For years I’ve never understood the fascination with the so called Big Bang Theory. I also never understood why people think that the existence of such a theory (even if true) proves that G-d does not exist. My position is that these two ideas, the theory of a big bang and the existence of a divine creator, do not intersect let alone contradict (or support) each other.
It seems that the belief that they are related is based on a lot of misinformation based on a convolution of small factoids that are, in my opinion, unrelated.
To understand why I take this position I need to briefly discuss the history of all these ideas. First of all the so called big bang comes from a particular solution of Einstein’s gravitational field equations. Assuming that space is uniformly filled with ordinary classical matter and ordinary classical electromagnetic field energy solve the field equations for the metric tensor of space-time. So we do this and find that we get a solution that describes three scenarios based on the ratio of the matter and energy densities. Scenario 1: The metric describing distances in space increases in time. Scenario 2: The metric describing distances in space increases with time but slows down as time goes on but never stops increasing. Scenario 3: The metric describing distances in space increases in time up to a point then stops and reverses causing distances in space to decrease in time eventually leading to all distance measure being infinitesimally small, referred to as the Big Crunch! Maybe they can use this in the sitcom Big Bang Theory.
All of the solutions described above have an initial point in time at which the spatial distance measure was infinitesimal, or nearly zero, everywhere in space. This initial point in time is what we refer to as the initial singularity. This is the start of the universe, in a sense.
Although this is an exciting prospect, think about what is really being said. We know a priori that we have matter and field energy distributions in the universe, in space-time. We believe (based on observation, data and reason) that measurements of space and time intervals are described by a metric tensor field that is predicted by Einstein’s field equations. An implicit assumption is that everything we know about in the universe is either classical matter or electromagnetic field energy, a reasonable belief before c1926. Given all this, Einstein’s solution merely describes the time evolution of the metric tensor components. Keep in mind that the behavior of the metric says nothing about the nature of the underlying space as a topological point set. We know, from observations up to this point in history, that we live in a space which is described by a continuum, i.e. that the cardinality of space-time is equal to that of the real number line, |Real| = continuum = c (not to be confused with c = 299,792,458m/s, the speed of light in vacuum). Taking the limit of a particular metric tensor such that some or all of its values go to zero or infinity doesn’t change the cardinality of the underlying set of points. The metric is just a description of geometry on that set. It tells us how observers, if they exist, are able to measure distances and time intervals in their local frame of reference.
We haven’t even touched on the slew of other physics related issues surrounding the interpretation of this solution. We know that there are two other forces in nature, the strong and weak nuclear forces. We know that “ordinary” matter is an antiquated notion, we have bosonic and fermionic matter states and that all basic matter in the standard model is fermionic. Matter and energy fields are described by quantum mechanics or quantum field theory and as such may lead to deviations in the afore mentioned solution. We haven’t considered quantum gravitational effects and what that might do to the classical solution that has so many people believing it’s time to drink the cool-aid. Last but not least what if Einstein’s theory is simply wrong. His success rests on the shoulders of Newtonian failures! It stands to reason (and may physicists believe this) that Einstein’s theories will need to be replaced with a different theory to resolve apparent philosophical issues (paradoxes and inconsistencies) with quantum theory. I for one would like to see quantum theory bend to relativity but I suspect I will lose that battle.
All other issues aside the so called big bang is a description of a particular solution of an equation that may be wrong and requires the existence of something to drive the evolution of that solution. Where did this something come from? Many atheists hold on to the big bang (assuming it is a firm scientific fact) as the holy grail that destroys the notion of a creator for ALL world religions. The big bang doesn’t solve the problem of creation or provide irrefutable proof that G-d cannot exist. If anything it supports a view of creation in which G-d put stuff here, set the initial condition and is otherwise a hands-off manager.
What I cannot understand is how G-d’s existence ever came into the picture. By definition physics describes the behavior of the world around us to the limits of our ability to observe. G-d is not observable by humans so how did that get mixed up in physics? (That last comment hints at a particular theology and deserves its own essay). Furthermore, scientists and skeptics often criticize religious people for requiring proof of G-d’s existence citing that the need for proof contradicts the notion of faith. Well then, it’s in poor taste that atheists require proof of G-d’s non-existence. After all atheism is just another fanatical religion which makes the claim, based on faith alone, that we know for a fact G-d does not exist and the notion of G-d is ridiculous. This sounds like religious fanaticism to me.
It seems obvious that one can believe that G-d put matter and energy and space and time together and let it be as is for us to observe. Describing G-d with equations is as senseless as providing proofs and derivations based on faith, or the notion that I wish my desired results were true just because. What the big bang solution does suggest is that the mythological notions of creation written in many religious texts are not to be taken literally. It may offer proof that the universe was not created in exactly six days (relative to an earthly frame of reference and measured in today’s time intervals). But it does not “solve the problem of creation”.
Lastly I wish scientists would stop referring to the big bang theory as a theory. Einstein’s theory of relativity is a proper theory. The big bang mythos is the result of a particular solution to an out of date and incomplete differential equation being turned into religious dogma by atheist fundamentalists. It is not actually a theory. This is one of the many things scientists do that makes us targets for other religious extremists and fundamentalists.
In closing I’d like to say that I am not taking a side with this essay. I’m not stating that I am pro-atheist or pro-creationist, nor am I saying that I am anti-big bang! I do not oppose universal expansion any more than I oppose Coulomb’s Law of electricity. What I am for is the application of clear logical reasoning when interpreting the solutions of the equations of physics and constantly challenging our paradigms about space-time, matter and energy. I always try my best to do this. From what I see the big bang solution of Einstein’s equations is often used as a bully stick in popular literature. The arguments connecting the behavior of this solution to the existence or non-existence of G-d are illogical in every respect.
copyright 2014 David R Bergman