/lit/ - Literature

OP here, just ignore this little cockfuck of a typo.

>>1214990
>ask conduct

Despite your eloquent style, you are apparently completely ignorant of the subject matter. The big bang says nothing whatsoever about the origins of said bang. It only describes what happened during and after it, and there is ample evidence to support it.

The "ball" is a simpler hypothesis. It is, simply speaking, a first cause. However, it does not carry all the additional baggage that God carries:

-first cause
AND
-omnipotent
-has a will, etc.
-All sorts of other shit that God does. I'm not a fucking expert on God or anything.

sigh, this is more of a question for /sci/ than /lit/.

but yes, there is no way to prove either of them, they are both speculation. (of course the big bang is more logical than god creating the universe)

If you want to know what actually happened, that's /sci/'s department.

If you want to know what it means, then we can do business.

big bang is not very ridiculous if you were in grasp of all the scientific research that went into supplying the info required to make that hypothesis stand up.

>>1215000
How can you agree with something that doesn't even address where it originated? One of the big "issues" with god existing is "Where did he come from?" If someone is to take the big bang seriously shouldn't the matter of its origin be addressed first? If this energy "Was always there it didnt have a beginning" then its just as foolish as God "Always being there he was never born."

>>1215003
Is God creating the universe the same thing as the ball of energy? Both of them apparently appear out of nowhere, both create the universe out of nowhere...

>>1215007
I would take this to /sci/ but I'm afraid they'll just blast me with numbers and formulae and I'd get lost. I can see them being very "BIG BANG IS FACT IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IT YOURE RELIGIOUS AND A FOOL!"

Big Bang theory is a scientific explanation of the conditions immediately after a posited "big bang". It was originated by a Catholic priest. It does not say anything about possible causes or prior conditions of said big bang. It is not incompatible with belief in a creator God.

>It is not incompatible with belief in a creator God.
but a lot of things are. dohoho

>>1215016

No, the origin is of no importance whatsoever. That's like saying that to test Newton's third law with a couple of billiard balls, you must first discover how the billiard balls came to be. Which you clearly do not.

The big bang theory simply says that some tightly packed stuff expanded quickly, then started to slow down and cool down. The expansion is continuing today and is observed as what we call Hubble's law: the speed at which galaxies are moving away from ours is proportional to their distance from us. There is other evidence as well, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation which can be explain very neatly as radiation left over from the very early stages of the universe.

>>1215030
So what, we can accept the Big Bang for everything after the big bang itself, just not the actual big bang?

>>1215041
Thats what i believed too, but a few youtube videos and some research has shown a few issues with the "Galactic drift". The concept used in observing it, redshift, with the waves and all that? I wont do it justice explaining it but if you Google it and its problems Im sure youll begin questioning it.

And no one questions the origin of the billiard balls because newtons laws dont concern the dawn of the universe, just the matter that it created.

>>1215043

You seem to think the big bang describes the actual point of creation. It does not, as has been very clearly explained above.

>>1215051

OK, confirmed for batshit insane conspiracy theorist.

>>1215043
>So what, we can accept the Big Bang for everything after the big bang itself, just not the actual big bang?

The actual big bang is not addressed in the "Big Bang theory". The theory starts at some insanely small length of time after the big bang.

>>1215062
Because I'm questioning your precious Big bang? Oh dear, terribly sorry.

>>1215064
How can they not address the actual big bang in the big bang theory. Gravity is easy to grasp because they explain why. The big bang doesnt describe why or how, just what. Excellent!

>>1215078
>How can they not address the actual big bang in the big bang theory. Gravity is easy to grasp because they explain why. The big bang doesnt describe why or how, just what. Excellent!

Things like the conditions leading to and the point of creation are metaphysical, not physical issues. Even if we consider throwing, say, M Theory into the mix, the point of creation is only pushed back. These things are not addressed by science, because science is not capable of addressing them.

>>1215078

Because you discard decades of serious science with "look at some youtube videos and you'll be a skeptic, too!" I don't have the knowledge to judge that evidence. You don't either. If a scientist could cast serious doubt onto Hubble's Law...that's Nobel prize material right there. Why hasn't someone done it yet? Either there's no such doubt to be had, or random assholes on youtube are better astrophysicists than the ones that actually have degrees and are researching in astrophysics. I find the latter hypothesis to be ridiculous.

>>1215078
"Big Bang" theory is a misnomer. It was originally a name used to mock the theory by trivialising it, but was taken as an easy descriptive name by the general public.

>>1215078
>How can they not address the actual big bang in the big bang theory. Gravity is easy to grasp because they explain why. The big bang doesnt describe why or how, just what. Excellent!

The conditions leading to creation and the point of creation are not addressed by science because they are metaphysical issues. Science is not capable of answering them.

>>1215051
>a few youtube videos and some research

Where is this research? Links to articles in reputable journals please.

>>1215093
What if the video is made by a highly credited scientist who's many works on astro-biology and other fields of science have been translated and published in many different well respected scientific journals?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl3Uj2UJjPA

Check and mate. Seriously watch this shit.

there are alternative cosmological theories. doesn't mean god is a valid theory. i don't know what you are trying to do here.

>>1215112

Alright so the redshift issue. The reason we believe the universe to be 12 or 13 billion years old is because they located a galaxy, "Sharon", 13 billion light years away. (And its redshift was red, so herp derp its drifting away.) But then later they re-analyzed "Sharon" and now shes only 10 lightyears away, a difference of 3 lightyears?

>>1215120
When did I ever say God is a valid theory, I'm asking what the principle differences there are between the sky-wizard and the magical energy ball.

>>1215114

The claim that the universe is uncreated and eternal is a philosophical or religious claim, not a scientific one, so his scientific credentials don't mean shit there.

OP: There's a theory put forward by J. Richard Gott III, self-consistent with all known physics, that the big bang was the result of the universe folding back on itself in time, e.g. that the universe created itself.

This is a less ridiculous than positing an all-powerful creator simply for the sake of having an answer, yes.

OK I checked out the Rhawn Joseph dude and he's a hack.

From one of his latest articles, "":

>To support the myth of the Big Bang, estimates of the age and size of the cosmos, including claims of an accelerating universe, are based on an Earth-centered universe with the Earth as the measure of all things, exactly as dictated by religious theology.

Technically true, but only because we can only make observations from our own galaxy. Hubble's law "should" work for all galaxies. It's quite the coincidence that it works for ours if it does not hold.

>The preponderance of evidence supports the reality of an infinite universe.

Second law of thermodynamics. BAM!

>>1215094
Yeah, Sir Hoyle wanted "BOOM! SHAKALA!" but Hawking wanted nothing from multiculturalism yet.

OP, as you seem to be interesting in the nature of science and what exactly it can and can't tell us, I'd suggest you read the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. It's not the last word on the matter by any means, but it's a very important and interesting book.

>>1215136
>suggesting Kuhn as an intro to the philosophy of science

Nigger what the fuck do you think you're doing?

>>1215126
Just because you cant fathom the concept of something being uncreated and eternal means his concept isnt scientific? Get the fuck out.

>>1215131
Doesnt one of those other laws say that matter has to come from other matter? You cant create matter, which is what the big bang did?

>>1215142
He seems like a pretty decent intro to me.

>>1215144
>which is what the big bang did?

THE BIG BANG DOES NOT MAKE ANY CLAIMS REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF MATTER OR THE UNIVERSE
THE BIG BANG DOES NOT MAKE ANY CLAIMS REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF MATTER OR THE UNIVERSE
THE BIG BANG DOES NOT MAKE ANY CLAIMS REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF MATTER OR THE UNIVERSE
THE BIG BANG DOES NOT MAKE ANY CLAIMS REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF MATTER OR THE UNIVERSE
THE BIG BANG DOES NOT MAKE ANY CLAIMS REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF MATTER OR THE UNIVERSE
THE BIG BANG DOES NOT MAKE ANY CLAIMS REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF MATTER OR THE UNIVERSE
THE BIG BANG DOES NOT MAKE ANY CLAIMS REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF MATTER OR THE UNIVERSE

>>1215147
WELL THEN SOMEONE TELL ME WHERE THE FUCK MATTER COMES FROM

>>1215130
But is it consistent with my physics? If only they could posit a multitude of universes then chuck the burden of causality into that maze of infinite possibilities, and get the public to go along with it, betrayal of sweet innocence questions such as OP's wouldn't show up for another fifty years or so. Then maybe work can get done on two or three species-wide problems.

>>1214990

>>1215144
>Just because you cant fathom the concept of something being uncreated and eternal means his concept isnt scientific? Get the fuck out.

No, you dumbfuck. It literally is not a claim that science can make. Science was developed over the centuries to ask certain types of questions: ones that can be measured some way using empirical evidence. He is making a metaphysical claim. Metaphysical claims are not compatible with empirical science. Therefore the claim he is making is not scientific.

>>1215151

Nobody knows, nobody will probably ever know. It is not within the realm of science to answer (or even pose) that question. You may look to religion for answers (which have many problems), or just go "we just don't know lol". It's in the same realm as "what's the meaning of life?" type of questions.

>>1215151
Just because something "exists" doesn't mean it had to "come from" anything. The concept of things in existence being "created" is a man-made idea.

>>1215155
Im wrong then, but does the fact that its metaphysical and not scientific make it any less respectable or believable as a concept?

>>1215124
on what basis are yous aying god is not a valid theory? seems like you already have some idea of what this gap consists of. it's science and stuff. people figuring out how stuff works based on observation and stats.

>>1215158
This is promising. The real herp 2deep4u questions is: When shall we begin creating our own universes?

>>1215168

>>1215165

No, but it does mean that guy is hypocritical and probably stupid for flaunting his scientific credentials and denouncing the Big Bang theory as "religious".

>>1215171

DERP WE HAB TEKNIX. IS CALLED FICTION.

>>1215179
Hes claiming it as religious because the ideas are just as far-fetched and evidence-lacking as religion is. You have to watch the video to see how he disproves it, and being someone who isnt a physicist or astronomer his claims make sense to me.

>>1215185

dude..."Lemaitre's Big Bang theory was ridiculed by Einstein...but has been promoted by the Jewish-Christian Scientific and Media establishment because it supports their religion and their Bible."

that's a quote from one of the captions in the video. most scientists aren't even christian or religious.

>>1215185
difference between speculative science and religion is that the former are held in, you know, speculation. on the strength of available evidence though the big bang theory seems to be in good standing, at least when there are no obviously better alternatives.

if you have a better theory, then you've just contribute dto science. if you do not and want to merely convince the cosmologists tod o soemthing else with their time, try something else with your own time.

>>1215195
He doesn't say its exclusively promoted by those organizations.

>>1215199
I think only reason that the big bang is in such high standing is because nobody who is ready to question it is also experienced in cosmology, or astronomy or what have you. And Im not trying to convince cosmologists to do anything else with their time, im just questioning our so greatly believed in big bang.

Alright well its hella late, if anyone is interested in continuing this discussion, however foolish it sounds, here's my email. uber1.0@hotmail.com

Please, even if its to rant about how stupid I might be, I love mail!

>>1215051
>youtube videos
I think I found your problem right there

I think the problem with the world is because we still haven't learned how magnets work.

The ideas, divorced of the evidence that is used to support them, are equally ridiculous. The key is, however, is that the Big Bang is supported by the system of knowledge which has provided a fairly reliable, practically applicable explanation for how things probably work.

The creation myth is supported by the weight of history, emotion, and popular opinion.