Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Biblical Big Bang

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    I think God used the ideas and concepts that people were familiar with in order to make it clear that God created everything including numerous things that people worshiped as gods rather than try to convey a science lesson.
    Or just maybe people used the ideas and concepts that people were familiar with in order to explain their concept of creation.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      But not ex nihilo.
      And the clearest verse about creation from nothing is Hebrews 11:3:

      "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Heb. 11:3)

      Blessings,
      Lee
      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        And the clearest verse about creation from nothing is Hebrews 11:3:

        "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Heb. 11:3)
        So, it was not from "nothing" but from nothing and God. If God were not already present then there would still be nothing.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Yes, I'm familiar with your idea shunya, but if you mean that the substance of the natural world existed eternally alongside of the substance of the supernatural then what you're suggesting amounts to there being two distinct eternal substances. The one can't be the reflection of the other because they are distinct in nature. You might as well say there are two gods.
          Of course what I propose may be rejected because of the lack of objective evidence, but is a better option than the culture bound anthoporpnic God with hands on CReation from absolutely nothing. There may or may not be two eternal substances, but to me that's ok. Attributes of God are not necessarily distinctly physical. For example the Laws of Natureare reflected in the physical existence as attributes of God, but in and of themselves are not physical. The actual fundamental nature of our physical existence is grounded in the Quantum nothingness, which alone borders on non-physical. Reflecting the attribute of God does not translate to God being physical.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-05-2020, 07:45 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by rossum View Post
            So, it was not from "nothing" but from nothing and God. If God were not already present then there would still be nothing.
            But creation ex nihilo implies a Creator! It just means God did not create using pre-existing matter or energy.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Much of the initial opposition to the Big Bang theory from some scientists was that it too closely resembled what is written in Genesis.
              The Big Bang may not be the best explanation for the origin of the universe. If the cyclic models turn out to be the best explanation would 'some' reject it because it does not closely resemble what is written in Genesis.

              Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/big-bounce-simulations-challenge-the-big-bang-20200804/



              Big Bounce Simulations Challenge the Big Bang


              he standard story of the birth of the cosmos goes something like this: Nearly 14 billion years ago, a tremendous amount of energy materialized as if from nowhere.

              In a brief moment of rapid expansion, that burst of energy inflated the cosmos like a balloon. The expansion straightened out any large-scale curvature, leading to a geometry that we now describe as flat. Matter also thoroughly mixed together, so that now the cosmos appears largely (though not perfectly) featureless. Here and there, clumps of particles have created galaxies and stars, but these are just minuscule specks on an otherwise unblemished cosmic canvas.

              That theory, which textbooks call inflation, matches all observations to date and is preferred by most cosmologists. But it has conceptual implications that some find disturbing. In most regions of space-time, the rapid expansion would never stop. As a consequence, inflation can’t help but produce a multiverse — a technicolor existence with an infinite variety of pocket universes, one of which we call home. To critics, inflation predicts everything, which means it ultimately predicts nothing. “Inflation doesn’t work as it was intended to work,” said Paul Steinhardt, an architect of inflation who has become one of its most prominent critics.

              In recent years, Steinhardt and others have been developing a different story of how our universe came to be. They have revived the idea of a cyclical universe: one that periodically grows and contracts. They hope to replicate the universe that we see — flat and smooth — without the baggage that comes with a bang.


              Abstractions​ navigates promising ideas in science and mathematics. Journey with us and join the conversation.
              See all Abstractions blog
              To that end, Steinhardt and his collaborators recently teamed up with researchers who specialize in computational models of gravity. They analyzed how a collapsing universe would change its own structure, and they ultimately discovered that contraction can beat inflation at its own game. No matter how bizarre and twisted the universe looked before it contracted, the collapse would efficiently erase a wide range of primordial wrinkles.

              “It’s very important, what they claim they’ve done,” said Leonardo Senatore, a cosmologist at Stanford University who has analyzed inflation using a similar approach. There are aspects of the work he hasn’t yet had a chance to investigate, he said, but at first glance “it looks like they’ve done it.”

              Squeezing the View

              Over the last year and a half, a fresh view of the cyclic, or “ekpyrotic,” universe has emerged from a collaboration between Steinhardt, Anna Ijjas, a cosmologist at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Germany, and others — one that achieves renewal without collapse.

              When it comes to visualizing expansion and contraction, people often focus on a balloonlike universe whose change in size is described by a “scale factor.” But a second measure — the Hubble radius, which is the greatest distance we can see — gets short shrift. The equations of general relativity let them evolve independently, and, crucially, you can flatten the universe by changing either.

              Detailed computer simulations have found that a cosmic contraction can generate features of the universe that we observe today.

              Picture an ant on a balloon. Inflation is like blowing up the balloon. It puts the onus of smoothing and flattening primarily on the swelling cosmos. In the cyclic universe, however, the smoothing happens during a period of contraction. During this epoch, the balloon deflates modestly, but the real work is done by a drastically shrinking horizon. It’s as if the ant views everything through an increasingly powerful magnifying glass. The distance it can see shrinks, and thus its world grows more and more featureless.

              © Copyright Original Source

              Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-05-2020, 07:38 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rossum View Post
                So, it was not from "nothing" but from nothing and God. If God were not already present then there would still be nothing.
                If the substance of the universe differs from the substance of it's creator then it was created by that creator ex nihilo, puff, from out of nothing. To say it was created out of "nothing and god" doesn't make sense, because nothing denotes no-thing, not some-thing.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Of course what I propose may be rejected because of the lack of objective evidence, but is a better option than the culture bound anthoporpnic God with hands on CReation from absolutely nothing. There may or may not be two eternal substances, but to me that's ok. Attributes of God are not necessarily distinctly physical. For example the Laws of Natureare reflected in the physical existence as attributes of God, but in and of themselves are not physical.
                  I don't understand. What attributes are you talking about with respect to god and nature? And why would the laws of nature be the attributes of non nature?
                  The actual fundamental nature of our physical existence is grounded in the Quantum nothingness, which alone borders on non-physical. Reflecting the attribute of God does not translate to God being physical.
                  Not nothingness. Nothing comes from nothing.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    [QUOTE=JimL;770933]I don't understand. What attributes are you talking about with respect to god and nature? And why would the laws of nature be the attributes of non nature? I God exists God is God and doesnot fit in any human synario. I just offered an alternative religious view that does fit an infinite eternal physical existence reflecting the attibutes of God.

                    Not nothingness. Nothing comes from nothing.
                    All our physcial existence arises from Quantum Nothingness. Look it up.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      I God exists God is God and doesnot fit in any human synario.
                      That's not necessarily true. Even you apply to god human attributes. But even if so, even if god does not fit any human scenario, that's no reason to make up non human scenarios.


                      I just offered an alternative religious view that does fit an infinite eternal physical existence reflecting the attibutes of God.
                      Well okay, that's an idea, but I just don't think the universe being a reflection of gods attributes makes any sense from the human perspective. I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that exactly.


                      All our physcial existence arises from Quantum Nothingness. Look it up.
                      What is a quantum fluctuation, shunya? It isn't "nothing" fluctuating.
                      Last edited by JimL; 08-05-2020, 10:35 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        But creation ex nihilo implies a Creator! It just means God did not create using pre-existing matter or energy.
                        In some cases He did just that: "Let the waters bring forth..." "Let the earth bring forth..." and Adam was fashioned from pre-existing dust/clay. Genesis says God used a variety of methods.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          If the substance of the universe differs from the substance of it's creator ...
                          I reject the concept of "substance"; it is a reification and has no real existence outside human imagination.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            That's not necessarily true. Even you apply to god human attributes. But even if so, even if god does not fit any human scenario, that's no reason to make up non human scenarios.

                            Well okay, that's an idea, but I just don't think the universe being a reflection of gods attributes makes any sense from the human perspective. I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that exactly.
                            That's ok, but I am not arguing for the existence of God. I am giving alternative to the origins of the universe, and object to justifying a scientific interpretation of Genesis, based on the Big Bang Theory, which may not be how the universe began. The other problem is if the Big Bang is how our universe began it is very very unlikely that we are the only universe in a possibly infinite and eternal physical existence.

                            What is a quantum fluctuation, shunya? It isn't "nothing" fluctuating.
                            Quantum Nothing fluctuating.

                            Actually, this thread should be in apoogetics, because science is not a 'reason to believe.'
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-06-2020, 06:03 AM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by rossum View Post
                              You are correct of course:

                              Why the Bible is not a science textbook:

                              FADE IN:

                              SCENE: Inside a tent in the desert. There is a small table and chair in the middle of the tent. Some baggage is stacked at the back.

                              Characters: GOD invisible and omnipresent. MOSES offstage.

                              MOSES enters the tent.

                              MOSES: "What a day! If I ever see another grain of sand I swear that I am goi..."

                              GOD: "Moses!"

                              MOSES: (surprised) "Yes Lord!"

                              GOD: "Get pen, ink and papyrus."

                              MOSES goes to the baggage and fetches a pen, ink and papyrus. He takes them to the table and sits down.

                              GOD: "Begin writing."

                              MOSES: "Yes Lord."

                              GOD: "In the beginning I created a quantum fluctuation at the hyper-sub-quark level ..."

                              MOSES: (interrupting) "Sorry Lord. Was that spelled K-W-A-H-K?"

                              GOD: "Hmmm. I foresee a problem. Humans will not discover hyper-sub-quarks for another 8,726 years three months and sixteen days. Perhaps something less cosmological might work better. Moses, begin a new sheet of papyrus."

                              MOSES picks up a new piece of papyrus and prepares to write.

                              GOD: "In the beginning I created deoxyribonucleic acid ..."

                              MOSES: (interrupting) "Sorry Lord, but could you spell that please?"

                              GOD: "Oy vey! Why did I make these people so dumb?"

                              GOD touches a finger to Moses' forehead.

                              MOSES: "Ah, now I understand. Thank you for giving me all that knowledge Lord. Unfortunately I see a problem. If I write 'deoxyribonucleic acid' then none of the other Israelites will know what the he... heck I have written about unless you touch all their foreheads as well."

                              GOD: "Hmmm. A good point Moses. Let me think about it for a few thousand years."

                              MOSES: "But what do I do while I am waiting?"

                              GOD: "Never mind, I have finished thinking."

                              MOSES: "That was never thousands of years."

                              GOD: (angrily) "Do you doubt Me! Time is Mine to command. It is subject to Me, not Me to it."

                              MOSES: (humbly) "Sorry Lord."

                              GOD: "Start a new piece of papyrus."

                              MOSES picks up a new piece of papyrus and prepares to write.

                              GOD: "In the beginning I created the heavens and the earth ..."

                              FADE OUT:

                              That is brilliant. On a par with Socrates meeting Jesus!
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rossum View Post
                                I reject the concept of "substance"; it is a reification and has no real existence outside human imagination.
                                Not sure what you mean by that rossum. A reification of what, non-existence?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X