pizzahut451 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Sure you can.
We may not know the nature of, um, nature before the big bang, but we can certainly use the laws of physics to prove it happened because they existed at the point of the big bang.
For example, we can observe the way the Universe itself acts to show that a big bang occurred. I asked you once already what you explanation of the metric expansion of the Universe was, but unfortunately I never got a reply. The metric expansion of the Universe is quite an elegant observation that near enough proves the big bang theory by itself.
We can observe the doppler shift of other galaxies and when we do we find that all galaxies are moving away from each other. This can only be possible if the space they existed in themselves was expanding.
Think of it like blowing up a dotted balloon.You have a balloon with a series of dots on the surface, as you blow it up the dots aren't moving around the surface of the balloon, but they are moving away from each other due to the expansion of the balloon. The Universe is the balloon, and the dots are galaxies.
We've measured this rate of expansion and if we reverse it and extrapolate it backwards we find that the Universe had to of been a singularity (A single point) around 13.7Bn years ago.
I would just like to know how a Big Bang skeptic explains this observation.
|
We cant NEVER know the nature of nature before big bang, because there was no nature in the Big Bang. The nature itself was created in Big Bang. And you cant use physics to prove it happend because the laws of phyiscs (of this universe, at least) were also created in Big Bang. According to Dinesh D'Souza in his book What's So Great about Christianity "If you accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause. This spiritual cause brought the universe into existence using none of the laws of physics. The creation of the universe was, in the quite literal meaning of the tern, a miracle." He emphasizes, "It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics. In fact, the laws of physics cannot be used to explain the Big Bang because the Big Bang itself produced the laws of physics...If the universe was produced outside of the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term miracle.
On the second bolded part:
But there is a known scientific law that states that anything at rest must remain at rest until an external force causes it to move. So we again must conclude that something of a higher order of being than the universe itself must have caused the big bang. The conclusion remains that God was the first cause. Think about it. You used the ballon as an example, but i ask you: WHO or WHAT is blowing the ballon so that the dots are moving away from eachother because of the expansion of the ballon????? What kind of creature (entity) has that kind of power to move away whole galaxies and expand and ''organise'' the universe like a 2 dollars ballon??? And even if the existing matter created the Big Bang, that kind of matter would have to be (copied it from the article):
spaceless because it created space
timeless because it created time
immaterial because it created matter ( see the problem now?)
powerfull becasue it created Big Bang out of nothing
intellegent because the creation event and the universe was precisely deisgned. (you cant really look at the beuty of the universe and Earth itself, and say that all of that beuty happend ''by an accident'')
And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes.
Right now, AT THIS MOMENT, the thought of God being the creator of the universe is IMO AT THIS MOMENT the most logical one, until our scientists discorver evidence that debunks it. Who knows what scinece will discover in 100 or 200 years, just look how much progress they made in last 60 years. But for now, MY OPINNION is that the God is the creator of the universe.
|
