Nothing is unstable. — Frank Wilczek
By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory [of the "big bang"] provided a scientific validation for Catholicism [presumably 'creation ex nihilo']. However, Lemaître objected to the Pope's declaration, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between religion and his theory. Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology. Lemaître was a devout Catholic [actually a priest], but opposed mixing science with religion, although he held that the two fields were not in conflict.
For me, the only way to avoid an infinite regress into "why" questions as to causal beginnings is to think that the universe is eternal: we live in a universe of universes, which has always been and always will be, in some manner. — Manuel
No, or at least I don't know of any proof, its just that some people believe that's how the universe got started.Is there any hard proof that there was a Big Bang in the first place?
Apparently because humanity hadn't come into existence yet, and so therefore nobody was around to hear it, according to those who believe in the Big Bang.And if there was one, how come no one heard it? :wink:
And besides space is a vacuum so you can't hear anything. — HardWorker
Well even if that is the case, that still leaves the question of why there was a Big Bang in the first place. — HardWorker
Maybe not. Who knows? Its just a theory.Interesting. So, if no evidence and no witnesses, then perhaps it never happened?
Call me romantic, but I think there’s a reason for it all. Not that one individual might ever know it, but we have a part to play. — Wayfarer
Is there any hard proof that there was a Big Bang in the first place? — Apollodorus
YOU could call them the worst birthday presents ever. At the meeting of minds convened last week to honour Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday – loftily titled “State of the Universe” – two bold proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos.
One shows that a problematic object called a naked singularity is a lot more likely to exist than previously assumed (see “Naked black-hole hearts live in the fifth dimension“). The other suggests that the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.
While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,” Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.
Oddly, those who need no evidence to be convinced that god created the world seek evidence here. — Banno
its just that some people believe that's how the universe got started. — HardWorker
Actually, my position is that we should have some evidence before we take anything for fact. — Apollodorus
There is voluminous evidence, but if you’d rather believe some anon poster on an internet forum then that probably won’t make any difference. — Wayfarer
So, arguably, we accept the theory on faith and trust. — Apollodorus
To learn how wrong you are, read up. — Wayfarer
Yeah sure Corvus, because you think that, then it undoubtedly must be so. No doubt you're an expert in all this kind of thing. — Wayfarer
no evidence — Apollodorus
no sound, then it wasn't a "bang" — Apollodorus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.