No Possibility of God

[Super Universe]

I am not scientifically well-versed, but I am fairly sure Newton's law of gravity violates special relativity, yet it is accepted in scientific community. Scientist use Newton's theory when dealing with microscopic level and Einstein relativity when dealing with macroscopic level.

Einstein's math was better than Newton's math. Newton was right, just not as close.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Doesn't matter, brother. The point is, certain theories that violates other are still accepted in scientific community. It's just depends on what context, what level we are applying it. Newton's theory, while violating Einstein's, is still accepted and used at different level than Einstein's.

This brings to mind a important mind --- While religious teachings can violate scientific theories, both can be true on their specific level. Some people think Adam and Eve story violates evolution, but that doesn't mean the religion and it's teaching is wrong. How about Adam and Eve being the earliest homo sapiens? Or how about Adam and Eve story is what happened in spiritual realm rather than the earthly one? Adam and Eve story can certainly be accepted despite of violating evolution just like Newton's theory, and can be said to occurred at spiritual dimension/level while evolution happened at earthly dimension/level?

This is why I personally don't like those who use science to disprove religions. It's like comparing apples to oranges. They can both be true at the same time at their own specific level

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Maybe we can say that the universe is not a closed system but has energy and matter "entering" and "leaving" it.

Then it’s not the universe.

 

[Mike.Hester]

Since the time of Newton, scientist have known that the universe has been expanding.Now, if you could rewind this action, it would result in a universe as large as a grain of sand. According to the Book "The First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg this particle was super concentrated with light photons which with continuous collisions brought about a catastrophic explosion. Scientist now know that the universe in 14 Billion years old. This is only a nut shell observation. I would suggest getting over the fact there is no god, it is a man made idea.

 

[blü 2]

Hello sir

Let me point out a couple of points. One. There is no properly defined 'zero time' and there is no 'mass-energy' at zero time. Second. To tide over this difficulty various flavours of inflationary universe theory have come up.

Always a delight to hear from you.

As to there being a Time Zero, and to its contents being military-grade mass-energy, you have it from me that whether nor not there wasn't before, there is now.

 

[blü 2]

Then it’s not the universe.

Then perhaps we should say that there's good reason to think the universe is an aspect of a larger reality, let's call it the metaverse.

 

[atanu]

Always a delight to hear from you.

As to there being a Time Zero, and to its contents being military-grade mass-energy, you have it from me that whether nor not there wasn't before, there is now.

Can you tell more?

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

According to the Book "The First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg this particle was super concentrated with light photons which with continuous collisions brought about a catastrophic explosion.

Thought it was a rapid expansion rather than an explosion? Besides, there are plenty of models of Big Bang in scientific community, and I am fairly sure one states that universe is just an unfolding and folding mass.

 

[ratiocinator]

Gravity would never allow a big bang to happen. It didn't happen.

Nonsense. It is actually the well tested theory of gravity (general relativity) that is used to model the universe expanding from the big bang.

If all matter in the universe came from one rapid expansion then all the matter in the universe would be found in an expanding sphere with an empty area at the center.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the BB. It is actually space that is expanding, not matter that is expanding into empty space from some central point.

Also, this idea of the universe being 13.8 billion light years old is entirely based upon the fact that we can only see 13.8 billion light years with our current telescopes.

No it isn't. See: Age of the universe - Wikipedia

 

[blü 2]

Can you tell more?

The argument I find most persuasive is the lack of options.

The contents of the universe were, ex hypothesi, in the BB at Time Zero. It doesn't have to be strictly an infinitely small point, just as close to that as physics will allow. (I have no reason to think that physical infinities exist, so I don't rush to assume them.)

What alternative fits the evidence?

What data rule out the hypothesis?

 

[ChristineM]

Gravity would never allow a big bang to happen. It didn't happen.

Don't know much about this do you?

If all matter in the universe came from one rapid expansion inflation

Fixed it for you

And, the increasing speed of the spread of galaxies does not fit with the idea of a big bang

Actually it does fit with what is known so... Please provide your source for your claim of denial

Also, this idea of the universe being 13.8 billion light years old is entirely based upon the fact that we can only see 13.8 billion light years with our current telescopes.

And Hubble



And red shift.

The James Webb space telescope is going to throw that number out the window.

How will it do that, image faster than the speed of light?

Thanks for playing Mr. Hawking, next time stick to what you know.

 

[Windwalker]

Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe | Live Science

So time didn't exist before the Big Bang?
There seems a lot of certainty that prior to the BB time did not exist at least by people certainly smarter than me.

Has science finally provided an answer to the age-old question of God's existence?
Is Hawking wrong about time?
Or, is there some workaround which allows God to exist/create in a timeless state?

In fact, according to Hawking, nothing existed prior to the Big Bang and it is perfectly ok to accept that.

It seems to me Hawking started with an anthropomorphic God of mythic-literal Christianity and shows how it doesn't fit the world science sees. This is no big accomplishment. One doesn't need to understanding M-Theory to see the flaws with that.

That said however, saying that time did not exist before the BB, actually only agrees with traditional theism that God exists outside of time, that God is eternal. I'm not sure why this should be considered a death-blow to that, when it actually tends to validate it?

 

[Windwalker]

Sometimes he is simplistic with regard to religion, but remember there are a lot of people who actually believe in the "dumb fundie interpretations." So I don't think it's a bad thing that he addresses these. I enjoy his religious debates and videos, but he is more interesting as an evolutionary biology writer for sure.

But then don't call that God, if it's only the dumb fundi interpretation. That would be like pointing to Answers in Genesis, and calling that science, and then arguing why science is ridiculous based upon that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They're just simplistic and mostly addressing dumb fundie interpretations and not even considering more nuanced views. He is no theologian. People need to stay in their lane when it comes to their studies. True polymaths are very rare.

Hawking was a theoretical physicist. His "lane" was the fundamental workings of the universe.

Saying that God isn't "in his lane" is a pretty damning statement about God.

 

[rational experiences]

When we live in states that science says is constantly changing, altering by forms of diversity sitting in the same one body, space.

Knowing that we die.....are we living in creation or are we living in destruction?

When science claims in a human life that invention is creating, invention is actually forcing change to a multi natural condition of natural form.

Humans said, the heavenly body in which I live, standing on a stone planet is its own one natural body, and is ONE by conditions of its unique explanation.

So if you already know that our planet is unique, then how can you rationalize a constant, when every status is diverse and owns variations to change?

We say space, as nothing is a beginning and the coldest body.....yet our heavenly gases sits inside of that space, and fills it in. We factually are living within the complete history of space not owning mass, and owning its highest form, cold gases.

Outside of the gas owned space is hotter/colder space forms, variations.

 

[Windwalker]

Okay, but tell me what it means to say that "God exists outside space and time and created space and time." The problem, you see, is that to get from a God who exists without space and time to one in which there is space and time involves, rather necessarily, a tick in time.

I don't follow that. If time and space are created, how does that affect the nature of a God that exists outside or 'before' time? I don't think anyone, outside of Mormons, believes God requires time and space to exist. Time and space exists, like any other created thing, none of which affects the timeless and spaceless nature of the divine reality.

Even more problematic, at least to me, is that with no time passing, how does God change from one that didn't want or have a universe to one that did, and accomplished it. You see, change actually does require time, and cannot happen without it.

I've never imagined God as a human being that "wants" things. I remember when I was around 11 or so, when my friend was speculating about God and repeated what he said his dad told him, how that God created us because he was lonely and wanted company.

Even at that age, even before I had any sort of belief at all regarding these things (I was not raised in a religious home), I realized that sounded ridiculous, that how if such a transcendent being existed it could have emotions and feelings and desires like we did. I could tell even at that age that was a projection of the human being upon God, as a great big magical version of us.

It's unfortunate for most the consideration of what God is to humans is, stops at the pre-rational level of magic thought and projection. It's unfortunate that those of the stature of great scientific minds, essentially understand God like my friend was told and pride themselves in showing how that can't be real. I wasn't that bright of a kid, and yet I knew that was hardly a good answer to what is a much larger question.

 

[Windwalker]

Hawking was a theoretical physicist. His "lane" was the fundamental workings of the universe.

Saying that God isn't "in his lane" is a pretty damning statement about God.

Why? God is not an object that science can study, like a rock or a solar system. You can no more inquire into the nature of the Divine using the physical sciences, than you can investigate dark matter using prayer and meditation.

 

[Super Universe]

Nonsense. It is actually the well tested theory of gravity (general relativity) that is used to model the universe expanding from the big bang.



That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the BB. It is actually space that is expanding, not matter that is expanding into empty space from some central point.



No it isn't. See: Age of the universe - Wikipedia

Then explain how all of the matter in the universe in a single location is not a massive black hole? Good luck with that.

The bb idea says that space is expanding? Correct. So the space and matter would be moving outward from a single point with a center of empty space. Unless you are saying that the space moved along with the matter and left behind the initial singularity location as void and not space, then you are going to have to explain how space leaves an area and it goes back to being a non-space void. Good luck with that.

Your Wiki page agrees with me that the scientists think the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years old. So, you defeated your own argument.

 

[Etritonakin]

Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe | Live Science

So time didn't exist before the Big Bang?
There seems a lot of certainty that prior to the BB time did not exist at least by people certainly smarter than me.

Has science finally provided an answer to the age-old question of God's existence?
Is Hawking wrong about time?
Or, is there some workaround which allows God to exist/create in a timeless state?

In fact, according to Hawking, nothing existed prior to the Big Bang and it is perfectly ok to accept that.

I'm no Hawking -just some thoughts.

We tend to think of the universe as the sum of everything -hence UNIverse.
UNIVERSE time began with the universe.

If time / interrelationship can essentially be compressed and expanded -and we see that it can be compressed and expanded locally, the singularity / universe could have been a compressed -then extracted -package within a greater reality -like a seed transforming what was into what would be based on its configuration. God would not necessarily exist IN the universe, but the universe -and ourselves -could be only a portion / subdivision of "everything" (or God -if God literally IS THAT IS).

It does not seem logical that there could ever have been absolute nothing -only most simple possible states which could then become what we consider "something" -even the present complex state of "time" -though the most possible simple states would necessarily be somewhat dynamic if anything were to happen -which means most basic interrelationship -or time.

The most basic states could have traveled from simple interactions and patterns, to simple systems, more complex arrangements of simple systems -eventually to self-awareness and creativity/self determination/basic environment FIRST -making extremely purposeful complexity possible -such as the universe.

Everything is made of exactly the same basic thing -with differences which make perceivable difference.

 

[ratiocinator]

Then explain how all of the matter in the universe in a single location is not a massive black hole? Good luck with that.

Because it wasn't that all the matter was in a single location within space, it was a totally different situation in that it involved all of space.

Do you really think all the people who study these things are idiots? It's all described mathematically by the same theory that describes gravity. You made the claim that "gravity would never allow a big bang to happen" so it's rather up to you to show your working, that is, do the maths and show why it's wrong. Don't forget to invite me to your Nobel prize ceremony.

The bb idea says that space is expanding? Correct. So the space and matter would be moving outward from a single point with a center of empty space. Unless you are saying that the space moved along with the matter and left behind the initial singularity location as void and not space, then you are going to have to explain how space leaves an area and it goes back to being a non-space void. Good luck with that.

You really haven't bothered to find out anything at all about this, have you? It's the space between any two points (on a large enough scale) that is getting bigger, not that stuff is moving away from a point that is in space. Going back in time, the space between any two points gets smaller and approaches zero. This isn't happening against some fixed background of space, it is happening to space itself.

Your Wiki page agrees with me that the scientists think the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years old. So, you defeated your own argument.

Which wasn't the point. You said: "this idea of the universe being 13.8 billion light years old is entirely based upon the fact that we can only see 13.8 billion light years with our current telescopes" - the wiki page tells you that that age isn't based on how far we can see with current telescopes.