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

Originally posted by Krakatoa
Branes Collision -> Big Bang

Yes, but how did those branes come into existence in the first place?

It's like saying that before the egg, there was the chicken.

reply to post by swanne


You are correct to ask that question. Which is why it is still considered a belief since there is no proof of the theory (yet). Therefore, the beliefs are equivalent IMO.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


We have evidence of an expanding universe and evidence of cosmic background radiation, yes. But, we only have mathematical theories for the "bang" itself. The cosmic background radiation detected is there, but there is still no actual proof of the cause, other than leading theories (which I subscribe to myself).

reply to post by Helious


only that we have more proof of the Big Bang than of God..

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.

reply to post by Greylorn


It's funny that the closer we get to the answer of existence...the more it points to some kind of "creator" impulse or organizing force. I'm not presumptuous enough to say any human religion has it right...but I do think our natural inclination to believe in some kind of god exists for a reason. These kinds of things are why I stopped being an atheist, and resigned myself more as an agnostic.

I think something is behind it all...I just don't think man has yet figured it out. Our current religions are simply tools created for controlling behavior, while offering SOME explanation. I just don't think any of them are the "correct" explanation.

reply to post by th3onetruth

only that we have more proof of the Big Bang than of God..

Unless one posits that God's "creation" of the Universe WAS via the Big Bang.... Ahh...see?

reply to post by Greylorn


We can argue the merits of each side from now until the universe does whatever universes do at their end, should there be an end.
It all boils down to one single factor. One either believes that there is a God, or one believes that there is NOT a God. Beyond that, beyond that spark, the rest is physics. We know that there is a universe and it is filled with things that we can measure.
I love science. It is fascinating and intriguing. I love the problems we face in science and the feeling of accomplishment when we discover something new. Those discoveries humble me. I feel smaller, and yet, I feel more significant. The more that I realize how small I am, the more I feel honored to be created alongside this mighty and wondrous architecture.
My belief in God puts no limits on me just as another's unbelief puts no limits on them. Religion is the problem. Religion is the divisive element in the matter, not belief in a creator.
I am an artist and I create lots of things. I put my energy into those creations and they are all special to me. I remember so many of my creations and can recognize them from so long ago. I guess that's one of the reasons I feel the way I do. I like feeling that way and it bothers me when someone tells me I'm a bad person for believing in God. Or, that I'm a fool. I don't tell others that just because they feel differently than myself.
I have had my doubts and have been wary of teachings and have come to my own understanding of who I am. I'm not defined by someone elses standards. I am who I am. If we all just bothered about our own selves and didn't try to impose our beliefs or unbeliefs on others, we'd get alot further in understanding this reality.

Observational evidence for the Big Bang Theory. All things being equal, OP will surely provide similar evidence for an omnipotent God, right? While at it, OP will also let us know how to test the validity of the claim of omnipotent God.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Observational evidence for the Big Bang Theory. All things being equal, OP will surely provide similar evidence for an omnipotent God, right? While at it, OP will also let us know how to test the validity of the claim of omnipotent God.

edit on 15-8-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

And, if you read further down you will see this over-arching statement:

Little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history. The equations of classical general relativity indicate a singularity at the origin of cosmic time, although this conclusion depends on several assumptions. Moreover, general relativity must break down before the Universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the would-be singularity.

So, the evidence is there indicating the Big Bang was a result of an explaining/exploding singularity, but there is no proof (yet) of that theory being the correct one. It is still based upon assumptions, and has it's own set of inconsistencies and problems associated with it as well (just like the theory of an omnipotent God).

I repeat, they are all based upon belief and not independently reproducible facts....none of them. Personally I am of the belief that the Big Bang is the correct explanation, but not caused by the singularity but of the collision of multiple 3 dimensional branes in accordance with the Ekpyrotic Theory as I stated in a previous post:

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?

reply to post by Gazrok


Nuh uh. Something existed before "God" came along. The Bible makes that clear.

Originally posted by Krakatoa
And, if you read further down you will see this over-arching statement:

Little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history. The equations of classical general relativity indicate a singularity at the origin of cosmic time, although this conclusion depends on several assumptions. Moreover, general relativity must break down before the Universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the would-be singularity.

So, the evidence is there indicating the Big Bang was a result of an explaining/exploding singularity, but there is no proof (yet) of that theory being the correct one. It is still based upon assumptions, and has it's own set of inconsistencies and problems associated with it as well (just like the theory of an omnipotent God).

1. None-the-less, many observations point to the Big Bang theory being correct
2. It's possible to falsify the Big Bang theory
3. Belief in omnipotent God is not a theory, it's just a childish non-testable idea

So all things considered, the Big Bang theory and belief of an omnipotent God are in no way equal. You know, the Christian God was actually tested scientifically. Maybe you've heard of the great prayer experiment? Conclusion? It appears that praying to the Christian God has no effect whatsoever. Note, there's more than likely some placebo effect, but the experimental setting didn't allow it..

I repeat, they are all based upon belief and not independently reproducible facts....none of them. Personally I am of the belief that the Big Bang is the correct explanation, but not caused by the singularity but of the collision of multiple 3 dimensional branes in accordance with the Ekpyrotic Theory as I stated in a previous post:

You can't read? Omnipotent God is based solely on belief. The Big Bang theory on the other hand is based on cold hard facts. Omnipotent God is not testable. Omnipotent God can't be falsified. The Big Bang theory is testable. The Big Bang theory can be falsified. Omnipotent God is a worthless idea. We might just as well say that a purple 3.21m high elm tree farted the Universe into existence. This idea has exactly as much support as omnipotent God, i.e., NONE

but how did those branes come into existence in the first place?

Because branes have always existed and always will? (assuming that they exist at all). I believe that non-existence is impossible, therefore universes have always existed and always will exist, but maybe individual ones have and end and a beginning. If I am right, then there is not need to believe in god.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

1. None-the-less, many observations point to the Big Bang theory being correct
2. It's possible to falsify the Big Bang theory
3. Belief in omnipotent God is not a theory, it's just a childish non-testable idea

So all things considered, the Big Bang theory and belief of an omnipotent God are in no way equal. You know, the Christian God was actually tested scientifically. Maybe you've heard of the great prayer experiment? Conclusion? It appears that praying to the Christian God has no effect whatsoever. Note, there's more than likely some placebo effect, but the experimental setting didn't allow it..

You stated, "...many observations point to the Big Bang theory being correct", and I agree. However, there are those that would also argue that there are many observations of the Bible being correct (the Bible being one of the documents making the claim for an omnipotent God). I personally do not follow that, but there are those that do follow it, and who am I to be so arrogant as to claim they are wrong when my beliefs are just as valid, which your statement "Belief in omnipotent God is not a theory, it's just a childish non-testable idea" is a derogatory accusation based upon your opinion only....right?

You can't read? Omnipotent God is based solely on belief. The Big Bang theory on the other hand is based on cold hard facts. Omnipotent God is not testable. Omnipotent God can't be falsified. The Big Bang theory is testable. The Big Bang theory can be falsified. Omnipotent God is a worthless idea. We might just as well say that a purple 3.21m high elm tree farted the Universe into existence. This idea has exactly as much support as omnipotent God, i.e., NONE

edit on 15-8-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

You stated, " The Big Bang theory on the other hand is based on cold hard facts". Yes, but it is not complete, and there is no cold hard facts proving the existence of a singularity being the origin is there? There are indicators, and mathematical models, but no "cold hard facts" as proof. Again, it's still based upon a belief that the theory is correct, not a proven fact.

You stated, "Omnipotent God is not testable", again I agree, it isn't, However, I posit neither is String Theory, or M-Theory, which are the leading areas of research on the origin of all things. So, they are equivalently not testable....yet.

You stated, "Omnipotent God is a worthless idea. We might just as well say that a purple 3.21m high elm tree farted the Universe into existence". I wouldn't say worthless, more like not MY belief (or yours it seems). But that opinion is just that, an opinion. What makes your opinion (or mine) worth any more since we also cannot PROVE or TEST the underlying belief in a singularity.....yet. I do not believe in an omnipotent God at all, I believe in M-Theory and the Ekpyrotic Theory. I'm sure "true believers" in an omnipotent God could also make the same claim as you, that what I believe is a "worthless idea".

we also cannot PROVE or TEST the underlying belief in a singularity

Maybe not 100% proof, there is evidence (background radiation and expansion of the universe). There is no logical evidence of god.

I look at it like this.. jump in my box for a moment.

In the beginning (time began and all at once) there were BOTH male and female (both male and female parts) beings without form. (not seen as there was no matter)

When Atom/Adam split (BOOM-Big Bang) into matter they literally became both male and also female (two).

Thus we have the Word (ALL information).

reply to post by Gazrok



I agree with you explanation for not being atheist.

However, i disagree that "God" and the big bang theory have equivalent value.

"God" was just pushed into anything to fill the gap.

The Big bang theory offers much more workable explanation than saying "god" did it. Heck, religious folks would not have a clue what a big bang theory(or that earth is round, or that thunder is not gods angers etc etc) is until a physicist came along and explained it... and like they always do, religious folks jump to give the credit to "god".

Unless one posits that God's "creation" of the Universe WAS via the Big Bang.... Ahh...see?

That's a cop out!

Originally posted by swanne

Originally posted by Krakatoa
Branes Collision -> Big Bang

Yes, but how did those branes come into existence in the first place?

It's like saying that before the egg, there was the chicken.

edit on 15-8-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

With thiese discussions everyone (including physicists) forget about time. As gravity (ie density of matter in space) increase space-time becomes increasingly distorted. It can distort so much (with enough mass) for time to slow down and even stop.

So think about it. With mass so dense that time has stopped there is no "before" the big bang. There is NOTHING before the big bang. A "timeline" is irrelevant.

Analogy:

Consider a trip from a to b. You start at 50mph and the distance between the two 100miles. From the start of the journey you calculate a time of 2 hours to complete the journey.

Now add time distortion. Every hour (as you get nearer) time slows down and you travel at half the speed (as seen from the point of view of the original observer). How long will it take you to reach the end?

The answer is never. Get your head around that and god becomes a pointless three letter word.

reply to post by luciddream


The god theory and the big bang theory are not even in the same league.

"I don't know, therefore God. "

"I don't know for a fact, but the evidence points to a logical conclusion that may or may not change as further evidence emerges. We will continue investigation until we are absolutely certain or we can go no further."

One bespeaks laziness in favor of undeniable possibility, the other bespeaks persistence in favor of knowledgeable awareness. I find the former less respectable than the latter, in that the former would never have been necessary if the people of Planet Earth weren't so willing to accept a indentured afterlife in lieu of a one-shot life well spent.

But people will do what people will do. My primary objection lies in the indisputable fact that the virtues and priorities of theism have become social protocol, which is in many ways far more binding than legal protocol. Your peers are often more of an influence on your perspective than any government voice. Maybe that's why they've made government so unappealing - to drive us towards an influence that was previously engineered to mold the most opportune economic pawns in our society.

Welcome to the puppet show. And while I understand that what I am saying may not necessarily be the actual case, I am arguing that it's a very real possibility. And none of you can honestly tell me that, if given the opportunity and the plan, the government would not act on it. That's the real question here: has the government used religion as a mask for its own agenda? And more to the point...would it?

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
Consider a trip from a to b. You start at 50mph and the distance between the two 100miles. From the start of the journey you calculate a time of 2 hours to complete the journey.

Now add time distortion. Every hour (as you get nearer) time slows down and you travel at half the speed (as seen from the point of view of the original observer). How long will it take you to reach the end?

Reminds me of Hawking's reference to a spherical timeline, with the "start" being the north pole and the "end" being the south pole.

Nicely put. Thanks!

My theory has always been that God became God because of the Big Bang. My (admittedly sophomoric and unscientific) theory is that all matter/energy/time that makes up the universe was dispersed evenly across the entirety of reality at the beginning. Somehow this mass started to coalesce and draw in upon itself. As the mass grew smaller and smaller the energies started forming a rudimentary intelligence. As the field grew tighter and tighter (over millennia, eons, what have you) the intelligence grew and grew until it became self-aware. Being that this energy mass was all that existed, as it pulled itself together over this long expanse of time it created the very rules of space, time, biology, physics, chemistry, etc. Eventually the universe drew down to a singularity, at which point all existence and knowledge was contained in that one point, then bang, let there be light.

I know it's a bit of a fairy tale; I was raised as a Christian but have a very questioning mind and have a hard time believing something just because someone told me I should. I can't accept the Bible at face value and turn by back on real science that can be proven. To me a lot of the Bible is just there to illustrate some good ideas about how to conduct yourself in life. Some of it is people who had visions of creation and the cosmos, but no scientific basis to understand what they were seeing. Some of it is stories made up to try to control people (it’s been translated and retranslated quite a few times, I would be surprised if stuff wasn’t added and extrapolated every time, the Bible is the ultimate telephone game). Somewhere between the science and the religion lies the truth. I think once that truth is revealed to us we will all be surprised, the nature of God and the universe will be more amazing than anything we could have conceived of.

I’m not saying what I believe has any more basis in reality than the flying spaghetti monster, but it’s what helps me try to balance religion and science to some degree. If God is everywhere at once he/she IS the universe. That being said, what came before God and the Big Bang still cooks my noodle, just can't get my head around it.