The Big Bang and the Big Question: A Universe without God?

Aish ^ | Lawrence Kelemen

[Prof Engineer]

ping

[js1138]

From the point of view of science it makes no difference if the universe was created last Thursday, because science studies what it can see: placemarker.

[RRWCC]

The last time I presented evidence contrary to evolution I was accused of being a "knuckle-dragging, backwards creationist-fundamentalists. ". I did take exception to the knuckle-dragging.. that's their belief, not mine.

[Physicist]

This model proposes a paradox: Objects at rest -- like the initial singularity -- remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force; and yet, since the initial dot contained all matter and energy, nothing (at least, nothing natural) existed outside of this singularity that could have caused it to explode.

Illegitimate premise: Everything I've ever seen is to the north of something, thus there must be something to the south of the south pole.

The simplest resolution of the paradox is to posit that something supernatural kicked the universe into being. The open model of the universe thus implies a supernatural Creator -- a God.

God is the biggest assumption you can make, not the smallest. Saying "God" may be a short answer, but a simple one? Only to a simpleton.

[onedoug]

Modern particle physics and cosmology seem perfectly consistent with Torah to me.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC SPOTREP

[MattAMiller]

I'm sorry but the Big Bang does not prove the existence of God.

[MattAMiller]

What does this have to do with evolution?

[HighWheeler]

"The Big Bang and the Big Question: A Universe without God?"

Stupid premise.

The title implies that the Big Bang couldn't have been created by God.

[Physicist]

I've always wondered where the material came from to make the bang. Every time I ask someone with a scientific background I get a less than complete answer.

Actually no one seems to know.

Either you've never actually asked anybody who was in a position to know, or you struggle mightily to evade the answer (like many on FR). The correct answer seems to be that it didn't have to "come from" anywhere. The total energy of the universe is zero (or something excruciatingly close to it). If the energy weren't zero, the universe wouldn't be flat.

I know that the universe doesn't look like it has zero energy: after all you certainly exist and have nonzero energy, to say nothing of galaxies. What you're neglecting is that gravitational fields have negative energy, and space--giganitic as it is--is filled with them over cosmically large volumes. There is a gigantic cancellation when you add all the huge energies together. The fact that the universe is flat, even at the largest visible scales, means that the cancellation is more exact than we could ever measure.

How could they? No one saw it.

Do you believe the moon is in orbit about the Earth, even when you're not looking? Why?

[HighWheeler]

"The last time I presented evidence contrary to evolution I was accused of being a "knuckle-dragging, backwards creationist-fundamentalists. ". I did take exception to the knuckle-dragging.. that's their belief, not mine."

You are not knuckle-dragging anymore because our species has evolved.

[RRWCC]

Sorry, I would think that the existance of God would directly relate to evolution. Particularly, as the discussion related to the Genesis account.

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

[MattAMiller]

If the Big Bang was indeed started by some intelligent being that tells us nothing about what that being did after the Big Bang.

[showme_the_Glory]

Based of the facts that one theory ends in death, and one perpetuates life, I choose life. Thank you Jesus.

[Dimensio]

Every time I ask someone with a scientific background I get a less than complete answer.

I have an answer. I don't claim that it's complete, and it's hardly satisfying, but I find it to be very, very honest. My answer is "I do not know". Given that I do not know, assuming anything -- including that the matter was 'always there' or that some divine agent zap-poofed it into existence -- is a leap of faith that I'm not willing to take. I just know that the matter is here NOW. I don't claim to have any clue as to where it ultimately originated.

So, what we have is a Big Bang Religion among the very big-brained people who pooh pooh religion.

Wow. So everyone who accepts the big bang hypothesis as a valid possiblity 'pooh-poohs' religion? Do you honestly believe that there are no theists who accept that hypothesis? Further, how exactly is the big bang a "religion"?

[Dimensio]

Everytime I speak any opposition to the sacred cow of evolution the place erupts.

I don't really see what the posted article has to do with evolution.

[VRWC_minion]

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
⁵ Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?

[Dimensio]

Listened to Chuck Missler via radio this a.m. when he started a new topic of refuting scientific studies that indicate there is no God by using scientific studies to indicate there is a God.

Your statement implies that there are two idiotic lines of thought (I'm not accusing you of engaging in either of them, mind you). The first is the notion that science can provide evidence that there are no gods. The second is that science can provide evidence that there is at least one god.

The correct means for 'refuting' any allegedly scientific study that claims to show that there are no gods is to point out that the study of gods is entirely outside of the realm of science, and as such nothing in science can address the subject.

[Dimensio]

In other words, it's a 'miracle' that life exists on a planet that can sustain it rather than on a planet that cannot.