accelerating/expanding universe - god?

I apologize if this question has been asked. Please point me to links if it has. I did a brief search and was unable to come up with a good answer to my question.It appears in 1998 after 10 or so years of studying Supernova's folks came to the conclusion the universe is expanding at a rapid rate. It seems the methods of this expansion are not 100% clear. From what I found on google much of this is still a theory and being worked out - is this a correct assumption?(I feel this is important because many religious often attack things which are theories - in my opinion. Are they using one here in support?)I have recently heard it argued, "All galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C(in a triangle shape - 2 bottom 1 top) tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day."This seems logical - easy for me to follow. I undestand.Then the argument goes on, "Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity!"This too seems fair enough - this proves to me there is obviously a beginning. Obviously a god or intelligent thingy made us, correct? This god or 'thingy' started the universe - the starting point we can clearly locate as we go backwards, correct? The argument also included that oscillating universe(is this considered a theory, law or model) is flawed because the universe is expanding not shrinking. Gravity is obviously unable to suck the universe upon it self - wimp! Something called, "dark matter" is causing this. Science is obviously 100% incorrect in assuming the universe could ever shrink(we see it grow). Therefore without question following the above logic their is a 1st - a starting point. This 1st is god. . . . god exists, yes? Also it is fair to conclude that something with a starting point, a beginning is not eternal. Therefore the argument the argument the universe is self existing and eternal is flawed too, right?Seems logical to me? Do I need to convert to a religious person now?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

No, it is not logical at all.Yes, it means there are things that we do not understand about the universe, and the fact that the rate at which the universe is expanding is one of them.However, ignorance does not mean 'god did it'. Ignorance means 'I don't know'.Coming to the conclusion of 'God did it' from ignorance is just clutching at straws.

It's a bit of a simplification to say it had a beginning, cavediver has made some interesting posts on the subject, look around for his posts. To simplify, space-time just is, and when time=0 is as much a beginning as the south pole is a beginning of earth. This is where the logical problem lies though. It isn't obvious at all. Just because something had a beginning doesn't mean that beginning was caused by an intelligent being. There are several theories about the cause of the universe including one that says there wasn't one. I'm afraid that's not quite right. Simply because we see it grow doesn't mean there isn't reason to think it won't shrink again. I don't think it can (but I would never say 100% on these things because my physics qualification does not allow me to be an expert), but your reasoning is unfortunately flawed.

quote:

---

This too seems fair enough - this proves to me there is obviously a beginning. Obviously a god or intelligent thingy made us, correct?

---

This reasoning is more or less the reason Hoyle never liked the Big Bang theory.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This too seems fair enough - this proves to me there is obviously a beginning. Obviously a god or intelligent thingy made us, correct? This god or 'thingy' started the universe.Please explain to me how this is obvious- the big bang is just a theory. So what your saying is that a God is theory?Therefore without question following the above logic their is a 1st - a starting point. This 1st is god. . . . god exists, yes?I am at a loss how you derive that a theory for a central starting point for the universe equates a God. Please explain. Please keep in mind that I am not denying the existance of a God by this.Also it is fair to conclude that something with a starting point, a beginning is not eternal. Therefore the argument the argument the universe is self existing and eternal is flawed too, right?So you are saying that this idea of God you have is flawed?Seems logical to me? Do I need to convert to a religious person now?Please explain to me how religion aplies?

I apologize the reason to believe in god seemed so simple - so obvious? I am fairly confident I am more confused now. The big bang theory seems to offer a beginning - a starting point. If an explosion happens it occurs because something exploded. If this explosion causes multiple things to explode I would assume a good forensic person could trace the fragments, patterns, gasses(whatever)back to the initial cause. No matter how large the chain reaction of explosions their is a cause(a reason?). Is it unfair to define this point as a beginning - "the cause"? It appears when this 'explosive model' is used to describe the universe the first cause - "The Cause . . . The Beginning" must be uncaused. An unmoved mover? I do not like the sound of that.A little digging,

quote:

---

"The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe."

---

. Is this a solid definition? Where do I learn more?Like what this guy modu said,

quote:

---

"It's a bit of a simplification to say it had a beginning, cavediver has made some interesting posts on the subject, look around for his posts. To simplify, space-time just is, and when time=0 is as much a beginning as the south pole is a beginning of earth."

---

I will look up cavediver - thank you.So let me get this straight. There is no 'center of expansion'? Just a poof then an appearance? Wow - did anyone write a dummies book on this? I would love to read it and learn more. My initial statement and assumption about 'the cause' of the universe being in the center(an identifiable point) is untrue?I still do not like the idea of an explosion having no starting point which I can trace it to. I am having difficulty coming to terms with this. This is an explosion of a different "kind", huh? I like the theory of the oscillating universe and a big crunch better. Is this theory/idea dead? Is dark matter much stronger than gravity and unwilling to allow the universe to 'crunch' upon itself and start over?

quote:

---

Coming to the conclusion of 'God did it' from ignorance is just clutching at straws.

---

So I just need to wait? Why is a god theory unacceptable? If I choose not to accept a god other than the big bang or big crunch(this seems disproved) where do I look - what do you accept, current evidence is unacceptable? I am to suspend a belief in god as an uncaused causer until science can come up with something? You are asking me to wait for some other type of uncaused cause which we can explain - this seems unexplainable. Isn't an uncaused cause out of our grasp of human knowledge? If this is not answered within my lifetime I am supposed to accept it?This message has been edited by Hunter812, 02-21-2006 09:41 AM

It seems to make sense, but in reality it doesn't. The 'Big Bang' is a colloquial term, there wasn't a big bang, there was a rapid inflation. There is no bang one metre north of the south pole either, but the earth is suddenly wider. The classic unmoved mover conundrum. Causality makes sense to us, but it can and does break down. The simple answer is 'I don't know'. There are hypothesized causes (brane theory (or is it M-Theory)) of colliding branes forming universes in the quantum 'foam'. Its a good starting definition, but the real definition lies in massively complicated maths that I can't begin to understand! We don't know if there was a poof or not, physics and maths don't provide solid answers on that just yet. There is no centre of expansion, no. There are simple books, but they result in more questions. The ultimate answers are in advanced maths, spacetime geometry, relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and so on and so forth. It's difficult to get your head round isn't it? Its a question of how starting points work. Remember time is a dimension just like length and height, and intuitive ideas of beginnings can get you confused when you think of the 'creation' of time itself.The simplest thing is to know this. If we go backwards in time, the universe gets hotter and denser. This all works and the maths and physics can explain everything up to time=5.391 10^’44 seconds (or there abouts) at which point our physics/maths stops making sense and simply says something along the lines of infinite density and zero space (singularity). It's a bit like dividing something by zero, it doesn't really make any sense to divide something into zero parts.So we get stuck. The big bang doesn't describe the cause of the universe, it just describes the early universe (hot and dense). What happened 'before' that might not even make sense as a question. If it does, we don't know. There are some ideas. It isn't unacceptable, its just not a logical conclusion from "Don't know where the universe came from, the unmoved mover must be some kind of God". Its best to say "I don't know what's going on, I have Faith in God".

Ha! The idea of a real "dummies" book on this topic is something of an oxymoron. It is conceptually a very difficult topic. Reading lots of different expressions of it is helpful.A pretty simplified book is:
"Big Bang" by Simon Singh -- still only in hardcover -- recommend you get it from a library.A much better written book but one that is harder because while very clear pulls no punchs is:
"The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian GreeneThis is in paper back. I recommend a purchase of this one since you'll have to read some bits over and over to get it to sink in. Then ask questions here.

Total for this Order: $10.99 - Amazon is good stuff.Thank you for the insight. I will start reading in 2-8 days.

No, I don't think you have to suspend belief in God. However, to try to support an article of faith with an "I don't know in science" is called "god of the gaps". It is considered to be bad theology by the theologically sophisticated. As I understand it this is for a couple of reasons; God is to be taken on faith, not "proven" by science and if you use a gap in knowledge to support a belief in a god then when the gap is closed a logical conclusion is to reduce your belief in that god by some amount. This is not what the faithful should be setting people up for.An important example of the theological dangers of tangling faith and science up is what happens to a lot of people brought up in literalists sects. They are taught that the evils of science like biological evolution and geology are anti-god. They have various anti evolution and/or geology ideas drilled into them as part of the support for the faith.Then later in life they are exposed to the actual evidence and the real science. These, when examined carefully, can be compelling. Instead of just learning about the natural world and continuing with their faith their past teachings have drilled into them that is it one or the other an not both. Therefore they end up losing faith altogether. Not a good theological outcome! One reason why the majority of Christians are against the literalists and consider them a greater danger to faith than they are to science.

10.99? The Greene book?If that is the one you've ordered see if you can borrow the Singh book in the meantime. It is a more gentle introduction -- especailly (almost only) to the history of the idea.

No, you are not being asked to suspend or abandon a belief in GOD.For those of us who believe in GOD, all science is doing is discovering "How GOD did it". But that is a matter of Faith, not scientific theory. And there is really no end or gap to it either. Perhaps one day we will understand what led to the Big Bang, and likely, that will open a whole new bag of questions, a whole new universe of study.But to try to prove GOD exists in a scientific manner is to reduce GOD to some mechanistic critter, an awsome tinkerer. God, in that case becomes just another object like a Higgs boson.GOD is far more than that, She is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega, the guide and friend, the supporter and comforter.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Is this universe expansion like a balloon? Pressure inside the balloon causes the space inside to expand. Eventually the balloon will pop. Is the universe going to pop. OH NO! that does not sound healthy for humans. Is dark matter like the skin of the balloon? What is the skin of the universe holding in the pressure? If the pressure of the universe wants to get out - like gas in a container it will find a way. Won't this cause the universe to deflate. *CRUNCH*

Why would a god want my universe to pop - sounds evil of it.