“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical account of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to a man commenced suddenly and sharply at the definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.
agnostic Robert Jastrow, “God and the Astronomers,” page 14
What Jastrow is pointing out for the particularly dense, is that natural forces could not be responsible for the Big Bang since natural forces did not exist until the Big Bang.
“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of force they cannot hope to discover. . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
“A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982.
Of course, atheists cannot hope to discover or even to acknowledge this force because they deny its existence prior to any search for the Cause of the Singularity.
RAB and TAM accuse me of repeating the same material over and over. If the answer for two plus two is four, then four is the answer that you will get whenever you ask my opinion on what is two plus two.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
natural forces could not be responsible for the Big Bang since natural forces did not exist until the Big Bang ... at least in this dimension.
"If the answer for two plus two is four, then four is the answer that you will get whenever you ask my opinion on what is two plus two."
For large values of two, two plus two is five.
Anyhoo, I'm pretty sure I created everything. But where did I come from? I don't know for it feels like I ALWAYS was.
"supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
LOL. I am God. If a force is REAL it's natural.
No where does Genesis mention the Big Bang. In fact, no scientific discovery, from Pythagoras to the modern day, has been made from studying the scriptures. In fact, the book of Genesis is entirely a mythical creation story: man made from dirt; woman made from a man's rib; snakes who can talk (like Harry Potter); and a tree that bears fruit, that, when eaten, makes humans genetically inherently evil.
The Big Bang can be seen as a creation event arising from zero energy (gravity provides the negative energy that balances the equation) and zero entropy that over time increases entropy, which, in fact, gives the universe its direction in time. It's entropy that stops time going backwards.
But the universe actually never stops creating - that's its nature. But the Bible doesn't say anything about that either. The true miracle of the Big Bang is that it should have produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which means it shouldn't exist (except as radiation) but, of course, it does. This asymettry is an enigma that is still to be solved. However, like all the other mysteries of the universe, the Bible doesn't tell us anything about that either.
So, yes, creation is a fact, it's just an ongoing fact, not a one-off fact. The universe even created 'us'.
What makes the universe 'run' are its laws, which can all be deciphered by mathematics. So, to quote Mario Livio (Is God a Mathematician?) who quotes (by imaginary proxy) the Pythagoreans: 'God is not a mathematician, God is the mathematics'.
Regards, Paul.
"The true miracle of the Big Bang"
I couldn't have said it better myself. A universe with a beginning is disconcerting for atheist scientists because what existed before the Big Bang can’t be detected by observation or by the laws of physics. In fact the very concept of “before” is incoherent regarding the Big Bang because there wasn’t any such thing. Before the Big Bang, there wasn’t any time, or space, or matter or laws of physics to govern that matter.
Whatever produced The Big Bang, produced those laws. If the universe came into being without using the laws of physics, more than that, before the laws of physics were even in place, then that is the working definition of a miracle. Miracles as we all know are not allowed into the vocabulary of an atheist, but what else are they to say when it's the only word that fits the facts.
Yay! I'm still the God of the Gaps. You don't know everything, you atheist scientists! I'm lurking in the gaps!
“natural forces could not be responsible for the Big Bang since natural forces did not exist until the Big Bang.“
This is conjecture, as no one knows what forces were at work; natural or otherwise. We do not know what caused the big bang. I t could very well have a “supernatural” cause but, just because we havn't found the the “natural” cause for a phenomina does not prove the supernatural. It only proves we havn't found the the “natural” cause. Niether you or Robert Jastrow can prove the super natural. It's very coneniant that you never have to prove anything. Since it is impossible to prove anything outside of the natural world.
“. . . no one knows what forces were at work; natural or otherwise. We do not know what caused the big bang.”
That’s true but we sure know what didn’t cause it - matter or anything natural under the "command" of the laws of physics.
=============
Hi Makarios,
The word, 'miracle' has a generic meaning as well as a theological one - as I'm sure you're well aware.
In fact my dictionary definition starts with: 'an event contrary to the laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause'; which contradicts your interpretation of the Big Bang as a miracle (it's a natural event, assuming it happened). But the dictionary's second meaning: 'any amazaing or wonderful event'; is consistent with my usage. By the way, the word arises from mimari meaning 'to wonder'.
So let's not argue about semantics: I know what you mean and you know what I mean.
Science is the study of the natural world in all its manifestations. Science deals in evidence, theories and observations. For everything else there is philosophy. As Russell said, philosophy doesn't always deal in answers as much as questions. There are some questions science can't answer, and some people then provide God as the answer, which is fine. But God should not be an antedote to our ignorance in my view.
I would quote Confucius: 'Knowing is to know what you know and to not know what you don't know'. Although his near contemporary, Socrates, put it more succinctly: 'The height of wisdom is to know how ignorant we are.'
Whether the universe has a purpose or not, I believe is a valid question. But it's not a question science can answer, and neither can the Bible. The Bible is just one of many religious works that provides mythical stories to provoke emotional reactions, as all stories do. A story can contain profound truths but it doesn't make the story itself true.
I think everyone finds wonder in the universe, whether they be atheist or otherwise, and I believe it's important to admit to our ignorance. I realised when I was still a teenager that real knowledge was knowing how much you don't know. But it's a huge mistake to confound science with mythology, which is of no value or virtue to anyone.
Regards, Paul.
Makarios said...
“. . . no one knows what forces were at work; natural or otherwise. We do not know what caused the big bang.”
That’s true but we sure know what didn’t cause it - matter or anything natural under the "command" of the laws of physics.
No, we do not know what didn't cause it. You are obviously under the false impression that we know all there is to know about the laws of physics. You say that the big bang could not have been “matter or anything natural under the "command" of the laws of physics.” Well guess what; we ain't that smart yet! We have not figured out all the laws of physics , that by no means indicates that some heretofore unknown laws of physics are not at work! I can't prove that any more than you can prove the supernatural. I bet that given time though; I'll be closer to the truth than you.
Yes, I know I said I would leave you alone, but I'm actually trying to be helpful.
The best book I've read on this very topic is Paul Davies' God and the New Physics. It covers much the same territory as Dawkins’ The God Delusion, but it was written 20 years earlier and is a better book, in my view. For 2 reasons: one, Davies is a physicist, not a biologist, so it has a more cosmic emphasis; and two, Davies is not a proselytizer. Even Dawkins is respectful of Davies by the way.
Regards, Paul.
salvage, I find alcohol helps dull the pain Mak causes in my head, lots of it ...
I'm gonna have to agree with savage on this one. If you could reason with a zealot, there wouldn't be any!
When there are NO laws of physics in existence you can be pretty sure that includes any laws that haven't been discovered yet.
Sal, have you noticed that it hasn't always been the 21st century? Does the term indentured servanthood mean anything to you?
I wonder if anyone has noticed that I'm quoting someone here, an agnostic who is also a scientist?
Makarios said...
When there are NO laws of physics in existence you can be pretty sure that includes any laws that haven't been discovered yet.
The point I'm going to make ONE MORE TIME is: If we do not know all there is to know about physics; is it not possible that some unknown laws of physics existed prior to the big bang? You can wrap your head around GOD but, you can't fathom unknown laws of physics? Your emotional need to believe in something that will save you from death with the promise of eternity has overridden any intellectual need for the truth. You will go on ranting using your flawed logic to defend your belief; that's all it really is though. In the end; it's just a belief, that only your dying will ever prove, one way or the other. Living in the real world takes guts facing your death knowing that only oblivion awaits is not for everyone. Eternity? hmm, how will you spend the time? Maybe God will teach you how to smite the wicked!
I know you could spend the first Hundred Trillion Millennium doing logic puzzles!
September 18, 2009 9:27:00 AM PDT
"You will go on ranting using you flawed logic"
I'm only going by what science tells us and what science tells us is that "prior" to the singularity, there was NOTHING - there was nothing to be discoverd, nothing that remained undiscovered - there was NOTHING and there was nowhere.
That's not my flawed logic. That's science.
Mak, This bears repeating: Your emotional need to believe in something that will save you from death with the promise of eternity has overridden any intellectual need for the truth.
If I had gone looking for it, I suppose you might have a case. Fact is, He came and got me.
nah. you just think I did.
Makarios
You make a very big issue about what happened before the Big Bang. It's quite possible that the Big Bang was in fact a 'Big Bounce', and the current universe will eventually collapse and set off another Big Bang. This is all plausible within our current knowledge of physics. You can't just assume that the universe is not a self-perpetuating dynamic system with an infinite life span.
You equate infinity with God, which is fine, but such a God is effectively a cipher for what we don't know or understand.
Regards, Paul.
"This is all plausible within our current knowledge of physics."
No it isn't. In a cyclic model, entropy is carried forward. The low levels of entropy in our universe show that it has not existed in any form prior to this one.
As well, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that none of the current atheist origin mythologies that have been proposed, including cyclic models can avoid the need for a beginning, a singularity, a Big Bang Creation Event at some point. Therefore the question of what Caused matter space and time to come into existence is still an issue for which naturalism not only doesn't have an answer but cannot have an answer because nothing that could be considered natural existed.
Makarios,
Neither you nor I are really experts on this, but it's not as cut-and-dried as you think. Any physics that looks back at the time of the Big Bang (or earlier) is what Roger Penrose would describe as 'Tentative' in his 3 categories for scientific theories: Tentative, Useful and Superb.
But you may want to read this and this before you dismiss my comment. The first link is the more comprehensive.
As for entropy, it would simply start from zero again. The entropy of one universe wouldn't carry on over to another if they are separated by a singularity. At least, that's my understanding of it. Only charge, mass and angular momentum are conserved in a black hole, if I remember it correctly. So entropy is not conserved, I would suggest.
This is way out of our fields, both yours and mine, and only demonstrates that you can't use science to prove God's existence, any more than you can use a belief in God to support a scientific theory.
Science is an atheistic pursuit, by necessity, whether the scientist is an atheist or not. When you bring God into science you stop doing science.
Religion is a personal belief, endeavour, whatever you want to call it. They are quite independent. Religion is an experience, a psychological phenomenon at best. If more people appreciated this point then these silly arguments would not exist.
Regards, Paul.
I find it hard to believe that we are still arguing with this guy over virgin science; that even the great Professor Hawking has trouble with. We all seem to have bits and pieces of knowledge on the subject however nobody here is anywhere near qualified to dispute Makarios's assertions. That is precisely why he picked this bit of highly debated science to make his argument for the existence of god. He tosses out his ridiculous theory and we all bite, hook, line and sinker! Because we know that he does not know. Because we know that nobody really knows for sure. I'm afraid we have all been beating a dead horse for the amusement of a moron.
I mean that in the nicest way possible Makarios.
Paul: I see you completely ignored the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. I don't blame you. It stops your proposition dead in its tracks.
The fact is that the thermodynamic properties of oscillating and cyclic models imply the very the very beginning of the universe that their proponents sought to avoid. For entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in such models, which has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations with each successive cycle. Therefore, if one traced the expansions back in time they would get smaller and smaller and smaller. The effect of entropy production will be to enlarge the cosmic scale, from cycle to cycle . . . Thus, looking back in time, each cycle generated less entropy, had a smaller cycle time, and had a smaller cycle expansion factor than the cycle that followed it.” Paul Davies, “the Big Question: In the Beginning,” ABC Science Online, interview with Philip Adams, http://aca.mq.edu.au/pdavieshtml.
“The multi-cycle model has an infinite future, but only a finite past.” I.D. Novikov and Ya. B. Zeldovich, “Physical Process Near Cosmological Singularities,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 11 (1973): 4401-2
A universe rebounding from a single, infinitely long contraction is, if entropy increases during the contracting phase, incompatible with the initial low entropy condition of our expanding phase. Postulating an entropy “decrease” during the contracting phase in order to escape this problem would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Makarios, pleas, define entropy to me as you understand it.
Using your understanding, please answer the following-
When dry ice sublimes, is entropy increasing or decreasing? Explain your answer.
If you dissolved some salt in water, does the entropy decrease or increase? Explain your answer.
Paul has it spot on, and becomes another poster to identify that you are clearly not an expert in the fields where you try to prove gods existence. Paul has the bottle to concede that he isn't an expert, but you prattle on yet again like you are. -
"No it isn't. In a cyclic model, entropy is carried forward. The low levels of entropy in our universe show that it has not existed in any form prior to this one.
The above is just ignorant parroting of something you have probably read. It isn't merely stating other peoples work, you are presenting it as if the knowledge is yours and fully within your understanding. Do you even understand what you are talking about or does it just sound like it supports your case (which is flawed anyway)?
Rab: The fact that science supports my belief in Creator God is not my fault. It's just the way it has to be.
Oh no you don't, see that is the thing. It doesn't. As i have told you many times, we just don't know. It does not suggest that god, and furthermore, specifically your god created everything. This is just your own guesswork.
Hell, you don't even understand what supposedly supports you. You throw the word entropy around to support your claims but you don't actually have a great understanding of what it actually is.
Talk about pulling the rug from under your own feet.
Damn that Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem... it implies I have a beginning!
Stop that, 7, people like Rab can't grasp that it's not;
Everything that exists has a cause
It's
Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause.
Because you're eternal, you didn't begin to exist. Actually, if you'd explain to more atheists the meaning of eternal I wouldn't have to go over it and over it and over it.
And if you'd also explain to them that matter cannot be eternal, well, we could just end this all right now.
Of course, you'd have to do this in such a way as to make them think they figured it out on their own, 'cause hearing it from You, well, they have to pretend even harder that You don't exist. And hearing it from me, well, in their minds, Christians don't read and can't learn and are simply too dumb to get this stuff. So, um, Amen and good luck with that, you know, if it's Your will and everything.
Hi Makarios,
You are right: I'm not familiar with the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, but I did see the Paul Davies, Phillip Adams interviews on TV over 10 years ago, and I have a copy of them in book form.
I don't remember them in detail, but I do know that Davies was scathing of the 'God of the Gaps' that is effectively the God you are arguing for. Before the universe existed, there must have been something else and a cause, and it can only be God. In other words, God fills in our ignorance of what we don't know. This is your philosophical viewpoint, irrespective of whether entropy stops a recycling universe or not.
The links I refer to, are more recent so obviously viewpoints change. As I said, this is 'Tentative' science, and that's the point I'm making: you, I and everyone else are still speculating over this. One of my favourite quotes is: Only future generations can tell us how ignorant the current generation is.
I've read most of Paul Davies' books, and I know that he would not support your philosophical point of view in the slightest.
In an earlier comment I referenced just one of his books on this topic: God and the New Physics. Allow me to quote from just one chapter: Is the universe a free lunch?
"We have thus reached the ultimate question of existence. Physics can perhaps explain the content, origin and organization of the physical universe, but not the laws (or superlaw) of physics itself. Traditionally, God is credited with having invented the laws of nature and created things (spacetime, atoms, people, among others) on which those laws operate. The 'free lunch' scenario claims that all you need are the laws - the univere can take care of itself, including its own creation."
These are Davies own words, who has written more on this topic than possibly anyone else, and is certainly qualified to do so.
His last statement echoes exactly what I said in my first comment. The God you are referring to are the laws, the mathematics. Now you can attach a personality to those laws, which you have done, borrowing from the Bible, but that doesn't make the Bible true, nor does it make your particular version of God a reality. The God you are arguing for could be just the laws and nothing else. We don't know what came before the universe or what will come after, but calling the unknown, 'God' is not proof of God. It's just a tautological statement: the unknown is God therefore God exists. Surely, you understand that.
Regards, Paul.
For those who don't know: Phillip Adams is Australia's best known atheist. I've had personal correspondence with Adams on religion on more than one occasion, and he's not a militant atheist, but, then, Australia is a different climate altogether - people don't get into a lather about religion like the northern hemisphere does.
Davies is one of the few scientists who is willing to tackle metaphysical questions, and he is often quoted by fundamentalist Christians, whom he would not support at all. Davies has attacked a literal interpretation of the Bible on more than one occasion - he has no patience for such nonsense, and he would call it such.
Regards, Paul.
It's true; the dumb-ass posts generate more comments than well thought out ones. I love the internet! By the way; god's not real because I said so!
Post a Comment