My take on th Big Bang

There is no meaning to the big bang.
The whole idea is simple backtracking, just playing a movie in reverse.
It started from experimental results. The universe looks like it is moving away from us in all directions.
Now, the simplest explanation for that phenomena is that the universe itself is expanding, therefore from every point of the universe the other points looks like they are moving away.
This is a very elegant and symmetric explanation.
If you accept it, and you run the time backward, you get to a certain time when all the universe is a small dot. Looking a big further and the universe does not exist.
This is the big bang. Nothing more nothing less.

 

The Big Bang Theory does not speculate regarding what existed prior to the singularity. If you see the BBT as a theory of creation, then you quite simply don't have a firm grasp of the BBT.

 

Yep, this is probably the nitty-gritty of how the Big Bang Ball got rolling along. And now, proving the theory has become a virtual industry. Thousands of newly graduated physicists being recruited yearly to join those elite research facilities and universities where they can wile away their lives coming up with theories and hypothesis' that support 'The Bang' which they never have to prove (it's not as if they loose their job if they're wrong and they get paid pretty well for their pointless efforts) They get tenure and grants and get to publish an occasional book or two. Morgan Freeman may quote them on Through the Wormhole. My advise boy...physics...the future is in physics

 

And if you believe that the purpose of science is to provide humanity with "proofs", then you don't really have a firm grasp upon the concept of science.

 

No.. I'm just sayin' 'what a great job' If I had it all to do over again, I'd have gone for physics. Seriously. Great job

 

Many jobs involve physics. All engineering jobs rely upon knowledge of the science of physics.

I took your quote "My advise boy...physics...the future is in physics" as a play on the "plastics" quote from The Graduate. Was that your intention?

 

You nailed it..

 

To my way of thinking what you describe is more of a mystics view. A mystic is someone who seeks to experience god rather than to simply understand the will of, or live in obedience to, god.

There are plenty of christian mystics though, I think C.S. Lewis is a good example.

Be careful to not get too frustrated in your search, philosophy and theology have ways of evading airtight objective proofs.

 

I believe that I constantly "experience God". I AM. That is an existential statement. It transcends both theology and philosophy. That's no longer an issue. I'm on to creatio ex nihilo as opposed to creatio ex materia. A hard hurdle.

 

The BBT is silly because it's based upon the idea that everything was already in existence when it happened. That only works for stars that go supernova. So if everything in the universe had been clumped together it would have been a single tremendous star that exploded, forming a giant nebular gas cloud that eventually formed trillions of stars and solar systems that clumped together in billions of galaxies.

You should also be aware of the fact that when a star goes supernova that its gas does not create several new stars. There simply isn't enough material for that to happen.

The quantum foam theory makes more sense but it's biggest failure is that it does not explain the empty space between galaxies. Such voids should not exist because if the quantum foam theory is real hydrogen gas would be created in those spaces and the voids would be filled with stars.

The bottom line is that there are no theories that can fully explain the universe, except that most of what we see in space is just an optical illusion and doesn't exist at all. If you think about that for a few minutes you will realize that it's true.

 

And does a poor job at that. Do the math. Earth is said to be a few billion years old. The speed of light is believed to be "speed of light - the speed at which light travels in a vacuum; the constancy and universality of the speed of light is recognized by defining it to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second" How many "seconds" have elapsed since the alleged 'Big Bang'? What would be the distance traveled since that Big Bang? Have we got enough paper and ink available to write down the number of zeroes that would be required to put that distance in print (without using scientific notation)?

 

Hmmm... seems that even some of the brilliant mathematicians on this forum cannot meet the challenge above. Doing the math on such a simple problem. As for me.. I am not a mathematician, and make no claim to be able to do perform such a calculation.

 

The universe is estimated to be 14.5 billion years old or so. Therefore the light from the BB has travelled 14.5 Billion light years. in all directions.

Now if you want to write out how many meters that is without using scientific notation, you would need tens of thousands of years to write it down. there isn't enough paper on the planet.

there are 30,758,400 seconds in a year. Multiply that by 14,500,000,000 and then multiply that by 299,792,458 and that number is somewhere around a "yotta" (10 to the 24th)

so what is your point?

 

LOL
So there WAS a 'beginning" of the Universe.
And, in 1940, science just proved, in the discipline of Science, that it did occur.

But you still deny that first direct clear concise statement is now a proven fact.
Right?

(I bet you also laugh at how hard headed the Fundies are about Creationism, too.)

 

The Big Bang does not make any predictions about what did or didn't exist before it happened.

"quantum foam" is hardly a standard cosmological theory as is the big bang. Again, it has little or no relevance to the big bang itself since it deals with behaviours of particles at quantum distances. Particles that thanks to the LHC we can confirm actually exist.

Full spectrum observations of the universe are "optical illusions"? thanks for the laugh. I suggest you stick to scriptures.

 

That is the point of our discussion on these Forums, isn't it?


(You KEEP telling us it,... over and over again.
Your say your claim is dead right,... because you repeat it, again and again.
BUT, here in Gen 1:1, we have scientific evidence it is true.)

 

"The First Cause" was a pretty good idea,... and it WAS The Creator of the Cosmos, by definition.

 

The Big Bang Theory is an accepted "scientific proof" in the discipline of Science.
Gen 1:1 is a "theological proof" that the Universe BEGAN.

Neither statement varies from the other, in spite they say the same thing in two different disciplines.

 

I think he is a candidate for Theistic Evolution Bible Study, myself.

That perspective states that scripture is scientifically correct when one reads the Bible closely.

 

As I contemplate things like the Big Bang, I become less concerned about that particular argument - where we originated. The greater concern to me is where we are now. In that light, it is not so much whether the god of the Bible created the universe, but whether the god of the Bible exists today. As I observe the conditions of the world these days, it is quite obvious to me the Christian god as theists describe is long gone, if he ever existed in the first place. No all-powerful, loving, interactive god at all. At best, a neutral, non-intervening, aloof god. And that god sounds just like the nature of the universe

 

Good...

But, then you must see that something which is NOT you also exists, outside of "you."

Your senses tell you that another entity... (which is not "you,"),... interacts with your senses on every level.
It causes pain and pleasure inside you, too.

That is simply called "Reality."

Reality also exists!!

 

You just read the Bible blindly and missed the MAIN POINT... Christ is "Truth."

Truth is the son of the ever unfolding Reality.
Truth is the ONLY thing which tells what Reality is and what it looks like.

Truth is our messiah and savior, therefore.

 

Well... as the teacher used to say in school... 'you have to show your work, so that I can determine whether or not you followed the correct procedures in obtaining the result.'

 

But the Universe did have a beginning at some moment in time,... right.

 

Are you asking or declaring? I notice that there is no question mark in your posting.