The Big Bang is NOT a "Beginning (capital B)"

...but merely a "beginning" lowercase b)"

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• big
• bang
• astronomy
• cosmology

[rusty2029]

You have a blind faith to believe anything beyond the universe. There is no absolute proof that a multiverse is beyond. And you still have the problem of infinite regress if a endless multiverse it true. And the evidence is not in that there is a multiverse so to go outside of T=0 you have to have blind faith for any of that. While a simple explanation is always better and God is the simpler answer then any refutation attempt made about the creation event of this universe.

[RabidApe]

"You have a blind faith to believe anything beyond the universe."

There is a huge difference between speculation about what MAY be possible, and a claiming to KNOW such things.

Listen carefully, I don't think you'll see me being so presumptuous as to claim to know what exists beyond the observable universe.

I fail to see how positing the existence of a "God" simplifies ANYTHING.

What could be more complex then an omniscient universe-Creator?

[deepelmdesciple]

Exactly. The "Big Bang" wasn't the "Beginning". Beyond that point, we're getting into Quantum Theory, which, I guess, is the "one big theory" that more or less explains the "multiverse". To paraphrase Dawkins (paraphrasing someone else, I think), "If you think you understand Quantum Theory, you have no understanding of Quantum Theory". It gets confusing as shit, but basically, the scientific community is starting to accept the theory that there are an infinite amount of universes.

[RabidApe]

"paraphrasing someone else"

That would be Richard Feynman!

[studentofJesus]

RabidApe, you sir are a thinker, and an honest one at that. This is the first video of yours I have watched, but I have to say, you are the kind of atheist I can respect.

As a Christian, of course I believe that a God created all things, it's in my gut... it's what I believe. But I don't claim to understand how exactly it all happened physically, any more than you do.

Anyway, I just wanted to offer you kudos for not being a jerk.

You're a rarity.

[otonanoC]

This is a very humane, honest explanation of the scientific theory called the Big Bang.

However, if I were you, I would have filmed this once, watched it. Then made notes and filmed it all over again in a cleaner and more organized manner.

[blenderpanzi]

@MASTERPPA Oh. We are just a interuniversal garbage dump!

[blenderpanzi]

@vivaramones I think I do not follow what you said. The thing is there might not have been a beginning of the "multiverse". There might be another universe that is/was completely empty and existed forever and because of uncertainty not just particles in it come into existence but other universes (like ours). Maybe it did not exist forever but was given birth by yet another universe. Maybe that process kept going forever. But I think you can't talk of (directed) time in that context anyway.

[vivaramones]

RapidApe, you might be right with the "beginning." However, all your doing is pushing back into the C word; the "creation" of everything. It's because you don't want to contemplate there might be a god or not. Ironically, all you did is substitute the "universe" with "god." So, your in the same hole as a christian; in an infinite digression.

[seansalvador1]

@RabidApe

What faccinates me is that they are moving at 99% the SOL yet to move them to 99.1% would be a whole 99% SOL away :)

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Very well thought out. I happen to share your view, and have independently come up with many of the same notions, and have similarly articulated many of your same points. I do not think it accidental, incidental or uninteresting that different people who've never met have, as you so nicely put it, "looked at the same, publicly available information" and come to the same, reasonable, rationally thought out, and defendable positions. here's hoping more people will THINK rather than believe.

[fruitytuttiluigi]

yeah but the problem is you have to answer where god came from to, and saying that he was always there isn't really a satisfying answer either than it is a cop out of having a better answer. God suffers from infinite regress as well.

[fruitytuttiluigi]

Occams razor has a major flaw actually. The problem with it is that it is to opinionated. It also doesn't take chance into account, assuming that just because something is simpler, which in itself is just the opinion of the observer, and assumes that just because something is "simpler" it must be the most reasonable answer.

Also, it would be more reasonable to say that life is fine tuned for the universe, not the other way around no?

[Benlucky13]

doesnt the big bang simply state that in one point at time there was an explosion? not the beginning of space and time and the universe as many people have asserted it to be?

[marklross2]

Oh - I see. Yes. It is my understanding that the latest data from Hubble, analyzed by astronomers, surprised the scientific community. The results of the analysis showed that indeed the expansion of the universe was if fact accelerating Here to fore it was believed that the universe was expanding, but decelerating.

[MASTERPPA]

part of it was a response to just one other persons statement about how the universe is now slowing down, its accelerating..