No scientific cause can be ascribed to the Big Bang


Quote:”No scientific cause can be ascribed to the Big Bang”

So says Deepak Chopra. Read more about it here

Ive often noticed that many theists seem to have “already” come to the conclusion, that some God must have need to exist.Often because they feel that the universe could never exist, unless there was also some “being” that had “caused” it.

They often will make some sort of statement, a bit like this one below

Quote :  “1 – It seems to be accepted by the scientific community there was a Big Bang at the beginning.

2 – Before the Big Bang there was nothing.

3 – Nothing is nothing and so cannot effect anything and cannot cause a Big Bang

Therefore, if there was a Big Bang, a ‘Big Banger’ is necessary.”

See here (note:this material above, is being cited within law of fair use)

This kind of conclusion , seems to be made , by someone who already totally disregards the possibility, that it may not necessarily even be correct for someone to even state that -> ” 2-Before the Big Bang there was nothing”

“Before the big bang there was nothing ! “. Case closed ??.

No not necessarily so . For there could also still be a number of other explanations, that are also worth considering.

I found this article here to be a pretty interesting article to read, that comes up with some interesting suggestions. (note: there is 3 pages to this article)

Stephen Hawking has said something, kind-of to this effect.Somewhere he basically said,  things before the big bang are not defined, simply because we have no real way to actually measure them.

So to me, that just seems to be like someone saying, well we cant exactly say for sure, what might have existed before the big bang. Simply because we have no way to be even able to go back that far ,so as to observe it. Because (for now at least) we can only observe things, back as far as the big bang

If we can only see back that far. Then how? could it even be correct, for anyone to be busy claiming , that before the big bang ,”there was nothing”

How could anyone even say that they can know that?

Yet it seems that many theists have some how taken these things out of context.And have thus already concluded that we can surely say for sure,that before the big bang,  “there was nothing”

Thus they conclude that there must also need to be some God. Because quote: “if there was a Big Bang, a ‘Big Banger’ is necessary”

But we don’t even yet know for sure, that there was indeed “nothing”,before the big bang.

Do we?


And i thought, that theist (especially) ,were expected to be the kind of people whom are only interested in helping to spread the truth

So then why? would so many be busy spreading this kind of misinformation about

Does their God like? his people to be busy helping to spread “misinformation” . These folk could become far better informed , if perhaps they were not always so inclined ,to just want to listen to what some other (misinformed) theists has been busy telling them.

Fisherman will be seen to state things such as this

Quote : “‘That is what the Genesis story teaches’-exactly!,the only difference is the genesis account says a supernatural force was what set it all in motion,the other view is NOTHING set it off,it just sort of happened,with no intent or design….and that requires more ‘faith’to believe than I’ve got.”

See here  (Note:my bold) (Note: this is being cited here, within law of fair use)

But do ? the scientist in fact even lay claim to know ,that before the big bang ,”there was nothing”

Besides. How? could anyone even be able to know that.

Where did? the scientists even say that they knew that.

The Fisherman could easily find for himself,more than enough information right here on the internet, to help him begin to better understand, that he even might be wrong, in saying, that the scientist do in fact believe,that they can know enough ,to even be able to say, that before the big bang ,”there was nothing” .

If Fisherman was  interested to want to be looking for it.

But yet it kind seems (to me anyway), that a number of theists would just far-rather,  continue with falsely accusing people, of saying and believing things, that they actually don’t even say or believe .

Why? . Well maybe it’s because, they will have heard it being said, by some other (misinformed) theist too. And theists are just so often inclined to take “the truth” of someones word ,by faith

On sites like wikipeebia ,we will see some theist happily post an article like this one here below .


One of the UK’s leading scientists, the physicist Prof Brian Cox, was interviewd by the BBC last week.

Borrowing from his hero Carl Sagan he said, “For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love.”

Some use religion to make the vastness bearable. Not Cox, who says he is neither atheist nor agnostic and only thinks about religion when people ask him about it. He rejects Richard Dawkin’s view that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible – except for fundamentalists. “Obviously, you can’t be a young Earth creationsit and a scientist. It’s not possible because the Earth isn’t 6,000 years old. But Biblical literalsm isn’t what I take to be religion. Religion’s a more complex response than that. In the spirit of Gottfried Leibniz [a 17th century German mathematician who philosophied about the existence of God], you can say, ‘Well, I don’t accept that something can come into existence without a cause.’ You’re allowed to say that; it’s not illogical. So if you want to think there’s an eternal presence that causes things to happen, that’s not illogical. I don’t happen to think that – I almost don’t have an opinion on it.”

See here

Quite possibly? in thinking, that this must then also need to mean, that Prof Brian Cox ,thus needs to believe in a “creator” too.

Yet this need not necessarily be the conclusion. Because there is still some other possibilities , that could perhaps help explain what has “caused” something to “come into existence” .

Such as the idea of eternal inflation , for instance. Which also so happens to be what the Prof Brian Cox , is interested in considering .

Here is an interesting video  , where Prof Brian Cox and also some other scientist too, are busy discussing this kind of subject

See here

If theists feel they can be so sure, that some “being” , some “creator being” ,must surely have been involved.

Then how? would they even begin to explain, reasons why we would still also continue see absolutely no physical evidence within the universe at all , of this “beings” existence

The bible, and a number other holy books too, will state that loads of physical evidence of God was often readily available for anyone to observe. If that is correct , then how? come this phenomena has ceased. How come science is still unable to observe any such phenomena ,anything above what can perhaps be classed as the placebo effect.

If God physically exists, then how come aspects of some group, whom might claim to be directly in-touch with this God , still cannot be detected via scientific methods.

There is no more? talking burning-bushes, talking donkeys or talking snakes.

Even within the bible there is many claims made about how they (the ancient people) were evidently often able to “physically observe”, effects of a supernatural nature. So how come this kind of phenomena has now ceased to occur. Why? would it be that science wouldn’t be considered to be effective in helping to detect any such phenomena

Shouldnt there ? perhaps still be certain people around about us, whom could walk on water, could raise people from the dead, could part waters of the sea. And so on

These matters are valid reasons for skepticism

Note : Material ive cited above, from elsewhere , is being sited on here,within law of fair use

About ExEB

I'm a agnostic/atheist . Interested in learning more about science. I also am an "ex-member" of a group most publicly known within modern times, as the Exclusive Brethren. Whom are an off-shoot of the original Plymouth Brethren group. I'd say it likely my personality could possibly be described as quirky.You know ,as in being , unconventional , unorthodox , unusual, off-centre, strange, bizarre, weird, peculiar, odd, freakish, outlandish, offbeat, out of the ordinary, bohemian, alternative, zany I'm sure iv'e been classed as "crazy" . Many times But then, being born into a group like the exclusive brethren. Doesn't lend itself ? to tend to produce things considered as being "very normal" .Does it I escaped the Exclusive Brethren cult as a 15 year old teenager. Even since that time iv'e been trying to adjust to living life outside the cult. With much of my life being lived within the genre of "wild colonial boy" style. In the general sense of a church-rebel picking and choosing from role models who appeared within-life along the way. But as the exclusive brethren cult had traditionally maintained a general church-rule , of need to shun and totally excommunicate any ex member of their group.Treating such people as if they were dead. Thus this situation developed more to do with my need of following traditionally enforced church-rule , as apposed to it being so much about "life-choices". Certain emotional experiences, and parts of life in general, have led to me adopting a sense of low self esteem. Which is a situation i still deal with from time to time. Through my ongoing interest in science. I find i am able to gather more information to help me better understand my situation. Much about life for me, has often seemed like a massive puzzle.With many missing pieces.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s