The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

That's not actually true. There's a significant body of experimental verification of both special and general relativity; for instance we can directly observe time dialation effects most spectacularly in experiments where accurate atomic clocks are taken on high-speed jet rides; a more common variation of this experiment is to accelerate particles with a known, short half-life and observe that their greater velocity leads to a longer half-life.Hiroshima, and later Nagasaki, were both leveled at the end of World War II by the most famous demonstration of the veracity of Einstein's theories. Where, exactly, did you get this idea that we don't have any evidence for relativity? The only theory for which we have more evidence is probably the theory of evolution.

I don't believe that philosophy, except in a historical sense, can be the base of anything. Philosophy is an exercise where we determine that we don't know what we think we know. If you want to actually gather some knowledge, then you need to apply methods that no longer properly belong under the heading of "philosophy", methods like empiricism and experimentation that have since come under the term "science."Philosophers used to be scientists. Now they ask questions about what words mean and what knowledge is. I recognize the debt science owes to philosophy but currently, science has incorporated all that philosophy has to offer the discovery of information about the universe.

I think what he's saying to you is that your qualifier was a little silly; if you say "this always happens, except when it doesn't" you'll very obviously never be wrong. Neither, however, will you have said anything worthwhile.

The same way all theories are developed - as an explanitory framework based on observations. No, by observation. If it can't be observed, how do you know there's something there you need philosophy to understand? Quite untrue. Evolution is fact, a fact which the theory of evolution explains.

Again this assertion is in error. There is significant experimental and observational confirmation of the accuracy of general relativity; Einstein's model has been confirmed in every test performed to date. From the Wiki article:

quote:

---

Like any good scientific theory, general relativity makes predictions which can be tested. The predictions of general relativity include: the perihelion shift of Mercury's orbit, the bending of starlight by a massive object and the existence of gravitational waves. These are discussed further in the article tests of general relativity. These three tests , with the exception of the third, have been verified to a high degree of accuracy and precision. Most researchers believe in the existence of gravitational waves, but more experiments are needed to raise this prediction to the status of the other two.

​

Other predictions include the expansion of the universe, the existence of black holes and possibly the existence of wormholes. The existence of black holes is generally accepted, but the existence of wormholes is still very controversial, many researchers believing that wormholes may exist only in the presence of exotic matter. The existence of white holes is very speculative, as they appear to contradict the second law of thermodynamics.

​

Many other quantitative predictions of general relativity have since been confirmed by astronomical observations. One of the most recent, the discovery in 2003 of PSR J0737-3039, a binary neutron star in which one component is a pulsar and where the perihelion precesses 16.88 per year (or about 140,000 times faster than the precession of Mercury's perihelion), enabled the most precise experimental verification yet of the effects predicted by general relativity.

---

General relativity - WikipediaThe only scientific theory with more evidence behind it is, possibly, the theory of evolution.

As stated, it's an inaccurate metaphor. The Big Bang was an "explosion" in the sense that it was a very rapid expansion of spacetime; not in the sense that it was a detonation caused by the rapid combustion of an explosive material like dynamite. 1) The observation that everything in the universe is moving apart from everything else.2) A constant hum of microwave background radiation that is uniform in every direction observed.The first was the evidence that suggested the theory; the second was a fulfilled prediction of it. The math works out, too. Where did you get the idea that there's no scientific evidence for the big bang?

That's absolutely correct, assuming the pencils are initially at rest. Unfortunately that's not what is observed; we observe that galaxies, pencils, and all the rest of it are moving apart, against gravity, not towards each other. That means that these objects did not begin at rest but rather, with an initial acceleration away from each other. If we trace that backwards through time we discover that all observable objects in the universe begin at one single location. We know from simple physics that compressing the observable mass of the universe into one small space would result in very hot gases indeed. So, indeed, it does prove that there was a rapid expansion of superheated, primordeal gas. What makes you say that? "Something" out of nothing is often observed at the quantum level, a truth detectable by the "Casimir effect". We've known this for about 50 years or so. I don't think there was a single atom or molecule; the big bang theory does not state that the initial singularity was an atom or molecule. You may be confused because common descriptions of the big bang assert that the primordeal universe was the size of an atom, or even smaller; but that primordeal concentration of energy was not itself an atom.Where did that concentration of energy come from? That's not clear at this point. Did the big bang change physics? Not likely; it's much more likely that we simply don't know how the laws of physics work at that point in time. You're funny.

Hawking radiation was, I thought, the exception to this rule? Such radiation represented, I thought, the "realization" of one of a virtual particle pair after the other tumbles into the event horizon of a black hole.I'm the first to admit, though, that my knowledge of these physical concepts is a little fast and loose. I was wrong to have presented what I did as thought I was an authority.

Nice of you to say, but my ignorance is always my responsibility. Great series of posts, btw.

An infinite intelligent deity always represents more unneccesary entities than any finite number of natural laws or natural phenomena. Don't get caught up on that word "one". One infinity is always more than any finite amount.