Just to clarify terminology, there is generally no such thing as "belief" in scientific analysis, it's more a matter of "this seems most likely given the evidence." Sure, some individuals may get hung up on a particular theory, and some will use the term "believe" in circumstances where they are conveying a deduction ("based on the information we have, we believe this is what happened..."), but that link shows a key aspect of scientific study - the process of changing theories along with new evidence. Normal scientific processes do not cling to beliefs, particularly in the presence of contradicting information.

This is before Thor dealt with serpent.

Yep science is always trying to get closer to explaining reality, always ready to refine its theories, to throw out old ideas when new evidence shows them to be untrue. It does not stick to blatantly untrue nonsense from bronze age myths like a 6K year old Earth that are frankly laughable.

Im all for people having the freedom to believe anything they want but also the freedom to point out when those beliefs are a load of old bollox.

To be honest though, most people are unqualified to pass judgment about a Scientific Theory like that of the Big Bang. To that extent it truly is a "belief" in the sense that if you cannot repaint a coherent image as to why a certain Scientific Theory is held to be the answer to many questions, you could just as well believe in something else that you cannot explain to a skeptic either. And even if you are a scholar who fully understands one specific Scientific Theory, chances are that you cannot adequately explain some other. You implicitly trust that all the other scientists are doing their work properly. Just like some people trust that Voodoo priests know their sh!t.
Heck, it even starts with the fact that most people don't even have a clue as to what a Scientific Theory represents rather than the colloquial term of "theory" that usually only means "my opinion" or a "somewhat educated guess".

You just gave me a profound Westworld moment there.

Yes a split second that occurred over 13 billion years ago.

So you really believe the entirety of the universe instantaneously came into existence within a mere moment of time?

Sounds like a certain religious belief to me.

And notice that I haven't even argued for the existence of a god, and I don't ever need to either. I'm just displaying the irony of some of the beliefs being made here.

Btw, the big banger didn't happen. New guesses are replacing current belief systems.

Science already acknowledges that the fundamental framework of the universe was indeed created in a split second but the universe has been changing and expanding ever since.

False. Read about the new guesses. Big banger belief system is out the window.

Even if it is how does that prove that Christianity or any other religion for that matter is the "true" one?

I'm not even mentioning religion as a basis for truth. All I'm doing is illuminating the similarities between religious beliefs and these scientific beliefs. I can argue this all day long as an outsider with no stance either way.

Look, the new guesses are that the big banger didnt even happen. There was no singularity, no moment of boom and walah there it is. The new guess is that the universe always was, infinitely existing then, now, and in the future.

But again, that is the same belief system that religious folks have about god. He always existed, with no beginning.

And for the basis of this debate, neither is more valid than the other. Saying so is being intellectually dishonest.

But there's always those who feel the need to ridicule those who choose god. Not realizing they are standing on the same faith based system as those they impugn. I'm just pointing it out quite elegantly I must say.

Huh? "New guess"?

Are you unaware the steady state theory has been around for like a century and actually predates the BBT I think?

Might as well talk about that funky new flat Earth theory.

Quite simply it happened so long ago we will likely never know what actually happened, the evidence is too faint and old now. However, the REAL question is the biggest unanswered one:


So what?
The universe was created way A or X or ZZZ...so what? It's immaterial, like being asked if you were a natural or c-section birth on an employment application.


As for "choosing" anything, there is an extreme fallacy in thinking that if you accept one thing you must accept it all. Maybe some deity created the universe, maybe it didn't. Has ZERO bearing on whether that deity is still around. Zero on whether it cares about anything occurring in it.
I once asked the contractor who built my house what his feelings were about the colony of ants I discovered living inside it before I moved in...and he had NONE. I think that also would apply to whether a being capable of creating a universe cares about whether or not teenagers are touching themselves.




The Jedi Master

Oh, Jedi, it doesn't matter who one is - there is always time and interest that can be devoted to the matter of sex.

But I will agree with the other sentiments. I was pondering the vastness of the Universe the other day until I stepped on a LEGO piece. Then my attentions were confined to a much smaller area.

It's a new guess.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.livescien...roid-att-aio-us

I'm terribly sorry, but NO.
Your article says that there's an alternative idea that addresses some issues with the BBT (which are, by the way, well known and absoluetly not new). So it MIGHT provide a clue, but so far we haven't found any hint that the new theory is more than mathematics. Call again when the first scientific observations have confirmed a prediction of the new theory that the established theories do not.

Will the BBT hold up forever?
I don't think so. It has severe issues that are hard to reconcile. At the same time we KNOW that the universe must have been in a plasma phase once that made it completely opaque to visible light. The result of that is the 4K background radiation. Anything before that moment is, by definition, unobservable to us.

Recently dim galaxies were found. They may account for some part of the dark matter. The issue is, these galaxies are hard to detect by their very nature, so it's going to be difficult to estimate how many of them actually exist. Primordial black holes may also account for a large part of the observed gravitational pull. That's why it's important to set up gravity wave detectors in space, so we can observe better how gravity is distributed. More observations will over time deliver more answers. Your article is, right now, just ink on paper, like the String Theory. Once that experimentation and observation confirms a unique prediction of these models we're talking. Until then...

Don't forget about the black energy which is around in MUCH larger quantity than black matter.

very simple question with a simple answer - the universe is bigger than you can dream

Well, isn't our Sun due to burn out into a white dwarf in a couple of billion years? That is right around the corner compared to all of this "universe" talk!

that assumes humans are still around when the sun begins to become a problem ..... and that is assuming an awful lot

Don't worry abut it. The Rolling Stones will still be cranking out tours