I once heard a Unitarian minister say Unitarianism is for people who haven't kicked the church habit.
The Big Bang is for people who haven't kicked the faith habit.
It has preachers. They make claims. They spend billions of taxpayers' money looking for evidence and publish press releases claiming to have found it. The only peer reviews their claims get are by their fellow preachers.
And they have their faithful, who have yet to kick their faith habit.
If there is a faith gene I'm one of thousands who don't have it. Many of us studied electrical engineering.
The Big Bang will become history when Congress stops spending taxpayer money on it.
Forty five years ago I was one of many who helped stop the flow of taxpayers' money to those who wanted to dam rivers. It was a struggle.
Jotham, science requires evidence.
They have no evidence that space is expanding. They have a religion and don’t require evidence.
That fabric is a poor metaphor doesn’t matter.
Andrew, for starters, I hope you agree that your most important source of information is your own ability to think clearly.
If you can accept the claim that the entire universe once occupied a space as small as the smallest particle of matter and say you are thinking clearly, you won’t lose your faith in the Big Bang.
The description of the big bang and the "evidence" is widely spread. I don't know if there are peer reviewed articles examining the evidence. It is, as I said, mostly an acceptation of the original calculations done by a priest using Hubble's theory that the red shift means that all stars and galaxies are moving away from us. That was later called the big bang and some later observations are reasoned to be a result.
Google "Big Bang Evidence" and "What is the big bang" and it'll give you the links to the information.
Jotham, if you have been persuaded that the Big Bang story is true, you are paying more attention to the claims than to the evidence.
Like ‘religion’ religions, the Big Bang religion has people who make claims.
I'm not convinced. Notice I put "evidence" in quotes.
It's all we have are claims. Verifying any of it is difficult at best. Thing is, to make a decision, I need to analyze the claims. I don't just say something isn't true because I can't understand it.
As I said in the past, they have things they say can be interpreted no other way, but a bit of knowledge of physics shows there are other possibilities, simpler and more likely possibilities.
Jotham, you wrote "It's all we have are claims. Verifying any of it is difficult at best."
If a theist comes to you with a claim about faith, would you verify it or would you ask "Where is your evidence?"
For more than eighty years cosmologists have been claiming the universe has dark matter, and spending billions of dollars looking for it. They have not found it.
The link below is to a short youtube clip about dark matter and the failed search for it. If clicking on it doesn't show you the clip, copy it to your browser.
I had forgotten about that "dark matter" idea they come with to make their theory work!
Thing is, when someone asks for info, I give them what they ask for. I can talk on both sides of the issue because I did enough research to make an opinion. If I don't know anything about a claim I just say I don't know.
The big bang is an attempt to find a beginning, but that just sets up the infinite regression paradox.
It seems difficult for people to admit that the universe just exists and trying to find a beginning isn't a logic attempt.
I consider it more reasonable to accept the dust cloud or ion cloud (EU) versions without a detectable beginning.
Saying it doesn't have a detectable beginning is a neutral stance. But a beginning of everything is not logical considering everything results from the reforming of what came before it.
So I suggest we drop the beginning idea and study the nature of the universe we currently have.
You have some of my admiration, Jotham; the best debaters can defend either side of a question.
While doing my research I realized that a paradox simply tells how easily the human mind can be deceived.
I sometimes ask people if they need a beginning. Not having one may be another of humankind’s five or six great disappointments, most of which I have forgotten. One of them is the earth’s not being the center of the universe. Another is that we are not specially created but are products of natural selection.
As to studying the universe we have, I visit www.thunderbolts.info more often than others. They have youtube clips (about 500) and written material for people from beginners to experts. People interested in biology can search Youtube on “electricity of life” and people inierested in cultural anthropology can search on “mythology”. They are now making playlists for other subjects their material addresses.
I just came across something and thought "Why didn't I think of that before?"
We are 13.7 billion light-years from the edge of the observable universe....
WTF! The big bang theory says the universe is 13.8 billion years old! That would put us smack in the center! Am I the only one that can see a religious bias in that?
I didn’t think of it but will happily paraphrase someone.
“Anthropocentrism, anthropocentrim. All is anthropocentrism.”
Or, “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most anthropocentric of all?”
Or, the Catholic priest Georges LeMaitre who:
1. figured that a universe Edwin Hubble thought might be expanding had to start expanding somewhere, and
2. knew he could use mathematics to con schoolchildren into believing Genesis.
Granted, the Big Bang has a shortage of empirical proof, and indeed there are other competing theories. I think it somewhat extreme, though, to declare the idea defunct and invalid. Most theory of this kind exists primarily in mathematics, and has yet to be, if ever, directly or implicitly observed. To declare that dark matter doesn’t exist simply because large sums have been spent without direct observation ignores the fact that only through sustained and continuously improved searching will there ever be the possibility of a pay -off, e.g. Higgs boson. My ability to think clearly allows me to be open to ideas that my own faculties may not have been trained to reason through. Such has been the nature of science for centuries. Nor do I equate scientific theory with religious belief. The scientific method and religious faith are at opposite extremes of each other; to cling to scientific theories and beliefs as if they are immutable is in itself an abandonment of true science.