:
|
Why are we all heralding this as a way the universe could exist without God if it still doesn't explain how the universe was created, in fact, in only presents more problems.
|
It doesn't create more problems, it solves a large number of questions about the nature of the universe. The real problems are the arte of expansion compared to the amount of observable mass, which is why we have dark matter and dark energy. From what I understand, which is very little, these two concepts worry me in terms of scientific credibility. Are they predictions that we do not yet have the facilities to test (which may change in the coming months) or a means to bail out general relativity?
I've heard no one herald the big bang theory as a way the universe could exist without god, only those raving against it because Adam and Eve don't fit into it particularly well. I don't know if we'll ever be able to explain how the universe came into being (assuming there was a beginning and not merely a cosmic reset of sorts). But using God to fill in what science does not know is the God of the Gaps fallacy, knowingly building your house on the sand as the tide of science comes in. Besides, it is better to have an unsolved mystery than an insufficient one-size-fits-all answer. "God did it" versus "we don't know so let's find out".
:
|
I still think that, as big a mystery as the Big Bang is, and despite there being arguments for and against it, the mini Big Bang experiment this September is a bad idea. I mean, there's like, 3 or 4 ways it could plausibly end the world.
|
You may notice that no one arguing against it can call themselves a scientist, particularly not an expert in the fields of particle physics or cosmology. There is the general assumption that a mini black hole created in a particle collider is somehow more dangerous than those residing within our bodies already.
