What caused the Big Bang?

[dianaiad]

I can't argue with your premise that, in the absence of evidence for God, science is the explanation. The search for a scientific explanation has been going on for a very long time. One of my favorite theories is universes bumping into one another causing ugly scares on boundaries, then, spawning other universes. However, the real killer for multiple universes, or for the beginning of our universe is time. No matter what theory is proposed, there must be an explanation for the beginning of time. As long as matter and energy change, there is a time continuum. God disappears as an explanation if you can find a scientific explanation for the beginning of time. Even for the recycling universes, there must be a time for the first universe. There is no way to avoid the problem, the beginning of time must be explained.

You misunderstand me, I think. My view isn't that if God can't be proven, then science is the explanation. First, science EXPLAINS nothing. Science DESCRIBES. I know of no science that digs into the 'whys' of anything. Cause/effect? Sure...but we don't use science to investigate philosophical meanings of things.

Science, in other words, does not replace God. It's another way to describe how He works. I, personally, believe that He rather approves of science. Perhaps, eventually, using science, we will get to the 'proof of" God. Perhaps not...but whether we do or we don't, we WILL learn a great deal more about the universe I believe He created. How can that be a bad thing?

 

[Repox]

Clearly there is no 'scientific' explanation for the beginning of time. But perhaps there is a logical approach.

We must note first that time and change are inseparably linked (but - probably - not the same).

Then, also note that it is entirely plausible that either time or change (or both) are illusory emergent properties of a static block universe - and as far as I can figure out, the math (as far as we understand it) can still work. But I don't find that satisfactory because it seems to me to be entirely at odds with our common-sense experience (how reliable a guide is that?). We experience change as perhaps the most fundamentally persistent aspect of our existence - there is not a microsecond goes by without our experiencing some change. So, for the sake of argument only, I am ruling out the notion that time and change are illusions - but they might be.

For the purpose of this argument, I am assuming that the change we experience as an everyday reality is really real. That being the case, we have to ask what could have started change? And it is conceptually impossible (if we think carefully enough) to imagine a beginning of change (I mean all change). That is to say, if ever there was a time when no change at all occurred, then no change could ever have occurred at any time thereafter, because nothing could possibly have changed to make it possible for change to happen. You have to let that sink in - it is a deeply disturbing thought to me for some reason - it scares me every time I think of it - I feel like I am standing on the very edge of oblivion staring into the abyss of absolute nothingness - but I cannot get past the logical necessity - change simply cannot be got from no change at all.

So that means that since change is happening now, it has neither started (for the reason I have stated) nor stopped at any time in the past. Change is therefore eternal in the past. (We can't say about the future because change could conceivably stop and then it could never start again and that would be that).

If change is really happening, then time is real and eternal - I think it is obvious that there cannot be any change without time (and perhaps it is also true that there can't be any time without change).

So, time (and change) had no beginning, it just is.

I don't understand how time can be both real and eternal. To be eternal, time cannot exist because there would be no beginning. I define time as a measure of events or change. In the universe, matter and energy, whether quantum fluctuations or macro events, are constant functions of change. therefore, we have a measure of time. If science can find an absence of change, there would be an argument for eternity in the universe. Theoretically, it is impossible to propose a condition for no change in the universe because matter and energy, regardless of dimension or level of observation, are always in a state of flux or change. Again, there can be no eternal functions in a universe composed of matter and energy. Perhaps, eternity is the real dividing point between heaven and our material universe. According to my understanding, only God is eternal. It would also follow that heaven, a function of God, is eternal. As for the universe, God's did not design it to be eternal.

 

[siti]

I don't understand how time can be both real and eternal. To be eternal, time cannot exist because there would be no beginning.

Absolute time could not exist without a beginning but if time is fundamentally relational then an eternally changing universe would always have temporal relationships between events - which, as far as I can see is what time is regardless of whether it had a beginning or not. An eternally unchanging deity, on the other hand, would have need (or possibility) of neither time nor beginnings or ends - which is perhaps the most obviously assailable 'quality' of the transcendent God of both theism and classical deism - 'he' could have no possible use for space-time reality, so why bother creating it in the first place? Let alone the complete logical disconnect that permits an unchangeable, immaterial deity effect physical change.

 

[Repox]

Absolute time could not exist without a beginning but if time is fundamentally relational then an eternally changing universe would always have temporal relationships between events - which, as far as I can see is what time is regardless of whether it had a beginning or not. An eternally unchanging deity, on the other hand, would have need (or possibility) of neither time nor beginnings or ends - which is perhaps the most obviously assailable 'quality' of the transcendent God of both theism and classical deism - 'he' could have no possible use for space-time reality, so why bother creating it in the first place? Let alone the complete logical disconnect that permits an unchangeable, immaterial deity effect physical change.

You state, "if time is fundamentally relational then an eternally changing universe would always have temporal relationships between events - which, as far as I can see is what time is regardless of whether it had a beginning or not." You haven't explained how time can be "fundamentally relational?" If you mean relativity of situations and events, you still have time coordinates for those occurrences. While situations or circumstances may vary for each time event, time remains a continuum in relationship to change. Even for an aggregate of situations or events, there will always be a beginning. Based on the logic of time, you cannot propose situations or events without a beginning, or for any system of changes, regardless of the level of analysis, there will always be a beginning. As for God, there is no beginning or end because He is eternal. However, for all of God's creatures, and for the universe or anything God has created, there is time with a beginning.

A

 

[siti]

You haven't explained how time can be "fundamentally relational?"

I have explained why I find no room for a beginning of change. (Not saying I'm right but if you want to argue against it you have to give reasons rather than just statements such as

Even for an aggregate of situations or events, there will always be a beginning.

and

Based on the logic of time, you cannot propose situations or events without a beginning, or for any system of changes, regardless of the level of analysis, there will always be a beginning.

I'm not even sure what "the logic of time" means - as far as I can make out any interpretation of reality that makes time contingent appears to be logically unsound because the paradoxical question of what was "before time" can always be asked. This is true of any contingent aspect but as far as I can see they can all be resolved logically except time (and change). For example, before any 'thing' existed, there were no 'things' - and whilst it may be difficult to imagine a world with no 'things' - there is no logical contradiction as far as I can see to suggest that there might have been. But if we say there was no change, then that situation was, by definition, incapable of change and, logically there could then never be any change. Similarly if we say there was no time, then during what(???) did the emergence of time occur? Let us say that the clock ticked for the very first time exactly 13.8billion years ago - immediately that clock ticked, eternity past was temporalised because we could always say there was a second before that event, two seconds before it....13.8 billion years before it....any impossibly large number of seconds, years, millennia, epochs before it - there is no past limit - hence no "beginning". But with no change, then how could the "clock" start ticking? That IS a change, an event. And even if nothing else were happening, time was getting closer for that event to happen (whether anyone knew it or not) and that too IS a change - the time (if nothing else) is changing.It would make no difference in a(n otherwise) changeless eternity unless and until another change - an event - happened.

Even if that argument is not entirely convincing (even to me) I am sure of this, if we cannot propose "situations or events without a beginning" it is then logically inconsistent to state "As for God, there is no beginning or end because He is eternal." This is the same mistake that all cosmological arguments make - they first state that you can't have something (change, motion etc.) that is eternal as a premise and then conclude that something else (God) must be eternal. The conclusion is refuted by the premise. I can't think of an example of more logically unsound reasoning.

 

[Kapalika]

Siti suggested a thread about the big bang. Can science ever explain it, or did God do it?

Here is my explanation. Because science cannot explain how the universe came from nothing, God is the only possible explanation. God doesn't use physical laws and a scientific laboratory to create, He uses his holy will.

What do you think?

Argument from ignorance. This isn't even a debate worth having. How did we dedicate 4 pages to this?

It's easily refuted by pointing out that if you assert that it is unknown what caused it, you can't know that god did it either (since we established that it's unknown what caused it).

Also I could point out that there are many things that we didn't know and later learned, but people then used god there too to explain it, only for god to have to recede to make room for the new knowledge.

How can you know this won't happen with the Big Bang? If it's played out that we find out what did it and god is no longer needed so many times before, then it will be exactly how it's played out for centuries now. Your argument has been used so many times throughout history just to fall on it's face when we figure out what's behind the phenomena.

 

[IndigoStorm]

Siti suggested a thread about the big bang. Can science ever explain it, or did God do it?

Here is my explanation. Because science cannot explain how the universe came from nothing, God is the only possible explanation. God doesn't use physical laws and a scientific laboratory to create, He uses his holy will.

What do you think?

I think that everything about the christian bible story of creation is impossible ... "holy will" and all.

An all seeing all powerful guy arrives out of nowhere and goes about giving orders in a dark formless void.

From the get go (the very beginning of genesis) I have a problem with this invisible guy.

Take this for example:

1:6] And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
[1:7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
[1:8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

Now surely if a god was capable of all this creation thingee, he must have known that the sky was and is not a "dome" ... There are a gazillion inconsistencies like this throughout the bible which anyone with an open mind would question.

But alas when questioned believers will immediately go on the defensive the way they always do when painted into a corner.

Like they do when despite their prayers and the prayers of their entire church congregation, a young child dies of cancer.

"God has a plan for them." is standard in most cases when prayers are not answered.

Believers have been saying this type of thing for years and years ... Surely their god must by now have enough young kids to complete his "plan"?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Argument from ignorance. This isn't even a debate worth having. How did we dedicate 4 pages to this?

It's easily refuted by pointing out that if you assert that it is unknown what caused it, you can't know that god did it either (since we established that it's unknown what caused it).

Also I could point out that there are many things that we didn't know and later learned, but people then used god there too to explain it, only for god to have to recede to make room for the new knowledge.

How can you know this won't happen with the Big Bang? If it's played out that we find out what did it and god is no longer needed so many times before, then it will be exactly how it's played out for centuries now. Your argument has been used so many times throughout history just to fall on it's face when we figure out what's behind the phenomena.

I agree, but it sounds funny coming from a mystic. Mysticism is just a generic term for religion which also relies completely on hearsay and blind faith.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

You state, "if time is fundamentally relational then an eternally changing universe would always have temporal relationships between events - which, as far as I can see is what time is regardless of whether it had a beginning or not." You haven't explained how time can be "fundamentally relational?" If you mean relativity of situations and events, you still have time coordinates for those occurrences. While situations or circumstances may vary for each time event, time remains a continuum in relationship to change. Even for an aggregate of situations or events, there will always be a beginning. Based on the logic of time, you cannot propose situations or events without a beginning, or for any system of changes, regardless of the level of analysis, there will always be a beginning. As for God, there is no beginning or end because He is eternal. However, for all of God's creatures, and for the universe or anything God has created, there is time with a beginning.

A

The details commonly assigned to God, eternal being one of them, aren't described by syntactic rules in scripture. To be sure some of the words used to define God today often times are not in the bible! Instead words like "all powerful" instead of "omnipotent" are used. Philosophers and theologian's job is to make such scripture and terms understandable.


For example the concept and/or definition of eternal.We can understand what eternal means in one of two ways. Number one is God is 'temporal' ie is effected by time, however Gods 'timeline extends to infinity. Another way to say it is that as long as time existed so did God. He exists throughout time and has no beginning or end.

The last way to conceive what eternal means is that God exists outside time. It is this theory that I subscribe to. The fancy name for this is to say God is 'atemporal'. Just some general but relevant information.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Siti suggested a thread about the big bang. Can science ever explain it, or did God do it?

Here is my explanation. Because science cannot explain how the universe came from nothing, God is the only possible explanation. God doesn't use physical laws and a scientific laboratory to create, He uses his holy will.

What do you think?

Agree, God is not bound by his own laws that he created. Will, purpose, creativity, is arguably the only means by which anything truly novel can ever be created, unconstrained by an otherwise endless regression of cause and effect..

Besides, it has pretty much come down to God, or some sort of infinite probability machine (multiverse) which can create absolutely anything by chance.... except God of course, that would defeat the purpose!

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I think that everything about the christian bible story of creation is impossible ... "holy will" and all.

An all seeing all powerful guy arrives out of nowhere and goes about giving orders in a dark formless void.

From the get go (the very beginning of genesis) I have a problem with this invisible guy.

Take this for example:

1:6] And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
[1:7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
[1:8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

Now surely if a god was capable of all this creation thingee, he must have known that the sky was and is not a "dome" ... There are a gazillion inconsistencies like this throughout the bible which anyone with an open mind would question.

But alas when questioned believers will immediately go on the defensive the way they always do when painted into a corner.

Like they do when despite their prayers and the prayers of their entire church congregation, a young child dies of cancer.

"God has a plan for them." is standard in most cases when prayers are not answered.

Believers have been saying this type of thing for years and years ... Surely their god must by now have enough young kids to complete his "plan"?

The reason scripture is written in descriptive terms (ie using the word dome for the sky) is so that a illiterate population can understand the ideas being promoted. The bible does have some practical science in it, but it isn't a science textbook. How would a population of illiterate people understand an scientific and mathematical description of nuclear synthesis and other advanced subjects? The bible is portable unlike a library ! A science textbook big enough to describe everything would be worse than carrying around a library of congress. No my frubal* friends the bible is a textbook on how to save ones soul and how to live a good life. It's written in quite a few literary forms which include Parable, Simile, Metaphor, Hyperbole, Anthropomorphism, Irony, and Apocalyptic, which causes some confusion especially when being read by a cherry picker, lol.

hi Revoltingest !


; { >

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Agree, God is not bound by his own laws that he created. Will, purpose, creativity, is arguably the only means by which anything truly novel can ever be created, unconstrained by an otherwise endless regression of cause and effect..

Besides, it has pretty much come down to God, or some sort of infinite probability machine (multiverse) which can create absolutely anything by chance.... except God of course, that would defeat the purpose!

That reminds me of the KCA which I feel is the best cosmological argument for the existence of God. It uses deductive logic when describing why God is the best answer for what caused the big bang to bang. Check it out. It has never been defeated, the latest version vetted and brought into the 20th century by Dr. William Lane Craig has left many famous atheists at a loss for words.

 

[IndigoStorm]

The reason scripture is written in descriptive terms (ie using the word dome for the sky) is so that a illiterate population can understand the ideas being promoted. The bible does have some practical science in it, but it isn't a science textbook. How would a population of illiterate people understand an scientific and mathematical description of nuclear synthesis and other advanced subjects? The bible is portable unlike a library ! A science textbook big enough to describe everything would be worse than carrying around a library of congress. No my frubal* friends the bible is a textbook on how to save ones soul and how to live a good life. It's written in quite a few literary forms which include Parable, Simile, Metaphor, Hyperbole, Anthropomorphism, Irony, and Apocalyptic, which causes some confusion especially when being read by a cherry picker, lol.

hi Revoltingest !

; { >

Parable, Simile, Metaphor, Hyperbole, Anthropomorphism, Irony, and Apocalyptic ...

Silly Mr. god ... Now how could you expect an illiterate population to understand such terms ... especially us cherry pickers!

 

[Repox]

I have explained why I find no room for a beginning of change. (Not saying I'm right but if you want to argue against it you have to give reasons rather than just statements such as and I'm not even sure what "the logic of time" means - as far as I can make out any interpretation of reality that makes time contingent appears to be logically unsound because the paradoxical question of what was "before time" can always be asked. This is true of any contingent aspect but as far as I can see they can all be resolved logically except time (and change). For example, before any 'thing' existed, there were no 'things' - and whilst it may be difficult to imagine a world with no 'things' - there is no logical contradiction as far as I can see to suggest that there might have been. But if we say there was no change, then that situation was, by definition, incapable of change and, logically there could then never be any change. Similarly if we say there was no time, then during what(???) did the emergence of time occur? Let us say that the clock ticked for the very first time exactly 13.8billion years ago - immediately that clock ticked, eternity past was temporalised because we could always say there was a second before that event, two seconds before it....13.8 billion years before it....any impossibly large number of seconds, years, millennia, epochs before it - there is no past limit - hence no "beginning". But with no change, then how could the "clock" start ticking? That IS a change, an event. And even if nothing else were happening, time was getting closer for that event to happen (whether anyone knew it or not) and that too IS a change - the time (if nothing else) is changing.It would make no difference in a(n otherwise) changeless eternity unless and until another change - an event - happened.

Even if that argument is not entirely convincing (even to me) I am sure of this, if we cannot propose "situations or events without a beginning" it is then logically inconsistent to state "As for God, there is no beginning or end because He is eternal." This is the same mistake that all cosmological arguments make - they first state that you can't have something (change, motion etc.) that is eternal as a premise and then conclude that something else (God) must be eternal. The conclusion is refuted by the premise. I can't think of an example of more logically unsound reasoning.

You seem to be proposing an argument without logic. How is that possible? Without logic it becomes an argument about fairy land or science fiction. Without logic, physical laws become irrelevant. What I have proposed about the beginning of the universe is, admitting, illogical, but, nevertheless, reasonable based on the existence of God. God, a supernatural being, created a material universe with from His holy substance. The "God did it" argue will prevail because there is no scientific theory for the universe coming from nothing. God is the only possible explanation. You argument for eliminating the beginning of time is without merit or logic. Moreover, there is no evidence for the universe being eternal. It is not possible to conduct a discussion without logic, unless you want get weird, but not logical. Every reasonable person knows there is a beginning of time. It doesn't come from nowhere, unless it came from eternity (God).

You stated, "Similarly if we say there was no time, then during what(???) did the emergence of time occur?" The logical explanation is time occurred when the event, or situation began. Everyday, humans observed events and situations happening, and they dutifully record those occurrences with time. You can't ignore what humans know about time.

You stated, "This is the same mistake that all cosmological arguments make - they first state that you can't have something (change, motion etc.) that is eternal as a premise and then conclude that something else (God) must be eternal." I suppose they a perplexed to explain how something came from nothing. God is the only possible explanation.

The problem with an illogical argument is there is no evidence or predicates to convince one of the merits of said argument.

 

[sayak83]

You seem to be proposing an argument without logic. How is that possible? Without logic it becomes an argument about fairy land or science fiction. Without logic, physical laws become irrelevant. What I have proposed about the beginning of the universe is, admitting, illogical, but, nevertheless, reasonable based on the existence of God. God, a supernatural being, created a material universe with from His holy substance. The "God did it" argue will prevail because there is no scientific theory for the universe coming from nothing. God is the only possible explanation. You argument for eliminating the beginning of time is without merit or logic. Moreover, there is no evidence for the universe being eternal. It is not possible to conduct a discussion without logic, unless you want get weird, but not logical. Every reasonable person knows there is a beginning of time. It doesn't come from nowhere, unless it came from eternity (God).

You stated, "This is the same mistake that all cosmological arguments make - they first state that you can't have something (change, motion etc.) that is eternal as a premise and then conclude that something else (God) must be eternal." I suppose they a perplexed to explain how something came from nothing. God is the only possible explanation.

The problem with an illogical argument is there is no evidence or predicates to convince one of the merits of said argument.

What is illogical about a beginningless and end-less sequence of unique events (or states) in time??
Do not say it is illogical. Show it.

 

[Repox]

What is illogical about a beginningless and end-less sequence of unique events (or states) in time??
Do not say it is illogical. Show it.

In the real world, one that is logical, there is a beginning for time. There is no evidence for the universe being eternal, "beginning-less and end-less." There is an abundance of evidence for the universe being finite, not eternal. Evidence for time having a beginning is the clock, it operates on the "logic of time." There are countless examples for the beginning of time in the real world: birth of a baby (beginning of life), beginning of a war, the beginning of a day, years, hour, minute, etc. To deny the beginning of time for any situation or event is to deny the existence of our world. As for the universe, scientists have calculated it is about 13.7 billion years old. If you don't like that figure, take it up with cosmologists. There is no logical argument for time not having a beginning. As for endings, in the short term, most situations or events end. Even in the long run, based on laws of entropy, situations and events end.

What is your rebuttal?

 

[siti]

That reminds me of the KCA which I feel is the best cosmological argument for the existence of God. It uses deductive logic when describing why God is the best answer for what caused the big bang to bang.

No it doesn't at all...this argument (arising from medieval Islamic philosophy says nothing about why God is the best answer for anything - it simply defines God as the cause of the Big Bang. But it follows the same pattern as all other CAs - it stands on premises that deny the possibility of the infinite and then concludes that the cause must be infinite. (IOW the conclusion refutes the premises - which is a dead giveaway for faulty logic)

The premises are faulty to start with: The first states that anything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence...(OK - fine, I suppose, but there may of course be things - perhaps even many things that do not have a beginning of existence). The second states that the the universe had a beginning of its existence (but we don't know that this is true - we just don't know - we can say "the Big Bang" but we just do not know that this was really a beginning at all - and scientific evidence and theory are beginning to weigh against this notion - we can argue the impossibility of the actual infinite mathematically - but that argument has been raging for centuries and remains unresolved) - the truth is we just don't know, so the second premise is not a premise at all but, at best, a more or less sound conjecture.

Even if the premises of the argument were sound, there is no need to conclude with God, we could just as easily conclude with anything we care to define as infinite - I could, for example, say that the universe began to exist because the eternal, unchangeable and immaterial Laws of Physics caused it to begin to exist. There is no way you can prove that conclusion to be any more or less sound than Lane Craig's "God dunnit" conclusion.

Check it out. It has never been defeated,

It has now!

...the latest version vetted and brought into the 20th century by Dr. William Lane Craig has left many famous atheists at a loss for words.

That part of your statement, at least, is true - such stunning stupidity from such a respected theological 'philosopher' is apt to leave one utterly speechless.

 

[Valjean]

In the real world, one that is logical, there is a beginning for time. There is no evidence for the universe being eternal, "beginning-less and end-less." There is an abundance of evidence for the universe being finite, not eternal. Evidence for time having a beginning is the clock, it operates on the "logic of time." There are countless examples for the beginning of time in the real world: birth of a baby (beginning of life), beginning of a war, the beginning of a day, years, hour, minute, etc. To deny the beginning of time for any situation or event is to deny the existence of our world. As for the universe, scientists have calculated it is about 13.7 billion years old. If you don't like that figure, take it up with cosmologists. There is no logical argument for time not having a beginning. As for endings, in the short term, most situations or events end. Even in the long run, based on laws of entropy, situations and events end.

What is your rebuttal?

Reality is not common sense, it's not what we observe in our little world.
Time goes forward -- or backward. It's different for different observers. Objects can be in two places at once. Particles pop into and out of Reality. Mass dilates or contracts with speed. Cats are both alive and dead -- or neither.

 

[siti]

You seem to be proposing an argument without logic.

Do I? How so? So far, all you have done is to declare that my argument lacks logic but you have failed to show which bit of my argument is wrong (logically).

Every reasonable person knows there is a beginning of time.

On the contrary, no reasonable person knows this for sure.

You stated, "Similarly if we say there was no time, then during what(???) did the emergence of time occur?" The logical explanation is time occurred when the event, or situation began.

How can there be a "when" if there is no time? That is precisely the point. There can be no 'when', 'before', 'began', 'ended'...etc. 'beyond' time. If you are employing temporal concepts (not just words - I am not playing semantics here) then you are invoking time and if you are talking about a "beginning of time" (itself) you are already committing a logical fallacy because without time (already in place) as a reference how (I mean during what?) could anything (including time itself) begin?

I suppose they a perplexed to explain how something came from nothing. God is the only possible explanation.

I suppose they are - but I am proposing that perhaps something came from something - surely you can't object to the logic in that?

The problem with an illogical argument is there is no evidence or predicates to convince one of the merits of said argument.

Indeed!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Siti suggested a thread about the big bang. Can science ever explain it, or did God do it?

Here is my explanation. Because science cannot explain how the universe came from nothing, God is the only possible explanation. God doesn't use physical laws and a scientific laboratory to create, He uses his holy will.

What do you think?

I think you forgot one part: "Can science ever explain God or did UberGod do it?"

If you can't explain how the universe came from nothing, then you cannot do so with God, either. And for reasons which would give you blinding headaches to ponder, God is harder to explain than a mere universe. The latter is only "stuff," the former is complex, full of desires and creative urges, unbounded by space or time -- and who suddenly (can I say "suddenly" without time) feels the need to make space and time.

Alas, I can say that a billion times until I croak, but there's no actual way to get a believer to read those sentences and try to understand what they mean...