Big Bang and God...

[freedom13]

The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.

In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposal came after observing the red shift in distant nebulas by astronomers to a model of the universe based on relativity. Years later, Edwin Hubble found experimental evidence to help justify Lemaître's theory. He found that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance.

The big bang was initially suggested because it explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great speeds. The theory also predicts the existence of cosmic background radiation (the glow left over from the explosion itself). The Big Bang Theory received its strongest confirmation when this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel Prize for this discovery.

Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.

From the Bible in the book of Genesis: And God said, let there be light and there was light. This birth of life or let there be light sound like the Big Bang to me; but Knowledge and Wisdom causes it to happen.

Biblical Deceptions and Science Fiction!

Both Religion and Science have it purpose in time but Creation comes from a Higher Existence. The so call Creation Dilemma comes from not having the Knowledge and Wisdom of that Higher Existence. The bible teaches moral lessons and it is not literally true, because it will have too many contradictions. Religion and Science must be based on a solid foundation, in harmony with the Universal Order and not on some Biblical Deceptions and Science Fiction.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Isherwood So because you've never heard/seen/read of an atom self-creating, you automatically discredit the notion, believing that's the most obvious conclusion to reach in the face of no evidence? Would that accurately summarize your position?

I am afraid it would not. There is not much in common with believing, but Science.
I presented my view, applying the time-present, and not using Calculus of Probability as an option. That is the difference, in comparison to your attempt in reflecting some doubts regarding my expression.

Example :
A.Jackson bill would replenish itself (in no time), if your concpet is correct.
Therefore - following your concept, nobody needs anything, since we have all our desire leads us to. A "Dreamland" within.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: another day Such blind hearted arrogance. Realize that you know very little of what can be known, and therefore your one-off, simplistic judgement on something you have no clue about is thoroughly invalid. There's nothing more painful then seeing ignorant bystanders try to discredit entire scientific theories on nothing more then a few sentences of simple minded "reasoning"

Thank you for cordial (and sublime onomastics-filled-with) lecture.
However, it adds not much to support your findings, since you should have been well familiar with basic notions of Physics (prior posting your response) that an atom possesses no ability of self-creation, which is the reasoning for my conclusion expressed, and that stands for Science known to all of us, today. This is your (own) statement that contradicts Physics, exactly.
Regardless of your bombastic words - on my alleged imbecility, I think you should direct your findings to those heartless and/or ignorant scientists, since it seems they have no clue on their works.
Are you about to re-write Physics ?

[Jack]

that an atom possesses no ability of self-creation, which is the reasoning for my conclusion expressed, and that stands for Science known to all of us, today.

I'm still trying to figure out where you heard or read this, and why you think this atomic recreation has anything to do with the beginnings of the universe. I suspect you're confusing atom with singularity, but it's hard to tell.

[Athena]

Quote by: derekd234 they are disproving that god didn't create the world. I don't believe they're trying to disprove God! what is your opinion on this? I think that if it disproves religion in the slightest bit, all research shall be stopped.

You are kidding, aren't you? :eek:

Science does not disprove God. It disproves myth. The problem we are having is the insistance that religious myth is not myth, but truth, so it is assumed if we disprove the myth, we have proven God does not exist. That is non sense. It just means God is different from what the holy books have said.

The worst thing humans can do is be too sure of what they think they know, and therefore, prevent the quest for truth.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Isherwood I'm still trying to figure out where you heard or read this, and why you think this atomic recreation has anything to do with the beginnings of the universe. I suspect you're confusing atom with singularity, but it's hard to tell.

I refer to an atom (itself). No atom can reproduce itself, therefore an atom has No self-creation ability.
Otherwise, an atom's self-creative ability would force the Universe we live-in to become a totaly different environment, today.

P.S.
I learnt that an atom has No self-creative characteristic and/or attribute at a primary school I attended to. Nothing has changed since, as far as I know.
Why do you ask me such question ?

[Athena]

Quote by: Rainbow Thank you for cordial (and sublime onomastics-filled-with) lecture. However, it adds not much to support your findings, since you should have been well familiar with basic notions of Physics (prior posting your response) that an atom possesses no ability of self-creation, which is the reasoning for my conclusion expressed, and that stands for Science known to all of us, today. This is your (own) statement that contradicts Physics, exactly. Regardless of your bombastic words - on my alleged imbecility, I think you should direct your findings to those heartless and/or ignorant scientists, since it seems they have no clue on their works. Are you about to re-write Physics ?

Sub atomic particles are not just matter. They have a spin, forces are involved, and this is a reality of action, it is metaphysical.

Words/Phrases DEFINED: 'Quantum Mechanics versus Quantum Physics'. Father Jerome's SPECIALIZED DICTIONARY of KEYWORDS/PHRASES pertaining to Bose-Einstein Condensates of Non-Matter and Incorporeality, as used in his Works, in QUFD Physics and in the ' Quantum Mechanics (1) nominally comes from, and defines accordingly, any and all Corporeal Physics matters, from the perspective of Classical Newtonian Physics, and (2) limits itself to the quantum realms and all Physical Realities appearing and occurring within the Reality of Corporeality. Quantum Physics, however, defines and explains the details of the quantum realms of both Corporeality and Incorporeality, but concentrates primarily on those 'Realities' of Incorporeality which are relevant to the creation of Reality within Corporeality! This Definition of Quantum Physics references and derives from QUFD Physics and not from Classical Newtonian Physics, which is thereby considered to be obsolete. Both terms apply, accordingly, to Physicists and Investigators/Researchers who deal with concerns within the various realms of Physics. Physicists who limit themselves only to matters of Corporeality in their investigations of Reality, not deigning to cross-over to Incorporeality in any way, are nominally considered to be Quantum 'Mechanics', who seek only 'mechanical' or corporeal resolution to their investigations, foregoing any non-mechanical, incorporeal possibilities! Physicists who open themselves to all 'matters' and possibilities of both Corporeality and Incorporeality, are Quantum Physicists! They are truly willing to explore all the quantum possibilities of both Reality and 'Reality', on both sides of that invisible Fence separating the Known from the Unknown! Also, Quantum Physics does thusly refer primarily to QUFD Physics and all derivative Disciplines, Sciences and Philosophies!

If we think only terms of matter, we can know the whole of reality.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Athena Sub atomic particles are not just matter. They have a spin, forces are involved, and this is a reality of action, it is metaphysical. If we think only terms of matter, we can know the whole of reality.

#1
Do you mean : quarks
???

#2
It looks that the whole case is all about.

[Jack]

Why do you ask me such question ?

Because you keep answering the wrong question. I know you consider atoms to be unable to self-replicate. I'm not a physicist so I don't know if that's unilaterally true, but nevermind. The question I'm asking is why you think that an atoms inability to self-replicate has anything to do with the Big Bang. The Big Bang didn't originate from an atom but a singularity, if the current theory is valid. As I understand it, we're way below the atomic level with singularities. My scientific dictionary says a singularity is, "A region of zero volume and infinite density where the warping of space-time is infinite and the laws of physics break down".

So what do the abilities of atoms have to do with the Big Bang?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Isherwood I know you consider atoms to be unable to self-replicate. I'm not a physicist so I don't know if that's unilaterally true, but nevermind. The question I'm asking is why you think that an atoms inability to self-replicate has anything to do with the Big Bang. The Big Bang didn't originate from an atom but a singularity, if the current theory is valid. As I understand it, we're way below the atomic level with singularities. My scientific dictionary says a singularity is, "A region of zero volume and infinite density where the warping of space-time is infinite and the laws of physics break down". So what do the abilities of atoms have to do with the Big Bang?

#1
Isherwood, try to imagine an environment an atom can replicate itself in. That would be a process of (re)appearing any matter, endlessly.
I am afraid the Universe we live-in would ever appear at all, since it stays in the process of creation, Always (!) due to an atom's abiility of self-creation.
In other words :
- if an atom possesses ability of self-creation, it keeps replicating itself, endlessly.
What would be created, then ? since a process of interaction (followed by friction) lasts forever ?

#2
"My scientific dictionary says a singularity is, "A region of zero volume and infinite density where the warping of space-time is infinite and the laws of physics break down".
That is the definition for the concept of the BigBang. That is what some scientists share their view with. That is why some scientists suggest that the BigBang was the source of everything.

I think that Lederman's, Hawking's (and some physicists) thoery is more logical, suggesting that there was time prior the BigBang.