The Big Bang, God, Evolution, Creationism, Will Wright, and the Unicorn Test

Okay people, so, some scientists believe in the Big Bang and evolution and not in any sort of God. But what if it is like the relationship between the game Spore or the Sims and their creator Will Wright? I mean…Will Wright programs some rules, and no two people playing Spore or the Sims ever play the same game. What if that’s how God made the world: he made the Big Bang. He made all the rules of science and evolution and natural selection, physics, chemistry, biology. Then he let us all play the game. Is that so far fetched?

I mean, I just don’t understand…if you can believe in a Big Bang that came out of nowhere…that’s a pretty significant event. All this whole, entire universe just coming out of a Big Bang. Isn’t that, like, on the level of there being a God right there…I mean, you’re not impressed and mystified enough, you think there must be some rational explanation for how the Big Bang came about? Like, oh, yeah, there was just a universe’s worth of gas and dust and energy and heat basically in the head of a pinprick, or as Wikipedia puts it, “the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to expand to this day,” oh, yeah, that’s so rational and makes so much sense, yeah, I can understand that, a whole universe from nothing, that’s a piece of cake… you can believe in that and yet the concept of a God is somehow beyond belief or sounds, maybe, far fetched or unbelievable to you? Like, you see “primordial hot and dense initial condition[s]” from which universes are born everyday on streetcorners, do you?

How about this, it’s my Unicorn Test: is the existence of a Unicorn more or less believable than the existance of a Big Bang? I mean, a Unicorn is just a horse with a horn. It is much more easy to conceive of a Unicorn than the Big Bang…even though we have scientific proof of sorts of the Big Bang, that’s just way more cosmic and out there than a Unicorn. I’d say the Big Bang is more miraculous and awe-inspiring than 1,000,000,000 Unicorns. How about a Pegasus? I mean, is a Pegasus any more or less believable than a Big Bang? I mean, a Pegasus is just a horse with wings that can fly. I find it much more easy to conceive of a horse with wings that can fly than a Big Bang where all of a sudden the Universe just comes into being. I would be slightly scared to see a flying horse but would be scared shitless to see all of a sudden a whole UNIVERSE born out of nothing. You might laugh with joy or be in shock at seeing a Pegasus but your mind would not be able to handle seeing the birth of a universe, I believe, thank you very much.

So, if you can believe in a Big Bang, where ALL of the UNIVERSE just appears…is that any more or less believable than there being a GOD??? Please rationally explain to me why one or the other is less believable. I mean…when would you be satisfied that there was a God, if you’re not going to be too impressed with a big bang from which a whole universe was created. I mean, I guess God would have to be pretty impressive…how about if 1000 Unicorns also flew out of a Big Bang…not impressed yet?

How about if 1000 Unicorns flew out of a Big Bang and God came out driving a nice Cadillac that ran on electricity not gas…then would you be impressed enough to believe in a God? I mean…isn’t the concept of a God just that there’s something REALLY HUGE out there that we can’t understand and that could have triggered everything? I mean…the universe itself is so huge, there are rules and patterns, probably tons of patterns we’ve never picked up on and don’t know about…I mean, that expanse of it itself could be God.

It could be a sentient existence as a whole, the huge vastness of it in a cohesive system, could give rise to all sorts of sentience and emergent behavior (or vice versa) that we can’t even comprehend, like an ant or a mouse trying to understand our human languages, the internet, computers, cars, jets, our financial system, mortgage backed securities, pop lyrics, machine guns, nuclear bombs, etc. Like, is it the case that there’s a really good explanation for how that Big Bang got there, you know, really, it’s quite simple you see…science and evolution. BUT isn’t science never really a WHY so much as an observed HOW…and we never really now the WHY of the HOW? Like, oh, here are some rules..why on Earth they are here or the way they are, I have no idea?

Like, we never know the why of the how or even the how before the how. Like, for the Big Bang: There was just some gas and heat…which evolved out of, you know…there was some other stuff before the gas and heat…and that other stuff, you know, just kind of evolved out of some other stuff before that…you know…just, it’s like, totally rational. And now we have cats and dogs and stuff…out of some space stuff that exploded and created a universe and galaxies and rocks and planets and stars…it all evolved out of the stuff that was before that other stuff that came out of that other stuff that came out of that other stuff that evolved out of that other stuff and was naturally selected out of that other stuff and that Big Bang that came out of the Small Bang that came out of the dryer that came out of the fridge that came out of the kiln that came out of that Bigger Bang that came in the Happy Meal before that. You know, science, evolution, it explains everything you need to know! It evolved out of the stuff that evolved out of the Big Bang that came from the evolution before that which evolved out of stuff before that which evolved out of…it all makes perfect sense! But…where does it all begin? What really came before the Big Bang? And before that? And before that? And…

Like I said, give me one rational explanation of where the Big Bang might have come from and why it happened and how it happened to come into being, and how it came to happen and how it came to be, and why that explanation is ANY DIFFERENT from the concept of a God, and how believing in that explanation is any different from what is required to believe in a God, if God is taken to be just sort of the concept of a reason for how and why things exist. It boggles the mind, really.

The Blind Watchmaker

The Blind Watchmaker is a 1986 book by Richard Dawkins in which he presents an explanation of, and argument for, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. He also presents arguments to refute certain criticisms made on his previous book The Selfish Gene. (Both books are intended to popularise the gene-centric view of evolution.)

In his choice of the title for this book, Dawkins makes reference to the watchmaker analogy made famous by William Paley in his book Natural Theology. Paley, arguing more than fifty years before Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, held that the complexity of living organisms was evidence of the existence of a divine creator by drawing a parallel with the way in which the existence of a watch compels belief in an intelligent watchmaker. Dawkins, in contrasting the differences between human design and its potential for planning with the workings of natural selection, therefore dubbed evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker.

Big Bang picture from…crystalinks

Here’s a funny take on the Big Bang and the CERN supercollider project as a fraud

Advertisements

6 Responses

  1. Trickledown, I suggest you read up on string theory and the higgs field/higgs boson. The big bang is beleived to have been caused by one string surface with no higgs field coming into contact with a surface that had one. The recently operational super collider at CERN should be able to find the Higgs Boson relatively quickly and help to give us a better understanding of the universe before the big bang.

  2. Hey my name is Cameron Gray . I am doing a project for my schools computer class and i am doing something called a thinkquest website. I wanted to ask if i could have permission to use this image Hey my name is Cameron Gray . I am doing a project for my schools computer class and i am doing something called a thinkquest website. I wanted to ask if i could have permission to use this image http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/Big%20Bang.jpg on my website. This is non-profit. Thankyou.. This is non-profit. Thankyou.

    • Look at the end of the post for info on where the picture comes from, I linked to the website it’s from…

  3. more pictures &vidios needed

  4. Nice website:) Hope to definitely come back again soon.

  5. A. Circular Reasoning

    In his article ‘The other side of time’ (2000) scientist Victor J. Stenger has written that as per the theory of quantum electrodynamics electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs can appear spontaneously for brief periods of time practically out of nothing, which clearly shows that anything that has a beginning need not have to have a cause of that beginning. Here he was actually rebutting Mr. William Lane Craig’s claim that anything that has a beginning must have a cause. Electron-positron pairs begin to exist, but they have no cause of their beginning, because they appear literally out of nothing.
    From here he has concluded that our universe may also come literally out of nothing due to quantum fluctuation in the void, and therefore we need not have to imagine that God has done this job.
    But is it true that electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs are appearing literally out of “nothing”? Are scientists absolutely certain that the so-called void is a true void indeed? Because here there is a counter-claim also: God is there, and that God is everywhere. So actually nothing is coming out of “nothing”, only something is coming out of something. Here they will perhaps say: as there is no proof for God’s existence so far, so why should one have to believe that the void here is not a true void? But even if there is no proof for God’s existence, still then it can be shown that scientists’ claim that the universe has literally come out of nothing is a pure case of circular reasoning. If believers say that the void is not a true void at all, and if scientists still then hold that it is nothing but a void, then this is only because they are absolutely certain that God does not exist, and also because they think that God’s non-existence is so well-established a fact that it needs no further proof for substantiation. But if they are absolutely certain that God does not exist, then they are also absolutely certain that God is not the architect, designer, creator of our universe, because it is quite obvious that a non-existent God cannot be the architect, designer, etc. So their starting premise is this: God does not exist, and therefore our universe is definitely not the creation of a God. But if they start from the above premise, then will it be very difficult to reach to the same conclusion?
    But their approach here could have been somehow different. They could have said: well, regarding void, it is found that there is some controversy. Therefore we will not assume that it is a void, rather we will prove that it is such. Then they could have proceeded to give an alternate explanation for the origin of the universe, in which there will be neither any quantum fluctuation in the void, nor any hand of God to be seen anywhere. And their success here could have settled the matter for all time to come.
    By simply ignoring a rumour one cannot kill it, rather it will remain as it is. But if one takes some more trouble on him and exposes that it is nothing but a rumour, then it will die a natural death with no further chance of revival. Let us say that the saying that there is a God and that He is everywhere is nothing but a rumour persisting for thousands of years among mankind. What scientists have done here is this: they have simply ignored the rumour and thus kept it alive. But it would have been far better for them if they could have killed it, as suggested by me.

    B. “Circular Reasoning” Case Reexamined

    There can be basically two types of universe: (1) universe created by God, supposing that there is a God; (2) universe not created by God, supposing that there is no God. Again universe created by God can also be of three types:
    (1a) Universe in which God need not have to intervene at all after its creation. This is the best type of universe that can be created by God.
    (1b) Universe in which God has actually intervened from time to time, but his intervention is a bare minimum.
    (1c) Universe that cannot function at all without God’s very frequent intervention. This is the worst type of universe that can be created by God.
    Therefore we see that there can be four distinct types of universes, and our universe may be any one of the above four types: (1a), (1b), (1c), (2). In case of (1a), scientists will be able to give natural explanation for each and every physical event that has happened in the universe after its origin, because after its creation there is no intervention by God at any moment of its functioning. Only giving natural explanation for its coming into existence will be problematic. In case of (1b) also, most of the events will be easily explained away, without imagining that there is any hand of God behind these events. But for those events where God had actually intervened, scientists will never be able to give any natural explanation. Also explaining origin of the universe will be equally problematic. But in case of (1c), most of the events will remain unexplained, as in this case God had to intervene very frequently. This type of universe will be just like the one as envisaged by Newton: “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” So we can with confidence say that our universe is not of this type, otherwise scientists could not have found natural explanation for most of the physical events. In case of type (2) universe, here also there will be natural explanation for each and every physical event, and there will be natural explanation for the origin of the universe also. So from the mere fact that scientists have so far been able to give natural explanation for each and every physical event, it cannot be concluded that our universe is a type (2) universe, because this can be a type (1a) universe as well. The only difference between type (1a) and type (2) universe is this: whereas in case of (1a) no natural explanation will ever be possible for the origin of the universe, it will not be so in case of (2). Therefore until and unless scientists can give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, they cannot claim that it is a type (2) universe. And so, until and unless scientists can give this explanation, they can neither claim that the so-called void is a true void. So scientists cannot proceed to give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe with an a priori assumption that the void is a real void, because their failure or success in giving this explanation will only determine as to whether this is a real void or not.

    C. Scientists have taken a forbidden step

    This is about scientists’ claim that our universe has originated from nothing due to a vacuum fluctuation. Here I want to show again that this claim cannot be sustained by reason.
    Abbreviation: origin of the universe from nothing due to vacuum fluctuation (OUNVF)
    We all know that the theorems in Euclidean geometry generally start with some basic assumptions that are accepted as true without any proof. These basic assumptions are called axioms. Similarly scientific theories also start with some basic assumptions. These are called postulates. So far these postulates of scientific theories were all God-independent. I am going to explain what I want to mean by the term “God-independent”. Let us suppose that P is a postulate. Now it may be the case that there is a God. Or it may be the case that there is no God. Now let us suppose it is the case that there is a God, and we find that P is not affected. Again let us further suppose that it is the case there is no God, and again we find that in this case also P is not affected. Then we can say P is God-independent. But in the case under consideration the basic assumption with which scientists start is not at all God-independent. Rather we can say that it is very much God-dependent. Their basic assumption here is this: the void is a real void, and it is nothing but a void. Now if it is the case that there is a God, then this assumption is very much affected, because the void is no longer a real void. If, and only if, it is the case that there is no God, then only it is a real void. Therefore when scientists are saying that the void is a real void, then they are also saying it indirectly that it is the case there is no God, or, that it is a fact there is no God. But my question here is this: are these scientists now in a position to say so? Have their knowledge of the empirical world and its laws and its workings up till now made them competent enough to declare at this stage that there is no God? Because here two points will have to be considered:
    1) They have not yet been able to give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe.
    2) Similarly they have not yet been able to give a natural explanation for the fact that our universe has become habitable for life, whereas it could have been barren and lifeless as well.
    Now it may so happen that scientists completely fail to give any natural explanation for both 1) and 2). In that case will it not be too early for them to suppose that the void is a real void? Because if they are unsuccessful, then they do not know whether there is a God or not, and therefore neither do they know whether the void is a real void or not. But if they are successful, then they definitely know that there is no God. Then only they can say that the void is a real void. So we can say that 1) and 2) are two hurdles that the scientists must have to cross before they can arrive at a place from where they can boldly declare that God does not exist. This is the place that may be called scientists’ heaven. Because once they can reach there, then they will have no hesitation to deny the existence of God. Because now they have explained the alpha and omega of this universe, starting from its origin up to the coming of man on earth and further beyond, and nowhere they have found any hand of God influencing the course of events in any way. But, to arrive at that place can they take any undue advantage? Or, can they try to reach there by any unfair means? Can they already assume that there is no God, and based on that assumption, can they try to cross any one, or both, of these two hurdles? But in case of 1) they have just done that. That is why I want to say that OUNVF is a pure case of circular reasoning.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: