Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Could we reproduce science exactly if it all disappeared? What about religion?

arroba Email
This image represents the evolution of the Universe, starting with the Big Bang. The red arrow marks the flow of time.
Big Bang/NASA

From Brian Gallagher at Nautilus:

Colbert, an idiosyncratic but sincere Catholic, was not really playing devil’s advocate when he challenged Gervais to an argument about the existence of God on his show. Gervais is outspoken about his disbelief and is fond of tweeting the reductio ad absurdum of various religious arguments, yet initially he seemed at a loss for how to deflect Colbert’s skepticism of the Big Bang.

Stephen Colbert: “You’re just believing Stephen Hawking, and that’s a matter of faith in his abilities. You don’t know it yourself—you’re just accepting that because someone told you.”

Ricky Gervais: “Well but science is constantly being proved all the time,” Gervais said. “If we take something like any holy book and any other fiction, and destroyed it, okay, in a thousand years time it wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, right, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would be the same result.”

Gallagher begs to differ.

As David Deutsch, an Oxford quantum physicist with an affinity for philosophy of science once said in his “Ingenious” interview with Nautilus, “If you see why the criticisms fail, then you can be comfortable—not that [the Big Bang theory] is true—but that the rival ideas that you might have entertained are false,” Deutsch says.

Deutsch calls this philosophy, much inspired by Karl Popper, “fallibilism.” All attempts to create knowledge, he says, “are subject to error.” We may never know when we’re right, but we can at least know when we’re not completely wrong. Science isn’t constantly being proved right, but it is failing to be shown inferior to any other way of understanding nature. More.

Strictly speaking, of course, life is never that simple. Most religious books could probably be replicated, if not in detail, then certainly in substance. People would have the same basic experiences and come to the same sets of conclusions. The exception is, of course, explicitly historical information. The same would be true of science works. They would not be replicated in detail because different experiments would be done, but the same general picture would be discovered.

Some call it reality.

See also: The Big Bang as a theory no one really wanted. Except nature maybe?

It is routine among naturalist atheists to hate the Big Bang, not so much among Catholics. See Big Bang exterminator wanted, will train


Pope Francis should not be addressing a nuanced subject like “the Big Bang” or “evolution,” especially in a time of ferment within those fields.

Addendum. I did think that in the past I had made clear about judgment and Lemaître on the following thread. Below is an extract: #228, mw September 20, 2016 at 3:49 am https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/philosophy/the-big-bang-the-first-cause-and-god/ (Violence to Scripture-Addendum response to BA77). Sorry BA77, that I have taken a week to respond to “mw, apparently, from all the energy you’ve put into your responses, you think that a young earth interpretation is very important. So, is or is not the young earth interpretation essential for salvation? i.e. Do only young earthers go to heaven in your belief system?” However, I answered that question at #219 (or so I thought). So, to be very clear, no I don’t. Many who are “first will be last and the last first” (Matt 19:30)... As for the Msgr: ... As this post is about the Big Bang (Urknall). A few last thoughts. The letter below was send (sic) by me to the editor of the Catholic Times (England) last weekend: [the letter was not published] Fr ——— (Credo, The Catholic Times, 16th September) appears not to see a black hole in Mgr Lemaître’s calculations about a theoretical big bang over 13.7 billion years. Lacking are equations on the super science of miracles generated at instantaneous speed and at God’s will. The Big Bang Theory cannot address any dimension of the spirit. His calculations do not account for the personal almighty power of the infinite God, and therefore, are unable to disprove or prove how God created from nothing physical. God speaks, and it its done (Ps 33:9): work that out! For example, calculate by what way God created Himself from the dead instantly, repeat the process and join it with the Big Bang Theory. Not only that Jesus generated a new species of human, instantly; one which could traverse between spirit and matter. No Darwinian theory needed. However, if Mgr Lemaître said his calculations are the best natural science can do, but adhered to must be divine law, as Jesus said, that is a different matter. End of my comments on this thread. Don't pack it in BA77, I will go if necessary. mw
A final note on how I came to have Msgr Lemaître in mind. A priest (Credo, The Catholic Times [UK], 16th September, 2016), in an article on the Big Bang Theory, said that Lemaître would no doubt be in “bliss.” I hope so. That was after, painting those Catholics who believe in divine law verbatim, “nutters,” “embarrassment,” and “stupid Christians” (Credo, The Catholic Times, 26th August). If the consensus science of Lemaître is true, then God inaugurated false worship by saying he created in six days. It is little wonder the Faith is in decline. mw
Good point, BA77 # 10. It was not meant as a general judgemental statement. However, I can see the implications. So, are you saying that God would sit the Msrg at His right hand for proving God wrong, and exult him in the highest? As for the teaching of Christ on hypocrisy and the Commandments: ‘And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, “Honour your father and your mother,” and, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.” But you say that whoever tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had from me is given to God” then that person need not honour the father. So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said: “This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.”’ (Matt 15:3-9) Today, what would Christ/Yahweh say when a major pivotal worshipful commandment is circumvented: 6 days really means 13.8 billion year days according to the tradition of consensus science? Therefore, we do not need to honour God in the commandments? If so, he is the hypocrite? As for Hugh Ross, there are plenty counter arguments available. mw
Again mw, I politely ask that you refrain from pestering me with your supposedly 'infallible' theology in which Lemaitre will have to ask, according to you, for forgiveness for following the truth as it was revealed to him.
“if it thinks that Msgr Lemaitre will sit at the right hand of the ark of the testimony of Yahweh, without first asking for forgiveness, think again.” - mw
That is simply beyond the pale in my book, and if you continue to dog me in such a manner with your supposed 'infallible' interpretation of Young Earth theology after I have asked you repeatedly to back off, I will ask that you be removed from UD, or else I shall leave UD myself. bornagain77
Hugh Ross - Testing RTB's (Old Earth) Creation Model against Young Earth Creation and Naturalism – 2015 video – 40:00 minute mark https://youtu.be/iIohXcdxrNM?t=2398 ,,, 'And if you're curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Latest Scientific Evidence for God's Existence – video 56:14 minute mark https://youtu.be/d4EaWPIlNYY?t=3374 Science and Creation - Dr Michael Strauss - video (at approx 17:00 minute mark the old earth interpretation of Genesis 1 is discussed) https://youtu.be/EZJozX3sbE0?t=1017 Dr. Hugh Ross appeared on Fox News with Lauren Green to discuss Science and the Book of Genesis. (Long Days vs. 24 hour Days) http://video.foxnews.com/v/3633724402001/does-science-support-the-book-of-genesis/#sp=show- Seven Days That Divide The World (John Lennox) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FmO2XKMe6g Old Earth Creation Science Word Study: Yom Conclusion With such a wide usage of the word Yom for many different time periods, it cannot be claimed that Yom in the Old Testament only represents a 24-hour period. During the creation account alone, Yom represents four different time periods. Rules of Hebrew, created by young earth Hebrew scholars, are invalid. Because of their biased position, they are trying to prove their own agenda. Since humans did not witness creation, our own concept of a 24-hour day does not apply. The only thing that matters is God’s concept of time. Thus, the only evidence we have to accurately assess the age of creation is the creation itself. Since the rocks and stars say we are billions of years old, that must be the truth. This fits perfectly with a literal interpretation of Genesis, and an inerrant Bible, and does not impact any other Biblical doctrines. 1 Television Show and Transcript, “Are the Genesis Creation Days 24 Hours or Long Periods of Time,” The John Ankerberg Show, 2005. http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth - Jonathan M. - 2011 Excerpt: If, therefore, it may be considered legitimate to take the seventh day as representative of a much longer period of time, then whence the mandate for supposing a commitment to interpreting the other six days as representative of 24-hour periods? Fourth, there is the multiple-usage of the word “day” in Genesis 1. Let’s take a look at the manner in which the word “day” is used in the Genesis 1 (up to 2:4) narrative alone: 1. Genesis 1:5a: “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” Here, “day” is contrasted with “night”: Thus, a 24-hour day is not in view, but rather “day” in the sense of “daytime” (i.e. 12 hours). 2. Genesis 1:5b: “And there was evening and there was morning — the first day.” Here, the word does indeed mean a 24-hour day. 3. Genesis 2:3: “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” To this, I have already alluded — the key point here is the absence of “evening” and “morning”, which denotes all of the previous six days. 4. The correct rendering of the Hebrew with respect to Genesis 2:4 is “This is the account of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” http://crossexamined.org/why-i-reject-a-young-earth-view-a-biblical-defense-of-an-old-earth/ Jason Lisle debates Hugh Ross on the age of the Earth 02/06/2014 Excerpt: Jason Lisle we take Genesis literally the starting point of YEC is Scripture the plain meaning of Scripture is that the earth was made in 6 24-hour days science has to be interpreted in a way that fits a plain reading of Genesis 1 the evidence for an old universe and old Earth must be rejected a priori Hugh Ross we take Genesis literally the Hebrew word for day (yom) can mean 24 hours or a long period of time there are multiple creation accounts in the Bible interpreting yom as long periods of time harmonizes all the accounts the Bible says that the seventh day is not even ended we believe in a literal Adam and Eve living thousands of years ago Jason Lisle there’s only 1 account of creation in the Bible: Genesis the normal view in church history is 6 24-hour days there are some early church fathers who that the days are long the other places where creation is discussed are not real accounts Hugh Ross the early church did not spend a lot of time talking about the age of the Earth there is not unanimous agreement about the age of the Earth there is no definitive statement on the age of the Earth until Isaac Newton Newton strongly favored an old earth, hundreds of years before Darwin there are other creation accounts, Job 38-39 Pslam 104 is a creation account Jason Lisle a Psalm is not written in the genre of historical narrative Psalm 104 is not a creation account – it talks about ships, etc it’s talking about the modern era, not a creation account The evidence from science Hugh Ross both of us believe in an absolute beginning of time, space and matter both of us believe that space is expanding now stars form as matter coalesces during the expansion of the universe star formation requires a universe aged on the order of billions of years Jason Lisle if you pre-suppose my interpretation of Genesis, then the universe is young Hugh Ross the speed of the expansion of the universe proves an old universe the light emitted from the oldest stars also proves an old universe Jason Lisle if you pre-suppose my interpretation of Genesis, then the universe is young Was the universe made with the appearance of age Jason Lisle any evidence for an old universe is wrong stars didn’t form gradually, they were created by God instantly stars have the appearance of age, but they’re actually young Hugh Ross God doesn’t lie in the Bible or in the book of nature Scientists can look back in time by looking further out into the universe Because light takes a long time to travel to the Earth, we can see the past we can see a time when there were no stars yet stars formed slowly over time, not instantaneously we have photos of the universe before stars and after stars we can see a history of the universe by looking closer and further away Does nature provide us with knowledge about creation? They discuss Psalm 19 now, so here’s Psalm 19:1-5: 1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, 5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. Jason Lisle nature isn’t a book nature doesn’t provide knowledge about God Psalm 19 doesn’t say that nature communicates to us verse 3 says “There is no speech nor language” Hugh Ross If you read all of verse 3, it says the exact opposite of what you just said it says Verse 1: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” Verse 2: “Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.” Verse 3: “There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.“ Verse 4: “Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” Jason Lisle You can’t take the Bible literally all the time How important is the age of the Earth? Hugh Ross it’s a non-essential because it has nothing to do with salvation or inerrancy both sides of the debate affirm the same views of salvation and inerrancy professional scientists have multiple lines of evidence saying the universe is old the only reason it matters is that young earth creationism is a barrier to faith if you have to deny science to be a Christian, then it stops people from being saved young earth opposition to science has been used by secularists to marginalize Christianity Jason Lisle there was no death in the Garden of Eden, animal or human, before the Fall the Bible says that death was a consequence of Adam’s sin so there was no death before the Fall, according to the Bible old earth people believe in death before the Fall Consider Romans 5:12: 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— Hugh Ross Romans 5:12 says that Adam’s sin caused death to come to all men old earth people believe that only animal death existed before the Fall, not human death plant and animal death existed before the Fall – Adam and Eve were eating! Jason Lisle I interpret the Bible to say that plants aren’t living creatures What about dinosaurs, the Flood, and Noah’s ark? Jason Lisle dinosaurs were created on the 6th day dinosaurs lived alongside humans and were vegetarians before the Fall dinosaurs were on the Ark – they’re not that big – just take baby dinosaurs it’s a global flood Hugh Ross dinosaurs were created on the 5th day they were extinct before before humans ever appeared nobody in history ever wrote about dinosaurs until 200 years ago it’s a local flood https://winteryknight.com/2014/02/06/jason-lisle-debates-hugh-ross-on-the-age-of-the-earth-2/
BA77. As for the teaching of Christ on hypocrisy and the Commandments: ‘And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, “Honour your father and your mother,” and, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.” But you say that whoever tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had from me is given to God” then that person need not honour the father. So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said: “This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.”’ (Matt 15:3-9) Today, what would Christ/Yahweh say when a major pivotal worshipful commandment is circumvented: 6 days really means 13.8 billion year days according to the tradition of consensus science? Therefore, we do not really need to honour God in the commandment exactly has he testified! mw
"if it thinks that Msgr Lemaitre will sit at the right hand of the ark of the testimony of Yahweh, without first asking for forgiveness, think again." bornagain77
Further, BA77, as you create me as a hypocrite, when you appear to bear false witness against the neighbour, in this case , me, that is rich. Is it not you that bears false witness against the public Testimony of God at Sinai; that his word cannot be trusted verbatim, unless through Hugh Ross or human consensous science? In this case, you are a fine one to make out anyone is a hypocrite. Still, you do me great honour. I am still awaiting your virbatum citation referrence of my alleged comments! mw
As an aside, a useful article re- ID and YEC. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/bio_chem_fac_pubs/79/ Cited from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/02/new_film_is_gen103510.html mw
As for engaging with scientific debate, I have done just that. Another example, https://youtu.be/s9_o7NGTkJc The video is useful in seeing the 'out of tune universe.' And, http://creation.com/secular-scientists-blast-the-big-bang mw
You say, BA77, "and have even said people who disagree with your YEC interpretation are in need of ‘forgiveness’ from God." Please cite you reference, I do not ever recollect saying such. I hope I would never say such. The matter is not a salvation issue. mw
"Let’s be perfectly clear, there is no intent of trolling on my part" But alas, you do not debate the science, you simply proclaim your interpretation of scripture infallible and have even said people who disagree with your YEC interpretation are in need of 'forgiveness' from God. IMHO, that is worse than trolling. It reminds me of something that the religious hypocrites of Jesus day would do. Since science is definitely not your strong suit, perhaps a more theologically centered site would be more fitting for you? Once again, I politely ask you to stop pestering me. bornagain77
For the attention of the Administrators. Following the polite request by BA77, that I stop ‘trolling’ him. ___________________________________________________________________ Let's be perfectly clear, there is no intent of trolling on my part when interjecting with any posting by you, BA77, or anyone. Yet I have had interactions with others. A few even giving positive replies. I would not mind if I contributed on a daily basis, as you do BA77, and against all you say, which I do not! Also, BA77, you do not object when I reply with positive comments to your posts! As for me trolling you, BA77, think again. I have other things to do in my life than focus on you. If you did not say as much, I perhaps would not have much to reply too! I am simply responding in a debating arena, with politeness. As Uncommon Descent at times appears to me, UD according to BA77, and in which it is ok for such as rvb8 and others to have their say but not me, are you sure it is not you BA77, who is trolling me, and then discriminating? What is really irritating you BA77? Could it be that scripture is true to the “tittle” (Matt 5:17-18)? That, God can stand on his creation law forever? As said, he changes not (Mal 3:6), therefore, God is always up-to-date! You make out that keeping to what God said at Sinai is unscientific, and as no basis in science. As you or I have no understanding of miracles and their effect on data, are you not in danger of creating a scientific God based on natural data and calculations? Such then puts down the God of Sinai, and eventually, people will by-and-large, put down the God of Sinai, as polls are suggesting. If you think that is a sermon, so be it. It is a reply. Do you not, BA77, ‘preach’ Big Bang equals scripture? Even rvb8 makes comment on your use of Jn 1:1-4, which is a reflection of Genesis 1:1. You splatter verse and song to the Big Bang belief system. Fair enough! Do you not preach it under the guise that the theory is true? And, with respect BA77, as you like adding verse to scripture. How about the “song” of Moses (Deut 31:9-22), (Deut 32:1–43). The Command by God to write down what he said and made public every seven years, that he created in six days. Now of course, strictly out of tune today with fallen people. When you can prove that God is wrong on his public preaching that he created in six days, then I will take notice of you and become an atheist. With respect, as you claim to be a Christian, then take my comments as a cross for the sake of scripture and the sake of Christ. I regularly take up my cross believing in unmodified divine law, words upheld by Jesus. “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Matt 5:11). The strength of ID, to me, is, having a broad basis to what an intelligent pattern or perceived message is, in this case, a pattern of sound words, Yahweh gave at Sinai, unnaturally. Once ID becomes selective on its patterns of divine intelligence and time scales, without considering all time scales, surely it becomes a biased consensus scientific religion, preaching long ages, and is little different to BioLogos? To my understanding, and this is what I enjoy about ID, even with differences. There are excellent contributors, including you BA77; yes, and atheists. A person may pick up many useful things. Circumventing scripture by threatening to have an opponent dismissed or reduced for what you perceive as a nuisance, is hardly Christian ‘cricket.’ Therefore, I ask the administrators to consider such, that I am not in truth, intending to troll BA77, just responding to something which needs responding to, so I believe. I will abide by their discussion. If negative I will not contribute to UD. A great shame. In another aspect, if the admins banned me, it might be doing me a service, as writing a book is taking all my time. If I do not hear from the administrators, in this thread, I take it that from time to time I may interject on a reasonable basis with your comments, and on my part which, is not personal, when you write as though the Big Bang Theory is incontestable scientific and scriptural truth, when there are others who would object. Surely, BA77, it’s all a matter of ‘handbags.’ All the best. mw mw
mw, I've politely asked you before to refrain from trolling me with your 'science-free' 6 day creation sermons. If you referenced any actual science instead of just repeating your YEC interpretation of scripture as infallible over and over again, I would not mind so much.,,, IMHO, the science for YEC does not hold up to scrutiny, but at least I would not mind so much in your interactions with me. So I politely ask you again, please desist from trolling me with your supposedly 'infallible' interpretation of scripture. bornagain77
BA77, referring to Msgr Lemaitre, cites Einstein: “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” Excuse me, BA77, the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation was that your God and mine, God the Holy Trinity, through the essence of Yahweh, publicly witnessed and announced, descending in fire, smoke and lightning, while shaking Mount Sinai, to the sound of trumpet, that he created in six days (Exod 19:17-19). Those were not real days according to Hugh Ross. Therefore, not a real public witness statement by our God; a fudge. Still, God changes not (Mal 3:6), meaning, God is up-to-date all the time. Indeed, it was by such truth, God said we would be sanctified (Exod 31:12-18): a perpetual covenant, a sign forever, that he created in six days (v 16-17). Einstein was gushing over that a Catholic priest provided evidence that the Holy Trinity told a porky at Sinai? Yes, the priest mathematically calculated a beginning, but it was not the beginning of a time scale your God and mine testified publicly, as such was the sanctifying truth. Jesus asked the Father to sanctify us in his truth (Jn 17:17). God provided a triple witness statement at Sinai. His voice, which made the people watching and listening afraid. His public witness statement, (upheld by Jesus) and written with a seal of stone his words. Not only that, Moses recorded the words and law, and placed the book beside the ark. The book was to be read every seven years as witness (Deut 31:9-22). A great ‘missing’ from the priest's calculations is the law of miracles. We cannot disprove or prove God created in six days because we cannot calculate a miracle, or do not possess that power. There was only one witness to the beginning! And, we cannot test the practicality of the priest’s theory as we haven't a spare space to test his figures. As for space, surely, it must be eternal if God is eternal. From what time space, did God create in the beginning of the material space-time? I suspect somehow, that Sir Fred Hoyle was somewhat right in that some form of space must have eternally existed. We live and move and have our being in God (Acts 17:27). Therefore, in what space and time does God act, move and have his being? A new book, primarily from a Catholic view, but for the Christian movement in general, “Creation, Evolutionism, and Catholicism: A Discussion for Those Who Believe” [meaning, in divine law, that God created in six days – my insertion] by Thomas L. MacFadden (2016). http://scienceandcatholicism.myfreesites.net/ The work includes references to Stephen C. Myer, Michael Denton, and Wayne D. Rossiter. For a review of the book - http://angelqueen.org/2016/12/23/review-of-creation-evolution-and-catholicism-a-discussion-for-those-who-believe/ And http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/book-review-creation-evolution-and.html In the book, a Catholic priest, a Jesuit, and the Vatican’s chief Astronomer at the time; the Rev. George Coyne, is quoted as saying, “that intelligent design “isn’t science, even though it pretends to be.” (p 61). Now, the book is positive about the Discovery Institute, and Evolution News and Views. My point BA77, leave room for your God to tell the outright truth, and make a law that is irrevocable (Matt 5:17-18). As for the Catholic Church, if it thinks that Msgr Lemaitre will sit at the right hand of the ark of the testimony of Yahweh, without first asking for forgiveness, think again. Either God was spot on at Sinai, or he cannot calculate past 6 and 7 according to the Big Bang theory time scale, and Yahweh sent Hugh Ross and others to correct God. At least we agree that the universe had a beginning. mw
An atheist citing the Big Bang as evidence for his non-belief in God? And a 'idiosyncratic' theist arguing for a eternally existing universe? Boy, that is a conversation that went sideways in a hurry. The fact that the universe was shown not to be eternally existing by the Big Bang was a devastating blow to atheism since it undermined the atheistic belief that the universe has always existed. I find it very interesting that the materialistic belief of the universe being stable, and infinite in duration, was so deeply rooted in scientific thought that Albert Einstein, (1879-1955), when he was shown that his general relativity equation indicated a universe that was unstable and would ‘draw together’ under its own gravity, added a cosmological constant to his equation to reflect a stable universe rather than entertain the thought that the universe might have had a beginning..
Einstein and The Belgian Priest, George Lemaitre - The "Father" Of The Big Bang Theory – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhLQ_b3bKdI
In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said,
“This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”
Einstein ended up calling the cosmological constant, he had added to his equation to try get around a beginning for the universe, the 'biggest blunder' of his life.
Einstein’s Greatest Blunder – The Cosmological Constant "Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder of his life." — George Gamow, My World Line, 1970 http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/blunder.html Cosmological constant Excerpt: Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant.[1] However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedmann, working on the Einstein equations of general-relatvity. Einstein later referred to his failure to accept the validaton of his equations; when they had predicted the expansion of the universe in theory, before it was demonstrated in observation of the cosmological red shift, as the “biggest blunder” of his life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant#History
Einstein's general relativity equation has now been extended to confirm not only did matter and energy have a beginning in the Big Bang, but space-time also had a beginning. i.e. The Big Bang was an absolute origin of space-time, matter-energy, and as such demands a cause which transcends space-time, matter-energy.
"Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 Big Bang Theory - An Overview of the main evidence Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Only the bible correctly predicted an absolute beginning for the universe: Among all the 'holy' books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)
(Genesis 1 – Transcendent Origin) Scientific Evidence For God's Existence (Hugh Ross) – 17:00 minute mark - video https://youtu.be/4mEKZRm1xXg?t=1032 The Most Important Verse in the Bible - Prager University - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BqWdu1BnBQ The Uniqueness of Genesis 1:1 - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXdQCkISo0 Faith, Fact, and False Dichotomies - Austin L. Hughes - 2015 Excerpt: Coyne issues the following challenge to his readers: “Over the years, I’ve repeatedly challenged people to give me a single verified fact about reality that came from scripture or revelation alone and then was confirmed only later by science or empirical observation.” I can think of one example, which comes from the work of St. Thomas Aquinas (whose writings Coyne badly misrepresents elsewhere in his book). Based on his exposure to Aristotle and Aristotle’s Arab commentators, Aquinas argued that it is impossible to know by reason whether or not the universe had a beginning. But he argued that Christians can conclude that the universe did have a beginning on the basis of revelation (in Genesis). In most of the period of modern science, the assumption that the universe is eternal was quietly accepted by virtually all physicists and astronomers, until the Belgian Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître proposed the Big Bang theory in the 1920s. Coyne does not mention Lemaître, though he does mention the data that finally confirmed the Big Bang in the 1960s. But, if the Big Bang theory is correct, our universe did indeed have a beginning, as Aquinas argued on the basis of revelation.,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/faith-fact-and-false-dichotomies
Further quotes:
“The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.” Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Background Radiation “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’ “The Bible is frequently dismissed as being anti-scientific because it makes no predictions. Oh no, that is incorrect. It makes a brilliant prediction. For centuries it has been saying there was a beginning. And if scientists had taken that a bit more seriously they might have discovered evidence for a beginning a lot earlier than they did.” John Lennox “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston – in paper delivered at atheist Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday party (Characterized as 'Worst Birthday Present Ever') – January 2012

Leave a Reply