Creation of the big bang?

[Davpronk]

Here is something a christian person once asked me in a discussion:

- If you believe that the 'Big Bang' made the entire universe, as science says, then who made the big bang happen??

Well, if the universe is endless, and time is endless, then i guess that is the scientifical explanation.

[SteveS]

Davpronk - the problem is the Xtians fail to apply this logic entirely.  Presumably, their answer to "who made the big bang happen?" is "god".  Then, "who made god happen?".  

Ultimately, it seems to me that something must be endless (eternal).  I can't make any sense out of the alternative.  So - if matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... why not the universe?  The universe is endless - it had no beginning, it has no end.  Doesn't this explanation work?

If the universe must have had a beginning, but god did not, why not just "skip a step" (as per C. Sagan) and say "the universe had no beginning"?

Anyway, there is an alternate theory right now involving what are called "brane worlds" (based on string theory) that posits an endless, cyclical universe.  So science may discover that the big bang was not the beginning of the universe after all.  Of course, right now the matter is still up for debate - neither theory has been conclusively proven correct over the other.

[McQ]

Here is something a christian person once asked me in a discussion:

- If you believe that the 'Big Bang' made the entire universe, as science says, then who made the big bang happen??

Well, if the universe is endless, and time is endless, then i guess that is the scientifical explanation.

A great place to start on line is here: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bigbanglanding.htm

There are significant problems with String Theory though, much as I would like for it to be viable:
http://www.americanscientist.org/templa ... etid/18638

Lots of stuff to read about with this. So much it could take years of reading just to get the very basics drilled in. But it's so worth it!

[Whitney]

There is also the answer....we don't fully know yet and may never fully know.  It is probably the most honest answer even if you are able to understand all the science stuff.  I like to try and understand the science but also feel comfortable with I don't know since I don't expect my stance to change no matter how much I learn.  The more we learn about the universe the more it seems we find out how much more we don't know.

[Girl Dancing In Orbit]

Here is something a christian person once asked me in a discussion:

- If you believe that the 'Big Bang' made the entire universe, as science says, then who made the big bang happen??

The problem with this kind of thinking is that by invoking God at the edge of our knowledge i.e. a God of the gaps, you end up explaining nothing.

The argument : We don't know, therefor God.

Will lead us nowhere because from this moment on we will stop investigating. Ask no questions, God did it.

Well, if the universe is endless, and time is endless, then i guess that is the scientifical explanation.

This is not a scientifical explanation simply because we don't know that. This is a metaphysical statement made about the universe, but not a scientific one. We have to stop saying that the big bang was the "moment of creation", it is not true, we don't know what happened in the very first moment of the big bang therefor we cannot say anything prior to its happening. We can of course speculate, but no more.

[SteveS]

The problem with this kind of thinking is that by invoking God at the edge of our knowledge i.e. a God of the gaps, you end up explaining nothing.

I concur - extremely!

The argument : We don't know, therefor God.

Will lead us nowhere because from this moment on we will stop investigating. Ask no questions, God did it.

This is also true, but I think its even worse.  This god argument also seems to me to be a logical fallacy of false alternatives.  If we don't know, then we don't know.  In fact, we wouldn't even know what all the alternatives are.  We can't conclude god is the answer to all unknowns; if we want to posit god as an explanation then we have to provide positive evidence in support of god.  We can't simply attack any non-god propositions.  If we are able to show that a proposition is false it simply means that it is false.  The only thing that we could conclude to be true on this basis is that the exact logical negation is true.

For example, suppose I could demonstrate that clouds do not cause rain.  I could not, as a result, logically conclude that god causes rain.  I could only conclude that whatever causes rain is not a cloud.

So, besides crushing inquisitiveness, this sort of thinking also leads people to accept false arguments.  It doesn't just prevent us from acquiring new knowledge, it makes us think we have knowledge that we don't really have.

[Girl Dancing In Orbit]

Yes the "God of the gaps" is absolutely a logic fallacy that theologians themselves have widely discussed and understand very well.

Well not all of them, Pope John Paul II didn't got that.

[Girl Dancing In Orbit]

And I want to add that I think it is important that religious people understands this issue. They have to understand that we cannot use God as a scientific  tool to learn about the world... So whatever God they want to believe in, they should not interpret Him in a way in which He would become an obstacle in our pursuit of knowledge.

If they could get that, we would not see "Gods of the gaps" emerging out of nowhere, like Intelligent Design.

But maybe the real problem is : Are they willing to understand that ?

[Will]

If science cannot give a definitive answer to a question, the answer does not automatically go to "God did it". I don't know what caused the Big Bang or what precluded it. That doesn't mean god did it.

[SteveS]

If they could get that, we would not see "Gods of the gaps" emerging out of nowhere, like Intelligent Design.

But maybe the real problem is : Are they willing to understand that ?

I don't think they are.  I think they're more interested in rationalizing their beliefs rather than actually trying to learn something.  They use argumentation only in a defensive position, only to try to justify their beliefs, maybe even prove to themselves that they are valid.  Not all religious people, of course, but I think my view is accurate to the "general practioner".