Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Before the big bang? Probably a lot of booze and bad decisions.
-
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!
What came before the Big Bang?
- Thread starter yoda89
- Start date
Objectiveguy
New Member
Atheists invent tons of stuff to explain away the presence of a deity. The fact that the universe is expanding does not prove that in the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded into everything. If you think about it the concept is absurd. We simply have no data on what came before the universe, how the universe came into being (unless if you believe in a creation account, like I do), or multiple universes. Anyone can make up a theory of what happened, but with no data to prove it right or wrong, it remains speculation. The fact that the big-bang theory is the most widely held speculation does not make it any more true than the flying spaghetti monster.
desideraht
Hellspawn
What came before the Big Bang? Well first I got him reaaaaaalllllllyyyy drunk... :danana:
The Big Bang was not "invented" to contradict God. It was theorised based on the physical evidence of what the universe looked like trillions of years ago. We do not base these theories merely on the universe's expansion. The further we can look down in space, the further we can see into it's history. When light reaches us, it is old. For instance, looking at the sun, you are seeing how it looked 8 minutes ago, as it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach us. Likewise, lights from stars far away take thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, or even billions of years to reach us. This gives us a glimpse into the past. Our galaxy is far from the "center" of our known universe.
If you think the Big Bang means, "First there was nothing. Then it exploded into something!" then you do not have a very good understanding of the Big Bang at all.
Time is relative to space. Space is relative to time. Without space, there is no time. Without time, there is no space. With greater distances, there is more time. So before there were distances, there was no time. When the universe was a singularity, it took up the space of one single quarkor otherwise the smallest unit not known to man. This singularity occurred for an incomprehensibly short moment of "time" before it expanded rapidly, and time slowed. Time slowed, the universe got colder, and it got larger. But see, most people cannot grasp this concept. They cannot grasp everything being this tiny ball. Because in their brain, they see a black void around itpresumably the larger universe. You have to first understand there was no black void.
"God done it" is a great explanation when you don't understand things. Unfortunately, it explains nothing, and there is no proof for it other than, "I don't understand something, so, er, GOD DUN IT!" This answer is not sufficient for Rationalists, who seek to truly understand the universe's origins, rather than feeding their curiosity with over-simplified spiritual pipe-dreams.
I feel called to address a few things here.
The Big Bang was not "invented" to contradict God. It was theorised based on the physical evidence of what the universe looked like trillions of years ago. We do not base these theories merely on the universe's expansion. The further we can look down in space, the further we can see into it's history. When light reaches us, it is old. For instance, looking at the sun, you are seeing how it looked 8 minutes ago, as it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach us. Likewise, lights from stars far away take thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, or even billions of years to reach us. This gives us a glimpse into the past. Our galaxy is far from the "center" of our known universe.
If you think the Big Bang means, "First there was nothing. Then it exploded into something!" then you do not have a very good understanding of the Big Bang at all.
Time is relative to space. Space is relative to time. Without space, there is no time. Without time, there is no space. With greater distances, there is more time. So before there were distances, there was no time. When the universe was a singularity, it took up the space of one single quarkor otherwise the smallest unit not known to man. This singularity occurred for an incomprehensibly short moment of "time" before it expanded rapidly, and time slowed. Time slowed, the universe got colder, and it got larger. But see, most people cannot grasp this concept. They cannot grasp everything being this tiny ball. Because in their brain, they see a black void around itpresumably the larger universe. You have to first understand there was no black void.
"God done it" is a great explanation when you don't understand things. Unfortunately, it explains nothing, and there is no proof for it other than, "I don't understand something, so, er, GOD DUN IT!" This answer is not sufficient for Rationalists, who seek to truly understand the universe's origins, rather than feeding their curiosity with over-simplified spiritual pipe-dreams.
The same applies to saying "God dun it". The difference between "God dun it" and the Big Bang theory is that we can actually see evidence of the Big Bang occurring.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
actually current scientific thinking does not postulate a singularity at the beginning of the universe
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I'm sure he already knows. But this change in scientific thinking is so recent you still find a lot of un-updated material on the web
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
The big bang theory is not that there was nothing and it randomly exploded for no reason. Secondly it has nothing to do with Atheism. Acceptance of the BBT in no way counteracts theism and in many cases theists use the theory to try and push their "god created universe" view.
And to think there is no data....is simply wrong. I'm not expert but I at least knwo of some data and knwo there is far more I don't understand. There is data to be sure.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
You realize that lecture is nearly 20 years old, and that Hawking has modified his views, yes? And even if he hadn't, he's not the only physicist in the world, even if he is likely the most well-known. The fact is that many physicists now view an "initial singularity" not as anything real, but as a breakdown of our mathematics- a symptom of the failure of classical physics to deal with an event that would apparently be governed by quantum laws, not classical ones.
desideraht
Hellspawn
...This is news to me. What is the current standing?
I will add before your reply that I am not buying the "multiuniverse" and "metaphysics" explanations. The math holds true but it makes no logical sense.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
"Metaphysics" explanations? Lol... open mouth, insert foot!
Show me his updated view on the singularity then.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
So far as I'm aware it is the view expressed in The Grand Design, in which he makes a case for his no-boundary proposal; a finite universe with no beginning. In other words, unless he's pulled an about face in the last couple years, he rejects the notion of an initial singularity as the beginning of the universe.
yoda89
On Xtended Vacation
String theory
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Scientifically saying No idea as we still have only unverified theories (string etc) and mathematical models
As per vedic texts there is no begining or end. The universes gets created and destroyed and recreated (rig veda/nasadiya suktha)
That link supports a singularity.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Yes, it does. Which leave me a bit perplexed. Perhaps there is still controversy over this issue in the scientific community.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
No, it doesn't. While the link may not explicitly say "there is no singularity", I thought the implication was fairly obvious. And Hawking does make this point explicitly in The Grand Design. To put it in a single sentence-
"A proposal first advanced by Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle, the no-boundary universe is one in which the universe does not start with a singularity." ("Stephen Hawking's Universe", Stephen Hawking's Universe: Universes)
Derp!