Why Doesn't the Big Bang Disprove God?

[JerryZ]

That sound’s like the Kalaam cosmological argument. basically it goes like this:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe has a beginning, therefore
3. The universe has a cause

The proponents of this argument usually go on to suggest that the only possible cause for the universe must be something immaterial, like a mind.

However, there are some problems with the first premise.

Granted, Hawking’s explanation is confusing, and I don’t completely understand how it works, The theory is intrigueing. As I understand it, it argues that the first premise of the cosmological argument is invalid.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Hawking proposes that the reason why things just don’t pop into existence in our experience is because gravity is everywhere in the universe. In the nothingness before the big bang, there was no gravity, so the whole universe was free to materialize out of nothing. He even has some evidence for it. It seems that the negative gravitational potential energy of the early universe roughly equals the positive energy of all the matter within it. This means that all the energy in the universe may actually cancel out. I don’t understand why gravity is considered to be negative energy. I’m not a professional physicist (yet). But I’m pretty sure that Hawking didn’t mean to say that gravity actually caused the universe. This would also explain the “fine tuning” of the universe.

The idea is that since universes can materialize out of nothing, every possible universe, each with its own set of constants, has materialized out of nothing. We just happen to be in one of the ones that can support life.

I think that the issue with Hawking is that somehow he cannot grasp that the point from which everything that IS sprang up did not have “GRAVITY”.

There was no matter in it, no atoms, no Hidrogen or Helium or anything else no Neutrons, Protons or Electrons. NADA ZINCH NOTHING no Cosmological Constants.

From Nothing everything was created.

And the BIG issue is WHY? WHY DID the Point decide to change state.

Hawking has eyes but he is as blind as a bat!

 

[JerryZ]

@ waanju, Peter plato, and Jacob18

Maybe there didn’t need to be a first cause. I don’t know how well this would fly with trained physicists, but I have a theory.

modern physicists tell us that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion is accelerating. This means that the further back in time you go, the slower it was expanding.

One can imagine a tape of the “big bang” being run backwards. The edges of the universe rush towards the center and slow down as they approach it. As the universe approaches the middle, Its size and speed both approach zero. One can imagine this going on for infinity…

OK Ii think that you have some misunderstanding of basic relativity mechanics

The four dimensions of spacetime.

In Relativity the world has four dimensions: three space dimensions and one dimension that is not exactly time but related to time. In fact, it is time multiplied by the square root of -1. Say, you move through one space dimension from point A to point B. When you move to another space coordinate, you automatically cause your position on the time coordinate to change, even if you don’t notice. This causes time to elapse. Of course, you are always travelling through time, but when you travel through space you travel through time by less than you expect.

Our brains cannot easily visualize this because we are 3 dimensional entities and we suffer the effects of the 4th dimension on our physical reality.

Now what is expanding since the BB is SPACE itself, time within that space has not chanced it rate, for it is a constant of the fabric of the universe.

 

[Julia_Mae]

OK Ii think that you have some misunderstanding of basic relativity mechanics

.

How many dimensions are there?

…how many dimensions does spacetime really have, according to string theory? The answer used to be easy: ten, with six of them curled up into a tiny manifold that we couldn’t see. But in the 1990′s we saw the “Second Superstring Revolution,” featuring ideas about D-branes, duality, and the unification of what used to be thought of as five distinct versions of string theory.

.

 

[3DOCTORS]

The Big Bang theory provides cogent evidence that time, space, energy and matter all began to exist at a point some 13.7 billion years ago. It seems to me that any explanation for an effect must be sufficient to explain the effect. In the case of the universe, since matter, energy, time and space all began to exist at the Big Bang, these cannot form any part of the explanation for why it happened, so that consideration seems to point towards a timeless, immaterial, non-spacial explanation.

How do those remaining “qualities” serve as proof against God, who is considered to be the eternal (timeless) boundless spirit (immaterial and non-spacial) who willed the universe into existence ex nihilo (from nothing, i.e., from no pre-existing material)? Most philosophers and scientists would concede that standard Big Bang cosmology tends toward being supportive of theistic claims rather than against them.

I am not clear why you believe Big Bang is evidence against the existence of God.

From Wikipedia ( I know…)
Independently deriving Friedmann’s equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the inferred recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the Universe.[35]

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the Universe was concentrated into a single point, a “primeval atom” where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.
Why would a Roman Catholic priest propose something that disproves God???

The Big Bang, like so many other things in science, explains “how” but does not really explain “why”…God has more to do with the “Why” of things…So in a nutshell that is why there is still room for God…

Peace
James

http://chirho.me/memes/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Fr-George-lemaitre-150x150.png

 

[Robertanthony]

The Big Bang theory provides cogent evidence that time, space, energy and matter all began to exist at a point some 13.7 billion years ago. It seems to me that any explanation for an effect must be sufficient to explain the effect. In the case of the universe, since matter, energy, time and space all began to exist at the Big Bang, these cannot form any part of the explanation for why it happened, so that consideration seems to point towards a timeless, immaterial, non-spacial explanation.

How do those remaining “qualities” serve as proof against God, who is considered to be the eternal (timeless) boundless spirit (immaterial and non-spacial) who willed the universe into existence ex nihilo (from nothing, i.e., from no pre-existing material)? Most philosophers and scientists would concede that standard Big Bang cosmology tends toward being supportive of theistic claims rather than against them.

I am not clear why you believe Big Bang is evidence against the existence of God.

Is that an established fact among the (for want of a better term) scientific community? As a Catholic I give my whole assent to ex nihilo, but not sure most scientists agree.

 

[Robertanthony]

What the Big Bang did disprove in my case is my idea of how God created the universe (and the massive amount of time that has elapsed since he did that). I suppose a lot of people assume a lot of things about how and approximately when God went about creating what only existed in his mind, if anything the Big Bang disproves a literal interpretation of Genesis. So Professor Krauss comes and says, “See, the universe isn’t 6000 years old. What does that say about the God of the Bible/your God?” To which I reply, “Nothing in the way of what you think it does” and “13.7 billion years is pretty old, even for an eternal God!”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Is that an established fact among the (for want of a better term) scientific community? As a Catholic I give my whole assent to ex nihilo, but not sure most scientists agree.

My understanding is that Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose showed in the late 1960 and early 1970s that extending Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to measurements of time and space that time and space had a finite beginning corresponding to the origin of matter and energy. The “singularity” did not occur in space, but rather that space, and by extension, time, matter and energy began within the singularity. Nothing (not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing) existed “prior” to the singularity because there was no prior.

Since then, much work has been done on the nature of the “singularity,” but this remains speculative since there is no way of scientifically testing any of these speculations.

From what I have read, no new “discovery” has significantly altered their conclusion that space, time, matter and energy essentially “began” 13.7 billion years ago.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What the Big Bang did disprove in my case is my idea of how God created the universe (and the massive amount of time that has elapsed since he did that). I suppose a lot of people assume a lot of things about how and approximately when God went about creating what only existed in his mind, if anything the Big Bang disproves a literal interpretation of Genesis. So Professor Krauss comes and says, “See, the universe isn’t 6000 years old. What does that say about the God of the Bible/your God?” To which I reply, “Nothing in the way of what you think it does” and “13.7 billion years is pretty old, even for an eternal God!”.

See post #32 and read the article by Gerald Schroeder, if you haven’t already. The expansion of the universe and the relationship of time and space may have significant impact on the rate that time “passes” relative to a fixed location in space. It may be premature to argue anything about the “absolute” age of the universe given relativity theory. One day may be “a thousand years” or more depending on your “relative” perspective.
Just a thought.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Whenever I think about the “Big Bang,” I have faith that it is our Heavenly Father, the Lord of Life, clapping His Hands:clapping: together in joy, to begin His creation! Have faith! God is the Father of all good things, and Lord of all life.

Yes, everything is beautiful He created.

Shalom
God bless

 

[Brendan]

My understanding is that Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose showed in the late 1960 and early 1970s that extending Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to measurements of time and space that time and space had a finite beginning corresponding to the origin of matter and energy. The “singularity” did not occur in space, but rather that space, and by extension, time, matter and energy began within the singularity. Nothing (not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing) existed “prior” to the singularity because there was no prior. .

Interestingly enough, that corresponds directly to Catholic thought on the matter (no pun ).

St. Augustine noted that the nature required it to be a created entity, that time itself had a beginning that corresponded with the beginning of the Universe.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Unfortunately the quote that I bolded out is not supported with the latest measurements done with satellites in orbit.

The Big Bang Theory (BBT) as it’s name implies is a Work in Progress. That means that science will keep observing, measuring, calculate, refine until we have 100% certainty of the Theory predictions in which case we declare it to be a Law of Nature or if we find it wanting then we have to come up with a better Theory to explain what we observe.

THAT is a the Scientific Method.

Your assertion that the BBT has been abandoned is totally unfounded and incorrect.

First one of the hipotesis of the BBT was that there should be a “Signature” the remains of the event that should be observable even at this stage in the evolution of the universe.

This signature is the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that is present everywhere we look at in the universe. Observations made here on earth hinted at this and a satellite mission was launched into space to look for it. The name of the satellite is WMAP.

The WMAP mission did find and measure the cosmic microwave backgroud (CMB) and you can read more about this here:

map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

One of the questions we have with the BBT is what is the age of the universe?
Measurements done here on earth gave fairly wide ranges of ages from 9 to 14 Billions years.
The main problem is that the expansion rate is proportional to the amount of mass present in the universe.

By the way Hubble (The Telescope) and other observation satellites in orbit keep returning positive evidence that the universe IS indeed expanding and you can read more info on this here:

nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer20121003.html

Through the mesurements done with the WMAP satellite we have been able to calculate the most accurate aproximation to the age of the universe to date which is 13.7 Billion years with an accuracy of 1% and you can read more on this here:

map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

So up to now we keep building on the observations and measurements and so far no one has come up with a better theory of why the universe seems to be expanding.
The Big Bang Theory it still is the best model to explain the observable phenomena.

There is no hidden agenda, for what is it to gain from hiding the information from the public?

Hope this sheds some light into the issue.

Thank you for you’re insight.

I’m not just not completely confident that it has been formulated as “perfect” theory But you’re explanation helped a bit.

Shalom
God bless

 

[SeekerDude]

Science answers how the universe was created.
Religion answers why the universe was created.

Both answers can help each other; and you cannot have a complete explanation with only one answer.

Actually, I’m not sure I agree with that.

What is God’s motivation for creating the Universe?

Also, I haven’t read to the end of the thread yet, but it’s possible that all of this that we can see is the inside of a black hole, and the Universe expanding is merely because the black hole is evaporating. Which means that the larger universe that this one came from is already dead.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Actually, I’m not sure I agree with that.

What is God’s motivation for creating the Universe?.

Maybe we should ask what the Universe’s reason is for existing.

“God created…” The tendency is to imagine an anthropomorphic Being Who made a measured decision.

But if you walk into a swimming pool, you will “create” a space in the water that is the exact size and shape of the part of your body that is submerged. That’s not why you walked into the water, it’s just what happens because you did.

Creation is as likely not a result of God’s intent, but the ineluctable response to God’s existence.

 

[SeekerDude]

Maybe we should ask what the Universe’s reason is for existing.

“God created…” The tendency is to imagine an anthropomorphic Being Who made a measured decision.

But if you walk into a swimming pool, you will “create” a space in the water that is the exact size and shape of the part of your body that is submerged. That’s not why you walked into the water, it’s just what happens because you did.

Creation is as likely not a result of God’s intent, but the ineluctable response to God’s existence.

That’s pretty interesting- but doesn’t that conflict a little with Genesis where he is deliberately creating the Universe? It’s a good argument for Deism. A quite good one, I might add, but a theistic deity by nature has to take some sort of voluntary action in creation.

Personally, I think it’s pointless to try and use science to prove or disprove the existence of gods and souls. Miracles, yes, totally can use science on that. Matter of fact, scientific unexplainability is what makes a Saint in the first place.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There was no matter in it, no atoms, no Hidrogen or Helium or anything else no Neutrons, Protons or Electrons. NADA ZINCH NOTHING no Cosmological Constants.

From Nothing everything was created.

In what I feel to be an abuse of the word, when coming from the mouth of some one that concentrates in physics the word “nothing” often refers to something physical and extant. It’s usually not creation ex nihilo in a literal sense.

 

[Julia_Mae]

That’s pretty interesting- but doesn’t that conflict a little with Genesis where he is deliberately creating the Universe?

It’s symbolic, according to the Church. But it conveys actual events. God created the Universe (with all dimensions obvious and hidden). That space in the pool cannot exist without you and that which is not-God can’t exist without God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think the Big Bang disproves God. That is the only reason I cannot believe in God.

Why do you think the fact of the Big Bang still has room for God?

Very strange. Every thing in the universe has a cause, every event/change is ordered to its proper end. Yet you think the universe itself does not have a cause, that it does not have a purpose. That is a very strange conclusion. Why don’t you spend about an hour and a half watching Fr. Spitzer’s videos. If they bug you like they did me, close the video and just listen. magisreasonfaith.org/spitzer_videos.html

 

[SeekerDude]

It’s symbolic, according to the Church. But it conveys actual events. God created the Universe (with all dimensions obvious and hidden). That space in the pool cannot exist without you and that which is not-God can’t exist without God.

No, I dig, it’s just the way that it was phrased I guess- God didn’t intend to create the Universe, he just felt like going for a proverbial swim, which resulted in the Universe, which is a good argument for Deism. But the Bible presents a theistic creator god, which would imply that he got into the pool for the purpose of displacing water, rather than going for a swim.

Though, I kinda like the idea of God accidentally creating the Universe.

“Whoops! Aww, now there’s things living in it!”

 

[Julia_Mae]

No, I dig, it’s just the way that it was phrased I guess- God didn’t intend to create the Universe, he just felt like going for a proverbial swim, which resulted in the Universe, which is a good argument for Deism. But the Bible presents a theistic creator god, which would imply that he got into the pool for the purpose of displacing water, rather than going for a swim.

Though, I kinda like the idea of God accidentally creating the Universe.

“Whoops! Aww, now there’s things living in it!”

Maybe its more like… all the nothing longing to be with God. And so it becomes because by the very nature of God, all is attracted to Him, and the only way to God is to become. I think its our job here: to change the nothing into the Divine.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I understand that point and I think that covers most misconceptions about Catholicism.

What I am saying is:

• I have never really thought the argument for God based on design was very strong.
• I believe the universe could have happened by chance, and I think that is pretty much proven by science.
• I believe in evolution.
• I, therefore, see no need for God to exist. So I do not think he does.

The only thing I do not feel sure of is the question “What caused the Big Bang?” even though Steven Hawking does seem to have an explaination for it. I don’t particularly like his explaination.

Hello,

Something worth pointing out is that when you ask things such as “What (if anything) caused the Big Bang” or “What is (if any) behind this design of creation?”, you are postulating answers regarding the Transcendent.

The Transcendent by definition is not verifiable and hence outside the Scientific scope of investigation. When you say Science has explained something about the above questions, what it usually means is that you have a concept/mechanism that you describe in Scientific terms that explains/answers the question. BUT, such explanations though done using Scientific terminology is NOT scientific. Why? Because they cannot be verified.

At best, you would be able to produce another entire new Universe this way using the proposed mechanisms but that will not verify whether OUR Universe was born that way or WE came to be in that way.

This is an important point and will first prevent you from sliding in to Atheism.

At this point, you might say, well if its Transcendent, I can never know it directly so what is the point of these things? You might even say that I do not believe in the “invisible pie in the sky” to illustrate your point.

The problem though is that while the “pie in the sky” is not verifiable, concepts such as morality, heaven, hell, God, salvation, after life are concepts/entities that should they exist, they will certainly be worthy of consideration (you might have to spend an eternity affected by the existence of these things). So this means that you should be always seeking the truth.

This is important because it will prevent you from getting lazy in your search when it becomes difficult.

Finally, since the Transcendent is outside of verification, you need to find someone with authority who can tell you regarding the Transcendent. This would have to ideally be someone who has demonstrated his capability to know the Transcendent.

Catholics consider this person to be Christ. We consider Christ to have shown his authority of the Transcendent through his death and resurrection. Note, at this point you do not know anything about who Christ is.

So once you have verified the historicity of the claim of the death and resurrection and feel that Christ is indeed the person you want to follow, you need to get hold of his teaching. To do that, the most logical thing at that time would have been to listen to his Apostles i.e. the Students of Jesus the Rabbi.

These Apostles also had their own students and passed down that knowledge and teaching authority. These students we call Apostolic Successors. They are present today in the Catholic Church together with the Successor of Peter (the head Apostle) the Pope.

So in order to learn what Jesus taught, you listen to the Apostolic Successors today and all that the previous Successors have taught throughout history.

This is why you should be Catholic. This is why its most reasonable to have faith in the Catholic teaching.