The Big Bang: Why is it still being taught?

[Jehoshua]

Because there's no evidence that god created the world and the big bang is the most logical theory so far.

You do realise that the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest (also a physicist) and was criticised upon being first postulated by the atheists for inserting the Christian religion into science (until the universe was verified as having a beginning, supporting Lemaitre's theory, the scientific consensus was that the universe was beginning less and eternal, needless to say some atheists still postulate theories (with no empirical evidence) in an attempt to get around the problems a finite and distinctly non-eternal universe poses for atheism)

edit: Looks like someone mentioned this earlier. Either way point is the Big Bang is in fact a theory which was opposed for supporting the Christian notion of a-priori creation prior to observation showing the universe has a beginning. What has a beginning necessarily has a cause (since something cannot create itself) with the problem of contingency requiring that there be something eternal (outside of time, which we know is intrinsic to the universe and related to space) as a first principle, since the alternative is a causative of contingent things going on indefinitely (which of course is absurd).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

About half of science is about making up stuff with poor to no evidence. The hypotheses have to come from somewhere after all. The other half is trying to disprove the stuff you just made up.

Without belief that the crazy idea you just came up with is worth testing with no evidence but your gut feeling, science would be getting nowhere.

Doesn't matter. Regardless where the ideas/concepts/theories come from, you don't put faith in them without some evidence. If you do you're doing it wrong.

Besides, if you completely make something up, but still go to the effort of trying to test it (which is a sh*t way to do science btw), then that's still infinitely better than making something up and denying it even needs to be tested, or can't be tested, because "science doesn't know everything".

 

[El_Machinae]

You do realise that the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest (also a physicist) and was criticised upon being first postulated by the atheists for inserting the Christian religion into science (until the universe was verified as having a beginning, supporting Lemaitre's theory, the scientific consensus was that the universe was beginning less and eternal, needless to say some atheists still postulate theories (with no empirical evidence) in an attempt to get around the problems a finite and distinctly non-eternal universe poses for atheism)

edit: Looks like someone mentioned this earlier. Either way point is the Big Bang is in fact a theory which was opposed for supporting the Christian notion of a-priori creation prior to observation showing the universe has a beginning. What has a beginning necessarily has a cause (since something cannot create itself) and so forth.

Right, people know that the Big Bang is compatible with the idea of a Divine Creator. It's the insistence that it's the god of the Bible that people will contend has little evidence.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think the issue is that the argument for a divine creator behind the Big Bang rests on the intuition that everything must have a cause, so positing a causeless creator behind it. Ockham's Razor asks why you don't transfer that attribute onto the Big Bang itself, which I think is at least a fair criticism.

 

[El_Machinae]

The actual real leap is assuming that this cause has the least concern for you, or is involved with morality.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Honestly, it's a good example of why religions aren't proven, or disproven by the revelation of any particular scientific fact.

If people were actually running around with a running tally of "scientific points in favor of the Christian diety" and "Scientific Points in favor of not believing in the Christian diety" you WOULD have seen a giant jump in practicing Christians as the Big Bang Theory was accepted as scientifically sound. It certainly made belief in the Christian diety more sound then it had been beforehand, under the accepted idea that the universe was a constant, uncreated thing.

But it didn't, because people's religious and philosophical beliefs are a lot more complicated then that.

 

[Borachio]

The actual real leap is assuming that this cause has the least concern for you, or is involved with morality.

I'm not so sure.

From what I gather, people with belief seem to recognize that there's something "out there" which is "beyond ourselves". Or they seem to think that such recognition is important, for some reason.

I can't pretend to understand the nature of religious belief, though. Not by a long way.

 

[Tahuti]

I think the issue is that the argument for a divine creator behind the Big Bang rests on the intuition that everything must have a cause, so positing a causeless creator behind it. Ockham's Razor asks why you don't transfer that attribute onto the Big Bang itself, which I think is at least a fair criticism.

If God exists, the universe exists: A -> U
God doesn't exist: ~A

Now, the universe does exist, however, though the aforementioned statements cannot be verified. It may be something else that created the universe. However, formal logic does however demand that as long as A -> U cannot be disproven, it is true. Naturally, it cannot be disproven, since the universe actually exists and would only be false if the universe didn't exist. Since we cannot directly ascertain that god exists or not, it is a fairly reasonable decision to believe in god, though with an agnostic slant.

 

[Borachio]

Does it? I'm not convinced that it does.

 

[Tahuti]

Does it? I'm not convinced that it does.

Do note that the statement 'if god exists, the universe exists' is even true when god does not exist.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. That's true: if the initial premise is false then any conclusion you draw from it must be valid.

I'm not sure that the universe existing depends on God, if God does in fact exist.

To be honest, I'm in a bit of a muddle about it all: what you mean, what I think you mean, and what constitutes logic in this context.

 

[Tahuti]

Yes. That's true: if the initial premise is false then any conclusion you draw from it must be valid.

I'm not sure that the universe existing depends on God, if God does in fact exist.

To be honest, I'm in a bit of a muddle about it all: what you mean, what I think you mean, and what constitutes logic in this context.

That is true. God does give sense of accoutability what goes on in the universe though. That only makes his existence desirable, not necessarily true.

If you study maths, philosophy or CS, chances are that formal logic is required curriculum.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You do realise that the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest (also a physicist) and was criticised upon being first postulated by the atheists for inserting the Christian religion into science (until the universe was verified as having a beginning, supporting Lemaitre's theory, the scientific consensus was that the universe was beginning less and eternal, needless to say some atheists still postulate theories (with no empirical evidence) in an attempt to get around the problems a finite and distinctly non-eternal universe poses for atheism)

I can find no mention of how atheists responded. I'm sure you can provide a suitable source.

But, ironically, it was Lemaitre himself who had to scold the Pope to stop trying to use science to further his own religious agenda:

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Creationism and Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation.[18][19] When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He convinced the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[20] While a devoted Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion.[21]

You see, science isn't a religion. It is actually just the opposite, as Lemaitre himself understood all to well. That is why he was capable of successfully divorcing the two and make such great scientific contributions.

 

[Flying Pig]

Now, the universe does exist, however, though the aforementioned statements cannot be verified. It may be something else that created the universe. However, formal logic does however demand that as long as A -> U cannot be disproven, it is true. Naturally, it cannot be disproven, since the universe actually exists and would only be false if the universe didn't exist. Since we cannot directly ascertain that god exists or not, it is a fairly reasonable decision to believe in god, though with an agnostic slant.

Only in the very narrow sense of 'a creator'. And even then, I don't think that holds. There's a forest down the way from me - if somebody had meticulously planted every tree, that forest would exist. I don't know for sure that nobody did, but in the absence of evidence either way I assume it probably just sprang up.

 

[Kyriakos]

Of all the interesting ideas there could have been about an origin of the universe, the idea that it started with something but you cannot get to the start but you can make models to supposedly verify how it was an infinitesimal amount of time after that mysterious start, is in my view the most boring (and likely the best suited for a dead-end, even by definition).

 

[peter grimes]

What has a beginning necessarily has a cause (since something cannot create itself) with the problem of contingency requiring that there be something eternal (outside of time, which we know is intrinsic to the universe and related to space) as a first principle, since the alternative is a causative of contingent things going on indefinitely (which of course is absurd).

I highlighted the words that make your statement problematic.

These are assumptions that you inserted, value judgements.

 

[warpus]

You do realise that the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest (also a physicist) and was criticised upon being first postulated by the atheists for inserting the Christian religion into science (until the universe was verified as having a beginning, supporting Lemaitre's theory, the scientific consensus was that the universe was beginning less and eternal, needless to say some atheists still postulate theories (with no empirical evidence) in an attempt to get around the problems a finite and distinctly non-eternal universe poses for atheism)

It doesn't matter who suggests a hypothesis, it might as well have been Jesus himself. What matters is whether the hypothesis stands up to scrutiny, whether attempts to falsify it fall short, whether it predicts future events accurately, whether existing data does not contradict it, and whether it makes the leap and in the end becomes a theory.

If God exists, the universe exists: A -> U
God doesn't exist: ~A

Now, the universe does exist, however, though the aforementioned statements cannot be verified. It may be something else that created the universe. However, formal logic does however demand that as long as A -> U cannot be disproven, it is true. Naturally, it cannot be disproven, since the universe actually exists and would only be false if the universe didn't exist. Since we cannot directly ascertain that god exists or not, it is a fairly reasonable decision to believe in god, though with an agnostic slant.

That doesn't make any sense, because you could replace "God" in your equations with "Toast" and you'd end up believing that Toast created the universe. Or hey let's do one better, let's replace it with Klingons. You could replace it with anything really.

 

[Kyriakos]

I know the universe exists, but i am negatively surprised that you think you do as well, cause according to my calculations you are part of the perpetually variating cosmic dust that from my point of view mostly appears as a rusty deterrence to open the final door and meet the being waiting for all eternity

 

[Crezth]

But it didn't, because people's religious and philosophical beliefs are a lot more complicated then that.

Which is to say: based in bullcrap and thus immune to logic, therefore the premise does not apply.

We can hem and haw all day about how sacred and indescribable people's beliefs are, but it's biases and assumptions all the way down.

 

[Tahuti]

...you could replace "God" in your equations with "Toast" and you'd end up believing that Toast created the universe. Or hey let's do one better, let's replace it with Klingons. You could replace it with anything really.

All true. However saying 'toast created the universe', you could just as well say 'god - who can shapeshift into a toast - created the universe'. You only are adding the possibility that god can shapeshift into a toast. Though that's rather likely if god exists.