• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What caused the Big Bang?

Thief-rogue theologian. I believe you have some insight on the Big Bang. Many terms which science uses to explain that event are very confusing. For instance the term Singularity can be confusing. Expansion as a term can be confusing also. Singularity is a point of infinite density like in a black hole. However now scientists want to use this same term for the moment of the Big Bang which is confusing. Expansion is confusing in the sense that when scientists use the term they are talking about space expanding as a whole but then give no indication or do not include what space expands/expanded into. There may be nothing that space expanded into but for visualization purposes the mind has a tough time grasping that. So Thief as far as what observers/scientists see when they look out into the cosmos I agree partly with what you say. I agree with the rotation aspect, that we see some dynamics which reveal some rotation over all. However I don't fully understand the shock wave idea which you mentioned. As far as I understand the CMB or cosmic microwave background it's like a wall with things written on it. It's a wall of radiation or when radiation started to behave how we usually perceive its activity in our time epoch. The Big Bang is a different time epoch and the wall of the CMB marks a epoch change in the history of the universe. This is how I understand it. When observers see the CMB they are looking back in time to the start of the universe. At that time quantum effects were prominent. It was quantum effects that led to the small differences in densities in different spots of all space. This in the end led to the vast voids of emptiness in space as well as the dense conglomerations of matter like the galaxy clusters. We can thank the quantum for the artistic architecture of the universe we observe now.


Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
The more I think about language, the more it amazes me that people ever understand each other at all. Kurt Gödel

I agree, mostly. It's obvious that advanced science disciplines seem to conspire, not intentionally tho, to make their particular area of interest more difficult/complicated than it has to be. Maybe the reason for that is that our Physics, and other science is becoming so precise and so specialized that a higher level of communication is required to ensure the accuracy needed for advanced areas of study and research.


Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
It takes less faith for me to believe the universe was caused by non-physical forces rather than known physical phenomenon. Why? Because 'before' the big bang mechanisms did not exist to produce a physical entity or object*. There was no physicality, there was no gravity, no energy, no plasma, no quantum events, not even time existed.

* According to current scientific theory which is still the go to theory for how the universe began. Lecture 36: The Big Bang
Last edited:


Rogue Animist
Premium Member
There are a number of different proposals about what caused the universe/happened before it came into existence. Goddidit is one such explanation, but is more about WHO did it than about what/how it happened.

On the other hand, at least some proposals, while perhaps untestable currently and maybe even ever, do explain why our "something" seems to have come from "nothing."


To quote:

"This is what the physicists propose:

  • The model they constructed has the three-dimensional universe floating as a membrane (or brane) in a "bulk universe" that has four dimensions. (Yes, this is making our heads hurt as well, so it might be easier to temporarily think of the brane as two-dimensional and the "bulk universe" as three-dimensional when trying to picture it.) You can read the more technical details in this 2000 paper on which the new theory is based.
  • So if this "bulk universe" has four-dimensional stars, these stars could go through the same life cycles as the three-dimensional ones we are familiar with. The most massive ones would explode as supernovae, shed their skin and have the innermost parts collapse as a black hole.
  • The 4-D black hole would have an "event horizon" just like the 3-D ones we are familiar with. The event horizon is the boundary between the inside and the outside of a black hole. There are a lot of theories of what goes on inside a black hole, although nothing has ever been observed.
  • In a 3-D universe, the event horizon appears as a two-dimensional surface. So in a 4-D universe, the event horizon would be a 3-D object called a hypersphere.
  • So basically, what the model says is when the 4-D star blows apart, the leftover material would create a 3-D brane surrounding a 3-D event horizon, and then expand.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2013-09-goodbye-big-black-hole-theory.html#jCp


Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Yes, I have read and understand many of the scientific theories of the universes origin that the Goddidn'tdoit' scientists have formulated in an attempt to put distance between 'scientific theory ' and the well known theistic implications of the big bang Theory. Hawking created one where there was no start to the universe, rather it continually rebounded not from a point but from something shaped somewhat like a shuttlecock ie the conical high-drag projectile used in badminton. However, all the 'new' theories (except for the traditional Big Bang Theory) have no empirical evidences and prop up their science poor meanderings with a big dose of pure speculation. As our research into theoretical physics delve deeper and deeper into the micro levels smaller than Planck unit* it seems to me that a new realm is at hand.
*(we can measure angular momentum down to .50 of a Planck unit)

Some of what is real on a quantum scale forces reality take on new definitions. My personal opinion is that the non-intuitive realities of the quantum world transfers and applies to macro scale reality. Phenomenon written about in ancient texts from the bible and other religious texts began making sense when viewed through the lenses of strange effects of the quantum world etc .But these things do require faith just as speculation (or faith) is/are needed to make the newest theories of science palatable.

English Grammar question; In the above last sentence should I use 'is' or 'are' ?
Last edited:


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.

I hesitate to even answer because i am not sure if it will be understood.

There was a time in history when there were gods of thunder and gods of the sea and gods who made the winds, etc. We all now know (or we should..!) have a decent understanding of what causes thunder and lightning, or ocean waves and currents or tornadoes and other storms. Just because we do not understand the mechanism for universe creation, does not mean we need to attribute it to a god. We should all be beyond cowering in a cave.

Here's my theories: Energy is finite. It exists and always has. The proof lies beneath you feet. That dirt came from the conversion of energy to matter. The big bang was just a mass conversion. I think of it as blowing bubbles with air. My breath is the expansion. the universe is just one bubble out of thousands. a bubble forms pretty quickly and settles down. I think the expansion of the universe is due to forces exerted form outside the universe and may be the elusive dark matter or some part of it.

I prefer to relax and not worry about it until it hits the textbooks.


Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Even God would have existential rules to abide in. Forces, presences, will, virtue, effort, material, object, energy, motion etc. Omni as they would be, and without limits but those of existential, and logical impossibility.

The cheese God people normally think of has no such laws of truth to abide in. God is effortless magic in the cheese world.

How would the Big Bang jive with a God of existential rules? It would have to be one heck of a fallen reality. Existing in rebellion to God's will sitting here in between life and death, on a razor's edge and fine line between destiny and fate, in the deepest void of darkness.

Clearly intelligence is a power to be reckoned with, and this would be God's reckoning of it. Certainly not everything in the universe would be God's will.

This Earth plays out on its entire own, apart from God and creature life does only what's in its heart to do. We either do what's heart fully necessary and true to live a good life, or not.

It's easier, to believe natural forces are playing out and that's all it is. God is many people's cry for meaningful life without end. And the conception of the Greatest Possible Good that a being could be.

But as a reason for the Big Bang. God is a jump across many bridges to make.