Which non religion argument makes the big bang to nonsense?
142303
the whole idea that there was nothing and now theres something?\n\nwhy?
1184675
I wrote an article on this. Paste below is a small excerpt:\n\nConsider these next few statements of rational logic. First, there has to be a cause for every effect. The universe had to come from something. There is no natural explanation for how the sun, moon, and stars could come from nothing! Therefore, for every effect, there has to be a cause! This Cause has to come from outside the universe; outside of nature. In other words;...supernatural. When I state "supernatural" I mean; a limitless being outside of time and space. Think about it! The only religion that ever stated otherwise was the biblical concept of Genesis! God always existed, but the universe did not!\n\nSecond, the Cause must be independent of it's effect. It can not be required to depend it's existence upon the universe. For nothing can change from a state of nothingness.\n\nThird, the Cause must be infinitely powerful! If it were limited, it would have to be confined by some other thing. It can not be limited by nothing and if it were limited, it would not be independent any longer. The effect can not be greater than the cause. The Cause has to be greater than the effect! It has to be greater than all the forces of the universe combined!\n\nFourth, the first Cause must be eternal. The creator must exist outside of time. The God of the Bible stated this in Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. All the other religions honored harvest gods, war gods, moon gods, sun gods, animal-headed gods, fertility gods and goddesses. In fact, most of these gods were restricted to time as well as location. (1)\n\nFifth, the first Cause must be spiritual. Only an entity outside the universe could have created it. It must be beyond the physical elements. John 4:24 states that God is Spirit.\n\nSixth, the first Cause must be all-knowing. The creator created the universe. Albert Einstein wrote, "The harmony of natural law... reveals and intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an insignificant reflection." (2)\n\nLast, the first Cause must be a Person. There is design in the universe. For it is balanced by the four fundamental nuclear forces. If altered by the slightest one millionth of a degree, all the stars would cease to exist. The Person would have to be a creator with desires, because the creator did not need the creation in order to exist. Rather, the universe was created out of pleasure! It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Bible is the best explanation.
638323
All reasoned arguments rely on axioms, i.e. things which we take to be true, but which are not amenable to proof. The most obvious example of an axiom is the validity of reason itself - It is trivially obvious that we can't use a reasoned argument to prove that reason is valid, because we have to presume that reason is valid in order to make any kind of reasoned argument.\n\nI have another axiom, which I'm sure no sane person would dispute: That the order and complexity that we see around us in the natural universe, and particularly in the intricate structure and functions of living organisms, could not possibly just exist fully formed, with no cause, no origin, no precursor of any sort. I can't *prove* that this is the case, but it seems inconceivable to me that anyone would dispute it.\n\nSo, the logical consequence of accepting this axiom is that, for the very same reason, it's not possible that the order and complexity of the universe is sourced in an intelligent deity who designed and made the universe and *himself* exists fully formed with no cause, no origin, no precursor of any sort. I don't think any reasonable person would dispute the axiom presented here, and acceptance of the axiom leads to an indisputable proof of the non-existence of an intelligent creator.\n\nAnyone who (against all reason) asserted that the order and complexity we see in the universe *could* indeed exist fully formed with no cause and no origin, in order thereby to save the concept of an uncaused intelligent designer, would find that they had invalidated said designer by making him redundant - i.e. if the order and complexity of the universe could just exist fully formed and uncaused then it would not need (in fact, could not possibly have) a designer to cause it to exist.\n\nEither way, the concept of a creator is invalidated.\n\nLuke:  I can't see how a perception of chaos would mean the existence of a god, according to my axiom.  Even if someone rejects the notion that the universe exhibits (at least in parts) a high degree of order and complexity, it does not follow that a god is required to create it - Indeed, if the universe is nothing but chaos, then there doesn't seem to be any motivation to suggest a designer in the first place.  How can you design chaos?  Chaos is, by its very definition, the complete absence of any kind of order or complexity or design.\n\nAs to your second point, if someone is proposing that intelligence is required to design and create a universe, then the intelligence itself would be the 'form' that has to exist without any kind of origin or development or precursor.  Religious folks have enough trouble accepting the idea of mere *human* intelligence being the product of an unthinking natural process, so to argue that an intelligence capable of designing and creating an entire universe can exist without any precursor at all, not even an unthinking one, is self-contradictory in the highest degree.
1155512
Quote: "You do realize that not everything in the cosmos is logical, yes?"\n\nAbsolutely. But answering these questions with "God created such and such" goes no further in explaining them. In fact, it simply muddies the waters more by pretending to know the unknowable.\n\nQuote: "Do you think it's wise to arbitrarily mythologize every faith?"\n\nLet's face it, most religions have wrapped themselves in myth far more than we could ever do by offering up fables and patently ridiculous stories. These stories, by the way, suddenly ceased to happen around the same time that science became prominent enough to refute them. \n\nQuote: "The truth is there, but it's not always elegant, and it's not always what we wish it were."\n\nJust briefly, take a look at how science approaches a problem and then how religion does it? Do you see a difference? Science STUDIES a problem, it pursues it from different angles and attempts to understand through hueristic methods. In the end, science pursues truth. Religion simply assumes that it already knows.\n\nEdit: To ChrimsonCarrots below: The Bible has credentials? What credentials? These people were NOT historians with an eye on detail and accuracy. Gospel itself means "good news". The goal was to push the idea of Christianity into a positive light and to perpetuate it. If I remember correctly, the story of the crucifiction is told within four books of the bible, Mathew, Luke, Mark, and Paul, the earliest of which was written AT LEAST forty years AFTER the crucifiction. Are you suggestiing that this is reliable and accurate information?
258481
The Big Bang almost CERTAINLY occurred. The cosmic microwave background radiation, expansion of galaxies, and isotropy of the background radiation throughout the universe all seem to indicated that the Big Bang really did occur. The cosmic microwave background radiation is usually the strongest piece of evidence presented by scientists to "prove" the Big Bang. Other than the Big Bang theory there are no really acceptable theories other than those which rely on the metaphysical or religious. For a thorough explanation of why the Big Bang almost certainly did occur, see the following link.
20557
1. There is no God\n2. The universe cannot be a computer simulation running from "God's" computer
1057840
No one "discoverd" the Big Bang - it is a theory, not a fact - just like evolution.\n\nIf you believe in God and believe that God created the universe you can still believe in the Big Bang theory - it may be the method in which He created the universe. \n\nBut to believe in the Big Bang theory without believing in God is a Big Mistake. "Nothing" cannot begat something, whether it is the universe, or life. To believe that out of nothing all of a sudden something came into existence defies good science. Even science iteself had to start somwhere - it could not come out of nothing!\n\nLife did not begin in some premordial ooze as the result of a reaction between certain chemicals catalyzed by sunlight. That theory is sheer stupidity and requires more faith to believe than it does to believe in God.
106760
Science at this point does not know what caused the big bang. Or if there were multiple big bangs. \n\nBy the way, evolution has nothing to do with the big bang,other than they are both governed by natural laws of the universe (some have said these are God's Laws, or Maimonides equated these natural laws with angels, if that makes you feel any better). \n\n\nI have attached a paper on the big bang you might find enlightening.
121479
There is a theory that the big bang was a result of a collison of two other universes. Say there is this sphere and inside this sphere there are other gelatinous spheres, these are the other universes, and two collided in a way that they created a big exlosion, which is the Big Bang.
604533
If you believe the theory of creation, found in all major religions, you don't have a problem answering your own question.  If you subscribe to the 'Big Bang' theory (or a derivitive thereof), I would have to ask 'Who lit the fuse?'
1024867
Yes, scientists who support the Big Bang Theory are wrong.\nBut so are Creationists.\nThe background radiation and red shift are otherwise explainable\nwithin a suitable cosmology.\n\nLet me start (it's complex, but here goes).\n\nThe universe has always existed.\nIt will always exist.\nIts form and contents change over time.\n\nThe Radius of the Universe (R) is constant, \napproximately 20 billion light-years.\n\nThe Age of the Universe (T) is constant,\napproximately 20 billion years.\n\nThe speed-of-light-in-a-vacuum (c) is constant,\napproximately 3x10^10 cm/sec,\nor 1 light-year per year.\n\nAnd R == cT.
1119292
Einstein was very reluctant to accept the big bang theory and the theory of an expanding universe. He said it smacked of religion.
1132898
The origin of the universe has always been a mysterious event in which the laws of physics appear to break down. Could it be that the big bang was caused by the collision of two parallel universes?\n\n*Riddle of the Big Bang (scroll down 3/4 of page. Running time 7:37)\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html\n\n*Dr. Michio Kaku: M-Theory: The Mother of all SuperStrings\nhttp://www.mkaku.org/articles/mtheory_superstrings.shtml\n\n*Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos by M. Kaku\nhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...1988531-0244141\n\nThe strange notion of parallel universes is gaining strength in the scientific community and may solve our most basic questions about the universe, including the origins of the Big Bang itself.\n\n*Parallel Universe \nhttp://search.discovery.com/search?proxystylesheet=sciMain&site=sciContent&client=sciMain&output=xml_no_dtd&filter=p&getfields=*&q=parallel+universe
88621
Many scientists avoid the subject of religion and rather simply try to gather evidence, build models (hypotheses or theories), test them, keep the ones that succeed, throw out the ones that fail, rinse and repeat.\n\nAs one accumulates these evidence, it lends credence to the probability to the models (theories) being true.  This means that these models are consistent with what evidence is collected with respect to the past and that it may predict new kinds of evidence that may be found in the future.\n\nThe problem is that some people get into semantic word play with the word "theory" and think that demonstrating a flaw or a lack of explanation in the "theory" invalidates it totally making it false.  If you replace the word "theory" with model (which maybe scienstists should do), it reduces the ability to attack it.\n\nAnd, as for the "Big Bang", there are models which, if correct, say that the "Big Bang" was not necessarily the beginning.\n\nI think one problem people have with these "theories" is that they lack the experience, study, and knowledge of the evidence to appreciate their validity or not and so reject them simply out of hand because they are not consistent with their own belief system.\n\nHere's the problem.  If I say that the grass outside my window is green and you say "I don't believe you", that does not invalidate the fact that the grass outside my window is green.  It just means that you refuse to accept the evidence.  Your statement of disbelief does nothing to disprove the evidence.\n\nNow, given that the stories in Genesis are inconsistent with the evidence of the universe, you have a choice.  Accept them as allegorical and still find value in the teachings of the bible or whatever your religion might be. Or, you can see it as an attack on a literal interpretation of the bible.  But, these scientists didn't set out to attack the bible or religion.  They just set out to interpret the evidence and found that words in the bible didn't provide sufficient explanation to intepret the evidence and create consistent models.\n\nIt is only folks that think a word for word literal interpretation of the bible is required to be religious that find that science is an attack on religion.\n\nIt is possible to interpret the bible as guide for how to live one's life without ascribing to a word for word literal interpretation.  It just depends on your interpretation.
955092
There is no "first cause," nor reason for the Big Bang.  There is no "reason" for anything that happens in our universe -- things happen because of reactions between matter and energy, and in accordance with natural laws.\n\nYour question actually does a very good job of pointing out what is really the BIGGEST difference between religious people and those who accept the evidence showing no god of any kind...\n\nReligious people seem to always assume there is indeed a reason for something.  You'll see the comments here all the time:  "I know god exists, because I saw a beautiful sunset and that just couldn't happen without a reason!" or "God put us here on earth for a reason!"  \n\nThose of us that accept the evidence that there is no god don't need reasons for everything that happens.  We know that if there's enough hydrogen gas in a large volume of space, and it gets gravitationally purturbed, it will start condensing and eventually form a star.  Planets form in the matter pulled into the protoplanetary disc around the star, and once the star begins fusing hydrogen into helium and any of the planets have atmospheres, you're going to get sunsets.  Any dust or particulate matter in a nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere, along with a little water vapor, makes the sunsets look red along the horizon.  Throw in some clouds to be differentially lit by the sun as you turn away from the sun in your planet's rotation, and you get a beautiful sunset.  It's physics, not the will of god.  There are beautiful sunsets on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn (and other planets), with nobody there to see them -- not because god made a beautiful sunset for anyone to see, but the same physics that give us ours.\n\nThere is no reason for things happening.  The natural universe goes merrily on its way, doing what it does ignorant of the little beings on the small blue planet in our solar system and of their desire to find a reason for everything.  The universe doesn't care about reasons...and neither do I :)\nPeace.
402489
An observable rule in the material universe is that nothing is the cause of itself, or if you prefer, everything is caused by something else. Think about it for a while... \n\nThe question becomes tricky when we realise that the entire physical universe is a single entity but with innumerable parts. We cannot help but ask, what is the cause of the universe? Clearly the answer cannot lie within the universe as that would contradict what is an observable fact, therefore, the answer must lie outwith material existence. Does the non-material in fact exist? It has too otherwise we have to call into question the ability of reason to reach the truth and the achievements of science certainly demonstrate that human reason is capable of great things.\n\nThe non-material cause of the universe has to be powerful (check out the immensity of the universe and space!), intelligent (look at the order found in the material world - the motion of planets to the human brain to sub-atomic particles), and personal, since intelligence without personhood is unthinkable.\n\nThis non-material, powerful, intelligent and personal being we call God.  How was God created? As a non-material being the physical laws of science do not apply. Therefore God is not created but the cause of what exists, pure being.\n\nAs Christians we claim this God as the God of revelation but since His existence is attainable by pure reason He is also acceptable to deists.
913694
I agree that such an explanation is one possibility.  In fact, my failure to fully comprehend the Big Bang in a purely scientific manner is the only reason why I am an agnostic, and not an athiest.  I feel that I need to allow for the possibility.