Noooo!!! Big Bang Theory Mocked

[Eldwynn]

Unless possibly this is all a science experiment by an advanced intelligence.....And God is a scientist.

I think you misunderstand what we are saying here.

Given the probability that life arose from natural causes (we will call this X).

The probability that life arose from an intelligent being setting up such an experiment is the probability of X AND Y.

The probability that life arose from an intelligent being setting up such an experiment and spoke to a boy in New York is X Y and Z.

The probability that life arose from an intelligent being setting up such an experiment, spoke to a boy in New York, and also speaks to a living prophet today is X, Y, Z, AND another letter.

I hope this clarifies. Kind of like that thing Sam Harris says. Whatever the probability you assign to Jesus returning, you have to assign an even greater probability that he will take residence in Jackson County Missouri . It's just a mathematical fact.

[Eldwynn]

I believe it's possible for God to be a creator without having initiated either the Big Bang, or Evolution, or been hand on in either of those processes.

It doesn't have to be

a) There was a BB and Evolution, therefore, God doesn't exist.

b) There was a BB and Evolution, therefore, those must be God's tools in phsycially constructing our world/universe.

It seems those are the two main positions someone who accepts those scientific principles need to take.

I feel Mormonism is uniquely situated to accept:

c) There was a BB and Evolution, and God integrated and utilized the results of these natural processess.

Okay, so now we are left with:

The big bang happened (Probability X... which Nelson thinks is incredibly unlikely). God exists (a probability greater than X). God stumbled upon OUR universe (A probability greater than the previous one). And then god used the results of the natural processes (I'm assuming that's us?) to be part of his plan?

I don't think Elder Nelson would like this. It's equivalent to an explosion in a print shop randomly coming up with like... all of wikipedia.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Eldwynn

[asbestosman]

I hope this clarifies. Kind of like that thing Sam Harris says. Whatever the probability you assign to Jesus returning, you have to assign an even greater probability that he will take residence in Jackson County Missouri . It's just a mathematical fact.

Psst. Smaller probability (or greater improbability).

And technically no. If X is completely contained within Y, then X AND Y will not have a smaller probability but will be equal. Before you dismiss my objection as irrelevant quibbling, keep in mind that each of us may assign different conditional and a-priori probabilities to all those events, and some may indeed make a justification for saying that one event either implies or strongly implies another such that the probabilities either are not lower, or not significantly so. How we choose the probabilities in the first place (and relevant events) will be a point of contention. This is particularly relevant when one person feels they have good evidence of something (like the existence of God) while another does not.

[asbestosman]

I don't think Elder Nelson would like this. It's equivalent to an explosion in a print shop randomly coming up with like... all of wikipedia.

I agree with you there--although I wonder whether certain portions of Wikipedia might not have been created in such a manner.

Edited April 5, 2012 by asbestosman

[Stargazer]

I am sure that if 44Foxtrot and DrW were still around they would have weighed heavily in on this topic. We are well rid of them, generally, but I suppose I would have been interested in hearing their takes on this.

I am not a scientist, at least not the kind with a string of letters and published research to his credit, but I am nevertheless a science hobbyist and I try to keep up on all the latest amazing things that come up in science, and especially so in physics, chemistry and astronomy.

And I have to say I simply LOVE the Big Bang! It is quite simply Da Bomb! Pun intended.

If there were no Big Bang we would have Steady State. And Steady State means an infinity stretching from one end to the other without end. Infinity in both directions, past and present. Dead boring, for sure, but also a possibly Godless Universe!

You see, Steady State means that it was not created, and it must be co-extensive with God. And co-extensitivity requires non-causality, meaning God didn't create it. And given that we have Entropy that means that eventually the Universe runs down and is Dead (by which I mean that all energy disperses into the Void and everything assumes a temperature of absolute zero). God is irrelevant to such a Universe -- and has to be irrelevant to us, as well, because we're clearly part of the Universe. That irrelevancy would strongly argue for the non-existence of God, in fact.

With the Big Bang, however, comes the clear possibility that it was caused, and what could have caused it? Scientifically, nobody knows.

In fact, because Time did not exist until the very moment of the Big Bang, it is not possible to describe what came before. The only possible word one could use to describe it is "Nothing". And "Nothing", friends, is meaningless. With the Big Bang suddenly everything leaps into possibility! In more ways than one.

It gets better! The Big Bang was followed by an outrush of expansion, and while it used to be thought that this outrush was either slowing down and would eventually all get sucked back into another Big Bang, or would continue outward at the same rate, forever, it was discovered recently that the outrush is actually speeding up!!! Whee!!! Hold on to your hats! One question that comes to mind is "How is this possible?" The second one is "What does it mean?" Nobody knows the answer to either question, and I haven't heard any guesses, either. It's positively magical, I tell you.

Because what came before the BB is indescribable, science cannot exclude the possibility that God caused the Big Bang, and necessarily from outside the Universe, or what became the Universe (even God couldn't have done it from inside the Universe because it didn't exist yet -- not even God can do that). It's absolutely non-falsifiable, of course, and thus not a question science can answer, but the possibility still exists. So we can quite freely assert by Faith that God did cause it, and it is even logical. It might even be required, since no other explanation of "how" and "why" is possible.

So, you must love the Big Bang as I do.

Incidentally, and I don't know if any physicist or cosmologist has thought about this, theoretically the Big Bang happened about 15 billion years ago, we know that much, but what about these questions:

1. How long did the Big Bang last?
   
2. When did it stop?
   
3. More to the point, did it stop -- or does it continue to spew out matter and energy to this day? (perhaps the reason why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating?)
   
4. Presumably we can see (via Doppler Shift) which directions the radiation of matter is heading, so can we point to the location where the Big Bang "occurred". Or can we? Assuming this has a meaning.
   

There are so many questions that are raised by the Big Bang, and that is what makes it so wonderful!

[Stargazer]

Okay, so now we are left with:

The big bang happened (Probability X... which Nelson thinks is incredibly unlikely). God exists (a probability greater than X). God stumbled upon OUR universe (A probability greater than the previous one). And then god used the results of the natural processes (I'm assuming that's us?) to be part of his plan?

I don't think Elder Nelson would like this. It's equivalent to an explosion in a print shop randomly coming up with like... all of wikipedia.

An explosion in a print shop wouldn't come up with Wikipedia. It would have to be an explosion of a Linux server.

[Stargazer]

I believe it's possible for God to be a creator without having initiated either the Big Bang, or Evolution, or been hand on in either of those processes.

It doesn't have to be

a) There was a BB and Evolution, therefore, God doesn't exist.

b) There was a BB and Evolution, therefore, those must be God's tools in phsycially constructing our world/universe.

It seems those are the two main positions someone who accepts those scientific principles need to take.

I feel Mormonism is uniquely situated to accept:

c) There was a BB and Evolution, and God integrated and utilized the results of these natural processess.

Absolutely not. God caused the Big Bang and He was uniquely placed to see that it produced exactly what it has produced.

[Stargazer]

Elder Nelson, ...

I think it's highly unfortunate that he has to go out of his way, repeatedly, to attack and demean those who recognize, acknowledge, and support the current scientific consensus in fields that, based on his comments, he doesn't appear to really even truly understand.

I trust Elder Nelson to fix my ailing heart. I would not necessarily trust him to fix my leaky plumbing. He wouldn't be the first nor the last scientist to make unsupportable scientific assertions outside of his realm of competence.

[Stargazer]

The arguments that God guided the Big Bang and evolution are infinitely more fantastical than the arguments that the Big Bang and evolution just happened, and followed laws of physics naturally.

Actually, the fact that the Big Bang just happened out of absolute Nothing is infinitely more fantastical than the argument that God did it. If it happened out of absolutely Nothing, what exactly caused it? You don't know? Well, isn't that interesting. Your speculation that it just happened, with no causal agent or process whatsoever, has exactly as much value as mine, that an intelligent Being caused it. And mine has the additional charm of suggesting the possibility of an actual purpose to our existence. You may be comforted by a purposeless existence, but I find it rather unsatisfying.

[Nofear]

I believe it's possible for God to be a creator without having initiated either the Big Bang, or Evolution, or been hand on in either of those processes.

...

I feel Mormonism is uniquely situated to accept:

c) There was a BB and Evolution, and God integrated and utilized the results of these natural processess.

I'll be out of town for a few days and won't be able to reply but I echo this sentiment that it need not be God vs. Big Bang or God vs evolution. There is a small subset of Mormon transhumanists who formalize this kind of thinking in what they call the New God Argument. I generally agree with the argument and believe the discussion should be framed more along the lines of celestial societies instead God vs. every other sentient being in the universe. Given that, and my strong conviction in the plurarity of inhabited worlds, purely naturalistic evolution seems to be a very incomplete picture (though, I think the gods use it as a very convenient mechanism to create diversity of life uniquerly tailored to individual planets).

I feel Mormonism is uniquely situated to accept:

1) There was a big bang and celestial societies of our race arose (of whom our Heavenly Father is a member). These socities employ, in part, natural processes to colonize the vastness of space (which program this earth is a teeny part of).

[Tarski]

1. How long did the Big Bang last?
   
2. When did it stop?
   
3. More to the point, did it stop -- or does it continue to spew out matter and energy to this day? (perhaps the reason why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating?)
   
4. Presumably we can see (via Doppler Shift) which directions the radiation of matter is heading, so can we point to the location where the Big Bang "occurred". Or can we? Assuming this has a meaning
   

The big bang was not an event that happened at some central location in an otherwise empty universe. It is space itself that is expanding.

Matter is not (on the average) going in some special direction. If you put yourself at any point in the universe, you will see everything moving aways from you as if you were the center of the expansion. But all points are equal. Think about and endless raisin bread loaf baking and thereby expanding. The raisins are getting farther apart and each raisin sees every other raisin getting more distant from it with no prefered direction.

If you are picturing some special location out there somewhere spewing matter and energy like a volcano, then you have the wrong idea of the big bang. (by the way, in some ways it wasn't so much of a "bang" as a hum--at least according to http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4320-big-bang-sounded-like-a-deep-hum.html)

If you have real interest I suggest reading The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality by Brian Greene

[thesometimesaint]

Galileo once said, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”.

[tana]

Doesn't this all come down to the definition of 'God'? It appears to me that god by the LDS definition is a scientist, who works/is bound by the laws of motion. He is an advanced being/intelligence. It seems plausible to me that a highly advanced intelligence could field its own science project. And this goes for whether consciousness is illusion or not.

If god is the universe...As opposed to an individual in it, then it seems self explanatory...God is creation.

If God is a - separate from his creation and others - entity, who is not bound by laws of motion, then it seems implausible to me that he/it created creation as it becomes a 'first cause' conundrum.

And now...I believe I will go golfing.

Edited April 5, 2012 by tana

[cinepro]

I trust Elder Nelson to fix my ailing heart. I would not necessarily trust him to fix my leaky plumbing. He wouldn't be the first nor the last scientist to make unsupportable scientific assertions outside of his realm of competence.

I'm guessing Elder Nelson was speaking not by his authority as a heart surgeon, but his authority as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the Jesus Christ.

President Benson said the following in reference to "the Prophet", but it may apply at least partially to the Apostles speaking in conference as well:

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven’t yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject. We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[T]he living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or worry about their own affairs. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.

How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelation of God and reasoning of men—between the prophet and the professor.

Edited April 5, 2012 by cinepro

[Cobalt-70]

There is a small subset of Mormon transhumanists who formalize this kind of thinking in what they call the New God Argument.

Mormon transhumanists are a large enough group to have subsets now, and to be formalizing things? Wow. The wonders of the internet in bringing like-minded people together.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

God bless Elder Benson but his Fourteen Fundamentals is nonsense. He can tell me how how to go to Heaven, but not how the heavens go.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

God bless Elder Benson but his Fourteen Fundamentals is nonsense. He can tell me how how to go to Heaven, but not how the heavens go.

It might be nonsense, but it's still published by the Church at LDS.org and was recently twice reiterated in General Conference, so it's Grade A nonsense.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

It might be nonsense, but it's still published by the Church at LDS.org and was recently twice reiterated in General Conference, so it's Grade A nonsense.

It's not all nonsense but... a few points are definitely not correct. And yet, they are doctrinal now despite being in conflict with other doctrine. Well, conflict if one is an absolutist. I am not conflicted, but I could see how absolutists are.

[Sethbag]

Actually, the fact that the Big Bang just happened out of absolute Nothing is infinitely more fantastical than the argument that God did it.

I don't mean for this to sound like quibbling, and I trust you not to take it that way, but a singularity is far from being "absolute nothing".

If it happened out of absolutely Nothing, what exactly caused it? You don't know? Well, isn't that interesting.

I don't know what caused a universe's worth of energy (and thence matter) to explode out of the singularity. It presents an interesting question for science to follow up on. Following up on it by asking the witchdoctors and shamans, though, is probably not going to yield anything worth taking seriously.

Your speculation that it just happened, with no causal agent or process whatsoever, has exactly as much value as mine, that an intelligent Being caused it.

According to the best science, that this happened is an observation, not a speculation. Why it happened might very well lead down the path of speculation at this point. I'm not sure what the very latest state of the science is on the question. I thought maybe you'd read more on that lately than I had.

And mine has the additional charm of suggesting the possibility of an actual purpose to our existence. You may be comforted by a purposeless existence, but I find it rather unsatisfying.

I made the decision some time ago that I'd rather know what's true, whether or not it coincides with what satisfies me.

[bluebell]

I don't mean for this to sound like quibbling, and I trust you not to take it that way, but a singularity is far from being "absolute nothing".

I've heard (from sources that i don't remember anymore) that the likelihood of life spontaneously evolving from non-living matter is astronomically remote (like 1 to a billion odds or something).

Is that true?

(Sincere question. I seriously know nothing about this stuff and i've been wanting to know for a while if that random 'fact' i've had floating around in my head for decades is based on something or if someone just made it up. Sounds like this would be a good place to ask).

[Darth_Bill]

We don't really know what the odds are, but the universe is a very large place and one in a billion still leads to several spots witj life in any sizable galaxy.

[Sethbag]

I've heard (from sources that i don't remember anymore) that the likelihood of life spontaneously evolving from non-living matter is astronomically remote (like 1 to a billion odds or something).

Is that true?

In one sense, no. The right non-living matter would have to be present, of course. Consider that once life had come about, in order for it to survive, it had to have the elements and compounds available to it to sustain life and continued reproduction, and this is true whether it was zapped into existence by a deity or came about naturally. Since we don't know exactly how this happened, we can't really place meaningful odds. But it did happen at least once. ;-)

[Cobalt-70]

I've heard (from sources that i don't remember anymore) that the likelihood of life spontaneously evolving from non-living matter is astronomically remote (like 1 to a billion odds or something).

Is that true?

(Sincere question. I seriously know nothing about this stuff and i've been wanting to know for a while if that random 'fact' i've had floating around in my head for decades is based on something or if someone just made it up. Sounds like this would be a good place to ask).

Nobody can say what the odds are. The more we know about early life, though, the lower the odds seem to become. The fact that life apparently began just a few tens or hundreds of millions of years after the earth was formed--while the earth was still partially molten and bombarded by asteroids--means that life can begin very easily. The main thing we don't quite understand is what was the earliest life. Based on cellular "fossils" representing very early genetic structures in our cells, there appears to have been a stage when life was composed only of self-replicating RNA, but we don't know whether there might have been an earlier stage. We are pretty sure that if you can get a self-replicating RNA strand, of about 100 bases or less, then full-blown life will inevitably follow as a result of natural selection. But there might also be an earlier, easier way to get to natural selection based on some chemistry for which there are no longer traces in our cells, which could have catalyzed the creation of the first self-replicating RNA strand.

[Sethbag]

Trying to cast doubt on evolution or abiogenesis based on someone's estimation of the odds is like walking up to a lottery winner and saying "You can't possibly have won, the odds were 360,000,000 to 1!"

Bluebell, consider that there are billions of galaxies that we know about in the universe, and these galaxies contain billions to hundreds of billions of stars each. It is estimated that our own galaxy contains upwards of 250 billion stars. If the odds of life on a planet around a given star were a billion to one, there'd still be 250 stars predicted to have life in our own galaxy, and hundreds of billions of stars with life in the universe. And the more we learn about the types of planets orbiting stars, the more it looks like the chances that a star may have a habitable planet are much higher than one in a billion. Here's an article saying it's likely that a majority of stars in our galaxy have planets in the habitable zone.

[Flyonthewall]

I think the process of inert/inanimate/lifeless material or elements spontaneously coming to or forming life is the big issue.

Science assumes it happened because life exists, but cannot explain it any better than a shaman or witchdoctor. Oh sure science can attempt to make it sound more plausible, but no more provable.