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

Does time exist/makes sense at the quantum level? What confuses me a little bit about these ideas of the world poping out of quantum fluctuations is mainly why that happened ~14 billion years ago and not “sooner” if the quantum world was eternal and without a beggining, do these theorys have an answer for that?

@Mervin_Bitikofer, thank you for your comment. @pevaquark, For me it is important to try to reconcile, bring together the three basic disciplines of humankind, science, philosophy, and theology.

I mean with all the confusion in this world it would be great if scholars in these basic fields could get together. Of course just because something is good, does not mean that it is right. However it is not good for science or for anyone if it becomes an island and authority unto itself.

The Beginning is where science, philosophy, and theology come together. All three did agree that there was a Beginning, but science seems to be saying that there was no Beginning. That is some are saying in effect that quantum reality is eternal.

The point I was trying to make with @gbrooks9 was that the Big Bang Theory indicates that there was a Beginning, which seems to mean that unless science comes up with evidence that proves that false, then the universe emerged out of Nothing. Krauss says that the universe emerged out of quantum fields, which is not Nothing. Your presentation as far as I can see has not indicated that the quantum world are eternal and E = mc squared is false, so as far as I am concerned I won the argument.

Why are you making a false dichotomy between quantum physics and “classical physics” and including relativity with classical physics, when is about the same age as quantum physics. Bohr disagreed with Heisenberg in that he saw quantum physics as a combination to two models, wave or energy and particle or mass. I think that my approach is closed to Bohr and I have no disrespect to those who support virtual particles, even though I maybe not up to date with their findings, which I why I am discussing this on the web.

There are two aspects of science. One is the data that science is based on and the second is the theory that explains the theory. I am sure that you have seen the timeline charts that depict the Big Bang. They depict the first second of time of the universe. Assuming these charts accurately depict the best scientific data available, then they indicate that the universe had a beginning in Time and thus was created out of Nothing. Honestly I do not expect a scientist to agree with a theological statement, but there it is.

No one is saying that quantum effects are not important. The uniove4rswe would not be the universe without the quantum world. I still do not know why you oppose quantum with Relativity, since it is all science and all true. If “General Relativity suggests” that the universe is created out of Nothing, there must be some scientific evidence to support this, which is more than anyone else was willing to say. Thank you for your honesty.

The answer is no. In fact it would seem that the question is inappropriate because the quantum world cannot think and does not act with purpose. This is why it is absurd to think that a quantum produced world is rational, and/or has meaning and purpose.

I’m not sure what to say about matter other than than most cosmological models end with ‘heat death/big freeze’- but that has a lot of unknowns in it… like do protons decay? We have a lower bound on that of about 10^40 seconds. So that speaks to the future of the eternal nature of matter. Going back in time… your guess is as good as mine, I’d say! I do think though that the question doesn’t quite make sense anymore like it used to. I mean that in the sense of like a rock. Now people (perhaps ancient Greeks) likely though rocks were ‘eternal’ but now today we know they are made up of atoms which are made up of protons which are made of quarks. Going back in time for our universe, all that would have existed were quarks, neutrinos, electrons (?), photons (?) we don’t really know exactly if these particles are made up of more fundamental particles or not. So how can I say if a quark is eternal if it is made up of other things?

I think that you have to end with a ‘brute fact’ in a sense either from a theist or non-theist position.

I am not sure. I’m not personally an advocate for ex-nihilo from either a scientific or even theological point. Nobody really believes that ‘everything came from nothing’ I would say in my opinion either way. Maybe what you are referring to is more so in the case did matter exist before time t=0 in the conventional timeline or not which I think is blurry but I think most would concede some part of this. But there had to have been something before this point in anyone’s model (albeit the laws of Physics or an omnipotent creator).

2 Likes

Fair enough. My posts thus far have been focused mainly on the scientific perspective only perhaps in light of the original post regarding Stephen Hawking.

Makes sense. I think one would immediately run into problems though. Imagine a Christian, Muslim, and a Hindu all get together in a room with some Cosmologists.

The cosmologists get done presenting much of the stuff in this thread and then some, indicating that there is presently a lack of knowledge as to the beginning and future state of our universe.

The Christian and Muslim are excited about the Big Bang Model. After all, their holy books actually predicted the Big Bang and are entirely consistent with it. They then proceed to explain what really happened in the beginning of our universe but soon begin to argue with each other. There is no way to judge scientifically between them and the theological debates rage on for a few thousand more years.

And then the Hindu shows this Youtube video titled “NASA rejects BigBang theory & accept VEDIC explanation”. Stunned the cosmologists try to explain that is absolute hogwash but he and thousands of other people with their viewpoint all cry foul against the cosmologists, Christians and Muslims. They then continue to debate for another thousand years.

While all three are debating, cosmologists are building models of the early universe, building telescopes to test those models and other clever methods. I wholeheartedly agree with your desire, but I do not think that it is practical to really try and get scientists, philosophers and theologians in the same room given the nature of how science is done and theories are judged. Regardless of what happens in our inquiry to the natural world, it can never falsify any religious belief–all science can do is put restraints on how religious claims can be interpreted.

(emphasis mine) No. No. No. No. No. No. We’ve been over this so many times already. I give up, I really do. The universe did not emerge out of ‘nothing.’ No cosmologist says this. And if they did, someone likely is quote mining them. The only people who I have ever heard say this are theists, in particular Christians since I interact with them the most! This is just not true and science does not say it came from nothing.

There is one example demonstrating my point. Cosmologists do not argue that the universe came from nothing. Never have, never will.

The age of when something was discovered has nothing to do with how it ought to be grouped. This is what I had in mind when I used such language:

General Relativity generally falls within the ‘classical mechanics’ portion dealing with objects larger than a nanometer and moving much slower than the speed of light , even though most of ‘classical mechanics’ was worked out long before GR came about.

:thinking:

:weary:

This is like saying the gravitational force is infinitely strong the closer two objects get (just looking at Newton’s law of universal gravitation for simplicity) because when you plug a distance of zero into his equations, the force becomes infinite. Just because Newton’s Law suggests such, doesn’t mean that it’s true. It just means that the law only applies to certain realms/scenarios and is not applicable in other systems. As in, neither are applicable when Quantum Mechanics are relevant and because Quantum Mechanics is relevant in the beginning of the universe, then the ‘sure’ results of General Relativity are invalid.

You’re welcome.

1 Like

I don’t see why that is such a major problem for you, couldn’t God have created the quantum world? We would then just be moving creation further backwards, not denying it. In fact, the main criticism against Krauss’s book is precisely the fact that quantum vacuum is not “nothing”, and therefore it doest not make sense to say that the universe created itself from nothing.

The answer is No. If the quantum world is eternal and without beginning, as you have defined it then by definition the quantum world is God, which means that God is not a thinking, feeling, purposeful Being, but a thing. There cannot be two eternal,. self-existing co-existing Gods.

Now I do not believe this to be true, but some people like Richard Dawkins do and so they think that everything that happens is an “accident,” and life has no meaning or purpose, which is false.

I don’t believe it to be the case. Even if the quantum wolrd is ever existing and sufficient to create the present universe, it still begs the question as to why it exists and has the laws it has.

This comes closer to the mark - as theists we believe that God create heaven and the universe; He did not use any substance that we can know, so as far as the universe goes, it came into existence by the creative act of God, and thus from "nothing’ (else). :heart_eyes:

What might you be suggesting GJDS? :open_mouth:
image

I hope you aren’t reading that into Genesis 1:1 now…

@pevaquark

Your response makes me glad I did not take up archery. :joy:

I am not reading science in Gen 1:1, but biblically I believe that Christ created all, and He is the alpha and omega - thus for the sake of this discussion, I emphasise how we understand “the beginning”.

I agree that the term “universe” would be incomprehensible within Genesis.

For the point made here, in the beginning means God create all that we can comprehend as our world, and in the context of today, that often means the universe - however I will not labour the point.

2 Likes

I apologize for arriving late to the party.

A great point that bears repeating. The same goes for theology, too. Apologists are more interested in scoring points against the opposition than anything else.

And now for something completely different … I saw this article a few years ago and thought it was fascinating. I’d love to hear @pevaquark’s take on it, and I also wonder if the idea has gained any traction since its 2015 publication.

From the article:
The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories…

Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.

In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.

As far as theological reflection goes, I think a universe with no beginning and no end fits just as well with the biblical description of God as the current model. Thoughts?

2 Likes

Matthew, thank you for your thoughtful response.

Dr. Hawking has made his opinions well known in the fields of theology and philosophy, which makes me think that the question is more than a scientific one.

Of course all involved would need to get their act together. But thinking that others could or would act irresponsibly does not excuse someone for doing the same.

The way I see it is that responsible scientists, philosophers, and theologians need each other. They cannot allow themselves to become isolated as seems to be the case now without the movement for Truth and Freedom becoming frustrated.

The question is “Does the universe have a Beginning?”, (that is, “Did it emerge out of Nothing?”) I would say that this is a scientific question, right? I did not say: From where did the universe come?, which is not a scientific question.

I did not say that scientists made4 this claim. I said that using scientific facts, this claim makes sense. You did disagree, which is fine, but do not put in my mouth that I did not say.

Lawrence Krauss, who is a noted scientist, published a book, entitled A Universe Out of Nothing Since this work is part of the debate, why are you not attacking him as well as me in trying to set the record right?

First if all my argument is not based the claim General Relativity overrules Quantum Mechanics at the Beginning of the universe. We are talking about less than 1 second here and we certainly do not know exactly what happened. All we can see is the result of what happened. That looks to me from what I see, including what you have told me through this discussion, especially the origin of mass, energy, time and space, is that the universe was created out of nothing,

The problem is this. If the universe was created by a thing that cannot think, then there is no Why? There is no purpose.

Just because we believe in God and believe that God created the universe does not mean that Christians can ignore the rules of logic. Please note that John 1:1 refers to Jesus Christ as the Logos, the Word, Who is the Source of Logic and good philosophy.

Now there is a big difference between God creating the universe through an eternal physical thing like quantum fields and God creating through a special event and one time procedure like a singularity which formed a temporary bridge to the eternal. God works through then physical. God does not make the physical eternal in order to work through it, if God could create something that is eternal.

That is if you define the universe as “matter and energy”, but I think it is reasonable to think of quantum vacuum as part of the universe as well, so it is not really “quantum vacuum creating the universe” but rather the universe going from one state S1 (quantum vacuum) to a state S2 (the universe as we know today). The “purpose” is in the fact that the laws governing such state S1 allow for the unfolding of processes which generate conscious, moral beings, which are totally contingent. We could still have a universe of philosophical zombies or without the possibility of life (even with a multiverse or infinite space, life/consciousness could simply be impossible no matter how the particles and variables combine), but we do live in a universe which contains these possibilities, which is enough evidence of a creator and purpose for me.

A valid analogy would be “if human beings came to be by a process which cannot think (evolution), then there is no why”, which has been discussed time after time here to not be necessarily the case. Even if evolution has no direct interference from God, it still occurs in within a possibility space that allow the emergence of conscious, moral beings.

@BoltzmannBrain,

Thank you for your response, because this is a very important problem.

The statement in quotes that is in quotes is true as far as it goes. That is why BioLogos calls its view theistic creation. Evolution is a natural process, but it was designed by God to create the biosphere of earth. God creates or works God’s purposes through evolution. Evolution works through the laws of God, so God does not need or want to interfere with evolution.

Evolution did not create humanity except as a tool of the Creator, Who can and does think and fashioned evolution on all its ecological facets in such a way to create rational and spiritual human being is God’s own Image and a habitat for humanity and other creatures.

Dawkins says that evolution is not a rational purposeful process created by a Rational, Purposeful God, and therefore life is not rational and purposeful. Christians need to take the opposing point of view. This matter needs to be resolved and can be fairly easily. If Life is good, meaningful, and purposeful, then God created the universe Period, no ifs, ands or buts. If life is evil, meaningless and purposeless, then God did not create the universe Period. When all is said and done, Life is Good.

On the other hand you said that the quantum vacuum was eternal and without beginning, so it was not created by God and thus was not designed by God, and not used by God to create.

What makes you think that the laws that govern S1 allow of the unfolding of S2, when S1 and S2 are totaling different. S1 was without time, space, matter, and energy. It was static and eternal. S2 is not static and eternal, but dynamic and finite. S2 is characterized by time, space, matter, and energy.

So how could something which is infinite become finite. It cannot. Now it just occurred to me that for some pantheism or panentheism is the answer, but that does not really make sense either.

I am puzzled by thus phrase. “Totally contingent” means “totally dependent.” Human beings are not totally dependent. They are conscious moral being who can be independent of other and their surroundings. Morality can be good or it can be not good. We can make good choices and bad choices. We need to be interdependent, not dependent or independent.

You are convinced that the universe is Good based on your life experience and you take this as convincing evidence that God created the universe. That is good. My point is this. If our life experience indicates that God created the universe and this evidence is reinforced by theology and the experience of others. why do we seem so willing to surrender this fact to scientific speculation about the origins of the universe. I am not against science or speculation, but science needs to be based on proof and not theory.

Well, as far as I know, that is what the theorys are claiming, of course, the theory might be wrong, but if they are right, that is necessarily the case.

Laws of quantum physics could also be a tool of the creator.

If God precedes time and is timeless himself, he could have created something that existed before time and from which time arose. In your words, created a tool from which time and other properties emerged from.

I’m using contingent in the sense that it is used in cosmological arguments like those:

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/

Maybe the word has other uses which I’m not aware of, but that is the use I’m refering to.

I’m not necessarily saying the theory is right. As far as I know (and I could be totally wrong since I don’t have that much knowledge in advanced physics), these ideas are still hypothetical and we would need a more complete unified model of physics to be able to better comprehend these issues with more certainity. I just don’t discard the possibility that they may be right, especially because they have some really good arguments going for them (which could be proven wrong in the future, but we have to deal with some degree of uncertainity in science). And I also don’t think that the matter of these theorys being right or wrong have all that much theological significance.

Interesting argument, which assumes that the universe is rationally structured, which today’s atheists do not. Of course if God is the Necessary Being, then God’s existence cannot be doubted. Of course God 's existence is denied, in part I think because God is so necessary that God provides the order is the background for everything that is.

Contingent as used here means interdependent. That is important because our knowledge is dependent upon the fact that all things are related, they are interdependent. We can know what happened in the Beginning because this began a chain of events that continues today.

Now if there was no Beginning, then there is no chain of events that continues until today. The truth and the facts are important, because the facts determine the Truth. God created the universe with the Beginning because that was the best way to create the universe. This also what the evidence indicates, not a universe without the Beginning, because God is Good.

@Jay313

What happened to this view? I cannot find any current discussion of it on the internet. It sounds like they have found just what Hawking and Krauss were looking for.