What was before Big Bang? Scientists have the following idea-
"According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we."
Well, this is certainly the proof of God, the First Cause that made All to appear out of nothing, an entire universe!
Science does not think there was nothing before the big bang. The theory is everything was compressed or condensed.
How did that happen? And what was before that gravitational singularity?
That is the question. But having an open question does not immediately mean God did it. It just means we don't know. Unless God is responsible for all open questions, and also stole my left sock and told Lindsay Lohan to drive drunk.
I suggest reading Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe From Nothing if you want to understan the Big Bang better. Or, if you don't want to read it, he explains it in this video:
I don't see the link between something cool happening and proof of God.
Big Bang makes God easier to be conceived.
No for me. I have no personal connection between "mind blowing stuff" and "stuff God might have done". That would require pre-existing faith and thus is essentially the work of a confirmatory bias.
What's interesting is that Big Bang makes God a valid possibility. Actually, it isn't.
That from which this originated-
"We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we "
I don't know hat you are saying here.
No phenomenon past or present clearly requires a deity. That is just a feeling/faith/guess/intuition some people have. Good on them. I don't share that conviction.
How does the big bang make God a possibility? Clearly not the God of the OT because that description of God says he made all this in six days.
And just how is that? The question of where God came from is still in the picture so the big bang changes nothing.
"So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is."
You confuse me. How does our admitted ignorance prove the existence of God? Sounds like you're saying "We don't know, so we'll make up a cause/reason/solution". That hardly qualifies as proof of anything except our own ignorance, which is stated to begin worth.
If the universe had a beginning, then we must consider that matter can not come out of void. If there has been a gravitational singularity, it must be something natural. Then, where did that singularity originate from?
This will follow an infinite regression, until one agrees that something which is beyond our current understanding of 'natural', exists, which created everything in the universe.
Very oddly, this line of reasoning occurs only when someone believes in the theory of Big Bang.
No, Bill, we have no reason to not consider that.
It doesn't really matter at this point if all you do is invoke gods as an answer.
Perhaps to those who "believe" but, not to those who actually understand the theory.
1. Matter CAN come out of a void. We see subatomic particles popping into and out of existence all the time. Where did the singularity come from? We don't know, and that includes that we don't know if it came from a god. Stephen Hawking is on record as saying the big bang did not require a cause; without a lifetime of study in physics and cosmology I can't challenge that statement and am not aware of anyone that HAS studied the subject that has either.
2. Certainly something beyond our current understanding preceded the big bang, but once more our ignorance does not mean that we understand a god did it. I am completely unable to follow the logical progression of your thinking in going from total ignorance to total knowledge without any intervening steps.
I disagree; the most common occurrence of this line of reasoning (I don't know, so God exists and did it) is usually found in believers, whether they understand and accept the big bang theory or not. It is not found in scientists that study cosmology and the theory of the big bang.
"Matter CAN come out of a void. We see subatomic particles popping into and out of existence all the time."
-Please cite an experiment where this has been established as a fact, and the exact mechanism has been discovered. And explain how subatomic particles suddenly formed atoms and an entire universe. We shall manipulate those laws and try to reconstruct the event.
Regarding God, you either didn't understand what I said, or you simply don't want to.
Those experiments are very common - you can search them out yourself. As far as understanding every tiny detail (the exact mechanism) that has not been accomplished and perhaps never will. Does our ignorance of the exact details prove God's existence as well?
If you want to know how subatomic particles form atoms and a universe (which is not what I said at all) then you will need to spend a lifetime studying the field. Are you willing to do that? I'm not, but that does not mean that I will make up my own solution because I don't understand the formation of the universe.
Your claim of God is very plain: we don't know what happened and that ignorance proves God's existence. It just doesn't make sense, that's all. The logic from one statement of fact (ignorance) to the conclusion (God) is completely missing.
Your problem is that you don't understand the difference between fact and possibility. If one believes in the theory of Big Bang, then supernatural becomes a valid possibility. That's what I am saying.
Then, so does a giant lizard sneezing out the universe through it's nostrils. That's what you're saying.
Then I completely misunderstood your comment. I took your statement:
"Well, this is certainly the proof of God, the First Cause that made All to appear out of nothing, an entire universe!"
to mean that God exists and created the universe, not that it was a mere possibility. I would never argue the existence OR nonexistence of God; there is exactly zero evidence either way and the truth cannot therefore be determined. Nor does the question have anything at all to do with the Big Bang; whether one understands the theory or not it has nothing to do with the existence of God. It is not evidence either way, any more than is individual belief.
Virtual particle pop in and out of existence under the following observations:
The Coulomb Force
Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces
The Casimir Effect
The virtual particle is a HYPOTHETICAL (and irrational) proposal. They are saying that his 'virtual particle' can appear at will to make his equations or explanation come out right.
Yes Bill, I do understand you deny facts and evidence supporting virtual particles.
Show us the facts and evidence for virtual particles. Got a picture of them that I can look at?
And yet, another incarnation. How do you keep track of them all?
If you're Bill's brother, did you also enter into the US illegally and then created false documents to get a job at companies in which you stole their ideas and sold them to the highest bidders?
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/22/busin … akers.html
That is funny because the big bang theory is fairly new and people have been saying God created everything for thousands of years.
Maybe matter can could out of a void. The rules that applied at the beginning of the universe were undoubtedly different from the rules that apply now.
I didn't even make it half way through "A Brief History of Time" but if the guy who wrote is feels the big bang doesn't prove God exists, I am thinking it is a valid opinion.
Matter coming out of void? Isn't that what they call 'supernatural'?
Yes, for those who have little understanding of science.
What was natural in that time and place was different.
In other words, supernatural (what once was natural) is a valid possibility.
Defining "supernatural" as anything that does not obey the natural laws of the universe, whether they are understood or not, then it is a possibility. A very low probability one as such a thing (force, matter, energy, whatever) has never been observed, but still a possibility.
Supernatural, by definition, is something beyond that what we understand as 'natural'. We have no idea what that might turn out to be.
Using that definition, absolutely the supernatural exists. There are many, many things we haven't even found yet and thus cannot be considered as natural at this time. Other planets in far off galaxies would be defined as supernatural as we don't know if they are even there.
Of course, that puts TV, computers, cars, planes, etc. as supernatural at one time; only as man understands them do they leave that categorization.
So there is the possibility of something which is entirely different from the physical laws that we understand currently, if we take Big Bang as reality.
It may lead to the discovery of an existing natural law (laws) of the universe (as that law is currently obscure to us). Or it may point to something which is beyond our universe, and doesn't care to follow the physical laws that reign here. We have no idea what that 'independent' might turn out to be.
As I was saying, the theory of the Big Bang makes God a valid possibility.
So you think without the big bang theory God is an impossibility?
As I was saying, according to the theory of the Big Bang, God (supernatural creator) is a rationally valid possibility.
My understand is that all matter was compressed to the point of zero gravity and time. For how long it stayed that way or what it was before it was compress we don't know. Perhaps the universe pulses. But to speculate that a God made it and then not speculate where or who made a God that could exist in nothingness is a stretch at best.
My left pinky proves the existence of God. If you saw it, you'd understand.
by Uplifterx4 years ago
"Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the...
by janesix4 years ago
The Big Bang is a religious concept, not science. It takes faith to believe that it happened. If you believe in the Big Bang, why?
by Csaba Krause4 years ago
During my 10 years' career being a journalist in the heartland of real science (which is Europe), I had the fortune (misfortune as well) to meet great many renowned scientists. I interviewed a couple of them as...
by jacobkuttyta4 years ago
No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution...
by qwark6 years ago
What was the "medium" within which the "Big Bang" happened? There are other interesting considerations.
by Csaba Krause4 years ago
A global group of 33 leading physicists have rejected the crank theory of big bang. They have published an open letter in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20, to let the scientific community know that the spirit...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.