Forums → WEPR → The big bang theory real?

If you don't think the Big Bang occurred, then tell me what it is you do think happened, so I can debunk that for you.

Let's be a happy family now...

Blk has the gist of the concept of universal expansion. We can actually provide evidence for universal expansion by looking at what is happening right this very second: the universe is expanding! If the future is expansion, then logically, the past was significantly more condensed than now.

I wonder if people have ever done the math based on current expansion rates and pre-assumed densities to calculate how large the entire universe is.

~~~Darth Caedus

Yep blk pretty much got it.

I wonder if people have ever done the math based on current expansion rates and pre-assumed densities to calculate how large the entire universe is.

We have made observations using the light from the Big Bang.

"The observable universe

Astronomers have measured the age of the universe to be approximately 13.8 billion years old. Because of the connection between distance and the speed of light, this means they can look at a region of space that lies 13.8 billion light-years away. Like a ship in the empty ocean, astronomers on Earth can turn their telescopes to peer 13.8 billion light-years in every direction, which puts Earth inside of an observable sphere with a radius of 13.8 billion light-years. The word "observable" is key; the sphere limits what scientists can see but not what is there.

But though the sphere appears almost 28 billion light-years in diameter, it is far larger. Scientists know that the universe is expanding. Thus, while scientists might see a spot that lay 13.8 billion light-years from Earth at the time of the Big Bang, the universe has continued to expand over its lifetime. Today, that same spot is 46 billion light-years away, making the diameter of the observable universe a sphere around 92 billion light-years."

http://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html

Blk has the gist of the concept of universal expansion. We can actually provide evidence for universal expansion by looking at what is happening right this very second: the universe is expanding! If the future is expansion, then logically, the past was significantly more condensed than now.

And if you keep going back you would end up with the singularity the universe started from. We can also detect trace amounts of background radiation from an event that fits the description of the big bang, all the time, everywhere.

There was still an environment for a primeval, very basic atom to be created, and thus explode, or rather expand, and begin the rapid expansion of the universe.

I don't think it was an actual atom. The first elements were formed only just after the onset of the expansion.

There are two main theories I've heard to the big bang, although I haven't paid much attention to it for the past few years. One is that two subatomic particles formed and collided with enough force to release massive amounts of string energy (same basic principal that a particle collider like the LHC uses) and that string energy then formed the first hydrogen atoms which were gravitationally pulled together to form giant stars which created the elements our universe is made of. And the much older theory that states all matter in the universe was compressed into a singularity and exploded outward when it reached a critical mass. The latter is mostly ignored these days because it implies a cyclical series of expansions and contractions that scientists can't find any evidence for. The former is the current favorite among scientists but I've never found anyone who could explain to me where those first two particles are supposed to have come from or how their collision produced enough string energy to build the entire universe (conservation of energy and other physical laws of the universe tend to be a big obstacle for people theorizing about the origin of the universe).

We can also detect trace amounts of background radiation from an event that fits the description of the big bang, all the time, everywhere.

This is the only solid evidence I've ever heard anyone use to support the big bang theory. Because, you know, THERE ISN'T A GIANT NUCLEAR FURNACE BOMBARDING EARTH WITH RADIATION 24/7/365.25 THAT MIGHT CONTAMINATE SUCH RESULTS!

Considering how questionable I find the evidence, combined with the theories deep ties to dark matter and dark energy theories, I do not consider the big bang a credible theory. The fact is all our evidence comes from specks of light so far away we're looking literally millions of years, if not billions, in the past and guessing at the current situation to form "evidence". Plus the sun's proximity, as well as our own atmosphere, tends to affect all of the data we're currently capable of gathering. I imagine future generations will laugh at the big bang theory the way modern people laugh at the idea of a geocentric universe.

Considering how questionable I find the evidence ... I do not consider the big bang a credible theory.

It's unsurprising that you would find this evidence questionable, since the evidence you mention is either distorted or simply false. Take, for example, this claim:

One [theory] is that two subatomic particles formed and collided with enough force to release massive amounts of string energy

You suggest that this theory is the 'current favourite' amongst scientists. This is false - and not because other hypothesis have garnered more favour. It's because this particular 'theory' would be nonsense. First off, there wouldn't have been space before the big bang in which these 2 particles could collide. Second, the energy released would conform to the well-known formula e=mc^2. This certainly wouldn't account for all the matter in the universe. Third, there's no such thing as string energy. And finally, the early universe was far too hot for subatomic particles to form. Only once the initial conditions began cooling off did particles begin to form.

As for the notion that it's actually our Sun that is responsible for the CMB, this is a misunderstanding of what astronomers are looking for and now they detect it. The compelling point for me, at least, is that the CMB was predicted by the big bang model of the universe but not confirmed until some 20 years later.

But the CMB is just one piece of evidence that support the big bang model. The expansion of the universe and the measured radiation from physical black bodies are amongst the mounds of evidence in support of the big bang model.

The important thing to keep in mind here what the big bang theory says and what it doesn't. The central claim is simply that the universe is expanding and that, at its beginning, was much hotter and denser. Most significantly, however, cosmologists don't extrapolate the model any earlier than 1 Planck time (i.e. during the Plack epoch) from the beginning of the universe. So 'singularity' doesn't refer to some particular particle. Instead, it refers to the state of the universe during the Planck epoch.

Whether we can (and, if so, how) make a meaningful reference to events taking place in less that 1 Planck time and in the space of less than 1 Planck length isn't something cosmologists are equipped to solve anyway.

First off, there wouldn't have been space before the big bang in which these 2 particles could collide.

So you're saying that there is no such thing as space before the big bang? That the very concept of dimension is nonexistent until the big bang causes it to exist?

Second, the energy released would conform to the well-known formula e=mc^2. This certainly wouldn't account for all the matter in the universe.

Like I said, the known laws of the universe often prove troublesome for those theorizing on the nature of its origin. It's why I rarely take such theories seriously.

Third, there's no such thing as string energy.

I know it's been a while since I visited any sites focused on scientific development because I got sick of all the religion bashing, but when was string theory disproven? Are you telling me that you have some evidence that outright proves string theory is false? Seriously, if you know something I don't on this matter feel free to elaborate. Otherwise I'll just assume you're some ignorant armchair expert making swooping generalizations because you don't actually understand the theories you're discussing.

And finally, the early universe was far too hot for subatomic particles to form. Only once the initial conditions began cooling off did particles begin to form.

Heat is nothing more than an atomic variation of kinetic energy. As atoms and subatomic particles move faster the substances they make up become hotter. By the very definition of heat something cannot be hot, let alone too hot, unless it has matter.

As for the notion that it's actually our Sun that is responsible for the CMB, this is a misunderstanding of what astronomers are looking for and now they detect it. The compelling point for me, at least, is that the CMB was predicted by the big bang model of the universe but not confirmed until some 20 years later.

I know exactly how they detect it. There are specially made telescopes that detect radiation instead of light. The first one constantly displayed static no matter where they pointed it at the sky even though there was nothing interfering with the device. This was declared to be a constant background radiation and labeled as proof of the big bang. Since then the CMB has been stated to be a constant background of thermal radiation. All matter above absolute zero gives off thermal radiation. Matter, like what our atmosphere is made of. Since none of these radioscopes have taken measurements from space, let alone deep space beyond our sun's influence, I have no reason to ignore the sun as a factor.

But the CMB is just one piece of evidence that support the big bang model. The expansion of the universe and the measured radiation from physical black bodies are amongst the mounds of evidence in support of the big bang model.

The belief of the expansion of the universe is based on measuring the brightness of stars millions of lightyears away. The universe is also supposed to not only be expanding faster than the speed of light (something that should defy special relativity) but is also accelerating due to unknown means that are not considered part of the normal big bang model.

And what "measured radiation from physical black bodies"? Astronomical black bodies are referred to as black because they not only don't emit radiation, they don't reflect it. Black holes can only be "observed" by the disk of stars and planets outside their event horizon. Dark matter and dark energy have never been proven to exist, they're just theorized to exist because certain things (like the universe supposedly accelerating while already expanding faster than light) don't fit with our current understanding of the physical laws of the universe. There is no measured radiation from physical black bodies.

The important thing to keep in mind here what the big bang theory says and what it doesn't. The central claim is simply that the universe is expanding and that, at its beginning, was much hotter and denser.

I now have the exact same feeling as when I'm discussing evolution with someone and they tell me "abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, evolution just means change over time." You're evading major flaws in the theory by trying to dismiss them as unimportant to the core idea. The core idea of anything can be simple but that doesn't make it, or the detailed theories that stem from that idea, correct.

So you're saying that there is no such thing as space before the big bang? That the very concept of dimension is nonexistent until the big bang causes it to exist?

Think about it this way. For 2 particles to collide - or even exist - there must be some identifiable region in which this interaction takes place. As the universe expands, it's not somehow redefining or causing things to have space. Instead, space simply is the universe. Admittedly, this is a difficult notion to consider. But the main point is that - even if something out with the universe somehow caused the universe to exist (as in the 2 particles collision) - this notion of causation simply couldn't be captured.

Like I said, the known laws of the universe often prove troublesome for those theorizing on the nature of its origin. It's why I rarely take such theories seriously.

This is precisely why cosmologists and physicists would outright reject this 2-particle explanation of the origin of the universe. Everyone would grant the first Planck time of the universe is a deeply mysterious notion. What we don't want, however, is to postulate events that are in obvious contradiction with a fundamental principle of energy and mass and can explain so much about how our universe works in its current state.
In short, your worry about theories that violate their own laws is unfounded. If that were to happen, it would - as you suggest - call into serious question the status of a hypothesis that did so (and, as such, it would never reach the status of a theory).

but when was string theory disproven? Are you telling me that you have some evidence that outright proves string theory is false ... Otherwise I'll just assume you're some ignorant armchair expert making swooping generalizations because you don't actually understand the theories you're discussing.

I'm a philosopher, not a physicist (which does make the armchair comment pretty apt!). That being said, I do spend what many of my colleagues believe to be an inordinate amount of time reading physics books and journals. My critique of this point was that string energy is not a thing - not that string theory has been undermined or disproven in any way.

I just spent some time Googling 'string energy' before writing this particular response, and can't find anything. This isn't to suggest that the Websites are reliable sources of information when researching complex theories like M-theory. In any case, this is an aside as my other three points don't hinge on this one.

Heat is nothing more than an atomic variation of kinetic energy. As atoms and subatomic particles move faster the substances they make up become hotter. By the very definition of heat something cannot be hot, let alone too hot, unless it has matter.

Very good point. But keep in mind the claim I'm arguing against. Because of the energy and density present in the early universe, all matter would have existed as some kind of plasma - such as Quark-qluon plasma . This may or may not be a newly discovered state of matter. But the main point is that particles - the kind needed to collide and release energy - can't form in this state.

The first one constantly displayed static no matter where they pointed it at the sky even though there was nothing interfering with the device.

Here's a fairly straightforward way of telling that the observed radiation isn't coming from the Sun. Suppose that it were. Then the thermal radiation that is detected and measured would be significantly greater when we look in the general direction of the Sun. Since this isn't the case, the Sun can't be the explanation of what's going on.

Since none of these radioscopes have taken measurements from space,

The Plack spacecraft did just this. To be fair, it was measuring the cosine anisotropy of the CMB (it was looking at variations in the CMB depending on one's frame of reference rather than isotropy, which is directionally independent). The main point here is that to attribute the CMB to our Sun is prima facie (and pro tanto!) implausible.

The belief of the expansion of the universe is based on measuring the brightness of stars millions of lightyears away. The universe is also supposed to not only be expanding faster than the speed of light (something that should defy special relativity) but is also accelerating due to unknown means that are not considered part of the normal big bang model.

More on this final point later. I understand being sceptical about using observations of things that are so far away. But it turns out that red-shift (the thing that is actually being measured) is predicted by relativity. In fact, this is also one of the key principles that allows us to understand the wave-like features of light. If it eases you at all, astronomers rely on observations of stars called Cepheids because it's easy to calculate their intrinsic brightness.

As for the speed of light restrictions implied by special relativity - there's a limit to this. It turns out that once 2 points of observation come out of causal contact, this restriction doesn't apply. It is, after all, a theory of relativity and so requires the observations to be in causal contact.

And what "measured radiation from physical black bodies"? Astronomical black bodies are referred to as black because they not only don't emit radiation, they don't reflect it.

There are theoretical entities which are called black-bodies that absorb radiation. But this is an idealised notion. The black-body radiation present in the CMB is basically the base temperature of the universe. But even idealised black bodies would emit radiation in addition to absorbing it. It's also worth noting that there black holes do emit radiation. Lots and lots of gamma rays, in particular.

Dark matter and dark energy have never been proven to exist

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but dark matter/energy is simply a placeholder in a broader explanation. We know, for example, that there must be a lot more matter/mass than what we can see. The fact that we can't see it must mean that it's dark (i.e. it's not emitting radiation like normal observable matter). What this matter is may end up being something incredibly cool. Or maybe not. But the term itself doesn't denote anything beyond its observational mechanics.

You're evading major flaws in the theory by trying to dismiss them as unimportant to the core idea.

This is a very nice analogy you've drawn here. Evolution doesn't say anything about how life began. But, of course, that's not to say that it isn't an important question. The big bang model of the universe explain what the universe was like when it began, but not how it began. Again, this is a very important question that scientists hope to answer.

But the fact that a theory doesn't say things it's not equipped to say isn't a strike against the theory. It can be hard to see, since these 2 things (the beginning of the universe and its state shortly thereafter) are deeply linked. But your worry hinges on a order of explanation confusion. Instead of the big bang explaining the origins of the universe, the connection needs to go the other way. In other words, a theory that does explain the origins of the universe should be compatible with and support the big bang model. In the same way, a theory of abiogenesis should be compatible with and support evolutionary theory.

You're evading major flaws in the theory by trying to dismiss them as unimportant to the core idea.

there must be some identifiable region in which this interaction takes place.

That region does not have to be closed off though. You're perceiving the time before the big bang as not even existing, as if the big bang appeared from nothingness and created the very fabric of existence including dimensional space. Dimensional space however is not bound to the presence of energy or matter, it is an infinite void in which these things can exist. While we depend on dimensional space for existence and for a ground on which to base our knowledge it does not depend on us or anything else to exist. Or as MageGrayWolf put it

... the sphere limits what scientists can see but not what is there.

As for the speed of light restrictions implied by special relativity - there's a limit to this. It turns out that once 2 points of observation come out of causal contact, this restriction doesn't apply. It is, after all, a theory of relativity and so requires the observations to be in causal contact.

The very idea of the big bang and the expansion of the universe is based on the claim that gravity bound together the primordial building blocks of existence into astronomical bodies that are now constantly expanding away from all other astronomical bodies as the universe itself stretches outwards. To say that the restrictions of relativity apply selectively to those bodies so far away that they can never be reached in our lifetimes is nothing more than a cop-out to avoid the evidence sitting right next to you.

Relativity is so called because it is based on the relation between mass and velocity through the equation e=mc^2. As velocity increases so too does mass approaching infinity as you approach the speed of light. If this were solely restricted to things within an observable distance of each other it would add massive complications to every equation involved and make the theory useless for any practical application.

I just spent some time Googling 'string energy' before writing this particular response, and can't find anything.

Literally the first result when Googling string energy.
http://scienceillustrated.com.au/blog/features/the-power-of-string-energy/

String physicists assume that energetic pieces of threads are the keys to quantum gravity and to everything else in our perceived reality.

Because of the energy and density present in the early universe, all matter would have existed as some kind of plasma

You claimed that there was no matter at all in the early universe, not even subatomic particles, because it was "too hot".

Here's a fairly straightforward way of telling that the observed radiation isn't coming from the Sun. Suppose that it were. Then the thermal radiation that is detected and measured would be significantly greater when we look in the general direction of the Sun. Since this isn't the case, the Sun can't be the explanation of what's going on.

Except that the sun is producing and releasing massive amounts of microwave radiation which means if someone were to point one of these at the sun it would cause a spike in the radiation readings. In fact, huge amounts of data had to be removed because of solar interference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_Angular_Scale_Interferometer#Results

The cuts of DASI's data were done with a strict "jackknife" test which removed data which was gathered when certain parameters were exceeded, for example if the sun rose more than 5° over the horizon, or there was a large offset or excessive noise in the data suggesting a hardware glitch.

The big bang model of the universe explain what the universe was like when it began, but not how it began.

There are actually several versions of the big bang theory that postulate different methods by which the universe began. The model itself may stem in the brief moments after the initial beginning of expansion but that doesn't mean that the cause of said expansion isn't part of the theory. Different theories as to the cause also have different models regarding the planck epoch, it is not a separate issue when discussing. My analogy was an expression of frustration at the way people who support scientific theories will often separate related theories when they find they can not logically support it in a debate.

But your worry hinges on a order of explanation confusion. Instead of the big bang explaining the origins of the universe, the connection needs to go the other way. In other words, a theory that does explain the origins of the universe should be compatible with and support the big bang model. In the same way, a theory of abiogenesis should be compatible with and support evolutionary theory.

Perhaps that's how you see things as a philosopher. However, the scientific method dictates that a model of the origin of the universe (or the origin of life) should fit with the known laws of physics, observable phenomena, and the evidence found when studying such matters. It is not the purpose of scientific models to build up and support other theories only because those theories are currently accepted. If the available evidence produces a model of origin that conflicts with currently accepted theories it does not automatically render that model incorrect. It only places greater pressure to study both the accepted theories and the new model to determine which better fits with the available data.

However, the scientific method dictates that a model of the origin of the universe (or the origin of life) should fit with the known laws of physics,

Not at the Planck temperature, which the big bang would be at.

So, some people here say that there had to be something there that could have exploded into the universe and all the galaxies and all of that. But, can you specifically say what was there? who created that little teensy atom to explode?

So you're saying that there is no such thing as space before the big bang?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am. someone would have had to create it, just as we do with our inventions today. For example: Did the first computer just randomly appear? No, someone used their brain and electricity and all of their tools to create it. Did the first candy just explode into all of the various types of candy we have today? No, someone created the first candy thinking it was a good idea, then slowly getting more and more popular and eventually(now) we have all the candies. Someone had to have created space, and NOT with a tiny little atom. Your final answer????? GOD. As in the Christian God. In the beginning, there was nothing but God. He has been there for eternity, and he will still be there for an eternity to come. You can deny it and try to use you foolish science to prove me wrong. He created space, time, and even this website. If it weren't for God, NOTHING would exist. Something would have to happen, and there has to be an ultimate ruler to start that happening.

That region does not have to be closed off though. You're perceiving the time before the big bang as not even existing, as if the big bang appeared from nothingness and created the very fabric of existence including dimensional space.

I am indeed. And, I think, rightfully so. After all, this is the only reference that has meaning within the constraints of science. So scientists must simply grant, for example, that the universe actually is (pretty much) how it appears to be, and that laws don't behave erratically in different parts of the universe. So, in the context of this objection, scientific claims don't even make sense. But more to the point, neither does the big bang theory.

To say that the restrictions of relativity apply selectively to those bodies so far away that they can never be reached in our lifetimes is nothing more than a cop-out to avoid the evidence sitting right next to you.

This claim is patently false. I mean, how it could be more clear that things that aren't in causal connection with us aren't, a fortiori, "sitting right next to [us]". The theory of relativity has to do with one's frame of reference. What sets this apart from Newtonian mechanics has to do with the relative frame of reference.
But this speaks more to a broader point you're attempting to make - that events outside our causal connection can somehow cause things with our frame of reference. You can't simultaneously disparage the big bang model for not conforming with relativity whilst at the same time ignoring relativity to attack the big bang model.

Literally the first result when Googling string energy.
http://scienceillustrated.com.au/blog/features/the-power-of-string-energy/

Nice find. I wonder, though, if you actually read the article. It's a pretty dumbed-down version of what M-theory was 2 years ago. Furthermore, despite the title, it doesn't talk about string energy -whatever that is. That phrase isn't used, except for the title.
It's important to keep on mind the claim on offer. You suggested that string energy somehow travelled across the universe for some weird reason. This notion of string energy - if there even is such a thing (which, I contend, there isn't) - still wouldn't explain the observable universe. Of course strings would have energy. But this isn't what you're saying. And bringing up this point (and thus compelling me to respond to it) is simply a distraction.

You claimed that there was no matter at all in the early universe, not even subatomic particles, because it was "too hot".

That was not my claim at all. That would be a ridiculous claim. My actual claim what that there were no subatomic particles. As it turns out, that claim was also false. But the kind of interaction you're suggesting would a) not be possible before the beginning of the universe, and b) would require more complex particles than were in existence in the early universe. Honestly, this last point depends on how your other commitments on quantum mechanics, but I seriously doubt you had this distinction in mind given your comments on this point.

In fact, huge amounts of data had to be removed because of solar interference.

I'm beginning to wonder if we're even on the same page at this point. I mean, I'm sure I can find a Website than proclaims to disprove pretty much anything. But I followed the link that you provided, and it seems to be a clear-cut case of confirmation bias plus radical self-deception. I mean, I don't even see the point of engaging with this rebuttal as the link you provided simply provides more evidence of the big bang.

But suppose they had to cut interference from the Sun. Wouldn't that just support the fact that they're looking at something different? I mean, if I was observing a goose and a duck got in the way, I would discard the duck data. That doesn't imply that geese are actually ducks.

But even setting this point aside, your rebuttal is more like someone arguing that 'the moon landing' never occurred. They then provide evidence (e.g. the flag was moving and the footprints aren't right) to defend their claim. All the while ignoring the fact that 6 manned moon landings took place. Maybe your worries are relevant to this particular study (though I doubt this). But they have no relevance to all the other evidence for the CMB.

Also, in your quote, you omitted a pretty important part of that, which is contextually relevant:
"This is a standard practise which sacrifices some accuracy for improved reliability."

I don't know how else to make this point more clear. Don't cherry-pick or strawman.

The model itself may stem in the brief moments after the initial beginning of expansion but that doesn't mean that the cause of said expansion isn't part of the theory. Different theories as to the cause also have different models regarding the planck epoch, it is not a separate issue when discussing. My analogy was an expression of frustration at the way people who support scientific theories will often separate related theories when they find they can not logically support it in a debate.

The first part is false, whilst the second part is true. As I stated previously, big bang models don't extend earlier than the Planck epoch. But you are right that, given a particular model of the beginning of the universe, some models of the universe will be excluded. But this just ties by in to my point about the order of explanation.
As for the frustration - there is no logical support to be found. There aren't any logically consistent theories of the beginning of the universe that are testable in any meaningful way. So of course there isn't going to be any logical support of the kind you're looking for.
Meanwhile, arithmetic is necessarily incomplete. Does that imply that it's false? Of course not! A big part of understanding the world around us is engaging with the information available and figuring out the limits of our theories.

To put it another way, here are your claims:

1) The big bang never occurred.
2) CMB is actually caused by the Sun.
3) The universe isn't expanding.

Plenty of people reject (1) and typically because they don't fully understand it. I see no reason to not include your arguments in that category.

I've never heard (2) but it should be clear that this claim is false. A better approach would be to argue for the CMB on grounds that are independent of the big bang.

With (3) I don't know what to think. The observations have been confirmed time and again. If you want to reject the notion that the universe is expanding, then feel free. But once you reach that point, I can no longer engage with you.

Perhaps that's how you see things as a philosopher. However, the scientific method dictates that a model of the origin of the universe (or the origin of life) should fit with the known laws of physics, observable phenomena, and the evidence found when studying such matters. It is not the purpose of scientific models to build up and support other theories only because those theories are currently accepted.

I'm well aware of the scientific method. I'm wondering if you read my comment on this point, because it's completely in line with what you're saying here. What I said was that, if a model of the origin of the universe conflicted with a big bang model, then one of them would be called into question. I fully recognise that it isn't the job of theories to support other theories. Instead, it is only in this level of consistency (especially when dealing with untestable hypotheses) that a given hypothesis can reach the level of theory.

That region does not have to be closed off though. You're perceiving the time before the big bang as not even existing, as if the big bang appeared from nothingness and created the very fabric of existence including dimensional space. Dimensional space however is not bound to the presence of energy or matter, it is an infinite void in which these things can exist.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am. someone would have had to create it, just as we do with our inventions today. For example: Did the first computer just randomly appear? No, someone used their brain and electricity and all of their tools to create it. Did the first candy just explode into all of the various types of candy we have today? No, someone created the first candy thinking it was a good idea, then slowly getting more and more popular and eventually(now) we have all the candies. Someone had to have created space, and NOT with a tiny little atom. Your final answer????? GOD. As in the Christian God. In the beginning, there was nothing but God. He has been there for eternity, and he will still be there for an eternity to come. You can deny it and try to use you foolish science to prove me wrong. He created space, time, and even this website. If it weren't for God, NOTHING would exist. Something would have to happen, and there has to be an ultimate ruler to start that happening.