Have We Disproven the Big Bang? | David Kipping
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июл 2024
- This is a clip from yesterday's podcast release with Dr. David Kipping. In it, he and Dr. Peterson discuss the widely accepted - and now challenged - understanding of the big bang.
Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: bit.ly/3KrWbS8
ALL LINKS: linktr.ee/drjordanbpeterson
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterson.com/personality
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyself.com
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m...
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus
We are like ants exploring someones dropped iphone.
That's a great analogy! Thanks.
Cool idea. If I may add, if we are the ants and the universe is the iphone:
By your analogy the ants may have found the iphone but they would be finding the phone from the inside. Since they are also from that same iphone. Unless by some chance the ants are from a different phone(universe).
But thats a whole tinfoil ancient aliens situation we are probably not ready for yet.👽🖖
lol that’s funny.
It’s like if someone from a couple hundred years ago sees an automatic door for the first time slide open. No matter how you explain to them that there is a sensor, and you demonstrated it, they just wouldn’t see it if from their framework “nothing can move by itself” they will always be stuck looking for another explanation.
The core religions and indeed all beliefs around the world have one thing in common. Across continents and even time, there is belief of the spirit world and the spirit realm. And just like another dimension, the spiritual world is like a two dimensional object trying to conceive three or fourth dimensional space. There are things that in the two dimensional world is impossible and indeed will be impossible to explain using two dimensional physics.
It makes perfect sense to think that if God exists, then he as Creator of the universe is not bound in the same dimension as ours. He would not operate with the same laws of physics or mathematics. He would be the Cause and everything is the Effect. So by definition in order to be the Cause he will need to exist outside of Time. So understanding that God will be impossible, applying our principles and laws of understanding will simply not work. In other words our instruments that we can use to test theories simply would fail. So hence there will always be “lack of evidence”. The evidence is in the effect. The evidence is in the creation but we as the creation can never ever conduct an experiment that will prove the existence of the creator. We can watch the design and believe there is a designer. But you would not physically be able to prove the existence of a spiritual God in the way that you want to do it scientifically. You methods and instruments cannot work in that dimension.
The only God that can be creator cannot originate from the creation. In the beginning the Spirit of God… So yes there is evidence of God but sadly it will be impossible to note without being spiritual.
And if you doubt the spiritual exists, then you would also be saying that the collective experiences of millions of people all over the world and for ages before and even now is all wrong. That there is absolutely no such thing as paranormal activities and that anything mystic and mysterious is just something that likely has some “scientific” explanation that has not yet been discovered.
Aaaaand that brings us back to the first point. Where the person standing in front of the automatic door doesn’t believe in sensors and believes someone was moving and operating the door because how else can things move. So therefore sensors must not exist and it’s just that we haven’t yet found whoever is hiding and operating the doors.
Great analogy. We don’t know as much as we think we do.
@ibrahim6960 That argument only works if you argue under the presupposition that the only possible existence of any kind is what we know from the scientific finite existence. We live in a finite universe and it's laws are finite. We know this because those laws work in conjunction with the finite universe and we know the universe is finite because we understand the concept of time. Not understanding how something works in the physical world indeed equates to scientists not yet knowing but eventually will scientifically figure it out. That is indeed true. However we live in a finite universe. We know this because we understand the concept of time. Anything that can measure and is measurable has a beginning. Anything that has a beginning has an end. So if everything from the laws of science is measurable from 0 or A then it too is finite. This is were the materialistic mindset runs into a problem. Knowing all things that workin conjunction with materialistic reality means it had a source. So what's the source? Well, we've established we're living in finite existence so what triggered the first point of it all? You cannot answer that without having to look for an outside infinite source. You cannot have a physical scientific materialistic argument to argue how we got here before the laws of science, time, space and matter existed because all those things didn't exist to give rise to physical existence. So the only way around that problem is to look for an infinite non physical explanation. I'd call that God. The reality is scientists or science cannot and will never figure out what triggered the universe from a point of a scienceless non materialistic nothingness because in order for that to be the case science itself would have to be infinit and science cannot be infinit because science measures and functions in accordance with finite existence. So it's limited by it's own existence and finite realm. Science is a means to measure. Any means to measure means it's finite. So that means to use science to figure out what got existence itself going from a point of a scienceless void is contradictory. This is why I have a huge issue with atheism arguing under this presupposition because it's self contradicting. The fact is science is limited. Anything finite is limited. When you limit your methodology to physical limited finite existence you eventually run into a dead end..
One thing is sure: existence exists
But what it is, is another question altogether.
One thing is for certain is the world was underwater. Finding fossils all over the world and at the highest points of elevation. They've also recently found a dinosaur fossil with tissue still preserved. There is no way tissue can last millions of years. Especially with the earth constantly freezing and heating back up.
Prove it
Edit: I'm joking. No labored responses please.
Maybe we are only in the Matrix 😉
@@TheChurlishBoor It makes no difference if it is the matrix or not. We are in the game. Just play it.
The truth is, we don't know. We cant even agree if someone was offside in football, let alone know how the universe was formed.
Well said my fine sir.
@@TheGaryinWales that's because a bunch of knuckle draggers are deciding who's offside.
Also we can't predict the weather well.
We kinda if we make the weather@@yellow01umrella
Yes, I mean the way they currently do it, where an outstretched finger or toe can decide offside seems silly, it should be the center of your bodyweight. But not sure if that is as easy to accurately determine on a replay. Still that would be more common sense approach.
The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, is stranger than we CAN imagine - Terence McKenna.
that quote is originally from J. B. S. Haldane (1927).
Nothing strange about it, it's perfectly rational.
@KK-lg8uz I'd bet many had said similar many many times before that too.
The quantum world is not rational as we define rational.
Jordan Peterson talks to David Kipping? That is really awesome.
When a science video is titled as a question, the answer is always no
Always is a lot.
@@DN-cf5rz LOL
Betteridge's law of headlines - for those who don't know.
What kind of logic is that?
Change "always" to "often" and you'll make a believer out of me.
I love david kippings channel. He is amazing at explaining complex issues about the solar system so that most people can understand.
I love seeing two extremely intelligent people, who are intelligent in different fields, explaining high level ideas to each other with respect for one another's intelligence.
This was a colab I did not expect. Nontheless, having been a follower of the 'Cool Worlds' channel for many years now, I'm so happy to see Dr. Kipping getting more coverage recently.
Jordan's ability to sum up on the spot what he just heard on a subject that isn't his field is breathtaking to me.
Wow, he didn't sum up anything, you must have been watching after it ended.
3.13. He sums up what he just heard in order to make sure he understood it correctly, it's something he does frequently.
Jordan is an uneducated jerk and braggart for the lost kid-wrecks of single mums.
@@z.a.4801That’s exactly right. It’s a technique he advocates. Sign of a v skilled communicator.
jP...from climatologist to now theorical physicist
I have been following David Kipping for years now, maybe even longer than JP. I LOVE seeing him get the attention he so very much deserves; he is hands down my favorite "science communicator" and I feel he carries the Cosmos torch of Carl Sagan better than any other. His content is 10/10 amazing.
There’s certainly nothing wrong with a little humble pie every so often. Especially in the “science is settled” community. Kipping is so awesome.
It's tge god botherers that say its settled, that god did it , not science, science is still looking
@@benohara284 when I see people like you I feel 10x more sure that it's settled
Nothing is ever 'settled' in the scientific community. That's what puts science above religion. Whereas religion is unalterable 'truth'.
No scientist worth anything would ever claim that ‘science is settled’
@@deanlowdon8381Yes and no, no physicist, worth a damn, has expressed doubt over the big bang. That part is definite, the question is how the early universe evolved. That always had fuzzy edges, this is just a little weirder than we expected, but only slightly. Nothing about this is Earth shattering.
The reason for all this new doubt is they have found a galaxy 10x the size of our milky way galaxy yet it is only 1/2 a billion years old. Nothing in their current models explain this. All because of the James Webb telescope.
Yup and that means some blackholes are far larger than out current models allow for. Exciting time to be alive. Science is far from perfect but this level of science is the best of humanity. It led to us discovering electromagnetism which revolutionized our daily lives. Love the JWST.
@@yoshyusmcI don't see the connection. These people expect us to believe this stuff
@@Chronzyour lack of understanding doesnt mean a lack of explanation
@notallowedtobehonest2539 the lack of explanation did that, the lack of connection is the challenge. You believe in Santa clause too
@@Chronz no, its more like if your watching a TV series. Lets take family guy. If someone says "SHUT UP MEG" to mila kunis, its funny if you know the tv show and that she is the character "meg's" voice actor. You are basically doing the equivalent of saying "HER NAME ISNT MEG SO THIS JOKE DOESNT MAKE SENSE". "YOU BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS". It makes you come off as oblivious to the relevance of the subject matter
Scientists don't say, "Eureka, we have it all!" They say, "Interesting, this model fits our observations; let's test it further."
Your idealistic shiny child's tale is ALAS far from how things work now: Money can buy the "scientific" outcome you want. Scientists in university cannot get grants unless they work inside the bubble of current lamestream accepted models. Feymann's dictum "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." is stood on its head in today's world of "experts" always talking of "settled science."
Mull over these banned ideas:
1. Gravity does not rule the cosmos, electrical forces do. Current model doesn't recognize electricity in space, altho they now talk of magnetic fields; missing their freshman year knowledge that magnetic fields form along electrical currents
2. Black holes are a fudge made up (like Dark matter and energy) because they refuse to factor in electric currents which connect galaxies and cosmos in a web like structure. The 'missing' force is found; plus they haven't factored in all the mass of the cosmic dust.
3. The speed of light is not the upper limit; nor is it constant.
4. There was no Big Bang. This idea comes from the wrong interpretation of red shift in stars, and the THEORY that the universe is expanding.
So-called "scientists" are ordinary clods like you and me: they have mortgages to pay, bills and overhead. Only a few ever try to buck the System.
Science is a group of people analyzing finite data sets
You forget when they ignore things that don’t fit there model
good scientists
Absolutely. It started in order to prove the existence of god.
This is just how science works sometimes, especially the frontier specialties of physics like particle physics and cosmology. There is so much in quantum mechanics and general relativity that still remains to be figured out.
Science has figured everything out... as long as you allow for a miracle or two to get things started
I'm definitelly stealing this comment for future debate references xD
Nobody, who has a clue, ever said science has figured everything out. Most stuff is just theories, the current understanding, until some new information comes up that contradicts it. Then new theories are formulated that take the new knowledge into account.
Well unlike dogma, science is not set in stone no scientist say the big bang happened end of story. I know that for many people they want to know everything with 100% accuracy and it doesnt matter if it is proven or not. thats where religion comes in.
No, it hasn't
My response is a passage from the introduction to Michael Crichton's "Timeline" that challenges your idea:
"In the late nineteenth century, it was widely believed that there was little left for scientists to discover. As the physicist Lord Kelvin said in 1900, 'There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.' This was the prevailing attitude among scientists at the turn of the century. But in fact, the next decades would see a scientific revolution. First, Max Planck would propose the quantum theory, and then Einstein would demonstrate the theory of relativity. Both theories would completely overthrow the Newtonian view of the universe and open up whole new realms of scientific inquiry."
It doesn’t take much more than looking at Mt. St. Hellens aftermath to see that different situations result in different outcomes or sometimes similar outcomes that we then apply our vastly limited experience to explain ie: layers of hardened rock that looks like thousands of years to produce, or petrified trees that look the same as those that took thousands of years to produce…. Created in an instant. We have to be careful to explain things in a simplistic way whilst dismissing other plausible explanations.
Exactly. So much of our historical science is based on a lack of world changing catastrophic events that are hard to predict and measure and definitely hard to replicate for testing’s sake.
Yes, agree with both comments here and want to add: Research how the "billions of years" were introduced into evolution theory in the early days, because they couldn't observe any evolution actually going on. Only by adding (first!) thousands and then millions of years to the evolution theory it sounded more plausible to most people - to me, adding more time was always just a bad excuse. If you go to the trashheap and expect a primitive robot to be "created" by some lightning strike or whatever phenomenon, this will just never happen, no matter how long you wait or how much time you add to the equation. Each self-replicating "primitive" cell is more complex than the most complex robot we have today. It's madness that the majority of people believes that complex life was created out of dead matter and the big band theory, man, it is explaining totally NOTHING anyway. Matter is not formed by an explosion/bang etc. - and an explosion never has a creative character, it's always destructive.
And even if the big bang nonsense was true - what was before that and how did it start? Do we really want to believe there was "nothing" and some kind of explosion "created" anything? It's mind-boggling to think that so many people believe in this pseudo-science.
If you’re so sure that this is a good argument, you should publish in a journal and see what happens. Hint: you’re not the first person who has had that idea.
Great point
I can’t @ the comment but What a load of Bullshido. Explosions,complex robots? What are you talking about? Read a book before pushing your ‘theories’ 😂
Spacetime is like good jazz. We are making it up as we go
Not really true at all
Assumption takes but a moment, knowledge takes time... and gradual adjustment. Makes sense
I'm reminded of the progression of physicists' mathematical models used to predict planetary orbits in our own solar system. Newton's equations were more accurate than telescopes until telescopes improved to the point that the equations weren't accurate. Different physicists created new mathematical models that had similar life cycles. Einstein's equations also were, for a time, more accurate than telescopes until they weren't. We still teach Newton's equations and Einstein's equations and many of the other physicists' equations because even if they don't accurately model planets they are still useful at certain scales and for teaching underlying principles.
Discussions like this are what makes this a Cool World 😉
Then you realize we are still killing eachother to please old men politics and egotrips and then all of a sudden its not that cool anymore.
@@Knasern you missed the pun friend. The guest Dr.Kipping has a RUclips channel called "Cool Worlds"
Hell yeah
No real scientist has ever said "Science has everything figured out". Religions do that, however, even though religions are wrong virtually all the time about science.
@@travisjazzbo3490 he's a real scientist I can assure you that.
Fr George Lemaitre - Catholic Priest and cosmologist ….. he was the one that coined the phrase
He formulated the model but Fred Hoyle coined the name as a disparaging term because he believed in the Steady State model.
Well, sort of. LeMaitre used Einstein's equations to calculate the expansion of the universe, and that theory was supported by the discoveries of Edwin Hubble. So it was in fact a Jesuit priest who first quantified the idea. Interestingly, LeMaitre was adamant that the Big Bang (it wasn't called that at the time) was *not* evidence for a divine creator; it was simply that the Big Bang became a natural outcome of working through Einstein's equations. No god required.
@@scribbler60 I know Fr George was a friend of Einsteins and they met on occasion to discuss such scientific formulas.
The Vatican has its own Observatory Research Group (VORG) which operates the 1.8m Alice P. Lennon Telescope with its Thomas J. Bannan Astrophysics Facility, known together as the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope.
Also I’m sure that Fr George being a Catholic Priest, he would have believed in God, don’t you
@@bucklr11 Oh, he certainly believed in a god, no doubt. It's simply that this god wasn't part of the equation; no such entity was/is required at the Big Bang.
@@scribbler60 About the supported by Edwin Hubble part I think he did an amazing job just then Halton Arp comes along and finds qasars with higher redshift in front of galaxies or connected to galaxies with lower redshift kind of showing... Let me say the minimal version what he showed at least qasars are not so distant as their redshift would suggest and redshift has 3 components so either one of them has a much bigger influence or there is a 4-th component but definitley he proved we do not put the qasars at the right distance he has his theories in his book seeing red but I am not going to become a believer in him just what he has shown he did and it is blatantly being ignored. When Edwin Hubble found the redshifts there was a debate what exactly does it come form and it was too quickly closed and needs to be reopened again.
Two of my favourite people discussing one of my favourite topics!
Such an interesting conversation.
• Please keep them coming Dr. Peterson!
This isn't limited to astronomy. This is the exact same problem we keep having with climate models as well. This assumption we know everything is clearly incorrect.
Add to that the assumption that there won't be a course correction, update or partial remapping of the scientific arena as needed.
Of course, the authority needed to teach these subjects is vital and likely the fear of losing authority motivates these errors in the scientific approach that's being used.
@@stephencarlsbad also - scientific institutions are more focused on skin color and genatalia at the moment.
@@BoBoZoBo Ha! So true!
I have worked with scientists who work on climate models. The idea that they assume to know everything couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, there is excessive caution in claiming specific truth about assumptions.
@@stephencarlsbad Exactly! The same is true in regards to ancient Egypt, there is evidence that things are way older than thought but they refuse to accept it, as they're the authority on it. Ego is a big problem
The crossover I never expected.
Thx for trying everything. Professor Peterson. 🙏
2 of my favorite RUclipsrs in 1 video. I love Cool Worlds. Jordan is a genius with words. He was able to articulate Kipping's response perfectly.
Wonderful discussion, thank you to the producers of the video.
I'm not sure how we could be looking 13 billion years back in time - wouldn't that mean that the celestial objects were already several billion light-years from us when the light was emitted? But this is supposedly only a billion or so years after the big bang.
It's complicated. According to what we know space-time itself actually expanded in the early days so to say something occurred 13 billion years ago is not really a valid measurement. After a short while, say a few million years, then space-time doesn't expand so much anymore and our notions of 'time' are what we're used to thinking about. As I said, it's complicated. It would give Einstein a headache. I respect Peterson but he has no cred here.
This is a good summary of the current situation.
Kipping is the goat!
He's not good at articulation. And the mere fact that I had to google the guy is proof. He's more concerned about having a clean shaving beard I fear. I'll take Eric Weinstein over Kipping at any moment. And, that's not not saying much
@@bradwest4821 he’s not good at articulating sounds better x
@@Human_givenss Get laid, please. You need it
We can see back to when it first started. Well we have no idea where the origine point of the “big bang” how old the universe is or where the bang is going that could be literally anything I think they have completely no idea
A simple answer, but probably the most true I've read in this comments section. None of us actually has the answer and is putting our faith in what we think will either turn out true or helps us as an individual hopefully be better people.
@@00yiggdrasill00 I begin with nothing. Nothing is the same as fullness. In the endless state fullness is the same as emptiness. The Nothing is both empty and full. One may just as well state some other thing about the Nothing, namely that it is white or that it is black or that it exists or that it exists not. That which is endless and eternal has no qualities, because it has all qualities.
everywhere is the origin of the big bang, big bang isn't an explosion at a point in space, all of space including the space we are in now, was all condensed into "singularity", the big bang is the rapid inflation of space. We pretty much know the age of the universe (or local presentation of the universe, ie, time since that rapid inflation, before that is unknown ). One of the main missions of JWST is to investigate how the early galaxies formed, as we have models, but very little data, now we have data. One way to look at it is to say hey, if we stick to our model, it breaks the age of the universe.... but we have a lot of reasonably good evidence for the age of the universe. So most people aren't seriously questioning that. Instead, 2 things are happening, 1, we are calling into question what is being measured, because there are a bunch of assumptions built into interpreting the data from the JWST to estimate the size of galaxies, etc. 2) This is really the main thing, actually working out a model of the early universe using actual data.
@@keithnicholas The Nothing, or fullness, is called by us the Pleroma. in it thinking and being cease, because the eternal is without qualities. In it there is no one, for if anyone were, he would be differentiated from the Pleroma and would possess qualities which would distinguish him from the Pleroma.
The created world is not in the Pleroma, but in itself. The Pleroma is the beginning and end of the created world. The Pleroma penetrates the created world as the sunlight penetrates the air everywhere. Although the Pleroma penetrates it completely, the created world has no part of it. We ourselves, however, are the Pleroma, so it is that the Pleroma is present within us. Even in the smallest point the Pleroma is present without any bounds, eternally and completely, for small and great are the qualities which are alien to the Pleroma. The Pleroma is the nothingness which is everywhere complete and without end.
It is because of this that I speak of the created world as a portion of the Pleroma, but only in an allegorical sense; for the Pleroma is not divided into portions, for it is nothingness.
@@keithnicholas The Nothing, or fullness, is called by us the Pleroma. In it thinking and being cease, because the eternal is without qualities. In it there is no one, for if anyone were, he would be differentiated from the Pleroma and would possess qualities which would distinguish him from the Pleroma.
The created world is not in the Pleroma, but in itself. The Pleroma is the beginning and end of the created world. The Pleroma penetrates the created world as the sunlight penetrates the air everywhere. Although the Pleroma penetrates it completely, the created world has no part of it.
"Our models don't account for conditions being different in the past"
I've been saying this for YEARS! The entire dark energy/matter nonsense was based on this stubbornness.
it seems like someone doesnt understand how science works. how does that line disprove darkmatter or dark energy? what sort of degree do you have in physics? maybe actually learn some science instead of just watching youtube clips and thinking that somehow now you have better understanding of how universe works than a real scienntist. stop making delusional claims.
Simply put, the big bang theory says the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot and dense single point that inflated and stretched - first at unimaginable speeds, and then at a more measurable rate - over the next 13.7 billion years to the still-expanding cosmos that we know today. it doesny say exactly how and when galaxies formed only that big bang happened and we literally have pictures of CMBR from the 380000 years after the big bang and thats why they build models to make better predictions, dumb-dumb.
@@Jgill99911 Haha whatever dude.
@@johneden2033 I love when people attack science because it doesn't explain literally everything ever as if that's not the point of the method, to learn things we don't know. "Whatever dude" - guy who is clearly invested in truth and knowledge. You're gross.
And they assume constants like time. If space expands then shouldn't we examine the possibility that time changes with it? Could it be the moments before the Big Bang weren't mere seconds but thousands of years compressed into seconds? This stuff is way above my head but it seems every challenge to the current theory is based in some part on not enough time.
I thought we settled this already when it was established that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This would indicate that it always was and will be.
There is a lot we don't know about what we don't know.
At some point, we realize that the models we have are onto something, but see them not fitting, so we adjust.
Newer models are made, on the basis of the old, with the addendum of the newly discovered - if anything is wrong, it is the people who say it cant be like that because of the current model we have.
We dont 'know' anything, a theory is as close to the truth as we have come, but it is not the truth, accept that, and know the fact that we do not know, we observe.
It may be very, very close, or as good as the truth, but as long as we can't produce the same circumstances ourselves, are we really the all-knowing masters?
The observations makes room for fantasy, which is where all the formulas come from, for new, futuristic thinking regarding what we think we know (which don't), so that we can know.
It's a long way to go :D
the big bang theory is a theory and it always will be. it should be understood as such and introduced as such. it's not set in stone and i never really bought into it even when i was a kid first learning about it.
Please look up what the difference is between "Theory" in traditional language and "Theory" in Scientific Language.
Please look up what the difference is between "Theory" in traditional language and "Theory" in Scientific Language.
@@geneticalintrovert226the more we discover, the stronger the case to downgrade it to a hypothesis
If a theory was set in stone it wouldn’t be called a theory it would be called a law lol.
@@whatthe3504 A Law is a Statement or equation that reliably predicts patterns or events in nature. It predicts what always occurs under certain conditions.
A Theory is a widely accepted and currently best explanation of natural phenomena. It attempts to explain why or how something happens and is based on continuous testing.
A Hypothesis, ordinary people wrongly confuse with "Theory", is an educated guess based on observation which has yet to be supported or refuted by continous experimenting.
even the more trivial space-time in relationship to the early universe seems most forgotten when we say things like "14 billion years"
We definitely don't really know for sure how the universe is formed, and the idea that we never will know is excruciating, at least for many. That's a prime environment to start making things up to fill in the gaps, whether it's science or religion. They're intertwined.
Umm my religion doesn't fill in the gaps, it reveals the endpoints. Jesus said, "I am the A and the Z."
@@rebbrown7140 My point was to say that even people that consider themselves "scientists" like to fill in the gaps.
I am agnostic and I admire people that find a higher purpose in God. I also believe that spirituality and science are not mutually exclusive.
“The galaxies were more mature…too many stars…” etc. Please accept my ignorance, but couldn’t it all just be a lot older than previously thought, and therefore allow for this?
Indeed.
@@user-tz9wk2rj2d ok great, so still big bang, just earlier?
Ofcourse....they only used radiation measurements to guess. But no one can be sure how radiation behaves in space. It's only used compared to earth conditions. That might be the problem with the dating. Anyway it's fascinating.
Well that's what's really interesting because there are other lines of evidence that shows that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. You can't just say "oh well maybe it's 20 billion and that's why we see mature galaxies". I mean, it MIGHT be 20 billion, but then you have to explain why you have data showing 13.8 billion. You have to explain all of the data and when you have a model that is supported by all of the data, then you get some data that doesn't fit, that's when the best discoveries are made.
@@michaelbuick6995 ah I see. So in absence of further data, we see it as 13+, but if/when we get more we may be able to date it older and all this makes some kind of sense. I love science so much. Just wish I’d had more passionate teachers growing up in the 80/90s. It’s never too late to learn though! Thanks for your reply.
There was no big bang as they say it was. Seeing the star expanse from Laniakea and beyond with no possible pattern of a central blast or any origin of blast (even considering the speed of light and the proposed universe's substrate planar expanse) alone proves that.
Even if you made a fitting fluid dynamic to account for the random but even spacing of galaxies in the observable universe, it would not make sense considering the process of star birth and death and how that would look over time on that big picture of galaxies.
When half your theory is fitting in a working model for how the galaxies are spaced in opposition to how you say they were all spat out, we have a problem. It's like you're being an apologist at the outset. In any other discipline that it would be abundantly clear.
Then write a paper disproving it and get your million dollars and Nobel prize cause you figured cosmology out.
@@atherosclerosisheo3379 "This is not correct"
"OMG UR ATTACKING MY CULT, ARF ARF ARF, WRITE WORDS PROOOOOOOFING IT!! ARF SINCE YOU KNOW!"
Where is your dissertation on the existence or non existence of God, the Divine Will or Cosmic Justice? Or are you gonna be a rabid, dogmatic, b1tch?
@@atherosclerosisheo3379 how do you disprove something that's never been proven in the first place? There is literally zero proof a "big bang" ever happened, much less what caused it. None. The only explanation that makes ANY scientific sense at all is Intelligent Design. Evolution doesn't even work without that.
Well said. I've always thought that there was simply not enough evidence for the big bang, but cosmologists seem to be clinging on to the theory like a religion.
You fundamentally do not understand what the big bang was based on the first sentence or two that you've written alone.
Try again.
The model works phenomenally well. There are details to be refined, we've know that for awhile, JWT will help with that, but what you've just described had nothing to do with the big bang.
Love JP, love DK. Great convo!
We know very little of the universe. Every discovery leads to another question, yet we continue to observe and question again and again like a child learning to walk one step at a time. We are curious beings and that is one of our reasons for being. Understanding the universe, is like the journey of billions and billions of miles one baby step at a time.
It's about time
LOL
Someone didn't actually watch the video.
Someone doesn't like that an actual scientist daid out loud that the BBT is no longer relevant.@divine0enigma
@@divine0enigma who's that?
It all is about time. 🙂
JP's mind is absolutely immense ❤
Yep, that's why he's been hanging out with a war criminal. 😂🤣😂
@@paolorossi8470 crawl back in your cave bro.
@@paolorossi8470 assuming that's true, because hey I don't know even half of what the man does and only pop in now and again for bits that catch my attention. Why shouldn't he? Do you think we have come to understand the minds of murderers, thieves, arsonists and worse...by locking them in a dark cell and forgetting about them? At some point you need to sit down and talk with them to get anywhere.
@@00yiggdrasill00 Except he sits down with him not to question him but to praise him and receive money from him. Feel the difference. 🤣😂🤣
@@paolorossi8470 Who are you talking about?
You are interviewing all my favourites Jordan!
Phew! I thought we were going to have to reshoot that sitcom.
The thing is this: cosmologists choose what science is only limited to our current space and time and what isn't. If it doesn't fit big bang dogma, then there's some other science. If it does fit big bang dogma, then the science is correct. It's just infinitely tuning parameters to fit the dogma. This used to happen with the Ptolemaic model of the universe, adding epicycles constantly.
Big Bang is supported by a great deal of evidence and observations. If there is evidence contrary to it, then any other model has to account for all the observations that directly tell us that the universe has been expanding for all of its existence.
Also the Newtonian Model which was overturned about 100 years ago
they need to have proof
Maybe you should read Lakatos instead of just Kuhn. If anyone had a better theory that explains the same things + more we would use it.
The term "big bang" was coined as a mockery just like "shroedinger's cat" was written not as a serious thought experiment but as a way to show the absurdity of quantum superposition.
The same as the "God Particle"
the big bang is just an explanation of the expansion of the universe nothing more and nothing less
Just because it was intended that way originally doesn’t mean it has no merit. Names develop in odd ways
So
the smarted jordan b peterson follower and still has less working brain cells than a worm.
Exquisitely. My God, this guy is not a critic, he is a propagandist. "Given the extraordinary success of the model", and then doesn't mention a single success.
❤🎉My role model
People are so desperate to believe that "God did it".
And the others that He didn't.
More like people are so desperate for it to not have been an intelligent and divine creation.
I think He probably did, but I’m not desperate to prove it.
@@louismuller8724 you don't have "he".
I can understand people wanting God to exist because then universe and our life makes a lot more sense. I cannot understand people who desperately want God not to exist. "Everything is random meaningless bullshit and after our body dies me and my loved ones just cease to exist, yay!". It's like these people have a reason to be afraid of afterlife.
Wow, David Kipping! Amazing! I love Cool Worlds!
The level of hubris in the scientific community is extraordinary. Considering that they have no real idea what dark matter & dark energy actually are, a little humility is in order.
Trust the Science.....HERETIC
With all due respect you have no idea what you are talking about. Scientists are especially humble in admitting what we do not know. But this is something that we do know.
@@maxwell8758 ah, but YOU know what you're talking about, Max the Scientist?
Overconfidence is NOT humility.
@@michaelnoble2432 I am a theoretical physicist. And this is the very field I study. Yes I know what I’m talking about. That’s why it is painful when I see people who have no knowledge of GR talking about something they don’t understand. The Big Bang is a proven fact. It is one of the most well established and proven ideas in history.
@@maxwell8758suuure you are. Apparently your "PhD" didn't improve your ability to READ though. I was talking about dark matter and dark energy, champ. But if we want to talk about physicists needing to get a bit more humility, there are plenty of other examples, such as theorizing vacuum energy from quantum field theory that's AT LEAST out by 120 orders of magnitude.
Sir Peterson becoming the best podcaster in the world. Joe Rogan set the bar high thou
The better question is: why do mainstream academia disregard data that doesn't fit their narative? Red "shift" is intrinsic, not a result of doppler effect.
David kipping is the MAN
The james webb telescope can see 13 billion years in the past 😮 hahah
Sure… and even longer. The light it sees traveled all that time through space. Today you see the dice rolling that rolled 13 billion years ago, when JW is aimed at a galaxy 13 billion light years away.
@@auronoxe this sounds utterly absurd to me. It's like saying "I am looking at this rock here. It's billions of years old and so by looking at this rock, I can look into the past." Really, it's just LIGHT. It's not an intergalactic morse code which we can decipher to learn anything we want. It's not like they found the holy grail of science, building a telescope, really.
Well, looking at a photo of your patents showing them being kids, and showing how the house and car looked like, does not tell you anything about the past and is utterly uninteresting? Because it’s just light? I don‘t think so 😉
yup you can look ay stars with your own eyes and you see them as they were decades or centuries ago too even if you look at the sun you see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago
What a perfect opportunity for you to learn about red shift, black holes, Einstein-Chwolson rings and how light works.
I don’t have technical knowledge regarding cosmology. I have read some books by respected physicist. I am not convinced that there was a Big Bang. I think there may have been a large number (approaching infinity) of smaller bangs.
Sounds reminiscent of various "red pill" theories. Lol
@TheChurlishBoor this is actually hilarious.
Maybe that can be your PhD thesis
How does that change anything? One big bang or dozens of small ones? The principle stays the same and in my opinion, it's utterly absurd in each case.
(Either claiming this event created matter, thus being supernatural and defying all laws of physics we know, or claiming the matter was already there and just re-arranged by the bang[s] or so. In which case these bangs would explain little to nothing.)
This is a logical problem, not a problem of astro-physics. Does anyone believe that one day all the existing matter will disappear again? I doubt it. Yet, the creation of matter is scientifically acceptable... strange, really...
Everything has a beginning and everything has an end, there must have been a first star and sometimes in the future a last star. The question is what made the first star? It's all pure conjecture at this point because the only thing we truly know right now is that we don't know for sure how it all began. Religion simplifies it by saying a god made everything from nothing but who made god? If you look at the faintest star and imagine you went to that star what will you see, it's infinity and goes on forever without end. What the JWT shows us is more galaxies than we have seen before with previous telescopes and I'll wager if we built a bigger one we would see even more. Space and the vastness of it just boggles the mind to the point of craziness. 😊
Although many believers of the Big Bang Theory would have argued vehemently the same diminutive points their now questioning because it fit their speculations.
Dr. Peterson, I am praying for you in this moment. God is good enough to have faith in, may you be strengthened in the inner man. I pray in Jesus name.
No, you´re just showing off.
Basically, nobody has a clue what's going on
Pretty much
Some shit we’ll just never know the answers to & I’m ok with that. But Ima still keep lookin for them & questioning it’s in our nature 😂
3:33 Dr peterson exceptionnal mind going at it again! what a well thought question on a subjet you dont explicitly master!
The universe goes on forever, and it always has. Thinking there was a stop to it, some sort of wall, what was on the other side of that??
If the universe existed an eternity ago how do we get to present day? (you cant because its b.s.)
We cant really know. It could be all marshmellows and chocolate or it could be nothing exists "outside."
The universe is just one single highly complex cell inside of some much larger creature again
@@nitrojanks2977 Just as likely and unlikely as anything else.
@@melanp4698 I doubt it
So the explanaition of "There was nothing. Then there was a bang and there was something. No one did it, it just happened by itself" Might not be real? I'm SHOCKED.
That is not the model.
LOL haha leave it to the slow people who follow everything blindly to not understand a scientific statement.
Nothing produces virtual particles in pairs that quickly meet back up to annihilate one another, and if this happens on an event horizon, the pair are separated forever, cannot meet back up to annihilate, and thus become real particles with a permanent existence. It turns out that not even nothing is truly nothing. In fact, absolute nothing seems to be against the laws of physics.
I think the theory of Black Hole Stars is going to be a part of the new paradigm
Dr Peterson, you should interview Dr Hugh Ross! He would love to be on your channel and he has much to discuss with you on a number of different topics. He's an Astrophysicist professor at Caltech university and a fellow Canadian, and importantly a very well known and respected Christian apologist. He's a big proponent of Big Bang cosmology and demonstrates how the Bible confirms what we now know about the universe from modern-day science.
How to disprove something that can't be proven?
It's all technically pseudo science. Really
Good point
Ikr. Whole lotta nothing from this dude.
@@iggyg1370 Miss Ing replies
The big bang never stopped the universe is still expanding.
Science historically and in the macro, has almost always been wrong. So when I hear "NOW we have it right!" I typically don't assume that's true.
Just to prove your point - Atom translates as "not dividable" but later science found protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, etc.
I see we have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, as it is just that, continual attempts to prove that the hypothesis is wrong. When it is consistently right we can say it's probably right or has a high likely hood of being right based on current knowledge, context, and understanding.
@@ttonAb2the big bang has been used as a refute to religion, and has therefore been exposed to much more bias and stubbornness than most theories
@tommytwo-times9053 there are many arguments that refute religion. The presence of the earth and everything on it refutes religion.
@ronanKGelhaus google -> define refute.
In order to disprove something, didn't it have to be proven first?
Believing in the big bang theory is the new believing in Santa Clause 😂😂
How so?
@@devilsadvocate701Requires a bunch of assumptions
@@yellow01umrella like what?
@@devilsadvocate701 Number one being pretending some big bang magically happened out of nowhere.
@@yellow01umrella can you define the "big bang" please? So we can be on the same page.
In the beginning was light and that light was are lord and saviour jesus christ
It’s gonna take them a while to figure out that it is wrong 👀👀👀
Exactly! But that is how we gain knowledge. Science is all about exploration - not about saying that we know everything.
The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.
lol
If God indeed spoke the universe into existence as the Bible says, I don’t think cosmologists would really be able to have a materialistic and naturalistic explanation.
Call it God of the gaps so be it
The God Gene. Man science is sometimes slow. Somethings are unexplainable.
@@vimtobill4156 Not only that, physics can only explain things a posteriori regarding universe cause of creation. How can we go beyond what's been created without having been a part of that? It's so weird if you think about it, what the hell is beyond the origin of the universe? I'm Catholic and I do think God is the answer here, it seems oddly plausible that a miracle like this could occur "just because"
Sure, they just have to say it all happened by accident and prove them wrong. Here's a good one for you. Cosmic microwave background radiation is a measurement of the energy supposedly left over from the Big Bang, right? So, what is it? They say energy. What does that mean? Well, it's "vibration", since all energy can be described by that word. Fluctuations is another good descriptor. So, what do we do when we speak? We vibrate the air, yes? CMBR is the echo of God’s word.
There you have it. Also, sediments can be laid down slowly and over time, or quickly if you flood the earth.
Now you understand how they can not only leave God out, but do everything in their power to discredit, or humiliate anyone who dusagrees with their stories.
@@kensmith8152 Well quantum mechanics disproves materialism because look at the double slit experiment, look at Inspiring philosophy video about "quantum mechanics disproves materialism"
But I have a question, I believe in God and believe in Jesus Christ as my lord and Savior, I believe that the Big Bang is a mostly accurate model for the beginning of the universe, so my question is how can a thing exist forever? Also, doesn't that disprove God because God can't create an infinite thing in a finite place? Because everything in nature and universe has limits...
@bdh9904 your argument is so easily flipped to the existence of God but you would surely cop out with "well he always existed".
Big bang I just kno whom bang it God the father...how can we get to the next day if there was not a past day...nothing new under the sun...do u see with ur eyes or do u see with the spirit...as air u can't see...doesn't change what it dose...only understand can be found with out a box...much love 2 u all God bless each of u ...
Maybe there has been a succession of big bangs but some residual stellar objects have avoided being dragged back into the super 'Black Hole' before the cycle repeats itself? That's why we'd see random galaxies more advanced that expected.
Trying to use higher star formation rates to save this is just desperate.
Its a hypothesis at best, not a theroy.
Essentially, anti-God worship and pro-man worship.
Big bang Theroy Brown...
Never miss an opportunity for a dad joke.
Theroooy jenkins
Its a failed hypothesis, when you can't account for 97% of the universe... your hypothesis earns a grade of 3% which is an F.
@@ryleighloughty3307 Why? Do you think God could not have created the Big Bang?
I wish I got into astrology when I was young. So interesting
Astronomy, astrology is hocus pocus like when you were born determines your destiny stuff
You mean Astronomy?.
We know what you mean. Don't let other people shame you into not speaking your mind. (at least that's what my horoscope said this morning).
This is astronomy and astrophysics.
@@mmburgess11 and here you are, fulfilling prophecy and profing astrology is real. Mind blown 🤯
"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
Albert Einstein ( 1879 - 1955 )
First
OMG! Congrats!
Humans 1. have knowledge, 2. are creators (we invent, we make art etc). To believe knowledgeable creators can come from no knowledge and no creation is absurd.
Same tired old creationist arguments 🥱
Or with other words: The big bang "created" inanimate matter and that inanimate matter somehow got alive and in such a way it could reproduce itself AND even evolve into more complex lifeforms over time... It's mind-boggling any educated person could believe such a nonsense.
Just look how animals go extinct from minor environmental changes, like coral reefs dying from pollution and so called "global warming"...Why do such fragile life forms exist in the first place, if they die so easily? Makes no sense at all.
I find it also hypocritical how Anthony Flew who wrote "More Than Matter" was declared mentally weak after being the flagship of atheists for a longtime, just because he changed his mind on atheism. His book is highly recommendable and proves he was totally sane when he wrote it.
This is an irrational argument. You cannot use your incredulity to prove a point.
@@maxwell8758 explain how you can possibly believe that an accident can create matter out of nothing. Make that make sense instead of an intelligent designer. Go ahead.
@@sivonni First of all, that is not what the big bang has ever stated. The something coming from nothing argument is a fallacy committed by theists. The big bang does not claim that all matter came from nothing, it claims that 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was in a very hot and condensed state, and it rapidly expanded away from that hot and dense state to give rise to the universe today. We do not know what came before it or if there even was a before. The most leading model today is eternal inflation, which posits that the universe actually extends infinitely before the big bang and that the overall cosmos was never created. However, we do not know for a fact if this is correct, so we must consider other alternatives. So the universe could have formed from nothing, even though this is not currently supported. However, we know matter does indeed form from nothing via the process of quantum fluctuations, where particles pop into and out of existence out of the pure uncertainty of the vacuum. Randomness is inherent to the universe, so it is a real and present possibility that the matter of our cosmos did spontaneously emerge from pure chance just as infinite virtual particles are doing right now. So we do know for a fact that matter is created out of nothing. Lastly, an intelligent designer is the most irrational and asinine of all suggestions. First of all, there is no proof of any designers, and everything in the universe that was once attributed to a god is now no longer. The universe has proven consistently that it can create the illusion of design without any designer; evolution forms life, gravity forms worlds and atmospheres, conservation laws cause orbits to lie in the same plane, tectonic motion forms mountains, etc. All these things occur naturally. It is also important to point out that even if you did believe in an intelligent designer you would never be able to know which one it was or how many there were. Also, wouldn't the same logic apply to your creator? Where did he come from? Does he always exist? Why? Can you prove it? If your view is that the universe is so fine tuned and powerful that it cannot have existed naturally, then your god is even a worse solution because it would be even more miraculous and fine tuned and powerful. With all due respect the intelligent design fallacy is the worst argument you could ever make. It is an argument from ignorance and blatantly a crap argument from all angles. If you want to believe in god, then fine, but stop pretending this horrible anti-scientific argument is a good reason.
We love to assume that our models are accurate.
How do we know we are actually looking back and not forward?
Light takes time to travel. Therefore everything we see is as it was in the past.
@@billschlafly4107 but if light goes past us wouldnt that be our future?
@@joeevett9007 What if tomorrow was today yesterday?
@@joeevett9007 No. You don't see light that is traveling away from you. You only see light that travels towards you - away from the original light source or object from which it's being reflected. By the time the light reaches you, you are viewing it in the past. This happens in all directions at all moments.
You have to wonder if some of these posts could from a thinking mind or they come from someone sitting around just saying stuff?????.
You don't have to rip up the textbook if you think about how the Big Bang was actually a 'Little Bang' of two older starclusters falling into each other and with that creating ours. Nothing changes then except the point of original origin. You just push the problem back.
The problem is that they're talking about a subject that can never be proven.
Sure, but by "pushing the problem back" it opens the window for certain possibilities. Like, the way we understand the universe now makes it so that alien life is almost impossible because we're about right on when the ideal conditions and necessary elements were finally there, but if we consider the universe as being more complex than we initially thought back then, it opens the possibility that life happened before, somewhere else.
@@Ikatsu-hs yeah, but speculation based on a guess. Entertaining, maybe. Evidence based . . . not even close.
@@tczubernat Exactly! And let's face it - the big bang AND evolution theory were presented as facts all the time.
There never was the decency to explain children in schools "these are just theories, models, predictions - we have no better one's so we stick with these for now, but do not put too much trust in them." It was rather a religious cult, mocking & cancelling everyone who disagreed with either of these theories.
Not any better than the things the church has been rightfully blamed for , namely the inquisition and crusades etc.
What is your problem with evolution?
Whole lotta nothing from this dude. Good post Jordan showing this
Were you expecting the answer to life the universe and everything in a video clip?
@gadget348 you having a rough day buddy
@@aaronyonny2139 You have an anime avatar. Literally stop commenting.
Good puppy kipping, finally getting up to speed
The models needed to be reworked in light of the data.
However the big bang theory needs no change as it just states that the universe began to exist a finite time ago.
For that to happen we would need a new space time theorem.
Exactly! We should never claim to know everything. Even the word "atom" has not been true for more than 100 years.
How about "Our universe began to exist when the big bang happened"?
no, big bang just describes the rapid inflation of the universe. It does not describe a beginning or any creation.
The fact that the universe is expanding, and at different rates the further you get-only makes sense with a Big Bang type of event in the finite past.
That's not really a useful viewpoint.
Look at the history of the hypothetical planet Vulcan. Le Verrier predicted the existence of a planet outside of Uranus (which turned out to be Neptune) by noting interferences in its orbit. He noted the same in Mercury's orbit. Along with other observations at the time, such as actually seeing another body orbiting the sun there, the clear explaination was yet another planet (named Vulcan).
Well, it turned out that the "bodies" observed passing in front of the sun was the discovery of sun spots. Furthermore, the anamolies in Mercury's orbit were later explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity. Although, to be fair, like most theories, Einstein's allowed people to stop searching for an explanation of Mercury's orbit as his theory fit the observation. So, people said "relativity" and moved on.
My point is that something is the only explanation until it isn't. It's helpful to make assumptions, but it's not helpful to stubbornly cling to what is believed to be "the only" explanation today.
Simply put: question everything.
@@JayM928
The observations and measurements of the CMB are far more accurate than the measurements of the orbit in your example. Plus, like it was mentioned in the video, the Lambda-CDM model has tremendous explanatory capacity. It works with a lot of what we see.
'You don't know who my friends are buddy boy'
Do they lurk in the shadows and duck debates like you?
Are you trying to make a point?
Dude, you're no one and will always be no one. Stop making "snarky" little comments at people who actually contributed their whole life to research. Your mother can't always provide housing for you.
1x1=2
- Terrence Howard
Baashahahahaha 😂😂😂😂
Just because our best understanding is almost certainly incorrect or incomplete doesn't mean its not our best understanding at present. That's science and its completely normal.
You can pretend all you want but the big bang theory requires as much assumptions as all major religions. Adapt or die.
Kind of like Carbon 14, our models take the absorption rate today and say, “That’s the way it has always been.” But what if carbon was absorbed much slower in the past, than today.
Plug that into the models and we would find plants & animals arent as old as theorized.
Carbon dating has nothing to do with absorption. It's about the half life (speed of decay)
You'd need to have evidence that actually happened, and a mechanism for it actually being different. Barring evidence that the decay of carbon 14 (or whatever else) actually did behave differently, science can only go on the best evidence available.
@ronanKGelhaus No, the default conclusion is always that something is as we observe it to be, barring contrary evidence. For example, it's more logical that gravity has always worked the way it does than to think it used to work differently. A *lot* of modern technology and methodology is built on such assumptions, wouldn't work without it, yet it does work. things like GPS, explorations for resources in various places on Earth, and so on. Note that the scenario described in the video is not 'physics were different in the early universe'. It's a much different thing, 'circumstances were different', i.e. not enough account was taken for greater density of some materials in some ways.
That carbon dating method is like drawing a 1 meter long line on the ground being somewhere in the US and tell someone: If you keep going exactly this direction for 2 weeks you end up in my holiday apartment in Bombay, India. Or trying to predict the weather for next year, while not being able to accurately calculate the weather for the upcoming two weeks.
There are also countless examples of people who have taken objects like bones they found in their garden, which were obviously not older than let's say 100 years and they were carbon dated to be millions of years old.
People who talk smack about science while having no education in science make me sad. klujucs - you make me sad.
Where did the matter which comprised the singularity come from
We’re like the drop water on sand and the sand replicating the entire universe
If we leave God out of the equation, we will never find the Truth.
You only input more unknowns and questions if you do add god into the equation and leads you to never knowing the truth
It has always been quite jarring to me that there was nothing at the beginning of the big bang. No initiator, no concept of before, no concept of the stuff that makes the matter.
"In the beginning there was nothing, then there was everything. No questions, no explanations" so sayeth the oracle of University
It's not that there was nothing, it's that we have no real evidence of that period. What we've found evidence of has worked it's way back closer and closer to the Big Bang as we've learned more, but it's still limited at an infinintessimally small amount of time after the Big Bang. It's unlikely astrophysics will ever, or at least anytime soon, be able to go back further. but that just leaves it as 'unknown' not 'there was nothing'.
exactly. the theory was absurd - one way or the other. Because there are only two possible scenarios here:
1) matter existed already and the big bang just re-arranged it (then the theory explains nothing at all - it's not a starting point)
2) the big bang created matter out of nothing (defying all laws of physics, basically saying "it was a miracle", so being no better than a religious cult, needing the supernatural to explain the beginning of the universe).
Independently from that - there cannot be a starting point of the universe - by logic alone. Why would anything start from nothing?
If that was not true, we could also say: Everything which does exist at the moment, each molecule, will disappear again one day like it has never been there.
Now we also know the chemical elements which do exist here on earth and none of these can be transformed into another one.
So we know these parts have always been there, unless we accept the notion that the laws of physics were introduced later on - ending up in a supernatural theory again... The amount of gold for instance must have been the same "millions" of years ago, since gold cannot be created out of other elements and it cannot dissolve into "nothing" either.
Thus, if something supernatural must have happened to create this matter, how can science act like "God doesn't exist because he's supernatural and pure fiction" while maintaining theories which cannot survive without supernatural elements either? I find that highly hypocritical and it fits very well the anti-religious motivation of people like Charles Darwin who invented evolution theory in order to not have to believe in a God, which he hated because of his bad relationship to his own father who was very religious.
I would even go as far and say that evolution theory and those who defend it, are a religious cult, since it's forbidden to formulate any criticism towards this theory without being mocked as a "creationist" or whatever, despite the fact that you don't need to believe in God in order to find this theory utterly absurd.
You are just not allowed to criticize this theory and scientists who speak out against it, were cancelled long before "cancel culture" was a term broadly used.
Check the old documentary "Expelled" for instance, which has clearly documented this point.
It is a fact the Big Bang happened.
the big bang is as far back as we can trace things it doesn't mean there was nothing before it but its the limit of our knowledge maybe one day we find out what came before
There wasn't any time at which there was "nothing". When people say there was no "before" the big bang, they don't mean to say that there was "nothing" before it. Rather, spacetime itself breaks down at the initial singularity and so there's no point in time that is "before" that initial singularity. Therefore there wouldn't be any such thing as a "before" that singularity, "nothing" or otherwise.