Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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
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.
Write letters to the men if you want. Ask them what their research findings conclude. Dont take my word for it.
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.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.
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You have an outdated view of the big bang....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)
Yes, which makes it debatable, speculative, etc...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.
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?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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Brian Greene said: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.
Wouldn't it be more akin to talking about evolution while ignoring abiogenesis?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.
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.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.
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.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?
Essentially. A true singularity is not thought to have actually existed.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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?