Origins question: the universe came into being at the "Big Bang". Was the "Big Bang" caused or uncaused?

Question

If it was uncaused, then, science has a problem, for something cannot come from nothing. If it was caused, as it must have been, then what caused it?

Please, no sound bites. Is the knowledge "fact or faith"?

It seems that the 2 possibilities are:

1. Some mysterious phenomenon.
2. A creator possessing the property of consciousness.

Which is more likely? and why? Are not both reason and faith-based?

I would add more, but will run out of room.

Also, an issue usually brought up is what caused the creator. No one knows. However, consciousness in people is still far from understood, and some researchers do not think it can be understood, except that it is. So to explain this gap in knowledge, it is reasonable to "believe" that the universe and existence were caused, by a being of infinite consciousness. This cannot be proven, but it fits the data and issues better than other ideas.

Ronin: The trouble is that with the big unknowns, of both the origin of life, and the universe itself, it take a leap of faith to believe in a solely materialistic universe or one that was brought about by a creator.

You chose to believe in a mysteriously created natural universe. That's ok. But it is faith based none the less.

Steven S: Let's be fair. Steven Hawkings invented a mathematical shape like a bulb, to try to mathematically explain away the singularity of the big bang.

The truth is we do not know. Some of us believe that there is got to be a natural explanation, reagrdless of the data and the intellectual manipulations you must go thru to get there. Some big leaps of faith. Some of us believe that a creator must exist. We also have to take a leap of faith, but it is a small one in comparison.

Answer 1

Hey there philosopher,
Epistemologically speaking, the notion of causality belongs most properly to the theory of empiricism; that is, the idea that you can gather data through observation. If you want to explore that more fully you should read the works of the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume. Here is a bibliography:

A Treatise on Human Nature
An Abstract of a Treatise of Human Nature
Essays, Moral and Political
Letter from a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh
An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding
An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
Political Discourses
The History of England
Four Dissertations
A Concise and Genuine Account of the Dispute Between Mr. Hume
and Mr. Rousseau
My Own Life
Two Essays ("Of Suicide" and "Of the Immortality of the Soul")
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

I specifically recommend the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding.

Empiricism is a very useful tool that has brought us many gifts since Hume elaborated his ideas 300 years ago. The greatest difficulty with it, which he acknowledges, it that causality cannot actually be proved. It is something which is apparent, but in reality we are unable to observe the mechanism which leads effects to issue from causes. We believe in causality because often it seems like there is a causal connection between events, but the truth is no-one can say for certain.
Since there is nothing about the nature of reality which provides any observable phenomena going back further than the big bang, it becomes even more difficult to apply the principles of causality. We don't have any hard evidence supporting it now after creation has taken place. Perhaps before the big bang the rules were entirely different and there might not have even been an apperance of a connection between causes. So it is beyond any reasonable speculation. Especially since we know that the physical properties of the universe and the laws of physics were created within the first few microseconds after the big bang. Science cannot venture back any further because science requires some kind of evidence one way or another.
You may also enjoy reading Aristotles writings regarding the Prime Mover. Check out this page for a short synopsis of what that's all about, http://people.uncw.edu/stanleym/bewitch/11.html

but read the Aristotle, he elucidates the problem perfectly.

So it's not subject to scientific speculation, but neither is the state of God before the creation discussed in the Bible, so I would say that what you are speculating about is outside the realm of both science and Christianity. Speculating can lead to some interesting and useful ideas, but without evidence it is pure fiction (which certainly does not devalue it!)

Good luck with your book!

Answer 2

the laws of physics state that there is causality for every action or reaction. Objects do not move until another object or force interacts with it. Similarily, motion does not cease until affected by another object or force.

You are assuming the the "Big Bang" was the beginning of everything. Have you considered that other events may have preceded the "Big Bang"? Perhaps like the collapse of a previous universe into a microscopic quantum singularity within a black hole, the mass of which so great as to cause the "Big Bang" to occur? We simply do not have the knowledge to understand the dynamics involved.

But prescribing consciousness to the event we dont understand, or some other mystical or magical influence, is a shortsighted way of approaching the problem. This has been done throughout mankind's history...we always seem to create a God to control things we do not understand. Gods of Fire, or the Sun, or even possibly today's Gods...

Answer 3

According to the theory of evolution, "all life originated from a super explosion," known as the Big Bang (Peterson, 1990, p. 70). The Big Bang theory proposes the idea that all matter and energy was at on time densely concentrated at a single point in the universe and measured approximately the size of an electron (Taylor, 1995). Evolutionists teach that for some unknown reason this concentrated mass of material exploded producing the first organization of particles. This process supposedly progressed over a period of billions of years, during which time a single-celled organism developed into complex life forms.


Several significant problems with the Big Bang theory immediately come to mind:

I. Where did all the material present in the Big Bang come from?

2. Why did the material suddenly explode?

3. Can an explosion bring about order?


Evolutionary scientists have left the answer to the first two of these questions as simply "UNKNOWN/' However, because of scientific experiment, the third question can be answered with an emphatic "NO."

It is an observable fact that the addition of certain types of energy, such as heat, always bring about disorder rather than structure. The evolutionary theory ignores this fact with the supposition of the Big Bang. By assigning approximately 12 to 15 billion years to the formation of the universe, the evolutionary theory masks the fact that the addition of chaotic energy always results in chaos. This time scale is based solely on the assumption that given enough time and a "steady addition of energy, it is possible for order to come about" (Peterson, 1990, p. 70). However, even with the addition of billions of years, the evolutionary theory continues to contradict the observable natural laws of nature.

The second law of thermodynamics holds that "all natural systems degenerate when left to themselves" (Taylor, 1995, p. 7). This means that without interceding factors, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials, rather than increasing in complexity, Evolutionary scientists are clearly aware of the rigidity of this natural law, yet continue to maintain that by adding extreme amounts of time and energy to a single-celled organism, the formation of life occurred in opposition to the natural laws of the universe. The question now raised considers whether the simple addition of energy and time is enough to bring about life.


Take under consideration an organism in decay. A once living organism, such as a cell, will possess all the materials necessary for life even after it has died. Based on the theory of evolution, it would stand to reason that an organism could be regenerated after death by simply adding sufficient amounts of energy; but, this is not the case. Rather, the "internal organization [of a deceased organism] decreases" with the addition of energy (Taylor, 1995, p. 9). In fact, increasing energy levels speed up the decomposition process, explicitly contradicting the evolutionary train of thought.

It is clear to see that the Big Bang theory simply does not work. Even if evolutionists were able to answer questions concerning the origin of the Big Bang, they could not possibly dispute the very laws of nature that can be observed today.

References:

Peterson, Dennis R. Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation,. El Dorado: Creation Research Foundation, 1990.

Taylor, Paul S. Origins Answer Book. Gilbert: Eden Communications, 1995

Answer 4

well the big bang is completely flawed so en-turn it did not happen the theory has too many flaws in it to even be considered a theory for instance, the big bang says that dust particles came together pressurized stated spinning and imploded to create the universe well science says that if something is spinning and a piece of that thing comes off it will spin in the same direction of the hole so if that is true why are two moons of two diff planets going in a different direction if everything else

Answer 5

Arogance is the cruxt of the problem here. I'm referring to the arrogance of those who believe science can explain all things. There is no way to prove the big bang theory, and it is only a theory, any more than creation can be proven. Although its fun to ponder, in the absence of proof is it worth exspending the energy arguing whether it was caused or ucaused?

Answer 6

The Big Bang was caused by the little foreplay.

I think that we, as a species, are a very long way off from discovering what actually and factually was happening at the "beginning" of the present Universe.

Answer 7

Simple answer: Scientists do not yet completely understand every aspect of what happened billions of years ago, and perhaps they never will. They freely admit to their gaps in knowledge, and seek evidence that will expand their understanding.

Contrast this with religionists who, when confronted with something they don't understand, invent a spiritual being who must be responsible. This may make them feel better, but does nothing to advance the human condition.

Answer 8

Uncaused? You mean the universe was "uncreated?"
Reason and belief are opposites, so it is not sensible to claim that belief in a creator is the most reasonable solution to this question. Belief doesn't fit ANY data. You are trying to sound intelligent, but it comes across as slightly delusional, to be honest. It's not your fault; this is what happens when you try to reconcile science and facts with religion. It can't be done, and greater minds than yours have tried.

Answer 9

OMG, again

The physics that we know break down at the limits of a black hole. They also break down at the beginning of the universe. We simply don't know. The big bang may be caused by a white hole from another univers, time and causality may break down. We don't know. It's too early to say "Well, this is really hard, it must be god"

It took thousands of years for doctors to figure out that germs caused disease. Think of that. THOUSANDS of years. What if they had all, in the 1500's, said "well, this is ridiculous, I say our answers are in the bible, let's get lunch"

Answer 10

I agree with you. Something to ask God when I get to heaven....How was He created??? I just doubt it has anything to do with my salvation. Maybe that is why He hasn't told us. :)