God: a failed hypothesis or something more?


(George Brooks) #161

@Relates

Roger, I think you might be presuming too much.

If you look at the animations of energy exchanged between Gluons … it is this constantly changing amorphous energy field that produces 98% of the mass of a proton or neutron. And this field comes and goes without any real indication of where it is in between its manifestations!

The Big Bang looks consistent with the idea that it was created out of nothing. But disputing the general idea with an Athiest (even one who is friendly to BioLogos) is probably not a good use of time.

We know that the vacuum of space is not empty. And we think there was no “vacuum” or anything like a vacuum before the Big Bang. But we really don’t know what anything was, or if there was a “was”, prior to the Big Bang.

Only God knows…


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #162

If the Big Bang came from something, the Big Bang would say so. Since the Big Bang does not say where it came from and it came from neither matter, nor energy, nor time, nor space, or anything thing else that we know of, it is reasonable to say it came from nothing.

The fact that some scientists are working mathematically to try to see if the math indicates something about the origin of the universe says that it did not come from something, unless math is something.

Even so the multiverse is still speculation and it is always a mistake to mistake speculation for fact. Neither of us has good reason to expect the multiverse theory will replace the Big Bang theory, which will continue to explain how our universe came into being out of nothing.


(George Brooks) #163

Hmmmm… @Relates

I don’t think this paragraph makes much sense…


#164

Why? The Big Bang theory only attempts to explain how the universe changed once it was already here, much like the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. The Big Bang theory is agnostic as to how the universe began.[quote=“Relates, post:162, topic:37310”]
The fact that some scientists are working mathematically to try to see if the math indicates something about the origin of the universe says that it did not come from something, unless math is something.
[/quote]

Physicists use math to determine where high energy particles come from in a nuclear fission reaction. Obviously, those particles are coming from something. I don’t see how using math indicates that something came from nothing.[quote=“Relates, post:162, topic:37310”]
Even so the multiverse is still speculation and it is always a mistake to mistake speculation for fact. Neither of us has good reason to expect the multiverse theory will replace the Big Bang theory, which will continue to explain how our universe came into being out of nothing.
[/quote]

Multiverse theory wouldn’t replace the Big Bang theory since a Multiverse is entirely compatible with the Big Bang theory. It is also just as speculative to claim that the universe came from nothing. We simply don’t know how the universe came about nor where it came from.


#165

@Relates

Just so you know that I’m not yanking your chain, this quote is from a physicist who won a Nobel Prize for his work on the Big Bang:

“The Big Bang theory says nothing about what banged, why it banged, or what happened before it banged.”–Alan Guth
reference


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #166

@gbrooks9

George, we know that there was no time and space, no quantum physics, no vacuum in space
before the Big Bang. Wake up and find out what is going on.

Do you trust the verified findings of science or not? If not, you might as well accept a 6 day creation.

The Big Bang Theory starts when there is no matter, no energy, no space, and no time. The Big Bang begins in the beginning when all these things began. Yes, it does not say that God began the universe, but it does say that the universe did not emerge from itself, It emerged from nothing.

Math has many uses. Math equations are very important, but math is not matter. Math is not physical. Just because math can describe something does not mean it exists. If it only exists mathematically, it is not a thing, it is nothing.

Science is not speculation. Science demonstrates that the universe came from nothing. Science does know how the universe began though the Big Bang, even though it cannot how it came from nothing. That is the purview of theology.

The Big Bang theory says nothing about what banged, why it banged, or what happened before it banged.”–Alan Guth

Agreed that the BBT does not say why the universe appeared, and what happened before it appeared (e3xcert it wasn’t.) I do not know what he means by what banged. If it does not describe anything, then it is useless.

Clearly Guth wants to discourage philosophizing and theologizing about the Big Bang, however the discussion between science, theology, and philosophy is important, because humans are physical, rational, and spiritual beings. Science has been used to question theology. Certainly science can be used to affirm theology in this basic area of Reality, so we can worship the God of the Facts, YHWH the I AM.


#167

“The Big Bang theory says nothing about what banged, why it banged, or what happened before it banged.”–Alan Guth

Alan Guth won a Nobel Prize for his work on the Big Bang theory. No offense, but I think I will take his word on the matter over yours, unless you can show us your Nobel Award.[quote=“Relates, post:166, topic:37310”]
Math has many uses. Math equations are very important, but math is not matter. Math is not physical. Just because math can describe something does not mean it exists. If it only exists mathematically, it is not a thing, it is nothing.
[/quote]

But you are saying that if math describes something then it came from nothing. That makes no sense.[quote=“Relates, post:166, topic:37310”]
Science is not speculation.
[/quote]

What is a hypothesis if not a testable speculation?[quote=“Relates, post:166, topic:37310”]
Science demonstrates that the universe came from nothing.
[/quote]

How? Based on what facts? Like I said earlier, this would come as a shock to the entire field of theoretical physics.


(George Brooks) #168

@Relates

We know that there was no space or time “as we know them in this Universe”.

Is that the same as saying there was “nothing”? I don’t know a philosopher who would agree to that.

I have already shown you that the vacuum of space is not actually empty. How do we know whether there
is some other classification of “matter” or “energy” that was used to create the Big Bang? We just don’t know.

And that’s all I was speaking to … We don’t even really know if God can or can’t create something from nothing - - any more than we can confidently say that God can’t do contradictory things…

The question becomes - - what is a real contradiction, and what is the appearance of contradiction?


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #169

@gbrooks9

What is a thing? Is it not something that exists in time and space? Does not a vacuum exist in time and space, therefore a vacuum is a thing.

If there is no time and space, there are no things, no being. no nothing. Before the Big Bang there was no time, and no before and no space… Only God and God is not a thing that exists in time and space.


#170

You could win a Nobel prize if you could gather some facts to back this assertion.


(GJDS) #171

This is good to hear, and I trust my comments were not taken as personal, or in some way meant to offend you or anyone else.

With your background I think you may understand that, within a theological context, faith is a matter between the individual and God. That means that only God can say that a Christian is truly so. That is why I avoid making statements on belief that point to a person’s character - and for those of us who profess faith, we are reminded by the gospel that sinners are called to repent, so “the burden of repentance” is with us. It is also reasonable to understand that some people are not persuaded and thus do not believe.

However I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is reasonable as it is totally concerned with the person and personal characteristics of humanity, and the way to strive for a better person and world. Thus I at times indulge in these exchanges, to try and point out the reasonable aspects of the Christian faith.

Matters such as miracles are not as central as you may think - the gospel shows that people had first hand knowledge of these, and it did not make much of a difference to many, even when Christ was there.


(GJDS) #172

The Big Bang shows that we may contemplate a beginning (even this gives me a headache) - nothingness as I understand it is a philosophical problem. Science has not “measured nothingness” (ha ha, not nothing is now part of science, hilarious). :sunglasses:


(Matthew Pevarnik) #173

I’ve got to jump aboard this train… the Big Bang Theory says nothing of what happened before a certain point of our universe, much in the same sense where the theory of evolution does not explain the origins of life but how life came about afterwards.

Oh wait @T_aquaticus already explained this to you but you ignored him. The BBT does not say the universe emerged from nothing. Not by any means whatsoever. Where are you getting this idea from? Very few cosmologists actually argue that the universe came from nothing as in the spontaneous generation of even the laws of Physics but some papers have been written on the topic (i.e. Spontaneous creation of the Universe ex nihilo). Most cosmologists don’t argue that the universe came from nothing, nor do they write papers on such. A casual summary of say bouncing cosmologies is written here: https://www.space.com/38982-no-big-bang-bouncing-cosmology-theory.html. There was even a nice debate in Scientific American about models of the beginnings of the Universe:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/a-cosmic-controversy/

This is just a small sample of models, all of which receive constraints with the more data we have. But instead, what it looks like you are proposing is that cosmologists are definitely wrong and you know absolutely that there was nothing as in really nothing except God before our universe.


Did Dawkins and and Hawking really admit the Big Bang is impossible?
(Marvin Adams) #174

That question should be embarrassing :slight_smile:


#175

Why? I would like to hear your explanation.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #176

@pevaquark

The Big Bang Theory says nothing about what happened before a certain point of our universe for a very simple reason, there is nothing before a certain point in our universe, which is the beginning. There is no time, there is no space, there is no matter, and there is no energy. That is what I told @T_aquaticus and that is a scientific fact.

Now as far as Nobel prize winners, if @T_aquaticus or you want to prove E = mc squared is not true, that is fine with me, but until you or Louis Krause or Sean Carroll do so we will have to go with the fact that the universe was created out of nothing in the Beginning.

@T_aquaticus, the letter in the Scientific American to which @pevaquark referred supports the fact that the universe has a Beginning and Alan Guth is one of the authors.


#177

That’s just an assertion with no evidence to back it up.[quote=“Relates, post:176, topic:37310”]
Now as far as Nobel prize winners, if @T_aquaticus or you want to prove E = mc squared is not true, that is fine with me, but until you or Louis Krause or Sean Carroll do so we will have to go with the fact that the universe was created out of nothing in the Beginning.
[/quote]

Sean Carroll wrote an entire article on his idea of how one universe can give birth to a new universe. You can read it here.

As to Lawrence Krauss, he proposes that there were quantum fields that existed prior to the emergence of our universe, and it is those quantum fields which produced our universe. You can read a review of his book here.[quote=“Relates, post:176, topic:37310”]
@T_aquaticus, the letter in the Scientific American to which @pevaquark referred supports the fact that the universe has a Beginning and Alan Guth is one of the authors.
[/quote]

Just as lightning has a beginning, but no one says that lightning comes from nothing because it has a beginning.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #178

He complains that “some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ” and he does a good deal of railing about “the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy.” But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.

from the review in the New York Review of Books of the book by Laurence Kraus. @T_aquaticus, why do you cite this review what trashes the argument of this book? Did you read it? I told you it was garbage and this peer review indicates that I am right.

There is something of a paradox in the way that cosmologists traditionally talk about the Big Bang. They will go to great effort to explain how the Bang was the beginning of space and time, that there is no “before” or “outside,” and that the universe was (conceivably) infinitely big the very moment it came into existence, so that the pasts of distant points in our current universe are strictly non-overlapping.

Sean writes in his article that he is arguing against the “traditional” version of the Big Bang Theory, which is the current view, and guess what? This is the view that I espouse.

So why do you say that there is no evidence for the current version of the Big Bang Theory. Have most scientists lost their minds? Is it true that science has abandoned Einstein’s theory because of questions about “quantum gravity?” Surely not.

As I said before speculation must not be confused with scientific fact, especially speculation based on very thin ice like this. What we do not need is a manufactured fake reality and false facts.

We need to acknowledge the fact that science accepts that the universe has an absolute Beginning, and it was created out of nothing. even if we don’t agree with it.

You don’t have to believe in God, just because it logically follows that God created the universe. We still have freedom of conscience in the US. .


(Marvin Adams) #179

you could as well have replied “Karl Marx”


(Matthew Pevarnik) #180

Okay, I see that this is really going to go nowhere. @T_aquaticus tried multiple times to explain and I did perhaps twice as well. Nobody is questioning the smashing success of the Big Bang Theory to accurately predict what has happened from 0.000000000000001 seconds after the universe began. It does an amazing job bringing us early nucleosynthesis and the cosmic microwave background, etc. What it does not explain is what happened before that time. Inflationary cosmology is part of explaining what happened before that time which is still up in the air. But even that cannot explain what happened before 10^-35 seconds or so. And guess what? None of these unknowns are a problem for the Big Bang Theory which enjoys smashing observation successes.

We don’t know what happened before these different epochs. Science does not accept the universe had an absolute beginning (i.e. the entire bouncing cosmology model would say it doesn’t which a lot of cosmologists espouse), nor does is it a fact that it was created out of nothing. The word created shows your bias here as well.


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