Printable View
Did the big bang happen? i know its the accepted theory for the creation of the universe but ive found an interesting site that though creationist has some interesting scientific problems with this theory
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclo...s%20Big%20Bang
Im not professing to have found evidense that the big bang didn't happen the site just looks interesting
though i totally disagree with creationism, i really could never grasp the big bang. i've delved into astonomical sciences and hsve been interested , quantum theory, einstein, multiple universes via quantum forms, and i have tried and many times succeeded in graspin these theorys and understanding them but the biug bang always seemed wrong to me, way to simple but its not like anyone has anything contrary...other than god...which is a load o crap.:2thumbsup:
the site has more, it does apear quite genuine and not a load of creationist nutters as i first thought.
Edit here is an interesting quote from the same site:
[QUOTE/] Why is our earth and the other planets full of the heavier elements, whereas the stars are not? This is a mystery the Big Bang theory cannot explain.
"Apart from hydrogen and helium, all other elements are extremely rare, all over the universe. In the sun they [the heavier elements] amount to only about one percent of the total mass . . The contrast [of the sun's light elements with the heavy ones found on earth] brings out two important points.
"First, we see that material torn from the sun would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them. Its composition would be hopelessly wrong. And our second point in this contrast is that it is the sun that is normal and the earth that is the freak. The interstellar gas and most of the stars are composed of material like the sun, not like the earth. You must understand that, cosmically speaking, the room you are now sitting in is made of the wrong stuff. You yourself are a rarity. You are a cosmic collector's piece." —*Fred C. Hoyle, Harper's Magazine, April 1951, p. 64. [QUOTE]
there correct about the rarity of our elements but that can be explained, there should be 10 planets, but one has yet to be formed... its the asteroid belt, there are just as many elements concentrate din that belt as ther is in 2 earths, why do these two element rich areas form where they do? well we are close to the sun, enough so to keep us in orbit where the elements will not be broken up, and the asteroid belt is in the shadow of jupiter. gravity draws the denser matter into clumps which is drawn to the larger parts of the soplar system.
Umm, in 1951 Fred Hoyle was pushing a steady state theory, and absolutely key evidence for the big bang (eg the cosmic background radiation) had not even been discovered (and wouldn't be until 1965). If they can't come up with something better than that...
More fundamentally I refuse to engage with sites that argue thus: If I can find one issue which your model does not explain, then your model is wrong, and my model wins by default.
On the other hand people who find problems with models AND put forward their own model which has fewer problems have my full attention.
This link is really irritating. Some of the assertions are nonsense (for example #1); some show a complete misunderstanding of basic science (for example #3); others apply classical physics to a system that can only be analysed using general relativity and quantum mechanids (for example #4); others merely repeat the same nonsense as a previous point (#6 and #7 are the same wrong idea); a very few identify genuine difficulties with the theory that physicists are working to solve (for example #37)
The whole premise of the article is that the big bang theory was invented by godless people to hoodwink others. Once you read that, you know how many pinches of salt to take with what you read.
The Asteriod Belt was stopped in becoming a planet early on by Jupiter's enormous gravitational pull on it, it was more than enough to keep the asteroids orbiting the sun,so for it to form a planet (or two) jupiter would have to be farther away enough for the gravity to have no effect :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by master of the puppets
Probably. There are some respectable scientists who disagree with it for a number of valid reasons. Once I had the privilege of attending a lecture by John Dobson, inventor of the Dobsonian telescope, who listed several flaws with the Big Bang, and supports a steady statet universe.
Nonetheless, I still believe in the Big Bang, though I have not extensively studied it.
Crazed Rabbit
Maybe, maybe not. No one knows for sure. I think thats the best theory.:book:
The Big Bang Theory was first proposed in 1915 byGeorges LeMaitre who deduced from Einstein's laws of gravity and the laws of Entropy an expanding universe that is becoming more chaotic over time.
In 1929 Edwin Hubble who the Hubble telescope is named after found that the galaxies were moving away from each other.
With more study of the idea of an initial Big Bang the idea that there would be a residual heat to this explosion came about. In 1964 the cosmic background radiation of the universe was found that confirmed this idea.
The Big Bang Theory also neatly deals with the ratio of neutrons to protons and why we have so much light metals compared with heavy ones.
I thought the Big Bang happened because all matter in the universe was clumped in one spot, and then exploded.
but whta sparked it?
From what little I know, it could be described as simple as "pressure." Imagine an incredibly small in volume, but unimaginably powerful implosion of massive amounts of mass which causes the "Bang."Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
The universe is an area mankind has little true knowledge of, so, for now, it seems the evidences point out to the Big Bang as the most plausible theory.
The link raises some good questions, but most are garbage. :no:
I accept the Big Bang as the best explanation the current state of science has to offer. The Big Bang, like the vastness of space or the female mind, is beyond man's comprehension, but therefore not beyond man's understanding.
So according to these guys fog, cannot become rain.Quote:
1 - Not squeezable. Nothingness cannot pack itself together. Try packing some fog into a star. Gas in outer space is millions of times more rarefied (thinner) in density than terrestrial fog—yet, billions of times by merest chance, it is supposed to have accomplished the trick.—p. 15.
So point 1 disproved and their whole model must be flawed and therefore the Big Bang is correct... to use their level of proof. :laugh4:
Singularity... Black Hole.Quote:
2 - Not stoppable. There would be no mechanism to push nothingness to a single point, and then stop it there.—p. 15.
Heh, heh that was funny :laugh4:Quote:
3 - Nothing to explode it. There would be no match, no fire to explode nothingness.—pp. 15-16.
Holy Vader they are being serious :no: :wall: :dizzy2: . I think they took the idea of the Big Bang and thought BBQ, light some gas and it blows up. No dears it means that the Universe expanded quickly, kind of like someones belt size when they hit the mid thirties. It isn't a fire so it didn't require a match.
Umm it wasn't just Energy, Matter and Time that was created at the Big Bang, but also like dude Space :2thumbsup: . A vacuum can expand or contract... otherwise depressurisation could not occur.Quote:
4 - No way to expand it. There would be no way to push (explode) nothingness outward. A total vacuum can neither contract nor expand. According to the laws of physics, it takes energy to do work, and there is no energy in emptiness.—p. 16.
Ah Dude would you know like Gravity slow the expansion. :2thumbsup:Quote:
5 - No way to slow it. If it could explode outward, there would be no way to later slow outward, exploding gas in frictionless space.—p. 16.
I have no idea what this bit is referring to, but I assume they are not talking about pressure creating a liquid gas... like used in cars. Or cold regions making gas into liquids or even gosh darn solids. It did take awhile for matter to solidify after the big bang... during which the ratio of neutrons to protons was effected due to the different radioactive decay rates of the two...Quote:
6 - No way to clump it. It is impossible for gas to clump together on earth, much less in outer space without gravity. Gas moves from high density to low density, not the other way around.—p. 16.
Nope, even a gas has gravity. It is matter therefore it exerts a pull. Kind of like Newtonian dude.Quote:
7 - No way to produce stars. There is no way by which gas could clump itself into stars, planets, and galaxies. Only after a star has been formed, can it hold itself together by gravity.—p. 16.
etc
wow Papewaio, you might have well of just gone up and kicked them in the nuts, cause i think there feeling it.
post this there and see what they say.
but your right, even if i still find it hard to get, not the single space, or expansion or movement and astronomical radiation, but more that all matter came into being from a single atom, i doubt such complexity, even if it formed much later and started out as a gas, can be achieved from such a confined space. i would rather imagine that instead of it all being produced in a single moment that it casme into being gradully like a water tap, but i doubt theres any evedence against or for it...except that the levels of radiation from that one point is constant and does not disperse.
A note on "nothingness":
Nothing is actually something. I'm not kidding, I went to school for years to learn this!
Nothing (the quantum vacuum) can be thought of as an infinite number of energy states; all the states up to a certain energy are filled, all above it are empty. If we add a bit of energy, a particle in a filled level gets promoted to a higher energy state. It is now observable as a particle, and the newly emptied state becomes a "hole", which is observable as an anti-particle.
Actually, we don't need to add any energy - the uncertainty principal implies that the energy in a system can fluctuate within some time interval. The shorter the time interval, the greater the fluctuation can be. So, we can have particle-anti particle pairs popping out of the vacuum and being reabsorbed all the time. This is known as vacuum instability, and the calculation of fundamental physical constants relies on the existence of this phenomenon.
Anyway, the idea is that the Big Bang grew out of something like a vacuum instability. And it gets worse (of course): the Big Bang is not just a bunch of hot stuff being blasted out into space. It requires space-time itself to expand into...what? Prior to the Big Bang there was no space-time, or at least not ours.
Bottom line: The Big Bang theory is consistent with our observations ( cosmic background radiation, red shift measurements) of the universe and has no real competitors.
Its a waste of time. The world is full of morons, what are we going to do, argue with them all?Quote:
post this there and see what they say
If they were just ignorant it might be worth it but they actually want to beleive this cobblers for a faith based reason.
Smiting is the only langauge they understand.
well, it looks like they have padded out a few holes in the theory with a lot of nonsense then, but what about this passage about red shift, im sure ive heard these ideas before:
again im not saying i agree with this site i just think its good to be sceptical about all scientific theorys
[QUOTE]
REDSHIFT AND THE BIG BANG
3 reasons why the speed theory of redshift is incorrect. The speed theory of redshift is said to be the other primary evidence that a Big Bang occurred. But scientific facts clearly disprove this theory also.
According to how far away they are, light from the stars is pushed toward the red end of the color spectrum. The amount of skewing is proportional to the distance to the star which sent the light ray to us. What is the cause of this shift toward the red? Evolutionists rely on a disproved theory (the speed theory) of the redshift in an effort to show there was a Big Bang. Accepting the speed theory makes it appear that the universe is expanding (the expanding universe theory). The evolutionists need an expanding universe, because their theory teaches that everything flowed outward from the Big Bang—which is proven by the fact that the universe is still moving outward. But the speed theory is incorrect, so the universe is not expanding.
Claims of a lumpy background radiation and the foolish "speed theory of the redshift" are the two primary evidences used to prove that there once was a Big Bang. But, like claims for background radiation, the speed theory is false evidence, based on a misinterpretation of the data. There are other theories which explain the redshift much better.—p. 34.
The speed redshift. Also called the "Doppler theory of redshift" this speed theory supports the evolutionary position, and therefore is tenaciously clung to by the evolutionists. According to it, the farther that stars are from our planet, the faster they are moving away from us.—pp. 34-35.
1 - The other explanations of the redshift better agree with the facts. Now all agree that the distance of our planet to the star has something to do with the redshift. Aside from the speed theory, there are three other possible explanations. The speed theory has several flaws; but each of the following three possibilities are based on solid, known scientific facts. Singly or together, they provide a much better explanation of the redshift:
[1] Gravitational redshifts. Light rays from the stars must travel vast distances to reach us. It has been proven that the pull of gravity, from the stars the light rays pass, could indeed cause a loss in light-wave energy—thus moving that light toward the red on the spectrum. Einstein was the first to predict that gravity would affect starlight, and this was shown to be true in the 1960s.—p. 35.
Albert Einstein was the first to predict that gravity would be able to affect the transmission of light. This fact could easily explain the redshifts which have been found.—p. 42.
[2] Second-order Doppler shift. It is known that a light source moving at right angles to an observer will be redshifted. Compare this fact with the known fact that all stars are definitely circling galaxies. In addition, many scientists suspect that, just as all planets and stars are kept in position by orbiting, so, for purposes of stability, the entire universe is probably circling a common center!—pp. 35-36.
[3] Energy-loss shift. Light waves could themselves lose energy as they travel across the long distances of space. This is called "tired light." The energy-loss shift is probably the primary cause of the redshift.—p. 36.
2 - The Arp Discoveries. *Halton C. Arp, of the Mount Wilson and Las Campanas Observatories, made several discoveries which threaten to overturn stellar evolutionary theories, especially those concerning the speed theory of the redshift. Here are several of them:
[1] Bridged galaxies disprove the speed redshift theory. Arp has found connected galaxies which have different redshifts.—p. 36.
[2] Quasers disprove the speed redshift theory. Quasers with one redshift have been found alongside galaxies with a different redshift.—p. 37.
[3] Summarizing the Arp discoveries. Arp has found differential redshifts associated with over 260 galaxies, and has published a catalog of hundreds of discordant redshifts. But his work has been ignored. Arp says that energy loss ("tired light") is the cause of the redshifts.—pp. 37-38.
Getting rid of the opposition. Halton Arp was eventually fired for presenting evidence contrary to the Big Bang theory.—pp. 43-44.
3 - There are several other evidences that the speed theory is incorrect:
[1] Slight blueness of distant galaxies. According to evolutionary theory, the bluest stars are the youngest, and, therefore, the most distant stars should be the bluest. But they are just like the nearest ones.—pp. 38-39.
[2] Redshift distance multiples. An oddity has been discovered that does not agree with the speed theory, but could fit into the energy-loss theory: Stars tend to be most often located at certain distances from us! This totally defies the speed theory. But it may be that starlight loses energy as it travels, and this weakening especially reveals itself at multiples of 72 kps [42 mps].—p. 39.
[3] Galactic shape factor. When elliptical galaxies are in the same cluster with spiral galaxies (and therefore the same distance from us), the spirals will have a higher redshift. The second-order Doppler shift would explain this, but not the speed theory.—p. 39.
[4] Photons slow down. Arp and his associates have shown that photons (unit pieces of starlight) actually do slow down as they travel toward us. Evolutionists refuse to accept this fact, because it would destroy their "expanding universe" theory.—pp. 39-40.
Only one stellar distance measurement is reliable. Keep in mind that only one method of ascertaining stellar distances is accurate. It is the parallax method, which can only be used on a few of the closest stars. So, other than relying on the discredited speed theory, there is no other way to tell whether distant stars are moving away from us or not.—p. 40.
[QUOTE]
It's kind of ironic that they're attacking it, essentially because they are trying to keep their religious beliefs, since christian and islamic scholars accept it as a possible way that God created the universe...
oh, i agree, the big bang fits in perfectly with christianity, as does evolution, which is why i get annoyed when people recon it disproves god!
Where is the speed theory disproven ?Quote:
REDSHIFT AND THE BIG BANG
3 reasons why the speed theory of redshift is incorrect. The speed theory of redshift is said to be the other primary evidence that a Big Bang occurred. But scientific facts clearly disprove this theory also.
According to how far away they are, light from the stars is pushed toward the red end of the color spectrum. The amount of skewing is proportional to the distance to the star which sent the light ray to us. What is the cause of this shift toward the red? Evolutionists rely on a disproved theory (the speed theory) of the redshift in an effort to show there was a Big Bang. Accepting the speed theory makes it appear that the universe is expanding (the expanding universe theory). The evolutionists need an expanding universe, because their theory teaches that everything flowed outward from the Big Bang—which is proven by the fact that the universe is still moving outward. But the speed theory is incorrect, so the universe is not expanding.
It's still a very popular and virtually undisputed theory afaik.
Actually, the Doppler effect can be witnessed with all waves, i wonder how they'll explain the on sound waves then.Quote:
The speed redshift. Also called the "Doppler theory of redshift" this speed theory supports the evolutionary position, and therefore is tenaciously clung to by the evolutionists. According to it, the farther that stars are from our planet, the faster they are moving away from us.—pp. 34-35.
Actually, it just has to do with the speed, the distance is just a side effect.Quote:
1 - The other explanations of the redshift better agree with the facts. Now all agree that the distance of our planet to the star has something to do with the redshift.
Let's see then...Quote:
Aside from the speed theory, there are three other possible explanations. The speed theory has several flaws; but each of the following three possibilities are based on solid, known scientific facts. Singly or together, they provide a much better explanation of the redshift:
Possibly, I don't know enough of quantum and whatnot physics to really judge thisQuote:
[1] Gravitational redshifts. Light rays from the stars must travel vast distances to reach us. It has been proven that the pull of gravity, from the stars the light rays pass, could indeed cause a loss in light-wave energy—thus moving that light toward the red on the spectrum. Einstein was the first to predict that gravity would affect starlight, and this was shown to be true in the 1960s.—p. 35.
Albert Einstein was the first to predict that gravity would be able to affect the transmission of light. This fact could easily explain the redshifts which have been found.—p. 42.
So normal Doppler effect is bull but second order is great ?Quote:
[2] Second-order Doppler shift. It is known that a light source moving at right angles to an observer will be redshifted. Compare this fact with the known fact that all stars are definitely circling galaxies. In addition, many scientists suspect that, just as all planets and stars are kept in position by orbiting, so, for purposes of stability, the entire universe is probably circling a common center!—pp. 35-36.
Well, thats seems highly hypothetical...Quote:
[3] Energy-loss shift. Light waves could themselves lose energy as they travel across the long distances of space. This is called "tired light." The energy-loss shift is probably the primary cause of the redshift.—p. 36.
So we have one person opposing the theory, surely he must be right ?Quote:
2 - The Arp Discoveries. *Halton C. Arp, of the Mount Wilson and Las Campanas Observatories, made several discoveries which threaten to overturn stellar evolutionary theories, especially those concerning the speed theory of the redshift. Here are several of them:
[1] Bridged galaxies disprove the speed redshift theory. Arp has found connected galaxies which have different redshifts.—p. 36.
[2] Quasers disprove the speed redshift theory. Quasers with one redshift have been found alongside galaxies with a different redshift.—p. 37.
[3] Summarizing the Arp discoveries. Arp has found differential redshifts associated with over 260 galaxies, and has published a catalog of hundreds of discordant redshifts. But his work has been ignored. Arp says that energy loss ("tired light") is the cause of the redshifts.—pp. 37-38.
Getting rid of the opposition. Halton Arp was eventually fired for presenting evidence contrary to the Big Bang theory.—pp. 43-44.
Redshift is probably far from perfect, but I still don't see how they have disproved the normal doppler effect...
My patience gets rewarded !Quote:
3 - There are several other evidences that the speed theory is incorrect:
First of all this doesn't disprove the redshift theory but points out a problem with the standard big bang theory. If it really is one.Quote:
[1] Slight blueness of distant galaxies. According to evolutionary theory, the bluest stars are the youngest, and, therefore, the most distant stars should be the bluest. But they are just like the nearest ones.—pp. 38-39.
And why do they keep referring to 'evolusionist' theories ? It's getting silly.
Once again, this does nothing to the speed theory, it just says the observations made with the theory don't fit into the general big bang theory too well. And I'm not sure about that, wouldn't gravity cause agglomeration of stars ? The weakening they speak of could also be due to measuring methods or equipement.Quote:
[2] Redshift distance multiples. An oddity has been discovered that does not agree with the speed theory, but could fit into the energy-loss theory: Stars tend to be most often located at certain distances from us! This totally defies the speed theory. But it may be that starlight loses energy as it travels, and this weakening especially reveals itself at multiples of 72 kps [42 mps].—p. 39.
How about a combination of the two, wouldn't that explain even more ?Quote:
[3] Galactic shape factor. When elliptical galaxies are in the same cluster with spiral galaxies (and therefore the same distance from us), the spirals will have a higher redshift. The second-order Doppler shift would explain this, but not the speed theory.—p. 39.
Why ? Do they emit some sort of radiation ?Quote:
[4] Photons slow down. Arp and his associates have shown that photons (unit pieces of starlight) actually do slow down as they travel toward us. Evolutionists refuse to accept this fact, because it would destroy their "expanding universe" theory.—pp. 39-40.
I still haven't seen them discrediting it...at most add a few side remarks.Quote:
Only one stellar distance measurement is reliable. Keep in mind that only one method of ascertaining stellar distances is accurate. It is the parallax method, which can only be used on a few of the closest stars. So, other than relying on the discredited speed theory, there is no other way to tell whether distant stars are moving away from us or not.—p. 40.
As doc-bean was into, almost everything about the variation of the red-shift has to do with the objects own speed compared to earth, known as the Doppler-effect.
The whole speed theory (as they refer it to) was because they found that every spectrum was red-shifted a bit compared from what other calculations showed. Even those stars moving toward us wasn't as blueshifted as they were supposed to be.
What existed before the big bang?
If Stephen Hawking is right (or Karl Popper for that matter) its a literally meaningless question.
Sort of like the existance of god.Quote:
The Big Bang, like the vastness of space or the female mind, is beyond man's comprehension, but therefore not beyond man's understanding.
Exactly.Quote:
oh, i agree, the big bang fits in perfectly with christianity, as does evolution, which is why i get annoyed when people recon it disproves god!
I think this may help the discussion.
Hawking lecture
About Hawking
Quote:
Stephen Hawking has worked on the basic laws which govern the universe. With Roger Penrose he showed that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity implied space and time would have a beginning in the Big Bang and an end in black holes.
There are issues with the big bang theory. Like stars which are clearly billions of years old being in galaxies from a period when the universe was only a billion-odd years old. But who knows. Might be errors.
It certainly seems a more substantiated theory than 'god did it', which is such a nice catch-all that it would cripple progress if it ever catches on properly.
"Hey, I don't understand that... I could look into it, but it's less effort if I just blame God."
only a minority of religious people think like thisQuote:
Originally Posted by BDC
This is a theory that is often presented as fact, i would rather that we didn't know what caused the creation of the universe then believd an incorrect theory (if the big bang theory is incorrect, it would seem that it just has a few holes at the moment, so i guess its still the best explanation)
Here's an interesting article that relates to this topic. It’ a new method of measuring dark matter and its push/pull effect on the expanding/steady state universe.
http://www.newscientistspace.com/art...-constant.html
So what do we believe here? Creatio ex nihilo or eternalism?
Neither. Just Creatio. There wasn't a Creatio ex nihilo, a creation out of nothing, because there wasn't even enough to call it a nothing. Nothing eludes the human mind as it can only concieve of it as the absense of something. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
Edit: well that doesn't make any sense, does it?
https://img202.imageshack.us/img202/...inghead5aj.gifhttps://img202.imageshack.us/img202/...inghead5aj.gifhttps://img202.imageshack.us/img202/...inghead5aj.gifhttps://img202.imageshack.us/img202/...inghead5aj.gifhttps://img202.imageshack.us/img202/...inghead5aj.gif
https://img202.imageshack.us/img202/...inghead5aj.gifhttps://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6907/freakout1fq.gifhttps://img202.imageshack.us/img202/...inghead5aj.gif
https://img202.imageshack.us/img202/...inghead5aj.gifhttps://img202.imageshack.us/img202/...inghead5aj.gifhttps://img202.imageshack.us/img202/...inghead5aj.gifhttps://img202.imageshack.us/img202/...inghead5aj.gifhttps://img202.imageshack.us/img202/...inghead5aj.gif
surely there is nothing that can be created out of nothing, unless nothing is something!
:dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2:
No scientist choosing his words carefully would ever present as theory as a fact. One of the ironies of the religious assaults that you and Gawain (thankfully) disavow is that they imagine that the scientists make the sorts of claim to "know" that in fact are the exclusive province of the religious. If they understiood the scientific process beter they could feel a lot more relaxed about it (as you and big G clearly do)Quote:
This is a theory that is often presented as fact, i would rather that we didn't know what caused the creation of the universe then believd an incorrect theory
But I'm afraid your second sentence is a manifesto for defeat. If I refused to believe in anything I didn't understand completely and wasn't sure was correct I wouldn't have much to believe in. I'm not even sure I could believe in 2+2=4, since I have had dreams in which I have completely settled some impossibly difficult mathematical problem, only to realise on waking that I had obviously done no such thing. I MIGHT be similarly deluded about even simple maths.
And my final point, perhaps reading too much into your words, is the big bang theory will never tell us what CAUSED the universe, only how it happened. Why things were that way is not an answerable question (the anthropic principle aside, and that has always seems unpersuaive to me). So you can readily put God in there, and who knows, depending on what you mean by god why not?
And how was God created...~;)Quote:
surely there is nothing that can be created out of nothing, unless nothing is something!
Ah, and so the impossibility of death in the mind of something living. These are deep waters, Watson.Quote:
Nothing eludes the human mind as it can only concieve of it as the absense of something.
Seriously, does anyone have a link or an answer to this question? I have oftenly thought about how the universe was created, but never about how God started to exist. Or do Christians believe that God has always existed, even billions of billions of years into the enternity of the past?Quote:
And how was God created...
Edit: thank God for Google :grin:
(continue as you were)Quote:
A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’
So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:
1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.
Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time — God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.
Funny, the reply why God doesn't need a cause can just as well be used be applied to the statement "the universe doesn't need a creator', without the Bible quotes of course.
It's funny how people seem to need the notion of a sentient being creating the universe.
Oh, i didn't mean don't believe any theory thats not completely certain, just always allow for the possibility that it is not true. I see all the theories that now include the big bang and wonder what if the big bang didn't happen or occurred in a way different from the way we now think it happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Im only saying that the big bang shouldn't be presented as the only possibility as it seems (on the whole) that it is, to those outside the scientific community.
To clarify even more i still think that the big bang is the best existing model for the universes creation, im just open to other possibilities.
As for your question about god being created from nothing i don't think there necessarily ever was nothing, thats my point, as duke John's Quote has said time is as linked to our universe as the other dimensions, god is outside of time.