Science Proves Nature Was Created

[Etritonakin]

The title is a bit of a play on words, but many seem to think of "nature" in terms of what now exists -sometimes as if it has always been that way.

However, what now exists was brought into being by a very specific process. It was created -even if in the broadest sense.

(The following ideas may not have originated with me, but they are interesting to consider, nonetheless.)

"During most of their lives, stars fuse hydrogen into helium in their cores, but the fusion process rarely stops at this point; most of the helium in the universe was made during the initial big bang. When the star's core runs out of hydrogen, the star begins to die out. The processes that occur during this period form the heavier elements.

Read more: Formation of Elements - Formation Of Elements - Burning, Stars, Helium, and Star - JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/2412/Elements-Formation-Formation-elements.html#ixzz3jBrFgIPt
"

Something caused that which existed before the big bang (Pre-Big Bang Nature?) to become the big bang -which, in turn, became the elements, etc., which, in turn, became life -or, at the very least, became that which allowed physical life to exist.

The five elements present in all DNA are Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and
Phosphorus.

If evolution based on those elements was inevitable, it was only inevitable after those elements existed, and only due to the forces which brought them together in the necessary order inevitably doing so....
unless.... the formation of those elements was also inevitable.

If evolution was inevitable due to the nature of the big bang, and the universe is generally similar everywhere, we should expect life to be present in many places throughout the universe -at least eventually.

By inevitable, I mean certainty not requiring forethought, design, effort, etc. -at least at a certain point

If one considers God to be the creator of the heavens (universe), the worlds, the earth -essentially all that we can know -one ought not assume the point at which God did any specific thing -especially if it is not specified. Even if something is specified, one ought to acknowledge that one does not know the specifics about that.
Biblical scripture advises us to "prove all things" -so science, in its purest form -ought to be seen as an awesome tool to do so -not something to be rejected.

Scripture specifies that God did certain things after the heavens and earth were in existence (actually, "specifies" is not very accurate, as very few specific details are given, and much is often assumed buy the reader) -but we have no clue what was inevitable at what point -what would absolutely require forethought, design and action at what point to achieve what now is -and even science is far from knowing the nature of nature -especially before the Big Bang -well enough to know absolutely.

Many parts of the bible indicate that what now is was planned before it was initiated -so we ought not to scoff at the idea of inevitability even if we believe in a creator.
We, ourselves, can change what was otherwise inevitable -and make another thing inevitable.

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Luke 14:28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?

 

[Valjean]

"Before the big bang" is an oxymoron.
If time were created at the big bang, "before" the big bang makes no sense.

 

[Yerda]

"Before the big bang" is an oxymoron.
If time were created at the big bang, "before" the big bang makes no sense.

Many physicists don't seem to mind the phrase.

 

[Copernicus]

...However, what now exists was brought into being by a very specific process. It was created -even if in the broadest sense...

Be careful when you started tossing around expressions like "in the broadest sense", because that is not the sense that you mean when you start referring to a creator god and the scripture that helps define that god. You might assume that the Big Bang, for example, was "caused" by some kind of antecedent event--an assumption that ignores the fact that time itself was created by the beginning of the universe--but there is no reason to believe that the consequent was planned by an intelligent being. Indeed, the only examples we have of actual intelligent planners are "created beings" such as ourselves, so you end up with the conundrum of an unevidenced, uncreated intelligent planner--one that didn't come into being as a result of an evolutionary process.

 

[Etritonakin]

Be careful when you started tossing around expressions like "in the broadest sense", because that is not the sense that you mean when you start referring to a creator god and the scripture that helps define that god. You might assume that the Big Bang, for example, was "caused" by some kind of antecedent event--an assumption that ignores the fact that time itself was created by the beginning of the universe--but there is no reason to believe that the consequent was planned by an intelligent being. Indeed, the only examples we have of actual intelligent planners are "created beings" such as ourselves, so you end up with the conundrum of an unevidenced, uncreated intelligent planner--one that didn't come into being as a result of an evolutionary process.

I did not begin by referring to a creator. In the broadest sense is exactly what I meant (though the title was a bit of shameless baiting )

When I did mention a creator, my point was that conclusive scientific evidence is thus far unavailable -and may be beyond our human capabilities should it exist.

I have my personal beliefs, but was trying to write from an overall human perspective -acknowledging the present states of science and religious belief -and attempting to cause people top think in broader terms regardless of their position.

I included the following to point out to believers in the bible -from a biblical perspective -that they would have no clue when or how God did what.

Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

 

[Etritonakin]

"Before the big bang" is an oxymoron.
If time were created at the big bang, "before" the big bang makes no sense.

Time is a measure of relationships. Certainly, science must believe the big bang had a cause of some sort -that it was a rearranging of what was into something else. Mustn't it?

 

[leibowde84]

The title is a bit of a play on words, but many seem to think of "nature" in terms of what now exists -sometimes as if it has always been that way.

However, what now exists was brought into being by a very specific process. It was created -even if in the broadest sense.

(The following ideas may not have originated with me, but they are interesting to consider, nonetheless.)

"During most of their lives, stars fuse hydrogen into helium in their cores, but the fusion process rarely stops at this point; most of the helium in the universe was made during the initial big bang. When the star's core runs out of hydrogen, the star begins to die out. The processes that occur during this period form the heavier elements.

Read more: Formation of Elements - Formation Of Elements - Burning, Stars, Helium, and Star - JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/2412/Elements-Formation-Formation-elements.html#ixzz3jBrFgIPt
"

Something caused that which existed before the big bang (Pre-Big Bang Nature?) to become the big bang -which, in turn, became the elements, etc., which, in turn, became life -or, at the very least, became that which allowed physical life to exist.

The five elements present in all DNA are Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and
Phosphorus.

If evolution based on those elements was inevitable, it was only inevitable after those elements existed, and only due to the forces which brought them together in the necessary order inevitably doing so....
unless.... the formation of those elements was also inevitable.

If evolution was inevitable due to the nature of the big bang, and the universe is generally similar everywhere, we should expect life to be present in many places throughout the universe -at least eventually.

By inevitable, I mean certainty not requiring forethought, design, effort, etc. -at least at a certain point

If one considers God to be the creator of the heavens (universe), the worlds, the earth -essentially all that we can know -one ought not assume the point at which God did any specific thing -especially if it is not specified. Even if something is specified, one ought to acknowledge that one does not know the specifics about that.
Biblical scripture advises us to "prove all things" -so science, in its purest form -ought to be seen as an awesome tool to do so -not something to be rejected.

Scripture specifies that God did certain things after the heavens and earth were in existence (actually, "specifies" is not very accurate, as very few specific details are given, and much is often assumed buy the reader) -but we have no clue what was inevitable at what point -what would absolutely require forethought, design and action at what point to achieve what now is -and even science is far from knowing the nature of nature -especially before the Big Bang -well enough to know absolutely.

Many parts of the bible indicate that what now is was planned before it was initiated -so we ought not to scoff at the idea of inevitability even if we believe in a creator.
We, ourselves, can change what was otherwise inevitable -and make another thing inevitable.

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Luke 14:28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?

I'm not sure whether this is a valid argument. You are making some pretty HUGE assumptions. First, and most importantly, you use the phrase "before the big bang". But, to the best of our current understanding, time was created at that point, so it is nonsensical to speak about anything before that point. Further, if there was something, or nothing, we have no idea what that would have been like. Thus, we have no REAL reason to think that the big bang came from nothing or that there wasn't a natural cause to it.

 

[Skwim]

"Before the big bang" is an oxymoron.
If time were created at the big bang, "before" the big bang makes no sense.

I don't believe Etritonakin said time was created at the BB. And "before the big bang" is hardly an oxymoron. It's the name of a concept and nothing more. The most that cosmologists have conceded is that the creation of time, space, and energy were co-incidental. Personally, however, I have a difficult time wrapping my mind around the fact that if the BB happened, say exactly 3,715,886,124 years, 44 days, 2 hours, 16 minutes, and 41 seconds ago, that one has to reject the notion that there couldn't be a moment that preceded it, say a moment 2 seconds before, which would be 3,715,886,124 years, 44 days, 2 hours, 16 minutes and 43 seconds ago.

 

[Copernicus]

I did not begin by referring to a creator. In the broadest sense is exactly what I meant (though the title was a bit of shameless baiting )

When I did mention a creator, my point was that conclusive scientific evidence is thus far unavailable -and may be beyond our human capabilities should it exist.

Yes, I understood you to be saying that, and I took it into account in my reply. Once you start speculating about the existence of a creator, however, you are no longer speaking in the broadest sense. So your point is moot. We have plenty of reasonable theories about the nature and creation of the universe that do not rely on the existence of a deity, fathomable or not. There are an infinite variety of things we cannot prove, but we don't usually waste time worrying about them. If you just want to believe in the existence and involvement of a deity as a matter of faith alone, that's certainly your prerogative.

I have my personal beliefs, but was trying to write from an overall human perspective -acknowledging the present states of science and religious belief -and attempting to cause people top think in broader terms regardless of their position.

That is a very noble goal, but it is presumptuous to start out with the position that you are the broad-minded one and others are not. The existence of a god (however one defines it) is not impossible, but we have plenty of reason to consider such beings implausible. There are an unlimited number of possible beings that don't exist, so it hardly seems reasonable to consider the existence of any type of being plausible without at least some reasonable evidence.

I included the following to point out to believers in the bible -from a biblical perspective -that they would have no clue when or how God did what.

Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Fair enough, but that point can only make sense to someone who believes in the Bible, and I doubt that you are going to get unanimity on what Bible passages mean even from those people.

 

[Nietzsche]

"Before the big bang" is an oxymoron.
If time were created at the big bang, "before" the big bang makes no sense.

Many physicists don't seem to mind the phrase.

When you hear a physicist talk about the Big Bang, and they refer to a "nothing" prior to it, it should be understood that this "nothing" is not the absence of anything or things, but the absence of anything we could make words for. Just like how you can't define an unseeable colour beyond it is unseeable, you can't describe the "before" the Big Bang in a way that would make any sense. "Nothing" is much easier to say, and gets the point across without a six-hour lecture on how we can't describe **** that can apparently no longer even exist in our universe. The conditions have changed too radically.

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes, I understood you to be saying that, and I took it into account in my reply. Once you start speculating about the existence of a creator, however, you are no longer speaking in the broadest sense. So your point is moot. We have plenty of reasonable theories about the nature and creation of the universe that do not rely on the existence of a deity, fathomable or not. There are an infinite variety of things we cannot prove, but we don't usually waste time worrying about them. If you just want to believe in the existence and involvement of a deity as a matter of faith alone, that's certainly your prerogative.


That is a very noble goal, but it is presumptuous to start out with the position that you are the broad-minded one and others are not. The existence of a god (however one defines it) is not impossible, but we have plenty of reason to consider such beings implausible. There are an unlimited number of possible beings that don't exist, so it hardly seems reasonable to consider the existence of any type of being plausible without at least some reasonable evidence.


Fair enough, but that point can only make sense to someone who believes in the Bible, and I doubt that you are going to get unanimity on what Bible passages mean even from those people.

You are making assumptions about many things which are not accurate

 

[Copernicus]

My understanding of time is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics runs the universe's "clock". Entropy either stays the same or increases over time. It started with the Big Bang. Hence, it makes no sense to talk about a "before" event, at least not from the perspective of our temporal framework. That doesn't mean that there cannot be something they call "imaginary time", which is orthogonal to our time reference.

 

[Copernicus]

You are making assumptions about many things which are not accurate

Such as?

 

[Desert Snake]

When you hear a physicist talk about the Big Bang, and they refer to a "nothing" prior to it, it should be understood that this "nothing" is not the absence of anything or things, but the absence of anything we could make words for. Just like how you can't define an unseeable colour beyond it is unseeable, you can't describe the "before" the Big Bang in a way that would make any sense. "Nothing" is much easier to say, and gets the point across without a six-hour lecture on how we can't describe **** that can apparently no longer even exist in our universe. The conditions have changed too radically.

Wow, so, the word ''nothing'' here, doesn't even mean nothing? But it would take hours to explain what ''nothing'' means, in this context? And this is 'more likely', than Creationism? It seems not only like a non-explanation, but the absence of even a theory.

ok, an unexplainable theory/ Just call it ''nothing''

 

[Etritonakin]

I'm not sure whether this is a valid argument. You are making some pretty HUGE assumptions. First, and most importantly, you use the phrase "before the big bang". But, to the best of our current understanding, time was created at that point, so it is nonsensical to speak about anything before that point. Further, if there was something, or nothing, we have no idea what that would have been like. Thus, we have no REAL reason to think that the big bang came from nothing or that there wasn't a natural cause to it.

Your current understanding does not define nonsensical.

Science ridiculing religion for believing in magic and then saying the universe magically appeared from nothing is nonsensical. There is every reason to believe there was something before the Big Bang -absolutely no reason to believe nothing preceded the Big Bang.

The Big Bang may have defined the relative timing of all that proceeded from it, but that is not the same thing as creating time itself.


Unless we are to accept that magic is not possible now -but was that non-thing that produced the universe -and was possible only at the point of the Big Bang..........
then the Big Bang was produced by and preceded by something -it is relative to that something -and so could not be the beginning of time itself.
We view time as relative to that point -but that is not to say that point is not relative to something else.
That would be nonsensical.

I agree that we are not at a point that we could understand what preceded the Big Bang, but absolutely nothing preceding it is an impossibility.

It might be said that in one sense, time isn't a thing -but a measure of other things, just as an inch is a measure of other things. We can se a representation of an inch on a ruler, but it is really two points with a specific amount of some material between them.
As long as something exists to measure, measurement exists (even if it is not considered.)

So.... If literally nothing existed at some point -and the Big Bang was relative to literally nothing -preceded by literally nothing -then I would agree that it was the beginning of time, but I cannot accept that such was a possibility. As long as there was something that could be -and would be -something else, there was "time" -a measure of the relationships of things.

If the Big Bang was the singularity it is thought to have been, then the relationships of things produced by the Big Bang expanded from -perhaps decompressed from -the Big Bang -like inch lines on a tape measure with compressed material between them stretching out, or a stretchy tape measure, but that expansion would be relative to something before or beyond the Big Bang.

"Post Big Bang Universe Time" would have begun with the Big Bang -but not "time"

 

[Etritonakin]

Such as?

I don't mean to be rude, but more than I would like to discuss with you.

That may be my fault -I do not express myself very clearly sometimes -or understand the perspectives of other enough to make things clear to all at the same time -but if I read a post which is quite far removed from what I was saying and would require countering many points, I am reluctant to reply.

 

[Etritonakin]

Wow, so, the word ''nothing'' here, doesn't even mean nothing? But it would take hours to explain what ''nothing'' means, in this context? And this is 'more likely', than Creationism? It seems not only like a non-explanation, but the absence of even a theory.

ok, an unexplainable theory/ Just call it ''nothing''

Are you referring to something I said?

 

[Desert Snake]

Are you referring to something I said?

That was to another poster. Referring to the concept of ''nothing'', existing before the big bang. To clarify, I don't believe in the standard 'big bang' theory anyways, though.

 

[Etritonakin]

That was to another poster. Referring to the concept of ''nothing'', existing before the big bang. To clarify, I don't believe in the standard 'big bang' theory anyways, though.

OK

There could never have been literally "nothing". If anyone thinks that is incorrect, I would be interested in hearing why they think so.

 

[Nietzsche]

Wow, so, the word ''nothing'' here, doesn't even mean nothing? But it would take hours to explain what ''nothing'' means, in this context? And this is 'more likely', than Creationism? It seems not only like a non-explanation, but the absence of even a theory.

ok, an unexplainable theory/ Just call it ''nothing''

God is more believable than "something we are incapable of understanding because we were born within this universe, and are conditioned for a certain set of physics."?

Think about it logically. Nothing comes from a void. The universe has a point where it began, we know this. However that means there had to be something to hold whatever the universe was before the 'beginning' event. That would be something we inherently cannot grasp. It would be utterly alien and unknowable. It would follow none of the physics we recognize because those things don't exist yet, and won't exist until the Event/Big Bang.

"Nothing" is much easier to say than "physics that aren't and matter that isn't".