Big Bang: Is there room for God?
 

http://imageshack.us/a/img844/8584/6359960863408907.jpg
The discovery of the Higgs boson is so fresh that the exhibit in Cern's museum has not yet been updated.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19997789


Note: 19 October 2012 Last updated at 23:33 GMT

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move

Big Bang is a theory. A well-founded theory, but just a theory, and it brings new questions:

When there was a Big Bang and before it there was nothing, why did it happen then, and where? Saying it created its own time and place, explains nothing. Why isn't there simply nothing?

The fluctuating universe - again is a construction with new questions. If it is moving from one Big Bang to the next - what should it mean then to think of this as an eternal chain of events without start, without ending? Why this all?

Our very thinking only works in schemes and constructions that in themselves already create new structural problems.

But still we seem to be in need to bring this variable into the formula that we all too often ignore: our witnessing mind. This mind inside which all we perceive and think about, reflect over and conclude on takes place. We do not have direct contact to the things we believe to see. We have their representation inside our brain'S ways of functioning only. And why it works the way it does, we also do not know. Our eyes' lenses are too bad as if they would be able to create sharp images, in fact they project images not sharped than what a guy with around 3-3.5 dioptrines would see if not using glasses. How comes our mind twists and manipulates this input to give us the idea of a sharp, crispy image?

Our mind dances with the images and forms it creates all by itself, it seems. More questions. The cosmos remains silent.

To discuss this, is nice and well, and certainly entertaining, but why to discuss this with theologicans, I do not see. Where science admits to bot know, they also do not know, but claim to know without reason, without evidence. That is no open discussion. That is propaganda. It is not even 20 years ago that the church formally admitted that Galileo was right.

In the end I tend to think the only thing really being a reality, is mind. And maybe the only thing that really makes life worthwhile to live despite its obvious vainness and transitoriness, is love.

@Vendor

Thanks for the article, I must disagree with the suggestion that time before the big bang is off limits to physicists. Most now are confident that there was a sort of something before from which the big bang manifested. That something is generally expected to have had some kind of time dimension(s) M-theory or Brane theory and String theory have some interesting ideas about this - ideas only you understand, not facts or theories.
The Higgs particle has been found yes. But this is actually quite disappointing for scientists as it is the last piece of the standard model puzzle. It implies that the standard model is correct, which leaves us with currently insurmountable problems regarding uncertainty and accessible information. It is like coming to the end of a long corridor only to find the door at the end was simply painted on solid rock.

@Skybird

Be careful not to misuse the word theory. In this context, theory is the best possible current explanation of the evidence. Also the questions regarding everything from nothing have no meaning without first defining nothing, which is a nothing that we have no evidence for at all. As far as we can see, the closest thing to ultimate nothing we can observe is a complete vacuum, but this sort of nothing still has dimensions and can still contain energy as light passes through it, amongst other quantum processes that cause various quanta to appear and disappear seemingly at random, even occasionally forming into baryonic matter, which is either quickly disassembled by the inverse pressure of the vacuum or through a wave function suddenly teleports somewhere outside of the vacuum.
So this complete vacuum nothing certainly appears to be a something that other somethings can and do spontaneously spring from. Did ultimate nothing ever exist? if it did wouldn't that imply that nothing is actually a kind of something? will we ever create this ultimate nothing so we can test it? wouldn't that also define it as something? Oh no I've gone cross eyed...

@Betonov
:har:

If I'm wrong and god exists, he/she/it won't exist for long after I die and catch hold of him/her/it. I am happily looking forward to my deathly oblivion, and if I don't get it there is going to be hell to pay, seriously :stare:
Deicide ain't murder if you're already dead, right?

"Confident" in what regard? On what do they base their confidence? Anybody can have an idea, and their ideas are certainly more educated than mine, but from where I stand it still looks like pure guesswork.

I understand that concept, but what evidence is there for what went (or didn't go) before?

Which puts it back into the realm of guessing, not theory.

But is there any clue at all to what the "nothing" was like before the universe existed? If not, then again all the speculation in the world still means...well, nothing.

You and me both, brother.

And as for "Deicide"? well, my God can beat up your God! How do I know this? Because I believe it, so there! :O:

OIh, give it some time. I am very confident that this will not remain to be the last word spoken. You indicated it yourself when naming it the "standard model". Standard means there may be alternatives, model means it is not the real thing itself. ;)

Yes, that is the nature of all and every scientific explanation. It is a temporary arrangement in which to sort observations to make them match best way we can currently imagine, and to explain things in the most embracing and easiest way currently possible. But it remains to be an artificial order that is not discovered as a reality existing, but is thought out. By us. It's a convention. That does not lower its value. Actually, I am a great fan of it. But one has to understand the rules by which it runs, and its limitations. And its nothing that has made the object it cannot deal with literally unthinkable.

To quote Mr. Spock, one of my favourite ST quotes: "Logic is the beginning of all wisdom, but not its ending."

Sorry, no, you are wrong there. The nothingness referred to when saying "Big Bang and before things existed", and before even space-time existed, is the absence of things and the absence of all and anything. Even the absence of vacuum. A nothingness that is so total and complete in meaning and span of "nothing", that about this nothingness cannot even be said it existed. A double negation, if you want. It is impossible to attach qualities, features or descriptions to this, and it is even impossible to say what it is not , because dpoing so would result in efforts and temrs being part of the existing universe and space-time that we experience. Human mind just cannot embrace the total lack of any conception like this. Even the laws of maths as we know and understand them, mean nothing there anymore. Nothing=absence of anything, even the meaning of the words "absense", "of" and "anything". Not even calling nothingness a nothingness makes sense anymore. We do not talk of a physical vacuum - a vacuum actually would be something. ;)

Metaphysically, one maybe would say that the all-referring absence of anything means unlimited potential for realization of infinite things in infinite combinations, where nothing is, there is still room for everything becoming possible. But that is already thinkling - our thinking, and thus a thing of limited scale and tpyoliy: human brain's typology. Our linear thinking still must ask - and cannot avoid doing so! - why in such a nothingness as I explained anything should and could suddenly spring into existence at all.

All human thinking, reasoning, yearning, learning, researchging, trying, culminates int his simple question that I have understood to have become the unsolvable koan, the Zen riddle at the centre of my own life: Why? And I am perfectly aware that logical thinking and reason will not help me one bit in this, at best only let me understand the limited scope of these methods. That's what koans are there for.

42:salute:

Mainly advanced mathematical models I believe. And I did state they are simply ideas, but they are the only working models so far. Recent evidence regarding dark matter/energy are pointing away from a singularity. Consider the universe is not only expanding (which logically led us into the big bang concept), but we know now the rate at which it is expanding is increasing. Logically if you reverse time and follow it backward, there is now plausibly a point at which the universe was not expanding. So possibly no big bang at all.

Everything that came after.

Quite. String theory and M-theory etc. although very educated are exactly that. The standard model, however is a Theory that explains the evidence gathered from several billion proton/proton collisions. No test designed to falsify it has ever succeeded, and there have been nearly as many tests as collisions. I'd like to see a religious person seriously attempt to falsify their belief because It is very rare and the result is normally atheism. It starts like this - if god doesn't exist then x should logically happen/not happen/be observed/etc then perform the test, record the result and repeat a million times. Take your results and pass the experiment on to an objective third party and have them repeat another million times. At all times you must be prepared to accept the evidence rather than cling on to your desired outcome. publish the method, results etc. and let other folks read and repeat it, find flaws in method or not, add more results. That's the first test done, now think of another one and repeat, then another and repeat etc. a million times. By that time you should have a level of certainty about the evidence for or against god that barely approaches the certainty of the standard model.

And I will take any assertions you make about god seriously.

The universe is the only albeit massive clue.

:D Oh, I won't be bringing a god. It'll just be little dead me, but I fight dirty, and I fight to kill. Your god will give me oblivion immediately upon the point of my death or receive his own after I've spent eternity catching hold of him, that's a promise. He's got it coming.

YOU HEARIN' THIS YOU OMNIPOTENT WIMP?

That's my point exactly - this absolute nothing cannot be defined nor analysed in any way due to its nature or absence of it. And like god, there is no evidence this absolute nothing ever existed. And if it did, well it would be something by virtue of its existence, thus defying its own nature or absence of it.
Or to put it another way if it does exist, it might exist all around us at once but as it is actually nothing at all, it is not detectable and we are distracted by the somethings, even were the somethings not there we still would not be able to find nothing.

So the questions about why or how everything from nothing are meaningless unless you attribute something to that nothing first.

If absolute nothing could exist, then it would be all that there isn't, no?

Oh smeggin' hell this is getting like Red Dwarf!
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home for breakfast.

Regards,
Sam.

*zap*

Personally, my stance is that this universe was created by the collapse of the one before it, and eventually this one will stop expanding and collapse to form another universe.

Of course, that brings up the chicken and egg question of what was there before the first Big Bang and what caused that? That is a question that I think will be struggled to be answered for a very long time. That is where my belief in something a bit beyond what is physically tangible comes in, but that's another kettle of fish altogether.


Fixed that for you ;)

On turn 2, God created a settler...

On turn 3 God moved that settler into a nearby village...

*YOU HAVE UNLEASHED A HORDE OF BARBARIANS*

On turn 4 God rage-quit

:har:

God did not end the game, only exited, and the barbarians discovered pottery and banged two rocks together and subsim was invented

We've all been there:

http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/...1726310001.gif

So how something could pop out from absolute nothing?:wah:....:doh:



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ssReliever.gif

I have learned many things, when it comes to the origin of our world

There are those that believe God created us

There are those that believe we are created by nature-no God

But what if the truth is somewhere in between?

Here are a link to a online book, that I found very fascinating

I'm not saying that this book is telling us the truth

Read from page 57 to 62

http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-...origin-urantia

I read that book like I read the bible-with a suspicious mind

Markus

No. It has no non-existence. Nor has it not a non-existence. Nor has it an existence, nor has it not an existence.

In the very moment you try to dress it in words then already springs to life what exists, and so it is no nothingness anymore.

In the beginning there was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made by him, and nothing was made without him.

Don't worry, I have not turned into a bible-swinger suddenly. I just like the poetry in this wording. It illustrates also the point I try to make: that the word already is enough to make any conception of "non-existence" or "nothingness" void, misleading, pointless, and unimaginable.

There is no such thing as nothing, nothing is something and scientist agree what they refer to as "nothing" still contains unseen particles and energy.

The problem will always be, when they do figure out an energy source, they're always left with another energy source to figure out.

The issue for me still remains cause and effect, yet for cause and effect to work, a first cause must exist, which will never be found within physical laws, which does open up the possibility for a cause outside our physical understanding.

Course, if God exist, I'm still not sure how we would define him or that religion should define him. Seems if God wanted to express
himself, he would've made himself clear, instead of numerous religions that have caused nothing but harm.

Im afraid that truly thinking about the universe will result in severe mind-imploding effects.

I watched an episode of "through the wormhole" with Morgan Freeman and it confirmed something id been thinking about lately. Quantum theory and mechanics hasp proven (or at least explained) not only that one thing can be in two places at once, but that things can appear from nothing, or at least what we understand to be nothing. The number of these ghost particles flashing in and out of existence number beyond true comprehension and the speed at which they appear and vanish boggles the mind too. So does the Big Bang and the mind stretching forces behind it. It really is very hard to comprehend absolute nothingness. Its hard to understand theoretical physics, too. And because we cant hope to explain everything about the universe, god still lives on. I believe that you dont need some Divine being to create anything. If anything the divine being is the universe itself. The belief in God complicates things immensely. it has held back scientific theory for thousands of years, and still does so today with the creationist theories attempting to be taught in schools.

Reality tends to be a hundred times weirder than science fiction, and its hopeless to explain everything. In fact, The Universe is so vast, So powerful, so odd, that we can barely comprehend its scale. but we come up with these numbers, like septillions, google, a googleplex, infinity, but we dont comprehend it because its so enormous. Try to comprehend even a googleplex. A google is a 1 followed by a million zeroes. That number represents something, a quantity. A trillion is a 1 followed by only 15 zeroes. now imagine a googleplex, a googleplex is a one followed by a GOOGLE zeroes. a 1 followed by a trillino zeroes is almost impossible to understand, but a 1 followed by a GOOGLE zeroes, no way. my mind died out at imagining anything that could represent a google, and now theyre trying to make me imagine a googleplex, a number that i cant possibly comprehend the scale of. Simply writing it down would take gargantuan amounts of space. Infinity is easy to understand because it cant be represented by anything real. a googleplex could. it can be written down, assuming we could fit it some where, probably in a computer.

Even just 3,972,789 zeroes on MS word in 12 font (i used copy and paste so it only took me a minute to do this) is 1201 pages. 1201 pages of zeroes (excluding a single 1). were not even remotely close to a fraction of a percent of a googleplex and its already 1201 pages.


So to comprehend what scientists discover is quite a mind trip. But that doesnt necessarily mean it had to be because of an all powerful being.