LETTER:Big Bang without a creator
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In discussing the theological ramifications of "The universal question" (Magazine, 2 March) Andrew Brown says "The Big Bang ... implies that the universe had a moment of creation".
It actually implies (ie logically necessitates) nothing of the kind. The Big Bang suggests a beginning, which is at best compatible with the idea of a conscious beginner, ie, a creator. A beginning could have taken place as a natural event, as a result of a mindless cause without such a creator.
The observations leading to the theory of a Big Bang relate to the part of the universe accessible to human investigation - but no one can be sure that this is the whole universe. If it is not, there may be other parts which are not expanding, or which had their own Big Bang before or after ours.
Perhaps our Big Bang, in short, was no more than a local event, in relation to the whole no more significant than the formation of a new galaxy in relation to the observable universe, or of a new star in relation to an existing galaxy.
The Big Bang theory, moreover, arises from extrapolation into the remote past of trends observable now, and they may not always have existed. Is it not possible that even what is accessible to us actually pulsates, alternately expanding and contracting, and that we are able to observe only one period of expansion in a possibly infinite series of cycles?
Of course, we can only speculate, and the suggestion of a creation is one speculation - for some of us an implausible one - among others.
John Hyams
Reading, Berkshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments