It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:16 am


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:16 pm
Posts: 3
Two Papers on Creation

1. Big Bang as the First Cause

How did the Universe as we know it come to be from the Big Bang?

Many guesses have been made to answer this question. But the question itself shapes its own array of answers. The proper question is "What would a Big Bang Create?".

About 14 Billion Years Ago, something extraordinary happened. Something unimaginably small and incomprehensibly dense became immeasurably large and unfathomably diffuse in one incalculable expansion. This and nothing else should have been the whole story. Beginning to end. Accelerating expansion was its only nature and infinitely diffuse was its only destiny. The startling answer is that the Big Bang released the immense power of a Disorganizing Principle, driving everything apart never to interact to form even the most elementary of subatomic particles. Accelerating expansion was its only nature and infinitely diffuse was its only destiny.

Disorganizing Principle

The closest analogy from our experience that illustrates the Big Bang is a hydrogen bomb in space. But most of the fireworks we associate with a thermal nuclear explosion are caused by its interactions with the atmosphere and other matter which is present. A thermal nuclear explosion in space would produce a brief flash of light expelling radiation moving away in all directions at the speed of light, until the radiation interacts with something. In the Big Bang, there was nothing out there with which it could interact.

In a time, less than can be measured, all that was, concentrated in some sort of a one dimensional dot, was flung light years apart, and that expansion was the creation of space itself, which continues to accelerate apart to this day. Einstein observed this as space-time expansion. Hubble observed this, as everything accelerating away (except for a few local neighbors). The Big Bang is still banging. Explosions of all kinds are known to disorganize all kinds of things, but they are never known to organize anything. The Big Bang as a First Cause has only the effects of disorganization and can never cause anything to organize.

Cosmological Errors

Some very brilliant scientists have presented schemes that describe how elementary particles and forces began combining and forming in the incredible densities just following the Big Bang. All these theories share at least two common errors. The first error is that they attempt to explain how the Universe became what it is today from the Big Bang and not what the Big Bang would have created. The Second error is that they describe what matter does when it is compressed and not what would have happened during the Big Bang, when everything was accelerating apart in a unique manner, when space itself was expanding.

Theory and Fact

The argument can be made that their theories match the facts. We accept the Big Bang as a fact, whether we call it a theory or not. We accept the observable Universe as a fact, whether we understand everything about it or not. So, it is an easy thing to say that the Universe, as we observe it, is the effect of the Big Bang, as the First Cause. Yet, the Big Bang, as the great disorganizer, could not have given rise to the Universe we observe.

Even after presenting his theory of what might have happened following the Big Bang, Stephen Hawking recognizes the unlikelihood of our Universe resulting from it:

"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe," (Stephen Hawking's Universe, page 109).

Natural Science can not supply us with the mechanisms that have turned the Big Bang into a Big Universe. The Big Bang was a uniquely Disorganizing event. The Big Universe is a masterpiece of unfathomable complexity and organizational beauty. How did one give rise to the other?

Why is there Something and Not Nothing?

Natural Science can never answer these questions. Natural Science is the study of the nature of the things we observe. But the nature of the things we can observe and think confront us with the realization that there is something unobservable going on. Something has transformed the Disorganizing Principle of the Big Bang into an Organizing Principle that has given rise to this Universe of Order, Complexity, and Beauty.

Natural Science gives us a Big Bang whose accelerating expansion was its only nature and infinitely diffuse was its only destiny. The Big Bang gives us an empty Universe as its only possible effect.

The only possible answer to the formation of a Universe of substance is to be found in a God Who has come on the scene, inspected His handiwork, and has supplied the needed resources for the next stage of the building process. The Big Bang was a chaotic event and God turned that chaos into order. This is not the God of the gaps by a long shot. This is the God of Creation and this is how He creates. He is active throughout His Creative Process.

The Big Bang, left to itself, leads to empty space. So, Natural Science itself, then, leads us to the contemplation of the Divine.


2. Mechanisms

So, how did the Universe, as we know it today, come to be what it is?

Fundamentally, there are only two answers to this question. Ironically, they basically say the same thing: Something caused the chaos of the beginning to become the complex world we live in.

Without this Something, nothing happens -- the expanding space of the Big Bang drives everything apart until radiation has dissipated into a diffuse and empty world. So, this Something unites and makes the formation of the world possible, but defining it divides us all.

Defining Something

Some regard this Something as being the God of Creation, Who brought Existence, Space, and Energy into being, and then tamed the chaos of it all into Order. Others regard this Something as being simply a Physical Process, an Organizing Principle.

Another thing that divides us is: all we know. Humanity has come to know so much, that each of us knows less than one per cent of human knowledge. We forget that. We forget that there are possibilities outside our one per cent. And we tend to form Professional One Per Cent Ghettoes, where we affirm each other in the quest of perfecting our own, particular One Per Cent. Exploring possibilities outside our one per cent can make us intellectually suspect to the other members of our Intellectual Guild. So, our organizational skills have caused us to narrow our intellectual inquiries, where they should have caused us to broaden them. We should never be so sure about our own position, that the opposing position may not be true. If the God of Creation uses Physical Means in His Creation, then we may witness the Physical Means without realizing there are Divine Acts behind them, and if we look for Divine Acts alone, then we may not recognize them as being the Physical Means He is using.

The World is an Paradoxical Place

Everything in the Universe tends to interact with everything else in the Universe. Universal gravity attracts everything, everywhere. Paradoxically, there is a cosmological principle still pushing everything apart in the continuing expansion of the Universe, and when we consider the Big Bang as the great Disorganizing Principle, and that the world should not have formed to begin with, as we discussed earlier, these things cannot be true at the same time. But they are.

Every living thing on Earth is related. This Common Descent is an established fact. Something evolutionary is going on. Paradoxically, there are no mechanisms that build complex systems from simple ones. These things cannot be true at the same time. But they are.

Natural Selection and Organizing Principle

Natural Selection will immediately be cited as the mechanism that turns simple systems into complex ones. This idea teaches that Nature makes random selections and the ones that work and improve are passed on, and the things that don’t work or break down are discontinued. This widely accepted theory seems to have inherited the evidence that supports the evolutionary theory of Common Descent, and, although it has certain mathematical possibilities, in the real world, it has far too many limitations to work, unless, of course, it has also inherited Divine Providence. Some point out it is a continuation of more primitive processes. For example, some Scientists point out that molecules can be made more complex by combining to reach a lower energy state, which, they say, may be an example of pre-biotic evolution by Natural Selection, which over time lead molecules to develop the ability to replicate. There is no evidence to support molecular replication, so it probably represents an overstatement of the facts. Something evolutionary is going on, no doubt, but Natural Selection is not. Anyway, given the benefit of the doubt, what is this Natural Selection?

We have cited an Organizing Principle as being a mechanism that reversed the Disorganizing Principle inherent in the Big Bang and the expansion of Space that followed. So, what is this Organizing Principle?

Natural Selection and Organizing Principle serve the same purpose as mechanisms and ultimately may be regarded as being metaphors for the Providence of God, not acts of Special Creation, but acts of God nonetheless.

Selection and Organization

The terms selection and organization strongly imply the concept of intent. The incomprehensible explosion of the Big Bang and the expansion of space into a cloak of darkness sent radiation in all directions, never to interact. Yet, something intervened to cause interaction and the formation of matter so complex that leptons and bosons and masons and gluons hold together.

The first life struggles in an inhabitable world where blindly mutating means break down and probable death. Yet, something intervened to make selections beyond all probability.

The God of Creation hovers over the face of the deep. The God of Creation inspects the progress of His handiwork and adds new resources to new stages of completion. This is what we’ve come to expect from the God of Creation, as Stephen Hawking somewhat casually mentions:

“Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen,” (Stephen Hawking, 1995).

Intent and Power

If we are to see how The Universe came to be what it is today, we must consider these sometimes-alien possibilities. The origin of things does bring up the concept that God is in the mechanisms, and no matter what the mechanisms were, they were God’s mechanisms.

Common Descent tells us that some kind of evolution happened. But evolution of any kind could not have happened without God. And even though the current Theory of Natural Selection is physically impossible, it does not necessarily follow that God could not have used it as a tool of His Intent and Power.

The world, to exist as we know it, requires intent and power. So, all of nature points us to one concept where intent and power resides together, to the Divine.

Considerations

What landowner among you, wanting to build a house, will not approve a design and employ a contractor who brings workers and materials together at just the right time and in just the right sequence that the house is constructed correctly? Will not the landowner inspect the work at various stages as it progresses and will he not supply new resources for new stages? It is an uncaring landowner who gives his contractor the full price of the building then leaves, to return when the construction is complete.

And what parent among you, wanting to send your child to college, will give him the full tuition, lodging and a car at the beginning? Will you not rather supply him according to his needs? I tell you, this child will call home from time to time.

This is how God has built His Universe and this is how God has raised His family. He is neither the absentee landowner nor the uncaring Father.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Lancashire
We should stick with the data. Introducing a divine creator ( it seems that you've decided that your god is male ) only creates its own contradictions.
If the cosmic data eventually points unambigously to a divine force behind the universe, so be it. Until such time, the rest is speculation.
The "Big Bang" is a blanket term for a number of catastrophe theories to explain the origin of the Universe.

_________________
brian


Last edited by brian livesey on Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:05 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4375
Location: Greenwich, London
Discussions involving speculation about a creator will be either locked or removed as they will almost certainly end in unpleasantness and are not relevant to this forum. Please stick to science if discussing the origins or the early conditions of the universe..

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Speculation
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:16 pm
Posts: 3
Brian and Joe,

Cosmology and Speculation are not strangers. Neither are Origins and Religion, as Stephen Hawking points out.

"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe,” (Stephen Hawking's Universe, page 109).

I agree that there are thoughts on both sides, but we should be able to discuss them with interest and not with the hot blood of glands.

All we see are Physical Processes and their physical results. If a Creator used purely physical means to accomplish Creative Acts, how would one distinguish between them? If one looks for Divine Acts alone, one would never see them through the Physical Processes. If one looks for Physical Processes alone, one would never see the Divine Acts behind them.

With Honest Respect,
rcurrell


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Lancashire
You might be locked into the old-fashioned mechanical materialist view when you say that "all we observe are physical processes and their physical results".
What about energy? Matter and energy are interchangable. What about mental phenomena? Consciousness: thoughts, concepts and feelings are just as real as "physical" matter. The two make up a monistic whole.
Modern science has been revolutionised since the eighteenth-century. :wink:

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Speculation
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:51 pm
Posts: 349
rcurrell wrote:

If one looks for Divine Acts alone, one would never see them through the Physical Processes. If one looks for Physical Processes alone, one would never see the Divine Acts behind them.



Ah !

The old wave / particle duallity theory.

I actually understand this.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:59 pm
Posts: 205
Location: Cambs
This thread seems to be very heavily religous.

Quote:
Talk with fellow astronomers about anything under the stars - as long as it is astronomical



Well that is one rule that SPA set but don't stick to it seems.
Does no mod or admin actually mod these posts?
Some seem to take part.

Will add:
Guidelines for forum users:
Acceptable Subjects:

Quote:
Please avoid posting on the subject areas of "Astrology", "Faked Moon Landings", "Religion Versus Science", and "Creationism". All of these topics have been discussed at great length before, and usually result in an inflammatory end to the discussion, resulting in the post being locked.


Thought that "Religion Versus Science", and "Creationism" would have both been applicable here?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Lancashire
Questions about the origin of the universe are bound to evoke some religious responses.
There's really no harm in this, as long as it remains harmless, well-intentioned, speculative, musing, and that we don't get preached to in Bronze Age and Iron Age "holy writ" that claims to be authoritative to the extent of ridiculing current scientific data.
Stephen Hawking might have concluded a religious origin to existence, but he isn't preaching it from the roof-tops. To my mind, this is acceptable. Hawking is expressing a personal view, there are astrophysicists who wouldn't agree with him on this.
Coming down hard on religionists only drives them away from science. The claims they make should be handled in a positive and sympathetic way.

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group