To start off with, you contradicted yourself by referring to the Big Bang theory as truth, which assumes had a definite beginning. Yet at the same time quoted Carl Sagan, who believes the universe had no beginning. '"The Cosmos is all that is, or was or ever will be" - Carl Sagan
iiFlippyy, on 28 April 2011 - 09:21 PM, said:
theory |ˈθēərē; ˈθi(ə)rē|
noun ( pl. -ries)
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin's theory of evolution.
A theory isn't something you think could be correct. It is known to be correct and is used to explain things. The Big Bang is used to explain the origin of the universe. The Big bang is the accepted theory for the origin of the universe.
A theory actually refers to contemplation or speculation. Yes it is a way of explaining something, but it doesn't necessarily mean its absolute truth.
iiFlippyy, on 28 April 2011 - 09:21 PM, said:
The Big bang has evidence.
1. The Cosmic Microwave Background
2. law of Gravity
3. The fact that everything is moving apart indicates that it would have all had to come into a singularity.
While the big bang theory does have evidence, you are assuming that its absolute truth. Let me put a spin on the big bang theory:
Your point number 3 assumes that the universe had a single point in time where it began, in other words, the universe had a beginning.
Under this assumption, we'll use the Kalam Cosmological Argument ( developed by Dr. William Lan Craig ). It goes something like this.
Premise (1): Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise (2): The Universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence ( whether its the big bang or not, we'll get to that )
Premise 1 affirms the undeniable law, but what about premise 2? For this next part we'll consider one philosophical and two scientific arguments that demonstrates the universe is not eternal but began to exist a finite amount of time ago.
The Philosophical argument
Premise (1): If an infinite number of moments occurred before today, then today would never have come because its impossible to pass through an infinite number of moments.
Premise (2): Today has come.
Conclusion: Therefore there must have been only a finite number of moments before today, thus showing the universe had a beginning.
The second argument: The law of Thermodynamics
This states that the amount of useable energy in a closed system is running down ( becoming more disordered ). But if the universe is both 'running down' and eternal, this leads to the contradiction that the universe has been in a constant state of running down, and yet, has not done so. If the universe is getting more and more disordered, it cant be eternal, or it would be completely disordered by now, which its not. Therefore the universe must be finite in duration.
The third argument: Expansion of Galaxies
Scientific Evidence testifies that the universe is not in a holding pattern. It's not static but its expanding outward from a central point. This leads to the conclusion that the universe began from a single point.
The field of astrophysics confirms that the universe came from nothing. This is called ex nihilo - 'out of nothing' Meaning there was nothing and then there was something.
This begs the questions, why did the universe begin to exist?
The universe must have a cause. Its beginning from nothing had to come about by a means of something else. Yet this cause must be spaceless and timeless, because space and time began with the universe. Futhermore, that first cause must be eternal and without cause itself, because an infinite series of cause is impossible. The universe cannot be its own cause because it's temporal, changing, finite, and had a beginning.It would then seem that this spaceless, timeless, eternal cause draws us back to Genesis 1:1, "In the Beginning.."
iiFlippyy, on 28 April 2011 - 09:21 PM, said:
Here's a paradox that removes the possibility of God. I am paraphrasing from Carl Sagan.
If God was around before the big bang, what was before God?
-If God has existed forever, then the universe has existed forever. Which means there was no creation.
-If God was only around just before the Big Bang. (He acted as the instigator), then what was before God?
-There was no God and we are yet to discover what happened.
The third option is the logical one, the one that scientists commonly accept.
In relation to what ive posted above, there a 3 common laws that apply. The laws of limitation.
This is everything must be caused, self-caused or uncaused.
God cannot be law one - caused - as inferred above, whatever is farthest back, is God. He is the beginning. If what we call "God" is caused, then whatever caused Him must be God.
Nor can he be law two - self-caused - because nothing pre-exists itself to start itself, again relating to the posts above.
Therefore God must be the third option - uncaused. Hence eternally existing, complete and self-sufficient.
These are scientific laws and rules that have been applied to the theory of creation.
Did you manage to keep up?
Help
Back to top
Promote to Article
MultiQuote
