Thinking About Time Before the Big Bang

by Nancy Atkinson on June 13, 2008

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter


What happened before the Big Bang? The conventional answer to that question is usually, “There is no such thing as ‘before the Big Bang.’” That’s the event that started it all. But the right answer, says physicist Sean Carroll, is, “We just don’t know.” Carroll, as well as many other physicists and cosmologists have begun to consider the possibility of time before the Big Bang, as well as alternative theories of how our universe came to be. Carroll discussed this type of “speculative research” during a talk at the American Astronomical Society Meeting last week in St. Louis, Missouri.

“This is an interesting time to be a cosmologist,” Carroll said. “We are both blessed and cursed. It’s a golden age, but the problem is that the model we have of the universe makes no sense.”

First, there’s an inventory problem, where 95% of the universe is unaccounted for. Cosmologists seemingly have solved that problem by concocting dark matter and dark energy. But because we have “created” matter to fit the data doesn’t mean we understand the nature of the universe.

Another big surprise about our universe comes from actual data from the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) spacecraft which has been studying the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) the “echo” of the Big Bang.

“The WMAP snapshot of how the early universe looked shows it to be hot, dense and smooth [low entropy] over a wide region of space,” said Carroll. “We don’t understand why that is the case. That’s an even bigger surprise than the inventory problem. Our universe just doesn’t look natural.” Carroll said states of low-entropy are rare, plus of all the possible initial conditions that could have evolved into a universe like ours, the overwhelming majority have much higher entropy, not lower.

But the single most surprising phenomenon about the universe, said Carroll, is that things change. And it all happens in a consistent direction from past to future, throughout the universe.

“It’s called the arrow of time,” said Carroll. This arrow of time comes from the second law of thermodynamics, which invokes entropy. The law states that invariably, closed systems move from order to disorder over time. This law is fundamental to physics and astronomy.

One of the big questions about the initial conditions of the universe is why did entropy start out so low? “And low entropy near the Big Bang is responsible for everything about the arrow of time” said Carroll. “Life and death, memory, the flow of time.” Events happen in order and can’t be reversed.

“Every time you break an egg or spill a glass of water you’re doing observational cosmology,” Carroll said.

Therefore, in order to answer our questions about the universe and the arrow of time, we might need to consider what happened before the Big Bang.

Carroll insisted these are important issues to think about. “This is not just recreational theology,” he said. “We want a story of the universe that makes sense. When we have things that seem surprising, we look for an underlying mechanism that makes what was a puzzle understandable. The low entropy universe is clue to something and we should work to find it.”

Right now we don’t have a good model of the universe, and current theories don’t answer the questions. Classical general relativity predicts the universe began with a singularity, but it can’t prove anything until after the Big Bang.

Inflation theory, which proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments, is no help, Carroll said. “It just makes the entropy problem worse. Inflation requires a theory of initial conditions.”

There are other models out there, too, but Carroll proposed, and seemed to favor the idea of multi-universes that keep creating “baby” universes. “Our observable universe might not be the whole story,” he said. “If we are part of a bigger multiverse, there is no maximal-entropy equilibrium state and entropy is produced via creation of universes like our own.”

Carroll also discussed new research he and a team of physicists have done, looking at, again, results from WMAP. Carroll and his team say the data shows the universe is “lopsided.”

Measurements from WMAP show that the fluctuations in the microwave background are about 10% stronger on one side of the sky than on the other.

An explanation for this “heavy-on-one-side universe” would be if these fluctuations represented a structure left over from the universe that produced our universe.

Carroll said all of this would be helped by a better understanding of quantum gravity. “Quantum fluctuations can produce new universes. If thermal fluctuation in a quiet space can lead to baby universes, they would have their own entropy and could go on creating universes.”

Granted, — and Carroll stressed this point — any research on these topics is generally considered speculation at this time. “None of this is firmly established stuff,” he said. “I would bet even money that this is wrong. But hopefully I’ll be able to come back in 10 years and tell you that we’ve figured it all out.”

Admittedly, as writer, trying to encapsulate Carroll’s talk and ideas into a short article surely doesn’t do them justice. Check out Carroll’s take on these notions and more at his blog, Cosmic Variance. Also, read a great summary of Carroll’s talk, written by Chris Lintott for the BBC. I’ve been mulling over Carroll’s talk for more than a week now, and contemplating the beginnings of time — and even that there might be time before time — has made for an interesting and captivating week. Whether that time has brought me forward or backward in my understanding remains to be seen!

About

Nancy Atkinson is Universe Today's Senior Editor. She also is the host of the NASA Lunar Science Institute podcast and works with the Astronomy Cast and 365 Days of Astronomy podcasts. Nancy is also a NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador.

  • Chuck R.

    “You can only find God within you.”

    Yeah, okay, go ahead and jar up a bit of what you find then so we can end this kind of debate once & for all with what I’ll call “the first shred of evidence”.

    “You need to love yourself first, why all the hate.”

    Are you truly deluded to think simply because someone doesn’t follow your religion as (loosely) as you do that they somehow do not love themselves? I dig me, and it didn’t take imaginary friends to accomplish that one.

    As for “hate”, before you open mouth/insert foot AGAIN with the more frequent, “I’ve been taught to hate the sin, not the sinner, and been brought up to love everyone, enemy or friend.” To this I have to inquire, “Even though it says in the Bible cling to that which is good, hate that which is evil?” Promotion of hate. Gotta love it.

    “I need my faith..”

    And THAT’S the bit to feel sorry for.

    “…and I respect your opinion but please let All the Sciences and Religion work together.”

    I never cared for that phrase as it holds as much truth as the document you worship. Religion cannot help science, other than stepping further out of the picture, as it’s been doing for years thankfully.

    “This will throw you into a rage, but I will pray for you.”

    I think he took it well enough, and I’m doing fine with it as well. Pray me up pasta while you’re at it, I ran out of olive oil.

  • Voice of Reason

    Why is it when science comes upon a mystery that it cannot explain or solve in the first two seconds of the question do some feel a need to revert back to “God did it!”?

    Perpetual stupidity?

  • Sam

    How did the Bang take place. If nothing was in existence, not even space and time, at the time of the Bang, then, what triggered it off? Just insisting that it happened on its own is not acceptable. Then why not accept that God did it. Secondly, the Bang theory assumes that all matter and energy was already in existence. From where did it come? Just insisting that one day a huge universe exploded out of a grain of sand is not acceptable. Prove it. Show examples where similar phenomena has been observed. If you can accept that matter always existed, what gives you the right to sneer at others who believe that God always existed. The inter-relationship between the forces like gravity and others is very precise. Anything even marginally incorrect spells diaster. The gases after the big bang had to get their understanding of the laws of physics exactly right and that too within nanoseconds. (1) they did not have the luxury of apes who had millions of years to experiment before they hit it right and became men; (2) gases are non-living things and hence did not have the benefit of creative imagination which enabled the dogs to become horses and so on. Now there is only one logical and rational possibility. An intelligent Creator subjected the gases to the intricate laws of physics. The atheists explanation, if you can call it one, is that the gases got the laws right on their own. How stupid can people get? But the atheists rely on a string of miracles. Miracle (1) Matter and energy are already in existence – no explanations given about its origins; Miracle (2) This universe is the size of a grain of sand; Miracle (3) One fine day (oops there were no days then) for no apparent reason this grain exploded; Miracle (4) All the laws of physics also exploded into existence just like that – one moment there were no laws, the next moment, hey presto they were there with all their precision and inter-tuning; Miracle (5) these hot senseless gases which had figured out laws which thinking beings cannot figure out even today, cooled down and formed intricate stellar systems with planets and satellites, just like that. These arrogant gases dared to disobey the principle of entropy. When we throw away a TV set it rusts, breaks up and disintegrates. If we throw all the parts of a TV set, till date, at least I have never seen them getting together and forming a useful thing. But these gases were quite another thing. They cocked a snook at this law and went about building complicated systems. I have two options:- (A) Believe that a powerful almighty intelligent Creator created this universe and the laws of physics i.e. believe in one miraculous event; (B) Believe in a series of more than a thousand miracles and co-incidences which are based on illogical assumptions and are based on random events somehow coming together by chance to form a cohesive whole. I believe in God. I cannot stomach so many miracles. I think it is stupid and naive to believe that something as orderly as the universe just came about by chance.

  • yanni

    both sides make good arguments this still doesnt make sence

  • Chuck R.

    Sam R. ~ For now I’m dumping an effort to reply to your entire post, mostly because my prior ones still stand & answers to most of your questions are readily available. If I decide at a later date, I might get around to specifics, but I’d hope you actually sitting down to educate yourself might prove more beneficial. As to the one line of “Then why not accept that God did it?” in fine company with your “Prove it” bit, you (since you seem keen on evidence – which, again, is available online in regards to science) may kindly do so yourself in regards to ‘God’. Putting the mass amounts of man created gods, goddesses and other such entities aside for the moment; The ‘God’ of the Bible is a creation of fiction made by man, period. Whatever mysteries we have yet to learn about the cosmos, we do know quite a load and zero matches up with the story of the Bible which is the only document (nevermind Sumerian origins) that testifies to this ‘God’s claim on creating all there is. You say “why not accept God did it” when there is zero, zilch, nada in existence to make evidence the God of the Bible exists or is responsible for what we see today. In fact, the fact that what we DO know as a people about the universe so far contradicts EVERYTHING the Bible teaches about God supposedly creating all is simply more evidence, case closed type evidence, that the Bible, the entity it puts forward as God, and the account & teachings that produce all religious associated troubles today are false. Perpetuating ignorance, posts like yours remain pathetic. Seriously, of all things, some mindfluff religious nut having the nerve to step into an argument and say “I want proof!” in anything but regards to their own fairy tales. Ugh.

  • Sam

    What a pathetic reply, so typical of atheists. There is not an iota of evidence for the science fiction spun by atheists but your arrogance is unbelievable. It is you who need to educate yourself before you sermonize to me. The Big bang is just pure crap. Crap invented by creeps who are bewildered by what they see around them and are frustrated by their incompetence to explain it. One fine day something exploded out of nothing. What bull. Senseless gases which are incidentally non living matter acquire complex laws of physics for themselves. What a laugh. What a joke. How idiotic to see people who believe such yarns trying to sell the same to others. Come off it pal. Who are you trying to fool? Everywhere around us we see ordered things breaking down but these dumbos still claim that bits and fragments form complex systems on their own. What utter nonsense. Has anyone seen such a miracle? Stop talking down to us. Creation is something way beyond you. You are out of your league here. Atheists should stick to the beakers and vapours. What we know about the universe and every single thing we see around us contradicts EVERYTHING about the bang. Perpetuating ignorance, not offering any evidence, blindly parroting that something exploded out of nothing. What nerve to expect thinking people to swallow such crap. The ‘bang’ is based on the single observation that stars are moving away from each other. Nothing else. Talking as if they were present when creation took place. Spinning stupid yarns. And asking proof of God. Atheism is a pathetic doctrine. It gives me great pleasure to tear down mediocrity hiding behind the mask of science.

  • Chuck R.

    *yawn*

    You, sir, are simply the most well spoken but utterly clueless individual on these matters I’ve come across for at least a year’s time.

    For future drivel, please do reconsider using words like “pathetic”, “sermonize”, “incompetence” and the like with anyone but yourself. And I do wonder how much of a follower of God you really believe you are when you post such aggressive and insulting words. Me, I have no fantastic imaginary boss to hold me accountable when I thrash a religious idiot online, but you, you need hold yourself more closely in line with your doctrine’s teachings or your just another ignorant troll wandering the internet until, say, he finds his way into a science website and starts yammering aimlessly.

    Amatuer hour is that way, I’m off to better things. And you, for the record, are a complete idiot.

  • Sam

    My God has never told me to tolerate idiots and buffoons. Yes I will try to enlighten them if they will. But when a two penny atheist pretends as if he knows how the entire universe works, it is time I cut him down to size. Get an education from the gases of the big bang. You may be literate but you are way off from being educated. I love to tear apart morons like you. Yeah that’s it. You are a complete moron. I know my doctrine well. I don’t need lectures from you and your ilk. Ugh. Get lost to worse things. I care two hoots for the records maintained by duffers like you.

  • Covenant

    Well now, look at this.

    Sam, I do realize you come into here arms swinging for the debate going on, but your methods and demands, among other behaviors displayed, are bad form. You ask, how did the Bang take place? Due to cosmic microwaves, background radiation, the rate & direction of expansion within our universe, and many other detectable & observable criteria, brilliant scientists with minds that work through complexity better than mine can, and certainly better than yours could, have theorized that the universe started out as an infinitely dense ball of energy that exploded. What was the catalyst, you ask? That is truly unknown. It is but one, single, solitary unanswered question among many our species on this tiny spec of a mudball have fathomed about the vast and wonderful universe in which we will dwell for a short time. But applying God to the incident neither fits any scientific evidence to date, nor is it supported in your Bible. I, and others, do not and will not accept the God answer, nor – should you truly be the follower you claim to be – should you attempt applying the Big Bang to the Bible. You ask the usual questions like where did the matter & energy come from? The answer, simply put, is the point of explosion/expansion. As to where as in ‘how’ rather than ‘location’, there are many theories out on the subject, none of them definitive. But before that finger starts a’thumping just yet, do realize you’re questioning analytical minds (those of the scientists behind the theories, not just us science enjoying folks here on this website) for evidence in theories that are based on the universe around us and what we can clearly learn from it and how it works, but you do so with a stance that carries absolutely no evidence itself. The idea that the entropy of the universe has somehow decreased in violation of the second law of thermodynamics is largely nonsensical. I would certainly suggest you brush up on its specifics before attempting to utilize it as a tool to disavow a big bang scenario. Should you wish this be a Q & A with evidence to back it, I would certainly suggest you scroll upward and have a better look at “Chuck R.”s post beginning with “@MegaChrist’s first post at least…” since it raises questions even I’d never thought of prior. The order in which our solar system was created, the creation of man (with nipples?), the validity of this fall from grace that was per the Bible implemented by the will of a harsh biblical God, the lack of foresight on the part of the biblical God on humanity through the ages, etc. There is certainly an inherent web-like beauty to the universe itself and the way its structured, works and expands, so I have no trouble with someone looking at such and believing in an intelligent design driving it. However, the biblical account of God and this mindless assumption its all his doing and it happened as he recounts is pure, unadulterated, uneducated idiocy. If some day science somehow discovers a mindful creator being lurking in one of those other nine or thirteen dimensions at play within the universe/reality, I’ll accept that much. But until then I do not. And as for the God of the Bible account, all evidence, if by nothing more than timeframe perhaps, shows the Bible as fiction.

    For the Bible to hold its authority as God’s inspired word, it must be complete, literal, and infallible. Many out there who consider themselves religious have been attempting to merge what their work of fiction tells them with what science has learned, much as you are attempting. The problem lies in both cannot be right and in fact neither can work with another. Now I’m not saying the statistical possibility of some entity or entities at work in the universe is an impossibility, but I sure as hell will state the fact that the Biblical God and what he is written to claim, be and do are false and do not fit in the frame of reality. You wish to believe in a higher power? You go right on ahead if that’s what you need in your life, but don’t walk ignorantly into a discussion on a scientific website waving the banner of a being used as a front for hatred, intolerance and war for centuries and think yourself righteous or intelligent for doing so.

    The problem lies in the justification for your religion. For ANY of the validity in hate against ‘sin’ & ‘evil’, the curse brought that brought death, sickness, degeneration and all the other little bad things into (what’s claimed to be) “all creation” (that’s all the universe) by Adam, Adam’s sin MUST be true or Jesus died for no reason at all. For Adam’s sin to be true, Genesis MUST be literal in its reading. The Bible states generation after generation, the lineage of mankind from cover to cover, marking events to have transpired in just a few thousand years. So some five or six thousand years ago, for the Bible and its claims in the ways of life to be held authoritative and true, the Earth MUST have been created before the rest of the universe, hell – before the Sun even. And in turn Adam, the first human MUST have been created just a few thousand years ago from dirt. He MUST have sinned against the Lord (by simply eating of an apple from a tree that perhaps God wasn’t so wise to place in the garden in the first place, by the way) and brought this curse into existence that made some plants spring forth thorns, and some animals grow meat-eating sharp teeth, and brought death into the creation, and so on and so forth. All ‘sin’, death, carnivorism, sickness, etc MUST have been instigated by this. THIS is what YOUR Bible says. If for even a moment you try to apply the notion with “that section’s not literal” then the entire meaning becomes worthless. There is no justification for your religion. And that is why things like the Big Bang and evolution will never fit with your God’s claims. For if the Big Bang did occur, and the universe expanded until a disc formed around one tiny yellow star, and over the millennia the dust & eventual rocks came to form the planets, and on one of them through millions of years of evolution (that’s a lot of death, natural worldwide disasters, and eating of flesh) before even the first man came to be, then there was no sin from Adam, no perfectly clean & innocent paradise to be thrown from, no evils for Christ to have died for, and no authority from the text you claim to worship.

    And I say ‘claim to worship’ simply from the behavior you display. You bounce into a topic for universetoday.com with subpar questioning on scientific theories only to claim the greatest fictional character of all time must somehow be clearly responsible, though all you’ve done is raised questions that are either with answer (which is why Chuck R. there didn’t bother with the likes of you) or have already been asked by the people responsible for the science that will ultimately find the reasoning as our knowledge as a race grows. You offer nothing to explain exactly how your God fits into this all other than to say since you don’t know, you assume its a godly act, which is quite regressive mentally. Other than that you insult, and it matters not if you wish to claim you were provoked or not, attacking with insults is neither godly or righteous. Don’t like the fact? Shouldn’t have aligned yourself with a religion that calls the obvious pride you show in your insulting, non-explanatory posts one of seven deadly sins. You did manage to get one thing right by far in that your “God has never told (you) to tolerate idiots and buffoons”, being he’s never told you anything, ever. You wish to call ‘bull’ on scientific method? Don’t be shocked when those of us who can fathom right from wrong without imaginary friends call the same for uneducated fanatics like you. Yes, uneducated, as no matter how much regular school you may have managed to attend in your days you very clearly do not “know your doctrine well” as you say. You are simply another tally mark of what most religious people are in modern day. You run through the ceremony motions once a week or less in the closest church to your house, maybe just because you’re dragged along by family. You sing the bits to the songs you know, recite the couple of prayers you’ve been taught, and if you can recall a line from scripture you’ll gladly thump that Bible to someone you don’t agree with, even if in the end it turns out to show you don’t know what you’re talking about or where you’re really coming from. You like having a stance against the grain, one that tells you you’re righteous (though for that fictional label to be applied you need actually follow the rule book you thump), even though that’s nothing but that pride again, one of those nasty little sins you’re not suppose to possess. A true follower of the word of God as laid out in the Bible, one who actually believes they’ve found Jesus and Christ lives in their hearts, would not hop online asking for evidence in an argument when he or she holds none themself, hurling insults at others, calling them idiots, duffers, uneducated, and acting high & mighty as though they themselves are God’s will. Those of us who do not follow such outdated doctrine fortunately do not have such a limitation. And should you feel a need to state you have your own beliefs, then you have stepped out of your Bible’s claim on matters and are now proclaiming from your imagination rather than scientific theory or the fictional teachings of scripture. For when you start to follow your own beliefs you become compromised in your faith. You cannot step out of the Bible to support it, and unfortunately there’s no words on any of the pages it holds to help you here. You, I’m sorry to point out, do not know what you claim to worship, have angst within you apparently having Jesus in your heart did not cleanse, and are a prideful liar to yourself and others.

    I’m sure you have much to say in reply. I’d ask you don’t bother, but I know you will. I know the post pending will likely be insulting, I know you’ll keep asking for simply described evidence when all you need do is delve into the theories, equations and teachings that can easily fill an entire bookshelf (something as grand as the universe cannot be explained within a few pages of a Bible and certainly not one post on a message board, I’m afraid). I know you won’t actually read the post I suggested above, nor will you actually attempt to provide evidence for what your Bible claims. And I know any points brought up specifically here won’t be responded to definitively. But have at it, if you must. Roll your eyes and get upset once again and hit those keys until another poorly written, highly ignorant response can be submitted so you can feel better about badly defending your claimed faith in a way that could hardly be described as godly. But, should you hesitate, I provide for you an alternative. If you truly feel the need to go against what science hypothesizes and delve into your religion for what it is, well its an ignorant move to me but do read your Bible, take your time, and perhaps start looking into some of the more hardcore Creationism websites available since that’s the only brand of “science” that will allow the authority of the Bible to have ground for you. Otherwise, perhaps be the next among many who in their lives have found the issues within the book filled with stories some of which are actually Sumerian in origin and see the flaws & false claims for what they are and begin to delve into the true workings of this universe, our world and our history, all of which are found through the sciences.

  • Fistiq

    I think that before Big Bang was a Big Slurp

  • Atheist Christ

    Covenant,

    Well said. Why is Mega looking outside of his religion for answers when he claims that all of the answers are in the bible, unless it is to incite, which means that he’s not practicing what he claims to believe. You don’t have to believe everything that science tells you but to put down the scientific process as inferior to the religious non-process is obsurd. The next time you have a high fever I want you to only pray. After you can’t take it any more go ahead and take the medicine. When you feel better you can thank science. If you ever lose a limb, again, pray. After you find that your limb will never grow back, call a doctor. I could go on forever but I have my own kids to tend to.

  • Kyle

    Sam, take a course in grade 12 biology and physics, maybe read up on general relativity, perhaps visit a museum or two, and then post here. Just because your professor in Theology 101 told you so, doesn’t mean its true.

  • scarlet

    no body knows..but if mr gods so great how was he created..u religous ppl tell me tat….(seriously id b dieing 2 know) oh yer…does anyone know what was before the big bang..(if ur wondering about how dumb i sound its because im in year 5)

  • Larrys

    Please if you atheists can believe in the theory or countless universes poping into existance, why not believe in one where there is a heaven and a hell. We do not have to take Genesis as but a type. At some time in man’s existance he made a decision of good or evil.
    Wouln’t Ocman’s Razor conclude that everything being equal it would be easier to believe that an Almighty force that we Christians call God created time by willing it to be so. I think Stephen Hawkings even makes up his theories by using imaginary time to start with. How stupid can Carl Sagan be to say the universe is all there is and all there ever will be?
    As for me, I will believe in God , my Savior Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, that God who is Spirit ,gives me. I am not perfect and sin but I know if I have a choice I will be happy and not like you bunch of hatful atheists.

  • Tony

    Look, the religious issue about this scientific research is ONLY present in the US. All other countries don’t mix these stories with scientific research. Get real, there is a world out there.

  • Joe

    As atheists and religions have their own beliefs, it’s generally futile to dispute each other. Respect of each persons belief should be observed.

    It’s easy to form belief by falling into whichever camp suits you best, but taking the hard road to discover for yourself is the only way. Otherwise you are just following other peoples ideas! Either the church or the scientists.

    Personally I like to keep my mind wide open, we are too insignificant in the universe to believe we can understand it all. As for the subject of low entropy at the big bang, for me this does point in the direction of a creator, that being said I’m not religious at all.

    Keep it real and let our wondrous discoveries only guide you!

  • Bob

    I’ve been thinking about the fact that cosmologists have two probems. First, there is too much matter in the known universe and second, what happened near the time of the big bang. I think this two problems might somehow be related. Could the extra matter in the universe be related to a condition predating the big bang that has (as yet) not been considered or at least has not been understood to a point of fitting with any reliable data.

    Of course scientists will go on testing theories and hopefully, we will continue to grow in our understanding of the universe. I feel, though, that we ultimately are limited by Goedel’s hypothesis that you can’t explain a system from within the system. And since we are intinsically “in the universe” it makes it impossible (if Goedel is correct) to ever fully explain the universe.

    Those who argue, however, that the big bang couldn’t have just happened are ignorant of basic quantum physics. Events do “just happen” all the time in quantum physics. Perhaps that’s due to our lack of understanding, but then that is an argument to continue to fund cosmology, rather than an argument to just claim “It’s turtles all the way down.”

  • Gemmel

    I am looking forward to the day that science provides irrefutable proof that all the mysteries of The Universe, Creation, etc. have a rational, logical explanation. On that day, will all of those who erroneously believe in God finally lie down and admit they were wrong?

    Conversely, it would be equally amusing if science were the means of proving that God really did create everything.

    The main difference, I suppose, is that science will relentlessly pursue every possibility in the search for those answers, whereas religion believes the ‘answer’ has already been provided, and discourages any further discussion or thought on the matter.

  • Larrys

    What if science proved without a doubt there is a God? Would you atheists accept it?

  • Chuck R.

    “Please if you atheists can believe in the theory or countless universes poping into existance, why not believe in one where there is a heaven and a hell.”

    Namely because you’re attempting to take one theory regarding a calculable possibility of multiple realities that would exist overall in the same function as this one we know and say the fairy tales of the Bible should be allowed credence, no, not just allowed credence but RULE in THIS existence due to a make-believe chance there might be some parallel where they exist. The problems in that notion are unending, its very ‘fantasy writing’ of you to suggest. But, then, you are into that Bible now aren’t you. Snide, I know, but it’s well deserved, sorry. And I realize you’re one of those holy text thumpers that must immediately attack at any angle to those who don’t believe in ‘God’ or the Bible (not so much the other Gods, Goddesses, mystical creatures that were once facts, not the Odins, the Cerberus, the Heras, the Vishnus or Wraiths, right – those would just be CRAZY!), but to even attempt and speak of the word theory (an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations) as though its a scientific form of faith (a belief in an assumed truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that is characteristically held without proof) is ludicrous.

    “We do not have to take Genesis as but a type.”

    I’m not entirely sure what you mean with “take it as but a type”, but I do hope you’re not implying (like many other Christians who are compromised in their beliefs do nowadays) that Genesis is not to be taken as fact. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I agree and would immediately take that notion to any of the supernatural acts or authority over man the rest of the Bible claims as well. But what I’m saying is that in modern times the lax grasp on Genesis as a work of God is detrimental to the Christian. Actually, as has been said multiple times, you – as a Christian – MUST take Genesis quite literally. Adam’s sin isn’t to be held, by Christians – that is, as some metaphorical item, as some poetic decline in man. It’s a sin, it’s THE sin that kick started it all. For ANY of the validity in hate against ‘sin’ & ‘evil’, the curse brought that brought death, sickness, degeneration and all the other little bad things into (what’s claimed to be) “all creation” (that’s all the universe) by Adam, Adam’s sin MUST be true or Jesus died for no reason at all. For Adam’s sin to be true, Genesis MUST be literal in its reading. The Bible states generation after generation, the lineage of mankind from cover to cover, marking events to have transpired in just a few thousand years. So some five or six thousand years ago, for the Bible and its claims in the ways of life to be held authoritative and true, the Earth MUST have been created before the rest of the universe, hell – before the Sun even. And in turn Adam, the first human MUST have been created just a few thousand years ago from dirt. He MUST have sinned against the Lord (by simply eating of an apple from a tree that perhaps God wasn’t so wise to place in the garden in the first place, by the way) and brought this curse into existence that made some plants spring forth thorns, and some animals grow meat-eating sharp teeth, and brought death into the creation, and so on and so forth. All ‘sin’, death, carnivororism, sickness, etc MUST have been instigated by this. THIS is what YOUR Bible says. If for even a moment you try to apply the notion with “that section’s not literal” then the entire meaning becomes worthless. There is no sin Adam committed, there was death eons before Eden, and there is no justification for your religion. So, way to stand up for your religion. Allowing a doubt in the authority of the text you thump, a possibility that Genesis isn’t literal perhaps, so you can gain ground? So that a sudden possibility of science can prevail and you trample the validity of the text you worship? If you’re going to attempt to be a devout Christian, one that screams his God’s authority and will from that soapbox, you cannot allow a doubt in your scriptures. Not ever. And that is why things like the Big Bang and evolution will never fit with your God’s claims. For if the Big Bang did occur, and the universe expanded until a disc formed around one tiny yellow star, and over the millennia the dust & eventual rocks came to form the planets, and on one of them through millions of years of evolution (that’s a lot of death, natural worldwide disasters, and eating of flesh) before even the first man came to be, then there was no sin from Adam, no perfectly clean & innocent paradise to be thrown from, no evils for Christ to have died for, and no authority from the text you claim to worship. And can I just say its sad that the majority of arguments that seem to go on between atheists and Christians go about like this? Where the atheist knows both his truth and the truth the Christian side should be speaking from better than the Christian themself?

    “At some time in man’s existance he made a decision of good or evil.”

    You mean socially acceptable and socially unacceptable. That varies on year, location, age, genetics, cultures etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, since our ancestors first began their stride from herds to tribes. What’s good and what’s bad is different from person to person, country to country, era to era. Everyone is the way they are, period. Like animals, we have social groups and the more unpopular behaviors become undesirable, illegal or “sinful”. For someone to change to fit in, such as with Christian groups, is it not denying what they really are? What God has DESIGNED them to be? If they don’t fall in line with these outdated notions, then they’re to be punished eternally for that? Is that ever rich. If so then there is no compassion for humanity from Him. Just because this “Satan” convinced the first two people to eat an apple doesn’t mean they are suddenly sinful. They are the way God made them. They are “flawed” and “sinful” because of Him and His design. They have NO reason to be held maliciously accountable for what HE made of them. And if something as simple as eating a fruit would bring the Fall and the Curse into all existence, I must demand the logic behind God putting that tree in the Garden of Eden in the first place.

    “Wouln’t Ocman’s Razor conclude that everything being equal it would be easier to believe that an Almighty force that we Christians call God created time by willing it to be so.”

    *Sigh* OCCAM’S or OCKHAM’S Razor is a 14th-century created principle that states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. You’re talking about observational, testable scientific theory versus grand invisible man in the sky. Eliminating science from your existence phenomenon because you feel it will make no difference or valid prediction in this existence phenomenon’s explanation is a giant crock of dumb. Sorry. In science, where Occam’s razor is used as a rule of thumb more than anything, the principle is utilized in guiding scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. Occam’s Razor, I’m afraid, doesn’t suddenly allow for the magical fiction of the Christian’s & Catholic’s Bible to true/possible.

    “As for me, I will believe in God , my Savior Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, that God who is Spirit ,gives me. I am not perfect and sin but I know if I have a choice I will be happy and not like you bunch of hatful atheists.”

    Yikes! Two things.

    Number one, so you believe in God, Jesus, el spiritu santo, and additionally you say you’re not perfect and that you sin. Now, nevermind for a minute that continuing lack of God, a divine Jesus, or the Holy Spirit in reality where us mortals (and you) all dwell; Per your Bible I am going to Hell and you (let’s say) will be going to Heaven. Right? Why is that? Because you’ve been forgiven? Because you asked if it was okay that you’re not perfect? That you’re exactly what He made you to be? God supposedly cannot withstand the presence of a sinful person (which denotes a lack of almighty), and yet that’s part of the Christian ideal, no? That you’ve been forgiven. You’re a sinful human, imperfect, but he’s forgiven you so you get to be in His presence? You’re not perfect, just forgiven, right? But why? What makes you think you’re forgiven? What makes you believe you need even ask for forgiveness for being exactly what He both made of you and knew what you would come to be? Eh? Takes us right back to that sin bit.

    And two, for the love of your own God, for future reference do feel free to stop typing (or if in person, stop talking) the moment you feel the need to place a word like “hate” on anyone else outside of your religion. It’s wrong on so many levels. For giggles, I’m apparently going to Hell when I die. That’s Hell, this fiery inferno of pain & suffering set to last all eternity that was created by YOUR GOD. I mean, I could ask things like, why should I go to Hell? What do I have to be forgiven for? Why should I be punished in the first place? For being exactly what I am? But it all boils back down to “God HATES me because I don’t fit His profile”. And how can you believe God to not be hateful himself, but totally compassionate when something such as Hell even exists? And this Holy God is the same one that supported war for a time in the Old Testament, yes? The same one that subjected a dear man and faithful follower to every bad thing in the book with Job. Oh sure, He rewarded him, what, ten fold later yeah? But where’s the holiness in killing off a man’s wife and children, his stock, plaguing him, all to prove a point? To another fallen and entirely ‘evil’ creation of His own no less! Batting a thousand! What did the wife and children do? I’m, for one anyway, getting some mixed signals here. Would you argue such behavior, documented in your own holy book, does not denote a sense of worthlessness and hate for humanity if He does such things? Oh, I know, you’re all about that ever-popular “I’ve been taught to hate the sin, not the sinner, and been brought up to love everyone, enemy or friend.” To this I have to inquire, “Even though it says in the Bible cling to that which is good, HATE that which is evil?” A biblical promotion of hate. Gotta love it. People have been killed and persecuted in the name of God, the name of Jesus, and the assumed authority of the Bible since the religion began. Millions of dead folks. And I’m not speaking of Bible thumping followers killed in the dark ages for believing in Christ, but the killing in the name of God, holy wars, massacres throughout our history before, during and after the Bible’s publication (what, you don’t recall Jericho or one of the uses with the Ark of the Covenant?), and the persecution against those who do not believe or didn’t fit in both in olden times and today. Don’t dare speak to other people as though your religion is clean, pristine and good. In case you’ve never paid attention, it’s not all peace & love, pal. Christianity has caused more pain, suffering and death than you can apparently imagine, and is a ministry of intolerance, hate and bigotry wrapped in lies and fairy tales. But I guess in the end it’s easier to open your mouth and praise Jesus if you don’t know and don’t care about the finer points and facts of the matter.

    “What if science proved without a doubt there is a God? Would you atheists accept it?”

    If science were to somehow prove someday that there is a form of entity sitting outside the universe, or streaming throughout it, guiding the winds of fate, enforcing karma, etc, I would happily accept proof positive as fact. But that being would obviously work in the same reality, the same rules, the same cycles as our world and as the rest of the universe does. The biblical God, the being written of in the Bible that speaks, that punishes with eternal damnation, that has no trouble with hypocrisy when it comes from his rulebook, that has no apparent compassion, foresight or true power in modern day, the one that is used to promote ignorance & intolerance by the book-thumping followers of his related religion; He cannot exist, he does not exist, he is an impossibility.

    And, end note back atcha for giggles; What if science proved without a doubt there is a God, and it’s Brahman? Would you Christians accept it?

Previous post:

Next post: