Does believing Chaos Theory and Big Bang Theory mean you must acknowledge there is a God/higher power?

Chaos Theory says there will be exponential growth based on initial conditions. You can't go back - basically, a system can go from order to disorder, but not from disorder to order.

Big Bang Theory says the universe was a small, hot, dense mass, and then it rapidly expanded, and is still expanding.

Now, how could the universe have started as an orderly lump of mass, and after it exploded, it developed galaxies with orderly rotations, orderly solar systems, and even this planet with orderly life on it, if those theories are correct, and there is no higher power? In other words, if you believe those theories, then there is no explanation for how there could be organized solar systems, and especially the development and evolution of life within one or more of them, unless you accept the idea that a higher power did this.

My apologies if this has been asked before, but I have never heard a rebuttal to this argument. Any thoughts on this topic?


Contrary to what many of you assumed about me, I do believe that there are scientific explanations for the beginning of the universe. However, I believe that such consistency, such constant laws, must have been created by a higher power. I believe if a Creator had not created the universe and everything in it, everything would be complete chaos, and no consistent scientific laws would be possible.

By asking this question, I was merely trying to point out that many people accept today's science as is, without really analyzing the discrepancies in their beliefs. Without this analysis, people will not continue to try to learn more about it, and will accept it as absolute truth.

26 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Of course not.

    Remember: that bit about entropy is talking about the OVERALL level of organization for a CLOSED system.

    The Earth is NOT a closed system -- it receives a constant influx of new energy via the Sun.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    >Chaos Theory says there will be exponential growth based on initial conditions. You can't go back - basically, a system can go from order to disorder, but not from disorder to order.

    Ahem. That's not chaos theory, that's the law of entropy, which is a law we can't be 100% certain applies outside our own universe (or even, for that matter, inside it).

    >Now, how could the universe have started as an orderly lump of mass, and after it exploded, it developed galaxies with orderly rotations, orderly solar systems, and even this planet with orderly life on it, if those theories are correct, and there is no higher power?

    I think using the word 'orderly' here is misleading at best and just plain wrong at worst. There is no inherent 'order' in galaxies, stars, planets or life forms that cannot be explained as the result of repeatedly applying the natural laws of our universe over billions of years.

    Furthermore, assuming there exists a god just pushes the issue one step farther back. That is to say, if a god is intelligent, then it must be 'orderly' as well, but wouldn't that require that IT also have a designer of its own? But then there could be no 'first god' to create all the other gods, and no god should ever have existed in the first place. The more sensible alternative, as I see it, is that order CAN arise out of chaos, provided it's the right kind of chaos. This is substantiated with computer simulations.

  • 1 decade ago

    These theories require neither a belief nor a non-belief in a higher power.

    You are correct that the Big Bang theory does not tell us how the lump of matter got there to begin with. However, just because we can't currently explain it doesn't mean the explanation is "God did it." It just means we don't know everything.

    Your own example shows the limits of knowledge. There ARE lots of explanations for the "orderly" rotation of things. If a mass is spinning, it will do some predicable things. Gravity will draw the mass inward. Gravity will also move other nearby bodies. If the gravity forces don't pull a mass into a correct orbit, the mass will either spin off of fall into the middle and be absorbed. That's why we only see the "orderly" stuff: a different fate awated the unorderly stuff.

    You don't need God. Just gravity.

  • 1 decade ago

    I think you are searching for a way to justify your preconceived notions, not trying to learn what chaos theory and the Big /Bang are really about.

    Prove me wrong by taking this effort to the science area and asking one question at a time.

    You might learn, for instance:

    The matter that existed a very short time (fraction of a second) after the Big Bang is not thought to have been "an orderly lump of mass".

    Chaos theory does not say systems go from order to disorder, but change in a deterministic way through a very complex path with highly predictable properties that describe the range of possibilities, but make predicting a future instant essentially impossible (except that it will fall inside the overall limits) based on a measurement of some earlier instant. Not only that, but some first instants are followed by long periods that are highly predictable before predictability quite suddenly disappears and other first instants head toward unpredictability very quickly. Not all first conditions are equal.

    These are wonderful and useful areas of research that you are mischaracterizing in order to arrive at a conclusion you have previously made.

    That's called dishonesty.



    John Popelish

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Well first of all when the Universe first started whatever the cause there were no atoms or light for the first 300,000 years or so. If want to call it an explosion then it's all right with me but I think of it as more of an expansion. It takes a tremendous amount of heat for the particles that make up atoms to fuse together to create atoms. That's why they call it fusion because it brings stuff together. Every element you see in the world today came from the inside of a star that fused these atoms together and that star exploded and sent the elements out into the Universe. That little lesson is for those of you that say that order cannot come from chaos, because it does. Before atoms there was no light because there were no electrons and there were no photons to give off light. The Universe for a while was very hot and very dark. If you watched the TV series "The Universe" you could learn these things. It is the most educational series on the subject of cosmology since Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series. As far as I'm concerned there is no need to bring in any higher power to the subject because there is no proof that there is one. Just because we don't know something does not make it necessary to create a god to explain things.That's how we arrived at deities like Thor and Zeus, because natural phenomena like lightning and thunder were attributed to them.

    There needs to be a higher power to prevent everything in the univers form being chaotic? Why again? Scientific laws would be impossible without a god? Well as I see it we are back to the Thor makes thunder kind of argument. Have you ever heard of multiverses, string theory, "M" theory? According to current thinking the laws of science that we have now are in fact random. For instance in our universe, gravity is the weakest force. In other universes things may be entirely different, purely by chance. These things are too complicated to discuss here and if I posted everything I know about the subject it would be too long to post here.

    Others have posted here that you are misinterpreting what chaos theory is and jpopelis is correct. You should listen to them. No one here is steering you wrong on this subject.

    What discrepancies are you trying to point out? The universe started out as chaos instead of what you stated. Perhaps you are the one who is mistaken. We have tried to point out the error in your thinking. You need to learn more about the topic you are attempting to address. It is obvious that people responding to your question know a lot more than you do. So, you should start there and listen to them.

    Explosions do create order out of disorder. As I pointed out earlier the explosion of a star created everything you see around you. The planet you are standing on, the house you live in and you yourself would not exist if the atoms they are made of had not been born in the heart of a star that blew up billions of years ago. That argument of an explosion cannot create order is false.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The big bang represents an immensely powerful yet carefully controlled release of matter, energy, space, and time within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws which govern their behavior and interactions.

    The power and care this explosion reveals exceed human potential for design by multiple orders of magnitude.

    A Creator must exist. The big bang ripples (April 1992) and subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.

    In the very beginning, there was a void - a curious form of vacuum - a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential.

    A story logically begins at the beginning. But this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginning. None, zero! We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a second - that is, some very short time after the creation in the Big Bang.

    When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.

    Source(s): Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God-Henry F. Schaefer III----- ----out of all the answerers..i see no references to anything remotely scientific other than their own opinions.
  • 1 decade ago

    What YOU see as "order" is not necessarily so. The development of galaxies, suns, planets etc, can be seen as the early part of a sequence wherein order slowly becomes chaos. There was nothing "orderly" about the focal point of mass that triggered the big bang, it was simply a massive focal point. There is nothing "orderly" about a galaxy unless you place a decidedly human point of view on it.

    Your (human) inability to understand or fully comprehend the forces that resolve in the formation of galaxies, suns and planets do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there must be a creator. It could simply be that you don't understand or comprehend the alternatives.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I would say that trying to attribute a worldiew to such theoretical models is useless.

    But I would tend to agree with the notion that an ordered universe that functions couldnt have come from a random explosion. In my experience, things that explode tend to disorder rather than order. But perhaps in the absense of matter, explosions have the opposite effect. Who knows.

    But I do get upset when the theories are written in textbooks as stone cold facts and absolute history used to sway the reader into thinking that the universe could only have come about by chance.

  • 1 decade ago

    I'm agnostic, I believe in the big bang theory, in fact it's a very good argument for agnosticism, since science has yet to explain what conditions existed before it. Ultimate creative entity perhaps ? Who knows. Maybe science will one day give an adequate answer, but until then, it's still a great unknown, and leaves plenty room for a God/Creative Being/Alien Overlord, whatever you wish to call it, if you want it to. Just my opinion, cause I'm buggered if I know the truth.

    I only had 10−43 seconds to answer that.

    Source(s): How many cosmologists does it take to change a lightbulb? - Well, nobody really knows for sure.
  • 1 decade ago

    I accept big bang theory is valid but I'm an atheist. I accept also the validity of the laws of thermodynamics which states that energy and matter have always existed in some form. I don't therefore see the need to introduce any supernatural cause into the equation.

  • 1 decade ago

    Nope. I mean, you can accept the science and also believe in a higher power of some kind but it's not essential- there are other explanations out there, even if we don't know them all yet.

    Personally I'm happy to say that I don't know sometimes :)

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.