Big Bang Myth

[napoli426]

Please give us more Mr. Baur…your family can wait…lol

 

[Radmanna]

An earlier post suggested that Isaac Asimov was anti-religious. I propose that Mr. Asimov was not anti-religious. My position is based on his eloquent scientific fiction, that at least motivates the reader’s mind to pause about God’s existence … and for the reader to ponder on the often unexplainable scientific realities that are beyond Man’s understanding.

Of the many science fiction books authored by Mr. Asimov, I have seen his written efforts put focus onto that realm of the unexplainable. Perhaps it’s just me, but I see a spiritual connection in several of his many, many science fiction books.

My favorite short story by Mr. Asimov is entitled “The Last Question”. I’ll try to post a link to this story:
< multivax.com/last_question.html >

If the link doesn’t work, you can simultaneously google the two following phrases, along with their respective quotation marks:
< “The Last Question”, “Isaac Asimov” >

Okay, we can now return to the ongoing quest to define the Law of Physics.

• Steve

 

[StAnastasia]

If the link doesn’t work, you can simultaneously google the two following phrases, along with their respective quotation marks:
< “The Last Question”, “Isaac Asimov” >

• Steve

Nice story!

 

[Rsiewell]

Rsiewell

Yes.

There are many text books, scientists, philosophers, theologians (of many religions) and lay people who have anthropomorphized nature, evolution, math and sceince–Mother Nature or Father Time.

Actually, they have attributed divine qualities to nature and evolution. They have made them the cause of all.

These attributions are implied by some and explicit by others.

Sure but what does any of that have to do with the Big Bang being a myth or a fallacy? Scientifficaly it makes sense. It is weird that so many people think that if you believe in the big bang and evolution, you don’t believe that god created the universe. That is simply not true.

 

[sgt1133]

From Elizium23: “Have you bothered to read this thread? Theories are scientific hypotheses supported by facts. Theories can be proven by research, and parts of the Big Bang theory have been repeatedly proven true. The Big Bang theory was created by a Catholic priest! Efforts to prove the theory go directly toward proving that God created the universe just as Genesis says he did: Out of nothing in a short period of time.”

From Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language:
THEORY: 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as actual fact.

If the Big Bang theory was supported by any facts, and “proven by research”, it would not be called a theory.

“The Big Bang theory was created by a Catholic priest!” Is that supposed to make it more valid? There’s and old Italian saying that, translated, means, “The road to Hell is paved with the heads of bad priests.” Priests are men, like us, and are very often wrong, especially when it comes to science. Remember Galileo?

“…parts of the Big Bang theory have been repeatedly proven true.” That is false. Scientists have used peripheral observations and conjecture to try to support this theory, but, despite the new research, discoveries and examination of billions of new galaxies, the Big Bang theory still remains just a theory, and the origin of life is still a matter of faith.

 

[nute]

Evolution and the big bang together have been widely abused and misrepresented
theories. Nowhere in big bang theory is there proof that this spontaneously happened
without the hand of God from nothing. Concerning evolution, to some degree the idea
that humans evolved from apes is highly implausible. Chances are good that God
helped evolution along at some point. Intelligent design may be an unsupported set
of ideas at this point because attempts to come up with examples of unexplainable
complexity have failed to pan out, but who says that nature created by God has to
support complex mechanisms that are not widely reused?

Darwin was worried that the theory of evolution would negatively impact religious faith. He was right, the theory has had a negative impact. Some people, especially atheists,
claim that they are Darwinists as if that is a religion. Darwin didn’t create a religion,
he created a scientific theory not intending for his theory to substitute for religion.

If humanity evolved via random chance, why hasn’t equally intelligent life beyond the human race evolved? Why isn’t there verifiable intelligent life on another planet? I
could be wrong, but I bet that there isn’t any intelligent life on another planet. This is
hard to prove, but the statistical chances seem to favor my hypothesis. Currently,
nobody knows for sure how expansive space is and even if that was known, a
problem still remains. No technology exists to cross that expanse in a reasonable amount of time. Reaching Mars even with people will take 8 years. The space
folding warp drive of Star Trek is pure science fiction, nothing more. Theoretically,
going the speed of light or even 1/4 the speed of light could have severely negative
consequences for people.

Think about the Earth for a moment. Earth is a specific distance from a large star, Earth has a specific shape and size, Earth has a very specific temperature range, and Earth has highly specific gravitational properties. Change any of these just enough, life potentially can’t exist on Earth. The point is, there are many properties that have to hold
for a planet to support life forms period let alone aliens that could travel the vastness
of space to visit the Earth. Even if as improbable as this is aliens do exist, that doesn’t mean that their origin isn’t the same God. Sadly, no science fiction series that I know
of to date has addressed the possibility that there are alien Christians let alone space
voyagers that engage in christian religious practices.

Even if the Big Bang theory was presented by a Catholic priest, I wouldn’t mind seeing
the theory proven wrong. At the very least, I would like to see the big band theory which is a religion to so many atheists be shown to not be an explanation of human origin. There is evidence of evolution having an impact on humanity today, but evolutionary theory could be proven wrong as well and that wouldn’t hurt. The problem is, so many people take the big bang and evolution and claim that God isn’t needed anymore. Some atheists attack the bible saying that the human race cannot come from Adam and Eve because that would mean mass in-breeding, never mind that God can create genetic diversity. Since when does God have to create a large population to establish a race of sentient beings?

If there are aliens, why didn’t Jesus talk about them with the apostles? Jesus knows what exists today, yesterday, and tomorrow. People who believe that there are aliens
let alone sentient aliens fail to have any evidence to back up their beliefs.

 

[headsmith]

It seems that the trouble some people have with the theory of the Big Bang is that it seems to imply that there was nothing before it to cause it. This, I think, was a comment by Stephen Hawking, that “Before the Big Band, there was nothing,” implying, for some, that neither was there God.

However, we can reconcile this easily by realizing that physics is the science of the quantification of matter, whereas theology is the science of the qualification, or description, of deity, and the two sciences overlap only within the science of philosophy, which is reasoning to a larger understanding of the whole of reality. And so, the issue comes down to causality: Does causality extend outside what followed from the Big Bang, which is the object of physics?

The answer, like so many, is both yes and no: Yes, because all that is, is an effect, and every effect has a cause, and no, because causality is an intellectual device whereby we can gain a measure of control over the future by predictions (“natural laws”) based on precedents in the past.

And so, causality both did and did not exist before the Big Bang. Such a contradiction is acceptable when describing an infinity, like deity. In short, pre-Big Bang is a realm opened only by logic and not be physics. Either that, or all of reason is absurd, including this, that all of reasoning is absurd.

In short, whatever “caused” the Big Bang was something itself that was not caused, since if it, too, was caused, we are reduced to an infinite, intellectual regression. In short, the only rational explanation is that that Cause is of such as nature as be unable not to be, a Being who cannot not be, namely “what all men call God,” to quote a refrain from Aquinas.

 

[Prieldedi]

The man who first formulated the Big Bang theory is a Catholic priest and I believe he is still carrying out research at the Vatican’s observatory in Arizona.

ChadS

It’s still a theory… it’s still just in our imagination. The question remains the same: “do you believe in the Big Bang”? The answer requires an act of faith.

Is it logic? To some extent.
Does it make sense? To some extent.
Is it “true”? Not sure.

As for the person that formulated it being a priest: Theilard de Chardin was a priest (check the Piltdown Man Hoax). Martin Luther was a priest too. Priesthood can’t shield you from error.

 

[StAnastasia]

the Big Bang theory still remains just a theory, and the origin of life is still a matter of faith.

Gravity is still a theory. Plate tectonics is a theory. Evolution is a theory. They are all cogent theories, which is why scientists still work with them.

 

[StAnastasia]

It’s still a theory… it’s still just in our imagination. The question remains the same: “do you believe in the Big Bang”? The answer requires an act of faith.

No, it doesn’t require an act of faith. I don’t know of scientists who “believe in” the Big Bang, although I know many who accept it as a cogent explanation of the evidence.

 

[StAnastasia]

At the very least, I would like to see the big band theory which is a religion to so many atheists be shown to not be an explanation of human origin.

The Big Bang is not an explanation of human origins.

 

[sedonaman]

… no science fiction series that I know of to date has addressed the possibility that there are alien Christians let alone space voyagers that engage in christian religious practices. …

Not many have pondered the theological implications of extraterrestrials. If other planets are populated by intelligent beings, do they have a fallen nature as we do? Since God creates through His Word, and Jesus is the Word, and if they do have a fallen nature, did the same Jesus become one of them and die for their sins also, or did he die once on earth for the whole universe? Could the Church convert them and give them the sacraments? Do they need saving at all?
…

If there are aliens, why didn’t Jesus talk about them with the apostles? …

This is similar to the question, do animals have souls? Jesus didn’t address the salvation of animals either, and the best we can conclude is, we don’t know, nor does it matter to our salvation.

 

[StAnastasia]

Not many have pondered the theological implications of extraterrestrials. If other planets are populated by intelligent beings, do they have a fallen nature as we do? Since God creates through His Word, and Jesus is the Word, and if they do have a fallen nature, did the same Jesus become one of them and die for their sins also, or did he die once on earth for the whole universe? Could the Church convert them and give them the sacraments? Do they need saving at all?
…

This is similar to the question, do animals have souls? Jesus didn’t address the salvation of animals either, and the best we can conclude is, we don’t know, nor does it matter to our salvation.

Sister Ilia Delio discusses Christ throughout the universe in her excellent Christ in Evolution (2008). I’m sure anywhere life has evolved to intelligence that nature is “fallen” and in need of “salvation.” Jesus did not speak of it because no one in that time thought outside the box of the cozy geocentric universe.

 

[LayingHands]

I had to stop, and I never said the principle fallacies.

In the early 1900 they assumed that the physcial laws that they observed actually existed outside of the human mind. They don’t. They are a picture we drew to help us understand the world in which we live. It is like a drawing of a tree. It is not real. It helps us to understand the tree, but it is not real. The picture does not explain the existence of the tree.

They also assumed that the were perfectly correct. They were not perfectly correct and the world knows it. They were and still are incomplete, and the world knows it.

They assumed that the currect laws always existed, all the back to 15,000,000,000 years ago. That is the biggest part of the myth.

The laws didn’t exist even in the myth.

The laws would have had to evolve. In other words, the laws changed over the 15,000,000,000 years.

The laws, even in the myth, had to be different now then 15,000,000,000 years ago.

To add to the difficulties in this myth, each step in the evolution of the physical laws adds to the levels of difficulties. They are all shrouded in noumenon/noumena.

How many steps in the evolution is unknown!

As they evolved, in the myth, they had to be different and change.

The changes cannot be known.

It is a nice myth, but it is merely a myth.

Pythagorus, Plato, Augustine, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo and Newton held the opinion that mathematics exist outside of the human intellect. Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo believed that math ran or animated the physical laws. They are incorrect. They are incorrect on both points. There is no empirical data to support either one of the just mentioned points.

I still do not have enough time to continue, family life calls me back to work.

God bless!!!

Im not sure but it might be called the Big Bang…when our Supreme Father God awakened to spark the second godhead of the Trinity, our Mother God, he is said to have sparked out of the dark nothingness, in a great sweeping WHITE LIGHT…following they came together and created the third godhead of the Trinity…the Son as the Word…

This is and has also been written about in ancient wisdom religions which are thousands of years older than Christianity. See the Rig Vedas, the Book of Dzyan (the Stanzas), the Zohar, the Chaldean Oracles, etc. Not all ancient writings were destroyed or burned or seized…The Creation Cycle of our Supreme Father God manifests and comes awake in cycles of Evolution throughout all the Universes…all life evolves from the Mineral Kingdom, the Vegetable Kingdom, the Animal Kingdom and of course, the Human Kingdom…there is a beginning and an end (dissolution), I am the Alpha and the Omega, at the end of our cycle we become reabsorbed back into Our Supreme Father…then he sleeps and rests…until his next cycle of evolution when he awakens and re-sparks to begin anew…

 

[yppop]

Here is the logic of the big bang theory:

1. A prediction was made by the theory of relativity that the universe was expanding, a prediction that was eventually verified by observation.
2. Then, Fr. Lemaitre imagined that if the universe was expanding; it was expanding from something and that something had to be extremely small and extremely hot.
3. Then two separated groups determined that when that extremely hot object expanded, the heat would be reduced and detectable in the longer wave length part of the spectrum. They also calculated the relative abundance of the light elements.
4. Then when both predictions were verified by observation, the big bang was accepted as a scientific theory by all rational scientists.

Anyone who cannot follow this argument cannot know much about science. I would also question their understanding of Catholic theology. If anything the BB theory is the blueprint for the Catholic doctrine of *creation ex nihilo *it is the big bang theory. The big bang theory in its primary form demands a beginning not only of the material universe, but also of time and energy. The answer to what came before t=0 can only be God. That is why the materialistic scientists create the multi-verse theories that are designed to eliminate a beginning. Catholics should embrace the BB theory as an argument for the existence of God? I contend that since God created science, eventually science will find God; the BB theory is a step in that direction.

My following post outlines the discovery of the Big Bang theory for those not familiar with it.

Yppop

 

[yppop]

The development of the Big Bang Theory

1814 – Joseph Fraunhofer invented the spectroscope and discovered dark lines in the sun’s spectrum

1859 – Gustav Kirchhoff and Robert Bunsen found that the frequencies of the dark spectral lines found in sunlight corresponded to the frequencies of bright lines produced when chemical elements are activated to glow in the laboratory. When a spectroscope is attached to a telescope astronomers are able to tell what stars are made of.

1912 – Henrietta Leavett discovered a method for determining the distance to stars called Cepheid variables

1914 – Vesto Slipher announced that characteristic spectral lines observed in the light from nebulae were not at frequencies one would expect; instead they were shift toward the red side of the spectrum.

1915 – Einstein introduced the General Theory of Relativity. When Einstein solved the equation for the universe he found the solution predicted an expanding universe. In order to conform to the existing paradigm that held that the universe was static, he introduced a constant, since referred to as the cosmological constant.

1922 – Alexander Friedman found that Einstein made a mathematical mistake and even with the cosmological constant, the relativity equation predicted an expanding universe.

1924 - Edwin Hubble focused the 100 inch Mt. Wilson reflecting telescope on the nebulae and was able to resolve individual stars. He found Cepheid variables and used Leavitt’s technique to measure the distance to the nebulae and found them to be outside our Milky Way galaxy. They were separate galaxies; the Universe was much bigger than previously assumed.

1929 – Hubble analyzed the red shifts in the spectral lines from distant galaxies and noticed that the more distant a galaxy from our own, the larger the red shift. This meant that the farther away the receding galaxies were from our galaxy, the higher the velocity of recession. This could only mean that the universe was expanding.

1931 – Father Georges Lemaitre independently recreated the Freidman model, realized that expansion was real and proposed that the universe expanded from an infinitely small object called the ‘primeval atom’.

1948 – George Gamow and his student Ralph Alpher applied classical thermodynamics and nuclear physics to the primeval atom and predicted that the remnants of the expansion would be a background of energy measuring about 5 degrees Kelvin. In addition, this work also predicted the relative abundance of the light elements by a process of nucleosynthesis.

1948 – Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Herman Biondi argued against the Big Bang theory’s implication of a beginning to the universe by proposing the Steady State Theory; the theory postulated that the expansion of the universe was the result of the continuous creation of matter and the universe had no beginning, thus no need for God. Hoyle facetiously gave the hypothesis the name “big bang theory” during a radio broadcast.

1964 - Jim Peeples, Robert Dicke, et.al. at Princeton University, apparently without knowledge of Gamow’s prediction, offered their own prediction that there should be a detectable remnant of the big bang; the remnant has since become known as the cosmic background radiation (CBR). They were constructing an instrument to search for such a signal from space; when they were informed that two BTL engineers at Holmdel, NJ, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, were troubled by a noise from all parts of the sky while setting up a radio telescope to be used for communication. The Princeton group realized that the remnant that they and Gamow’s group predicted was the signal observed by Penzias and Wilson, thus verifying the big bang theory.

Subsequently the prediction of the distribution of light elements was also verified by observation adding additional validation of the theory,

Also the observed distribution of galaxies in the various stages of evolution provides additional support.

Yppop

 

[Prieldedi]

No, it doesn’t require an act of faith. I don’t know of scientists who “believe in” the Big Bang, although I know many who accept it as a cogent explanation of the evidence.

It does. You either believe in the theory or not.

Are scientists infallible? No. It makes no difference if scientists believe or not in the theory. I tell you, it takes an act of faith to believe in that theory (and others as well) because they cannot be proven. We’ve gone through this in another thread.

Accept it, science is incapable of proving that the Big Bang took place. Something started the Universe, we agree on that. How, when, why (the question scientists don’t like) and where is all speculation. You can make it sound brilliant in scientific terms, be humble and recognize that scientists don’t know for sure.

 

[limzim2010]

I see nothing wrong with the idea that God created everything by using a Big Bang type method.

Just because we are Catholic doesn’t mean we cannot accept scientific fact or even theories. If the Big Bang is fact, wouldn’t that just confirm God’s power and greatness? What else could create such power.

God has given us science so that we would understand his power to a greater extent and not rely on superstition to describe his works.

what will your raw material cost for printing/matting.framing be?
what have images sold for in exhibitions/contests of this type in your area before this one?
what cut is the gallery taking?

 

[Prieldedi]

I see nothing wrong with the idea that God created everything by using a Big Bang type method.

…

God has given us science so that we would understand his power to a greater extent and not rely on superstition to describe his works.

What part of Creation do you call superstition?

 

[itinerant1]

It does. You either believe in the theory or not.

Are scientists infallible? No. It makes no difference if scientists believe or not in the theory. I tell you, it takes an act of faith to believe in that theory (and others as well) because they cannot be proven. We’ve gone through this in another thread.

Your assumptions are not very convincing. You stated that the Big Bang theory cannot be proven. That statement is misleading. While scientific theories that are so encompassing are not proven absolutely and subject to revision as new evidence accumulates, the Big Bang theory is well supported with scientific evidence.

How do you explain red shift or the cosmic microwave background radiation? Apparently you must have an alternative interpretation of these factors or you have no explanation at all. I will assume here that you cannot explain the significance of either the red shift of CBR and so you expect people to think your non-explanation of cosmological facts is superior to scientific theory.

Accept it, science is incapable of proving that the Big Bang took place.

Why do you think science is incapable in theory or in principle of proving the Big Bang? That is a very large assumption on your part, an assumption for which you have provided no justification.

Something started the Universe, we agree on that. How, when, why (the question scientists don’t like) and where is all speculation. You can make it sound brilliant in scientific terms, be humble and recognize that scientists don’t know for sure.

There are degrees of certitude in science, and as more evidence supportive of the theory is acquired and better interpretations of that evidence are given, the theory increases in certainty. If anyone comes up with evidence the clearly counter-indicates a Big Bang origin of the universe, then a new theory is in order.

Pope Pius XII was an enthusiastic supporter of Big Bang theory. What is it that you think you know about science that would suggest Pope Pius XII was not justified in his enthusiasm?

So far, there is no good counter-evidence to Big Bang theory that I know of. What model of the universe would you propose that accounts for what science does know about the cosmos? The steady-state theory is history. So, what say you, who are such the skeptic in this matter?