The problems of big bang theory. What are they?

Since people are not reading backward to see what I have said I must repeat:IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ARGUE, READ THIS BEFORE QUESTIONING ANYTHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED, THANK YOUThis is not to prove a God exists, because how can you when Belief in a God requires faith, and faith is not scienceNeither does it confuse with a circular argument.
This does not argue with biblical ideas or intelligent design but with a simple question of a very simple SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM with "No Creator Creation."The question is based on the raw existence of the universe, and how is it possible that we exist
The simple question is...
In a Universe where there is no God and no one believes in a God which created all, how did raw existence come about?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAW OF MATTER:
Matter exists physically and exists as energy
Matter is what EVERYTHING is made out of...
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This means matter or energy must already be existent for SOMETHING to happen since the happening cannot be matter or energy becoming existent from “Nothing”
This means even before ANY CREATION THEORY (Big bang ‘Evolution)...there must have been matter or energy in order for something else to be created or happen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infinite Universe:The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old because that would mean that matter or energy has been here forever
But where did that matter or energy come from, since it cannot be created.
Did it just appear out of nothing!?!?Yet we know "pure nothing" cannot exist, there is always matter or energy, and that if there is matter or energy where did this matter or energy come from?Also:
I quote Professor Paul Davies
"One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, and that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course. Furthermore, you don't explain the existence of the universe by asserting that it has always existed. That is rather like saying that nobody wrote the Bible: it was. It was just copied from earlier versions."
So infinity does not work.Finite Universe:Others say everything that is now, is from the big bang, and the universe does have a beginning
But then how did the Big Bang, Bang?
The Big bang could not happen without something there (hydrogen or particles or plainly ENERGY). Therefore, if that matter or energy is there to create the Bang; something is existing before the Big Bang.
Even a virtual particle must have energy in order for it to "happen". We therefore are confronted with the question of how this energy came about.Yet, again, since new matter or energy cannot be made made let alone be made from NOTHING, how is this possible
Quantum Physics:
After all that is said one could be convinced that maybe existence did come about spontaneously
Quantum Physics particles of matter can actually appear from simply nothing:
The problem is these appearances are happening in existence. It has nothing to do with "pure nothing." We can only operate in existence
Here in lies the problem
We are in existence. "Thanks for telling us that Einstein"
Quantum physics and events that we see occur are obviously happening, in existence. "OK"
So that means,
The spontaneity of particles that we see appear out of nothing cannot be called actual "pure nothing", because the particles are appearing in an already existent world
How can we say that particles can spontaneously appear out of actual "pure nothing" if in reality we are seeing our supposed "spontaneity" in existence?
We cannot. We are bound by existence and therefore it can never be known what created existence since everything we know and don't know, even Quantum Physics, is bound by existence.This all boils down to the fact that:
It may sound ludicrous, but it is totally sound that you cannot use anything from existence in order to explain how existence came to be. This is because of the simple fact that anything in existence was made when existence came to be and therefore could not be the tool used to create its own maker.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It is impossible to escape the fact of (cause ----> effect)
Otherwise it would be (nothing ------> effect)
But once again as stated, nothing cannot make an effect.People then ignorantly argue back to the beginning and start the question all over again
What about (Big Bang -----> effect)
This is a preposterous answer for the question because all statements above go against this saying the Big Bang cannot happen from nothing because "nothing" cannot exist and therefore the Big Bang would have a cause"------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This leads to two conclusions neither being possible (In our minds):There is no actual answer, yet, to how the universe "happened."
That would mean a person still has a choice and is free to get down to the simple answer of existence:"I believe the universe is either finite or infinite. The universe simply exists."
The universe simply exists. It is not finite or infinite.‘(Illogical since it must be one of them because we are here) This belief comes short. We have already learned how an infinite universe is impossible, and to believe in one would require faith.
So therefore the only other answer would be finite, but that leads us back to the beginning of the argument, if the universe is finite. Then what created it?
Or
"I believe in a God outside of existence who created me."
(Something we cannot conceive but some believe with faith.
Faith is not scientific. It is simply believing without seeing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Either one can be an answer true?Just as you can't yet explain how the universe simply exists, you cannot prove there is no God because you cannot yet prove there is a God.At present moment both believe there idea to be true. It’s the same as before an experiment.
Two people have a hypothesis as to what the answer will be. There WILL be only one answer and it might not be what either thought, but as of now our experiment is not done yet and the two hypotheses stand.=====================================================================Hello Rahvin,
By saying
I have faith in the flying spaghetti monster. He created the entire universe last Thursday, with the appearance of age including all of you memories, beginning with a midget on a hill.You can't argue with it because it can't be proven or disproven.You are using my second possibility, you are saying there is a God, in the form of a spagetti monster.
I cannot argue with it, there is no way to
Why, because it is your BELIEFIn the same way I cannot explain my God and his existence, most christians do say this. They believe his actual existence is beyond our abilities to understand.
They also believe their God is personal, and loves them.
THIS IS A FAITH THOUGH (WHY AM I NOT ADDING NEW STUFF TO THIS, BECAUSE YOU STILL FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT FAITH IS)Faith is believing without seeing
it cannot be prov3en or disproven
I cannot explain how the universe came to beThis leads right back to what I must repeat.
Since,as of yet, science cannot explain existence,
The explaination "The universe just simply exists" cannot be a logical answer either. Because that doesn't explain anything. it is truly a "belief""This is the science section of the forum."
Faith is not science
That is why there is no arguing it.Edited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.Edited by TyberiusMax, : Spelling. so was the above editEdited by TyberiusMax, : spelling

Because they are unrelated. LOL. That has been obvious since the beginning, and that is fine. If you are happy with the little god you created, then great. I would not say that and have not said that. All I said is the little god of the gaps you worship is rapidly running out of places to exist. Just as we now know that the Garden of Eden story is just a fable, a folk tale, and that woman was not cloned from Adam, once we do know the origin of the universe, what is left of your god? Do I believe there is a God? Yes. In fact, I am a very active Christian, and have been so for a long, long time. I believe that GOD created all that is, seen and unseen. I believe that Science is simply teaching us "How God Did It" and just as Science has taught us that God created man through the process of Evolution, we will one day understand how She created the Universe itself.Notice you actually said "Why would their be a need for a God if there was a natural cause?"I think that goes to the heart of your problem.You have created God because You have needs. The God you worship is the one YOU created to fill YOUR needs, nothing more than that. You have created a false idol, some bling-bling pimp daddy procurer of a God.There is no need for God, except in the Human Mind.If GOD exists, She exists regardless of the belief or non-belief of man.If GOD does not exist, She does not exist regardless of the belief or non-belief of man.God is NOT dependent on your needs, your beliefs, your imagination.All of your posts here support what I have said. You seem to understand that science really is disproving your god, that very soon there really won't be either a place or a need for your god and your god will just get tossed on the trash heap where it belongs.

​

But that is only the little god you created, and seeing it tossed in the trash will be no loss whatsoever.Can I suggest you begin your search for GOD with the Catechism of Creation.Edited by jar, : change sub-title

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thought I'd copy and modify my old post from the closed Before the Big Bang thread, as it seems rather relevant...There is a great deal of misunderstanding surrounding the nature of mass/matter. If the Universe has an earliest time, it does not need an injection of mass/energy at this point. Mass and matter are aspects of the Universe itself - ripples in its struture. One cannot insert pre-existing rippples into the Universe - this is nonsense.Ok, there seems to be lots of confusion with the various T=0 (big bang) scenarios so I thought some pictures were in order... Here we have ths standard big bang scenario. The black dot is the singularity and the universe expands away from this point through time (vertical) and space (horizontal) This is essentailly the south pole region of our old globe analogy. I have left the top of the universe off as we don't know yet whether it will close back up or spread apart for ever. The globe analogy assumes it closes back up but this is far from certain and probably unlikely given current evidence. I should also stress that the Universe is the surface of this cup/cone shape. Inside/outside/above/below (the white region) is non-existence. You cannot say any point outside the Universe is 'before' or 'after' the Universe because these points simply do not exist. They are simply there for us to be able to take a God's-eye view on the Universe.Now, the first major attempt to get a quantum correction to the big bang picture was with the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal. It makes a huge difference to the above picture... see: Spot the difference What Hawking and Hartle managed to do was remove the annoying singularity, and replace that region with a nice bit of Euclidean space where 'time' is simply a spatial dimension. It is only as you move upwards does time smoothly become its familiar self with causal and temporal properties. There was no 'before' in the first picture, but now there is DEFINITELY NO BEFORE!!! as there is simply no time-like dimension in the vicinity of the point of interest!That's the 'Universe with an earliest time' dealt with. Now we come to: Here the quantum corrections have revealed that the Universe did not begin at T=0 of the big bang, but emerged from an earlier time. This enlarged Universe may well have been eternal, stretching back infinitely into the past... or it may well have an earliest time, just not at T=0, but at T=-?? somewhere to south of our diagram.Finally, the Universe may well be embedded within a larger space-time - larger in physical size, number of dimensions, or it may have a very different nature altogether - and multiple universes may well be springing into existence with their own big bangs: This picture represents a whole range of possibilities: chaotic inflation, ekpyrotic universe, the 'Landscape' of string theory, etc. Of course, the question is then where did this larger Universe come from? Any of the possibilities we have considered so far could equally apply to this larger space...Ok, so how does God possibly fit into any of these pictures? The most common idea, espoused here by many theists, the Vatican, etc, etc is also the most incorrect from a relativists point of view:.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Here we see God magicking the Universe into existence at T=0, and the Universe evolving on from here. The problem is this presupposes 'time' as continuing outside the Universe, 'before' its existence. The more 'logical' view is: This retains time and space as integral parts of the Universe. And if the Universe is eternal and has no beginning... does this preclude creation? Of course not... Hope this clears the muddy water a little... Edited by Admin, : Redcue image width.

Oh you must, must you?I believe that I heard you the first time. Well, this is as far as I could be bothered to read through your lastest post.And you go whining about people not reading what you wrote.This is garbage, man. This is complete gibbering crap. I did explain it to you. If you had bothered to read the posts I've addressed to you, you'd know it was crap.But instead, you feel that you "must repeat" this garbage, on the pretext that people aren't listening to you.We have listened to you, we've explained why you're wrong, and I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your post until you get it into your head that according to the laws of physics, energy is conserved, but matter is not, because matter is only one form of energy.Have you got that?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

apparently, CavediverYou are saying in the last two pictures, that To have a god would require him to be outside of existence?If so, I agree because this is what I have been saying.
So far to our knowledge, this is impossible.But the fact is, so far we can't find out how the "universe could just exist."To say it has gone back to eternity is as impossible as a God because i quote for the third timePaul Davies
"One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, and that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course. Furthermore, you don't explain the existence of the universe by asserting that it has always existed. That is rather like saying that nobody wrote the Bible: it was. It was just copied from earlier versions."
So eternity even without a God is impossible.There is no way of explaining the actual beginning, even of the "large universe that holds all other universes"
Yet....But until then why argue about the existence or non-existence of a God
when the whole idea of a universe created without a God "outside of very existence itself" cannot be explained yet either.Edited by TyberiusMax, : adding moreEdited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.

Jar why would you need to tell me that my God is not dependent on my needs and beliefs.Thank you for telling me something I already believe.
I believe he is infinite, which i must stress again is scientifically impossible, and i will never understand him because he is beyond me.After that why do you care what my other beliefs about my God are,Why not go find an answer to the as of now unexplainable "existence of the universe"
instead of arguing with me about my BELIEF in a God
How could you disprove my God when I believe he is infinte, you can't because my belief is in a God who has no boundry, therefore you cannot convince me that he couldn't of done something or anything.Do you get it??
Just get it and accept itand move on, go find an answer to the universe instead of trying to find out why my answer must be wrong, because so far yours doesn't have an answer yet either.Edited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.

I would say independent of 'existence'. 'Outside' specifies an unnecessary constraint. Quoting Paul is no proof of anything - what he is saying is far from clear-cut, and many would disagree. It is not the 'beginning' that is problematic for explanations. The 'beginning' is just one part of the Universe, and no more or less intriguing than any other part. The real question is 'why existence?'. This has little to do with beginnings and is certainly not explained by them.

LOL Too funny. Too funny.How many times must I repeat that I have no need to disprove your god, that will happen soon enough anyway.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I do like the word independent...
Thank you for bringing that up I could not think of a better way of explaining not being bound by the universe

You realise that whoever this Paul Davies chap is, he's talking bollocks?I will explain why, but only on the condition that you show some sign of even having read my other posts.

Ok Jar, so this is the end.I believe in a God that is infinte has no boundries and therefore cannot be disproven to not be able to do anything.
It is simply a belief and has no scientific back-upYou do agree the universe, as of yet has no tru answer, even quantum physic's answers are not possible because quantum physics itself exists in our existence.
But you do think there will be an answer one day that will finally prove that there was no need for a god and that the universe has a "natural", i put in quotes because "naturality" is in effect, also a part of our universe.I wish you good luck on your mission and if you find the answer please come tell me as quickly as you can.

Dr Adequate, you are restlessYou say you only got to this point "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" yet you ignore that fact that a point is made in the whole.If when Einstein came up to explain e=mc^2
And right after that someone got up and said, thats impossible, im not going to listen to anymore you have to say because that first part makes no sense
How ignorant of that person, to not listen all the way through.I would like for you to explain how an infinite universe is possible, since i so far believe all of existence is finite but was created by a God who was independent from existenceThank you for the description of independent. It is much clearer

I quote Keith Mayes who uses info from Stephen Hawking:"I understand that many people have a problem with the idea of our universe being finite, that it has an 'end' to it, a boundary. They ask what this boundary would be physically like, as though it were some form of partition that we couldn't get through. However, there is not a particular direction that we could set off in our warp speed space craft that would lead us to a boundary, no matter how far or fast we travelled. The explanation for this seeming impossibility is that space-time is curved, thus you would be travelling in a circle that only appears to be a straight line. If it were possible to direct a laser beam from here through the centre of the universe it would not hit the other side of the universe, it would eventually hit the back of your head (metaphorically speaking). Einstein demonstrated how matter in the universe distorts the space-time continuum by accurately predicting how much our Sun distorted local space. He used a total eclipse of the Sun (as the only time that stars and the Sun can be seen at the same time in close proximity) to demonstrate that a star that was behind the Sun, and therefore not visible from our line of sight, would in fact be visible (in the darkness of totality) because the Sun warps the space-time around it and thus curves the light beam around the Sun, enabling us to see the star. Strictly speaking, the Sun does not actually curve the light around itself, the entire space-time continuum is curved, the light is still travelling in a 'straight' line.""I do not believe that infinity exists in our universe."END QUOTEThe last part is what it all comes down to. Even after this, there is still no way yet of explaining what created our "curved space-time universe" This is why infinity cannot be applied to the universe.
The question once again goes right back to "but how does this curved space-time universe" in which infinity does not exist relate to what could be outside of it. You cannot because it is curved and we are bounded by this.
We cannot yet explain how a universe that has no infinity could have come to existence in the first place because that would contradictorily require something to be infinite to create this finite universe.It is simple as that, an unresolved question, there truly is no answer yet to how the universe could come to be when it itself requires something infinite.On the other hand is a BELIEF in a Creator who is infinite.
This would not have any scientific boundaries because it is just that; a BELIEF

just because you do not agree with a BELIEF does not mean that person is wrong,because as of yet the scientific answer of the universe has not been answered either.This is the same as before we learned the earth was round.
Before the discovery people thought the earth was flat, the truth is someone could of believed it was in the shape of a star, square, rectangle
It did not matter because the answer had not been found yet.
Then came the day when all people had to accept that the earth was a sphere and they could not argue, because there had come a definite answer.We are not at the end yet, so there is no point in arguing
Just to go help and try to find the answer.Edited by TyberiusMax, : addingEdited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.

I have in fact answered your points. Now you're asking me to answer them again, while reciting exactly the same blunders I corrected you on last time around.Matter is not conserved. If you're going to base your argument on the premise that it is, even when you've been informed that this isn't true, then I don't need to read any further.If you were to base your argument on 2 + 2 being 5, I should hardly need to point out any remaining flaws in your argument.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.