What do non-Christians believe about where the matter in the big bang came from?

[Sputterduck]

I'm curious. When debating various creation topics the big bang theory often comes up as the beginning of everything. Where do people believe the condensed matter came from?

[Rosie_0801]

I don't really believe much about it. I suppose it must have been lurking about because somethings generally don't appear out of nowhere. What difference does it make how the universe began? The important bit is that it did. Maybe the Big Bang wasn't the start of everything, maybe it was just the first thing that was worth writing home about.

 

Basically, those details are in the "too hard" basket, and knowing the answers for sure wouldn't change how I live my life so I concentrate on other, more important things, like learning to knit and what to make for dinner.

 

Rosie

[AK_Mom4]

To quote Douglas Adams:

"The Jatravartid people, however, believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. "

 

This seems to be as likely a theory as any I've heard.

[Chris in VA]

Some members of my family believe it was always there.

[LaxMom]

I think the general belief is that the question hasn't been answered yet.

[chiguirre]

I love reading about science and subscribe to Discover. There's a hypothesis that there are actually multiverses. Our universe is only one of many, and they may interact (that may be why gravity is such an odd force and so hard to tie to the others in a GUT). This is pretty far out in the mind-bending realms of particle physics, but it's very interesting stuff.

 

ETA: Our universe may eventually contract, which would lead to a new Big Bang.

[Tarreymere]

In our house we think it is really cool that we haven't figured it out yet and we avidly follow developments in science in that field and many others.

[Lady Florida.]

In our house we think it is really cool that we haven't figured it out yet and we avidly follow developments in science in that field and many others.

 

 

Yes, this.

[WishboneDawn]

I'm curious. When debating various creation topics the big bang theory often comes up as the beginning of everything. Where do people believe the condensed matter came from?

 

Evolution doesn't start until life has been established. The Big Bang is a separate matter.

 

Interesting side note, the theory was developed by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, and it was criticized by some as being creationist (simply that it required a creator) because it posited a first cause. A start to the universe that presumably something or someone would have initiated.

 

I think current thought has it that the matter was there, in that unimaginably dense singularity that existed just before it expanded. It may be there were universes before ours that provided the matter? Not sure. Some would see the hand of God working in that moment.

Edited July 4, 2011 by WishboneDawn

[justamouse]

To quote Douglas Adams:

"The Jatravartid people, however, believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. "

 

This seems to be as likely a theory as any I've heard.

 

Now, see I was coming in with 42. :tongue_smilie:

[Free]

Hindus believe that the universe comes into existence and is then destroyed again and again (cyclical universe) and that matter and energy have always been there.

 

Scientifically though, what happened before the Big Bang is not known. It would be very interesting indeed when scientists eventually figure this one out.

[OrganicAnn]

Do you mean what do other religions believe? I can't tell from your title line.

 

If you are wondering what some of the recent research in this area of astrophysics, there is a two part NOVA that covers this and other topics (supernova, black matter etc).

[kalanamak]

I think the general belief is that the question hasn't been answered yet.

 

 

My possible opinion on such matters is that we have evolved to understand things on a certain size and speed scale. Wave-particles are just not the same as watching a dog race after a rabbit, and the *vastness* of the universe is just so much more boggling than the moon. Additionally, the distance of time we are talking about is a far cry from our Three Score Years and Ten.

 

Once you get to something so distant, so far in the past or in the future, or of such minute or immense size, or such great speed, metaphor or advanced mathematics what we have for comprehending it.

 

I envision matter and energy as shuffling back and forth between each other, rather like a chemical equilibrium. However, I have no great interest in origins. While I know it takes all kinds, I don't mind being affectionately wedded to the dog racing after a rabbit, and to my Three Score Years and Ten.

[Night Elf]

Well, I suppose that questioning can be turned around. If God created the matter of the universe, who created God? If some people believe he just popped into existence, why is it weird for other people to think the matter of the universe just popped into existence? If only one set of people can be right, each set has a 50/50 chance of being right. It still boils down to faith in religion and the fact that there will always be questions without answers.

[JudyJudyJudy]

In our house we think it is really cool that we haven't figured it out yet and we avidly follow developments in science in that field and many others.

This describes our family as well.

 

Just watched an episode of Through the Wormhole about that. Very interesting stuff indeed.

 

What I found really interesting is what physicists call the thing that came just before the BB, they call it the cosmic egg. Many creation stories from around the world talk about the cosmic egg. One of those things that make you go hmmmm.....

Do you remember which episode this was?

[Peela]

I am quite content with not knowing the answer to everything in the universe. Mystery is cool.

I think even if you think you know, you don't really know. Guessing can be fun, theorising can be fun. Pretending you know when you don't is messy.

[shinyhappypeople]

Well, I suppose that questioning can be turned around. If God created the matter of the universe, who created God? If some people believe he just popped into existence, why is it weird for other people to think the matter of the universe just popped into existence? If only one set of people can be right, each set has a 50/50 chance of being right. It still boils down to faith in religion and the fact that there will always be questions without answers.

 

Yup. Kind of interesting how it all circles around.

 

My theory is that our brains are finite and, thus, it's impossible for us to ever truly grasp the infinite.

 

I also suspect that, on some level, we're asking the wrong questions. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what the right questions are :tongue_smilie:

 

I think the idea of multiple universes is intriguinig and suspect it might be a bit closer to the truth... but, again, I'm left with the fact that my mind has limits, so my attempts to truly understand the limitless are futile. But, it's still fun to wonder.

 

(p.s. I'm a Christian, old-earth intelligent design, etc.)

[nansk]

I envision matter and energy as shuffling back and forth between each other, rather like a chemical equilibrium...

 

I think of it this way too.

 

Hindus believe that the universe comes into existence and is then destroyed again and again (cyclical universe) and that matter and energy have always been there...

 

And this seems to be in a similar vein.

 

 

Either way, I think people spend too much time and energy debating this topic.

[IsabelC]

If only one set of people can be right, each set has a 50/50 chance of being right.

Um, nope. If I believe A and you believe B, that doesn't mean that we have equal chances of being right, unless it's something with known odds such as the toss of a coin.

[DarlaS]

Some members of my family believe it was always there.

 

Seems as likely an explanation as any.

 

We have a beginning and an end; everything in our immediate environment does also. It's hard to grasp that there could be something that just IS without beginning or end.

[Onceuponatime]

Yup. Kind of interesting how it all circles around.

 

My theory is that our brains are finite and, thus, it's impossible for us to ever truly grasp the infinite.

 

I also suspect that, on some level, we're asking the wrong questions. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what the right questions are :tongue_smilie:

 

I think the idea of multiple universes is intriguinig and suspect it might be a bit closer to the truth... but, again, I'm left with the fact that my mind has limits, so my attempts to truly understand the limitless are futile. But, it's still fun to wonder.

 

(p.s. I'm a Christian, old-earth intelligent design, etc.)

 

I'm with you, and Peela. I wish I knew how to multi-quote.

 

From what I've read on subject, it is virtually impossible at this time for humans to gain an understanding of what was before the first seconds of our universe. It may always be impossible. I'm okay with that.

[WishboneDawn]

The whole title of this thread just made it's way into my head.

 

Non-Christians???

 

Honestly? What is the assumption about what Christians believe in regards to the Big Bang?

[Onceuponatime]

The whole title of this thread just made it's way into my head.

 

Non-Christians???

 

Honestly? What is the assumption about what Christians believe in regards to the Big Bang?

 

I think the assumption is that "God did it." :D Though I still find that many fundamentalists are waaay behind the times and don't like the idea of a big bang.

 

Maybe the OP is not familiar with what non-christians think about this subject.

[keptwoman]

I don't really believe much about it. I suppose it must have been lurking about because somethings generally don't appear out of nowhere. What difference does it make how the universe began? The important bit is that it did. Maybe the Big Bang wasn't the start of everything, maybe it was just the first thing that was worth writing home about.

 

Basically, those details are in the "too hard" basket, and knowing the answers for sure wouldn't change how I live my life so I concentrate on other, more important things, like learning to knit and what to make for dinner.

 

Rosie

What Rosie said.

[chiguirre]

Just watched an episode of Through the Wormhole about that. Very interesting stuff indeed.

 

What I found really interesting is what physicists call the thing that came just before the BB, they call it the cosmic egg. Many creation stories from around the world talk about the cosmic egg. One of those things that make you go hmmmm.....

 

I think the physicists read those stories, too. They also have a sense of irony.

[SailorMom]

As far as I know, there is no standard belief among non-Christians. Science can only claim to get able to get back to right before the big bang using astronomy and waves of different spectrums of light....

 

Matter is vibration - I think the Hindus had it pretty close - the vibration of the universe (caused by God's singing) brought matter into being.

 

I think it's silly for a scientist to try to claim he/she knows otherwise at this point - we just don't know enough yet.

[twoforjoy]

As far as I know, there is no standard belief among non-Christians.

 

Nor is there standard belief among Christians. The mainline Protestants and Catholics who believe in theistic evolution are going to have very different beliefs (and probably differ quite a bit amongst themselves) than the fundamentalists who believes the earth was created in six literal days.

[Mom-ninja.]

I think the physicists read those stories, too. They also have a sense of irony.

 

Yes, scientists usually have a quirky sense of humor.

 

Science has not yet figured out what was before the BB. I probably won't be around when they do. If they do. I don't need to know. It's not a question that my mind has to have an answer to.

 

I'm fine with science being the foundation of my beliefs and that it doesn't answer everything.

[Plaid Dad]

Science has not yet figured out what was before the BB. I probably won't be around when they do. If they do. I don't need to know. It's not a question that my mind has to have an answer to.

 

I'm fine with science being the foundation of my beliefs and that it doesn't answer everything.

 

This. :iagree:

[jcgonczi]

My grandfather once told me that the bible says that God created the earth, but it doesn't say how He did it. It may very well have been with a big bang. :) As far as the timing and scientific details matching up, I believe our knowledge is limited and will remain that way until the second coming. His ways are not our ways. I am personally grateful for that as my brain is stretched to the limit as it is.

[Matryoshka]

While I do believe in God, I'm not particularly tied to the notion of God as "Creator". I think of God as more of the unifying or underlying or living force of the universe.

 

However, I think the Big Bang, if anything, makes God as Creator more plausible for me, not less. I mean, I feel like that's a way more efficient way to create a universe - bang, there it is! - than creating every star, planet, blade of grass and grain of sand separately.

 

That, of course, would not answer the question of where did God come from, then... :tongue_smilie:

 

So my faith is not terribly tied to whether God pre-existed and created the universe or is part of its fabric. I'm perfectly fine with a bit of mystery. :) I agree with others who said our finite brains cannot truly understand the infinite.

[july19]

To quote Douglas Adams:

"The Jatravartid people, however, believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. "

 

This seems to be as likely a theory as any I've heard.

 

:lol: and :iagree:

 

I just reread that book the other day. Love it!

[Wildiris]

I don't really believe much about it. I suppose it must have been lurking about because somethings generally don't appear out of nowhere. What difference does it make how the universe began? The important bit is that it did. Maybe the Big Bang wasn't the start of everything, maybe it was just the first thing that was worth writing home about.

 

Basically, those details are in the "too hard" basket, and knowing the answers for sure wouldn't change how I live my life so I concentrate on other, more important things, like learning to knit and what to make for dinner.

 

Rosie

 

:iagree: Just let the mystery be.

[YLVD]

I am quite content with not knowing the answer to everything in the universe. Mystery is cool.

I think even if you think you know, you don't really know. Guessing can be fun, theorising can be fun. Pretending you know when you don't is messy.

 

:iagree:

 

I'm an atheist and don't need or really want to know all of the answers.

[SailorMom]

Nor is there standard belief among Christians. The mainline Protestants and Catholics who believe in theistic evolution are going to have very different beliefs (and probably differ quite a bit amongst themselves) than the fundamentalists who believes the earth was created in six literal days.

 

I realize that - I was just answering that way because of the way the original question was posted.

[albeto]

I'm curious. When debating various creation topics the big bang theory often comes up as the beginning of everything. Where do people believe the condensed matter came from?

 

Keep in mind that wherever the hypotheses bring us, never is the hypothesis of magic acceptable. It isn't not because we have anything against magic, just because there is no evidence it exists. So physical sciences and mathematical theories will be used to make hypotheses and then test the various details as much as possible. Religious and mythological sources have no place as evidence in discovering the natural world.

[shinyhappypeople]

Keep in mind that wherever the hypotheses bring us, never is the hypothesis of magic acceptable. It isn't not because we have anything against magic, just because there is no evidence it exists. So physical sciences and mathematical theories will be used to make hypotheses and then test the various details as much as possible. Religious and mythological sources have no place as evidence in discovering the natural world.

 

This is a good reminder of the limitations of science. Limiting my thinking and worldview to what I can observe or test leaves out so much. It's a waste to ask more of science than it can deliver.

[Haiku]

Where do people believe the condensed matter came from?

 

No idea. I'm not an astrophysicist or whoever studies that kind of thing. I don't worry about it, and I would believe what scientists would tell me about it were I to ask. The origins of the universe don't much concern me; I'm more interested in the here and now.

 

Tara

[Night Elf]

Um, nope. If I believe A and you believe B, that doesn't mean that we have equal chances of being right, unless it's something with known odds such as the toss of a coin.

 

I disagree. You can only "know" if you're right if you have some knowledge that others don't have. In this case, I would think you would only "know" the truth if you had been there when it all happened. Your belief is based on faith, likely on the Bible? That is faith because there are people like me who think the Bible is just an awesome book of literature, but has no more divine inspiration than The Little Engine that Could. If your truth is based on belief that is based on something intangible, your truth may not be truth.

[Haiku]

If only one set of people can be right, each set has a 50/50 chance of being right.

 

Not so. If there is only one correct choice from two available options, one side has a 100% chance of being right and the other a 0% chance. For example: I believe that bacteria cause infections. My friend down the street believes that infections are caused by little green men from Mars putting hexes on us. I am 100% right. She is 100% wrong. The same is true whether we can use science to "prove" something or not. It either is or it isn't. It isn't kind-of, halfway one way or another.

 

I once had a discussion with a friend who claimed there is no ultimate truth because truth can only exist in reference to how we interpret it. I don't believe that. Something happened or exists the way it is, regardless of how we interpret it. If we interpret it incorrectly, we are still wrong, even if we don't know it.

 

Tara

[albeto]

This is a good reminder of the limitations of science. Limiting my thinking and worldview to what I can observe or test leaves out so much. It's a waste to ask more of science than it can deliver.

 

Other than observation and analyzing information, how is your thinking inspired?

[Onceuponatime]

Other than observation and analyzing information, how is your thinking inspired?

 

Imagination, intuition, dreams, meditation, altered states of consciousness, trust in others, experience. Relying *solely* on observation and analysis is a fairly modern idea. You're up against many thousands of years of history and pre-history compared to a few hundred years of "enlightenment." I don't think humankind's need for religion or God is going to die overnight, if ever.

[albeto]

Imagination,

 

Imagination is the process of forming new ideas based on cognitive connections between past observations and experiences. This is done through observation and experience (analyzing observation and other physical sensations).

 

intuition,

 

Intuition is way to explain the concept that one doesn't recognize all the variables that contribute to a thought or conclusion but recognize it when the conscious mind identifies it.

 

dreams,

 

Interpreting dreams is simply analyzing physical sensations (perceived in unconsciousness, drawn from experiences of physical sensations during waking hours).

 

meditation,

 

I suggest it's likely that this method is a helpful tool for making connections already in the brain - connections between experienced events and the analytic thoughts that accompany them.

 

altered states of consciousness,

 

What is this?

 

trust in others, experience.

 

Trust comes from analyzing the accounts of other's observation (and other physical sensations) and experiences.

 

Relying *solely* on observation and analysis is a fairly modern idea. You're up against many thousands of years of history and pre-history compared to a few hundred years of "enlightenment." I don't think humankind's need for religion or God is going to die overnight, if ever.

 

I suspect relying on observation and analysis of such physical experineces is what explains intelligence, and only in the modern era has the lack of evidence been rejected as evidence. If instead, ideas seep into our brains, how does that work? Are thoughts entered like electronic shocks, bumping one thought out of the way to make room for another? Are our thoughts constantly monitored to determine which thoughts are introduced? Is it a random process or is there an invisible agent that does this? Is this invisible agent physically inside our brains as well or are the thoughts shared from a distance? How would we know, and how do we determine whose thoughts are the right ones? And would we know this through analyzing our physical sensations (experiences) or are these answers also infused into our minds?

[Onceuponatime]

Since he says it so much better than I ever could, I would like to quote Owen Gingrich, Professor of Astronomy and of the History of Science, Emeritus, Department of Astronomy and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a Mennonite, and author of God's Universe:

 

"Let us consider a simple question posed by Sir John Polkinghorne: 'Why is the water in the tea kettle boiling?'

 

We can answer; 'The water in the tea kettle is boiling because the heat from the fire raises the temperature of the water until the molecules move faster and faster so that some escape from the surface and become a gas.' But we can also answer that the water in the teakettle is boiling because we want some tea. The first answer illustrates what Aristotle called an effiecient cause, an explanation of how the phenomenon takes place, while the second answer, 'Because we want some tea,' is a final cause, the reason the phenonmenon takes place. One aspect of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century was that it turned away from the final causes so central to the Aristotelian worldview and concentrated on efficient causes, the how of the phenomena.

 

To me, belief in a final cause, a Creator-God gives a coherent understanding of why the universe seems so congenially designed for the existence of intelligent, self-reflective life.......I do not claim that these considerations are proof for the existence of a Creator; I claim only that to me, the universe makes more sense with this understanding."

[shinyhappypeople]

Other than observation and analyzing information, how is your thinking inspired?

 

I'm not Spock, so in addition to observation and analyzing, I put a lot of weight on intuition, emotion, relationships, wisdom ... and probably a lot more than that.

 

Let me try to explain the interplay between it all.

 

I can't observe God (supernatural creator), but neither can I hike through the back country of Yosemite and attribute the extraordinary beauty I see to Pure Dumb Luck. And yet "PDL" is the best explanation I've heard science offer. That suggests to me that there is something so beautiful and infinite out there that remains undiscovered (scientifically, at least) and, probably, mostly beyond human comprehension. Yet, despite the fact that I can't directly observe it or test It, I can observe the effects of It and my intuition tells me that It's real.

 

I hope that makes some sense. Not sure if that's more than you wanted to know or not.

[Lady Florida.]

To me the beauty of science is its willingness to change. Science says "This is what we know based on the evidence we have so far", but if new evidence comes to light, what we know changes. And science always strives to learn more about the mysteries of life and the universe. That is also exciting and beautiful to me. Science isn't cold just because it requires evidence. Science is impartial but not cold. They're not the same.

 

With many religions, they won't (can't really without negating much of their teachings) change what they believe when new evidence is shown. Where they do change - sun centric vs. earth centric, diseases are caused by demons etc. it can take years, sometimes centuries to admit they were wrong.

 

I also have no problem thinking the beauty around me is PDL (which isn't quite accurate anyway) while appreciating that beauty.

[Whitworth]

To quote Douglas Adams:

"The Jatravartid people, however, believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. "

 

This seems to be as likely a theory as any I've heard.

 

:lol:

[shinyhappypeople]

To me the beauty of science is its willingness to change. Science says "This is what we know based on the evidence we have so far", but if new evidence comes to light, what we know changes.

 

Then, if what you know keeps changing, then you don't really know anything. You only think you know. Y'know? :D Might be more accurate to say, "I believe... xyz." But knowing?

 

The older I get, the less I "know" and the more I find myself adding "I could be wrong, but I believe..." to a lot of statements about science, faith and things like that.

 

And science always strives to learn more about the mysteries of life and the universe. That is also exciting and beautiful to me. Science isn't cold just because it requires evidence. Science is impartial but not cold. They're not the same.

I've never encountered anything or anyone that was truly impartial. That's just part of being human. We carry personal bias into everything. We all do it, not just scientists.

 

I don't suggest that science is cold or bad or anything. I appreciate the value of science, I just don't worship it or expect it to be the only or best source of answers to questions of ultimate importance. I understand that others feel totally different than I do, but I was just trying to explain my POV.

[shinyhappypeople]

To me, belief in a final cause, a Creator-God gives a coherent understanding of why the universe seems so congenially designed for the existence of intelligent, self-reflective life.......I do not claim that these considerations are proof for the existence of a Creator; I claim only that to me, the universe makes more sense with this understanding."

 

I love this! Forget everything I just wrote and amend it to "What he said" and a big old :iagree:

[Spy Car]

I'm curious. When debating various creation topics the big bang theory often comes up as the beginning of everything. Where do people believe the condensed matter came from?

 

I have absolutely no idea. So I can either accept that there are things I don't know personally, as well as things our collective scientific understanding can't fully explain (yet) or I can give way to "magical thinking" and substitute a creation story in place of the lack of sureity. But I'm not inclined to this latter way.

 

I do think it is interesting that even in Genesis matter pre-exists when we come into the story. It may be "wild and waste" and unformed, but it is still matter.

 

I expect our great-grandchildren will have a greater understanding than we do as scientific inquiry progresses.

 

Bill