Why do you believe in the Big Bang?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The Baryon-Asymmetry problem, though a mystery, doesn't really qualify as evidence that there was no "Big Bang".

It seems to me that the Big Bang is a good theory primarily due to Occam's Razor: it's the simplest theory that accounts for the observed evidence. Consider the number of ad-hoc theories that would be necessary to replace it:

1. Some other means of accounting for the redshift of distant galaxies. Light gets tired?

2. Some other means of accounting for the 3-degree background radiation.

3. Some other means of accounting for why the stars are still shining: why they haven't consumed all the free hydrogen in the Universe.

4. Some other way of accounting for the different "populations" of stars: those that apparently condensed from pure hydrogen, and those (like our Sun) which contain supernova debris from earlier stars and are therefore rich in heavier elements. IIRC, distant "young" galaxies (they were young when their light started its journey to us) contain more of the former.

These could all very well be explained by an oscillating universe. Most of these in fact are not consequences of the Big Bang at all - they are consequences of an expanding, cooling universe.

Of course there is the `big problem' that recent observations now show that distant galaxies are accelerating away from us

[debeest]

I find this thread fascinating because of the nature of the responses. There was another thread that questioned religion, and I suspect that the original question was an attempt to support religion vs. science by mimicking that thread. I would have expected a degree of emotional argumentation.

But the responses have been illuminating. Some of them cited some of the good evidence for the Big Bang theory. But virtually everyone has said, "I recognize it as a theory, and like all theories it may be imperfect, and it's likely to change as we learn more."

To me, that seems to sum up the difference between science and religion (as someone above did point out). Science is a system in which belief is based on evidence, and subject to change based on further evidence or understanding. Religion is a system in which belief just happens -- no evidence required -- and therefore is not readily subject to change based on evidence.

That's why science and religion have often clashed. Not because the Copernican theory or the theory of evolution proved religion wrong (since it's not that hard for most religious people to accommodate to those realities), but because the very nature of science -- openness to change based on evidence -- conflicts with the core tenet of faith itself.

[Kuciwalker]

These could all very well be explained by an oscillating universe. Most of these in fact are not consequences of the Big Bang at all - they are consequences of an expanding, cooling universe.

And an expanding universe can be easily explained by a Big Bang.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by debeest
But I think most physicists would agree that Steven Hawking is among the few most important modern physicists, and not because the media focus on him more than they should.

I disagree with that. (Depends what you mean by 'few' of course, but I could list at least 50 modern particle physicists and astronomers who have had more impact.)

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by debeest
To me, that seems to sum up the difference between science and religion (as someone above did point out).

To me it seems to show that people will believe whatever it is fashionable to believe, irrespective of what is actually the truth.

[Vesayen]

I believe that the universe runs by natural law and was PROBOABLY not created by a diety, other theories make more sense then the big bang, but since none of them have proof... wait for more conclusive evidence. The big bang just has too many holes on it, though I want to be clear that is NOT an endorsement of a diety, just means "we dont know".

[The Andy-Man]

maybe the universe is a large sphere that is going round very, VERY quickly (much faster then light for example), and therefore creates a centrifugal force sucking everything out to th rim, qiving he appearance of a centeral bang.

pesonally, i dislike big bang theories, because in physics we were always told eenergy out = energy in or something, thus, where di the input come for such a large explosion that turned nothign into everything.

3rdly, if the bang has something to do with photons, where did they come from with no source of light/energy?

[Vesayen]

well photons dont have a mass, so of course they dont need a source, DUHHH!!!!


The biggest problem I have with the big bang, "well this thing happened, and it started everything else!", well where did THAT come from? Even those without a backround in science should see this problem.

[The Andy-Man]

it is true that phtons don't have a mass, but i don't think they just 'apeared' either. I was led to beleive they needed heat...

[Vesayen]

We dont know exactly what makes them(conflicting theories), but everything we know about the universe points to cause = effect, and effect means there was a cause, for this to suddenly stop unravels everything else we know.

[The Andy-Man]

I see, maybe there was no cause, and consequently no effect and we just percieve things wrong

[Kuciwalker]

Causality is inherently unprovable - we have to "take it on faith". The difference between it and religion is that assuming causality is necessary to function.

[cinch]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


To me it seems to show that people will believe whatever it is fashionable to believe, irrespective of what is actually the truth.

That's strange, because a lot of people here have said that they don't BELIEVE in the big bang theory, they just think part of it makes sense for particular reasons... but they're open to change upon new evidence.

So really, I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from. I see no one here ardently defending the Big Bang as the asbolute truth.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


To me it seems to show that people will believe whatever it is fashionable to believe, irrespective of what is actually the truth.

'What is truth?'-

the wholly babble.

Is it that Mohammed is the messenger of god?

None but Christadelphians can be saved?

The General Conference of the Seventh Day Adventists is the highest authority that god has on earth?

The world is flat? (various religions)

The world is hollow? (various religions)

At Armageddon all of the earth shall be wiped out save the Jehovah's Witnesses?

There is no salvation outside the Church of the Latter Day Saints?

Only the Lord of the Second Advent, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon will be powerful enough to complete the restoration of man to god?

The Roman Church has never erred, nor ever will to all eternity?

Of course, I doubt that anyone will be burnt at the stake, stoned to death, beheaded or crucified for doubting the Big Bang Theory- one saving grace of science over religious belief.

[Ben Kenobi]

To me, that seems to sum up the difference between science and religion (as someone above did point out). Science is a system in which belief is based on evidence, and subject to change based on further evidence or understanding. Religion is a system in which belief just happens -- no evidence required -- and therefore is not readily subject to change based on evidence.

That's why science and religion have often clashed. Not because the Copernican theory or the theory of evolution proved religion wrong (since it's not that hard for most religious people to accommodate to those realities), but because the very nature of science -- openness to change based on evidence -- conflicts with the core tenet of faith itself.

Ask yourself these two questions. First, what forms of evidence are rendered admissible in the realm of science? Secondly, what forms of evidence are rendered admissible in the realm of theology? The answers to these questions are very very different. This is why most religious folks are less 'open' not because of closed mindedness, but rather, much different standards for evidence.