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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
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)106. There was no "before the Big Bang" as far as space time is concerned.
You say that there was no 'before', but in your same comment you say there was a 'hot and dense entity'.
The Planck Epoch is the period of time up to 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. That is the period of time in which it is hypothesized all the forces of the universe were condensed into one unified force. This included space time, though operating by vastly different mechanics than what we know now.
When the expansion and cooling began, space-time became its own entity.
Secondly, we rely on laws of physics for our explanations. So if we take the cop out that our laws of physics were not in existence before the universe came into being, then we are effectively admitting that unless we develop a whole new set of physics, we will never know the real answer as to what was before the universe.
No, we rely on the laws of the natural world for our understanding. This includes not only classical Newtonian physics (which most people call physics) and quantum physics. A major selling point for quantum is the possibility of shedding some light on the behavior of the laws of nature during the Planck Epoch, due to quantum's study of physics on a very small scale.
And if we ever develop a new set of the laws of physics, then we will just run up against the same problem we have now, namely that our new set of laws of physics would be inadequate to explain things the further we go back.
There is no going back beyond the Planck Epoch. Space time not existing and what not.
It is called 'infinite regression', there is always something that preceded what came into being.
You're entirely excluding the possibility that nothing else existed.
Nothing about science demands faith. Faith is irrational belief without evidence. Science is the exact opposite. Your whole argument seems to be based on "you don't have explanations for everything, therefore it's faith", which is utter nonsense. Science demands being willing to say "we don't know", while faith only says "we know, but we don't know why other than we do."
Pick up a copy of A Brief History of Time, any good cosmology textbook, or even just read the Wiki's entry on the Big Bang and follow the sourcing. This isn't the most difficult concept to understand if you truly want to.
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