• 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!

The Big Bang as evidence for God

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
So cosmologists don't believe a singularity exists but whatever exists can be described and modeled as a point of infinite density ie. a singularity. If thats the model then thats what is said to exist. Other theories can't get rid of the black holes enormous mass and density that is so powerful that light doesn't escape.
No, a very dense and very small (but not infinitely dense and point like) blob of mass at the center of Black Holes would do as well. This is what is thought to exist at the center of Black Hole in actuality. But it does not matter when we are calculating gravitational waves etc. Just as thinking of atoms as point like masses is perfectly fine for most results of classical physics. GR is, at the core, a classical theory and its model violates quantum mechanics pretty dramatically. Hence it cannot be right in a fundamental sense, and is considered a good approximation of the "still-under-works" quantum theory of General Relativity. And Quantum Mechanics rules out the existence of any and every gravitational singularity very definitively. So a necessary criteria of any successful theory of Quantum Gravity is to show that all singularities predicted by GR has been eliminated while preserving the results of GR.
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
hey Idav,
Describe this "LIGHT" that doesn't escape from BH's ?
Is it like x-rays or infra-red ripples or some other form of plasma ?
Why only "light' not escaping ?
I'm real old and I get confused easily !
~
'mud
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
Given a single original "singularity", instead of 'all' the others,
describe a 'single item' as being a singularity,
describe what is meant by this original term.
Describe how many cubic meters, it would occupy.
Being a single entity in amongst nothingness !
I remain confused
~
'mud
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
No, a very dense and very small (but not infinitely dense and point like) blob of mass at the center of Black Holes would do as well. This is what is thought to exist at the center of Black Hole in actuality. But it does not matter when we are calculating gravitational waves etc. Just as thinking of atoms as point like masses is perfectly fine for most results of classical physics. GR is, at the core, a classical theory and its model violates quantum mechanics pretty dramatically. Hence it cannot be right in a fundamental sense, and is considered a good approximation of the "still-under-works" quantum theory of General Relativity. And Quantum Mechanics rules out the existence of any and every gravitational singularity very definitively. So a necessary criteria of any successful theory of Quantum Gravity is to show that all singularities predicted by GR has been eliminated while preserving the results of GR.
QM and GR are two of the most successful theories in science and as such, neither can completely rule the other out. A reconciliation must exist. Thats simply a math problem and not a problem for reality, in that the issues with spacetime don't just go away when things get too small to calculate.
hey Idav,
Describe this "LIGHT" that doesn't escape from BH's ?
Is it like x-rays or infra-red ripples or some other form of plasma ?
Why only "light' not escaping ?
I'm real old and I get confused easily !
~
'mud
As black holes being what they are, when we pear at them in space we can't even directly observe them, we just see blackness. They are dieing stars with extreme density that collapsed to the point of light not being able to escape. We observe them by seeing how other objects interact with these blobs of immensity.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
QM and GR are two of the most successful theories in science and as such, neither can completely rule the other out. A reconciliation must exist. Thats simply a math problem and not a problem for reality, in that the issues with spacetime don't just go away when things get too small to calculate.

As black holes being what they are, when we pear at them in space we can't even directly observe them, we just see blackness. They are dieing stars with extreme density that collapsed to the point of light not being able to escape. We observe them by seeing how other objects interact with these blobs of immensity.
We were discussing whether singularities are a real feature of the world or an artifact of the classical approximation of GR. The issue was being discussed because you said something like singularity is God or something. :p
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
You are mistaken.....there is no scientific conclusion that there was a beginning to the universe....only those who support the big bang theory....there is not a scientific consensus on it.. and even then there is no understanding how or why such an event could occur.. Similarly with religion...there is no conclusion that God created the universe....pantheism holds that the universe is the manifestation of the eternal God and only the manifested form is subject to beginnings and endings...
Once again....time is a mental construct...it does not exist outside the mind..... QM and GR and all other disciplines of science are helpful to human evolution, but the sum total of the knowledge will forever fall short of understanding the truth.....for 'reality' itself is not a mental construct...whereas all the theories of man are merely conceptualization to represent that 'reality'...see the difference?
Surely the Universe is the Work of G-d as is the truthful Word-Revealed another manifestation and proof of His existence.
Regards
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
We were discussing whether singularities are a real feature of the world or an artifact of the classical approximation of GR. The issue was being discussed because you said something like singularity is God or something. :p
Yes I understand your issue. I agree with the last line of the OP, that whatever evidence there is that the big bang is "god" can't be made from an argument from causality. My argument is that the big bang shows evidence of god like qualities without having to defer to causality. A super mass of dense energy that has the ability to violate spacetime and even logic for that matter.

Plus thats all cosmologists talk about is singularities, like hawkings lecture on the beginning of time he refers to the singularity a bunch of times. To say that nobody thinks there was a singularity is fallacious.

The following lecture refers to the word "singularity" 13 times.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes I understand your issue. I agree with the last line of the OP, that whatever evidence there is that the big bang is "god" can't be made from an argument from causality. My argument is that the big bang shows evidence of god like qualities without having to defer to causality. A super mass of dense energy that has the ability to violate spacetime and even logic for that matter.

Plus thats all cosmologists talk about is singularities, like hawkings lecture on the beginning of time he refers to the singularity a bunch of times. To say that nobody thinks there was a singularity is fallacious.

The following lecture refers to the word "singularity" 13 times.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
Of course Hawking believes that his model removes the singularity.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/quantum_cosmo_path_integrals
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Of course Hawking believes that his model removes the singularity.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/quantum_cosmo_path_integrals
You have to go back to 1983, you have anything more recent. Nothing in the more recent lecture I pointed out makes it sound like he is getting rid of the singularity.

" I therefore want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity. "
"The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down."
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You have to go back to 1983, you have anything more recent. Nothing in the more recent lecture I pointed out makes it sound like he is getting rid of the singularity.
No its the same theory. From your link
The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the Earth, or so I'm told. I have not been there myself.

According to the no boundary proposal, the universe would have expanded in a smooth way from a single point. As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field, to create matter. As any economist could have predicted, the result of all that borrowing, was inflation. The universe expanded and borrowed at an ever-increasing rate. Fortunately, the debt of gravitational energy will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe.
Dr Hartle and Hawking has been refining and adding details to the proposal for over 30 years now. The last paper on this topic was on 2010 by the authors,
The No-Boundary Measure in the Regime of Eternal Inflation James Hartle, 1 S.W. Hawking, 2 and Thomas Hertog 3

Check it out, its in the website you linked to under publications. The authors consider the universe as a self-contained, self-existent quantum wavefunction without any singularities or special initial conditions. It called the No Boundary Wave Function (NBWF) formulation of the universe.

The approach of this paper to cosmology in the regime of eternal inflation is significantly different from many others [3]. We have started from the fundamental assumption that the universe, including all its contents, is a closed quantum mechanical system. We have explored the consequences of this for prediction in the regime of eternal inflation in simplified models in the context of the low-energy approximate quantum theory of gravity. Like any other closed quantum system the universe has a quantum state. The NBWF is the model for this state used here. Bottom-up probabilities for the different, coarse-grained histories of the universe and its contents follow from this state and not from a further posited measure. Classical behavior of spacetime geometry is not assumed. Rather the ensemble of possible classical histories of the universe is derived from its quantum state. Observers are not assumed to necessarily exist, nor to be unique, nor to be essentially classical systems outside the reach of quantum mechanics. Rather they are quantum subsystems of the universe described by certain data with a probability to exist in any Hubble volume and a probability to be exactly replicated elsewhere in the universe. Probabilities relevant for observations are top-down probabilities that take in

This is what the Hawking-Hartle model is, primarily. Its a fully quantum mechanical approach to the universe as a self contained quantum wave in which we are embedded. It does not have any singularities or special "first" moments from a global perspective. I do not understand all of it, and Hawkings exposition in popular articles are atrociously poor.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
No its the same theory. From your link

Dr Hartle and Hawking has been refining and adding details to the proposal for over 30 years now. The last paper on this topic was on 2010 by the authors,


Check it out, its in the website you linked to under publications. The authors consider the universe as a self-contained, self-existent quantum wavefunction without any singularities or special initial conditions. It called the No Boundary Wave Function (NBWF) formulation of the universe.



This is what the Hawking-Hartle model is, primarily. Its a fully quantum mechanical approach to the universe as a self contained quantum wave in which we are embedded. It does not have any singularities or special "first" moments from a global perspective. I do not understand all of it, and Hawkings exposition in popular articles are atrociously poor.
Your quote mining Hawking is horrendous. You quote mined what he proposed in the past. Your just going to ignore what I quoted from the conclusion of the lecture?
However, I now realise I was wrong, as these solutions show.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Surely the Universe is the Work of G-d as is the truthful Word-Revealed another manifestation and proof of His existence.
Regards
The Universe is more than the Work of G-d, it is G-d manifest to the eyes of man....but man does not perceive but the shadow of G-d....the material aspect. The Word-Revealed is an inner revelation that is not merely the words of the scripture....the words of scripture are like the sign post pointing the way....they remain vanity if the disciple merely believes and talks the talk...
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
No its the same theory. From your link

Dr Hartle and Hawking has been refining and adding details to the proposal for over 30 years now. The last paper on this topic was on 2010 by the authors,


Check it out, its in the website you linked to under publications. The authors consider the universe as a self-contained, self-existent quantum wavefunction without any singularities or special initial conditions. It called the No Boundary Wave Function (NBWF) formulation of the universe.



This is what the Hawking-Hartle model is, primarily. Its a fully quantum mechanical approach to the universe as a self contained quantum wave in which we are embedded. It does not have any singularities or special "first" moments from a global perspective. I do not understand all of it, and Hawkings exposition in popular articles are atrociously poor.
No, I am not quote mioning. Hawking's popular lectures and books are very poorly written. Here is the last section of the lecture you posted,

The no boundary condition, is the statement that the laws of physics hold everywhere. Clearly, this is something that one would like to believe, but it is a hypothesis. One has to test it, by comparing the state of the universe that it would predict, with observations of what the universe is actually like. If the observations disagreed with the predictions of the no boundary hypothesis, we would have to conclude the hypothesis was false. There would have to be something outside the universe, to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going. Of course, even if the observations do agree with the predictions, that does not prove that the no boundary proposal is correct. But one's confidence in it would be increased, particularly because there doesn't seem to be any other natural proposal, for the quantum state of the universe.

The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the Earth, or so I'm told. I have not been there myself.

According to the no boundary proposal, the universe would have expanded in a smooth way from a single point. As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field, to create matter. As any economist could have predicted, the result of all that borrowing, was inflation. The universe expanded and borrowed at an ever-increasing rate. Fortunately, the debt of gravitational energy will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe.

Eventually, the period of inflation would have ended, and the universe would have settled down to a stage of more moderate growth or expansion. However, inflation would have left its mark on the universe. The universe would have been almost completely smooth, but with very slight irregularities. These irregularities are so little, only one part in a hundred thousand, that for years people looked for them in vain. But in 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, COBE, found these irregularities in the microwave background radiation. It was an historic moment. We saw back to the origin of the universe. The form of the fluctuations in the microwave background agree closely with the predictions of the no boundary proposal. These very slight irregularities in the universe would have caused some regions to have expanded less fast than others. Eventually, they would have stopped expanding, and would have collapsed in on themselves, to form stars and galaxies. Thus the no boundary proposal can explain all the rich and varied structure, of the world we live in. What does the no boundary proposal predict for the future of the universe? Because it requires that the universe is finite in space, as well as in imaginary time, it implies that the universe will re-collapse eventually. However, it will not re-collapse for a very long time, much longer than the 15 billion years it has already been expanding. So, you will have time to sell your government bonds, before the end of the universe is nigh. Quite what you invest in then, I don't know.

Originally, I thought that the collapse, would be the time reverse of the expansion. This would have meant that the arrow of time would have pointed the other way in the contracting phase. People would have gotten younger, as the universe got smaller. Eventually, they would have disappeared back into the womb.

However, I now realise I was wrong, as these solutions show. The collapse is not the time reverse of the expansion. The expansion will start with an inflationary phase, but the collapse will not in general end with an anti inflationary phase. Moreover, the small departures from uniform density will continue to grow in the contracting phase. The universe will get more and more lumpy and irregular, as it gets smaller, and disorder will increase. This means that the arrow of time will not reverse. People will continue to get older, even after the universe has begun to contract. So it is no good waiting until the universe re-collapses, to return to your youth. You would be a bit past it, anyway, by then.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

The two sentence in bold are talking about the same model in completely contradictory terms. This is typical of Hawking's bad writing style. That is why I excerpted from his papers to figure out what he is saying in actuality.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
The Universe is more than the Work of G-d, it is G-d manifest to the eyes of man....but man does not perceive but the shadow of G-d....the material aspect. The Word-Revealed is an inner revelation that is not merely the words of the scripture....the words of scripture are like the sign post pointing the way....they remain vanity if the disciple merely believes and talks the talk...
There is no evidence that universe is more than the work of G-d. The Word - Revealed originates from G-d and does not generate from within one's self. Please
Regards
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
There is no evidence that universe is more than the work of G-d. The Word - Revealed originates from G-d and does not generate from within one's self. Please
Regards
So if G-d is not in His creation, how come He is in me? Yes, the prophets say what G-d deigns them to say......and what is said is for the guidance of man....but the guidance is not the salvation...it is talking the talk....salvation comes with walking the walk...
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
It seems to me that if we could get God out of the way,
we could discover the true 'edges' of the creation as intended.
There, would be the real 'container' of the Cosmos
Like a multiverse within an infinite singularity.
'Time' doesn't exist there either.
~
silliness abounds !
~
'mud
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
That says that all points in time past and present are real. How finely is it divided up, according to that philosophy? If you go back to one of those intervals, are you stuck there motionless in it, or does it start forward from there? Does it replay the past again or does it follow a new future? Why should anyone believe that? Above all, the biggest problem is it doesn't address if or how or "when" time began, or what it would mean to say that something always was? Somehow we humans can wrap our minds around something that will always be, but not how it could have always been.** Maybe that's why God created this 4-D universe with a Big Bang. :)

**That can be explained if time only works in our universe, while the "external" supporting ether/quantumland is a back door to timelessness where before and after would have no meaning.

It does not address how and when time began because, by definition, there is no beginning of time. There is no dynamics whatsoever. It is not a weakness, it is its main ontology.

Like a movie. A movie is a set of pictures in sequence. It does not begin to exist when you play it. And when you have played it, the movie is still there.

Question. If you think time had a beginning, do you also think space has an origin? An initial location? Can you pinpoint it for me?

Ciao

- ciole
 
Top