Did the Big Bang create God or did God create the Big Bang?

[Soph0571]

The Big Bang Theory, at its most uncomplicated, describes the universe as starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
Genesis says - In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth
Assuming both God as the creator and the Big Bang theory are true, who created who????
Did the Big Bang create God or did God create the Big Bang? Chicken…Egg…

Just a bit of fun for a Sunday afternoon.

[PJMcK]

1. It's simple

The Big Bang (eventually) created people who then created their gods.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Depends on who or what God is. There is no reason to insist that there is no...

intelligence behind the universe. What if the Big Bang was the result of an "Oh, Shit" moment by the inhabitants of another universe that ended up making this one? Were remnants of memory, or even visitation, of that other civilization around, they could have appeared as gods to our ancestors.

Could our planet actually have been seeded as an experiment by some civilization? Would they be our gods?

The point is that we have no idea and there is no point in arguing about it or making claims.

It's fun guessing, though.

[edhopper]

11. You have this backwards

"There is no reason to insist that there is no..intelligence behind the universe."

Given the complete lack of evidence for said intelligence, the correct statement would be there is no reason to insist there is intelligence behind the universe.

[Mariana]

12. I've never heard of anyone

who insists there is no possibility of intelligence behind the universe. And as you say, there's certainly no reason to insist otherwise.

In fact, the lack of evidence for it is so complete, there's no reason even to suspect there is intelligence behind the universe.

[LakeArenal]

13. Well you aren't listening to any astrophysicists.

Hawking said any reference to a god creating or required intelligence to create the universe was superfluous.
Neil De Grasse Tyson and Michio Kaku have said the same.

They have all written books to that idea.

[Mariana]

17. The word "superfluous" does not mean impossible.

It means unnecessary. Unnecessary does not mean the same thing as impossible. Therefore, when Hawking any such reference was superfluous, he was not insisting there is no possibility of intelligence behind the universe, by definition.

[gtar100]

30. No intelligence behind the universe. Okay, how do you define "intelligence"?

Because I see a whole lot of intelligence. Even Merriam-Webster's human-centric definition holds hints of the intelligence in nature and the universe.

intelligence noun
in·tel·li·gence | in-ˈte-lə-jən(t)s
Definition of intelligence
1a(1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON
also : the skilled use of reason
(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind
2a : INFORMATION, NEWS
b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area
also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION
4 : the ability to perform computer functions
5a : intelligent minds or mind
cosmic intelligence
b : an intelligent entity
especially : ANGEL

But I don't think the observation of intelligence in nature implies Christianity or other Abrahamic religions are right and therefore submission to religious authority essential. That to me is the opposite of intelligence.

[Mariana]

38. You see a whole lot of intelligence behind the universe.

It shouldn't be too hard to provide some evidence for it, then. At the very least, you should be able to describe its properties, since you can see it. Please, tell us all about this intelligence that you see.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Note the word "insist". All of this is speculation so there is no reason to insist on anything...

And we haven't completely defined "intelligence" on our own planet, so how do we define it on a cosmic level?

Have fun with speculation.

[edhopper]

24. I see the distinction you are trying to make now

but I would say no absolute proof of no intelligence does not increase the chance of any intelligence.

It is still the defult position.

Speculation or not, we should start with what sems possible.

Right now it is speculating of the fictional. Like who is the better wizard, Gandolf or Dumbledore?

[TreasonousBastard]

28. I am not trying to make anything-- there is no absolute proof of no unicorns either...

but no one believes in them. People are, however, still looking for Nessie and Yeti, although chances of finding either are slim at best.

This is pure speculation into areas unobserved and unobservable, so all bets are off.

Just have fun with it.

[edhopper]

32. I meant the distinction of saying there is no intteligent creator

and insisting.
I was just confirming what your mpost said.

[TreasonousBastard]

34. OK. Sometimes things get lost around here.

[edhopper]

39. very true

[qazplm135]

43. Are there possibilities that involve intelligence creating the universe?

in theory, sure.

One scientific theory proposes that a black hole results in the creation of a new universe.
A related one says that our universe could simply be the interior of a black hole.

Brane theory says that our universe "big bangs" into existence as two branes come together, then the branes grow apart until the heat death of the universes in each brane causes them to attract again, creating another big bang, on and on and on.

So, I can see in the former some civilization creates a large black hole in another universe, unknowingly, or perhaps intentionally, creating a new universe which happens to be ours. Obviously not responsible for anything that happens after (unless you can affect the physical laws of a universe in the formation of the black hole).

Or perhaps there are lifeforms that can affect the branes (pretty far-fetched).

Problem is, none of that is remotely provable (or likely can be falsified). Because we can't travel back to the beginning of the universe, and even if our universe is really the inside of a black hole that bubbled itself off from its parent universe, we can't pop through to the other side to see.

So, we can't really do anything with all of that. If there was an intelligence, it can't interact with us in any way other than having some sort of hand in creating our universe. And there's no way we can even determine if that's how our universe started. Even if we create our own black hole, we can't ever get information out of it about what's going on inside of it.

[edhopper]

45. but Occam's Razor

would defer us from added an unnecessary layer to any origin explanation. Especially one for which there is no evidence and only is discussed because of a bronze age religion.

[qazplm135]

47. I don't know that we'd be adding an extra layer

how did the universe start?

There's really only three options:

1. It didn't start. It's always been going on. (some version of cyclical universes/can also merge in the Big Bang in some theories (e.g. Brane Theory)).
2. It started from nothing. (Classical Big Bang) Simple random physics caused it.
3. It started from some outside force. (Could be Brane theory with the outside force being the branes collapsing together, could be a black hole formed in another universe). Could this involve intelligence in another "universe?" Theoretically.

Each of these theories has it's own unanswerable issues/questions/problems. I don't think there's anything wrong with speculating on it, so long as the understanding that we probably never find a way to test any particular theory (or even if we could find some way, probably not enough to reach any level of certainty).

Gravity's weird values might be explained by leaking into other universes or across branes. But I suspect we will never prove it. We could be the inside of a black hole, but I suspect we will never prove it.

But at not crazy thought experiments? No problem IMO.

[edhopper]

49. None of those options

need an intelligence for them to happen. That is why it is an extra layer.

[qazplm135]

52. I think people forget

the "all other things being equal" part of Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor does not say merely "no extra layers." And it says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, not always.

I think option one more or less excises any possibility of an intelligence behind it.

I think option three requires a pretty fanciful argument to even speculate about an intelligence behind it.

I think option two is the idea of a "hierarchy" of universes (our universe formed/branched off from a "higher" universe).
And there I think there's some grounds for rational thoughts on the possibility.
Again, it's not necessarily even science since it's probably never going to be falsifiable, but it's not necessarily silly nonsense either.

[Voltaire2]

54. None of them explain the origin, they just add a speculative

layer of complexity.

[qazplm135]

55. No depending on the theory

They necessarily flow.

If we determine the universe is a black hole in a higher universe it raises the question of how was that black hole created and that can include artificially.

It also then raises ethical questions about whether we should create artificial black holes.

Now I highly doubt we will ever determine how the universe was created beyond big bang or brane theories or whatnot. Certainly probably no way to confirm the we are in a black hole theory.

But I don't agree it "needlessly" adds a layer of complexity. I think, depending on the theory (a cyclical or probably a brane theory doesn't realistically implicate an intelligence), it's a natural implication.

[NeoGreen]

3. Neither...

...god does not exist in reality as anything more than a concept.

And a decidedly unproven concept at that.

[pretzel4gore]

4. Beyond finding out...

St Paul said that somewhere!... . There are more stars in the sky then grains o sand on earth. ..iow the universe is too big to comprehend...maybe the universe is god

[LakeArenal]

14. People are comprehending the universe everyday.

Comprehension of space is science.
Certainly not all the answers are known but the universe is understandable, we just have to figure out all the rules.

[pretzel4gore]

27. We still can't square the circle !.

Because. 'PI' is 3.14 etc w/out a final value, mankind can't give area of a circle, only approximate! And , when did time begin? Fact is the size of universe its age and its ultimate fate are ...Einstein had no more answer then...trump! And fartin is the DDonald's only area of expertise!
😄

[uriel1972]

31. Gosh...squaring the circle....

Squaring the circle was and perhaps still is the domain of alchemists and other such fancies.
That we haven't squared the circle is not a reason to doubt science... it is a reason to doubt alchemists.

As to the age and it's fate we are learning, which is perhaps more than some people are capable of.

[pretzel4gore]

36. Perpetual motion machines!

Is this what you're suggestng? My point is that there are THINGS that aren't know- able, no matter how genius we be....i recall reading the great astronomer (wilson?) who summarized the theories of how the solar system came to be- the fact is they just don't know! And my own discovery that when total eclipse of the sun, the moon EXACTLY same size as sun! Perfect fit! Explain that if you can....

[uriel1972]

37. The perfect fit is an illusion and a temporary one...

due to the distance between the earth, moon and sun. It will in the future and was in the past, not a perfect fit.
There are things we do not know.. that does not mean we will not know them.

[edhopper]

40. that is not even remotely true

we don't know ..yet, because we have several good working theories that need more data to confirm one over the other. There is nothing unknowable about it. We didn't have a complete working understanding of Evolution until we discovered DNA.

Some of your posts sound like you are getting things from answersingenisis.

[pretzel4gore]

46. The mystery...it's vaster then the universe

My contention is that there's too much, and guys like Newton, Einstein, Bohrs etc were as hapless as children trying to explain it. How many grains/ sand are there on earth? Yet a star is...some stars are bigger then our solar system!
And 'black holes'...they so intense light is ate up ...what about.'dark matter' or dark energy? Iow the mystery maybe beyond our intellects- even using super computers and ...AI! Time is so vast there could be millions of intelligence /life forces yet ....impossible to contact, millions of light yrs seperating them. God is to humanity what Hubble telescope is to, say a flea!

[edhopper]

50. I don't agree with your

characterization of our ignorance and none of what you do say logically leads to the existence of a God.

[uriel1972]

58. Would you care to define your God...

If God is to us as the Hubble Telescope is to a Flea, it makes God just a complex being still bound by the physical laws of the universe. This is far from the image of God as an all knowing, all powerful transcendental being as popularly imaged.

I think you ought to consider the consequences of what you say, perhaps.

[MineralMan]

41. You discovered the information about the eclipse?

Really? As someone pointed out, your information about the moon's apparent size during an eclipse is incorrect.

It's true that pi is an irrational number. However, we do know the area of a circle. Pi is part of the answer. It is a number. That we know it is an irrational number is interesting, but doesn't really affect our use of pi. The Bible says the value of pi is 3. We know its value in much more detail, now. Whatever level of precision you might possibly need in calculating that area or the circumference of a circle is available. That it is an irrational number is not the issue. It is a standard constant. The square root of 2 is also an irrational number. We use it all the time.

We even use the square root of -1, which is an imaginary number. It explains a pantload of things.

[Mariana]

44. The moon is not exactly the same size as the sun.

The sun's diameter is roughly 864,337 miles. That of the moon is about 2,159 miles. Not the same.

The moon is gradually moving away from the earth. This is not a hypothesis, it has been measured by bouncing lasers off reflectors placed on the moon by astronauts. Right now, the two bodies appear to be the same size in the sky, and moon just about perfectly covers the sun during an eclipse. Once upon a time, the moon looked bigger than the sun, because it was closer to the earth. Sometime in the future, the moon won't cover the entire sun. It will be further away and so will appear to be smaller. There will be no more total eclipses.

We happen to live during the time that the moon and the sun appear to be the same size in the sky, rather than during the time before or the time after. That's my explanation. What is your explanation?

[Voltaire2]

72. Your head is very small and I can crush it between my fingers.

[Mariana]

73. Precisely. nt.

[qazplm135]

48. can't tell if being serious

first of all the moon isn't a perfect fit, that's why we have a circle around the moon during an eclipse.

second the moon was closer to us in the past, thus no perfect fit back then.

third, the moon will be further away in the future and will not cover up the whole sun ever again after a certain point.

We have pretty solid ideas of solar system formation. We watch them happen in real time out there in the galaxy.
Do we have it all on lock? No, of course not.

[FiveGoodMen]

79. Anything we don't know right now is surely magic, then.

[Mariana]

18. He did? Would you provide a reference, please? Thanks in advance. nt.

[pretzel4gore]

25. Romans 11:33 KJV

You can google it....

[Mariana]

29. Thank you.

I had some difficulty finding it because I was searching for Paul's opinion about the universe, or creation - I tried various search terms. In this verse, Paul is talking about some of God's personality traits.

Romans 11 : 33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Paul sure was right about that! God's ways, judgments, wisdom and knowledge are so deep and unfathomable that we have thousands of denominations of Christianity, each convinced that they alone have figured it out, and that everyone else is wrong.

[global1]

5. The Big Bang Is In The Last Season.....

Only Young Sheldon can help us now.

[Voltaire2]

23. Best answer.

[FiveGoodMen]

80. He'll need his sister with him

Missy has all the empathy that Sheldon is missing (particularly if you saw this week's episode).

[DetlefK]

6. The question is perhaps the biggest philosophical rubbish I have ever heard.

The Big Bang and God belong to two different philosophical concepts which not only have nothing whatsoever in common but cannot be reconciled. It is philosophically impossible to mix religion and science.

It is beyond ridiculous to look at God from the point of view of the Big Bang or to look at the Big Bang from the point of view of God.

[LakeArenal]

15. Well said.

[zipplewrath]

77. Science doesn't go back that far

Quite honestly, science as it approaches the Bang, doesn't really know much. Most theories of the Bang don't really understand what was before the bang. There is rarely any real conflict because since we don't really know any knowledge prior to the bang, almost anything is possible. I will also point out that except for astrophysicist, there is very little reason to care. We are here, we are, what do we choose to do?

[DetlefK]

82. This is not about the Big Bang. It is about science and religion as concepts.

Science and religion each have their own philosophical foundations, their own logic, their own definitions what existence means, what reality means. Science and religion disagree at these fundamental levels already.

Mixing God and the Big Bang is like the question "What is colder: Outside or at night?"

[zipplewrath]

83. They occasionally intersect

both attempt to address things like the creation of the universe. Religion is currently willing to go before the bang and discuss the bangs potential origins. Science is struggling to even get back TO the bang, much less prior to it,.

[DetlefK]

84. They talk about the same topic, but don't even share the same language.

Here's science talking about how space-time came to be.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077915004221

Science is based on cartesian, mechanistic philosophy.
Religion is based on animistic philosophy.
They. Can. Not. Mix.



Example:
"You throw an object against the wall."
Use religion to figure out what happens next.

[zipplewrath]

85. But they do conflict

The conflict in part is because they don't share the same language.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

7. "Genesis says"

Who wrote those lines in what is known as Genesis? And how did they come to be written? Did "God" provide any documentation to the author(s)?

Or is that who "created" "God"?

[MineralMan]

8. Looks like that God is about to be hoist by his own petard.

He is about to learn one of the laws of Physics.

[Permanut]

9. I'd love to have been there with a camera..

That kind of defies the laws of physics, though. Maybe I can come back for the next one.

[Pope George Ringo II]

10. If history repeats itself, I am so getting a dinosaur.

[Mariana]

19. Oh, what fun! What kind will you get? nt

[Pope George Ringo II]

22. One of the cute ones. Like in Jurassic Park.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. If it was me, I'd probably get a vegetarian one.

[elleng]

16. Chicken/Egg

It's NATURE.

[woofless]

21. No.

[WhiteTara]

26. No Mind No Buddha

No Buddha No Mind

[keithbvadu2]

33. It's a complex question

[MineralMan]

42. LOL!

Indeed.

[TwistOneUp]

51. The big bang created the environment ...

Last edited Mon Oct 15, 2018, 06:49 PM - Edit history (1)

In which our creation could occur.

Everything else is speculation. And I can assure you that all of your speculation about sky gods and the like, to paraphrase Grace Slick, "doesn't mean shit to a tree".

[uriel1972]

53. Uh "Creation"?

do you mean actual honest to goodness "Creation" or a metaphor for our evolution?

[TwistOneUp]

56. Creation, evolution, mutation, whatev.

When someone asks a question that makes the querier seem to be a pedant, I end the conversation. Bye!

[uriel1972]

57. It's not about pedantry...

Here in this space "Creation" is an important word and words matter. Creation implies a creator, I was inquiring into whether you were saying the big bang made a space into which something (God, whatever) made us.

I wasn't sure from the context whether you meant an actual something made us or a naturalistic origin. I was not trying to be picky or make you look foolish or whatever. I was actually unsure of your meaning and wished to clarify it.

It's a shame you seem so quick to dismiss others.

Cheers
Uriel

[gtar100]

59. How about this...God is the Big Bang.

Blew himself up into tiny pieces and now he's playing with the resulting materials in time and space from the inside out. The story goes that God got so bored with being all-knowing and omniscient that he gathered up all that was known (which is a lot when you know everything) into one point and in one hell of a primal scream broke up into as many pieces as he could.

[edhopper]

60. And what?

became the five singularities controlled by the Celestials that eventually became the gems that Thanos used to remove half the beings in the Universe?

I mean if we are just making shit up....

[MineralMan]

61. See how easy it is?

Anyone can make up a creation myth. Humans have been doing it for thousands of years.

[edhopper]

62. Easy?

Jack Kirby and Jim Starlin worked very hard creating those myths.

[MineralMan]

63. I don't know. I came up with the Cherry Bomb creation in just minutes.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218295592

Ch-ch-ch-Cherry Bomb!

[edhopper]

65. But the problem with your myth is

Where did the cherry bomb come from?

[MineralMan]

67. That's the least of the problems.

Where did the space that deity was in come from? Where did the deity come from? All creation myths have those problems. Where is the "Creator" standing when it creates the universe? Was the Cherry Bomb a singular object? WTAF?

The only possible answer is: "It's turtles all the way down."

Maybe there's a "meta-creator" or a whole line-up of them. Who knows?

[edhopper]

68. But this myth starts with six singularities

No need for pre-existing creator.

As for the singularities, turtles might be involved.

[MineralMan]

69. That's just their opinion, you know.

It's not a real religion, I mean with a scripture and everything that is thousands of years old. Just opinion, see...

Besides, where are Joan Jett and Cherie Currie in that theory?

[edhopper]

70. The mythology that is

Marvel Comics is much less self-contradictory than almost any religion.

As for the Runaways:

[MineralMan]

71. Too cool!

Really!

The Original Jail-Bait Girl Band! I think Cherie was 15 when they recorded that.

[qazplm135]

75. I don't know

Captain America's power levels seem to fluctuate wildly depending on plot needs. He can stand up (even if briefly) to Thanos who kicked the living snot out of Hulk but gets hurt rather easily in the first Avengers showdown in NYC (he's bleeding pretty badly by the end of it).

And Hawkeye has what, 1000 arrows in his quiver??

[edhopper]

76. Didn't say there weren't contradictions

just a lot less than most religions.

[qazplm135]

78. Man

the sense of humor level in this forum is enough to make fictional Jesus weep.

[edhopper]

81. I thi9nk we are all

discussing this tongue in cheek.

Perhaps emojis are needed.

[gtar100]

64. It's not made up, man. It's the real deal.

Now making shit up...that's some amazing prose you got started there. How do you explain five singularities? I think you're mistaking them for the quintupularities, the points that define the sacred pentagram (you clever devil). And was this removal from the universe by Thanos an act of mercy or vengence or was it an experiment with the gems gone horribly wrong? And where did all the beings go if they were removed from the universe? Is anyone trying to get them back?

[edhopper]

66. Answers coming

next May.

[Bretton Garcia]

74. Soph asks good, serious questions

Like what is the origin of the universe. And then religion.

In my view, the fact that the study of nature, science, has been so successful, "fruit"ful, suggests that the innermost character of the universe, from start to finish, is best described by Science; and not by supernaturalistic religion.

This means that nature comes before God.

This, in spite of the theological/philosophical argument that there must be a cause of nature; which must itself not be natural. Which begs the question of where this supernatural cause itself came from.