Atheists Physicists Discover God. Turn To Science Of The Gaps.

[james bond]

So, do you agree in what else they say? In the field of physics and cosmology, of course.

Ciao

- viole

No, I don't believe in dark matter, dark energy, multiverses and absolute time travel into the future and back to the past. Black holes and singularities may be a possibility, but we have to solve the quantum mechanics vs GR issue first. Creation scientists believe in singularities as they believe the universe has an edge and is bounded. They haven't taken a position on black holes, but they believe in white holes. Cosmology isn't science. It's more philosophy. Physics and quantum physics is hard science, but they are against each other. It's like we're trying to have our cake and eat it, too (The Theory of Everything), or one will win out in the end.

++++++++

Changing the subject a bit, God told me that Stephen Hawking isn't free in his mind but a prisoner of his mind. When he talked with the Pope, it's a bit strange that the Pope took the position that he did and warn Hawking of what he's doing. He didn't follow up and think of it as an opportunity to save someone. I guess he could have said God didn't play dice or pointed out the wonders of the universe and how it works instead of believing in multiverses. He could have said the Bible says that God stretches the heavens. He could have said if determinism is true, then Hawking's mind can't be free. He could have asked if Hawking can think of how Genesis could be true in physics and quantum mechanics terms? Instead, he just issued a warning.

Here's one article arguing for free will and quantum physics (but I'm sure you can find one arguing the opposite)
Do quantum effects make our choices our own? (with image) · gmusser

 

[james bond]

Science is science. There is no "accepted" science. Science is a method. There is evidence and proof, or there is not.

Addiction treatment isn't my area of study, but I know enough they don't parade around like some holistic new age quacks. They use science. Even faith-based programs, if they are licensed, are using science.

Actually, you have a massive gap in your understanding of science. We have empirical studies to treat addiction, and we are finding better ways. You pretty much have no argument because you're saying we don't have things that we actually do have.
And you didn't actually answer my question. You keep using "evolution" and "science" and "atheism" as if they are explicitly, intimately, and inherently forever linked together. Me, I do that science thing, I accept evolution as fact, but guess what? I'm not an atheist, and I don't exclude that there may be some god sort of thingy. But I do often forget where I park my car, so I'm not going to lie and pretend to have any knowledge about something that lies beyond what our ape brains and three-dimensional perception can perceive.

Maybe observational science is science. The creation scientists have historical science. So why not accept it?

I use evolution, science and atheism in conservative terms. They are linked together. You're an exception.

Your 3D perception is misleading. You can't really see the back of something. Your brain/mind just fills it in and thinks it's there. This is how our minds work. If you forget where you left your keys or where you parked your car, then say Jesus bless me. Your unconscious mind will help you remember. If you can't remember if you turned off the stove or locked your door, then say Jesus bless me after you do it. You'll remember.

Again, I disagree that I have an ape brain. I can talk and do more cognitive things than an ape can.

 

[viole]

No, I don't believe in dark matter, dark energy, multiverses and absolute time travel into the future and back to the past. Black holes and singularities may be a possibility, but we have to solve the quantum mechanics vs GR issue first. Creation scientists believe in singularities as they believe the universe has an edge and is bounded. They haven't taken a position on black holes, but they believe in white holes. Cosmology isn't science. It's more philosophy. Physics and quantum physics is hard science, but they are against each other. It's like we're trying to have our cake and eat it, too (The Theory of Everything), or one will win out in the end.

We don't need to get that far. Do you believe in what they say concerning the "age" of the Universe and the origin of heavy elements (e.g. Oxygen)?

If not, why do you believe anything else they say concerning origins?

Changing the subject a bit, God told me that Stephen Hawking isn't free in his mind but a prisoner of his mind.

Did He? Do you usually converse with God at that level?

When he talked with the Pope, it's a bit strange that the Pope took the position that he did and warn Hawking of what he's doing. He didn't follow up and think of it as an opportunity to save someone. I guess he could have said God didn't play dice or pointed out the wonders of the universe and how it works instead of believing in multiverses. He could have said the Bible says that God stretches the heavens. He could have said if determinism is true, then Hawking's mind can't be free. He could have asked if Hawking can think of how Genesis could be true in physics and quantum mechanics terms? Instead, he just issued a warning.

I suppose the pope did not want to hear how LOL sounds on a speach synthesizer.

Here's one article arguing for free will and quantum physics (but I'm sure you can find one arguing the opposite)
Do quantum effects make our choices our own? (with image) · gmusser

Have you read the artcle? The author is skeptical that QM restores (libertarian) free will. He is actually a compatibilist.

By the way, do you think that your will, for instance to write that post, began to exist without a cause?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Sorry. I'm not any kind of ape. I'm a human and descended from other humans. I can learn and speak different languages (another point brought out in the Bible). There's no reason for it if the default was we spoke the same language. Apes can't talk. Bipedalism is not an advantage unless you're human. It's not helpful for an animal to be bipedal like that of a human. If we descended from apes, then they should have disappeared like the ape-man. It's fake science.

Fake science? You remind me of someone that declares a priori fake what he does not like. Don't remember who that is. But I know he uses twitter pretty often.

I told you, we do not descend from apes. We are apes. All you need to see that is a mirror. I am sure you agree we look vastly more similar to a gorilla than to a spider.

If that disturb your ego, can we settle for primate? And if that is also too much, what about mammal?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Maybe observational science is science. The creation scientists have historical science. So why not accept it?

There are the natural sciences that deal with the natural world, such as chemistry, biology, and physics, there are the social sciences like psychology, and sociology. To varying degrees, they both even rely on each other in various situations. But history is a branch of the social sciences. This "observational science" is a redundant term because all of science makes and documents observations.

I use evolution, science and atheism in conservative terms. They are linked together. You're an exception.

They are not linked together. Did the children's science books I read when I was younger that taught how to do simply experiments and observations and explaining how they work (static electricity and magnetism are common place in such books) have anything to do with evolution and atheism? Absolutely not.
When it comes to evolution, even many theists accept it. You may want to think me an exception, but if you remove your blinders you'll see evolution isn't just something atheists accept.

Your 3D perception is misleading. You can't really see the back of something.

"The back of something" is relative. But because you can't see the other side that is opposite of your perspective, that does not mean we cannot rotate the object and see the other side. Most people can easily hold an image of a cube in their mind and rotate it. This is three dimensional perception. We do not live in a world confined to X and Y coordinates, but we also have a Z, depth.

Again, I disagree that I have an ape brain. I can talk and do more cognitive things than an ape can.

Actually, many apes are cognitively on par with a human child. One that knows sign language will even teach it to others.

 

[Polymath257]

Cosmology isn't science. It's more philosophy.

Wrong. In the last 20 years or so it has even progressed into being an area of precision physics. Studying the background radiation has answered a number of long standing questions.

Physics and quantum physics is hard science, but they are against each other.

I have no idea why you think this. Quantum physics is considered a fundamental area of physics. If you want to get a degree in physics, I *guarantee* you will have to take a QM class. In many ways, it is more fundamental for today's technology than, say, relativity.

 

[james bond]

We don't need to get that far. Do you believe in what they say concerning the "age" of the Universe and the origin of heavy elements (e.g. Oxygen)?

If not, why do you believe anything else they say concerning origins?



Did He? Do you usually converse with God at that level?



I suppose the pope did not want to hear how LOL sounds on a speach synthesizer.



Have you read the artcle? The author is skeptical that QM restores (libertarian) free will. He is actually a compatibilist.

By the way, do you think that your will, for instance to write that post, began to exist without a cause?

Ciao

- viole

The age of the universe and earth are the same. It's difficult to state how old something is when our measurement methods do not know how much something of one element existed in the past and have to make assumptions. I think we can do radiocarbon dating on living material and be able to get consistent results. Obviously, the radiometric dating is more complex and vary wildly and are only accepted when they fit a pre-determined range. This just follows the circular argument that evolutionists and evolutionary thinking makes in order to get the billions and millions years of time to support their theories. Creation scientists, i.e. young earth scientists, use other methods to determine the age of a young earth -- The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences. (list) . Please read and we can discuss. Heavy elements of hydrogen, helium and carbon were part of the first day including EMS (some think it was sodium and H20 to form light, but this also forms salt-water), CMB, plasma, Planck's constat (heh), that which forms the heavens (stretched the heavens) and sky above and everything underneath it, i.e. the foundation of time and space. Also, on the first day, God created the Earth, a spherical ball and it was covered in dense water vapor and deep waters.

There are different opinions of what exactly happened on the 1st day as the Bible isn't a science book. It is a bit hard to gather the theories of what happened in detail on each of the days as creation scientists are not part of the discussion. By definition, they are left out because of their beliefs, not that they aren't scientists. Thus, my approach is to measure that which we can. One of the big arguments against creation is science has to be able to measure the extent of that which was created and it doesn't. I say we have to describe what happened better each and then see what scientific methods can be used including theory to measure the invisible hand of God. Thus, how much light was necessary for the first day to distinguish between day and night. Today, creationists just get involved when something disagrees with their theory of creation, such as the universe being completed on the fourth day. My approach as a student would be to learn evolution and what is being taught in the schools. Once the basic understanding of the science is there, then one can start to see alternative explanations. Then one can compare which ones are better. Atheists scientists are biased from the start, so they won't be the ones who have all the answers. Instead of supernatural events, I would just describe what was happening or what was observed.

It depends how free someone's mind is. People say a little voice in their head told them. Sometimes, if you have been working on a problem and haven't found a solution, then your unconscious mind figures it out when you are sleeping. You also get some intuitive feel for whether you are headed in the right direction (notices this is different from wishful thinking). Sometimes, it's just being mindful. That is, if you lock the door or turn off the heater, set the alar, then say Jesus bless me in your head. It will help you to remember. By the same token, we hear Stephen Hawking claim he has a free mind and that he can time travel and this is due to the existence of multiple universes. If he can't convince me that our own universe formed this way he theorizes, then it's hard to see multiple ones. I'm not disputing his science or quantum mechanics, but his thinking to explain an alternative version of what happened. By the same token, he's biased in that he's already eliminated creation without studying by the what today's science stipulates.

Even with free will and libertarian free will, we still have the compatibilism free will.

In this sense, then God's sovereignity is put into place. Is this the predestination vs libertarian free will argument?

"So we need to ask ourselves how does libertarian free will fit in with God’s sovereignty? Can a human being, a creature, be autonomous if God is sovereign? The obvious conclusion is that libertarian free will is incompatible with the sovereignty of God. Consider this passage from the book of Proverbs: “In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps” (Proverbs 16:9). This does not paint a picture of man as an autonomous being, but rather as man operating within the confines of a sovereign God.

Consider another Old Testament passage: “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isaiah 46:9-10). Here again we see a sovereign God declaring to us that He will accomplish all His purposes. The concept of libertarian free will leaves open the possibility that man can freely refuse to do God’s will, yet God says all His purposes will be accomplished.

Man is not a “law unto himself.” Man is a creature in the Creator’s universe, and as such is subject to the will of the Creator. To suggest otherwise is to elevate man beyond his station and to bring God down to the level of the creature. Those who advocate libertarian free will may not come out and say this, but logically speaking, this is the conclusion that must be drawn. Consider a popular evangelistic slogan found in Christian gospel tracts: “God casts his vote for you, Satan casts his vote against you, but you have the deciding vote.” Is this how it works in salvation? Is God just one side of a cosmic struggle with Satan for the souls of men, who must resort to ”campaign tactics” to sway voters to heaven? This view of God is an emasculated God who is desperately hoping mankind utilizes his free will to choose Him. Frankly, this is a somewhat pathetic view of God. If God wills to save someone, that person will be saved because God accomplishes all His purposes."

What is libertarian free will?

 

[james bond]

Wrong. In the last 20 years or so it has even progressed into being an area of precision physics. Studying the background radiation has answered a number of long standing questions.


I have no idea why you think this. Quantum physics is considered a fundamental area of physics. If you want to get a degree in physics, I *guarantee* you will have to take a QM class. In many ways, it is more fundamental for today's technology than, say, relativity.

Just your opinion. Listen to what cosmologists say and they'll have you believe that which doesn't exist yet like black holes are true. We have Lawrence Krauss, for example. Also, the sloppy science of Richard Dawkins. Another good example is watching Cosmos with Degrasse or even old shows with Sagan. Part of it is science. The cosmology parts are philosophy.

You don't think that they're trying to unify physics? Today, they're trying to do that with the Theory of Everything. Otherwise, what else are these scientists arguing about to stop peer-review. What is the Theory of Everything to you?

 

[sayak83]

No, I don't believe in dark matter, dark energy, multiverses and absolute time travel into the future and back to the past. Black holes and singularities may be a possibility, but we have to solve the quantum mechanics vs GR issue first. Creation scientists believe in singularities as they believe the universe has an edge and is bounded. They haven't taken a position on black holes, but they believe in white holes. Cosmology isn't science. It's more philosophy. Physics and quantum physics is hard science, but they are against each other. It's like we're trying to have our cake and eat it, too (The Theory of Everything), or one will win out in the end.

++++++++

Changing the subject a bit, God told me that Stephen Hawking isn't free in his mind but a prisoner of his mind. When he talked with the Pope, it's a bit strange that the Pope took the position that he did and warn Hawking of what he's doing. He didn't follow up and think of it as an opportunity to save someone. I guess he could have said God didn't play dice or pointed out the wonders of the universe and how it works instead of believing in multiverses. He could have said the Bible says that God stretches the heavens. He could have said if determinism is true, then Hawking's mind can't be free. He could have asked if Hawking can think of how Genesis could be true in physics and quantum mechanics terms? Instead, he just issued a warning.

Here's one article arguing for free will and quantum physics (but I'm sure you can find one arguing the opposite)
Do quantum effects make our choices our own? (with image) · gmusser

I have noticed that you have stayed away from threads I made explicitly to deal with origin of universe, evolution, age of earth. Is there a reason for this. In your own threads, you discuss everything from black holes to free will at the same time, which makes it difficult to have a focused discussion. No matter how much you allege atheism for science, I find it gratifying that scientists from Christian infused cultures have broken off those shackles and converged on Indian and early Greek ideas about a very old Earth and universe with evolution of beings. It would be a strong refutation of Indian metaphysics indeed if you can show evidence of a mere thousands of year old Earth and universe rather the the billions of years old universe embedded in a trillions of year old multiverse world system that Hindu and Buddhist metaphysics requires. Thus if you are interested, we can discuss more on the evidence of young earth instead of just throwing in a link.

 

[Polymath257]

Just your opinion. Listen to what cosmologists say and they'll have you believe that which doesn't exist yet like black holes are true. We have Lawrence Krauss, for example. Also, the sloppy science of Richard Dawkins. Another good example is watching Cosmos with Degrasse or even old shows with Sagan. Part of it is science. The cosmology parts are philosophy.

Once again, pretty much anything about cosmology that is older than 20 years is badly out of date. When Sagan was alive, we knew the universe to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years old. Now we know it ito be 13.7 billion. That is a *huge* increase of precision and knowledge right there. Studying the CBR has opened up a trove of information that has allowed much more precision than was even imagined before. This has made cosmology into a precise science.

For that matter, when I was a child black holes were purely speculative. Now they have been discovered and are extensively watched and studied. I might add that no white holes have been found).

You don't think that they're trying to unify physics? Today, they're trying to do that with the Theory of Everything. Otherwise, what else are these scientists arguing about to stop peer-review. What is the Theory of Everything to you?

Yes, the attempts are to find a unification between General relativity and Quantum mechanics. Both are fundamental aspects of the universe as we understand it. For decades there was no known way to unify them at all. Now, we have several different proposals that do so. String theory is one, quantum loop gravity is another, M-theory is another.

The problem is, at this point, that we don't have the technology to truly test between these theories. So, yes, these quantum theories of gravity are mostly speculation. They have some aspects in common, though, and those aspects can be used to say at least something.

For example, quantum mechanics, with all it entails, is a basic part of all of these. It doesn't go away in the unification.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The age of the universe and earth are the same.

You should look into Olbers' paradox. It's not the official "this is why it is," but it involves questions and answers over the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and why we have night time. It's something that has puzzled scientists and others for centuries (even the poet Edgar Allan Poe pondered about it), but it was eventually realized the universe is not infinite. Then it was realized the Earth is much younger than the universe. Light also takes a very long time to travel even from the center of our solar system to the outer most reaches of this solar system. The stars themselves do not bode well for supporting the idea of a young earth and/or universe or the idea both are the same age.

As more distant stars are revealed in this animation depicting an infinite, homogeneous and static universe, they fill the gaps between closer stars. Olbers's paradox argues that as the night sky is dark, one of these three assumptions about the nature of the universe must be false.

String theory is one, quantum loop gravity is another, M-theory is another.

Being a huge nerd and fan of Kaku, "my money's" on String theory!

 

[Polymath257]

You should look into Olbers' paradox. It's not the official "this is why it is," but it involves questions and answers over the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and why we have night time. It's something that has puzzled scientists and others for centuries (even the poet Edgar Allan Poe pondered about it), but it was eventually realized the universe is not infinite. Then it was realized the Earth is much younger than the universe. Light also takes a very long time to travel even from the center of our solar system to the outer most reaches of this solar system. The stars themselves do not bode well for supporting the idea of a young earth and/or universe or the idea both are the same age.

Olber's paradox doesn't directly relate to the age of the Earth. It does relate to the age of the universe, however, although not necessarily to the finiteness of the universe.

The essence of Olber's paradox is that the intensity of light falls off as the inverse square of distance, while the number of stars/galaxies would *increase* at roughly the square of the distance. Hence, the amount of light reaching Earth from each distance should be about the same constant. If the universe were infinite and of infinite age, that would lead to a night sky that is bright, not dark.

Because of the finite speed of light, for a universe of finite age that is still infinite in extent, Olber's paradox would not arise.

Now, a further effect also arises: because of curvature effects, the intensity of light does NOT fall as the inverse square of distance, but slightly slower. This only emphasizes the finite age of the universe (or, at least, of stars and galaxies).

 

[james bond]

Once again, pretty much anything about cosmology that is older than 20 years is badly out of date. When Sagan was alive, we knew the universe to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years old. Now we know it ito be 13.7 billion. That is a *huge* increase of precision and knowledge right there. Studying the CBR has opened up a trove of information that has allowed much more precision than was even imagined before. This has made cosmology into a precise science.

For that matter, when I was a child black holes were purely speculative. Now they have been discovered and are extensively watched and studied. I might add that no white holes have been found).



Yes, the attempts are to find a unification between General relativity and Quantum mechanics. Both are fundamental aspects of the universe as we understand it. For decades there was no known way to unify them at all. Now, we have several different proposals that do so. String theory is one, quantum loop gravity is another, M-theory is another.

The problem is, at this point, that we don't have the technology to truly test between these theories. So, yes, these quantum theories of gravity are mostly speculation. They have some aspects in common, though, and those aspects can be used to say at least something.

For example, quantum mechanics, with all it entails, is a basic part of all of these. It doesn't go away in the unification.

There are people, like Hawkening, who believe it will go away with the Theory of Everything as it will answer all questions regarding matter and their behavior physics. However, the problem in my view is there isn't anything to join the two branches. (Creation scientists are leaning towards GR in the BBT, but they believe in quantum mechanics.) For example, we discussed black holes. I thought I believed in the existence of black holes, but there is no scientific explanation to explain how the exist. The idea that they eat all matter that comes close to it could be pseudoscience. In other words, it isn't all-powerful. If we assume that it doesn't, then there have several theories to explain (besides Christian God). This means we explore something else besides BBT (which creation scientists have been disagreeing with). These may sound far out or been rendered pseudoscience, but we have to find the best hypothesis -- http://listverse.com/2015/12/27/10-alternatives-to-the-conventional-big-bang-theory/ .

EDIT: Even Hawking thinks there are no black holes now. Not sure if this has changed since it is from 2014.

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'
Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'

Firewall paradox (hope this vid discusses the firewall)

 

[james bond]

You should look into Olbers' paradox. It's not the official "this is why it is," but it involves questions and answers over the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and why we have night time. It's something that has puzzled scientists and others for centuries (even the poet Edgar Allan Poe pondered about it), but it was eventually realized the universe is not infinite. Then it was realized the Earth is much younger than the universe. Light also takes a very long time to travel even from the center of our solar system to the outer most reaches of this solar system. The stars themselves do not bode well for supporting the idea of a young earth and/or universe or the idea both are the same age.


Being a huge nerd and fan of Kaku, "my money's" on String theory!

Olbers' paradox says that:

"Olbers’ paradox, in cosmology, paradox relating to the problem of why the sky is dark at night. If the universe is endless and uniformly populated with luminous stars, then every line of sight must eventually terminate at the surface of a star. Hence, contrary to observation, this argument implies that the night sky should everywhere be bright, with no dark spaces between the stars. This paradox was discussed in 1823 by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers, and its discovery is widely attributed to him. The problem was considered by earlier investigators and can be traced back to Johannes Kepler, who, in 1610, advanced it as an argument against the notion of a limitless universe containing an infinite number of stars. Various resolutions have been proposed at different times. If the assumptions are accepted, then the simplest resolution is that the average luminous lifetime of stars is far too short for light to have yet reached the Earth from very distant stars. In the context of an expanding universe, it can be argued similarly: the universe is too young for light to have reached the Earth from very distant regions."

Olbers' paradox | astronomy

Doesn't this help the young earth theory? Furthermore, creation scientists think the universe is bounded (peer-reviewed).

 

[james bond]

Poly

I have noticed that you have stayed away from threads I made explicitly to deal with origin of universe, evolution, age of earth. Is there a reason for this. In your own threads, you discuss everything from black holes to free will at the same time, which makes it difficult to have a focused discussion. No matter how much you allege atheism for science, I find it gratifying that scientists from Christian infused cultures have broken off those shackles and converged on Indian and early Greek ideas about a very old Earth and universe with evolution of beings. It would be a strong refutation of Indian metaphysics indeed if you can show evidence of a mere thousands of year old Earth and universe rather the the billions of years old universe embedded in a trillions of year old multiverse world system that Hindu and Buddhist metaphysics requires. Thus if you are interested, we can discuss more on the evidence of young earth instead of just throwing in a link.

For western thinkers, the beginning of the universe is the BBT and its relation to black holes as the cause which creation scientists disagree with. However, that's beside the point. What we have found is there is a disagreement between GR and quantum physics. In other words, we can't have a black hole anywhere. Thus, no all-powerful object that swallows up all matter in the universe including light. On the contrary a white hole, would expel all the matter in the universe including light. The only agreement that the majority of scientists have reached is the universe started at some point (not singularity).

The other concept of atheist scientists is political. Conservatives view today's science as atheist, i.e. the majority does not believe in God, so they automatically eliminate it from science and scientific thinking. If it is strictly about whether God can be measured or not, then I think the creation scientists can do a better job. We can describe God and his work such as Genesis, so maybe his work can be measured.

If you have an alternative view, whether religious or scientific, to present, then I'd be happy to learn about it. If you look at my 10 Alternatives link, we have Bindu-Vipshot which I have never heard of.

 

[Polymath257]

Olbers' paradox says that:

"Olbers’ paradox, in cosmology, paradox relating to the problem of why the sky is dark at night. If the universe is endless and uniformly populated with luminous stars, then every line of sight must eventually terminate at the surface of a star. Hence, contrary to observation, this argument implies that the night sky should everywhere be bright, with no dark spaces between the stars. This paradox was discussed in 1823 by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers, and its discovery is widely attributed to him. The problem was considered by earlier investigators and can be traced back to Johannes Kepler, who, in 1610, advanced it as an argument against the notion of a limitless universe containing an infinite number of stars. Various resolutions have been proposed at different times. If the assumptions are accepted, then the simplest resolution is that the average luminous lifetime of stars is far too short for light to have yet reached the Earth from very distant stars. In the context of an expanding universe, it can be argued similarly: the universe is too young for light to have reached the Earth from very distant regions."

Olbers' paradox | astronomy

Doesn't this help the young earth theory? Furthermore, creation scientists think the universe is bounded (peer-reviewed).

No, it doesn't. It merely shows the universe is finitely old in the current expansion. Remember that the times we are talking about here are in the billions of years, not the thousands of years. Since even our own galaxy is hundreds of thousands of light years across, the fact that we can see *other* galaxies is evidence that the universe has been around much, much longer than that.

 

[sayak83]

Poly


For western thinkers, the beginning of the universe is the BBT and its relation to black holes as the cause which creation scientists disagree with. However, that's beside the point. What we have found is there is a disagreement between GR and quantum physics. In other words, we can't have a black hole anywhere. Thus, no all-powerful object that swallows up all matter in the universe including light. On the contrary a white hole, would expel all the matter in the universe including light. The only agreement that the majority of scientists have reached is the universe started at some point (not singularity).

The other concept of atheist scientists is political. Conservatives view today's science as atheist, i.e. the majority does not believe in God, so they automatically eliminate it from science and scientific thinking. If it is strictly about whether God can be measured or not, then I think the creation scientists can do a better job. We can describe God and his work such as Genesis, so maybe his work can be measured.

If you have an alternative view, whether religious or scientific, to present, then I'd be happy to learn about it. If you look at my 10 Alternatives link, we have Bindu-Vipshot which I have never heard of.

Neither the Big Bang nor a black hole require a singularity for it to be Big Bang or a Black Hole. You know that right?
Obviously black holes exist. Gravitational waves of two merging black holes have detected just last year. It's getting the Nobel Prize this year in physics. Of course black holes can exist just fine without a singularity.

 

[james bond]

No, it doesn't. It merely shows the universe is finitely old in the current expansion. Remember that the times we are talking about here are in the billions of years, not the thousands of years. Since even our own galaxy is hundreds of thousands of light years across, the fact that we can see *other* galaxies is evidence that the universe has been around much, much longer than that.

Your statements are theory because it's based on the BBT. We do not know that the universe is billions of years across except in theory.

Creation scientists believe in the Gravitation Time Dilation Effect and stellar redshifts in a universe that is expanding. This causes the early universe to be denser and thus magnify the GTDE such that time becomes much slower. The Starlight and Time Theory explains this well.

 

[james bond]

More on the Olbers' paradox to show the universe had a beginning and the question what could have caused the stars to have turned on in the first place?

"Another objection to an infinite static universe is normally ascribed to the German philosopher Heinrich Olbers,
who wrote about this theory in 1823. In fact, various contemporaries of Newton had raised the problem, and the
Olbers article was not even the first to contain plausible arguments against it. It was, however, the first to be
widely noted. The difficulty is that in an infinite static universe nearly every line of sight would end on the
surface of a star. Thus one would expect that the whole sky would be as bright as the sun, even at night.
Olbers’ counter-argument was that the light from distant stars would be dimmed by absorption by intervening
matter. However, if that happened the intervening matter would eventually heat up until it glowed as brightly as
the stars. The only way of avoiding the conclusion that the whole of the night sky should be as bright as the
surface of the sun would be to assume that the stars had not been shining forever but had turned on at some
finite time in the past. In that case the absorbing matter might not have heated up yet or the light from distant
stars might not yet have reached us. And that brings us to the question of what could have caused the stars to
have turned on in the first place."*

* - A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, Ch. 1, p.6

These were the questions against a infinite static universe until Hubble found the expanding universe and it backs up an early dense universe. The thinking is that in the beginning, the universe is infinitesimally small and infinitely dense according to Hawking. The question remains what caused the stars to have turned in the first place if the BBT cannot be resolved?

 

[james bond]

Hawking and his explanation of where we are today with black holes and BBT. It matches what I said about GR vs quantum physics and the search for the Theory of Everything.

From ABHOT:
"Today scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic partial theories – the general theory of relativity
and quantum mechanics. They are the great intellectual achievements of the first half of this century. The
general theory of relativity describes the force of gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe, that is,
the structure on scales from only a few miles to as large as a million million million million (1 with twenty-four
zeros after it) miles, the size of the observable universe. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, deals with
phenomena on extremely small scales, such as a millionth of a millionth of an inch. Unfortunately, however,
these two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other – they cannot both be correct. One of the
major endeavors in physics today, and the major theme of this book, is the search for a new theory that will
incorporate them both – a quantum theory of gravity. We do not yet have such a theory, and we may still be a
long way from having one, but we do already know many of the properties that it must have. And we shall see,
in later chapters, that we already know a fair amount about the predictions a quantum theory of gravity must make."