God vs. The Big Bang

roflpublican said:

but how can the universe get to a point where all matter/energy is in one place when we know the universe/all matter/all energy in the universe is accelerating away from us?
Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

seems to me theres no way for the universe to ever get back to the point where a big bang-like event with everything in one place can occur, so by definition the universe is eternal because it will last for an infinite period beyond the big bang. so, a big bang cannot occur within the context of our universe, short of some force causing all that matter/energy to return to one point.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it didn't get that way. Perhaps it "started" that way. And perhaps the universe never will contract again and then just die a heat death. If the average density of the universe is great enough then the expansion would likely eventually stop and then constrict again. But we don't for sure if the density it great enough. There are all manner of hypotheses for how it could play but we currently don't which if any of the hypotheses are correct.

But introducing a god into the equation just adds another level of unneeded complexity when it isn't needed.

Introducing a God doesn't add complexity, since its not a complex entity.

Sarcogito said:

Perhaps it didn't get that way. Perhaps it "started" that way. And perhaps the universe never will contract again and then just die a heat death. If the average density of the universe is great enough then the expansion would likely eventually stop and then constrict again. But we don't for sure if the density it great enough. There are all manner of hypotheses for how it could play but we currently don't which if any of the hypotheses are correct.

But introducing a god into the equation just adds another level of unneeded complexity when it isn't needed.

Click to expand...

but we know it's accelerating, the expansion is accelerating. so, how could it ever constrict again when every day everything gets farther apart quicker than it did the day before?

Sarcogito said:

...but we currently don't which if any of the hypotheses are correct.

Click to expand...

Indeed we don't & perhaps never will, which was really my point in previous posts. I'm not a religous man raging against science, but then again I'm not a scientific fundementalist employing giant leaps of faith to fill the holes in my knowledge base.

I just find it amusing when people rail against religion using arguments that apply equally to themselves.

Paul Austin said:

Indeed we don't & perhaps never will, which was really my point in previous posts. I'm not a religous man raging against science, but then again I'm not a scientific fundementalist employing giant leaps of faith to fill the holes in my knowledge base.

I just find it amusing when people rail against religion using arguments that apply equally to themselves.

Click to expand...

Well, it depends on the claim doesn't it? Plenty of religious claims are demonstrably false. I wouldn't say the claim "the universe was created by some sort of intelligent being" is necessarily a religious claim. Hell, said creator wouldn't even need to be a god, it would just need to be technologically advanced enough to create a universe, or a simulation of a universe. You could believe in a creator without believing it is magic. But there is no evidence for any of that, even though it is fun to contemplate.

A "theory" in scientific vernacular is not the same as "theory" in the common vernacular. A scientific theory has been tested endlessly and, more importantly, can be used to make predictions about what we can expect to find. In addition it should be falsifiable. The Big Bang theory, the Theory of Gravity, Evolutionary Theory, can all be used to make predictions about the the universe we live in and are falsifiable. When those predictions repeatedly turn out to be true it is reasonable to believe you are operating from a sound model. Prior to that it is just a hypothesis. Once a God hypothesis can be shown to make such predictions and can be shown to be falsifiable then it will be more likely to be accepted as a sound model. But after centuries no such model has been posited.

Well, it depends on the claim doesn't it? Plenty of religious claims are demonstrably false. I wouldn't say the claim "the universe was created by some sort of intelligent being" is necessarily a religious claim. Hell, said creator wouldn't even need to be a god, it would just need to be technologically advanced enough to create a universe, or a simulation of a universe. You could believe in a creator without believing it is magic. But there is no evidence for any of that, even though it is fun to contemplate.

Click to expand...

At that point a singular transendant person that is the creater of the Universe is no less rational than some other group of people creating a simulation or whatever ... its basically just a different model of "God."

Once a God hypothesis can be shown to make such predictions and can be shown to be falsifiable then it will be more likely to be accepted as a sound model. But after centuries no such model has been posited.

Click to expand...

The God Hypothesis would predict that the Universe is intelligable and structured and has rational uniformity, it would predict that it has a begining, it would also predict that it functions mathematically.

Also the God hypothesis is a philisophical one, not a scientific one, the difference is that it deals with something that transends the physical universe.

Sarcogito said:

Well, it depends on the claim doesn't it? Plenty of religious claims are demonstrably false.

Click to expand...

In deed, in fact some religous texts are so full of contradictions that they can actually disprove themselves, but then again science has debunked itself plenty of times in the past too.

I wouldn't say the claim "the universe was created by some sort of intelligent being" is necessarily a religious claim. Hell, said creator wouldn't even need to be a god, it would just need to be technologically advanced enough to create a universe, or a simulation of a universe. You could believe in a creator without believing it is magic. But there is no evidence for any of that, even though it is fun to contemplate.

Click to expand...

In fact if you think about it if man were to truely recreate a simulation of the universe then he would actually be the 'god' of that universe, even if it was to small for him to see, so, whilst I'm not suggesting it is the case, we could actually all be living in a tiny little test in a laboratory somewhere, as an experiment into the origins of someones universe.

God in that sense could be almost anyone, or anything.

In fact its amusing to think that for all means feelings of greatness & superiority he could really just be the result of a janitor accidently leaning against a button somewhere, in a lab somewhere.

I mean why not, one day, if we get the right answers we will do the same thing ourselves.

Like I said I'm not actually suggesting that as my theory of origin, I only really mention it because it kind of highlights what I'm saying, we dont actually know the answers.

Some have turned to religion to fill those gaps, some to science, or philosophy, but none of them have been proven to have all the answers, nor indeed has any been proven to be infallable, each one has produced errors, or contradictions, & yet each of those branches has attracted people, many of them fundamentalists, willing to take a leap of faith & to embrace their chosen path as the one certain truth, & indeed along each path there have been those so sure in their belief that they have been willing to live, or die by it.

Paul Austin said:

In fact if you think about it if man were to truely recreate a simulation of the universe then he would actually be the 'god' of that universe, even if it was to small for him to see, so, whilst I'm not suggesting it is the case, we could actually all be living in a tiny little test in a laboratory somewhere, as an experiment into the origins of someones universe.

God in that sense could be almost anyone, or anything.

Click to expand...

I was listening to a podcast just today where a philosopher was saying that IF one day we determine that it is possible to create true artificial intelligence and IF we determine that creating a simulated universe on a computer is possible, THEN it would mean it is highly likely that we are in fact living in a simulated universe right now. The reasoning was that if it was possible to create such a simulation then there could be thousands or millions of such simulations. Statistically, it would be far more likely you are living in one of the millions of artificial universes rather than the one real universe. Those are some big ifs, but it makes for some fun/scary contemplation.

Sarcogito said:

I was listening to a podcast just today where a philosopher was saying that IF one day we determine that it is possible to create true artificial intelligence and IF we determine that creating a simulated universe on a computer is possible, THEN it would mean it is highly likely that we are in fact living in a simulated universe right now. The reasoning was that if it was possible to create such a simulation then there could be thousands or millions of such simulations. Statistically, it would be far more likely you are living in one of the millions of artificial universes rather than the one real universe. Those are some big ifs, but it makes for some fun/scary contemplation.

Click to expand...

In a way Id be dissapointed if we ever did find all the answers as I fear the truth might not be half as entertaining as some of the theories that exist.

Paul Austin said:

In a way Id be dissapointed if we ever did find all the answers as I fear the truth might not be half as entertaining as some of the theories that exist.

Click to expand...

Especially if your Janitor Theory turned out to be true.

Paul Austin said:

You reckon I was quoting the second law of thermo-dynamics for its poetic value then?

That could be a theory...



The idea must always come first, other wise how could we even measure. Our actions are not independant, they are governed by our thoughts. First we think the action, then we send the command to our body & our body performs the action.

The action itself is at the end of the process, our thoughts and our ideas at the beginning, so we have to make things up, its our only way to evolve.



& look how it ended up, now its the old boy on the block & on its way out. A bit of a shame for all those who put their faith in it & believed in it as the one true answer.

Click to expand...

The Big Bang Theory is the theory which currently best explains the observables. As I have said, i don't think you understand science. The Big Bang theory was not developed before there were observables. The Cosmic Microwave Background measurements where the measurements which ultimately pushed forward towards a big bang type theory. And since, the big bang theory has been the best one to explain the observables such as the red shift and universal expansion.

Oh, and on the LAWS of thermodynamics, since you want to believe that stating them means you understand anything. You want to find me any First Principle proof of those laws? I'll give you a hint, there are none. The LAWS of thermodynamics cannot be demonstrated from first principle, they were based on observations and over enough time remained unchallenged and unbeaten, and thus became scientific law.

DashingAmerican said:

I've always wondered this and always ask when I'm talking to my religious or scientific friends. Why does it have to be that God created the universe or the big bang happened? Why can't it be that God created the universe through the big bang?

Click to expand...

Agreed. That's exactly what I believe: God created the universe through the big bang.

Science and religion are not supposed to contradict, but complement each other. Religious believes in contradiction to science are superstition. Science explains *how* the world is, religion explains *why* it is.

roflpublican said:

but we know it's accelerating, the expansion is accelerating. so, how could it ever constrict again when every day everything gets farther apart quicker than it did the day before?

Click to expand...

When you are talking on such a scale, we could still be in the early energy rich push. Think of it as if a huge rock were dropped into the middle of a lake. There would be a period of time when all the energy was pushing the water out of the impact area. Afterwards it would all come rushing back in. For all we know at this point we're still in the rushing out phase. Which means that the contracting period will probably be just as long. Imagine some planet developing life and all they've ever known since they developed the tech is a contracting universe. Could they possibly imagine a Big Bang theory?

Sarcogito said:

I was listening to a podcast just today where a philosopher was saying that IF one day we determine that it is possible to create true artificial intelligence and IF we determine that creating a simulated universe on a computer is possible, THEN it would mean it is highly likely that we are in fact living in a simulated universe right now. The reasoning was that if it was possible to create such a simulation then there could be thousands or millions of such simulations. Statistically, it would be far more likely you are living in one of the millions of artificial universes rather than the one real universe. Those are some big ifs, but it makes for some fun/scary contemplation.

Click to expand...

That doesn't even take into account the multiverse theory or maybe the source of it, so to speak. Maybe a lot of our stories and tales are leak overs from other simulations.

German guy said:

Agreed. That's exactly what I believe: God created the universe through the big bang.

Science and religion are not supposed to contradict, but complement each other. Religious believes in contradiction to science are superstition. Science explains *how* the world is, religion explains *why* it is.

Click to expand...

Science and religion contradict on a fundamental philosophical level. Religions posits that reality is shaped by intelligent beings upon which no evidence exists. Science posits that reality is shaped by a variety of natural forces discovered through observation.

However, you are correct that from the standpoint of public policy, there is no need for science and religion to be in conflict. Functioning society means ignoring minor differences, and provided that religious beliefs don't actively impeded scientific progress, promoting harmony is the better option. Cognitive dissonance is powerful enough that even many of histories greatest scientists couldn't even consistently apply the scientific method to all their claims. Logical consistency does far less to advance human civilization than having more resources applied to discovering knowledge.

Ikari said:

The Big Bang Theory is the theory which currently best explains the observables.

Click to expand...

Try telling Sir Roger Penrose...

As I have said, i don't think you understand science.

Click to expand...

You have said it before, yes, you were no more right that time either.

The Big Bang theory was not developed before there were observables. The Cosmic Microwave Background measurements where the measurements which ultimately pushed forward towards a big bang type theory. And since, the big bang theory has been the best one to explain the observables such as the red shift and universal expansion.

Click to expand...

Dealt with all this in my previous posts. Im sorry if you didnt understand them.

Oh, and on the LAWS of thermodynamics, since you want to believe that stating them means you understand anything. You want to find me any First Principle proof of those laws? I'll give you a hint, there are none. The LAWS of thermodynamics cannot be demonstrated from first principle, they were based on observations and over enough time remained unchallenged and unbeaten, and thus became scientific law.

Click to expand...

I am aware of the subject thank you

So perhaps instead of telling me that you think I dont understand science perhaps you'll address the "errors" in the thinking of people like Stephen Hawkins & Sir Roger Penrose, & explain why you are right & they are wrong.

I look forward to your post, as Id be truely interested to read such a critique.

"Science and religion contradict on a fundamental philosophical level. Religions posits that reality is shaped by intelligent beings upon which no evidence exists. Science posits that reality is shaped by a variety of natural forces discovered through observation."

But, have we ever observed the 'Big Bang'? The answer is obviously no. Nor have we observed the origin of life. Yet, we construct stories in an attempt to explain away the observable. And some of those stories violate the very observations we can document. A personal note.

Two weeks ago I met and chatted with Paul Davies at ASU in Tempe. A truly memorable experience.

'Although many metaphysical and theistic theories seem contrived or childish, they are not obviously more absurd than the belief that the universe exists, and exists in the form it does, reasonlessly.'

Davies, Paul - THE MIND OF GOD, (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1992) p. 231

hfd said:

But, have we ever observed the 'Big Bang'? The answer is obviously no. Nor have we observed the origin of life. Yet, we construct stories in an attempt to explain away the observable. And some of those stories violate the very observations we can document.

Click to expand...

If the Big Bang theory is false, eventually contradictory observations will found and a new theory will be created. That is why science works, because it will change the stories to reflect the evidence. Religion has no connection to reality and simply pushes the same story in all circumstances. There exists no observation that could ever change the claims about God. If your claim is not influenced by changes in our knowledge of the universe, it cannot be present in said universe.

rathi said:

If the Big Bang theory is false, eventually contradictory observations will found and a new theory will be created. That is why science works, because it will change the stories to reflect the evidence. Religion has no connection to reality and simply pushes the same story in all circumstances. There exists no observation that could ever change the claims about God. If your claim is not influenced by changes in our knowledge of the universe, it cannot be present in said universe.

Click to expand...

But, some would argue that science, or aspects of it, are religious.

"But evolution is different. Evolutionists purport to explain where we came from and how we developed into the complex organisms that we are. Physicists, by and large, do not. So, the study of evolution trespasses on the bailiwick of religion. And it has something else in common with religion. It is almost as hard for scientists to demonstrate evolution to the lay public as it would be for churchmen to prove transubstantiation or the virginity of Mary."

Wills, Christopher The Wisdom of the Genes: New Pathways in Evolution, (Basic Books: New York NY, 1989, p.9)

As for rejecting a false premise:

"And then there is Professor Sir Fred Hoyle, Britain's greatest living astrophysicist, and the Big Bang theory's greatest adversary. . . . Together with two other respected astrophysicists, Hoyle systematically reviews the evidence for the Big Bang theory, and gives it a good kicking...I don't expect the vast majority of astronomers to pay the slightest attention to Hoyle and his colleagues: frankly, there are too many careers riding on the Big Bang being right."

Robert Matthews, "Sir Fred Returns to Give Big Bang Another Kicking." Sunday London Telegraph: Cosmology Column. February 13, 2000

And you are absolutely correct about the claims about God.

"But evolution is different. Evolutionists purport to explain where we came from and how we developed into the complex organisms that we are. Physicists, by and large, do not. So, the study of evolution trespasses on the bailiwick of religion. And it has something else in common with religion. It is almost as hard for scientists to demonstrate evolution to the lay public as it would be for churchmen to prove transubstantiation or the virginity of Mary."

Click to expand...

That is nonsense. Anyone who wants to learn about evolution can do, its merely a matter of effort. You can see the fossils for yourself and take academic courses to learn the mechanisms in detail. You can even perform experiments using bacteria and fruit flies to observe the genetic changes personally.

Transubstantiation is meaningless. You could analyze the wine with every kind of sensor in existence and still detect zero changes from the ceremony. A person cannot determine what happened for themselves, they only have the words of the priest.

"And then there is Professor Sir Fred Hoyle, Britain's greatest living astrophysicist, and the Big Bang theory's greatest adversary. . . . Together with two other respected astrophysicists, Hoyle systematically reviews the evidence for the Big Bang theory, and gives it a good kicking...I don't expect the vast majority of astronomers to pay the slightest attention to Hoyle and his colleagues: frankly, there are too many careers riding on the Big Bang being right."

Click to expand...

That is how science works, somebody proposes a theory and a bunch of other people try and tear it down. Hoyle argued using evidence and calculations, in addition to proposing alternative explanations. If Hoyle was right, his C-field theory will replace the Big Bang. Religion cannot do that, as it lacks the evidence needed to overturn an existing theory or create a new one.

What fossils are you speaking of?

"Although paleontologists have, and continue to claim to have, discovered sequences of fosssils that do indeed present a picture of gradual change over time, the truth of the matter is that we are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record...full-blown and raring to go..."

Schwartz, Jeffrey H. - Sudden Origins (NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1999) p. 3

Fruit flies remain fruit flies.

Paul Austin said:

Try telling Sir Roger Penrose...



You have said it before, yes, you were no more right that time either.



Dealt with all this in my previous posts. Im sorry if you didnt understand them.



I am aware of the subject thank you

So perhaps instead of telling me that you think I dont understand science perhaps you'll address the "errors" in the thinking of people like Stephen Hawkins & Sir Roger Penrose, & explain why you are right & they are wrong.

I look forward to your post, as Id be truely interested to read such a critique.

Click to expand...

There certainly are questions about the Big Bang theory, but until Hawkins or Penrose can develop a theory that can better explain the observables, the fact remains. The Big Bang theory is the best theory we currently have which explain the observables. As we gather more data, the theory will be further refined or if measurement breaks the theory, a new theory will be developed. Until then, nothing I said was incorrect.

So perhaps instead of sitting there pretending you know science, you'll give us a self consistent model which better explains all the observables, yes? Or you're just running your mouth and picking up on tid bits that some scientists say here or there with no real understanding of the application?

Ikari said:

There certainly are questions about the Big Bang theory, but until Hawkins or Penrose can develop a theory that can better explain the observables, the fact remains.

Click to expand...

This is where it starts to get circular because that completely ignores the point that that has already happened.

As we gather more data, the theory will be further refined or if measurement breaks the theory, a new theory will be developed.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly kind of what my posts have been about. Like you say science isnt infallable.

I was pretty confident you'd get it in the end.

Paul Austin said:

This is where it starts to get circular because that completely ignores the point that that has already happened.



Which is exactly kind of what my posts have been about. Like you say science isnt infallable.

I was pretty confident you'd get it in the end.

Click to expand...

I gaurantee I know more of science than you ever will. I never said it was infallable. Yet nothing you said argues against anything I wrote. The Big Bang is the theory which currently best explains the observables and shall remain that way until a better theory is developed or it is further confirmed.

You want to keep running your mouth, provide the self-consistent alternative which does a better job explaining the observables. Until then, you only demonstrate your lack of scientific understanding.

Ikari said:

I gaurantee I know more of science than you ever will.

Click to expand...

I'm quite sure you do believe that

I never said it was infallable

Click to expand...

No, but I did & you've been telling me how wrong I am & how little I know, & how great you are.

Anything else to add or is this just going to go around in circles from here on in?

Paul Austin said:

This is where it starts to get circular because that completely ignores the point that that has already happened.



Which is exactly kind of what my posts have been about. Like you say science isnt infallable.

I was pretty confident you'd get it in the end.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "science is not infallible"? Do you mean A) that not always turn theories that are accepted by the scientific community in a certain point of time out to be true, or that B) the scientific method in general is flawed?

As for A), my understanding is that science never even makes the claim that all its theories are "infallible", final or beyond criticism. As Ikari said, the scientific process works differently.

There are competing theories which can be tested through empirical research, and when a theory manages to have great explanatory power, more than competing theories, which are confirmed by empirical observations, then a majority of the scientific community is likely to embrace it -- until new findings suggest that that theory is flawed and must either be expanded, or replaced by a better theory.

For example, Newton's theory of mechanics had long been accepted as truth, because all empirical evidence confirmed it. It was not before technology advanced and empirical research was able to observe phenomena on a huge scale (far out in space, through astronomy) and on the sub-microscopic scale (the smallest of particles, via electron microscopes and so on), short, not before the instruments to measure our world had become refined, that flaws of Newton's theory were discovered.

Einstein's theory of relativity managed to explain the phenomena on the huge scale much better than Newton's could, hence it became universally accepted. The same with quantum theory regarding the sub-microscopic level of particles. That doesn't mean Newton was totally off -- his theory was just imprecise.

No serious scientist ever claimed "Newton's theory is infallible". People just believed it was true because all information available to them suggested for a long time that it's true. But once the flaws were discovered, it would have been totally "anti-science" to claim Newton was 100% right and still is.

In this sense, science never claims infallability in the first place.