The Big Bang

[Lightkeeper]

Where did the first particles or energy come from that caused the Big Bang?

[Rev. Rex]

In my belief, it was created by the Grandfather. Beyond that, it is rather like asking where all the colors in a painting came from before it was painted. Many of those blendings of colors never where on the palette, after all.

It sort of reminds me of when Dr Hawking was asked what existed BEFORE the big bang. His response, "The question has no meaning. It would be like standing on the North Pole and wondering what existed north of you."

[bahai-sojourner]

Originally Posted by Rev. Rex

"The question has no meaning. It would be like standing on the North Pole and wondering what existed north of you."

That's the scientific version of the religious answer, "There are some mysteries man was never meant to understand."

They're both asking you to take a lot on faith, and as such, they are intellectual cop-outs. And in Hawking's case, just because a man is an unquestionable genius, it doesn't necessarily follow that everything he says is smart...

If nothing exists north of the north pole, why do we call Polaris "the North Star"? IF there's nothing north of the north pole, then we should only call Polaris another star.

Is Hawking saying that there are no directions except on Earth?

[Rev. Rex]

I'll take this in reverse order...just 'cause.

Is Hawking saying that there are no directions except on Earth?

I don't think he said that, but he'd have a point if he did. On a globe, or even on a perfectly flat surface, there can be a north, south, east, and west. In 3 dimensional space, there isn't. There isn't a true static frame of reference to use to determine 'north'. Likewise, in space, up and down have little meaning, because of a lack of reference. Even our maps are created by using a reference point. This is the reason that maps made in Australia a long time ago, showed the SOUTH pole as the top of the world.

If nothing exists north of the north pole, why do we call Polaris "the North Star"? IF there's nothing north of the north pole, then we should only call Polaris another star.

Because from the north pole, Polaris appears to be directly overhead. It doesn't mean that it is north of the north pole, but rather directly above it, to an observer standing on the north pole. Also, this isn't static. The earth does not describe a perfect circle around the sun, nor does the sun follow a circular orbit around the galaxy. It sort of "bobs"...the same thing that allows us to see nearly 60% of the moon's surface, though the same side is pointing toward the earth. The result of this is that Polaris will gradually appear to move from it's position, over the course of several thousand years. Eventually, it will be quite a ways from appearing directly above the north pole, and a different star will then be called the North Star.

They're both asking you to take a lot on faith, and as such, they are intellectual cop-outs.

I don't agree at all. To me, asking what existed before everything existed, or what happened before the "beginning", has little meaning. If nothing has begun, how could anything happen? If nothing exists, how could something exist?

[Lightkeeper]

We can explain where colors in a painting come from. If the question of where did the partcles or sparks that caused the big bang come from is meaningless, then it would also be meaningless to say God created them.

[Rev. Rex]

By looking at the painting, it is next to impossible to see where the colors came from.

It really isn't meaningless to say that God created the particles, nor that he created the big bang in the first place. The reason is that we are not saying where those particles ultimately came from, nor how they were created. Likewise, it isn't meaningless for scientists to simply say that they don't know where it all originally came from, but such and such was the sequence of events that happened. Not many scientists will even try to tackle the question of where the particles came from, what actually caused the big bang, or what "existed" before the big bang.

[Lightkeeper]

Colors are refracted light.

[Rev. Rex]

What, just by looking at a painting, would let anyone know this? That is the whole point...none of us were around at the very beginning, so WHAT it was made up from and what CAUSED it is merely an educated guess, nothing more. We can say it was created, but not from what, nor how.

[Lightkeeper]

We know from scientific tests, prisms etc. that color is refracted light. Just because we weren't there in the beginning of things doesn't mean we can't determine causes. When we are educated we know. When we aren't educated we guess.

[Rev. Rex]

I was purposely oversimplifying in order to make the point, however I could certain make it complex.

For instance, what substances were used to make the paint? Why kind of brushes were used and what were they made of? Are any smudges covered by the paint? Where was the paint made? Who created the canvas and where was it created? What was it created from, exactly. How does it differ from canvases created elsewhere? How does the paint differ from other paints. What was the artists actual intent when he blended certain amounts of two or more colors together? Did the artist know precisely how much of each shade to mix, or did he have to mix it together until he got the shade he thought he wanted? Was the artist male or female? Married or unmarried? Kids or no? Where did they live? How many moles of each color were required to create a particular blend? This could go on and on, but again, the point is that even if I was an expert at paintings, I would not be able to answer these questions, and indeed, for the sake of the painting and the appreciation of it, it would be senseless for me to even try. In fact, many of the question have so little to do with the painting that it wouldn't make sense to even ask. I don't need to know any of this, either, in order to appreciate the intricacies of the painting and to feel the wonder of it.

I also tend to think it is better to oversimplify rather than adding complexity that has the possibility of confusing.