Big Bang Intelligent Design

From Ethan Siegel: What if the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe?

Spread the love

Make no mistake, the Big Bang is unpopular in many quarters and an exterminator has long been sought. The trouble is, an infinite regress of this universe is logically untenable because everything—including the demise of the universe before our time—would already have happened. And there is no evidence for previous universes that gave rise to this one and disappeared.

Theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel writes, citing certain difficulties:

If you still want to invoke the Big Bang, the only answer you can give is, “well, the Universe must have been born that way, and there is no reason why.” But in physics, that’s akin to throwing up your hands in surrender. Instead, there’s another approach: to concoct a mechanism that could explain those observed properties, while reproducing all the successes of the Big Bang, and still making new predictions about phenomena we could observe that differ from the conventional Big Bang.

Ethan Siegel, “If the Big Bang wasn’t the beginning, what was it?” at Forbes

He goes on to argue for cosmic inflation theory, which has quite a few problems of its own.

Here’s the problem: The explanation for an event may be outside the event. In that case, one can’t derive an explanation from within the event. If we had never heard of William Shakespeare and came across a bandshell production of Hamlet, where all the people onstage are speaking in Elizabethan English, listening to them would not tell us that Hamlet is his best-known play. Someone outside the play would need to tell us that. The characters, in their roles, don’t know it. All ultimate origins are probably like that. We may get some hints but we will not get regress. Understanding Hamlet will not enable us to communicate with Shakespeare.

See also: The Big Bang: Put simply, the facts are wrong.

5 Replies to “From Ethan Siegel: What if the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe?

  1. 1
    Pearlman says:

    Dr. Siegel speculation a product of wishful thinking, from weak scientists and science, that is still trapped in their self-constructed deep-time dependent current consensus box.
    You can not get here (the one actuality) from there.
    The entrenched consensus with confirmation bias so deep, they do not even know that they do not know.
    reference the YeC Moshe Emes series for Torah and science alignment where all the highest probability science adds up and cross checks.
    The universe had a start, thousands (5781) not billions of years ago.
    See SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model ( series volume II) for ‘Einstein’s Biggest Blunder – premature capitulation’ and ‘Pearlman vs. Hubble’, and a ‘fistful of Nobel’s’ worth of scientific advancement..
    All deep-time dependent scientific hypotheses (NDT, LCDM..) and assumptions (Copernican Principle, common ancestry..) have been falsified for all practical intents and purposes.

  2. 2
    BobRyan says:

    Big Bang should be scratched and replaced with an unknown. Take what is known today, not suspected like dark matter, and work back from there. It should have happened the moment Einstein’s blunder worked.

  3. 3
    Truthfreedom says:

    Materialists are desperate. Even if the Universe were eternal, it would not mean it was “uncaused”.

    Aquinas famously assumed the eternity of the world in his “Five Ways.” He did not believe the world was eternal, but living long before the Big Bang theory, he had no philosophical proof that it was not. Since he did not believe in using revelation to buttress a philosophical argument, he allowed the eternity of the world to stand.

    A well-known example is “Plato’s Foot.” Suppose that a foot has been planted in the sand for all eternity. Beneath the Eternal Foot is the Eternal Footprint. But the Foot is still the [efficient] cause of the Footprint, even though both have eternally existed. Why are (some) Physicists so Bad at Philosophy

  4. 4
    Fasteddious says:

    One way to look at the beginning of time is to posit the Universe as a simulation, as at: https://thopid.blogspot.com/2019/01/our-simulated-world.html
    In a simulation, the time variable usually begins at t = 0, and there is no meaning to t < 0 since the simulation does not exist for earlier simulated times. Of course the person doing the simulation has a separate time line, which existed before the simulation began. The referenced post describes several other interesting possibilities for time in a simulated world.

  5. 5
    capalas says:

    ” The trouble is, an infinite regress of this universe is logically untenable because everything—including the demise of the universe before our time—would already have happened. ”

    I don’t see the logic of this. Assign integer -1 to yesterday, 0 to today, +1 to tomorrow, etc. Then the above statement is like saying an infinite number of negative integers is logically untenable because all the integers, including the positive ones would have been used up. Such logic seems invalid.

Leave a Reply