Origin of Universe: God <vs> Big Bang/Non-God theories


westmanguy
Avatar
#1
Ok, when we think of the origin of the universe, the debate can get interesting.

I would like to first state, this has nothing to do with human life, and evolution vs. creationism. Evolution has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

This is about the origin of the universe.

Now, the biggest non-God idea for the origin of it all is The Big Bang Theory.

My basic knowledge of this, is the the idea a mass explosion of matter combusted and created the universe, and over billion-trillions of years, it slowly shaped into what it now is.

The other belief, is God created our universe.

Now, both, scientificall speaking, are out there.

A unproveable supreme deity vs A random chance that everything around us came about from a big bang.

Both, looking at it objectionally, are outlandish ideas.

So, honestly speaking, the one that makes more sense, as things stand now, is a supreme deity creating the universe.

Because, how can everything we all have today, come from a Big Bang, with extreme random chance.

I don't know.. taking, the evolution vs. creationism thing out of the equation, this is the biggest thing going for religion rate now.

How can science ever really trace back the steps and figure out how the entire universe works, and especially with a randon theory like The Big Bang.

Another thought to ponder: Where did this matter come from? Their always was and always is the same amount of matter.

You cannot create or destroy matter. I am correct, right? So if this is true, how does the Big Bang even shape up to make sense.

This is not a religion vs. atheism debate (we already had a full-on war, before in a now locked thread).

This is about people's opinion, with whatever religious affiliation/or lack of, about the universe coming to be.

Heck, we can't even grasp how large the universe is.

Friendly, respectful, and innovative debate please!
 
AmberEyes
Avatar
#2
Quote:

You cannot create or destroy matter. I am correct, right? So if this is true, how does the Big Bang even shape up to make sense.

You're exactly correct. This is why the universe always has, and always will exist. ^.^ It's like a circle, with no beginning and no ending.
 
snfu73
Avatar
#3
I believe the answer is still out there. Some fantastic discovery will be made in the future that will shed new light on the origins of the universe and either prove either/or theory, or produce a brand new theory. I don't think we know enough yet to determine what the origin of the universe is.
 
AmberEyes
Avatar
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73View Post

I believe the answer is still out there. Some fantastic discovery will be made in the future that will shed new light on the origins of the universe and either prove either/or theory, or produce a brand new theory. I don't think we know enough yet to determine what the origin of the universe is.

I have a feeling that day of understanding is far off in the future. There's no way of knowing what the truth is for quite some time, and I'm content not knowing.
 
L Gilbert
Avatar
#5
Quite right, Amber. I think the same thing might be true of life itself; not individual lives of amoebas and humans, but life in general. Who says there has to be a beginning to some things?
 
AmberEyes
Avatar
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Quite right, Amber. I think the same thing might be true of life itself; not individual lives of amoebas and humans, but life in general. Who says there has to be a beginning to some things?

I think it's the first law of biology that states life can neither be created nor destroyed, much like energy can neither be created nor destroyed. There are theories that life started from organic compounds billions of years ago, compounds that created a "prototype" of a cell I guess you could say. No way of proving that however.
 
L Gilbert
Avatar
#7
Those would be hypotheses, Amber, not theories. Theories generally have evidence pointing in a direction. It's my hypothesis that life always existed and others have hypotheses that are as you said. No-one is old enough to say which is correct.
 
AmberEyes
Avatar
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Those would be hypotheses, Amber, not theories. Theories generally have evidence pointing in a direction. It's my hypothesis that life always existed and others have hypotheses that are as you said. No-one is old enough to say which is correct.

Haha right, forgive me for mixing the two. I do know they did an experiment to try and provide some evidence, and they got pretty far, but it still wasn't "proof." They didn't actually create a living cell from inorganic material, just organic molecules.

I do like the hypothesis that life has always existed. A lot of people have trouble wrapping their minds around such a "bizarre" thought. I could say more about our limited ability to comprehend things, but I think I'd get in trouble with some of the CC critics. ^.^
 
L Gilbert
Avatar
#9
Yeah, even if life was created, I 'm pretty sure that it would have been created by chance. Given a finite amount of materials (somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred+) energies ( a handful) and billions of years to react with each other, it's highly probable that all the combinations of interaction have happened. And then evolution would have taken over from there.
 
AmberEyes
Avatar
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Yeah, even if life was created, I 'm pretty sure that it would have been created by chance. Given a finite amount of materials (somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred+) energies ( a handful) and billions of years to react with each other, it's highly probable that all the combinations of interaction have happened. And then evolution would have taken over from there.

I have no doubt that it was by chance. And, based on what I recently learned, the chances of it actually happening were very very small.
 
L Gilbert
Avatar
#11
Why? What dd you learn that gave you cause to think life's origin was an unlikely event?
 
lieexpsr
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by westmanguyView Post

Ok, when we think of the origin of the universe, the debate can get interesting.

I would like to first state, this has nothing to do with human life, and evolution vs. creationism. Evolution has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

This is about the origin of the universe.

Now, the biggest non-God idea for the origin of it all is The Big Bang Theory.

My basic knowledge of this, is the the idea a mass explosion of matter combusted and created the universe, and over billion-trillions of years, it slowly shaped into what it now is.

The other belief, is God created our universe.

Now, both, scientificall speaking, are out there.

A unproveable supreme deity vs A random chance that everything around us came about from a big bang.

Both, looking at it objectionally, are outlandish ideas.

So, honestly speaking, the one that makes more sense, as things stand now, is a supreme deity creating the universe.

Because, how can everything we all have today, come from a Big Bang, with extreme random chance.

I don't know.. taking, the evolution vs. creationism thing out of the equation, this is the biggest thing going for religion rate now.

How can science ever really trace back the steps and figure out how the entire universe works, and especially with a randon theory like The Big Bang.

Another thought to ponder: Where did this matter come from? Their always was and always is the same amount of matter.

You cannot create or destroy matter. I am correct, right? So if this is true, how does the Big Bang even shape up to make sense.

This is not a religion vs. atheism debate (we already had a full-on war, before in a now locked thread).

This is about people's opinion, with whatever religious affiliation/or lack of, about the universe coming to be.

Heck, we can't even grasp how large the universe is.

Friendly, respectful, and innovative debate please!

Are you trying to be funny now? First you say this is not about evolution/creation and then a few lines later you tell us that you reject the 'big-bang theory'. Nonsense, this is about your need to push creationist beliefs and you know it.

O.K., here's a start for you, considering you are prepared to set yourself up as one who knows enough to host such a thread. Hit the books and learn that evolution has nothing to do with 'random chance'. Learn the difference between that and 'natural selection' and maybe we will have something to talk about. If not, have fun with the teenagers and the mudslingers who are going to attack your beliefs for their evening's entertainment.

Why HECK westmanguy, if you want respect and innovative debate you should have thought about that when you helped to destroy the perfectly good one which was just locked!
 
gc
Avatar
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by westmanguyView Post

Because, how can everything we all have today, come from a Big Bang, with extreme random chance.

Better yet, how can God come from nothing just by random chance? He couldn't have existed forever, which means he had to be created at some point. For more on this, see this thread: --

Quote: Originally Posted by gc

If you say God has always existed, then God must have been around an infinite number of years ago. Now, if I said to you "I am going to do something (for example create humans) in an infinite number of years from now", that means it would never get done, because we will never reach infinite number of years. So, going back in time an infinite number of years from the creation of man, God would have created man infinity years from then, which means it never would have happened. I'm not sure if my explanation is clear, but if there is one thing I am certain about, it is that the Universe (by definition that includes everything including God) must have a finite life time.

 
lieexpsr
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Why? What dd you learn that gave you cause to think life's origin was an unlikely event?

Life's origin WAS an unlikely event. The relevant question is, what haven't YOU learned?
 
lieexpsr
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by gcView Post

Better yet, how can God come from nothing just by random chance? He couldn't have existed forever, which means he had to be created at some point. For more on this, see this thread: --

Blah, blah, blah. Who created god?

Oh, wait a minute, god just is!

Question answered as satisfactorily as it will ever be answered by you clowns!
 
L Gilbert
Avatar
#16
Still hung up on me, are you?
Quote: Originally Posted by lieexpsrView Post

Life's origin WAS an unlikely event.

Prove it.
Quote:

The relevant question is, what haven't YOU learned?

It's only relevant to you.
Now, how'd you like to quit trolling?
 
lieexpsr
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by AmberEyesView Post

I have no doubt that it was by chance. And, based on what I recently learned, the chances of it actually happening were very very small.

Good one Ambereyes. You have been paying attention to somebody and I sincerely hope that you have the answer framed in the right context. The chances of life happening are indeed very small. So small that in fact science estimates that of a billion, billion planets which are suitable for supporting some kind of lifeform, only a billion would. That's chances of 1 in 1 billion.
 
lieexpsr
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Still hung up on me, are you?
Prove it.It's only relevant to you.
Now, how'd you like to quit trolling?

I'm completely finished with you now Jillbear. Just wanted to give you a taste of your own medicine. Get the sound card fixed Jill so you won't have to keep making a fool of yourself.



And as a matter of fact, I am finished with this thread until something worthwhile comes up to comment on. At least a week I suspect!
 
L Gilbert
#19
And after time passes the chances against become smaller. Duh.
 
karrie
Avatar
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by westmanguyView Post

Ok, when we think of the origin of the universe, the debate can get interesting.

Heck, we can't even grasp how large the universe is.

Friendly, respectful, and innovative debate please!

I feel that intelligent design is at work. And no, I can't logic it out, trust me I've tried. Logic fails at a certain point, to explain the contradiction between what I can sense and what I know. I know that natural selection and evolution are at work. I know the science of it all. But I can sense something bubbling away there beneath the surface, a power that science alone doesn't explain. At least, not yet. It's neat to hear other peoples' views, and I hope you get the peaceful discussion you're hoping for, rather than the judgemental, condescening tripe we've come to expect from these threads.
 
karrie
Avatar
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by AmberEyesView Post

I have a feeling that day of understanding is far off in the future. There's no way of knowing what the truth is for quite some time, and I'm content not knowing.

I wish more people were content not having all the answers set in stone. There'd be a lot less fighting about the origins of the universe, and more frank, open discussion. Perhaps that's where we'd find the truth.
 
#juan
Avatar
#22
You know, the big bang theory can lend itself to my favourite scheme, and that is the "oscillating universe", which makes a bit more sense. Right now, all the stars and galaxies are flying away from each other. At some point, gravity will slow them down and stop them,(we hope) and drag them back together again where they will converge on a single point. All the matter in the universe will have dissappeared into that infinitesimal point and nothing will survive past that cusp. My universe will expand again in a big bang in another time, and another where, to start all over again. I didn't invent this, but I like this better that just saying there was a big bang....
 
gc
Avatar
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

You know, the big bang theory can lend itself to my favourite scheme, and that is the "oscillating universe", which makes a bit more sense. Right now, all the stars and galaxies are flying away from each other. At some point, gravity will slow them down and stop them,(we hope) and drag them back together again where they will converge on a single point. All the matter in the universe will have dissappeared into that infinitesimal point and nothing will survive past that cusp. My universe will expand again in a big bang in another time, and another where, to start all over again. I didn't invent this, but I like this better that just saying there was a big bang....

The problem with that is, how many oscillations will occur? Infinity? Why shouldn't it be infinity? And yet, I don't think it can be infinity, for the same reason that I outlined in my previous post in this thread.
 
RomSpaceKnight
Avatar
#24
I thought matter could be created or destroyed by changing of state with energy. Fission destroys matter. The end result is less matter with energy making up the difference. Energy equals mass times speed of light squared. The total entrophy cannot be changed. The sum total of energy and matter may be mixed in any combination but the total sum remains the same. We have dark matter and dark energy to explain differences in what should be the summ total of existance in the universe.
 
Blackleaf
Avatar
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by AmberEyesView Post

You're exactly correct. This is why the universe always has, and always will exist. ^.^ It's like a circle, with no beginning and no ending.

There was matter before the Universe was created.

According to scientists, all the matter that exists in the Universe today was, before the Big Bang, all contained in a tiny space much smaller than the diameter of an atom. For reasons unknown, this then exploded and expanded to create the Universe. The Universe didn't expand into empty space as you would expect because there was no empty space until the Universe was created (NOTHING, not even empty space, existed before the Big Bang, except all the crunched up material that expanded to form the Universe). Instead it expanded into ? creating empty space as it went along.

All this means that all the matter that makes up yourself was once contained in a tiny microscopic dot that also contained the matter that makes a star billions of light years away, and all the matter that makes up a stranger walking down the street. EVERYTHING you see in the Universe was crunched together in this miniscule space (which sounds too hard to believe)

Evidence for the Big bang comes from the fact that all the galaxis are rushing away from each other from a central point, as though they all had the same origin in a certain point of space. A bit like debris exploding outwards from an exploding bomb. There's also evidence from a map of some sort of background radiation in space that was produced by NASA a few years ago. Some scientists believe that eventually they will all stop moving outwards and start to move back inwards, towards the centre again, and all gather together, squeezed (amazingly) into a miniscule space smaller than an atom. This is what they call the Big Crunch. Then ANOTHER Big Bang will happen and the whole process will start all over again.
 
Blackleaf
Avatar
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by AmberEyesView Post

I have no doubt that it was by chance. And, based on what I recently learned, the chances of it actually happening were very very small.

Unless the Universe is infinite in size, meaning that there is an infinite number of planets in existence in the Universe. In that case, the chances of life happening somewhere in the Universe would almost certainly be 100% as in an infinite universe then everything must be possible.

It also means that, if the Universe is infinite, then there is a 100% chance of another planet in another part of the Universe that is EXACTLY like Earth in every detail, with the same shapes of the continents, the same countries, the same languages spoken - and another you.

Although this planet exactly like earth would definitely be an unimaginable distance away, a distance that humans can't contemplate.
 
AmberEyes
Avatar
#27
I did a bit more research on the subject, and it's apparent that the original Big Bang theory is pretty much dead. There are hundreds of "spin-offs" by the sounds of it, that can't explain how the universe started, just that it keeps expanding, possibly condensing again, and then expanding again, over and over.

Quote:

Unless the Universe is infinite in size, meaning that there is an infinite number of planets in existence in the Universe. In that case, the chances of life happening somewhere in the Universe would almost certainly be 100% as in an infinite universe then everything must be possible

This idea is not new to me. I can't remember who's hypothesis it was, but it was the idea that every little possibility, every little chance in itself creates a new universe where that possibility is acted upon, thus there are infinite amount of me's, because everytime I think a new thought or take an action there is an alternate me somewhere doing the opposite. Therefore, everything, every possibility exists simultaneously. Err... I'll be quiet now, because I'm talking out of my ass. ^.^
 
Dexter Sinister
Avatar
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by AmberEyesView Post

I did a bit more research on the subject, and it's apparent that the original Big Bang theory is pretty much dead. There are hundreds of "spin-offs" by the sounds of it, that can't explain how the universe started, just that it keeps expanding, possibly condensing again, and then expanding again, over and over.

This idea is not new to me. I can't remember who's hypothesis it was, but it was the idea that every little possibility, every little chance in itself creates a new universe where that possibility is acted upon, thus there are infinite amount of me's, because everytime I think a new thought or take an action there is an alternate me somewhere doing the opposite. Therefore, everything, every possibility exists simultaneously. Err... I'll be quiet now, because I'm talking out of my ass. ^.^

That's the so-called "many worlds" or parallel universes interpretation of quantum theory you're talking about, the notion that every possible quantum event actually happens. Instead of just being probabilistically predictable in one universe, a quantum event with multiple possible outcomes causes the universe to split into as many more universes as are required for each possible outcome to happen in one of them. There's no evidence for it, it's just an attempt to explain some of the bizarrely counter-intuitive results of quantum theory. The Big Bang theory's not anywhere near being dead though, it's just been heavily modified since its original conception. Somehow it seems relevent to re-post here something I posted in a thread about god being visible in creation a few months ago:

A recent book called The Cosmic Landscape by Leonard Susskind (a theoretical physicist of some renown, at least among theoretical physicists) goes into considerable detail about it, but the essence of it is that what we call the universe is but one of many pockets in a much larger whole he's dubbed the megaverse. It's another version of the old parallel universes theme, but with a difference: it's not just a speculation born out of attempts to make sense of quantum theory, this is what string theory appears to be pointing to quite explicitly. The pocket universes are born in random quantum fluctuations and the laws of physics won't be the same in all of them, we just happen to live in one whose laws permit life as we know it to develop. (And how could we be anywhere else?) String theory in fact seems to be suggesting there's somewhere around 10 to the 500th power of these pocket universes.

That's a big disappointment to a lot of theoretical physicists. They've been looking for their Holy Grail for almost a century, a single theory that'll explain it all; now it looks like they'll need about 10 to the 500th theories.
 
AmberEyes
Avatar
#29
Thank you Dexter

I try not to talk to much, seeing as I really don't know as much about the subject as I'd like to. Perhaps I'll head up to the library after physics class this morning, I'd like to know more about the subject. Any good reads I should consider?
 
Dexter Sinister
Avatar
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by AmberEyesView Post

Any good reads I should consider?

Lots.

Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Connection
Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality
Robert Oerter, The Theory of Almost Everything
Marcus Chown, The Quantum Zoo
Richard Feynman, QED
Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell
John Barrow & Joseph Silk, The Left Hand of Creation
Stephen Hawking & Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time
Martin Rees, Our Cosmic Habitat
B.K. Ridley, Time, Space, and Things

And if you're studying physics, this one might appeal to you, though it's really a reference for physicists and is rather heavily mathematical:

Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality.

Those are just the ones I can see without actually getting up from my desk here...

I'd also suggest you stay away from Gary Zukav and Paul Davies, at least until you've had a chance to absorb some real science from some of those others. Zukav and Davies are sinking into mysticism. Zukav's a journalist and can perhaps be forgiven for not getting it right, but Davies as a respected theoretical physicist ought to know better.
 

Similar Threads

10
Bang, bang ... ban
by Avro | Apr 15th, 2008
4
Big Bang Busted
by darkbeaver | Feb 23rd, 2008
0
Making sure your year goes without a bang
by Blackleaf | Jan 4th, 2007
3
The Premiership is back with a bang.
by Blackleaf | Aug 25th, 2006
no new posts