Before the big bang?
Note: this may be more suited for Philosophy of religion as opposed to Phylosophy of science. however I don't see that it matters much.
Many modern theists (Christians especially) will argue that, instead of the creation story, God created the big bang, however, as Professor Stephen Hawking explained, time is relative and only started with the big bang. This would mean there was no time for a God to exist in to start the big bang.
One argument I have heard from @Franz Liszt is that God exists outside of time, however for that to be the case, a God would have to be outside of the whole universe, which seems scientifically impossible given that nothing is outside of the universe by definition.
Lets say, for arguments sake, that that is not impossible, outside the universe would thus be where time never began. Surely he/she would then be unable to observe this universe or 'answer prayers'.
Would someone tell me how religious people explain this without defying physics.
Many modern theists (Christians especially) will argue that, instead of the creation story, God created the big bang, however, as Professor Stephen Hawking explained, time is relative and only started with the big bang. This would mean there was no time for a God to exist in to start the big bang.
One argument I have heard from @Franz Liszt is that God exists outside of time, however for that to be the case, a God would have to be outside of the whole universe, which seems scientifically impossible given that nothing is outside of the universe by definition.
Lets say, for arguments sake, that that is not impossible, outside the universe would thus be where time never began. Surely he/she would then be unable to observe this universe or 'answer prayers'.
Would someone tell me how religious people explain this without defying physics.
Comments (50)
Big bang cosmology can be described to fit any version of God and visa versa. Since God, as a fictional character, can be said to be omnipotent and is generally described as the creator of the laws of physics then God can do whatever it wants.
If God is outside of time then the moment the universe was created at that same moment the end was also created and everything in between. And how does this short time, billions of years, relate to a timeless God?
Another viewpoint: If God created Big Bang at a certain point it means that God made a choice, the choice was, to create it (obviously) . And choice means confusion, uncertainty, you cannot choose something 100% because that would no longer be a choice. This makes God human-like-minded and it indicates that God exists in time.
So:
1. God is timeless. which means He could not have created the Universe at a certain point which means that Universe existed (not necessarily this universe) always with God, which means Universe is also timeless.
2. God exists in time. Which means the Big Bang happened at a certain point. Which also raises the question who/what created God, for everything that exists in time was created and will be destroyed in time. That makes Him very human-like, as most people imagine Him, especially in the old days.
Quoting 180 Proof
Oldies but goodies – that's my story and I'm sticking
to it. :smirk:
Quoting scientia de summis
They don't because they can't. Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") are just woo-of-the-gaps / appeals to ignorance fairytales religious theists like to tell themselves to help them sleep with the lights off on stormy nights.
Thank you, this is exactly what I thought and very helpful!
Typically they claim that God is beyond our comprehension.
Yep, g/G is a mystery (i.e. inexplicable).
The answer to the question of origin of the universe is "Mystery created it" or "Mystery caused it" or "Mystery did it", which only begs the question and does not answer it.
Either (i) religious theists don't know that they don't know or (ii) they know they don't know and just bullshit themselves and us with "Mystery did it", etc.
I guess. First Amendment protects their bullshit, though. The Big Bang is also presently a mystery.
I know I'm not who you're asking, but if you don't mind, I would like to answer.
I personally would say:
NO! There is absolutely nothing wrong with you!
Two types of people are-
1. Curious people who always want to know the answer to everything. These tend to be academics and scientists-I am one of these people.
2. People who...let me put this bluntly...just couldn't care. These people, tend to be more creative, but by no means always.
I don't know if you are either of these people or completely different from both, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with you in any case!
Would you describe yourself more as academic or creative?
I wouldn't say a mystery, so much as not all clear. We know much about most aspects of the big bang, we just don't know the details.
To answer your question though, I refer you to Pierre-Simon Laplace's reply to Napoleon's query, and I'm paraphrasing here, "where is god in all this?" which was, "I had no need for that hypothesis." The message is clear - God is not necessary for science. This may at first give us the impression that religion and science are at odds with each other but surprisingly no, this ain't so for God being unnecessary doesn't imply that God is inconsistent with science; in other words there's enough room in science for one more albeit unnecessary hypothesis viz. God. To sum up, God, as an aspect of our reality, doesn't break physics.
I'm not a physicist, but I understand that quantum theory doesn't work in the Big Bang.
That's not a detail.
I don't know how to answer that question without being dishonest. Anyway, I describe myself as fairly curious but not to the point of being the cat that curiosity bumped off. Also, I've gone through university but wouldn't characterize myself as an academic.
What bothers me is that the thirst for explanations seems to be rather ancient, traceable back to prehistorical periods even and yet here I am in the 21st century devoid of any such feelings.
I'll answer without using a religious response. I'll preface this by saying, though I'm religious, I don't believe God "created" anything.
Now, the response is this:
Dr. Roger Penrose and many other physicists while admitting that "time" in our conception didn't exist prior to the Big Bang, it is possible still to talk about a "before" the Big Bang. Even though our precise conception of what that means breaks down the further back we go.
So that's a secular response to the problem, that could theoretically be used. However, Christians probably don't want to use this because his model of the Universe is an eternal cyclic model. LOL And that contradicts Biblical Cosmology. But that's one way the problem could be addressed. Could be.
Sure, if they could. But they can't. That's why they're religious. Your ancestors were the same of other scientific reactions and happenings they couldn't explain. How far you've come. Or perhaps.. you've reached the arrogance and devaluation of the mystery (ergo joy) of life they hoped for you to avoid. Congratulations.
True. But all the Christians I know see the Bible as allegory.
No. I share that too. I really don't care.
You know the originator of the big bang theory was a Jesuit, George Lemaître, right? Here's an interesting snippet from his Wikipedia entry:
Where is the number 7 located?
Doesn't God defy the laws of physics and can do what it pleases? I never quite get that God can be limited by the impossible.
'God made the integers, all else is the work of man' ~ Leopold Kronecker, mathematician.
You know what they say about Episcopals? It's the bland leading the bland....
One approach to God is to present the deity in altogether familiar, knowable terms. The opposite approach is to define God as unfathomable, incomprehensible, unknowable.
I hold that man created the gods, not the other way around, and defined the gods in various ways. The most problematic approach is to define God as unknowable, then to go on and explain why and how God does this, that, and everything else. It becomes nonsensical. I was raised to believe that God is omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent. Fine, except that we have no idea what "being everywhere in all time, past and future" would / could mean. Ditto for God's other omni-features.
If God is a mystery, then shut about it.
Back in my religious days, I had no problem thinking that God caused the Big Bang. I never believed in the 6 day creation presented in Genesis. My then religious conception of God was that he was outside of time and space--he had to be, since he created the cosmos--God was before the beginning, At the same time, he inhabits his creation. Science accounts for the God's methods. Big Bang, evolution, pandemics, supernovae, etc.
That was my solution before I threw out the whole religious framework. Things are clearer now. There was a big bang which is still expanding, we are here on this minor celestial ball, and our prospects are partly-cloudy to dim.
Anyway, the point I was making was in response to the rhetorical question 'what could be "outside" of the Universe, as the Universe is by definition everything'. The OP falls into the trap of believing that whatever is real must be spatially located. So I was making the rhetorical counterpoint that such things as conceptual or abstract objects such as number are not located anywhere, they're not 'in' the Universe, either.
And Obama got one for being elected.
Now I don't hold with that Platonic Forms stuff, but it's a good topic. Care to start a thread on the article? Have you a link?
Your rejection of the assumption in the OP looks quite right. Although I'm not sure numbers are real - except for real numbers.
I do, as a matter of fact. I’ve even started the draft. Tomorrow.
:smirk:
In order to understand what is being said, consider the notion that is science that does not exist (in any real way). When you brush this abstraction aside, then all things become possible.
It's usually placed between 6 and 8. :razz:
I seem to have one on top of my keyboard. :-)
How is that different than other existential mysteries of the universe, including your own conscious existence?
Consider yourself enlightened then. LOL There remains mystery (?).
Have you given any thought to relativity (speed of light) and the existence of a theoretical eternity/outside of time itself?
From scientific American — “In the first few seconds after the big bang, the universe was very hot and dense ense, making it fully ionised — all of the protons, neutrons and electrons moved about freely and did not come together to make atoms. Only three minutes later, when the universe had cooled from 1032 to 109 °C, could light element formation begin.
At this point, electrons were still roaming free and only atomic nuclei could form. Protons were technically the first nuclei (when combined with an electron they make a hydrogen atom) and deuterons were the second. Deuterons are the nuclei of deuterium and are made when protons and neutrons fuse and emit photons.
Deuterons and neutrons can fuse to create a tritium nucleus with one proton and two neutrons. When the tritium nucleus comes across a proton the two can combine into a helium nucleus with two protons and two neutrons, known as He-4. Another path that leads to helium is the combination of a deuteron and a proton into a helium nucleus with two protons but only one neutron, He-3. When He-3 comes across a neutron, they can fuse to form a full helium nucleus, He-4. Each step in these reactions also emits a photon.
Photon emission can be a slow process, and there is a set of reactions that take deuterons and create helium nuclei faster because they bypass the emission of photons. They start by fusing two deuterons and the end result is a He-4 nucleus and either a proton or a neutron, depending on the specific path.”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/basic-space/httpblogsscientificamericancombasic-space20110802on-the-origin-of-chemical-elements/
We are however trapped by time.