Why do scientists believe the Big Bang created the world?

[Notorious_Ice]

Carbon dating isnt flawed, however it only works with things under a certain age. The carbon disapears after around a couple thousand years or so.

[BenBru]

@Kant: Get off your high horse dude, you're a nobody.

 

 

 

Who are you again? I don't recognize your name.

 

 

 

Nice try, but I know you know who I am. I figured you would be the one to reply to this, since you can't let anything go. I admire your debating skills, but your people skills are going to need some work..

 

 

 

@Kant: The truth you speak of is actually only going to be your opinion most of the time. Thats how it works with people who believe that they are somehow better than others because they have good debating skills.

 

 

 

For you religious people out there, who created the Almighty being?

 

 

 

Since God created everything who created God?

 

 

 

Did everything begin when God appeared out of nowhere?

 

 

 

Is there another explaination rather than someone else creating god?

 

 

 

 

 

Well I think the bible and religion is flawed.

 

 

 

As someone previously stated, dinosaur fossils were discovered millions or billion of years before human fossils. So if God created everything in 6 days, why do fossils indicate that some species lived millions or billions of years apart.

 

 

 

I'm sure they have some sort of rediculous answer...

[Nadril]

Notorious, you want us to reply to an intelligent debate and yet you say things like this:

 

 

 

So what makes you think that this "modern god" is real, even though the ancient gods werent?

 

 

 

Sorry pal, but the God of Christianity isn't "modern." Until you show me that you know anything about my faith before criticizing it, I'll use my intelligent debating skills elsewhere.

 

 

 

It's fairly modern compared to Zues and the ancient Roman/Greek gods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, I must say I agree with you Notorious.

 

 

 

Just for the record, I kind of have a different view on religion (for me). I see it as a good moral standard for many people.

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways... the big bang. I sadly do not know much about it in general (never really took the time to check it out), but there (obviously) had to be something there. It's like asking "what came first, the chicken or the egg?". You can't answer it. Obviously there was something that was there before the big bang / god / whatever came along.

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, in response to:

 

 

 

In an earlier post you stated that the greeks and romans "created" gods. You need to learn how to state your opinions a little clearer.

 

 

 

they "created" them the same way someone "creates" a fictonal character in a book. It's fairly obvious that they did "create" them, and it still seems like your nitpicking a bit on a choice of words.

[Notorious_Ice]

Good point on the moral factors. Plato once said (paraphrased) that bad people do bad things, whether there is a law against it or not, and good people will do good things, even if there isn't a law saying that's how they have to behave. The law of the US, is heavily influenced by Christianity, as are many laws in many countries, as are many peoples personal codes of honor.

 

 

 

I believe Religion works great as a set of moral guidelines untill people start killing each other over whose god is better, or until those guidelines become outdated. Christians aren't killing off vast numbers of any other religion at the moment (except Muslims, and that doesn't count because the motive is oil, not religious zeal, though you could make a case that the Middle Eastern conflict is a modern day crusade for the holy land).

 

 

 

The Muslim rational for not eating pigs is that they are "Dirty" animals and it is not gods will for us to eat them. This may have made sense thousands or even hundreds of years ago, when pigs may have had bacteria in them that could cause certain diseases. This is not true today. The Christian rational for not having sex before marriage is that it is gods will for us to create families and not have sex before marriage. This may have made sense hundreds of years ago when sex before marriage created unwanted children and social decay. It is not true today.

[Mercifull]

This is a prime example of why the sig stealing thing was a bad idea. I see very strong religious arguments made that appear to be from other people who hold completely different views...

[Guest]

Science=Religion+1

 

Did you know that there are 2 creation stories in the bible?

 

SO, if people take the bible as fact, then they say they believe 2 different things!

 

 

 

You can't just say that and not give evidence! :roll:

 

 

 

By the way your wrong as well. And you probably have never read the Bible and have just heard that rumour from someone else. :wink:

[Mercifull]

I was going to write a really long reply to this thread but then changed my mind. I dont really want to quote huge passages from t.o because i think it really needs to be read in its entirity. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

 

 

Of course hardly anyone here will read it and continue to talk rubbish. but at least i tried.

[KnightLite]

Technically, it would seem, there is NO proof for any theory. If there was real solid evidence, then we wouldn't have multiple common theories

[How2PK]

All sides have got these little farfetched 'facts' to back up their theory. But in the end don't have anything to do with it at all and we get back to zero. It's not worth bothering IMO. Some believe it went this way, others believe it went that way. But that might just be my view.

[Guest GhostRanger]

It's fairly modern compared to Zues and the ancient Roman/Greek gods.

 

 

 

Wrong. The God of Christianity is the same God of early Judaism, way before the Roman Empire was even a thought in Romulus' mind.

 

 

 

Nice try, but I know you know who I am. I figured you would be the one to reply to this, since you can't let anything go. I admire your debating skills, but your people skills are going to need some work.

 

 

 

I can't let anything go? My point is simple: You can't discount somone because of how long they've been around or how many posts they have on thhe forum. Their ideas should be attacked on the basis of their fundamental points, you are acting ridiculous by saying Kant is "no one" instead of responding directly to his point. (Obviously I see you have no sort of responded, but at the time you hadn't.)

[cocacolabottle]

Don't know, don't care. You should live in the present, not in the past, who cares how we got here? We ARE here, and let's face it life ain't bad right?

[runesmithie]

I was going to write a really long reply to this thread but then changed my mind. I dont really want to quote huge passages from t.o because i think it really needs to be read in its entirity. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

 

 

Of course hardly anyone here will read it and continue to talk rubbish. but at least i tried.

 

 

 

Everyone is always up for a religious war it seems :)

[apinagez]

Carbon dating isnt flawed, however it only works with things under a certain age. The carbon disapears after around a couple thousand years or so.

 

 

 

Wrong. Carbon 14 never disappears completely from the things it's in. If you look at a C14 graphic, you'll see it tends to 0, but never reaches it.

 

After half life, half the amount wares off, then after another half life there's only 25% left, then another half life and 12.5% left, and so successivelly. This way, you can date things at any age, theorically.

 

If it's not possible to date something, it isn't because the method is flawled, nor because the object to be dated have gotten too old. It's because we don't have sufficient technology to measure the amounts left. Because there is still C14 in there.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Carbon dating isnt flawed, however it only works with things under a certain age. The carbon disapears after around a couple thousand years or so.

 

 

 

Wrong. Carbon 14 never disappears completely from the things it's in. If you look at a C14 graphic, you'll see it tends to 0, but never reaches it.

 

After half life, half the amount wares off, then after another half life there's only 25% left, then another half life and 12.5% left, and so successivelly. This way, you can date things at any age, theorically.

 

If it's not possible to date something, it isn't because the method is flawled, nor because the object to be dated have gotten too old. It's because we don't have sufficient technology to measure the amounts left. Because there is still C14 in there.

 

 

 

Isn't there another method of dating we use when we can longer measure the C14? I'm vaguely familiar with this information but I always forget about it when I try and remember...

[apinagez]

Carbon dating isnt flawed, however it only works with things under a certain age. The carbon disapears after around a couple thousand years or so.

 

 

 

Wrong. Carbon 14 never disappears completely from the things it's in. If you look at a C14 graphic, you'll see it tends to 0, but never reaches it.

 

After half life, half the amount wares off, then after another half life there's only 25% left, then another half life and 12.5% left, and so successivelly. This way, you can date things at any age, theorically.

 

If it's not possible to date something, it isn't because the method is flawled, nor because the object to be dated have gotten too old. It's because we don't have sufficient technology to measure the amounts left. Because there is still C14 in there.

 

 

 

Isn't there another method of dating we use when we can longer measure the C14? I'm vaguely familiar with this information but I always forget about it when I try and remember...

 

 

 

Of dating older things more precisely, probably.

[Barihawk]

I was going to write a really long reply to this thread but then changed my mind. I dont really want to quote huge passages from t.o because i think it really needs to be read in its entirity. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

 

 

Of course hardly anyone here will read it and continue to talk rubbish. but at least i tried.

 

 

 

Coming from the other side of your view, I can say the same thing. I had a lengthy reply to another insult against my faith, but I don't feel like replying because of all the closed-mindedness here.

 

 

 

I think it's funny that the same people who claim Christians do nothing but bash other religions are the ones in this thread who are doing nothing but bashing the Jewish and Christian faiths.

 

 

 

Before I leave this thread: Props to Apinagez, Merciful and Nadril for keeping it civil and sticking to thier ideas honestly instead of resorting to petty insults. GhostRanger is a few rungs down the ladder from them.

 

 

 

The rest of you honestly need to open up a bit and realize that other people have opinions that conflict with your own. Instead of attacking them personally, you might just ask questions.

 

 

 

And yes, every topic in this forum that deals with science or God turns into an all-out war.

[insane]

For you religious people out there, who created the Almighty being?

 

 

 

Since God created everything who created God?

 

 

 

Did everything begin when God appeared out of nowhere?

 

 

 

Is there another explaination rather than someone else creating god?

 

 

 

I'll do my best to shed some light on these questions.

 

 

 

In philosophy of creation, there are what is known as contingent beings, and a necessary being. All contingent beings come from the necessary being - thus the necessary being is uncreated.

 

 

 

There has to be a necessary being - an infinite regress of contingent beings is logically/mathematically/theoretically impossible (and no, Xeno's paradoxes and set theory doesn't refute the fact that an infinite regress is impossible - since in Xeno's paradoxes you are travelling from one finite number to another finite number - in this situation you are travelling from a finite number to a negative infinite number).

 

 

 

It all boils down to what you believe is the most logical necessary being - I personally believe that inanimate matter is an insufficient necessary being (for many reasons), and that leaves me with an animate being, or God.

 

 

 

 

 

As someone previously stated, dinosaur fossils were discovered millions or billion of years before human fossils. So if God created everything in 6 days, why do fossils indicate that some species lived millions or billions of years apart.

 

 

 

A God existing doesn't necessarily have to have followed the literal Genesis account of creation - a God isn't restricted to have created in six days.

[Guest GhostRanger]

For you religious people out there, who created the Almighty being?

 

 

 

Since God created everything who created God?

 

 

 

Did everything begin when God appeared out of nowhere?

 

 

 

Is there another explaination rather than someone else creating god?

 

 

 

I'll do my best to shed some light on these questions.

 

 

 

In philosophy of creation, there are what is known as contingent beings, and a necessary being. All contingent beings come from the necessary being - thus the necessary being is uncreated.

 

 

 

There has to be a necessary being - an infinite regress of contingent beings is logically/mathematically/theoretically impossible (and no, Xeno's paradoxes and set theory doesn't refute the fact that an infinite regress is impossible - since in Xeno's paradoxes you are travelling from one finite number to another finite number - in this situation you are travelling from a finite number to a negative infinite number).

 

 

 

It all boils down to what you believe is the most logical necessary being - I personally believe that inanimate matter is an insufficient necessary being (for many reasons), and that leaves me with an animate being, or God.

 

 

 

The uncaused cause. :P

 

 

 

Lawrencekill, if you are serious about wanting to know the answer to that question and are left wanting to know a little more after insane's post, I would recommend you trying to find some information on Aquinas' Summa Theologiae, specifically the Quinquae viae, which are his five proofs for the existence of God. Whether or not you agree with him, his philosophies are very compelling and he basically founded the theory of contingency that insane was talking about.

[BlueLancer]

Carbon dating isnt flawed, however it only works with things under a certain age. The carbon disapears after around a couple thousand years or so.

 

 

 

Wrong. Carbon 14 never disappears completely from the things it's in. If you look at a C14 graphic, you'll see it tends to 0, but never reaches it.

 

After half life, half the amount wares off, then after another half life there's only 25% left, then another half life and 12.5% left, and so successivelly. This way, you can date things at any age, theorically.

 

If it's not possible to date something, it isn't because the method is flawled, nor because the object to be dated have gotten too old. It's because we don't have sufficient technology to measure the amounts left. Because there is still C14 in there.

 

 

 

You're almost right, however current C14 dating can't measure any substance accurately if it's older than 38,000-60,000 years old. Every 5000 years or so, radioactive decay takes place in a C14 atom.

 

 

 

This is measured with a method called AMS (or accelerator mass spectrometry). It is extremely expensive as the electricity consumed by a spectrometer in 10 minutes of use is massive and the machine itself is almost the size of a whale.

 

 

 

The reason why there is no method to "accurately" measure any older objects, is because of background radiation. The amount of C14 earth is already about 0.000......1% (about one trillionth) of all natural carbon, and once the atom has halved about 10 times, it becomes impossible to recognize it.

 

 

 

It is possible, though, to estimate objects and their radiation much older than that, but then again they are estimates.

[007007008plp]

I do believe in the big bang theory. Because its the most likely theory.

 

 

 

Im not religious so i don't believe some noob created it all on his own and his magic powers n all that crap.

 

 

 

Science gives us FACTS, religion gives us nothing but RUBBISH.

[megakiller32]

Why do religious nuts believe that the earth was created by some God?

 

How can people prove this God exists? (not by saying stuff like " That sign has a G in, it must be a sign!!!" :shock:

[assassin_696]

I could write a really long explanation to this thread, but i'll just say that in terms of the big bang, the evidence of redshift and cosmic background radiation and the fact that some exceedinly clever people believe in it is enough for me :P

[pro28]

Why do religious nuts believe that the earth was created by some God?

 

How can people prove this God exists? (not by saying stuff like " That sign has a G in, it must be a sign!!!" :shock:

 

 

 

There are too many unknowns in the universe to be closeminded and deeming every theory true. I mean, for all we know, gravity could be fake, rocks have feelings, and the universe was created by some omniscient being who was just bored...

 

 

 

I mean, scientist don't even know how Mercury was formed, due to the lack of evidence that it ever melted. If it never melted, then how did the separation of light and heavy matter occur? How did Mercury obtain its iron core?

 

 

 

I'm not religious, but insulting someone and calling them nuts for their beliefs really show how closeminded you are. If the world was run by you, we would still be following the Ptolemic model of the Solar System.

[Tigra00]

The Universe very well could have been created by a "God", but the thing is...The Bible says nothing about anything that happened before 6,000-ish years ago, thus religious people (hardcore people that won't take anything but the Bible as literal fact) say it's a fact that the world is only 6,000 some years old. It's an undisputed scientific fact that the world is older than 6,000 years old. They say it's 4.5 billion, but even if it isn't that old, we know for sure it's older than 6,000 years. We also know that the Grand Canyon wasn't created by "The Great Flood" :roll:, however, these religious peolpe just completely dismiss it as "not fact" because they take the Bible so literally that it doesn't allow it...They can't even begin to fathom for one second that perhaps, just maybe, if the Bible and science cannot go hand in hand, that it isn't science that is the wrong one.

 

 

 

I don't want to bash people's beliefs, 'cause some good comes out of religion (though a lot more bad comes out of it *shrug*), but if science and religion can't co-exsist, it seems to me that for science to automatically then be wrong is a very, very...flawed, just flat out dumb way of thinking. The Bible is a book, which may or may not have even been written by God's words. Science is the facts of how stuff works in our world. Would you deny gravity if the Bible said it didn't exsist? Probably...But we all know Gravity is a friggin' fact. Until you can throw something in the air and it doesn't come back down, it's a fact.

 

 

 

To me, it is devistatingly obvious that the Bible was written by men of their time with little interference from an "outside" source. Want to know why the Bible mentions nothing of what we know as fact today? Because people back then didn't have the knowledge of it, thus they couldn't write about it. If God was infalable, I would think he would have at least mentioned something about this stuff. However, I want to believe that God was just being lazy and he really does exsist, because if we die and nothing happens, that's going to make a lot of people feel like they wasted their lives. Exact reason right there why I don't follow religion...I believe that as long as I don't go murdering, raping and hurting people, God will accept me into Heaven if it exsists. I don't believe Hell exsists at all, because the Bible says God loves us all...The whole "yea, but he warned you..." argument for Hell is bunk. My mom warned me not to ride my bike near the river, but when I did and I fell in and lost my bike, she didn't beat me to death and scream "i warned you, now suffer!" she said "go get your bike out of the river." and she still loved me. I can't and won't believe that there is a God that would make people suffer for not doing everything to the letter that he says. THAT God doesn't exsist. I very much believe more in the Jehova Witnesses' teachings more than anything else...They may be called a cult, they may not accept other people's blood, but at least their not lunatics telling their children they're going to burn for eternity for not reading the Bible. They teach their children that if you're good, God will want you in Heaven with him, and if you're really bad, you don't get to go to Heaven, i.e., you just cease to exsist. Any good parent wouldn't torture their child for any reason, and God is our "parent", if he exsists.

[Tigra00]

It's fairly modern compared to Zues and the ancient Roman/Greek gods.

 

 

 

Wrong. The God of Christianity is the same God of early Judaism, way before the Roman Empire was even a thought in Romulus' mind.

 

 

 

Nice try, but I know you know who I am. I figured you would be the one to reply to this, since you can't let anything go. I admire your debating skills, but your people skills are going to need some work.

 

 

 

I can't let anything go? My point is simple: You can't discount somone because of how long they've been around or how many posts they have on thhe forum. Their ideas should be attacked on the basis of their fundamental points, you are acting ridiculous by saying Kant is "no one" instead of responding directly to his point. (Obviously I see you have no sort of responded, but at the time you hadn't.)

 

 

 

I wouldn't say they're the EXACT same "God", GhostRanger. Christians today follow Jesus just as much, if not more than God himself. Nevermind that's against like, the first commandment, but I would consider it an entire different being if it's like that. That whole "holy trinity" thing.

 

 

 

I don't think Jesus was meant to be worshipped as a God. He was simply a guy with a message. An important guy, if he was he who said to be, but not a man of "God" status. I've even heard people here say that Jesus *IS* God via that whole holy trinity thing or whatever...