You said it yourself, it's a theory, a theory that still needs to be proven true. Since this is still only a theory, there is the possibility that there has been a before. At the present time, it is impossible to know.
Einstein's theory is even being questioned now. If Einstein's theory is proven to be wrong, doesn't that corrupt a lot of the information about the Big Bang? I think it's too early to accept the Big Bang as what happened. However, I suppose as it stands now, that is our most sensible option.
But I think we're de-railing the original purpose of this thread now. I blame the lack of Christians on this thread. We have no one to argue with.
In science things should be constantly questioned. Though we wouldn't just simply throw them out. Usually what happens is we improve and refine a theory to make it more accurate. Which theories are you referring to?
Also the term before here can only be used in a very loose way since technically since there was no space "before" the Big Bang there was also no time as the two are essentially one in the same.
Isn't one of the theories about the universe that it expands and shrinks back into a singularity. So wouldn't that imply both space and time existed in the past, but we lost when the universe shrunk into a singularity.
Isn't one of the theories about the universe that it expands and shrinks back into a singularity. So wouldn't that imply both space and time existed in the past, but we lost when the universe shrunk into a singularity.
I'm not sure if it could be regarded as the past as once it goes back the the singularity we no longer have time. So the term before would still have to be used loosely. Though based on the likely shape of the universe I doubt this is what happens. I'm more in favor the the Big Freeze.
Guess we have derailed this enough from the highly questionable existence of god. So I will ask again.
If there is evidence for a god, what is it? If there is no evidence for god then why should we give god special treatment and not require proof, as we would for everything else we consider to be real?
guys the big bang link you sent me has no proof it even said that its just a theory they came up with to explain everything so really scientists are clueless on how everything began
guys the big bang link you sent me has no proof it even said that its just a theory they came up with to explain everything so really scientists are clueless on how everything began
Its got more proof than a god being in existence. You see, we will happily say "its a theory" and "we looked at the evidence and based on everything we know this is what we think happened"
You show no evidence for gods existence. Which would be fine if it wasnt for all the nasty business that comes with it i.e. stoning witches, killing in the name of, degrading women and generally persecuting a world of people who dont believe the same thing.
Time and time again religion has been asked to prove anything... and it proves nothing then turns around and says "YOU have to DISPROVE it" or "I dont need to" etc
Scientists are not clueless. They just dont know for a fact, yet you will continue to use this as "evidence" that they dont know and that goid is real... here is a task for you... get real.
Suspend your preconceptions for religious and scientific ideas and explanations (or lack of) for a moment.
The starting point I believe for a person using unassailable logic is.
Have you or anyone you have ever met witnessed or even heard of anything that has designed and built itself? I am sure if a person tried to sell you the idea that the house you live in,the car you drive, the computer you are using, at some time in the past were just raw materials and somehow they came together in a specific way that enabled their function and purpose.Would you not label them crazy insane!
As you are no doubt aware the simplest form of life is far more complex than anything that man has created thus far. Therefore reason and logic must dictate that something or someone has created life and the systems to support such. Regardless of the mind boggling time frames attributed to spontaneous design without the need for a designer.
Would not logic dictate that this is crazy insane also?
guys the big bang link you sent me has no proof it even said that its just a theory they came up with to explain everything
It wouldn't be an accepted scientific theory if it didn't have evidence.
clueless isnt the word id use. they have clues, as do religious people, the problem is, there is no proooooof
Might considering actually reading the links.
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning. * Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. * Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery. * Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
Have you or anyone you have ever met witnessed or even heard of anything that has designed and built itself?
I wouldn't use the term design or built in regards to life. However do we have an example of something that can form on it's own, then yes crystals. They are very complex things and form on there own.
I am sure if a person tried to sell you the idea that the house you live in,the car you drive, the computer you are using, at some time in the past were just raw materials and somehow they came together in a specific way that enabled their function and purpose.Would you not label them crazy insane!
The problem with these argument is non of these things have the properties life does. Once we apply the properties of life to such objects it does become likely. Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
As you are no doubt aware the simplest form of life is far more complex than anything that man has created thus far.
Are you talking about modern life or life in the past? Because we have made things that are more complex then the simplest form of life that has naturally evolved. Even if this was the case complexity doesn't equate to a creator.
Therefore reason and logic must dictate that something or someone has created life and the systems to support such.
Replicating the environmental factors and adding in the basic chemical compounds abundant on this planet it was found to be quite easy for basic RNA molecules to form. So given early earth environment and the chemicals available self replicating molecules could have easily formed on there own.
Regardless of the mind boggling time frames attributed to spontaneous design without the need for a designer.
It's as much spontaneous design as the mixture of chlorine and ammonia spontaneously designs toxic fumes.
