Q3, The origin of existence. Last one?

Question

I am very happy with the good explanations that people have posted on my last two questions. But the better the answer, the more it slips into describing the divine. That the big bang came from another dimension or dimensions or by unknown forces. I congratulate you on your explanations.

So time must have been created with the bang. It is starting to sound like a non-physical being at the other end doesn't it? Why can't it be a god? I am not saying that you must believe in MY God, but it sounds logical that something was at work behind all that.

And if time was created with the bang, how could this have happened at all? there must have been a partial timelike state when it was starting to emerge. The peices of your explanations fit well, but they each lack small parts.

And for most all of you, stop assuming that I am making any assumptions here, I am not currently arguing for my God's existence, only a god. I am not saying that the big bang DEFINITLELY was what started it all.

Interesting Katheryn b, still, it is time.
if time can be shown as a line, and we put the big bang on it, and the line has no start, how long untill it gets there? It never will.

Answer 1

Scientists make all sorts of assumptions. Those assumptions get printed as fact. Sometimes those assumptions are based on the available facts at the time. Sometimes those assumptions are based on biased thinking. No matter how far you go back, there is no assumption for how it all started. Even the big bang starts a bit from the real beginning. Evolution can't tell us how the first amoeba began. So there is a gap in all the theories, that can't explain the very beginning, the origin of things. Asimov tells us that he ran a computer program and the result was that the odds of all this just happening was practically not possible. He had to conclude from the computer program that there had to be a creator. The precision of the solar system for example is mind boggling, like a giant Swiss watch. The way a baby forms in the womb is still not understood. Trees keep growing like they did in ancient times. It happens, but man has nothing to do with it. The grass grows; the flowers bloom; the fruit appears and it just happens. We may supply a little tender care but we are powerless to make all this grow. No theory explains all this. There has to be a cause that made this effect. Even if you reason that the cause is an effect of another cause, you still have to conclude that there must be an original cause. Then when you try to describe this original cause who created all this effect, you realize that you have described God.

Answer 2

Science is based upon empirical evidence, and the knowledge we have up to the Big Bang is based upon the associations we have of the consistent factors of the known universe. For instance, we can't directly see how an atom works, but we can demonstrate that there are electrons and positrons and we can estimate masses to come up with the nucleus structure. There is a bunch of deductive reasoning involved which gets us to the Bohr model. No one has ever seen an atom, but because the laws of science are consistent, and we can come to know that specific manipulations of those features will provide specific results which will tell us what's going on.

This works for the known universe because we can assume that the laws are consistent. But it breaks down at the Big Bang, because science really has no clear understanding of what the universe was like before that point. Our entire architecture of understanding from which we deduct our knowledge of the universe is based upon the laws that seem to have been fundamentally initiated in some form at the Bang. We simply can't be certain what caused the Bang to happen because we can't know what pre-existed the Bang.

The default assumption of science is always "I don't know" if they run into a brickwall like this. You can propose all the theories you want, but you need some element of that theory to be testable or observable, which seems impossible, regarding the Bang. Any theory is therefore feasible but also equally infeasible.

The default to a God origin is very specific and very hard to prove, because you also then, have to demonstrate the deity exists and then must come up with a means of substantiating how the deity came to exist. If you say that the universe is complex and highly ordered so there must be a God involved you've created another logical problem because God would also need a creator since God would need to be complex and highly ordered to have created something of that manner. The other problem is that more complex things are formed from less complex things all the time. Entropy biases atoms to create complex molecules and structures in open system.

The only realistic logical default is "I don't know" until someone can figure out how to look past the barrier at the Big Bang.

Answer 3

This is the best site I've found abut the Big Bang. Cornell, where Carl Sagan taught, is certainly a reputable site. This site suggests that time didn't start with the Big Bang, but that it went slower.

Response to your note: We don't have all the answers yet. I expect that science will eventually prove many things, including when time began and how our Universe was created. When they do make this discovery, I am doubtful that any of it will point to a god or a "creator". I know you have heard this many times before, but I think the Christian God will eventually join in the ranks with Zeus and Poseidon.

Oh, one more thing, the September 4 issue of Time magazine has a great article called How the Stars Were Born. Pick up a copy; it's only $3.95.

Answer 4

Well, you're trying to define time as a 'thing'. Time isn't anything, it's just a way of representing rates of change.

There's a tendency in people to use the supernatural to explain things that they can't readily explain themself. A common example would be the many ghost stories we hear. Someone sees or hears something they can't identify, and so it immediately becomes a ghost, or an alien spaceship, or whatever. In the same way, when people are confronted with concepts like the causes of the Big Bang which may not be explained for decades, if ever, there's a tendency to assign supernatural forces, like God or whatever, to fill in the gap. "We don't know what caused the Big Bang!? Well, it must have been GOD then!"

A more logical approach would be to just say, "We don't know that yet. Hopefully through observation and experimentation one day we will be able to. Until then, we are comfortable with an awareness that we cannot know everything. We do not need to use silly myths and superstitions to fill in every crack in our understanding."

Answer 5

I definitely think it was God. Not just any god, but my God.

It has been scientifically proven that the universe is expanding. THerefore it must have started at one point. Not from many points and particles just happening to blow up and make planets, but from one point, or God.

I might be able to believe evolution if there were actually any conclusive proof, or if all the evidence that there IS, points to intelligent design.

Humans and our environment are just to perfect to have happened by chance. If our axis were a few degrees off, if the sun were a bit closer, if the moon were further away, the earth would be totally uninhabitable.

Homo Sapiens are incredible creatures. How could anyone think that we just happened by chance? Not only is this chance a mathematical impossibility, but there is also the subject of morals and consciences to be addressed.

If you just happened, then why are you here? What is the point of living? Think about that. Really think about it, and the consequences of having no hope, no future, no purpose. Is this life it?

If you evolved from a blob, how do you happen to have a conscience? how do you know right and wrong? Are there a right and wrong? And if not, what does that mean? Contemplate this thought. It goes deep.

Answer 6

Vamps, You asked a good question but sorry to say your additional information really disappointed me. Do you really want to alienate Hinduism and Sikhism? If you are trying to do so for bringing peace among Dharmic religions, let me tell you that peace should not be brought by distorting the truth. Your are attempt will also be futile like the attempt of Gandhi who did the same in the case of Hindus and Muslims. Sikhism is nothing but Hinduism and they should accept the fact. I don't know why the Hindu scholars are so unpredictable.

Answer 7

Your talking your self into a corner. Just because you don't have the ability to understand something does not make it automatically God. True wisdom is knowing that you really don't know anything at all, with this in mind it leaves us always searching and finding new answers to things. When you simply put a label on a thing and call it God, is stifles the will to investigate further, and hinders the growth of ones own knowledge.

Answer 8

I wouldn't at all say it's "logical" that there had to be a consciousness behind it. It could be a white hole that is just stuff coming from another universe's black hole. We have no idea, our physics can't answer these questions yet. That doesn't mean there is a god behind it.

For thousands of years we didn't know what caused disease, someone could just have easily started some Q&A that he steered towards pointing to a god making us sick. Then we discoverd bacteria and viruses. Wouldn't that person feel silly knowing what we know now?
What will you do in 100 years when we know where the big bang came from? Go back one step further to look for god?

Answer 9

Read Stephen Hawking " A Brief History of Time" and Martin Rees " Before the Beginning"
Tammi Dee

Answer 10

"In the begining God created the heavens and the earth"

BANG!