The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[shawn001]

Even at this silly account of creation, it is the egg that expanded, not the universe. Second, after reading Hinduism and even on wikipedia, i see no such expansion account.

There is no expansion account in the bible either.

However

Comparing two creation stories: from
Genesis and Babylonian pagan sources



ItemAncient Israelite Creation StoryBabylonian Creation StorySourceGenesis 1:1 to 2:3Enuma ElishDate of writing (liberal belief)8th or 9th century BCELate 12th century BCEDate of writing (conservative belief)13th century BCE, the time of MosesLate 12th century BCE.Author (liberal belief)"P," authors of the Priestly tradition.Unknown.Author (conservative belief)Moses.Unknown.Creator(s) of the universeA single God, YHVH.A God battling a Goddess.Initial state of the earthDesolate waste; covered in darkness.Chaos; enveloped in darkness.First developmentLight created.Light created.Next developmentFirmament created - a rigid dome over the earth separating the earth and heaven.Firmament created; also perceived as a rigid dome.Next developmentDry land created.Dry land created.Next developmentSun, moon, stars created.Sun, moon, stars created.Next developmentCreation of men and women.Creation of men and women.Final developmentGod rests and sanctify the Sabbath.Gods rest and celebrate.

The many points of similarity between the two traditions is conclusive proof that one story was derived from the other (or that both were derived from a still older original).
According to liberal theologians, the Babylonian account of creation was written in the 12th century BCE, centuries earlier than the Biblical account. According to conservative Christian theologians, the opposite happened: the Babylonian account was written after the Biblical account.

Comparing the Genesis and Babylonian stories of creation

 

[gnostic]

There is nothing wrong with the Scientific Method. But I think the problem arise when people try to use the scienctific method to explaind absolute origins. This is self defeating. You can't use science to explain the origin of science. This would be like saying "the origin of all humans is a human". If a human is the origin of all humans, he would be the origin of himself, because he is also a human. To explain absolute origins, you need a transcendent cause. You need the cause to exist beyond the domain to be the origin of the domain. And i think thats the problem that most naturalists make.

What on earth are you talking about?

That post you've quoted from me (post #93), only talk about how I don't accept the majority of premises in philosophies. I may accept some parts of each philosophy, but never embrace all of it.

Science deal with knowledge/explanations (theories), observations and evidences. And the philosophy that fall closest to science and the scientific method is empiricism, which is a branch of epistemology.

I wasn't talking about the "origin" of anything.

Science is dealing with fact, or at least try to find the fact, while philosophy deals with reasoning, which may or may not be factual, and it is often (if not always) not very rational.

You said:

That is where science stops. And where science stops, philosophy begins.

i find that of the two, philosophy is the most useless when it comes to acquiring useful knowledge. So I wouldn't use philosophy to find out about Big Bang Theory or about evolution.

 

[gnostic]

None of this address the fact that the bible predicts a expanding universe and no other religion say such a thing. The scriptures speak for itself. The universe was expanding then and it is expanding now.

I have seen nothing in the bible about the Big Bang or the universe expanding.

If you are referring to Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." then I don't see the "expanding" part.

Back then, "heaven" simply referred to the sky or the atmosphere, not to "outer space" or "galaxy" or "universe".

You're basically tacking modern science to the Genesis - your creation myth - when there are no reference to expanding universe in the Genesis.

 

[Pineblossom]

Job 9:8 "He alone STRETCHES out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea"

The reason I left Christianity to own demise is the selective use of scripture to prove a point - any point. Fantasy only lasts so long.

 

[Photonic]

The reason I left Christianity to own demise is the selective use of scripture to prove a point - any point. Fantasy only lasts so long.

You kind of just described pretty much every major religion.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I know you people find it so hard to believe in God and the mere mention of the G word causes extreme migraines. Anything but the G word, right??

I got it, maybe i should have said "Well, it began from nature. Nature is the best explanation for all nature." :no:

You can say "God" but be prepaired to offer some empiracle, testable, falsifiable evidence for your claim.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That is wrong.

Some atheists like the idea of an eternal universe. Probably because it very beautifully removes the need of a god from the equation.

But some atheists have no problem with the universe having a beginning, they just don't see the need for a god to be involved.

Yes. This right here.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I have seen nothing in the bible about the Big Bang or the universe expanding.

If you are referring to Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." then I don't see the "expanding" part.

That is because you fail to realize that the creation account was a process, not a single event. Even if God snapped his fingers and the singularity appeared and expanded, we can still say he created the universe. Since the universe began once the expansion occurred, then obviously the scriptures that i gave regardin the stretching of the heavens harmonize with the book of Genesis, that God created the universe and from then on it has been expanding.

Back then, "heaven" simply referred to the sky or the atmosphere, not to "outer space" or "galaxy" or "universe".

Hmm, that is funny, because when i typed in "heavens" on wikipedia, this came up.."Heavens may refer to:
The sky or outer space (also celestial spheres or Biblical firmament)". So you are absolutely incorrect when you say heaven don't refer to outer space.

Second, Job said in... Job 9:8 "He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." It says he "stretches", not he "stretched", which symbolizes present tense. If he was just talking about the sky, he would have used the word "stretched", because the sky isn't currently stretching. So he used the word "stretches" which mean that he understood that the space in the universe was stretching during his time. Fast foward 3,000 years later, and we discover that it is still stretching, just like Job said. What a coincidinky

You're basically tacking modern science to the Genesis - your creation myth - when there are no reference to expanding universe in the Genesis.

First of all, I wasn't using the book of Genesis to suggest the universe is expanding. I used the book to suggest that the bible claimed the universe had a beginning thousands of years before modern science did. Thats all I said. So stop attacking straw man.

 

[Photonic]

That is because you fail to realize that the creation account was a process, not a single event. Even if God snapped his fingers and the singularity appeared and expanded, we can still say he created the universe. Since the universe began once the expansion occurred, then obviously the scriptures that i gave regardin the stretching of the heavens harmonize with the book of Genesis, that God created the universe and from then on it has been expanding.



Hmm, that is funny, because when i typed in "heavens" on wikipedia, this came up.."Heavens may refer to:
The sky or outer space (also celestial spheres or Biblical firmament)". So you are absolutely incorrect when you say heaven don't refer to outer space.

Second, Job said in... Job 9:8 "He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." It says he "stretches", not he "stretched", which symbolizes present tense. If we was just talking about the sky, he would have used the word "stretched", because the sky isn't currently stretching. So he used the word "stretches" which mean that he understood that the space in the universe is still stretching. Fast foward 3,000 years later, and we discover that it is still stretching, just like Job said. What a coincidinky



First of all, I wasn't using the book of Genesis to suggest the universe is expanding. I used the book to suggest that the bible claimed the universe had a beginning thousands of years before modern science did. Thats all I said. So stop attacking straw man.

You build a straw man to support your argument, expect it to be destroyed.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Apply the same rules of infinite regression to the creator please.

Still applying time to a timeless being, are we?

Just using the same method you use to being eternal to God. I apply the same thing to the universe.

Infinite cause and effect relations would require infinite time. But with God, there is no infinite cause and effect relations. There is just one being that exists timelessly, that freely choose to create the universe 13.7 billion years ago.

All the big bang explains is the expansion of substance that already existed.

That cant be true because based on the theory, there was no space within the singularity. All distances were shrunk to zero. If there was no space before the expansion, where would this "substance" stuff be placed??

I say it always existed. Law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, they can however change states under the right conditions.

First of all, the laws of thermodynamics come in to effect only AFTER the universe began. The universe began to exist. Before the universe began to exist, there was no space or energy. But the first law of thermodyanmics depend on existing space and energy. Second, the second law of thermodynamics PROVES that the universe had a beginning. The law basically state that all of the useful energy in the universe is running out, and it has been running out ever since the universe began. Well, if something is running out, it had to have a start. If the universe never began to exist, the amount of usable energy would have already been used up a longggggg time ago jack. That would mean that the universes low entropy conditions had to have been put in from the very beginning, and have been running out ever since.

This would mean that matter has always existed in one form or another. Can you prove otherwise?

I just did :yes:

Those are fundamental questions we ask to find out what the state of the universe will be in the future. It does not require a transcendent cause or else so does the creator.

Sorry buddy. I know it is hard for you to accept, but the universe began to exist. Open any text book on cosmology and that is what you will find. But go ahead, continue to deny modern science.

 

[Photonic]

Still applying time to a timeless being, are we?




Infinite cause and effect relations would require infinite time. But with God, there is no infinite cause and effect relations. There is just one being that exists timelessly, that freely choose to create the universe 13.7 billion years ago.



That cant be true because based on the theory, there was no space within the singularity. All distances were shrunk to zero. If there was no space before the expansion, where would this "substance" stuff be placed??



First of all, the laws of thermodynamics come in to effect only AFTER the universe began. The universe began to exist. Before the universe began to exist, there was no space or energy. But the first law of thermodyanmics depend on existing space and energy. Second, the second law of thermodynamics PROVES that the universe had a beginning. The law basically state that all of the useful energy in the universe is running out, and it has been running out ever since the universe began. Well, if something is running out, it had to have a start. If the universe never began to exist, the amount of usable energy would have already been used up a longggggg time ago jack. That would mean that the universes low entropy conditions had to have been put in from the very beginning, and have been running out ever since.



I just did :yes:




Sorry buddy. I know it is hard for you to accept, but the universe began to exist. Open any text book on cosmology and that is what you will find. But go ahead, continue to deny modern science.

[0710.3879] On Penrose's `before the big bang' ideas
[hep-th/0702153] Generating Ekpyrotic Curvature Perturbations Before the Big Bang
[1112.4508] Big Bang singularity in the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker spacetime
arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0407071
Some Black Holes May Pre-Date The Big Bang, Say Cosmologists - Technology Review

The point is, stop insulting everyone here because of your misconceptions of science.

Also:

 

[terryboy]

Infinite cause and effect relations would require infinite time. But with God, there is no infinite cause and effect relations. There is just one being that exists timelessly, that freely choose to create the universe 13.7 billion years ago.

Why does it have to be God who exists timelessly and not the gravitational singularity?

That cant be true because based on the theory, there was no space within the singularity. All distances were shrunk to zero. If there was no space before the expansion, where would this "substance" stuff be placed??

I'd rather imagine something with infinite mass an no volume would be unstable and 'decayed' into our universe today.

First of all, the laws of thermodynamics come in to effect only AFTER the universe began. The universe began to exist. Before the universe began to exist, there was no space or energy. But the first law of thermodyanmics depend on existing space and energy. Second, the second law of thermodynamics PROVES that the universe had a beginning. The law basically state that all of the useful energy in the universe is running out, and it has been running out ever since the universe began. Well, if something is running out, it had to have a start. If the universe never began to exist, the amount of usable energy would have already been used up a longggggg time ago jack. That would mean that the universes low entropy conditions had to have been put in from the very beginning, and have been running out ever since.

The second law explains the ever increasing entropy of the universe. That's it. You could say Theorem of Pythagoras proves god's existence if you want to.

How do you know what happened when all the theories that proposed solutions to the very early universe have not been tested?

I just did :yes:

Please let us see the empirical evidence. Saying 'God put it there' is just not convincing enough. It's an argument from ignorance, a theological fallacy.

Sorry buddy. I know it is hard for you to accept, but the universe began to exist. Open any text book on cosmology and that is what you will find.

It's not hard for us to accept the universe began to exist, but we don't want to know that from an argument from ignorance point of view. We need to know how it began to exist. When I opened books on cosmology, all that I've found is "we don't know yet"

But go ahead, continue to deny modern science.

For all I know, general relativity and standard model is hard to be unified, and thus we cannot explain what happened in very early universe, when general relativity breaks down due to quantum effect. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[gnostic]

Hmm, that is funny, because when i typed in "heavens" on wikipedia, this came up.."Heavens may refer to:
The sky or outer space (also celestial spheres or Biblical firmament)". So you are absolutely incorrect when you say heaven don't refer to outer space.

Second, Job said in... Job 9:8 "He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." It says he "stretches", not he "stretched", which symbolizes present tense. If he was just talking about the sky, he would have used the word "stretched", because the sky isn't currently stretching. So he used the word "stretches" which mean that he understood that the space in the universe was stretching during his time. Fast foward 3,000 years later, and we discover that it is still stretching, just like Job said. What a coincidinky

Have you even bother to read the verses (5-9) surrounding 9:8?

Job is simply sprouting or ranting utterly meaningless rhetoric, which I cannot even for moment take seriously.

He moves mountains without their knowing it
and overturns them in his anger.

This is not unique, because other gods have been known to move mountains or topple mountains in their wrath. Like in the Sumerian poem of Inana.

[QUOTEInana and Ebih]25-32. (Inana announced "When I, the goddess, was walking around in heaven, walking around on earth, when I, Inana, was walking around in heaven, walking around on earth, when I was walking around in Elam and Subir, when I was walking around in the Lulubi mountains, when I turned towards the centre of the mountains, as I, the goddess, approached the mountain it showed me no respect, as I, Inana, approached the mountain it showed me no respect, as I approached the mountain range of Ebi? it showed me no respect."

33-36. "Since they did not act appropriately on their own initiative, since they did not put their noses to the ground for me, since they did not rub their lips in the dust for me, I shall fill my hand with the soaring mountain range and let it learn fear of me."

37-40. "Against its magnificent sides I shall place magnificent battering-rams, against its small sides I shall place small battering-rams. I shall storm it and start the 'game' of holy Inana. In the mountain range I shall start battles and prepare conflicts."[/QUOTE]

Sure, mountains grow or fall naturally, and they have nothing to do with some angry gods.

What I don't understand is why would any god show anger against any mountain? It is senseless.

He shakes the earth from its place
and makes its pillars tremble.

Sure, earthquake occurred, for any number of natural reasons. But "pillars"?

In many Near Eastern myths, as well as Egyptian myths, there are either pillars that hold up the Earth itself, or the pillars that hold up the heaven. Judging by the 2nd reference to "pillars" in Job, it is clear that God would shake the pillars of heaven.

The pillars of the heavens quake,
aghast at his rebuke.

I have not seen any "pillars" that hold up the heavens. Have you?

Clearly, this is reference to the firmament, so the pillars were the vault or dome, which is the sky.

According to an earlier verse in chapter 26, it say:

He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.

Why would Job think the earth "suspended", let alone "over nothing"?

Scientifically impossible.

And lastly, the constellations:

He is the Maker of the Bear and Orion,
the Pleiades and the constellations of the south.

Stars are not made of constellations. Constellations are simply abstract patterns that ancient people have assign to the groups of stars. The reality is that the many of the stars in the supposed constellations have nothing to do with one another, other than how we view the stars.

 

[Pineblossom]

It's not hard for us to accept the universe began to exist, but we don't want to know that from an argument from ignorance point of view. We need to know how it began to exist. When I opened books on cosmology, all that I've found is "we don't know yet"

Well, Brian Cox is one who admits that the 'we don't know' is a legitimate response to things we don't know.

 

[McBell]

It's not hard for us to accept the universe began to exist, but we don't want to know that from an argument from ignorance point of view. We need to know how it began to exist. When I opened books on cosmology, all that I've found is "we don't know yet"

So you think it is better to insert a god anywhere the honest answer is "We Don't Know"?

"What causes the tides to go in and out"
The moon.
"Yeah, but who put the moon there?"

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

[0710.3879] On Penrose's `before the big bang' ideas
[hep-th/0702153] Generating Ekpyrotic Curvature Perturbations Before the Big Bang
[1112.4508] Big Bang singularity in the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker spacetime
arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0407071
Some Black Holes May Pre-Date The Big Bang, Say Cosmologists - Technology Review

Still postulating infinite regression. I guess it will never stop. Naturalistic explanations only push the question of origins back one step further, ok. Infinite regression is impossible because infinite regression requires infinite time, and time cannot have an infinite past, so you need a external cause that transcend time to be the first cause. Second, the last link above invovling black holes is still postulating the oscillating model, and says gives us the big "IF" on the sub title.

The point is, stop insulting everyone here because of your misconceptions of science.

Stop insulting me by thinking that intelligence can come from non-intelligence.

 

[PolyHedral]

Still postulating infinite regression. I guess it will never stop. Naturalistic explanations only push the question of origins back one step further, ok. Infinite regression is impossible because infinite regression requires infinite time, and time cannot have an infinite past...

It can if the time we experience isn't the "real" time. If you transform the universe using logarithms in a specific way, you end up with an infinitely old universe that still has a Big Bang.

 

[terryboy]

So you think it is better to insert a god anywhere the honest answer is "We Don't Know"?

"What causes the tides to go in and out"
The moon.
"Yeah, but who put the moon there?"

Please let us see the empirical evidence. Saying 'God put it there' is just not convincing enough. It's an argument from ignorance, a theological fallacy.

Did I not make myself clear?

Anyway, since you people brought this up. Let me quote rationalwiki on the 'God of the gaps' argument which is frequently abused by creationist proponents.

"God of the gaps" is used to describe the tendency of believers to appeal to God as the cause for phenomena human knowledge has not yet explained. When these gaps are filled, the believer just jumps to the next gap and the game can continue ad nauseam until human knowledge is able to explain everything. It is not a very theologically sound argument since it has the unpleasant (according to believers) effect of reducing and diminishing one's god over time. From a rational or scientific perspective it's just silly. For the truly dedicated proponent, filling an existing gap merely has the effect of creating two new gaps around it. Intellectually honest it ain't.

One of the more prominent examples of current "God of the Gaps" thinking is the Intelligent Design movement, which claims that some aspects of how life formed are impossible to explain, not only with today's scientific knowledge, but ever.
The God of the Gaps argument finds what is perhaps its most popular manifestation in ideas about first cause. The argument essentially suggests that, as there is no commonly accepted theory to completely explain the original origin of the universe, then God (or Gods) must exist.
Another well-worn God-gap is that of Abiogenesis. Again, as there is no generally accepted explanation for the appearance of life on the planet, the default position (Goddidit) is used by creationists. There is probably an element of False dilemma in both the preceding arguments.
Amusingly, Gödel's incompleteness theorems prove that God will always have a little gap left to hide in, no matter how much humanity learns.

 

[Koldo]

Still applying time to a timeless being, are we?

Define what you mean by 'timeless', and explain how a 'timeless' being interacts with time.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why does it have to be God who exists timelessly and not the gravitational singularity?

Once again, the BGV theorem of 2003 shows that any universe that has been expanding throughout its history at a rate higher than 0 cannot be infinite in its past. The good thing about this theorem is it holds true regardless of what quantum theory of gravity is used to describe the the initial segment.

The second law explains the ever increasing entropy of the universe. That's it. You could say Theorem of Pythagoras proves god's existence if you want to.

Hmmm, lets see what this site state:

Second Law of Thermodynamics - In the Beginning...
The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?

Second Law of Thermodynamics

How do you know what happened when all the theories that proposed solutions to the very early universe have not been tested?

Its funny you say this but yet the first question you asked above you were talking about a "timeless gravitational singularity", as if you were postulating it. Well, the singularity is part of the very early universe, so if you claim that all the theories of this state of the universe hasn't been tested yet, then how can you eve begin to even conclude that this state is timeless??

Please let us see the empirical evidence. Saying 'God put it there' is just not convincing enough. It's an argument from ignorance, a theological fallacy.

Ok, but saying that "nature, a non-intellectual entity, is the origin of all intellectual entities" is just not convincing enough to me either. To me it is much more logical to conclude that all intelligence comes from a being with intelligence than to believe that all intelligence comes from a long, chaotic, non-intellectual, non-purposeful process. So to each its own. Second, we know from science that the universe began to exist. Therefore, it requires a transcendent cause. Nature cannot be the origin of nature.

It's not hard for us to accept the universe began to exist

Really? I can't tell, when at least two people argued with me until they were blue in the face about the fact that we have an eternal universe.

but we don't want to know that from an argument from ignorance point of view. We need to know how it began to exist. When I opened books on cosmology, all that I've found is "we don't know yet"

Of course. Science is not a theological book so you cant open it and find theological implications. All you get from a science book is "the universe began to exist". Once that point is established, you have to figure out "what does it mean to be the cause of all nature??", and based on this question, you have no choice but to posit the supernatural because nature cannot be the origin of its own being. But the problem is, instead of positing the supernatural you just stop dead in your tracks and don't even consider it. You have to be open minded.

For all I know, general relativity and standard model is hard to be unified, and thus we cannot explain what happened in very early universe, when general relativity breaks down due to quantum effect. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

The BGV theorem....