Using Occams razor, is the big bang not the simpler answer?

Question

Occams razor. The big bang requires a point mass to create the universe as we know it. Creationism not only requires the same amount of mass, it requires something outside the four dimensions as we know them. This outside thing must be able to store and process information, and act within the four dimensions we know. This requires some sort of way of not only data storage for his own function, but data storage and processing and energy for "snapping into being" matter in a low entropy state. Only one assumption and mininum energy is needed for the big bang arguement--a huge amount of energy, an extra dimensional intellegence and creation of mass from energy is required for creationism. So by Occams razor, which is the simpler proposition?

Answer 1

Occams Razor would also imply that the earth is flat. Don't buy that one too, do you?

Answer 2

The cosmos is here and must be explained as to how it got here. I think it's much easier to argue for God.

When it comes to explaining the existence of the universe, you only get three possibilities: (1) the universe is eternal (it has always been here), (2) the universe created itself, or (3) something created the universe. There is no other possibility except to claim that the universe is simply an illusion and does not exist—but I don’t think you would buy that. So let’s examine these three possibilities to see which is the most reasonable.

First, is the universe eternal? Absolutely not. We know this is true because of the universally recognized second law of Thermodynamics (the law of energy decay or entropy).

This law states that everything goes downhill from order to disorder, more usable energy to less. This law is the reason why heat flows from hot to cold and why this building will fall apart if it is not kept up with. If someone doesn’t believe in the second law of thermodynamics, just challenge them to live forever; even with this awesome machinery we have in our bodies, you will eventually wear out and die.

We can see that the universe is running down and wearing out; the stars are burning up, the radioactive atoms are decaying, etc. As Psalm 102:26 says, the heavens “will wear out like a garment.” Given enough time, the universe will experience what some call a “heat death” where there is maximum entropy; every part of the universe will be the same temperature, and no further work will be possible (speaking of energy transfer); all energy will be evenly distributed.

Eternal things obviously do not wear out because they would have had an infinite amount of time to come to their end. Since you cannot have an end without a beginning, the universe must have had a beginning. Evolutionary astronomer Dr. Robert Jastrow said, “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning.” And everything that has a beginning has a cause. This building had a beginning, you had a beginning, therefore there must have been a preceding and adequate cause.

The evolutionists know this and so they came up with the “big bang” theory from that “cosmic egg” (the universe exploded into existence). But there is still a major problem—you have to explain where that “cosmic egg” came from. As it has been said, “There must be a cosmic chicken.”

Some scientists like Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov proposed the oscillating universe theory to avoid a beginning. This theory states that the universe acts like a yo-yo; it explodes and then gravity pulls it back in, and then the process repeats itself over and over. But the second law of Thermodynamics still refutes that idea, since each cycle would exhaust more and more usable energy. The universe is not eternal!

Ok, that brings us to the second possibility: Did the universe create itself? I think Hebrews 3:4 answers that pretty well, “...every house is built by someone...”

Let’s say I walk into my livingroom and see a crayon drawing of our family on the wall. When I ask my daughter where it came from, will I accept her answer of, “It just appeared there; it came from nothing”? Her grandparents might, but I won’t.

It is pretty clear that something cannot bring itself into existence. As R.C. Sproul has said, “It is impossible for something to create itself. The concept of self-creation is a contradiction in terms, a nonsense statement . . . It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power.” As it has been said, “Nothing scratched its head one day and decided to become something.” I’m sorry to have to drop this bombshell on you, but from nothing, comes nothing.

Besides, the First Law of Thermodynamics (the law of energy conservation) argues against it. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system (without a God, this Universe would have to be a closed system) the amount of energy present in that system is constant (it cannot be created or destroyed), it can only be converted from one form to another. So, if the Universe initially contained no energy, and then it spontaneously generated all of the energy in the Universe now, the First Law would be violated. Without intervention from an outside force, the amount of energy in the Universe would have remained constant and unchanged at zero.

And now the third possibility: Did something create the universe? If the universe is not eternal and could not have created itself, then the only remaining alternative is that the universe was created by something or Someone. This would have to be a transcendent, eternal, self-existing being. I can find only one satisfactory explanation to our conundrum, and that is found in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Someone may argue, “If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause; who created God?” The answer is, everything that has a beginning has a cause; God, unlike the universe, did not have a beginning. Time is linked to matter and space (as we can see from Einstein’s general relativity). If God created the universe, then He created time along with matter and space. If God created time, then He is outside of time and doesn’t need a beginning.

What is more absurd, to believe that God Created everything out of nothing or that nothing turned itself into everything? The fact is, we live in a Universe that is an effect. There must be a preceding and adequate cause for it. The only thing that makes sense is a Creator who is more powerful than anything we can imagine.

You can strain your brain all day about extra demensions and universes, but the straightforward evidence is pointing toward God. You just don't like the implications of that.

Answer 3

The big bang theory is far from simple, it requires much more than a singularity, it requires a multidimensional hyper space to start with, and the mathematics of hyper space are still only preliminary theories, without a shred of evidence, although there is sufficient evidence to support the big bang theory, I've heard other theories that could be supported by the same data.
however, the mathematics of hyper space do not require any creation, rather they require a hyper collision to start the universe.
with that data, using Occam's Razor makes any deity redundant, which is no surprise.

Answer 4

Wrong, over-educated but still wrong

To break through all of the mumbo-jumbo and make it simple

Big Bang Theory - A giant explosion of matter created the universe

Creation Theory - God created the raw materials for the Big Bang, then the Big Bang created the univers


By Occams Razor, the Big Bang is still simpler

Answer 5

Certainly, the existence of a highly intelligent, highly evolved, immensely powerful being that exists before the beginning of the universe defies a rational solution, let alone a 'simple' one.

A being such as this would only exist after a long time of evolutionary development. Richard Dawkins makes this very point in 'the God Delusion'

Answer 6

The big bang required a huge amount of energy, and it defies the laws of entropy. You speak as if the answer of "why" the big bang happened has been answered by science. It hasn't.

Answer 7

I realize this question isn't really directed at those of us who are already sympathetic to your view, but I'll answer it anyway: the Big Bang is the answer selected by Occam's razor, because we have lots of evidence for it (expanding universe, CMB, etc.) and all of the components required for it to have happened we know exist.

So to answer your question, yes.

Answer 8

One could reverse it as well and point to all the variables needed for Big Bang to work versus a Creator.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html
http://skepdic.com/occam.html

Answer 9

As Dawkins says, God is a skyhook explanation rather than a crane. It invokes more questions than it answers. If complexity requires an explanation, an extremely complex being cannot answer. If intelligence must be explained, we cannot appeal to a super intelligence.

Answer 10

I am not looking for simple, I look for truth. and the truth, as far as I see it, is that God can do all things that seem impossible to those who don't believe.