The Big Bang Theory

Me:

Anyone else notice that the Big Bang Theory explains the origin of the universe about as well as the Aliens-Seeding-Earth theory explains the origin of life? If aliens started life on Earth, where did they come from? If the Big Bang created the universe, where did all the matter come from prior to the Big Bang?

And before the atheists ask where God came from, remember God invented time, so that’s a bit beyond any of our (you included) pay grades.

Adam:

The Alien theory may answer how WE got here, but it doesn’t explain how the first life started, so, why bother with it (that’s agreement by the way)? However, the Big Bang theory doesn’t really say what happened at time = 0 or before that, …so the logical answer is, “I don’t know”. Listen, your “God invented time” argument carries no weight. I can think of a being with special properties to get around any logical criticism – does that mean my being exists? No, unless there is objective proof for its existence. Even more, replace God with “the Universe” and see if it holds up. The Universe was the start of TIME so it didn’t need a first cause. Why is that different than a God doing it? It isn’t. Don’t make a special case for what you believe in.

Also, please study these fallacies, because you have and are bound to continue making them – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#The_fallacy_of_argument_from_ignorance.

Me:

Figured.

And this wasn’t a “God Exists” argument. This was a “Big Bang Theory is bogus” argument. The Big Bang was the start of time? So a huge explosion not only created everything in the universe, but created time itself? That requires just as much a scientific explanation (perhaps more so) than a pro-God argument does. Why is “I don’t know” an acceptable answer for me asking you how the BB happened when it’s not acceptable for you asking me how God came to be or created the universe?

BTW, as far as the burden of proof goes: From my point of view, the Big Bang Theory is as scientifically flawed as the God theory is to you. So maybe the burden of proof for God not existing is not on you, but the burden of proof of the Big Bang taking place certainly is.

Adam:

I didn’t say that “The Universe made time” argument was VALID, I was using it to show that it is just as invalid as your statement about God. You are right, they are both invalid (you are catching on). Again, the best answer is “I don’t know.” Anyway, you REALLY don’t understand the theory AT ALL. READ: http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/07/big-bang-common-misconceptions.html

Me:

Okay, haven’t read through the whole thing yet, but I saw this: “all the matter in our universe was created with approximately 80% hydrogen and 20% helium.” Hmmm. Matter being created. Isn’t that interesting. How, exactly, did that happen? …Second, he says that it is the universe expanding, pulling matter with it, NOT an explosion. This seems to me to TAKE credibility from the BBT (edit: as a theory on the origin of existence). At least an “explosion” idea gives a reason for the universe expanding, if an erroneous one. Second, the only way I can think of that this would pull matter along is the concept of a vacuum. To me, that doesn’t really seem to work. Among other potential fallacies, why aren’t galaxies and everything moving out from one point? I mean, they are, but in the most convoluted manner. For that matter, what is the universe expanding into? (These last two are more wondering than actual arguments.)

As I read further, he basically says that the Big Bang, if true, is not proof against God. I already knew that. I kind of assumed (my bad) you were among those who believe that Big Bang is proof against God and it is THAT that I argue against. I don’t totally buy the Big Bang Theory, but I’m not gonna definitively say it’s false, but poking at the holes of the theory is the easiest way to debate with someone who argues for it as an anti-God argument.

So, basically, the whole discussion’s moot to our debate – and really pointless. And it kind of defeats the purpose (or, rather, widely perceived purpose) of the BBT. If the BBT is merely a theory on where the universe came from, it is no longer an origin theory so, basically, you have no existence-origin-based argument against God’s existence and we’re back to the same point of the atheist-scientist-vs-creationist argument of the recent (historically speaking) past.

Adam:

Ok, some progress. You are getting lost by details – “created” just means that it was there. You are right, the theory doesn’t say how it got there, and it doesn’t claim to. Just because you can’t think (or understand) how space expands, do…esn’t mean it doesn’t (take spacetime or something). That is like saying, I don’t understand how DNA replicates, so it doesn’t.

Finally, I get some credit. I do not reject the belief in a god because I accept the Big Bang theory, I reject a belief in a god because the “god theory” doesn’t have enough evidence to support it. I have been saying this all along. In order to accept a theory, you don’t show that an opposing theory is bad, you show that your theory is good.

Yes. The big bang is not an origin-theory – it explains the evidence that we have up to 10^-35 seconds. BUT just because it’s not an origin theory, therefore leaving only one origin theory (GOD) doesn’t make that theory true! If there was only a demon theory of illness, do I accept it? No (there is no evidence to support it). Similarly, if you want to accept the origin of the universe by God theory, prove it true.

Me:

‎”That is like saying, I don’t understand how DNA replicates, so it doesn’t.” **AHEM** “I kind of assumed (my bad) you were among those who believe that Big Bang is proof against God and it is THAT that I argue against.”

Actually, it’s more like saying ‘I don’t understand how DNA replicates, so your theory isn’t explaining it properly’ (or just doesn’t cover that).

*sigh* I didn’t say it made the God theory true. What I’m saying is that it means you’ve got nothing contradicting the God theory.

Okay. I’m serious this time. Tell/Ask me to prove God’s existence one more time, and the discussion’s over. Not out of spite or anything, but it’s obviously pointless if you’re going to keep demanding that. By the way: besides the universe expanding, there’s really no “tangible” evidence for the Big Bang Theory. And even that’s not really enough (it had to expand from something – so, really, the BBT doesn’t even explain how the universe came to be – only how it came to be so large and in its current state).

I’ll prove God exists when you prove the BBT is true (which I’m guessing you’ll be unable to do seeing as how its accomplished proponents still call it the B.B. THEORY).

Adam:

I just meant to say that if you don’t understand how space expands, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t. Learn about how it does.

I am sorry, but you haven’t got past this crucial point. Just because a theory doesn’t contradict your theory, doesn’t make your theory true. Again, if the only theory I had about disease was demon theory (lets say in 1349 A.D.) and there wasn’t germ theory to contradict it, does that mean demon theory was true, or even remotely plausible? That is the argument from ignorance fallacy – just because something isn’t false DOESN’T make it true. Theories are independent, we believe the one that has the most evidence to support it.

Did you not read the evidences for BB, like cosmological redshift or cosmic background radiation? Heck, the latter was a PREDICTION from the theory, and it was found out latter to be true. Let’s see a god theory make a prediction that risky. Now I’m serious – before claiming there is no evidence for it, why don’t you look. There is a good reason why an extreme majority of the scientific community accepts it (and it’s not because they said so).

By the way, if there is no tangible evidence for BB, there is no tangible evidence that the sun exists. Light rays (Cosmic background radiation) is tangible evidence.

Jonathan:

The theory of inflation for the current layout of matter was supported by the COBE project showing that all matter is moving outward from a central point, greatly supporting the big bang theory.