Metaphysics Creation Vs. The Big Bang

Discussion in 'Metaphysics' started by tablet, Oct 24, 2004.

  1. tablet

    tablet Premium Member

    Let's discuss.
  2. Nygdan

    Nygdan Member

    But the scientists researching the 'big bang' and inflation aren't saying anything about what was around before it. They don't say that there was nothing and then something, they look at the eivdence and that evidence supports Inflation Theory. One needn't accept anything on faith.

    I've never heard that before. Usually the 'implosion' scenario is thought to occur when the energy behind the expansion of the universe is overtaken by the force of gravity, resulting in the universe collapsing in on itself. As far as what happens after that, I don't think anyone has an adequate explanation.

    Well really tho, what does that matter? Other written accounts contradict the bible, and other faiths have other ideas about how the universe came into being.

    Why? If its acceptable that 'god' existed without being created, then why isn't it equally acceptable that the 'point' or whatever that would become the inflated universe exist without creation? Besides, I think you have mistated the scientific position. Its not that there was nothing, and then 'something' came into existence. The people who research this topic seem to realize that they don't have any evidence (either now or possibly ever) as to what happened before inflation took off. So they don't say anything about what happened before the big bang, and only make statements based on the evidence. Therefore, the big bang and inflation don't require faith for acceptance, whereas the 'god theory', whatever it may be and which ever particualr creation story is under consideration, does require faith.
  3. amantine

    amantine Premium Member

    Nygdan gets it right. Why give God the special privilege of not having to be created? Can't the universe get the same privilege? Nygdan is right that the big bang theory simply postulates a starting point, just like evolution postulates a first organism or first organisms. How the point or the organism(s) were created is a different theory.

    There is a lot of evidence for the big bang, like nucleosynthesis, the ratios of elements in the universe at different times, redshifts and CMBR. I have read some interesting articles that are critical of the big bang theory.
  4. oddtodd

    oddtodd Premium Member

    Interestigly enough , the reason the vatican has not denounced the Big Bang theory was the introduction of the " primordial egg " idea my vatican mathematician Henri Poincare . Einstein called it the most elegant idea he had ever heard...

    Science call sit the Big Bang , religion claims the hand of god caused it . What they both aree on is that there was a " moment of creation " and each side believes what they choose , neither have proof , but have you ever argued with a Jehovas Witness ? I prefer the science route myself ( faithless scrag that I am )

    Neither side has the true answer , but at least religion has allowed people that belive in God to still pusue science .
  5. TruthBringer

    TruthBringer Premium Member

    i was readin another thread and it was mentioned that the big bang was started by an object the size of basketball and i dunno, i always considered myself very scientific but im just not sure about that. but at the same time i jus cant believe that there was just a being that created everything. im soooo confused

    yours, Truth
  6. Zsandmann

    Zsandmann Premium Member


    IMO sometimes truth is found between the two most extreme theories out there. No one was there so I don't see how you can derive either theory. Personally think of what element would have to compose the big band ball? I mean the density alone would have to be impossibly high. I know there is a great deal of empty space in matter, but to shrink everything down to a basketball you would essentially have to eliminate all void space. I don't see it. I believe more in the recycling universe theory, where this is just one of many universes that have existed, been destroyed, and then recreated. Add a creator to the mix if you believe that way. As I have always said, creationism and science can exist side by side because neither excludes the other.

  7. bodebliss

    bodebliss The Zoc-La of Kromm-B Premium Member

    In the "Big Bang" theories I've read there was no matter in the beginning.

    There was a foam of space-time bubbles. All smaller than an atom. Actually these space-time bubbles were Planck length 1.6X10 to the -35 meters and the change from space-time buble to expanding primordial universe took 5.4X10 to the −44 seconds. These are hard wired measurements.

    One space-time bubble started to expand with an fantastic energy. This energy was trillions of degrees. As this space expanded it cooled into unequal amounts of matter-antimatter which annihilated each other and left only matter which expanded the then universe only faster .

    This energy then coalesced into a quark soup and all matter came from this.

    There's another newer theory which states that the matter-antimatter were equal and total annihilation occured. This theory further states that all matter is the product of the neutrinos from that annihilation.

    What sparked the original expansion is unknowable, because it happened before the universe began.
  8. Kalibur

    Kalibur Premium Member

    To me, having "faith" in the creation of the universe by a god, the way religous texts refer to 'him', is giving up the persuit of truth and knowledge.

    I find most religions, especially the monotheistic, silly.

    We know that somekind of 'bang' occured because the universe is still expanding, galaxies are still speeding away from each other and waves from the bang still ripple through space.

    When you have exhibits that factually support a belief -- it is not sole faith. Where is anytype of evidence that supports monotheistic creation? Not having answers is not evidence.

    It's quite possible the Big Bang theory is not all it's cracked up to be. Holes can be found in the plot. The Big Bang theory shouldn't be looked at as an attempt to account for everything.

    Remember, all we know is what we percieve. Our perception is based within dimensions. The dimensions are determined by the laws of the universe. There is more to existence then the percieved universe obviously, otherwise where did it come from?

    Just don't give up the search for answers and confide in thousand year-old literature. I promise there is more to life then the bible.
  9. Raideur

    Raideur Premium Member

    The big bang is simply an explanation to back the observed the expansion of the universe as we see it. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that at one point, the universe was compressed into a near mathematical point, as that would make the most sense. However, those who claim time simply started at the big bang would be jumping the gun.

    Perhaps the universe did begin with the big bang and expand forever.

    Maybe it expands and then collapses on itself, and then rebounds in bangs, forever.

    Maybe God is up there, somewhere, running the show.

    I like #2 personally. The mere concept of cutting time seems to be difficult to explain. The universe, being infinently large and infinently small, would have time that goes back and forward forever.
  10. TruthBringer

    TruthBringer Premium Member

    does anyone have any texts or pasages from the bible describing how "god" created everything? this would help me make an informed decision

    Yours, Truth
  11. Derek

    Derek ■֎؜♫■ Staff Member

    Truth, you don't have a bible to look at? Where did you get your sig from? As far as the passages from the bible they really do not go into great detail "How" God created everything, He Just is, The ALPHA and the OMEGA, I think that is why so many people cannot believe that theory.