I don't think many of you understand the big bang theory and the evidence for it.

Its not a 'religion' its a theory with evidence to back it up unlike religion which is based on nothing but faith.

There are two major pieces of evidence. One is that the universe is expanding. This was first observed by Hubble (the man) and has since been confirmed in other ways. Everything is expanding away from everything else. Think of our universe like a balloon blowing up.

The second is the cosmic microwave backround radiation. The cosmic microwave backround radiation and its slight temperature fluctuations can't be explained by steady state models of the universe. The big bang theory not only predicts it but explains its slight fluctuations.

If you can explain why the cosmic microwave radiation exists without there being an early hotter denser universe then you have a strong argument against the big bang. If you can't then you don't have any strong arguments against the big bang. If you could by the way you'd win a nobel prize so theres some motivation...

You gotta understand that the big bang theory is a powerful connection between theoretical predictions and experimental evidence. Also had we existed billions of years in the future we would not be able to observe distant galaxies because the universe will be more dilute (unless something else happens which is possible) that we will have no clue about our universe and that its made of an uncountable number of galaxies. We are lucky in other words to be able to see these relics from our early universe.

You should also realize that the singularity big bang theory is outdated. With quantum mechanics it was shown to not be the case and now the inflationary big bang model is the most popular. The only contending model is the cyclic universe model. Experimental observations will rule in favor of one or the other in the near future. This stuff is testable and is being tested.

Furthermore to say that something can't come from nothing reveals classic human arrogance towards the universe. The universe doesn't care that your human mind can't understand why something can come from nothing. Quantum mechanics which is completely illogical to the human mind sais it can and mathematically sound models of the natural formation of the universe from nothing do exist. Mathematically its possible to understand nothing but our mind did not evolve to understand nothing (real nothing). Future experiments will tell us more about what it must have been like in a hot denser universe and then more evidence will be presented in favor of some models over others.

I look forward with joy at this analysis of our universe. To toss aside the big bang theory and modern cosmological models of the universe reveals a profound ignorance and arrogance about your true place in the universe.

Quantum mechanics doesn't say that something can come out of nothing. This is because quantum mechanics makes it clear that you can never establish that a true vacuum exists. So it may seem as if particles come out of nothing, but you can never know, according to QM itself, whether there realy is nothing.

Furthermore is it so that the standardmoderl works with a whole array of particles that can only be observed under very specified conditions and there are particles that never even have been observed, thus far.

So this makes the claim of having established there is 'nothing' even more treacherous.

As long as you cannot truly know there is 'nothing', you cannot say that particles come out of this 'nothing', whenever they appear and dissapear.

This is no argument anybody could ridicule.
As long as we don't know there are no secret mirrors and instruments of deception, assuming that david copperfield can truly fly or make things dissapear is the least credible of all assumptions regarding his performances.

Now the quantum world may be a whole different circusshow, but that principle still aplies.

The only argument against it is that the quantum world seems so strange and illogical to us. But you can't say something like "well, it's such a strange place that this first and simple fact check, doesn't seem nessecary anymore".

No one has proof of it and yet many people believe it to be so. Sounds like a religion to me.

Religions are not entirely based on faith. Jesus was a real person and Christianity is based on him, and the Bible has many stories that actually happened.

I noticed that when I argue with Christians about how their religion isn’t 100% accurate, I get the same sort of answers I get from people who believe the Big Bang theory. They want to protect their idea and start staying things like “you just don’t understand”, and start bringing up their “facts” to back up their belief system.

I see through all of this. No one here has given proof of the Big Bang, even it’s strong believers have not.

I’ve read many articles from scientists trying to convince people of their Big Bag religious beliefs stating all sorts of scientific theories to back it up, but offering no actual proof and then saying it’s a fact. A bunch of nonsense.

There are some really stupid scientists out there who believe the Big Bang to be a fact and actually lecture people on it claiming it’s a fact. It’s embarrassing to the rest of the scientific community who knows this is nothing more than a human idea composed of tiny bits of data we’ve collected about our universe. We know next to nothing about our universe and yet some people thing we know everything. It’s the great embarrassment of science. It’s a theory that has so many devoted believers. Its become a religion.

I promised myself I would never get into this again...but seeeing as this meme is so prevalent it's important to say something.... Ron, there is absolutely no evidence that a man named jesus existed, christians have been desperately trying to find evidence for years... theres been fakes, and for some reason, the history channel and national geo love doing bullshit documentaries about christian beliefs having evidence, but every time you watch them, you realise that they never actually find anything... it is actually a 100% faith thing, that's why the religions always go on about faith, but essentially they want you to believe things with no evidence, that's how they maintain control... isn't that obvious??

The big bang is still being studied and whenever they find new data, they reevalute the theory and expand upon it... do you think christianity will ever update their documents based on new observations??? why is there evil in the world? etc.

Nobody is saying science is a perfect, it's nature is transitive, temporary, constantly changing... but compared to religion, science is a much better way of approaching reality and what you should believe vs what you shouldn't believe.... if you could prove the big bang didn't happen, you'd win a nobel prize... as with a lot of these scientific discoveries, they're true until you find evidence to the contrary.

Let me try to be more clear. Nothing is not just a vacuum. The vacuum of empty space may not really be empty (empty space is teaming with particles coming in an out of existence) and is not nothing. Nothing is nothing. Basically nothing is indeterministic chaos (not to be confused with deterministic chaos). This is not a singularity but a space of about plank length and with a finite amount of energy. Stephen Hawking and James Hartle came up with a model that describes the formation of our universe as a kind of quantum tunneling (which is a real phenomenon) event emerging from such chaos. There model also has a twin universe in which times goes in the opposite direction.

Thats what I mean when I say from nothing can come something. Its a concept I can't even really grasp no one can without mathematics. Its as nothing as it gets. The point though is that its possible. No one has proven that this is how it happened but its possible that a universe can emerge from such a state and thats the point. So when people say its impossible that something can come from nothing they often don't understand what nothing means.



I see what you mean. I would agree that its not proven. But lets use another example. Evolution. No one can go back in time and observe evolution its impossible. Yet we have all the pieces of the puzzle sitting in front of us and we can fully explain all life and its complexity based on the theory of evolution. I would consider evolution a fact at this point because there is no other explanation and not only is there evidence for it, the mechanisms are pretty much completely understood.

The big bang is a bit like evolution in that regard. No one can go back in time and observe it. Although we can observe evidence that something like a big bang did happen. Again you ignored the evidence of the cosmic microwave backround radiation. Explain why that exists without there having been an early hot denser universe? I wouldn't say the big bang is proven but I would say thats its a fact that earlier in the universes history is was smaller and it was denser and it was hotter. Even if I only extrapolate back one hundred years thats true no? Even if by a small amount its true. Nothing we see makes sense if that is not so. Furthermore that model explains why we see what we see.

If the universe has always existed and grows and shrinks there would be evidence for it. If the universe is cyclic there will be evidence for it. This stuff is testable. Basically what its going to come down to since we are limited in space and time and distance is ruling out all other possibilities until we are left with a theory that is mathematically and observationally complete. Although we can never go back in time and 'prove' it its a close to proving it as possible.



Comparing the big bang with religion is absurd. Saying that scientists who claim its a fact is a bit arrogant at this point is ok with me because there are still other possibilities (cyclic universe etc). But to say that we have no reason to believe that the universe was hotter and denser in the past is blinding yourself to a massive amount of consistent evidence.