[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang ?

[twinc]

some say yes and some say no big bang - what is the update on this - twinc

 

[Gary]

No one will ever know, so it's a waste of time to even speculate.

It's like trying to figure out how many drops make an ocean.

 

[twinc]

No one will ever know, so it's a waste of time to even speculate.

It's like trying to figure out how many drops make an ocean.

many do in fact speculate but not here it seems - twinc

 

[Drew]

There is a lot evidence to support the Big Bang theory - it is a solid theoretical construct that explains many observations. Perhaps and old Universe conflicts with a particular interpretation of Genesis. Well, when the data stare you in the face and clearly indicate an old Universe, it think it has to be the interpretation of Genesis 1 that changes.

 

[TOG]

There is a lot evidence to support the Big Bang theory - it is a solid theoretical construct that explains many observations. Perhaps and old Universe conflicts with a particular interpretation of Genesis. Well, when the data stare you in the face and clearly indicate an old Universe, it think it has to be the interpretation of Genesis 1 that changes.

There is also evidence that it could never possibly have happened. What the big bang theory basically boils down to is "First there was nothing, and then for no reason (because there was nothing that could cause anything), nothing exploded and became everything." This contradicts the first law of thermodynamics, one of the foundational laws of physics.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

Big Bang theory doesn't suppose there was nothing before the initial expansion. It merely posits that the universe in which we live came to be in a sudden expansion of energy.

And it doesn't violate laws of thermodynamics, since the net energy of the universe is zero, as it was before the Big Bang.

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts.
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

A universe from nothing. Where have we heard that before?

 

[Drew]

There is also evidence that it could never possibly have happened. What the big bang theory basically boils down to is "First there was nothing, and then for no reason (because there was nothing that could cause anything), nothing exploded and became everything." This contradicts the first law of thermodynamics, one of the foundational laws of physics.

The TOG​

This cannot be correct. If what you are saying is correct, thousands of experts have been endorsing a theory for decades that cannot be correct. With all respect, it is wildly implausible that this is the case.

Please explain precisely how the Big Bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[Drew]

In the inflationary theory,......

Some creationists will make the argument that the universe must have a cause. Well, fair enough. Immanual Kant argued, if I understand him, that humans cannot help but reason in terms of cause and effect. But the obvious rejoinder is "Who created God?". And the answer "God by definition is uncaused" simply does not help since the non-theist can then equally legitimately claim that the universe itself needs no cause, either.

There is, I suggest, profound mystery here. Even if we agree that the laws of nature allow the universe to spring into existence from essentially nothing, the mystery remains: how do we give an account for the existence of these laws?

 

[TOG]

This cannot be correct. If what you are saying is correct, thousands of experts have been endorsing a theory for decades that cannot be correct. With all respect, it is wildly implausible that this is the case.

Please explain precisely how the Big Bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

In layman's terms, the first law of thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only change form. According to the big bang theory, energy created itself out of nothing.

The TOG​

 

[twinc]

Big Bang theory doesn't suppose there was nothing before the initial expansion. It merely posits that the universe in which we live came to be in a sudden expansion of energy.

And it doesn't violate laws of thermodynamics, since the net energy of the universe is zero, as it was before the Big Bang.

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts.
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

A universe from nothing. Where have we heard that before?

all assumptions and presumptions based on the original great assumption as if of no matter = no matter, no matter who says otherwise = premise + data = conclusion = no matter +no matter = no matter - twinc

 

[Drew]

In layman's terms, the first law of thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only change form. According to the big bang theory, energy created itself out of nothing.

The TOG​

I am sorry but it is almost unimaginable that you are correct. Either you do you not understand the Big Bang theory, or you do not understand the first law. This is not intended as a put-down - I do not claim to understand either, myself.

Here is why it is virtually certain you are mistaken: For you to be correct would mean that thousands, perhaps tens of thousands highly trained experts have all made the same obvious blunder. This is basically impossible. Or, there would need to be a massive conspiracy. Again, basically impossible.

If your argument were more subtle, that is if you were pointing out a flaw in the minute details of the theory, then your claim might be plausible because it's at least imaginable that all these experts have not noticed this error.

But it's not at all plausible that they have overlooked a fundamental violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

 

[TOG]

I am sorry but it is almost unimaginable that you are correct. Either you do you not understand the Big Bang theory, or you do not understand the first law. This is not intended as a put-down - I do not claim to understand either, myself.

Here is why it is virtually certain you are mistaken: For you to be correct would mean that thousands, perhaps tens of thousands highly trained experts have all made the same obvious blunder. This is basically impossible. Or, there would need to be a massive conspiracy. Again, basically impossible.

If your argument were more subtle, that is if you were pointing out a flaw in the minute details of the theory, then your claim might be plausible because it's at least imaginable that all these experts have not noticed this error.

But it's not at all plausible that they have overlooked a fundamental violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

It's not as if it were a blunder that they didn't realize. They all know that the big bang is impossible according to well known laws of physics. But if they have ruled out the possibility of God having created the universe, they are left with only 2 choices

1. The universe has always existed (which contradicts the second law of thermodynamics)
2. The universe has a finite age and came into being out of nothing at some point (which contradicts the first law of thermodynamics)

To get around this problem, they claim that the laws of physics did not apply at the time of the big bang and for some time after it, but only came into existence at some later time, after all the necessary impossibilities had taken place. How nice of the laws of physics to step aside just long enough so that people can have a universe without God.

The TOG​

 

[twinc]

I am sorry but it is almost unimaginable that you are correct. Either you do you not understand the Big Bang theory, or you do not understand the first law. This is not intended as a put-down - I do not claim to understand either, myself.

Here is why it is virtually certain you are mistaken: For you to be correct would mean that thousands, perhaps tens of thousands highly trained experts have all made the same obvious blunder. This is basically impossible. Or, there would need to be a massive conspiracy. Again, basically impossible.

If your argument were more subtle, that is if you were pointing out a flaw in the minute details of the theory, then your claim might be plausible because it's at least imaginable that all these experts have not noticed this error.

But it's not at all plausible that they have overlooked a fundamental violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

as for highly trained experts and obvious blunders or willingly ignorant watch for my further and future posts - twinc

 

[Doulos Iesou]

No one will ever know, so it's a waste of time to even speculate.

It's like trying to figure out how many drops make an ocean.

We actually know quite a bit about the Big Bang, though there certainly are still gaps in our knowledge. There is nothing to suppose it is impossible for us to gain further knowledge about it, as it has only increased as the years progress, such as the discovery of the Higgs-Boson Particle in recent years.

Are you omniscient and are able to determine what is outside the scope of human knowledge and what is within? We won't know until we try, and if one understands human nature than we know we must continue to search.

This reminds me of a scene in Prometheus, which is in a way symbolic of our search for understanding our own origins. The main character wishes to continue her search for explaining their origin, and why the being that created them chose not to destroy them. Here below is how the exchange goes.

Elizabeth Shaw: I don't want go to back to where we came from. I want to go where they came from. You think you can do that, David?
David: Yes, I believe I can. … May I ask what you hope to achieve by going there?
Elizabeth Shaw: They created us. Then they tried to kill us. They changed their minds. I deserve to know why.
David: The answer is irrelevant. It doesn't matter why they changed their minds.
Elizabeth Shaw: Yes — yes, it does.
David: I don't understand.
Elizabeth Shaw: Well … I guess that's because I'm a human being, and you're a robot.

David is an andriod.. a robot, and he doesn't understand her desire to have this question answered, as he believes it is irrelevant. She then makes a very insightful point, that it has to do with the fact of her being human, that human nature dictates she continue to search.

We won't give up searching, despite the opinion of some naysayers, because that is simply who we are.

 

[Gary]

We won't give up searching, despite the opinion of some naysayers, because that is simply who we are.

It's good to have goals.
.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It's good to have goals.
.

It's also good that we have achieved many of our goals, and as such we can state quite a bit about what happened with the Big Bang.

 

[Drew]

It's not as if it were a blunder that they didn't realize. They all know that the big bang is impossible according to well known laws of physics. But if they have ruled out the possibility of God having created the universe, they are left with only 2 choices

1. The universe has always existed (which contradicts the second law of thermodynamics)
2. The universe has a finite age and came into being out of nothing at some point (which contradicts the first law of thermodynamics)

To get around this problem, they claim that the laws of physics did not apply at the time of the big bang and for some time after it, but only came into existence at some later time, after all the necessary impossibilities had taken place. How nice of the laws of physics to step aside just long enough so that people can have a universe without God.

The TOG​

Again, your position is implausible because it requires what is basically unimaginable - that thousands, nay tens of thousands, of highly trained experts are all engaged in a massive conspiracy to promote a model for the creation of the universe that excludes God, even if this means contradicting laws of physics that even a high school student could understand.

 

[Gary]

The Big Bang is in the same league as Evolution.

It can't be proven.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It's not as if it were a blunder that they didn't realize. They all know that the big bang is impossible according to well known laws of physics. But if they have ruled out the possibility of God having created the universe, they are left with only 2 choices

The Big Bang Theory was developed by a Monk, of course it does not rule out the possibility of God, if anything it has potential theological consequences in order to avoid an infinite regress.

1. The universe has always existed (which contradicts the second law of thermodynamics)

Yes this has been refuted by the discovery of the Big Bang theory.

1. The universe has a finite age and came into being out of nothing at some point (which contradicts the first law of thermodynamics)

To get around this problem, they claim that the laws of physics did not apply at the time of the big bang and for some time after it, but only came into existence at some later time, after all the necessary impossibilities had taken place. How nice of the laws of physics to step aside just long enough so that people can have a universe without God.

I'm sorry, are you a theoretical physicist now who understands the ins and outs of the inception of our universe more than those who have studied their whole lives? This is such a basic question that has been answered many times, and yet again... Big Bang Theory is not for disproving God.. it doesn't do that in the slightest.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The Big Bang is in the same league as Evolution.

It can't be proven.

What do you mean by proven?

If you mean that we have sufficient reliable evidence to state that this is how it happened, and yet still be open to even further discoveries which will clarify the information we have then, yes we can prove it happened. If you mean 100% prove so that we know everything about it, then no, hardly nothing can be proven to that degree.

Cosmology and Evolutionary Biology are not exact sciences that can be performed in a lab, they are largely historical sciences that rely on different methods and utilize different observations. These theories are the result, and are the best explanations we have regarding the diversity of life and the initial inception of our universe. If you have something better, gain the necessary education.. write an article for peer review.. and then see if it stands the test.