The Big Bang Doesn't Deserve Your Faith. It Also Doesn't Deserve Your Tax Money.

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.

Views: 667

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Curiosity has consequences, Jotham

”...there can’t be an infinite number of stars because we’d have infinite brightness.”

How much light energy does the human retina and human brain require?

From Biochemistry, by Berg et al. A human retina contains about 3 million cones and 100 million rods. Remarkably, a rod cell can respond to a single photon, and the brain requires fewer than 10 such responses to register the sensation of a flash of light.

Conclusion: The human brain does not register the light of the most distant stars, ergo no infinite brightness. Bye bye, Olbers (of Olbers Paradox fame).

You are not full reading my comments.
That quote was from a person trying to reason why there must be a finite universe, it wasn't my quote.
My response to him, since my theory is that space has particles of all sizes throughout, was that light from the more distant starts would not reach earth anyway. Or at least not enough to notice.

Most rational thinkers understand that scientific conclusions and even facts are tentative.

Science being an inductive process, never reaches absolutely objective conclusions.

All scientific conclusions are Best Fit Conclusions.

Or the conclusions that best fit all available empirical data and evidence gathered for a phenomenon.

So I don't know anybody who Believes the Big Bang is Fact, they all know it may some day be replaced by some other theory if new evidence is found that contradicts the Big Bang Theory.

I accept that the Big Bang Theory is validated by all available Doppler Effect evidence, though it may simply be due to our precarious position in this galaxy and universe that everything appears to be moving away.

But I will Accept the Big Bang, because nobody as yet has found a better explanation. :D 

That is how Science Rolls, accepting the Theories that are Validated by the available evidence. :-D~

DD, you wrote “...nobody as yet has found a better explanation” when the truth is that you don’t know a better explanation.

Truth is necessary, so please use it.

Leave lies to theists and standard model cosmologists.

I think the big bang attraction is that it has a finite beginning. It is a way of satisfying the want to know.

I say "want" because we don't "need" to know where the universe came from, if indeed it did "come from" at all. Studying the current nature of the universe is what is important, and that is what the big bang is often holding up.

I mean, the background radiation thing... "oh, that's because of the big bang!" seriously dude? Why can't we just try actually looking for what's causing this uniform radiation?

Well, Tom, you are becoming more of a Sophist every day.

The Big Bang is an obvious conclusion that is not rocket science.

According to our observance from this planet, the galaxies appear to be all moving away from a central point.

Which when applying simple analysis states that at some time they originated at that point.

The recently discovered and analysed Cosmic Background Radiation images all appear to form a bubble which backs up this concept of the bubble originating from a central point, it also spurred the concept of bubble universes.

So according to a simple and practical application of logic. 

We have the universe originating at a central point and the result is a bubble field moving outward, and both exist, giving the Big Bang credence.

So denying simple logic to forward vague scepticism as you are doing is rather weird at best.

Your sophistry or radical scepticism is not logical.

Descartes destroyed radical scepticism by his showing that he can know he exists.

The Big Ban again is a simple deduction from observed phenomenon.

It didn't need a genius to make that deduction.

It's no different to the deduction that things on earth fall when let go.  :D 


Dawg, the Big Bang doesn’t deserve your faith.

LOL, I don't have Faith ( belief without evidence) in the Big Bang.

There is evidence for the Big Bang, so it is Knowledge, instead of Faith.

I don't even Believe (have certainty) in the Big Bang.

I merely Accept that the Big Bang explains the Doppler evidence discovered by astronomers.

I don't believe anything, I accept what there is valid evidence for.

Nobody is spending money on the Big Bang, as space travel has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

So the Big Bang is just something we read about in our scientific journals and text books, but it has no relevance to anything.  :-D~ 

For all we know, the Steady State Theory may be correct and The Big Bang wrong, but that makes absolutely no difference to anything from our perspective on this speck in a bigger speck of a galaxy inside a speck of a universe. 

Dawg, you deny having faith (belief without evidence) in the BB.

You then say there is evidence for the BB but you cite no evidence.

Somebody is spending money on the BB.

The Large Hadron Collider, said to be history's most expensive scientific experiment, failed to find the Higgs boson and may try again after 2030.

You haven't been reading what NASA managers are saying about their missions' surprising findings.

As I mentioned before, the galaxies appear to be all moving away from a central point. That central point being earth. That is enough to question the theory.

If they were, if fact, moving from a central point and we were not that central point, galaxies inline with ours and said point but closer to the point should have less red shift and galaxies for which we are the in between galaxy should have more red shift. Galaxies to either side of us should have almost no red shift.

That is, of course, why the idea of the universe expanding like a ball of bread dough came up. In that idea, everything is moving away from everything else. 

Jotham, that galaxies APPEAR to be moving away from a central point is due to an unsupported hypothesis.

Sound moves in air because variations in air pressure move in air, and moving sources of sound either compress or stretch these variations.

Light being either particles or waves does not allow a hypothesis that either of the above are true, but Big Bangers hypothesised an analogy.

They use that unsupported hypothesis to support other hypotheses.

In short:

In sound, Doppler shifts are SUPPORTED hypotheses.

In light, red and blue shifts are UNSUPPORTED hypotheses.

Edwin Hubble said he doubted that red shift measured recessional velocity, but LeMaitre ignored Hubble’s doubt and used red shiftt to support Genesis.

Xians needed evidence for Genesis and they seized LeMaitre’s conclusion.

My sources include the free PDF file available at

That is a good point. Has anyone tried to reproduce a red shift using the Doppler effect?




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service