God is the new science?

[Inkidu]

I would like to note that this is not directed to any one person and that the following arguments aren't even from this sight. They are a compilation of questions I've picked up through the years. The answers were the answers I gave to said questions. Now I'm not saying that I can prove God exists. That is still an issue of faith. I just put a spin for the scientifically minded.

I thought I'd take some time to try and answer some of the questions I often hear in the argument for God's nonexistence.
Number one. How can God create an entire universe in seven days?
Well it was six actually. I'll give you a minute to work this one out because it took me a long time to. The man who I believe first figured out how he did was a genius and I can't ask anyone not even myself to compete with genius.

I give up who?
It was Albert Einstein. He had this theory called the theory of relativity. Basically time is relative to your situation. Now you have this ageless being that can operate without having to know time and space in relation humans can't, and we have a tough time with the concept of infinity. A day to him might be a billion years, or that could be his lazy afternoon. However, like most science on this level it can theoretically be done.

What about dinosaurs?
Well now go back and read the Bible, if you haven't I recommend it it's a wonderful read, there's a day or two between animals and man.
Now if I refer you back to point one. That is possibly a large amount of time for evolution and extinction.

Well how did the Universe get created, jack-ass? (He was mad at this point can't you tell?)

Well lets say for the sake of this discussion Big Bang Theory. It's the most widely accepted theory next to the Creation one anyway.
Besides if you compare the two you'll find them frighteningly similar. Anyway, the Big Bang Theory can be projected back all the way to the point when something went off. Then they don't know squat. Now if you have all the matter of existence, and don't through me multiple universes because that's a contradictory commentary in and of itself, in one subatomic speck or whatever, and one of Newton's Laws states "That an object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an outside force, and that an object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an outside force." Whats left? That speck at rest sure as hell ain't going nowhere. So what's left to bet the outside force.

Well that doesn't mean it was God.
Names are what humans give things to better comprehend their place in the universe. A tree wasn't called a tree till man got there.
God could be called Marty Funklestien and we'd still be having the argument on whether or not Mr. Funklestien created the universe now wouldn't we? God sounds better that's all.

[Trieste]

So you're trying to compare the Big Bang theory to God, connecting them with relativity and physics...

...

Do I have that correct?

[Inkidu]

I'm not comparing God to the Big Bang Theory. I'm saying he's what's left to set it off.
Eliminate the possible and what remains is the answer. I'm trying to explain how it can theoretically be done.
Like I said the large portion of it is still good ole faith in the Almighty.

[Trieste]

I feel the need to correct your quote, since the original seems to suit your argument much better. It's 'eliminate the impossible and what remains, however improbable, must be true.' Or something along those lines; I doubt that's the precise wording. But it's close enough... and closer than 'eliminate the possible'. :)

[The Overlord]

I'll let the true experts have their say.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

There are obvious margins that God can be written into in the realm of science.  Some believe that by understanding God’s creation, we as a species become closer to understanding God.  So the idea is not new and will probably never be dispelled.  Largely this would be due to our complete lack of understanding about the workings of this world, this universe and even our bodies.  So much is unexplained that God can easily be seen in the margins and gray lines of this world.

Science has never set out to prove or disprove God’s existence.  Certainly some members of the community have made claims, yet none have ever held up to scrutiny.  Faith remains the ultimate indicators of whether God appears to someone in the fuzzy lines of science or if a person simply sees just more unknown.

[kongming]

Basically time is relative to your situation. Now you have this ageless being that can operate without having to know time and space in relation humans can't, and we have a tough time with the concept of infinity. A day to him might be a billion years,

So it could have taken him six billion years? That's not impressive. Given enough Lego and sufficient boredom, I could make the world, sun, moon etc. in six billion years. Granted, I'm more worthy of worship than he is, given our current track records for murder, inciting murder, and ruining people's lives, so maybe it's unfair to compare myself to him in this case.

I am applying a certain amount of dry, flippant humour to this post. I'll let each reader decide individually how much.

[Vekseid]

It was Albert Einstein. He had this theory called the theory of relativity. Basically time is relative to your situation. Now you have this ageless being that can operate without having to know time and space in relation humans can't, and we have a tough time with the concept of infinity. A day to him might be a billion years, or that could be his lazy afternoon. However, like most science on this level it can theoretically be done.

A more amusing question is to ask why the Sun and Moon were created on the fourth day.

Regardless, it's clearly written from the perspective of Earth's reference frame - night falls and day comes once between each passing. There is no appreciable dilation, it's entirely mincing words and trying to play off a theory you don't understand.

Besides if you compare the two you'll find them frighteningly similar.

Not in the slightest. Nothing in the Bible even suggests comprehension of things like the singularity, cosmic inflation - or even the more reserved expansion of spacetime itself, the very nature of matter and energy for the first picosecond of existence... need I go on?

Anyway, the Big Bang Theory can be projected back all the way to the point when something went off. Then they don't know squat.

The Big Bang theory only goes back to that origin. Other theories - testable theories - go back further. The Big Crunch model has been partially discredited, for example, while various patterns that Ekpyrotic theory would leave will be tested for with new satellites in the next decade or so.

Some are of course harder to prove than others - if we don't see a horizon, it's hard to show that the Universe is not for 100% certain a white hole.

Now if you have all the matter of existence, and don't through me multiple universes because that's a contradictory commentary in and of itself

The term multiverse is used because we have a very firm understanding of our currently visible Universe, and since it seems that separate universes will rarely if ever interact, the term is not entirely inappropriate. Also, how can you possibly criticize someone from a lexical perspective? That's just as bad as saying "Don't tell me about multiple worlds because the world by definition contains everything..."

, in one subatomic speck or whatever,

As you freely admit, you don't know what it is.

and one of Newton's Laws states "That an object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an outside force, and that an object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an outside force."

The Universe mimics a time-reversed black hole of unimaginable magnitude. No outside force is necessarily required. An easier to understand - if inappropriate - example, is to point out a bomb - from a firecracker to a hypergiant. The internal equilibrium is unstable, and it just goes off of its own volition.

Whats left? That speck at rest sure as hell ain't going nowhere. So what's left to bet the outside force.

And it hasn't. We're still the speck, we have not moved except at the expense of other parts of the speck.

[Kalen]

Actually, you can believe in God, or the Big Bang, or both... it doesn't really matter.  What the issue boils down to, in one way or another is simple.

Faith.

One way or another, you're putting faith in something.

I used to argue this with a 'friend' in high school.  I was the agnostic scientist, believing in the Big Bang.  He was an utter creationist, believing in a literal 7 days.  Most of our friends fell in between.  One day, he argued with me that maybe he could accept the big blob of matter and energy, but only God could have set it off, so there was proof... I had to say he was right, and convert.

My reply was simple.

I can't prove the Big Bang.  He can't prove God.  BOTH are a matter of faith, in believing something you can't prove, and accepting it as fact.  It's just a different kind of faith.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Alright I have no doubt that God exists.  But what you're saying only allows for one God being.  I'm a polytheist and I believe in more than one.  How would you change your argument to include that?  

Also do your research into western Philosophy right around the time of Augustine.  Marcus Aquinas (I think was his name) gave some pretty good arguments.  My good friend Aristotle did too.  As did the great Plato and Socrates (allowing for the Socratic problem).  They are all slightly different and all from different points of view.  But they are all argument for an intelligent creator, our God figure.  The One, The Sun, God. . .whatever name you give it's still all about something intelligent creating us instead of chance having it's way.  

If you truly want to argue for this figures existence you should be well read in things outside the bible.  The bible in my opinion is like a bed time story for little kids.  You should also do your research on other religions that are not of Christian origin.  Because though you specifically only believe in one God knowing the arguments brought by other faiths for the existence of the intelligent creator is good ammo.  

Also, some people do not understand scientific jargon, so try putting it in a way that everybody can understand.  Not everyone has had Physics, Physical Science, Biology etc.  

I also suggest using the Socratic Method and creating a Socratic Dialogue, it's very helpful to work out the kinks in your own ideas.  

[Inkidu]

So it could have taken him six billion years? That's not impressive. Given enough Lego and sufficient boredom, I could make the world, sun, moon etc. in six billion years. Granted, I'm more worthy of worship than he is, given our current track records for murder, inciting murder, and ruining people's lives, so maybe it's unfair to compare myself to him in this case.

I am applying a certain amount of dry, flippant humour to this post. I'll let each reader decide individually how much.

It might take him a billion years it might take him a second. Time isn't relative. The point is humans don't know time without space or the other way around. That's that point.

[Vekseid]

It might take him a billion years it might take him a second. Time isn't relative. The point is humans don't know time without space or the other way around. That's that point.

Time is relative. Now is relative. Parts of the Universe are older than others. Photons don't age. The IGM in a supervoid consists of the oldest particles in the known universe.

On Earth, or even in the entirety of the Solar System, this difference is negligible.

[Inkidu]

The point is that humans can't conceive of infinity. We speculate we use it in math but look, we're trying to find an end to PI. We can't accept that it goes on forever.

[Trieste]

How is infinity relevant to relativity? They are two separate concepts, unless you're getting into crazy meta-quantum...

[Kalen]

I still hold that we can't know... no matter what, you're placing faith in SOMEthing.

[Vekseid]

The point is that humans can't conceive of infinity. We speculate we use it in math but look, we're trying to find an end to PI. We can't accept that it goes on forever.

What? Speak for yourself, dude.

Above and beyond Trieste's relevance comment.

Just because you have no means for comprehending even one version of infinity does not mean that other people are so conceptually handicapped.

[Vekseid]

I still hold that we can't know... no matter what, you're placing faith in SOMEthing.

I'm sorry, but this is a useless statement.

How do you know that electrostatic repulsion will still support you and keep you from falling to the center of the Earth tomorrow?

Faith.

How do you know that your memories are real and that yo aren't some artificial construct made last Thursday?

Faith.

...

At some point, trotting out the 'it's all faith' argument is pretty tired. There is a line where it gets ridiculous. Science builds its foundations entirely on logic and observation - and it has produced some pretty stellar results. Religions have given us no such thing. Name one religion that has wiped out a disease, fed six and a half billion people, landed a man on the Moon, allowed us to peer inside our own Sun, or allowed a billion people to converse with each other in real time, without seeing each other?

And yet people crow about it being 'faith'.

[Apple of Eris]

I put my faith In Vekkers that my messages will reach the wife.

And not break any of Einstein's laws in doing so.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, science as it's supposed to be builds it ideas on logic and observation.  Science is guilty of taking an observation or an idea, running across the map with that idea without any support.  If science and religion are set on the same level in terms of argument, then science does use a great deal of faith in guiding its hand.  Grants and investments are made based on belief that someone is on the correct track.  Entire paradigms get stuffed into drawers because someone doesn't agree with what is said.  Both act on their own notions of faith.

Religion has done many things though.  I am sure people will bring up religious wars and terrorism first, so I will concede those.  Of course keeping religion and science on the same level, one can bring up the cruel experiments of Nazi Germany.  Many warnings have been given to science through various authors and movie makers about standing on the shoulders of giants.  So science holds blood on its hands as well.  Though to focus on the blood does not give a full picture.  Religions has feed the poor, funded expeditions into new lands, educated the impoverished, pressed for revolutionary political and social ideas and helped craft marvels of architecture.  They have inspired a multitude of artists to their craft and helped found tenets of peace in all corners of the world.

Both have contributed to bloodshed and peace.

[The Overlord]

What? Speak for yourself, dude.

Above and beyond Trieste's relevance comment.

Just because you have no means for comprehending even one version of infinity does not mean that other people are so conceptually handicapped.

We can conceptually understand the idea of infinity, Vekseid. None of us can truly know it's like.

[Vekseid]

We can conceptually understand the idea of infinity, Vekseid. None of us can truly know it's like.

It's a definition for a mathematical construct. "Knowing what it's like" only makes sense in a specific context.

For example, you can comprehend the range of all real numbers from one to two. There are an infinite amount of real numbers in that range, we cannot comprehend writing out all of them - not because of some arbitrary limitation that can be surpassed by some greater power, it is logically impossible to do.

Now, you might say, comprehending very large numbers - such as the scale of the Universe - is generally not possible for most humans, and this is a fine assertion, but that's not this argument.

The range of numbers between one and two is comprehensible, however, and perfectly so.  It contains an infinity - an infinite number of infinities, even, but we can fully comprehend it for any conceivably possible task. Given any number, it can be determined whether or not it falls in the range. It can be graphed, mapped, etc.  Despite the range having an infinite number of discrete points, we can describe it succinctly.

[Kalen]

I'm sorry, but this is a useless statement.

How do you know that electrostatic repulsion will still support you and keep you from falling to the center of the Earth tomorrow?

Faith.

How do you know that your memories are real and that yo aren't some artificial construct made last Thursday?

Faith.

...

At some point, trotting out the 'it's all faith' argument is pretty tired. There is a line where it gets ridiculous. Science builds its foundations entirely on logic and observation - and it has produced some pretty stellar results. Religions have given us no such thing. Name one religion that has wiped out a disease, fed six and a half billion people, landed a man on the Moon, allowed us to peer inside our own Sun, or allowed a billion people to converse with each other in real time, without seeing each other?

And yet people crow about it being 'faith'.

Actually, I have to refute that, bub.  Today, you call it electostatic repulsion, and believe in gravity, atoms, and such.  Not that long ago, the earth was the center of the universe, the body was ruled by the humors, and oh yes, the earth was flat.

How do you KNOW that Einstein is right?  How do you know that some hotshot twenty years from now, some future Galileo or Darwin won't turn everything on it's ear, and prove all of accepted science wrong... again?

Faith.

You have faith in science.  Hell, so do I.  I buy what they're selling, I totally drink that koolaid.  But I also accept that in the future, what we hold as fact now might be laughed at by future generations.

I just have faith that what we believe now is the best knowledge we have, it makes sense, and it's true.

So, I'm not 'crowing about faith'.  No matter what or who I believe, it's still a matter of BELIEVING it.  The fact that you believe in science (and I'm on the same page as you, here) means you have faith in what we currently believe.

[Inkidu]

We can conceptually understand the idea of infinity, Vekseid. None of us can truly know it's like.

Overlord's right. We understand it as an idea. We don't understand it as a part of existence. When push comes to shove we need workable numbers. Sure we say the universe goes on forever. Yet some scientists are saying it's like a rubber band and going to snap back. That theory implies that the universe is finite.

[Kalen]

Hmm.   Not nessecarily, Inkedu.  If I take a rubber band, and start stretching it in an open field... if the rubber band reaches it's breaking point, and snaps back, it's not because of the size of the field.  It's because the forces within the rubber band reached the point at which they snap back.

In the 'big bang' example, galaxies are moving against the force of gravity.  If gravity overcomes their inertia, which, in theory, it eventually should?  We'd get a big crunch.  Eventually.


What I'm saying here is, space might be finite, or infinite.  We can't measure infinity... soon as you do, it's finite.  But, the expansion/contraction of the universe (defined by the matter/energy in it) and the size of all of existence are mutually exclusive things.

[Inkidu]

A more amusing question is to ask why the Sun and Moon were created on the fourth day.

Regardless, it's clearly written from the perspective of Earth's reference frame - night falls and day comes once between each passing. There is no appreciable dilation, it's entirely mincing words and trying to play off a theory you don't understand.

Not in the slightest. Nothing in the Bible even suggests comprehension of things like the singularity, cosmic inflation - or even the more reserved expansion of spacetime itself, the very nature of matter and energy for the first picosecond of existence... need I go on?

The Big Bang theory only goes back to that origin. Other theories - testable theories - go back further. The Big Crunch model has been partially discredited, for example, while various patterns that Ekpyrotic theory would leave will be tested for with new satellites in the next decade or so.

Some are of course harder to prove than others - if we don't see a horizon, it's hard to show that the Universe is not for 100% certain a white hole.

The term multiverse is used because we have a very firm understanding of our currently visible Universe, and since it seems that separate universes will rarely if ever interact, the term is not entirely inappropriate. Also, how can you possibly criticize someone from a lexical perspective? That's just as bad as saying "Don't tell me about multiple worlds because the world by definition contains everything..."

As you freely admit, you don't know what it is.

The Universe mimics a time-reversed black hole of unimaginable magnitude. No outside force is necessarily required. An easier to understand - if inappropriate - example, is to point out a bomb - from a firecracker to a hypergiant. The internal equilibrium is unstable, and it just goes off of its own volition.

And it hasn't. We're still the speck, we have not moved except at the expense of other parts of the speck.

The very definition of the universe is one uni meaning one. Now a universe holds all that will be, ever has been, and is. In one form or another. Where are they keeping the the other universes. Because if its in this one it kills your point.

Are you talking about the first day when God separated the light from the dark then on the fourth day created the moon and stars.
Simple Big bang. Now most Big Bangs make a big light. Light from dark. Then all the matter released would have formed the firmament and stars. Why would the Bible explain it like that? It's trying to explain the universe to a bunch of people enamored with the wheel. It's spoon feeding primitive man. It goes back to the humans can't comprehend infinity. If we still can't today. They couldn't back then.
As far as I know.
Bombs still need a fuse lit a button pressed.
Even dynamite left in humid or hot conditions will sweat glycerin and become unstable to vibration, but its still an outside force. I've never seen any bomb go of on its own.

Even starts only go supernova because of the outside, unyielding force of time. And everyone agrees time didn't start till after the start of existence.

[Inkidu]

Hmm.   Not nessecarily, Inkedu.  If I take a rubber band, and start stretching it in an open field... if the rubber band reaches it's breaking point, and snaps back, it's not because of the size of the field.  It's because the forces within the rubber band reached the point at which they snap back.

In the 'big bang' example, galaxies are moving against the force of gravity.  If gravity overcomes their inertia, which, in theory, it eventually should?  We'd get a big crunch.  Eventually.


What I'm saying here is, space might be finite, or infinite.  We can't measure infinity... soon as you do, it's finite.  But, the expansion/contraction of the universe (defined by the matter/energy in it) and the size of all of existence are mutually exclusive things.

Wouldn't that expansion contraction imply that it's finite? It means it has an end to how for it goes out? Something going on for infinity doesn't repeat. Look at the Pi sequence.

[Kalen]

Just because you can't swim all the way across the Atlantic Ocean doesn't mean that the rest of it isn't there.  You're mixing up the concept of infinite space with the concept of expansion/contraction.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Just because I can't KNOW infinity because I have a begining and an end does not mean I do not UNDERSTAND it, FATHOM it, or CONTEMPLATE it. 

If you want to argue that God exists you're doing a really pissy job.  You should have taken my advice.  I may not be Christian but I do know what I'm talking about.  Look into philosophy and see what the great philosophers had to say about God and proving his existance.  You'd be wise to shut your mouth and listen. 

[Inkidu]

You cannot fathom infinity. Hell I bet you think space is black.
I'm not even going to discuss philosophy, because that's not what I set out to discuss. I said I was trying to put a scientific theory to it. I'm not trying to prove God exists. That's still the realm of faith. I'm theorizing where God exists. Not how, or why.

[ShrowdedPoet]

You cannot fathom infinity. Hell I bet you think space is black.

Look, I do have an education!  I got out of school with honors and I'm almost done with my Associates on the deans list.  I am intelligent, I do know my basics and much more.  I don't think that space is black.  And that statement was over the line, FAR over it!  Space being black has nothing to do with infinity.  AND you can't possibly know what I can fathom and cannot fathom.  Infinity doesn't blow my mind as it seems to blow yours.  And now before I rip you to pieces I'm going to report this to a moderator!

[Bliss]

I have locked this topic until the participants have had time to cool down and return to discussin the issue of it, rather than assumptions, opinions, and threats.

Our number one rule here is Be Civil. Know it. Love it. DO IT.

-Bliss

[Vekseid]

Actually, I have to refute that, bub.  Today, you call it electostatic repulsion, and believe in gravity, atoms, and such.  Not that long ago, the earth was the center of the universe, the body was ruled by the humors, and oh yes, the earth was flat.

And could you blame people with such limited observational skills or tools?

Man first thought the Earth was flat. It's a reasonable enough observation - the horizon is three miles away and atmosphere bends light - on uneven terrain it becomes an impossibility to eyeball - hell even the oceans do not perfectly hug the Earth.

But then - even with their limited instrumentation, the Greeks figured the Earth to be a sphere over two thousand years ago.

Of course, they were 'wrong' too. Are you saying that the Greeks were just as wrong as the flat-Earthers?

In the 19th century, it was found that the Earth was actually an oblate spheroid - the Earth has a greater equatorial diameter than its polar diameter.

Of course, the people who discovered this were wrong as well. Are you saying they are just as wrong as the Greeks?  For crying out loud, it's still taught as an oblate spheroid because, frankly, the term geoid has some pretty damned specific uses.

How do you KNOW that Einstein is right?

The same way that I know Galileo and Newton are both still correct. Aristotelian physics could be likened to the flat Earth, and Newtonian physics the sphere. Einstein's Relativity would be the oblate spheroid.

You see, the thing is, a new scientific theory has to explain previously observed phenomenon. That's why we teach Newtonian mechanics in high school and Freshman and Sophomore physics courses - outside of extreme situations, it still applies.

Of course, relativity is a whole hell of a lot more useful than knowing the Earth is an oblate spheroid. It forms a core of our modern understanding of magnetics, and must be taken into account in modern computers and networks.

Hell. Your very own poster child here had his own theory named after the point I'm trying to get across. That is to say, the first postulate of relativity declares that Newtonian mechanics hold in all inertial reference frames.

How do you know that some hotshot twenty years from now, some future Galileo or Darwin won't turn everything on it's ear, and prove all of accepted science wrong... again?

When was the first time?

Galileo turned the accepted understanding of the world - Aristotle's declarations - on its head, at least in Europe, but what Aristotle did was not the scientific method. Quite the opposite, even.

What Einstein did was formulate a theory that had been simmering for some time, after repeated failures to find the ether, etc. His work was not done in a vacuum, and a great deal of observation and math was worked out to get him to create his theory.

And any successive theory must likewise encapsulate the results that have shown relativity to be so robust so far.  And, just as relativity is taught at a higher level than Newtonian physics, so would this new theory end up being higher level - thousands of math and physics doctorates are not really breaking much ground. If Einstein is wrong, it is at such extreme levels of observation that we will likely have to create the necessary energy densities to prove it ourselves, rather than watch particles bouncing off of distant black holes or from distant supernovas.

That requires energy levels some six orders of magnitude greater than CERN. Not happening any time soon.

Faith.

I try to make it a point to understand everything I claim to know. I'm human, of course, and make mistakes, and of course this does not apply to most sorts of social interactions, but it works well enough that, if someone wants me to explain a pretty oddball piece of science, I can usually give it a good shot.

And that understanding, at every level, is potentially useful. This is the key - science saves lives, produces energy, supports billions.

You have faith in science.  Hell, so do I.  I buy what they're selling, I totally drink that koolaid.

"They"?

The only requirement to be a scientist is that you use the scientific method.

That's it.

Nothing else.

You don't need any education at all.

But I also accept that in the future, what we hold as fact now might be laughed at by future generations.

There are studies that pass themselves off as science that may certainly earn some chuckles - String Theory is not science, for example, and certainly, people who outright declare that Relativity is the be-all-end-all might get some chuckles, too. But we laugh at Aristotle, and not Newton or Galileo. We mostly wonder how it took Europe so damned long, really...

The holes that a new theory supplanting Relativity need to fill are either incredibly tiny, or occur under seriously extreme conditions.

Although I do like to entertain "The Road Less Traveled" by Turtledove. Certainly an amusing read, but it really is a bit silly.

I just have faith that what we believe now is the best knowledge we have, it makes sense, and it's true.

So, I'm not 'crowing about faith'.  No matter what or who I believe, it's still a matter of BELIEVING it.  The fact that you believe in science (and I'm on the same page as you, here) means you have faith in what we currently believe.

My statement doesn't change. -Not- having that sort of faith is absolutely useless. You can't live like that, at least, not while remaining sane. This 'faith' demonstrably allows six and a half billion people to affect the world in ways that they otherwise would not be capable of, whether they know it or not.

Religious faith has no such claim.



And bleh. Posting this now 'cause I don't want to lose it >_>

[Vekseid]

Overlord's right. We understand it as an idea. We don't understand it as a part of existence. When push comes to shove we need workable numbers. Sure we say the universe goes on forever. Yet some scientists are saying it's like a rubber band and going to snap back. That theory implies that the universe is finite.

Infinity is not a number. You can pipe Graham's number into the Ackerman function and get a ridiculously unworkable number, but -that- is still a number. Infinity is not.

The Universe is often described as finite but unbounded, but, as far as we can measure, it appears to be flat - at least to measurement error. Which does indeed imply an infinite Universe. A lot of astronomers and mathematicians are trying to model various insane geometries so that the Universe would be finite but unbounded again, but so far they've not had much luck.

Granted, we can only perceive our local Hubble sphere, so the strength of our assumptions is limited accordingly.

The very definition of the universe is one uni meaning one. Now a universe holds all that will be, ever has been, and is. In one form or another. Where are they keeping the the other universes. Because if its in this one it kills your point.

... Read what you just said again until you realize what you are saying, then read what I said again until you realize what I am saying.

I don't expect you to understand, much less believe in brane cosmology, I don't have a firm grasp of them either. But on a site like this you should be familiar with the concept of additional dimensions beyond the commonly accepted four, I would think.

Are you talking about the first day when God separated the light from the dark then on the fourth day created the moon and stars.

God created the -sun- on the fourth day, after the Earth. And yet day and night happen before then anyway.

Simple Big bang. Now most Big Bangs make a big light.

We're only really aware of one Big Bang, as far as I know. Care to point me to another?

The Big Bang is not an explosion as you are familiar with it. It's still occurring, we are still a part of it.

Light from dark. Then all the matter released would have formed the firmament and stars.

There was light. Whether or not there was dark is a more difficult question.

Why would the Bible explain it like that? It's trying to explain the universe to a bunch of people enamored with the wheel. It's spoon feeding primitive man. It goes back to the humans can't comprehend infinity. If we still can't today. They couldn't back then.

Did you even bother reading my post?

As far as I know.
Bombs still need a fuse lit a button pressed.

Even dynamite left in humid or hot conditions will sweat glycerin and become unstable to vibration, but its still an outside force. I've never seen any bomb go of on its own.

We call such situations (where a bomb goes off on its own) instability. A more appropriate example would be the Oslo nuclear reactor, but I didn't think you'd make the connection. Of course, for all practical purposes, the Sun's core is just one great big self-starting bomb.

Even starts only go supernova because of the outside, unyielding force of time.

Time is not a force, time is a dimension.

And everyone agrees time didn't start till after the start of existence.

Read that sentence again until you see your error, please.

And, no. Like I mentioned earlier, cosmologists are beginning to formulate testable hypothesis about 'before' the Big Bang.

Time might not exist in the same manner in such a scenario, it might map differently to our own time - as I mentioned, we could just be a part of a white hole and are thus experiencing proper time backwards, but it is not necessarily impossible to construct a timeline outside of the Big Bang.  It's not necessarily very useful, but, who knows?

[Inkidu]

I said it was just a theory. Its still fallible. Theories are proved wrong all the time. If I'd known I was going to get torn a new one I wouldn't have posted it. Sorry to have wasted everyone's time.

[Vekseid]

There is nothing wrong with challenging your assumptions, or putting them out to be challenged.

[CassandraNova]

"Just a theory?"  In the domain of science, a thoery is defined as a workable model, tested by observation and experimenation, that explains some part of how the world works.  There is no higher praise to lavish on a scientific principle than to call it a theory. Germ theory, theory of gravity, theory of gravity....these are things that are so well-supported as to be at the corner of our understanding of that sliver of reality we are fortunate enough to inhabit.

[Trieste]

Though ... theories range from the very well-tested to the very contested. It is high praise, but theories are not laws.

Inertia, gravity ... evolution, the Big Bang. Pangea... upwellings of sulphur versus impact with extraterrestrial debris, and Cambrian explosions... Theories make sense with the information we have, but we can't prove them, and unearthing just one other piece of the puzzle could render them as obsolete as balancing humours as medicinal therapy.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Though ... theories range from the very well-tested to the very contested. It is high praise, but theories are not laws.

Inertia, gravity ... evolution, the Big Bang. Pangea... upwellings of sulphur versus impact with extraterrestrial debris, and Cambrian explosions... Theories make sense with the information we have, but we can't prove them, and unearthing just one other piece of the puzzle could render them as obsolete as balancing humours as medicinal therapy.

I thought you could prove or disprove most theories with the scientific method?  My science is rusty so I am very not sure of this.  ;D

[CassandraNova]

I thought you could prove or disprove most theories with the scientific method?  My science is rusty so I am very not sure of this.  ;D

True, as far as it goes.  However, by the time most of the scientific community has accepted a theory as consensus, it has such a mountain of evidence behind it that to falsify it would require more evidence than I'm even comfortable imagining.  It wouldn't be the act of a single discovery or experiment.

For example, finding a horse skeleton in the Cambian strata would not by itself overturn all of the fossil evidence in support of evolution; but finding hundreds of vertebrae remains scattered throughout without regard for the sequential arrangement of fossil distribution is something else entirely.

[HairyHeretic]

I've been told you can never actually prove anything, you can only disprove a current model / hypothisis / what have you. You compare your observations and data to how your model says it should work. If it does, your model is still good. If it doesn't, then maybe you're on the verve of uncovering a little bit more of how the universe works.

My knowledge of such things is laymans at best, mind you.

[ShrowdedPoet]

True, as far as it goes.  However, by the time most of the scientific community has accepted a theory as consensus, it has such a mountain of evidence behind it that to falsify it would require more evidence than I'm even comfortable imagining.  It wouldn't be the act of a single discovery or experiment.

For example, finding a horse skeleton in the Cambian strata would not by itself overturn all of the fossil evidence in support of evolution; but finding hundreds of vertebrae remains scattered throughout without regard for the sequential arrangement of fossil distribution is something else entirely.

So once the scientific method finally proves something true as it stands and the scientific community accepts it, it just takes too much effort to prove it wrong?  I think I need sleep because I'm having trouble grasping this right now.  *laughs*

[ShrowdedPoet]

I've been told you can never actually prove anything, you can only disprove a current model / hypothisis / what have you. You compare your observations and data to how your model says it should work. If it does, your model is still good. If it doesn't, then maybe you're on the verve of uncovering a little bit more of how the universe works.

My knowledge of such things is laymans at best, mind you.

That makes a lot of sence and I think I've heard something like that before now that I think about it.

[Vekseid]

"Just a theory?"  In the domain of science, a thoery is defined as a workable model, tested by observation and experimenation, that explains some part of how the world works.  There is no higher praise to lavish on a scientific principle than to call it a theory. Germ theory, theory of gravity, theory of gravity....these are things that are so well-supported as to be at the corner of our understanding of that sliver of reality we are fortunate enough to inhabit.

I think Inkedu was referring to his own hypothesis. It wasn't even a theory by that definition, but still.

I thought you could prove or disprove most theories with the scientific method?  My science is rusty so I am very not sure of this.  ;D

A quote - I believe from Einstein - is that Mother Nature never says 'yes'. Only 'no' or 'maybe', and if you ask her 'is it -not- this?' she will smile and say 'nice try'.

What that means, though, is that although you can 'disprove' relativity or quantum mechanics, whatever mechanism you replace it with must accommodate all of those previous 'no' answers accordingly, as relativity did with Newtonian mechanics. Now, the thing is, that's a lot of 'no' and 'maybe' answers that need accommodating. "This breaks Relativity!" does not mean that everything we know is wrong. It means that what we had understood to be probably true was in error, under situations that we were not yet capable of observing reliably.

A lot of particle physicists, for example, think that CERN will open up new physics for exactly that sort of reason. It does not mean that Quantum Mechanics and the standard model are thus useless and all of our computers - who function because of our understanding of QM - magically stop working.

[ShrowdedPoet]

I think Inkedu was referring to his own hypothesis. It wasn't even a theory by that definition, but still.

A quote - I believe from Einstein - is that Mother Nature never says 'yes'. Only 'no' or 'maybe', and if you ask her 'is it -not- this?' she will smile and say 'nice try'.

What that means, though, is that although you can 'disprove' relativity or quantum mechanics, whatever mechanism you replace it with must accommodate all of those previous 'no' answers accordingly, as relativity did with Newtonian mechanics. Now, the thing is, that's a lot of 'no' and 'maybe' answers that need accommodating. "This breaks Relativity!" does not mean that everything we know is wrong. It means that what we had understood to be probably true was in error, under situations that we were not yet capable of observing reliably.

A lot of particle physicists, for example, think that CERN will open up new physics for exactly that sort of reason. It does not mean that Quantum Mechanics and the standard model are thus useless and all of our computers - who function because of our understanding of QM - magically stop working.

Makes sence now!  *eyes Veks suspiciously*  You sound like my philosophy/physics/physical science/algebra/anything else that fits in this field teacher!  Mr. Maloney, what are you doing on E?

[Trieste]

I thought you could prove or disprove most theories with the scientific method?  My science is rusty so I am very not sure of this.  ;D

*points to what Veks said* The short version is pretty much that the scientific method is what we use to try like hell to disprove something. if it has been not-disproved over and over and over and over again using the scientific method, then it becomes accepted as shaky might be fact.

The scientific method itself is just the accepted recipe for how to go about things, to make it easier to record and track experiments + observations + results, and to report them. It's there pretty specifically to make reproduction easier - so that someone else can say "I see what you did there" and then go do it, too. We've refined it over the years so that it's pretty difficult for a false result to make it through one or two repetitions of an experiment.

This is also one of the reasons that 'peer-reviewed' journals are considered more solid sources for dissertations and research papers. Because other professionals have gone through and said "Okay, you did it right" or "ur doin it rong NO PUBLISH FOR YOU" ... except not in lolcats speak. Why am I talking like a lolcat? Probably to outweigh the scientificity.

o hai, I fixed ur question

[HairyHeretic]

I'm in ur studiez, disproving ur theories  ;D

[The Overlord]

Overlord's right. We understand it as an idea. We don't understand it as a part of existence. When push comes to shove we need workable numbers.

That's pretty much what I was aiming at with my original statement. We understand what infinity means or implies, but it's forever outside our frame of reference. I can contemplate what existence would be like for one of those little weird jellyfish things that swims in the deepest regions of the sea, not even knowing what light is unless someone's deep-sea probe scuttles past with floodlights glaring. Believing the entire universe is an endless wet expanse of perfect darkness. In the same way I can fathom it but not truly understand it.

Think of the standard-issue Christian model of heaven; disregard the clouds and harps and togas and all that culturally juvenile crap, I'm talking about sitting around somewhere forever and ever, amen., etc. We can apply numbers to it to give it a measure of understanding, but it's really an abstraction unless we can actually experience infinity for ourselves.

I realize this is somewhat outside the scope of the original intent in this thread, but I always come to this grey area when someone pretends to claim to understand infinity. We understand the mathematical/conceptual model of infinity, but not the real deal, and I'll contest that with my final breath.

[Inkidu]

That was the point I was trying to make about space being black to human vision. It's not. It's clear, the distance is so great that the human brain cannot even really see it.

[The Overlord]

Well, the way it was put once by an astronomer, if the universe were infinite we'd know for sure, because in a universe with truly no limits, every single possible direction you could look would eventually intersect with a star. In that case the entirety of the sky would be as bright as a star and thus beyond blinding to behold (not to mention scarier than hell).

Space is mostly clear, but this is considering the blackness of space as a color. It’s not a color, space is black for the same reason as a cave is black; it's not that color it's just a nearly complete absence of light. Stars shed their light a long way, but open space between them is impossibly vast as well.

Being as all our observations say the universe is finite, and the greater distance we look is further back in time, it's reasonable to say the black 'backdrop' we see no matter where we look is really a point in time when the universe was not lit at all.

Distance really isn't a factor at all, it's that our eyes just plain suck as Earth creatures go for light gathering. Our instruments show that parts of the cosmos are more lit than we can see at night, but a lot is still 'black'.

[Vekseid]

Well, the way it was put once by an astronomer, if the universe were infinite we'd know for sure, because in a universe with truly no limits, every single possible direction you could look would eventually intersect with a star. In that case the entirety of the sky would be as bright as a star and thus beyond blinding to behold (not to mention scarier than hell).

No, actually, the blackness of space is caused by the expansion of space, almost entirely. The Universe can still be infinite - the Universe appears to be flat to measurement error and there are no discernible geodesics with current measurement technology. This creates a lot of mathematical acrobatics to try to explain the Universe as being something other than OMFGHUGE at the very least.  Huge as in, the ~150 billion light-year diameter stretch we are aware of is only a tiny fraction of the full size.

Being as all our observations say the universe is finite, and the greater distance we look is further back in time, it's reasonable to say the black 'backdrop' we see no matter where we look is really a point in time when the universe was not lit at all.

On the contrary, the CMB is the afterglow - specifically, the point of deionization about 300,000 years after the Big Bang when all of the hydrogen and helium molecules had cooled enough in order to permit the passage of light. The expansion of space has caused that originally rather intense (basically, one neverending star) wavelength to stretch out into the pathetic 2.7 Kelvin we know today.

[The Overlord]

No, actually, the blackness of space is caused by the expansion of space, almost entirely. The Universe can still be infinite - the Universe appears to be flat to measurement error and there are no discernible geodesics with current measurement technology. This creates a lot of mathematical acrobatics to try to explain the Universe as being something other than OMFGHUGE at the very least.  Huge as in, the ~150 billion light-year diameter stretch we are aware of is only a tiny fraction of the full size.

I think that concept (and darnit I cannot recall the name of the astronomer who was quoted saying it) was an answer based on a theological approach that the universe always was and eternal. In other words not just physically limitless, but also with no starting point, having always been there.

In that case, and this is an interesting point to ponder, there would be a star in every single conceivable direction, and they all would have had literally forever to have their light reach us. In that case, I'm willing to bet even an exponential expansion rate wouldn't matter...we'd never escape all that light.

On the contrary, the CMB is the afterglow - specifically, the point of deionization about 300,000 years after the Big Bang when all of the hydrogen and helium molecules had cooled enough in order to permit the passage of light. The expansion of space has caused that originally rather intense (basically, one neverending star) wavelength to stretch out into the pathetic 2.7 Kelvin we know today.

If our eyes were sensitive enough to actually see the CMB, the night sky might look a little different. If our eyes could see more wavelengths of the EM spectrum, we might be able to stand in awe of the Orion Molecular Cloud, or see the wispy pale orb of Jupiter's magnetosphere dominating the night sky several times the size of the full moon, but it ain't the case.  :-\

[Vekseid]

I think that concept (and darnit I cannot recall the name of the astronomer who was quoted saying it) was an answer based on a theological approach that the universe always was and eternal. In other words not just physically limitless, but also with no starting point, having always been there.

That is a given in many cyclical models of the Universe, but something more interesting can be done - for example what we think of as the beginning may actually be the end and what we percieve to be the end may actually be the beginning, and we are thus perceiving 'true' time backwards.

Models like that may be silly, but they're fun to think about.

In that case, and this is an interesting point to ponder, there would be a star in every single conceivable direction, and they all would have had literally forever to have their light reach us. In that case, I'm willing to bet even an exponential expansion rate wouldn't matter...we'd never escape all that light.

Not correct.

Relativity does not permit objects exceeding the speed of light within a light-cone, however, objects that are causally separate may legitimately have relative speeds that exceed the speed of light. General relativity allows this, and in our Universe occurs through two mechanisms - matter falling into a Black Hole, and the expansion of space itself.

The Universe is currently expanding at a rate of approximately 71 kilometers per second per megaparsec. That is, if you and a friend were 'stationary', and ignored gravitational and all other forms of attraction or movement, the expansion of space alone will pull you apart.

Obviously, at local scales, 71/km/sec/mpc is a bit on the slow side to be noticed - gravity easily overwhelms it. However, even at that slow of a rate, it puts a limit on how far away an object can be and still causally interact with us - about 13.7 billion light-years. Anything beyond that distance is receding from us at a velocity greater than light, and can never reach us. Another way to think of it is infinite redshift.

If our eyes were sensitive enough to actually see the CMB, the night sky might look a little different. If our eyes could see more wavelengths of the EM spectrum, we might be able to stand in awe of the Orion Molecular Cloud, or see the wispy pale orb of Jupiter's magnetosphere dominating the night sky several times the size of the full moon, but it ain't the case.  :-\

I'd have to do the math but I think any perceived (from Earth) variation in Jupiter's magnetic field results in a wavelength many orders of magnitude less than the CMB. Light is the change in intensity of an EM field, not the field itself.

[The Overlord]

Not correct.

Relativity does not permit objects exceeding the speed of light within a light-cone, however, objects that are causally separate may legitimately have relative speeds that exceed the speed of light. General relativity allows this, and in our Universe occurs through two mechanisms - matter falling into a Black Hole, and the expansion of space itself.

The dividing line is going to be the speed of light, now that I've gone over this again and gave it thought when I'm not sleepy. Assuming the infinite universe is slowly (increasingly) expanding like our own, the early universe should be awash with light at all points, gradually dimming and growing ruddy as expansion redshifts the entire sky. At some point the redshift will drop below the threshold of vision as we know it, and will only be detectable with sensitive instruments like today, and then the sky will go black except for the closer universe. Eventually even the CMB will vanish from view, as it will in our own. IIRC, they estimate in a 100 billion years or so, expansion will have prevented anyone from seeing beyond the edge of the long since merged Andromeda-Milky Way galaxy.

Actually, maybe it's not too far off the mark of the real universe; 300K years after the Big Bang, the universe would have been a smaller, hotter and denser place than we know it. As it was lit up with the first-generation huge stars, I'm guessing it was a fairly bright place.

[Vekseid]

Until 300,000 years after the big bang, all matter in the Universe would be termed as one form of plasma or another. Nearing the 300 millennia mark, it would be fairly starlike (from our perspective), as if being awash in the photosphere of a seemingly endless sun.

So yes, for most of those three hundred thousand years, there was light in every direction.

At 300,000 years, the universe had cooled to about 3,000 K, allowing nuclei to recapture electrons, bringing the common state of matter below the plasma threshold and allowing light to be transmitted. After this, stars, galaxies, etc. formed and we have the Universe as we know it today, eventually.

[Mathim]

Wait, isn't it that we can't prove anything one way or another? I really hope that, within my lifetime (even if it's on my deathbed) science is proven true over religion. Arguing about it, though, is regrettably pointless. My side is outnumbered anyway.

[Sherona]

That is agnosticism, and because of the "faith" that comes with religion, science will never be able to prove one way or the other to those who follow religion. What keeps me firmly agnostic and not completely aethist is the argument that a supreme being very well could have created things the way science proves that they have been created. There is no reason that IF there was a higher being responsible for our existance, then he/she/it/they would have created the laws of science, and all of the theories that we hold as truths. *smiles*

[Mathim]

I agree that it's possible that things were set up to make it impossible to find out the real truth because then that would destroy faith. Like that paradox in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. My only problem with that is the morality issue-you know, why bad things happen to good people and vice versa. When they come up with an acceptable explanation for that, I'll start putting more stock in the 'maybe it's the answer to how and not the answer to why' argument (as phrased on that episode of South Park.)

[Vekseid]

Wait, isn't it that we can't prove anything one way or another? I really hope that, within my lifetime (even if it's on my deathbed) science is proven true over religion. Arguing about it, though, is regrettably pointless. My side is outnumbered anyway.

...science is a method. It has no truth or falsity, any more than walking down the street does, except for that the scientific method provides a reliable means through which things can be shown not to be true.

Fo example, you can't disprove an intangible, indifferent, or otherwise apathetic god - if your god does not affect the world in any way, your god cannot be disproven.

If you claim that your god has affected the world in some way - the Flood, faith healing, etc. That can have evidence gathered for it or disproven.

[Apple of Eris]

That is agnosticism, and because of the "faith" that comes with religion, science will never be able to prove one way or the other to those who follow religion. What keeps me firmly agnostic and not completely aethist is the argument that a supreme being very well could have created things the way science proves that they have been created. There is no reason that IF there was a higher being responsible for our existance, then he/she/it/they would have created the laws of science, and all of the theories that we hold as truths. *smiles*

That's true, but faith can also say that a higher being created the entire universe five seconds ago and all the memories we have of everything that happened in our lives are just made up as well.

And honestly, that's just too bizarre even for me. If there is a god, I need proof of it/her/him. Until then, I'll stay atheistic, thogh I'll try and keep an open mind. :)

Of course the biggest reason I can't believe in a higher power is, where did it come from? Sure it's easy to say 'it always has been there' but couldn't we say the same thing about a universe not created by a god? Maybe the universe has been created and destroyed billions of times, how would we know? We're only been here for a few thousand years. In my view its the same argument people use against evolution. Saying we're too complex to have evolved by mere chance. Well a being that could create a universe and other beings has got to be the most complex thing in existence, so, who made god?

[Vekseid]

Well a being that could create a universe and other beings has got to be the most complex thing in existence, so, who made god?

Be careful of that argument, as you can actually measure the complexity of something and, given an external negative entropy source (like the Sun) it's possible for something less complex (like a human) to create something more complex (genetically engineered improvement, a sufficiently advanced supercomputer, etc).  Creationists will easily skip the bit about mankind being largely powered by the sun in their counter.

[Dawg]

Note, before anyone on either side of this debate runs up and tries to rip things apart poke holes with this reading or that theory or this discovery, STOP – step back and breathe.  Clear your mind of everything you think. This is not an argument for or against either the validity of science or the existence/non-existence of God.  All this does is take the current debate about creationism vs. science and show that with an open mind you can see the correlation between them.  Again, I make no argument for either side.

OK, for those who have never taken this ride before please fasten your seatbelts and get ready.

The basic argument going back and forth here is the difference between the Bible (religion in general) and fundamental scientific proof.  What I contend is that while the Bible ( I will use this document since it is one of the better known religious doctrines) is a static document in the form of its text.  My contention or opinion is the interpretations laid out by various scholars throughout the thousands of years since its original translation from ancient Aramaic has allowed it to not be refuted but rather supported by the current scientific theory of the time of which it is being interpreted.

True, the bible lacks what is deemed as scientific proof via peer review and references to other scientifically accepted documents.  But one needs to remember that text of the bible was written thousands of years ago before we had the scientific knowledge that we have at our fingertips today.  And while various scholars and scientists have proposed theories and had those theories widely accepted by their peers of the time, most of the theories were shot down and disproved by the next generation of scientist.  Does this mean in any way that the scientists who were disproved were irrational for thinking something so obviously wrong was true, no.  What it means is that the human intellect had advanced to the next level and further understanding was derived once it reached that level.

For further observations on the human intellect and the theory of enlightenment, turn to Plato and his Allegory of the Cave in “The Republic”(19).  In short he describes how man starts out his vision of the world and the universe is limited by what he comprehends, but as he is exposed to various experiences his understanding of those same things expands so that with the same intellect he had previously he is able to better comprehend the meaning of the things that make up his universe.  This is essentially what has been happening with Science since the time that the first caveman left his cave fire in favor of a microscope and they have not stopped since.  Thanks to that ever expanding intellect we live with all of the understanding and knowledge we have today (1).

Let’s get back to the Bible and its remarkable resilience to change from its original text.  I say resilience to change as that is what best fits in this case.  When reviewed with an open mind the bible has been able to fit into any scientific advancement in the human rise of enlightenment through the centuries.  And along with science, a lot of those theories have needed to be revised but the underlying pinning is that the bible itself did not change, nor did the facts discovered by science. Rather it was human enlightenment that did.  That is what I find as remarkable.  This brings us around to our current situation and debate.  How do you take something that is so remarkably off base and diametrically opposed to scientific theory and stand by it being correct.

The fact is it is not so different after all.  I just purports a belief in that there was someone (or in the theory of some – something) that created the environment which fostered or allowed the beginning of the universe. 

So what do the two sides agree upon; that there was a beginning. 

In the Bible it begins by saying: “In the Beginning” declaring immediately that there was a beginning of some sort (by the way this was documented thousands of years ago and that claim has not deviated).

Science has had varied theories throughout history the most recent of which was that there was no beginning and that the Universe was eternal.  Finally Albert Einstein develops his theory of relativity which leads Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, to derive the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations using Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity in 1927; these were proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom" now known as the Big Bang(1).  This was later verified and then supported by observations of Dr. Edwin Hubble and he came up with Hubble’s Law(2) which is the current scientifically accepted method(3) for measuring the speed at which the universe is expanding enabling science to concur with the theory of the Big Bang(4).

So now we both agree that there was a beginning and so the only remaining question is what was the cause of that beginning. I don’t think we will come to any agreement on this but from here we will work on an understanding as to why the Bible can in fact be logically interpreted to allow the first chapter of Genesis to in fact allow for the Billions of years in creation of the universe in the span of “six” days.

The first thing to justify this is the fact that Genesis covers all of this in 31 sentences, but Science uses thousands and thousands of books, papers, lectures and the like.  There is nothing wrong with that, but just keep that in mind.  31 sentences that have remained virtually unchanged for thousands of years and were written thousands of years before science developed it current set of theories.  Now why would someone try to explain the creation of the universe in the context of 31 sentences and not use thousands of books?   Remember that when the Bible was first recorded, there were very few humans that could read or write and there was no way to effectively reproduce the work.  They didn’t have Elliquiy to debate the cosmos, heck they didn’t even have Zork I, II or III.  Thus you write a concise statement that takes as little effort to reproduce as possible and covers the main points, kind of like notes on an index card.

This is why Genesis is written in parable form, a poem with a text and a subtext. Another point of note is that the time in Genesis Chapter 1 is referred to differently than the time after Genesis Chapter 1.  The time in Chapter 1 is only referred to as “Morning” and “Evening”.  But time from Chapter 2 onward is referred to in more concrete human terms such as Adam and Eve live 130 years before having children. Seth lives 105 years before having children, etc. After Adam, totally human concept - prior to Adam, time is abstract: "Evening and morning."   This is an important fact because following the genealogical time line from the time of Adam and eve we can derive approximately 6,000 years.  But the time before that (the time before man) time is abstract. 

Now there are entries in the Bible that indicate that celestial or divine time is different than human perceptions of time: such as psalm 90:4 “For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night”.  This seems to indicate that the early recorders of the Bible knew of this difference, but that is not the only indication.  There are several other interpretations that justify this besides the actual text as written(6).   So you can see that it wasn't because Dawg was talking to his 13-year-old son who said, "Baba, you wouldn’t believe this. I just picked up a copy of Scientific American at the library, and learned all about a billions-of-years-old universe," and Dawg says, "Oh, I better run out change the Bible, let's keep the six days separate."

The idea of looking for a deeper meaning in Genesis is no different than looking for deeper meaning in science. If you get up early enough and look over, there comes the Sun rising in the east. Wait a few hours and the Sun sets in the west. The simple "reading" is "The Sun is going around the Earth". But there's much more to it.  We all agree that the earth is what is actually rotating around the sun and that is what causes the sun to be perceived as going around the earth, so we are actually moving around a giant carnival spinning globe ride at about 1,000mph(7).  Now we also know that the Earth rotates around the Sun, at about 8,766mph(8 ).  I can’t feel it, can you?  Don’t worry because most scientists of just a few hundred years ago couldn’t either and that is why both cosmology and religion of that time thought the earth was the center of the universe.  But we know better now and there are hundreds of books on the subject describing the motion in excruciating detail complete with all the accompanying mathematical calculations to confirm it.

Now go back 3,300 years ago and think about all of those book publishers running around. There weren’t any so most of the written text of the time was cryptic in nature to save time in copying written text, a parable.  "The Sun is going around the Earth" or “In the Beginning God Created Heaven and Earth”.  Just as we look for the deeper readings in science, we need to look for the deeper readings in text. Thousands of years ago we learned that there are meanings in the text that expand the meaning way beyond what is written.

Now there are varied theories of the big bang that have been introduced and I am not qualified to argue in favor of one theory over another.  They go into great depth and are beyond the scope of my intent here.  I think it is safe to say though that the argument of a creator is not really something that is in the realm of exclusively theology, philosophy or physics.

If you want to hear that argument then you can refer to Dr. Quentin Smith, Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University(9) on the no god exists side – and - William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California on the God exist side(10).  You can also go one step further and read the transcript of the debate that the two of them held face to face “On March 22, 1996 on the campus of Southern Methodist University, Dr. William Lane Craig and Professor Quentin Smith debated on the topic, ‘Does God Exist?’"(11). Very interesting read.

Now let’s wrap this up.  Without getting into a big scientific dissertation explaining the timeline of the universe and its correlation to the Big Bang (I admit that I would lose that argument anyway), let us instead look at things that the Bible states in Genesis and what science declares happened during that time frame.  Now remember that my interpretation laid out so far is that the six days of creation are described in abstract time frames.  So they can fit any time period but what we are looking for is do they logically line up with what Science has proven so far.

Here is the Timeline:

Day One: t0 through ~ 4.5 billion years ago
Bible
1 First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, day one.

Science
Formation of the Universe, our Sun and Solar System(12)

Second day: ~4.5 billion years ago to ~3.9 billion years ago
Bible
6 And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9

Science
The Hadaeon geological eon when the earth cooled and lead to the formation of land masses and the first rocks began to appear near the end of this time. (13)

Third day: ~3.9 billion to ~2.5 billion years ago
Bible
And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Science
The Archean geological eon when the earth’s crust finished forming and the beginning of life on earth.  Bacteria and other simple life forms form and begin to populate the shallow seas (14).

Fourth day: ~2.5 billion to ~65 Million years ago
Bible
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Science
The Proterozoic geological eon.  Oxygen forms in the atmosphere and water vapor in the air begins to condense clearing the cloud cover in the atmosphere and filling the oceans (15).

Now there is a special note here since some argue the difference between day one and day four.

The events of the fourth day are controversial to some theist and are used by many to “poke holes” in Genesis. The claim by some others who don’t look deeper is verses 14 and 15 simply repeat what God said in verses 3 and 4. However, note the difference:
~ "Let there be light"; and there was light. (verse 3)
~ "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. (verses 14-15)

In verse 3, Genesis describes the creation of light.

In verse 14, Genesis is being specific about certain "lights" that became visible from the surface of the earth. These specific lights were created to serve "for signs and seasons, and for days and years."

So, on the fourth day, Genesis claims that God made visual observation of the sun, moon and stars possible. We just read that before this time, the earth was in the geological time frame referred to as the Archean Eon(20) and was covered in thick clouds of (to the best of my understanding) methane, water vapor, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, chlorine, nitrogen, and hydrogen and did not permit ready observation of things outside of the atmosphere. Around the end of the Achaean period (about 2.5 billion years ago) as the earth continued to cool the water vapor started condensing filling the shallow seas and forming the oceans and the cloud cover diminished; thus allowing clear days and would for the first time allow for the direct observation of things outside of our atmosphere, the sun, the moon, the stars.

Many people also find verses 16-18 difficult. They appear to say that God created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day of creation. The New King James translation compounds the problem by incorrectly beginning verse 16 with "Then God made," implying continuity of action. Most other versions all start this verse with "And."

Further, the Hebrew asah from the original translation into the Torah, translated "made" in verse 16, is in verb form and denotes completed action. This means the sun, moon and stars could have been created at that time or any previous time. I know, simple semantics, but this means that verses 16 through 18 most likely indicate that the sun, moon and stars had been made sometime in the past.

Fifth day: ~560 Million years ago to ~ 250 million years ago
Bible
20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

Science
The Paleozoic Era in which live began to form in abundance and almost all forms of plants and animals came into being (16).  Also during this time period was the Mesozoic Era which saw the rise and fall of dinosaurs (17).

Sixth Day: ~65 million years ago to about 6,000 years ago (Adam and Eve)
Bible
24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." 29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. 

Science
The Cenzoic period which encompasses time from the extinction of the dinosaurs and the rise of the mammals (18).

.
.
.


Now does this Prove the existence of God, absolutely not, we all agree that can’t be done, but I hope that you can see that you can still have faith and respect the advances of scientific discoveries. 

Furthermore, does it pass the scientific proof test, no – but I think you can see the conclusion that there is a reasonable correlation between them.

.
.
.



(1) Timeline of cosmology
(2)
* The Big Bang.    
* Big bang theory is introduced -  (Copyright) 1995 - 2007 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). All rights reserved
* Lemaitre, Georges. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 12, 2007, from Encyclopedia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9047718
(3)   
* Big bang theory is introduced -  (Copyright) 1995 - 2007 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). All rights reserved
* THE HUBBLE CONSTANT
* “Matter and Spirit in the Universe: Scientific and Religious Preludes to Modern Cosmology” - London: Imperial College Press, 2004 (Chapter four)   
(4)   
* Hubble's Law
* The Hubble Law
* The Hubble Expansion
(5)   
* TWO THEORIES OF THE UNIVERSE
* Modern cosmology - The British National Space Centre
(6)
* The Ancient Versions of Scripture
* GENESIS 1 SPEAKS ABOUT THE CREATION
* (in Print) Midrash Rabbah: Genesis. Translated by H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, Vols. 1–2. London: Soncino Press, 1939
(7) Speed of the Earth's Rotation
(8 ) The Rotation & Revolution of the Earth
(9) The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe
(10) God and the Initial Cosmological Singularity: A Reply to Quentin Smith
(11) Does God Exist?
(12)
* Our  Solar System
* Formation of the Solar System
(13)
* Hadean Eon
* Hadean Eon
(14)
* Archaean Eon
* Archaean Eon
(15)
* Proterozoic Eon
* Proterozoic Eon
(16)
* Paleozoic Era
* Paleozoic Era
(17)
* Mesozoic Era
* Mesozoic Era
(18)
* Cenozoic Era
* Cenozoic Era
(19) Plato: The Allegory of the Cave, from The Republic
(20)
* Archean eon - Archean eon. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 12, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9009269
* PRECAMBRIAN HISTORY; THE ARCHEAN EON - WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY


.
.
.

[Vekseid]

So what do the two sides agree upon; that there was a beginning. 

As we're now able to look at universal models which stretch beyond the Big Bang, this is not a given for the scientific side by any means.

The reason for the Big Bang was that it's a singularity - our theories break down. Or rather, quantum mechanics and relativity do. We are quite well aware of this, and consider it a problem, so a number of other theories have been proposed to help bridge the gap. Many of these either put limits on what could have come before, while others propose new ideas to explain an eternal Universe.

The first thing to justify this is the fact that Genesis covers all of this in 31 sentences, but Science uses thousands and thousands of books, papers, lectures and the like.

Science provides thousands of books worth of data. Giving a general history of the Universe and Earth's creation is certainly possible in a few dozen sentences. It especially has the advantage of not getting the order wrong.

Let's see. Thirty-one sentences, in terms sheepherders could understand.

1: In the beginning, there was Light, and nothing but Light, stretching across the heavens, more brilliant than any eye could bear.
2: Over thousands of years, the light receded, but it was unbearable for all - not even stone could permit its gaze.
3: Eventually, the light began receding such that it separated from itself, becoming the Sun and other various points in the sky over many billions of years.
4: Clouds of dust surrounded many of these points, and still do, including our Sun.
5: The dust cloud surrounding our sun gathered into a number of motes - the Earth, Moon, and various wandering stars that we know today.
6: The Earth was originally barren and devoid of life, violent and hostile, the air toxic.
7: Magma flowed not like syrup, but like water, slowly becoming thicker over time as the world cooled from the violence that spawned its forming.
8: Upon the beaches of the ancient earth, various minerals were left to bake in the Sun, and, out of countless shores and countless waves, one spark eventually formed, and life began.
9: The first life could not be seen by our eyes, but over aeons it made the air beathable, and calmed some of the violence of the Earth.
10: This first life had children, and children's children, and so on, throughout millions upon millions of generations, each generation and division enacting a small change, becoming specialized just as a carpenter works wood and a mason works stone.
11: Of these descendants of the first life, some changed enough that they formed the first plants and animals that we can now see.
12: These too underwent changes and generations, from the First Life becoming the trees, the birds, the grass and the creatures of the Deep.
13: Among the most recent descendants of the First Life is Man (here used in the non-gender-specific variation).
14: It is for this reason that we must know, we are brothers and sisters to all life on Earth.
15: Treat your fellows accordingly.

There. I did a better job in half the sentences : )

The Bible is most certainly not static, however. It doesn't even hold up under proper translation, liberally using the plural form - 'gods' throughout much of the Old Testament, becoming translated as 'God' or 'LORD'.

So, on the fourth day, Genesis claims that God made visual observation of the sun, moon and stars possible. We just read that before this time, the earth was in the geological time frame referred to as the Archean Eon(20) and was covered in thick clouds of (to the best of my understanding) methane, water vapor, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, chlorine, nitrogen, and hydrogen and did not permit ready observation of things outside of the atmosphere. Around the end of the Achaean period (about 2.5 billion years ago) as the earth continued to cool the water vapor started condensing filling the shallow seas and forming the oceans and the cloud cover diminished; thus allowing clear days and would for the first time allow for the direct observation of things outside of our atmosphere, the sun, the moon, the stars.

No. This, if true, would have led directly to a runaway situation as on Venus. This is common sense when you think about it - the formation of the oxygen atmosphere requires fairly intense photosynthesis. It was going on for a very, very long time before the oxygen atmosphere actually formed, because the Earth's crust needed to get saturated first.

The oceans formed quite quickly, in fact, and did not rain down out of the sky as such, but rather, the oceans are forced up from the depths of the mantle.

You might think it was so much more violent, that it must have been that much more caustic - but take a trip to Hawaii and you'll get what I meant by the magma flowing as water comment. Swift. Deadly, but not spewing into the air - rather, the air was getting infused into the Earth, and over billions of years of subduction, the entire lithosphere was oxygenated, allowing the actual oxygen atmosphere to form.

So no... the sun being created on the fourth day is patent nonsense no matter how you look at it. Given what we know of the Moons formation, it's even sillier. Could add a few fun sentences about that.

Furthermore, does it pass the scientific proof test, no – but I think you can see the conclusion that there is a reasonable correlation between them.

Only by those wishing to remain willfully ignorant, not only of science, but of other religion's creation myths.

[Caehlim]

I'm going to quote someone here because quite frankly they've put it better than I ever could. This is Phil Hellenes describing a version of Genesis that would be accurate. For those describing Genesis as scientifically accurate, I frankly think that an omnipotent deity could do a little better. At least as good as a video-maker on youtube, and yet...

"In the beggining there was light. Light so hot nothing else could exist. But the void grew faster than the light and that was good. And out of the light came the tiny heralds of what was to come, as small to an apple as an apple is to your spherical world. For I tell you that light can become solid and the solid can become light. Take heed for I tell you what no man yet knows.

And the heralds waited in the light for their time, and 400 millenia later, when it could be so, so it was. And these things I will call atoms fell together. And I tell you, children of the light, in the void great clouds of atoms formed called by mutual attraction. Forced to become one, growing in size, gaining mass until at the center of the great clouds there came a new light.

As atoms of the first and simplest kind were forced together to become atoms of the second kind. And behold, the first star was born. Soon there were many stars, swirling by the hundreds of thousands of millions. Floating like islands in disks, each island seperate and racing apart. And the islands themselves shall be numbered in the hundreds of thousands of millions. And some of the stars were small and burned slow and dim and long. And some were giant and burned bright blue and fast. Making atoms of the second, third, fourth up to the twenty-sixth kind, until they can burn no more.

And then they die a powerful death, building up atoms to the ninety-second kind and beyond. Which they spread, along with abundant blinding light, like seeds back into the void. Disturbing the stillness of the surrounding atomic clouds. Giving birth to countless stars in their wake.

But these new stars drew about them disk-shaped cloaks of the ninety two types of atoms from the ashes of the first giant stars. And the heavier elements fell towards the new stars and over millions of years there formed worlds of rock and metal to encircle the sun. And away from the star worlds of vapour and ice were formed, circling more slowly in accord with their greater distance from the sun. And nine thousand million years later after the beginning, around one star, one rocky metallic world, ninety two atoms danced to the tune of the light and the lightning while mountains fell from the sky.

This place would be called Earth. And for half a billion years the dance went on. Atoms joining in ways forbidden by the heat inside the stars where they were made, but inevitable where the magnet is mightier than the fire. And by the lore of the magnet and the lodestone one chain of many atoms begat other chains of identical form. And the chains spread through the waters, filling them, growing in size and complexity. Taking unto them the poisonous clouds and vapours that hung over the world, and giving back the air."

That's about the minimum I'd expect god to have been able to do, even explaining things to bronze age shepherds.