the big bang

[Pfundner]

i dont get it

the big bang is a scientific explanation to the start of everything, including life. now, scientific, "rational" reasoning says that something cannot come from nothing. You dont have a pebble and then *pop* it becomes a cell. So how can life suddenly be created if there was nothing beforehand?

surely this is less "rational" and "scientific" than saying god made everything. If god does exist, then he is presumably above and not affected by science or anything else. He doesnt need to be rational. But the big bang is a scientific explanation, and yet it is contradicting science itself! you dont get something from nothing!

[removeduser_487563287433]

Exception being science doesn't claim to have all the answers yet, which is a whole lot more respectable than "bla.. um... er... GOD DID IT!"

[Chaigidel]

you only characterize it in this manner because you dont understand what lead them to those conclusions --- the big bang didnt come out of nothing; it likely came from two 10 dimensional objects colliding in 11dimensional space ;besides I love god and the big bang.

more often than not though science regards unanswered questions as unanswered rather than assigning responsibility to a supreme being; god is responsible for everything so all other details are just that details; it in no way denegrates god or its existence to understand that the likely beginning of the universe occured with the quantum singularity known as the big bang

[Zenith Darksea]

It's an interesting issue, actually. There are various theories regarding this. Some posit that it is a continuous cycle of universal explosion and implosion, though this also raises the question of, "Why is there such a cycle at all?"

Other theories include string-theory, M-theory and so on. These sorts of theories usually posit that there are inter-dimensional 'membranes' of some sort that float about on a non-physical plane (it's difficult to describe, and I'm sure that I'm mischaracterising the theory by mistake) and, when they collide, create a new big bang and a new universe somewhere. This theory too raises the question of why such a system exists in the first place.

The fact is that all such theories as to the origin of the universe hit the same stumbling block - in the material world, cause necessitates effect, and vice-versa. Every material fact needs a reason, which needs its own reason, which needs its own reason, and so on in a regressio ad infinitum.

To my mind, there are two ways of dealing with this. Materialists point to the apparent randomness often demonstrated on a microcosmic scale in quantum physics and suggest that the same randomness exists at the macrocosmic level as well. Their answer is essentially that ultimately our theory of causation is not perfect or universal - some things just happen randomly and with no reason, like the existence of the universe. This seems to me a rather weak excuse to ignore the problem. If we do away with the necessity of causation on the grand scale, it makes science and human reason seem ultimately futile and could even lead to nihilism (incidentally, I suspect, though I admit that I am not a physicist, that the randomness of quantum physics does have a rational explanation that we simply haven't discovered yet).

The other way of tackling the problem also involves removing material logic from the equation, but in a different way. The problem is caused by the limitations of material causation - we know that physical events require physical causes, and simply claiming that they don't always require causes throws up more questions than it answers. So, we say that God created the universe. God, not being material, is not bound by material limits, and so does not create the same regressio ad infinitum. Indeed, God does say in Revelation that He is "the Alpha and the Omega" (i.e. beginning and end) implying that divinity is not bound by concepts of material causation. Thus, it seems to me that a religious explanation for the universe is more reasonable than a purely physical one (which would necessitate self-contradiction).

Having said that, there is no scientific proof for God being the ultimate cause of existence, and nor could there be. Science is limited by its very nature to physical measurement of the physical universe, and so cannot prove divine creation. So, if scientific proof is the be-all and end-all for you, then the whole issue of the origins of the universe is a bit of a Catch 22.

[Oglethorpe1983]

Setting aside the concepts of String Theory; the Multiverse; and the cyclical universe (constant expansion and contraction)... which I think are very interesting therories but nearly impossible to prove...Ive studied the string theory and its pretty cool... but at this time totally unproveable.

I am a semi-practicing Roman Catholic. I believe evolution is the way life came to its present variety. yet I do believe in God. The question of the big bang in my opinion can allow for a perfect bridge of faith and science.
Since as Pfundner says something cant come from nothing...isn't it at least feasible that God was the spark of that something. and then He allows things to happen?

[Chaigidel]

I tend to think of it as god was a result of the big bang as much as the rest of our universe rather than the cause

[IndianPrince]

I tend to think of it as god was a result of the big bang as much as the rest of our universe rather than the cause

So god is a creation, not a creator ?! LOL ... Cmon Chaigi ... how does that make sense ?! What was his purpose of creation, or there was no person and he's kinda like a deist god ?!

Prince

[Juvenal]

i dont get it

the big bang is a scientific explanation to the start of everything, including life. now, scientific, "rational" reasoning says that something cannot come from nothing. You dont have a pebble and then *pop* it becomes a cell. So how can life suddenly be created if there was nothing beforehand?

surely this is less "rational" and "scientific" than saying god made everything. If god does exist, then he is presumably above and not affected by science or anything else. He doesnt need to be rational. But the big bang is a scientific explanation, and yet it is contradicting science itself! you dont get something from nothing!

You are struggling not with the universe, but merely with your own assumptions.

The term "Big Bang" was originated by the astronomer Fred Hoyle in order to poke fun at a rival to his own preferred "Steady State" theory. People sometimes seem to take the name at face value, assuming it proposes that "something" came out of "nothing" in a giant explosion.

This is not the case. The Big Bang theory is simply the consequence of the observation of Edwin Hubble that the Universe is expanding, by which I mean that all major structures (i.e. galaxies and galactic clusters) are in general moving away from each other, with the speed of recession proportional to their distance. To visualise this, imagine a set of equally spaced dots on an expanding balloon, the dots move apart, dots further from each other move apart faster than those close together. Extrapolate the balloon surface to 3 dimensions and you have a depiction of the expanding universe.

Given the the universe is expanding, then in the past everything must have been closer together. If you extrapolate the density of the universe back in time, then 13.5 billion years ago it becomes infinite.

The Big Bang theory can deduce what the universe was like at various times going up to a point very close to infinite density, but no further. It has nothing to say about earlier times, not even that there were earlier times.

So you could assume that God said "Let There Be Light", but there is no evidence either for or against this, since there can be no evidence at all from before the point where the universe was dense enough to be uniform.

There are other theories, like Brane theory, which might explain where the universe came from, but they are going to be difficult to test. By the way, Brane theory does not have to explain where its higher-dimensional space with floating branes came from - we know the universe had a beginning, but Brane space could be eternal.

The big problem with extending our theories any further is that we are trying to say things about regions where the known laws of physics don't apply. Can infinite density really exist? maybe not, maybe there is some new state that appears before you get there. We cannot know what it is because we cannot reproduce the conditions.

A good example of such phase changes is this: suppose we were an intelligent species of gas-bag creatures living in an (apparently) infinite atmosphere. We might deduce the Gas Laws relating temperature, pressure and volume. Looking at our gas law theory, we could extrapolate decreasing temperature would eventually lead to the atmosphere having zero volume! Of course what actually happens is a phase change, the gas becomes liquid or solid and stops shrinking with temperature. But unless we had experienced these conditions how could we ever know that it happens?

So by analogy, we don't know what the universe was like before some cut-off point where our physics breaks down by saying density was infinite.

EDIT: My apologies for not quoting Gary88's excellent article on the Big Bang and the age of the universe. You will find the link in his sig below.

[Pfundner]

we know the universe had a beginning, but Brane space could be eternal.

no we dont

as you say later in your post, how do we know what happens when infinite density is reached, we cant say that there was definitely a beginning.

the rest of your post is interesting though, i see now that the big bang theory doesnt claim to know what happened before the universe started expanding.

ive learnt alot from all the posts here, and it seems there is a real problem in society these days that we are fed jargon by media, theist and athiest fundamentalists etc. and @kiljaden, im afraid im not the only one with a "disgustingly pathetic understanding of the big bang" i dont think many people know much about it, they just say "scientists say the big bang started life so it must have happened that way" which sounded dumb to me so i started this thread.

[Tankbuster]

i see now that the big bang theory doesnt claim to know what happened before the universe started expanding.

Indeed, it does not. In fact the whole paradox is that time is relative to space, so when there is no space, there is no time either. Time is a product of the Big Bang. So the question "what was BEFORE" the Big Bang is inherently meaningless!

ive learnt alot from all the posts here, and it seems there is a real problem in society these days that we are fed jargon by media, theist and athiest fundamentalists etc. and @kiljaden, im afraid im not the only one with a "disgustingly pathetic understanding of the big bang" i dont think many people know much about it, they just say "scientists say the big bang started life so it must have happened that way" which sounded dumb to me so i started this thread.

That's great.
Inquiry is the only way to wisdom

[Nietzsche]

In fact the whole paradox is that time is relative to space, so when there is no space, there is no time either. Time is a product of the Big Bang. So the question "what was BEFORE" the Big Bang is inherently meaningless!

This is what is so mindbending about the idea of a Big Bang. We cannot conceive of a universe outside of time as we too are one of the products and every concept of measure we have is somehow associated with time (ex. distance, acceleration, force).

However, even the idea of the Big Bang creating time is conjecture. While it does solve the thorny problem of First Cause, it only sidesteps it with creative reasoning (similar things can be said of Dark Matter). There is really no proof either way.

Enter what Kierkegaard coined "the leap of faith." At some point we must decide what to believe based on what we know even if our knowledge is incomplete. Therefore, we fill in the "gaps" with our own experience and make the leap based on the conclusion no matter how rational.

[Pfundner]

Enter what Kierkegaard coined "the leap of faith." At some point we must decide what to believe based on what we know even if our knowledge is incomplete. Therefore, we fill in the "gaps" with our own experience and make the leap based on the conclusion no matter how rational.

which is why we will always have people arguing on forums like these


good point +rep

[Zenith Darksea]

Since as Pfundner says something cant come from nothing...

I think it would be better to say that something material can't come from nothing. We know that (or at least we think we do), but we may assert (as I do) that the immaterial can come from nothing (such as an emotion, or a thought), or indeed may not relate to causality at all (as God).

[Gary88]

don't worry i don't ing understand it either

[Chaigidel]

we will understand it one day-- hadron collider im looking at you switzerland

[finsternis]

i dont get it

the big bang is a scientific explanation to the start of everything, including life. now, scientific, "rational" reasoning says that something cannot come from nothing. You dont have a pebble and then *pop* it becomes a cell. So how can life suddenly be created if there was nothing beforehand?

surely this is less "rational" and "scientific" than saying god made everything. If god does exist, then he is presumably above and not affected by science or anything else. He doesnt need to be rational. But the big bang is a scientific explanation, and yet it is contradicting science itself! you dont get something from nothing!

Yeah, you need to learn about Quantum and String Theory. There is one theory that says that our Universe started as from a Quantum Fluctuation in another universe. There is another that out universe didn't "start" since, according to String Theory, there is a minimum distance (Planck's Length) in our univese. Meaning, you can't get any smaller than that (using the conventional way of measuring distances which is measuring things via straight lines on the face of the universe). However, if you measure thing in the other way (if the universe is indeed circular as String theory says) then you cam measure it via the distance = 2*pi*R which, since the particle needed to measure that distance are heavier, will be different (a 10th of the distance that we think it is).

Now, how does this help us understand the beginning of the universe? Well, that means that it is safe to say that the universe didn't really start. A easier way to think of this is that both space and time were created at the beginning of the universe. So how can you say that something "started" since it is the start? You can measure how long has it been since the big bang, but you cannot put a beginning in a great scale (since time only exist here - and maybe other universes).

And about life, it is not that a cell just popped up. Cells were not the first living thing (it took a while before a cell was born). First you need the ingredient (which are made from the inorganic elements. Let me just say, take a bunch of inorganic elements, hit it with thunder and boil it with the volcano's lava and done, organic elements).

So as you see it, physics is really complicated (even magical, some times).

[bspiken]

Well Juvenal already answered the question, check out Gary88´s guide to the age of the universe for the details .

[Chaigidel]

still really doesnt answer the question

science hasnt answered the question yet just offered some damn good speculation, based on numbers.

[Chaigidel]

well I hate to null another thread with my silly beliefs but I will outline it simply.

being born does not imply creation to me; you are created if you are fashioned from components from a conscious and willed mind to that particular purpose; when a woman gives birth to a child she has not created the life she has allowed that life to become its own; she provided the place of respite, the substance of the morning.

god is creation, god is creator, god Is the immovable object and the Irresistable force, god is the child and god is the mother, god is the sword and the plowshare-- physically speaking if one is make certain by interaction along a quantum state, everywhere else in that quantum state the position and purpose becomes certain of the tiny part; so if god is born or created at any point in the universe by design or accident; it will exist and act in all times and all places because it will have hold of the roots of the universal tree and the cup will sit in its left hand and the serpent in the right, and lo it has become the tree

another question is ; do you create a dream? or do you just dream it?

[IndianPrince]

another question is ; do you create a dream? or do you just dream it?

My brain creates it for me through the sub-conscious (sp?)

Prince