The "Big Bang Theory"?

Question

For those of you who believe in the 'big bang' theory, can you explain what exactly caused the 'big bang'? I'm a christian and believe in creationism. I can't explain where God came from, but I can't accept the wonders of the universe, the human body, nature in general, came about as the result of a massive explosion. :-)))

cbirch92: You're saying that God created the big bang. That makes a liitle more sense. Consider that the story in the bible was just a "fairy" tale to explain to us humans what God thought we could understand most. But, then aren't you saying that the 'big bang' and 'creationism' are both plausible explanations for the world we live in?? Thank you. :-)))

Answer 1

no one knows what caused the big bang, there still trying to figure this out. but how do you explain an all powerful being that is able to do anything he/she wants to. ill level with you, im not going to say the big bang theory makes more sense, because if you go back to the start of it it doesnt make more sense. they both, in my mind atleast make the same amount of sense when you really look at the 2.

there is evidence to support it though. such as the expanding universe, the leftover heat in space that has no other explaination, the cosmic microwave background that they took in the 90's, and the massive amount of hydrogen and helium.

but i choose to belive in god as an answer to how science happened. that god created the primevil atom, god caused to to explode, and until science comes up with a good solid reason im going to continue to believe that. even einstein, the greatest scientist of our time, believed in god.

and to the first guy. why would god create a universe, galaxies, and earth with people and animals on it just so he can control it and make it exactly how he wanted to. thats why i think god simply created the primevil atom and let it go from there, and sat by watching his masterpiece.

Answer 2

One does not "believe" in a theory. Theories are useful or they are not. They are simply tools.

To be a scientific theory, it must be testable. A theory is normally set up so that it explains things that we see, and predicts other things that we will see. If a theory is good at explaining what we observe, we like it (it is useful).

As we (humans) observed the universe, we noted some strange things. For example, the further away galaxies appeared from us, the faster they seemed to be moving away. And the rate was strangely regular.

A christian priest is the first one who came up with a modern logical solution: at one time in the distant past, all the matter must have all been in one tiny spot.

He did not call it the Big Bang (that name came much later, from people who were against the theory -- it is not a very good name because it gives a lot of people the impression that there was an actual explosion which, on our world, we perceive as a destructive force).

He called it the "hypothesis of the primeval atom".

The modern version of the theory only works from 'after' the start. Our understanding of physics is such that we know that we cannot go back to the time "zero" exactly.

Meaning: we cannot extend the calculations of the theory further back than what is called the Planck time (5 x 10^-44 second that is: a zero, a decimal point, 43 more zeroes and the 5 in the 44th position after the point). A small time perhaps, but still a time AFTER the true beginning.

After that time (i.e. after the beginning of the universe) the theory is very useful to "predict" a whole lot of what we observe, like the cosmological microwave background which is what we now perceive of the light that existed at the moment the universe became transparent about 100,000 years after its creation.

The theory is totally SILENT about what could have happened before the Planck time. So the theory says NOTHING about what (or who) caused the Big Bang.

Answer 3

The little I know. This is all a little beyond comprehension so I'll do my best. The big bang came as the result of a singularity. Something infinitely small yet infinitely dense. Eventually the immense pressure caused a cataclysmic explosion resulting in our known universe.

The best explanation I heard was in a book "A brief history of nearly everything"

I don't think it takes God out of the equation because where did the singularity originate? And could there be more than 1? I personally can't accept that everything was created in 7 days and everyone originates from Adam and Eve. I think there is enough empirical scientific evidence to rule out that particular scenario.

However, there is a perfection, harmony and repetition in nature that does suggest a design or plan that is beyond the random bonding of particles. The book I mentioned does a pretty good job of explaining the most recent concepts of the creation of the universe and many other things.

Answer 4

The Universe came into existance from a creation process that our Creator formed The Biblical record Basically Describes that all Creation was initiated by our Creator. Since we were not there at the instance and frame of reference to observe the construction of the Universe, there is no way that we can scientifically determine and prove the process of Creation of the Universe.
Humans have limited perceptions ; thus can only asume and speculate in terms of Theories.There are a few theories about the formation of the Universe which also includes the Big Bang theory; However none have real positive proof. Hence they remains just as theories. Therefore it becomes just a scientific belief ;And as the saying goes "believe it or not".
As far as trying to scientifcally determine the nature of
Our Creator is simply Just out of the question.

Answer 5

Hey Jorst...

Sorry to hear your mind is having such a difficult time comprehending the physics of creation. First off, I really don't care what religion you have or don't have. That is not an issue that I care to deal with. What is important for you to comprehend is the physical characteristics of our Sun, which is a star, and a rather puney one (small) at that. Do a search on the Internet using the key words:

Curious About Astronomy

and you will be led to a wonderful site developed by Cornell University for those who have interests in Astronomy. Read up on the Sun, view the Pics, and the statistics and realize that the Sun will die in about 5 Billion Years. When it does so, it will consume all objects anywhere close to it... most likely Mercury, Venus, Earth and possibly even Jupiter (and all the associated moons). That situation could be prempted (from the standpoint of an Earth dweller) by some massive crash of a wandering Asteroid which happened to plow right into Planet Earth. In that case, we most likely will not care what happens to the Sun in several Billion Years.

Now, the trick here is to get to fully comprehend our Sun. Then multiply that comprehension of something truly massive simply going ballistic on us by 100 fold which is what we might expect from larger stars. They are being born and dieing all of the time in deep space.

Now, on top of that, realize that in nature, there are a series of happy balances between "Partly Full", "Full", and "OverStuffed - Super Critical". Things that are partly full can consume something else with no problem. Things that are full can consume something else and become Overstuffed, even Super Critical. At some point just the teeniest little extra material will tip the balance and the entire shebang disintegrates in a massive explosion. Where is that point, how much is it, etc., etc., I don't know. But that is what happened. Something very big went super critical and blew up. I can see that happening and buy into it as a workable theory. That is, however, as far as I have ventured out onto the limb.

Answer 6

Big bang theory does not concern itself with what happened "before". Using our current understanding of physics, universe began to exist 10^-43 seconds after the moment of big bang.

There is no clear consensus among scientists over what was before the "bang" (which, by the way, was NOT an explosion, it was an expansion of space-time fabric), but they don't claim to know the unknown. How do YOU know that your god (as opposed to thousands of other gods other people believe in) created the universe? You said it yourself; you don't know. Then by believing that your god created the universe, you're taking it all by "faith". That's the difference between you and science. There is no "faith" in science, its cold, hard study of the facts.

And for those who say that big bang theory is only just as plausible as god, take some time and study teh theory. There's a reason why vast majority of the scientists hold the core parts of the big bang theory to be true.

Things like cosmic microwave background radiation (discovered at the precise temperature predicted by the theory), hubble's law and redshift seen in galaxies, distribution and evolution of galaxies, and numerous other observations all point toward the big bang theory.

Lastly, there is serious scientific research being done to see what happened before the bang, and it's a work in progress. theories like string theory (now m-theory) are allowing us to make logical guesses about what was going on before the big bang, and may provide testable predictions in the future once better particle accelerators become available (like the LHC at CERN).

Answer 7

No offense, but you have been misled by false teachers. Genuine Christian teachers don't dispute science. They understand, as John Calvin wrote back at the beginning of the Reformation, that the Genesis story is not, and is not intended to be, a literal explanation of the physical events of Creation. It is, has Calvin observed, an explanation that was in terms a primitive culture could understand--and that the point is that God created all things, not how He did it. Calvin made it clear tht the "frantic persons" who tried to take such things as literal, rather than metaphors, were misunderstanding the Bible.

Further, like many conservative Christians, you have been misled by the lie that a "theory" is somehow only speculation, or is unproven. Such a statement in science is a hypothesis, not a theory--a distinction the false teachers who have been lying to you are well aware of. In science, a theory is an explanation of observed data--and is accepted as a theory, ratherthan a hypothesis, only after it has been shown to be correct by repeated test/experiment/observation.

The same arguement applies to evolution--and its worth noting that at the time Darwin published "The Origin of Species" legitimate Christian teachers and pastors welcomed it as for what it is--a brilliant insight into the workings of God's magnificent creation. Again, this is something the false teachers who have misled you are well aware of. Try reading Darwin's book sometime. You will find it is not an attack on Christianity at all--it is simply a sceintific report of observed data and Darwins hypotheses as to what those observations meant--hypotheses later shown, for the most part, to be correct.

And yet again--you've been told that the "natural selection" is incontradiction of God's Word. That is the most bare-faced lie of all. Natural selection is a process we can observe DIRECTLY--and isn't even part of Darwin's work--it was already well known centuries before he wrote. Natural selection simply refers to the fact that, on average, the fittest members of a population will be more likely to survive and reproduce, while less fit members are more liely to die, or be eaten by predators. The only part this plays in evolutionary theory is that Darwin pointed out that this probability pattern would be what determined if a change (mutatuon is the Latin word for change) in a species would be passed on to future generations, so that we can see that only changes that are beneficial are likely to survive. But--tat's not what the creationist liars tell you. I know--I'm a Christian and I've listened to them more times than I care to count.

God tells us in the Bible that Christians are to turn away from false teachers and have nothing to do with thim. I pray you will start tofind the real Truth of Christ's love and abandon these fakes to their own devices and blasphemies.

Answer 8

No one knows what caused the big bang to happen. Our science just hasn't figured that one out yet. Of course there are lots of things science hasn't figured out, but that's no reason to reject science. If everything was already known, we wouldn't need scientists in the first place!

I'm curious - why can't you accept that the universe began with the big bang (which, by the way, wasn't really an explosion, but that's a long story)? I know it can't be because it's too complicated, because God can do anything, things like the big bang and evolution are not too complicated for Him. In fact, since with God all things are possible, what aren't those things possible?

Answer 9

coach- I am always amused at creationists who state that matter could not pre-exist but a god could. If you want to know where the original matter came from try researching it from other sources than Genesis. Spontaneous and uncaused appearances of subatomic particles are routinely observed in particle accelerators. Or don't you believe in them? Pure energy and matter are always in a constant state of interchangable flux.

These type of questions are always difficult. Let's begin on the common ground that science does not exist to disprove religion. Science and religion are not neccesarily mutually exclusive concepts. Life and the Universe are filled with mysteries. Man has had the habit in the past of explaining all things that he does not understand on gods. Today, most people who believe in gods, believe in one God. He still controls the two things that we do not understand: Life after death, and the creation of the Universe.

It is very easy in the times in which we live to want to know all the answers to everything. Unfortunately, this is not reality. We continue to make progress in our understanding of things, but in 2007 we do not know all. This does not imply however that because of this fact, the answer must therefore be God.

I am also a Christian. Yet I have my own questions for you. Why is the Universe 14.7 billion years old and yet our Sun is only 5 billion years old? Why would a god cause life to be possible only after other stars had gone through their lives and supernovaed? Where do dinosaurs fit into the scheme of God's creation? How do the following Ages fit into your account of creation:
Proterozoic
Neoproterozoic
Phanerozoic
Paleozoic
Cambrian
Ordovician
Silurian
Devonian
Carboniferous
Permian
Mesozoic?

As for your question, let us explore the Big Bang. The effects of that primeval explosion are clearly detectable today-in the fact that the universe is still expanding, and is filled with an afterglow of radiant heat. Explain convincingly where the cosmic background radiation came from, why it is so isotropic, and why its temperature is fixed at 2.7 K. Why did God create an expanding Universe? Why is God accelerating the speed of this expansion and why does there seem to be no end in sight for this expansion? Why is God having galaxies collide? Why does God allow for the existence of NEO asteroids? Why is God moving the Moon away from Earth at 1 1/2 inches per year? When the expansion of the Universe has been measured at 13.7 billion years why is it that we see no stars older than that? The oldest stars are 13.2 billion years.

Theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models, called Friedmann models. These models show that a Big Bang is consistent with general relativity and with the cosmological principle.

Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes the analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law. Combined with the assumption that observers located anywhere in the universe would make similar observations (the Copernican principle), this suggests that space itself is expanding. The next most important observational evidence was the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. This had been predicted as a relic from when hot ionized plasma of the early universe first cooled sufficiently to form neutral hydrogen and allow space to become transparent to light, and its discovery led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe. A third important line of evidence is the relative proportion of light elements in the universe, which is a close match to predictions for the formation of light elements in the first minutes of the universe, according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

One does not have to believe in the Big Bang theory. But if you are proclaiming creationism, then you have MANY more questions to answer than a scientist. And I would hope that not all of the questions proposed to you will be answered with ' you must believe '.

It's ok if you cannot accept observational and mathematical evidence. But I thank 'God' that the days of persecution and suppression of science died with the dark ages.

Answer 10

1) The collapse of a previous universe.

2) I know many christians, and they all accept the big bang.

3) It wasn't an explosion. It was an expansion.