Evidence for God from Science

Hey guys i just wanted to ask if the Big bang created time? And what is the proof?

God bless !!

CeT-To wrote:Hey guys i just wanted to ask if the Big bang created time? And what is the proof?

God bless !!

I posted links to a couple of excellent youtube lectures here that might answer your question. They are well worth the time.

Hey Byblos! thanx a lot!

Firstly i would like to state that watching people who are religious one way or another give lectures on science in a way that promotes the existence of god, is almost always cringe worthy. while he does bring up a lot of scientific truths, it seems watered down and vital parts missed out in order to fully promote the point. but the video's are worth a watch.

on to your question. i will break it down into two individual questions. firstly, Was Time created in the big bang?

Firstly, let it be said, that Time it'self is still a mystery to science. But the current scientific view to this is probably the most ambiguous answer ever. Yes, and No. It is beginning to look more and more like String Theory, and its slightly more complex offspring, M-theory, are on the right track. now I'm not going to go into huge detail on these because they are very complicated and deal with a lot of things that are not relevant to your question, but I think it would be fair to say that just like the standard model of particle physics, every single aspect that we can currently test has come out positive, new methods of testing are coming around all the time, and like relativity and the standard model, sting theory is standing up to the huge scrutiny placed upon it. and just like the Standard model, every time you get evidence to support one part, it strengthens the likelihood that other things will also be conclusive as each part needs each other part to be true in order to work.

Anyhow, String theory dictates that our universe has 9+1 dimensions, time always considered a +1 as it has different property's to normal space dimensions. but without going into too finer detail about it, it also clearly states that ours is one of many trillions of possible universes, all situated across something called the landscape, a phrase coined by prof Leonard Susskind, one of the fathers of String Theory. M-Theory has taken this a little further, and forgive the Layman's metaphor's but i don't know how much you know about this kind of thing, imagine our universe as a sheet of A4 paper. now imagine that our sheet is in a stack of billions of sheets. now to our eyes these sheets are all stacked neatly, and are in contact with each neighbouring page across the full surface, however at the quantum level, no sheet is actually touching as the electrons refuse to come within a certain distance of each other, they are effectively floating, at intensely small distances from each other. this is how M-theory explains the mega-verse (or multi-verse if you prefer). this seems off topic but bear with me, now in our paper universe, the forces from the electrons stop the paper actually touching, and we know this because if they did the nuclear forces would kick in and there would be no way to separate them without using vast quantity's of energy. now picture our universe shortly before the big bang. almost twice the mass of today's universe, crushed down to a one dimensional point. E=MC(2) so that is such a huge amount of energy focused at such a tiny point that a quantum fluctuation could bring it in contact with a neighbouring membrane universe. if that happened, BANG. we have a realistic explanation for the big bang that requires no god. now the TIME bit, Time, should have existed theoretically before the big bang, but not necessarily in our universe. It's very possible that time's existence in our universe is a result of the Big bang, but not created by it. likewise the 9 dimensions of space would be a result of the big bang, but not created by the big bang itself. just like dripping some red food colouring into a glass of water, the drip causes red swirly patterns, but did not create the red food colouring.

okay, and to the second part of your question. The Proof? well that's a hard one. One thing myself and almost ALL scientists struggle with on a day to day basis with, is proof. not its existence, but how to get others to understand the evidence we have to hand. Imagine we could travel in time, and we bring Aristotle into our time and we show him a television. even a child would be able to give him a rough idea of how a television works, but to Aristotle any explanation is going to still seem impossible, and the Television set will still seem like magic, the reason is that we today, are comfortable with what we call basic concepts, which we wouldn't bother to explain. for instance, the TV receives a signal, the concept of a signal means nothing to Aristotle, the tv turns that signal into an image, again, how the TV does this is impossible for him to work out. i have chosen Aristotle for the story because he was a very smart man, and i do not wish for you to think i am calling you stupid or ignorant by explaining that you probably wont understand the evidence. it is because all of the evidence is based on thousands of other mathematical principles, and its almost impossible for someone to understand how we came to the end results without understanding first the principles which led us to this point. to truely accept the evidence for string theory you have to be fully aware of the anti-de-Sitter space/conformal field theory, Quantum Chromodynamics, the Standard Model of particle physics, Relativity, etc, etc, etc..

without spending several weeks bringing you up to speed, i think it would be best to just say that Einstein and Bohr's works don't like each other as much as the men who did the work did. Einstein's work has needed a little modification over the years, as has Bohr's, but both are pretty well documented as tested and un-falsified. however there is a problem. Both of them are right. however if one of them is right, the other has to be wrong. if they were both right our universe would be a totally different and chaotic place where no life could ever form. we understand Quantum Mechanics, and it's principles are used on a daily basis. we know Relativity, since it too is used on a daily basis. however, there is no way both can simultaneously exist. string theory is the best, and, only way we have of getting these two principles to sit together without fighting, however getting the evidence for sting theory is insanely hard. the LHC at CERN will be working on it to the best of its abilitys, it "could" prove string theory wrong, but its unlikely at its power output. for String theory to be proven with today's equipment, (and it has long been known that any theory of Quantum gravity would take unimaginable amounts of energy to prove) we would need to build another particle accelerator. the more power you put into a particle accelerator, the larger it has to be. for all intensive purposes, the LHC is a giant microscope. and to build one big enough to resolve the sizes string theory deals with, would require an accelerator that is 1770,000,000,000 miles long. 1770 trillion miles. that's around the same distance as the circumference of our galaxy. so as you can see, a lot of scientists really don't like string theory as its so damn hard to prove. but there are ways around it.

if you want more information on String theory, the current view of the universe, how, why and what, in a way that explains it, and the proof behind it in a way that anyone can understand, i would recommend you buy a book that covers it. may i offer some suggestions


Leonard Susskind - The Cosmic Landscape and the illusion of intelligent design
G.J. Whitrow - What Is Time?: The Classic Account of the Nature of Time

Hi. I'm replying to the person who explained why time was created.
First of all, you are committing an error when you say that there are million, billions or google number of universes. We only have evidence of ONE universe. Hence, the Uni- in the word universe. I agree with you on all your other points including 9 dimensions plus 1 of time. The reason scientists who are atheists posit the multiverse (level 3 or 4) is because they HAVE to....to do away with all powerful Agent who created space and time. BUT, that leads to another bevy of questions i.e. who created that FIRST universe that gave raise to all the others? When and where did IT begin? Going into infinity is no good. Science has demonstrated that there WAS a beginning to both time AND space. 6 small dimensions rolled up at the quantum level inside the 3 space dimensions that we experience + one of time.
The answer lies in the pages of the Bible where we have a GOD is OUTSIDE of time and space....transcendent, beyond time and space. That is why Christianity is different from all the other religions of the world....those other gods exist WITHIN this time and space or into the infinity past which of course we know can't be true.....time itself was created AT the Beginning.

Bengali wrote:Firstly i would like to state that watching people who are religious one way or another give lectures on science in a way that promotes the existence of god, is almost always cringe worthy. while he does bring up a lot of scientific truths, it seems watered down and vital parts missed out in order to fully promote the point. but the video's are worth a watch.

Ah yes, people who are religious are a little more tainted scientists and a little less objective that non-religious scientists (let's face it, you mean atheist scientists but of course that's just pure speculation on my part ). Everyone brings a little personal prejudice in everything they do, but it does not preclude them from rendering as unbiased an opinion as anyone else can.

I don't know if you know much about Dr. Robert Spitzer. Yes, he is a Jesuit priest and does wear a white collar but you would not have know that at all from his first lecture had he not been wearing his priestly outfit. The man has a PHD in astrophysics as well as a degree in philosophy (not sure what level). Now that's a lethal combination for atheist scientists, especially astrophysicists, because he is in a unique position to argue from both sides of the coin, physics as well as philosophy, unlike Steven Hawking who is a brilliant physicist but makes a mockery of himself (and his co-writer) when he delves into metaphysics in his latest book (after initially declaring the discipline dead).

You may or may not know also that the Vatican has one of leading astronomical research centers in the world, one that is very highly respected by all scientists irrespective of their belief systems. So no, his opinions are not watered down in any way. If you care to argue against them I've posted his website; I'm sure he'd be happy to answer you back.

Bengali wrote:on to your question. i will break it down into two individual questions. firstly, Was Time created in the big bang?

Firstly, let it be said, that Time it'self is still a mystery to science. But the current scientific view to this is probably the most ambiguous answer ever. Yes, and No. It is beginning to look more and more like String Theory, and its slightly more complex offspring, M-theory, are on the right track. now I'm not going to go into huge detail on these because they are very complicated and deal with a lot of things that are not relevant to your question, but I think it would be fair to say that just like the standard model of particle physics, every single aspect that we can currently test has come out positive, new methods of testing are coming around all the time, and like relativity and the standard model, sting theory is standing up to the huge scrutiny placed upon it. and just like the Standard model, every time you get evidence to support one part, it strengthens the likelihood that other things will also be conclusive as each part needs each other part to be true in order to work.

Anyhow, String theory dictates that our universe has 9+1 dimensions, time always considered a +1 as it has different property's to normal space dimensions. but without going into too finer detail about it, it also clearly states that ours is one of many trillions of possible universes, all situated across something called the landscape, a phrase coined by prof Leonard Susskind, one of the fathers of String Theory. M-Theory has taken this a little further, and forgive the Layman's metaphor's but i don't know how much you know about this kind of thing, imagine our universe as a sheet of A4 paper. now imagine that our sheet is in a stack of billions of sheets. now to our eyes these sheets are all stacked neatly, and are in contact with each neighbouring page across the full surface, however at the quantum level, no sheet is actually touching as the electrons refuse to come within a certain distance of each other, they are effectively floating, at intensely small distances from each other. this is how M-theory explains the mega-verse (or multi-verse if you prefer). this seems off topic but bear with me, now in our paper universe, the forces from the electrons stop the paper actually touching, and we know this because if they did the nuclear forces would kick in and there would be no way to separate them without using vast quantity's of energy. now picture our universe shortly before the big bang. almost twice the mass of today's universe, crushed down to a one dimensional point. E=MC(2) so that is such a huge amount of energy focused at such a tiny point that a quantum fluctuation could bring it in contact with a neighbouring membrane universe. if that happened, BANG. we have a realistic explanation for the big bang that requires no god. now the TIME bit, Time, should have existed theoretically before the big bang, but not necessarily in our universe. It's very possible that time's existence in our universe is a result of the Big bang, but not created by it. likewise the 9 dimensions of space would be a result of the big bang, but not created by the big bang itself. just like dripping some red food colouring into a glass of water, the drip causes red swirly patterns, but did not create the red food colouring.

okay, and to the second part of your question. The Proof? well that's a hard one. One thing myself and almost ALL scientists struggle with on a day to day basis with, is proof. not its existence, but how to get others to understand the evidence we have to hand. Imagine we could travel in time, and we bring Aristotle into our time and we show him a television. even a child would be able to give him a rough idea of how a television works, but to Aristotle any explanation is going to still seem impossible, and the Television set will still seem like magic, the reason is that we today, are comfortable with what we call basic concepts, which we wouldn't bother to explain. for instance, the TV receives a signal, the concept of a signal means nothing to Aristotle, the tv turns that signal into an image, again, how the TV does this is impossible for him to work out. i have chosen Aristotle for the story because he was a very smart man, and i do not wish for you to think i am calling you stupid or ignorant by explaining that you probably wont understand the evidence. it is because all of the evidence is based on thousands of other mathematical principles, and its almost impossible for someone to understand how we came to the end results without understanding first the principles which led us to this point. to truely accept the evidence for string theory you have to be fully aware of the anti-de-Sitter space/conformal field theory, Quantum Chromodynamics, the Standard Model of particle physics, Relativity, etc, etc, etc..

without spending several weeks bringing you up to speed, i think it would be best to just say that Einstein and Bohr's works don't like each other as much as the men who did the work did. Einstein's work has needed a little modification over the years, as has Bohr's, but both are pretty well documented as tested and un-falsified. however there is a problem. Both of them are right. however if one of them is right, the other has to be wrong. if they were both right our universe would be a totally different and chaotic place where no life could ever form. we understand Quantum Mechanics, and it's principles are used on a daily basis. we know Relativity, since it too is used on a daily basis. however, there is no way both can simultaneously exist. string theory is the best, and, only way we have of getting these two principles to sit together without fighting, however getting the evidence for sting theory is insanely hard. the LHC at CERN will be working on it to the best of its abilitys, it "could" prove string theory wrong, but its unlikely at its power output. for String theory to be proven with today's equipment, (and it has long been known that any theory of Quantum gravity would take unimaginable amounts of energy to prove) we would need to build another particle accelerator. the more power you put into a particle accelerator, the larger it has to be. for all intensive purposes, the LHC is a giant microscope. and to build one big enough to resolve the sizes string theory deals with, would require an accelerator that is 1770,000,000,000 miles long. 1770 trillion miles. that's around the same distance as the circumference of our galaxy. so as you can see, a lot of scientists really don't like string theory as its so damn hard to prove. but there are ways around it.

if you want more information on String theory, the current view of the universe, how, why and what, in a way that explains it, and the proof behind it in a way that anyone can understand, i would recommend you buy a book that covers it. may i offer some suggestions


Leonard Susskind - The Cosmic Landscape and the illusion of intelligent design
G.J. Whitrow - What Is Time?: The Classic Account of the Nature of Time

I'm also sure you are aware there are many physicists who vehemently disagree with string or M-theory and they're not even religious (but I'm certain a reason can be found to discount their opinion). Besides which, like Dr. Spitzer explained, it really doesn't matter how many infinite universes are theorized, first the odds of any one of them having the right conditions for complex life are still infinity to 1 (actually something like 10^10^128, yes that is 10 to the power 10 to the power 128), and that's only to create a universe CAPABLE of complex life, to say nothing of the odds to actually produce it. And second, it only pushes the first cause argument further back but does nothing to negate it.

Both of them are right. however if one of them is right, the other has to be wrong. if they were both right our universe would be a totally different and chaotic place where no life could ever form.

You said a mouthful.

He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Col 1:17

The time dimension of this universe does have a beginning.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf

Discussion. Our argument shows that null and timelike geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work [8] in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (finite affine length, in the null case).

In other words, if you run the clock backwards you run into a boundary where time can not pass. Time had a beginning.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/080 ... 3598v1.pdf

Time irreversibility is of course a hallmark of non-equilibrium systems; this cosmological model naturally produces both an arrow and an origin of time. Moreover, in this approach the relationship of canonical quantum theory and equilibrium statistical mechanics is extended to an analogy of generalized quantum theory and non-equilibrium statistical mechanics.