the Big Bang

[metis]

It's been mentioned that we could start a thread on the Big Bang (let's just refer to it from now on in this thread as BB in order to save time), so let's deal with this issue.

As most of you know, the Big Bang appears to have taken place just prior to 14 billion years ago.  I want to mention that, even though I'm getting up there in age, I wasn't around when it happened, so I have no "inside information" about what caused it or exactly how it all played out.  For those of you who have checked out the scientific evidence that's available, you well know that, not only is there so very little that we actually say with any certainty of being correct about the event, we also cannot be certain as to what or "who" caused it. 

With that understanding, what do you believe actually caused the BB and why do you believe as such?

(I'll take the position that, even though I certainly do not know the causation(s) with any degree of certainty, I tend to lean in the direction of there not being a theistic cause.)

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Vern,

I believe that if the big bang occurred the way the physical sciences are fond of describing it, then it's hard for the logical mind to imagine it without a theistic cause.

Bottom line is that we, in one way or another, must deal with the issue of an infinite regress and a causeless cause.  I think it's more plausable to imagine a causeless cause -- a divine prime mover if you will, rather than an infinite regress of causes.  If an infinite regress is considered, then it doesn't seem logical that we are in the "here and now" due to the fact that we can travel endlessly back in time and never find a starting point.  And if there is no starting point -- no first cause, then there can be no "here and now" somewhere in the middle of the causal chain.  It's basic logic that if you don't have a first link, you can't have a middle link.

I believe this leaves us with the option of an uncaused cause, the one entity upon which all things must depend upon, including causal chain of time.  This entity gives us our starting point -- our first link, and therefore gives us a "here and now" -- our middle link.

Personally, I think the issue of a beginning is a muddy one for us logically no matter what side you choose.

-Acumen

[metis]

I believe this leaves us with the option of an uncaused cause, the one entity upon which all things must depend upon, including causal chain of time.  This entity gives us our starting point -- our first link, and therefore gives us a "here and now" -- our middle link.

Personally, I think the issue of a beginning is a muddy one for us logically no matter what side you choose.

I totally agree with your last sentence posted here, but not your first one (I betcha you're really surprised with me saying that!). 

Having an "uncaused cause" doesn't quite jive with what we tend to observe and experience, namely cause and effect relationships, which are undoubtedly impossible for us to prove as being essential or absolute in any way.  Or, to put it another way, why is an uncaused deity any more "logical" than uncaused energy?  Matter of fact, I would think that energy that goes back into infinity (and probably forward into infinity), is actually more logical than an uncaused deity.

Energy, by definition, is composed of sub-atomic particles in motion-- IOW ever-changing.  Therefore, why would it be difficult to project backward and realize that this constantly changing energy need not have a creator?  And if that strikes anyone as somehow not being logical, then they can answer what caused the creator?  And believing in an uncaused creator creates another problem as well, but I'll stop at this point.

Shalom,
Vern     

[sobeit9]

Acumen

I believe this leaves us with the option of an uncaused cause, the one entity upon which all things must depend upon, including causal chain of time.  This entity gives us our starting point -- our first link, and therefore gives us a "here and now" -- our middle link.

My path uses both material density and vibrational frequency to explain relationships and  the functioning of creation.  Those of us working on the Simone Weil project were just discussing this last week.  It dawned on us that she was actually explaining what we conceptualize as the BB and the relationship of the creator to the created in a very extraordinary and precise fashion when one remembers what material density means.  She said in her beautiful laconic fashion:

"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."

[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]       

[Thorolf]

The amount of energy required to produce the volume of matter in the universe is obscene... while theoretically possible, it just doesn't seem particularly feasible that such energy could possibly have emanated form a singularity.

The major support for the theory comes from the observation that other bodies/galaxies in EVERY direction are moving away from us... what I haven't seen that I would like to explore (but don't have the time to research it at the moment) is whether or not the SPEED of separation would be consistent with the separation of particles in a "traditional" explosion. Meaning, if we consider our galaxy as a particle somewhere in the middle of an explosion, particles on the outer edge would be moving away from us faster than we would be moving away from particles closer to the inner edge of the explosion. And, particles at roughly the same distance from the source of the explosion will be moving away at a different trajectory and speed...

With enough data, I imagine that the data could be mapped to find the theoretical center of the universe... the point from which everyone "exploded," according to the theory.

That certainly wouldn't prove much of anything, but I think it would be interesting. 

I'm sure SOMEONE has already thought of it.... but I've never heard any results. There are mathematical models, but has anyone actually mapped it out?

Oh, btw... the BB theory is in constant flux. There are problems with the singularity theory that the development of Quantum Gravity theories are expected to help resolve. (Just thought I'd bring good ol' quantum gravity into the discussion!  )

[gluadys]

The major support for the theory comes from the observation that other bodies/galaxies in EVERY direction are moving away from us... what I haven't seen that I would like to explore (but don't have the time to research it at the moment) is whether or not the SPEED of separation would be consistent with the separation of particles in a "traditional" explosion. Meaning, if we consider our galaxy as a particle somewhere in the middle of an explosion, particles on the outer edge would be moving away from us faster than we would be moving away from particles closer to the inner edge of the explosion. And, particles at roughly the same distance from the source of the explosion will be moving away at a different trajectory and speed...

But the BB is NOT an explosion in the traditional sense.  It is not a matter of particles moving through space as a result of an explosion in space.

It is an expansion of space itself.  It is the expansion of space that is separating the particles in space.

But, taking that into account, the answer to your question (Is the SPEED consistent ....?) is "Yes".  Hubble not only noted that all galaxies (except for the very nearest) were apparently moving away from us, but also that the rate at which they were moving away is related to their distance from us.  The farther away they are, the faster the rate at which they are moving away. 

With enough data, I imagine that the data could be mapped to find the theoretical center of the universe... the point from which everyone "exploded," according to the theory.

Again, this is assuming a traditional idea of an explosion in space that was already existing rather than the expansion of space-time itself. 

Oh, btw... the BB theory is in constant flux. There are problems with the singularity theory that the development of Quantum Gravity theories are expected to help resolve. (Just thought I'd bring good ol' quantum gravity into the discussion!  )

By all means! 

[SUPERMAN]

Gluadys,

Welcome to BeliefCorner, hope your stay is most excellent.

[metis]

The amount of energy required to produce the volume of matter in the universe is obscene... while theoretically possible, it just doesn't seem particularly feasible that such energy could possibly have emanated form a singularity.

Why doesn't that seem feasible?  

The major support for the theory comes from the observation that other bodies/galaxies in EVERY direction are moving away from us... what I haven't seen that I would like to explore (but don't have the time to research it at the moment) is whether or not the SPEED of separation would be consistent with the separation of particles in a "traditional" explosion.

I think the "moving away from us" part needs clarification.  The universe is not only expanding ("inflation"), but it's also accelerating in its expansion.  Therefore, I don't think you mean "us" to imply planet Earth.  

The speed of expansion has been measured and calculated and the original estimates (one being 10 billion years ago) appear to be faulty.  Unfortunately, there's still at least one unaccounted for glitch because the formulation isn't working out as hoped.  It's possible that the two "explosions" a fraction second apart, according to fairly recent calculations, may be off, or it may relate to a problem with the Cosmological Constant.  Einstein's Cosmological Constant, which he believed was his single biggest mistake, was later thought to be quite possibly on target.  Until about 3 years ago.

The most recent calculations indicate that the "Constant", which should be 0, is not 0.  And to make matters even more mysterious, there's been what appears to be a "bulge" or "bubble" in one direction of the universe.  This might explain in part why there's been no mathematical "solution" to the unified theory.  So what's mucking up the works?

The above evidence has literally blown the cosmologist's minds, causing a split in regards to what they think may be the cause as such.  The evidence seems to suggest that there's something outside our universe that's affecting our universe.  But what?  Two theoretical camps have emerged: the minority camp that thinks this could be evidence of a creator or creators, and those who think that another universe(s) might be the cause (remember the implication of quantum mechanics and the parallel universes that hypothetically might result).


  

That certainly wouldn't prove much of anything, but I think it would be interesting. 

To me, it's absolutely fascinating.  

Oh, btw... the BB theory is in constant flux. There are problems with the singularity theory that the development of Quantum Gravity theories are expected to help resolve. (Just thought I'd bring good ol' quantum gravity into the discussion!  )

There you go again-- just trying to mess things up!  Is there any morality in this world?  



Shalom,
Vern

[Thorolf]

Ah, but the only way it would be possible to have things in every direction moving at the same speed relative to their distance from us (expanding of space or otherwise) is if we were actually the center of the universe.

While this is certainly possible, it doesn't seem terribly realistic.

If the universe started from a singularity, then speed would be relative to distance from that point - not from Earth.

So what I was sort of getting at is that speed should be different based on how far they (and we) are from the source of the initial "bang," and as such we should be able to pinpoint (relatively speaking) the place in space where it all started.

And the initial moment of the big bang theory necessitated a massive explosion in order to create the energy required to create enough matter that antimatter could not convert back into energy. As such, I don't see a significant difference between explosion OF space and explosion IN space, except that one sounds loftier and less "realistic" than the other.

But that's just my layperson's opinion. 

[Thorolf]

The amount of energy required to produce the volume of matter in the universe is obscene... while theoretically possible, it just doesn't seem particularly feasible that such energy could possibly have emanated form a singularity.

Why doesn't that seem feasible? 

Mostly because the amount of energy required to create even a single subatomic particle and NOT have it converted back into energy by antimatter is pretty significant. Considering the mass of the universe, the energy required must have been virtually unfathomable. I realize that things work "differently" in the various fields of theoretical physics, especially on the brane, dimensional, and quantum levels... but it's still hard to accept - for me, anyway.

The major support for the theory comes from the observation that other bodies/galaxies in EVERY direction are moving away from us... what I haven't seen that I would like to explore (but don't have the time to research it at the moment) is whether or not the SPEED of separation would be consistent with the separation of particles in a "traditional" explosion.

I think the "moving away from us" part needs clarification.  The universe is not only expanding ("inflation"), but it's also accelerating in its expansion.  Therefore, I don't think you mean "us" to imply planet Earth. 

Well, no... I do mean Planet Earth. That's one of the sticking points I have when I look at the observations - they tend to discuss matters based on how objects are relative to Earth.

The speed of expansion has been measured and calculated and the original estimates (one being 10 billion years ago) appear to be faulty.  Unfortunately, there's still at least one unaccounted for glitch because the formulation isn't working out as hoped.  It's possible that the two "explosions" a fraction second apart, according to fairly recent calculations, may be off, or it may relate to a problem with the Cosmological Constant.  Einstein's Cosmological Constant, which he believed was his single biggest mistake, was later thought to be quite possibly on target.  Until about 3 years ago.

The most recent calculations indicate that the "Constant", which should be 0, is not 0.  And to make matters even more mysterious, there's been what appears to be a "bulge" or "bubble" in one direction of the universe.  This might explain in part why there's been no mathematical "solution" to the unified theory.  So what's mucking up the works?

The above evidence has literally blown the cosmologist's minds, causing a split in regards to what they think may be the cause as such.  The evidence seems to suggest that there's something outside our universe that's affecting our universe.  But what?  Two theoretical camps have emerged: the minority camp that thinks this could be evidence of a creator or creators, and those who think that another universe(s) might be the cause (remember the implication of quantum mechanics and the parallel universes that hypothetically might result).

We can discuss all day why one is the minority view... but regardless, it's clear that BB has a long way to go before it can be a truly feasible representation of how the universe may have started.

Of course, that doesn't stop many high school science teachers (and others) from teaching it as though it is what really happened. 

Oh, btw... the BB theory is in constant flux. There are problems with the singularity theory that the development of Quantum Gravity theories are expected to help resolve. (Just thought I'd bring good ol' quantum gravity into the discussion!  )

There you go again-- just trying to mess things up!  Is there any morality in this world? 

Hey... I'm not the one(s) who keep(s) applying quantum gravity to various scientific theories. 

[metis]

If[/b][/i] the universe started from a singularity, then speed would be relative to distance from that point - not from Earth.

All points in the expansion are technically the center, but I know what you mean.  We are not located in the center, and since the expansion continues, how far we are from the center is continually changing.  However, I've not seen a figure attached to that in any of my readings.

And the initial moment of the big bang theory necessitated a massive explosion in order to create the energy required to create enough matter that antimatter could not convert back into energy. As such, I don't see a significant difference between explosion OF space and explosion IN space, except that one sounds loftier and less "realistic" than the other.

The "explosion" didn't likely create the energy-- it was probably always there to begin with.  And, "in the beginning", it was all energy (hydrogen & helium)-- but no matter.  One theory I find intriguing is that two or more opposing charges got too close to each other in the super-condensed black hole that was roughly the size of a present day atom, and when they did, they repelled, expanded outward, and began to break the weak bonds of "gravity", thus causing the 2nd "explosion".  



Shalom,
Vern    

[metis]

We can discuss all day why one is the minority view... but regardless, it's clear that BB has a long way to go before it can be a truly feasible representation of how the universe may have started.

According to a survey taken several years ago, over 90% of all cosmologists are atheists or agnostics, and physicists are over 80% the same.  So for even a noticeable minority to begin to think there could be a theistic causation indicates that quite a shake-up is occurring.

 

Of course, that doesn't stop many high school science teachers (and others) from teaching it as though it is what really happened. 

Hopefully they use words such as "evidence" and "indications", etc.



There's another element I'd like to add, but I'm going to hold off a bit longer whereas anyone who wants to question or add anything has their opportunity to do so. 



Shalom,
Vern

[sobeit9]

Thor

The amount of energy required to produce the volume of matter in the universe is obscene... while theoretically possible, it just doesn't seem particularly feasible that such energy could possibly have emanated form a singularity.

The trouble is that we are unable to measure potential energy that initiates from outside time and space.  We only measure its changes within time and space.

[metis]

One of the more intriguing ways to look at the question of a theistic causation of the BB that I have found comes from a Tibetan Buddhist monk, who was formerly a French physicist, Matthieu Ricard.  As some are aware of, Buddhists in general do not believe in a creator-god for a variety of reasons, but I'll just focus on one for the time being.

Ricard states that there are two logical positions one could take in regards to such a deity and the issue of change.  Either the deity is changing or the deity is unchanging. 

If the deity is unchanging, not only does that seemingly defy what we see happening with whatever we look at, how could this deity create something without the deity changing at least a bit?  If an artist creates, the artist goes through all sorts of steps involved in the entire process and, therefore, changes at least somewhat (such as thinking about what to paint, getting the items necessary, and actually doing the painting). 

On the other hand, if the deity is changing, what's causing the change?   Things change in response to outside influences and, therefore, something that is totally isolated would not change.  IOW, where's the cause and effect?  When we look at the vast amount of time that our universe has systematically changed, what would cause the deity to change this or that?   

In the Bible, for example, we see God responding this way or that way depending on what certain people did.  But if the deity made the people, then why would there be this type of response?  Or, why would God create miracles if his creation was somehow made by him to begin with? 

There's more, but I'll stop at this point.

Shalom,
Vern       

[Acumen]

Vern,

If the deity is unchanging, not only does that seemingly defy what we see happening with whatever we look at, how could this deity create something without the deity changing at least a bit?  If an artist creates, the artist goes through all sorts of steps involved in the entire process and, therefore, changes at least somewhat (such as thinking about what to paint, getting the items necessary, and actually doing the painting). 

I think part of the difficulty stems from the analogy.  The analogy depicts a human artist that must process through and arrange certain creative thoughts, schedule a time to perform the work, prepare his tools, and begin painting in a careful and thoughtful manner.  The Judeo-Christian God is generally considered perfect.  Within His perfection are such essential attributes as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.  A perfect God doesn't think -- He knows.  A perfect God doesn't prepare His tools -- His tools are unlimitedly accessible to Him.  A perfect God isn't careful -- He is flawless.  Once you compose an analogy of a finite painter, sure it raises doubts as to how an artist cannot be affected by his art.

In the Bible, for example, we see God responding this way or that way depending on what certain people did.

Why do you believe He depended upon people?

-Acumen

[metis]

I think part of the difficulty stems from the analogy... A perfect God doesn't think -- He knows.  A perfect God doesn't prepare His tools -- His tools are unlimitedly accessible to Him.  A perfect God isn't careful -- He is flawless.  Once you compose an analogy of a finite painter, sure it raises doubts as to how an artist cannot be affected by his art.

But what's "perfect"?  Is a rock "perfect", for example?  "Perfect" is actually quite a subjective term in that the someone has to judge what's "perfect" based on some criteria.  And how could one possibly know God is "perfect"?  And exactly what makes God "perfect"?  It seems that it would take perfection to understand perfection.  On top of this, aren't you making quite a few assumptions in regards to what this deity is supposedly like?  How could you, or anyone else, possibly know this?

We sometimes can draw analogies, even though we're hopefully aware that two separate entities are not likely to be exact duplicates.  But if we perceive a deity as somehow outside of cause and effect, this violates what we see all the time.  Is it maybe possible that God is above everything we seemingly experience?  Maybe.  But then why would I assume as such?  Wouldn't I be better off simply saying "I don't know"? 

IOW, why believe is there's nothing to indicate the likelihood of it being correct, especially in light that in believing as such, I seemingly go against everything we seem to experience.  Does this somehow prove there is no deity?  Of course not.  BTW, why are you seemingly assuming there's only one deity?           

Why do you believe He depended upon people?

Because he responds.  For example, the discussion between God and Abraham dealing with the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.



One final note.  I'm VERY leery about what I've posted.  I have not one iota of a problem if a person believes in a deity or deities.  Matter of fact, even though religion has some down sides to it, overall I think it to be more positive than negative.  If you (or anyone else) feels that I'm subverting their beliefs, tell me and I'll stop posting like what you see above immediately.  I entered this discussion because I hope that it can be discussed even though we're likely to disagree on many items.  I don't have a problem with this process because I've learned so much from other people whom I didn't agree with at first.  But if someone has a problem, either ignore this thread or demand that I stop (SUPERMAN, that includes YOU).



Shalom,
Vern

[metis]

Next item:

Generally speaking, it has been both Jewish and Christian teaching historically that humans are what the Earth was created for and that humans here on Earth were pretty much the center of all of creation.  But as time has gone on, this obviously has come under question.  First of all, we are not the geographic center of our universe as a starter.  Nor can we even claim without sharp questioning that we're even the center of what Earth is about.

Our Earth is close to 5 billion years old, and yet humans are only a mere 5+ million years old.  That's 5,000,000/5,000,000,000, or 1/100.  IOW, for 99% of the Earth's existence, humans weren't around.  But Earth appears to come into existence only in the latter third of the time since the BB, therefore, humans were present only roughly .4%.  So for 99.6% of the time since the BB, there were apparantly no humans.  That hardly sounds as if creation was made for us.

If we then take when Torah was written (roughly 3000+ b.p.) or when Jesus taught (roughly 2000 b.p.) then it begs the question where was the morality from this divinity over the roughly 5 million or so years that humans existed? 
   
Again, please realize that I'm asking questions and not making accusations.  There are potential "answers" to these questions that one might argue are logical, so let's discuss them.

Shalom,
Vern

[Thorolf]

*ahem*

Our Earth is close to 5 billion years old, and yet humans are only a mere 5+ million years old.

You forgot the "we think" or "scientists believe" part of the above declaration... 

That's 5,000,000/5,000,000,000, or 1/100.  IOW, for 99% of the Earth's existence, humans weren't around.  But Earth appears to come into existence only in the latter third of the time since the BB, therefore, humans were present only roughly .4%.  So for 99.6% of the time since the BB, there were apparantly no humans.  That hardly sounds as if creation was made for us.

Depends on your perspective (assuming, of course, that the old earth/old universe theories are accepted  ). When my wife was pregnant with our daughter, we took several months to prepare our home and her bedroom to be just what we wanted for her...

If we then take when Torah was written (roughly 3000+ b.p.) or when Jesus taught (roughly 2000 b.p.) then it begs the question where was the morality from this divinity over the roughly 5 million or so years that humans existed?

Businesses today spend a ridiculous amount of money on training - because it's necessary. In many cases, the training never stops, and in others it can take as much as a year or more, with a great deal of expense and resources invested in the process. Yet, without all this effort to train employees with the fundamental knowledge they need to do their job, fit into the organization, and operate in a manner consistent with the company's worldview, they tend to have to deal with more turnover and more problems that need to be solved or fixed.

Perhaps, if things really did take that long and things really did play out as has been proposed, it was as much a matter of preparing His creation to be able to do what He wanted us to do.
   

Again, please realize that I'm asking questions and not making accusations.  There are potential "answers" to these questions that one might argue are logical, so let's discuss them

Okay. 

[metis]

You forgot the "we think" or "scientists believe" part of the above declaration...  .

If I see a deer on the road in front of my car, I'm likely to say something like "Look, there's a deer on the road in front of my car".  Now I fully realize that there's the remote possibility that it's really a large beaver with antlers. 

I think each of us draw certain conclusions based on the evidence, while at the same time realizing that we could be in error.  If I saw something in the road that resembled a deer but wasn't that sure, which has happened many times to me up here, then I might say "Look, is that a deer on the road in front of my car?".   

Depends on your perspective (assuming, of course, that the old earth/old universe theories are accepted  ).   

A "theory" used in the scientific context demands that there be substantial supporting evidence without any verifiable evidence to counter it.  Even a "hypothesis" needs evidence.  So the evidence for the "old earth/old universe" concept is...?  On top of that, why would someone believe in a deity that tricks them into believing one thing whereas the truth is really quite different? 

I tend to assume that you're playing devil's advocate, which I never do of course. 

Perhaps, if things really did take that long and things really did play out as has been proposed, it was as much a matter of preparing His creation to be able to do what He wanted us to do.

So God needs practice?  He wasn't aware of what he was creating and how it was going to pan out?  Maybe there were a bunch of deities with their own creation whereas each really weren't aware of what the other was doing?   



Shalom, 
Vern

[metis]

Don't ask me how the format in my above post was caused.  Maybe I need more coffee.