The Big Bang Theory

[Pete_1]

Does the big bang theory explain how the universe could (in theory) be created without the need for an ‘unmoved mover’?

I heard a quote from Stephen Hawking when he invented the big bang theory: ‘what need then is their for a creator?’.

Could anyone explain to me the big bang theory and how and why Hawking was able to make this statement?

 

[HailMary]

kinda ridiculous since who created the stuff to be banged!

Not to mention the theory was invented by a catholic priest lol.
chrome://dictionarytip/skin/book.png

 

[Leopard]

The theory is based on the observation that with few exceptions, all galaxies are receding from each other. As they are moving apart as time goes by, it stands to reason that in earlier times they were all closer together. At some earliest time, then, they must have been close enough that all the matter of which the galaxies are composed was all together in the same place. Then “something happened” to make all this matter start moving apart. This “something” has been called the Big Bang.

 

[ricmat]

Does the big bang theory explain how the universe could (in theory) be created without the need for an ‘unmoved mover’?

I heard a quote from Stephen Hawking when he invented the big bang theory: ‘what need then is their for a creator?’.

Could anyone explain to me the big bang theory and how and why Hawking was able to make this statement?

No.

In short, prior to the big bang theory, the prevailing theory for a couple thousand years was that the universe was always here. It always existed. The big bang theory says that the universe - not just matter and energy, but also the space and time required to contain the matter started out as a humongous amount of energy in an infinitely small point which then expanded outwards, starting about 18 billion years ago. We look outwards today and still see the universe expanding in all directions - sort of like dots painted on the surface of an expanding balloon.

Just as there was a cry in the late 1800’s to close the patent office because everything had already been invented, scientists in love with themselves and their professions continue to declare that the latest theory du-jour, be it the big bang, evolution, or whatever has negated the need for God. And if they haven’t quite negated God yet, it’s just a matter of time until they got it all figured out. It’s just around the corner.

This is called hubris.

Aquinas’ 5 proofs of God’s existence continue as valid. And Hawking, as of late, growing in true wisdom, has become a church goer (Anglican).

 

[ABiii]

Ricmat is correct, that is the same historical interpretation that I learned in physics class.

The requirement of energy to start the big bang is so big that it is mathematically a fluke that it happened. That energy had to come from somewhere. (Law of energy conservation)

Then an atheist would answer, well if God did the Big Bang, who created God? Which is a silly question, because it would imply that God is measurable in our 3 dimensional scale… which by definition he isnt. It is like 2 dimension cartoon characters judging their 3 dimension cartoonist.

Another freaky mathematical impossibility is the creation of a living protein from non-living elements.

Multiply that with DNA/RNA creation which is also another mathematical fluke.

The probability of Big Bang * Living Protein * DNA/RNA is so small that you would really have to assume that either this is all a fluke or that there is a God out there.

 

[Benedictus]

Aquinas’ 5 proofs of God’s existence continue as valid.

No, they were never valid. They’re only accepted by some people who already believe in God.

And Hawking, as of late, growing in true wisdom, has become a church goer (Anglican).

Unlikely. Hawking is a lifelong nontheist.

 

[Benedictus]

The requirement of energy to start the big bang is so big that it is mathematically a fluke that it happened. That energy had to come from somewhere. (Law of energy conservation)

What is that requirement of energy? You’re statement makes no sense. It’s unknown what caused the Big Bang, so claiming to know that it would have taken a lot of energy is nonsense.

We don’t know, and probably will never know, what happen in the very beginning. The single most mysterious time is the Planck epoch (from 0 to 10^-43 seconds). To know what was going on during this brief time, we’d need a good theory of quantum gravity, which we don’t have. All we really can know is that the universe was unimaginably hot and dense–and unstable.

Another freaky mathematical impossibility is the creation of a living protein from non-living elements.

Multiply that with DNA/RNA creation which is also another mathematical fluke.

Actually, many people think RNA came before protein; although, that’s debated by others. Either way, the popular idea is that the foundation for life was formed by self-replicating macromolecules. While there are currently no firm answers, I suspect you don’t really have a solid basis to claim that it’s a “freaky mathematical impossiblity.” If you did, you should write a nice little paper about and submit it to a scientific journal.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

What is that requirement of energy? You’re statement makes no sense. It’s unknown what caused the Big Bang, so claiming to know that it would have taken a lot of energy is nonsense.
. . .l.

All the energy in the current universe had to be present in the Big Bang. Something, or some one, had to supply it.

 

[Petergee]

Does the big bang theory explain how the universe could (in theory) be created without the need for an ‘unmoved mover’?

I heard a quote from Stephen Hawking when he invented the big bang theory: ‘what need then is their for a creator?’.

Could anyone explain to me the big bang theory and how and why Hawking was able to make this statement?

If he did, he’s a blatant liar. The big bang theory was invented by a devout Catholic priest whom the Pope almost immediately appointed to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

For most of the 20th century the priest and his theory were openly derided by atheists who claimed he was merely trying to impose a theory which proves that the universe has a Creator. They stubbornly stuck to their own theory that the universe had always and will always exist in essentially the same form it is in now.

But the evidence which astronomers observed kept piling up and up in support of the Big Bang over the “steady-state” theory. Until finally by the late 1990s no scientist could possibly rationally deny that the scientific evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming.

But did the atheist scientists then say, “OK we were wrong to deride that now deceased holy priest. Let’s open our minds to the possibility that maybe there is something to this God business”?

On the contrary. THEN they started saying that the Big Bang, instead of proving that God exists, for some reason shows that God doesn’t exist! And many of their lay disciples in the media and the general public just lapped up and regurgitated this nonsense.

You’ve just gotta laugh at those stubborn, self-contradictory atheists.

 

[ribozyme]

If he did, he’s a blatant liar. The big bang theory was invented by a devout Catholic priest whom the Pope almost immediately appointed to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

For most of the 20th century the priest and his theory were openly derided by atheists who claimed he was merely trying to impose a theory which proves that the universe has a Creator. They stubbornly stuck to their own theory that the universe had always and will always exist in essentially the same form it is in now.

But the evidence which astronomers observed kept piling up and up in support of the Big Bang over the “steady-state” theory. Until finally by the late 1990s no scientist could possibly rationally deny that the scientific evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming.

But did the atheist scientists then say, “OK we were wrong to deride that now deceased holy priest. Let’s open our minds to the possibility that maybe there is something to this God business”?

On the contrary. THEN they started saying that the Big Bang, instead of proving that God exists, for some reason shows that God doesn’t exist! And many of their lay disciples in the media and the general public just lapped up and regurgitated this nonsense.

You’ve just gotta laugh at those stubborn, self-contradictory atheists.

Hawking was talking about the Hartle-Hawking state (the no boundary proposal) as it involves “imaginary time”.

 

[Petergee]

Hawking was talking about the Hartle-Hawking state (the no boundary proposal) as it involves “imaginary time”.

It always amazes me that atheists who refer to God as “your imaginary friend”, and deride theists for believing in Someone who can’t be seen or measured, then turn around and invent their own totally imaginary and invisible things and assert that they “prove” their own theories!

Just like when it is pointed out that the universe is remarkably consituted in just the right way to enable life to come into existence, which is virtually infinitely unlikely to have occurred by blind chance; the atheists then claim that there are numerous “other universes” , by definition invisible and unknowable, which exist only in their imagination, and which they claim disprove God!

And they have the nerve to accuse theists of being credulous and victims of a hyperactive imagination!

 

[ribozyme]

And they have the nerve to accuse theists of being credulous and victims of a hyperactive imagination!

You are not describing me there… I read books such as the Singularity is Near, and people such as Ray Kurzweil do have an overactive imagination. I do too, and I realize it is hypocritical to say theists believe in the “God delusion”.

 

[w_stewart]

Bing bang theory suggests that the universe was created billions of years ago. If it was created, there must be a creator that caused it to exist.

 

[SJAB1958]

Does the big bang theory explain how the universe could (in theory) be created without the need for an ‘unmoved mover’?

I heard a quote from Stephen Hawking when he invented the big bang theory: ‘what need then is their for a creator?’.

Could anyone explain to me the big bang theory and how and why Hawking was able to make this statement?

The Big Bang theory was first postulated by Georges Lemaître in 1925, Stephen Hawing was not born until 1942.

Georges Lemaître was a Roman Catholic priest in Belgium.

Theories are not inventions, they are explanations of the phenomena that can be observed in the physical universe.

I couldn’t find the quote that you refer to and attribute to Stephen Hawking, perhaps you could tell me your source?

If you wish to know more about the Big Bang theory and how it has developed since it was first posultated this link may be of use to you:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

As to how and why Stephen Hawking made the statement you suggest, it would be better if you could find out if he did say it before asking such a question.

 

[bobzills]

The Big Bang theory was first postulated by Georges Lemaître in 1925.

One objection to the big bang theory is that it appears to require an infinitely dense universe at the beginning. Objections such as this have lead people to seek alternative explanations such as the steady state theory or the Big Bounce or oscillatory universe theories.

 

[ribozyme]

One objection to the big bang theory is that it appears to require an infinitely dense universe at the beginning. Objections such as this have lead people to seek alternative explanations such as the steady state theory or the Big Bounce or oscillatory universe theories.

Or Turok and Steinhardt’s cyclic model…

 

[Leopard]

One objection to the big bang theory is that it appears to require an infinitely dense universe at the beginning…

Only if the totality of mass/energy of the universe is infinite, or if the volume of the “cosmic egg” in which the totality of the mass/energy of the universe was compressed was zero. A positive volume containing a finite totality mass/energy will have a finite density.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Does the big bang theory explain how the universe could (in theory) be created without the need for an ‘unmoved mover’?

for the religious god is the unmoved mover

for the NON-religious the Big Bang is the unmoved mover.

 

[bobzills]

Only if the totality of mass/energy of the universe is infinite, or if the volume of the “cosmic egg” in which the totality of the mass/energy of the universe was compressed was zero. A positive volume containing a finite totality mass/energy will have a finite density.

Correct. However, a singualrity of some sort would still be involved just before the Big Bang.

 

[Doug50]

for the religious god is the unmoved mover

for the NON-religious the Big Bang is the unmoved mover.

Sure, you can believe that but it’s a faith that you still have in holding to that belief…
counterbalance.net/cosmcrea/spitzer-frame.html