Another science question about the Big Bang? Science types, please help with this?

Question

Yesterday I asked a question about the Big Bang, and I learned some things I did not know. I appreciate all the people who answered. Thank you for your time and your patience.
Here is the link:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AovElF134SCXSxyJM.TKuWjsy6IX?qid=20070403070151AAoJjgQ
I learned that the Big Bang theory postulates an explosion that began with an ultra dense object, something I didn't know.
I learned that most science types agree that the universe is expanding, and that it can not be "infinite" in the sense of being all that exists. I learned that most agree they don't know what might be "out there".
I'm wondering if it might be possible that what lies beyond the limits of the universe might not be God?
Why or why not?
(tell me about the pink unicorns if you must, but understand that I'm gonna have a drink if you do :-)
(Hey, it's all in good fun, and I, also, groan every time I hear one of my own faith try to convince an atheist with Pascal's Wager. )

Whoa, hold on.
I am not saying that I know what is beyond the universe, any more than anyone else does. I believe in God, and some of you don't, I have no problem with that. Besides, how do YOU know that God doesn't keep invisible pink unicorns for pets? Just because you think I'm wrong doesn't make you right, since we both are in a position where we have to admit that we do not KNOW.
I knew the pink unicorns were coming, that's exactly why I mentioned Pascal's Wager...Some Christians are having a drink at every mention of pink unicorns and/or other stories, and some atheists at every mention of Pascal's Wager. This way, atheists and Christians can all have a pleasant drink together, and maybe put down all the anger for a few minutes at least. I am not angry with you for not believing in God, why should you be offended with me for believing in Him?
Everyone has an equal right to this forum, and everyone in this forum has the right to speak their mind, as long as the do politelly.

Whoa, hold on.
I am not saying that I know what is beyond the universe, any more than anyone else does. I believe in God, and some of you don't, I have no problem with that. Besides, how do YOU know that God doesn't keep invisible pink unicorns for pets? Just because you think I'm wrong doesn't make you right, since we both are in a position where we have to admit that we do not KNOW.
I knew the pink unicorns were coming, that's exactly why I mentioned Pascal's Wager...Some Christians are having a drink at every mention of pink unicorns and/or other stories, and some atheists at every mention of Pascal's Wager. This way, atheists and Christians can all have a pleasant drink together, and maybe put down all the anger for a few minutes at least. I am not angry with you for not believing in God, why should you be offended with me for believing in Him?
Everyone has an equal right to this forum, and everyone in this forum has the right to speak their mind, as long as the do politelly.

"...if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scinetists, and just ordinary people, be able to take parat in the discussions of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we would know the mind of God"
Steven Hawking
(yeah, the Christian lady actually owns, and has read "A Brief History of Time". The above is quoted from the final paragraph of his conclusion on pg. 175.)
But I thought Hawking was an atheist?
Am I confused...or...
??

sorry about the double post above...either yahoo hiccupped or my computer did...or maybe the pink unicorn has been dancing on my keyboard. Or is it purple? Yeah, that's the problem with invisible unicorns. He might be sky blue yellow for all I know....

Answer 1

angelfire, let me ask you this... do you really think you know everything? Or that a book written 2000 years ago by sheepherders who believed the earth was flat could have possibly known everything?

Why then assume there is a god just because you don't know everything?

Science, and scientists, admits that not everything is known.

But just because not everything is known DOES NOT immediately default to "god did it". It only means that there's more exploration to do.

There is NO EVIDENCE for a gods existance. None. The Universe being finite is NOT evidence for a god. Neither is your existance. There is no proof for your god and until you deliver proof (it will NEVER happen or there would already be some indication), then there is no reason to believe in any god.

Answer 2

was this ultra dense object pink unicornish? because i refuse to believe it unless someone can verify that it was.

you can take your drink now.

-

i appreciate their cautious honesty. "they don't know what might be "out there"."

---

"The Big Bang model replaced the Steady State theory by postulating that all the matter/energy in the observable Universe was condensed into a particle smaller than a single proton (the famous “cosmic egg”). The Big Bang model, however, suffered from at least two major problems. First, it required that the “cosmic egg” be eternal—a concept clearly at odds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. John Gribbin, a highly regarded evolutionary cosmologist, voiced the opinion of many when he said: “The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical—perhaps even theological—what was there before the bang?” (1976, pp. 15-16).

Second, the expansion of the Universe could not go on forever; it had to end somewhere. The Universe had a beginning, and would have an ending. Robert Jastrow has addressed both of these points: “And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up” (1978, pp. 48-49). Matter could not be eternal, because eternal things do not run down. Furthermore, there was going to be an end at some point in the future.

Such a scenario is unacceptable to evolutionists. Jastrow himself admitted: “Astronomers try not to be influenced by philosophical considerations. However, the idea of a Universe that has both a beginning and an end is distasteful to the scientific mind” (1977, p. 31). To avoid any vestige of a beginning, or any hint of an ending, evolutionists invented the Oscillating Universe model (also known as the Big Bang/Big Crunch model, the Expansion/ Collapse model, etc.). Dr. Gribbin suggested: “[T]he best way around this initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the Universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely” (1976, pp. 15-16).

That is to say, there was a Big Bang; but there also will be a Big Crunch, at which time the matter of the Universe will collapse back onto itself. There will be a “bounce,” followed by another Big Bang, which will be followed by another Big Crunch, and this process will be repeated ad infinitum."

-
it looks to me like these scientists are trying to come up with whatever could be scientifically possible while avoiding the whole creation option.
...

Answer 3

It could be, but there is no evidence to support that. Pink Unicorns is as good a guess.

Actually M Theory has the Universe being 11 dimensions and it has lots of other universes out there. The math all makes sense with this for the first time ever. It isn't terribly tested, but it has been around long enough that it is worth looking at.

Answer 4

I am a Christian, but i also believe that there is more out there then heaven, its a purely egotistical thought that we are the only ones out there, just like when everyone thought we were the center of our universe hundreds of years ago, then scientists discovered that the sun was. I think that science and Christianity tie in together. There is a quote in a book called "Angles and Demons" by Dan Brown (The DaVinci Code) that says:

"Science and Religion are not at odds, Science is simply too young to understand."

I believe that everything ties into God. Everything we discover is totally misunderstood as the opposite of religion. But it is simply not put together correctly. There will always be questions, but those are things that God doesn't want us to know or wants us to find out for ourselves.

Answer 5

Then god is very very very far away- and even he must obey the laws of physics that he created. So- he'll get to you in about 14 billion years.

3000 years ago, much of the natural world and the laws under which it operated were completely unknown. Man looked up and saw the sun, moon and stars... what else could he think? But, today the nature of the universe is reasonably well understood, and the number of things that remain unknown are dwindling. Ascribing to the philosophy that anything unknown must be the work of a supernatural being is rapidly losing merit. True- there are a few questions that may remain unanswered for a long time, such as what caused the big bang? and what lies beyond the universe?. But- to jump to the conclusion that the unknown is therefore god is, well, absurd.

Answer 6

big bang: noun
the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe according to the big bang theory

Merriam-Webster

Now to answer your question.

M-theory is a cutting-edge theory of physics that deals with the extension of superstring theory. It is somewhat contentious in the physics community, as it lacks empirical evidence. If ever experimentally verified, M-theory and string theory would represent remarkable advances in science.

M-theory has been the target of increasing skepticism as some (notably Peter Woit and Lee Smolin) argue that string theorists have overstated many of the theory's strengths while underplaying its weaknesses

Unlike more conventional views of creation in modern physics, that are Ex nihilo, the M-Theory vision, although not yet complete, is of the whole observable universe being one of many extended 4 dimensional branes in an 12 dimensional spacetime. Although branes similar to that representing our universe can co-exist in the theory, their physical laws could differ from our own, as could their number of dimensions. Some proponents of the theory now believe that a collision of two branes may have been responsible for the Big Bang.

thats said...

The big bang was not an explosion of matter; it was an explosion of energy

Using Einstein’s equation E=MC2 mater and energy are interchangeable. We have already turned mater into energy so the reverse would also be true.

The mater in the universe was transformed from the energy of the big bang.

Answer 7

Universe is expanding but it is expanding at an *accelerated* rate. In other words it is getting faster. Physicists have proven this and it creates a massive problem for the so-called big bang. Actually the big bang theory is a dinosaur and it was previously the best idea we had but quantum string theories make the big bang look ridiculous. Forget big explosions in the sky, think quantum.

Answer 8

Yes, the ultra dense object is basically all the matter in the universe that was super condenced and super hot.

Sure God could exist beyond the universe, but science doesn't cover what it can't test, so that's left for the religious.

Answer 9

One of the great questions about the invisible pink unicorn is how do we know that it's pink if it's invisible....

For Big Bang questions I suggest reading Stephen Hawking book "A Short History of Time".

Answer 10

I must concede the possibility that something might somehow exist in the non-space "outside" the universe. That said, there is no possible way to determine what, if anything, might actually be there. We are limited to the universe. Anything "beyond" it is subject only to speculation. Assuming that there is a deity hiding "out there" is unwarranted, as there is no obtainable evidence about that possibility.