Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

Hi Navy,
I have read through this whole thread and it seems alot of good information is being exchanged and shared. As I understand it the B.B. was what was referred to as "a quantum fluctuation" that occured. QM is strange and on a subatomic level all manner of everyday concepts seem to evaporate into absurdity. Physics can attempt to explain mathmatically what is happening but there is no one who can claim they know for certain how the BB occured. I think it was Dr. Heisenburg who said if you think you understand QM then you obviously do not. The Copenhagen interpretation sort of closed the door on the matter in so far as to say we may never know because we can not for certain nail down how reality on that level behaves. The B.B. is one of those little jokes God has played on mankind. He has allowed humans a glimpse of how he might explain reality in terms of QM but as soon as one looks the fact that one looked scues the perception of the outcome. The BB is a mystery that still confounds and physics has formulated through mathmatics how it may have occured but singularities that are predicted are just that predictions. The BB. Theory is just the best explaination science has at this time, but as Crash frog stated a unifying theory will bring more understanding to the whole picture. I do not see anyone stating that The BB is a fact. It is just the best model available to explain our universe. 6 Day creation is just as fine but it does not explain alot of the finer points. Like why the physical laws behave as they do. The body of knowlege aquired over the last 200 years is astounding let alone from the last 2000 years. And I am certain that someday humans will aquire the knowlege of how a quantum fluctuation begat conciousness. I am beginning to think that everything is unified, I am beginning to believe in the holographic universe that all space/time/energy/matter are different manifestations of one thing. I would call that one thing God. JMHO

Hi Eta, I am sure glad you have some free time to spare of late.

As far as I know there is still no one current theory that has a full explaination of how the Universe came to be. One theory is the Big Bang, another is that our current universe is a result of a membrane moving within 5 dimentions collided with a outer membrane resulting in what we see as the Big Bang. Another theory is God did it. Anyone who claims to have undisputable verifiable evidence should be more than willing to step up. All current theories have problems. The big bang has some evidence to back up the claims that a event did occur. Observations by Hubble etc.. That being said there are still gaps in human knowlege. Inserting God into the gaps is just as pretentious as inserting "there was no cause". The jury is still out on this one I believe. When it comes to trying to discuss the beginning of the beginning, or the cause of the cause, words break down. I believe things are the way they are because they could not be any other way. If it were so then we would perhaps observe something other than what we are observing.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Eupyrotic Universe theory that I was describing is as I said a example or explaination of how the BB could of occurred. Brane being short for "membrane". I as well agree that evidence corraborated by scientific observation points to the BB. My point was that implying there is no cause seems to be a bit presumptuous. Granted there very well be no cause does not mean there was not one. Perhaps it perturbs atheist that one would assume it was God. Just as it perturbs theist that one would assume there was no cause. I on the other hand do not pretend to know the answer. And guess what? No one else does either.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

General, the predictions made using Quantum Mechanics are valid and accurate and are based on mathmatics that pan out. Probabilties even it not pinned down exact are for all intensive purposes right on. You seem to be suggesting that Quantum Mechanics is flawed. The fact that QM and GR do not reconcile gravity does not mean we should throw 80 odd years of good science out the window. Are you attempting to build a strawman out of a singularity?

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Hi General, Newtonian phyiscs is still taught in Science classes all over the world. Einstien discovered the concept of realtivity he did not 'create' anything. And no I am not attempting to debauch your argument with a strawman. I was merely asking if you by suggesting that Quantum Mechanics is flawed; are willing to throw the big bang theory in the trash heap? I am no physicist nor do I pretend to understand Quantum Mechanics adequately enough to disprove what brilliant scientist past and present are able to show evidence for using this mathmatical tool in addition to other observations.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

I agree with you General, I also agree with the atheist/agnostics.
I have been discussing and debating causality on this board for some time. Excellent points get made on both sides of the issue. I understand how one could expect a cause, and I understand how one could expect no cause. The point is at this time it is unknowable. What we do know is that something happened. Whether it was 'caused', or a fluctuation of something that always has been does not matter to me. If it was caused then one could say 'God did it' if he wants, if it was uncaused one could say God is uncaused and through his eternal presence existance of the universe became manifested. Or one could say the universe just is and has no creator. In other words it is simply a matter of personal opinion and or faith depending on whether you are a atheist/agnostic or theist. Of course this is just my opinion as well and could be equally full of shit.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

General, the universe could very well be the natural extention of other phenomenon outside of human understanding, such as multiple dimentions converging on eachother (hence the BB.) Someone who does not believe in a God are well within reason to assume no cause. That does not mean they are right. Just as you are able to suggest that God is being itself. String theory is one way of merging / reconciling gravity and accounting for why humans observe the things we do such as why reality is quantized, or why things cant be smaller than Plankes length. etc... Begging the question of causality will not sway a atheist no more than saying there is no cauality of the universe will convince you. It is pointless to even try and convince someone who does not believe there can be a supernatural explanation when nature is considered to be the source of it's own existance.
In other words believe what you will and be happy. And leave the abyss of uncertainty to us agnostics/atheist.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

LOL. I am so confused now I do not know what to believe, ....or is that what NOT to believe.. oh darn now this circular reasoning is making me dizzy.

God is a uncreated undiffirentiated reality, that both is and trancends the universe and all that is. Everything that exist receives it's being from God. God is being itself. God is perfection and is omnipotent as well as omnipresent. If there is something that is greater than God then that is God. The ineffable. Is any of this true? You say no. Can God be identified as a entity that fits the above description? Many theist believe it. Does believing something make it true? Or factual? No. Does disbelieveing it make it false? No. Regardless of how illogical believeing in God may seem, for many it is based on faith and logic does not enter into it. Can one atheist show how the Universe came to be? Without resorting to using the Big Bang as a cause. And can one theist show how God could exist apart from his creation? The whole argument is impossible to validate either way IMO.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Hi Sidelined, I always enjoy your post btw. I know, I was being provacative in answering you. I agree. If I am to believe something such as God, then I need to know which one, which version is correct? I stand ready to be convinced, problem is I am not easily swayed either. Be well.