Big Bang Theory

[Confused]

Although the big bang theory is famous, it's also widely misunderstood. A common misperception about the theory is that it describes the origin of the universe. That's not quite right. The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe. Did some intentional action lead to the creation?
Another misconception is that the big bang was a kind of explosion. That's not accurate either. The big bang describes the expansion of the universe. While some versions of the theory refer to an incredibly rapid expansion (possibly faster than the speed of light), it's still not an explosion in the classic sense.
Summing up the big bang theory is a challenge. It involves concepts that contradict the way we perceive the world. The earliest stages of the big bang focus on a moment in which all the separate forces of the universe were part of a unified force. The laws of science begin to break down the further back you look. Eventually, you can't make any scientific theories about what is happening, because science itself doesn't apply.
At the earliest moments of the big bang, all of the matter, energy and space we could observe was compressed to an area of zero volume and infinite density. Cosmologists call this a singularity.

This is the point where things seem to get sticky for me. What caused the Singularity to expand into the Big Bang Theory? And what was the origin of the Singularity? Because of the limitations of the laws of science, we can't make any guesses about the instant the universe came into being. Instead, we can look at the period immediately following the creation of the universe. Right now, the earliest moment scientists talk about occurs at t = 1 x 10-43 seconds (the "t" stands for the time after the creation of the universe). In other words, take the number 1.0 and move the decimal place to the left 43 times.

So up for debate, is there any way we can actually study the Singularity and the cause of said Singularity leading to the "Big Bang"? Do we need to insert a God into the process to justify the statement "The universe was created" or is there a competing natural process that can explain it. While I realize that most can say that just because the universe came into existence doesn't mean we need insert a creator to make it happen, take note, I am aware of this. However, this being a religious debating forum, I am looking for any competing religious justification as well and any competing scientific justification. Hence, placing this thread in the "Science and Religion" forum.

So to clarify: For debate:
1) What methodology could we use to study the actual Singularity?
2) Is there any methodology we can use to determine the cause of the Singularity progressing to the "Big Bang"?
3) What does religion hypothesize as being the Singularity? Please note, if you insert God here, you must justify His being the Singularity.
4) What does science have to show in the form of evidence that would negate the insertion of a creator setting off the Singularity to initiate the Big Bang leading to the future universe we now reside it. What does religion have in the form of evidence that a creator was needed to bring the Singularity into existence and is there any evidence that said creator actually initiated the Big Bang?

(Please note, a heavily relied on source for information from this thread came from:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictio ... heory1.htm )

[BenjaminChan]

While I wish i understood the physics of the "big bang" comepletely, I don't think i'll make any claims here because this really isn't my area but try this link, it might explain alot about how the universe come from nothing from a logicall physics standpoint.

[McCulloch]

If one claims that there is no reason for involving consciousness , then my question is, for what scientific reasons do we claim, the singularity as having an infinite density?

A singularity has infinite density by definition.

...and God is creator by definition....why would you claim the singularity in being the cause for the existence of the universe as being more reasonable than God? How "did" the singularity cause the universe to exist? If no answer can be given, then why imply the need for one?

There is a whole lot more implied in the use of the word God than just creator, unless perhaps you are a deist.

I do not claim that the singularity was the cause of existence of the universe. The claim of the big bang theorists is that the universe was once almost a singularity and perhaps even was a singularity. My claim is that the universe could have been uncaused. It was not caused by the singularity, it was the singularity. Compare the two hypotheses. In one we have an uncaused singularity, a fairly simple entity. In the other we have an uncaused deity, a very complex entity, with intelligence, will, intent, existing in some kind of realm outside of spacetime.

[McCulloch]

If the universe was shrinking before the big-bang, then by the definition of time, time existed before the big-bang.

I agree, if the universe was shrinking before the big-bang, then there must have been a time before the big-bang. Do you know if the universe was shrinking before the big-bang? Did I miss something?

Where did the nothing go?

It wasn't there in the first place, so it didn't go anywhere.

I know you better than that McCulloch, you are one of the smartest people here.

Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasnt there
He wasnt there again today
Oh, how I wish hed go away

Yesterday, I gave you nothing. Where did you put it? Do you see what I'm saying? It is meaningless to ask where the nothing went.

Look, imagine this universe getting smaller and smaller in this 'nothing' where, as you said even light has no place to go.

It does not matter if the universe is getting smaller or getting larger, the fallacy is in thinking that there exists some sort of nothing beyond the universe. The universe may be finite but unbounded. In this view, there is nothing beyond the universe, not that there is something called nothing beyond the universe.

Now all we need to do is agree 'what' this universe resides in, .. or more accurately put, 'WHOM' the universe resides in?

The universe does not reside in anything. The universe is everything.

[McCulloch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity

Theists say that God is eternally existent. How this is understood depends on which definition of eternity is used. On one hand, God may exist in eternity, a timeless existence where categories of past, present, and future just do not apply.

...Augustine of Hippo wrote that time exists only within the created universe, so that God exists outside time; for God there is no past or future, but only an eternal present

Lets take this thought further in this debate thread: Timeless God and Intent.

[Goat]

If one claims that there is no reason for involving consciousness , then my question is, for what scientific reasons do we claim, the singularity as having an infinite density?

A singularity has infinite density by definition.

...and God is creator by definition....why would you claim the singularity in being the cause for the existence of the universe as being more reasonable than God? How "did" the singularity cause the universe to exist? If no answer can be given, then why imply the need for one?

There is a whole lot more implied in the use of the word God than just creator, unless perhaps you are a deist.

I do not claim that the singularity was the cause of existence of the universe. The claim of the big bang theorists is that the universe was once almost a singularity and perhaps even was a singularity. My claim is that the universe could have been uncaused. It was not caused by the singularity, it was the singularity. Compare the two hypotheses. In one we have an uncaused singularity, a fairly simple entity. In the other we have an uncaused deity, a very complex entity, with intelligence, will, intent, existing in some kind of realm outside of spacetime.

I have to disagree with your claim 'the singularity is infinitely dense by definition'. I would say that 'The singularity is the condition where our math breaks down, and the formulas we are using go to infinity'... which basically means 'this is beyond our understanding, and there are factors we do not know about.

Calling that condition the singularity is basically drawing figures on a map and proclaiming 'here be monsters'..

[McCulloch]

I have to disagree with your claim 'the singularity is infinitely dense by definition'. I would say that 'The singularity is the condition where our math breaks down, and the formulas we are using go to infinity'... which basically means 'this is beyond our understanding, and there are factors we do not know about.

Calling that condition the singularity is basically drawing figures on a map and proclaiming 'here be monsters'..

I agree that a singularity is beyond our understanding. It could be that an actual singularity could be impossible. However, that does not change the definition of a singularity. It is, by definition, infinitely dense. Until we resolve the quantum effects on relativity, a real singularity remains hypothetical.

However, to the point raised by Arian and Mich, they seem to think that modern cosmology is either in error or incomplete, because when the universe was small, it did not reside in something. Somehow, they have problems envisioning a universe the size of a pea or smaller, existing unless it existed within something (or nothing?), but do not have a problem envisioning the universe 93 billion light years across with some kind of area, space (or nothing?) around it.

[arian]

I have to disagree with your claim 'the singularity is infinitely dense by definition'. I would say that 'The singularity is the condition where our math breaks down, and the formulas we are using go to infinity'... which basically means 'this is beyond our understanding, and there are factors we do not know about.

Calling that condition the singularity is basically drawing figures on a map and proclaiming 'here be monsters'..

I agree that a singularity is beyond our understanding. It could be that an actual singularity could be impossible. However, that does not change the definition of a singularity. It is, by definition, infinitely dense. Until we resolve the quantum effects on relativity, a real singularity remains hypothetical.

However, to the point raised by Arian and Mich, they seem to think that modern cosmology is either in error or incomplete, because when the universe was small, it did not reside in something. Somehow, they have problems envisioning a universe the size of a pea or smaller, existing unless it existed within something (or nothing?), but do not have a problem envisioning the universe 93 billion light years across with some kind of area, space (or nothing?) around it.

Thank you Goat, I also agree.

McCulloch, or Goat may I ask you guys 'again' what do YOU think the pea-sized universe was doing before the Big-Bang? Were there any radiation, or some molecules, gasses or ANYTHING moving within the tiny universe?

Second, McCulloch you missunderstand me, for I do not believe in the Big-bang theory, I have proven it to be a lie. I don't believe the universe is 'this' big and 'that' old, residing in some unexplained unquestionable 'whatever'. That sounds very much like the explanation to the Trinity Doctrine... "Humpty, Alexandar Dumpty"

The universe is IN God, everything is IN God, there is NOTHING besides Him.

CREATION:
Gen 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
NKJV

In the beginning - 'time'

God created the heavens - 'space'

and the earth - 'matter'

The earth was without form, and void - no 'light' or 'order' yet. Everything needed to create was there, except no order, or wasnt assembled yet.

and darkness was on the face of the deep - without light, there is darkness. Without order, there is kayos.

And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters " God was examining the face of the waters, just as a sculptor examines the clay before him. Hmm, now lets see what I can do with this?

Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light " We know that this was before God created the sun or the stars, so light here means order. God created/commanded order

And God saw the light that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness " After God organized the face of the earth (created the physical laws) He saw that it was good, or that He was satisfied with what he made. Light (order) was now separated from darkness (kayos/decay/death).

God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night " The Day is when everything was perfect, just as God planned it, and night was not yet, for man was not created yet. God did create darkness, which is brought upon by sin. We see the Kayos after the fall of Adam and Eve, and how this darkness was coming and engulfing the whole universe. Adam started to get old, earth started to decompose, and everything in the universe was subject to decay. Night, darkness.

So the evening and the morning were the first day " We know God rests from His work, and so do we his image, man.

The rest of the creation story reveals that everything was created on purpose, for a purpose. Each animal was created according to its kind, and so on.


Want to hear the rest of the story?

Odon

[mich]

However, to the point raised by Arian and Mich, they seem to think that modern cosmology is either in error or incomplete, because when the universe was small, it did not reside in something. Somehow, they have problems envisioning a universe the size of a pea or smaller, existing unless it existed within something (or nothing?), but do not have a problem envisioning the universe 93 billion light years across with some kind of area, space (or nothing?) around it.

I apologize if this was the impression I made; that is not my point at all. In fact I do not claim to have "any" qualification in arguing against any scientific theory.
The point that I usally make in my posts is that I do indeed accept and "try" to understand the existing scientific theories due to the "faith" I have in the scientific community. If I would use mearly my learning capacity and reasoning power as the vehicle, I could not accept the Theory of Relativity nor of Quantum Mechanics as my reasoning of such theories does not seem to agree with them.

What I am saying for the Big Bang theory, being the OP in question, is that I do not find any difference, where it concerns the method of reasoning, in accepting the point of singularity as being the cause of the universe, or to believe that God is the creator, as both are concerned with a philosophical issue, not an observable scientific one.

Now, McCulloch, you do not seem to believe that the transition of the point of singularity to the beginning of what we call the universe,that is, the creation of spacetime, matter and all of the laws of physics which we know and observe, as not being a creation at all. If the observable universe came forth from the singularity, that which has no characteristic resembling the universe, how can it "not" be called a creation?


I will look at the thread "Timeless God and Intent" when time permits; thanks.

Andre

[Goat]

I have to disagree with your claim 'the singularity is infinitely dense by definition'. I would say that 'The singularity is the condition where our math breaks down, and the formulas we are using go to infinity'... which basically means 'this is beyond our understanding, and there are factors we do not know about.

Calling that condition the singularity is basically drawing figures on a map and proclaiming 'here be monsters'..

I agree that a singularity is beyond our understanding. It could be that an actual singularity could be impossible. However, that does not change the definition of a singularity. It is, by definition, infinitely dense. Until we resolve the quantum effects on relativity, a real singularity remains hypothetical.

However, to the point raised by Arian and Mich, they seem to think that modern cosmology is either in error or incomplete, because when the universe was small, it did not reside in something. Somehow, they have problems envisioning a universe the size of a pea or smaller, existing unless it existed within something (or nothing?), but do not have a problem envisioning the universe 93 billion light years across with some kind of area, space (or nothing?) around it.

Thank you Goat, I also agree.

McCulloch, or Goat may I ask you guys 'again' what do YOU think the pea-sized universe was doing before the Big-Bang? Were there any radiation, or some molecules, gasses or ANYTHING moving within the tiny universe?

Second, McCulloch you missunderstand me, for I do not believe in the Big-bang theory, I have proven it to be a lie. I don't believe the universe is 'this' big and 'that' old, residing in some unexplained unquestionable 'whatever'. That sounds very much like the explanation to the Trinity Doctrine... "Humpty, Alexandar Dumpty"

The universe is IN God, everything is IN God, there is NOTHING besides Him.

CREATION:
Gen 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
NKJV

In the beginning - 'time'

God created the heavens - 'space'

and the earth - 'matter'

The earth was without form, and void - no 'light' or 'order' yet. Everything needed to create was there, except no order, or wasnt assembled yet.

and darkness was on the face of the deep - without light, there is darkness. Without order, there is kayos.

And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters " God was examining the face of the waters, just as a sculptor examines the clay before him. Hmm, now lets see what I can do with this?

Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light " We know that this was before God created the sun or the stars, so light here means order. God created/commanded order

And God saw the light that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness " After God organized the face of the earth (created the physical laws) He saw that it was good, or that He was satisfied with what he made. Light (order) was now separated from darkness (kayos/decay/death).

God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night " The Day is when everything was perfect, just as God planned it, and night was not yet, for man was not created yet. God did create darkness, which is brought upon by sin. We see the Kayos after the fall of Adam and Eve, and how this darkness was coming and engulfing the whole universe. Adam started to get old, earth started to decompose, and everything in the universe was subject to decay. Night, darkness.

So the evening and the morning were the first day " We know God rests from His work, and so do we his image, man.

The rest of the creation story reveals that everything was created on purpose, for a purpose. Each animal was created according to its kind, and so on.



Want to hear the rest of the story?

Odon

The universe was not 'pea sized'.. it was the size of the entire universe. As for the book of Genesis, it has nothing to do with the inflationary theory .. Adding bits and pieces of nonsense still does not make it equate to the so called 'big bang' theory.

If you want to know what REALLY happened, make a reservation at the Big Bang Burger Bar, and watch it happen for yourself.

[mich]

If one claims that there is no reason for involving consciousness , then my question is, for what scientific reasons do we claim, the singularity as having an infinite density?

A singularity has infinite density by definition.

...and God is creator by definition....why would you claim the singularity in being the cause for the existence of the universe as being more reasonable than God? How "did" the singularity cause the universe to exist? If no answer can be given, then why imply the need for one?

There is a whole lot more implied in the use of the word God than just creator, unless perhaps you are a deist.

However, the focus of the thread is about the beginning of the universe. To talk about God's redeeming work would be out of context. God in terms of Creator is what the issue is about.

[/quote]

I do not claim that the singularity was the cause of existence of the universe. The claim of the big bang theorists is that the universe was once almost a singularity and perhaps even was a singularity. My claim is that the universe could have been uncaused.

I highly respect this; and it maybe very true. This is not the issue I have. My point in the universe being uncaused is a philosophical view no different than the view of a creator. However, because the singularity is somehow tied to a scientific theory, you seem to claim it as being superior to the God creation hypothesis. The problem exists when one realizes that there is no actual scientific connection when one brings the singularity to infinite density. This then becomes a philosophical point of view.


[/quote]

It was not caused by the singularity, it was the singularity.

I would agree if the singularity had all of the universe's characteristics, but it has none, so it cannot be identified as being the same. In other words, I don't accept the universe "was" the singularity, but "came forth" from the singularity.


[/quote]

Compare the two hypotheses. In one we have an uncaused singularity, a fairly simple entity. In the other we have an uncaused deity, a very complex entity, with intelligence, will, intent, existing in some kind of realm outside of spacetime.

Whatever the singularity was, I don't see it as being a simple entity. It was the potential giving birth to the universe, within which exists consciousness; and without consciousness, could the universe actually exist?

Andre