• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Question about the big bang

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Dominus Fidelis, Jul 5, 2005.

  1. Dominus Fidelis

    Dominus Fidelis ScottBot is Stalking Me!

    +375
    Catholic
    Married
    According to this site :

    "At the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot. Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant."

    Does this mean that everything came from nothing?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Bushido216

    Bushido216 Well-Known Member

    +186
    Catholic
    Engaged
    US-Democrat
    Reasonably certain, yes. Of course, I have no education in the relevant fields whatsoever so don't take my word for it.
     
  3. AnEmpiricalAgnostic

    AnEmpiricalAgnostic Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

    +174
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    I see this a lot around here. You are pondering first cause. As things stand now, science can not address this issue.

    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/031001a.html

    If the universe started like the big bang theory describes, any information before the event is thought to be lost. This means that any first cause hypothesis is just a guess until we can reproduce the conditions of the big bang (if we ever can). Anyone trying to exalt one hypothesis over another is senseless in my opinion. The moment you hazard a guess about first cause you’ve locked yourself into maintaining one guess out of an endless number of possible guesses. Although nobody can tell you your guess is wrong, choosing just one decreases your chances of being right by an almost infinite amount. As the article mentions, maybe we are but one universe in an endless sea of universes. Although nobody has the answer, I don’t feel compelled to personify the first cause. I’d rather reserve judgment and state honestly, “I don’t know”
     
  4. Freodin

    Freodin Devout believer in a theologically different God

    +2,868
    Atheist
    Not quite. It rather means that everything came from something, but that this something was rather wierd compared to our "normal" universe.
     
  5. maha

    maha Member

    171
    +10
    Other Religion
    I have my own, as of yet unfounded, personal hypothesis on the Big Bang. I think that there was a finite amount of matter, albeit enormous in its own right, in that compressed ball of light and energy. The reason I believe that the amount of matter is finite and not infinite is because the universe is only 13 billion light years wide (the age of the universe is also its size considering it could only expand at the speed of light). Therefore, my conclusion is that only within a 13 billion lightyear diameter is all the matter in our universe, or at least from this big bang (there may be others much farther away). I believe that there has always been this matter...it just...was. It's as hard to comprehend the existence of ageless matter as it is the distance of infinity, but they are not meant to be understood by human minds.This does get into first cause--chicken or the egg. But some existential questions are difficult to comprehend, no matter the explanation.
     
  6. Late_Cretaceous

    Late_Cretaceous <font color="#880000" ></font&g

    +106
    Catholic
    Some theoires suggest that the universe was born out of some type of vacuum. A vacuum is not "nothing", however. A vacuum is a physical state with definitive properties (and there are several types of vacuums).
     
  7. AnEmpiricalAgnostic

    AnEmpiricalAgnostic Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

    +174
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    A couple issues… firstly, matter and energy are related (E=MC2), You can convert matter into energy and energy into matter. Secondly, the universe is mostly empty space and not matter at all. So the size of the universe really doesn’t correlate with matter.


    There is no farther away. The universe is “all inclusive”. And the universe is still expanding.


    I think it would be more accurate to start talking about matter and energy together in lines of thought like this. Matter can be created and destroyed (i.e. an atomic bomb)


    Indeed, but sometimes it’s fun to try (as long as we don’t take ourselves too seriously)
     
  8. maha

    maha Member

    171
    +10
    Other Religion
    Maybe I worded it incorrectly. The Big Bang theory suggests that all matter and energy erupted from a single point in space. It wasn't just energy and light, it was matter too. Basically, it all came from the same place.

    I've developed a term to help clarify this. The "matter bearing universe." Since only the 13 billion l/y wide section of it contains matter, then we tend to only address it as "the universe." But the actual universe is infinite in size, so anything beyond that 13 billion l/y diameter is essentially empty and expands into infinity. However, at some distance past that, there may have been another Big Bang which is completely beyond all possible spectrums of analysis, if by its sheer distance alone. I agree, the matter bearing universe is expanding, but only the matter within it is expanding. The actual universe (the vacuum of space) is fixed in size, which is infinite. This should be intuitive, aside from my personal speculation about alternate Big Bangs.
     
  9. AnEmpiricalAgnostic

    AnEmpiricalAgnostic Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

    +174
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Not really, although the universe has a finite size,


    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970328b.html

    science can not define what is “outside” the universe.

    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/011021a.html

    There is no distance farther than infinity. But as I’ve said before, guessing what is “outside” the universe is just a guess. It may be fun, but it shouldn’t be taken too seriously.


    I think you still have some basic misunderstandings. Check this site out:


    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/cosmology.html

    This is one of my favorite sites in existence. :thumbsup:
     
  10. maha

    maha Member

    171
    +10
    Other Religion
    I didn't get to check out those links yet, AnEmpiricalAgnostic. They were taking to long to load, but I will check them out later.

    You say "not really"...as in the universe does not have finite matter, but that it does have finite size. This is a contradiction. How can infinity exist within boundaries. It can't. Matter is finite, and so is the distance of the universe we know of.

    I never said there was. I said that beyond 13 billion lightyears, where matter is no longer present, there is an empty space. This "space" is the rest of the "non-matter bearing" universe.
     
  11. Sinai

    Sinai Well-Known Member

    +15
    Protestant
    AnEmpiricalAgnostic has done a very good job of addressing this issue--but let me add a few comments to what he said. The Big Bang theory postulates that the universe began at a point in space having infinitely high density and infinitely small dimensions. In physics, such a point is called a singularity.

    But singularities cannot be handled mathematically in the dimensions that measure our universe (the first four dimensions being the length, width, and height of things, and the passage of time), and it is unlikely that our other scientific disciplines will be able to verify precisely what happened prior to the inflationary process described in the Big Bang theory's Standard Model.

    In other words, although science appears to have confirmed that there was indeed a beginning (of our universe, of the matter comprising that universe, and of time as we know it), science is unable to say precisely what happened in the beginning or prior to that beginning.....
     
  12. Lucretius

    Lucretius Senior Veteran

    +189
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Just a note,

    There wouldn't be matter present at that singularity. The energy value of the Higgs Field would be too high, the field would have blended in with the other forces, and thus no mass could be present — aka no matter.
     
  13. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,935
    Agnostic
    It could just be a readjustment of quantum mechanics. For instance, 0+0=0, but 1-1 also equals zero, as does 1 million - 1 million. Some hypothesize that gravity is negative energy, therefore the amount of positive energy is equal to negative energy thus adding up to zero. Energy can condense into matter, so the real question is where did the energy come from.
     
  14. Dominus Fidelis

    Dominus Fidelis ScottBot is Stalking Me!

    +375
    Catholic
    Married
    Thanks...

    So some believe everything came from nothing, and some believe that everything came from a vacuum, and some believe everything came from a dense ball of matter/energy...right?
     
  15. random_guy

    random_guy Senior Veteran

    +134
    Christian
    Or some believe we don't know yet. That's the beautiful part of science is if we don't know, it means there's just so much more to research. Going, "Aha! You don't know where the energy/matter came from means Goddidit" won't get us anywhere.
     
  16. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    no. I fail to see where you extracted your conclusion from the text.
     
  17. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    honest people would just admit that scientifically, we don't know. What people believe is up to them.
     
  18. nvxplorer

    nvxplorer Senior Contributor

    +435
    Atheist
    US-Others
    I'm not sure what your thought process is, but the scientific theories attempt to explain what happened, not whether "something came from nothing," or "where" it came from.
     
  19. Rochir

    Rochir By Grabthar's hammer ... YES.WEEK.END!

    +1,859
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    I think that is the point where even scientists will have to admit that maybe there is more about how the Universe came to be than mere physical probabilities.

    And yet, such ignorance about what came before the Big Bang doesn't invalidate the assumption made by scientists about what went on after the BB! :)
     
  20. AnEmpiricalAgnostic

    AnEmpiricalAgnostic Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

    +174
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Not at all. That is the point where scientists admit that they don’t know. Jumping to a conclusion that the universe needed something supernatural to exist would be venturing a guess. As of now any such guess would not be scientifically testable. Therefore it will remain in the domain of philosophy and not science for when/if that day comes.


    True. Although ignorance usually carries a derogatory connotation I feel it is the only fair thing to claim when you really don’t know something. I won’t claim to know how the universe was created until there is empirical evidence to support my assertion. Until then I will admit I am ignorant of the facts. I just wish others could be so reasonable.

     
Loading...