An Exploded Hypothesis

An Exploded Hypothesis

Science, in this modern age, cannot give the proper information about the origin of the universe. Imperfect senses, finite knowledge, and fraud are just a few reasons. Actually, to give a precise answer to this question is beyond the realm of science. Faith plays a large part in knowing the origin of the universe and other metaphysical subjects.

In this essay, we will discuss the "Big Bang" theory, which states that the space, atoms, stars, galaxies, planets, and the whole universe came about by a small object that exploded due to unknown reasons. In other words, hypothetically everyuthing happened without any conscious intervention and direction. But, was it so

Unproven

The Big Bang theory has not been proven, and it has faced problems. Some believe it with convictions and others do not. It did not become popular with some because it is not scientifically proven. On the other hand, the theory's small popularity is due to good management and acceptable explanations of a few observations. For supporters it is very pleasing to the ears, because it fits the present day atheistic and materialistic ideology.

It is interesting that according to this theory, before the existence of time and space there was an unlimitedly condensed small mass. Thus, the explanation of the whole theory is based on the faith that this immeasurable, unobservable, unprovable small chunk really existed. (And again, what is it's origin is not mentioned). According to this myth of origin, this small "point" was the uncaused cause of all causes.

Unscientific

Even the supposed process of the Big Bang should have been directed by some scientific laws. Subsequently, this gives a rise to another question about the origin of scientific laws. What are the origin of the laws directing the primeval matter?

Further, the Big Bang hypothesis is clearly a contradictory to the second rule of Thermodynamics. The rule explains unavoidable deterioration and disorganization during time, with an exception: if there is a help of some 'energy-information-supply' that can stop the negative deterioration process. The Big Bang theory describes just the opposite scenario, namely, the order in the universe was constantly increasing without any supplement of directed energy.

Considering the viewpoints of systems theory and systems technology, the thesis of Big Bang theory is also untenable. In other words, the explosions that are talked about could only result in destructions, not construction. Actually, what kind of explosion could give increasing amount of information, order and complex atomic structures? An accidental explosion cannot create an unlimitedly great, detailed, and organized system.

Moreover, according to the Theory of Informatics, information is never generated accidentally. It has to be externally administered into a particular system. A generation of information always depends on intelligence. However, according to the Big Bang theory, the creation of order and the immeasurable amount of information occurred without intervention of any external intelligence. How could the unlimitedly condensed chunk, in its initial stage, contain all the necessary information for future development? What kind of program directed the systematic development of complex mechanisms? In what form did this program originate and where could this unlimited amount of information come from?

The problem of the beginning of the universe is difficult to understand by the methods of modern science. The Big Bang theory is not testable and so the arguments supporting it are unscientific. There is no possibility of its direct observation, experiment, or repetition. Many astrological observations, for example, the Cosmic Background Radiation or Red Shifts, are possible to interpret in various ways and the modern scientists are trying to explain these phenomena simply by their own ideological assumptions. Their belief in the Big Bang results in their belief of all phenomena surrounding it. However, this is circular reasoning. This means we can say that this article was caused by the accidental flow of electricity in the memory of the computer. What is the proof that this is true? The proof is the article's existence. This is circular reasoning.

The Big Bang theory does not give an answer

What could have activated the static primeval "point"? How could it be possible that the ignorant matter - disproving the nowadays known physical laws - could organize itself into more and more complex systems, instead of becoming disorganized? As the result of the explosion, why did not one homogeneous world come about, without any variety of forms? What could be the cause of the "primeval point"? What is the future of the universe? Why does it exist?

The accident is not an explanation

The explanation, which states the universe is a creation of accident, is certainly faulty. If we say that something happened accidentally, it is like saying "it happened" or "here it is". These statements are not scientific in the least.

What could have been the probability that from an explosion our complex universe came into existence? "Extremely low, but not impossible" somebody can say. If we want to trust in such a scenario of creation, for the sake of consistency we should also consider the probability of other events. (E.g. that the water can become ice in the cooker.)

Presuppositions

The theory of the Big Bang (and all other theories that explain the origin of the universe merely by physical laws) are based on the following presuppositions:

- All the phenomena are explainable through natural laws expressed in mathematical language.

- These physical laws are valid in all time, places, and circumstances.

- The basic physical laws are "simple," namely knowable and understandable.

Many are accepting these suppositions as evident. Although no one proved them (nor are possible to be proven).

How to get knowledge

The accuracy of our scientific experiments and the conclusions derived from observations are not very reliable. We tend to always make mistakes, we cannot properly explain our facts, our senses are imperfect, and we have a tendency to cheat others.

We should not consider the process of acquiring knowledge to be only a function of the sober minded and calculations based on strict rules of logic. The interpretations of the facts depend on our expectations, experiences, and on our not yet defined, presuppositions.

To answer the question about the creation of the universe is beyond the jurisdiction of the modern science. The theories that offer an explanation about the creation of this universe, cannot be proven by experiments and logical conclusions. Therefore, whether we accept a materialistic or a religious theory of creation, we are simply believing in an unproved theory.