re: Do you accept the notion of the Big Bang as the origin of our universe?

Darth,

When the posters on here are saying that they don't want to spend the time explaining how the Universe began to you it is because it takes a whole lot of science spread across billions of years. It would help if you had a background to where we can specifically talk about one subject, but it seems you do not because your questions span multiple scales.

This is all they would have to cover to have what this thread is talking about make sense to your questions:

UNIVERSE-SCALE
1) Current research on the moment just after the Big Bang
2) Proof of an expanding universe
MATTER
3) Hydrogen
4) Helium
5) Stars: Birth and death
SOLAR SYSTEM GENERATION
6) Solar nebula theory
7) Early-bombardment
EARTH-CENTRIC
8) Differentiation of Earth's layers
9) Plate tectonics
10) Early oceans and atmosphere
11) Pre-Cambrian to Phanerozoic Life
12) Humans


How about pick one or two in the same category and maybe we can go from there. Until then, I suggest you read some easy-reading textbooks (that's where I get most of my universe information). Bill Bryson's A Brief History of Everything or How to Build a Habitable Planet are good starts!

quote:

---

1. What was it that “exploded” in the Big Bang?

2. What was it made of?

3. How was it made?

4. What caused it to explode?

---

All your questions are the next questions that were asked when we determined the Universe had to expand from some starting point.

This is why the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was built. The LHC will hopefully tell us how the Universe began and what it is made up of.

We can't answer these verbally because that is what is currently being pursued through research. So, these 4 questions you have asked here all fit into #1 on the list I made earlier, but they only make sense AFTER more research.

You don't have a gotcha.

quote:

---

We can backtrack back to a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, i

---

You see, I don't mind people coming up with theories on how this all started. It's truly interesting to hear people's ideas. But when I hear stuff like "We can backtrack back to a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang," and then we are suppose to drink the Kool-aid without questioning it, or else we get mocked for being science deniers, that's when I roll my eyes and chuckle to myself. The amount of hubris it takes to say such things is almost as difficult to grasp as the concept of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.

That wall they are hitting at t=0 is God. But they can't quantize God, therefore God doesn't exist in their worldview.

quote:

---

That wall they are hitting at t=0 is God.

---

That’s quite the leap to go from “we don’t know” to “a sentient diety” though with absolutely nothing to lead you to reach that conclusion.

quote:

---

I just cannot wrap my mind around the concept of nothing. Especially an infinite amount of it.

---

No one can. The moment nothng is considered, it becomes something. There's no such thing as absolute nothing.

quote:

---

But when I hear stuff like "We can backtrack back to a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang," and then we are suppose to drink the Kool-aid without questioning it,

---

By its nature, scientific exploration requires that it be questioned. Scientists welcome challenges and questioning. It's part and parcel of the scientific method.

I've seen it. Jim Al Khalili is one of my favorite public educators of science. All of his videos are great. Even the uniniated can follow his stories about science.

quote:

---

It's funny to me that you believe that there was an infinitely existing, infinitely dense state of matter that exploded into the existence of the universe

---

As I noted earlier, during the course of my studies I satisfied myself that yes, this actually is the theory that is most consistent with the evidence.

quote:

---

in that infinite explosion the earth was formed

---

No, this is not how it was formed and no serious astronomer claims so. That said, I sympathize with someone who never had the training. To someone like that it does appear to be on faith and probably a bit preposterous. All I can tell you is that it isn't. If you want to learn more, sign up for a Physics degree program somewhere and start learning.

quote:

---

The Christian God

---

It confuses me how someone can on one hand imply we don't have the capacity to understand the mysteries of time and space but that we do understand a specific divine being. And of course, people who worship other gods will assure you their god is really the one pulling the strings.

quote:

---

i've always wondered how we can judge such things, apart from tangible achievements.

---

To me it's about the ability to make insights. People like Einstein and Witten are certainly no more educated or knowledgeable than their cohorts but they have that rare ability to make associations within that knowledge that the rest of us would not be able to do.