Large Hadron Collider

[Hraesvelg]

I'd like you to show me the claims that the "Big Bang" says that something came from nothing. Since there were no observations done at the instant time/space started, the possibilities of what the condition of our universe was before that crucial moment will probably remain in the realm of theory and philosophy. The Big Bang is what happened to the universe AFTER things were set in motion. For all intents and purposes, however, the topic about what happened "before" time started is moot, as before is a term relative to time, which hadn't yet existed. The fact that you think this means "nothing comes from nothing" shows you're obviously not familiar with what it actually means, but knowing your particular persuasion, that's not entirely uncommon. I'm sure you've been fed a steady diet of anti-science rhetoric from your local pulpit. These concepts aren't exactly the easiest to understand and can be a bit counter-intuitive.

There are some mysteries left to the universe, of which the earliest moments are included. It is tests like the LHC that help us understand how it could have happened. Its entirely possible we won't get the results that are expected. Many turning points in scientific thought have come from these "Eureka!" moments.

For a primer on the "Big Bang", I'll suggest this to start out:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

Its a good primer for those not versed in the sciences.

As for your "shrinking sun" claim, all I can Google off hand are creationist sites touting it...in what journal was it published? Or do you happen to have a link to a site that cites sources?

[Yosei]

I am getting SO SICK of hearing of this thing. People on 4chan fueled the internet rumor of it destroying the universe. I have a lot of /b/tard friends who keep posting articles on it on myspace, and in their blogs, and IMing me about it.

I mean seriously... if there was that high of a risk that the world world would be destroyed just for research (from what I hear its to help find the nucleus or something in an atom?), I'd just think "Screw it...". These are professionals who know what they are doing. They know the risks.

[Manzcar]

I didn't say the Big Bang came from nothing ... or at least that isn't what I meant to imply. I thought I stated that the matter came from nothing. I state this because the big bang assumes the matter was already there.

In fact even the article you gave says that Albert Einstein had to make assumptions to how the matter in the universe was distributed. Assumptions do not sound very scientific to me.

Your article also states that matter in the univers is homogenous and isotropic when averaged over the large scale. It appears roughly the same and evenly distributed as if laid out. To assume just like Albert did for a moment, almost as if it was placed there or laid out by hand.

Hrae you know me. And you know that I respect you and your views, but what I find funny is that when a creationist says they believe in the creation theory they are touted by big bang theorists as being simpletons who can't think for themselves and are just plain stupid. You yourself have inferred in this thread that I need to go to library and actually study up on this subject. While on the other had Big Bang Theorists are intelligent and far superior to creationists because they put their faith in the assumptions of others considered smart.

What you have shown me I already know. I in fact could have earned a minor in physics if I took one more course in college (yeah 11 year college plan). Einsteins assumptions do not disprove the creation theory.

The big bang theory doesn't even disprove the creation theory. I can respect someone elses views and beliefs, but I don't seem to be able to get the same respect from others.

Yes I put my faith in God and in the Bible, and because of this I am considered to be a sheep following others and not being able to think for myself. It's funny how people state that men and women of faith are narrow-minded and unable to accept the views of others, but those same people that state that don't seem to be able to simply state that the creation theory is a possiblity.

So tell me then who is truly closed-minded the person who lives on faith and allows the views and beliefs of others even if they don't agree or the person who states that your views have no basis because I say so?

[Hraesvelg]

I never meant to imply you were a simpleton or were in any other way intellectually inferior. It seemed you were ignorant of the subject by how you were phrasing things.

Assumptions are a part of any human endeavour. We have an idea, we have assumptions of how that idea will pan out, then we test it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

In flowchart form:


I've said several times before that if you wish people to believe in your particular cosmology, provide evidence. I've never said "THERE IS NO GOD AND HE DIDN'T CREATE THE UNIVERSE." I've merely said present your evidence. Trust me, if you're sitting on enough credible evidence to support that theory you'll win a Nobel prize. If one makes extraordinary claims, one must have extraordinary evidence.

For all I know, our Big Bang started when another universe turned on their LHC. The fact of the matter is, anything that happenen(d)(s) (this word isn't really applicable, since it doesn't affect our plane of existence, thus doesn't happen as far as our own causality...but I can't think of a better one) outside our own space/time is currently outside of what we can test since it doesn't affect us in any way we can measure at this time. Perhaps its your God. Perhaps its Odin. Perhaps its turtles all the way down. This is a matter for philosophers currently, not scientists.

[Manzcar]

Creationists and big bang theorists all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we interpret the facts. We interpret facts differently because we each start from different places with different presuppositions. These are the things we assume to be true without the ability to prove them. These assumptions become the basis for our conclusions.

You want me to give you evidence I give you the same evidence that you already have. I choose to interpret that evidence as proof that there is a God and that he created the universe.

Since theories are based on assumptions and interpretations of data we use our own beliefs to form the data to fit our presuppositions.

I can't disprove the big bang theory... and in turn you can not disprove creation.

The data you use to support the big bang theory is actually the same data I use to support creation.

[Hraesvelg]

That is where you are wrong. I don't start off with a presupposition. I start off with a blank slate, view the avaliable evidence, and then draw conclusions based off of that evidence. That is one of the fundamental flaws of having conclusions made before you seek evidence. I see the universe and am awed and amazed by it. I want to learn about it. I don't write off the currently unexplained by saying "Oh, I don't know, so God did it." That's just intellectually lazy.

[Loveless]

If big metal machines could destroy the world... it would've been long dead.

I didn't read your discussion but I do agree with Hrae where I find the Big Bang much more probable than the big guy creating the universe story.

[Blaaaaaaaah]

Before I make my post:

Before we ask the question "Does God exist?" we first have to deal with our philosophical predispositions. If, for example, I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. Asking the question "does God exist?" would be pointless.

- http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm

That is where you are wrong. I don't start off with a presupposition. I start off with a blank slate, view the avaliable evidence, and then draw conclusions based off of that evidence. That is one of the fundamental flaws of having conclusions made before you seek evidence. I see the universe and am awed and amazed by it. I want to learn about it. I don't write off the currently unexplained by saying "Oh, I don't know, so God did it." That's just intellectually lazy.

I disagree that people who came up with the belief that God "created" the world are "intellectually lazy". I am not religious myself, but I do imagine how some people may find that offensive.

I am more of a neutral when it comes to Big Bang theory/God's existence. At the moment, I side with the Big Bang theory, but if one day we realise that God may perhaps exist (perhaps science may tell us?) then I am more than happy to accept it.

As for now, I don't believe in God's existence, but I can see what Manzcar is getting to. In the maths I do for science, many of the problems we were required complete were to have started with "Assume etcetc" and we work out the problem like that.

Sometimes I wonder myself what happens if our assumptions were wrong. If our assumptions are wrong, that means our solution is wrong altogether.

In the article you posted, assumptions were made (as Manzcar said) for the theory to be proposed. Yes, "this assumption is being tested continuously as we actually observe the distribution of galaxies on ever larger scales", but if it's still an assumption then it means there are not enough concrete evidence for it to become a fact.

Also from the same site:

The Big Bang model is based on the Cosmological Principle which assumes that matter in the universe is uniformly distributed on all scales - large and small.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo.html


-----------------



http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

I can quote things from there but there are way too many quotes so I'll let people read it themselves.

Point of that article: it clearly explains the theory and all the strong evidence, but it does make an emphasis on the fact that assumptions were made. They even have a bit at the bottom about whether God exists. It links to the first site at the beginning of my post as well.

To me, if you want to think from a "science" perspective, believing in one and only one possibly theory for the beginning of the universe is rather pointless. I believe it's kind of silly to only put our faith into one theory, which hasn't even been proven yet. It's often nice to think outside the box. I'm not saying we should believe in all theories, but it's always good to have a small part of ourselves to have a bit of faith in the other theories out there.

Of course, I respect if anyone only wants to believe in the Big Bang theory, or only believe the idea of God creating the universe. Their beliefs, their faith, their life. If it makes them happy believing what they wanna, then so be it, just as long as they don't look down on me for my views as I wouldn't look down on them for theirs.