The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space

February 8, 2007 by Tony  
Filed under Astronomy

History-Of-UniverseThis is my fourth post for Just Science Week.

I think the thing that trips up most people when they think about the Big Bang, is thinking about it in terms of an explosion, like a supernova or a nuclear bomb. This leads to some typical inaccurate assumptions.

  • Since the Big Bang, the universe has expanded from a central point.
  • The universe must be expanding into something, what?
  • There was a time BEFORE the Big Bang.

These assumptions come from thinking about the Big Bang as a typical explosion, one originating from a single point and spewing matter out concentrically from there.

That’s not what the Big Bang was.

Illustration Credit: Universe-Review.ca

Technorati Tags: astronomy, cosmology, Just Science Week



Universe-InflationThe Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space ITSELF, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space AND time, or space-time.

So, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion of stuff like atoms or molecules, it was an explosion of a place and instance, it was the creation of when and where.

Before the Big Bang there was simply nothing, there was no ‘where’ nor was there a ‘when’. It doesn’t even make sense to say ‘before the Big Bang’.

I know, that’s pretty trippy, so let me try stretch my writing skills to the absolute max and see if I can make this sound reasonably coherent.

To begin, clear your mind of any notion of an explosion. The Big Bang was not an explosion, not of matter anyway.

  1. The Big Bang occured, and at this moment, space and time are created. Now, we can talk about where and when. The notion of moment was born.
  2. Next something really strange happens, the inflationary period. In the smallest fraction of a second, the universe gets very big, very fast. Driven by vacuum energy. space and time are being stretched like a rubber sheet, there is no center. Space and time and simply being created everywhere all at once within the boundary between where space and time is and where it isn’t. That boundary is increasing.
  3. The incredibly short inflationary period ends as the vacuum energy is converted to heat. Driven by the inflation, the universe is set on its expansion.
  4. The universe begins to cool, atoms and regular matter are created from what’s left over when all matter-antimatter particles have wiped each other out. All that remains in the stuff that will become the stars, galaxies, MacBooks and iPods.
  5. By now, only 100 seconds have elapsed. As the universe gets older and larger, things cool down enough so that stars, galaxies and the stuff we’re all familiar with can form.

Read this for a little more detail.

This is incredibly simplistic, but what I want you to take away from this is that at no point was matter spewing forth from anything. Space and time itself was being created first. Ordinary matter (atoms, molecules etc) was created out of tiny imbalances of energy left over from the inflationary period.

It’s a little humbling to think that everything we can experience, everything that makes us who we are, is a cosmic afterthought made possible by infinitesimal imbalances of energy from the greatest of all natural events. No imbalances, no us.

If the number of matter-antimatter particles created by the vacuum energy that pushed the universe outward had been identical, the universe would be completely empty.

If anti-matter particles has outnumbered normal matter, we would be living in a completely different house.

So any universal boundary that exists (an edge to the universe), is between place and time, and nothing. Of existence and non-existence. Of laws of nature and no laws of nature.

It is that boundary which is expanding and has no center. It is the “when” and “where” that things can occur that is getting bigger all the time.

Imagine pulling a large rubber sheet with white dots on it from every direction. All of the dots are spreading apart from each other everywhere, not from some central point. From the perspective of each dot, all the other dots are moving away from it.

Outside of the sheet, nothing can happen, you can’t put stuff in there because there is no ‘in there’ to put it.

<Pause for a moment so you can smoke a doobie>

If everything in the universe is flying apart from everything else, this begs the question, Why aren’t the galaxies, stars, planets, the atoms in my body, also flying apart? Shouldn’t we all be slowly disintegrating as space and time expands?

After all, there is space and time in between protons and electrons, isn’t that space increasing all the time as well?

The answer is yes, but there are other forces at work at closer distances that fight against the expansion of the cosmos. If those forces didn’t exist (things like gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces), then nothing could form to begin with. It is those forces that create structure and beauty, and us.

For example, gravity keep atoms in a star together so they can shine, it also keeps stars clumped together in galaxies. On a local level, other forces can counteract the expansion of the universe. Chemical bonding and gravity keeps us alive.

These forces can’t hold out forever though. Eventually the universe will win. But for now, we have the upper hand.

All illustrations used in the post: Universe-Review.ca

Share and Enjoy:
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • TwitThis
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • BallHype
  • YardBarker

Comments

190 Responses to “The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space”
  1. Mark Walsh says:

    Ok so let me see if i understand what it is that you are saying,

    In a nut shell, you are saying that before the big bang not only was their no space, but no time either.
    “In the smallest fraction of a second, the universe gets very big, very fast. Driven by vacuum energy. space and time are being stretched like a rubber sheet, there is no center. Space and time and simply being created everywhere all at once WITHIN the boundary between where space and time is and where it isn’t. That boundary is increasing.”

    Ok fair enough, but I disagree… COMPLEATLY!
    YES the big bang was the creation of the space that we now know, matter, anit-matter, stars, planets, you, me, him, her. but the void that that very same matter now fills was always there, as was time. Just becasue their was nothing around to experience the flow of time does not mean it was not there.
    (”If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?”)
    It is the same princaple.

    Lets pretend that we are back at the very creation of the universe as we know it, the big bang.
    Now let us pretend that when it happened what ever spewed forth from it done so in either a circular or cone pattern, either way it is expanding.
    Now let’s take what you say about this newly formed universe and any boundry that it may or may not have…

    “So any universal boundary that exists (an edge to the universe), is between place and time, and nothing. Of existence and non-existence. Of laws of nature and no laws of nature”.

    So we are back at the big bang watching it happen, I then ask you, if we are within this new universe are we eperiencing time? Are we going through the very passage of time? well of course we are, we are within the very universe.

    “It is that boundary which is expanding and has no center. It is the “when” and “where” that things can occur that is getting bigger all the time.”

    BUT what if I then go beyond the boundry of the universe?
    What IF, I decide to go a great distance beyond the boundry that is still expanding to watch the big bang take place, do I then no longer exist simply because I am outside of the “when” and “where”?
    But if that is the case and I am no more simply because I went out into the void, then that is what is going to happen to the universe as it expands, boundry or not. It is going to expand out into non-existence and cease to exist.
    But that does not happen, the universe continues to expand and grow and fill up the void, this place of non-existence.
    So then if that is the case then when I go out into to void then I too must still be, and more than that I am out side of the newly formed “space/time” experiencing the very passage of time its self!

    Ok so lets take this one step further, we then go back in time again. This time, to moments just before the big bang. Now according to you that cannot be done because time did not exist untill the big bang took place, but I have established that by going out side of the universe, beyond its boundry, that time does in fact take place, so I am led to assume that it has always being there witch means that I can in fact go to just before the big bang and watch it happen.
    Witch means that space AND time did indeed exist before the big bang.

  2. Somebody says:

    If space is stretching, is time slowing down?

  3. B. Johnson says:

    If all motion ceased, down to the movements of sub-atomic particles would time even exist?

    And to those who point out that the universe is somehow “fine tuned” to allow mankind’s existence!

    You do realize that conditions that allow life exist in only a tiny fraction of a percent of the known universe?

    Even on planet earth the majority of the surface (unless one breaths water) in incompatible with human life.

    We are here because conditions just happened to favor the spark of life, not the other way ’round.

  4. Different Opinion says:

    In fact, you are all wrong. You’re ideas are complex to the point of absurdity. Clearly we are not the centre of the universe, so you religious delusionists can fk off.

    I will tell you how it happened as simply as I can.

    Shit happened,
    get over it

    Time travel will never happen - if it were to happen at any time in any point, then people would be telling us, “Yo! this time travel thing is for real” but there not, so you all are wrong and supremly dumb.

    Regards,
    The better man

  5. Mark Walsh says:

    You call your self the better man and yet you compleatly shoot down everyone for having an opinion.
    (not something the real better man would do)

  6. DanlBoone says:

    will this post?

  7. DanlBoone says:

    Hello B. Johnson,
    you said:

    “… those who point out that the universe is somehow “fine tuned” to allow mankind’s existence!

    You do realize that conditions that allow life exist in only a tiny fraction of a percent of the known universe?

    Even on planet earth the majority of the surface (unless one breaths water) in incompatible with human life.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    good points.. I see these facts consistant with fine tuned universe. Life as we know it exists inan extremely narrow angle of an extremely hostile environment.

    This lends further to a purposeful design rather than order arbitrarily rearranging itself from entropic chaos.

    You also said:

    ” We are here because conditions just happened to favor the spark of life, not the other way ’round.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    This would appear to be a great leap of conjecture on your part without any (any) scientific support..

    That is to say.. no models stand up to criticism for life (to) “spark.. ” (sic) from non living materials.. ie ‘biogenesis’

    life ’sparking’ from non living materials against insurmountable odds of probability:

    “.. conditions just happened to favor..”

    is a philosophy of naturalism… a scientific materialism… a presupposition of ‘NO’ purposeful design (more apt a pre-supposed ‘NO’ Creator)

  8. DanlBoone says:

    Hello Mark Walsh,

    I’m not sure I follow all of your arguments.. but I tend to agree on some level with what I perceive to be the locus of your comments..

    (It) would seem to me that simple reasoning demands something overarching to the space- time continuum of current cosmology

    my presupposition in that, is of course a Creator.. an extant: “I AM THAT AM” versus multiverse theories

    the ‘big-bang’ models are theories for the universe coming into being (nearly) instantaneously from ‘nothing’_ (a singularity) which strongly represents the Biblical model

    (even time itself) if true.. something (more apt someOne.. must exceed time)

  9. DanlBoone says:

    Different Opinion said:

    “… we are not the centre of the universe, (sic)”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    This would appear to be true; however, we might be central to a low gravity sphere.. see: weaknesses in the Copernican model

  10. DanlBoone says:

    Hello B. Johnson, you posed the question:

    “If all motion ceased, down to the movements of sub-atomic particles would time even exist?”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I not sure I follow the context of your question.. but I think this absolute zero temperature (doesn’t exist in the universe) was what Einstein thought to be the greatest blunder of his relativity theorizing.. absolute zero is when all motion (thus heat) ’stops’..

    but science has strengthened that same concept..

    see: Bose–Einstein condensate

  11. DanlBoone says:

    Hello Somebody, you asked:

    “If space is stretching, is time slowing down?”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I think that’s a good question.. I perceive it this way: How does a decelerating expansion of the universe effect time? (an explosion expands and decelerates at the same time)

    but.. redshift data coming from Hubble seems to indicate an accelerating expansion of the distant cosmos..

    which seems to indicate a beginning for time

    that is, that vastly distant objects are moving away ‘faster’.. even approaching the speed of light

  12. DanlBoone says:

    Hello Tom, you said:

    “I think that the 3D brane proposed by Brian Green deserves a closer look. It provides a mechanism for universal regeneration that appears the same as the big bang without the need for inflation.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    interesting stuff.. my brain hurts..

    ;-)

    more later (hopefully)

  13. Jean Verkest says:

    Well to know what happened before the big bang, or what we imagine the beginning of our universe, is hard to say if you see all these posts with different ideas.
    Still I don’t believe that there is a creator of everything. I’m looking like a person who is open for both sides.
    We can’t explain for sure or even imagine if there will come ever an explenation how the it all started. Because for me things like infinite is saying it’s very big or very small, but I actually don’t know. Real infinity doesn’t exist for me.
    Everything is so complicated and we know how big the universe is. Well it’s unimageable to think there is a creature that is ruling over us. First at all if we look, everything is made out of matter. How good, smart and big should that creature be. How could you even imagine him.
    The idea of a creature that created our universe is breaking my mind.

    I think, we today, and probably for the next ages wont be able to solve this mistery because of the fact that our brains aren’t able to understand this.

    You can’t get an idea of something if you can’t link the idea with something you have seen before. There must be a link.
    If the concept is totally new you can’t make a link. The step is much to huge.

    If someone wants to discuss with me

    -> jeanverkest(at)hotmail.com ( (at) = @ )

    Greats Jean (sry for my bad english)

  14. B. Johnson says:

    “If all motion ceased, down to the movements of sub-atomic particles would time even exist?”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “I not sure I follow the context of your question..”

    Only that time would seem to be dependent upon motion for it’s existence. If there were no motion whatsoever would time exist?
    Light has been slowed to just a few miles per hour with something very “like” the Einstein-Bose condensate…

    Like most of the other posts on this subject I’m just speculating.

    Also:

    You also said:

    ” We are here because conditions just happened to favor the spark of life, not the other way ’round.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    This would appear to be a great leap of conjecture on your part without any (any) scientific support..

    The assumption that the universe is intentionally fine-tuned for our type of life is also without any scientific support is it not?

    If we were a silicon based life form basking in hard radiation while breathing chlorine the same fine-tuning argument could be given. ;-)

    And if you are arguing a creator and His/Hers/It’s creation we are entering metaphysical grounds where no scientific support is possible.

  15. B. Johnson says:

    Jean Verkest stated:

    “The idea of a creature that created our universe is breaking my mind.”

    That idea has broken many, many minds.

  16. DanlBoone says:

    Hi B. Johnson,you said:

    “And if you are arguing a creator and His/Hers/It’s creation we are entering metaphysical grounds where no scientific support is possible”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ..good point.. and I think that is exactly where the ‘razor’s edge’ of science so to speak re: string physics is pointing.. to the metaphysics uniting quantum mechanics and general relativity

    the extra dimensional universe required by the currently breaking theories (string) 4 brane universe with 6 dimensions bundled within the first 43 decimal places of a second of the thermal big bang (inflation)

    are beyond the purview of science

    further.. (and conversely) the multiverse theories are metaphysical (and already inconsistent to available information)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    nonetheless, I would argue that fine tuning for a purposefully designed universe information is compelling

  17. DanlBoone says:

    “.. many broken minds” notwithstanding,

    __ and __

    … just for clarity sake… we (old earth creationists) are arguing for a ‘Creator’ creating the cosmos and ‘creatures’

    not a:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “… creature that created our universe..”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    anyhow it’s an enjoyable conversation when approached with openness and simple human respect

    Happy Holidays!

    ps you also said:

    “If we were a silicon based life form basking in hard radiation while breathing chlorine the same fine-tuning argument could be given.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I’ve never thought of ‘it’ that way.. but I suppose that’s true..

    isn’t it grand!!

    ;- )

  18. DanlBoone says:

    ..of course the silicon based, chlorine breathing creature (pro- created like us?) thriving in hard radiation (ouch that’s hot) environment..

    would have to be in some other universe.. so the data of the finely tuned universe we are in wouldn’t apply..

    fine tuning is based on the same available data currently supporting the big bang.. and other science

    here’s one bit:

    A large enough expansion rate. The birth of the universe had to begin with enough force, or life couldn’t exist.

    Stephen Hawking states, “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.”

    The above is noteworthy also in light of the fact, that..

    Stephen Hawking is a materialist scientist.. searching for data to support mutiverse theories

    Stephen Hawking also said:

    “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life

  19. B. Johnson says:

    “Stephen Hawking states, “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.”

    There are myriad “what if’s” along these lines, but they cannot be deduced as evidence of a creator.

    The simple fact is, if conditions weren’t “just right” we wouldn’t be here arguing the point.
    Whether or not these conditions are “created” or “just are” are totally unprovable concepts from both sides of the argument.

    And countless minds *have* been broken on the wheel of faith (or lack of it), but it is and shall probably always remain a concept of faith.

    I do not wish to denigrate anyone’s beliefs and I hope I have not offended anyone too deeply.

    I stand firm on “My” belief that the “fine tuning” argument isn’t proof of intelligent design.

    Regards and Happy Holidays (whatever they may be) to everyone.

    Regards: B. Johnson

  20. OMG says:

    To the idiot that stated “time is a measurement, moron”…. you really need to brush up. The wall clock is a measurement. Time itself is a dimension. Moron.

  21. bipolar2 says:

    ** dirty little appendages — **

    Ancient Egyptians surmised that a dung beetle created the Earth. I accept the fecal gospel of “intelligent design” as long as it is extended — the entire cosmos emerged from the collective wisdom of committees of dung beetles. The committees are still in charge . . . and having problems (as committees always do):

    ** The mistaken Anthropic Principle — note from HQ **

    To: All
    From: CEO, Sentient Beings Inc.

    Subject: Major anthropic screw-up, causes and proposed solutions

    It was the Corporate Committee on Systematic World Ordering which initiated an RFP, cost-plus basis. Failure to recognize that Hellaburton was an unreliable contractor, created certain problems with shoddy workmanship and substandard materials which quickly emerged.

    These however were plastered over for at least 4 billion years until the first multicellular creatures appeared in planet’s Precambrian oceans. By then it was too late to adjust any nucleotides. After all, it is a double blind test.

    The last 550 million years, however, have proved one unforeseen disaster after another, culminating in Nature’s Greatest Mistake, homo sap. Currently, almost 7 billion cases of hypertrophy of ape prefrontal cortex! [Walking and talking mutants all of them!]

    Delicious irony though. The defect also provides an illusion of having “free will.” Of course, homeostatic causes are still causes. But, as delusions go, this one is a sicko. Unfortunately, the trait is far too entrenched now to be wiped out by laws of population genetics.

    Looks like human heads must roll. The Corporate Committee on Oort Cloud Exploitation hopes to find a suitably large comet in the next 65 million years, give or take 5 million years.

    However, let there be light! The standing Corporate Committee on Bio-organics has estimated that the average species lasts only about 2 million years. Patience hath its rewards.

    Personally, I want the testing to continue. I find myself inordinately fond of beetles. I’m betting on them. Let it be called the arthropodic principle!

    bipolar2 © 2008

  22. misanthropope says:

    it’s the grandest example of dishonesty in the world: the culties find it absolutely contradictory that the universe doesn’t have a cause, but proven without a doubt that the soul fairy doesn’t have one. no amount of stupidity can possibly explain this incidence rate of this transparently false argument.

  23. Cliff says:

    for those confused about the rubber sheet analogy, try this (this is how it was taught to me in a physics lab long ago):

    Imagine you are a 2-dimensional being, say like a little dot, or a little circle. Further, imagine you live on the surface of a balloon with other dot-friends. You can do this at home by drawing dots on a real balloon with a marker.

    Now as far as you know, the universe is flat. You can move along your 2 dimensions, around the surface of this balloon. If the balloon is big, you may think you live on an infinite plain, and the ‘Universe’ may appear to go on forever. You are 2D, so you cannot perceive that you exist on a curved surface. In fact, even imagining a curved surface may be difficult. All of your dot friends live an apparent distance away from you.

    Now imagine that the balloon is being slowly inflated. From your perspective, the universe appears to be getting bigger. All of your friends are getting farther away from you. You might even conclude that you are at ‘the center’, since they all seem to be moving directly away from you.

    But back in the 3d world, we can see that the actual ‘center’ is not on the rubber surface at all, but inside the balloon. You can still move around on the surface just fine, and you can still ‘collide’ with a friend, as long as you were moving faster than the rate of inflation was stretching the surface.

    Your ’shape’ may begin to be distorted, but let’s say you had a ‘force’ that kept the ink that you are drawn in close together (gravity).

    That is how hubble expansion works.

    Now just add 1 dimension to everything. Instead of living in a 2d world, we live in a 3d (spatially) world. Instead of being on the surface of a 3d balloon, we live on the surface of a 4d ‘balloon’ (roughly, there are lots of debates on the actual shape).

    That is why it appears everything is expanding away from us. That is why it looked (before Hubble’s explanation) like we were at the ‘center’. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to talk about what it is expanding into, in the same way that to the dot on a balloon, everything outside the surface ( like inside and outside the balloon) isn’t ’space’. It may be like ’space’, but not in any sense that the dot knows or can access.

    For the balloon dwellers, the big bang was when the balloon had radius=0. Same for us, except the ‘radius’ is not in a dimension we live in or can easily conceive. It’s a mistake to think of our universe as some 3 dimensional space expanding into some larger 3 dimensional space.

    Many physics students actually do this lab in an introductory course with balloons, and chart the changing distance between dots placed randomly on the balloon vs the rate of expansion (blowing up the balloon) to derive the hubble constant.

    It’s hard to conceive initially, but once you’ve done the experiment yourself, it’s kind of hard to argue against.

  24. Pat Axline says:

    Example When a oil well fire is blown out by dyna mite the fire is put out by vacuum. example 2 when a nuclear explosion takes place it blows outward but implodes in upon itself to create the visible mushroom cloud. Your answer on the big bang only makes sense to me if all the matter you speak of are the escapees of the blast, i.e. (objects we call the universe) Your answer even answers the question of black holes creation due to size and atomic mass of the object. But consider that the event horizon of a black hole is limited even in the space time continuium then why isn’t ther a limit to the universe even if it hasn’t been reached in our present understanding of the process.

  25. Chris says:

    I always find it interesting when people try to figure out where everything came from. I read what most every one on this had to say about the explanation of the big bang theory. I enjoy reading people say that we can’t possibly understand the big bang and the universe because we are only human with limited knowledge and ability, while at the same time saying God doesn’t exist because it just doesn’t make sense that God could exist. It seems to me that that argument kind of contradicts itself. Creationists do not help their own argument by simply stating that that is how it is. This tends to make everyone on the other side of the spectrum very upset and kills all possible credibility. Creationists tend to view science as evil and, thus, are quick to refute it. Those against Creationism tend to see religion as some defect in people who can’t seem to accept that there is no absolute truth. Well, science and religion go pretty well together, especially Judeo-Christian religions. There is absolute truth and much of science points that out; every law we have in science is the basis for everything in science and those laws are always true and cannot be changed. Since there is absolute truth, there has to be somewhere that makes all this true. In other words, God must exist. The most logical god from every religion is the Judeo-Christian God. If God created the universe, then we have a moral standard, right and wrong is not relative. If the universe just happened on it’s own, then there is no moral standard we would all be living in complete and utter chaos.

    With all that said, what does all this talk of the beginning of the universe have to do with anything that is happening today?
    Nothing, other than a moral standard.

    We should be concerned with people around us and their well being, not contemplating theories of how everything came about.

    Everything I have stated, though I have not used fun quotes and equations, is true. If you think what I have stated is false and want to tell me why, just leave a comment and be sure to mention my name.

    Chris

  26. pete says:

    Isaiah 45:12

    I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

  27. D Brown says:

    Chris,
    You said: ” every law we have in science is the basis for everything in science and those laws are always true and cannot be changed. Since there is absolute truth, there has to be somewhere that makes all this true. In other words, God must exist”

    You do not understand science. Science is not about immutable laws or beliefs, science is extremely flexible, religion is totally rigid and unyielding.

    The “laws” and theories of science have been changed countless times. If a theory is proven wrong by other researchers or findings then that theory is discarded.
    Not so long ago science thought the Newtonian laws were the last word in physics, then along came Quantum theory…perhaps someday “it” will be shot down or modified.

    Point is science is flexible and changing, religious beliefs are not…

    BTW I’m agnostic, I don’t presume to know what cannot be known.

  28. Chris says:

    D Brown,
    Nice rebuttal!
    When I said that every law in science are always true. That is because it seems everyone who is against religion of any kind (though some things in science seem a lot like some sort of religion to me) seem to say that every scientific law is absolute truth, and some theories, and I was just trying to use their own argument against them. I guess I failed at this plan.
    I find what the Bible says about us is true, but I don’t see any benefit in trying to make everyone see things in the same light. With that said, my goal was to make people think, not change their minds.
    I am not sure what you mean by being agnostic, but I guess I just need to get out more.

  29. D. Brown says:

    Thank you Chris,

    Agnosticism, at least the short version, means the belief that the existence of god can neither be proved nor disproved.

    You wrote: ” I don’t see any benefit in trying to make everyone see things in the same light.”

    Everyone should believe as they wish….save it hurts no one else.
    Unfortunately religion sometimes does indeed hurt people, the destruction of the world trade center and the continuing destruction of life by suicide bombers in Iraq and elsewhere and the christian component involved in the decisions to attack Iraq being prime examples.

    The American Indians were slaughtered in part because Christians thought them heathens.
    And of course the crusades and the Spanish inquisition come to mind.

    But I do agree with you regarding personal believe, but only with the above mentioned restriction …that one’s personal religious beliefs harm no one else in any way.

    D. Brown

  30. DanlBoone says:

    I’m a Creationist that lives in QuantumLand..

    ..but -’then’- (that’s) neither HERE nor THERE..

    ;- )

  31. Chris says:

    D. Brown,

    The problem with all those atrocities that were committed in the name of religion (especially Christianity because that is the one I know), is that they stopped listening to what God has told us and what Jesus also taught us (certain things are wrong, but that doesn’t mean we should kill everyone who is/does something wrong because we all do wrong things all the time, but build relationships and try to help them) and started doing what they felt was the “right thing to do”. It’s all about relationships. Christians are the biggest reason people don’t want to learn about Christ. It’s sad. (If you are curious about what I believe, I would be happy to talk to you; if not, that’s fine.)

    If being agnostic means you do not presume to know what cannot be known, do you think/know the Big Bang happened? As far as I know, it has not been proven and is still a theory.

    If I sound like I am being unprofessional, let me know because I am not trying to arouse anger, only understand what others think.

    I don’t mean to sound like just another “Bible thumpper”, but there should be a capitol ‘g’ in God because it is his name, regardless if it you don’t think he is real, and you used it in such context. Just like Thor, god of thunder, is still spelled with a capitol ‘t’. (Yes, I even capitalize proper nouns in IM. I might be a loser for this…)

    Chris

  32. Julius Siador says:

    My friends, the Big Bang Theory affirms what is written in the Bible, although the Atheists and Agnostics could be awestruck by its depth and magnificence without referencing it to any religious texts, including the utterly revealing Holy Bible. It is rightfully so, because it takes the basic mind of every child to appreciate the wonders of what seems to these novices as accurate predictions, while those adults that progressed find the Holy Scriptures as narration of the long-established truths, and the rest of the adults, no matter if their intelligence soars higher than ever, regressed into believing that such holy manuscripts are not just unholy to them but a source of confusion or illusion, and further rendering such as unscientific and totally useless. But wait! Are they dragging the holy passages in light of their own merely inconclusive science? It is analogous to measuring the galaxies with the use of a mere yardstick in your hands instead in terms of a light year. They do bore themselves to death of the enormous numerals, yet never see the Light!

    But, is there really no science to it? By the way, no wonder why Atheists are termed “Fools” in the Bible: They make their belief, rooted in their inconclusive and ever-evolving science, so conclusive in their own right! Yet, does this true logic spare the Agnostics? In the end, the burden of truth lies on such blind Agnosticism: its advocates play too much rhetoric, and ultimately resting on a wall inside the borders of intellectual laziness. Now, get ready to embrace the higher science to what is in the Sacred Texts—“The Science of Intent”.

    We never really appreciate the full intent without the consummation of the action under scrutiny. Just imagine the few seconds from the start of the Big Bang; any thought that the elementary particles at that time would eventually turn into gold and silver to be worshipped upon idolatrous life forms that constitute the same elementary particles would be inconceivable. Yet, we can fully comprehend it now as we are literally surrounded by ignorant idolaters. Now, it is within anyone’s comprehension that there exist only two completely opposite intents in terms of belief: Intent to teach and intent to deceive. So striking are the dissimilarities that we can simply dissociate the two extremes, and any attempt to cause their association borders on ultimate deception or ignorance. As man is a social being, we tend to personify everything that we have a deep connection, such that the beneficial intent is personified as the Holy Spirit and the destructive intent, as the Evil One. If this newfound science of INTENT is alien to most scientists, yet it holds the key of branches of mathematics and science, like the statistics, forensics, behavioural sciences, etc., then why should these Agnostic and Atheist scientists fret on the rational thinking of most man to further such science into religion? Instead of fretting, they should look deep into their own selves and try to understand that there exist a morality behind everything, and it is the light that they should embrace or advocate, rather that the downward spiral of detached and impassive science or investigation. Atheism and Agnosticism are merely products of higher form of rebellion to one’s intuition and awareness with which both are beyond mere physical sciences can handle and rationalize.

    Just ponder at what Pete above is trying to convey: in Isaiah 45:12 Statistics will prove the eternal knowledge around the recent theory of Big Bang—“I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have STRETCHED OUT THE HEAVENS, and all their host have I commanded.” (Emphasis supplied.) Such Supreme Being is both God and Love, with all the purest intent: Our Loving Creator who can restore us in His Own Right.

  33. D. Brown says:

    Faith is faith and reason is reason, and never the twain shall meet. ;-)

Trackbacks

Check out what others are saying about this post...
  1. Loko’s Domain… » The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space says:

    [...] https://www.astronomybuff.com/the-big-bang-was-an-explosion-of-space-not-in-space/ [...]

  2. Safi Saad » Blog Archive » The Big Bang says:

    [...] the very interesting post here. And then read it again, and [...]

  3. Big Bang Truth | reallygoodmagazine.com says:

    [...] incredibly short inflationary period ends as the vacuum energy is converted to heat. Driven by the inflation, the universe is set on its [...]

  4. fapfap.co.uk » Blog Archive » The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space says:

    [...] The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space. [...]

  5. The Blog for WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com » Science moment - the Big Bang says:

    [...] The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space ITSELF, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space AND time, or space-time. [...]

  6. I know, I know… says:

    [...] of comments being posted on this post told me that a social networking site must have picked up another [...]

  7. Upside of the Apocalypse | THE Official weblog of the Liberator says:

    [...] The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space [...]



Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!


About Us | Advertise with us | Blog for EveryJoe | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
Get This Theme


All content is Copyright © 2005-2009 b5media. All rights reserved.