Cosmologetics: Apologists using Cosmology

[HitchSlap]

No one that I reference with regards to the big bang and its implications is a creationist. They are either agnostic or atheistic cosmologists and physicists

It's what you say about their conclusions that I'll take with a grain of salt.
In every instance I'm aware of, creationists misunderstand, deliberately misrepresent, and are just plain ignorant of proper scientific studies and their implications.

 

[Elioenai26]

That you've quoted secondarily, and out of context, from Reasonable Faith.

Write letters to the men if you want. Ask them what their research findings conclude. Dont take my word for it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Write letters to the men if you want. Ask them what their research findings conclude. Dont take my word for it.

Don't worry, I'm not taking your word for it, because of your misconceptions regarding the theory.

 

[HitchSlap]

Write letters to the men if you want. Ask them what their research findings conclude. Dont take my word for it.

That's exactly my point, their conclusions don't suggest what you're intimating. You've either misunderstood them, ignorant of the scientific method, or are deliberately misrepresenting them.

 

[elopez]

This understanding of the Big Bang, as the creation of everything from nothing, is seemingly popular, but is it an accurate depiction of what the theory is actually about?

I don't have any such background but I have read books on physics by people with exceptional backgrounds, namely, Lawrence M. Krauss. He's the author of a great read titled, you guessed it, A Universe From Nothing. In it he does explain how the universe came from nothing, but not the same type of 'nothing' as apologists claim. I'd look into reading it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't have any such background but I have read books on physics by people with exceptional backgrounds, namely, Lawrence M. Krauss. He's the author of a great read titled, you guessed it, A Universe From Nothing. In it he does explain how the universe came from nothing, but not the same type of 'nothing' as apologists claim. I'd look into reading it.

I appreciate that there are people who argue that a universe from nothing is possible, but the main point I am making here is that the Big Bang theory does not take us further than the singularity. Contrary to what apologists like Elioenai26 claim, the theory doesn't present an everything-from-nothing narrative.

 

[multidaytim]

It is based on my own understanding of the theory.

The Big Bang traces the origins of the universe back to an incomprehensibly hot and dense singularity, but it does not advance a hypothesis on the origins of that singularity. At present, we can't see beyond that horizon, so there is no data available to inform or test a hypothesis regarding where the singularity came from.

You have an outdated view of the big bang.... many strides have been made. 'The Singularity' is now viewed as just the point of origin, but it was still nothing itself before the trigger of the inflation that began our universe. Physicist no longer hold the view of it being an infinitely small, infinitely dense point.

Hitch did well to post the Universe From Nothing video... I would recommend watching it to see how the understanding of the Cosmos and possible explanations of the origin of our universe have advanced. I, myself, have watched Krauss's lectures at least a half dozen times, and I have read his book twice. (same title as the lecture)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You have an outdated view of the big bang.... many strides have been made. 'The Singularity' is now viewed as just the point of origin, but it was still nothing itself before the trigger of the inflation that began our universe. Physicist no longer hold the view of it being an infinitely small, infinitely dense point.

Hitch did well to post the Universe From Nothing video... I would recommend watching it to see how the understanding of the Cosmos and possible explanations of the origin of our universe have advanced. I, myself, have watched Krauss's lectures at least a half dozen times, and I have read his book twice. (same title as the lecture)

As I've pointed out above, yes, there are various hypotheses regarding the origin of the singularity, but the Big Bang theory itself does not advance any such hypothesis. It doesn't stand or fall by an everything-from-nothing narrative.

 

[elopez]

I appreciate that there are people who argue that a universe from nothing is possible, but the main point I am making here is that the Big Bang theory does not take us further than the singularity. Contrary to what apologists like Elioenai26 claim, the theory doesn't present an everything-from-nothing narrative.

Yes, which makes it debatable, speculative, etc...

 

[Davian]

Since you can only offer your "understanding" of the model, I will choose to accept the research and conclusions of cosmologists and astrophysicists which state that the model requires an absolute beginning of all matter energy and spacetime itself rather than "your understanding".

So, what do you cherry-pick and choose to accept from their conclusions? The time elapsed since the expansion of the cosmos? How long ago the Earth and solar system formed? When the process of life first appeared?

Do tell.

 

[multidaytim]

As I've pointed out above, yes, there are various hypotheses regarding the origin of the singularity, but the Big Bang theory itself does not advance any such hypothesis. It doesn't stand or fall by an everything-from-nothing narrative.

They are intertwined. Ignoring the absolute beginning of our universe and just talking about what happened later, the facts, would be like talking about evolution while ignoring natural selection.

It is quite literally talking about the 'what' while ignoring the 'how.'

The model of a universe from absolutely nothing does have explanatory power over the 'how' of the big bang/ Inflationary theory which is why 'the universe from nothing' is an extension of the big bang model. When someone is talking about the beginning of the universe, we should start at the very beginning.

before it was, 'we don't know where the singularity came from' but now we know that our view of the singularity was wrong, it was itself nothing, and we have a good idea of an at least plausible explanation of the absolute beginning of our universe is. This alters the 'big bang theory' and becomes a part of the new model.

 

[discipulus]

im kinda all new to the whole big bang argument thing, but i was under the impression that the big bang was the beginning of the universe like everything wee know of to exist.

Is this not right?

i read somehwere that wehn people talk about a "singularity" it is kind of a misconception like people think that this little dot had just been existing forever until it exploded. That that is simply a word that refers to the entirety of the universe at the point of its coming into existence out of nothing?

 

[multidaytim]

i read somehwere that wehn people talk about a "singularity" it is kind of a misconception like people think that this little dot had just been existing forever until it exploded. That that is simply a word that refers to the entirety of the universe at the point of its coming into existence out of nothing?

you are correct.... it is the very beginning of the 'bang' and not separate from it.... it did not exist into perpetuity.

 

[Elioenai26]

you are correct.... it is the very beginning of the 'bang' and not separate from it.... it did not exist into perpetuity.

Finally!

Someone who is not a Christian on here who knows what is meant when cosmogonists refer to the "singularity"!!!!

Maybe you can somehow explain to Archaeopteryx and Wiccan Child and the rest why it is that cosmologists and cosmogonists maintain that the big bang was the beginning of all matter, energy, space and time.

They seem to be suspicious of my intentions.

 

[multidaytim]

Finally!

Someone who is not a Christian on here who knows what is meant when cosmogonists refer to the "singularity"!!!!

Maybe you can somehow explain to Archaeopteryx and Wiccan Child and the rest why it is that cosmologists and cosmogonists maintain that the big bang was the beginning of all matter, energy, space and time.

They seem to be suspicious of my intentions.

I am suspicious of you too.... >.> lol
this reminds me of a joke: "If a man speaks his mind and no women hear him, is he still wrong?"

haha.... okay, enough picking on my Atheist friends

I haven't met Wiccan yet but I do think Archeopteryx needs to do a refresher on inflationary theory. It is amazing that the universe requires 0 total energy to exist!

We can see the virtual particles appear, in pairs, and cancel each other out disappearing almost instantly, but in the rapidly expanding universe, space itself expanding faster than the speed of light, those particles would not have the chance to cancel each other out and suddenly, you have a universe full of stuff, while still 0 total energy.

I don't have the time or space in this format to explain what the models show as you get closer and closer to the initial event, but there is a lot of information out there that is available.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

They are intertwined. Ignoring the absolute beginning of our universe and just talking about what happened later, the facts, would be like talking about evolution while ignoring natural selection.

It is quite literally talking about the 'what' while ignoring the 'how.'

The model of a universe from absolutely nothing does have explanatory power over the 'how' of the big bang/ Inflationary theory which is why 'the universe from nothing' is an extension of the big bang model. When someone is talking about the beginning of the universe, we should start at the very beginning.

before it was, 'we don't know where the singularity came from' but now we know that our view of the singularity was wrong, it was itself nothing, and we have a good idea of an at least plausible explanation of the absolute beginning of our universe is. This alters the 'big bang theory' and becomes a part of the new model.

Exactly, a new model. From what I've read, there are several that seek to take us further than the singularity. You seem to have misconstrued the point I'm trying to make here. I'm not saying that there are no explanations that attempt to take us beyond the horizons of what is currently known toward a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of what gave rise to the Big Bang. I'm saying that the apologists use of those explanations ultimately misconstrues what is known.

A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory ... that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They are intertwined. Ignoring the absolute beginning of our universe and just talking about what happened later, the facts, would be like talking about evolution while ignoring natural selection.

Wouldn't it be more akin to talking about evolution while ignoring abiogenesis?

The model of a universe from absolutely nothing does have explanatory power over the 'how' of the big bang/ Inflationary theory which is why 'the universe from nothing' is an extension of the big bang model. When someone is talking about the beginning of the universe, we should start at the very beginning.

Stephen Hawking wrote an article about the start of the universe, and in it says that we should consider the start of the Big Bang to be the beginning of the universe because if anything did come before it, it doesn't matter. The Big Bang acted as a sort of cosmic eraser, scrubbing out any information or structure and starting anew. This article is often misquoted to make it seem like Hawking is saying the universe did begin with the Big Bang, but in reality he's saying that it may as well have.

So, starting at the very beginning might not be the most useful approach, especially when it's hidden by an observational horizon (namely, the immense density 13.5 billion years ago).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

im kinda all new to the whole big bang argument thing, but i was under the impression that the big bang was the beginning of the universe like everything wee know of to exist.

Is this not right?

We cannot probe beyond the start of the Big Bang, so while it may indeed have begun with the Big Bang, it may also predate it.

i read somehwere that wehn people talk about a "singularity" it is kind of a misconception like people think that this little dot had just been existing forever until it exploded. That that is simply a word that refers to the entirety of the universe at the point of its coming into existence out of nothing?

Essentially. A true singularity is not thought to have actually existed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

but the main point I am making here is that the Big Bang theory does not take us further than the singularity.

I would make a slightly stronger claim. Our understanding shows that if we wind the clock backward, the universe moves toward a state that would be a singularity.

However, our understanding of the laws of physics does not extend to covering situations close to a singularity. We have good reason to believe that unknown new physics would take over at that point. Without knowing what that is, we can't really say that the Big Bang takes us back to the singularity. Possibly the new physics avoids the singularity (perhaps bouncing back into a 'previous' universe).

So BBT only takes us back to when the universe was roughly at the Planck density. And of course, there was plenty of stuff (and space-time) there at that time.

Contrary to what apologists like Elioenai26 claim, the theory doesn't present an everything-from-nothing narrative.

Correct.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Science, Religion, and the Big Bang - YouTube