The dissing of the big bang, I believe, is solely because having a beginning to time, space, and matter requires a cause that exists outside time, space, and matter. In other words, God. The scientific community just can't have that. They know that the big bang could not have happened without God, so they're leaning toward steady state now. In other words, the universe has always existed and will continue to exist forever. They explain away the existence by doing away with the beginning and end that really does exist.
But they just now starting realizing that beginnings must have external causes. Philosophers throughout history have said this. The scientists just refused to explain how the marble-sized ball of all the universe's matter and energy came into existence and was compressed that small. Or how it exploded at just the right power for everything to work, including physical constants.
Even as a normie before being redpilled, I never understood why the scientists were always focusing on assuming there was no God rather than follow all possibilities to rule out each one.
Afaik, not a single scientist did any serious research with the assumption that the universe was created by some external force and see where it takes us.
Perhaps that's why there's been a recent move to discredit it. No matter what they do, when trying to discover scientific truths, it will always 'circle back' to God.
Yup. Reality is made up of energy that is directly subjugate to the whims of consciousness. If you believe you can make the waveform collapse, you believe in spirit, therefore you believe in God. ST was really moving in that direction, so I believe is why it got nuked.
The single fact of entropy DeBunks this idea.
If things were already in perpetual existence, how do stars still have energy? How is there hot and cold?
The astronomers and physicists can just write a bunch of formulas on the blackboard that no one can understand and then just wave away anything you point out to them.
You mean to say "steady state," not "solid state." There was a lively competition between the two theories. The astronomer Fred Hoyle was a prominent proponent. The "Big Bang" theory was proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian priest. It involved the assumption that the distance-red shift relationship was based on Doppler Shift, but the discoverer of that relationship, Edwin Hubble, argued against it on grounds of incompatibility with other astronomical observations. In more recent years, Halton Arp seems to have discovered a steady-state process of galaxy creation going on all around us.
Sorry about the typo. I'm getting old, and an occasional type escapes me when I read through before posting. I learned touch typing back in the late 60s, so I can type very fast. Sometimes the wrong words come out. They're spelled correctly, but they're the wrong words.
Since God created the universe, it could have been created to appear to us as bang or steady, whichever He wanted. So we may be allowed to discover the real process of the universe or not. I don't know yet.
The dissing of the big bang, I believe, is solely because having a beginning to time, space, and matter requires a cause that exists outside time, space, and matter. In other words, God. The scientific community just can't have that. They know that the big bang could not have happened without God, so they're leaning toward steady state now. In other words, the universe has always existed and will continue to exist forever. They explain away the existence by doing away with the beginning and end that really does exist.
Big bang theory has been around for decades and for all these decades the scientists have had no problem accepting it while also rejecting God.
Last day of Chemistry II final the professor held up two books...
Then he held up the books and said..."IF you believe in this (chemistry book), you had best believe in this (The Bible)....
Not all scientists are atheists.
The ones who really seek the truth, aren't.
Of course not all scientists are, but the proportion of them who are atheists is far higher than general public. Almost half according to this survey
Willfully ignorant.
But they just now starting realizing that beginnings must have external causes. Philosophers throughout history have said this. The scientists just refused to explain how the marble-sized ball of all the universe's matter and energy came into existence and was compressed that small. Or how it exploded at just the right power for everything to work, including physical constants.
Even as a normie before being redpilled, I never understood why the scientists were always focusing on assuming there was no God rather than follow all possibilities to rule out each one.
Afaik, not a single scientist did any serious research with the assumption that the universe was created by some external force and see where it takes us.
In fact, when the BBT was initially introduced, it was met with that very argument, that it was proof of God's existence.
And when you get into String Theory you have no choice but to believe in God, otherwise none of it makes any sense at all.
Perhaps that's why there's been a recent move to discredit it. No matter what they do, when trying to discover scientific truths, it will always 'circle back' to God.
Yup. Reality is made up of energy that is directly subjugate to the whims of consciousness. If you believe you can make the waveform collapse, you believe in spirit, therefore you believe in God. ST was really moving in that direction, so I believe is why it got nuked.
The single fact of entropy DeBunks this idea. If things were already in perpetual existence, how do stars still have energy? How is there hot and cold?
Oh .. you.. and your logic.
The astronomers and physicists can just write a bunch of formulas on the blackboard that no one can understand and then just wave away anything you point out to them.
You mean to say "steady state," not "solid state." There was a lively competition between the two theories. The astronomer Fred Hoyle was a prominent proponent. The "Big Bang" theory was proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian priest. It involved the assumption that the distance-red shift relationship was based on Doppler Shift, but the discoverer of that relationship, Edwin Hubble, argued against it on grounds of incompatibility with other astronomical observations. In more recent years, Halton Arp seems to have discovered a steady-state process of galaxy creation going on all around us.
Sorry about the typo. I'm getting old, and an occasional type escapes me when I read through before posting. I learned touch typing back in the late 60s, so I can type very fast. Sometimes the wrong words come out. They're spelled correctly, but they're the wrong words.
Since God created the universe, it could have been created to appear to us as bang or steady, whichever He wanted. So we may be allowed to discover the real process of the universe or not. I don't know yet.
It's an understandable unconscious substitution. Your meaning was clear to anyone who understood.
I invite you to read about Halton Arp's work. It opens a whole new door, based on observed facts. https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905