Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Does The Big Bang Imply Theism Is True?

Leaning
Posts: 2,664
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2018 5:44:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Eh, I don't think so myself. But just talked with a coworker who said he liked to think there was some higher power, Though not necessarily a deity. More like a natural law. Like a law that says life is likely to exist in existence X many times in X locations.

Lot of people I talk to who aren't religious but are a bit spiritual talk about some higher power, But don't usually I think give it that type of individual personhood we often give our deities. Honestly our deities are described far too similar to us in my opinion to be more than demi deities, Merely overpowered mortals. Maybe.
Sonofcharl
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2018 8:49:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think you should hyphenate coworker. It suggests that your associates ork cows.

The Big Bang is a calculated guess. Whereas theism is a hopeful guess.
Fatsal
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2019 3:31:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Not necessarily. However it points to the universe having a beginning which is also a general characteristic of theistic belief. Before the Big Bang, Scientists thought the universe was without a beginning.
Leaning
Posts: 2,664
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2019 1:46:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Personally I just assume the universe explodes outward, Get's sucked into a black hole, Explodes outwards, Get's sucked into a black hole, And so on.

Though I can't recall 'why I think this, Or any science for it quite, Ah well. But if it did do that, It wouldn't quite solve the beginning problem for me.
Dr.Franklin
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2019 4:06:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Personally I just assume the universe explodes outward, Get's sucked into a black hole, Explodes outwards, Get's sucked into a black hole, And so on.

Though I can't recall 'why I think this, Or any science for it quite, Ah well. But if it did do that, It wouldn't quite solve the beginning problem for me.

I 'm not so sure the Bog Bang is true anymore

Scientists came up with 13. 7 billion years old by taking the scale of the "expanding" universe and putting it into a tiny space. There is a problem with this thinking, Unless the universe has gravitational attraction exactly balanced against this expansion it will either collapse in a Big Crunch or expand too quickly for us to survive in it. And for the expanding universe, Observations in the redshifts are likely are due to atoms having variable mass, Not the redshift expanding theory! The variation of mass destroys the Big Bang. Speaking of matter, According to the big bang each particle has a counterpart of anti-matter that has the opposite charge, But we have not found enough evidence to suggest that! [LINK]

If large quantities of antimatter existed, There has to be a magnetic force in the universe. Big bang scientists determine this to be Magnetic Monopoles. This is assumed as fact but no Magnetic Monopoles has ever been observed. There is a period that includes these magnets known as the inflation period where the universe first started from a tiny ball to trillions of kilometers wide based on one particle. No feature has ever been observed discrediting the Big Bang cosmological theories.

If you do support the inflationary model however, You must predict that a gravitational wave background originating from inflation should exist similar to the cosmic microwave radiation. There has been no evidence of this assumption. Without gravitational waves, It is unclear whether the theory of general relativity can apply to the regimes where inflation is invoked and this casts a pall on the possibility for any sort of Big Bang inflationary model. Billions of dollars wasted on trying to prove this wrong theory.
Dead website

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.