# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  Do you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of the Universe ?

## Maciamo

It seems that I am one of the few rational/positive/strong Atheists who believe that the Big Bang was not the commencement of the Universe at all. All Theist people obviously believe that the Universe was created by god, or one among many gods (like the Hindu god of creation, Brahma), otherwise there would be no point of believing in god. Atheists on the other hand can be split into two categories : 

1) Those who believe that the Universe had a beginning (and therefore also logically an end). This beginning is typically associated with the Big Bang. All religious Creationists also believe in a universe with a beginning, which is why many Christians have no problems believing in the Big Bang theory.

2) Those who believe that the Universe is eternal (no beginning and no end), and therefore the Big Bang is no more the beginning of the Universe than the fission of an atom. It was just an explosion on a different scale.


This most essential division of eternal vs ephemeral Universe is one of time. Beliefs can also be divided for the limit in space of the Universe. Either the Universe is a finite entity. Or it is infinite in space. Once again, religious people overwhelmingly believe in limits. Creationists believe in a finite and ephemeral Universe. 


For my part, I believe that it doesn't make any sense at all to think of the Universe as an entity that is spatially finite and limited in time on either end. I often feel disappointed when other scientifically-minded Atheists claim that the Big Bang was the beginning of the Universe. It is just another form of creationism. 

It is undeniably the event that created our system of galaxies, probably everything that is visible to us in space. But why would it represent everything that exists ? If we take the analogy of the nuclear explosion for the Big Bang, if our galaxies, stars and planets are mere conglomerates of subatomic microparticles, how could we possibly perceive or understand the rest of the universe at a scale vastly larger, indeed infinite ? There may even be different rules of physics applying to each level of the Universe. Rewind the Big Bang until before the explosion and we might well have been energy inside a sort of atom from a higher scale section of the Universe, behaving with different rules of physics and chemistry as those at our own level, just like what we know of our subatomic particles (quarks, leptons, bosons) have different properties from those found at our supra-atomic world.

----------


## Kardu

To me it all seems absurd and I don't see a point in believing in anything at all :) it is also possible that our brains and minds are too limited to comprehend the universe.
So I prefer the pragmatic way making sense of what I can and achieving the goals in a best way possible according to my own standards. Somewhat along the lines of Marcus Aurelius :)

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

----------


## ElHorsto

I'm sure that the universe can not have been ever created, because its creator and creation itself must be part of the same universe, which is paradox. Since I'm also convinced that time is just part of the universe, the question of beginning and end becomes obsolete (or undecidable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem). I'm not a physicist, but as I understood, the singularity represents this paradoxon very well by its infinite mass density, which is an impossibility. For me this impossibility proves that there was no beginning of the universe. It just exists. Also time is part of the universe that just exists. Rightfully, physicists claim that even time did not "exist" "before" the big bang. Consequently I have no problem with the big bang theory as long as it is considered as part of the same universe which it is supposed to have "created".
Further I believe that the time we humans subjectively "observe" is actually the process of observations itself. Possibly this model also provides an explanation for the status of one owns death as the absence of any subjective observations and consequently subjective absence of time.
Maybe this all has also something to do with quantum physics, where it was shown that mere observations can change quantum states (Schrödinger's cat). I wish I would be more educated in quantum physics.

Kardu, I think you are also much close to the truth.

----------


## Maciamo

> I'm sure that the universe can not have been ever created, because its creator and creation itself must be part of the same universe, which is paradox. Since I'm also convinced that time is just part of the universe, the question of beginning and end becomes obsolete


That's also my reasoning.

----------


## Carlos

I believe in the big bang theory and that the universe is limited.

----------


## julia90

there could be various universes... what is the big bang if not concentrated materia?.. and what happens with a black hole?.. again materia concentrated... black holes create big bangs, which create universes

----------


## Maciamo

> there could be various universes... what is the big bang if not concentrated materia?.. and what happens with a black hole?.. again materia concentrated... black holes create big bangs, which create universes


By definition the Universe is everything that exists. There could be many systems of galaxies that evolved from different Big Bangs (IMHO, there are an infinity of them). There could be "parallel worlds". But everything would still be called the Universe.

----------


## Kardu

> By definition the Universe is everything that exists. There could be many systems of galaxies that evolved from different Big Bangs (IMHO, there are an infinity of them). There could be "parallel worlds". But everything would still be called the Universe.


What is your stand in regard to so called fine-tuned universe? Not that I believe in intelligent design but some of the arguments are puzzling to say the least.

----------


## Carlos

If man does not understand and it is very difficult for him to come to understand the universe. Anyway I think the universe could collapse at any moment, as if it were a rubber band, then maybe all start again, now perhaps the universe is stretching, when least expected, to gargle.

----------


## himagain

Well, in current scientific thought, the big bag is paradigmaticaly the best way to explain how the universe began. If evidential change in the paradigm should be found, science will probably consider it the best way to describe how our universe came to be. Then we would have another phenomenon to discuss.

----------


## julia90

Theory of *Multiverse

*

----------


## 7omnia7

> I'm sure that the universe can not have been ever created, because its creator and creation itself must be part of the same universe, which is paradox.


The paradox would exist IF the "creator" were indeed wholely part of "this" Universe. 
Someone might argue that "god" comes from "beyond" or exists even outside the universe. In those cases, no paradox. 
However, by the same logical assumptions, "God" would be unprovable! If God (intended as the "creator") is also "outside" the system (universe), it would be a non-quantifiable/verifiable concept!

----------


## 7omnia7

I'm a pure agnostic on this one. Yet I find the "white hole" hypothesis an intriguing one :)

----------


## ElHorsto

> The paradox would exist IF the "creator" were indeed wholely part of "this" Universe. 
> Someone might argue that "god" comes from "beyond" or exists even outside the universe. In those cases, no paradox.


The true meaning of Universe ("the everything") does not allow anything "beyond" Universe. Hence the creator would be part of the universe already by definition, if we keep thinking reasonably logically. (sidenote: terms like "Multiverse" are actually nonsense, they emerged from the need of new terms for new thought models)




> However, by the same logical assumptions, "God" would be unprovable! If God (intended as the "creator") is also "outside" the system (universe), it would be a non-quantifiable/verifiable concept!


You basically suggest to abandon reason or logic (Universe definition), which is actually debatable. For unverifiable concepts I already mentioned the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem, which is perfectly expressible in formal logic.

Here comes a real challenge: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics. Many don't realize that it is based on creation, e.g. events without cause (1). Nils Bohr leaned towards existentialism, thus he was satisfied with the explanation that "there is no explanation". I think he unknowingly proposed creation.

I lean towards the Anthropic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) as it is able to explain away many important questions (not sure whether also the Copenhagen Interpretation!). In short: Our mere existence is already an observation bias, which explains why the Universe is "designed" in such a way that we can exist in order to observe it. I would generalize it as follows: Existence is tautologic, non-existence is paradox. Existence just exists without need of creation. Non-existence can not exist. Is this the edge of logic and reason already? Don't know.

1) The observed position of an electron in the double-slit experiment emerges randomly. The question is: why appeared the electron exactly here but not there? Physics until now is not only not able to find and answer, but Nils Bohr explicitly proposed to assume principal non-existence of any answer here. In short: There is existence without cause. Or alternatively, there exists true randomness. (Randomness with a cause is no true randomness but chaos.)

----------


## FBS

For me Big Bang is just an "explosion", a point when we moved from singularity towards expansion, a point when this "reality" started. After some time (millenniums or split of a second it really depends from the point of view, think of quantum and the observer) we will start to go back to that singularity and we will have another "big bang". So to me the big bang is not the start of everything it is just a part of cycles: explosion-expansion-implosion and "life goes on", never ending story.

----------


## ebAmerican

I don't know what the model is technically called but I like the explanation: The universe is like a tree from it's roots new universes are born. It is a cyclical system of birth, death, and rebirth. I know the current thought is a cold death, but I think our knowledge is very limited and our explanations will evolve like everything else in the universe. I don't believe in a creator, but an infinite renewable universal model. Everything has a beginning and an end; evolution has taught us this principle. But, out of every end a new beginning occurs (new species, new planets, new galaxies, new universes).

----------


## LeBrok

> Everything has a beginning and an end; evolution has taught us this principle. But, out of every end a new beginning occurs (new species, new planets, new galaxies, new universes).


I think that re-birthing of universe is more elegant and acceptable for most of us, me included. Much more than universe which came to existence at one point and will continue forever in cold state when all the stars expire.

----------


## Kardu

> The true meaning of Universe ("the everything") does not allow anything "beyond" Universe. Hence the creator would be part of the universe already by definition, if we keep thinking reasonably logically. (sidenote: terms like "Multiverse" are actually nonsense, they emerged from the need of new terms for new thought models)


Our concept of universe is anthropocentric to its core = everything what is comprehensible to our minds and organs of our perception. 

Seeing from this point of view 'beyond' is quite plausible.

----------


## ElHorsto

> Our concept of universe is anthropocentric to its core = everything what is comprehensible to our minds and organs of our perception.


Agreed. Actually it is even impossible to define the term Universe consistently since it would be something paradox like 'the set of all sets'. So we have to make constraints to fit our constrained abilities. So how can we even start to explain it. But at least we still can define the Universe as "the thing that can not be defined" And the explanation of the existence of the Universe it that it can not be explained  (actually, that's how I understood the Copenhagen Interpretation, seriously). 




> Seeing from this point of view 'beyond' is quite plausible.


Or maybe we all mean the same and 'beyond' is just another word for 'undecidable'.

Good night!

----------


## Kardu

I fully agree :)

----------


## Aberdeen

I'm waiting for Schrodinger's cat to join this discussion.

----------


## bicicleur

I don't know, I wasn't there when it happened.
I don't believe any God was there either.

Maybe by the time we controll nuclear fusion, we'll know more.

----------


## gyms

What does quantum mechanics imply for classical logic?

https://www.quora.com/What-does-quan...lassical-logic

----------


## bancroft

I don't believe in Big Bang theory simply because, it remain theory until now. 
http://science.nationalgeographic.co...verse-article/

----------


## Yetos

:Thinking:  call me, CHAOS  :Cool V:

----------

