A Universe from Nothing?

[james bond]

To change the subject, the Ark Encounter opens to the general public today. Some non-believers are claiming it is anti-science and immoral. That is ignorance. Nothing further from the truth. It is backed by science as I have been stating all along. This is because science today will not accept The God Theory or anything to do with the supernatural. They won't accept intelligent design either. The supernatural can be left out, but science will not accept it. That isn't the scientific method.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/region-nor...es-a-peek-inside-nky-ark-encounter-attraction

 

[Thief]

The fabric description is simply to describe the force that is spacetime. Just like you say God is not a force and magically immaterial, you may as well describe God as nonexistent. Continuing to say time is not real doesn't make it true. There is a physics to eternity it isn't magic.

God is a force.
a force to be dealt with......as in Almighty

space is nothing.....between two points
time is a quotient on a chalkboard

time is never more than a measure of movement.....point a to b

 

[Thief]

If you are speaking of 'space time' I must disagree! Intuitive time is of course a measure, but when physicists speak of space time they mean something different. Actually they use an upper case and lower case T to express the difference between space time and intuitive time. But I forget which 'T' is used for which version of time, l,ol! Time and space are 'interwoven' hence the fabric analogy. I think Al Ein. had the matter energy equivalency theory correct (E=MC2), it has a lot of empirical evidence and practical apps to back it up as true. However, even though most astrophysicists and cosmologists say time ie space time was created in the big bang along with gravity all mater and energy including quantum processes and zpe, I think we have something fundamentally wrong about time AND gravity including quantum gravity. But until we develop a new physics* I doubt we are going to find what is wrong anytime soon. Eh?

note......* Hawking said we need a new physics to understand what happened during and before the big bang. I agree well if we want empirical evidence. There is already metaphysical evidences and other evidences to explain 'pre big' bang goings on. Saying pre' or 'before the big bang' is a misnomer because time was created according to science in the BB, so nothing happened 'before' the big bang, but may of happened 'outside' time in the unfolding big bang universe. Or another logically valid idea is that causality of making the big bang begin happened in another realm or atemporal dimension, which is what I think is how the universe began, or was created by GID. (GID = God the intelligent designer)

two sides of an equation.....and what you do unto one side you must do unto the other
time is one number divided by another
nothing more

a new physics to understand what happened before the bang?......
we get to ask God about that when we meet Him

 

[godnotgod]

We're in agreement. Every explosion we've witnessed has destroyed things. Firecrackers destroy the peace. What makes anyone think it would create something? We just had another 4th of July and no reports of any universe being created. The LHC did not create anything new. Just showed us particles that were already there, but tightly bound. Thus, the simplest explanation is some creator created the universe.

Maybe it wasn't an explosion, but an expansion.

 

[leibowde84]

I didn't say they were related. It's one theory vs the other. One evidence is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Plenty of others.

What experiments and evidence? I've asked for it and no one has provided it. Maybe you can shed some light on us ignorant creation folks.

Maybe you're confused about creation and the BBT. The creation scientists do not believe in the BBT. However, it is the best theory so far since the eternal universe theory. A lot of it backs up what's stated in Genesis. The BBT is more closer to creation than an eternal universe. That's when I became interested in creation.

Obviously, God didn't need to provide a "BANG." So what you're saying supports the Bible, as well.

First, here is an explanation from study.com regarding the 3 main pieces of evidence supporting the BBT (http://study.com/academy/lesson/evi...ground-radiation-red-shift-and-expansion.html). I encourage you to do some research into red shift, cosmic microwave background radiation, and the formation/dispersion of elements in the universe.

"One of the misconceptions about the Big Bang is that it was an explosion, like with fire and sound and, well, kind of like a bomb. It wasn't. Instead, it was probably more like a balloon being blown up - a really tiny balloon. A balloon starts small and expands outward at roughly the same speed all around. Our universe is that balloon.

When scientists first propose a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon, they expect to find certain evidence to support it and turn their hypothesis into a theory. There are several main pieces of evidence that support the Big Bang theory. One is the fact that the universe is expanding, proven with something called red shift. The second is something called cosmic microwave background radiation. The third is the abundance of different elements in the universe."

And, you claim that "God didn't need to provide a "bang", as if that somehow acts as evidence. You are assuming that your definition of the word "God" is accurate, that God exists as you define him, and that the Big Bang is unsupported simply because you haven't researched the evidence supporting the BBT (I am assuming this because a simply "evidence for the big bang" search on google is literally all that is necessary to bring up the aforementioned evidences, all of which were discovered through various forms of experimentation).

While the BBT is not a certainty, it is by far the most plausible, best supported scientific theory we have. A "scientific theory" is one that is supported by repeated experimentation and observation as opposed to a mere hypothesis supported by nothing more than speculation or what "makes sense" to us subjectively.

 

[YmirGF]

Maybe it wasn't an explosion, but an expansion.

It was an expansion (inflation), not an explosion. Explosions happen in space and time. They don't generally create both space and time in their wake.

What is the Inflation Theory?

 

[godnotgod]

It was an expansion (inflation), not an explosion. Explosions happen in space and time. They don't generally create both space and time in their wake.

What is the Inflation Theory?

Agreed, but I take it further: it was an expansion of Pure Consciousness, expressed on the lower end as The Universe.

 

[YmirGF]

Agreed, but I take it further: it was an expansion of Pure Consciousness, expressed on the lower end as The Universe.

Well. I doubt anyone would ever say that you aren't prone to going out on a limb. That much is sure. I just have an aversion to terms like "Pure Consciousness", as if there is such a thing is impure consciousness. There is, just, consciousness. Likewise, I'm not a fan of allegedly "higher" and "lower" aspects of reality. Such adjectives are normally part and parcel of an agenda driven narrative which tends to oversell one aspect at the expense of another aspect. Wonder why we don't hear much talk about adjacent facets of reality that are neither higher or lower, just alternate variants, each in their own environments propelled forward in the expanding growth of ceaseless interaction and limitless change? (Hat tip to @Shadow Wolf on the last nugget just because you don't like the idea, LOL, and because I think it's a much more likely scenario.

 

[gnostic]

We're in agreement. Every explosion we've witnessed has destroyed things. Firecrackers destroy the peace. What makes anyone think it would create something? We just had another 4th of July and no reports of any universe being created. The LHC did not create anything new. Just showed us particles that were already there, but tightly bound. Thus, the simplest explanation is some creator created the universe.

Maybe it wasn't an explosion, but an expansion.

It was an expansion (inflation), not an explosion. Explosions happen in space and time. They don't generally create both space and time in their wake.

What is the Inflation Theory?

The Big Bang was never about explosion, james bond.

It was expansion or inflation of the universe, not an explosion.

Originally, both Alexander Friedmann (1922) and Georges Lemaître (1927) respectively explained their cosmologies of universe, as the universe expanding, not exploding. The name was later coined in 1948, by Fred Hoyle, the Big Bang.

Hoyle had his theory on cosmology - Steady State model (SSM), so SSM was in direct competition of Lemaître's inflationary theory. Hoyle may have coined the name (Big Bang), but this name is actually a misnomer and which make a lot of people confused about the actual theory, since Lemaître's theory don't involve explosion. By 1964 with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR; it was actually predicted by different scientists in 1948), Hoyle's Steady State Model was debunked.

Anyway, the Big Bang theory, or more precisely the Inflation theory, explain the earliest formation of our universe (such as energies, subatomic particles and the first matters - stable atoms), from the initial expansion to the formation of the earliest stars and galaxies.

Agreed, but I take it further: it was an expansion of Pure Consciousness, expressed on the lower end as The Universe.

The "Pure Consciousness" is pure speculation, and definitely not at all "scientific".

 

[james bond]

Maybe it wasn't an explosion, but an expansion.

That takes energy. Where did it come from?

 

[james bond]

The Big Bang was never about explosion, james bond.

It was expansion or inflation of the universe, not an explosion.

Originally, both Alexander Friedmann (1922) and Georges Lemaître (1927) respectively explained their cosmologies of universe, as the universe expanding, not exploding. The name was later coined in 1948, by Fred Hoyle, the Big Bang.

Hoyle had his theory on cosmology - Steady State model (SSM), so SSM was in direct competition of Lemaître's inflationary theory. Hoyle may have coined the name (Big Bang), but this name is actually a misnomer and which make a lot of people confused about the actual theory, since Lemaître's theory don't involve explosion. By 1964 with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR; it was actually predicted by different scientists in 1948), Hoyle's Steady State Model was debunked.

Anyway, the Big Bang theory, or more precisely the Inflation theory, explain the earliest formation of our universe (such as energies, subatomic particles and the first matters - stable atoms), from the initial expansion to the formation of the earliest stars and galaxies.



The "Pure Consciousness" is pure speculation, and definitely not at all "scientific".

Cosmology isn't science. It's philosophy. For example, SSM is pseudoscience now. Cosmic inflation, dark matter, dark energy, point of singularity, and so on are philosophical, but people buy it hook, line and sinker.

Expansion of the universe is accelerating, so where did the energy come from? Atheist scientists claim the above, so it's philosophy.

 

[godnotgod]

The "Pure Consciousness" is.... not at all "scientific".

Why should it be?

 

[godnotgod]

That takes energy. Where did it come from?

Consciousness on a much higher level than that of human consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

Well. I doubt anyone would ever say that you aren't prone to going out on a limb. That much is sure. I just have an aversion to terms like "Pure Consciousness", as if there is such a thing is impure consciousness. There is, just, consciousness.

But it is conditioned.

Pure Consciousness means 'clear' and uncondtioned.

 

[james bond]

First, here is an explanation from study.com regarding the 3 main pieces of evidence supporting the BBT (http://study.com/academy/lesson/evi...ground-radiation-red-shift-and-expansion.html). I encourage you to do some research into red shift, cosmic microwave background radiation, and the formation/dispersion of elements in the universe.

"One of the misconceptions about the Big Bang is that it was an explosion, like with fire and sound and, well, kind of like a bomb. It wasn't. Instead, it was probably more like a balloon being blown up - a really tiny balloon. A balloon starts small and expands outward at roughly the same speed all around. Our universe is that balloon.

When scientists first propose a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon, they expect to find certain evidence to support it and turn their hypothesis into a theory. There are several main pieces of evidence that support the Big Bang theory. One is the fact that the universe is expanding, proven with something called red shift. The second is something called cosmic microwave background radiation. The third is the abundance of different elements in the universe."

And, you claim that "God didn't need to provide a "bang", as if that somehow acts as evidence. You are assuming that your definition of the word "God" is accurate, that God exists as you define him, and that the Big Bang is unsupported simply because you haven't researched the evidence supporting the BBT (I am assuming this because a simply "evidence for the big bang" search on google is literally all that is necessary to bring up the aforementioned evidences, all of which were discovered through various forms of experimentation).

While the BBT is not a certainty, it is by far the most plausible, best supported scientific theory we have. A "scientific theory" is one that is supported by repeated experimentation and observation as opposed to a mere hypothesis supported by nothing more than speculation or what "makes sense" to us subjectively.

First, you have to quit acting like redshift, CMB and formation/dispersion of elements in the universe is only ToE. It's part of creation science, too. Why do atheists look down their noses at Christians who know and understand science just as well, or even better than them?

Again, facts can be used by all if they're really facts.


Redshift of spectral lines in the optical spectrum of a supercluster of distant galaxies (BAS11) (right), as compared to of the Sun (left).
A redshift are spectral lines that come in two types, emission lines that are light on dark and absorption lines that are dark on light. When the frequencies do not line up right the spectra is shifted, with red towards the longer end and blue towards the shorter end.

So, it could support BBT cosmology as you claim, but it can also support creation scientists White Hole cosmology, too. WHT explains how an atomic clock on Earth states it is 6,000 years old while a synchronized atomic clock at the edge of the universe states that it is billions of years old.

The expansion of the universe is stated in the Bible, so science backs up the Bible in regards to the expansion which we both agree on.

Isaiah 42:5 – “This is what God the LORD says—the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out . . .”

Isaiah 44:24 – “ . . . I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens . . .”

Isaiah 45:12 – “My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.”

Jeremiah 10:12 – “God . . . stretched out the heavens by his understanding.”

Jeremiah 51:15 – “He founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.”

 

[Valjean]

To change the subject, the Ark Encounter opens to the general public today. Some non-believers are claiming it is anti-science and immoral. That is ignorance. Nothing further from the truth. It is backed by science as I have been stating all along. This is because science today will not accept The God Theory or anything to do with the supernatural. They won't accept intelligent design either. The supernatural can be left out, but science will not accept it. That isn't the scientific method.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/region-nor...es-a-peek-inside-nky-ark-encounter-attraction

I think the main objection to Ark Encounter is the millions in state tax subsidies and the religious hiring discrimination, not the theme itself.
The "God Theory" is not, strictly speaking, a theory, nor is it within the purview of science. Science can only deal with tangible evidence; with things that can be seen and measured; with ideas that can be falsified. The supernatural provides science with nothing to work with.

 

[godnotgod]

The expansion of the universe is stated in the Bible, so science backs up the Bible in regards to the expansion which we both agree on.

Isaiah 42:5 – “This is what God the LORD says—the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out . . .”

Isaiah 44:24 – “ . . . I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens . . .”

Isaiah 45:12 – “My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.”

Jeremiah 10:12 – “God . . . stretched out the heavens by his understanding.”

Jeremiah 51:15 – “He founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.”

poppycock!

 

[YmirGF]

But it is conditioned.

Pure Consciousness means 'clear' and uncondtioned.

Yeah, I get that much, but you're no different than the priests who scream about original sin and how the individual is a sinful creature that needs to be saved from their iniquity. Listening to you, the individual is still tainted, still not good enough... or as your call it "conditioned". Thank goodness you have your brilliant message of Pure Consciousness to save them from themselves.

 

[godnotgod]

Yeah, I get that much, but you're no different than the priests who scream about original sin and how the individual is a sinful creature that needs to be saved from their iniquity. Listening to you, the individual is still tainted, still not good enough... or as your call it "conditioned". Thank goodness you have your brilliant message of Pure Consciousness to save them from themselves.

my goodness! such guilt feelings you have my son! best get thee to the nunnery! so how long have you been carrying this burden?

 

[leibowde84]

First, you have to quit acting like redshift, CMB and formation/dispersion of elements in the universe is only ToE. It's part of creation science, too. Why do atheists look down their noses at Christians who know and understand science just as well, or even better than them?

Again, facts can be used by all if they're really facts.


Redshift of spectral lines in the optical spectrum of a supercluster of distant galaxies (BAS11) (right), as compared to of the Sun (left).
A redshift are spectral lines that come in two types, emission lines that are light on dark and absorption lines that are dark on light. When the frequencies do not line up right the spectra is shifted, with red towards the longer end and blue towards the shorter end.

So, it could support BBT cosmology as you claim, but it can also support creation scientists White Hole cosmology, too. WHT explains how an atomic clock on Earth states it is 6,000 years old while a synchronized atomic clock at the edge of the universe states that it is billions of years old.

The expansion of the universe is stated in the Bible, so science backs up the Bible in regards to the expansion which we both agree on.

Isaiah 42:5 – “This is what God the LORD says—the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out . . .”

Isaiah 44:24 – “ . . . I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens . . .”

Isaiah 45:12 – “My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.”

Jeremiah 10:12 – “God . . . stretched out the heavens by his understanding.”

Jeremiah 51:15 – “He founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.”

So, just to clarify, how old does creationism claim that the universe is? And, btw, I wasn't looking down my nose at you in any way, shape or form. But, you have to admit that the claims made in scripture are (seemingly intentionally) vague. Because of this, the mere fact that scripture claims that the "heavens" (universe) is "stretched" out in no way acts as any form of evidence for creationism. It isn't surprising that they understood the "heavens" to be vast, and it wouldn't have taken God to enlighten them to this.