Big Bang doesn't imply a beginning to the universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YHWH_Christ

Guest
The idea that there was a singularity in the beginning that eventually became all of this by sudden inflation (i.e. the Big Bang) is simply wrong according to modern physics. Generally when a singularity arises in physics (this case being a part of Einstein’s theory of relativity) it means that the theory is not an accurate description of reality at this point and that the theory either needs some tweaking or another theory needs to arise and explain this apparent discrepancy in the past theory. Problems like these happened all the time in classical mechanics. Relativity was a response to that. All the Big Bang really predicts about the “origin of the universe” is that for some reason the laws of physics as we normally understand them didn’t work before the end of the Planck Epoch. Although scientists still do not fully understand how to solve these problems, many are looking for a solution and there are some theories which predict an infinite universe or even a cycle of universes. Nobody is saying they’re correct yet but they could be and in fact it seems likely that a time in physics will come when we can have an understanding of what “happened” before the big bang. As theists, how are we to respond to this since it is in our faith to believe that God alone has always existed and that it is he who created the universe ex nihilo. Could science really be on the verge of disproving the need for a creator?
 
Last edited:
YHWH_Christ said:
it seems likely that a time in physics will come when we can have an understanding of what “happened” before the big bang.
Click to expand...
And so what if it does? Physics will still be about the physical beginning – or cycling - of the physical universe. There remains the problem of the origin that physical framework, underlying structure, or, as @Vico wrote, the laws of physics.

To put it another way, if our universe is part of an ongoing multiverse or “superverse,” where did that physical entity come from?
 
Last edited:
All I can say to you friend is that all these theories are hypothetical, but may I ask does the Big Bang theory dis-imply a beginning to the universe? Also, as someone who isn’t great with numbers but is fascinated by them all the same, do these theories abound due to the difficulty of obtaining information about primordial state of the universe before the Big Vang event?
 
Last edited:
YHWH_Christ said:
All the Big Bang really predicts about the “origin of the universe” is that for some reason the laws of physics as we normally understand them didn’t work before the end of the Planck Epoch.
Click to expand...
The “laws of physics as we normally understand them” include laws that describe time. Relativity introduced the idea of spacetime, a universe that is described by spatial and time components, not just spatial components. The Standard Model’s big bang does not have time as a separate coordinate, but as the scale function that modifies the other coordinates, so it is still a spacetime system. IOW there is no before.

God has always been portrayed as omnipresent, as outside the usual description of space. That is equally true when space is understood as spacetime. We do not know if there are other universes, which means other spacetimes, but they would have other times by definition, not extensions of our own time. And God would still stand “outside” all of them as well, using outside as a spacetime coordinate that does not exist within the system.

But you do have the core problem with the singularity right. If we assume a homogenous, isotropic universe with consistent physical laws, then there is a point at which it becomes unhomogenous, unisotropic, and the laws no longer work.
 
“It points to God, therefore it must be wrong, so let’s propose a bunch of other more outlandish possibilities instead.”
 
Last edited:
Many cosmological arguments don’t require any belief that the universe has a beginning as a premise or at any step in the argument, so no, it wouldn’t diminish the need for a creator.

And even if the “big bang” itself wasn’t the beginning, it doesn’t mean there wasn’t one before that anyway.
 
Last edited:
Beryllos said:
To put it another way, if our universe is part of an ongoing multiverse or “superverse,” where did that physical entity come from?
Click to expand...
And what sustains it in being?

Ultimately, the question is whether the principle by which the cosmos exists is a substance distinct from the cosmos (theism) or whether the cosmos is self-actualized (pantheism/atheism)
 
Yes. Big Bang imply a beginning to the universe. Who/what had set? A creator or self becoming? The science cannot find the answer for origin of matter. Just some conjectures and thesis for infinite cycle. There are many blind spots in that.

There are laws in universe. But the laws need to be setting initially. And there are no physical body of laws. And non of laws has intelligence to make so wonderful works. We just can see or feel and figure out. There is something beyond the physics!
 
Last edited:
Please understand that no scientific theory definitively proves nor disproves God, despite that some people would very much like to see “proof”, in either direction.

When the Big Bang theory was first proposed, some believers got very excited, thinking this was their proof of a Deity. Non-believers got anxious, because of the same reason.
But really, everybody just needs to relax 🙂

Science and religion have noting to fear from each other
 
It remains a theory because it cannot be proven a fact. Of course there are difficulties with it. Like, if the singularity was in equilibrium, what caused the explosion? an external force? how can an external force spring out of nowhere? and why did it explode with such precision? an infinitesimal stronger and the universe would consist of a soup of particles with no stars or planets, an infinitesimal weaker and all the particles would collapse back to the singularity and no universe results.
 
Dan_Defender said:
It remains a theory because it cannot be proven a fact. Of course there are difficulties with it. Like, if the singularity was in equilibrium, what caused the explosion? an external force? how can an external force spring out of nowhere? and why did it explode with such precision? an infinitesimal stronger and the universe would consist of a soup of particles with no stars or planets, an infinitesimal weaker and all the particles would collapse back to the singularity and no universe results.
Click to expand...
In the beginning God said “Let there be,” and BANG! There it was 😃

D
 
DaveBj said:
In the beginning God said “Let there be,” and BANG! There it was 😃
Click to expand...
There was a big bang so there must of been a big banger!!! lol

Jokes aside, the big bang is a significant find, but not significant enough to say God did it. It is not impossible that our universe is just one in a sea of universes. To be honest i find the idea of a multiverse interesting; Perhaps there is a baby-universe maker, and if so we would have to discover the mechanism behind this before assuming a non-natural cause.

But in any case, God did it.
 
Last edited:
YHWH_Christ said:
The idea that there was a singularity in the beginning that eventually became all of this by sudden inflation (i.e. the Big Bang) is simply wrong according to modern physics.
Click to expand...
The base assumption of your post is ill-informed. Current early universe cosmology is based on the Guthian model of early rapid expansion. Time itself came into being at some certain point during the early universe, but it didn’t exist before this and it is impossible to know anything with certainty beyond the early expansion of the universe.

Frankly, anyone who tells you that Big Bang Theory is wrong is wrong, and anyone who tells you they know what happened before the conception of the universe is a quack. Don’t waste your time on prideful stupidity.
 
Dan_Defender said:
It remains a theory because it cannot be proven a fact. Of course there are difficulties with it. Like, if the singularity was in equilibrium, what caused the explosion? an external force? how can an external force spring out of nowhere? and why did it explode with such precision? an infinitesimal stronger and the universe would consist
a soup of particles with no stars or planets, an infinitesimal weaker and all the particles would collapse back to the singularity and no universe results.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t an explosion. That would imply a point at which something exploded outwards. Which was not the case. It was an expansion. And not from a specific point.
 
Dan_Defender said:
40.png
Freddy:
It was an expansion.
Click to expand...
Call it what you want. If it happened, it was caused by something other than chance.
Click to expand...
If you mean that if was intentional, then we are then outside the scope of a scientific discussion.
 
Freddy said:
If you mean that if was intentional, then we are then outside the scope of a scientific discussion.
Click to expand...
True. Because science is not in search of the ultimate cause. That is the business of philosophy. When Dan_Defender said that the expansion was caused rather than being a chance event, then he is making a philosophical affirmation. And it is appropriate, because this is a philosophy forum. Science is not always the best discipline to use, especially when you are in pursuit of ultimate causes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top