Da big bang

[Kadagar_AV]

Why cant we leave faith out of the science forum?

It is 2009, not 1909 or 1809.

If there is a creator I am sure science will find him. Till then can we leave religious superstition out of this forum? Again: Out of this SCIENCE forum.

[Moros]

Why cant we leave faith out of the science forum?

It is 2009, not 1909 or 1809.

If there is a creator I am sure science will find him. Till then can we leave religious superstition out of this forum? Again: Out of this SCIENCE forum.

Though you could call me an atheist, personally I don't think science and religion can't go hand in hand. They just have to be seperated and not intermixed when practicing science. When not practicing science you can make your own image based on a combination of both, but while practising it you should indeed not let (a) god or the idea of (a) god influence you. Science doesn't deny the existence of a god or gods. Science isn't about excluding ideas, but about proving or acknowleding theories if they are scientificly proven or at least supported and probable, based on the scientific method, Ockham, empiric evidence,... You can believe in god, but you can't say god exist in science unless using scientific methods first for proving or supporting such a theory first. And if you can't do the latter it's merely the scienitific way of not involving suspicions that yet have scientific base. The thruth about the matter not being questioned.

[Ibrahim]

Though you could call me an atheist, personally I don't think science and religion can't go hand in hand. They just have to be seperated and not intermixed when practicing science. When not practicing science you can make your own image based on a combination of both, but while practising it you should indeed not let (a) god or the idea of (a) god influence you. Science doesn't deny the existence of a god or gods. Science isn't about excluding ideas, but about proving or acknowleding theories if they are scientificly proven or at least supported and probable, based on the scientific method, Ockham, empiric evidence,... You can believe in god, but you can't say god exist in science unless using scientific methods first for proving or supporting such a theory first. And if you can't do the latter it's merely the scienitific way of not involving suspicions that yet have scientific base. The thruth about the matter not being questioned.

true I guess..

[gaelic cowboy]

I have a serious problem with the big bang but unfortunately no better solution has come along yet so I stick with it till we prove otherwise.

My main problem is before it is nothing after there is something this sounds completely daft in my view.

I have no problem with how science proves the creation of planets and stars from the billionth of a second right after the fact. However the exact instant of creation is my sticking point it doesnt make sense.

I like the analogy of the two dimensional people who exist on a sheet of paper unable to realise they live on a three dimensional object. They will never fully comprehend the higher level of dimensions but they may theorise about them but will fail at explanation of what they would be like.

We are those people we will never explain the creative moment of our universe we can be 99.9% sure God did not do it but never 100%.

Maybe we should never bother to try explain it or maybe we should just try knowing we will only reveal more ignorance of the actual moment.

[Ibrahim]

I have a serious problem with the big bang but unfortunately no better solution has come along yet so I stick with it till we prove otherwise.

My main problem is before it is nothing after there is something this sounds completely daft in my view.

WHAT??!

no body to my knowlege who is an authority on the subject actually says that; the big bang merely says that all the universe, with time and space, was concentrated into a "singularity", which expanded, making an explosion of space-time*. where the singulariy came from is not explained, nor is it meant to be by the theory (per se); for all we know, we are being s***ed out of another old universe. but no scientific theory says that something was of nothing-that is magic (i.e religion as well). and this is from a muslim of all people.

*thus it is not an "explosion" as we know it. it wasn't even an explosion per se.

[gaelic cowboy]

WHAT??!

no body to my knowlege who is an authority on the subject actually says that; the big bang merely says that all the universe, with time and space, was concentrated into a "singularity", which expanded, making an explosion of space-time*. where the singulariy came from is not explained, nor is it meant to be by the theory (per se); for all we know, we are being s***ed out of another old universe. but no scientific theory says that something was of nothing-that is magic (i.e religion as well). and this is from a muslim of all people.

*thus it is not an "explosion" as we know it. it wasn't even an explosion per se.

No might say it but the elephant is there all the same in the dark room one minute there's nothing then there is something as they say that cant happen cos thats magic.

I mean where did this singularity come from how did it manage to exist if nothing existed before because surely it had no place to exist IN

If it came form another universe then surely it is being made to exist outside its place of existence HOW can that happen

I also said I had no problem with the theory milliseconds after it happened I just cannot accept the actual creative moment as you pointed it feels almost religious or magical.

If were from another Universe your shifting the goals but not stadium you still need a start point. I will as it were never accept the actual creative moment of our universe I will however accept how things like planets and stars etc etc came into being directly after it.

[Ibrahim]

No might say it but the elephant is there all the same in the dark room one minute there's nothing then there is something as they say that cant happen cos thats magic.

one minute there's nothing, the next this singularity...who said that was what happened? as I said, it is both irrelevent to the idea of the big bang (expanding universe), and is an unknown. for all we know the singularity was always there, or that it was from an older parallel universe-we can't possibly know, with the scientific tools currently available.

I mean where did this singularity come from how did it manage to exist if nothing existed before because surely it had no place to exist IN

again, who says? yes, the universe expanded into the nothing, but it doesn't mean that it came from nothing, we don't know, and we can't say Godidit.

If it came form another universe then surely it is being made to exist outside its place of existence HOW can that happen?

don't ask me, I'm not the cosmologist who came up with that idea. and as I said, its an unknown. the idea of a universe that seeded this one is one idea, but it is without evidence and untestable with what we now have.

I also said I had no problem with the theory milliseconds after it happened I just cannot accept the actual creative moment as you pointed it feels almost religious or magical.

If were from another Universe your shifting the goals but not stadium you still need a start point. I will as it were never accept the actual creative moment of our universe I will however accept how things like planets and stars etc etc came into being directly after it.

again, who said it was a creative moment? we don't know what happened before the expansion of this singularity, and we can't even really test for it with what we have, let alone answer that question.

and who said I was shifting the goal posts? I said that the universe might have come out of another. I never indicated whether I agree or not. and as I meantioned for the half dozenth time, its an unknown.

my point is simple: we can't say that the universe (the "singularity") was "created" as what happened before the big bang is an Unknown. and as long as its an unknown, we cannot assume that it even had a "beginning" or a moment of creation.