• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Big Bang: Whodunit?

Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
usfan said:
Great! But it does not answer the question:

How did the universe expand trillions-fold, in trillionths of a second? This violates all laws of physics. There is no mechanism that can account for this conjecture.
Click to expand...
That's one of those things that goes beyond our normal, natural understanding and classical physics of our world.

The speed of information is limited in space... but space, the fabric where everything sits on, can expand, move, fold, shape, at any speed.

The expansion of the universe isn't that the matter and energy within space is moving fast in relation to the fabric of space, but rather space itself is expanding, like stretching out a rubber band. If you stretch a rubber band, the dirt and dust on the band doesn't move in relation to the band, but they move in relation to each other because the band is expanding.

And if it did suddenly expand in such a short time, how can you extrapolate back, via some calculated expansion rate, that IS based on uniformity and laws of physics, and arrive at an age of the universe? Would not the phenomena of instantaneous expansion nullify the assumptions of uniformity?
Click to expand...
Don't remember exactly from my astronomy intro, but one thing is the background radiation.

However, personally, I did have some issues with a few things in astronomy that seemed to be contradictory, and I have had my own concerns about big bang theory for years, but that's neither here nor there. Whatever the leading theory is, I'm still okay with my beliefs.
 
usfan

usfan

Well-Known Member
ImmortalFlame said:
It wasn't instantaneous. It a was a comparatively rapid expansion event.
Click to expand...
How do you measure, or differentiate, between 'trillions of trillionths' of a second, and instantaneous? Is that not a nit pick deflection?

Was this time frame actually measured, by empirical methodology, or conjectured, to give plausibility to our existence?
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
usfan said:
How do you measure, or differentiate, between 'trillions of trillionths' of a second, and instantaneous? Is that not a nit pick deflection?
Click to expand...
Not really. Instantaneous means instantaneous. If something took any measure of time, it is not instantaneous by definition. It may be nit-picky if we were talking about, say, the time it takes for Google to produce search results, but when we're talking about very specific things in science, the distinction between "instantaneous" and "trillions of a trillionth of a second" can actually be kind of important.

usfan said:
Was this time frame actually measured, by empirical methodology, or conjectured, to give plausibility to our existence?
Click to expand...
You would have to consult the research paper I linked earlier. I think it would seem strange to just pull a number out of thin air that is as specific as trillions of a trillionth of a second.
 
Last edited:
T

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
leov said:
What St. Augustine meant by ex nihilo, what did he try to describe? Nihil video? You may be correct.
Click to expand...

A rapid google gives me this: Extract 4: Augustine and creatio ex nihilo - Philosophical Investigations

  • The Greeks held that the cosmos had always existed, that there has always been matter out of which the world has come into its present form. Aristotle (384-322 BC), the foremost natural philosopher of his day, had developed a philosophical argument for the eternity of the world (Physics, I, 9; On the Heavens, I, 3). Philosophers of other schools such as the Stoics and the Epicureans also agreed that the world or its underlying reality is eternal. All these thinkers were led to this conclusion because they observed that “nothing can come out of nothing,” and so there always has to be a “something” that other things can come from, however one understands the processes of coming into being and passing away.
  • Creation out of nothing is central to the theology of one of the most important early Christian thinkers, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (d. ca. 202). Rejecting Greek notions about the world in his treatise Against the Heresies, Irenaeus declared: “God, in the exercise of his will and pleasure, formed all things…out of what did not previously exist” (II.x.2: Irenaeus 370). The concept, adopted by other patristic theologians, perhaps finds its mature form in the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354-430), who in his Confessions declares that through his Wisdom God creates all things, not out of himself or any other thing, but literally out of nothing (XII, 7; Pine-Coffin 284).
 
Bob the Unbeliever

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Terry Sampson said:
IMO,
  1. Godless universes don't set aside all laws of physics; indeed, it's physically impossible. Imaginary universes, however, can and do all the time.
  2. There is only one universe. It has no boundaries, has always existed, and always will exist. Its parts are always in motion, always have been and always will be. New planets, stars, and galaxies form; old planets, stars, and galaxies fade away. Sometimes collisions between them cause them to fade away faster than they would have if there were no collision.
  3. The Big Bang is a crock of malarkey:
  4. Creation, out of nothing, is an old folktale.
  5. Marvelous things happen in a boundless, eternal universe; miracles don't.
Click to expand...

Except for #3? Excellent analysis. The BBT is well supported by evidence, however.
 
leov

leov

Well-Known Member
Terry Sampson said:
A rapid google gives me this: Extract 4: Augustine and creatio ex nihilo - Philosophical Investigations

  • The Greeks held that the cosmos had always existed, that there has always been matter out of which the world has come into its present form. Aristotle (384-322 BC), the foremost natural philosopher of his day, had developed a philosophical argument for the eternity of the world (Physics, I, 9; On the Heavens, I, 3). Philosophers of other schools such as the Stoics and the Epicureans also agreed that the world or its underlying reality is eternal. All these thinkers were led to this conclusion because they observed that “nothing can come out of nothing,” and so there always has to be a “something” that other things can come from, however one understands the processes of coming into being and passing away.
  • Creation out of nothing is central to the theology of one of the most important early Christian thinkers, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (d. ca. 202). Rejecting Greek notions about the world in his treatise Against the Heresies, Irenaeus declared: “God, in the exercise of his will and pleasure, formed all things…out of what did not previously exist” (II.x.2: Irenaeus 370). The concept, adopted by other patristic theologians, perhaps finds its mature form in the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354-430), who in his Confessions declares that through his Wisdom God creates all things, not out of himself or any other thing, but literally out of nothing (XII, 7; Pine-Coffin 284).
Click to expand...
Genesis described 'nothing' using word 'bara' which implies producing out of nothing vs 'asah', making out of something. existing
 
T

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Bob the Unbeliever said:
The BBT is well supported by evidence, however.
Click to expand...

In which case, it may please you to watch ratiocinator and maybe Polymath, if he can lower his standards sufficiently, kick my butt in a One-on-One thread which I hope to begin if I can ever get out of this. Stay tuned. And don't forget to pick up popcorn, snacks, and drink in the lobby.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
usfan said:
Which belief is more reasonable? Why would believing in atheistic naturalism be 'Science!', but believing in a Creator is 'Religion!'?
Click to expand...
I believe in neither since it is virtually impossible to verify either. So, I go with "Whatever happened, happened".
 
leov

leov

Well-Known Member
Terry Sampson said:
Nice. Now go ask Irenaeus and Augustine if that qualifies as nihil in their book. I bet they'll tell you: "Hell no. Nihil est nihil, nada, zip."
Click to expand...
Well, fwiw, I subscribe to Fabre d'Olivet's translation of Genesis 1, which is creation in principle, as a plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top