The Big Bang – Part 1
Peace be upon those who follow reason, reject tradition, and think… Peace be upon you.
We continue our discussion of the book “God, Science, and Evidence”, particularly Chapter 5, which addresses the Big Bang and the birth of the universe. As we saw in the previous video, heat death is only one hypothesis among many. This hypothesis is based on thermodynamic theory, as we’ve learned, although there are several scenarios for the death of the universe. Other scenarios suggest that the universe will not die at all, or that only parts of it will.
We also learned that total death of the universe is linked to its shape—a shape we know absolutely nothing about: is it closed? Is it open? Is it oscillating? We lack so much information about the universe, and we know we see only a small part of it. Thermodynamic theory may apply to fire, to a star, or to a sun. When energy is depleted, the star disappears and dies; when fuel or wood is used up, the fire goes out—and that is a certainty. But applying that same idea to the entire universe is a difficult process, especially since we still know so little about the universe, even if some things are “proven” with high probability (though there is no such thing as absolute scientific certainty—only probabilities that reach 90% or 80%). What we can say with some confidence is that the total death of the universe depends on several factors, and no scientist has ever observed any external intervention in its demise. It is a purely physical process, based on the shape of the universe, thermodynamic laws, and other theories. In this context, the death of the universe is unrelated to any god. The author states that this chapter was included to prove that the universe had a beginning. Since the universe has an end, it must logically have had a beginning—even if the beginning is already confirmed by the Big Bang theory, which is by itself enough to demonstrate the start of the physical universe we live in.
But the question I asked myself was: why does the author mention the death of the universe here? When I put myself in his shoes—as someone with a preconceived idea of God and religion—I find myself doing what he does: mentioning the end of the universe because it aligns with the Abrahamic religious concept of the end of the world and Judgment Day. He invokes the total death of the universe to align with the idea found in the Torah and the Bible—nothing more, nothing less. Because he doesn’t need to reference the end of the universe at all in order to prove its beginning!
Let’s return to Chapter 5 and examine the theory the author presents—the Big Bang theory. The author begins with the history of the theory’s development, first mentioned in 1949 on the BBC, as a mockery of Reverend Georges Lemaître, who had proposed an earlier theory that ultimately led to the emergence of the Big Bang model—what he called the “primeval atom theory.” To ridicule him, they dubbed him the “Big Bang man.” This chapter is truly the best I’ve read from this author. It’s simple, well-structured, and offers a clear understanding of the Big Bang theory, regardless of the author’s intentions or conclusions. However, in this chapter as in others, the author systematically mocks materialist atheists, accusing them of irrationality and of avoiding the truth—truth which, for him, is God’s existence. He also accuses them of always inventing objections or hypothetical loopholes to avoid acknowledging the existence of a Creator.
Before summarizing this chapter, it’s worth highlighting a key point: the idea of a beginning and end to the universe is as old as humanity itself—not only in religions and belief systems, but also in philosophy. Everyone agrees that the universe has a beginning and an end, even those who believe in its eternity believe in an eternal cycle: birth and death without end. However, from a scientific standpoint and based on empirical evidence, there was no proof of the universe’s beginning or end—especially during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries—when scientists were focused on understanding humanity and the origin of life on Earth, in the solar system, and in galaxies and planets. The dominant opinion back then was that the universe was eternal, stable, and perpetual. While it was true that galaxies and stars might disappear, the universe as a whole was considered stable and unchanging. The notion of a beginning and an end was seen more as a religious idea. Scientists of the time, wary of religious influence, sought to study the universe free from theological assumptions. As a result, they adopted the idea that the universe was eternal and noble. That, of course, was their error.
Just because an idea exists in a religious doctrine doesn’t mean it’s 100% myth. Those scientists should have been more flexible in their research. But that mindset was understandable in the 18th and 19th centuries, especially after Europe had emerged from the grip of the Church, which had long propagated myths and superstitions—most notably through Christianity. Many scientists developed a kind of complex when it came to religious ideas.
Yet even with such a complex, it’s impossible to reject or deny concrete or logical evidence—except by those few who choose to ignore reality. Thus, many devout Christians saw the idea of the universe’s beginning as evidence, in religious logic, of a Creator’s existence. In contrast, scientists committed to empirical evidence viewed the idea of a beginning as inherently religious—and therefore off-limits for scientific inquiry. We will explore this tension in this chapter by examining how the Big Bang theory developed from the 17th to the 20th century.
At the dawn of evidence-based science, the dominant belief—especially among ideological extremists—was that the universe had a beginning and an end, which logically implied a Creator! That idea was later overturned by data-driven scientists who advocated for the concept of a static universe with no beginning or end. But both sides were wrong, because the beginning and end of the universe have no logical or mathematical link to the existence of God. Still, the author insists on linking the beginning of the universe to proof of God’s existence. Why? Because, according to his logic, a beginning and an end necessitate something or someone that precedes the beginning. Here lies the fallacy of both perspectives.
Let’s look at what the author says about the emergence of the Big Bang theory. He claims that before the 20th century, cosmology wasn’t even considered a legitimate science—because, according to prevailing views, the universe was infinite in time and space. That was the dominant opinion among evidence-based scientists. However, things began to change with the major scientific discoveries of the early 20th century—chief among them Einstein’s theory of relativity, which asserts that space, time, and matter are interconnected and inseparable. It also holds that matter evolves within space-time, and that time itself is relative and variable. This theory completely overturned Newtonian physics. Einstein’s breakthrough was the beginning of the Big Bang theory, and experiments began to accumulate in support of its validity. This theory upended everything, and from that point on, cosmology became a legitimate field of scientific investigation.
Einstein won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his theory of relativity—even though at the time, he still believed the universe was stable and eternal. In 1922, a Russian scientist named Alexander Friedmann worked on relativity and concluded that the universe was expanding. He sent his results to Einstein, who dismissed them. The author mentions that Einstein rejected the idea, even though Friedmann’s calculations were correct. Friedmann later died in a balloon crash at 7,400 meters. According to the author, he was killed because he was beginning to uncover an idea that could lead to the Big Bang.
Naturally, the author refers to scientists who were executed by Stalin, by the Russians, or by the Germans, for opposing the theory of a static, eternal universe. Then, in 1927, Belgian priest Georges Lemaître proposed a theory suggesting that the universe emerged from a “primordial atom.” His idea was widely ridiculed at the time. Einstein told him: “Your calculations are correct, but your results are absurd.” He reportedly added, according to the author, “This is priestly physics,” mocking Lemaître for being a Christian clergyman.
The author goes on to say that in 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the light from stars is redshifted—the farther it is, the slower it appears—meaning that the universe is expanding. This confirmed Friedmann’s theory.
Many were shocked, because an expanding universe implies a non-static one. Numerous scientists rejected the idea. However, Hubble’s evidence was undeniable, and the idea of a constant universe was now open to challenge. With concrete and observable proof, Einstein conceded the truth and stated:
“The biggest blunder of my life was believing the universe is constant.”
