The Origin of the Theory of the Origin.

[PoliticalChic]

Origin of the Theory of the Origin.....that would be the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang theory pictures the explosion that was the provenance of the universe.

So says science....from about the mid-20th century.

Of course there was a very similar theory about 1400 BC ( When was the Bible written? ? Biblica).

The way the theory itself came about in science circles is, of itself, interesting.




1. One of those interesting focal points of our time is the Big Bang theory...the conjecture about the origin of the universe.

Before same, there was "nothing"....."nothing" in the exact and specific meaning of the term: not anything... not a thing.

2. The idea serves as a jumping off point for several views....
....the theological, which posits that God created all;
...the scientific, a search for truth and knowledge about all things;
...and those of an atheistic bent, determined that they can show that natural laws are responsible, hence, no need for any Creator.





3. The irony is that it was not science that first came up with the scientific Big Bang theory.....it was a priest!

Prior to the 1920s, the view of astronomy was that the universe is constant and static. One could say it always was and always would be.

4." A static universe, also referred to as a "stationary" or "infinite" or "static infinite" universe, is a cosmological model in which the universe is both spatially infinite and temporally infinite, and space is neither expanding nor contracting. Such a universe does not have spatial curvature; that is to say that it is 'flat'....In contrast to this model, Albert Einstein proposed a temporally infinite but spatially finite mode las his preferred cosmology in 1917, in his paper Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity."
Static universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5. "...14 May 1916 he also mentions the possibility of the world being finite. A few months later he expanded on this in letters to Willem de Sitter. It is along these lines that he postulated a Universe that is spatially finite and closed, a Universe in which no boundary conditions are needed ...In addition, Einstein assumed that the Universe was static. This was not unreasonable at the time, because the relative velocities of the stars as observed were small." Schweizerische Physikalische Gesellschaft - From Static to Expanding Models of the Universe (4)

Einstein so believed until 1932.





6. That irony mentioned above? It was a Belgian Catholic ordained priest, one who studied mathematics at MIT, who first proposed the Big Bang theory.

Studies of the light reaching us from space showed a gravitational redshift, the wavelength of light stretched by the effect of gravity.

a. In 1912, Vesto Slipher was the first to observe the shift of spectral lines of galaxies, making him the discoverer of galactic redshifts…. Edwin Hubble was generally incorrectly credited with discovering the redshift of galaxies.

7. In 1927, the priest, George Lemaitre, "extrapolated the Hubble, Slipher, and Humanson results backward in time to conclude that if the universe is expanding now, it must have been smaller and smaller as we go back into the past. In effect, he was able to use mathematics to rewind the movie of the progression of the universe to its very beginnings and to demonstrate that it indeed had a beginning- as Scripture tells us."
Amir Aczel, "Why Science Does Not Disprove God," p.100.




Score one for theology, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....after religion posited 'the Big Bang theory' about 1400 BC ( When was the Bible written? ? Biblica).......



....Here's science catching up with religion:

'Friedmann-Lemaître models solutions to Einstein’s equations that contained realistic amounts of matter. These evolutionary models correspond to big bang cosmologies.' cosmology (astronomy) :: Friedmann-Lemaitre models -- Encyclopedia Britannica
These theorems were consistent with and preceded Hubble’s Law.




8. The Catholic priest, George Lemaitre, termed the germ of universe the "primeval atom." Einstein, at first, would not give in... he produced his own equation that 'forced' the universe to be static!


a. "Lemaitre published his calculations and his reasoning in Annales de la Societe scientifique de Bruxelles in 1927. Few people took notice. That same year he talked with Einstein in Brussels, but the latter, unimpressed, said, "Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable."

It was Einstein's own grasp of physics, however, that soon came under fire." 'A Day Without Yesterday': Georges Lemaitre & the Big Bang




9. So we can see that in science, as in most of life, calculations are only as good as the assumptions used in formulating them. If the assumptions are false, the conclusions will be false- even if they are produced by the greatest scientific mind in the world!
Aczel, Op. Cit.


In fact, as with computer research, the old saying applies: GIGO- garbage in, garbage out.
(Apologies to Albert Einstein!)

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Mathematician Amir Aczel, in an interview with Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg, in 2010, was asked, for a Scientific American article (November 20101), "How was the Big Bang caused, and what happened before it?"

Weinberg: "This we don't know, and have no way of knowing.." Aczel: This convinces me that science cannot disprove a 'creator.'
Aczel, Op.Cit.





11. Religion foe Steven Weinberg said that???
This is the guy who never misses an opportunity to use science as a cudgel to beat down religion.


a. As in the case of many of our atheist scientists, they have hoped to discover laws of some final physical theory so powerful that they will explain the property of matter in all of its modes. “...the most extreme hope for science,” Steven Weinberg has written, “is that we will be able to trace the explanation of all natural phenomena to final laws and historical accidents.”


b. In 2007, a number of scientists gathered at a conference titled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival “in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing.”

In his address, Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg declared that “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded,...

....not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons? If memory serves, it was not the Vatican."
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."





Yet, questioned face to face about creation of the universe, Weinberg admits "This we don't know, and have no way of knowing.."


What happened to the courage of his convictions?

 

[westwall]

It has long been my opinion that religion and science have been describing the same event. The religious from the POV of a primitive pastoral society and science from the POV of an educated, sophisticated (sort of) society.

But, at the core of both observations, lies the same event.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. Which brings to mind this, from Arthur Conan Doyle:
‘Napoleon's question to the atheistic professors on the starry night as he voyaged to Egypt: "Who was it, gentlemen, who made these stars?" has never been answered.

To say that the Universe was made by immutable laws only put the question one degree further back as to who made the laws. I did not, of course, believe in an anthropomorphic God, but I believed then, as I believe now, in an intelligent Force behind all the operations of Nature--a force so infinitely complex and great that my finite brain could get no further than its existence.” The New Revelation, by Arthur Conan Doyle; Chapter I: The Search Page 1




13. Similarly, the Big Bang origin of the universe required energy. And Newton stated that mass and energy are interchangeable, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But something must have created the energy, at what we might call ‘the beginning.’


a. Now, before one attempts to explain away the obvious problem by inserting the term ‘infinity,’ let’s agree that infinity does not exist in the real world. So, without ‘infinity,’ it follows that everything in the universe is finite, therefore had a beginning….and, an end.

 

[natstew]

It's all a figment of God's imagination.
Are we all just characters in God's 'make believe' game?
Without imagination there would be no inventions or discoveries.

 

[dilloduck]

It's all a figment of God's imagination.
Are we all just characters in God's 'make believe' game?
Without imagination there would be no inventions or discoveries.

Where do we get our imagination from ?

 

[007]

While science obviously can't describe where time began, and if there was a big bang, where the fuel for this explosion came from, on the religious side, and even though I am a Christian and believe in God, one can ask the same of Christianity, "where did God come from?"

The Bible simply states that God is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Well, that's fine, but very hard to wrap your head around. If the the universe is infinite, and time doesn't have a beginning or an end, then why is God the beginning and the end?

I don't think living man will ever know the answers to such questions. I think there's only one way to find out, and that's to die.

 

[natstew]

It's all a figment of God's imagination.
Are we all just characters in God's 'make believe' game?
Without imagination there would be no inventions or discoveries.

Where do we get our imagination from ?

Using science the study of the origin of the Universe and everything in it ends with a question mark.

Combine God and science and the question mark is removed.

 

[Iceweasel]

Did you mention that The Big Bang was a term of derision by Hoyle, I think said it. An attempt to justify religious beliefs and fit science into it. I believe Georges separated his beliefs and examined it objectively. That's what I do and don't see the need to fit any religious significance into it.

Who, what and when God is will not be knowable in this lifetime and may never be. That's too difficult for many so their beliefs become facts, on the secular and theological side.

 

[007]

It's all a figment of God's imagination.
Are we all just characters in God's 'make believe' game?
Without imagination there would be no inventions or discoveries.

Where do we get our imagination from ?

Using science the study of the origin of the Universe and everything in it ends with a question mark.

Combine God and science and the question mark is removed.

How?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where do we get our imagination from ?

Using science the study of the origin of the Universe and everything in it ends with a question mark.

Combine God and science and the question mark is removed.

How?

Andrew Parker wrote a fascinating book, "The Genesis Enigma," in which he pointed out that the order of events in Genesis corresponds to what science today suggest was the order of the events from the Big Bang through life on earth.....



Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time.
Photons....but not until the Higgs boson added mass were there protons, electrons...
Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation. A pretty specific order of events. And it’s surprisingly accurate.

 

[007]

Using science the study of the origin of the Universe and everything in it ends with a question mark.

Combine God and science and the question mark is removed.

How?

Andrew Parker wrote a fascinating book, "The Genesis Enigma," in which he pointed out that the order of events in Genesis corresponds to what science today suggest was the order of the events from the Big Bang through life on earth.....

Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time.
Photons....but not until the Higgs boson added mass were there protons, electrons...
Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation. A pretty specific order of events. And it’s surprisingly accurate.

An interesting analogy. I suppose there's many more.

But what baffles me, and evidently scientists, is when did time begin? Where did the matter for the big bang come from? Where does the universe end? When does time end? Where did God come from? My conclusion is that our human mind just isn't capable of such knowledge, but it will be made known to us when we pass on and our soul separates from our flesh. That is what I believe our natural state is, or home, to be in spirit form, because then we will able to understand those things, and take full advantage of what time and space has to offer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's all a figment of God's imagination.
Are we all just characters in God's 'make believe' game?
Without imagination there would be no inventions or discoveries.

Where do we get our imagination from ?

interesting query, dillo....

If you have seen the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, take a close look at the 'cape' on which God is sitting as the reaches out to touch Adam....
In the masterpiece, God is bestowing more than life.

It is the shape of a human cerebral hemisphere.


"Michelangelo’s secret message in the Sistine Chapel: A juxtaposition of God and the human brain."
Michelangelo?s secret message in the Sistine Chapel: A juxtaposition of God and the human brain | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network



Interesting pic here:
The Sistine Chapel Ceiling: The Secret in Plain Sight

 

[PoliticalChic]

How?

Andrew Parker wrote a fascinating book, "The Genesis Enigma," in which he pointed out that the order of events in Genesis corresponds to what science today suggest was the order of the events from the Big Bang through life on earth.....

Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time.
Photons....but not until the Higgs boson added mass were there protons, electrons...
Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation. A pretty specific order of events. And it’s surprisingly accurate.

An interesting analogy. I suppose there's many more.

But what baffles me, and evidently scientists, is when did time begin? Where did the matter for the big bang come from? Where does the universe end? When does time end? Where did God come from? My conclusion is that our human mind just isn't capable of such knowledge, but it will be made known to us when we pass on and our soul separates from our flesh. That is what I believe our natural state is, or home, to be in spirit form, because then we will able to understand those things, and take full advantage of what time and space has to offer.

1. "....and evidently scientists, is when did time begin?"


According to modern science, time did not exist prior to the Big Bang.



2. "Where did the matter for the big bang come from?"

In an attempt to answer that question, believe it or not, scientists have abandoned the basic law of physics, Ex nihilo nihil fit; nothing comes out of nothing!


Here is one example:
"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing," by Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins


That's right: the universe suddenly came into existence out of nothing.

Some science, huh?



3. "Where did God come from?"
The definition of God is that he always was. It is not necessary for theology to answer that question on the same basis as science does.

Exodus 3:14-15 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"...."This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation."