Where did the Big Bang come from?

[sangh0]

After all, something can't come from nothing, right?

[ohiosmith]

1. Sorry! A little gas!

[kanrok]

13. I was thinking it was the name of a porn film

[DrWeird]

2. It didn't need a beginning.

Because time hadn't started yet.

Or something like that. I'm not a physicist and I don't know the explanation but apparently they've got a solution to that age old conundrum.

[ret5hd]

3. quantum physics says yes it can...

and also, the latest membrane theory (that i've seen) has the big bang occurring because of the collision of two membranes in the 11th dimension.

[sangh0]

6. It's not a membrane "THEORY"

It's a hpothesis, because it hasn't been proven.

[ret5hd]

17. ok, you are probably correct...

but you must understand, my only strength in higher math is watching cheesy science shows on the discovery channel. come to think of it, i'm the same way about history, home remodelling, lots of stuff.

trigonometry, im pretty good at that. and current affairs.

[sangh0]

22. You see what happens when you watch cable?

It's not just Fox News. :-)

[trotsky]

4. Quantum singularity.

By definition, it's a point at which the laws of physics break down. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the theory - on the contrary, good science acknowledges its limitations and stops there.

[sangh0]

8. a point at which the laws of physics break down???

You mean like "heaven"???

[DrWeird]

12. No.

Heaven follows Newtonian physics perfectly.

[reprobate]

25. Now THAT'S funny. I hope you meant it as a joke?

[DrWeird]

31. No, it's a joke.

Heaven's a myth. But if it existed it'd be Newtonian Physics all the way.

[trotsky]

15. Define "heaven."

It is a term which means very different things to different people.

[sangh0]

16. Define "create"

which also has different meanings to different people

[Screaming Lord Byron]

18. Define 'define'.

[sangh0]

21. Thank you

too much of the discussion centers around the different ways we use words, all of which distracts from the central issue which is that as humans, we are inherently flawed, and therefore unable to grasp the ultimate truths, and that those who would criticize some views as being "unprovable" are engaging in a form of hypocrisy.

[trotsky]

20. I didn't use the word "create."

So maybe you can answer my question instead.

[sangh0]

23. See #20

.

[DrWeird]

24. They say that imitation is the highest form of flattery.

Sangh0, you're such a brown-noser.

:evilgrin:

[sangh0]

28. hey, I wasn't going to waste

my pointy nose and sloped forehead

[trotsky]

27. "Quantum singularity" and "big bang" have been defined.

They actually have pretty precise technical definitions, if you want to get picky.

I have seen none offered up for "god," or "heaven," or "soul." When pressed, the believer retreats.

[sangh0]

29. The issue isn't one of defining words

.

[trotsky]

30. I understand why you have to say that.

n/t

[sangh0]

39. If you don't like it when someone "avoids the question"

then why won't you answer the question?

"Where did the Big Bang come from?"

I'm still waiting

[trotsky]

40. You've displayed an ignorance of physics

and so any answer will be unsatisfactory.

Please note, I am not calling you stupid or anything like that, just noting that your responses on this thread indicate that you do not understand the concepts involved.

[sangh0]

43. I understand why you have to say that.

but calling me ignorant does not explain where the Big Bang came from.

[truthspeaker]

32. it is if you equate "heaven" to Planck distance

as you did several posts back

[sangh0]

34. Prove that "Planck distance"

exists.

[DrWeird]

42. Prove a meter exists.

A meter is defined as a length of roughly one meter. It's about as long as this meter stick I've got in my hand.

A Planck length is defined as the square root of quanity Planck's constant times the Gravitational constant over the speed of light cubed. Which is roughly 1.6E-35 meters. So Planck's length exists in the same way that half a meter exists.

[sangh0]

45. Understood

Defined in terms of itself = requires faith

Note: A meter is EXACTLY one meter in length :evilgrin:

[trotsky]

55. Religious faith vs. scientific faith

I know it is popular among theologians and laypersons to equate the two, but there are several key differences.

Not that it will matter, because you've already decided they are the same.

[sangh0]

57. There is no such thing as "scientific faith". It's an oxymoron

Science relies on the Scientific Method. According to science, things that haven't been proven using the Scientific Method are not to be believed, not even on faith.

[trotsky]

61. That's nonsense.

things that haven't been proven using the Scientific Method are not to be believed

That's not only an insult to science, it's an insult to anyone who places reason in their toolbox of learning.

All of science is in a state of flux, and ANY scientific principle could be overturned tomorrow with the right evidence presented against it. Not even gravity is considered a "fact," just a very well supported theory.

But apart from that, science isn't about "believing," it's about describing and postulating. And a continual process of improvement to try and make sure our descriptions are consistently approaching the best approximation of reality.

Tell me that religion adapts to new knowledge the same way science does, and I will call you a liar.

[sangh0]

64. Who said anything about "facts"? I spoke of "proofs"

If you were half as familiar with science as you try to make yourself appear, you'd know that, according to the Scientific Method, "facts" do not have to be proven, just merely "observed".

"Theories" get proven, not facts. Gravity is a "theory", which is why scientists refer to the Theory of Gravity.

But apart from that, science isn't about "believing," it's about describing and postulating

Ridiculous. Science is also about explaining.

[trotsky]

68. I'll leave that post to speak for itself.

I think it says more about your position and motives than anything I could respond with.

[arwalden]

114. Oh, Dear! I Don't Understand It... It Must Be Magic.

:hi:

[Westegg]

95. Heaven: Heaven is a place. A place where nothing...

...nothing ever happens.

[truthspeaker]

26. No, Planck length, where classical physics doesn't apply

This is all based on math and research. Physicists don't just pull this stuff out of their asses.

[sangh0]

33. where classical physics doesn't apply???

So, the physical laws of the universe don't apply in small places?

Why not?

[trotsky]

36. sangh0, I know you mean well, but

if you're going to criticize physics you need to at least learn about the subject.

Classical physics vs. quantum mechanics.

[sangh0]

41. Where did the Big Bang come from?

If you are going to criticize what others know (or don't know) about creation, you're going to have to learn about The Big Bang

So, where did the Big Bang come from?

You're the expert on physics, both quantum and classical, so I'm sure that YOU can explain where the Big Bang came from and show me the proof that they are not some myth, like that invisible sky king.

[truthspeaker]

47. answered already (reply #14)

no one knows, and no scientist claims to know.

[sangh0]

48. Then why do you believe it happened?

Do you believe in things that haven't been proven?

[truthspeaker]

49. We KNOW it happened. We don't know WHY.

There is abundant evidence that the Big Bang happened. There is not yet enough data, and our understanding of cosmology and physics is not far enough advanced, to answer the question in the OP.

[sangh0]

52. Without proof, how do you know it happened?

I have EVIDENCE of things which I know are not true. Evidence is not conclusive, and you know that, so why do you believe something happened when you can't PROVE that it happened?

I KNOW that science does not support a belief in things that are not proven, so how does science support your belief that the Big Bang happened when science can not prove that it happened?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

53. How can you have evidence of things that are not true?

You've lost me there.

[sangh0]

56. Evidence is not conclusive

and can be misleading. The facts show that Clinton had people who contributed to his campaign sleep over in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House. This was used as "evidence" that Clinton was renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, but the evidence was misleading because it ignored other evidence, such as how some donors did not get to sleep over, while some non-donors did get to sleep over.

Evidence is nothing more than facts used to support an argument. The argument may, in the end, turn out to be wrong. However, the error in the argument does not transform the facts that were used into fiction. They are still factual, and they are evidence that supports an argument, but the evidence supports an argument that is not correct.

[truthspeaker]

59. background radiation; expansion of the universe;

these and many other data support the Big Bang model. The Big Bang is "proved" as much as anything in science can be.

The Big Bang also says nothing, one way or another, about the existence of gods or any other religious belief, so I don't understand why you're so hot under the collar about it. What's next on your doubt list, germ theory? Plate tectonics?

[sangh0]

65. Weasel words

The Big Bang is "proved" as much as anything in science can be.

No, the Big Bang Theory is a theory that has been proven according to the Scientific Method. Of course, the Scientific Method has been defined in such a way that "proven" theories can be later shown to be disproven.

And still, you haven't explained where the Big Bang came from?

[Ready4Change]

70. "Science doesn't know" is the scientific answer to your question.

It's like a father and child looking at a mountain range. "What's beyond those mountains?" asks the child. If the father is strongly religious he might respond "Perhaps other lands, other peoples, and other mountains." "And beyond that?" asks the child. "Perhaps God" answers the religous father.

However, if the father were scientific, rather than religious, he would say "I don't know. Let's cross the mountains and see what we find there."

[sangh0]

71. I disagree

I see nothing illogical or irrational, nor anything inherently religious in saying "Perhaps other lands, other peoples, and other mountains"

I also see nothing inherently scientific, or anti-religious, in saying "I don't know"

I could both scientists and preists saying those things, including the statement "Perhaps God". Many scientists are religious.

[Rabrrrrrr]

80. Not sure what bug you have up your butt today, Sangh0,

but you've been giving some snippy, obnoxious responses to people. I'm glad I wasn't here for the discussion while it was happening.

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid response.

Science never claims to know everything - that's why scientists continue to do reaserch.

"I don't know" is the beginning of the quest.

[sangh0]

83. I'm don't know what you think is snippy

but as my prior post indicates, I think "I don't know" is a perfectly adequate response, for both the religious and the non-religious.

The post I was responding to seemed to suggest that "I don't know" is a response limited to the non-religious. I disagreed. What's snippy about that?

[Rabrrrrrr]

90. Hmmmmm

Alright, you sent me back to re-read everything. A few times you were snippy, but I was unfair to you. Not as obnoxious as I first thought.

However, I think that's only because I read through twice. On first read, many of your posts come across as you just naysaying whatever someone else says in an arrogant way. And mostly it seems that way because you never make clear what your aims or agenda or actual belief is - so it looks like you're just being contrary for the sake of stoking fires.

More of a communication problem on your end then anything intentional, perhaps. I found you confusing on the first read through.

[Ready4Change]

94. Don't confudle the statements of my allegory.

:)

The difference between the two positions is that the religious person attributes whatever exists beyond his knowlege to God, and his religion institutionalizes that position. Thus religion, if it ever dares peer into Gods domain beyond the mountain range, does so and goes "Hey, that's not God!"

The scientist, on the other hand, might attribute whatever exists beyond his knowlege to God, but science itself refuses to draw any conclusions. So science peers over the mountain range and goes "Hmmm, some more rivers, and another mountain range. Oh, hey, is that a city over there?"

Eventually, the two mehtods may meet. The religious may look and say "There you are, God." and the scientific may look and say "Holy cow! There IS a God, and now we have proof!"

:)

[sangh0]

99. My apologies

I had no intention of confuddling you allegory. I just didn't understand how it shows what you say it shows. Thanks for the explanation. Its a lot clearer now.

[mondo joe]

72. Big Bang can't come FROM somewhere - no space before the BB

There was no space before the BB so it couldn't have come FROM anywhere.

[sangh0]

75. I think you're being a bit too literal

By asking where it CAME FROM, I meant HOW was it created, and not FROM WHAT PLACE did it relocate from.

[mondo joe]

77. Don't you think science is worth precise language?

I do.

[sangh0]

81. I think precise communications are more important

and most people understand that when someone asks "Where do babies come from?" they are asking about HOW babies are born, and not "What place do babies come from?"

"come from", in this context, is a figure of speech. Most people seem to understand that. And in discussions, most people are willing to let others explain what their words mean, and do not insist that a poster meant to say whatever the literal meaning of the words they used meant.

And I would like to point out that this discussion is not limited to science. It also involves philosophy and logic. Please do not insist on telling me what I meant.

[mondo joe]

84. You say you believe in precise communications but use imprecise terms

I'll let you continue with others.

I dislike imprecise communications.

[sangh0]

87. "terms" are not "communication"

I can use imprecise terms to communicate effectively. In fact, I would argue that it's hard to communicate if you limit yourself to making literally true statements. Analogy and metaphor have long been considered useful tools that aid communication, even if they are not literally true.

But of course, we are all allowed our own personal preferences. If you prefer to limit yourself to literally true statements, then you are under no obligation to continue to participate. However, your preference for literal terms places no obligations on me. I can speak metaphorically if I wish.

[truthspeaker]

112. and it has already been answered: NO ONE KNOWS

and no scientist claims to know.

[Rabrrrrrr]

79. No, we DON'T know that it happened

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that it happened, and the math sure seems to work, but we don't know. And likely never will.

A minor quibble, but important to point out. Sort of like there's a pretty well guaranteed possibility that the earth will continue to spin tomorrow, but we don't know that it will.

And you are definitely right in that we don't know why.

on edit: spelled "work" as "wkr". Not even a valid typo, since it wasn't even close. Sorry!

[sangh0]

82. Now there's a clear answer.

Thank you for that, Rabrrrrr

[DrWeird]

96. Sure it happened. Like the holocaust. Or the Crimean War.

We all know the Battle of Saratoga happened, even though none of use were ever there, because there's overwhelming evidence for it.

It's like saying the whole world disappears when you close your eyes. You don't know it's there. It's a philosophical argument, that's fine, it's discussed a lot in philosophy classes. But in this context it's being used to confuse the difference between a philosophical argument and the false premise that there's a lack of proof of the big bang. And that's a bit intellectually dishonest.

[sangh0]

97. It's not about proof concerning the Big Bang

Its about asking "Where did the Big Bang came from?", which is different than asking "Did the Big bang really happen?"

There are atheists who will argue against God's existence by asking "Where did God come from?" as if being unable to explain how God came to be was proof that God did not exist. I found that ironic coming from people who claim that they only believe what science can prove.

[DrWeird]

104. Sure, that's a horrible argument for denying the existence of God.

God's magic. He can do anything. So creating himself isn't a problem.

Far more often I see Biblical literalists use your OP argument to "disprove" the nonexistance of God. Even though it's phony logic.

I said it earlier, I said it again. I believe cosmologists looking into this question have found a fully self-consistent solution to the origin problem of the Big Bang based on ab initio theoretical calculations via quantum mechanics and string theory. If true, it would mean this "but what came before argument" would no longer be a burden to the atheistic viewpoint of the universe, although it would still be to the theistic view. Again, I haven't personally investigated this, so I can't say for certain. But even if I did, a message board such as this wouldn't be the place to discuss it, since it can't handle the mathematical notation.

But let's, for the sake of argument, say I could prove on theoretical grounds "where the big bang came from". What would be your response?

[Rabrrrrrr]

100. I don't fully agree with you on that one

I realize that it's an awful small point to make about knowing or not knowing, and depends on how we want to define "know", but taken in the general social sense that "knowing" means "it's utterly true", I think it's important to remind people that though there is a vast amount of data that leads one pretty much to have to conclude that the Big Bang took place, the jury is still out, and further data may nuance or radically change it.

Just like we "knew" for a long time there was no way to go more than the speed of sound. (which I realize is a somewhat weak analogy, but shows that in science, at least as I was always trained to believe, that whatever we "know" always has a chance of being wrong and/or imperfect).

Perhaps a better analogy is that we KNOW that gas will always expand to fill the volume it is in, but yet there IS a definite, though drmatically slight chance, that all the molecules of air in a container may suddenly shift to one corner.

[DrWeird]

101. That's the same argument the creationists use.

As George Bush says, "the jury is still out on (evolution)." It's not a scientifically unsound thing to say that if there's overwhelming evidence for something it is indeed a fact. Undeniable. If there's so much evidence for soemthing then to say that maybe something hasn't happened becomes the extraordinary claim that needs to be justified.

The analogy of the gas filling the volume is a good one. We all know the gas is going to fill the volume. To say that just maybe it won't is a bit of a philosophical point. And really doesn't fit in on a thread about whether or not gas will expand to fill a volume.

As for the "speed of sound" argument. That's a terribly one. Nobody ever really said it was impossible to go faster then the speed of sound. It was just an engineering hurdle.

[Rabrrrrrr]

105. And, as I said, it's a minor point

But since so few people have an understanding of science, and scientific method, already, and believe that whenever any scientist talks about something it's "irrefutable truth" (which it isn't, always), I just, well, as I said it's a minor point, but to me it's important to remind people that scientific theories and ideas are always up to change and refinement if and when something comes along that forces a change in the theories, because scientists are HONEST people who are open to change and refinement.

But also, as you say, that's well into the realm of philosophy, and perhaps not the best thing to bring up in a thread like this, because also, as we both agree, the evidence for the big bang is pretty overwhelming.

[truthspeaker]

44. here you go:

short answer:

The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.

And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.

The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ‘quantum of time’, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae644.cfm

Long answer: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html

[sangh0]

50. I got a laugh out of that definition

Saying that there's a measure so small that smaller measures have no meaning is nothing more than speculation, since science has yet to explain how that happens, nor has it proven that that is what actually happens in such small spaces.

Your definition is circular. "The laws of physics break down at Planck's lengths because Planck's lengths are defined as the lengths at which the laws of physics breaks down"

No smaller division of time has any meaning

An assertion such as this, completely naked of evidence and support, is one that can only be taken on faith.

With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.

What came before? If the universe did not exist before 10*43, then where did the laws of physics come from, or did they just appear like magic?

[truthspeaker]

51. You really didn't understand those links.

Read the one titled "How did Max Planck calculate the Planck Length?"

[sangh0]

54. I read it

I just don't believe something is true merely because I read it somewhere. However, I did read:

"However, even though we cannot prove that the Planck length is significant for quantum gravity..."

So even though the scientists admit that the Planck length may not be significant for quantum gravity, you INSIST that it IS significant and you claim that science supports you.

[truthspeaker]

60. If you'd understood that you wouldn't have claimed circular definition

10-43 seconds is significant because it is the amount of time it would take a photon to travel the Planck length, which isn't arbitrary either.

Basically you're saying that the last 100 years of advancements in physics are just speculation because it sounds funny to you.

[sangh0]

67. If you understood, you wouldn't make stuff up

like how I don't believe in germ theory, or that the Big Bang theory "sounds funny"

I happen to believe in the Big Bang theory.

[truthspeaker]

113. then why are you arguing with it, and calling physics nonsense?

[DrWeird]

91. Wait a minute.

"Saying that there's a measure so small that smaller measures have no meaning is nothing more than speculation"

Actually it's well grounded in quantum theory, the quantization of energy, and the HUP. Now the later says that is something is small enough than it can not be measured completely, not that it's impossible to measure it, but that if it's position is known then it's velocity is by definition meaningless. Are you questioning the actual scientific validity of these concepts, or are you just asking people to prove them on a message board?

[sangh0]

98. response

1) That something is "well grounded" does not mean that it is not speculative. There is speculation that could be considered "well-grounded". Sometimes it's referred to as "an educated guess"

To be clear, I'm not saying that HUP, quantum theory, etc is nothing more than an educated guess. There's more to them than that. My point here is that there is a difference between something that has been proven and something that the evidence suggests id true.

I raise this because there are atheists who argue that the religious are irrational/insane/emotionally ill/etc because they believe in God even though they can't explain where he came from. Yet, these same people will believe in the Big Bang, even though they can't explain where THAT came from.

Are you questioning the actual scientific validity of these concepts, or are you just asking people to prove them on a message board?

Neither. I am trying to make the philosophical/logical point that an inability to explain how something arose is not proof that the thing itself does not exist. Not being able to explain how the Big Bang came to pass, is not proof that the Big Bang never happened. Not being able to explain how the Creator came into existence is not proof that He does not exist.

And then there's the point about how (some) atheists, who supposedly are more rational and logical than the religious, fail to notice this flaw in their arguments

[DrWeird]

108. Ah, but that's essentially the falling tree debate.

Which can go on forever, sure, but if one argues that...

Sound is defined as the propagation of waves through air. And that on average that trees have a certain mass. And an average height. And acceleration due to gravity is g. And that an average tree will produce so many newtons of force when it hits the ground. And that the collision of a solid object and a forest floor with enough force will cause the air to vibrate.

Therefore it can be shown, scientifically, that a tree falling in a forest will produce a sound. Even if nobody's around to hear it.

Same with Planck Length. It can be proven, based on a series of definitions, and experiments, and calculations, that at a small enough scale the measurement of length is quantized and the concept of anything smaller looses any meaning.

Which is what Plank did for energy, and what Heisenburg did for the commutation of position and momentum.

[trotsky]

111. "this flaw"

is only a flaw in the mind of the religious believer who wants to equate faith in a god with "faith" in scientific theories.

That's why the "supposedly more rational and logical" atheists don't notice it, and why you're just being annoying rather than showing us some sort of fatal mistake in our reasoning or beliefs.

To start with, current evidence points to the big bang having happened. You have admitted that you believe (as in "agree with") that evidence.

The atheist says "I don't know" what caused the big bang.

You say "I know what caused the big bang - GOD." And when asked, "Well, what caused your god?" you reply with a wink and a smile and say "it wasn't a problem for you not to know, so I don't know and that's OK."

Problem is, you've just unnecessarily increased the complexity of the problem - you haven't solved, explained, or even clarified anything. Your "god" doesn't bring anything to the table.

[Ready4Change]

5. One of my favorite ideas.

That the Big Bang came from itself. Time is circular. Bang, universe expands, contracts, and the ORIGINAL Bang happens. It's not a new Bang, it is literally the original Bang.

In computer programming terms, the universe and time is locked in a continuous loop.

[sangh0]

10. "That the Big Bang came from itself."

You mean like "God"???

[Ready4Change]

63. Nope (in my mind.) More like...

A loop of video tape where the first frame looks exactly like the last frame. The ends of the tape are joined together, and they are running through a projector, forever.

Now I suspect you are going to ask, "is the projector God?" I've no idea, and feel that's something for you and your personal mythos to reach an agreement on. In my mind, the nature of the projector is something for science to probe, not for us to make uninformed decisions about.

[sangh0]

69. Many religions

describe the Creator's creation in a way very similar to your explanation. According to them, God is not the projector because there is no projector. God is an actor that plays a role, over and over again.

[Ready4Change]

73. And with no evidence to back up that conclusion.

Science, in this case, shrugs and says it doesn't know yet. It may have some ideas, which it will investigate, but it refuses to make any conclusions.

To investigate my "loop of video-tape" idea, I would continue trying to probe further back into our universes history, deeper into the Big Bang. If my idea is right, I would expect that eventually, If I can look far enough, that I'll see my own back, bent over, pearing into the universes history.

How do these many "religions" propose to investigate the idea that God is an actor, playing a role over and over again?

[sangh0]

78. Do you want evidence?

I can provide references that discuss the Hindu belief in recurring ages that sounds remarkably similar to your film analogy

How do these many "religions" propose to investigate the idea that God is an actor, playing a role over and over again?

Your question assumes that religious beliefs should be subjected to the same standard as scientific theories. Since religion is concerned mostly with WHY things happen, while science concerns itself mostly with HOW things happen, I don't see why the two should be held by the same standard.

Religion does not seek to prove facts or theories, nor does it seek to investigate any question (such as "Is God an actor?") unless it can be shown that the answer will lead to a decrease in suffering.

[mondo joe]

86. I wonder when beliefs began to constitute evidence.

I'm reminded of those elusive WMDs.

They were BELIEVED to be in Saddam Hussein's possession. Why where they believed to be there? Because they were believed to be.

[sangh0]

88. Facts constitute evidence

Beliefs do not.

At least, that's my opinion

[JVS]

118. I was waiting for someone to ask about this since that other thread

well done

[Screaming Lord Byron]

11. Exactly what I put in the other thread.

Universe is created in the bang, pushed outwards by the force, force cannot be infinite, so eventually, force slows and contraction starts, bringing together all the mass of the universe into a giant implosion, thus destroying the old universe and creating the new. People need to break out of the Judeo-Christian linear mindset.

Isn't this a Hindu belief? Brahman's Day and Brahman's Night?

[ParanoidPat]

7. That goes back on the top shelf of my bedroom closet.......

.......with the rest of my porn tapes. :evilgrin:

I wondered who took that! :)

[Purrfessor]

9. MOAB

Mother Of All Bangs

[truthspeaker]

14. no one knows

[pmbryant]

92. The one true answer

Thank you! :-)

Peter

[pbg]

19. mu

*whacks pupil with stick*

[Rabrrrrrr]

76. LOL!

:hi:

[mondo joe]

35. Who says there was ever NOTHING?

Why is NOTHING considered the default?

[sangh0]

58. Good point

and I agree with you

[mondo joe]

74. Then why do you write "something can't come from nothing, right"

?

[sangh0]

85. Because

that's the argument some atheists use

Isn't it ironic that people who say their beliefs are grounded in science believe that everything must from from something, even though science doesn't support that?

[mondo joe]

89. So you do it because some atheists do? Funny.

I don't intend to continue this discussion because, as I've stated earlier,I dislike imprecise communications. However, since you are responding to my question here, I feel I ought to provide some closure.

You offer the curious statement that "people who say their beliefs are grounded in science believe that everything must from from something, even though science doesn't support that?"

I'd suggest instead that people whose beliefs are grounded in science accept that the universe exists and seek to understand it better. All scientific conclusions are tentative, and are subject to change when new data is discovered. This means that science is not always accurate - just that it is the best bet.

I'm unfamiliar with persons stating that everything must come from something - though I am familiar with people saying there must a way that things have come to be as they are. And I am unfamiliar with any scientific finding that disproves or discredits that.

[sangh0]

102. It a time honored tactic

One way to refute a fallacy is to use the fallacy in an attempt to prove that it is so.

I'm unfamiliar with persons stating that everything must come from something

Wthere or not you've encountered them, there are some who are confused about the conservation of matter and energy. They think that everything must come from something. You know better, and so do I, which is why I praised you for not accepting the assumption.

[mondo joe]

109. I suggest you be more specific

"Wthere or not you've encountered them, there are some who are confused about the conservation of matter and energy. They think that everything must come from something. You know better, and so do I, which is why I praised you for not accepting the assumption."

Well everything does come from something - that something being here, the universe.

But I think if you're going to accuse people of fallacious statements you should be decent enough to cite the person, the fallacy and the refutation rather than this broad sweeping claim.

[reprobate]

37. Question: What if Satan and God are on the same side?

And it's not OUR side? Could it all be a CIA black op?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

38. Satan gets a bad rap. He's just the product tester.

[Christof]

46. I believe it came from God.

Something had to make the Big Bang go, correct? You can't have a reaction without something to start the reaction and/or some sort of catalyst.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

62. My first date who drank too much to get it up

[Cheswick2.0]

66. The big bang never really happened

It's just scientists way of explaining God and creation which they are not evolved enough to understand. It's kind of a black and white explanation for the terminally literal minded.

;-) O8)

[pmbryant]

93. Not quite

It's scientists way of explaining certain observations about the Universe for which no one has proposed a better hypothesis.

The primary pieces of evidence are redshift of galaxies' spectra increasing with increasing distance (the famous "Hubble diagram"), and the big clincher was the cosmic microwave background radiation discovered back in the mid-1960s by Penzias and Wilson.

As to the details of what caused the big bang, or what preceded it, etc etc, that is still a big mystery.

--Peter

[revree]

103. THE BIG GUN

[sangh0]

107. Finally!!!

An answer that makes sense!!!


:evilgrin:

[Westegg]

106. "Words, words, words." ---Hamlet

[name not needed]

110. Al Roker's ass

[Rabrrrrrr]

115. The Clenis!

[Cheswick2.0]

116. from Chris?

That's my story and I am sticking to it. You'd understand if you "knew" Chris.

[auburngrad82]

117. Umm, from a Big Gun?