Forums → WEPR → The big bang theory real?

Yes the Big Bang is real. So is evolution. But telling that to anyone who has been thoroughly indoctrinated into one of the God of Abraham religions is pointless. They are going to believe their 2,000 year old goat herder almanac over any modern scientific explanation no matter how many facts are presented.

Yes the Big Bang is real. So is evolution. But telling that to anyone who has been thoroughly indoctrinated into one of the God of Abraham religions is pointless. They are going to believe their 2,000 year old goat herder almanac over any modern scientific explanation no matter how many facts are presented.

I won't try to prove you wrong. I will simply state that your beliefs are not supported in any way, so remember they're beliefs and not facts.

Read the quote from @HahiHa.

Read the quote from @HahiHa.

Indeed. But keep in mind that one who supports the claims offered up by big bang cosmologists and evolutionary biologists are far from being "not supported in any way". The same goes for objection to the CMB and the expansion of the universe. These claims are backed by the vast majority of experts in their fields. So they don't meet this charge of not being supported.

You might respond to this by saying that the claim that god exists is well supported by experts in that field. But the distinction between a physicist and a theologian, I hope, should be obvious. One is an expert in physics and so can make claims in their relevant domain. The other is not an expert in that field and so relying on their expertise is an appeal to authority, which is fallacious reasoning.

There's also a thread to talk about Biology and Astronomy versus Religion here:

After all, this is the only reference that has meaning within the constraints of science.

According to whom and to what? The separation between dimensional planes and their contents is a matter of simple geometric principles. The known universe is what we can observe as having matter and energy in it but that does not inherently mean that nothing can exist beyond the known universe or without the matter and energy contained within it. You're taking matters completely foreign to you and declaring them impossible out of hand.

This claim is patently false. I mean, how it could be more clear that things that aren't in causal connection with us aren't, a fortiori, "sitting right next to [us]". The theory of relativity has to do with one's frame of reference.

No, the theory of relativity has to do with how velocity affects mass which affects gravitational warping which in turn affects the time space continuum allowing for high velocity objects to exist within their own relative time. It may have stemmed from Einstein's daydreams about relative perception but in the end it's a matter of physical interactions creating relative differences in temporal impact. I also don't think you know what a fortiori means, or at the very least you didn't do a very good job of getting you're point across in that first sentence.

Nice find. I wonder, though, if you actually read the article.

I'm wondering if you did. I quoted the first sentence right in my post. If you prefer I can go with something a little more direct. "The basic elements of this theory are strings or membranes, subatomic one-dimensional energy threads." If I give you the benefit of the doubt, the best I can assume is that you used your computer to search for the specific combination of the words "string" and "energy" and when you didn't find it you simply assumed the article was meaningless. At worst, you completely ignored the article and are now just trolling.

That was not my claim at all.

I'll let the quote respond for me.

And finally, the early universe was far too hot for subatomic particles to form. Only once the initial conditions began cooling off did particles begin to form.

I'm beginning to wonder if we're even on the same page at this point. I mean, I'm sure I can find a Website than proclaims to disprove pretty much anything. But I followed the link that you provided, and it seems to be a clear-cut case of confirmation bias plus radical self-deception. I mean, I don't even see the point of engaging with this rebuttal as the link you provided simply provides more evidence of the big bang.

The link I provided led to a specific section of a wikipedia article about one of the telescopes studying what's believed to be the CMB. In that section there was a part I quoted here specifically because it directly counters your claim. If you're unwilling to look at counterarguments at all quit posting in this thread. If you're unable to keep you're responses civil then don't waste my time. And if you think being a moderator will scare me away from being just as blunt and rude to you as you are to me, think again. I've left other gaming sites because their forum mods couldn't be expected to act like decent reasonable people and I won't hesitate to do so again.

Half of your latest response is telling me that I'm cherry-picking my evidence solely to support my claims while in actuality you're the one cherry-picking. At first you claimed that the universe was too hot for particles to form, now you're saying you never made such a claim because it's ridiculous. Well of course it's ridiculous, that's exactly why I responded to the claim and pointed out how scientifically inaccurate it was. You displayed a blatant misunderstanding of the theory of relativity, and after I explained it to you in fairly simple terms you simply told me I was wrong and continued pushing your own version while throwing around Latin terms I doubt you actually know the meaning of because they have no place in your argument. Then you tell me that the CMB has to exist because we can point a telescope at the sun without any difference in readings, such a glaringly false statement that is easily disproven with a quick look through wikipedia. Yet you have the nerve to tell ME that I'M the one ignoring evidence and using strawman arguments.

Also, in your quote, you omitted a pretty important part of that, which is contextually relevant:
"This is a standard practise which sacrifices some accuracy for improved reliability."

I left it out because it isn't important to the point I was making. Yes, it is important to the whole of the wikipedia article. It is not however important to the claim you made and my counterargument. You stated that the CMB has to be real evidence of the big bang and can't have any other causes (specifically my claim that the sun was a likely cause of what we were reading as the CMB) because even if we point it directly at sources of radiation like the sun it remains constant. I countered with a link and a specific piece of evidence from that link that proved you were wrong. If the sun is so much as 5 degrees above the horizon all data received becomes completely useless because the solar radiation interferes with their equipment.

The first part is false, whilst the second part is true. As I stated previously, big bang models don't extend earlier than the Planck epoch.

The two theories in my first post are both theories I have heard. They're not something I made up and each one has had its own 15 minutes among scientists. Both dictate how the universe is believed to have been created and have separate events during the planck epoch depending on the exact mechanism of said origin. Why you haven't heard of them and why you insist they have nothing to do with the big bang theory is beyond me, but I'm done arguing the matter. It isn't up to you to declare that these theories don't exist and it's not worth my time to try arguing the matter when you have no interest in listening.

What I said was that, if a model of the origin of the universe conflicted with a big bang model, then one of them would be called into question. I fully recognise that it isn't the job of theories to support other theories. Instead, it is only in this level of consistency (especially when dealing with untestable hypotheses) that a given hypothesis can reach the level of theory.

First, that is not what you said. You said, " Instead of the big bang explaining the origins of the universe, the connection needs to go the other way. In other words, a theory that does explain the origins of the universe should be compatible with and support the big bang model. In the same way, a theory of abiogenesis should be compatible with and support evolutionary theory." In fact, the very term a fortiori means that you are using a stronger argument to support a weaker one. Second, by it's very nature and untestable hypothesis does not exist. It is an oxymoron of the most offensive nature. A hypothesis is a presumed explanation for observed phenomena designed to be tested, retested, and then tested again before it can even hope to become a theory. That is the core of the scientific method.

The same goes for objection to the CMB and the expansion of the universe. These claims are backed by the vast majority of experts in their fields. So they don't meet this charge of not being supported.

Relying on a person's stance on a questionable subject because they are an expert is no less an appeal to authority than relying on an authority figure in another field to act as an expert in something they don't know. I've had to deal with this argument more times than I can count and if you're planning to rely on scientific consensus as proof that you're right just let me know now and I'll stop posting in this thread. I simply don't have the patience or energy to deal with it.

Yes the Big Bang is real. So is evolution. But telling that to anyone who has been thoroughly indoctrinated into one of the God of Abraham religions is pointless. They are going to believe their 2,000 year old goat herder almanac over any modern scientific explanation no matter how many facts are presented.

The person who told you that is a blatant liar who deserves to have their mouth duct-taped shut for the rest of their life. There is a massive difference between physical laws and scientific theories. The people who claim otherwise are ignorant and angry children rebelling against their perceived oppressors by replacing one form of blind faith with another.

The person who told you that is a blatant liar who deserves to have their mouth duct-taped shut for the rest of their life. There is a massive difference between physical laws and scientific theories. The people who claim otherwise are ignorant and angry children rebelling against their perceived oppressors by replacing one form of blind faith with another.

@Ishtaron

You've provided some really compelling responses to my points. It seems as though things are getting heated, and that's the last thing I wanted. Though I freely admit that I was far too abrasive in some of my previous comments.

I think that we might have some differences in definition which, at the end of the day, will wind up in us talking past one another. There are also some deep differences in our interpretations of evidence. That again, will result in us talking past one another.

You're obviously a brilliant individual, and the last thing I want to do is push you away from the WEPR threads. We need more educated, well-spoken people like you to contribute to the conversation. You've clearly done your research, and I apologise for any suggestions otherwise.

So, with that in mind, I'll bow out - at least for the time being. Believe me - I want another shot! But I imagine our other users want to have their input considered.

Just for clarification (and this goes for all sides) an appeal to authority is fallacious reasoning when you cite a figure of authority that has expertise in some irrelevant field. So suppose I argued that Stephen Hawking thinks that black pudding is the best thing ever, so it must be. That would be an appeal to authority, since Hawking is not a food expert. So arguing that the Church thinks that the big bang is false is an appeal to authority. And so is the argument that physicists think that god isn't real.

In short, let's keep the conversation civil. I readily recognise I haven't done my part to facilitate this. But let's move forward in the spirit of learning from one another. After all, by explaining your views to someone who doesn't agree with you, you end up learning a lot more about the justification for your own views!

@Moegreche

I too have no desire for a heated argument, although I don't back down when one starts. I've learned from personal experience that retreating from aggression tends to invite more, especially when dealing with someone in a position of authority. I'm sorry if some of my comments seemed out of line, I do tend to lose focus of how much force is too much when I start to see something as a fight.

So, you're ignoring what I said in my second paragraph on page 2? Is there some force causing you to not see it, or something?

Two forces actually. The first is the big quote from Darth Tyrannus, who I find to be just as unpleasantly bigoted and sure of his belief Cyc2u. The second is the fact that I was directly debating Moegreche and only lightly skimming most of the other posts.

As for the actual statement, the only argument I have is to ask how the big bang created the laws of physics. I've heard it proposed before that the big bang, or some unknown event briefly after the big bang, created the laws of physics of our universe. I think the last time I heard it was in an article about possible explanations for the universe expanding at FTL speeds. Obviously I can't convince you that the universe wasn't this way as there's no way to observe the universe before it began. But just as I can't fathom a universe with fundamentally different governing laws (or no governing laws but Lewis Carroll tried), I can't fathom how a natural event could be capable of creating them. If you can explain to me how it did so I'd be happy to consider it, but otherwise such a statement is no different to me than saying "God did it" except that yours is posited as an argument of science not faith and is thus that much less credible.

There are two main theories I've heard to the big bang,

Where did you hear of this? Going back to the beginning is mathematically based. At a certain point as we calculate the process back we reach a mathematical singularity.

Another thing is that the Big Bang is the expansion of spacetime itself. This is why having space as we know it is nonsense "before" the Big Bang, I use before loosely as this expansion applies to time as well.

This is the only solid evidence I've ever heard anyone use to support the big bang theory.

There is also the redshift of galaxies. Another thing is the mix of elements we observe. Using the theory we can make a prediction of how many of each element we should see. That prediction matches what we actually see.
Evidence for the Big Bang

The person who told you that is a blatant liar who deserves to have their mouth duct-taped shut for the rest of their life.

So I can either believe the highly intelligent, well-educated scientists who spend their lives in the field studying these things, or some priest who avoided science like it was a plague his whole life.

With science you have to show your work. That means we don't need to believe the well educated scientists who spend their entire lives in the field studying things. We can accept what they are saying based on what the present us, here is why we think this.

Exhibit a) The Universe. The entirety of reality as far as we know. It is definitely expanding, and the rate of expansion is increasing. Motion must be caused by something.

Exhibit b) Cosmic Background Radiation. Regardless of where you are in space, or where your radio telescope is pointed, you will always pick up the same small amount of "background noise." Radiation doesn't spontaneously come into being, so it must be from somewhere.

The expanding universe and cosmic background radiation could be explained by many things, but a really big explosion involving everything would fit the bill quite nicely. Just because we don't understqnd something, it does not mean we can't observe it in action and deduce it's behaviour.

This is the only solid evidence I've ever heard anyone use to support the big bang theory. Because, you know, THERE ISN'T A GIANT NUCLEAR FURNACE BOMBARDING EARTH WITH RADIATION 24/7/365.25 THAT MIGHT CONTAMINATE SUCH RESULTS!