Does religion hold the rights on the Big Bang?

A popular novel, Angels and Demons, which was just released on Friday, discussed an important topic within the beginning of the book. Robert Langdon, the protagonist, is talking to Vittoria Vetra and Director Kohler, and the topic of the Big Bang is brought up.

Langdon presumes that Hubble came up with the theory, in which Vittoria rebukes him, stating it was Georges Lemaître, a catholic priest, and a professor of physics who formed the theory. Hubble was only responsible for the collection of the evidence that the Big Bang actually happened.

A war was started with the scientific community and the church. The church claimed it as a victory on their side. Since the theory states that the universe was at absolute zero when it was formed, scientists tried to recreate the same effects. No luck.

Also, the law of conservation of mass states that matter is neither able to created nor destroyed, just changed in one form to another. The Church stated that only through the will of God could such a thing come true.

To this day, the argument still arises, but, what do you guys believe?

the so called "big bang" is nothing more than scientists trying to describe creationism in half logical terms


the big bang theory is nothing more than a subtle clinging to Christian ideologies and attempting to make scientific sense out of them

therefore i will say it now, the Big Bang never happened, and neither did "creation"

imo there was no beginning or end, and it was just always here

my theory is equally as valid as their theories

reply to post by Mak Manto


The Law of Conservation of energy and matter only applies post big bang, before that there were no laws of physics in this universe. The big bang is currently the most accepted and evidential form we have for the Universes' creation. Although now science has progressed to "Pre- Big Bang" physics and the study of the multiverse theory and "Hyperspace" or the "Bulk", which is a multidimensional space that this universe and near infinite others "float" around in. M-Theory states that this universe and others were created by "Branes clashing", as in multi-dimensional, highly energetic membranes colliding and creating universes from the high energy collision. Another theory states that the Universe and others are spherical or bubble shaped in nature and create by a process called "Bubble Nucleation" in which universes form of other universe or off of the Bulk itself. Both are theories but still only explain how this universe and others were made, not what made Hyperspace so the question is still there. I like to compare it to one of those boxes when you open them there is another smaller box inside, then another, and so on. The more we probe for answers the more questions we get.

[edit on 5/19/2009 by jkrog08]

Let's say that a multiverse is true, and we're one of several universes, in which a dying universe allowed ours to come.

That still says that somewhere down the line, a universe had to come from somewhere.

reply to post by Mak Manto


Yea, like I said the question is now what created Hyperspace (or Bulk, whatever you want to call it). There are not many theoies on that, I have mine but it is stalled like the others.

[edit on 5/19/2009 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Let's say that a multiverse is true, and we're one of several universes, in which a dying universe allowed ours to come.

That still says that somewhere down the line, a universe had to come from somewhere.

2 billion years from now humans cause an explosion so powerful that it rips space time apart and triggers an event 1 trillion years in the past, the first Universe is born. I bet we could totally do it



[edit on 19-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Angels & Demons is a bestselling mystery-thriller novel written by American author Dan Brown and published by Pocket Books in 2000. It revolves around the quest of fictional Harvard University symbologist Robert Langdon to uncover the mysteries of a secret society called the Illuminati and to unravel a plot to annihilate Vatican City using destructive antimatter. The book uses the idea of a historical conflict between science and religion, particularly that between the Illuminati and the Roman Catholic Church.

The novel introduces the character Robert Langdon, who is also the protagonist of Brown's subsequent 2003 novel, The Da Vinci Code. It also shares many stylistic elements with its sequel, such as conspiracies of secret societies, a single-day time frame, and the Catholic Church. Ancient history, architecture, and symbolism are also heavily referenced throughout the book. An eponymous film adaptation was released on May 15, 2009.

Wasn't released Friday...it was the prequal to Da Vinci code.

the big bang theory is nothing more than a subtle clinging to Christian ideologies and attempting to make scientific sense out of them

Not just Christian, it's actually many many religions and ideologies.


In the end, though, I don't think it really matters. I mean, we'll never know conclusively what happened and any hypothesis is just as valid as any other. Everyone just tries to make sense of the questions in a way which suits him/herself.
I feel pretty secure in the belief that science and religion CAN work together and they can make sense together, in conjunction, if certain comprimises and small leaps are taken from both sides.
If you believe in a God, nothing science says rules out that belief or contradicts it until you begin believing in certain dogmas.

I think one day we'll know, and by one day I mean when we die. That's the only thing I care about when I die, being able to learn all the answers I want.

Wasn't released Friday...it was the prequal to Da Vinci code.

Yeah, it was. Your own quote even said it was released on Friday.

As for knowing, maybe we will, maybe we won't. I'm not sure if we can understand all of the secrets of the universe.

reply to post by Mr Headshot


The book was presented as the prequel but the movie is presented as a sequel.

What we seem to forget is that time and space, as we know it, may be different in other realities. Time was created for our experience. Time is part of the prison we're in. So is space. Our mind has limits, and always tries to understand with physical laws.

Edit to add: as far as the big bang is concerned, i know that it happens when 2 universes collide therefore creating another.



[edit on 20-5-2009 by lagenese]

reply to post by Mak Manto


Yes, the movie was, your OP said

A popular novel, Angels and Demons

That's not what I want to start though, I didn't mean to sound like a douche, I'm horrid at correcting people. It's a wonder I even hand around on forums, the grammar makes me cringe. =)

I would like to think that the big bang didn't happen. I cannot think of another solution to the problem of the background radiation though. Or explain why the universe would be expanding.

I mean how awesome would it be if space just went on forever and stars and planets went on forever in every direction. Now THAT would be some bad edit stuff right there brothers and sisters.

But then again there are even MORE problems with that. The amount of chemicals. The evolution of stars from first to second and third generation reusing elements and elements that can only be created in the hearts of second and third generation stars.

The location of these stars. It really does all add up to a type of beginning or compacting and then big bangedness.

I guess I would have to give this prize fight to religion because Science has no remote shred of proof for what could cause it and the burden of proof always lies on science.

[edit on 20-5-2009 by TurkeyBurgers]

Georges Lemaitre was indeed a Catholic priest (eventually monsignor.) His theory of the Big Bang helped explain red-shift and was supported by Hubble's consequent research. Einstein's role was quite signifigant in that on first hearing Lemaitre's theory he said "Your maths is perfect, but your physics is abysmal!" - however, on seeing Hubble's data he conceded that LeMaitre had been right and gave the weight of his authority to Lemaitre's Big Bang theory.

It's a fascinating period in physics and Lemaitre's role is rarely given the notice it deserves. I would, however, caution against imagining Lemaitre was a physicist motivated by faith in a fundamentalist sense. He was one of the many before and since Catholic scientists who have and do contribute greatly to science. Reason and faith do go hand in hand - creation is rational thus it's bound to.

Be cautious of looking at the history of Church and science through "Brown"-tinted glasses.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
2 billion years from now humans cause an explosion so powerful that it rips space time apart and triggers an event 1 trillion years in the past, the first Universe is born. I bet we could totally do it

[edit on 19-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Along those lines. There is a short Asimov story I suggest everyone reads. I only stumbled across this a few months ago, but its one of those :mind blown: type things. Its a 10-15 min at best read.

The last question:

filer.case.edu...

[edit on 20-5-2009 by HeHasNoName]

Originally posted by Mr Headshot
the big bang theory is nothing more than a subtle clinging to Christian ideologies and attempting to make scientific sense out of them
Not just Christian, it's actually many many religions and ideologies.

Thanks for pointing that out Mr. Headshot - right on target, no less that expected with a nick like that!

There is clear evidence that in Hermetic and Alchemical traditions, the "Big Bang" was perceived as an event that created a singularity, that the dimensions of space that we are physically aware of were created at the same time, including time, also, that there was cognisance of the formation of the physical elements.

This tradition was not new in the 16th century and was a product of study of older traditions and knowledge. Whether it is true or not, of course, is another story, but quite detailed ideas were promulgated early on, hitting the mark when compared with modern theory if only in simplistic terms.

This was largely a product of the application of observable natural laws, empirical evidence applied to the single thought that can be summed up as, "What if the universe was created?"

reply to post by HeHasNoName


Great, great story

good find