Big Bang Theory: Science or Faith?

[seventil]

This was taken out of the "Explanation of the Universe" thread. Here is a short transcript:

As I said, the evidence points to expansion. Period. It is, indeed, interpretation that provides the theory of the big bang, just as interpretation of evidence provides the theory of the earth's orbit, which no one has observed. The question is, should we bother to interpret the evidence?

Believing in the big bang theory takes just as much faith as me believing in God; no scientific evidences here can support the theory because the theory breaks so many (thermodynamics, relativity).

It takes faith? I suppose one must have some degree of confidence in the ability of human thought to make sense of information. Beyond that, there's no "faith" required. You know, it might be helpful if you were to explain this last bit...how is this theory incompatible with thermodynamics and relativity? I bet the astrophysicists have thought about this, and wouldn't have bothered to suggest the idea if it were patently absurd.

[seventil]

And here is my reply:

As I said, the evidence points to expansion. Period. It is, indeed, interpretation that provides the theory of the big bang, just as interpretation of evidence provides the theory of the earth's orbit, which no one has observed. The question is, should we bother to interpret the evidence?

I agree it points toward expansion. Observing something like an expanding universe can be considered logic and reason; not many will argue that it isn't. It doesn't take much faith to look at the evidences we see today and see the universe expanding.

Where we delve into faith is the theory of the big bang...

It takes faith? I suppose one must have some degree of confidence in the ability of human thought to make sense of information. Beyond that, there's no "faith" required. You know, it might be helpful if you were to explain this last bit...how is this theory incompatible with thermodynamics and relativity? I bet the astrophysicists have thought about this, and wouldn't have bothered to suggest the idea if it were patently absurd.

Faith:

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

First off, thermodynamics. The big bang theory fails to provide anything in regards to where everything came from in the first place. So, in my view, the big bang theory fails to provide logic proof or material evidence for this. This is an extreme violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy.

Second, relativity. Ahh, how I miss my astrophysics classes... -- Einstein's own equations tell us that the universe is expanding. They can, in fact, go all the way back to point zero, theorizing that the universe did emerge from one singular point. So, we're good so far.

Where the big bang theory breaks down is in the "singularity" of the origin point of the universe. Here is a quote for you:

Standard cosmology, based on Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, states that some 10 billion years ago the universe was just a mathematical point. As such, not only did it have exactly zero size, but physical quantities, such as temperature, energy density, pressure ­ and the resulting curvature of space-time ­ were all infinite. Indeed, the Big Bang is the most dramatic example of a phenomenon that is often encountered in field theories like General Relativity, when the predictive powers of the theory break down.

From: http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/39/2/11

This article is from CERN. It has a great read about where relativity breaks down, where we can't explain what happened, in relativistic terms, the origin of the universe.

So, point two: the big bang theory fails to provide logic proof or material evidence to be explained relativistically.

There you go Jose. Anyone who believes in the big bang has faith just like a Christian; they believe in something that can't be explained by natural laws, something they can't tangibly prove. That, my friend, is faith.

[QED]

Faith is required in order to believe in the untestable, whereas ultimately the dynamics of the singularity may well be revealed through persistent scientific investigation.

Put another way, it would require your faith to believe in my invisible friend who I swear sits on my shoulder whispering truths to me about the origins of everything. No one can ever positively prove he doesn't exist, nor can they disprove his untestable statements such as his assertion about a magical realm which he says he inhabits - totally outside of time and space, into which all people wearing green hats may go when science can no longer detect any signs of life in them.

There is a class of statement such as those above that is absolutely irrefutable. A very handy sort of statement to use if you want to make up a story about something and get people to beileve in it. All that's required is thier faith. Of course, for it to work in the real-world you have to have sufficient numbers of people all agreeing to share the faith - and that is helped by offering highly dersirable rewards - of course also untestable in nature! But none the less acctractive to those with faith

[juliod]

First off, thermodynamics. The big bang theory fails to provide anything in regards to where everything came from in the first place.

Stop sodomizing thermodynamics! That's my advice to you.

Nothing in thermodynamics suggests that you should look in that field for explanations as to "where" everything came from.

The number one problem we have with creationists is their drive to sexually abuse thermodynamics. It's an outrage.

So, point two: the big bang theory fails to provide logic proof or material evidence to be explained relativistically.

Why should you expect it to? The Big Bang Theory rests on it's own supports, and is well supported by evidence, even if Reletivity were shown to be false.

This is a line of reasoning I never understand. The Big Bang does not rest on thermodynamics nor on reletivity. It is supported by the actual evidence that led to the theory's proposal in the first place (i.e. an expanding universe). Faith is just as irrelevant.

DanZ

[jwu]

First off, thermodynamics. The big bang theory fails to provide anything in regards to where everything came from in the first place. So, in my view, the big bang theory fails to provide logic proof or material evidence for this. This is an extreme violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy.

The net energy of the universe could very well be zero, as potential energy is negative.
Quantum vacuum fluctuations are known to be able to "borrow" energy where there was none before.
And finally, the big bang theory does not propose that the universe came from "nothing" in first instance.

There you go Jose. Anyone who believes in the big bang has faith just like a Christian; they believe in something that can't be explained by natural laws, something they can't tangibly prove. That, my friend, is faith.

That's a tautology. Everybody who "believes" in the big bang in the way as you use the word here has "faith" in it. However, science i general doesn't "believe" in the big bang in first instance, it just considers it its currently best idea how it could have happened.

There is quite a difference between "i believe this is how it happened" and "based on what i know this is my best idea how it could have happened"

jwu

[Jose]

Believing in the big bang theory takes just as much faith as me believing in God; no scientific evidences here can support the theory because the theory breaks so many (thermodynamics, relativity).

It seems to me that there is a fundamental misconception here. Given the nature of misconceptions, it is unlikely that what I say will have any significant effect, but I'll try:

You refer to "believing in" the big bang theory. Technically, you are correct that "believing in" a theory requires faith similar to the faith of "believing in" god. However, that's not how science works. If someone "believes in" a theory, then they consider that theory to be Absolute Truth--just as "believing in" creation is considering creation to be Absolute Truth. Unfortunately, science cannot produce Absolute Truth, and has never claimed to do so. What science does is produce the current best explanation for the available data. Inherent in this is acceptance of uncertainty, and the recognition that additional data may force a change in the explanation.

There are those who are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that there is no Absolute Truth. There are those who want Certainty. Uncertainty is just plain unacceptable. For these people, religion is a much better "way of knowing" than science, because religion is based on the idea that it is Absolute Truth, and it offers Absolute Truth to its believers, on faith.

So, where are we with respect to the Big Bang? The evidence points to expansion. Theory explains this as the result of the big bang. There is no evidence for what preceded the big bang, or how the energy was stored prior to its conversion to matter. Consequently, there is no theory concerning these issues. We don't know. There is uncertainty, not Absolute Truth. If you are comfortable with uncertainty, then you can accept the theory as the best current explanation. You accept the idea that, in the future, someone may be able to explain the things we currently don't know. But, do you "believe" the big bang? No--you simply accept it as the current best explanation that ties all of the available data together.

If you are like me, you can't assess all of the data independently. Nor can you work through the math to determine whether the astrophysicists did it correctly. However, you have confidence that the competitive nature of science would result in a great deal of attempting to prove "the other guy's theory" wrong. So, the data and the math have been examined very carefully, not only by the proponents of the theory, but also by those who were, initially, antagonists. It's outside my field, but I have confidence that the folks in that field did their work to the best of their abilities.

The only "faith" that science requires is "faith" (or confidence) in the ability of human intelligence to figure things out. If we don't have all the answers today, that's OK. Someone will eventually figure out what we have not yet figured out for ourselves. In the meantime, we accept a great many theories as the best explanations we have.

Unfortunately, the word "believe" is used differently in different fields (as are many words). In religion, it means "consider to be absolute truth." In science, we may use the word, but it means "think." "Scientists believe that" is synonymous with "scientists think that."

In short, arguing that the big bang requires "faith" is a non-argument, because it is predicated on the misconception that science can provide Absolute Truth.

[QED]

If you are looking for absolute truth, look no further than mathematics. It is no coincidence that it is a universal language ideally suited to explaining the universe.

If we meet up some day with an advanced alien race we would be able to communicate straigt away using mathematics. More than can be said about any form of agreement that we might have in other subjects.

I like the recent sugestions about the universe being a logical neccessity - given the spontaneous creation of matter and antimatter in a vacuum routinely observed in the laboratory, out drops the idea that the more "nothing" you have to start with - the more "something" you get as a result. The process looks remarkably like the big-bang event! Don't ask where the "Nothing" came from

[YEC]

I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the "Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation?
In order for you to make that faith decision, picture this...take the planet earth and compress it to the size of a golf ball (this alone is hard to conceive) then add the moon, all the other planets and their satellites plus the sun and squash them down to the size of a golf ball.
Now that you have all of the elements from our solar system compressed, add to it our "six billion miles across" galaxy. Don't forget to keep in mind there are about 250 billion stars and planets in our galaxy.

Next, to complete our unbelievable picture you must gather all the other galaxies. Say, about, 250 billion of them plus or minus a couple of billion.
These other galaxies have approx. 70 sextbillion (7 followed by 22 zeros) stars contained with in them. These galaxies must now be compressed and added to our golf ball size galaxy. The next step would be to take our golf ball size galaxy with everything in it and compress it again until its the size of a pea. Pretty un-realistic huh? This is what the religion of the "Big Bang" teaches. This is what they want us and our kids to believe (have faith) in.

I also have a question for the big bangers, where did the pea size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just appear?

As you can plainly see it takes a lot more faith to believe in the big bang than it does to believe that God made it all in 6 days.

[Dilettante]

YEC wrote:

I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the "Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation?

YEC, don't confuse science with religion. There is no such thing as "the religion of big bang". This thread started by using the word "faith" in an ambiguous manner and now we're equating science and religion. A religion is a set of beliefs you either take or leave. Science, by contrast, is a process where current theories can be abandoned as new evidence arises. That doesn't happen in religion. Scientific experiments are objective. Anybody can reproduce them in a lab. Religious experiences are subjective. Only the person having a certain mystical experience feels it, and frequently can't even describe it to others.The answers of science are never definitive. Religion, by contrast, claims special access to eternal truths and its tenets are immutable. How can you compare the two?

[ST88]

I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the "Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation?
In order for you to make that faith decision, picture this...take the planet earth and compress it to the size of a golf ball (this alone is hard to conceive)...

Is it your contention here that since it is difficult to conceive, it must be wrong?

I also have a question for the big bangers, where did the pea size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just appear?

There are many different speculative stories about this. But the question is irrelevant. The Big Bang Theory does not require such explanations; yes, just like evolution does not require an explanation of abiogenesis.