The Big Bang
6.74
Ratings: 6.74/10 from 31 users.
Professor Jim Al Khalili delves into over 50 years of the BBC science archive to tell the story behind the emergence of one of the greatest theories of modern science, the Big Bang.
The remarkable idea that our universe simply began from nothing has not always been accepted with the conviction it is today and, from fiercely disputed leftfield beginnings, took the best part of the 20th century to emerge as the triumphant explanation of how the universe began.
Using curious horn-shaped antennas, U-2 spy planes, satellites and particle accelerators, scientists have slowly pieced together the cosmological jigsaw, and this documentary charts the overwhelming evidence for a universe created by a Big Bang. (Excerpt from bbc.co.uk)
Hail to those who still understand that "theory" means UNPROVEN and in such a realm as "the beginning" may as well be disregarded until something comes along that hasn't been devised to exclude spirituality, which actually is a part of our being. The denial of which is what causes so many to stand up forthwrong and proclaim red is green and wonder why they are always running into trouble, like car accidents. In many or most cases, it is just an ego trip for someone to spout a theory which some will accept because they are all running from the same thing, their real self. We don't really need to know anyway. We've managed to survive this long and still don't really know. What is wrong with "not knowing" something? Why do people buy into what the school or the TV tells them rather than seeing they don't really know and are just repeating more THEORIES about lots of things.
For instance @Kelly Elton way above:
"Science: Evolution, quantum physics, gravity, speed of light."
"Not science: Religion(which fights to prove itself right, where science fights to prove ideas wrong), alternative medicines, ghost hunting, acupuncture, colonic treatments, the 'scientific studies' that 'prove' praying actually makes people better."
How thoughtless... A Phd "defends" their dissertation in front of professor(s) who question it or things about it, since it is supposed to cover some new ground. Is "c" the speed of light, a constant as claimed or does the speed vary depending on the medium in which it travels? The latter has been proven. Is the speed of light the fastest speed possible as claimed? It was observed long ago in the time of Tesla that atomic particles were traveling significantly faster, something like 20-25% faster if I recall. There is at least one documentary on this website that gives credible evidence that man, the same species as we are now, existed along side the dinosaur. And that the dating methods are certainly flawed. Evolution is an unproven THEORY which claims that one specie can turn into another one. Rubbish in the face of at least 500 years of breeding experiments which show that you either come up with a organism that won't reproduce or you come back to or close to the original. Can't recall the name of the principle involved. Gravity? How is that "science" when few understand it. Is it a pull as we are taught or is it actually a push from a scalar universally present force acting in all directions? The push theory says that objects in the way shade the force from that direction thereby pushing you toward that object from the unshaded side. This aethereal force would explain a lot as well as why the old timer scientists believed that space was not empty and that the aether could be tapped as an energy source. Some succeeded in doing so. If perpetual motion is an impossibility as they teach us, how is it that the moon circles the earth for so long? If alternative medicine is not science then all medicine is not science. Most of the drugs prescribed today are a distant second to natural items that were studied in order to make a synthetic which is actually toxic. When you see acupuncture relieve a person's pain so they can move their hip again or read when Dr. Max Gerson was curing cancer in the 1940's using PROPER colonics and juicing to cleanse the body of cancer causing pesticides and other toxins, maybe you'll wake up to the fact that what doctor's practice today isn't science at all but the false hope of better living through synthetic chemistry via their just as thoughtless confidence in their false science sold to them in school.
Too bad for those ideally born for the indoctrinators. Go eat their scientific GMO food and be happy when your stomach and other systems eventually complain. It must be great to "know" you are qualified to list what is and isn't science. Many of the hard and fast "rules" of science which seem to be useful in order to make things we have work are only true in a certain range of application. Outside those parameters and those rules don't apply. Now that IS science from a Nobel prize winner. Peer reviewed science is garbage if your peers will lose their job if they agree with you publicly. That is agenda controlled science which is no science at all.
This is hilarious. The last place I thought I would find good comment drama was on a documentary website. My question is, for all the people that think the "big bang" is bullshit, why are you here? Why are you watching this? You don't care, remember? It's best to just abandon your beliefs now so you'll look cool before everyone starts doing it. You just believe in one less god. You already are an atheist to Hindu's even though their religion is older, has wayyyy more literature in its holy book. So you dont believe in Vishnu or Lord Bhrama. If you read your bible, you'd know your god (Yaweh) was defeated in a battle against another Kemosh of the Moabites... So yea.. Your god isn't so great after all. Check it for yourself, the story is in Numbers.
God laughs its ass off at you clowns, both sides!
The big bang hasn't happen yet. We look at the birth of the universe as an explosion which usually means the end of things but when it comes to the universe the same explosion means the beginning of it. Why? Using Hubble Inflation theory the universe is growing - its expanding getting bigger. If evidence shows the universe is expanding due to inflation then I would have to say what will happen when the inflation ends? Has the big bang happen yet?
To the interested reader: Look up Kawecki Universe on the web for more discussion on this....
The so called "overwhelming evidence" supporting the Big Bang is absolute bullocks riddled with assumptions and ad hoc fixes. What's even more amazing than this fantasy theory is how long this dogma has been a big part of established cosmological beliefs. Relatively speaking, however, the Big Bang has a ways to go to rival flat earth theory.
The theory has overwhelming evidence. I question where you go seeking truths... It is pretty cut and dry... the universe without a doubt expanded from a single point some 13.7 billion years ago. only someone without an understanding of redshifts, cosmology and the scientific method would state something as preposterous as you. its like denying evolution. the facts are there, its just some have a hard time swallowing them. and I too am amazed at fantasies and how long some in particular continue to blemish modern society. cough* religion. cough*
To sum things up, do a little more research before you make such asinine statements otherwise you end up looking stupid.
The story of the Sleeping giant: In the beginning there was nothingness without limits. Then then there was light without limits. imagine a sleeping giant -the nothing- that becomes aware of its own existence. (Yes Nothingness can exist just like an idea or a thought can) That moment is the moment of creation. But for all of us to grasp this concept a new paradigm has to be accepted: the fact that the foundation of reality is consciousness and not matter. Re: The Primacy of Consciousness.
the theory of the big bang ..... put together with the theories on a black hole the similarities are obvious ... but are they related ... when a black hole stops taking material in will it cool and go BANG .... if so is this how our universe started .... could a Black hole be an infant universe waiting to hit dead space ...
The theory of GR says that black hole will ingest matter forever forms an infinite singularity, Hawking suggest that in a great amount of time, the matter in a black hole will evaporate by quantum effects.
The bottom line is, no one really knows.
There is no dead space, space is a thing, full of quantum effects/quantum foam, may sound weird but when a quantum "jitter" occurs gives rise to probabilities, which form all, you may want to look into string theory, M theory for a
a better picture. Space itself is contained in a big bang, not the other way around. Continue at a later time, have to go for now.
The discussion is Very Clear that for a black hole to exist in the first place it had to have something which Created it. the matter is, how can everything come out of nothing? The theory is a Good one, most definitely, But however. the Theory claims that something is Already there. To affirm that it already is, confirms that you believe something Eternal.
Haha you guys make me laugh
i have a Question : to whom it may concern ... you say that it all started as the 4 elements starting to cool to make the BANG ... now another documentary states that a Black hole takes everything we have and puts it back into the 4 elements under intense heat and pressure ... they sound really familiar to me ... are these 2 things one and the same ... if so does that mean when a black hole stops feeding it will cool and go bang .... i don't have an answer and it's been eating at me since i seen it ... if anyone can give me an answer i'd be grateful ty ....
Don't know what you mean.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
i can see by the comments on here there are some religious people on this thread who refuse to accept human beings advancement in thinking and want to stick to their "god done it, and more to the point, my god done it" lol ******.
the universe created itself in the big bang. no need for a grand designer.
the laws of nature dont leave a place for a grand designer.you cant get to a time before the big bang because there was no before the big bang. Its something that doesnt require a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in.
there is no possibility for a creator.
the big bang couldnt have been caused or created by anyone or anything.
the concept of a god existing doesnt make sense,its like asking for directions to the edge of the earth.Its a futile load of nonsense.
get over it, wishful thinking will get our species nowhere. religion and gods are only here through brainwashing children since the get go. very much virus like. its the worst thing to happen to us as a species. faith as a virtue? believing in things without evidence is a virtue? no, ts not. its just st*pid.
Most of what you said is right, in a broad sense... but don't make theories sound like facts because we will never truly know what started the universe or what was after it. Go theories and evidence the there was a big bang, no evidence of what was before that. Point is nothing is proven.
4th year at Lakehead University - Astronomy
You said: "the universe created itself in the big bang. no need for a grand designer. the laws of nature dont leave a place for a grand designer.you cant get to a time before the big bang because there was no before the big bang. Its something that doesnt require a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. there is no possibility for a creator."
God's existence is not dependent on time. If you are saying that God requires time to exist, then according to you God is not God, time is God, because God is dependent on time.
Universe created itself. How can something that doesn't exist, create itself out of nothing, all by iteslf? On one hand science tells us that everything comes from something, something that doesn't exist cannot create itself. Then how can you justify that universe created itself, out of nothing?
Just because you haven't seen what was there before time and just because your mind is unable to conceive it, doesn't mean nothing was there. A child in the womb is only familiar with the womb, he cannot tell how mother looks like, but that doesn't mean mother doesn't exist. Just because a child cannot breathe in the womb, doesn't mean that air doesn't exist. There are some things that are beyond the intellectual capacity of human mind, and we should accept that. Just because we don't know what was there before, we cannot say that nothing was there. Something cannot create itself out of nothing, all by itself. I believe in the Big Bang, but to me, this theory is just another religion behind the facade of science.
Science does not say the universe was created from nothing, it only deals with what happened after the point of creation, because that is the only information we have access to to, and even that is severely limited. To propose a 'god' did it is the same mistake as to say nothing did it, because we cannot know (if you claim you do, you are lying). If as you say, something cannot come from nothing so therefore there must be a creator 'god', then what created your 'god something' that cannot have come from nothing?
If something can only come from something, there must always have been something which negates any possibility of original creation. So if something can come from nothing, only then is there a possibility for the 'creator god something', but unfortunately for the promoters of it, then there also is no longer a requirement for the 'creator god something' to explain how the universe was created, though the infinitesimal possibility remains, it becomes completely irrelevant.
Quantum mechanics strongly suggests that some thing may indeed come from nothing, or more correctly there is >0 chance that it will, because if only nothing can come from nothing, then there is an absolute probability ==0 for something and this is clearly not the case, as we certainly have something.
Regards,
Sam.
Quantum mechanics does suggest that the universe came from absolutely nothing, and Stephen Hawking concurs when he says in his book "The Grand Design" with mathematical proofs, that the universe came from absolutely nothing!
But you guys are heading into CA, "cosmological argument" argued since Plato's time. Persons can argue forever since it is suggested by science there are 10^500 different universes all happening at once, that came out of absolutely nothing.
Bro, Sam. (can I call you bro? some people seem to have a problem with that :|)
Actaully, I am not saying that something cannot come from nothing. I think that is what science tells us. I only meant to say, that something cannot come from nothing, "all by itself". Someone must have created it. I don't know much about the Quantum theory. But, as far as the Quantum Theory is concerned, oky I agree, it does tell us that something can come from nothing, but it cannot answer the question why or how? Quantum theory doesn't negate the possibility of God.
Can I ask you what is your definition of God? If I am holding a pen, and I am saying its a book, you will immediately say that this is not a book, because you know the definition of pen. Then what is your definition of God?
In my definition, God has not been created from anything. In fact, God hasn't been created at all. Every created thing comes from something, but, God hasn't been created, so he cannot come from something. Every created thing has a creator, God hasn't been created, so doesn't have a creator.
The moment I mention the word God, by definition it means that God doesn't come from something, because He has not been created by anyone, and nothing is superior to God. Neither is God born, nor will He ever die.
In my opinion, god is not, has not been. god is in the making, we have only been talking about IT for eons.
Every pass definition of the word god is wrong, and when atheist and theist drop all those definitions, we will be closer to finding out what God could be.
A "nothing" may be closer to God then anything else, but then what is a "nothing" to us but something that is not.
az
Well, you certainly have the right to have your own opinion :). But, here is my definition of God:
1. He is the one and only.
2. He is absolute and eternal. He does not have an origin, nor does He have an end.
3. He begets not, nor is He begotten.
4. There is no one else like Him and He has the power over all things.
5. He is not a human, nor does He take human forms. For the sake of argument, even If God takes human form, then He must not possess human qualities. All the “god-men” are known to have human qualities.
6. The creator prepares an instruction manual.
7. God does not perform ungodly acts such as making mistakes, forgetting things or having any such human failings. He can do injustice if He chooses to, but He will never do it because being unjust is an ungodly act.
8. To Him belong the most beautiful names. He is the most Merciful, the most Gracious, the most Wise.
You know, Goddess might get really annoyed that you keep calling Her 'he'.
You beat me to it!
az
@kateye70 and @Azilda
LOL... God is genderless, as I said there is no one like Him, nothing is comparable to him. You people should know the difference between natural gender and a grammatical gender. Or perhaps its my fault I didn't tell you that I am a Muslim.
In Arabic, the noun used for Sun is feminine and the noun used for Moon in masculine. That doesn't mean Moon or Sun have genders. The Quran refers to Allah using the masculine pronoun "huwa" because the word "Allah" is grammatically masculine, not because Allah is naturally masculine. In English, using "He" for someone may indicate personification, but not in Arabic. It's a problem that arises because of translation of Arabic into English.
Arabic is not the only language of its kind. My native language Urdu, Hindi and I think French also fall in this category. For example, in Urdu, we have masculine noun for the word "Sea" and feminine nouns for the words "wave" or "wind".
Maybe it sounds confusing to you because other religions have anthropomorphic conception of God and they associate genders with God. But, let me assure you that there is no concept of God's gender in Islam. I hope I made it clear. You can do some research If you want to. And Allah knows best.
you are 'God' and 'God' is you. I can tell from your language you are parroting what you've been taught about this great unknowable father in the sky but that is not and never really was what God was about. It became that in the mind of the ignorant masses. But if you look at different religious mystical traditions you would find it was all about gnosis; about the direct experience of directly engaging our own being and non-being. **And they all overlap with each other and come to the same (or very similar) relaizations bc there is only one human mind, one creation, one presence/awareness. Do not look for god in the intellectual parroting of the words of others but in the direct experience of the mystery of your own being/awareness.
It is not that there may not be some kind of omniscient creator-mind but that there is no need to postulate one. To begin with it answers nothing and only adds more questions to be answered,, like where did God come from? More dangerously it teaches us that not knowing is okay and makes some believe that they can act in it's stead, -like GW Bush of Jihadis. To say s/he 'was always there' is to say nothing at all bc it is not based on any empirical evidence. Any concept of a 'god' we can create will be a reflection of our tiny brains and egos. And Nothing in science suggests that everything came from nothing. In fact, that is magical view of believing that god just blinked everything into existence and had some magically 'always just been there.'
Assalam walaikum. Greetings my dear brother. :) Just parroting someone else's work and adopting it as a belief with a closed mind actually goes against the ideology of the Qur'an. Qur'an actually invites us to think and apply reason to answer such questions, with expressions like "so that you might use your reason", or "will you not, then, use your reason?", or "so that you might think".
Where did God come from? You are actually assuming your own definition of God. Neither Muslims nor christians nor jews or any other religion I have heard of, believe in a "created God". God by definition is uncreated, not bound by a point of origin. If God was created by someone, then he wouldn't be god as it would mean there is another entity superior to god. If you ask where did God come from? then you are technically talking about something other than God as God by definition is uncreated.
"He has always been there".... You may argue that we cannot directly observe through experimentation that He has always been there. But, it can be logically argued that if there is a God, then He must have always been there, as I have argued above. And to me, Qur'an is an emperical evidence of the existence of God.
Read something about inamitability of the Qur'an by Hamza Tzortzis. Listen to Hamza Tzortzis debates. Read Anthony Flew's "There is a God", to know why he,mainly because of the intelligent design argument, reverted to theism after leading the atheist world view for nearly half a century. Listen to John Lennox's arguments against Richard Dawkins. Watch "The Signs" documentary. Read Zakir Naik's Science and Qur'an, just go through the contents for once. There is alot more. I humbly request you to think for once, what if you are actually wrong, what if there is a God, where will you stand on the day of judgement? At least I am on the safe side If Allah is the true God, about which I have no doubt.
Thats just a sincere advice from me. Please don't get offended, I don't intend to offend you. I only intend to think and wish the good for you. There is no compulsion, I cannot force you to accept anything and neither can you, nor can we impose our thoughts on each other. We can argue over something, but we can still be brothers. I wish I could give you more time. Peace. :)
Hi Faraz, sadly your arguments aren't really relevant, I'll break them down for you as you presented them by paragraph.
You claim the Quran invites you to think, sadly this is not true the Quran is dogmatic in the extreme and actually only allows one chain of thought and that is that there is some magic invisible anthropomorphised entity you declare as being your personal god. This is not open minded nor reasonable, but the product of extreme indoctrination.
You then claim that your personal god is by "definition" uncreated. Sadly this is a claim not even your god can be bothered to back up. We do however know for an absolute fact that man has created thousands of gods. The creation of every god can be traced back in history and myth, so sadly your god is no more real than any other god man has created, simple fact. Mankind has a rich history of creating fictional beings and worlds, unless your god comes out of hiding we can simply dismiss your god the same way you dismiss all the other gods man has created.
You further claim that the Quran has some magic revelations that are backed up by science, of course this is absolute nonsense. What you are doing is manipulating very vague interpretations, after the fact, to suit your religious indoctrination. As a matter of fact you will find that there is nothing in the Quran that wasn't first postulated by the Greeks or other cultures previously. The Quran is after all nothing but hijacked Judaism re-dictated by an extremely narcissistic madman. Again human history proves that we have had many mad men who claim to have some divine duty or calling on Earth.
Assalam walaikum Kurt Smith. I am afraid to say you didn't break down my arguments, you didn't even touch them. you just presented your prejudiced opinions.
I have already quoted the verses where Qur'an tells us to think, please read again in case you missed some part of my comment. And I would like to disagree with you there. I think my explanation of God is the most reasonable, logcial, simplistic and most open minded percept of God for the reasons which I have already stated.
I didn't just claim that "My personal God" is uncreated. I suggested that LOGICALLY, a God by definition must be uncreated because of the absurdity of the concept of infinite regress. Start counting backwards from 10 and you will know why. The reason you are here is enough to prove that it all has to start somewhere. This universe came out of nothing brother, nothing! Are you suggesting that the universe created itself? Then you are suggesting that universe existed and didn't exist at the same time. Because in order to create itself, it must already exist, and in order to come into existence it must not exist..... :| ... :O ... That doesn't seem vague at all. right.
No, Qur'an is not vague. It will only appear vague to a person lacking itellect or a person who has already decided to see Qur'an as vague. I would agree with you to some extent that SOME scientific facts mentioned in the Qur'an have already been postulated by the Greeks, but not all. Let me point out two simple examples that are in line with the title of this documentary:
1. The Big Bang: "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?..." [21:30] ...If you can read how the verse starts, it is a clear chalange to the disbelievers, who themselves discovered this idea of Big Bang.
2. The expansion of Universe: "And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, we are [its] expander." [51:47] ... if you understand this verse and the word in question, please watch..... watch?v=_Y-U6YeceH0
These are not vague interpretations brother, these are clear translations. If these appear vague to you, then you need a doctor... Qur'an speaks on a number of scientific subjects and there are many more miraculous revelations that I can mention here. But, I don't want to continoue this conversation. I have given you a hint so you may continoue if you want to.. Be sincere, seek guidance from Allah SWT and He will surely help you. Listen to arguments from both sides with an open mind and make an informed decision, don't be prejudiced. May Allah guide you, me and entire humanity. Aameen summa aameen... And I appologize if anything I said offended you. Assalamwalaikum, may peace be upon you. :)
God is not He to start with.
az
FarazAbdullah, you may call me Billy Pilgrim if it makes you feel more comfortable. I prefer Sam as it is my name, however 'bro' as a shortening of 'brother' is not entirely inappropriate if as I believe all life on earth is related in a very real and literal sense, and have seen a great many proofs that this is in fact true, however much one human might dislike the idea that one is even distantly related to a bacterium or a virus, or the pleasure one may derive from knowing that one human is very closely related to Einstein, or Plato, or Feynman, or Pythagoras etc.
Unfortunately I can not give you 'my' definition of God, because truthfully I do not have one. For me, God == 0, or more correctly a minute probability that is so small it is indistinguishable from nothing. Thus I choose to think and live as though it is in fact absolutely nothing. For this discussion I am simply reflecting your definition of it, as an existential something as opposed to a non-existent nothing, in order to logically debate what that would mean and what possible consequences could be imagined. I am sorry that this does not satisfy your question, which was thoughtfully put.
My problem with the hypothetical God something is threefold; first if you say it came from nothing, then why should any other something be unable to similarly come from nothing? Second if you say it came from something, then what is that something? Third if you say it has always been with no beginning and/or no end, again, why should any other something be bound to an original moment of creation?
The conservation principles might lead one to the last conclusion. I.e there was always something, and whatever we might perceive to be the moment of creation was simply a change in its state.
The second is an infinite regression, which can never be answered as the primary question can and must be asked of each and every consequent answer.
Quantum mechanics suggests the first. Because of the >0 chance of something from nothing, eventually there must always be something (that requires no third party act of creation)
This leaves me no place to seriously entertain the hypothetical God something, other than to admit that it is a possibility that is vanishingly small and perpetually shrinking.
Regards,
Sam.
Ok, I will call you Sam if you prefer it that way :). I like the word “bro” as it creates a sense of harmony and peace. I really hate it when we start using foul language and disrespect each other for our opinions, forgetting that we all are human beings. I too sometimes get involved in this mess, but my religion strictly forbids it. Now, coming back to the topic. You said:
“My problem with the hypothetical God something is threefold; first if you say it came from nothing, then why should any other something be unable to similarly come from nothing? Second if you say it came from something, then what is that something? Third if you say it has always been with no beginning and/or no end, again, why should any other something be bound to an original moment of creation?”
Well Sam, You made three points, I will try to answer them one by one, with the limited command I have over this language. I hope I can choose the correct words.
1. Firstly, I my opinion, God didn’t come from nothing. He has always been there and will always be there. And I am not saying that something cannot come from nothing. I am only saying that it cannot come into existence suddenly from nothing, “all by itself”.
2. Secondly, I am not saying it came from something. I am saying that God created it, maybe out of nothing.
3. Third: This is because scientific evidence tells us that everything is supposed to have an origin. And you just brought it to my knowledge that according to Quantum theory, things can emerge from nothing (but not without a cause). The Expansion of Universe tells us that if we go in reverse, there is an origin to this universe. This makes me think that everything we know of has an origin. But, something cannot originate by itself; there is a cause that makes it to originate. And, since time was not present before the origin of the universe and there cannot be any cause in the absence of time, nothing existed before time. This leads me to conclude that only someone who was not dependent on time for His existence could have caused the universe to originate, at His own will. God's existence is not dependent on time; otherwise time would have been superior to God. Nor does God require a cause to come into existence, since he has no origin. Only things that have an origin require a cause and God Himself is the cause of this universe.
Quantum physics is a feature of this universe and it is very uncertain. No one can accurately define what it is and we are still discovering it. Yes people say that Quantum fluctuations occur without a cause, but these fluctuations occur in empty space, which didn’t exist before the big bang. Then the existence of universe itself is the cause of those fluctuations. And its still just a hypothesis, though some scientists like to talk about it as a theory.
My thinking and response might have been different, if there was no evidence of the big bang and we would have believed in the steady state model. Then universe wouldn’t be bound to an original moment of creation. But, that is certainly not the case.
Sam, I don’t just believe in God just because of the above mentioned reasons. I am a Muslim and I believe that Qur’an contains information that was beyond human imagination 1400 years ago. And Allah knows best.
@FarazAbdullah,
I'm not sure why are you in a constant need of perpetuating the idea of your God. Could you not do that on scientific documentaries/threads?
@Vlatko
I am still new here. Pardon me, but isn't this a scientific documentary? I didn't actually started it. If you see my first post here, it was just a reply to someone else denying the existence of God, I just joined in on the discussion. And I do it because I really like discussing it.
FarazAbdullah, Thank you for your reply. I shall try to keep this short as we are way off topic here, as Achems and Vlatko have indicated. I am not sure of your meaning when you say 'all by itself' because when I say 'from nothing' I mean exactly that - all by itself. Any external cause or action is in this instance an extant 'something' which leads me straight back to my initial questions. This argument is circular, as Achems_Razor pointed out has been argued since Platos time or before.
It matters not to me what faith you subscribe to, and you are wise enough to prefix 'in my opinion'. As long as this means you acknowledge that your opinion on the question of whether or not there is/was a creator God is simply that, an opinion, that may be wrong, that is open to change and not by any means a claim to concrete knowledge, then I welcome it. For my part, I accept the possibility however small it seems to me that you may be right.
It matters to me that you are a human being, and that from your posts you seem of a genuinely gentle nature. Sadly in my experience, this world contains a great number of manipulative or violent people, which makes faith a very dangerous proposition in my opinion. Doubt is the best protection against these, and the quality I admire most about the human species. It is what leads us to question, which in turn leads us to answers, which lead to more questions. To my mind this is the only mechanism by which our collective knowledge is enhanced.
Thank you kindly for an interesting discussion, and may I say your mastery of English is superb. Salaam Alaykum, Brother.
@Vlatko & moderators, I apologise for being off topic and being unable to keep my final reply short, please delete my posts wherever deemed inappropriate.
Regards,
Sam.
Well, by saying that something cannot come into existence from nothing “all by itself”. I mean to say that something that doesn’t exist, cannot give origin to itself. That sounds illogical to me. There is Someone giving it an origin who Himself does not have an origin. Thats the best way I can describe it.
Yes by saying “In my opinion”, I am acknowledging that my opinion is subject to change and I do not claim it to be concrete. That’s the reason I am having this discussion, in the search of truth and to know whether I am right or wrong.
“Sadly in my experience, this world contains a great number of manipulative or violent people, which makes faith a very dangerous proposition in my opinion.” ….Sam, I can understand your feelings, brother. I haven’t come across any religion that teaches voilence, but still I don’t know why the picture is so distorted. Whether it is Islam or any other religion or no religion, black sheeps are everywhere. And unfortunately this is the only side of the picture, which is exagerated and shown to the world by the media.
Well, thank you so much for being so polite and using such kind words for me. Sam, you yourself are a really great person, that’s why you try to see only the good in others :) Actually, you are the first person I have come across to take my opinions so politely. I really enjoyed talking to you and learned a lot from you and I am really glad this discussion is ending peacefully. Though I accept, sometimes it is my fault that it doesn’t end peacefully. Walaikum Salam, brother.
@vlatko … same goes for me, you may delete my posts whether on this thread or any other.
Regards,
Faraz Abdullah.
And You further said: "To propose a 'god' did it is the same mistake as to say nothing did it, because we cannot know (if you claim you do, you are lying)."
I don't think its a mystery. Everything that has an origin has to be created by someone. Yes it can come out of nothing, but not by itself. It seems illogical to say that something can begin all by itself. Because everything which has a beginnig, has a cause. I haven't seen an example that suggests that something can "begin itself" without a cause. How can you prove it false?
People say, since there was no time, so there was no cause. But, its a vague argument I think, because as I said, God's existence is not dependent on time, otherwise time would have been God. Time itself has came into existence with the universe. Nor does God require a cause to come into existence, since he has no origin. Only things that have an origin require a cause and God Himself is the cause of this universe.
Every reaction needs a activation energy and where the activation energy came for Big Bang and how that energy came into existence????? It came from Nothing. And nothing is i think God what religious people say.
funny thing is particles and antiparticles are constantly creating themselves from nothing in empty space and annihilating themselves moments later. net energy=0. doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. net energy of the universe as a whole = 0. o my gosh. that means a universe appearing from nothing doesn't violate thermodynamics either. so, that's how something comes from nothing. next, if god did it how did god come to be? what a conundrum. And not only can we not see god, but neither can anyone produce any empirical evidence with the least bit credibility of god, miracles, or divine intervention. your child and womb analogy, well, nothing like throwing in analogies without a logical equivalence to anything in your argument. and the big bang is in no way a religion. it requires evidence in the real world whereas religion requires faith despite real world evidence. Finally, just because we don't fully understand something yet doesn't mean we should stop trying to figure it out and it doesn't mean we should use god to fill in where we don't understand. That is what we call the "God of the Gaps."
The thing about human beings (scientists included) is that we always work to prove what we think is correct and dismiss all other evidence or considerations. Thus our theories will always be flawed. The fact that galaxies are moving apart etc. could mean other things but we usually find out by accident once we've decided to look in only one direction.
I think your conclusion is a bit misguided. Science is guided by the principle to try and disprove, rather than prove.
In fact, the more you try to disprove something(that happens to be true), the more validate that it is true.
That's not to say that there isn't always a bias introduced, but science as a whole implements mechanisms to try and counter act that, with things like peer review, and general competition between scientists, and ideas.
In your example, the galaxys could be moving apart for another reason. Well first of all, we already understand that they are. That's scientific fact. Now to figure out why, there are theoretical physicists that sit around, postulate, use math etc to draw conclusions.
These conclusions are meaningless by themselves. We wait for testable facts in order to deduce something, or the cause of something. If it can't be tested, it isn't science essentially, it's philosophy.
I would love to see an example of some science that has completely dismissed evidence/contradictions. To make such a bold claim without any backing evidence, itself, is unscientific in nature and you're only trying to prove your point, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.
Science: Evolution, quantum physics, gravity, speed of light.
Not science: Religion(which fights to prove itself right, where science fights to prove ideas wrong), alternative medicines, ghost hunting, acupuncture, colonic treatments, the 'scientific studies' that 'prove' praying actually makes people better.
All of these have been proven to be biased, and all of them refuse peer review, one of the most powerful tools used to make sure that the bias doesn't contaminate the results. Because it is true, we are human, and our naturally biased, but the scientific method, and the community, are set up in such a way to remove the bias from results, and only focus on the facts(which is opposite of what you're doing).
The theories that are generally looked down upon are those that can't be tested, or those with tests that can't be properly replicated.
Please, I beg of you, before you make such a ridiculous, unfounded, unproven, and biased statement again, get some facts.
That is all.
The Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. 1920's A.D
-----------------
Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined ((entity)), and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? (30)
And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander. (47) The holy Quran 600 A.D
This is the truth if you choose to believe ...
After reading the description its clear that this documentary will be a waste of my time, "The remarkable idea that our universe simply began from nothing" WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG the big bang theory does NOT state the universe started with nothing. It was a singularity, all the energy (not matter) in existence compressed into a single point infinitely small EXPANDED (not exploded there is a difference) in to the space-time we know today. You may wonder what happened before that, well nothing happened, without space there is no passage of time.
Anyone knows the version of this video??
the red shift effect was the only thing holding up this theory,and observations have made it self evident that this theory was only an excuse to go ahead with the construction of the Hadron in Europe. What sinister deviancy are they plotting now.
im not sold on the big bang THEORY either.
What I would like to know is that if NOTHING compressed into infinite density, how did NOTHING become hot? Also, since it is supposed to have exploded into NOTHING since nothing existed before the BIG BANG, how did the particles transfer from a linear direction away from the center of the Bang to a circular one creating atomic structures (orbits), celestial bodies (stars and planets) and galaxy clusters when they were traveling through frictionless space? After all there were no planetary bodies to generate gravity and no atmospheres to generate friction. So what changed the direction of the particles in a frictionless void? Wouldn't they have just continued endlessly from the blast center since there was nothing to slow them down?
Also since they were traveling in frictionless space, why would they change direction and start orbiting to create elements since the particles were rapidly moving away from each other?
Wouldn't they just have continued moving away from each other? Getting farther apart. Not stopping and forming stable orbits which eventually produced the Chart of Elements as expressed by Mendeleev?
Methinks the Big Bang sounds more like a Big Fairy Tale? Once upon a time in a far off galaxy, nothing became very dense and turned inward only upon itself with energy that came from nowhere for some strange reason. Then, nothing exploded out into an empty void and instead of moving lineraly as normal physics would dictate. Nothing began circling upon itself eventually creating all of the elements, stars, planets and celestial bodies including human beings with consciousness which evolved from apes who cannot speak, read or write.
Yeah sounds about right. Duh!!! What a crock!
Yes, that was one of the original problems of the big bang, but it wouldn't be a problem if the matter was unevenly distributed in the early universe. Quantum effects created variations in the density of matter in the early universe. This, coupled with rapid inflation, created an uneven distribution of matter. This imbalance meant that one side of large amounts of gas was feeling a greater amount of gravity than another, meaning a rotational force. As the gas collapses, this rotation speeds up (much like a dancer on ice pulling their arms in and spinning faster). From that you end up with the Universes first stars being formed. And the cosmic microwave background shows just that. The early universe was not uniform, matter was not perfectly smooth, thus explaining the observable Universe
couldn't have said it any better, something had to have started and guided the whole process. i love how its such an easy description for something infinitely impossible to replicate! i wanna see someone create new energy!
First of, normal physics does dictate without any forces acting upon an object that it will in fact travel in a straight line if set in motion. What you're missing though, is the fact that the expansion slowed down, and particles bumped into each other. They slowed to the point where gravity could get a hold of them and slowly drag them together.
Using model after model using computer simulations and standard physics, this has been shown to be true.
Every bit of matter has mass, and mass attracts other mass, aka gravity. Gravity causes this 'mysterious' spinning motion that you're talking about.
You also have to understand that just because something is traveling incredibly fast, doesn't mean that gravity doesn't have an effect on it, it's all relative. two particles traveling in a straight line parallel to each-other, even at incredible speeds, will fall in on each other, due to gravity. Particle A, relative to Particle B, traveling at the same speed, is stationary. This is all standard physics.
"What I would like to know is that if NOTHING compressed into infinite density, how did NOTHING become hot? ". Your statement alone shows your lack on knowledge on the subject. Nothing didn't compressed into one infinitely small point, in fact, nowhere in the big bang theory does it state that all of the universe compressed into one single point. It was more like an explosion(for lack of a better analogy). Matter didn't just start expanding from nothing, the energy released from this massive explosion condensed into matter, which then in the heat condensed into atoms, and molecules.
The funny part is it's still within the laws of physics for the entire universe to come into existence without any energy, or any outside forces. Using physics we can mathematically come to the conclusion that nothing could, in fact, create everything. The total net energy(matter included) of the universe is equal to 0. That's right, if you take all the positive energy, and the negative energy(matter/anti-matter) and add it all up, it equals 0. 0 energy, nothing. Fits pretty well I think with the idea of the big bang. Everything from nothing.
If you think that's crazy, read into how in a vacuum, where there are literally no particles floating around, spontaneously(and this happens a lot) a proton and an anti-proton will come into existence, collide in on themselves, and negate each other(self annihilate, whatever). Again, something from nothing, and back to nothing.
I mean, if you have some form of alternate theory, I'm all ears, the thing is though, science pretty much has it covered. Everything you said is explainable with our current understanding of physics.
As far as apes into humans, and how lucky we are to be on this planet, in the perfect spot, spin it around and look at it from a smarter perspective. There are about 100 sextillion stars in the universe, that's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. There are more stars in the universe, then there are grains of sand on the entire planet. Almost every star we've observed in our tiny tiny tiny tiny part of the universe has had planets around it. The odds that we're the only planet with the right conditions for life, I mean you do the math. Not only that, but we weren't the only 'humans' that evolved there were like 3-4 other types, we just happened to have the evolutionary advantage of a sexier frontal lobe(and other various things). 3-4 other hominade species, on one planet, around one star, in a galaxy of billions of stars, and a universe of 100 sextillion stars. Again, you do the math. You really think we're all that special?
Anyways, do some more reading and come back when you're ready to actually make a logical argument.
You said "the expansion slowed down, and particles bumped into each other. They slowed to the point where gravity could get a hold of them and slowly drag them together."
Here is what I read on NASA's website:
"In 1996, observations of very distant supernovae required a dramatic change in the picture. It had always been assumed that the matter of the Universe would slow its rate of expansion. Mass creates gravity, gravity creates pull, the pulling must slow the expansion. But supernovae observations showed that the expansion of the Universe, rather than slowing, is accelerating. Something, not like matter and not like ordinary energy, is pushing the galaxies apart. This "stuff" has been dubbed dark energy, but to give it a name is not to understand it. Whether dark energy is a type of dynamical fluid, heretofore unknown to physics, or whether it is a property of the vacuum of empty space, or whether it is some modification to general relativity is not yet known."
Yes of course, there is dark energy. The big bang is essentially an 'expansion', and it was fast, slowed down, and has since been speeding up...it hasn't just been getting faster and faster since it happened.
Oky sorry. I got you wrong, maybe you are right.
Not linear big guy.
Woo hoo ! a fish in an aquarium knows only so much about himself and the fish tank around him . its limited to a certain degree ... i fear the same with humans and our fish tank (universe) our limits will only go so far . Are we just looking for the answers we want , need or fear?