Quote:

---

Watched the Curiosity episode with Stephen Hawking on the Science Channel a few weeks ago. His argument is that the Big Bang was the beginning of time, so nothing existed before it, including God to create the Big Bang.

Heard an interview with Brian Greene a few months ago, and he said that there could be multiple Big Bangs, where the Universe essentially starts over. Energy(?) patterns/signatures(?) are suggesting this according to some astrophysicist colleagues of his (not his own work).

Juan, I'm not an astrophysicist, but here's what I know about evidence for the Big Bang (dummies version):
1) background microwave radiation (which is responsible for static on TVs, radios, etc): before it was observed, a duo from Stanford calculated what the left over energy from the Big Bang would have degraded to after all these years. They built the dish to pick this up, and thought the static was interference from the pigeons pooping on their dish. Turn on your radio or TV to a station that isn't in use or broadcasting and you're picking up the degraded radiation left over from the Big Bang;

2) Red shift: light from galaxies that are moving away from us shifts toward the red end of the light spectrum. If galaxies are moving away from us, the further you go back in time, the closer they are, until you get to the point where they all come together (the Big Bang);

3) proportion of light elements relative to heavier elements: if light elements have fewer subatomic particles, are easier to make, made first, and nuclear fusion makes heavier atoms from lighter ones, then there should be more lighter atoms and fewer heavier elements, which is what is observed;

4)ancient galaxies billions of light years away should be simpler than closer more recently evolved galaxies: the Hubble Deep Field showed this when the Hubble telescope focused on what was thought to be an empty area of space, turning out to be filled with some of the most ancient galaxies ever observed.

there are other lines of evidence that are way over my head.

anyone can say, "God did it," about anything: the origin of life, the formation of Earth, our solar system, our galaxy, the Universe. to say that is giving up. fine if you believe that God did it, but if he's responsible, how was it done? snap of the fingers? or is there a scientific explanation that has or hasn't been discovered. science doesn't PROVE anything. but it can give a reason backed by evidence. it can also evolve with new evidence. evolution never stops.

in A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson talks about how atoms are recycled throughout history, so that you contain a billion atoms of any historical figure you can imagine, as long as they've been dead long enough: Shakespeare, Genghis Khan, etc. so yeah, you're reincarnated, not your "soul" but your atoms.

---

My only horse in the race is that the Big Bang doesnt prevent the possibility of a force that by definition we cannot possibly imagine. If you admit as much unknowable stuff as you must just being conversant in the physics you talked about, you have to admit that our provable knowledge about any and all of it is a pinhead in the universe. What was before? What happened? What caused it? Are there more than one of these things? Is there a limit to it? If so, what is outside it right now? Is there a parallel universe? What is inside or what IS the singularity in a black hole? Is there an exit on "the other side?" Are black holes at the center of most galaxies? Is the Big Bang an infinite expansion toward entropy, or does the thing contract again in a "Big Crunch?" What the F is "dark matter" and why did it take so long to perceive, or theorize, or whatever it is? Was earth sterile and did meteorites bring amino acids here and from them proteins formed which begat (heh) life? Or were there elements that were catalyzed by lightning and gave rise to those amino acids etc? There's a mitochondrial EVE?? wtf? What is the truth about death?

I'm not a biblical creationist. I read Russell's Free Man's Religion essay today, and I find it wonderful (kinda ultraviolet in the prose, but I like that). But there are lots of places I would substitute words without changing the essential meaning or emotion of it, I feel.

Long story short, Russell seems to see what I see, or rather, feel what I feel, but takes a very definitive semantic stance, which I feel is his folly. I used to be like most on this thread, but I prefer Spinoza to Hawking now. I share Einstein's awe. That is all.

--------------------
"Obviously, you've never chopped broccoli."

Post Extras