Big Bang Myth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
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
Click to expand...
That concerns me less than the increase in traffic on the local interstate.
 
RobbyS said:
That concerns me less than the increase in traffic on the local interstate.
Click to expand...
Increase in the traffic on your local interstate is a subset of a very big problem: the insidious effects that motor vehicles are having on the environment.

People need to learn how to significantly reduce their dependence on motor vehicles. To be consistent with what I believe, I sold my only car, a nice Suburu, six years ago and haven’t bought another car since.

America has been over-paved and needs far fewer cars. Get a bike! Take the bus!
 
itinerant1 said:
People need to learn how to significantly reduce their dependence on motor vehicles. To be consistent with what I believe, I sold my only car, a nice Suburu, six years ago and haven’t bought another car since. America has been over-paved and needs far fewer cars. Get a bike! Take the bus!
Click to expand...
Good for you; I cannot as yet do without an auto, but I bike as much as I can. Before long we all will, as we pass over the summit of Hubbert’s Peak.
 
StAnastasia said:
Good for you; I cannot as yet do without an auto, but I bike as much as I can. Before long we all will, as we pass over the summit of Hubbert’s Peak.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the economy will tank even before Hubbert’s peak. Years before the current recession I predicted the coming recession. People looked at me with skepticism. When the recession was obvious, I said it would be a 10 year recession. People looked at with me skepticism. Now I say the global economy will tank big time. People still look at me with skepticism.

I hope my prediction is wrong, but when the White House says the employment rate has increased, its only because they started counting people working on Farmville.
 
StAnastasia said:
“in another moment we were caught by a terrific squall from the West that snapped the forestays of the mast so that it fell aft, while all the ship’s gear tumbled about at the bottom of the vessel. The mast fell upon the head of the helmsman in the ship’s stern, so that the bones of his head were crushed to pieces, and he fell overboard as though he were diving, with no more life left in him.”
Click to expand...
…no… no… I tell a lie… (youngsters you don’t know how we elders suffer… memory dims… …)
…so in the days that followed Noe, at the beginning, there was Amo who for one did not return safe and well as our ancestors did for generations before. A terrible squall carried him off and not a man of the Land of Pato set eyes on him since then.
…It is said by our very elderly elders that his vessel drifted and ran aground safe but empty in the Land of Nog… …but I never saw it… accompanied by quiet gasps and tearful eyes of the youngest listener]
 
itinerant1

I am a philosophy and theologian, and not a scientist. I have read and studied a great deal in these areas.

This is a Catholic Christian site.

This forum is a forum of philosophy.

This thread, of which I am the OP, is on the philosophy of the Big Bang and the origins of creation.

I know that the Big Bang is a myth from this point of view, that is, philosophical and theological. There is no doubt.

I have used the word “myth” in a careful manner.

Concerning the science, if there is a Creator, if the math and science does not include the Creator, then there science is truly incomplete. We are talking about issues that transcend one discipline. I know that science does not include many areas of human reason; it does not allow itself to do so. This is fine. But it really limits itself when addressing the origins of being. This is where my issue is. Epistemology, metaphysics, cosmology, mathematics and the philosophy of science are needed, not to mention natural theology and revelation.

Also, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson’s show on Nova had several Ph.Ds. and they addressed the limits of our knoweldge in these areas. Science’s knowledge is really, really, really, limited in terms of the size, structure, and nature of the universe. They just do not know! They are really smart. They are really informed. They are really confident and say, we just do not know.

That is my point. The basic principles have not been reached by science. If there is a God and He is not included, then science cannot reach the basic principles.

I used “if.” I know God must be included.

Read there literature and count the “assumptions”, and “we believes” and disagreements. The world of only science just does not know.
 
Jim_Baur said:
I know that the Big Bang is a myth from this point of view, that is, philosophical and theological. There is no doubt. I have used the word “myth” in a careful manner.
Click to expand...
Jim Baur, the “Big Bang” has the same status as evolution or gravity or plate tectonics. It is a proposed explanation for observed phenomena. I don’t know how readily scientists would accede to your terming all these explanations as “myth.”
 
itinerant1 said:
Increase in the traffic on your local interstate is a subset of a very big problem: the insidious effects that motor vehicles are having on the environment.

People need to learn how to significantly reduce their dependence on motor vehicles. To be consistent with what I believe, I sold my only car, a nice Suburu, six years ago and haven’t bought another car since.

America has been over-paved and needs far fewer cars. Get a bike! Take the bus!
Click to expand...
Er, that would not work in the DFW are, because jobs are often fifty miles from the home. The increase in auto use is directly related to suburbanization. So to be consistent you have to buy a house within biking distance of your job. And if you work for or shop at Walmart, you have to quit, because Walmart depends on a huge fleet of trucks that to bring goods to local stores.
 
What are the steps in the theory of the Big Bang?

In other words, explain the Big Bang Theory?
 
RobbyS said:
Er, that would not work in the DFW are, because jobs are often fifty miles from the home. The increase in auto use is directly related to suburbanization. So to be consistent you have to buy a house within biking distance of your job. And if you work for or shop at Walmart, you have to quit, because Walmart depends on a huge fleet of trucks that to bring goods to local stores.
Click to expand...
Right – it’s structural. Our entire way of life is premised on cheap, abundant petroleum, and that era is drawing to a close. It’s not a matter of running out of oil, but of oil becoming so prohibitively expensive that air travel is only for the wealthy, and fifty mile commutes are ruinous.
 
Jim_Baur said:
What are the steps in the theory of the Big Bang?

In other words, explain the Big Bang Theory?
Click to expand...
Wow, I am somewhat surprised by the nature of this question!! Because of the proliferation of Internet access in the last two decades don’t many people, at least in “developed countries”, have instantaneous access to reliable information about these topics? Even though sources like wikipedia are not completely accurately, at least they provide reliable information that most of time time is backed by reliable sources such as scientific journals. Surely, the answers there would best those constructed by posters at an online forum in quality and accuracy although the forum might have an expert whose understands the topic and can convey it in more depth and elegance than easily available resources.

Well, to answer the question, I’ll try to answer this from memory without using any online source although I most certainly do not consider myself an expert: (I’ll check the accuracy of this post after I post)

10e-43 sec after the “Bang” gravity, and the electromagnetism, strong and weak forces are unified. gravity immediately disassociates from all forces.

10e-34 sec cosmic inflation causing a massive expansion of the universe in a short period of time. the strong force disassociates leaving the electroweak force.

10e-12 sec electroweak force disassociates leaving the four forces

10e-6 the quark-gluon plasma cools allowing the hadronization of quarks forming neutrons and protons

2-15 min big bang nucleosynthesis where protons and neutrons fuse to form mainly helium-4 with trace amounts of beryllium and lithium, but since carbon requires the triple alpha process (first requiring the synthesis Be-8, which itself has a very short half-life, from two alpha particles and then a collision of another alpha particle yielding carbon 12). (Free neutrons have a short half-life so they would not be available now, but these neutrons can fuse with protons to form deutrium and deutrium fuses with itself forming helium-4; the synthesis of deutrium now can only occur via the weak force in the proton-proton chain where a proton changes to a neutron). This process stopped because the temperature of the universe dropped too low for nucleosynthesis and this process can only resume in stars now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
 
Jim_Baur said:
That is my point. The basic principles have not been reached by science. If there is a God and He is not included, then science cannot reach the basic principles.

I used “if.” I know God must be included.
Click to expand...
I can agree with some of your points, while I must disagree with others.

Certainly, man cannot live by science alone even though there are those who wrongly believe only science can give us knowledge of the world.

Man does not live just by bread, vitamins, computers, rockets, air conditioning, and so on. There are needs of the spirit that only philosophy and religion respond to.

You mention science as if it should include God. If this is your meaning, then I will have to disagree. The natural sciences are properly limited to studying the quantifiable aspects of physical things and their interactions. God, and the things of the spirit, including moral values, are outside the scope and province of the natural sciences. Science oversteps its boundaries if it tries to affirm or deny the existence of God.

The existence of God and His nature lies with the province of philosophy and theology. Science, philosophy and theology each involve a different way of knowing. Man needs each of these to have any kind of satisfactory understanding of himself and the rest of reality, both material and immaterial.

Big Bang Theory cannot and should not address Creation *ex nihilo. *Properly, BBT can neither affirm or deny Creation. Creation is a theological concept; it is not scientific. It is a common mistake to think of BBT as Creation in Genesis. BBT and Creation are very different, yet they are fully compatible notions.

Genesis tell us “What” God did – He brought into existence, out of nothing pre-existent, all that does exist. BBT, if correct, can tell us, on the phenomenal level, “How” God’s creative act is a single, continuous act, rather than a once and for all event.

Perhaps God initially created a “cosmic jewel”; a very small, round, dense ball of matter, which expanded and continues to evolve. Listen to the words of the poet Blake:

“To see a world in a Grain of Sand
And Heaven in a wild flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.”

Also, the mystic Juliana of Norwich wrote down her sixteen visions of Jesus. She wrote,
"[Jesus] showed me a little thing, the quantity of a hazelnut, in the palm of may hand, and it was as round as a ball. I looked thereupon with the eye of my understanding and thought: What may this be? and it was answered generally thus: it is all that is made."

Perhaps BBT is on the right track toward a true conception of cosmological history.*
 
itinerant1

itinerant1 said: “You mention science as if it should include God.”

No! Human reason should use all of the tools that it can.

The Big Bang or the origins of being transcends science.

I love and respect science. My family has always had scientists in it.

Human reason invent math, science and philosophy. All of these, plus revelation, are to be utilized.

So I do not complicate my point, I will stop there.
 
itinerant1 said:
You mention science as if it should include God. If this is your meaning, then I will have to disagree. The natural sciences are properly limited to studying the quantifiable aspects of physical things and their interactions. God, and the things of the spirit, including moral values, are outside the scope and province of the natural sciences. Science oversteps its boundaries if it tries to affirm or deny the existence of God.
Click to expand...
That’s a great idea for atheists. But for Catholics:

Search for God always, everywhere, all the time. Appreciate God by seeing beauty, everywhere it exists. Thank God for order (instead of chaos), everywhere it exists. Seek justice where needed, because when you do, you imitate God. Love our neighbors, even our enemies, because that also imitates God.

People find God in art, music, drama, and other fields - even mathematics. As they should. As we are told to do. We are not told to “Find God - except for science.” With whom do you think THAT idea originated?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top