My take on th Big Bang

I may be placing this thread in the wrong section. But here it is anyway..move it if you must. I wile away my time contemplating virtually useless topics. Last night I contemplated the Big Bang. Now, I'm certainly not a physicist and my knowledge of astrophysics is limited at best resulting in the extreme possibility that 'what I contemplated on was construed of mis-information to a large degree. But please bear with me.

If the universe began at the moment of the Big Bang; prior to which nothing existed, (Matter, energy, time and the laws of physics) but everything that now exists was compressed into a miniscule point (that actually didn't exist either if the former is correct) Liken that to a period (.) on page one of an encyclopedia containing all the information in that encyclopedia. Nothing else being on the page but the period (.). Then, at the moment of creation (the Big Bang) Matter, energy, time and those laws of physics exploded out into the surrounding endless void. ( The period (.) exploded and became 24 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.). Now, for some reason or other, those elegant 'laws of physics' were suspended for a short while as everything else was sorting themselves out. Matter and energy were hurled out into the void at speeds greater than 186,000 miles per second (the self imposed speed limit). It would seem that 2 objects were able to occupy the same place at the same time. (Maybe 'time' hadn't yet kicked in 100%). Matter segregated itself into elements. All the forces that keep the Universe up and running were establishing their influence. All the pieces and parts of the Grand puzzle were finding their
like' partners and forming molecular structure. [I'll be gold, you 'll be silver and that one there will be helium]. Some energy hid itself away inside of the newly constructed matter. Some energy wandered freely in the newly created space that separated one clump of matter from another. Once things were in some semblance of order. The Big Bang entered into the next phase. Expansion. or 'inflation'. The 'self imposed speed limit' was now put in effect and the Big Bang started it's journey into the void. It traveled in all directions away from it's point of origin. Slowly and steadily getting larger and larger; like a balloon being inflated. The balloon itself expanding in circumference. The clumps of matter and energy on the surface of the balloon growing further and further away from their neighboring clumps of matter and energy. Thankfully, one of the newly created forces was gravity. Gravity kicked in, very subtley. Just enough to keep the clumps of matter together, not enough to allow the clumps of matter to crash back into a central point. The 'New Universe' had organized itself very elegantly. Everything was proceeding according to plan (except there was no plan, it 'just happened')

Now all this is missing a boatload of scientific information and facts and figures. It makes short of so much intricacy. There are many technical errors, but I think that a point was still made. That point being; what exactly is being explained by the Big Bang Theory? In all it's elegance, it's yet to explain where the initial 'point of origin of the Universe' came from. (Where did the 'period' (.) on page one come from?). I don't know about you, but I'm simply not satisfied by the Big Bang Theory. It may address what happened directly after the Big Bang. But it doesn't address what happened before the Big Bang. It asks you to 'have faith'. Just accept that the minute point that expanded and became our Universe, was there. How it got there and where it came from? Well, just 'Have Faith'.

How different than "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", is it? Not much. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", just doesn't contain an explanation as to 'how that was done' One just has to 'have faith'.

 

The problem is that we don't have access to information that existed prior to the Big Bang. That said, there is no reason to believe that the Big Bang represents the beginning of eternity. Neither is there any inherent reason to believe that the Universe even requires a "creation event" in order to exist. For all we know, the Big Bang merely represents the transition of the collapse of the previous iteration of the Universe to the expansion of it's current iteration. Why should an eternal past be considered any less likely than is an eternal future?

 

The big bang theory was never meant to explain or look into what happened before itself...Just as the creation story was never meant to explain where God came from.

 

First off I really liked the period exploding into 24 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica... great analogy. But none of this proves the existence of God nor does it even suggest or hint towards a theological intangible. All we know of the instant before the Big Bang is punctuated by a giant question mark. We can theorize and hypothesize till our hearts content and this still does nothing to prove anything. The hypothesis that relies upon the fewest assumptions does not always lead us to the correct answer. We are scientific noobs as all our collective knowledge on physics falls apart when we try to explain black holes. I would gamble to say that which we understand is dwarfed by that which we are ignorant of.

As a Deist I believe in God, but you will never here me argue that God exists as I have not a single shred of evidence to back my case.

 

Wasn't meant to. The intent was to point out that as eloquent the argument is supporting the Big Bang, All the science to date doesn't prove the theory. It explains the 'mechanics'. period.

 

You do know it was a priest, that first came up with the theory, don't you??? My own opinion is that the U in some manner has always existed, probably much as it is today and will last well into eternity, however you define eternity.

This even if a famous scientist once said is true... "for all we know it came from some lab experiment" in an alternative existence....

 

Well, first of all, it's not so much like a full stop expanding to the encyclopedia britannica, it's more like the space character, " " expanding to the same, in that it did not require the original constituent to have any specific features, and that the original character may well be void of information or anything else you might want to impose on it. The original character didn't have to be anything in particular and consequentially did not necessarily require a separate creation.

Similarly, the laws of nature were (although this is according to popular scientific thought rather than according to scientific results) not suspended, just applied in a way which we do not commonly see today. If a man kills a bug and does not get arrested for manslaughter, it is not because the law about manslaughter is suspended, it's because it doesn't apply in this case.

You are right in that the Big Bang does not address the creation of the original smidgeon (as mentioned, it doesn't even claim that there was one in the way you seem to imply). Even if you were able to argue for some feature of the primordial period, its nonexistence would not be an issue for the Big Bang theory as such. It may indeed have some impact on the world view on those who hold the Big Bang to be true, but not by actually addressing the question of whether the Big Bang happened. If you're questioning what supposedly happened before the Big Bang, you should be saying that rather than trying to pin the problem on the Big Bang.

How is that different to "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"? I guess it isn't. As my position has been on the subject for some time, that statement isn't particularly interesting until you make some interesting statements about God, and once that happens, my beef is usually with those statements rather than whether or not the concepts proposed can be said to have created the world.

 

You did pretty well with this.
Your question seems to be "Why?"

What reason had God for creating the Cosmos in the beginning, when he formed the heaven followed by the Earth over time.

From what we read in the Bible, it was Truth he wanted to create, in His wake, as the Reality he represents unfolded.

 

Don't forget that Energy can be transformed into the Matter which formed this cosmos.
So, Energy which is not Matter, nor in need of Space/time to contain it pre-existed the Universe.

Furthermore, the reason for the Theory of the Big Bang is that all Galaxies can be seen speeding away from one another, coming from the same single one point in Space where they are all fleeing.

The galaxies are like the fragments of a hand grenade exploding into parts.
Back tracking these parts leads to the one point from which they all seem to be coming from.
The point is a place on a made made Cartesian map of the Universe, which is not a thing, itself, but just a location where this energy changed.

 

Right,...

It just is a "proof" of Gen 1:1, which is a statement that claimed the Big Bang happened, in spite of all the people before who insisted that the universe had always been there before 1940, when Edwin Hubble discovered the evidence for the BB.


Gen. 1:1 In (the Formative/Cosmology Era), the beginning, (Elohim, creator, The Uncaused First Cause of all which followed), “God, ” (the Theistic Absolute Energy, pre-existing the material Universe), created (the Big Bang, in the Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2), the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (congealing accretion ’disk), Earth.

 

That's just nonsensical as the Big Bang is not proof of Gen 1:1, nor is Gen 1:1 proof of the Big Bang.

A beautiful yet meaningless reinterpretation of the Bible.

 

The big bang is just a theory, and theoretical physicist still argue its validity. The universe may be infinite. Meaning no "big" big bang, just a local phenomenon.

The laws of physics either apply universally or we have a multiverse. Meaning that once we get to the edge of our universe we find their simply is no edge or we find out that the laws of physics have changed. (and we die... sweet sweet knowledge...)

The shape of the universe is pretty hard to understand if you listen to these guys, but how can you describe the shape of something so enormously dynamic??

Pushing faith into science is not useful. Why prove something you know?

 

Thanks. Not too bad if I say so meownself. I have a theory on 'why' as well. But that would take some stretching. Well, maybe not too much stretching. Stay tuned..I just might post that too.

 

It's more a mental exercise for me.

 

Do you have an idea of god?

Are you a christian who explores theology, or a mystic?

 

I have an idea concerning God, yes. I'm no longer a Christian although raised and schooled Catholic. I had a passing flirtation with theology many many years ago. And... do we really know what constitutes a mystic? Isn't anyone with a curious nature somewhat mystical?

 

Not a christian? Okay. Catholic school? (I used to watch the black and white recordings of some crazy cardinal made for teens. Not that crazy I hope.)

An idea concerning god and an idea of god are entirely different. What is your idea concerning god?

Any religious faith has to deny contradictory spiritual ideas, it cannot accept spiritual experience that falls outside the boundaries it describes. A christian theist takes the things they find in theology and applies them to christianity. A mystic just takes them for what they are.

Curiosity is a wonderful thing, but for most people it has almost nothing to do with this stuff.

 

So, a "beginning of the Universe isn't parallel to the Big Bang idea?

The "other" interpretation of Gen 1:1 would be what...?

 

LOL

That is worse than the YECs ideas against Evolution...

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang‎
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the early .... The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM ..... observational evidence of the validity of the theory are the expansion of the ...

How Sure are we that the Big Bang is Correct? – Starts With A Bang
scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/.../how-sure-are-we-that-the-big-b/‎
Aug 21, 2009 ...

The answer is that not only is the Big Bang the best theory to explain the .... on fact that supports the Big Bang Theory and that is the red-shifting ...


Big Bang Theory - body, Earth, chemical, form, energy, gas, system ...
www.scienceclarified.com/As-Bi/Big-Bang-Theory.html‎
The big bang is the foremost model that scientists use to describe the ... added further supporting evidence to the validity of the big bang...

 

Reality, itself, is almighty over us.
"His" son is Truth,... which "He" sires in "His" own image, as "He" unfolds from moment to moment.

 

It's just the boot cycle of our virtul universe. Throw in a couple of trillions of metric tons of hydrogen, helium, a little lithium, and the laws of physics, and the rest naturally follows. Because them's the rules.

 

Sure there is a parallel but a parallel it not the same as proof. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"; perhaps you see proof of the big bang there but all I see is the intro into a long boring work of fiction. Many books of fiction have parallels with the real world but they are still just works of fiction.

Its a book written by man, for man, that at best contains mans interpretation of God, thus those who read the Bible are left to interpret the interpretations of long dead men who may or may not have been objective in their writings. See?Its clear as mud.

 

The Big Bang Theory is a Catholic priest's explanation of creation using scientific jargon while retaining elements of the "God did it theory". It's silly.

A more reasonable explanation for creation is the quantum foam theory. It means that matter is everywhere. It also means that the process of creation isn't over and that things will become more complex as time passes.

 

If you remove the God element is it still silly? I say that the BBT is a valid theory but leaves the cause as a big ?

A valid theory in and of itself.

 

After giving these questions some thought, I suppose I'd describe myself as an existentialist. Maybe as one who has lost faith (ex-Catholic), but would like to get it back. I think that I want to believe but just can't seem to manage doing that in the accepted conventional way. Kierkegaardian possibly. I really don't give it much thought, I am what I am and don't find a need to categorize it. My 'relationship' with God and the Universe is definitely existential. As to my being a 'mystic' (?), you'd have to define what you mean by mystic. For me, anyone that questions 'the mysteries', be they scientific or spiritual, and attempts to delve into them, is a 'mystic'. By wanting to retrieve my 'lost faith', it would have to be on my terms. I would require an 'intermingling' of the physical and the metaphysical. Religion and science all wrapped up into one tight little package. I've attempted to do this for myself and have succeeded to some extent. But there are still too many loose ends. I need to know what happened prior to the 'beginning'. Or, if indeed there ever was a 'beginning', before I could solidify my 'personal philosophy. So....I am a 'work in progress' I suppose.