Big Bang explained in 2:20

[Aniki]

I don't believe in that part where she said that time was created by the big bang.

[alanX]

Originally Posted by iPhantom

If you give me proof that everything needs to have a start (source), I'll answer you.

I can't.

There's no proof in any of this. The big bang is trying to explain something, but it definitely isn't proof.

You can't "answer me." We will never have "proof" for the answer of the question I asked, therefore, you can't answer. (Going by your principal that everything need's proof.)

Don't really know the point you're trying to make here.
"Prove" to me that things don't need a source. You can't. Just as I can't.

[RKitagawa]

Originally Posted by Aniki

I don't believe in that part where she said that time was created by the big bang.

why not? do you have any reason?

[Salvanas]

Originally Posted by RKitagawa

You sound more.. agnostic than atheist to me. Although agnosticism isn't really a "religion".

A lot of Catholics that I know think the Big Bang works pretty well with the bible. God says let there be light, and then boom... Big Bang occurs. I think this is complete BS, but w/e.

I can assure you, I am not in anyway agnostic. I do not believe there was a God. And I don't feel anything that I said, actually would link me with agnosticism.

[JustinATTACK]

The "Everything Theory" and also the "String Theory" are the closest Theories to the truth about the begining of the universe.

Hawkings is about to test the everything theory, and if it is proven will change the way we look at the universe.

The only problem with his theory is that when a black hole dies, it expands. Which would create the universe. But after it expands it is sucked back into itself, Which would also destroy the newly made universe.

This is were the string theory comes into play. By pulling the excess gravity into other dimensions, it allows the universe to stay. and the black hole dies, without sucking everything back into itself.

While neither of these theories is completely right, and they both have many problems to figure out before they can be proven, they are truly the closest thing to the truth that you are likely to find.

It will probably a combination of the two theories that will truly answer all the questions that we have about the universe.

For more information on either theory, check out these links.
( I highly recommend this, My explanation is sketchy at best.)

http://www.superstringtheory.com/

Theory of everything - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Salvanas]

Originally Posted by JustinATTACK

The "Everything Theory" and also the "String Theory" are the closest Theories to the truth about the begining of the universe.

A theory is a theory. All theories are equal in the truth factor, unless proven to be total facts.

This is why we're at a stalemate in what created the universe. Because at this moment, no one can show proof and facts.

[RKitagawa]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

I can assure you, I am not in anyway agnostic. I do not believe there was a God. And I don't feel anything that I said, actually would link me with agnosticism.

I didn't mean it in a negative way btw. I actually think agnosticism is a pretty logical view of the world.
And, I think we have our definitions of agnostic mixed up. The agnostic I was thinking of doesn't believe in God either. It's simply the the view that all this stuff we're talking about is unknown.

" the Big Bang theory is just that. I do not believe in it, nor do I dis-believe it. Until it has been proven, it is still a theory."

that's what made me link you with agnosticism. Anything that hasn't been proven = unknown, U don't believe it or disbelieve it. Including God.

lol, sorry if I offended you or anything though, didn't mean it.

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by alanX

I can't.

There's no proof in any of this. The big bang is trying to explain something, but it definitely isn't proof.

You can't "answer me." We will never have "proof" for the answer of the question I asked, therefore, you can't answer. (Going by your principal that everything need's proof.)

Don't really know the point you're trying to make here.
"Prove" to me that things don't need a source. You can't. Just as I can't.

I don't need to disprove something that isn't proven. The way we see the world, the reality, it seems as things don't have a source... they just transform via chemical reactions. There is a law we learn at chemistry in school which is "Nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transforming". From our observations, we made that. So it's you who needs to prove the different way.

Now, the Big Bang is a theory. The LHC Collider is a test to prove if it's true or not. Until then, nobody takes it for true, because you have no proof at all, no observations, no witnesses, it's a plain human idea that logically seems to be right.

I prefer the Big Bounce theory tbh.

[Salvanas]

Originally Posted by RKitagawa

I didn't mean it in a negative way btw. I actually think agnosticism is a pretty logical view of the world.
And, I think we have our definitions of agnostic mixed up. The agnostic I was thinking of doesn't believe in God either. It's simply the the view that all this stuff we're talking about is unknown.

" the Big Bang theory is just that. I do not believe in it, nor do I dis-believe it. Until it has been proven, it is still a theory."

that's what made me link you with agnosticism. Anything that hasn't been proven = unknown, U don't believe it or disbelieve it. Including God.

lol, sorry if I offended you or anything though, didn't mean it.

I apologise if I sounded rude. I am irked by people who try to label me as agnostics, since I personally find them the "cowards" of the thinking world.

"God doesn't exist!"
"You're gonna burn in hell."
"I mean, I'm not sure what to believe."

It's mainly used as some sort of get out of jail free card.

As for the quote, let me quickly explain something about my view on this world.

Everywhere in the world, in even the tiniest of cracks of the places that have never been explored, there exists only one thing. Knowledge. It is everywhere.

This knowledge is then split into two simple groups.

Facts.
Theories.

It's a pretty self explanatory, I know. Theories include philosophical theories, conspiracies, religion and the sort.

Facts include, pure hardcore facts.

Even this view, is a theory.

As a person, you can call me a "Seeker of Knowledge". I am always looking into theories and facts, because I believe knowledge is the true source of power.

Sorry, I rambled. Let me explain what this has got to do with religion. I do not believe in anything. That means, I do not believe in god. That also means that I do not believe in the argument that God might not exist. Since it is a theory.

It's complex and confusing, I know. But the simple explanation, is that I do not believe in anything.

Thus, I am not Agnostic. And thinking about it, I am not either Atheist.

[RKitagawa]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

I apologise if I sounded rude. I am irked by people who try to label me as agnostics, since I personally find them the "cowards" of the thinking world.....

That's actually a really cool way of looking at things. So you basically don't believe in anything that isn't a fact, right?
I'm a little confused though. Do you completely disbelieve in all theories, or do you consider theories to be a possible truth?

cause theories are potential facts right? If you dismissed all theories before being able to prove them as truths then you wouldn't ever gain any knowledge really...
Just curious what you think.