Poodien, Endgame: Beginning and Ending, 2010

Does the Big Bang debunk god or did god create the Big Bang?

Poodien, Endgame: Beginning and Ending, 2010
Poodien, "End Game: Beginning and Ending", 2010

It is rather weird that my deeper conviction that God exists came to me in a bar at Taman Tun Dr. Ismail while speaking to an atheist and an agnostic, both of whom I have high regards for. Before you jump to conclusion that I had a little too much to drink, I in fact had consumed no alcoholic beverages that evening.

It was a very cinematographic experience for me. It was the questions they threw at me; very profound and thought provoking. The evening’s discussion lead to an exchange of views on LoyarBurok (refer to “See Also” below). However, the fermentation of the thought process that was ignited in me that evening has only recently reached its zenith.

The most profound question was “Why can’t you accept that the universe has always existed?” – a rhetoric that came by when I said that “God has always existed”. At that point my sight seemed to be in High Definition mode, my adrenaline pump was overly efficient, and I felt a serene and enlightened feeling – it was to me at the very least, divine.

If I could put it in any other way, I felt like it was Christmas. For the next couple of weeks the question kept repeating in my head like a broken record. So why can’t I believe that the universe has always existed? Because it expands. The metric expansion of space is the reason why I cannot believe that the universe has always been there.

Metric expansion is a core element of the Big Bang theory. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly. It has since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state and constantly expands to this very moment.

This was approximately around 13.7 billion years ago, when the Big Bang occurred. The theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation that is supported by scientific evidence and observation. It was initially known as the hypothesis of the primeval atom, a hypothesis founded by Georges Lemaitre.

Fred Hoyle an English astronomer and mathematician coined the term “Big Bang” theory. It was a term originally coined by him as a pejorative, perhaps disparaging, name for the theory which was the main rival to his own.

He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be philosophically troubling, as many argued that a beginning implies a cause, and thus a creator. Just like how Einstein was bothered about his equations for relativity which indicated that the universe was expanding. Because if it was expanding, it must have had a beginning and a beginner.

The Big Bang theory is an extension of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Einstein applied the theory to model the structure of the universe as a whole. Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, and professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Louvain is the man who proposed the hypothesis of the primeval atom.

Einstein was never convinced at first with the Big Bang theory, only after Lemaitre detailed his theory and Edwin Hubble in 1931 showed that the furthest galaxies were fleeing away from each other in. Einstein embraced it saying,”This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”

In a 1954 letter to Eric Gutkind, Einstein wrote “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this.”

However Einstein is also the one who wrote in his book The World As I See It that the harmony of natural law “Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” I never pondered upon that, until I read Aston Paiva’s Twilight of Gods.

I soon pondered upon that everyday, especially when I am stuck in the jam at the Federal Highway near Subang. I soon realised that the Big Bang had to be the most precisely planned event in all of existence. The precision of the metric expansion of the universe indicates that our existence is no coincidence.

The force or energy that is responsible for the expansion of the universe also known as dark energy had to be accurate to one part in ten with 120 zeros. The slightest difference would have caused matter to be manifested in a different form.

If the universe had expanded just a little faster, matter would have sprayed out into space like fine mist, and there would be no stars or planets only infinite dust. If the universe had expanded just a little slower, matter would have dribbled out like gigantic drops of liquid, then collapsed back into a giant black hole.

This precision is why I believe that the whole Universe is not a mere chance, that it is no perfect static space that has eternally been so. The delicate balance of vast forces in the universe, is necessary for life to exist, and this precision is the product of an intelligence. I call that intelligence God.

Lingswaran Singh has been an active loyar burok since he was 5 years old. He speaks an open and disinterested language, dictated by no passion but that of humanity. Independence is his happiness, and he views things as they are, without regard to place or person; his country is the world, and his religion is to do good with compassion. He is a self proclaimed artist with an imagination beyond imagination. He finds pleasure in deconstructing and challenging social norms, he is paradoxical . He works towards educating Malaysian youths about justice, freedom, equality, human rights, and nation building. He too is an emissary of Lord Bobo Barnabus, tasked to enlighten Malaysians through www.loyarburok.com, the blawg leading the quest for world domination.

See Also:

LB: The image above is taken from the award winning series “End Game” by Poodien.

Lingswaran Singh has been a LoyarBurokker since he was 5. He speaks an open but disinterested language, dictated not by passion but that of humanity. Independence is his happiness. His country is the world,...

11 replies on “The Glory of God”

  1. @Mohd Alif Othman, i am a deist… i believe God doesn’t interfere with human life. You on the other hand may have a whole different on what God does and doesn’t, so until we agree on that, it is not right for me to answer your question. I am sorry.

  2. I think “intelligence” is not the same as “perfection”. And yeah, Lings is right in that our definition of “intelligence” is important in order to ask such a question as Mohd Alif’s. The H1N1 virus could be defined as “intelligent design” for it to be able to mutate and remain unharmed by vaccinations but if God is “good”, why would he create such a terrible thing right? So is the question now “Is God imperfect since he probably mistakenly created H1N1?” Suppose we continue with the concept that He is intelligent. Maybe we CAN conclude that God IS intelligent in the following context – He knows the world is getting overpopulated and all the human beings He has created are getting really greedy but lazy and not caring about the sustainability of their “harvesting” methods (which will lead to extinction of species, food shortages and imbalance in the ecosystem, etc) so He’ll create superviruses and mega earthquakes to make human beings wake up. How about that? Stupid to us may not be stupid to God since He supposedly sees the big picture and knows what’s best for us, right? Or am I stupid for trying to think like God? Stupid because I believe in God even? The fact of the matter is, nobody has all the answers and who knows, maybe we all never will but it’s good to “search” and “wonder”. To

    For now, I think this is a good article and it makes me consider that maybe segregating God and Science isn’t a very accurate way of looking at the world and how it came to be.


  3. "The delicate balance of vast forces in the universe, is necessary for life to exist, and this precision is the product of an intelligence. I call that intelligence God."

    My questions were premised on the above, which is the conclusion of your article. You used the example of the creation of the universe and how precise or balanced it is, and 'intelligent'. You concluded by labelling this 'intelligence' (premised on scientific precision, balance etc) as God.

    Taken in its lay meaning, God is well, a higher being of sorts. I don't think I need to quote a dictionary for this. So, when you label intelligence = God, my question is, (summarised for your benefit):

    "If intelligent = God, does that mean 'stupid' = not God?"

    This is because there are loads of stupid all around us (which presumably, God created).

    God created the universe (set) and this naturally includes humans etc in the universe (subset)- if you are disputing this, i.e. God only created the universe (as in space and rounds things called planets) then that's the end of the argument.

    But surely you can't be saying that.

  4. @Wong Sp. thank you, i have read that. If i may recommend a book in return. Dawkins' Dilemmas by Michael Austin.

  5. @Mohd Alif Othman

    Sir, you made your own assumption, and i have no problem if that is what you want to believe in. In my writing i had not described God more then being a reason for the precisions in the Universe.

    To discuss what you brought up, it is necessary that we first discuss what is right or wrong, what is intelligent? do intelligent thoughts consist of sadistic or negative thoughts? Does intelligence require moral and emotions?

    We would also have to lay out the human assumptions, setting the parameter of what we believe God is. What is right and wrong, what is moral and immoral, how one conception is perceived differently by another.

    I only discussed the existence of God based on theoretical science. I am not admitting any character described by man as a character of God. I only went as far as claiming there is a force behind the workings of the universe and by such there is a greater intelligence.

    I only said God created the Big Bang, the laws of physics. I did not claim that this Intelligence has communicated with us, i did not claim that this Intelligence has created flawed souls (note souls are not scientifically proven), I can't follow you on unsettled grounds.

    Why must God behave in a way that you think is right?, So you see, there is a lot of unsettled questions that needs to be address first before one can attempt to answer your question.

    I suppose your idea of God is much taken from the religious texts, which is something i haven not agreed upon. Perhaps that is your belief and i respect that.

    However you must understand i am coming from a very scientific point of view. So until we lay a common understanding of what we should expect of God, i am afraid i cant answer your question.

  6. So how about the 'flaws' of space or humans or whatever. Does that mean that God = not intelligent, since there probably wasn't any precision or chutzpah of sorts when God created those 'flawed' souls or whatever it is.

    Before you jump the gun and say 'flaws' are part of the grand scheme of 'perfection', please look around you and ask yourself "is there any flaw in this being called the human?". If the answer is in the positive, then that must necessarily mean that God was careless? Not smarty boy?

    Also, that would mean that God was only 'precise' when he thought about created space etc. The other occassions when he decided to create T-Rex? Not smarty boy?

    I hope you can address my questions above. In any event, the article is very informative. Keep writing away.

  7. Sorry, allow me to correct myself for the third sentence of my comment: But what is there to say that this delicate balance CANNOT be achieved without an intelligent creator?

  8. I agree with KohJL that Big Bang theory on its own neither disproves nor proves the existence of God. It is probable that there could be an intelligent creator, judging by the delicate balance the Universe achieves which makes life and existence as it is possible. But what is there to say that this delicate balance can be achieved without an intelligent creator? Why don’t we entertain for a minute the possibility that something delicate can be achieved without intelligent act? It is right for humans to judge the work of another human being and upon observing a magnificent work of the latter, conclude that it must be the work of an intelligent man. Just as how I can conclude that your essay here shows that you are intelligent. As we are conscious human beings, the success of our work would depend on our ability to perceive and comprehend the laws of nature eg. the amount of force needed to apply in shaping a vase, or the angle in which we should hit the chisel to produce the kind of delicacy we desire.

    But nature can achieve a certain delicate balance through some kind of, for lack of better word, ‘trial and error’… For example, even before the Universe as we know today exist, there may have been many events occurring which did not lead to any stable existence as we see today. But for one moment, when it hit the probabilistic jackpot of arriving at the right combination, then BIG BANG! Here comes the Universe!

    But certainly, the existence of God cannot be demonstrated through Big Bang. But a truly more useful inquiry would be that suggested by Aston Paiva in https://www.loyarburok.com/human-rights/pray-for-me/egg-and-sperm/ .

    With regards,

  9. On its own, the Big Bang does not validate or invalidate the existence of a higher being. It is silent on the matter as is all of science. What it does is that it offers an alternative explanation to account for observed phenomena which can be tested empirically.

    The reason it makes religious-types nervous is that this secular explanation apparently conflicts with religious dogma and does not employ anything beyond the reach of a curious and determined individual. The principles behind it are plainly demonstrable — which is the whole point of empiricism.

    As for the elegance of the universe, I don’t see the point in arguing in that until it is possible to distinguish whether it is by design or a very lucky lottery. Until then it is merely opinion, and opinions don’t count for much.

Comments are closed.