What’s the Matter with all of us?

@mblmissionary: @MovingToMontana I think I c your point but where did matter come from?

Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/mblmissionary/statuses/1703450209

big-bangThe idea that before the big bang there was the big thought, is a common cause of confusion among many people who misunderstand the basic premise of Big Bang theory.

Without a good understanding of how the theory came to be universally accepted, as the best explanation we thus far have on how the universe began, it’s little wonder that deists continue to think about this according to the common use of the word theory, rather than the scientific definition of the word, meaning that which is yet to be falsified.

This also speaks volumes about the fixed world view we necessarily have about everything we can see, touch, feel, measure and experiment upon, because we can not escape the fact that the universe obeys the laws of nature which just happen to exist in our particular reality; the descriptions of natural phenomena we can explain in terms of the behaviours and characteristics which we denote between the fundamental particles, of which everything is made.

Differing quantities of different fundamental particles affect the make up of all matter. The stuff which bumps into other stuff and either repels it or attracts it, depending on the electromagnetic strength of its quantum mass. This ultimately determines the only real chemical differences between a dinosaur corpse, pressed into a black flammable liquid beneath the Iraqi desert and the crystalline structure of the carbon in Pope Benedict’s priceless jewellery.

It is these fundamental particles of energy which came into being in the singularity of the Big Bang—which is why understanding what happened AFTER the Big Bang is important to our understanding of the physical universe. Big Bang is NOT a description of the physics which are, by definition, beyond our ability to measure, since they occurred before our sphere of existence and that which Einstein called space-time came into being.

Postulating that a god of some description designed this process doesn’t answer the question of how She did this at all. It merely pushes back the line of demarkation between what you’re attempting to describe and understand and that which you arbitrarily assign to non-natural phenomena—hence the term ‘super-natural’.

Anything which can not be described by natural phenomena, whether we have so far achieved a focused set of laws to explain all naturally occurring phenomena yet or not, is of no concern to scientific methodology. Therefore god, as described by Judaeo-Christian and Islamic doctrine, behaves (by virtue of the fact She is undetectable and plays no part in the laws of nature) exactly like that which does not exist.

If the argument then goes that, precisely because Big Bang does not account for a supernatural causation to all natural processes, because God negated to mention how She created up and down quarks, “In the beginning”, then anyone who continues to assert this is proof not just of intentional design, but that the designer Herself is best described in a book written 2000 years before the birth of Sir Isaac Newton, they are welcome to their delusions.

7 comments on “What’s the Matter with all of us?

  1. This is stupid. The big bang is a quasi religious doctrine hidden in science, the idea was first postulated by a catholic monk called Georges Lemaître two years before Hubble published his data on red shift. The whole idea of someone trying to use this to refute the existence of God (also, why be gender specific?) is massively ironic considering the source of the doctrine. Do yourself a favour and research the alternate explanations for redshift (it doesnt necessarily prove the galaxies are moving apart,) the origins of the theory and also just for laughs the laws of thermodynamics, particularly the first law which states that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

  2. Michael. Please don’t take this wrong, but I won’t be able to write a full reply for a few days. Please stay tuned for that. I welcome your reply.

  3. Hi Jim, I watched your video. I apologise if I came across as arrogant or closed minded in my previous comment, and I shouldn’t have called your post stupid. That said I will happily debate you on this issue if you will heed the advice in your video and maintain an ‘open mind’. I will restate my original position for clarity which is that there is little evidence that I have seen for the ‘big bang’ which cannot be explained by some other method. There are also problems with the concept itself from a scientific perspective. Basically, and in less combative language my point above was that as the big bang is essentially and was originally a religious concept, accepting it on its (in my opinion at least) shaky evidence and then using it to denegrate the religious is pretty ironic!

  4. Michael, I hope you’ll also acknowledge that I make no pretensions of being a scientist. All my writing is about trying to explain what I am learning as I am learning it in a way that I hope makes sense to other people. “Degenerating” into religious combat is an easy trap to fall into precisely because it is the biggest threat to sceptical enquiry. It is the most frustrating distraction in all of human history; the history of explaining and learning, teaching and being taught. Combating its ill effects is, I believe, the duty of any free thinking, awakening human.

    As far as I am aware, the whole point of any scientific theory being called a theory, as opposed to a fact, is that as and when stronger contradictory evidence comes to light (hence Popper’s ‘falsifiable deductive logic’) the stronger the hypothesis proceeds. I am not aware of evidence of this kind which stands against the whole of the Big Bang theory, but would have thought it self evident that certain parts of the overall postulate are weaker than others–which is exactly what a healthy theory should look like. This is very different to the whole of the theory being called into question, which I don’t think any serious people are doing, simply because of the fact that certain areas are better understood than others.

    I agree that the term Big Bang was originally coined as a derogatory term which contradicted Hoyle’s steady state theory, but that Hoyle himself acknowledged as a scientist that the criteria for proving Big Bang a falsifiable hypothesis had been surpassed with Penzias and Wilson’s discovery of cosmic background radiation. Again, this remnant “fuzz” is not as uniform as it was once thought to be, throughout the observable universe, although as I understand it this too can be explained in the principal of maximum entropy.

    What is for certain, even if the entire Big Bang theory was falsified tomorrow, this would not automatically make the fall back hypothesis ‘Magic sky man did it’–which it was precisely the point of the original article to demonstrate.

  5. Fair point, perhaps it would be a little strawman to continue on this course. I will say that I don’t think I have seen any evidence for tbb that doesn’t have another explanation, and given thought the very concept seems ridiculous to me i.e all matter currently existing in the universe existing in an infinitely tiny space would be the ultimate singularity, therefore could be no bang (a huge leap of faith such as an initial ‘period of lawlessness’ aside.) Also given the currently accepted date of 14 billion years as the age of the universe, how do they explain ESO finding galaxies 13 billion light years away from us? Unless entire galaxies were/are able to travel at about 13 times the speed of light doesn’t that end the premise right there!

    To be honest with you there are so many problems with cosmology not just the big bang. There is an alternative theory which I think shows a great deal of promise however. Could you do me a favour and take a look at this (with ‘an open mind’ :-p) and tell me what you think?

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

    If it is too long here is a shorter one on youtube (although it mainly focuses on black holes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=wkq3oUXUrfQ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s