Big Bang Myth

[StAnastasia]

I have stated some of my philosophical reasons why it is indeed a myth. Myth is not a bad word.

Then gravity and plate tectonics and quantum mechanics are also myths.

StAnastasia

PS – his name is not “Hawkings”

 

[itinerant1]

I am not alone.

I am in good company.

St. Augustine believed that the literal interpretation of Creation was that God created all things instantaneously. He believed that it was a possible interpretation.

He was not the only one that believed this to be a possible interpretation.

St. Augustine believed that all was created instantly because a literal reading of Genesis 1 that entails a direct creation over a literal six days does not work exegetically.

Everything, according to St. Augustine, was not created at once in their actuality. Rather, God created things in their *rationes seminales. *Thus over time, new life forms would arise as the circumstances permitted.

St. Augustine’s theological speculations about God creating things in their rationes seminales is rather consistent with the evolutionary development of organisms.

St. Gregory of Nyssa and his school taught a similar interpretation of creation. Modern creationism with its biblical literalism finds no support in the writings of St. Augustine or St. Gregory of Nyssa.

 

[Jim_Baur]

I have carefully read his work on the Literal Interpretation of Genesis and I stand by what I have said–All was created simultaneously.

I could be wrong, but I am actually rereading it for the fifth time.

It is a really difficult book to read.

 

[itinerant1]

Some of those scientific constructs have not been observed, and that is a fact.

Constructs exist in the mind; we do not observe constructs in the external world.

Also, Hawkings and Einstein taught that God is part of the equations.

Hawking is an agnostic (or atheist). He has attempted to theoretically construct a universe in which there is no need for God.

Einstein was not always clear about his beliefs, but he was influenced by Spinoza’s pantheism. Einstein probably was a pantheist himself.

So, I am truly sorry if I hurt any person with the expression of an opinion.

I have no complaints.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Constructs exist in the mind, that is my point!

 

[itinerant1]

As far as we know. With ten to the twenty-second stars in three hundred billion galaxies, I think there is a fair chance we are not alone as the apple (or extraterrestrial fruit) of God’s eye. As one seventeenth-century theologian asked, “Do you think God made all the rest of the stars just to twinkle for us?” (That was before people knew anything about galaxies.)

The words from Genesis are directed to and apply to man who lives on the Earth. If there exists intelligent life on other planets, whether that is a few or numerous planets, then those beings will also have been created in God’s image. By “intelligent life” I mean creatures with intellect and free will. It is by reason of his intellect and free will that man is said to be created in the image and likeness of God. This fact will likewise apply to any extraterrestrials who have intellect and will.

Speculation about life on other worlds is as old as, well maybe as old as ancient Greece. Democritus speculated that there existed numerous other worlds and that some of these worlds were inhabited by living beings. Modern man is not more advanced or avant-garde by thinking life could exist on other planets. We may be though, a little too starry-eyed if we think SETI will likely make contact.

 

[yppop]

I guess there is more than one issue that has been labeled as “the Copenhagen interpretation.” I wasn’t thinking of the MWI idea versus “the Copenhagen interpretation.”

Anyway, I never cared much for the multi-verse idea. However, I once met a guy who was grist for the MWI mill. He was a multiple-personality and could testify to the different universes that he (they) could experience.

He was involved in therapy sessions, but they were very expensive since being a multiple personality he would get charged at the group rate. He always worried that the therapist would charge him even more for each of his alters that had personality disorders.

I’m content with a uni-verse and have no need for alternate worlds.

Regarding the uncertainty principle, there is the common assumption that it was formulated in a strictly scientific manner and for strictly scientific reasons. This is far from the truth. We can note such ideological influences at the time as the Machist interpretation of science which threatens confidence in the reality of a causally interconnected universe (M. Planck).

Physicists (such as Pauli, etc.) exhibited a disregard for ontology and easily took (or rather, mistook) knowledge of a thing with the limited ability to measure it. Science was reduced to a sophistry in which there was a reduction of exact science to exact measurement.

Accordingly, by the summer of 1921 a number of physicists openly repudiated the principle of causality. The list includes Exner, Weyl, von Mises, Schottksy, Nerst, and so on.

For Heisenberg, this took the form of what cannot be measured exactly does not occur exactly. At bottom, this is a repudiation of causality and ontology.

Einstein (and certain other prominent physicists) deplored the “dangerous game” which the “Copenhagen people” were playing with reality.

The flaw in fundamental logic is apparent in the sophism which reduces exact existence to exact measurement (Jaki). However, the apparent indeterminacy of a quantum action is due to the limitations of our ability to measure, and in no way implies a true indeterminacy in nature.

Along with the flippant disposal of ontology goes a disposal of reality. The uncertainty principle, when its logical implications are followed, disposes of the validity of our knowledge of the external world as well as disposes of the world itself. Leave it to Niels Bohr to openly abolish the ontological reality of the universe: “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”

The false philosophical ideologies, which generated the denial of causality, has led physicists into a world that is no less insane than is the world of the insane multiple-personality man I had met some time ago.

Itinerant,

Looks like a nice post that I will need more time to digest. I have a big wedding weekend coming up and will be on call to transport guests arriving from hither and yon.

After first reading I think we might be on the same page regarding the nature of science. However, I was just a bit surprised when I read your comment about the uncertainty principle, especially since you seem to be defending the Big Bang in your discussion with Baur.

Are you educated in the physical sciences or have you acquired your knowledge through reading?

I will get back to you after the weekend.

Yppop

 

[HelenaMT]

Regarding the uncertainty principle, there is the common assumption that it was formulated in a strictly scientific manner and for strictly scientific reasons. This is far from the truth. We can note such ideological influences at the time as the Machist interpretation of science which threatens confidence in the reality of a causally interconnected universe (M. Planck).

Physicists (such as Pauli, etc.) exhibited a disregard for ontology and easily took (or rather, mistook) knowledge of a thing with the limited ability to measure it. Science was reduced to a sophistry in which there was a reduction of exact science to exact measurement.

Accordingly, by the summer of 1921 a number of physicists openly repudiated the principle of causality. The list includes Exner, Weyl, von Mises, Schottksy, Nerst, and so on.

For Heisenberg, this took the form of what cannot be measured exactly does not occur exactly. At bottom, this is a repudiation of causality and ontology.

Einstein (and certain other prominent physicists) deplored the “dangerous game” which the “Copenhagen people” were playing with reality.

The flaw in fundamental logic is apparent in the sophism which reduces exact existence to exact measurement (Jaki). However, the apparent indeterminacy of a quantum action is due to the limitations of our ability to measure, and in no way implies a true indeterminacy in nature.

Along with the flippant disposal of ontology goes a disposal of reality. The uncertainty principle, when its logical implications are followed, disposes of the validity of our knowledge of the external world as well as disposes of the world itself. Leave it to Niels Bohr to openly abolish the ontological reality of the universe: “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”

The false philosophical ideologies, which generated the denial of causality, has led physicists into a world that is no less insane than is the world of the insane multiple-personality man I had met some time ago.

Trying to wrap my head around this, so just to make sure I understand:

If we know the measurement exactly, there is causality, but if it seems we can’t know the measurement exactly (until the moment we measure it) , the door for non-causality is left open, according to some.

Doesn’t quantum mechanics work because we can always predict outcomes with the use of it? If quantum particles are always predictable , it does seem more likely that we are just missing a piece of the puzzle,knowledge-wise, rather than concluding that there is a true chance of indeterminacy. Unless I have totally misunderstood.

 

[Prieldedi]

It is a common mistake to take what scientists say as the “Gospel truth”, especially when it involves broad scientific theories. Scientific theories are provisional and subject to revision. Science is revolutionary in that an accepted theory can be completely swept away and replaced by a better theory. In that process … we get closer to the truth. Hopefully, in 200 years Big Bang theory will look very different…

Precisely. I reject the “gospel” of the scientific community. I understand their explanations, their postulates, their approximations, but to me all that is still up in the air and there’s were it will stay.

I wont be around in 200 years. If, like you say, “an accepted theory can be completely swept away and replaced by a better theory”, what’s wrong with not believing in it if I know it’s not true? If, as I said in my post, there are other explanations to the initiation of the Universe that I tend to believe more than the BBt, and if my common sense tells me also that the BBt is not the answer, why wait (200 years!!!) to hear that “the theory was wrong”? Right now there are scientists telling us that it’s wrong. I believe them.

Piltdown was a fraud, and it is amazing that it was not spotted right away. However, it was scientists who exposed the fraud. I believe that sooner or later frauds generally get exposed by honest scientists…

So, consider your sources. The other archaeological finds you mentioned were not frauds. It looks like your sources of information are what is fraudulent.

I have considered my sources, the advice is reciprocal.

The Java man discoverer hid information for several decades that showed his findings were not what he claimed. Eugene Dubois, after dropping out of school (is he still a scientist?) went to search for fossils in Sumatra. He was convinced of the evolution before departing (which means he was not impartial), he was prejudice. In 1891 he found a skull cap. A year later he found a femur (human) steps away from where he had found the skull cap. How he wasn’t able to see it a year earlier is a mystery. Sometime later he found three teeth also nearby (it’s amazing how other pieces kept appearing were he had looked before!). He said that all of these findings were bones from the same individual and that the bones were at least a million years old.

What he kept from others is that he also found nearby two human skulls, which had a cranial volume a little bigger than that of the modern man. These skulls were found in almost the same condition as the Java Man skull cap, which would’ve indicated that all of them were about the same age; 31 years later, when he made them public he said the skulls were from an ape (he continued to present his discovery as a half man, half ape).

If when you plan a trip to the moon you make a mistake of one inch to either side from the departing point, by the time you reach the distance to the moon you’ll be hundreds if not thousands miles away from the moon. If from the very beginning of earth sciences the course was intentionally deviated with lies, deceit, tampering with the findings, tampering with the data… how is it possible that one can believe they are in the right course?

As far a “missing links” are concerned, I think you have some serious misunderstandings. The popular media likes to parade the question of the “missing link” with every archaeological find involving human ancestry … However, because of common descent and the incompleteness of the fossil record, every lineage actually has numerous missing links.

The popular media is the best allied of the scientific community.

To me the lack of missing links attests to the lack of lineage. In these fields, the conclusion was postulated at the beginning and accepted by the scientific community. From then on all scientists try to do is make the discoveries fit the conclusion. This is flawed, that’s why the temptation to mislead is always present. Someone said missing links would be found… where there is a will there is a way.

And as usual, the person disagreeing (me in this case) lacks something (“you have some serious misunderstandings”); knowledge; etc. Character killing. Thanks.

It doesn’t look like you are going to offer any links to good scientific arguments against Big Bang.

What for? To continue the character killing of those that offer other explanations? No, enough with mine.

YEC arguments are not worth anyone’s time since YEC is not science at all. Also, YEC is bad religion, and YECs are incapable of presenting logical and truthful arguments to support their ideology. So, if you are concerned about human arrogance and fraud, there is plenty of that in the YEC cult.

I’m not a YEC supporter.

Sorry, but to me the BBt is bad science, it’s someone’s imagination dressed as science.

BBt is as good science as Erik Von Daniken’s theory that extraterrestrial beings were the ones that populated Earth. It has as good ingredients as the BBt. He has shown evidence that extraterrestrial beings visited Earth in the past. He even mentions as proof the chariots of fire that appear in several of the books of the OT, plus chariots of fire in ancients books of other cultures. Those chariots were extraterrestrial ships he says. He also mentions paintings and sculptures from ancient man that depict “beings” dressed in similar suits as our astronauts. He asks, if man achieved conquest of space in the 20th Century, how come the ancient man painted and sculpted astronauts in space suits?

Both theories are logic, they make sense, there is evidence for both to support their enunciation. Would you accept Von Daniken’s theory as you have accepted the BBt? It is as much science as the BBt (by the way, I don’t).

 

[itinerant1]

Both theories are logic, they make sense, there is evidence for both to support their enunciation. Would you accept Von Daniken’s theory as you have accepted the BBt? It is as much science as the BBt (by the way, I don’t).

This comment supports my original suspicion that your rejection of Big Bang is not based on sound scientific and logical reasons. That is, your comparison of Big Bang with Von Daniken reveals that you are not a good judge of either one.

 

[itinerant1]

Trying to wrap my head around this, so just to make sure I understand:

If we know the measurement exactly, there is causality, but if it seems we can’t know the measurement exactly (until the moment we measure it) , the door for non-causality is left open, according to some.

Doesn’t quantum mechanics work because we can always predict outcomes with the use of it? If quantum particles are always predictable , it does seem more likely that we are just missing a piece of the puzzle,knowledge-wise, rather than concluding that there is a true chance of indeterminacy. Unless I have totally misunderstood.

According to the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, individual subatomic particles can behave in unpredictable ways and there are numerous random, uncaused events. (Morris, 1997)

The Copenhagen school is blinded by an anthropocentric subjectivism that makes reality dependent on perception. Things, upon being observed “collapse into reality.”

The bizarre implications of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics resulted in Einstein asking Abraham Pais whether he really believed that the moon only exists when he looks at it.

 

[budgie2]

I hold the OPINION that the Big Bang is a myth.

As I said, it is an opinion.

I hold that this myth is based on fallacies.

First, the personification of nature.

Second, the personification of natural physical laws.

Third, the personification of evolution.

One could even hold that these are gods to some philosophers and scientists.

The most fallacious, I believe, is the combination of evolution and physical laws.

At the time of the Big Bang Myth, the physcial laws did not exist.

I could add more, but family life calls me to other duties.

I don’t know whether it’s true or false. Some religions believe that the universe evolved from a cosmic egg which is similar to the big bang which is half-believable. Jesus also says the kingdom of God will start off the size of a mustard seed so the entire universe may have also started small.

And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.

– Mark 4:30–2

 

[itinerant1]

Itinerant,

Looks like a nice post that I will need more time to digest. I have a big wedding weekend coming up and will be on call to transport guests arriving from hither and yon.

After first reading I think we might be on the same page regarding the nature of science. However, I was just a bit surprised when I read your comment about the uncertainty principle, especially since you seem to be defending the Big Bang in your discussion with Baur.

Are you educated in the physical sciences or have you acquired your knowledge through reading?

I will get back to you after the weekend.

Yppop

I gots no edumacation to speak of.

I am 100% for the Big Bang theory, and will be until someone comes up with some compelling objections to that theory. I like the Big Smack theory of the moon’s origin, as well.

Big Bang theory is not intrinsically dependent on the idea of quantum indeterminacy.

 

[StAnastasia]

I am 100% for the Big Bang theory, and will be until someone comes up with some compelling objections to that theory. I like the Big Smack theory of the moon’s origin, as well.

Itinerant1, Phil Plait’s *Death from the Skies *has some amazing explanations of astronomical issues, including the Big Bang. Right now I’m reading about the eventual probable fate of the universe trillions of years from now, when there is no more hydrogen from which to make stars. The universe will be a cold and dark place by then. although it won’t matter to us personally, presumably.

What will matter to our descendants is the orange dwarf star that has been discovered to be heading straight for our solar system. It probably will not collide with the sun or earth, as its trajectory is toward the outer reaches of the solar system, the Oort Cloud of comets and asteroids. But it could seriously destabilize things by sending a bunch of comets our way, which could have life-ending implications. That’s slightly more than a million years in the future.

StAnastasia

 

[Rsiewell]

Constructs exist in the mind; we do not observe constructs in the external world.

Einstein was not always clear about his beliefs, but he was influenced by Spinoza’s pantheism. Einstein probably was a pantheist himself.

QUOTE]

Einstein believed in some sort of religion though your right it wasn’t always clear what. He was quoted for saying however,“Science with out Religion is blind, Religion without science is lame”

 

[itinerant1]

itinerant1;6414906:

Constructs exist in the mind; we do not observe constructs in the external world.

Einstein was not always clear about his beliefs, but he was influenced by Spinoza’s pantheism. Einstein probably was a pantheist himself.

QUOTE]

Einstein believed in some sort of religion though your right it wasn’t always clear what. He was quoted for saying however,“Science with out Religion is blind, Religion without science is lame”

I always liked that quote. Sure, Einstein talked about God and religion at times, and he had a personal and private belief in God, but I don’t see anywhere that it was a personal God he believed in. In one place, he seemed to deny personal immortality.

Einstein once disagreed with those who used cosmology to prove the existence of God. Einstein said we can’t go beyond the universe. This was another indication that he had pantheistic leanings, which is not uncommon amongst cosmologists.

Some of the things Einstein has said about God have been interpreted as him believing in a personal God, at least at one point in his life, but such interpretations are not agreed on.

As the greatest scientific genius of the 20th century, Einstein had a good hold on physical reality, unlike many other physicists, then and now, but his personal life was not so orderly. Through two marriages he ruined the lives of two women and he took advantage of at least 60 women in his day. So, we have to careful about who we put on a pedestal. But all this may be beside the point. My best guess for now is that Einstein had pantheistic leanings.

 

[itinerant1]

Itinerant1, Phil Plait’s *Death from the Skies *has some amazing explanations of astronomical issues, including the Big Bang. Right now I’m reading about the eventual probable fate of the universe trillions of years from now, when there is no more hydrogen from which to make stars. The universe will be a cold and dark place by then. although it won’t matter to us personally, presumably.

What will matter to our descendants is the orange dwarf star that has been discovered to be heading straight for our solar system. It probably will not collide with the sun or earth, as its trajectory is toward the outer reaches of the solar system, the Oort Cloud of comets and asteroids. But it could seriously destabilize things by sending a bunch of comets our way, which could have life-ending implications. That’s slightly more than a million years in the future.

StAnastasia

Sounds interesting. I’ll look for the book as it seems there will be plenty of time to read it before something from outer space comes crashing into the Earth.

 

[StAnastasia]

Sounds interesting. I’ll look for the book as it seems there will be plenty of time to read it before something from outer space comes crashing into the Earth.

Not necessasrily – there are thousands of bollides revolving around the sun in earth-intersecting orbits. We have identified and are watching a few thousand of them, but here are numerous others we haven’t yet discovered. We might have only three or four hours notice for the bigger, civilization-ending of those, and no notice at all for smaller ones.

 

[ricmat]

Not necessasrily – there are thousands of bollides revolving around the sun in earth-intersecting orbits. We have identified and are watching a few thousand of them, but here are numerous others we haven’t yet discovered. We might have only three or four hours notice for the bigger, civilization-ending of those, and no notice at all for smaller ones.

Yup. We saw that watching the super bowl…

vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=102815852

 

[didymus]

I hold the OPINION that the Big Bang is a myth.

As I said, it is an opinion.

I hold that this myth is based on fallacies.

Well, Bl. Pope Pius XII accepted the Big Bang theory as it comports with the Biblical account of God creating the universe at a single point in time – “Let there be light.”

Here are some quotes from Pope Pius I found on Jimmy Akin’s blog. Of course, no Pope’s scientific opinions hold any more sway because he is Pope, but they are interesting.

speech he gave in 1951 to the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences. In it, he says**:35.First of all, to quote some figures–which aim at nothing else than to give an order of magnitude fixing the dawn of our universe, that is to say, to its beginning in time–science has at its disposal various means, each of which is more or less independent from the other, although all converge. We point them out briefly****: **

(1) recession of the spiral nebulae or galaxies: **
36. The examination of various spiral nebulae, especially as carried out by Edwin W. Hubble at the Mount Wilson Observatory, has led to the significant conclusion, presented with all due reservations, that these distant systems of galaxies tend to move away from one another with such velocity that, in the space of 1,300 million years, the distance between such spiral nebulae is doubled. If we look back into the past at the time required for this process of the “expanding universe,” it follows that, from one to ten billion years ago, the matter of the spiral nebulae was compressed into a relatively restricted space, at the time the cosmic processes had their beginning.
44. It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous ** matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty “Fiat” pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial “Fiat lux”** uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies. **

45. It is quite true that the facts established up to the present time are not an absolute proof of creation in time​

, as are the proofs drawn from metaphysics and Revelation in what concerns simple creation or those founded on Revelation if there be question of creation in time. The pertinent facts of the natural sciences, to which We have referred, are awaiting still further research and confirmation, and the theories founded on them are in need of further development and proof before they can provide a sure foundation for arguments which, of themselves, are outside the proper sphere of the natural sciences.​

1. **This notwithstanding, it is worthy of note that modern scholars in these fields regard the idea of the creation of the universe as entirely compatible with their scientific conceptions and that they are even led spontaneously to this conclusion by their scientific research. Just a few decades ago, any such “hypothesis” was rejected as entirely irreconcilable with the present state of science.
   **

**
**
​