What Happened before the Big Bang?
Adnan balboa19@idt.net
Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:42:03 -0700 (00875670123, 3.0.1.32.19970930124203.006859a4@idt.net)
Steve Stokes:
>You seemed to miss this message so I am resending it to you.
Adnan:
No, I have missed nothing. First of all this was written by Till, not you.
I do not know about Hawking, but I did ask my physics professor, and he
agreed with what I wrote. The article in the Discover Magazine, I quoted
(and gave the web address) also confirmed my statements; the site "Ask the
Astronomer (http://www2.ari.net/home/odenwald/qadir/qanda.htm),
which is by someone who has a Ph.D. in astronomy from Harvard University,
also agreed. Certainly, then, I backed my position with evidence. But Steve
provided no evidence, and I doubt that he read the Hawking's book himself.
Anyway, when I say that the time has a beginning, by this I certainly do not
mean that this is a proof for the existence of God, or that it disproves
the evaluation. In the religious section of "Ask the Astronomer"
http://www2.ari.net/home/odenwald/qadir/q1433.html, a question is asked about
Creationism: "Do you favor teaching Creationism and Big Bang cosmology in
school, side by side?" And I agree with the response:
.... begin quote ........
"If, as a scientist, I answer that Creationism has no place in the
classroom, I will be branded as being intolerant and narrow minded, and
will then receive a stern lecture that there are no 'facts' in evolution
just theories and interpretations, and that you can never prove a theory to
be a fact etc. etc.
My reaction to Creationism is that it is worse than rubbish. It is a
carefully orchestrated political move by a minority of vocal people who
have a lot of insecurities about the Bible that are not shared by virtually
all other Christians. It is intellectually very easy to be a Biblical
literalism, but when simple observations stand in the way of your
'interpretations'
your only option is to intimidate, and to legislate your viewpoint into the
classroom since reasoned argument will not make the case for you."
................... end quote..........
Now, I can't comment on Hawking's book since I have not read it. I did,
however, find a critical review of Hawking's book on the web:
*******begin quote******************************************
Dr. William Dyrness: Summer 1994
Hawking does cling to the old Greek and Newtonian approach to the world. He
still wants to have an eternal universe even within the parameters of
contemporary knowledge of a universe with a beginning.
The first part of his book is largely concerned with the facts as
established by Science in the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
In the later parts Hawking begins to speculate wildly and attempts to
restore the Newtonian deterministic worldview. Although he has expressed
before tha Quantum Mechanics abolishes determinism and only allows chances
for the outcome of an observation he still hopes for the Grand Unified
Theory that would save him from this horrible conclusion and allow humans
total control of their environment. There is an illusionary almost
messianic clinging to Newtonian deterministic ideals in his future
expectations. Knowledge will save us and it will come soon, "within the
lifetime of some of us around today". There is a strong religious
zeal evident for this worldview.
Hawking consistently denies God, especially the God that could intervene in
reality and wants to go back to the old and safe concept of an eternal
universe and the unmoved mover. His knowledge of increasing Entropy should
tell him that there is a progression in the universe to an end. Instead he
engages in baseless speculation about the nature of time in Chapter 9.
Hawking shows marks of avoiding the evident conclusion from contemporary
science. The universe cannot have a beginning and the world must be
controllable by us. There is a rebelliousness against dependency on some
primitive God.
God has to be -- if he exists at all -- according to Hawking's strong
opinions about God. That becomes evident in the concept that God cannot
intervene since he should have know beforehand.
God cannot have created the whole universe just for us. Our Solar System
would be sufficient. Why would he create more? The fact that he asks this
question despite the evident "scientific" answers (which is in this case
the need for the raw material for the Solar System!) gives rise to a lot of
questions.
There is a pattern here of putting his own capacity to reason above
everything else. Hawking is not ready to acknowledge his limits and his
dependency.
****************** end quote *****************************
Now, I am certainly not trying to proof the existence of God by all this.
Neither the owner of "Ask the Astronomer" thinks that all this is a proof
for God's existence; as his response to the question, "Can a convincing
argument be made that a transcendent God keeps the universe going?" indicates:
....... begin quote.........
No, at least not a compelling one based on physical phenomena. It was once
thought that the universe had to be set up in a very specially contrived
initial state in order for it to unfold the way it has. Now there are
explanations involving quantum mechanics which seem to do away with fine
tuned initial conditions and allow a condition similar to pure chaos to
have been present. All of this is highly speculative, and probably beyond
scientific testability. If that is the case, we will always be faced by
never really knowing what happened at the Big Bang to start the whole thing
going. So
much seems to depend on selection effects. The biggest one we face is our
mere existence! This has a Big impact on what we see because if the laws
and initial conditions of nature had been too different from what they are,
we would not be here to wonder about them. This means the universe MUST
look very unique and even contrived! There can be no convincing argument
for or against the existence of God, all we can do is determine which
features of the world are regulated by impersonal natural forces such as
gravity and electromagnetism. If we try to uncover reasons for why things
are the way they are, we always run up against the 'anthropic' selection
effect. This cannot be a logical argument for the existence of God, merely
the existence of ourselves within the system we are trying to fathom.
........end quote......
And "What do you think God might be like based on science?"
...... begin quote......
I have absolutely no idea. Even something as basic as whether he/she/it
exists in time and space cannot even be decided because of the 'miraculous'
properties attributed to this being. He created the universe which exists
in time and space, and physics currently says that time and space came into
existence as a 'package job' along with matter and energy at the Big Bang.
Presumably any
creator of the universe would have to exist outside our universe, just as a
baker is not a part of the dough she uses to make bread. But if God exists
outside our space and time, these aspects to the world provide no boundary
to describe his/her/its actions and God is truly a timeless, vast being. It
mystifies me how such a being could possibly remain focussed on the day to
day foibles of individuals living on an obscure planet. God cannot be 'out
there' in space and still be the creator of the universe, but unless he is
a part of our time and space, God cannot act in any way that affects us in
time.
So far as my opinion is concerned, you either have to accept that a
legitimate supernatural arena exists, or you have to propose that many of
the attributes assigned to God by humans over the last 2000 years are
irrational and arbitrary. In science, there are no authorities. All claims
are carefully
subjected to experimentation and observation. As a textbook on the physical
world, no document more than a few hundred years old ever seems to get even
basic things correct. If you cannot get the simple things right, why should
I believe you are getting the big picture correct? If this is the price of
faith, then I see a big problem.
...... end quote....