A Creation Story for Materialists

[no1tovote4]

Science theorizes that the universe is expanding and will one day stop expanding and then implode. Maybe it's cyclical. Maybe the universe has expanded and imploded before an infinite number of times. That would explain where the big bang singularity originated. It wouldn't explain how the universe got here, but it would provide an explanation for where the matter in the big bang came from. Maybe the tight knot of matter in the big bang is just an immensely massive black hole that was created by the implosion of a previous universe. And upon becoming so imploded and so massive, it exploded and formed what we know today.

That's only one hypothesis. Another is the multiverse, the big bang was caused when two universes collided, at the point of collision massive energy was released and a new universe was created from the energy. There are others as well, but none are supported by observation. That the universe expands is clear, that it came from a single point is in evidence, that it will collapse is only conjecture, or that two collided the same. How it began is simply conjecture at this time not Theory. It is not supported by enough evidence to have reached the level of Theory.

 

[Bonnie]

But to someone without faith, or a faith different than yours, creationism comes off like "one day God decided to make an existence" and we don't have to proove it because we believe it. That's difficult for some to stomach.

What about God before our existence? What was He up to before creation? Why did He want creation? Was He alone for inifinity before He created us? Or is it the basis of faith to just not ask those kind of questions and just put trust that creationism is what is and to just believe in it?

Again, no condescension intended out of anything I said...

I get what you are saying, however I was only referring to your question of proof re God's existance as it is a matter of faith, not the actual theory of creationism which yes of we are to take it seriously and be taught as scientific fact there would indeed need to be proof. On the flip side in order to scientifically prove the big bang theory it is rather vacant to say we know it defintely happened this way but we just can't prove what the catalyst was, so we'll say it just happened simultaneously from nothingness and that's all we have to prove. It is being taught that way and has been, that's just the way it is. For me not having a background in physics it is more a matter of semantics.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

It is being taught that way

Not exactly. When I was taught about the big bang, my teacher let me know that we do not yet know what happened before the bang. He didn't ever just tell me to accept that it came from nothing, rather he told me scientists are working on figuring it out. Unlike religion.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Dudes, the Big Bang has already been debunked.

Dozens of times. Check:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

So if some creationist/christian type of guy wishes to get scientists up on the walls over some sesame street explanation of the Big Bang theory he shall have to try a little harder. It's not surprising he's running after the facts by several decades, since most of these people have an inclination to do so.

Of course, the story is just his opinion on things, and a fairly well written one as well, so I've got no problems there. Freedom of expression for everybody!

So how about the water?

Dr. Van Flandern is real scientist - his PhD is from Yale in 1969. However, his speciality isn't cosmology - at least, not for the 20 years he worked at the US Naval Observatory. He didn't get into comology until after his work with the USNO. And he is just one astronomer - the overwhelming majority of credentialed astronomers who have specialized in the field all their lives accept the Big Bang - or some variation of it - as the theory of the origin of the cosmos. His biggest contribution since working at the USNO has been an alternative theory of gravity - which has several problems with it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Which ones are plausible? What caused nothing to blow up and make something? If it was something that blew up where did that something come from? What observable data and evidence do they use to make one hypothesis more plausible than the other?

The Big Bang states that all matter in the Universe was concentrated at a single point the and blew up - that's not "something coming from nothing". Obviously - something had to be there to cause the Big Bang to happen - we just don't know what it is.

The chief observational underpinning of the theory is the observed fact that the further away a galaxy is from us - the faster it is moving away from us - which means the universe is expanding.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm not talking about before the Big Bang. I'm talking about the causation of the existence of matter. Why should science not be concerned with that?

Oh - well I was talking about before the Big Bang. Obviously, science should be concerned with the creation of matter after the Big Bang.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

God doesn't have to be proven by religion it's called faith, but science does especially when it stands firm to say something came form nothing.

Where in science does it say something came from nothing? The Big Bang says all the matter in the universe came from a singularity billionsof years ago. A singularity is something.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

On the flip side in order to scientifically prove the big bang theory it is rather vacant to say we know it defintely happened this way but we just can't prove what the catalyst was, so we'll say it just happened simultaneously from nothingness and that's all we have to prove.

Uhh - science doesn't say the Big Bang happened from nothingness. I really don't know where you're getting this idea. You should perhaps do a little research on the Big Bang - and I don't mean reading stuff written by creationists about it - because they do not accurately represent it.


Was it vacant for cavemen to postulate that children come from their mothers without having the full explanation of how they come from their mothers? A theory doesn't have to explain everything in the universe to be useful.

 

[no1tovote4]

The Big Bang states that all matter in the Universe was concentrated at a single point the and blew up - that's not "something coming from nothing". Obviously - something had to be there to cause the Big Bang to happen - we just don't know what it is.

The chief observational underpinning of the theory is the observed fact that the further away a galaxy is from us - the faster it is moving away from us - which means the universe is expanding.

Then answer the question on what created all the matter to be there and caused the explosion. You didn't read my entire post, you read and attempt to answer one question with what went after, but that was not the thrust of the question. "The Big Bang States" is not an answer to the particular question. I was asking about before the Big Bang and about the question of origin, the Big Bang Theory can be extrapolated from observed evidence, the origin of all matter cannot. Whether all matter was at one point or whether the energy of the explosion created the matter does not matter at this point. Why did it explode? What was it? Who put it there? If nobody did how did it get there? If it was simply the energy that created the matter, energy and matter being the same thing as extrapolated by Einstein, then why did it happen? None of these are answered by the Big Bang Theory.

 

[no1tovote4]

Oh - well I was talking about before the Big Bang. Obviously, science should be concerned with the creation of matter after the Big Bang.

Science is concerned with the origin of matter just as in Theories of the origin of life, which is a different theory than Evolution BTW. To say, we just accept it was there and exploded is not even close to Scientific Method. What created the Matter? How did it get there? and so forth... I keep repeating this but you simply say "science isn't concerned with that" which is the same as saying "we don't have any idea therefore we cannot be concerned with it". Ridiculous.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Then answer the question on what created all the matter to be there and caused the explosion. You didn't read my entire post, you read and attempt to answer one question with what went after, but that was not the thrust of the question. "The Big Bang States" is not an answer to the particular question. I was asking about before the Big Bang and about the question of origin, the Big Bang Theory can be extrapolated from observed evidence, the origin of all matter cannot. Whether all matter was at one point or whether the energy of the explosion created the matter does not matter at this point. Why did it explode? What was it? Who put it there? If nobody did how did it get there? If it was simply the energy that created the matter, energy and matter being the same thing as extrapolated by Einstein, then why did it happen? None of these are answered by the Big Bang Theory.

You're right. None of these are answered by the Big Bang Theory. So what?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Science is concerned with the origin of matter just as in Theories of the origin of life, which is a different theory than Evolution BTW. To say, we just accept it was there and exploded is not even close to Scientific Method. What created the Matter? How did it get there? and so forth... I keep repeating this but you simply say "science isn't concerned with that" which is the same as saying "we don't have any idea therefore we cannot be concerned with it". Ridiculous.

I never said that. Please don't misquote me. All I've stated is the Big Bang doesn't cover it - and it doesn't need to to be a good theory.

 

[no1tovote4]

I never said that. Please don't misquote me. All I've stated is the Big Bang doesn't cover it - and it doesn't need to to be a good theory.

Of course it doesn't need to in order to be a good theory, however that question is the underpinning of the thread, it is the original question so to speak. Therefore posting about the Big Bang theory is worthless to the question at hand.

 

[Bonnie]

Not exactly. When I was taught about the big bang, my teacher let me know that we do not yet know what happened before the bang. He didn't ever just tell me to accept that it came from nothing, rather he told me scientists are working on figuring it out. Unlike religion.

I don't recall hearing the church proclaim they know everything about every scripture written, which is why they (religious scholars) have, and, do study them constantly. And you simply cannot teach religion the same way you teach science.

 

[Bonnie]

Uhh - science doesn't say the Big Bang happened from nothingness. I really don't know where you're getting this idea. You should perhaps do a little research on the Big Bang - and I don't mean reading stuff written by creationists about it - because they do not accurately represent it.

And you automatically assume that I base my ideas soley on creationism, that's quite a leap?? And another attempt to lump those who are religious with stupidity and blindness. LOL the elitism just pours out of liberals, they don't even try to hide it anymore...

Big Bang.. everything came from a primeval atom.........Okay where did the atom come from??

 

[Bonnie]

But to someone without faith, or a faith different than yours, creationism comes off like "one day God decided to make an existence" and we don't have to proove it because we believe it. That's difficult for some to stomach.

What about God before our existence? What was He up to before creation? Why did He want creation? Was He alone for inifinity before He created us? Or is it the basis of faith to just not ask those kind of questions and just put trust that creationism is what is and to just believe in it?

Again, no condescension intended out of anything I said...

I think you may have some misconceptions about creationism. I am open to the idea of ID, and certainly do not believe that God just snapped his fingers and there it was six days later,little too simplistic for me, however faith is something that just cannot be quantified by science, the very definition of the word tells you that. I understand that many non believers or those who have scientific minds NEED to have proof of everything before they even consider it valid. My thinking is that you can have a discussion about both science and religion without losing credibility, that it is possible and plausible that God created the universe through intelligent design, meaning he snapped his fingers one day and set the the whole thing in motion from a primeval atom devinity created, and us being human cannot concieve of that intellectually because to the scientific mind there is no tangible proof. Im sure that sounds very simplistic and naive on my part and I have run up against this time and again throughout my years of education. Nothing new for me.

The God thing........We believe he always was which is another concept hard to really wrap around or cenceptualize it's faith. Yes people are constantly grappling with that. Here's the one that really pisses off non believers............God created us to get to heaven, souls for heaven because he wanted to share paradise with us. So whenever someone asks me "why I think Im here or what my purpose is in life" my answer is...To use what God gave me to be happy, do good, and get to heaven. And I definately did NOT always believe this way.

 

[dilloduck]

You're right. None of these are answered by the Big Bang Theory. So what?

Science is no closer to dicovering the origin of or reason for matter than the simplist assumption made by a caveman. I will just go ahead and assert that it is unknowable.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Science is no closer to dicovering the origin of or reason for matter than the simplist assumption made by a caveman. I will just go ahead and assert that it is unknowable.

Depends on how you define "origin". Physicists create matter out of energy all the time in the lab.

 

[Bullypulpit]

For all the atheists, materialists, etc. etc...

-------------------
In the beginning was Nothing and Nothing created Everything. When Nothing decided to create Everything, she filled a tiny dot with Time, Chance, and Everything and had it explode. The explosion spread Everything into Everywhere carrying Time and Chance with it to keep it company. The three stretched out together leaving bits of themselves wherever they went. One of those places was the planet Earth.

Read the rest... http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001610.html

The Universe, and everything in it, are the creation of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster. This Universe came into being when a portion of HIS Sacred Sauce was separated from HIS Sacred Platter and was cast into the void.

As plausible a cosmology as any posited by any other theological ranting. Stick with science. It, at least, is supported by independently verifiable and repeatable experimental evidence to support its hypotheses and theories. Religious experience is neither independently nor repeatably verifiable.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I don't recall hearing the church proclaim they know everything about every scripture written, which is why they (religious scholars) have, and, do study them constantly. And you simply cannot teach religion the same way you teach science.

They should. The accepted scripture as represented byt the Holy Bible is finite in nature and accessible to anyone capable of reading it. The issue lies, not with the number of witings, but of their quality. They are the product of wholly subjective human experiences which cannot be directly shared or percived by any other human being, unless you posit some supernatural force, which in and of itself opens up another can of worms.

They are, in short, little more than opinions which are possessed of no objective and independently verifiable facts to support them. THis is why religious scriptures can be interpreted in so many different ways, and so many charlatans can claim a direct pipeline to their favorite deity. Deal with it.