These quotes are from the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang. I know Wikipedia is not an authoritative source so feel free to check the references given if you think the article distorts the topic (I think it’s a fair presentation).

First the basic background for those who may be unfamiliar with it:

“The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the young Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, this original state existed approximately 13.7 billion years ago,[ which is considered the age of the Universe and the time the Big Bang occurred. After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles. It would take thousands of years for some of these particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons) to combine and form atoms, the building blocks of matter. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Eventually, clouds of hydrogen would coalesce through gravity to form stars, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model. Georges Lemaître first proposed what would become the Big Bang theory in what he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom." Over time, scientists would build on his initial ideas to form the modern synthesis. The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity and isotropy of space). The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity”

Religious interpretations:

“The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has always carried theological and philosophical implications, most notably, the concept of creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing"). In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory. This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest. Pope Pius XII declared, at the November 22, 1951 opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that the Big Bang theory accorded with the Catholic concept of creation. Conservative Protestant Christian denominations have also welcomed the Big Bang theory as supporting a historical interpretation of the doctrine of creation.”


And for those who have read Hawking’s ‘The Grand Design’ which argues that the universe is not in need of a creator and essentially creates itself through gravity, you may want to also read ‘God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?’ by Oxford mathematician John Lennox. Lennox points out some of the philosophical and logical problems with Hawking’s book. Stephen Hawking is an outstanding physicist, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that he is a good philosopher and in spite what he claims philosophy is not dead. We all have and use philosophical concepts even if they are often implicit and unacknowledged.

The religious implications potential is infinitesimal.

All you've really said (mostly by implication) about the religious potential is:

1. the vague descriptions of the bible creation story can fit the big bang in some contorted way. (I'm sure the same can be said of the koran, the bhagavad gita and even the pearl of great price.)

2. how the big bang happened is a mystery, and so the potential is there for "god" to explain it. But you can't really define god in a way that leaves us with workable knowledge.

Let me ask you blackhole: does your idea of god and religion require faith? You seem hooked on the idea that evidence is a good thing. Most religions frown on choosing evidence over faith. Are you willing to let the facts take you wherever they go? Or is there a boundary of faith which facts cannot cross into?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2011 11:52AM by Jesus Smith.

So, a little disclaimer here about this John Lennox.

He's associated with Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. From their site:

"Our primary focus is evangelism (outreach). Our itinerant team members, Michael Ramsden and Amy Orr-Ewing, together with our team of associate speakers, travel around the UK, Europe and beyond, giving evangelistic and apologetic talks in a number of settings including university missions, church guest services, public question and answer forums, and at various conferences. Over the years, the trust has grown in its evangelistic scope, working with a wide range of churches, institutions and universities. We usually work in partnership, responding to invitations from others, knowing that there is a local presence to continue where we have left off."

OK, fair enough. He's got some nice credentials. Let's look at his book.

Here's what his book "God's Undertaker" is about:

"This book evaluates the evidence of modern science in relation to the debate between the atheistic and theistic interpretations of the universe, and provides a fresh basis for discussion. The book has grown out of the author’s lengthy experience of lecturing and debating on this subject in the UK, USA, Germany and Russia, and has been written in response to endless requests for the argumentation in written form. Chapters include: 1-War of the worldviews, 2-The scope and limits of science, 3-Gods, gaps and goblins, 4-Designer universe, 5-Designer biosphere, 6-The nature and scope of evolution, 7-The origin of life, 8-The genetic code and its origin, 9-Matters of information, 10-Taming chance without intelligence, 11-The origin of information."

This summary resembles the book by Francis Collins, who basically as a biologist argues for intelligent design because it's so amazing. But when you look for the evidence, there is none other than "it's so amazing."

When someone aligns themselves with an apologetic evangelic group as a speaker, the problem is that they are saying they have a preconceived conclusion.

The big bang theory seems to have been developed by RC approved scientists, to support RC religious beliefs.

Big bang=religion wrapped up in science jargon.

Wait, that's not what you meant?

Never mind, then.

Beat me to it. So do you think Sheldon is ever going to get over his GA level of sexual self repression?

You think the Sheldon character is even capable of that?

We need to talk a little about space-time.

The best model that we have for the universe is that it's four dimensional. There are the three 'physical dimensions' (up/down, left/right, front/back) plus time.

Don't worry about trying to visulize a four dimensional space. What I'm about to say is equally true for 3 dimension, or 4 dimensions, or a whole bunch more.

When people think about the big bang most people imagine that there was a time 'before' the big bang.

Imagine that the 'shape' of the universe is like the shape of the Earth.

Asking 'what happened 3 seconds before the big bang' is just like asking 'where is 3 miles north of the north pole'.

There is no, '3 miles north of the north pole'. That coordinate simply does not exist. Nor does the space-time coordiante (x, y, z, -3)

From the point of view of a human, we experience time as flowing in one direction. But that's our experience of time. It doesn't mean that there was a time 'before zero'. A time before zero simply doesn't exist in our example.

If there was no time before t-zero then it's meaningless to imagine some creature 'creating' the universe.