# The Big Bang's Trinity? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198 "2012-01-11T19:41:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/21 "2012-01-11T22:31:29Z")
> [@IntelliQ](#): > > From what I reading here, they’re not discoveries per se, but sort of like theoretical placeholders to fill in the “why” behind what we can observe. That’s what Im getting out of it anyway. (well i guess that accounts for all theories right? doh) Yes, but significantly, nobody’s thanking dark matter for helping them win football games. They’re theoretical placeholders, but their scope isn’t being expanded beyond what is reasonable. As a side note, why is Christianity getting invoked here? As far as I know Christianity didn’t add anything to the cosmological “theories” of the Book of Genesis, and that predates Christianity by at least 500 years (in writing, anyway - the oral traditions are much older). Talk about taking credit for others’ work… ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/22 "2012-01-11T22:34:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > [Here](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/10/astronomers_largest_map_dark_matter/) are some “pictures” of dark matter. You can detect it by its effect on light coming from sources behind it, through gravitational lensing. > IIRC, it was hypothesized because Also because the way galaxies spin indicates they have massive invisible halos surrounding them. Also, IIRC almost all of it is believed to be something other than “normal\*” matter because if there was that much normal matter right after the Big Bang it would have affected early nucleosynthesis and left a different abundance of elements than we see. \*Can you really call it “normal matter” if it actually comprises only a tiny portion of the universe? ---
**Author:** ![IntelliQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e99b99/32.png) [@IntelliQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IntelliQ)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/23 "2012-01-11T22:37:26Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Yes, but significantly, nobody’s thanking dark matter for helping them win football games. They’re theoretical placeholders, but their scope isn’t being expanded beyond what is reasonable. > As a side note, why is Christianity getting invoked here? As far as I know Christianity didn’t add anything to the cosmological “theories” of the Book of Genesis, and that predates Christianity by at least 500 years (in writing, anyway - the oral traditions are much older). Talk about taking credit for others’ work… The original questions were posed as to ask “is the big bang really more provable than God”, basically. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/24 "2012-01-11T22:39:08Z")
Well… yes. It is. Or at the very least, the competing theories have less evidence going for them. Try replacing “God” with “Zeus”. Did it make a difference? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/25 "2012-01-11T22:50:47Z")
> [@IntelliQ](#): > > The original questions were posed as to ask “is the big bang really more provable than God”, basically. Absolutely. When we look at distant objects, we’re looking back at time. When we look at the most distant thing we can see (otherwise known as the cosmic background radiation), all that’s there is a big cloud of hot plasma. So while we can’t see the precise moment of the big bang, we can see the hot, dense cloud that was its immediate result. I suppose if you wanted to, you could choose to believe that the universe popped into existence as dissipating cloud of hot plasma. However, the relative smoothness of the cloud suggests that it was originally even more tightly compressed – we just can’t see that state of the universe directly because the cloud is opaque. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/26 "2012-01-11T23:22:41Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > . . . \*Can you really call it “normal matter” if it actually comprises only a tiny portion of the universe? Well, we’re made out of it and a lot of us assume we’re normal. Otherwise, it’s what we normally think of when we think of matter. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/27 "2012-01-12T00:14:53Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Yes, but significantly, nobody’s thanking dark matter for helping them win football games. They’re theoretical placeholders, but their scope isn’t being expanded beyond what is reasonable. Y’know, if someone (like a defensive linebacker) were to account for the lensing effect that dark matter has on the trajectory of Tim Tebow’s passes, there’d probably be no reason why he couldn’t intercept EVERY, SINGLE, ONE! BWAhahahahaha. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/28 "2012-01-12T00:33:33Z")
I dunno… he might be able to guess the ball’s position but not its momentum. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/29 "2012-01-12T00:37:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I dunno… he might be able to guess the ball’s position but not its momentum. I think Denver’s receivers could relate to that feeling. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/30 "2012-01-12T00:56:43Z")
> [@IntelliQ](#): > > From what I reading here, they’re not discoveries per se, but sort of like theoretical placeholders to fill in the “why” behind what we can observe. That’s what Im getting out of it anyway. (well i guess that accounts for all theories right? doh) Kinda. I confess to not being terribly familiar with either “darks”. I _think_ we have mapped out some dark matter. I remember a show that stated something like this - they used telescopes to observe two universes crashing into each other. Normal matter, for lack of a better term, crashed away from the center point. Other matter (dark matter) went through the center point, as though it had hit nothing. Take all of this with a grain of salt, what I saw was a program intended for a lay audience and I may be misremembering things. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/31 "2012-01-12T00:58:02Z")
> [@IntelliQ](#): > > The original questions were posed as to ask “is the big bang really more provable than God”, basically. You do know that science isn’t a tool for providing proof of anything, right? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/32 "2012-01-12T01:02:53Z")
> [@IntelliQ](#): > > The original questions were posed as to ask “is the big bang really more provable than God”, basically. The Big Bang is a scientific theory and there’s strong evidence for it. God is something you take on faith (or don’t). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/33 "2012-01-12T01:07:48Z")
> [@IntelliQ](#): > > Christians are often chided by non-believers because of the intangible nature of the Trinity (I’ve never been able to wrap my head around 3 equals 1). It’s one of those things that creating a sticking point for on-the-fencers who might be interested in learning more. I don’t think so. That’s a trivial sticking-point compared with the existence of God as such, and even compared to most of the revealed doctrines and traditions that come in any particular religion’s package. And “inflation, dark matter, and dark energy” is not, of course, a trinity, in sense of 3 equals 1. It’s just three connected things. ---
**Author:** ![Secondhand\_Lion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Secondhand\_Lion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Secondhand_Lion)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/34 "2012-01-12T01:17:14Z")
I find these conversations completely fascinating. After reading forum after forum, I have come to the conclusion that only one of a couple things can be true. Either (1) you are all on the same forums or (2) people are really willing to swallow anything that is fed to them as long as the right words/a lot of words are used. The question: Is the Big Bang “more provable” than God? The answer: Simply a resounding no. You must decide for yourself. You will hear a lot of things stated as fact that are opinion/hypothesis (“tons and tons of evidence”). Both the Big Bang and God are based in faith, neither can be explained or proven because nobody was there (with the possible exception of God’s account if you believe it). You will hear a lot of words like “postulated” (another word for faith) used in a context to make you believe it means fact, be extremely wary of terms like this. In general, pay attention to the words used especially in these conversations. Nothing is proven…nothing, and some might say…that is the whole point. The conversation will also take place on an “intellectual level” that is “too complicated” for your mere mortal brain to understand…it takes a scientist/preacher to explain it to us idiots. You can rarely get people to the foundation of the arguments, where all the flaws actually exist and have an honest conversation about it. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/35 "2012-01-12T01:29:02Z")
Welcome to the SDMB, **Secondhand Lion**. Please provide some support for your assertion that “postulated” is another word for “faith.” ---
**Author:** ![Yumblie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/76d3ee/32.png) [@Yumblie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yumblie)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/36 "2012-01-12T01:33:53Z")
> [@Secondhand\_Lion](#): > > I find these conversations completely fascinating. After reading forum after forum, I have come to the conclusion that only one of a couple things can be true. Either (1) you are all on the same forums or (2) people are really willing to swallow anything that is fed to them as long as the right words/a lot of words are used. > > The question: Is the Big Bang “more provable” than God? > > The answer: Simply a resounding no. > > You must decide for yourself. You will hear a lot of things stated as fact that are opinion/hypothesis (“tons and tons of evidence”). How is the existence of evidence an opinion? FACT: galaxies have redshifts that are linear to its distance from us. The most common explanation for it is that the universe is expanding. If you have a better one, I’d like to hear it. > [@](#): > > Both the Big Bang and God are based in faith, neither can be explained or proven because nobody was there (with the possible exception of God’s account if you believe it). You will hear a lot of words like “postulated” (another word for faith) used in a context to make you believe it means fact, be extremely wary of terms like this. In general, pay attention to the words used especially in these conversations. No, the Big Bang is based on _evidence_. Do you not believe _anything_ you were not actually present for? How can you claim to know anything beyond your own immediate experience? That’s a silly way to live life. > [@](#): > > Nothing is proven…nothing, and some might say…that is the whole point. The conversation will also take place on an “intellectual level” that is “too complicated” for your mere mortal brain to understand…it takes a scientist/preacher to explain it to us idiots. You can rarely get people to the foundation of the arguments, where all the flaws actually exist and have an honest conversation about it. No, the expansion of the universe is not “too complicated” for anyone. It should be understandable to anyone, as long as they’re willing to learn about it. You could even go out and measure the redshifts and calculate the cepheid distances yourself if you wanted to. What are you looking for in terms of an “honest” conversation? What’s dishonest about anything anyone’s said in this thread? Sounds like you’re just a lazy student who complains about stuff being too hard and therefore it must be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/37 "2012-01-12T01:52:12Z")
No, a theory is not the same as a guess and a hypothesis is not the same as an article of faith. These words can all be used to describe our views on events and things that aren’t certain, but someone who’s interested in being accurate should be more precise with his language. Otherwise you’re setting up false equivalences. ---
**Author:** ![Secondhand\_Lion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Secondhand\_Lion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Secondhand_Lion)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/38 "2012-01-12T01:55:49Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Welcome to the SDMB, **Secondhand Lion**. > > Please provide some support for your assertion that “postulated” is another word for “faith.” pos·tu·late   [v. pos-chuh-leyt; n. pos-chuh-lit, -leyt] Show IPA verb, -lat·ed, -lat·ing, noun verb (used with object) 1. to ask, demand, or claim. 2. to claim or assume the existence or truth of, especially as a basis for reasoning or arguing. **3. to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.** ---
**Author:** ![Secondhand\_Lion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Secondhand\_Lion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Secondhand_Lion)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/39 "2012-01-12T02:12:32Z")
> [@Yumblie](#): > > How is the existence of evidence an opinion? FACT: galaxies have redshifts that are linear to its distance from us. The most common explanation for it is that the universe is expanding. If you have a better one, I’d like to hear it. > > No, the Big Bang is based on _evidence_. Do you not believe _anything_ you were not actually present for? How can you claim to know anything beyond your own immediate experience? That’s a silly way to live life. > > No, the expansion of the universe is not “too complicated” for anyone. It should be understandable to anyone, as long as they’re willing to learn about it. You could even go out and measure the redshifts and calculate the cepheid distances yourself if you wanted to. What are you looking for in terms of an “honest” conversation? What’s dishonest about anything anyone’s said in this thread? Sounds like you’re just a lazy student who complains about stuff being too hard and therefore it must be wrong. 1. This is a very exact example of what I am talking about. You just made that statement as fact, when indeed you know as well as I do that it is not necessarily true. Have you ever seen an optical illusion? Is it actually expanding? Is it too much more of a leap of faith to say God created it to continually expand? We do know and can actually observe parts of nature that do work constantly and in a pattern…can’t we? 2. What evidence? There is no evidence…there is theory and hypothesis. Theory and hypothesis are not equal to evidence…are they? I am willing to accept things that I was not present for/experienced (btw, can’t anyone come up with a new line of questions?) as long as they are observable or have an accurate historical account with them from a reputable source. 1. LOL…seriously…lol, again a gratuitous statement of “fact”. Please tell me more about myself. You have no idea who I am nor I you. I am simply stating that because we can observe the galaxy expanding…It certainly is not proof of a big bang. Very similarly, because the Bible exists does not guarantee the existence of God. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198/40 "2012-01-12T02:12:47Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Please provide some support for your assertion that “postulated” is another word for “faith.” Too bad you asked, because you played into **Secondhand Lion** ’s hand. (Paw?) It looks to me like he deliberately chose a word that, if you squint, could be taken as a scientific word for faith. The problem, **Secondhand Lion** , is that you’re misrepresenting what the word means. “To postulate” generally means you’re taking a particular concept as a given so you can explore its implications or as something that has to be true in order for other things to be true. The second definition makes that clearer, and so does the noun form, which you didn’t quote in the first place. Here are two Dopers using “postulate” as it’s actually intended: > [@An earth the size of jupiter](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-earth-the-size-of-jupiter/608901/13): > > You could just postulate an artificial planet; this thread made me think of the old novel [The World Is Round](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Is_Round), set on a hollow artificial world much larger than an Earth type planet. > [@Jesus Could Not Rise If He Was Dead](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-could-not-rise-if-he-was-dead/608614/28): > > If he could create the world with rule set “x”, I see no reason to postulate that couldn’t, at a later date, add rule “y” to rule set “x”. And why is “postulate” the word you’re focused on? Why not “hypothesize:” > [@](#): > > hy·poth·e·size >    [hahy-poth-uh-sahyz, hi-] Show IPA verb, -sized, -siz·ing. > verb (used without object) > > 1. to form a hypothesis. > > verb (used with object) > 2. to assume by hypothesis. Nothing about faith in there. Or theorize: > [@](#): > > the·o·rize >    [thee-uh-rahyz, theer-ahyz] Show IPA verb, -rized, -riz·ing. > verb (used without object) > > 1. to form a theory or theories. > > verb (used with object) > 2. to form a theory or theories about. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bangs-trinity/609198.md?page=3)