The Singularity(physics) is God?

[2014taylorj]

It has been argued many times by people that the singularity, in physics, implies the existence of God. However, I heard in a documentary a physicist called Frank Tipler who believed that the singularity at the Big Bang is God!. As Catholics what are we to make of these exotic beliefs? Are they heretical?

 

[Shakuhachi]

Then that would have to be a panentheism and of only the physical nature.

 

[2014taylorj]

I dont believe what he says, I am just wondering whether theoretically it could conform with Catholic Dogma. From what I read it sounded like he believed that the singularity has no natural qualities and all the qualities of God, and thus it is just God.

 

[Aquinas11]

No because the singularity has characteristics (one dimensional point, infinite mass, etc) and God transcends space and time.

 

[JGD]

In Catholic teaching, God is spirit, immaterial, unchangeable, simple (Aquinas).
Thus, the Big Bang cannot BE God. If the BIG Bang theory (as origin of the material universe) is correct, it would be because God created the mass/physical material and willed the “big bang” process.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

I don’t take too much stock in Physics. Right now we are living in a gilded age or an internet dark age. So, before Newton there were all kinds of theories out there like Ether explaining Force. Will since Einstein we have a lot of theoretical Physicists who centuries from now if we survive climate change will be looked upon as old time Ether kind of folk.

 

[Dan_Defender]

God cannot be contained by the physical universe, He is greater, far greater.

 

[JerryZ]

It denotes a very poor understanding of what a singularity actually is.
Which it is NOT anything in other words the singularity is a point that has no space and no time, any matter in there compresses into nothingness. Yes it is hard to comprehend. Now that is a “normal” singularity like the ones that cause a “black hole”. Imagine now a singularity that when it changed state from “being” a singularity into what we now call the Universe. All of the energy that was required to bootstrap this Universe into existence was released from within it. And no one so far can come with a theory of WHAT could cause such a change. Singularities can apparently “grow” by eating matter and other singularities. As for it to point to the existence of GOD, yes that is a good point but with the caveat that GOD is not THE big bang but rather the prime mover that makes the singularity change its state from nothing into everything. And also set in place all the LAWS that govern the Universe.
Peace!

 

[CathBoy1]

As for it to point to the existence of GOD, yes that is a good point but with the caveat that GOD is not THE big bang but rather the prime mover that makes the singularity change its state from nothing into everything. And also set in place all the LAWS that govern the Universe.

This.

I would like to point out that this view (BB from nothing) also aligns quite well with the genesis story of creation, then again it was a RC priest that developed the Big Bang Theory.

 

[JGD]

I dont believe what he says, I am just wondering whether theoretically it could conform with Catholic Dogma. From what I read it sounded like he believed that the singularity has no natural qualities and all the qualities of God, and thus it is just God.

Ascribing qualities of God to something other than God is what scientific atheism does. An atheist reasons on the basic assumption that there is no God - no supreme, creating, Divine Being. Thus, when logical scientific reasoning would lead to acknowledgement of a God, they reject it out of hand.

Science cannot explain how something came into being from absolute nothingness - it breaks the laws of science itself! Soooo, an atheist has to figure out a way to ascribe eternal existence (no beginning, no end), an attribute possessed by God alone, to something else. And thus you get theories of the eternal existence of matter and/or energy.

Personally, I had not heard of the singularity theory until this post, and from the little I read, it’s beyond my schooling to comprehend it in any depth. But if I were you, I’d have my spiritual antenna on alert for any indications of the theory being used in a subtle way to explain the origin of our universe without need of a Divine Creator.

Romans 1:19-24 definitely comes to mind nowadays.

 

[PetraG]

I don’t take too much stock in Physics. Right now we are living in a gilded age or an internet dark age. So, before Newton there were all kinds of theories out there like Ether explaining Force. Will since Einstein we have a lot of theoretical Physicists who centuries from now if we survive climate change will be looked upon as old time Ether kind of folk.

Um…Einstein saw Newton as the giant that he was.

As for it to point to the existence of GOD, yes that is a good point but with the caveat that GOD is not THE big bang but rather the prime mover that makes the singularity change its state from nothing into everything. And also set in place all the LAWS that govern the Universe.
Peace!

Exactly. It underscores the idea that the universe had to have a primary cause other than it itself, which is to say the creative will of God. God didn’t become the universe, but rather God is the single cause that brought the universe into being. It is beyond the scope of physics to conclude that anything was brought about solely by the creative will of God. All physics could do would be to conclude that it has no causal explanation for the origin of the universe.

 

[Michaelangelo]

In Catholic teaching, God is spirit, immaterial, unchangeable, simple (Aquinas).
Thus, the Big Bang cannot BE God. If the BIG Bang theory (as origin of the material universe) is correct, it would be because God created the mass/physical material and willed the “big bang” process.

The postulated big bang has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. This is a common misconception.

Ascribing qualities of God to something other than God is what scientific atheism does. An atheist reasons on the basic assumption that there is no God - no supreme, creating, Divine Being. Thus, when logical scientific reasoning would lead to acknowledgement of a God, they reject it out of hand.

Science cannot explain how something came into being from absolute nothingness - it breaks the laws of science itself! Soooo, an atheist has to figure out a way to ascribe eternal existence (no beginning, no end), an attribute possessed by God alone, to something else. And thus you get theories of the eternal existence of matter and/or energy.

Personally, I had not heard of the singularity theory until this post, and from the little I read, it’s beyond my schooling to comprehend it in any depth. But if I were you, I’d have my spiritual antenna on alert for any indications of the theory being used in a subtle way to explain the origin of our universe without need of a Divine Creator.

Romans 1:19-24 definitely comes to mind nowadays.

In physics this “nothing” is not used as it is in philosophy and its subcategories. In physics there can be fields without space or anything in those fields. But there can not be space without fields. Ergo, space can be created in a field.

 

[Michaelangelo]

It denotes a very poor understanding of what a singularity actually is.
Which it is NOT anything in other words the singularity is a point that has no space and no time, any matter in there compresses into nothingness. Yes it is hard to comprehend. Now that is a “normal” singularity like the ones that cause a “black hole”. Imagine now a singularity that when it changed state from “being” a singularity into what we now call the Universe. All of the energy that was required to bootstrap this Universe into existence was released from within it. And no one so far can come with a theory of WHAT could cause such a change. Singularities can apparently “grow” by eating matter and other singularities. As for it to point to the existence of GOD, yes that is a good point but with the caveat that GOD is not THE big bang but rather the prime mover that makes the singularity change its state from nothing into everything. And also set in place all the LAWS that govern the Universe.
Peace!

A singularity in physics is where the theories breaks down and one just get infinities. That’s it.

 

[Michaelangelo]

There is no such thing as “the big bang from nothing” in physics. And what is known as the big bang theory was derived from the field equationss within Einstein’s theory of general relativity by LeMaitre, Walker, Friedmann and Robertson. Lastly, the priest, LeMaitre, opposed strongly when pope pius 12 wanted to make the connection between the theory and the biblical story. LeMaitre’s opinion was that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor contradiction to the biblical story.

 

[Noose001]

A singularity in physics is where the theories breaks down and one just get infinities. That’s it.

Is there a ‘before the singularity’ or the singularity has always existed before the big bang? Can we even talk of the existence of singularity?

 

[Michaelangelo]

Michaelangelo:

A singularity in physics is where the theories breaks down and one just get infinities. That’s it.

Is there a ‘before the singularity’ or the singularity has always existed before the big bang? Can we even talk of the existence of singularity?

The big bang theory does not start with a singularity in which something happens. So there is no point in invoking singularities in this model. And yes, there was most likely a before the big bang. We just have no details about it because our physics cannot handle those circumstances. But the universe was not created in the big bang. What is referred to as the big bang was the unimaginable rapid expansion of the universe from a previously earlier form. If this expansion occurred in the universe as a whole or in just a part of it, a part we currently exist in, we do not know.

 

[Noose001]

And yes, there was most likely a before the big bang. We just have no details about it because our physics cannot handle those circumstances.

So when exactly did time start because the word before denotes time already.

 

[catholicray]

So when exactly did time start because the word before denotes time already.

Time is a measurement of change. Before time would refer to a reality that does not change.

 

[Michaelangelo]

So when exactly did time start because the word before denotes time already.

We do not know. And the big bang theory does not deal with that. There are speculations and hypotheses but no theory about that, as far as I know.

 

[Noose001]

Time is a measurement of change. Before time would refer to a reality that does not change.

Measurement of change is reality by itself so i doubt there’s such a thing as reality that doesn’t change.