The Big Bang Theory (BBT)
January 10, 2009 by admin
Filed under Uncategorized
We have all heard it at school in the science class… In the begining there was nothing… and from that nothing came a big bang, caused by no one coming from nowhere… It created all the mass of the universe completely by chance [according to Einstein's Theory]…
The mass then contracted and automatically formed all the planets and set them into motion, all orbiting around the sun [all by an impossibly unlikely coincidence!] Then some chemicals appeared from nowhere and mixed themselves together [once again all by themselves, another impossible and unlikely coincidence...] And, lo and behold, [for the first and perhaps only time :-)] Life was created by chance from matter!!!”
So there you have it… The universe according to science… We accept it of course because they have brainwashed us practically from birth… But it’s complete nonsense. A thoughtful man cannot accept such hopeful ramblings of men desperate to paint God out of the picture at any cost… Science can’t prove any of it. They can’t demonstrate it in their labs… The whole thing is totally unscientific even by their own standards. And there are very few scientists who are prepared to defend the big bang theory now… I have tested it with scientists on the internet. When I confront them they say, “Well the Big Bang theory has lots of problems, but of all the theories it’s the best one we have…”
Of course the Big Bang theory is not the best theory they have to explain the creation of the universe. But science does not want to even consider the only other very obvious theory of creation… The theory that states there is intelligence behind the creation of the universe. It’s a completely reasonable assumption to make. If we look at a very nice new building in the city and I tell you it was created by a “big bang” last night, would you believe me? No. [unless you are crazy of course]. Because the building is there we know there were engineers, buliders, plumbers, electricions, etc… We may not see them, but we know they were there. The “big bang” explanation of the creation of the building is completely unreasonable…
We sometimes experience a “big-bang” in one of our big cities (there was a big one a few years ago in Oklahoma City). But we have never seen these “big bangs” produce anything constructive or create order. They destroy, and create disorder. Quite the opposite to what the original “big bang” is claimed to have done. And when we have one of these “big bangs” in a city what is the immediate question? Everybody asks “Who planted the bomb?” and “Why did they do it?” This would seem to be the natural response. Of course the scientists could get on the television and tell people that “Nobody planted the bomb — the explosion happened all by itself.” but who would believe them?
Now science is supposed to be a process of observation and experiment. They have conjectured this “Big-Bang” theory — now let them do some experiments and prove it. They can make a “Small-Bang” with some dynamite, or even a little atomic bomb… Let them create something substantial with a “small-bang”. If the universe can be created with a “Big-Bang” then surely they can create a small town, or failing that, at least a building with a “Small-Bang”. Unless science can prove the Big Bang theory by experiments why preach it? And why not consier the most logical alternative explaination of the creation of the universe, that there is an intelligent force behind the creation?
The motivation of the scientists in preaching the Big Bang theory is NOT science, it is NOT a search for the truth. The purpose of the BBT is to construct a philosophy allowing people to live debauched hedonistic lives confident that, “There is no God, there is no life after death, the universe was created by chance. I am just a combination of chemicals and when the body is finished I’m finished — so let me party to the max now!” This is no better than the life of the animals. Science is attempting to eradicate the one thing which separates us from the animals — our ability to understand and question the spiritual, more subtle aspects of our existence.
Science attempts to explain everything in terms of chemicals but no one has ever been able to show (and no one will ever be able to show) consciousness can be created by mixing some chemicals… It’s blind faith. The brainwashed general public are prepared to believe such nonsense when presented by the scientists ONLY because it allows a godless world-view. A mindset that enables me to do anything that “feels good” without considering the consequences. If these theories had to be rigorously tested according to the scientific method no sane man could possibly accept them. There is no observation and there are no experiments. Just mental speculation and some vague notions which have been formulated into a quite detailed religious dogma by the “scientific” community.
And they can’t prove anything, they can’t logically explain it. It all comes down to blind faith…
Krishna says:
manusyanam sahasresu kascid yatati siddhaye
yatatam api siddhanam kascin mam vetti tattvatah
“Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth.”
So searching for the real meaning of life is not such a common thing… Most people are happy with chasing women, some chase fame, profit, adoration and distinction, but only a few are interested in spiritual life. There must be some thoughtful scientists who are prepared to think independently from the “accepted dogma”.
Science is [like it or not] a set of beliefs. I agree it is a constantly changing one, but at any point scientists are very energetically “preaching” their beliefs. Their beliefs are certainly scrutinized by other scientists but there comes a time when the “beliefs” start to become “good science” and are generally accepted among scientists. When someone challenges this “good science” there is a big negative reaction. Scientists, like everyone else, have their world-view, their belief system, and when someone “rocks the boat” they don’t like it. But the important point is science is only a “temporary accepted truth”. If you read a science text-book from fifty years ago it will seem ridiculous… Similarly todays text-books will be also useless a few years down the track…
“Your points about missing the goal of life are profoundly true in my view. But this is to mistake science with materialism. Many eastern religions celebrate the awe of the universe in an incredibly beautiful way. It seems to me that this view of the world is fully compatible with science which shows us more of the universe everyday. What could be more delightful than that?”
Yes. The universe is also a form of God and real science is also a form of God realization. But many are not really interested in this. They have turned “science” into a dogma that supports the modern atheistic world-view. This is not science and it is not what real scientists are doing, but it is how the atheists are using science to destroy religious people in our society…
“I came across your post in which you said that the nature of what is behind the watch face, i.e. the supreme being responsible for setting this universe into motion, is completely unknowable to us. I realize I may be paraphrasing your actual statement, forgive me please. Could you tell me why you believe this to be true? Thanks, Todd.”
I was referring to the scientists rather than the transcendentalists. For the scientists depend on a different process. One who believes in God can perceive His presence. God reveals Himself to His devotees. So they can see and experience the “supreme person who set this universe in motion.” They can also have some knowledge from the scriptures as to what is beyond this universe…
The scientists, however, only accept what they can see, hear, feel, touch and smell for themselves. They observe things and try to explain the observations with “scientific” theories. While this is certainly a process of acquiring knowledge, it is a very slow and imperfect one. All such “scientific” knowledge is always flawed because it is gathered by the scientists using their imperfect senses. All our senses are imperfect: we can’t see things that are very close or far away, we can only see a limited range of frequencies… But that is not all. Everyone has a tendency to cheat. If I want to prove my theory I will accept the evidence that supports it, but I may not pay too much attention to observations that contradict it… We are also illusioned… We accept so many things as facts which are not facts at all. Science is full of “initial assumptions”, and many of these may be wrong, so any theory which relies on these assumptions will also be wrong. If you are doing a big calculation and you make a mistake in the beginning, no matter how nice your calculations are after that point, the answer will be wrong… And finally we all make mistakes. So many experiments are performed but often there are mistakes and the results are not correct…
This “scientific process” is the ascending process for acquiring knowledge. It means finding out things using our own power… But it is not a very perfect method as I have described above. The other way to get knowledge is via the descending process. That means to find a perfect authority, someone who knows, and just accept the knowledge from him. It is not an unfamiliar process. If you want to become a carpenter you go to a carpenter and ask him to take you on as his apprentice… This is the best way to learn.
So we just accept the knowledge Krishna has given in the Vedic scriptures in India. There are thousands of Vedic scriptures on every topic, material and spiritual. There is the Auya-veda for medicine, the Danna-veda for the science of fighting and war, there is the Joyti-veda for astronomy and astrology, there are Vedic scriptures for everything… There are also Vedic scriptures describing the universe and what is beyond the universe, the spiritual sky.
The bona fide spiritual master simply presents this Vedic knowledge. He doesn’t inject his own ideas or philosophy. So the knowledge a bona fide spiritual master presents is perfect. He can tell you all about the supreme person who is responsible for setting this universe in motion. But such bona fide spiritual masters are rare. There are many charlatans presenting themselves as “bona fide spiritual masters” for fame, money, to attract followers, etc… So this has put a lot of people off. But still if we want to find the truth we have to find a real guru…
tad viddhi pranipatena
pariprasnena sevaya
upadeksyanti te jnanam
jnaninas tatt va-darsinah
“Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.” (Bhagavad-gita 4.34)
There are so many things, even in this universe, that the scientists can not see so how can they ever understand them? The only way is to find an authority and get the knowledge in that way. Scientists can’t even get complete knowledge of the universe, they certainly have absolutely no ability to find out what is beyond the universe…
“Who caused the causer? That would be the next logical question.”
isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah
anadir adir govindah sarva-karana-karanam
“Krishna, who is known as Govinda, is the supreme controller. He as an eternal spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin, for He is the prime cause of all causes.” (Sri Brahma Samhita 5.1)
The difficulty is we are working on a different premise. Your premise is everything can be explained by chemical reactions only. My premise is matter doesn’t move without the touch of spirit. You say “life” is a combination of chemicals. I know “life” is a spiritual force completely different from matter. There is much evidence supporting my view and I have presented some of it but because you do not accept my premise that there is a spiritual component as well as a material one you don’t accept my evidence.
I see, from my perspective, that science has failed to justify it’s claims and can not back up the notion that like comes from chemicals. We see life coming from life around us all the time… that is sufficient evidence that life comes from life. But you say, without proof, without experiments, without even any real idea of how it happens, that life comes from chemicals. This is sentiment not science.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy! All glories to Srila Prabhupada
The Big Bang Theory cannot be proved by experiment, as it operates on too large a scale. It, like biological evolution, is something that can only be inferred by evidence and extrapolation. Also, since it is a unique event, one cannot use, for example, small chemical, nuclear, or matter/antimatter explosions as an analogy; the big bang and a bomb exploding are too different to compare; therefore one can not infer any conclusions from the other.
Just to humor you and address one example you gave: that a small explosion cannot create a building. This is so far-fetched an analogy that don’t know where to start. A small explosion is in a controlled environment, within a gravitational field (Earth’s), its cause is the result of combining certain chemicals with a catalyst, its nature is probably that of fire (or perhaps matter) expanding outwards under pressure, the quantity and quality of matter is small and diverse, and there is less matter in the explosion than in the building.
By contrast, the theoretical Big Bang was not in a controlled environment, it wasn’t in any gravitational field but its own, its cause is unknown, its nature is that of immeasurable amounts of energy expanding outwards and coalescing into matter, the quantity of matter is all that there theoretically is in the universe, the quality of the matter, at first, was only subatomic particles, then atoms, then Hydrogen, and so on.
These two explosions are less similar than Webster’s Unabridged English Dictionary is similar to a hand-written post-it note in Chinese. The results of the explosions (the universe and a building) are equally dissimilar. My point here is that the example you use to discredit the Big Bang theory carries no weight at all and only diminishes the overall credibility of this essay.
The theory is based on a very simple observation: that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. We know this because everything we can observe in the sky is redshifted, proportional to its distance from us– i.e. their spectra are shifted towards the infrared end of the light spectrum, with farther objects shifted more. This is known as the Doppler Effect, and we can observe it any time we hear a car honking while moving away from us– the pitch goes down, because the relative motion between the car and the ear makes the sound waves seem to expand and lower the pitch. This also happens with light.
If everything we can observe seems to be moving away from us, and objects further away are moving at an apparently faster rate, the only logical conclusion is that the universe, or at least the matter in it, is expanding. (For a good visual example, think of a balloon with a bunch of dots drawn on it, then filled with air.) One can easily extrapolate backwards in time, therefore, and conclude that all of this matter was once in the same spot.
So, contrary to your claim, the science behind this theory, at least the bare-bones idea of it, is sound. With any theory, of course, there are kinks to be worked out, and those kinks could very well lead us to strong circumstantial evidence for Intelligent Design.
The idea of the universe being created is not incompatible with the basic idea of the Big Bang (all matter starting at one point and expanding outward).
However, I notice a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were, and acting as if a rejection of the materialistic view of consciousness must necessitate a rejection of the Big Bang. However, these are two separate ideas, and I believe we can tentatively embrace one while still rejecting the other.
Really, the main argument I see in this essay is against the mechanistic view of the universe, that holds that consciousness is a product of matter, which, as we can all agree, is absurd. Like biological evolution, the Big Bang is a tenable theory as long as the idea of “soul” is present: that the conscious impulse is driving everything.
Real science, which is unlike the science you denounce in this essay, is simply a search for truth in the observable universe. Real scientists, rather than ignoring evidence that contradicts their theories, will actually attempt to disprove their theories themselves. Real science will publish their ideas in peer-reviewed journals and ask others to contribute and test their ideas. Real scientists accept the idea that a valid theory today may be entirely obsolete tomorrow. Real scientists always remember that they may be wrong.
Science itself does not inherently have a position on Theism; actually they are non-overlapping. Adhokshaja, a name of Krishna, literally means “that which suppresses any attempt to know him by empirical knowledge.” Therefore science, in its purest form, will never weigh in on God.
However, it is true that many scientists take the attitude called Burden of Proof towards God, saying that God, for their purposes, does not exist until proved. While this is a healthy attitude to take towards matters physical, it clearly does not work when approaching Theism, and that is why not only are so many scientists Atheistic, but they are quite vocally so and have gotten to the point where they would disbelieve God even if they saw proof for Him. This is what you talk about when you mention scientists’ “blind faith,” and it must be avoided, both in science and in religion.
If your intention with this article is to convince scientifically-minded Big Bang believers otherwise, this article will not do that. If you are trying to reinforce the “faith” of scientifically ignorant people who already doubt the Big Bang theory (most likely because of a lack of real information about it), then this article will do exactly that.
If you sincerely want to address scientific issues from a spiritual perspective, as I do, I urge you to take some time to earnestly study science and the scientific method. For example, study astronomy and cosmology in-depth, with an open mind and without prejudgments, for a little while. Read up on it or take a class and don’t try to fit any of it into your world view; just learn it for what it is. This will enable you to much more authoritatively tackle the really significant issues where science and Krishna Consciousness truly differ.
Unfortunately, this article not only sets up straw-man arguments towards science, but it betrays a lack of any deep understanding of the scientific issues dealt with, and therefore carries no credibility with the very people you are trying to convince.
Hare Krishna Prabhu
You have given some good points. But you have a lot of faith in the scientific process of observation and experimentation to find the truth, however the Vedic system rejects this “scientific method” as being faulty because even the instruments that we use to observe with, our senses, are themselves faulty, so we can not even observe what is actually going on.
You say the big bang theory a valid explanation of the creation of the universe and you support this because we observe the red shift of stars which we presume are light years away. And we presume to know the relative distances of everything. We presume that this red shift means the stars are moving away from us. And then we extend this to say that must mean the universe was created by a “big bang.” We presume that we have a very complete understand of the universe and how things are working….
This Big bang theory is only guess made by some scientist based on so many presumptions and assumptions. All this is based on our imperfect sense perception and therefore it is all faulty. It is not real knowledge at all.
Even scientists do not agree on the big bang theory. There are also other competing theories, the plasma universe for example, that try to “explain” the creation in a completely different way.
The big bang theory can not even be said to be a valid scientific theory because, as you point out, there is no question testing it, there is no question of proving it, there is no question of an experiment to prove or disprove it. To be accepted as a valid scientific theory one must propose and execute experiments that will prove or disprove the theory. This can not be done with the big bang theory. So it does not at all fulfill the criteria for a an actual scientific theory, even by their own rules.
It is an interesting idea only. And even if it is true as you say they admin the cause of this “big bang” still remains completely unknown.
And that point I have made in the article. You see the world trade center was knocked down by the planes and immediately the question people are asking is, “Who did it?” and “Why?”
So there is no questioning like that by the proponents of the big bang theory. They will say basically it all happened by chance. Which is a very childish explanation. Means they have no idea actually how it happened.
So this big bang theory is not at all a satisfying explanation of the creation of the universe, even from the point of science, and many scientists also feel this way, honest scientists. It is not even a valid scientific theory, because it can not be proven or disproven.
I do not know if you have read the Srimad Bhagavatam but if you take the time to study it you will find a very complete, satisfying, scientific and correct explanation of the creation of the universe. And from the Bhagavatam we can clearly understand that the universe was not created by a “big bang.”
Maha Visnu is lying on the causal ocean and when He breaths out all the universes come out of the pores of his body in seed form and they expand for half the life of the universe, then when Maha Visnu breathes in they again contract and enter back within His body, again in seed form, and when Maha Visnu breathes out all the universes come out again.
Although the time is only one breath for Maha Visnu, that is the complete universal time for us. That is 100 years of Lord Brahma’s time, and Lord Brahma lives an unimaginable length of time from our perspective.
Of course the scientists don’t know, but once we cross the 1/2 way point the universe will start to contract and everything will start to come closer together. And on the universal scale of time we are nearing that point. So if their theory about the red shift is correct they will see the red shift stop and after some time there will be a blue shift. And they will have no idea why, they will have no idea at all what is actually happening, they cannot know. It is adhoksaja. Beyond the ability of their senses to perceive and beyond the ability of their mind to imagine.
So the scientists can never actually understand the universe through this ascending process of knowledge. Their very “scientific process” is faulty, so if you start with a faulty process you can only produce faulty “knowledge.”
The real process of acquiring knowledge is the descending process, the process of hearing from an authority who knows. This is the only way they can understand anything factually and this is what we are presenting.
Yes, to a certain extent this process of the scientists, if done honestly, is a sort of jnana-yoga and will ultimately lead them to the conclusion that there must be intelligent design in the universe. But no further than that. They will never be able to find out anything about the designer or the way He created the universe or even the way the universe is working. For getting any real knowledge they have to come to accepting this process of hearing the real knowledge from Krishna through the Vedic literatures and the bona fide spiritual master. There is no alternative to this.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Hare Krishna,
I quite agree with your comments and would rather believe that everything that we see all around us has been created by a supernatural power rather than everything coming up from somewhere by chance - even life.
I have some queries for believers of BBT:
1. there are so many factors that we see around us necessary for life - earth’s speed of rotation, gravity, laws of physics, constant, atmospheric layer with exact proportion of gases, ozone layer, sun, moon, water, air, etc etc etc etc etc and so many etc factors. Can we please calculate the probability by multiplying the probability of all these factors occuring by chance and see where do we get.
2. Look at the watch on your wrist right now. Its not a complex machine but we do know that it has to be designed by engineers. So then how do we explain that the hairs below that wrist watch, the skin, the blood in the veins below the skin, heart’s design, the 4 valves, circulation & purification of the blood, respiratory system and lungs, digestion system etc came into being by chance
3. Look at the human eye. It is an integration of many sub systems to enable us see in this world and differentiate colours with such pure image that a digital camera can not even come close to it in terms of its resolution (by the way even the digital camera is created by engineers and didnot come into being by chance)
4. Even Charles Darwin theory is facing lots of issues - there is no proof in the fossils of gradual progress after 150 years of research. That means a dinosaur suddenly became a big bird and then a small bird and all the bees and insects that we see today. That to me is itself beyond scientific explanation.
5. Ok assuming you answer the above 4 questions, please help us with creating love, happiness, sadness, emotions from matter since we are so technologically advanced today
Waiting for your reply.
Note: I have drawn information from Randall Nile’s website http://www.allaboutscience.com. please visit this site and have a look at the videos and explanations.
Regards
Anurag
Hare Krsna , Hare Ram !!
The argument is entertaining and the Mind has so many ways of Entertainment but i feel the Solution is through a deep contemplation wwithin the Meditative and Devotional Service in the Absolute present moment . These states of Being need to be cultivated and of course with a Spiritual Guide then some results may occur . It is a Transcendental Present Awareness and i feel the rest is Speculation …healthy to a degree … let us study the Gita and open the petals of the heart and through the Akashic Realm all truth will be revealed .. Hare Krsna , Hare Ram
dear devotees,
pamho, agtsp!
HH Bhaktiswarup Damodara Maharaj wrote an extensive and detailed study of this issue in his scientific article Life and origin of the universe, in Vedanta and Science Series booklet issued by Bhaktivedanta Institute. all the key points have been dealt with and piles of references have been cited. the main objective of the article is to prove that scientific point of view is too lacking to be at all taken into consideration, but of course Maharaj wrote it very politely and elaborately.
Gauranga
Well, you guys really simplified the big bang theory. Obviously did not pay much attention in the science class, and probably to make it worse, did not do any follow up studies. Narrow-mindedness and blind religious fervor is the worst a human can do to him-self. Keep your mind open and LEARN.