense?
4. Do we really know what was before the big bang? I know there are some ideas, but isn't it most accurate to say no one knows?
5. During the early expansion, did it expand faster than the speed of light?
6. Why is that that we could never reach the end of the universe, even if we could travel faster than the speed of light?
Thanks
The big bang theory is largely just some calculations (that actually aren't that hard to do, I've considered writing up and posting a derivation) that describe what scale factor changes would look like for an isotropic, homogeneous, universe filled with hydrogen plasma. Now I realize that is a mouthful. In less precise language (English): it mathematically describe the expansion of a PRE-EXISTING hot gas. Notice I didn't say anything about singularities, infinite densities, or the beginning of the universe.
So you might ask why you hear those topics thrown around with the big bang theory? It's because if you push the mathematics past a breaking point (a point past where it is known to be valid), it could be interpreted that way. To confuse matters more, this period past the breaking point is often called "the big bang". Leading us to the very weird situation where the "big bang theory" does not actually describe the big bang (event).
So I will skip the first 4 questions since they seem to be able the big bang event, not the big bang theory.
Yes, in fact it is doing that even today!
The exact geometry of the universe is not known; for example: with some geometries if you could travel in a line faster than a certain rate, you would eventually return to your starting location. In any case, experimentally the visible universe is exceptionally flat.
@ Nyarlathotep
Thanks for you help.
How can the universe be expanding faster than the speed of light? I thought that was impossible?
Jo, I think (this is a SWAG) it’s the matter INSIDE of space that cannot move faster than light. Space isn’t matter.
Right, you were probably told nothing can travel faster than light; but that was a simplification. A more accurate version would be that information can not travel faster than c.
Nyar, can space be thought of as a measurement?
Well distance is certainly a measurement. And that is part of the problem. What is the best way to measure/define the distance between two points on a rubber sheet that is being stretched? You can lay a ruler onto the sheet and note the numbers printed on the ruler at each point and call that (the difference) the distance. But you might realize you can't actually read the numbers at the same time. You have to write down the number for the first point, then at a (slightly) later time you can do the same for the other. For a small sheet being stretched very slowly, we can just ignore this timing problem and just pretend we recorded the measurements at the same time. But imagine doing it for a sheet that is (currently) the size of a football field. You have to walk from one end to the other between measurements and your intuition tells you that during this delay the distance probably changed. Next time you improve the situation by having a partner stand at the other point, so you can yell to them to measure theirs as you measure yours. But again, the sound of your voice travels at a finite speed, so while yelling is a much better system than walking, it still has problems. You might also notice this difficulty has something to do with the speed at which information travels (how fast you can tell your partner to do their measurement).
Anyway, I know this doesn't exactly answer your question. Its a difficult subject and I'm no expert on it. I was just trying to point out some of the difficulties. You might find the first paragraph of this interesting.
So, it can actually be a measurement but would need defined parameters in order for it to be applied to anything specific?
I just can’t imagine space as a ‘thing’...
Some of the nitty-gritty details about space are unknown; for example is space quantized? I mean: imagine a small and large cardboard box; is there an infinite number of possible boxes between those two (or any two) sizes? Being quantized would mean there is a finite number of these intermediary boxes. It seems like a pretty important question (imo), and while many physicists assume it is quantized, the verdict is still out.
But there has been considerable progress made on related topics over the last 15 years. It is kind of an exciting time. Here is a lecture that is a bit of a tangent of your questions.
Thank you. This has helped a great deal.
Pages