If the universe is finite, how can you not believe in God?

AntiKarateKid

IB Expert
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
260
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
While procrastinating at my desk, I started wondering this. The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted view out there right now and seems to have a mountain of evidence behind it. The steady state theory and its "infinite universe" has been all but disproven. An oscillating universe theory has also been widely abandoned. So if the universe and time have a beginning, then how do atheists not see God's hand in it?

Might be a dense question, might not.
 
Last edited:
Greetings,

This might seem a strange question, but I believe it's a valid one:

What reasons are there (outside of a theistic perspective) to believe that the Big Bang was definitely the beginning of everything?

Peace
 
Greetings,

This might seem a strange question, but I believe it's a valid one:

What reasons are there (outside of a theistic perspective) to believe that the Big Bang was definitely the beginning of everything?

Peace

I'm hesitant to jump and use the Quran to back the Big Bang. Even though I believe science, which is simply observing Allah's creation, cannot contradict it, I don't want to make the same mistake as those who tried to prove the Big Crunch using the Quran, only to find out later that the theory was false in the first place.

I'm not sure if you're asking about what the technical merits of the theory are. I'm certainly not versed enough in the theory to hold a true scientific debate but from what I have read in magazines, online, and my high school science project (LOL), I'd say that a "beginning" is a necessary part of the theory.

There seems to be every indication that the universe did in fact have a beginning (expanding universe, galaxies moving away from us, background radiation) and will have an end. The idea of an infinite universe has been largely abandoned by the scientific community.

In any case, the mere existence of reality, energy, and the universe necessitates the question "where did it come from."

I simply can't see it coming of itself. Though you may criticize my belief in Allah being eternal, He is not subject to laws but is their creator. As opposed to the observable universe which is based on laws.
 
I think czgibson is simply suggesting that, if we assume the Big Bang hypothesis is correct, it is possible that our universe is only one in a sequence of universes, big bang followed by big crunch followed by big bang etc?

In answer to the original question, I just view a creator God as far more improbable than even a spontaneous universe out of 'nothing'. In the latter case a ball of elementary particles pops out of 'nowhere' and in the second, by definition, the most complex entity that could possibly be concieved, i.e. God, pops out of nowhere - or is eternal, which in this context makes no sense anyway, there being no time for Him to be 'eternal' in. God "is not subject to laws but is their creator" is only true because you define Him that way and while you can support that conception using some very old and inconclusive metaphysical arguments, that in itself amounts to pretty much an unconditional surrender as far as the science itself goes. It's just God of the gaps, yet again.
 
Greetings and peace be with you Trumble;

It would be far easier if nothing existed for a couple of reasons.

First there would not be people constantly asking these seemingly unanswerable questions.

Secondly for anything to exist at all, something must have had no beginning, or come from nothing.

Neither of these options make sense, how can you write a science paper and say, something had no beginning, and now we have the universe. Or something came from nowhere and nothing, then we have the universe.

In the spirit of searching for truth.

Eric
 
I think czgibson is simply suggesting that, if we assume the Big Bang hypothesis is correct, it is possible that our universe is only one in a sequence of universes, big bang followed by big crunch followed by big bang etc?

In answer to the original question, I just view a creator God as far more improbable than even a spontaneous universe out of 'nothing'. In the latter case a ball of elementary particles pops out of 'nowhere' and in the second, by definition, the most complex entity that could possibly be concieved, i.e. God, pops out of nowhere - or is eternal, which in this context makes no sense anyway, there being no time for Him to be 'eternal' in. God "is not subject to laws but is their creator" is only true because you define Him that way and while you can support that conception using some very old and inconclusive metaphysical arguments, that in itself amounts to pretty much an unconditional surrender as far as the science itself goes. It's just God of the gaps, yet again.

I see nothing wrong with filling in this gap with God. It seems absurd that you say "a particle pops out of nowhere" as if that would answer the question. What made that particle pop out of no where? What laws govern it? Where did those laws come from? Each answer spawns more questions.

It seems like you're just pushing away the logical explanation of God who is not bound by such laws and making up theories which don't even exist.
 
Greetings,
I see nothing wrong with filling in this gap with God. It seems absurd that you say "a particle pops out of nowhere" as if that would answer the question. What made that particle pop out of no where? What laws govern it? Where did those laws come from? Each answer spawns more questions.

And the answers are basically "nobody knows".

It seems like you're just pushing away the logical explanation of God who is not bound by such laws and making up theories which don't even exist.

It's a big step to go from "nobody knows" to "it must have been an omnipotent being".

Peace
 
Greetings,


And the answers are basically "nobody knows".

But do you really expect to ever find an explanation without God?

It's a big step to go from "nobody knows" to "it must have been an omnipotent being".

No it isn't. I'd say the bigger step is expecting any possible answer to not spawn a hundred more questions. The next logical step is Allah, but some people just have an aversion to belief that prevents them from taking the next step.
 
Greetings,
But do you really expect to ever find an explanation without God?

It's quite possible, and I remain optimistic. Just because I don't know the answer now doesn't mean I'm going to accept the answer that people living in the desert came up with a few thousand years ago.

No it isn't. I'd say the bigger step is expecting any possible answer to not spawn a hundred more questions.

I fully expect any answer to bring with it further questions. That is often the way it goes.

The next logical step is Allah, but some people just have an aversion to belief that prevents them from taking the next step.

First you would have to show that an omnipotent being is even possible. That's long before you get into the details of what this being does or doesn't want you to do / eat / think etc.

AKK, while I'm here, I'd like to say how much I enjoy reading your posts these days. It seems that everywhere I look I find a thoughtful and interesting post from you. Keep doing what you're doing. :)

Peace
 
Greetings,


It's quite possible, and I remain optimistic. Just because I don't know the answer now doesn't mean I'm going to accept the answer that people living in the desert came up with a few thousand years ago.

Though God has been brought up by all people throughout time. The concept certainly isn't exclusive to the Arabs.

I fully expect any answer to bring with it further questions. That is often the way it goes.

If it would bring more questions, you can never be sure you have found the answer, correct?

First you would have to show that an omnipotent being is even possible. That's long before you get into the details of what this being does or doesn't want you to do / eat / think etc.

I'm not sure why the concept of an omnipotent being wouldn't be possible. I can image one existing but you may not be able to. That doesn't change the fact that an uncreated being provides the only way out of infinite regression.

AKK, while I'm here, I'd like to say how much I enjoy reading your posts these days. It seems that everywhere I look I find a thoughtful and interesting post from you. Keep doing what you're doing. :)

Peace

I have my ups and downs. :p
 
I am enjoying the conversation between the two of you in this thread. I just wanted to slip in a compliment to both of you on how civil and constructive it has been so far.

On the topic I'll just add that even if you were to establish a creator God exists, you'd still be in deist territory and a far cry from Islam (or any other particular religion or concept of creator or God). At the end of the day nobody knows how (or if) the universe started. I for one am content to admit not knowing and don't feel a need to invent or adopt a creation story.
 
I see nothing wrong with filling in this gap with God.

Of course you don't; you believe God exists.

It seems absurd that you say "a particle pops out of nowhere" as if that would answer the question. What made that particle pop out of no where? What laws govern it? Where did those laws come from? Each answer spawns more questions.

The whole field is one of questions; if it weren't we - and large numbers of cosmologists - wouldn't be discussing it. What I actually said was that I find it less improbable that elementary physical particles should just pop up out of nowhere than an all-powerful supreme being should just pop up out of nowhere. I'm not 'making up' any theory.


It seems like you're just pushing away the logical explanation of God who is not bound by such laws and making up theories which don't even exist.

Again, that only makes sense if you accept God exists. I, though, don't accept your essential premise. You believe there is a real entity, God, who has certain properties, specifically here not being "bound by such laws". Yet I believe God to be an intellectual construct defined by those properties, i.e (here) God = fictional entity with property of not being bound by such laws, because such an entity might fill a gap in our knowledge of cosmology. It's no different in spawning questions, either. Defining God according to particular properties is very different to explaining WHY and HOW He has such properties.

There is no resolution; it's just theist, atheist and never the twain shall meet. :)
 
Lots of people know the conservative law of energy is a member set of scientific laws found in our space-time dimension (universe).
Scientific laws are time-invariant meaning future inventions will NOT trash n invalid them. They are differ than scientific theories which subject to expire or may experience an upgrade into the elite set of scientific laws.
"A particle pops out of nowhere" is impossible since it is a direct violation of the conservative law of energy...

Since energy can not be created that telling us the sum of total finite energy in any given time stays equal event to the moment of big-bang... only the form of energy changes. In the 90's, looking closely into Grand Unified Theory, physicist were on something at t=10^27
but what they were after at t=10^43
that is 1 second divided by 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
So when we talk about the “moment of big-bang” that is t>0 yet still early in the 'moment' whatever definition of 'moment' in the sequence of time onward.
take a look into University of Michigan web site. Btw, the university has produced twenty-six Rhodes Scholars[80], numerous Marshall Scholars, seven Nobel Prize winners.. it ain't a crackpot school.

Greetings,

What reasons are there (outside of a theistic perspective) to believe that the Big Bang was definitely the beginning of everything?

Peace


http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.*
as the universe began to cool and was still expanding, small fluctuations began to exist due to temperature differences. These flucuatuations verified prior calculations of the possible cooling and development of the universe just fractions of a second after its creation.
Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle.*

Notice the word 'finite,beginning,creation' that explains why physicist never bother to look into t=0... why not? Because at the beginning of creation all unit of measurements were created including space, time, matters,energy themselves. Those unit of measurements were and still are finites. All scientific data are finites... Input-Process-Output... garbage-in garbage-out. .When t=0 we have no access to the unit of measurements since they were not yet created. No data, no calculations, resulting no conclusions....Hence questions like What happened before the moment of time, why energy exists in the first place, why universe exists.... science is crippled to answer them.

Note: The use of “I” implies I can be right or be wrong but Al-Qur'an is the truth

Greetings,


And the answers are basically "nobody knows".

Peace

Not quite cut it...As a muslim, I know some of these answers. I use 'Iman' to believe in Al-Qur'an, which explains why universe exists, why Allah created human beings, what will happen after 'Qiyamah'... all those questions atheist, due to his disbelieve, will never get the answers.
If one said I do not use my brain... the power of brain (nervous system, logic etc) does not govern everything found in human system. During early stage in the mother's womb why the heart beating first prior to the physical development of the brain?
When you hit your 9-iron, your logic does not perform complex calculus.to attempt hole-in-one but you use your heart/feeling to do the task.... Nope, logic/brain isn't everything. It is only useful for created things, but to approach the Creator.is 'Iman'.

25:2 He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: no son has He begotten, nor has He a partner in His dominion: it is He who created all things, and ordered them in due proportions.

1400 years ago, how does The Book knows all created things are finites/proportions...? I wonder

Greetings,

It's a big step to go from "nobody knows" to "it must have been an omnipotent being".

Peace


It's stepping out of bounce,
If your house/apartment built by nobody....it popped up out of nothing...nobody believes it....Yet, atheist believes this universe with its tremendous energy, more complicated than merely a house, has no Creator..

Yet scientific laws in our universe fill with order in the form of equations....left side = right side....Just open any mathematics books, physics books, economics books almost any scientific books...any formulas, equations found indicate in-order...Who gives orders in due proportions ? I wonder...


Randomness denotes a lack of order, closely connected with entropy. Atheisme has huge problems to explain why so many orders surrounds us. Randomness definitely fail to explains why Entropy was at the minimum in the moment of big-bang... It just stepping out of bounce.
 
Greetings,
Lots of people know the conservative law of energy is a member set of scientific laws found in our space-time dimension (universe).
Scientific laws are time-invariant meaning future inventions will NOT trash n invalid them. They are differ than scientific theories which subject to expire or may experience an upgrade into the elite set of scientific laws.

The Big Bang is a theory, not a law, so I'm not sure how this sets up your quote from the University of Michigan.

Notice the word 'finite,beginning,creation' that explains why physicist never bother to look into t=0... why not? Because at the beginning of creation all unit of measurements were created including space, time, matters,energy themselves. Those unit of measurements were and still are finites. All scientific data are finites... Input-Process-Output... garbage-in garbage-out. .When t=0 we have no access to the unit of measurements since they were not yet created. No data, no calculations, resulting no conclusions....Hence questions like What happened before the moment of time, why energy exists in the first place, why universe exists.... science is crippled to answer them.

Exactly, hence my comment: "nobody knows".

Not quite cut it...As a muslim, I know some of these answers. I use 'Iman' to believe in Al-Qur'an, which explains why universe exists, why Allah created human beings, what will happen after 'Qiyamah'... all those questions atheist, due to his disbelieve, will never get the answers.

The simple fact that the Qur'an provides answers doesn't necessarily mean they are the right answers.

It's stepping out of bounce,

No, it's a big leap of faith.

Randomness denotes a lack of order, closely connected with entropy. Atheisme has huge problems to explain why so many orders surrounds us. Randomness definitely fail to explains why Entropy was at the minimum in the moment of big-bang... It just stepping out of bounce.

Order can be generated in small parts of the universe while the overall entropy increases.

Peace
 
Greetings,


The Big Bang is a theory, not a law, so I'm not sure how this sets up your quote from the University of Michigan.

Peace

The Big Bang is a theory, who says it is a law ?
Read The link to U. Michigan again
“The Big Bang theory provides a viable solution to one of the most pressing questions of all time. It is important to understand, however, that the theory itself is constantly being revised. As more observations are made and more research conducted, the Big Bang theory becomes more complete and our knowledge of the origins of the universe more substantial.* “

That means it is subject to fail or promoted into a law...it is the best we have so far....

This link is to show the word 'finite,beginning,creation' to establish the incapability of science to answer many basic questions....

The Conservative Law of Energy is mentioned to show the impossibility to create something out of nothing.
Nobody believes a house popped out of nothing...yet, how amazing over 300 millions people believe universe has no Creator.


Greetings,

The simple fact that the Qur'an provides answers doesn't necessarily mean they are the right answers.

Peace

Al-Qur'an is the right answer to all Muslims....but Not to those who are not God-conscious, hence it goes perfectly with the “No compulsion in Religion”...You have the option to disbelieve....

Since science fails to provide answers, you use a big leap of faith to disbelieve while we use our “Iman” to believe the given right answer mentioned in the Al-Qur'an....we have the answers which you have the option to consider 'the answer is wrong...' yet you have nothing, no answers what soever by disbelieve...


Greetings,

Order can be generated in small parts of the universe while the overall entropy increases.
Peace

According to second law of thermodynamics....in the given time, entropy increases...
True, order can be generated though in the process the overall entropy increases...but according to Stephen Hawking only conscious being capables to generate order.....
Any order in the far galaxies or in the universe obviously has nothing to do with being on earth...Back to the question, Who gives orders in due proportions ?
As Muslim it is an easy answer....you may disbelieve or dislike our answer, that is your option....but, again you have nothing, no answer at all....

Believers are always in better position in this life and the next than the disbelievers....
 
Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

No, it's a big leap of faith.

That is the bottom line, we are stuck with faith and trust. And it seems most daunting, that the same One God has given us faith through many diverse religions.

We should really be kinder to each other despite all our differences, the same God hears all our prayers.

In the spirit of searching for a greater faith and trust in God

Eric
 
"A particle pops out of nowhere" is impossible since it is a direct violation of the conservative law of energy...

The law of conservation of energy and matter is irrelevant in the context of the Big Bang which was itself the origin of that space-time dimension. In other words, there was no time before the Big Bang from which energy could be conserved from.

Scientific laws are time-invariant meaning future inventions will NOT trash n invalid them

'Scientific laws' are merely statements, usually in terms of mathematics, of relationships that we observe - or theorize - to exist. Physical theories usually postulate such laws. Far from being 'time-invariant' they are frequently discarded or, as with Newtonian mechanics, recognised as being only a special case. Below one Planck time the whole lot goes out of the window.
 
Last edited:
You said it yourself,

The law of conservation of energy and matter is
irrelevant in the context of the Big Bang which was itself the origin of that space-time dimension. In other words, there was no time before the Big Bang from which energy could be conserved from.


I said,
"A particle pops out of nowhere" is impossible since it is a direct violation of the conservative law of energy (CLOE)..

At t<0 all unit of measurements (time, space, energy, mass etc) are Unobservable, hence science will never able to provide the answers...that means, CLOE is not applicable
at t=0... the best we can say: time=0;space=0; energy=0 etc..i.e.CLOE is 0 ...whatever the definitiions of zero means...
at t=10^-43 something beautiful took place...


So, the Conservative law of energy has a meaning only at t>=10^-43 till the moment of big crunch and/or where units of measurements (space, time, energy etc) have a meaning (according to Einstein, in the singularity all natural laws also break down )...


if at t<=0.it those units of measurements are irrelevant...then why make a comparison,

"I just view a creator God as far more improbable than even a spontaneous universe out of 'nothing'. In the latter case a ball of elementary particles pops out of 'nowhere' and in the second, by definition, the most complex entity that could possibly be concieved, i.e. God, pops out of nowhere - or is eternal..."

which in this context the comparison makes no sense anyway..



'Scientific laws' are merely statements, usually in terms of mathematics, of relationships that we observe - or theorize - to exist. Physical theories usually postulate such laws. Far from being 'time-invariant' they are frequently discarded or, as with Newtonian mechanics, recognised as being only a special case. Below one Planck time the whole lot goes out of the window.

"Scientific laws are time-invariant "
is a statement from a physics book written by one of the Nobel laureates committed to the memory. But since I am not up to the task to find which books... let's go to wiki....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[7] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.[8]


according to this,

scientific theory promoted into a law is a common misconception....Ok, I can that...

but notice, "A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law"

A law WILL ALWAYS remain a law....does it not mean Scientific laws are time-invariant? Far from "being frequently discarded out of the window"?
 
gang4, I don't want to sound harsh but it's probably best if you don't speak about science at all since it's painfully apparent you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top