The faults of the Big Bang argument for God (Creator, Earth)

[Æsahættr]

Ok, I've just had too much of this argument. It seems to be all over the place these days. It goes something like this.

First of all, it usually begins with the statement that every effect has a cause. It then cites some evidence for the Big Bang. It then explains that the Big Bang was the beginning of the Universe, and therefore since the Universe had a beginning, it needed a cause of some sort, it need a creation. To have a creation, you need a creator.

For anyone who uses this argument, or who sees nothing wrong with it, this is why it is flawed. The main error is in the use of the word "beginning" to describe the Big Bang. A beginning imlies a point in time. It implies that something was not happening, and then suddenly it was. The reason this idea is trotted out so many times is, I believe, that everyone has real difficulty in coming to terms with the idea that time is not an eternal backdrop against which everything else is set. The idea of time in this sense is a classical physics one, and a common sense one. However, in our current understanding of the Universe, this idea is very wrong.

It's been decades since Einstein showed that time is just another dimension like space. Most people will accept this when you tell it to them, but they will go on thinking the same way.

I've tried many ways of explaining this to people, using ideas that I found useful in trying to understand it myself. My favourite way of describing it is to imagine a map of the Universe in its entirity. Since the Universe is 4 dimensional (ignore higher-dimensional theories for now), we need a 4 dimensional map. However, that's quite hard to digest, so shrink it back down to 2 dimensions. Let's say that the 2 dimensions we have got rid of are 2 spacial dimensions. So now, we have 1 space dimension and 1 time dimension.

Now, let's show the early stages of the Universe on this map. To simplify a bit further, let's pretend that the Universe expanded from the Big Bang at constant speed. That means that our map would look like a v. In this map, the vertical direction shows time and the horizontal direction shows space. The Big Bang is the point at the end of the v, where space and time are both at a single point. That is a crucial definition of the Big Bang, it is not as such the beginning of the Universe, it is a point in the Universe.

Now, when you start to think of the Universe like this, you see that it doesn't need to have a creation, a beginning. What we see as the beginning is simply a point created by the shape of the Universe. We only see it as a beginning because of the way we perceive time. It is not that the Universe has existed forever, as such, or at least, it is not that the Universe has existed forever against a background measure of time. The Universe is simply the shape of everything that exists.

I don't know how good my explanation is. If anyone else has a good analogy that explains it better than the map thing, then I'd enjoy hearing it.

Anyway, the whole point of this was to show that the concept of a Universe that is self-contained, that does not need an external force to spark it off, is completly consistant. That does not necessarily mean that the idea of an external force is disproved by this, merely that this cannot be a proof for that force. Anyone who wants to convince people of the existance of God had better come up with something other than the Big Bang argument.

[evearael]

The scientific debate regarding whether the universe had a distinct beginning and whether the universe has a distinct end is on-going. Thus, to base any assertions that presupposes a cyclic or finite universe is faulty, at best. You cannot prove or disprove God on that basis. That said, they are two different disciplines with different methods and requirements. Trying to prove or disprove God by science, is like trying to prove the quadratic formula using literary criticism. You are using the wrong tools for the task at hand. Science requires reason and religion requires faith, and it is possible to have both.

[Endless]

For anyone who uses this argument, or who sees nothing wrong with it, this is why it is flawed. The main error is in the use of the word "beginning" to describe the Big Bang. A beginning imlies a point in time.

I think you will find that it implies the beginning of time.

It is not that the Universe has existed forever, as such, or at least, it is not that the Universe has existed forever against a background measure of time.

You are arguing from a strawman position - the Universe did indeed have a beginning and of course it wasn't against a backdrop of time, merely the point at which everything began.
Therefore what you will find the argument as asking - why did the Universe have a beginning? Since the natural laws we observe have cause and effect. It stands to reason that every effect has a cause. Therefore the effect of the universe coming into being logically had to have a cause. No-one could say for certain what that cause was, but what they are saying is that logically one must assume that it did have a cause.

[Æsahættr]

Originally Posted by evearael

The scientific debate regarding whether the universe had a distinct beginning and whether the universe has a distinct end is on-going. Thus, to base any assertions that presupposes a cyclic or finite universe is faulty, at best. You cannot prove or disprove God on that basis. That said, they are two different disciplines with different methods and requirements. Trying to prove or disprove God by science, is like trying to prove the quadratic formula using literary criticism. You are using the wrong tools for the task at hand. Science requires reason and religion requires faith, and it is possible to have both.

Sorry, you misunderstood my intention. I wasn't trying to disprove the existance of God. I was simply addressing a fairly common "proof of God," and attempting to refute it.
All the same, I disagree that science is the wrong tool for dealing with the question of God. For centuries it was mainstream science to believe that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. That was an idea that lent evidence to the existance of God, because it suggested a sense of purpose. On the other hand, I think that quantum physics is evidence against the existance of God, because it suggests randomness and therefore lack of purpose. Science is never going to offer proof or disproof of God, but as our ideas change, atheism or theism can appear to be more likely. As an atheist, I believe that as time goes on, science will gradually lend more and more evidence against the existance of God, because I believe that science must always come closer and closer to the truth, and I believe that the truth is that there is no God. A theist might well take the opposite position. Science can never give a proof either way, because science is about proofs. But as the evidence changes, the proportion of theists to non-theists will change. Nothing wrong with plenty of debate about interpretting evidence.
Anyway, that was all unrelated to this thread. This was just about refutting that one argument, not about any arguments against the existance of God.

[Æsahættr]

Originally Posted by Endless

You are arguing from a strawman position - the Universe did indeed have a beginning and of course it wasn't against a backdrop of time, merely the point at which everything began.

Um...you'll have to rephrase that. The beginning was the point at which everything began? You can't say that the Universe had a beginning because that was when everything began. Of course, if it had a beginning then everything began at a certain point, and if it didn't have a beginning, then everything didn't begin at a certain point.

I'm saying that the verb to begin is the wrong one to use here. The Big Bang is a result of the shape of the Universe. Argh, I'm getting muddled in words now.

Put it this way...you might say that everything has a cause? Then the cause of the Big Bang is the shape of the Universe. Therefore, it does not need a creator (though that doens't mean it can't have one)

[evearael]

There are many levels of order and chaos and order and chaos... there is a method to the madness of quantum, and beneath that is more chaos. Science is not equipped to address theistic beliefs. This is not a critique of science, as I adore it and have taken quite a few quantum and nuclear physics classes. It is merely recognizing that our knowledge forever reach towards, but never quite grasp absolutely all laws that govern, well everything. Think asymptotes. There is no way to prove or disprove God... besides, first you would need to be able to define Him. Good luck...

[Æsahættr]

Originally Posted by evearael

There are many levels of order and chaos and order and chaos... there is a method to the madness of quantum, and beneath that is more chaos. Science is not equipped to address theistic beliefs. This is not a critique of science, as I adore it and have taken quite a few quantum and nuclear physics classes. It is merely recognizing that our knowledge forever reach towards, but never quite grasp absolutely all laws that govern, well everything. Think asymptotes. There is no way to prove or disprove God... besides, first you would need to be able to define Him. Good luck...

I agree that science does not address theistic beliefs, in that it is impossible to apply the scientific method to rigorously determine whether there is a God. However, science clearly does have a huge impact of belief. I would say that it has played a large part in raising the level of atheism today in comparison to the middle ages say. People don't need an indisputable proof or disproof of God to adopt a faith position. But if much more can be explained without the need for evoking a god, then atheism will rise over time.
There was an interesting study recently, into the beliefs of scientists. It showed that the biggest percentage of theist scientists were physicists, while very few biologists were. Science itself does not prove either way, but certain science lends itself to certain interpretations more than others. As science changes, belief changes with it.

[Endless]

Of course, if it had a beginning then everything began at a certain point, and if it didn't have a beginning, then everything didn't begin at a certain point.

The beginning of time. It was when time started - i'm not using beginning in a sense of a point along time. I know what you mean about getting muddled up in words - sometimes we just don't have the words in the english language to express these types of concepts well.

[Æsahættr]

Originally Posted by Endless

The beginning of time. It was when time started - i'm not using beginning in a sense of a point along time. I know what you mean about getting muddled up in words - sometimes we just don't have the words in the english language to express these types of concepts well.

Yeah. It would be tempting to start making up words, except that would unfortunately rather undermine the point of trying to communicate meaning. Oh for telepathy...

I think I'll avoid the semantics over the meaning of the word beginning. I'm gonna stick to the argument based on the shape of the Universe being the cause of the Big Bang.