Q: Where does all the matter in the universe come from?
A: Well, this is easy. We don't know. There are different theories but unfortunately we cannot test them as we can't travel back to the moment of the Big Bang or to the time before the Big Bang, given that there was most likely no "where" and "when" prior to the Big Bang itself. The general consensus is that the Big Bang did not happen inside our universe, but that it created it, giving birth to space - and consequently time - itself. Basically, asking what was before the Big Bang is not only irrelevant but also makes little sense, as there was no before and the knowledge of it would in no way mutilate the power of the theory to explain how the universe came to be or the power of all physical theories to describe how it currently works. Still, if we insist on asking this question, then we should assume an agnostic stance on the origin of the universe while waiting for further discoveries - which, of course, is not the same as to say that we should consider an almighty creator as a possibility.
It's funny. Whenever arguments against the existence of god are given - and no matter how convincing they are - the Creationist reaction is to call everyone arrogant, claiming we should define ourselves at least agnostic about it. But then, when the scientific community admits not to have all the answers yet and that we should not jump to conclusions while waiting for further study to be carried out, the Creationists are the first to claim that gap for themselves and their deity, whatever it may be. All of a sudden, science's "dunno" becomes in their eyes an admission to ignorance and powerlessness. Double standards only make the Creationists out there laughable, I think.
Ultimately, Creationism will never be an answer as it raises more questions than it answers even assuming, as some Creationists do, that the Big Bang actually happened but that god was behind it. Where was god before the Big Bang? Where is he now? Who created god in the first place? Were the materials used by god to create the universe also created ex nihilo? How is that possible if a singularity arising from nothing is not possible either? Creationism is not scientific and will never be. The notion of god's existence is not falsifiable and requires the existence of a metaphysical power that cannot be tolerated by natural laws unless we strip it of its omniscient and almighty side. God is not the answer to the question.
It's funny. Whenever arguments against the existence of god are given - and no matter how convincing they are - the Creationist reaction is to call everyone arrogant, claiming we should define ourselves at least agnostic about it. But then, when the scientific community admits not to have all the answers yet and that we should not jump to conclusions while waiting for further study to be carried out, the Creationists are the first to claim that gap for themselves and their deity, whatever it may be. All of a sudden, science's "dunno" becomes in their eyes an admission to ignorance and powerlessness. Double standards only make the Creationists out there laughable, I think.
Ultimately, Creationism will never be an answer as it raises more questions than it answers even assuming, as some Creationists do, that the Big Bang actually happened but that god was behind it. Where was god before the Big Bang? Where is he now? Who created god in the first place? Were the materials used by god to create the universe also created ex nihilo? How is that possible if a singularity arising from nothing is not possible either? Creationism is not scientific and will never be. The notion of god's existence is not falsifiable and requires the existence of a metaphysical power that cannot be tolerated by natural laws unless we strip it of its omniscient and almighty side. God is not the answer to the question.
7 comments:
As always, good post. Also, time may be a sort of emergent property that only exists in the macroscopic world, in which case, before there was a macroscopic world, there simply was no time.
"God" definitely does not solve the problem. It only compounds the problem, because now you've added something unnecessary, baseless and non-falsifiable, violated Occam's razor, and have not answered a single question. If you're Christian, your answer is just as stupid as a Muslim's answer, which is just as stupid as any other answer of this sort.
I can't understand why people worry about what was there before the big bang idea.
Human intelligence demands that all things start somewhere and there is a sequence of events that follow.
What if the time has no beginning or end? There is no one that actually knows
when existence started. It is all theory and yet to be proved. When some humans are confronted with these ideas their answer is "God did it". Anything they don't understand "god did it" is the usual answer.
This is the simple answer why there are religions and god myths abounding in our culture.
As time passes people will eventually understand that
time doesn't really matter. They will live the best they can in the present and do what is right for a safe and prosperous future. Learning from the past is also necessary and often not acted upon.
I don't think that Religion and god(s) really have any credibility in deciding our future. That is decided by clear thinking
and good scientific practice.
Aspentroll--
I agree with you, but I wouldn't say that I worry about what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang. I am just curious and enjoy learning about the world. We don't know the answer now, but that isn't to say that we will never know.
Personally, I think that a unified theory that combines quantum mechanics with classical physics may be the key. Classical physics alone cannot help us, because all matter was packed into a tiny nugget, and classical physics works only above the Planck scale. Also, if time does not, in fact, exist and is merely an emergent property, then the question itself will disappear, and we will instead ask how the matter got to be contained in the small nugget, if that is what happened, and how it exploded. From there on in, scientists are already discovering new ideas.
This unified theory may not help either, but by thinking and learning, we may learn something new about this marvelous world.
In the dark if any object is placed it is not visible.
But when a lamp is kept, the object is visible at the same time shadow is visible.
From where this shadow has come?
Similarly this world is (like shadow)an outcome of an Infinite Truth (which we may call God)
Hence this world is dynamic(ever changing) but Infinite Truth (God) which is formless is never changing
and existing for ever.
We are all part of the shadow of Infinite Truth.
Although it looks abstract this is the only Truth nothing else.
If anyone understands this he has achieved the aim of life.
If A can only arise from B (which B may or may not exist) and A has arisen, then there must be B.
A panting can only arise from a painter. A program can only arise from a programmer. A book can only arise from an author. And so on.
Our universe, it is said, came from the big bang. But it is perfectly legitimate to ask why there was a big band in the first place. It is impossible that there should have been a big bang for no reason.
But we need not be agnostic about this reason, in light of the premise at the beginning of this comment post of mine. Let us ask ourselves what could possible have caused the world to be? It cannot have been the universe itself, in part or in whole, for nothing causes itself to begin to be. It must be something outside of the universe then. And what is there that may possibly exist outside of the universe? Nothing material or temporal for all such entities do not "yet" exist since they began to exist only with the universe. So this being, if He or It exists, must be eternal and supernatural. He or It must also be very powerful to create all material reality out of no material whatsoever. Let us call this being “God”. Does God exist? Since the universe has arisen, the only possible cause of the universe, namely God, must also exist. So we know that God (as here defined) exists and created the universe. Since He (or It) is the only possibility then He is the actual explanation.
If a convincing argument against the existence of God were ever given then we all ought to be atheists. But I’ve not seen any heretofore. The best (and pretty much only) argument for atheism is traditionally said to be the problem of evil but this argument is patently fallacious. Loving parents allow there children to suffer pain (e.g. by spanking them when they are bad) so the two-powerful love and pain-are not mutually exclusive. And if that is the best atheism has to offer, I think Christianity is much more tenable.
On the other hand, when science does not know, we Christians do not plug God into the hole (accept, of course, in the misrepresentations of certain skeptical authors). However, a God shapped hole can only be filled with God. So it is not illegitimate to infer God as the explanation when He is the only possible explanation.
Not positing God raises more questions than it answers. How could something happen for no reason. A magician can produce a rabbit out of a hat but there is at least the magician and the hat. On the atheist view, however, all things are produced by absolutely nothing!
Now for Fabio’s questions and some final comments. ‘Before’ the big bang God was in the same ‘place’ He is now. Heaven. Nobody created Him for He is both an eternal and necessary being. Such beings cannot be created. God created all things, which includes the matter that all material entities are made out of. While God created that ex nihilo, the universe was not created out of absolutely nothing. There was God, Who is certainly something, and there was also His omnipotent power. In contrast, a singularity cannot arise from absolutely nothing for absolutely no reason for such an idea is like super magic. The notion of God’s existence is falsifiable. Showing a contradiction in the definition of “God” would falsify His existence. A logical proof may, in theory, some day be discovered which proves God does not exist. If advanced aliens came to Earth and told us they created us and invented religion as part of a science experiment that would, I suppose, prove God does not exist (not very likely of course, but it is possible). So it is very much possible, in principle, that the existence of God could be falsified. I am not sure what scientific law has to do with the purported impossibility of omnipotence and omniscience. The idea you are trying to express, Fabio, may be that those ideas are purportedly self-contradictory. But I do not think they are actually self-contradictory. What is it about them, individually or together, that you think is inconsistent? Finally, again, all the matter in the universe comes from God.
Bye now.
"If A can only arise from B (which B may or may not exist) and A has arisen, then there must be B."
Too bad the first premise is nothing but your assumption. You still haven't proved why that's logically necessary. A painting can only be made by a painter and a book can only be written by an author. We assume those things because we know paintings and we know books, and because we have encountered them many times in our life to the point that we can assume they will not simply arise from nothing. Well, this is the only universe we know and therefore no assumption can be made. Your argument is worthless. As always.
It is only legitimate to ask WHY there was a Big Bang if you assume there HAD to be a why, something you're yet to prove. Again, it's not impossible that the Big Bang happened for no reason, you are simply unable to conceive of it because it goes against your belief and hurts your ego.
There are loving parents who never ever harm their children. Ergo, there are human parents who are better tutors than your loving god. Kiss your argument goodbye. Your god is an ass and far from being the only possible explanation for anything. I've already explained how your god raises more questions than it answers, and you've failed to address the point. I contend that the universe was uncaused and necessary. Now find PROOF to support what you believe in or sod off.
I think that proofs either for or against a god are not so interesting. What I find interesting is that believers and non-believers have very different states of mind. Finding out why that is so is at least scientific... and hopefully answerable.
BTW Fabio, I have added your blog to a new site of mine at
http://aggregatedinfidels.blogspot.com/2008/12/human-mind.html
Anch'io parlo italiano, cosi' che potrei anche aggiungere altri blog italiani. buon lavoro.
Post a Comment