revaelc

In the beginning there was no space, no time, no matter. SUDDENLY there was an explosion..........

These were the first words in a documentary on Channel 4 (UK), shown two or three years ago, called 'the origin of the universe'.

What exploded?

Can someone please explain why something from nothing is easier to believe, or takes less faith to believe than, ''In the beginning GOD created''?

Roller

I believe people will tell you that that was no explosion, but I'm not a cosmologist.

It's quite easy:

Jet Black

sounds sensationalist. were there pretty graphics when the presenter said that? I suppose so.

well remember that the something from nothing argument is a bit of an oddity. we don't know what could have caused the Big Bang, it could have been quantum tunneling (iirc calculations show a non zero probability of stuff happening, even in a 0dim scenario) or ekpyrotic, or logical necessity, or even a deity. God is but one amongst an infinity of possible deities.

Oolon Colluphid

Hmmm. Might I suggest that you get your information from, say, a book or two on cosmology, rather than a half-remembered Channel 4 documentary? Try something like Barrow�s The Origin of the Universe in the rather good �Science Masters� series, which are aimed at the layman. Should be available from your local library. I�m sure some others here can suggest some others. I�d not recommend Hawking as a starting point though. ABHoT is indeed brief -- far too brief, too condensed to take it all in. (Feynman�s �sum over histories� mentioned on one page, and the implications on the next?! How�s any lay person supposed to follow that?!)Insofar as you can call it an explosion, the universe did. Bubbled up out of next-to-nothing, probably a singularity. (And what the next-to-nothing was and where it came from is a hot topic amongst cosmologists.) But it�s not really an explosion, because an explosion has to have something to expand into, and that�s the whole point. Easier to believe? Nope. It requires thought. I suppose it depends on whether you want easy answers, or some approximation of the truth.

But �takes less faith to believe�? It requires no �faith� at all, because it is based on the best evidence we currently have. It is based on reasoning and evidence (and some rather horrible maths ).

Suppose I say I believe the universe was actually sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. How might you find out if that�s right?

Maybe god created using the laws of physics...?

Cheers, Oolon

Herakles

There was no time before the big bang. Time is one of the four dimensions along with the other three space ones. Since these are properties of our universe, talking abouut what happened before the big bang is (to borrow from Hawking) like talking about what is north of the north pole. The cause and effect principle is obviously depndent on time, but if there was no time before the big bang there is no reason to invoke that principle. But even if we assumed cause and effect was a valid argument we are still stuck with asking who created god.

nessa20x

The concept of having a creator of the universe stems from the timeless desire of humans to have all the answers. No science cannot as of yet give us all the answers, but this doesn't mean anyone should go making up some supernatural, untestable creator as an explanation for anything. Why not just accept that right now, that is something science can't explain. It's ok to say "I don't know". It's much better to admit a lack of knowledge than to believe in something completely unbacked by evidence. Leaving the origin of the universe (whether it be supernatural or not) open for speculation, theory, and the search for evidence is much better than closing off your mind and simply saying goddidit and lets not apply science to the question.

variant 13

That is still an assumption, a valid one, but an assumption none the less.

rlogan

I think this is looking at the problem backwards.

If the universe is expanding as time moves "forward", then it was contracting as we move "backward" in time.

Consider in the limit, as contraction approaches this "singularity".

1) How shall we refer to this if we wish to call it "the beginning"?
answer: Big Bang.

2) Was there something "preceeding" this singularity?
answer: provided on request for $500

Cashier's checks, Money order or pay-pal accepted.

Oolon Colluphid

Sorry, don't understand. Which is the assumption?

Cheers, Oolon

Jet Black

probably the assumption that our model is actually valid back then.