Big Bang Myth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
I hold the OPINION that the Big Bang is a myth.

As I said, it is an opinion.

I hold that this myth is based on fallacies.

First, the personification of nature.

Second, the personification of natural physical laws.

Third, the personification of evolution.

One could even hold that these are gods to some philosophers and scientists.

The most fallacious, I believe, is the combination of evolution and physical laws.

At the time of the Big Bang Myth, the physcial laws did not exist.

I could add more, but family life calls me to other duties.
 
Jim_Baur said:
I hold the OPINION that the Big Bang is a myth.

As I said, it is an opinion.
Click to expand...
Yes. It’s an opinion that is completely and totally wrong, being based on nothing but your own imagination.
I hold that this myth is based on fallacies.

First, the personification of nature.

Second, the personification of natural physical laws.

Third, the personification of evolution.
Click to expand...
All of these claims are incredibly vague and not even remotely true.
One could even hold that these are gods to some philosophers and scientists.
Click to expand...
One could. One would also be completely and totally wrong to do so.

For those interested in facts, the Big Bang theory was confirmed when we detected the cosmic background radiation that the theory predicted we would find.
 
I see nothing wrong with the idea that God created everything by using a Big Bang type method.

Just because we are Catholic doesn’t mean we cannot accept scientific fact or even theories. If the Big Bang is fact, wouldn’t that just confirm God’s power and greatness? What else could create such power.

God has given us science so that we would understand his power to a greater extent and not rely on superstition to describe his works.
 
I had to stop, and I never said the principle fallacies.

In the early 1900 they assumed that the physcial laws that they observed actually existed outside of the human mind. They don’t. They are a picture we drew to help us understand the world in which we live. It is like a drawing of a tree. It is not real. It helps us to understand the tree, but it is not real. The picture does not explain the existence of the tree.

They also assumed that the were perfectly correct. They were not perfectly correct and the world knows it. They were and still are incomplete, and the world knows it.

They assumed that the currect laws always existed, all the back to 15,000,000,000 years ago. That is the biggest part of the myth.

The laws didn’t exist even in the myth.

The laws would have had to evolve. In other words, the laws changed over the 15,000,000,000 years.

The laws, even in the myth, had to be different now then 15,000,000,000 years ago.

To add to the difficulties in this myth, each step in the evolution of the physical laws adds to the levels of difficulties. They are all shrouded in noumenon/noumena.

How many steps in the evolution is unknown!

As they evolved, in the myth, they had to be different and change.

The changes cannot be known.

It is a nice myth, but it is merely a myth.

Pythagorus, Plato, Augustine, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo and Newton held the opinion that mathematics exist outside of the human intellect. Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo believed that math ran or animated the physical laws. They are incorrect. They are incorrect on both points. There is no empirical data to support either one of the just mentioned points.

I still do not have enough time to continue, family life calls me back to work.

God bless!!!
 
From what I understand, we have quite a bit of evidence for the big bang occurring and the theory it’s self is well supported in the scientific community.

Who am I to disagree? I am no scientist, after all.
texasag7599 said:
I see nothing wrong with the idea that God created everything by using a Big Bang type method.

Just because we are Catholic doesn’t mean we cannot accept scientific fact or even theories. If the Big Bang is fact, wouldn’t that just confirm God’s power and greatness? What else could create such power.

God has given us science so that we would understand his power to a greater extent and not rely on superstition to describe his works.
Click to expand...
It’s important to remember that the original theory was formulated by a Roman Catholic Priest who was a professor of physics and astronomy. Pope Pius XII actually accepted the idea because the predominant theory, at the time, was that the universe had always existed in it’s current state. The big bang proposed the radical idea that our universe had to have a beginning and end. This excited many Catholic officials, including the pope, because if there is a beginning, they assumed, there must be someone to create it – God.
 
The man who first formulated the Big Bang theory is a Catholic priest and I believe he is still carrying out research at the Vatican’s observatory in Arizona.

ChadS
 
Jim_Baur said:
the evolution of the physical laws adds to the levels of difficulties.
Click to expand...
You appear to be using the word “evolution” in a strange new way that has nothing to do with the accepted definition of “evolution,” which is biological.

At any rate, I’m going to guess that Jim is attempting to explain – quite clumsily – that we can only go back about as far as “planck time” (a very short period of time after the Bang). We don’t know anything about what happened before this time, and I’m pretty sure it’s speculated that the four fundamental forces were unified back then. We don’t really know enough to say more.

How these facts suggest that the Big Bang is a “myth” is beyond me.

Incidentally, for those interested, a “theory” in science does not mean what we usually mean when we use that word. In day to day speech, a “theory” is a “good guess.” In contrast, in science, a “theory” is a well-supported explanation of facts. In order to be a “theory” – which is the highest level of scientific idea – an idea has to have a great deal of evidence behind it.

Other “theories” include gravitational theory, atomic theory, germ theory, and evolutionary theory. All of those theories are models, very, very well-supported by evidence, that explain facts.
 
Jim_Baur said:
What is the essence of the physical laws of nature?
Click to expand...
I’m afraid that I don’t understand what your question means. The “laws” of nature are our description of the way that the universe acts, based on our observation of it.

They’re descriptive laws, not proscriptive laws.
 
In the beginning, the physical laws were perfectly symmetric. Today, however, we live in a world of fallen, non-symmetric physical laws. We are no longer in the Garden of Eden. The scientific name for this is “spontaneous symmetry breaking”.
 
The “laws” of nature are our description of the way that the universe acts, based on our observation of it.

Yes! The laws are a description.

I am six feet and one hundred and seventy pounds.

That is a description.

My essence is a rational being or any definition that one uses.

What is the essence of physical law(s)?

What is one’s scientific definition of the natural laws?

What do we mean by law and nature?

Myth: a usual traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief or natural phenomenon (Webster’s Seventh College Dictionary)

In one’s scientific judgment, when was the Big Bang?
 
The Big Bang is NOT a myth, it is a scientific theory that is supported by mountains of evidence! In 1931 a Belgian Catholic priest by the name of Georges Lemaitre proposed that the universe began with the “explosion” of the “primeval atom”-- Contemporarily known as the Big Bang theory. It is supported by numerous amounts of evidence such as the red shift observations, expansion of the universe, Einstien’s Theory of relativity, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, various PROOFS etc. No other theory has been so widely accepted(by most scientists), nor so corraborated by the evidence, as the standard Big Bang Model. So please do not be so quick to go against well established scientific theories as it just fuels anti-theistic religion vs science propaganda. Also you provided no formal arguments against the Big Bang theory, other than basically saying its “myth”. Do you have any evidence against the Big Bang theory? If so what?.If anything it shows that the universe did have a beginning and confirms Genesis 1:1 that “In the Beginning God Created the heavens and the earth”
 
If you don’t like Big Bang Theory there are alternatives that are based on Big Bang evidence but argue for a cyclical universe or multiple universes. Most of these theories are based on String Theory, Brane Theory, Ekpyrosis, etc. None of them fit the evidence so nicely as Big Bang, however, as interesting they may be. They all depends on what caused the Big Bang in the first place, and most are extremely speculative. If you read through them you get a real handle on how un-mythic Big Bang seems in comparison.
 
Those other theories/ideas mentioned by Karmartia [above] think of the universe as a pulsing thing. The universe expands to a certain point, it slows, and its gravity pulls its constituent parts back together again to one point, perhaps. Then the universe explodes again and expands.

The problems with these cyclic ideas is that the universe as it is expanding should be constantly slowing down the further it expands as its energy is dissapated and gravity gains the upper hand.
However, from observation, far from the universes’s expansion slowing down, as it should, the universes expansion is in reality accelerating; and further, it is accelerating at an exponential rate.
The second problem is, I think, that the universe, as we understand it, has already passed beyond the point where its gravity *could *pull it back together.

The picture one has in ones minds eye, now, is of an ‘eternally’ expanding universe. And these things that expand always also have a point, or origin, from which they expand. As far as I know, indications are that our universe has an origin and will expand forever, or, until the end of time.

There were and still are four fundamental forces in creation, and nothing else. Matter is just our experience of some of these forces. And these forces are themselves related to each other and become themselves four aspects of one phenomenon.

Interesting ideas you raise about how all information in the universe could be contained in 2, 3, or 4 annoymous forces. e.g. does the electromagnetic force cause Love in the universe and ice on Pluto. Does the Weak Interaction cause forks in my carrots, tuning forks to vibrate prettily in my ear and my neighbours love of heavy metal.

Can four forces, which are basically one ‘electric’ phenomenon, cause anything by themselves, or give rise to anything blindly or give birth to anything ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

Everyone loves good things and hates bad things. Another fundamental force is ‘good’. It appears to shape all of creation, it underlies its design, independantly; and even our inner perception of creation; we see the goodness in people, in creation, nature, beauty in plants and animals and sunsets and sunrises, in mists and fruit and plenty. The clouds and blues of the sky do not leave us cold but cheer us; the stars and distances engage us with their vastness and attractive cool beauty.
Goodness, then, seems to be an underlying force in this universe, it has really shaped both it and us. We see creation and call it good as its Creator saw what He had made and said that it was Good.
This underlying force of good has projected goodness into a 3-dimensional reality by using four, or one, fundamental ‘electric’ forces.
 
Karmartia said:
If you don’t like Big Bang Theory there are alternatives that are based on Big Bang evidence but argue for a cyclical universe or multiple universes. Most of these theories are based on String Theory, Brane Theory, Ekpyrosis, etc. None of them fit the evidence so nicely as Big Bang, however, as interesting they may be. They all depends on what caused the Big Bang in the first place, and most are extremely speculative. If you read through them you get a real handle on how un-mythic Big Bang seems in comparison.
Click to expand...
From a layman’s perspective, I always found things like a cyclical universe or multiple universe theories a bit difficult to swallow. For one thing the theoretical physics they employ aren’t really agreed upon by all physicists, while the math may work out on paper there isn’t any direct evidence to support these theories. In my opinion there seems to be more contradicting evidence than supporting (like the expansion of the universe is accelerating). For me, the Big Bang theory lines up best with my beliefs of a God as sole creator of the universe.

ChadS
 
My opinion is that human reason is not strong enough to discern the nature of the physical laws.

Science gives us descriptions. A description does not reveal the essence.

My opinion is that the teaching of science is that the laws of the universe evolved or developed or unfolded.

The laws of life did not come into existence until life–whether on Earth or in the many other places, came into existence.

Furthermore, scientists are unable to come to a universal consensus as to what the nature of mathematics is.

What is the empirical data that mathematics exists extramental or not?

We are not powerful enough to know what the steps are in the unfolding of the laws of the universe.

What was the nature of the mass that existed just before the Big Bang?

How long did it exist?

What laws existed before the Big Bang?

Step-by-step, what laws came into existence and when?
 
This is from a popular, not scientific, account of the Big Bang. It is from Isaac Asimov’s “Guide to Earth and Space,” pages 248-249.

Today, however, scientists generally accept as fact that the solar system was formed by natural processes from a cloud of dust and gas 4.6 billion years ago, and that the cloud had existed since soon after the origin of the universe, perhaps 15 billion years ago.

But even if we go back to the big bang and imagine that all the matter and energy of the universe was concentrated into a tiny ball of incredibly dense, incredibly hot material that exploded to form the universe, where did that tiny ball come from? How did it come into existence? Must we assume supernatural creation?

Not necessarily. A branch of science was worked out in the 1920s called “quantum mechanics,” which is far too intricate to into here. It has been an extremely successful theory, explaining phenomena nothing else could adequately explain and predicting new phenomena that turned out to behave precisely in accordance with the predictions.

In 1980, an American physicist, Alan Guth, took up the problem of the origin of the big bang in terms of quantum mechanics. WE might visualize the universe before the big bang tok place as a vast, illimitable sea of nothingness. Apparently, though, that is not an accurate description. The nothingness contains energy, and it is not quite a vacuum because, by definition, a vacuum contains nothing at all. The preuniverse had energy, and since all of its other properties resemble those of a vacuum, it is called a “false vacuum.”

From this false vacuum, a tiny point of existence appears where the energy just happened, by the blind forces of random changes, to have concentrated itself. In fact we might imagine the illimitable false vacuum to be a frothing, bubbling mass, producing foam. Some of these bits of existence might disappear promptly, subsiding back into the false vacuum. Some, on the other hand, might be large enough, or have been formed under conditions, as to undergo a rapid expansion into a universe. We live in such a successful bubble.

This, to me, sounds like a myth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top