The Warring States of NPF

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)

- Dead threads (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=91)

- - Big Bang (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=14572)

What do you think? I'll post my views later because I have to go work at the library again. Until then, discuss, what do you think about the big bang? Did it exist or is it just a vile lie made by mankind...?

We're not supposed to have discussions like these because they usually end up becoming religious, but welcome to the forum.

Hehe, but I can make a comment without bringing religion into it.

The big bang could have happened for all I know. Or for all I know it could have been some punk from the 'Q' who decided to use a giant broom and flush atoms across a big black plate. But the only thing I can't agree with scientists on their theory is the beginning. Many of them say the big bang started as a result of an explosion of extremly dense matter that expanded to what it is now. Well...where did the stuff come from. Remember what our good friends Rodgers and Hammerstein tells us that 'nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could'. Lol, so yeah. I don't think we should claim to know how the universe 'began' if we don't know how that first extreme pack of matter and energy 'began'.

I'm going to quote myself from a slightly earlier thread...

Quote:

Perhaps it has always existed; that is to say, it has no beginning in time. Makes sense, based on the laws of conservation of matter and energy...

Or maybe there never were a Big Bang, and everything was there since the beggining... guess what... we cant really know...

If we just stay on the scientific side of this discussion, it will never get out of the "maybe" level... and the other direction its religion... So i dont think this thread will go any further

I don't think this is really a 'religious' discussion, as it's just a scientific theory being poked and prodded at. It'll probably be closed simply because of how close they are, though.

Well, getting in my thoughts, the big bang theory is viable - just hard to believe. It's often disproven by the fact that, speaking as we're here now, the chances of that happening are insanely low. I think it was said that the chances are equal to finding the winning number on a lottery ticket on the same sidewalk every day for five hundred years.

Might as well Wiki it.

EDIT: Sidarth's blade is quicker than mine.

My views on the Big Bang are as follows:

We don't know how the universe began. So, the Big Bang is the best explanation we have. It fits what we know, and is very very simple. As long as the shoe fits, as long as it works then does it really matter if it's right? I mean, how will we know if it's not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Graham

I don't think the fact the universe works proves existence of God at all. That's a logic trap. Imagine there's an infinite number of universes that don't work properly, and we have the only good one. "Ooh, what are the odds of us being in the good universe? God must have put us here!" No. This is the only one we could be in, because it's the only one that works. Just as this is the only (nearby) planet we could be on, because it has favourable conditions for us. Nobody says "What are odds of us living on Earth? Good thing we don't live on Venus, otherwise we'd all fry!" That would be a ridiculous claim; how could we possibly arise on Venus in the first place if the conditions were so unfavourable?

The fact is, I was inaccurate to say 'God set down the rules of physics,' implying they were in place right from the beginning. The rules likely established themselves in the split seconds just after the Big Bang, in the only possible configuration, fine tuning themselves automatically so that everything works, because they have to work because the universe does exist. There's some story scientifically-minded theists tell about certain properties of a star: apparently they're perfectly balanced, and if you were to change one number even a tiny bit, the star couldn't exist. Maybe you've heard that one. They fail to realise that the properties are interlinked, and if you were to change one, the others would change to compensate and remain balanced. It's like saying "Wow, what are the odds that fire is the exact right temperature to burn things? If it was too cold, that fuel wouldn't combust! God must have done it!" No. Fire reaches that temperature because it's burning that fuel - there can be no other way. And the universe works because it exists - there can be no other way.

You have confused yourself with talk of 'odds', as many people often do. The odds don't matter. What are the odds of winning the UK lottery jackpot? They're about 14 million to one. Those are ridiculous odds, faced with those odds, nobody could ever win the jackpot, right? Newsflash: Somebody wins the jackpot almost every draw. Sometimes we get a rollover, then somebody usually wins it the next draw. How are all these people beating the odds? They're not. Odds don't matter a shit when you are the one in 14 million. Our planet is the one in millions of billions, so don't say "What are odds of Earth having the right conditions for life?" Well, they're one in millions of billions, but the odds don't matter because we won already. And don't say "What are the odds of the universe having the right laws so that everything works?" They could be one in infinity. But again: Don't matter. Already won.

That explains the whole "odds" thing.

Actually, the Big Bang is far from the best explanation. There are many other theories out there, each more complicated and plausible than the last.

I think the current favorite is about all of existance having been around forevers.

The only reason that the Big Bang theory isn't completely dead is its popularity. The red shifts don't match up as well as they're supposed to, and the math works infinitely better with out it.

I have a book around here on it somewhere, but I've spent the last fifteen minutes searching for it and have turned up nothing--so you're getting the abbreviated, not using the proper names or figures, version.

Edit: Also, next talk of why Goddies are wrong gets this closed, AND someone warned or banned. Honestly, I don't mind the quote and understand it was more for 'hey, the idea of 'the odds' is stupid' (which it is), but the person being quoted was rallying against religious folk a bit too hard for it not to spark problems if replied to.