Top
890°

“Smoking gun” proof of the Big Bang unveiled by cosmologists

Vyralize: "A group of scientists studying the beginning of our universe have announced their findings- unprecedented new evidence of the rapid expansion of space."

Read Full Story >>
vyralize.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Speed-Racer1707d ago

And people still say the world was created in 7 days...pfff

mushroomwig1707d ago

I thought it was 6 and God rested on the 7th?

cyclindk1706d ago (Edited 1706d ago )

He was referring to another non-Judeochristian religion, presumption much?

In this religion, the gods work on weekends, makes a few less Hitlers in the world.

SilentNegotiator1706d ago (Edited 1706d ago )

Quick! Make this about disrespecting other people's beliefs as quickly as possible! Otherwise we might get some positive discussion about the topic itself on this comment section!

shazui_201706d ago

People can believe in whatever they want in the complete absence of fact and reason, that is up to them.

Lolrus1706d ago (Edited 1706d ago )

If anything, this lends to the theistic argument. Most religious scripture is based on the notion the universe began to exist (except Buddhism/hinduism I think) and prominent philosophical arguments for Gods existence are based upon this notion (First cause, Kalam cosmological argument). If the universe was eternal or infinite, that would be problematic for the theist as it could make the need for God redundant. It appears this isnt the case and the universe began to exist at a certain point, is finite and it leads to a causal factor.

In fact, the leading atheist philosophers such as Neitzsche supported the idea of an eternal uncaused universe as it relegated the need for God.

I just find it silly that people of either belief, jump on some scientific discovery without a clue of its implications and try to justify their view or attack anothers. Atheists always claim its the religious that preach but its apparant nowadays that they initiate these silly e-battles with snarky and denigrating remarks from ignorance.

Android1706d ago

Interesting read. You sir are a rarity in today's world.

Lolrus1706d ago

Android and dc1

aww thanks guys :)

360ICE1706d ago

To be honest, I think you completely missed the point of the comment you're replying to. Racer-X commented on the age of the Universe, and contrasted the idea some do hold of a young universe to the sophisticated understanding we have of the actual circumstances surrounding the birth of the Universe, as presented in the article.

For the record, all "famous atheists" (that I can think of, anyway), embrace the scientific explanation of the origins of the Universe - which is that it had a beginning (not to say that you suggested otherwise).

While Nietzsche is still relevant in some regards, and while he is definitely one of the most famous atheist philosophers, he is certainly not a leading atheist philosopher anymore. He is arguably not as influential to the modern atheist movement as for example (the admittedly agnostic) David Hume or John Stuart Mill. Actual leading philosophers like Peter Singer and Sam Harris part from Nietzche on quite a lot.

In addition, I find your generalisation of atheists to be a bit annoying. It's unfortunate if your encounters with atheists have been as you describe, but then again, snarky remarks and ignorance is what one usually expects from anyone on the Internet.

KwietStorm1706d ago

What do you mean the "need" for God?

Audiggity1706d ago

Well said good sir. I consider myself to be very scientific in my beliefs and my approach to just about everything. However, I agree with your point about the importance of preventing that sort of belief system from polluting another.

Personally, I think that the origin stories and the diverse religions out there are a bit far-fetched. However, I also acknowledge that until every single objective question is answered (which will never happen) - there is room for the "unknown". This can exist however anyone chooses it to exist.

For atheists, it would be an infinite pool of questions that grows over time and has no underlying/spiritual significance.

For religious people, the answer behind the "unknown" would clearly lie within their religion of choice.

For me - I'll go out on a limb and say that eventually we may hit on some scientific evidence that could shed light on the 'unknown' with an almost religious undertone. Something along the line of another dimension or a discovery around space time that would lend itself to an imperceptible 'after life' of sorts. Some "Fringe" science type stuff. A blend of science with a religious experience baked in.

Or..... Xenu, Joseph Smith & Jesus just high-fived in an 80's movie style freeze frame rock montage.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1706d ago
cell9891706d ago

The Big Bang is about the Universe not the world dumb@$$

Speed-Racer1706d ago

Don't you think the world was created as a result of the big bang, as just one of the many planets eventually forming their structures after the mass expulsion of material? The way you're making it sound is that Earth and the universe were formed in two independent spaces.

cell9891706d ago

no but definitely at different times

Audiggity1706d ago

Please enlighten us cell...

Tsuru1706d ago (Edited 1706d ago )

What is a day? A day is not constant in the universe. We base a day based on our spin of the earth. A 24 hour cycle. Before earth was created there was no concept of time. So it actually it should be read that it took god the amount of time as 7 days. But on day 1 he created the sky. Couldnt the sky be the universe? On day 1 he started the big bang. But hey.. believe what you want. I choose to believe science and a tad bit of the unknown/god/diety or whatever it could be that started it all.

Speed-Racer1706d ago

The sky as we know it is due to the fact that there are atmosphere various gases surrounding our planet. Colors like red and yellow have long wavelengths and filter through these gas particles easily while shorter blue wavelengths get absorbed and then reflected in various directions, giving that blue illusion. As for how our planet was formed, maybe the order may be right but everything came about over thousands of years. The weaker species died out while the stronger ones lives to see a new day and reproduce, thus supporting a more evolutionary theory.

As for the big bang and how Earth itself was formed, I'm too lazy to explain, so here's a nice summary of events http://www.universetoday.co...

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1706d ago
zoks3101707d ago

That actually never happened.

RE_L_MAYER1706d ago

we actually still in big explosion but since we are so small time draaags

Stakalee1706d ago

So they can find this out, but can't find a plane???. Anyone that believes this is as dumb as their parents.

shazui_201706d ago (Edited 1706d ago )

We've discovered but 6% of the world's oceans. Finding a plane in it, especially given the area of sea it could be in, is like finding a grain of sand in an olympic-sized swimming pool. There's a reason it took 2 years to find one when this happened before.

@SilentNegotiator:

Of course not, however we are talking about searching at least 300Km^2 of Ocean. That's before taking into account the reports that it could've travelled up to an additional 1600Km beyond it's last confirmed radar sighting. Please try to realise the volume of water that encompasses.

SilentNegotiator1706d ago

Except they don't have to search the entire ocean.

maniacmayhem1706d ago

And the volume of water on this planet is larger than the Universe??

Especially when planes have tracking devices. radar, GPS and other mechanical knicks knacks that are suppose to track them.

360ICE1706d ago

Really hopeless comparison. Just because something seems unintuitive doesn't make it not true. The practice of reading samples of cosmic background radiation (which is everywhere in the Universe) is quite different from finding a plane that could be anywhere within an area the size of Australia.

Having said that, it is quite extraordinary that the plane could "vanish" like that.

Audiggity1706d ago

The issue is you are comparing apples to oranges. Evidence of things occurring in the universe throughout time is similar to us observing that there IS water on the Earth.

We're not diving into these deep origins and gravitational waves first hand. We can't even fathom the methods required to leave our own galaxy.

Finding the missing plane would be a more appropriate comparison to something like finding a habitable planet in another galaxy's goldilocks zone. It can be done, but, there's a LOT to look through before you find it.

Besides. Planets orbit in somewhat predictable paths... planes that change course after transponders are turned off, while still flying and were potentially hijacked and flown/landed somewhere else underneath active radar pings add a few kinks to the equation.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1706d ago
CLOUD19831706d ago

So who still believe that God create everything? :P

RE_L_MAYER1706d ago

oh...you one of those people...ok

dc11706d ago

What within the post proves otherwise?
Just curious (no need to throw insults here).

Does this finding/new understanding (taken for what it is) prove that 'something' can come from 'nothing'?

That there was nothing (No source material, no matter, nothing, before the big bang) and that an explosion spontaneously appeared with so much complexity that when the right micro settings existed, complex organisms began to sprout from a rock that was perfectly aligned/distanced from a sphere of ionized gas (sun)?

For me; This neither proves that the big bang occurred without cause nor disproves that a higher being initiated 'something' from 'nothing'; again..if we are to take the post for what it proclaims.

What are your thoughts?

CLOUD19831706d ago (Edited 1706d ago )

My thoughts is that religions & the existence of God (any God) is something humans create because they wanted to feel that some divine being is somewhere out there & watch out for them that when the time comes it will punish all the bad people & send them to hell & reward all the good ones by send them to heaven what a pile of crap seriously those stories is for little kids.

Also another reason religions exist is because many years ago it was the easiest way to control stupid people how many wars we have in the name of god? thousands of years pass & we still have people that die in the name of religion & god & they accept that if that's not stupid what is it?

In the end what I believe is that there is no God there is nothing like a divine being that create everything that's all bullsh1t also there is nothing after death there is no Hell or Heaven there is no Angels or Demons all that is fairy tails now ofc most people won't accept that but w/e they can keep on believing in fairy tails if that's what make them feel better.

dc11706d ago

@cCloud1983
That's cool. But you still didn't answer my question.
Here's another one for you. What is morality? And if it exist (which we know it does..in every nation regardless of region, time or technical prowess, then there has to be a standard. Where did the stars come from?
@Ve_Chuy that's diversion friend :)

Lolrus1706d ago (Edited 1706d ago )

I agree dc1. Unfortunately many sceptics and atheists are not sincere in these debates and strawman the God concept to make it appear absurd and equivalate it to unicorns and spaghetti monsters. The basis for their existence is unlike God, which is necessitated through logical and philosophical works and basic deduction. In addition Unicorns and spaghetti monsters have specific material features which need further explanation (spaghetti, meat etc) and its absurdity is clear as these features are not consistent with divine transcendent properties.

The fundamental conundrum which will remain unexplainable is why there is something rather then nothing. Scientists have attempted to resolve this with ideas of quantum fluctuations and eternal models such as brane cosmology and cyclical models but again the problem rears its head. For these models to exist, we have to pressuppose the laws which govern them and the properties origins still remain a mystery.

Crude scientism (science is the only method to objective reality and truth) is paraded by the neo-atheists but it has many gaping holes which it cant address such as moral truths and ideas of purpose become superfluous man made constructs. There is much more implications as a result of one asserting atheism that people dont seem to ponder on...

I could keep going on but yea.. Questions about our origins, God are grand and ultimately the most important. The discourse is atrocious these days when touted intellectuals like Richard Dawkins are cited. Their surface level argumentation and sweeping generalisations and rhetoric do little but boost their egos and bank balance.

Peace

360ICE1706d ago (Edited 1706d ago )

@dc1
First of all, you start with the premise of there being morality, and say that we know it does exist.

Well, we know people and animals experience impulses of "good" and "bad", but even though some acts are condemned as wrong in every culture on earth, it may very well be that there's simply a strong consensus on which acts are to be considered right or wrong.

An objective standard for right and wrong is not required for us to have a concept of right and wrong.

We have, for instance, evolved to fear and hate murder, because murder is detrimental to our survival as a specie.

In other words, with what I just said, your premise could be false.

2. In spite of that, there probably is reason to accept an objective standard for morality. That standard is the well-being of sentient creatures. Says who? Says the fact that sentient creatures experience states of mind they find either undesirable or desirable. We have, through evolution, received preferences, and acting to satisfy these preferences, in the absence of a higher meaning, can and should be considered an objective basis for morality.

That's my hastily written short-version anyway. Which basically leaves a lot to the imagination. The Moral Landscape is a good place to start as far as reading goes.

@Lolrus
You ending that comment with critique of "surface level argumentation and sweeping generalisations" is ironic.

Your idea of scientism and the role of science might as well have been printed directly from reasonablefaith.org.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1706d ago
L0L_WUT1706d ago

I do.
but what does all this prove?

Show all comments (47)
The story is too old to be commented.