The Big Bang, revisited

[Willum]

Judeo-Christians often cite the Big Bang in their favor for creation.
Inventing the idea that a day has changed duration, which is supported neither by religion, nor science.

But the Big Bang, even assuming it is true, flatly contradicts the Biblical creation story.
Or, does it?

That is the debate topic:
The Big Bang, assuming it is true, contradicts the Biblical creation story, it demonstrates a timelie and other characteristics that Judeo-Christians should avoid, if they wish to make their point.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

Let's say we have a Creation Theory supported by the new outer space map of Laniakea:
The "Conjuring" Theory against the Big Bang Theory: The Earth has been miraculously created, in this or that way, by "God-like" entity, a scientific one, justifiably competing with Big Bang Theory.

Given The Fantastic Phenomena or of Freak Nature as Accounts of Reality - The Black Swans Outside Dumb People's Livingroom, Their Problem of Induction, I'd say that The Creation of Universe Theory is just as plausible as The Big Bang Theory.

Though, as a Christian (Scientific Deist), I think it is fairly unimportant which scientific theory one chooses as long as God remains central. From God, I'm in the World, no matter how it has come about. With God, let's not forget about Heaven, souls, etc.

So that's what I have.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 11 by Aetixintro]

So you agree that the scientific description of formation contradicts the Biblical fairy-tale style description?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 11 by Aetixintro]

Aetixintro: 'Let's say we have a Creation Theory supported by the new outer space map of Laniakea: ..."

Let's say we have some talking bears who live in a house and eat porridge. Would anyone deny that is as plausible as biology? And would anyone deny that the bears' house was as plausible as heaven, and the talking bears as plausible as disembodied minds?

[Still small]

There are two types of Big Bang Theory-affirming Christian apologists I've seen who try to make Genesis "literal" even with the theory.[/url]

If, by referring to Big Bang Theory-affirming Christian apologists, you mean those who believe in a rapidly expanding universe known as the Inflation Epoch, then you’d be wrong. There are a number of Creation-Inflation models that Christian apologists may adhere to. Before expounding the position to which I tend to adhere, I’d just like to clear up another of your straw men.

So the only type of apologists that are worth discussing here are the ones who just deny the big bang theory because they have to believe in their myth; they're ideologically conscripted to reject the secular approach because they've been inculcated from birth to believe that assuming their god's existence and the veracity of scripture is somehow the scientific default position, and everything else must square with it to be legitimate. A hopeless approach that can never be adapted to the scientific method as a whole (because it would be useless when trying to actually understand anything about reality; we tried applying the biblical narrative to history, and wound up making false assumptions like a global flood myth being historically accurate). (Bold emphasis in original. Underlined emphasis added)

I, for one, was not “inculcated from birth to believe that assuming their god's existence and the veracity of scripture is somehow the scientific default position“. I was raised in a very secular/atheistic family who, for a number of years, ‘disowned’ me when I became a Christian. It was only after some years of study, trying to find the answers to shortcomings in Big Bang theory and standard cosmology models that I decided look elsewhere for a model that has a better fit for the observations (I was in my mid-twenties at this point, not ‘from birth’.)

My starting point was a confusion over the time disparities between a plain reading of Genesis 1’s ‘24 hour days’ and assumed age of observed light from distant galaxies, etc. My understanding became clearer when fathoming Einstein’s theories of Special and General Relatively which posit that time is relativistic in nature, a fact being observed in many experiments. From this I began to ponder the idea that a plain reading of Genesis 1 was relating to ‘time’ relative to an observer’s clocks on Earth which may and actually do ‘run’ at a different pace to clocks elsewhere in the universe.
In the 1990’s, Moshe Carmeli further developed Einstein’s Special and General Relativity to what is known as Cosmological Relativity which introduces a variation on Cosmic time. Some of the math I find a bit tricky but those that do understand it fully have yet to find fault in it. Dr John Harnett, physicist and cosmologist, applied this idea to the expansion or spreading out of a finite bounded universe and found it consistent with all current observations (See Link 1 & Link 2 - Yeah, yeah, yeah, . . . I know. . . they’re Creationist websites but that is because secular websites have an aversion to listing anything which may go against their dogma. Maybe you can be less dogmatic, avoiding the ad hominem and judge the work itself) Harnett’s finite bounded universe, again, is understood by a plain reading of verses such as mentioned previously, -
“Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:"  Psa 104:2
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"  Isa 40:22

This stretching out is not like stretching a piece of rubber sheet but rather, as Tcg indicates in Post 5, is like pulling taut a sheet of canvas or tent which does not expand or stretch continuously. But unlike Tcg’s explanation, it was not ‘above’ the Earth but all around it. The Bible speaks of three distinct ‘heavens’. The first being the heaven in which the birds fly, being the sky. The heaven in which the stars and planets, including Earth, are placed, space, the physical universe, which is that which is being spread out and pulled taut. And there is the ‘third heaven’ (2 Corinthians 12:2) being the spiritual heaven which God inhabits that, as far as I can tell, would be similar to a different dimension.

This Carmelian Cosmological Relativity explains expansion without the need of ‘fudge factors’ such as unseen dark matter and dark energy. Harnett’s finite bounded universe also explains the local stabilisation and distant accelerated expansion. As I stated earlier, this model is a better fit for the current observations. Again, it is a matter of examining and judging the material on its merit without resorting and dismissing it by ad hominems and dogma.

Have a good day!
Still small

[EarthScienceguy]

“assuming the big bang theory is true�
This is not a settled issue to say the least. And there is no reason why a 6 six day creationist cannot have a very solid argument against the “The Big Bang� theory and for six day creation.
One of the major problems with the “Big Bang� theory is that it violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, which is a form of the law of conservation of Energy. Ask any Physicist about what happened before the big bang and the answer you will receive is an explanation of how that question is not a valid question.
Not only is the creation of the universe, and what happen before the creation of the universe an unobservable event, but the very laws of physics that govern everything that happen in this universe was also created at the creation event called our universe. This makes it impossible to know what occurred before our universe was created, because it is impossible to know what the laws of physics were before the creation event.
Like for example Lawrence Krause in his bestselling book “An Universe from nothing� attempts to explain how the universe came into existence using quantum mechanics. The only trouble is, physicist are not sure what the laws of quantum mechanics were before the universe was created. Even if we grant Krause all of his assumptions, we are left with an universe in which we have to believe not only that the positive and negative energies in the universe are perfectly balanced but also all the laws of and constants in physics are perfectly balanced for life also.
It was an attempted to solve the problem that the multiverse theory was formed. If you have ever seen the some of the avenger movies especially those that have Dr. Strange in them. Then you have an idea of what this “theory� is proposing. This theory proposes an infinite number of universes so that the odds of having a universe like our own is possible.
This solution also has an inherent problem also. The second law of thermodynamics tells indicates that it is far more likely a brain in which (for a lack of better terms) is imagining everything that we are seeing. This is called the Boltzmann Brain Paradox.
Granting the “Big Bang� all of its assumptions it still cannot produce a universe in which we are real and everything around us is real.
At the present time using current theories the only way that a universe like ours can really exist is if there was a God outside of space and time that created it. And if that is the case then why not in 6 days.

[benchwarmer]

At the present time using current theories the only way that a universe like ours can really exist is if there was a God outside of space and time that created it. And if that is the case then why not in 6 days.

This is classic 'god of the gaps' thinking. Just because we can't currently explain something with observable evidence, we'll just throw it into the 'goddidit' bucket. Of course this is completely useless.

Why invent invisible entities to explain currently unknowable things? All you are doing is moving the problem somewhere else. Now you have to explain where this god came from. Oh, well, errr, it was always just there.... LOL

Maybe some intelligent creature or creatures did create out current universe. Who knows, but it's ridiculous to start assuming this is the case with ZERO evidence. It could have been 5 invisible, pink unicorns. Or maybe a really mad, oddly striped pixie. Or maybe it was not a being of any kind and the energy that makes up our universe is the thing that has always just existed in some form or other somewhere. Where does all the energy in a black hole go? Well, probably somewhere else. Maybe our universe is one of those 'somewhere elses'. Who knows, but let's not start claiming we KNOW it must have been a god.

[William]

[Replying to post 16 by benchwarmer]

For me it is not about what form the GOD might wear. It might 'look like' a geeky scientist, but the argument isn't about what the Creator might look like.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 16 by benchwarmer]

For me it is not about what form the GOD might wear. It might 'look like' a geeky scientist, but the argument isn't about what the Creator might look like.

Fair enough, but why assume there is a creator to begin with? That was my point. There may be one/many/none. Has anyone seen one and can provide evidence of one that we can examine? No. So it is simply making something up to explain something we don't understand. This is called the "god of the gaps".

We now know that previous phenomenon that were ascribed to various gods have been explained as natural events. Or do you still think lighting is some god throwing lighting bolts? So it is reasonable to assume, unless evidence of a god materializes, that every other phenomenon we observe is also some natural process. Including the origins of our universe.

Be unafraid of the phrase "I don't know". Making up invisible entities to explain away things only causes people to stop looking for the real answer.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to benchwarmer]

This is not a God of the gaps argument, I have not even started with my argument for God yet. Each of the arguments mentioned above were put forward by atheist, like Brian Green, Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carroll. These are not hole in the wall problems for the "Big Bang" theory they are major problems that right now not really anyone is seeing a way circumvent these problems.

Now with regards to the "God of the gaps" argument you are defending your position with. There are two principles that the scientific method is based on and those are that the event being studied must be observable and it must be repeatable. If it cannot be observed and it can not be repeated then the event really falls outside the realm of science and into philosophy. This is why when most physicist are asked about origins they begin at a few nanosecond after the origin of the universe.

So the big question in the big bang theory of origins is where did energy come from to create everything we see, or everything that we are imagining we are seeing. But right now and for the foreseeable future, if you believe that you are real and that those around you are real people and not a random fluctuation of energy in your boltzmann brain somewhere in the cosmos. Then you really only have one answer there had to be an intelligence that created everything. And science can indicate to us what some of the characteristics of the intelligence has to have.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to benchwarmer]

But Physics can give us insight into what characteristics the creator God would have to have.
Sean Carroll an atheist physicist described the characteristics of what the original universe of the "Theoretical multiverse" had to have.
1. It had to have arrows of time running in both directions. You see there is really no reason why time flows in the direction that it does. In physics equations, time can flow in either direction. We simply toss negative time out because we know we do not experience this in our universe. The universe also has to be eternal and it has enough energy to spawn an infinite number of universes from it. Most of these universes are different from each other with different laws of physics governing it.
2. If we take this description as characteristics of what the original cause has to have. We can conclude some characteristics that God has to have.
a. God would have to be eternal. Having now no beginning and no end. (So the answer to who created God is that no one or nothing did. He has always been in existence.
i. No because nothing can cross-infinity especially when time can flow forward and backward. God must have a characteristic that allows this to happen.
ii. The only way that God could “cross-infinity� for lack of a better word. And have time flow in both directions is if he were omnipresent. This means that God is in the present tense at every “moment� throughout eternity. He is actively in every moment throughout all eternity past and future. So God hasn’t actually crossed infinity He is still in existence at all point through eternity. There is a verse in the Bible that says that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. That is true because God is presently in yesterday, today and forever.
b. God could not have a physical body. A physical body as we know it is a construct of this universe. Our body exists because it is in this universe. Move to an universe with different laws and our body would cease to existed. For God to be omnipresent would require Him to have an existence different than anything that we would experience in our finite world. The Bible calls God’s essences spirit.
c. God would also have to be omnipotent or all-powerful. This would be the only way God could be eternal. This means infinite energy. So when God created the universe he still had and infinite amount of energy left.
d. Since He is omnipresent God would also have to be omniscience. God knows everything across eternity. We also must remember that time is only a quality of this universe. What it is like not to experience the passage of time is something that is totally foreign to us.