What caused the Big Bang?

[siti]

True, but there are indications, such as EPR, which appear to indicate that at the hyper-subatomic level, quantum particles/waves can get around those limits or firewalls.

OK - and the truth is we don't know - as you rightly point out - what (if anything) happens beyond the Big Bang, the Planck scale in space and time or the limits of the observable universe - but if particles or waves can indeed "get around those limits" then "beyond those limits" lies a physical, material reality that we have yet to observe or explain - not a timeless and immaterial 'realm' of unreality that we can never hope to understand. Until we do figure out how to observe (if it is even possible - for us - to do so), anything we say about them is speculation and the further it deviates from what we already know about the reality we can observe, the wilder the speculation becomes. I have some pretty wild speculations about what might be 'out there' beyond the limits of (currently) observable reality - but I make no 'truth' claims for these. What I do know is this: actual singularities are physically impossible, so whilst theists and deists alike are apt to latch on to the notion of creatio ex nihilo that the Big Bang model seems (at least to them) to support, the idea is preposterous in terms of everything else we know about reality. The universe (that we observe) simply could not have emerged from nothing - it emerged from something. If that something is "God" then "God" is physical.

 

[sayak83]

I have repeated this same argument many times,

It is all speculation, there is no evidence for "Time progresses eternally and endlessly." It is wishful thinking for those who hate the idea of God being the only eternal being in existence. It is not logical, time cannot be eternal. If time was eternal, it would not be time! By definition, time has a beginning.

Sorry no. There is no logical reason for time to have a beginning, and not certainly by definition. In fact logic is against it. For every instance of time, its more reasonable to say there was a time instant before it...and so on to past infinity. Since you are simply repeating yourself now, I guess you are out of anything substantive to say , correct?

 

[sayak83]

Provide the evidence for time not having a beginning. It is not possible fr there to be no beginning of time. We live in a finite universe, not an eternal universe. Prove otherwise.

Pleas provide evidence that the universe is finite. As far as I know the universe looks by observation to be actually infinite in space and quite possibly in time ( once again see the cosmologists themselves say so in the videos).

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

How do you get from "we don't know" to "we know"???? So the only things god actually did are things we do not currently have an explanation for? That's a mighty small deity you have there. And he keeps shrinking.

 

[siti]

That's a mighty small deity you have there. And he keeps shrinking.

Yes - that's the problem deism has (and I might even be a kind of deist - but that's another - rather long - story) - but we really do need to find something else for God to do now that he doesn't need to fiddle with evolution, wind up the clockwork universe every now and then, hold the stars in place or receive us into eternity when we die (as far as I am concerned). Deism per se is becoming less and less satisfactory as a 'worldview' but the methodology of deism - observe and reason - is as valid now as it was in 18th century when Jefferson said we should "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." But that to me implies that we need to work on what we can see - by all means speculate - but with reason and observation as the basis on which speculation is built. I'm not seeing that in comments like:

The reason for so much frustration is because people won't except the only logical explanation for the beginning of the universe. God, a supernatural being, caused the big bang.

 

[Milton Platt]

That might be what would expect to see from 'outside' the universe but from within you would only be able to see as far as light could have travelled since the BB (actually a little while after the BB because the very earliest phase would be opaque and therefore not visible to us at all) and that works out very roughly to be about 46.5bn light years years in any direction (because the universe is expanding the light that takes 13.8bn years to reach us came from galaxies that by now are 46.5bn light years away - if they still exist). But the whole universe might be hundreds of times that size meaning we can neither see the center nor the edge even if the universe has them (which we don't know). The universe could be infinite in extent for all we know.

What we do observe, in the bit of the universe that we can 'see', is that the stuff is pretty well spread out in all directions, just as one would expect when something goes bang.

There was no big bang. The scientists discovered that almost all galaxies were moving away from each other so they figured that if they ran it in reverse then everything came from the same location. The idea of all matter coming from a big bang violates what we know about gravity but the scientists still accepted it because the data showed movement outward.

What do we know about gravity or lack thereof in the conditions that would have existed before and shortly after the big bang?

Then they looked at the universe and saw that matter was evenly distributed. If there was a big bang that produced all the matter in the universe then the matter would be in a sphere shape with a large empty space at the center and outside but that's not what they see.

How do you account for the radiation that is supposedly the outcome of the initial expansion, then?

We can only see as far as the speed of light lets us see. We can only see the "visible" universe. The light from anything further away has not reached us and is not visible because of that. We don't know where the edge of the universe is, if there is one.

Then they found that the galaxies are not just moving away from each other but they are speeding up so they came up with dark matter and dark energy.

What is your theory of why the universe is speeding up in terms of expansion...please provide evidence or links to evidence for support.

The idea of the big bang is so accepted that no scientist is ready to abandon it. I think they're going to have to figure out dark matter and dark energy before they will finally dump the big bang.[/QUOTE

The best way for a scientist to become famous in his field and capture a Nobel prize in the bargain is to disprove a long standing theory. All theories are open to addition, correction, or dismissal.

 

[Repox]

Sorry no. There is no logical reason for time to have a beginning, and not certainly by definition. In fact logic is against it. For every instance of time, its more reasonable to say there was a time instant before it...and so on to past infinity. Since you are simply repeating yourself now, I guess you are out of anything substantive to say , correct?

Explain your statement, "There is no logical reason for time to have a beginning, and not certainly by definition." You can't do it! You have nothing substantial to offer.

I keep repeating time has a beginning because there are so many people here that don't understand. Why is that?

If you apply logic, there has to be a beginning of time. Otherwise, time is eternal. Because there is no evidence for time being eternal, time has a beginning. Absolutely nothing in the universe, including time, is eternal. Why do people keep saying this or that is eternal. It is dumb, only God is eternal.

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes - that's the problem deism has (and I might even be a kind of deist - but that's another - rather long - story) - but we really do need to find something else for God to do now that he doesn't need to fiddle with evolution, wind up the clockwork universe every now and then, hold the stars in place or receive us into eternity when we die (as far as I am concerned). Deism per se is becoming less and less satisfactory as a 'worldview' but the methodology of deism - observe and reason - is as valid now as it was in 18th century when Jefferson said we should "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." But that to me implies that we need to work on what we can see - by all means speculate - but with reason and observation as the basis on which speculation is built. I'm not seeing that in comments like:

Yes, go from speculation to hypothesis to theory and then continually refine the theory....or abandon it and start over if that becomes necessary.

 

[siti]

Yes, go from speculation to hypothesis to theory and then continually refine the theory....or abandon it and start over if that becomes necessary.

Exactly! So for speculations about God, they would always have to be conditional - the best we could possibly hope for is a valid argument that starts something like "if God exists, it must be...[and then insert a valid logical argument for whatever you think it must be like]..."

That is, I think, where the future of deism (if it has a future at all) would have to be. If we are insisting that God must exist because supernatural intervention is required at some point(s) because we (currently) have no better explanation (i.e. a God of gaps argument) then we have abandoned the methodology of deism in favour of a received dogma (the transcendent nature of "the creator"). And that, IMO, is an abandonment of Deism altogether. Its not freethinking any more, its slavish unthinking.

 

[Milton Platt]

Exactly! So for speculations about God, they would always have to be conditional - the best we could possibly hope for is a valid argument that starts something like "if God exists, it must be...[and then insert a valid logical argument for whatever you think it must be like]..."

That is, I think, where the future of deism (if it has a future at all) would have to be. If we are insisting that God must exist because supernatural intervention is required at some point(s) because we (currently) have no better explanation (i.e. a God of gaps argument) then we have abandoned the methodology of deism in favour of a received dogma (the transcendent nature of "the creator"). And that, IMO, is an abandonment of Deism altogether. Its not freethinking any more, its slavish unthinking.

I understand your thinking, but a better starting point is to observe the world and follow the evidence without presupposing the outcome. You don't start with "if god exists". You just end up where the evidence goes. So far, there is no convincing evidence to support anything supernatural. Doesn't mean there may not be. But until we can devise a test for that, we can at best say that we don't know. often, though, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If you had a complete cancer workup at your doctor's and he said that he could find no trace of cancer, would you then insist on a round of chemotherapy?

 

[siti]

Absolutely agree except for this part:

often, though, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

In philosophy, unlike medicine, law and science, absence of evidence is never taken as evidence of absence. If you do that, you have to admit Repox's argument that there is no evidence for eternal time, or infinite universe therefore they don't exist. To illustrate this, I can prove on that basis that the universe does not exist:
1. There is no evidence that universe is eternal, therefore the universe (if it exists) had a beginning
2. There is no evidence that time had a beginning therefore time (if it exists) is eternal
3. If time is eternal then an eternity (infinite amount of time) would have to pass before the beginning of anything
4. It is impossible that an infinite amount of time could have passed
5. Therefore nothing that has a beginning (including the universe) can exist
This is obviously an absurd argument, but the only fault is that we have taken absence of evidence as evidence of absence in 1 and 2. There's nothing logically wrong with the rest of it.

Just one more point, if I may. You are also assuming that I define 'God' as 'supernatural' - and whilst that is what is normally understood - it isn't what I mean. All attempts to establish the existence or non-existence of God are really based on defining God either into or out of existence. This is another logical fallacy. We are never obliged to make an argument about God one way or another, but if we do, and deists often want to do so, they should begin with "if God exists" because there is no way we can know for sure one way or the other. For this reason science proceeds on the basis of the deistic assumption that "if God exists...he does not intervene supernaturally by suspending or overturning the laws of nature" not the atheistic assumption that God doesn't exist at all.

 

[sayak83]

Explain your statement, "There is no logical reason for time to have a beginning, and not certainly by definition." You can't do it! You have nothing substantial to offer.

I keep repeating time has a beginning because there are so many people here you don't understand. Why is that?

If you apply logic, there has to be a beginning of time. Otherwise, time is eternal. Because there is no evidence for time being eternal, time has a beginning. Absolutely nothing in the universe, including time, is eternal. Why do people keep saying this or that is eternal. It is dumb, only God is eternal.

E

There is no evidence whatsoever that time has a beginning. Its perfectly logical and perfectly within the purview of known cosmology to say time as well as the physical reality (i.e. a beginningless sequence of universes) is eternal. Saying its nonphysical, illogical and so on does not make it so.

Today there are almost no theory of physics that say that nothing existed before Big Bang. Any theory that puts in quantum mechanics with relativity at the beginning in some form or the other inevitably comes up with the conclusion of there existing a reality or universe (including time) before the Big Bang. Thus given current understanding of physics there is no reason or evidence whatsoever that time or physical reality ever has a beginning. The universe emerged out of some pre-existing reality which itself may have emerged for something else (even if that is a quantum potential field) and so on.

BBC:What Happened Before the Big bang

 

[Milton Platt]

Absolutely agree except for this part: In philosophy, unlike medicine, law and science, absence of evidence is never taken as evidence of absence. If you do that, you have to admit Repox's argument that there is no evidence for eternal time, or infinite universe therefore they don't exist. To illustrate this, I can prove on that basis that the universe does not exist:
1. There is no evidence that universe is eternal, therefore the universe (if it exists) had a beginning
2. There is no evidence that time had a beginning therefore time (if it exists) is eternal
3. If time is eternal then an eternity (infinite amount of time) would have to pass before the beginning of anything
4. It is impossible that an infinite amount of time could have passed
5. Therefore nothing that has a beginning (including the universe) can exist
This is obviously an absurd argument, but the only fault is that we have taken absence of evidence as evidence of absence in 1 and 2. There's nothing logically wrong with the rest of it.

Just one more point, if I may. You are also assuming that I define 'God' as 'supernatural' - and whilst that is what is normally understood - it isn't what I mean. All attempts to establish the existence or non-existence of God are really based on defining God either into or out of existence. This is another logical fallacy. We are never obliged to make an argument about God one way or another, but if we do, and deists often want to do so, they should begin with "if God exists" because there is no way we can know for sure one way or the other. For this reason science proceeds on the basis of the deistic assumption that "if God exists...he does not intervene supernaturally by suspending or overturning the laws of nature" not the atheistic assumption that God doesn't exist at all.

Not all atheists make the assumption that no god exists at all. Most simply reject the proposition that he does for lack of sufficient empirical evidence. Most are open to the idea that once can exist, they just don't think one does, at least none that have been proposed. It is normal to assume something does not exist until the evidence supports the belief. You can't put all atheists into one big basket, especially not that one.

I am not versed in the philosophies to any great degree, but I find your list of propositions interesting.
But i didn't say that an absence of evidence means that they cannot exist, only that it means that it is a reasonable assumption that they do not, otherwise, one ends up believing most every proposition that comes along.

 

[Super Universe]

What do we know about gravity or lack thereof in the conditions of the big bang? We know that gravity never turns off. We know that gravity, unlike other forces, is cumulative.

If you're saying that we don't have physics that explains the big bang then isn't that a problem? When you have to change your laws of physics to force something, that isn't science, it's pseudo-science. The only thing you can say is that galaxies are moving away from each other for some reason. You can't say that everything came from one place but that is what scientists have been doing for years.

The light from anything further away has not reached us and it not visible? Not so. Hubble telescope stared at a black dot in space and when the picture was resolved they saw that it was full of galaxies. The light from those galaxies had been reaching the earth for an unknown amount of time. It didn't just start when the Hubble was turned on, it was already there. To see farther you have to build a space interferometer of Hubbles. There will be more galaxies.

How do I account for the background radiation? All stars emit radiation. Name one direction in space where there are no stars? Just one.

What is my theory as to why the universe is speeding up? Because there is so much more to do. I have to provide links to support my theory? I really don't.

Scientists would love to disprove a long standing theory? Then how come so many of them disagreed with Einstein and Higgs and it took years for the scientists to come around? Too many scientists are more concerned with what their peers think of them to think outside of the box.

The problem, well, as I see it, is that you know there are problems with the standard model yet you teach it anyway because it's all you have. So, you're teaching a known flawed product. I'm not saying you shouldn't teach the Standard Model, just have a bit more humility towards God's creation and please stop giving God's particles stupid names.

 

[siti]

Not all atheists make the assumption that no god exists at all.

That's not what I said - I was talking about the methodology of science being deistic (assuming no interference from God) rather than atheistic (as such). Its not that important.

And I agree that it is perfectly sensible, if one finds no evidence for the existence of God, to proceed 'as if' no God exists - but this is not logic or philosophy, it is pragmatism and it doesn't always work that way round. For example, what convincing empirical evidence is there that we actually have "free will"? But in this case, the pragmatic approach is exactly the opposite - it makes far more sense to proceed 'as if' free will does actually exist. But that is not what I was talking about anyway and neither was I talking about what one should be believe. I was talking about doing philosophy and I see no more problem with an argument that starts "if God exists" than I do with an argument that starts "if we really have free will" - I'm assuming that an atheist would have no problem with the latter.

 

[Repox]

There is no evidence whatsoever that time has a beginning. Its perfectly logical and perfectly within the purview of known cosmology to say time as well as the physical reality (i.e. a beginningless sequence of universes) is eternal. Saying its nonphysical, illogical and so on does not make it so.

Today there are almost no theory of physics that say that nothing existed before Big Bang. Any theory that puts in quantum mechanics with relativity at the beginning in some form or the other inevitably comes up with the conclusion of there existing a reality or universe (including time) before the Big Bang. Thus given current understanding of physics there is no reason or evidence whatsoever that time or physical reality ever has a beginning. The universe emerged out of some pre-existing reality which itself may have emerged for something else (even if that is a quantum potential field) and so on.

BBC:What Happened Before the Big bang

Thank you for the outstanding video. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It shows how science has turned a corner, now there are numerous theories about what caused the big bang, all of which exclude the possibility that the universe came from nothing. I am certain if anyone of those scientist believed God did it they would have to retire to watch sunsets, or some such preoccupation. Unless God came into the world to reveal himself, the scientific community will not alter course. If they did accept the God did it theory, they would have plenty to do with the aftermath of the big bang. Some may know why I believe in the "God did it" theory. I've had a series of dreams which informed me that the reason for the universe is to imprison Satan. I have been exploring as much science as possible to understand how the universe serves as Satan's prison. Lately I have been studying dark matter, it seems to fit Satan's dark form and character. My theory is God created a maximum security prison, one in which Satan could not escape. The reason why it is difficult to find a good scientific explanation for the universe is because God did it with a spark of His holy substance. I know there is no way I can prove it. Nevertheless, I will continue to explore science for insights into the construction of our universe. I have had some dreams which explain the dark scares on the boundary of the universe. They are from Satan's attempts to escape and return to heaven. I know it is bizarre.

Again, thanks for the fantastic video.

 

[sayak83]

Thank you for the outstanding video. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It shows how science has turned a corner, now there are numerous theories about what caused the big bang, all of which exclude the possibility that the universe came from nothing. I am certain if anyone of those scientist believed God did it they would have to retire to watch sunsets, or some such preoccupation. Unless God came into the world to reveal himself, the scientific community will not alter course. If they did accept the God did it theory, they would have plenty to do with the aftermath of the big bang. Some may know why I believe in the "God did it" theory. I've had a series of dreams which informed me that the reason for the universe is to imprison Satan. I have been exploring as much science as possible to understand how the universe serves as Satan's prison. Lately I have been studying dark matter, it seems to fit Satan's dark form and character. My theory is God created a maximum security prison, one in which Satan could not escape. The reason why it is difficult to find a good scientific explanation for the universe is because God did it with a spark of His holy substance. I know there is no way I can prove it. Nevertheless, I will continue to explore science for insights into the construction of our universe. I have had some dreams which explain the dark scares on the boundary of the universe. They are from Satan's attempts to escape and return to heaven. I know it is bizarre.

Again, thanks for the fantastic video.

Its great to know that you found the video enjoyable and informative. Science cannot presume an answer to something unknown before-hand and "God did it" can be applied to anything and everything. Science has found no reason to not expand their investigations before the Big Bang event and is doing it fruitfully as the video shows. What will come of it, only the future can tell. As long as you are correctly informed about the science, I have no issues.

I have shared the video regarding the cosmological theories and approaches for the era before the Big Bang. If you wish a detailed understanding of the universe after the Big Bang, this series by Professor Silk is the best,

Joseph Silk - The Biggest Questions in the Universe - YouTube

I have really nothing much to say about your visions. I would caution against using dreams and visions as a guide to reality, as people claim to have different and inconsistent visions and hence how can one tell one is right? But no doubt you have heard this before. So I will not pursue further.

 

[Repox]

Its great to know that you found the video enjoyable and informative. Science cannot presume an answer to something unknown before-hand and "God did it" can be applied to anything and everything. Science has found no reason to not expand their investigations before the Big Bang event and is doing it fruitfully as the video shows. What will come of it, only the future can tell. As long as you are correctly informed about the science, I have no issues.

I have shared the video regarding the cosmological theories and approaches for the era before the Big Bang. If you wish a detailed understanding of the universe after the Big Bang, this series by Professor Silk is the best,

Joseph Silk - The Biggest Questions in the Universe - YouTube

I have really nothing much to say about your visions. I would caution against using dreams and visions as a guide to reality, as people claim to have different and inconsistent visions and hence how can one tell one is right? But no doubt you have heard this before. So I will not pursue further.

I don't expect anyone to believe my supernatural experiences, mostly it informs people about my perspective. It is interesting however as to what has happened since they began. I have a scholarly background so I can do research. Well, when my dreams informed me that Jesus was God, and not the son of God, I did research on the NT and found a lot of flaws in gospel stories, there is no historical confirmation of them. Now, I have questions about the universe. According to the video and research from several books, it appears as if science has gone off the rails when it comes to hypothesizing about the origin of the universe. Some of those theories are truly stupid, you can't apply physical laws to them. I love the one about our universe expanding and disintegrating to become the beginning of another universe. That is truly mind boggling. I believe the reason for their absurdity is because scientists have become frustrated with the problem. You cannot create a real theory from "nothing," all you can do is use your scientific imagination. How about multiple universe theories? The big question, of course, is what caused the first universe to come into existence. It is puzzling why scientists ignore physical laws in their preposterous proposals, and, in order to compensate for an otherwise unsound theory, they come up with impossibilities. As an example, one only way out of the predicament of not being able to explain the beginning of a universe, or the beginning of time, is to propose it to be eternal, or just ignore the issue. Then, there is the problem of testing. How do you verify something to be eternal? If you apply the dictionary definition of eternity, you must conclude God is the only possibility, all other assertions are fictitious.

 

[sayak83]

I don't expect anyone to believe my supernatural experiences, mostly it informs people about my perspective. It is interesting however as to what has happened since they began. I have a scholarly background so I can do research. Well, when my dreams informed me that Jesus was God, and not the son of God, I did research on the NT and found a lot of flaws in gospel stories, there is no historical confirmation of them. Now, I have questions about the universe. According to the video and research from several books, it appears as if science has gone off the rails when it comes to hypothesizing about the origin of the universe. Some of those theories are truly stupid, you can't apply physical laws to them. I love the one about our universe expanding and disintegrating to become the beginning of another universe. That is truly mind boggling. I believe the reason for their absurdity is because scientists have become frustrated with the problem. You cannot create a real theory from "nothing," all you can do is use your scientific imagination. How about multiple universe theories? The big question, of course, is what caused the first universe to come into existence. It is puzzling why scientists ignore physical laws in their preposterous proposals, and, in order to compensate for an otherwise unsound theory, they come up with impossibilities. As an example, one only way out of the predicament of not being able to explain the beginning of a universe, or the beginning of time, is to propose it to be eternal, or just ignore the issue. Then, there is the problem of testing. How do you verify something to be eternal? If you apply the dictionary definition of eternity, you must conclude God is the only possibility, all other assertions are fictitious.

I beg to differ. All the theories are well thought out mathematic ally and logically consistent theories that are fully in keeping with observational evidence. Infinitives and eternities are very well behaved logical and mathematical concepts. Most of these theorwtical physicists are world class mathematicians as well. That you find them too difficult to believe is simply a subjective assessment based on a lack of proper grounding and expertise. A 16th century man may find the idea of the earth rotating and revolving at 1000 s of km/hr speed too absurd to believe either.

 

[Repox]

I beg to differ. All the theories are well thought out mathematic ally and logically consistent theories that are fully in keeping with observational evidence. Infinitives and eternities are very well behaved logical and mathematical concepts. Most of these theorwtical physicists are world class mathematicians as well. That you find them too difficult to believe is simply a subjective assessment based on a lack of proper grounding and expertise. A 16th century man may find the idea of the earth rotating and revolving at 1000 s of km/hr speed too absurd to believe either.

Science may have well thought out theories, but evidence is require. Where is the evidence, not the math, for eternity in the universe? I admit to a bias, I know for certain God exists. Knowing God is the only eternal being in existence, it is easy for me to say, where is the evidence? Even if you saw God, no one would believe you. They would require empirical evidence. I know the argument, given time, science will have the answer. What if, however, there is no scientific answer?

Assuming God created the universe, there would be no scientific explanation. Until the end of time science will spin it's wheels to no avail, there is no way science can explain it. In the meantime, it is amusing to watch science attempt an explanation. It's better than a science fiction movie.

I would like to return to my assertion that time has a beginning. If time has no beginning, it must be circular or eternal. Because there is no evidence for that assertion, we must assume God created the universe, and therefore time.

I would like to make a proposal, one which cannot be refuted by science. From the beginning of the universe when time began, all matter and energy, regardless of form (VPs), has been in a constant state of change. Furthermore, all matter and energy moves forward, not backward. These propositions refute the idea for the universe being eternal. The way to visualize these propositions is to draw a line. If you notice, the line has a beginning. It is the same for time, whatever the measure (situation, event, or universe), it always has a beginning.