6 ms·

"The Big Bang" is just as hand-wavy as "God." It's still belief in a set of laws that govern the universe with no explanation for the origin of these rules othe

by s_q_b 10y ago

"The Big Bang" is just as hand-wavy as "God." It's still belief in a set of laws that govern the universe with no explanation for the origin of these rules other than no where. Call it what you want: God, the Trinity, Allah, Jupiter, Zeus, the "Big Bang." They're all the same concept. Man seems to crave an answer to the question posed by what Aristotle called the "prime mover," the force that set all other events in motion. Unfortunately,the universe isn't very good at explaining what happened before it existed.

electic 10y ago
It isn't. It is a theory. There are many theories of what the universe is and how it started. So far, like all theories, it is not absolute fact. But for those that believe in God, and are devout, God is absolute.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  No. In scientific discourse a "theory" is a framework of ideas that aligns with existing known facts, and can be used to make future predictions. To the extent that additional facts fit a theory, that theory becomes stronger or more established. This is because the additional evidence makes the theory more likely to be true. The most powerful evidence in favor of a theory is when it accurately and precisely predicts future events. The Big Bang is a very strongly established scientific theory. For example, the cosmic microwave background radiation is exactly where the theory says it should be. As for your remarks about religion... Religion is a serious topic. It involves dimensions of human interaction, discussion, and philosophy. It is far more complex than your reductionist comment. Belief in a creator God is far more than binary, and many great scientists and theologians have struggled with these very issues, and no one yet has an entirely satisfactory answer. I can, however, confidently say that, unless God has a very very strange sense of humor, the Big Bang occurred, the Earth slowly formed over billions of years, life arose from the primordial chemical environment, first as a single celled organisms, and eventually leading to animals, mammals, primates, and us.
rbx 10y ago
The difference is how we arrived at the realisation. Big Bang is by scientific method, looking to be improved or proven wrong. And God is through stories that somebody just made up.
- prewett 10y ago
  The Big Bang scientific theory is how it happened. God, Hawking's quantum fluctuations in the metaverse, etc. is what caused it. They are completely unrelated. Also, science has nothing to say (no falsifiable theory) about what caused the Big Bang, unless we find some way of observing outside the universe. The argument by Judaism/Christianity/Islam is that an entity exists outside of the universe (God) and has communicated with us, and said entity asserts to having made the universe. Presumably via the Big Bang. The stories might be made up, but then again, it is possible that some of them might be true. However, unless God acts consistently over repeated observations (unlikely), you will have to use a different way of evaluating truth than science.
x5n1 10y ago
People don't really have a problem with God created it as much as they do with all the things that go along with that statement and the social system and the distributions of power that go along with a God. That's ultimately the problem. When you say big bang you are giving social power to scientists, who are subject matter experts which will say little more than that about their domain. When you say God then you give priests power to preside over many aspects of life, and we know their heads are often filled with very bad ideas.
J-dawg 10y ago
If we consider the simulation hypothesis, maybe the Big Bang is just the moment when the great cosmic AWS instance was spun up.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  I wonder if the hypervisor just restarts the universe when the current instance reaches heat death.
roywiggins 10y ago
> "The Big Bang" is just as hand-wavy as "God." No, it isn't. The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about a prime mover. The Big Bang theory is simply: once, in the past, the universe was very dense and extremely hot. Ever since then, it's been getting less dense and less hot. Further back, there's a singularity, which we can't reason well about because our math stops giving answers that seem physical (what does infinite density even mean?). The Big Bang says nothing about why or how the universe got to be so hot and dense a finite time ago. Was there a previous "Big Crunch"? Was there a quantum soupy bulk? Eternal inflation? The Big Bang theory doesn't care. It just describes what we think the early universe looked like.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  What was the event that led the singularity to begin to expand?
  - Sammi 10y ago
    As roywiggins said: "Further back, there's a singularity, which we can't reason well about because our math stops giving answers that seem physical" I sense that with your what you're trying to find a why. There is no why. There is only what. Science and math do not give meaning or intent to the universe. They just describe it. You are free to put intent or meaning into it, but that is you doing it.
    - majewsky 10y ago
      > I sense that with your what you're trying to find a why. There is no why. A textbook case of the Münchhausen Trilemma.
    - s_q_b 10y ago
      I am not looking for an answer. I just suspect the answer is "It's not currently known." And that's fine. By definition, the answer is probably unknowable. But that event did occur, and everything you see around you is a result of it. I must respectfully disagree with regard to the role of the question "Why?" in the scientific method. "Why" is very much a core part of science. Science almost always begins with the question of "Why?" Why is the sky blue? Why does an apple drop to the Earth? Why doesn't the movement of the Earth through the Ether deflect light? Why is there a spike in the cosmic microwave background radiation 2.725 Kelvin? Why are the laws of physics the way they are, instead of some completely different set of laws? Most importantly, what caused the universe expand rapidly from a single point? What was that event? This is the question I've posed. So far I've seen three answers: >>1. The math stops giving us answers that seem physical. >>2. That question can't be answered because it happened before the existence of the universe. >>3. That's not science because it's not falsifiable. --------------- To answer each of these in turn: 1. Math is not divine. (Gasp!) It is merely a human tool for the communication of ideas. "The math breaks down" usually means one of three things: >>a. It would be far easier to explain this with a more precise and efficient language for communicating these ideas. Can we switch to mathematics to discuss? >>b. The mathematics makes sense logically, and renders sound predictions, but doesn't correspond to any human experience of the physical world, so it can't be explained. >>c. I don't know, but that's what my [teacher, professor, Feynman's ghost] told me. In the case of (a.), sure, no problem. We're a fairly mathematical bunch around here. With regard to (b.), let's say I was constructing a theory of the universe in very precise German. Then one day, my German model started giving descriptions that didn't seem physical, I would assume the bug was in my German. If your mathematics stop giving answers that seem physical, maybe it's the math that's off, not the universe. So the question remains: what caused the universe to expand to its current size from a single point? What was that event? If you can't answer, or believe the answer to be extant but unknowable, then we're back to square one. 2. Math is hard, and while not all of us are Physics PhDs, this isn't exactly a lay audience either, so do your best to explain in English. Physicists use analogies all the time. Einstein was famous for his thought experiments, which communicated tremendously complex ideas with analogies so simple and elegant that someone with less than a secondary school education could grasp them. Einstein even wrote Relativity: The Special and General Theory as a "popular" science text, so that as many scientists in as many fields as possible could understand the implications of his theories. As has often been said on HN, "if you can't explain it, you probably don't really understand it." 3. What is your evidence that all possible hypotheses about the cause of the expansion of the universal singularity cannot be falsified? ---- It seems to me that you want to have an existential fight over the meaning of life, wherein mighty Physics slays the godly believer in the name of truth, justice, and the scientific method. All I want is an answer to a single simple physical question: What caused this singularity to suddenly expand?
wkz 10y ago
First, I wouldn't call observing the red light shift, figuring out how supernovas created heavier elements and so on quite as hand-wavy as "I read it in this book I found". Second, and most important, I'm fine with people using the label "God" if that makes sense to them. It's when people claim to know the mind of this god and tell me how to live that I draw the line. In other words, most religious people will argue against atheists as if they where deists, when in fact most are theists.
gonvaled 10y ago
The Big Bang is a scientific theory which follows (explains) what we know about the world. It is a testable and falsifiable theory. Science does not claim to know what happened before the Big Bang, and does not even claim that the Big Bang is the only explanation: it is just a plausible enough theory that deserves consideration. And most importantly: the second that some experiment or observation contradicts the Big Bang theory, science will happily (literally) drop it. Which is not even remotely the same for religion: the second that a certain religious fact will be contradicted by experiments, religion will change its message to claim the same basic ideas, with a new discourse. EDIT: Regarding my last paragraph, I was suggesting that religion will adapt its discourse as soon as new knowledge is acquired by the race, but this obviously not the case. They more accurately follow the "fight, embrace and extend" principle, so it really takes them some time to accept new knowledge and adapt their discourse.
6nf 10y ago
The difference is that God has the power to interfere with the universe after the moment of creation. The big bang can not.

by s_q_b 10y ago

electic 10y ago

It isn't. It is a theory. There are many theories of what the universe is and how it started. So far, like all theories, it is not absolute fact. But for those that believe in God, and are devout, God is absolute.

s_q_b 10y ago
No. In scientific discourse a "theory" is a framework of ideas that aligns with existing known facts, and can be used to make future predictions. To the extent that additional facts fit a theory, that theory becomes stronger or more established. This is because the additional evidence makes the theory more likely to be true. The most powerful evidence in favor of a theory is when it accurately and precisely predicts future events. The Big Bang is a very strongly established scientific theory. For example, the cosmic microwave background radiation is exactly where the theory says it should be. As for your remarks about religion... Religion is a serious topic. It involves dimensions of human interaction, discussion, and philosophy. It is far more complex than your reductionist comment. Belief in a creator God is far more than binary, and many great scientists and theologians have struggled with these very issues, and no one yet has an entirely satisfactory answer. I can, however, confidently say that, unless God has a very very strange sense of humor, the Big Bang occurred, the Earth slowly formed over billions of years, life arose from the primordial chemical environment, first as a single celled organisms, and eventually leading to animals, mammals, primates, and us.

rbx 10y ago

The difference is how we arrived at the realisation. Big Bang is by scientific method, looking to be improved or proven wrong. And God is through stories that somebody just made up.

prewett 10y ago
The Big Bang scientific theory is how it happened. God, Hawking's quantum fluctuations in the metaverse, etc. is what caused it. They are completely unrelated. Also, science has nothing to say (no falsifiable theory) about what caused the Big Bang, unless we find some way of observing outside the universe. The argument by Judaism/Christianity/Islam is that an entity exists outside of the universe (God) and has communicated with us, and said entity asserts to having made the universe. Presumably via the Big Bang. The stories might be made up, but then again, it is possible that some of them might be true. However, unless God acts consistently over repeated observations (unlikely), you will have to use a different way of evaluating truth than science.

x5n1 10y ago

People don't really have a problem with God created it as much as they do with all the things that go along with that statement and the social system and the distributions of power that go along with a God. That's ultimately the problem. When you say big bang you are giving social power to scientists, who are subject matter experts which will say little more than that about their domain. When you say God then you give priests power to preside over many aspects of life, and we know their heads are often filled with very bad ideas.

J-dawg 10y ago

If we consider the simulation hypothesis, maybe the Big Bang is just the moment when the great cosmic AWS instance was spun up.

s_q_b 10y ago
I wonder if the hypervisor just restarts the universe when the current instance reaches heat death.

roywiggins 10y ago

> "The Big Bang" is just as hand-wavy as "God." No, it isn't. The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about a prime mover. The Big Bang theory is simply: once, in the past, the universe was very dense and extremely hot. Ever since then, it's been getting less dense and less hot. Further back, there's a singularity, which we can't reason well about because our math stops giving answers that seem physical (what does infinite density even mean?). The Big Bang says nothing about why or how the universe got to be so hot and dense a finite time ago. Was there a previous "Big Crunch"? Was there a quantum soupy bulk? Eternal inflation? The Big Bang theory doesn't care. It just describes what we think the early universe looked like.

s_q_b 10y ago
What was the event that led the singularity to begin to expand?
- Sammi 10y ago
  As roywiggins said: "Further back, there's a singularity, which we can't reason well about because our math stops giving answers that seem physical" I sense that with your what you're trying to find a why. There is no why. There is only what. Science and math do not give meaning or intent to the universe. They just describe it. You are free to put intent or meaning into it, but that is you doing it.
  - majewsky 10y ago
    > I sense that with your what you're trying to find a why. There is no why. A textbook case of the Münchhausen Trilemma.
  - s_q_b 10y ago
    I am not looking for an answer. I just suspect the answer is "It's not currently known." And that's fine. By definition, the answer is probably unknowable. But that event did occur, and everything you see around you is a result of it. I must respectfully disagree with regard to the role of the question "Why?" in the scientific method. "Why" is very much a core part of science. Science almost always begins with the question of "Why?" Why is the sky blue? Why does an apple drop to the Earth? Why doesn't the movement of the Earth through the Ether deflect light? Why is there a spike in the cosmic microwave background radiation 2.725 Kelvin? Why are the laws of physics the way they are, instead of some completely different set of laws? Most importantly, what caused the universe expand rapidly from a single point? What was that event? This is the question I've posed. So far I've seen three answers: >>1. The math stops giving us answers that seem physical. >>2. That question can't be answered because it happened before the existence of the universe. >>3. That's not science because it's not falsifiable. --------------- To answer each of these in turn: 1. Math is not divine. (Gasp!) It is merely a human tool for the communication of ideas. "The math breaks down" usually means one of three things: >>a. It would be far easier to explain this with a more precise and efficient language for communicating these ideas. Can we switch to mathematics to discuss? >>b. The mathematics makes sense logically, and renders sound predictions, but doesn't correspond to any human experience of the physical world, so it can't be explained. >>c. I don't know, but that's what my [teacher, professor, Feynman's ghost] told me. In the case of (a.), sure, no problem. We're a fairly mathematical bunch around here. With regard to (b.), let's say I was constructing a theory of the universe in very precise German. Then one day, my German model started giving descriptions that didn't seem physical, I would assume the bug was in my German. If your mathematics stop giving answers that seem physical, maybe it's the math that's off, not the universe. So the question remains: what caused the universe to expand to its current size from a single point? What was that event? If you can't answer, or believe the answer to be extant but unknowable, then we're back to square one. 2. Math is hard, and while not all of us are Physics PhDs, this isn't exactly a lay audience either, so do your best to explain in English. Physicists use analogies all the time. Einstein was famous for his thought experiments, which communicated tremendously complex ideas with analogies so simple and elegant that someone with less than a secondary school education could grasp them. Einstein even wrote Relativity: The Special and General Theory as a "popular" science text, so that as many scientists in as many fields as possible could understand the implications of his theories. As has often been said on HN, "if you can't explain it, you probably don't really understand it." 3. What is your evidence that all possible hypotheses about the cause of the expansion of the universal singularity cannot be falsified? ---- It seems to me that you want to have an existential fight over the meaning of life, wherein mighty Physics slays the godly believer in the name of truth, justice, and the scientific method. All I want is an answer to a single simple physical question: What caused this singularity to suddenly expand?

wkz 10y ago

First, I wouldn't call observing the red light shift, figuring out how supernovas created heavier elements and so on quite as hand-wavy as "I read it in this book I found". Second, and most important, I'm fine with people using the label "God" if that makes sense to them. It's when people claim to know the mind of this god and tell me how to live that I draw the line. In other words, most religious people will argue against atheists as if they where deists, when in fact most are theists.

gonvaled 10y ago

The Big Bang is a scientific theory which follows (explains) what we know about the world. It is a testable and falsifiable theory. Science does not claim to know what happened before the Big Bang, and does not even claim that the Big Bang is the only explanation: it is just a plausible enough theory that deserves consideration. And most importantly: the second that some experiment or observation contradicts the Big Bang theory, science will happily (literally) drop it. Which is not even remotely the same for religion: the second that a certain religious fact will be contradicted by experiments, religion will change its message to claim the same basic ideas, with a new discourse. EDIT: Regarding my last paragraph, I was suggesting that religion will adapt its discourse as soon as new knowledge is acquired by the race, but this obviously not the case. They more accurately follow the "fight, embrace and extend" principle, so it really takes them some time to accept new knowledge and adapt their discourse.

6nf 10y ago

The difference is that God has the power to interfere with the universe after the moment of creation. The big bang can not.