Misconception About the Big Bang Theory

[Serena2003]

The Big Bang is a theory that I have been wanting to subscribe to, but it is its origin that I have difficulty grasping. It claims to occur out of 'nothing,' but to me that sounds like a more scientific explanation that could metaphorically equate to God's creation. Was the Big Bang the beginning of space as well? It seems space would have had to already be there in order for all this matter to spread out in. Or was space born within the explosion with matter already born inside of it? I suppose it would make sense that the universe would have to expand from a particle, but it seems that there would of have to be space there for that particle to emerge in and even time would have to measure the period of 'nothing.' Evidently there is something I am not grasping correctly here, but to me it sounds like it equates to the answer that God created himself.

[insane_alien]

its a misconception that the big bang theory is actually about the origin of the universe. all the big bang theory says is that the universe used to be really really tiny and then got really big really quickly.

 

it says nothing of its ultimate origin

[Mr Skeptic]

Yeah, B.B. explains the expansion of our universe and some other attributes of it, but not the origin. And noting your choice of avatar I'll also point out that likewise evolution does not explain the origin of life, only of all species given an ancestral life form. There are theories attempting to explain these origins, but there are too many theories and not enough evidence to disqualify the wrong ones.

[Serena2003]

It is true that evolution is not entirely the 'origin of species.' We may never have the satisfaction of knowing what came first, but at least we can compromise with what came next, at least there is supporting evidence for that. But we a stuck within a cloud of infinite causation, maybe not meant to know the truth. But it is not necessarily impossible to eventually stumble upon it.

[insane_alien]

It is true that evolution is not entirely the 'origin of species.'

 

no, it does cover how species originate. what it does NOT cover is the origin of life. one of the assumptions of the theory of evolution is that life exists.

[Serena2003]

no, it does cover how species originate. what it does NOT cover is the origin of life. one of the assumptions of the theory of evolution is that life exists.

 

Right, that is what I was saying by not entirely, as it explains how we became, not how we originally emerged. It is easy to say life exists from observation, but not to assume it it always existed or came from 'nothing.' Or at least it is easier said than known. Whether a creation myth is used, or scientific rationality, we have to compromise with a sufficient conjecture of origin which may not be logically induced.

[insane_alien]

actually we have theories on the origin of life, good ones too. they are just independant of what happens after life has formed.