Why the Big Bang was the most precisely planned event in all of history

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Day 3 | 312 Comments

 
«
»
 

312 Comments

DoubleD586 says:
December 2, 2009 at 1:26 pm

WHERE DID GOD COME FROM ?

Based on your own words nothing can just be !

Perry Marshall says:
December 4, 2009 at 4:31 pm

Based on logic, SOMETHING has to just be. Something non-causal. That rules out the universe creating itself.

mrl_space says:
December 20, 2009 at 7:28 am

(First accept my apologies if i can’t speak english well)
Dear mr.marshall:
You want to prove god for atheists,for me that already existence of god is proven,reading your emails is really enjoyable,but for a person that doesn’t believe in god,has no effect on him/her.I,myself,have examined talking to these kinds of people,if they don’t WANT to believe,so they won’t.we can use any proof but because they don’t WANT to they don’t even think or listen.you know what i mean.i am really disappointed of talking to these kinds of people about existence of god.i think god should direct them and we can just pray for them.I am willing to see what is your reply.
sincerely yours

Perry Marshall says:
December 28, 2009 at 6:39 pm

My experience is, logical technical people need to reason things out with another person, not just be prayed for.

1872553496 says:
December 22, 2009 at 12:11 am

Big bang or creator doesn’t exist to produced a giant materials in order to create a Universe. Impossible? This will not happen on the past the present and the future. Because the materials of Universe came from Eternal Plain. This Universe & Eternal Plain has a life span in order to recycle again and again forever more and the Eternal Plain was the first made before the Universe was. Thank you & goodluck and may the Supreme of Love and Truth of Cosmos will Blessed you all.

The Real,
1872553496

1872553496 says:
December 22, 2009 at 12:20 am

If you wrote this as a decimal, the number would look like this:

0.01 / 0.01 = 1 / 1% = 100 x 1% = 1 / 1% = 100 x 1% =1

This decimal point computation of recycle computation of Eternal plain and Universe. The first 100 is Eternal Plain and second 100 is Universe.

rene says:
January 16, 2010 at 1:30 pm

I am not agree, there is a posibility that the Universe is as eternal as your idea of God. You can ask also who create God? If you answer is eternal you can also imagine an eternal Universe, with no need for creation. The big bang could be just the start of a big cycle, is posible we will know this in the future.

I am agree that if anything at the beggining was diferent we may not be here asking us how everything started? But this is not a prove that God exist.

We are here asking this because the Universe started like that, if don’t we will not be here, is that simple.

There is many evidence that shows that there is not a perfect plan on the Universe, you may think this if you only think in our planet, but there are many other planets, billions of millions in which the life has not came up. The laws of the Universe are suporting the energy/matter evolution in mnay worlds and during many, many years… So it was a winner on the lottery of life but there was many tickets in a million of years game. COnsider that. In other hand our planet is not perfect, is incline, the orbit is elpitic, is in constante evolution, there are Earth quakes like the Haiti, volcanic eruptions, etc. The life is the same, there are children (in any specie) who born with defects. You may think is perfect for the delicate balance that it has in recent years (a few millions comparing with the ege of the Universe) but that balance is temporal. Good enough to the life to arise, but is far to be perfect (both life and the planet).

Perry Marshall says:
February 19, 2010 at 9:53 am

The universe is not eternal, we know this because of entropy. If it was eternally old it would be cold, dead and silent.

Whatever was first inevitably has to have been transcendent.

Dina says:
January 17, 2010 at 8:02 am

I am a Christian and have read Genesis, of course. And I totally agree with quotation „…a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”. But – who knows the details how Creator did it? Was it creation of matter (such as Big Bang, for example), or information (today water is believed to contain all the information about our Universe), or may be hologram containing our as well as other universes in the form of some implicative order?

Dina says:
January 17, 2010 at 4:00 pm

I am one who believes in God with a capital G. And at the same time I believe that there can be infinite number of universes, and things have turned out right in all of them. “For there is nothing that God cannot do” (Lk 1:37). So, may be the Big Bang was not only most precisely planned event? It is exactly as you said – absolutely everything is not only possible… It could have actually happened!

norman50 says:
January 18, 2010 at 7:22 pm

ahm finally i’m such a novice for this very topic yet i’m so interested..i’ve got my question..does the solar system a nature?is there a god?

Uldis says:
February 2, 2010 at 12:00 pm

I am one who believes in God with a capital “G” although I am not a real Christian yet. And I believe that there can be infinite number of universes, and things could have turned out right in all of them. “For there is nothing that God cannot do” (Lk 1:37). So, how can You know that the Big Bang was THE ONLY most precisely planned event? May be it is exactly as you said before – absolutely everything is not only possible; it could have actually happened!

Forrest Charnock says:
February 17, 2010 at 12:14 am

Dear Uldis:

Certainly God cannot do anything. He cannot lie, He cannot fail to hate sin or love the sinner and He cannot be the author of confusion.
If you want to believe in an infinite number of universes, a common belief among atheist, on what do you base your belief?
Even if it were true you could never know and if you do your homework it is an atheist concept and you say you are a theist. To believe in the multiverse theory anti-intellectual, anti-scientific ,is hyper religious and an absolutely blind faith .

Hugh Waters says:
February 14, 2010 at 8:29 pm

Time has no beginning and endless … but it tumultuously evolve. Somewhere in the time sphere is the essence of space that naturally cause to evolve. This causes the integration of time and space. The process causes energy. These are now the trinity that causes the universe to expand.

Time is absolute and on standstill without space in between and could not create energy that causes the chain reaction to cause the expansion of universe.

This simply express in: Time x Distance = Work. Energy that causes Work and Space (Distance) causes by Time. Time is absolute and in standstill, however is tumultuous that causes space in between.

Perry Marshall says:
February 16, 2010 at 10:56 pm

Everything we know about the universe indicates that time itself began with the big bang. This is what Einstein’s space-time theorems are all about. No space = no time. Expanding space = forward-moving time. There may be other universes and other dimensions of time but they are undetectable to us.

Forrest Charnock says:
February 17, 2010 at 12:20 am

Dear Hugh:

Please explain how and why time could evolve?
Evolution , even for those who embrace it, only applies to living organisms capable of reproduction.
All scientists , at least all I am aware of, would disagree that time had no beginning. Some argue for a steady state but the most proved law of science, thermodynamics, says there was a beginging.
If time has always existed the energy available for work would have run out and infinite amount of time in the past and we would not exist, at least as mortal beings.
The universe is winding down, something , or someone must have would it up.

BlindSight says:
February 27, 2010 at 9:31 pm

Hmm, this is definitely interesting, but I’m not sure what to make of it yet. I’m somewhat disappointed to see that no one seems to have engaged it seriously, though.

This is a more complex version of the argument that the earth’s complex, fragile circumstances allowed life to exist. The problem with that, though, is that of COURSE we ended up here, because in such a vast universe, the few planets that will hold life are certainly the ones that it will end up on.

I don’t know if I buy the counter that if there were infinite universes, one of them has to work. They would still all follow the same laws, even if their exact arrangements were different. But that’s assuming there are infinite universes, and at this point, I think the only claims for that are completely unverifiable, and as such are philosophy — not science.

What I could see, though, is that instead of infinite universes, if it kept collapsing back as you suggest it would, perhaps things would rearrange continually until the Big Bang actually worked. After that, it would continue as we know it now. We are inevitably the product of the successful run (hypothetically).

The one other issue I can see is that this isn’t evidence for a designer; it is evidence of a gap in knowledge. I’m sure with all the atheists and skeptics that are on here, I don’t need to reintroduce the idea of the God of Gaps fallacy. There is ultimately a counter to that in the Prime Mover argument (which I assume you’re also familiar with). Traditionally speaking, it failed because it tricked you into thinking that an infinite causal regression was impossible (you can’t go backwards forever); however, we know that this is not the case, and there was a point at which time began.

Thus, the argument is valid once again, though all it proves is an outside framework of some sort. I choose to believe it is God because He proves true to me time and time again. This goes back to what I said in a post on one of your other pages: I believe God chooses to reveal Himself through personal interactions, not through impersonal logic. Logic is necessary to defend our faith, but it is not an evangelical tool in my eyes.

madhava murthy says:
March 20, 2010 at 6:29 am

Dear Sir,

How can living organisms both plants & animals defy gravity and grow against the pull of gravity and stand erect. Is it Gravitation Pull of the Moon?

alexk says:
April 9, 2010 at 10:38 am

Its actually rather simple. A live organism seeks to grow. It grows in the path of least resistance. That means that for animals it grows up into the air (as opposed to down into the ground). Plants contain a chemical called auxin. The auxin is more dense than the other chemicals in the plant and gravity pulls the auxin downward. The roots of plants grow towards the auxin, the stem grows away from it.

vYzion says:
March 22, 2010 at 10:37 pm

A brief response to Perry’s comment to DoubleD586: She asked “WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?” Perry responded: “Based on logic, SOMETHING has to just be. Something non-causal. That rules out the universe creating itself.”

Being charitable, I assume that Perry means “non-caused” instead of “non-causal.” (If God were non-causal, he couldn’t very well CAUSE the universe to exist…could he?)

So, even granting that logic in some way requires SOMETHING be non-caused (which is a very questionable claim and requires an argument), that still doesn’t imply that the the Universe, AS A WHOLE, is not that un-caused thing. Granted, goings on IN the Universe require causes, but that’s not the same thing as saying the Universe requires a cause. Perry, I’m sorry to say that you are committing the Fallacy of Composition. In other words, you are saying that something is true of the whole (that the genesis of the Universe is a caused event) just because it is true of the parts (all events IN the Universe are caused events). Here is another example: This brick is light enough for me to lift it. Therefore, this 8 story building, which is composed of numerous bricks exactly like this one, is light enough for me to lift. Here’s another one: A single wolf is too weak to take down its prey. Therefore, a pack of wolves are too weak to take down the same prey. Clearly the reasoning in both of these case is wrong.

If your attempting to reason things out with “logical technical people” as you say to mrl_space, you should probably not make such basic mistakes that you would learn in an Introduction to Logic class.

On to the critique of Big Bang Precision:
You say that

“The Designer, the ‘external agent’ that caused our universe must possess an intellect, knowledge, creativity and power trillions and trillions of times greater than we humans have.”

Now, perhaps this is true, but it certainly does not follow from your claim about the precision (I assume this is what you meant by “accuracy,” the two words do not have the same meaning for a physicist…in fact, if you did mean accuracy, then you’d be begging question which is another logical fallacy) of “Dark Energy Term.” Precision really has very little to do with intelligence, knowledge, or creativity. You may wish to argue that more intelligent etc. people can build more precise devices (precision is not a property possessed by an intelligence, at least not in any normal usage of the word), but so what? Where is the link? As it happens all creatures with hearts also have livers…do you wish to say that one is directly responsible for the other? This is nothing more than mere correlation, if even that. Besides, if you really want to take this route, you should follow it through to the end of it’s consequences. Quantum Mechanics (which you seem to accept) places a limit on the precision of any instrument, The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Thus, there would be a limit to the amount of precision obtainable by God. Now, a normal theist would just make the dogmatic claim that our laws don’t apply to God. Unfortunately, you don’t have that option Perry, or else your argument becomes ad hoc. (You can’t just ignore Science when you want, and then use it when it benefits you, this is another fallacy of reasoning (it’s not a logical fallacy, but it’s clearly not going to be accepted by “logical technical people.”)

In fact, The Measurement Problem even limits what God has the ability to observe (if God really observed everything, then there would be no superposition (i.e., the double slit experiment would never have given an interference pattern)). So, perhaps you’re OK with placing these, and other, limitations of God, but you do need to recognize that you must do so if you are to remain consistent.

In any case, assuming the need for an intelligence trillions of times above our own (which in itself limits God’s intellectual capacity), there is still no reason to assume that that intelligence in anyway belongs to the Judeo-Christian God. It very well could have been the case that the God of Moses was taking an inter-dimensional stroll and happened upon a Big Bang Machine (who’s designers has long since abandoned the project as being utterly ridiculous) with a big red button that read “DO NOT PUSH” and being the mischievous little troublemaker that he is, pushed the button anyway and BAM…Big Bang. And since no one liked God anyway, the thought of having a bunch of little pets that adored him was very appealing so he stuck around and talked them every now then. No need for God to have anything above the dexterity of a 6 month old infant and the conceitedness of Paris Hilton. (Given that the creationism debate is within the context of the Judeo-Christian God, you’re burden of proof is that HE is the Supreme Intelligence. All I need to do is show that HE need not be the one with the brains…which I have done).

Actually, this rebuttal was made 300 years ago by David Hume. In all seriousness, you are making an Intelligent Design Argument (you’re just using different markers for making your inference to a Supreme Intelligence). And, I don’t see anywhere that you have even progressed the argument in any way whatsoever from the state it was in when Hume left it. Hume’s “Dialogues on Natural Religion” utterly DECIMATED arguments like the one you are trying to advance. Simply altering the terminology to reflect the latest and greatest scientific trends does nothing to change the fact that the very FORM of the argument is flawed. You need to add something new to the ARGUMENT, not just rehash it with different indicators. Everyone should really read this classic piece by David Hume. Sadly, this sort of argument has not progressed one bit in over 300 years.

Moving on, you claim that:

“One of the more common explanations seems to be “There was an infinite number of universes, so it was inevitable that things would have turned out right in at least one of them.”

with respect to you your question regarding precision. First, note that I have given a much deeper response. Second, I’d like to know your sample pool that justifies calling this response “common.” In any case, your rebuttal to it simply doesn’t work. Here’s why:

An infinite amount of universes in no way implies that EVERYTHING has actually happened. As any first year Math major knows, not all infinities are equal sizes. In fact, there is an infinite succession of infinities, each being larger than the next. So infinity is pretty vague as it is. You, Perry, must be talking about aleph-nought (for reasons I hope will become obvious), which is the smallest infinity. Now, the way we determine the size of an infinite set is by “pairing off” members of the set, with members of the set of natural numbers. If it is possible to “pair off” each natural number with a member of the set, then we say it is size aleph-nought (since there are obviously infinitely many natural numbers). For example, let set A={a, b, c} and let N={1, 2, 3, …}(the natural numbers). Set A has cardinality 3 (cardinality is Math-speak for size). a–>1, b–>2, c–>3. So, ANY set X, which allows EVERY natural number to be paired, and not members of X remain unpaired (we call this one-to-one and onto) has the same cardinality, or size…namely aleph-nought (the smallest infinity). Now, this has some strange consequences. For one, it means infinity does not, and need not, include “everything.” From this it follows that the set of EVEN numbers is EQUAL in size the set of Natural numbers. That’s right, there are JUST AS MANY even number as there are even PLUS odd. And I will prove it right now. All I need to do is show that there is a way to “pair off” each even number with a natural number and have no natural numbers left over. This is surprisingly simple. 1–>2, 2–4, 3–>6, 4–>8,…and you can finish the pattern yourself. Since there is no end to even numbers, no natural number will be left out. Now, if we take the set of events that you gave (Hoffa without cement boots etc.) it is plain that we can pair them off with a member of the natural numbers and have none left over. In fact, if remove every other event from the set (an infinite number of them), we still have an infinite number left over (we remove every other number to make the set of even numbers). That’s right, we can remove an infinity of possible events and still have an infinite amount left over. So, it’s NOT true that EVERY possible event ACTUALLY happens. You can have an infinity of possible events that DON’T happen. (It need NOT be the case that Hoffa doesn’t end up in cement boots.)

Besides, EVEN IF you had been right and it did mean that every possible event was actual, I’m not too sure why this is such a big a deal. Certainly this no more incredible than an omnipotent cause-less cause. And besides, if EVERYTHING actually happens, then there is no Chance involved…

Once again…Valiant effort, but it just comes up short on the technical side.

Perry Marshall says:
April 7, 2010 at 11:03 am

1. An infinite regression of causes is irrational
2. Therefore there is a finite regression of causes
3. Therefore there is a first cause
4. Therefore the first cause is by definition uncaused.

Your bricks / wolf analogy is insultingly irrelevant. You can’t be serious. Part of the universe needs a cause, but the sum of the parts doesn’t? You’ve got to be kidding. I can’t believe you believe that.

I understand your argument about there being different degrees of infinity, George Gamow talks about that in 123 Infinity. But I think you need to read the paper “Disturbing implications of a cosmological constant” which considers the significance of the constants in the universe being highly specific values, not haphazard. Any way you want to slice it it’s highly improbable that a universe would turn out “just this way” to the point that many people invoke a multiverse so that the one we live in can be ascribed to chance.

That speaks for itself.

As for Hume, information theory demolishes his argument against design. Hume said the analogy between a watch and a living thing is insufficiently close. Information theory says that DNA code is isomorphic with computer code (Yockey, 2005). All codes we know the origin of are designed. Therefore we have 100% inference to design in biology. Basic Claude Shannon (1948) engineering communication theory demolishes Hume, and you can write it in blood. I’m sure you will initially disagree. Try me on this. But do your homework first – I’ve done mine. See the DNA articles on this site.

Scott, The blog says comments may take time to be approved.

gautam says:
April 17, 2010 at 12:56 am

actually i dont have enough stuff to comment on your work but u r really doing a great job u should go through the gita i think it will help you on your work

pankaj66866 says:
April 24, 2010 at 8:56 pm

Dude How is Gita related to his work or theory of computation …? What he mr marshall is saying has no connection with gita.

pankaj66866 says:
April 24, 2010 at 1:45 pm

Mr marshall : What should i say … while your consideration that all mass when expanded through big bang must be caused becuase of a definite plan which needs to be correct by a chance of 10^120 zeros. other wise mass would have sprayed like dust …? or if it were too slow would have re-collapsed back to the point of singularity. The Question is not how but why did the point of singularity expand on the first place …? If by planned u mean there was an external agent who precisely expanded the universe. My question is why would he need to do so …? why not spread the matter across the universe explicitly, if it (external agent) were trillions of times more intelligence than us …? Also when you are talking physics let me tell you something more …. have you heard of blackholes … ? Blackhole is an infinitey dense state of matter. Now if we consider your hypothesis, if the universe would have expanded little slower the resulting mass would have again contracted back to singularity. but you did not consider that initially before explosion it was all singularity. Your supposition would be wrong here because when universe started if all the mass was at one point the gravitational pull would be so strong that it would resist the matter from expanding , please consider that we are talking about the entire mass of the universe … and you must be knowing that gravitational force is directly proportional to mass. The thing is you really dont understand “Big Bang” .the hypotheseis goes : Big bang caused a rapid expansion in space time and hence matter since energy and mass is interconvertible. So in simple words for people with lesser understanding of physics the mass was created during the space time expansion…. before that the point of singularity was nothing but energy. We really dont understand what exactly this enrgy was or how it came there on the first place … but as the firat law of thermodynamics goes energy can neither be created nor destroyer it can only be converted from ane form to another.

Perry Marshall says:
October 10, 2010 at 2:34 am

If the universe contracted back it would not generate a 2nd singularity because the energy was partially spent so it could never again achieve its original density.

Carbon-based Machine says:
April 27, 2010 at 8:09 pm

Present-day atheists are often times postulating that a quantum fluctuation created our universe. Well, the problem with that is that quantum fluctuations don’t really create anything. They usually combine this with the multiverse theory (which isn’t a true scientific theory, since it has no evidence to support it). Believing in the multiverse theory takes about as much faith as believing in God, and it is less logical and probable than God is. This link explains it well:
http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god

pankaj66866 says:
April 28, 2010 at 11:48 am

Not Neccessarily …. First of all its highly unlikely for a multivere to exist but that does not mean that it takes a leap greater than the leap of god …. the multiverse theory has been hypothesised in cosmology, physics, astronomy, philosophy but before all it was hypothesised in fiction like hinduism and islam. The context or behavior in each supposition of a multiverse be it cosmology or religion differs slightly. It never postulates the quantum fluctations responsible for creating anything. If you go and read the theory carefully you will know that it hypothesised that universe to be made up of fundamental particles called strings … and m-theory is just an elaborate version of it. Yes this does produce a possibility of multi verse and the way they connect this is by connecting expanding space time with multiverse , so physicists theorised that all matter in this universe may have come from the matter in the next closest universe. But the problem is it does not solve where the matter came from on the first place either in this Universe or the next one. But it rule out the possibilty of believing in a supernatural entity responsible for creating the universe. instead i would quote what carl sagan once said …lets save a step, instead of thinking that god was always there, lets say the matter and space was always there and you can rule out if god was responsible for creating it. By the way did god create space too …? i mean the empty vaccum of nothingness….? If he didn’t then nothing ness probably predates and precedes …. something like god. It may sound abstract but nothingness is also something …. if god is omnipotent can it ever destroy nothingess/emptyness because emptyness is atleast a measurable space in this vast universe but void is not even that … if not probably nothingness is more powerfull than god itself. If u understand what i mean.

Comment Page 6 of 6« Oldest...«23456