The Big Bang theory is equivalent to the belief in an omnipotent God.

reply to post by Greylorn


I tend to agree with the premise of the OP. But what it all boils down to for me is that this perceived distinction between theists and atheists is nothing more than one big false dilemma. Why? Simply because regardless of what your belief system is (and yes, science is a belief system), in the end we're all searching for the meaning of our creator (be it an entity or a hot ball of stuff)... The sooner we realize this, and erase the line that's been drawn in the sand, the sooner we will find our answers.

I don't think it's necessarily prudent to completely discount an entity of some sort. Just as it's not prudent to discount the multi-verse theories that exist. In the end we may find out that both are true, however untestable, and therefore unscientific both may be at this point.

For ships and goggles I like to entertain the radical idea that our universe is playing on one big time loop. And that the very moment our universe was created, was the actual moment when a bunch of scientists from an earth of another time and dimension, successfully smashed two particles in their LHC thereby inadvertently creating our universe while obliterating theirs at the same time. Or as a variation of that ending, they started a whole new universe within theirs (multi-verse?). Either way, we could very well be on the brink of doing it again..

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Helious
I disagree. There is zero evidence of a big bang. You can reference people who claim that, that is what must have happened all day long,

And in exactly the same way, if a proponent of the big bang theory makes a specific but farfetched claim, you would be completely justified in asking for references to back up that claim.

But I'm not talking about the big bang. I'm specifically referring to the claim that:
Any physics student whose exam answer includes a singularity will get a zero on that exam question.

Given that the ATS terms and conditions have:

You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

...then it would be dissapointing to find that he simply pulled that claim out of his arse to bolster his argument.

If I ask one of my Physics 319 (Intro to General Relativity" students the question, "What spinning cosmological entity results in an ergoshperical double event horizon? " their answer had better be, "a singularity." So the basic premise is false. And the whole analogy it supports fails.
And there is quite a bit of observable evidence for the big bang: background microwave radiation; red shift.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


I disagree, based on one simple observation: the opposing beliefs of theists and atheists in the issue are not the problem. The opposing beliefs are simply manifestations of a deeper problem, one that is not nearly as simple to overcome as you suggest. This problem, essentially, is a matter of approach.

Theists approach problems very differently from the way atheists do, and this is not an easy difference to overcome. I believe that this very real base issue must be observed to make any progress.

reply to post by Greylorn


the big bang theory is brought to you as the new knowledge by the same mentality that gave us the flat earth theory 500 years ago, imo.

religion is not much better by telling us that faith does not require that anything make sense.
it's a mystery, take what i say on the basis of faith, the earth is the center of the universe.
you could get burned alive for challenging the church's stupidity.

the tiny human mind that requires that we have a theory about everything, iy's entertaining,but, imo, not worth losing sleep over.

the universe is an endless contradiction, the more we understand the more of our theories will fall.

it's a nice mental ride, but humility would accept man's limited understanding of anything and everthing.

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Helious
How did it turn into a debate about the similarity of the big bang and creationism to an answer on a physics test?

We're having that discussion because the OP used it as part of his argument to back up his point of view.

As I quoted earlier, it is against ATS terms and conditions to post lies, and so once again I find it dissapointing that not a single creationist appears to be concerned that pulling stuff out of your arse to bolster your argument, is a problem.

Unless the claim is true. Which is why I asked for references.

Ah yes, thank you for the clarification because oddly I missed that part of the OP and just caught it as I re read it after your post. I honestly have no knowledge of what he is talking about there and don't claim to know so carry on.

edit on 14-8-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)

The comment about dividing by zero on an exam problem was intended to make this point. There is no such thing, and cannot be such a thing, as a physical singularity.

A singularity is a mathematical concept. Of course math is the descriptive language of physics. It works rather well when properly applied, but physicists should know that the math is not the mechanism.

Here's an example of a singularity in action. Long ago I wrote a program to run a telescope by computer, using trigonometric functions in the pointing control logic. This worked well, except that if the telescope was ever pointed directly overhead, at the zenith, one of the trig functions "blew up" and produced infinity as a result-- i.e. a singularity.

This did not mean that the instrument blew up, or that its gears and motors stopped working at the zenith. Singularities are merely points at which the math no longer models the physical system being described. The physical system itself, whether telescope, black hole center, or the Big Bang's mysterious precursor, works just fine.

So when Stephen Hawking or other TV pop-science evangelist declares that there is a singularity at the core of a black hole, he is conning you. What he really means is that the equations used to describe a black hole are an incorrect model of what actually happens. He does not have enough basic integrity to admit that we have no clue about what happens at the core of black hole, or that the "singularity" which preceded the Big Bang is as contrived and as fundamentally absurd as the omnipotent God.

Originally posted by Krakatoa
Y'know, I can agree (in a way) with the premise of this thread (as I understand it).

"The belief in the Big Bang Theory is equivalent to the belief in an omnipotent God"

Since neither of these has absolute proof nor is repeatable, then they are both beliefs. And all beliefs (IMO) are equivalent. Just as the belief in an omnipotent Flying Spaghetti Monster creator is equivalent to both of the former beliefs.

edit on 14-8-2013 by Krakatoa because: Fixed spelling and other fat-finger errors

You seem to have reconsidered your position on this subject. Not everyone is willing to do that.

I invite you to reconsider it a little more, please. "Belief" was not part of my OP, and for good reason. The Big Bang theory is, in its core respects, functionally equivalent to the omnipotent God theory. Consider these points in common.

1. Each encompasses all the information needed to construct a universe.

2. Each possesses the power needed.

3. Neither is subject to direct verification.

4. No credible cause has been offered to explain what caused either entity to change its status and create a universe.

5. Each is responsible for the matter and energy in the universe.

6. Each is a single thing/entity that allegedly gave rise to multiple other things. How does one thing spontaneously become, or create, multiple things in a cause-effect universe?

I conclude that on these grounds, each conventional hypothesis about the beginnings is a conjoined twin of the other.

reply to post by Greylorn


And if I might add:

Each still requires a creator of themselves.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

I disagree, based on one simple observation: the opposing beliefs of theists and atheists in the issue are not the problem. The opposing beliefs are simply manifestations of a deeper problem, one that is not nearly as simple to overcome as you suggest. This problem, essentially, is a matter of approach.

Theists approach problems very differently from the way atheists do, and this is not an easy difference to overcome. I believe that this very real base issue must be observed to make any progress.

What I meant was that the problem itself can be simply classified as a false dilemma because we're all looking for the same thing- the meaning to our existence. But I would agree, the actual problem lies in the approach by both groups, and this rift most definitely needs to be addressed and put aside if we're to make any substantial progress here. It's a very deep issue that is sure to go unrecognized and remain unresolved, unfortunately though.

Both sides preach their views and accuse the other for being wrong, while feigning to know the truth. But who's right in a world where our observations are reduced/limited to mere semantic interpretations. Symbols and sounds that emanate from our minds. But words can't describe what it actually is. And on another planet - our words for what we see and believe mean nothing. So who has the universal say on what the universe actually is, I wonder?

Perhaps we should try to understand the concept of "meaning" and why humans share the desire to find it. Or why we feel so compelled to search for our source, and then label it. It's frantic. Why did this thing we dub the universe give rise to beings like humans and then impose this burden? It's kind of sick

Originally posted by Krakatoa
In your OP you made this statement:

Big Bang theory posits that the precursor to the bang was a physical singularity which necessarily contained all the mass and energy in our universe, plus their rules of interaction (the laws of physics). It is impossible to define a "physical singularity" in terms of any known physics or mathematical principles. Dr. Caca does not mention this on TV documentaries. He simply uses the term, "singularity," as if it means something. What does it mean?

However, the Ekpyrotic Theory does NOT require a singularity, yet, it still supports the Big Bang Theory. SO, isn;t that worth discussing as a potential origin as much as an omnipotent God?

As a potentially valid theory, it is every bit as worth discussing as the omnipotent God.

This question reminds me that in my previous list of common elements between God and BB theory I omitted the most important of all-- entropy level. Both God and the "singularity" were theoretically at entropy level zero, which means maximum organization.

For those who don't know about this, consider a wind up clock. When fully wound the clock is at entropy 0, at its maximal level of functionality, its spring fully loaded with as much energy as it can absorb. Let it run until it winds down. The clock is now at entropy 1. There is no torsion energy left in the spring, and unless someone comes along to wind it back up, the clock will not tick.

Now we know where the clock got its energy from. Someone wound it. But where did the cosmic micro-pea, the "singularity," get its energy from? And what might have "wound up" God?

Now, on to your question .

From an admittedly limited perusal (I have a great distaste for string theory because it is all math, no physics), ekpyrotic theory seems to suffer from several problems that make it not worth consideration.

1. It requires many elements, whereas God/BB theories require only one.

2. Where did the colliding membranes come from? These are complex, dynamic structures existing in higher level dimensions.

2b. Where did the exotic dimensions come from? What kind of space contains them?

3. Their entropy level cannot have been initially zero, suggesting that they could exist only as the result of another physical event related to creation. Thus, IMO, the ekpyrotic theory is too complex to be considered as a legitimate contender for a first cause.

reply to post by Greylorn


Either way, now that we're here we're still sandwiched in the midst of eternity, but the whole idea of something springing from nothing is absurd. No, instead what we're probably looking at, and immersed within.. is probably more akin to an intelligent subtraction from the absolute formless potential that is everything already always which is fully informed in eternity, in order to make THIS particular experience possible. Therefore, once we eventually become fully aware or consciously aware within the context of the "divine milieu" then we'll have caught up with where it's at and in the process return to the place from which we first started whiling coming to know it as if for the first time.

The fact is that we could not understand how the Universe ,Time or Life began if God spent months telling us . Most people can not deal with an all knowing God that will hold them accountable one day and thus seeks to reject his existence . BUT ! They better get used to it though with our all intrusive NSA and even private domestic spies and they have not gathered that information for nothing .
The Big Bang Theory has accomplished it's original task . It has given those that can not reconcile themselves with being under what they see as a repressive all knowing God the perfect escape from that reality . And those people don't even care to check it out . Everything came from "Nothingness" the size of a dot . How plausible is that ? And they stand tall and think the Christians are week minded .

We are a curious bunch aren't we !

reply to post by SimonPeter


And yet, we have still managed to compile so much more evidence. Tell me, how much science have you creationists brought to the table?

reply to post by Greylorn


There's a lot of very responsible work being done by good scientists that agree with what you're suggesting here. Personally, I see the Big Bang and the creator God as being two versions of the same theory. Good thoughts here. It'll take a while for any real progress to be made on this front, but both versions are being challenged in ways that would not have been possible only a handful of years ago.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You haven't been paying attention have you ! I do know you haven't been paying attention to what has been happening in this world , who is behind it and what the Prophecy in the Bible says about it . There is a lot of proof in there .

Originally posted by Astyanax
The OP refers to some classic objections against the concept of a divine creation.

1. if God is eternal and unchanging, how could He create world? The act of doing so would change Him – if nothing else, He would afterwards have the knowledge of having created the world, which He could not have had before.
   
   
2. Somewhat related to this is the objection that God is (must be) the most perfect Being imaginable. To alter Himself in any way would be to decline from this perfection. Therefore God cannot create the world without becoming less than God.
   
   
3. This leads us to the OP's third reference, which is to the creation of humanity – of sentient beings. Such beings either have free will, in which case God's omnipotence is compromised, or else they are merely puppets in a deterministic reality, meaning that God is directly guilty of all the crimes committed by humankind. Neither case reflects much glory on the Creator. Effectively, God can either be ominipotent or good, but not both.

I believe the OP's point is that both the singularity-based Big Bang theory and belief in an omnipotent God are ultimately admissions of ignorance.

And he is right, even though phishyblankwaters is also right to assert that we know the Big Bang happened. I think the OP would readily agree that it did; his objection is only to the arm-waving use of the concept 'singularity' to disguise the fact that the laws of physics and our knowledge of them leave us none the wiser about how and why the Big Bang occurred.

I don't think an honest, scientifically literate person should have any trouble agreeing with the OP. If the universe had a cause, we don't know what it was. Short of an unimaginable revolution in physics we shall probably never know. Yet we understand, with increasing assurance and in growing detail, what happened immediately afterwards, and how the has universe developed since then. That narrative is so fascinating (and so well-founded), it hardly matters that we don't and probably can't know the cause of the origin itself. Such a question probably appeals more to religious minds than scientific ones anyway.

Astyanax--
I continue to be surprised at the quantity of thoughtful individuals working this forum.

Honesty requires that I confess to a less-convivial agenda than you ascribe to me. I think that there is a better way to explain the observed expansion of the universe than the obvious, which is BB theory. Discussing it here would be off-topic. The similarity between BB theory and God offers a partial explanation for my maverick opinions. Both theories share virtually identical characteristics, so how can anyone declare that one theory is right while the other is dreadfully wrong?

Then, you wrote, "Yet we understand, with increasing assurance and in growing detail, what happened immediately afterwards, and how the has universe developed since then."

Who's the "we" in that declaration?

One of the fine marks of a good theory is that it predicts the outcome of observations which no one had previously thought to make. (e.g: Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Planck, and Big Al.) What predictions did Big Bang theory make?

Did it predict the discovery of dark matter? How about dark energy? No. It threw some hand-waving mathematics over the creation of ordinary matter, the stuff that comprises about 5% of the known universe. I'm not impressed.

Did it explain the creation of the Higgs field, or what it is? Did it predict the Higgs boson? Did it offer a detailed explanation for the construction of quarks and their diverse properties? Neutrinos?

You know the answers. BB theory predicted nothing of consequence and cannot provide details about the initial assembly of matter. It lacks the character and the quality of the truly excellent theories of physics.

As you noted--- "...both the singularity-based Big Bang theory and belief in an omnipotent God are ultimately admissions of ignorance." Why would any man who values his integrity accept a theory that he knows to be derived from ignorance?

I really don't care if this is posted yet, cause I will anyway.

By contrast, consider the predominant God-concept. God is an omnipotent, omniscient entity-- unchanging, infinite, existing forever, then suddenly choosing to create a universe. According to this belief, God is not an entity who might have thought about how to create a universe. How could he, since he always knew how to create a universe?

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

How can you still believe God is omnipotent and all knowing, it clearly shows some error in that assumption.
The bing bang however is a theory based on observants, facts, mathematical equations and more....
Yet it still isn't taken for a fact. It's nothing more then a very good guess resulted from the evidence etc.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Very similar to the atheist version!

1. Questions, questions. Hard to imagine, how can this be? why?
2. Therefore
3. Anything but God.

Shhhhh, DS...don't point out the obvious. It freaks those incapable of the greater philosophical questions out. They, and their worldview, is rather fragile, okay? Plus, it grosses me the heck out to see folk like JiggerJ with spittle around their mouth. Ewwwwww.

Originally posted by Helious

I disagree. There is zero evidence of a big bang.

Not so. It might be more accurate to say there is zero you will accept.

As far as factual evidence goes, both theories carry the same merit.

God made it, is not a theory. It has no evidence, nor does god/creator itself. It is completely a personal belief.

I agree somewhat regarding the term "singularity". Though it does appear that our universe spread out in a big expansion about 13.8 billion years ago. This may be entirely wrong, but it is what the evidence suggests. The following model of how stars planets etc formed seems to be consistent with this theory also. AFAIK science readily admits that they don't really know what happened just previous to this event (yet).

You could say a god/creator did this (who knows), but to do that you would first need evidence that such a thing exists. Got any? Once you did that you could set about explaining how it was accomplished and submit it for peer review. Then it would have the chance of becoming a theory.

You see, I hate to knock science because I love it and find it one of the most useful tools that we as humans have to continue to evolve as a species and also credit it from plucking us from the dark ages but with that said, it's imperfect and those that live by every 1 and 0 often miss the bigger picture that is there to see.

For someone that loves it, you seem to have no trouble clinging to a credulous and unsupported belief that defies it's very principles. We know we are here, we have a good idea how it came about (up to a point), why ascribe this to a creator? It's an unnecessary addition and complication, without any real evidence of it's very own existence to begin with. I am sure you could easily demonstrate your own existence, what about your claimed creator?

Big bang, creation theory, they are the same only to different people. Both require a gigantic leap of faith into an area where there is no hard evidence and a realm where fundamental answers about the construct we call reality are completely out of our reach.

Not really so. One is backed by evidence. The other is a personal opinion/religious bias, which is fine. Shouldn't be confused with a scientific theory though.

reply to post by Greylorn

Thank you for the compliment. Perhaps this encounter of ours will be less abrasive than the last.

I believe a Big Bang occurred: that the universe expanded in spacetime from a point of zero dimensions. The existence of the cosmic microwave background, which no-one expected or thought to predict, is strong evidence for an initial event of this kind. However, I would be happy to admit – and I believe Stephen Hawking would be, too – that we have really no idea how or why that happened, although we're pretty sure of when and where it did.

Your list of commonalities between the God Did It theory and the Big Bang theory is quite impressive, but it is predicated on an assumption that may not be true: that the universe had a cause. It seems intuitively obvious that it must have, but you evidently know more than enough physics to have learnt that intuition is a very poor guide to understanding reality.

Causality is a temporal phenomenon. It presupposes 'before' and 'after'. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen people ask 'what happened before the Big Bang?' in this forum, I'd be able to afford a Porsche. Yet temporality is a deeply mysterious thing. I incline to the view that it is a by-product of the way our sensoria have evolved to interpret reality. Time is not as we know it; past and future, before and after, may be biological artifacts.

Perhaps time has no physical reality at all. A great many problems, in philosophy as well as in physics, would vanish into thin air if that were true. I won't guess at the nature of the hypothesis you say you have developed to explain the origins of the universe, but if I had the knowledge and motivation to develop one of my own it would certainly involve a fresh look at time.

By the way, a physics student who answered an exam question about the formation of vapour shock collars round transonic objects by properly invoking a Prandtl-Glauert singularity would assuredly get full marks.

Originally posted by twfau
The difference is that science doesn't necessarily 'believe' in the Big Bang Theory, but accepts it as the strongest theory, whilst religion relies on belief in order to survive.

Another difference is that science often asks the question of what happened before the big bang and it is encouraged.

Those who ask what was before God may be called heretics.