Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God? [View all]NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)70. And here we go.
We are told the universe exploded into being from a single particle, but what will never be able to be explained is how the void that contained that particle existed in the first place. And even if they find a way to explain that, then it just brings up the question of how whatever was before that existed.
I don't know who told you that it exploded from a single particle, but that's not accurate. "Particles" didn't exist (or just barely existed) during the Planck Epoch (the earliest known period of the universe) because the laws of physics simply did not exist as we know them.
In very, very basic terms, the universe "began" as an immeasurably hot and dense entity where the natural laws we know today didn't exist, due to the nature of the universe. As that state expanded and cooled, the forces of the universe (like gravity) separated from each other.
before the big bang
Not a thing. There was no "before" the Big Bang because space time formed with it (as part of that separation I mentioned earlier).
We could never ever have absolute proof of how the 'whatever it is' before the big bang came into existence (and what was before that and before that and so on), and we could never ever have absolute proof of a higher being.
Three things:
1) There is no such thing as "proof" in science. Proof as a concept only exists in math, law, and philosophy. Proof is an absolute; science doesn't deal in absolutes, but in evidence. Hypotheses and theories with better evidence than others are what science is based on.
2) Just because we can't explain something now, doesn't mean we never will be able to. The conditions around the Planck Epoch are maddeningly difficult to understand because of the dense and hot nature of the universe at the time; the laws of nature didn't behave as they do now. Quantum mechanics as a field is hoping to shed some light on the subject, as it deals with behavior at that small a level.
3) You have to define "higher power." There's no one definition. In some cases, like with Yahweh, it is possible to say with certainty that there will be no evidence for Yahweh, because it is defined as a supernatural being. Science deals only in methodological naturalism--the testing of the natural world. Something being outside the bounds of the natural world--supernatural--cannot be tested with MN. Therefore, the question of Yahweh is utterly irrelevant.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
268 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
As God, I Have To Say That This Is Actually True, But None Of You Will Be Able to Comprehend Why
Skraxx
Mar 2014
#267
While it may be true that Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" he did so derisively.
CBGLuthier
Mar 2014
#6
Judeo-Christianity hardly possesses a monopoly on 'big-bang' cosmology-as-theology
Cirque du So-What
Mar 2014
#11
Yeah, I just prepended the 'breaking news' in keeping with this weeks CNN-ism n/t
IDemo
Mar 2014
#24
I want to believe that our universe was a being from another universe's equivalent to a...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2014
#39
If by "God" they mean Alan Guth's theory of hyperinflation, and Andrei Linde's theory of chaotic
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2014
#42
I agree. Basically it's cover, so they can disguise the fact that it's really a fundy Xtian agenda
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2014
#45
People more emotionally invested in getting you to affirm or deny a concept, than defining it
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2014
#46
Did God do it Himself or contract it out? If so, He should fire the contractors.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2014
#47
After the "black hole ate MH370?" fiasco, I really thought this was going to be satire
muriel_volestrangler
Mar 2014
#55
both god and big bang rely on some sort of faith for they can never be proven beyond doubt
politicman
Mar 2014
#57
science has it immeasurable benefits but it is inacapable of answering the question
politicman
Mar 2014
#147
Does a prosecutor in a murder case have to kill the victim over again to "prove" murder?
Silent3
Mar 2014
#268
isnt that what religion is, believing in something higher than humans and human topics
politicman
Mar 2014
#63
Miracles may be human imgaination, but so is belieing that something just always existed.
politicman
Mar 2014
#93
doesnt matter the age of the universe, where did the original conditions for the universe come from.
politicman
Mar 2014
#107
please dont think I want you to believe or say what you are against, thats your perogative.
politicman
Mar 2014
#127
why is your faith in soemthing you cannot conceptaulize more valid than mine
politicman
Mar 2014
#223
can you have an explosion into nothing? doesnt there have to be something to have the explosion in?
politicman
Mar 2014
#69
gravity yes, something appear out of nowhere with no conditions for it to occur, no i dont believe
politicman
Mar 2014
#149
If you want to insult go ahead, just makes your inability to provide answers
politicman
Mar 2014
#158
exactly, bot ideas require faith, so why is anyone calling out the other for being wrong.
politicman
Mar 2014
#122
"unless you argue that something just always existed with no beginning what so ever."
NuclearDem
Mar 2014
#131
theories can apparently explain alot if they never are able to be tested, dont you think
politicman
Mar 2014
#217
a 'hot and dense entity' is still something, an entity is still something that needed a beginning
politicman
Mar 2014
#100
time and space AS WE KNOW IT started with the universe, are we not to ask what was before that
politicman
Mar 2014
#118
yes i don't believe in evoulition, its too convienient that nothing has evolved since
politicman
Mar 2014
#185
I lose nothing by believing in god, instead I might gain something if I am right
politicman
Mar 2014
#193
you may think reality is more inspiring, but I think a higher being is a lot more inspiring
politicman
Mar 2014
#198
yes we dont live in the dark ages, but we dont have the answers to all the questions either
politicman
Mar 2014
#202
sorry if a cannot accept evolutionw without a proper explanation of why other creatures did not also
politicman
Mar 2014
#206
If life evolves according to habitat, why did Mars not evolve its own life to live in its habitat
politicman
Mar 2014
#225
It's why DU is seriously changing, not necessarily for the better...as results show
TeamPooka
Mar 2014
#258
No. If god caused the big bang, you are still left with the problem of what caused god.
FarCenter
Mar 2014
#59
No. The static model was roundly rejected in the mid-20th century for the reasons I gave you.
NuclearDem
Mar 2014
#263
Of course it does. It also offers the same amount of proof of the non-existence of God. -nt
Liberal Veteran
Mar 2014
#94
The existence or non-existence of God makes not the slightest difference to the practice of science
eridani
Mar 2014
#188
On a recent expedition to the East Coast, I discovered the ancient seaport of Nantucket
Thor_MN
Mar 2014
#214
science does not fully predict what i do. therefore i am divine. nt
La Lioness Priyanka
Mar 2014
#249