Did Dawkins and and Hawking really admit the Big Bang is impossible?

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #21

@1god Ryan

Thank you for your response.

I hope that we are agreed that God is eternal, without beginning, while the universe, the physical is not eternal, has no beginning.

If the universe is going to be recycled and has been recycled, it means that matter is eternal with God. This is not possible. God is self created. Matter is not.

Nor does God need a multiverse to design a universe for humans to live in. Our universe is formed through purpose, not by chance.

(Ryan weatherly) #22

Agreed , alpha and Omega , the beginning and end , the creator .
Matter is just a form taken by energy , energy may be eternal , I’m not qualified to make the claim in certainty. Even if energy is eternal , then it is the substance by which God creates . The canvas the artist paints on …

I assume God " needs" nothing , but a multiverse doesn’t exclude a creator , the mathematician that designed the equation is still the designer .

It is my nature to reconcile my faith with evidence.

If a multiverse we’re proven , it just means I need to reconcile my understanding of God …
A living word of God is applicable or it is dead ,in my opinion .
" A new heaven and new earth , and the old shall pass away " …perhaps this could mean a multiverse ? We don’t know until we look …

An equation built to create our known existence ( universe ) is with purpose …agreed , not by chance

(Matthew Pevarnik) #23

I think a few takeaways…

  1. I don’t think we should care what Richard Dawkins thinks about the Big Bang Theory… or even Stephen Hawking. This is like someone quoting Charles Darwin to ‘disprove’ evolution while ignoring mountains of actual evidence.
  2. There is a difference between the Big Bang Theory (which does NOT describe what happened in the absolute ‘beginning’ of our universe but describes very well what happened beginning 0.000000000000001 seconds after it ‘began’) and the Origins of the Cosmos. It’s like the difference between the Theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis which creationists seem to be confused on as well.
  3. Don’t read apologist literature if you want to learn about science.
  4. As for the first law of thermodynamics, presumably the original author is trying to say that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It is also a nice law to quote by creationists who blabber about something can’t come from nothing even though very few (if any) cosmologists argue for such a model. Furthermore, is not an absolute law. It can be broken and is broken all the time in the quantum world of which was definitely present in the early universe. And then, to make matters even worse, the total energy of the entire universe might even be exactly zero.
    4b) The conservation of energy is better understood in relation to what’s called Noether’s theorem which basically tells us that the conservation of energy is a ‘law’ simply because the laws of physics are invariant in time. We do not know if that would be the case in the ‘creation’ of our universe and therefore all arguments from creationists utilizing the first law are based solely on ignorance.

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #24

That statement is not true. It is like saying that you hear a shot and turn immediately and see a person with a smoking gun aimed at a dying victim and saying that you have no idea who killed him or her because you did not see him or her shoot the victim.

In terms of abiogenesis you do not hear the shot, do not know the means of committing the crime, and you do not see the perpetrator. All you know is that life had a beginning sometime, somehow, some place

(Matthew Pevarnik) #25

Nice to see you again Roger. We’ve been over this already… multiple times: see here, here, here, or here.

The reason the Big Bang is a successful scientific theory is that it can describe mathematically how the universe evolved after it began. We can experimentally test up to approximately 10 billion electron volts at the Large Hadron Collider which would tell us what the Physics of the universe would have been like about 0.000000000000001 seconds after it ‘began.’ We understand very well the Physics of what particles would have existed and how they would have formed. We understand the formation of the first nuclei (as predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis) which actually describes the distribution of elements that we measure nearly 14 billion years later. We predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background (based on atomic physics and black body radiators) and then later measured it. Everything about the Big Bang Theory has been quite remarkable…

BUT, we cannot experimentally measure any energies before 10^-15 seconds after the unvierse ‘began.’ As in… they are in the category of theoretical physics and in many cases, remain in the realm of untestable hypothesis. Certainly quantum mechanics would have been important in this regime… but so would general relativity… but the two don’t talk to each other! Hence the previous video I shared on Quantum Gravity and the fact that nobody knows how to successfully unite the two yet tells me you are blowing smoke at me again.

In summary: We do not know in the scientific sense what happened before this point. Many cosmologists are actively trying to solve such problems. Yes, Stephen Hawking was one of them and there are many others. But just because we do not know what happened before a certain point doesn’t mean that the Big Bang Theory is in any way invalidated.

(George Brooks) #26


You are my Gungadin…

I am your Moon…

and I orbit the vast heart that puts up with all of it …

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #27

If we cannot measure any energies before a certain point, doesn’t that indicate that there were no energies at that point. If there are no energies, there is no mass, and if no mass there is no time and space, that is no nothing.

E = mc squared. No mass = no energy = no space/time. If there is a micro second between the appearance of mass and the appearance of energies and maybe the expansion of time and space.

Quantum physics is not really an alternative. It is so new and different that science does not understand it yet. This requires much additional work. As I said above Einstein’s equation has been tested and verified.

Of course science cannot go back before the beginning of time and space unless “science” accepts that there was a beginning, which means that the universe was created out of nothing. This it seems to me is exactly what Hawking & Co. do not want to accept. I would not say that they have to believe that God created the universe, but the theological alternative is the only plausible alternative, because science does not have one. They are just looking for one.

(Matthew Pevarnik) #28

Let’s work on this point before we look at anything else. It’s really important as I did not mean this at all. Just because we can’t experimentally measure something certain does not mean it does not exist or will never have a scientific explanation. At one point, we really did not have enough data to judge between the steady state cosmology and big bang cosmology. Both were published in scientific literature side by side! All that I meant is that we can only experimentally test high energy physics back to 10^-15 seconds after the universe ‘began.’ We cannot yet experimentally test anything that happened before that point. This diagram summarizes some of the major epochs of the early universe:

Notice that there is a region that talks about the confidence we have in the Physics of certain eras. We have high confidence in the era of nucleosynthesis and now higher confidence in the Higgs Field. We have not measured anything before this point meaning not you or anybody ‘knows’ in a scientific sense what occurred before this with high confidence. Sure, you know or rather believe so strongly that it is equivalent to knowing for you, but that is what I meant by the phrase the physics before this is not known.

But let’s look at the rest of your post real quick.

What?!? What are you talking about? I don’t even know quite how to address this question as Quantum Mechanics is basically as old as General Relativity. Here’s a timeline of quantum mechanics. There is a LOT of experimental data/evidence that goes into quantum mechanics. I’ve got to stop here and hope that you might be willing to correct this paragraph that is incredibly incorrect.

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #29

Thank you for the information. The diagram is very useful.

Of course we are still talking about less than one second and as I see it as to whether the universe emerged out of nothing, including no time and no space.

I take the black part of the time line to be that part where there was matter, but no energy. then we have the beginning of the start of the hot Big Bang when we do have energy and the formation of expanding time and space. The dark red where we have no data I take to mean that we have no matter, no energy, no time, no space, Nothing except speculation.

Thus I think we are in agreement as to what the Big Bang looks like. The question remains as to where the singularity come from. In my humble opinion until I can understand it differently, it came from Nothing as Einstein indicates.

As for my criticism of quantum physics I am not criticizing the science, but how it is understood. For instance I engaged in a discussion with a philosopher about the philosophy of quantum. He and others seem to insist that not only the micro world was controlled by quantum physics, but the macro world is controlled by quantum physics, which is certainly not true.

I pointed to the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which reports that the philosophy of the quantum physics is relational, of which they were not aware.

In the Wiki I read an article that said that said that the movement of air molecules were random, but still governed by macro world Newtonian laws. This is clearly untrue. Air molecules do move in a random manner because they are governed by quantum laws, not Newtonian macro laws.

It appears that we do not need to unite quantum physics and relativity because they serve two different worlds, the macro and the micro. Their connection is described Noether’s symmetry theorem.


I hope that you do understand that this black line used to be a lot longer. The line keeps getting shorter as the size of particle accelerators increase. Your argument is a bit like saying that nothing exists beyond the limits of our most powerful telescopes. This type of argument led to conclusions in the past that they Milky Way was the only galaxy in the universe.

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #31


I do not know which black line you are looking at, but I am referring to the short thick black line which is underneath the purple boxes. Since the one second line is in the green zone, we are talking about portions of 1 second here. I think you are confusing my line with another time line.

You are suggesting that I am arguing fro9m ignorance. To the contrary, I am arguing based on the facts we do know. Hawking is the one saying that we need an experiment to prove his idea is true.

Maybe we need to restate what we so know. We know that the universe is expanding. That means that there are galaxies beyond our most powerful telescopes and they are moving away from us very quickly.

We also know that the universe is finite, which means that it has limits and thus logically that it has a beginning. In a real sense this is a philosophical statement, but it is confirmed by all that we know.

Einstein’s Theory, E = mc squared tells us that the existence of time and space are dependent upon the existence of Mass. This tells us that no mass means no time/space.

All this is confirmed by evidence that something big happened a long time ago that we call the Big Bang. A extreme amount of background noise indicates that a large amount to energy was released. This is consistent with beginning of the inflation of the universe and the beginning of time and space.

All of these facts point to the fact that our universe emerged out of nothing. The primary problem is that some people say that only nothing can emerge from nothing, so they say that this cannot be. Others say that God is beyond time and is able to create the universe out of nothing, so creation out of nothing is quite possible.

This brings me back to the thick black line below the purple boxes. I must admit that I did not read the writing in the purple boxes, because it is difficult to discern, but it says: (1) Period of Inflation, (2) Region Containing Observable Patch Expands with Incredible Speed, (3) Extreme Cold.

Now there is a paradox here. What we see is particles (mass) without energy which explains the lack of volume and lack of heat. It does not explain the rapid expansion. So we seem to have a problem, but to say we need a whole different explanation for what happened is silly.

It does not refute the fact that the universe was created out of nothing.


That seems to be your peculiar interpretation of the theory which no other physicist shares.

And now your peculiar and unsupported interpretation of relativity is being touted as fact. Sorry, that doesn’t quite work.

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #33

I know you have said that there is no evidence for the existence of God, which is not true, but how can you speak for every physicist?


I would ask you the same thing.

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #35

I was not talking about physicists. I was talking about the working of nature, which I can explain if you really want to know, rather than reject out of hand.

(George Brooks) #36

Roger, there is no interpretation of the theory of relativity that states without mass, there is no time/space.

What the Quantum interpretation of Einstein’s work says is that in a square foot of “empty space”, energy and particles appear out of nowhere, and then disappear again.

So, if anything, the affirmed interpretation is that as long as there is a “time-space” fabric, it is able to produce energy from the appearance of nothing.

If you don’t have any “time-space”, nobody knows what we would have instead.

(George Brooks) #37


I forgot to mention, Roger, that we know your concise summation is using incorrect terminology because very soon after the Big Bang, all we had was energy and no mass. The Universe was too hot to allow mass. In fact, the Universe was opaque with mass-less photons… and it would be quite a while before things cooled down enough for “matter” (aka “things with mass”) to condense out of the energy froth.

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #38

I do not think you are correct. First of all we need to remember we are talking about a time frame which is less than one second when much was going on.

Second, the universe4 began before expansion as a very small dense mass. The chart taken from the web says clearly that it was extremely cold indicating that it was composed of matter without energy. Then the “hot” expansion began but the matter did not disappear. Maybe it was convert to energy and then returned to mass.

Many people know what would exist if there were no time/space. Nothing. This is what Augustine said a long time ago and he was right.

Time and space are formed by matter/energy. That is what Einstein’s theory says. That means clearly, no matter/energy = no space/time.

Simple question. What is outside the bounds of our universe? Answer: Nothing, which means no time and space. That means that nothing, which includes time and space, existed before the universe came into being and after it passes away.

Of course “empty space” is not nothing and Big Bangs are not taking place there. “Empty space” is created by the mass/energy of the universe.

(George Brooks) #39


Roger, I think you need to review the more popular timelines proposed for the Big Bang. This is one of those rare times when the Wiki discussion on the Big Bang is not up to snuff. I had to go to a physics page to get the necessary level of detail and clarity:


Planck Epoch (or Planck Era), from zero to approximately 10-43 seconds (1 Planck Time):
This is the closest that current physics can get to the absolute beginning of time, and very little can be known about this period…

Grand Unification Epoch, from 10–43 seconds to 10–36 seconds:
The force of gravity separates from the other fundamental forces (which remain unified), and the earliest elementary particles (and antiparticles) begin to be created.


Roger, if you consider quarks and gluons to be “matter”, then they only just start to appear in the post-Planck Epoch.

However, if matter is defined as protons, neutrons and electrons, it takes a little longer to get there, described below as appearing in the Quark Epoch:


Inflationary Epoch, from 10–36 seconds to 10–32 seconds:
Triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force, the universe undergoes an extremely rapid exponential expansion, known as cosmic inflation. The linear dimensions of the early universe increases during this period of a tiny fraction of a second by a factor of at least 1026 to around 10 centimetres (about the size of a grapefruit). The elementary particles remaining from the Grand Unification Epoch (a hot, dense quark-gluon plasma, sometimes known as “quark soup”) become distributed very thinly across the universe.

Electroweak Epoch, from 10–3[2] seconds to 10–12 seconds:
As the strong nuclear force separates from the other two, particle interactions create large numbers of exotic particles, including W and Z bosons and Higgs bosons (the Higgs field slows particles down and confers mass on them, allowing a universe made entirely out of radiation to support things that have mass).

Quark Epoch, from 10–12 seconds to 10–6 seconds:
Quarks, electrons and neutrinos form in large numbers as the universe cools off to below 10 quadrillion degrees, and the four fundamental forces assume their present forms. Quarks and antiquarks annihilate each other upon contact, but, in a process known as baryogenesis, a surplus of quarks (about one for every billion pairs) survives, which will ultimately combine to form matter.

[timeline truncated]

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #40

Planck Epoch (or Planck Era), from zero to approximately 10 to the minus 43 power seconds (1 Planck Time):
_This is the closest that current physics can get to the absolute beginning of time, and *very little can be known about this period. _

1) If there was the absolute Beginning of time, which is what it says here, then there was a time when time was not and if time was not, then there was no matter, energy, and space. Other than the fact that logically we can put together the words “when time was not,” given the subject matter under discussion the matter is clear, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from Absolute Nothing.

  1. While it is very true that very little can be known about this period., the evidence points to the fact we are moving from Nothing to the very small to the very large. We are moving from Nothing to Second One to billions of years. We are moving from Nothing to the temperature of Absolute Zero to extremely hot. We are moving from Nothing to the natural forces of energy united to separation. We are moving from very basic forms of matter to those of today,

  2. The scientific evidence points to the fact that there was a Beginning, which came out of Nothing. We might not like this or understand it or agree with it, but until there is strong evidence to the contrary, this is where we stand.