Big Bang!!!

[Black36]

And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?

I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.

[Crow]

There are many theories that explain that the big bang would not need a "big banger" but honestly do not have the intellect or full understanding of those theories to discuss them properly.

Here are some starting points to look at if you are actually interested in the speculative physics that may have caused the big bang:

• Brane Cosmology
• Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems
• Chaotic Inflation theory

Some of the theories rely on the multiverse theory which may actually have some legs to stand on due to recent findings, 'Multiverse' theory suggested by microwave background.

Well, without a big banger one must then believe that something comes from nothing. Not to "scientific".

Well the idea isn't all that new, about 3,000 years old to my knowledge and is the basic fundamentals of many eastern religions (which ironically fit better with current scientific understanding than any of the monotheistic religions). Concerning the "big bang" though you are assuming that nothing came before it, the big bang may have been an accumulation of events which created what we now see around us but was the reaction to an event prior to the big bang in another universe prior to our own.

Also to expand on what tank was talking about with quantum physics this program Everything and Nothing: Nothing goes in-depth and makes it understandable to the layman. Because this discussion is about the big bang this episode of the above mentioned program Everything and Nothing: Everything is more about that side of things.

[Tank]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

What physicists mean when they say 'nothing' in this context. You're essentially throwing out strawman arguments.

And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?

And of course, as the Muslims recognise, there is no way to quantify what 'Allah' is anyway. God could be the simplest possible element that has no consiousness at all that we would understand, have no thoughts or ideas, pay no attention to it's 'creation' at all. To God our universe could be no more important to him as a fart is to us. Now there are a number of scientific speculations, not really hypothesis, not even theories, about how our universe came into being and they are all infinitly simpler than the requirements put on a god(s) by any holy book(s).

[xSilverPhinx]

And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?

I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.

Since you're a theist, am I correct in assuming that you think it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that caused the big bang? For the sake of this post, I'll assume that the big bang actually did have a cause.

[Stevil]

As far as is known, this is a unique event

We have no knowledge that the big bang was a unique event, there could well be an infinite amount of these happening within the entirety of space.
We have only observed the consequence of one big bang event though.

One way of looking at it is that time, as humans perceive it, didn't exist until the big bang had taken place.

We don't know this, there could well have been a black hole there, or a couple of them colliding? Many possibilities, we just don't know

[xSilverPhinx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

What physicists mean when they say 'nothing' in this context. You're essentially throwing out strawman arguments.

And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?

And of course, as the Muslims recognise, there is no way to quantify what 'Allah' is anyway. God could be the simplest possible element that has no consciousness at all that we would understand, have no thoughts or ideas, pay no attention to it's 'creation' at all. To God our universe could be no more important to him as a fart is to us. Now there are a number of scientific speculations, not really hypothesis, not even theories, about how our universe came into being and they are all infinitely simpler than the requirements put on a god(s) by any holy book(s).

If god is simply the first cause, then why call him god and worship the first cause?

It's a case of logical progression going into a non absurd conclusion (first cause) to and absurd idea (infinite regress), but to say that it's anything more doesn't make god simple. But we don't actually know where we are on the chain of (in)finite regress.

For all we know infinite regress probably could be real, it's just an idea that doesn't sit well in the mind. Common sense is not all that it's made up to be. Quantum physics completely violates common sense and yet it's one of the most accurately tested fields around.

Saying that the universe was always there is much simpler than positing the existence of any conscious god actually capable of planning out and creating a universe with purpose.

[Medusa]

Ok I'm dumb. I get there doesn't need to be an intelligent anything to get the big bang BANGED (loss for a better word) My question. All the stuff (that is not intelligent anything) that got to the point of the big bang..where did that come from? And from that source, where did that come from? Yeah, I'm asking.

[Tank]

Ok I'm dumb. I get there doesn't need to be an intelligent anything to get the big bang BANGED (loss for a better word) My question. All the stuff (that is not intelligent anything) that got to the point of the big bang..where did that come from? And from that source, where did that come from? Yeah, I'm asking.

I think I get what you're asking. AFAIK the net energy in the universe is/was zero, we are the miniscule scum left over due to quantum fluctuations. So it would appear that there was nothing 'before' where 'before' could also be a meaningless term So the fact is that when discussing what happend approximatly 13.75 billion years ago we don't really have a clue prior to Planck time see the Big Bang Timeline. We have a question, it may not even be the right question, we do not have an answer yet.

[Medusa]

Ok I'm dumb. I get there doesn't need to be an intelligent anything to get the big bang BANGED (loss for a better word) My question. All the stuff (that is not intelligent anything) that got to the point of the big bang..where did that come from? And from that source, where did that come from? Yeah, I'm asking.

I think I get what you're asking. AFAIK the net energy in the universe is/was zero, we are the miniscule scum left over due to quantum fluctuations. So it would appear that there was nothing 'before' where 'before' could also be a meaningless term So the fact is that when discussing what happend approximatly 13.75 billion years ago we don't really have a clue prior to Planck time see the Big Bang Timeline. We have a question, it may not even be the right question, we do not have an answer yet.

That's probably the most honest response this thread has given so far. Kudos my dear man.

[Whitney]

Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.

Because for all we know the universe (or possibly even multiverse if new models are correct) could be eternal.  That's why there is no logical reason to assume that there must be some eternal being outside of the universe to jump start it.  Look up Occam's Razor.

And you can't say it's impossible for something to be eternal because then your god can't be either.

[Black36]

Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.

If by that somewhat suggestive phrase, you mean a cause of the event, then the simple answer from my understanding of the scientific perspective, is that it is unknown whether there is something that we would understand as a "cause" for the big bang. We haven't observed the origin of any universe, and what can be hypothesized about the origin of our own universe can only go as far back (with current science) as the Planck era. As far as is known, this is a unique event, so to say that we "know" that there was necessarily a "cause" as we understand causality would be unfounded. One way of looking at it is that time, as humans perceive it, didn't exist until the big bang had taken place. Causality as we understand it is a function of time, and if time didn't exist, then neither did causality. Thus the question of what "caused" the big bang actually isn't a reasonable question. That doesn't mean we can't ask it, but  expecting a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question may be a bit much.

Even if that is the case, scientists are still working on it, as you might imagine. One possibility has to do with a hypothesis that something like what we know as space-time has always existed. If that were the case, then the universe might have arisen as a result of what are known as quantum fluctuations; matter appearing out of nothing and returning to nothing. If that were the situation, then all it would take is a quantum fluctuation which happened to be unbalanced in some way, which could have given rise to the primordial singularity.

Science may eventually discover whether it's possible to extend causality to include the big bang, but with the present state of knowledge about the big bang, it would be an unwarranted assumption to say that it is.

Your question, in other words, is about something which science is unable to answer right now.  There may have been a cause, as we understand it, or maybe not. There's nothing wrong with admitting ignorance.

Your first paragraph offered the big bang as "unique". This smells of a miracle. Then you played word gymnastics to make causality subject to time. An uncaused first cause can cause without time. In your second paragraph you pulled the naturalism of the gaps argument implying that scientists have not yet made a discovery you are confident they will make. Then at the end, you clung to ignorance as though this is a viable explanation. To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview.

[Medusa]

Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.

Because for all we know the universe (or possibly even multiverse if new models are correct) could be eternal.  That's why there is no logical reason to assume that there must be some eternal being outside of the universe to jump start it.  Look up Occam's Razor.

And you can't say it's impossible for something to be eternal because then your god can't be either.

Eh. Though I do agree with this 100%. I then have to ask..just to play Devil's advocate. If something can be possibly eternal. Then why can't that something be any god?

[Tank]

Ok I'm dumb. I get there doesn't need to be an intelligent anything to get the big bang BANGED (loss for a better word) My question. All the stuff (that is not intelligent anything) that got to the point of the big bang..where did that come from? And from that source, where did that come from? Yeah, I'm asking.

I think I get what you're asking. AFAIK the net energy in the universe is/was zero, we are the miniscule scum left over due to quantum fluctuations. So it would appear that there was nothing 'before' where 'before' could also be a meaningless term So the fact is that when discussing what happend approximatly 13.75 billion years ago we don't really have a clue prior to Planck time see the Big Bang Timeline. We have a question, it may not even be the right question, we do not have an answer yet.

That's probably the most honest response this thread has given so far. Kudos my dear man.

Okayyy, You're being nice, now I'm worried 

[Medusa]

Ok I'm dumb. I get there doesn't need to be an intelligent anything to get the big bang BANGED (loss for a better word) My question. All the stuff (that is not intelligent anything) that got to the point of the big bang..where did that come from? And from that source, where did that come from? Yeah, I'm asking.

I think I get what you're asking. AFAIK the net energy in the universe is/was zero, we are the miniscule scum left over due to quantum fluctuations. So it would appear that there was nothing 'before' where 'before' could also be a meaningless term So the fact is that when discussing what happend approximatly 13.75 billion years ago we don't really have a clue prior to Planck time see the Big Bang Timeline. We have a question, it may not even be the right question, we do not have an answer yet.

That's probably the most honest response this thread has given so far. Kudos my dear man.

Okayyy, You're being nice, now I'm worried 

Well 2 of my molars were pulled yesterday. And the ordeal of the bad tooth joojoo they were giving me is over. So..maybe I was just grumpy before due to pain! 

[Tank]

Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.

If by that somewhat suggestive phrase, you mean a cause of the event, then the simple answer from my understanding of the scientific perspective, is that it is unknown whether there is something that we would understand as a "cause" for the big bang. We haven't observed the origin of any universe, and what can be hypothesized about the origin of our own universe can only go as far back (with current science) as the Planck era. As far as is known, this is a unique event, so to say that we "know" that there was necessarily a "cause" as we understand causality would be unfounded. One way of looking at it is that time, as humans perceive it, didn't exist until the big bang had taken place. Causality as we understand it is a function of time, and if time didn't exist, then neither did causality. Thus the question of what "caused" the big bang actually isn't a reasonable question. That doesn't mean we can't ask it, but  expecting a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question may be a bit much.

Even if that is the case, scientists are still working on it, as you might imagine. One possibility has to do with a hypothesis that something like what we know as space-time has always existed. If that were the case, then the universe might have arisen as a result of what are known as quantum fluctuations; matter appearing out of nothing and returning to nothing. If that were the situation, then all it would take is a quantum fluctuation which happened to be unbalanced in some way, which could have given rise to the primordial singularity.

Science may eventually discover whether it's possible to extend causality to include the big bang, but with the present state of knowledge about the big bang, it would be an unwarranted assumption to say that it is.

Your question, in other words, is about something which science is unable to answer right now.  There may have been a cause, as we understand it, or maybe not. There's nothing wrong with admitting ignorance.

Your first paragraph offered the big bang as "unique". This smells of a miracle. Then you played word gymnastics to make causality subject to time. An uncaused first cause can cause without time. In your second paragraph you pulled the naturalism of the gaps argument implying that scientists have not yet made a discovery you are confident they will make. Then at the end, you clung to ignorance as though this is a viable explanation. To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview.

And there we have it "To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview." thank you B36 for demonstrating so explicitly the problem with theism. Theism gives an answer, irrespective of the accuracy of the answer. Ignorence is not a problem as long as one recognises one's ignorence and grabbing any answer just for comfort is a pointless, useless waste of time.