Did God create the universe?

[Luchito]

This has been pointed out to you three times now?

It's not used anymore, why is this so difficult for you?

Give me a replacement for that atom.

The Big Bang is based in "nothing: as a beginning.

What exploded inside that "nothing" according to you.

Your answer must make sense.

 

[ольга]

Because we just had a great big long back and forth about your "zero time" and "infinite speed" ideas. They are, as I said, word salad - not things you would be talking about if you were at all versed in physics. You were unable to even define what you meant by them, let alone how they might be meaningful in the physics we were discussing.

Look, I'm not telling you what you can and can't talk about; I'm simply suggesting that coming up with your own ideas about "infinite speed and zero time" model of the universe is about as helpful as me expressing how the King of Russia should not be on the Blue Team, and that I have some better ideas about how Russia should be running its country.

Дэйв, это ни я не смогла объяснить, это вы не смогли понять. Какое отношение физика имеет к тому, что было до БВ? Физика описывает уже то, что было после. Я вас не упрекаю, во всём мире людей, понимающих некоторые вещи, можно пересчитать по пальцам на одной руке. Для этого нужно обладать определённым складом ума.

 

[Luchito]

I agree. But since that's not what the Big Bang theory states, it's not an issue for the theory.

You don't even understand the theory, therefore you are not qualified to speak against it. It's like all these people claiming that airplanes can't fly because they are too heavy.

The universe was formed by an explosion.

Good, show me the location of such beginning. You guys say the background microwaves are evidence, then you must have the location of such epicenter as well.

Look, a theory proved in half is not proved at all. You must do better. Right now, you have no A, no D, neither an F. You have a Zero. ha ha ha ha

The background microwaves are not valid evidence, those can be residuals from past supernovas.

Now: location. Call the fire department of your jurisdiction to help you with this, finding the place of the explosion.

Do not disappoint me again please.

 

[DaveC426913]

The word "explosion" suggests very rapid expansion.

During the inflationary period near the start of the big bang, "explosion" fits the bill nicely, if you ask me, because at that time the universe expanded at an exponential rate for a while.

Physical explosions have their fastest expansion at the start, and their velocity diminishes from there because there is no further force. This is the mechanism most people unfamiliar with BB inflation will jump to when you say explsoion.

We have this problem all the time (example, over on Physics Forums) when newbies question the BB. The first thing we have to do every single time is disabuse them of the notion that the BB was an explosion.

Why use an ambiguous word that leads people who want to learn about the BB down a flawed path right from the get-go?

When it comes to the universe, the fastest expansion was at the start. Then the expansion slowed.

In the first moments, the expansion was still accelerating. The universe was relatively far along* before the expansion slowed and even farther along before gravity began to take over.

*yes, we are talking the first few picoseconds, but at the quantum fluctuation level that is an eternity of developmental maturation.

Explosion versus inflation:


Here at the far left:

​

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, it's not me who couldn't explain it, it's you who couldn't understand it.

No, it really was you.

 

[DaveC426913]

Man differs from other animals by the presence of abstract thinking. Therefore, he is "not just an animal".

And dolphins, chimps, gorillas, crows?

 

[Pinball1970]

The background microwaves are not valid evidence, those can be residuals from past supernovas.

Reported.

 

[Pinball1970]

Your answer must make sense

And you must start reading the replies. If you ignore answers and continue to pose the same silly questions, and repeat the same nonsense claims without reading the replies, I will report you for trolling.
Show us that you want to learn.

 

[James R]

Man differs from other animals in the presence of abstract thinking. Therefore, "not just an animal".

Do you accept that human beings evolved from ape-like ancestor species?

Or do you think that human beings were specially created by God?

What about all the other animals? What about plants? What about bacteria?

Do you accept the theory of evolution?

 

[James R]

The Big Bang is based in "nothing: as a beginning.

No. The big bang theory says nothing about what was or wasn't present at the time the universe started to expand. That's because it does not attempt to explain anything that happened prior to about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after time zero.

What exploded inside that "nothing" according to you.

Your answer must make sense.

The very early universe was something like a very high energy plasma of quarks and photons. But it took a little time for even the four fundamental interactions to "freeze out" of the grand unification of forces that existed at the start. There were various symmetries that existed in the early era that were broken before or during the inflationary era.

 

[James R]

The universe was formed by an explosion.

Did you read any of the previous discussion?

Good, show me the location of such beginning.

It happened everywhere, simultaneously.

You guys say the background microwaves are evidence, then you must have the location of such epicenter as well.

There was no "centre". Read my post about the infinite universe, above.

There's still no centre, right now. Our universe is expanding in all directions. There is no stationary "centre".

Look, a theory proved in half is not proved at all.

No theory is proved in science. See my earlier post where I explained. You really need to start reading the posts, or you'll remain ignorant.

There is good evidence for the big bang. Lots of independent observations support it. There is no better scientific explanation for the universe that we see. Certainly, you have suggested no viable alternative.

You must do better. Right now, you have no A, no D, neither an F. You have a Zero. ha ha ha ha

Read my post on the fallacy of argument from incredulity, above.

You'll need to stop making this simple mistake if you want to learn.

The background microwaves are not valid evidence, those can be residuals from past supernovas.

That's another empty assertion from you.

What led you to believe that the CMBR could be explained by past supernovas? Did you read it on a Creationist web page?

Now: location. Call the fire department of your jurisdiction to help you with this, finding the place of the explosion.

Do you really think that you understand the big bang theory that you're so keen to dismiss?

Time to lose that delusion, Luchito, because it's abundantly clear from your posts that you haven't even grasped the basics of a pop-science explanation of the theory.

Meanwhile, you have nothing that refutes the theory.

 

[James R]

Physical explosions have their fastest expansion at the start, and their velocity diminishes from there because there is no further force. This is the mechanism most people unfamiliar with BB inflation will jump to when you say explsoion.

Maybe.

I don't think this is a major problem. I always try to explain the theory in sufficient detail that the reader can avoid falling into that error, if they actually want to learn about the theory.

Why use an ambiguous word that leads people who want to learn about the BB down a flawed path right from the get-go?

I don't think that merely substituting the word "expansion" for "explosion" promotes, by that substitution alone, a greater level of understanding of the theory. "Expansion" is also ambiguous in that there are many ways that things can expand.

In the first moments, the expansion was still accelerating. The universe was relatively far along* before the expansion slowed and even farther along before gravity began to take over.

*yes, we are talking the first few picoseconds, but at the quantum fluctuation level that is an eternity of developmental maturation.

Yes. So? Isn't that what I already said, above?

 

[ольга]

And dolphins, chimps, gorillas, crows?

Они тоже рассуждают о смыслах?

 

[ольга]

Do you accept that human beings evolved from ape-like ancestor species?

Or do you think that human beings were specially created by God?

What about all the other animals? What about plants? What about bacteria?

Do you accept the theory of evolution?

Да, я понимаю что человек формировался не за один день, и теория эволюции об этом говорит. Так же, как и весь остальной живой мир. С этим никто и не спорит. Но всё же человек имеет немного другой склад ума, чем обычная обезьяна. Возможно, у человечества было две ветви развития, и на каком то этапе произошло смешение.

 

[James R]

Yes, I understand that man did not form in one day, and the theory of evolution says so. Just like the rest of the living world. No one argues with this.

Actually, lots of people argue with that. Those people are wrong, however.

But still, a person has a slightly different mindset than an ordinary monkey. Perhaps mankind had two branches of development, and at some stage there was a mixture.

I'm confused about what point you're trying to make, now.

Previously, you appeared to be arguing that human beings are fundamentally different from all other animals, but here you appear to be agreeing that human beings evolved along with all other animals and, more specifically, that human beings evolved from ape-like ancestor species.

Nobody here is disputing that human beings are good at thinking. Humans have big brains and - yes - we are different in some respects to the other great apes, with whom we share 98% of our DNA in some cases. But there are also undeniable and very obvious similarities between the species.

This thread is a discussion about whether a god created the universe. Some religious people assert that human beings were specially created by God and that evolution (or more specifically speciation) does not occur.

If you're not one of those people, what is the relevance of your point about the human mindset? Humans are animals with big brains. Big brains are the evolutionary niche that we have exploited. It's why we are such a prevalent species on Earth. Other animals have their own specialities. Cheetahs can run fast. Whales can hold their breath for a very long time. And so on.

What's your point?

 

[ольга]

Actually, lots of people argue with that. Those people are wrong, however.

I'm confused about what point you're trying to make, now.

Previously, you appeared to be arguing that human beings are fundamentally different from all other animals, but here you appear to be agreeing that human beings evolved along with all other animals and, more specifically, that human beings evolved from ape-like ancestor species.

Nobody here is disputing that human beings are good at thinking. Humans have big brains and - yes - we are different in some respects to the other great apes, with whom we share 98% of our DNA in some cases. But there are also undeniable and very obvious similarities between the species.

This thread is a discussion about whether a god created the universe. Some religious people assert that human beings were specially created by God and that evolution (or more specifically speciation) does not occur.

If you're not one of those people, what is the relevance of your point about the human mindset? Humans are animals with big brains. Big brains are the evolutionary niche that we have exploited. It's why we are such a prevalent species on Earth. Other animals have their own specialities. Cheetahs can run fast. Whales can hold their breath for a very long time. And so on.

What's your point?

Животные не задаются вопросами о смыслах, они просто живут согласно созданной эволюцией программе. Человеку же мало этого, ему надо знать - "зачем?" В этом наше отличие. У нас есть свобода воли - хотеть "быть или не быть".

 

[James R]

Animals do not ask questions about meanings, they simply live according to the program created by evolution. This is not enough for a person, he needs to know - "why?" We have free will to want to "be or not to be."

Non-human animals feel pain. They have their own preferences and desires.

It's hard to know what animals think - whether they need to know "why" and such.

It seems to me that animal intelligence is not radically different to human intelligence. It's more a matter of degree than a difference in kind.

But why do you think this discussion important in a thread asking whether God created the universe?

 

[ольга]

Non-human animals feel pain. They have their own preferences and desires.

It's hard to know what animals think - whether they need to know "why" and such.

It seems to me that animal intelligence is not radically different to human intelligence. It's more a matter of degree than a difference in kind.

But why do you think this discussion important in a thread asking whether God created the universe?

Я люблю животных, они непосредственны, как дети.

Потому что многие представляют себе Бога, как седого старца сидящего на облаке с волшебной палочкой. Утрированно, конечно, но смысл примерно такой. Такого, наверное, действительно нет.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think that merely substituting the word "expansion" for "explosion" promotes, by that substitution alone, a greater level of understanding of the theory. "Expansion" is also ambiguous in that there are many ways that things can expand.

My bad. "Inflation" is the better term.

It forestalls ideas about ballistic expansion in people new to BB theory. People don't usually think of an explosion as a force-over-time; they tend to think of it as an initial push only, then invariably leap to the idea that, as an explosion, with all the mass in the universe present, it should not be able to overcome gravity.

Anyway, it's not my battle alone. I doubt there is an astrophysicist alive today that would countenance - let alone voice - the idea that the BB was an explosion. They will fall over themselves to correct it.

 

[Pinball1970]

My bad. "Inflation" is the better term.

Could be confused with "inflation" though. Guth stuff (for a tick) not BB expansion generally.