[_ Old Earth _] The Bible Talks About the Expansion of the Universe

[zeke]

And you may want to tell us want you understand by nothing and how the hypothesized BB singularity amounts to this nothing. I remember no 'evolution of the gaps quagmire'; I suspect you may be subject to selective memory syndrome. Perhaps you can reference the relevant posts?

But I didn’t say a singularity amounts to nothing – I said your creation myth based on naturalism stating something (the Universe) came from nothing is illogical. Science can predict a beginning to the universe; but science cannot tell us how the universe began. For any answer that goes back beyond BB singularity we will have to look to God for the answer but the moderator has strongly noted that discussion of the existence of God is taboo.

Of course you appear to be self-limited in God-talk anyway, restricting your 'philosophical expertise' to self-imagined pink unicorns. But if you wish to discuss pink critters or the quagmire you found yourself in on chimp-man common ancestry then start a new thread in the "Fairy-Tale Forum" and I can join your there.

If you want to expand on your fuzzy science that something did not come from nothing because something (not quite sure what) preceded nothing somewhere out there then please present it. I am curious to hear more about your "energy potential" that has always existed "in one form or another"? What do you think that energy potential could be and what form did it take when it came before nothing?

 

[Sparkey]

"Stretched out" has different nuances in meaning and does not necessarily convey the action of stretching, of pulling something to make it longer, particularly since it is past tense. If one wants to understand that as an expanding universe, then they must concede that it is therefore done expanding. "Stretched out" could simply mean "put in place" and be a simple reference to the act of creation. The author's point is that it was the one true God who did it, a God who is very powerful.

To say more than that, to understand such verses as saying that the universe is expanding and that Scripture beat science to the punch, is most likely reading into the text something that isn't there and is merely wishful thinking.

"Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:" - (Isa 42:5 KJV)

"I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." - (Isa 45:12 KJV)

"And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where [is] the fury of the oppressor?" - (Isa 51:13 KJV)

"He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion." - (Jer 10:12 KJV)
______________________________________

Free, contrary to your assertion that these scriptures are simple references to creation we see that God speaks as the only one who was there. He provides detail that He would not have if He didn't personally perform it and declares HOW He did it: He stretched out the heavens. These statements are more than "He made the heavens." They go beyond His other declarations, "Let there be light, and light was," and the like. I am not convinced that modern science knows how the universe was made but if their guesses agree with what God has declared, more power to them, I say.

 

[Free]

Okay. Do you at least concede that the Bible conveys the concept that the universe had a beginning and 'in the beginning' God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created? Would you also agree that this concept is in agreement with current scientific thought? Or would that truth be going beyond your current worldview?

My words speak clear enough.

 

[Free]

"Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:" - (Isa 42:5 KJV)

"I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." - (Isa 45:12 KJV)

"And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where [is] the fury of the oppressor?" - (Isa 51:13 KJV)

"He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion." - (Jer 10:12 KJV)
______________________________________

Free, contrary to your assertion that these scriptures are simple references to creation we see that God speaks as the only one who was there. He provides detail that He would not have if He didn't personally perform it and declares HOW He did it: He stretched out the heavens. These statements are more than "He made the heavens." They go beyond His other declarations, "Let there be light, and light was," and the like. I am not convinced that modern science knows how the universe was made but if their guesses agree with what God has declared, more power to them, I say.

I'm not sure how what you have stated goes against anything I have stated. I'm simply addressing the language used by Scripture and that there is more than one way of understanding what was said.

 

[zeke]

My words speak clear enough.

Then it appears you agree that the Bible conveys the concept that the universe had a beginning and 'in the beginning' God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created? If I have misunderstood your clear words please let me know.

 

[Free]

Then it appears you agree that the Bible conveys the concept that the universe had a beginning and 'in the beginning' God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created? If I have misunderstood your clear words please let me know.

You understand me. The only difference is the meaning of "stretched out." That was my whole point.

 

[Sparkey]

I'm not sure how what you have stated goes against anything I have stated. I'm simply addressing the language used by Scripture and that there is more than one way of understanding what was said.

It's not about you, really, but I'm only saying that the proper perspective originates with God. The attempt to retrofit scripture to current science is not needed. I think we're in agreement there. If Scripture agrees with scientific knowledge --we already know that all knowledge originates with God who is pouring knowledge out upon the face of the whole earth.

Pardon if it seemed like I was arguing with your statement because that wasn't my intention. It just seemed to me that moving from that which is certain (Scripture) in order to confirm or deny the uncertain (current science) is the proper direction.

 

[zeke]

You understand me. The only difference is the meaning of "stretched out." That was my whole point.

Then can you please clarify further your understanding of the meaning of "stretched out" as noted in the passage? Do you or do you not agree with my statement that the Bible conveys the concept that the universe had a beginning and 'in the beginning' God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created? I think we are on the same page.

 

[Free]

Then can you please clarify further your understanding of the meaning of "stretched out" as noted in the passage? Do you or do you not agree with my statement that the Bible conveys the concept that the universe had a beginning and 'in the beginning' God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created? I think we are on the same page.

I cannot clarify any further than I have already.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=41640&p=630040&viewfull=1#post630040

 

[Free]

It's not about you, really, but I'm only saying that the proper perspective originates with God. The attempt to retrofit scripture to current science is not needed. I think we're in agreement there. If Scripture agrees with scientific knowledge --we already know that all knowledge originates with God who is pouring knowledge out upon the face of the whole earth.

Pardon if it seemed like I was arguing with your statement because that wasn't my intention. It just seemed to me that moving from that which is certain (Scripture) in order to confirm or deny the uncertain (current science) is the proper direction.

I think we are mostly in agreement. My only caution with your last statement is that we need to be careful in being too sure of what Scripture says and that we do our best to understand it the way the author meant it to be understood. That is where the issues lie. We cannot make Scripture say more than it does, especially with ambiguous, descriptive language.

 

[zeke]

I cannot clarify any further than I have already.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=41640&p=630040&viewfull=1#post630040

Then I will understand, conceptually we are on the same page.

 

[lordkalvan]

Interesting post, Sparrow.

I do have "A Brief History of Time" on my bookshelf, but because I'm lazy, and don't want to type out quotes -- it's easier to make my points from your quoted source, right?
*
My first point: *While speaking about the Steady State theory, Hawking agrees with Popper's *definition of 'a good scientific theory' as one that can be tested by observation and possibly falsified. *But he just got done explaining why the Big Bang Theory could not be falsified: "At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang."

I think the more relevant point is that BB physics can't be falsified yet because we lack the knowledge and understanding to do this. However, as the available evidence suggests that our part of the Universe/Multiverse originated from a singularity in what is popularly referred to as a Big Bang (although not in the sense of an explosion), physicists and cosmologists will continue their efforts to understand these phenomena. Obviously this will involve a great deal of hypothesising and speculation in the hopes of establishing a sound scientific theory that best encompasses and explains all available evidence.*

The BBT essentially declares that all bets are off, there was no observation (of course) and nothing can be determined about the universe prior. *Talk about not being able to be falsified, yet the conclusion that BBT isn't a "good scientific theory" isn't made. *It's just the best we got, so it must qualify, right?

I think you are being too critical here. The BBT is the best hypothesis we have at the moment for describing the consequences of what might have happened at the beginnings of our part of the Universe/Multiverse. This does not exclude other *hypotheses, but nor does it mean that we should regard the BBT as a fruitless idea simply because we are at this point unable to falsify (or even describe) the physics that underlie it.

Second Point:Hawking doesn't consider the fact that light itself was created before the so-called source of light, the stars. *This is clearly evident in Genesis and totally ignored by modern scientists.

Given that we have no evidence for light occurring without a source for that light and as science is concerned with naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena, it is reasonable for scientists to discount the idea of light without a light source for the same reasons as I put forward my reasons for excluding the existence of pink unicorns, a concept zeke seemed to have a great deal of trouble with: both may be possible, but given the complete absence of evidence for either within the framework of our experience, it seems reasonable to base our understanding on the conclusion that neither exists.

Point Three:Hawking proposes "imaginary time" along with his 'no boundary hypothesis' which he likens to surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. He states, "The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off." He goes on to offer this unprovable hypothesis as a plausible explanation for how the universe could have originated without external help. *Clearly this is his point; science doesn't need God.

Neither does it need Zeus, Odin, Ra, Lord Brahma or Taranis, a lack of need with which I presume you would tend to agree. I am unsure whether you are clear that the term 'imaginary time' is not used in the sense that this concept of time is simply made up and has no basis in our understanding of quantum physics. Hawking makes it clear that imaginary time

'...is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.'
*

According to Hawking, even IF the predictions of these theories were proven the 'no boundary' proposal would not be concluded correct.

*
No, but as he points out

'...one's confidence in it would be increased, particularly because there doesn't seem to be any other natural proposal, for the quantum state of the universe.'

I guess my final point is that even at the furthest stretch of the imagination of one of the smartest men on earth our origins are nothing more than unprovable conjecture proposed solely to offer counter-point to the statement made so many thousands of years ago, "In the beginning, God..."

I disagree as to the sole purpose of these proposals. You may as well argue that naturalistic explanations for weather phenomena were offered solely to counter the previously-held idea that these had supernatural origins, or that seismology was proposed solely to exclude the idea that earthquakes are caused by Poseidon. Science is concerned with naturalistic explanations for what appear to be naturalistic phenomena; simply invoking an unfalsifiable God as an explanation for phenomena that we are unable to explain fully naturalistically seems only to be a recipe for ceasing investigation of those phenomena at all.


Thanks again for your thought-provoking post.

All quotations from*http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
*

 

[lordkalvan]

But I didn’t say a singularity amounts to nothing – I said your creation myth based on naturalism stating something (the Universe) came from nothing is illogical.

Well, disregarding your best efforts to tar naturalistic hypotheses for the origin of our part of the Universe/Multiverse with the same doubtful attributes as religious origin myths, as you agree that a singularity does not constitute nothing and as I have proposed the possibility of the origins of our part of the Universe/Multiverse as lying in a singularity, your idea that I am proposing that something came from nothing is clearly exposed as a misrepresntation of my position. Perhaps you would like to retract it?

Science can predict a beginning to the universe; but science cannot tell us how the universe began.

No, but it can propose naturalistic explanations that can be tested and perhaps falsified.

For any answer that goes back beyond BB singularity we will have to look to God for the answer but the moderator has strongly noted that discussion of the existence of God is taboo.

Whether this question is taboo or not, the simple observation remains that your assertion has no obvious merit. We could look to Lord Brahma or highly advanced aliens from a future technology we are unable to comprehend. Either of these proposals appears to have at least as much merit as yours.

Of course you appear to be self-limited in God-talk anyway, restricting your 'philosophical expertise' to self-imagined pink unicorns. But if you wish to discuss pink critters or the quagmire you found yourself in on chimp-man common ancestry then start a new thread in the "Fairy-Tale Forum" and I can join your there.

NWRT, except to note that, whatever the limitations of the point I was making by offering you the analogy of pink unicorns, it remained one you were unable to offer a reasoned counter argument to.

If you want to expand on your fuzzy science that something did not come from nothing because something (not quite sure what) preceded nothing somewhere out there then please present it. I am curious to hear more about your "energy potential" that has always existed "in one form or another"? What do you think that energy potential could be and what form did it take when it came before nothing?

This is too garbled for me to make much sense of it. I have proposed that there was 'always' something, that something being the energy potential of the singularity from which our part of the Universe/Multiverse emerged. May I ask again that, if a singularity does not represent an energy potential, i.e. *a 'reservoir' of energy in a form our physics are not yet able to explain but which can be changed into forms that our physics can explain (for example, matter), then what do you propose it might represent?


ETA And I think it would help progress the discussion more satisfactorily if, rather than simply chopping fractions of my replies to you and commenting adversely on those, you dealt with the substance of my replies so that we can develop a more reasoned understanding of each other's positions. For example, you have offered no reasoned argument about the likely validity of BB cosmology at all.

ETA (2) If my attempt to describe the energy potential of a singularity is inadequate, perhaps I can offer an analogy in the case of a dammed lake. The water in the lake is essentially inert, but represents an energy potential that can be realised when something transforms its inert state into an active one, e.g. by opening the sluices in the dam that let the water run through turbines that change that potential energy into actual energy, i.e. electricity. In the case of the singularity, this transformation occurs through vacuum fluctuations as described by Gerald Schroeder, whom you have previously cited, and quite possibly according to Schroeder entirely naturalistically (although Schroeder chooses to argue otherwise). See http://geraldschroeder.com/BigBang.aspx.

 

[Sparkey]

Well, we see things differently, but then that's not new.

Quoting NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND, by Robert Paster (Chapter 12: Quantum Gravity)

Michael Riordan—who teaches the history of physics at Stanford and at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and who has written the general-audience book The Hunting of the Quark—expresses a number of criticisms of this pursuit of quantum gravity. Principally, Riordan’s concern is the lack of experimental verifiability of these theories, the risk that “these imaginative theories of quantum gravity will remain rooted only in the misty realms of metaphysics.†In Riordan’s view, this contradicts four centuries of scientific method, and exposes physics to the “virulent attacks of postmodernist critics, who argue that that science has no special claim to objective reality.†Riordan asks, “Are these people really practicing scienceâ€

 

[lordkalvan]

Well, we see things differently, but then that's not new.

But not so old that I don't respect your pov and welcome your different take on things.

Quoting NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND, by Robert Paster (Chapter 12: Quantum Gravity)

Michael Riordan—who teaches the history of physics at Stanford and at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and who has written the general-audience book The Hunting of the Quark—expresses a number of criticisms of this pursuit of quantum gravity. Principally, Riordan’s concern is the lack of experimental verifiability of these theories, the risk that “these imaginative theories of quantum gravity will remain rooted only in the misty realms of metaphysics.†In Riordan’s view, this contradicts four centuries of scientific method, and exposes physics to the “virulent attacks of postmodernist critics, who argue that that science has no special claim to objective reality.†Riordan asks, “Are these people really practicing science?â€

To be fair to the Hawking article referenced, I think he is focussing more on quantum mechanics and quantum theory, rather than quantum gravity as such, which attempts to unify quantum theory and relativity theory. Other than this comment, Riordan has some valid points, but at the same time this does not seem to render pointless the pursuit of theoretical hypotheses about quantum gravity that should lead to either experiments or the search for evidence that could validate them and greatly advance our understanding of fundamental processes.

 

[zeke]

Well, disregarding your best efforts to tar naturalistic hypotheses for the origin of our part of the Universe/Multiverse with the same doubtful attributes as religious origin myths, as you agree that a singularity does not constitute nothing and as I have proposed the possibility of the origins of our part of the Universe/Multiverse as lying in a singularity, your idea that I am proposing that something came from nothing is clearly exposed as a misrepresntation of my position. Perhaps you would like to retract it?

Nothing to retract – your scientism cannot go back any farther than BB singularity which leaves your naturalism with ‘nothing’ before a singularity and as noted, stating that something (the Universe) came from nothing is illogical. Where does that leave you? With nothing from nothing - yes?

"Nothing from nothing leaves nothing." ~ Bruce Fisher​

NWRT, except to note that, whatever the limitations of the point I was making by offering you the analogy of pink unicorns, it remained one you were unable to offer a reasoned counter argument to.

But I did counter your argument you just didn’t like what you heard. Atheists (you) who can only muster up unicorns as a ‘defense’ against God are normally relegated to the ‘hack’ category.

This is too garbled for me to make much sense of it.

Of course – because it was in response to your “something from nothing” garble that included your "energy potential" that has always existed "in one form or another"? Maybe you can expand/expound more about what you thought you were trying to say. Please include a little science – your hands waving in the air doesn’t really work.

I have proposed that there was 'always' something, that something being the energy potential of the singularity from which our part of the Universe/Multiverse emerged.

But your proposal is similar to your pink unicorns – nothing more than a figment of your imagination unless you have some science to throw in. Do you? How can an “energy potential” be eternal? An energy potential is ‘something’ – you are simply back to square one – something from nothing, an illogical assumption.

Have you actually seen evidence that your pink unicorns exist outside of your own mind? ;)

May I ask again that, if a singularity does not represent an energy potential, i.e. *a 'reservoir' of energy in a form our physics are not yet able to explain but which can be changed into forms that our physics can explain (for example, matter), then what do you propose it might represent?

Lol – are you asking me to explain your version of scientism to you?

For example, you have offered no reasoned argument about the likely validity of BB cosmology at all.

BB cosmology as a theory does no harm to science or my theology. No argument required.

ETA (2) If my attempt to describe the energy potential of a singularity is inadequate, perhaps I can offer an analogy in the case of a dammed lake.

But where did the water in the lake come from – from nothing? And who designed the dammed lake in the first place? I’ll be dammed if I can figure out your 'reservoir of energy' that may have appeared in a form our physics are not yet able to explain’. Of course who can – your 'reasoning' here is similar to your ‘evolution of the gaps’ that you were forced to fall back on in your 'monkey-man' quagmire. You may want to go back to the drawing board and re-group. You appear to be digging a rather deep hole and you really should stop digging. Remember - we are dealing with reality here - not fairy-tales - right?

 

[lordkalvan]

Nothing to retract – your scientism cannot go back any farther than BB singularity which leaves your naturalism with ‘nothing’ before a singularity and as noted, stating that something (the Universe) came from nothing is illogical. Where does that leave you? With nothing from nothing - yes?

"Nothing from nothing leaves nothing." ~ Bruce Fisher​

There is no 'before' as time only began with the expansion of the singularity, which is why I placed 'always' in inverted commas. And who is Brian Fisher and why should I be impressed by your quoting him.

By the way, how are you getting on with finding an explanation of what the nothing was that God created the Universe out of and, if it wasn't nothing, what the something he used was?

But I did counter your argument you just didn’t like what you heard. Atheists (you) who can only muster up unicorns as a ‘defense’ against God are normally relegated to the ‘hack’ category.

And I will call your bluff by asking you to either link to or reference the thread and post number in which you did this. Or must I search for this counter argument for myself?

ETA And, just to be clear, here is the original argument and the entirety of your riposte:

You asked: Are you claiming you have examined all the evidence in the universe?

I replied: No, but then neither have I examined all the evidence in the Universe to decide that pink unicorns probably don't exist either. I am willing to admit the possibility that they do exist somewhere on the basis of my lack of knowledge of the entirety of the Universe, but in terms of everyday likelihood it seems reasonable to live my life as if they don't.

Your 'counter argument': Again, I ask – are teapots and unicorns the pinnacle of your philosophical expertise?

From here: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=40200&p=623901&highlight=pink+unicorn#post623901

Of course – because it was in response to your “something from nothing” garble that included your "energy potential" that has always existed "in one form or another"? Maybe you can expand/expound more about what you thought you were trying to say. Please include a little science – your hands waving in the air doesn’t really work.

I have proposed no such 'something from nothing' idea; this is simply your misrepresentation of my argument and is incorrect.

But your proposal is similar to your pink unicorns – nothing more than a figment of your imagination unless you have some science to throw in. Do you? How can an “energy potential” be eternal? An energy potential is ‘something’ – you are simply back to square one – something from nothing, an illogical assumption.

Prior to the BB expansion there was no time as we understand it, so your use of the term 'eternal' is meaningless. Time is a coordinate and absent a reference point to locate it has no intrinsic attributes.

Have you actually seen evidence that your pink unicorns exist outside of your own mind? ;)

Still missing the point, I see. The fact that there is no evidence that pink unicorns exist within our experience means that, even if evidence for them exists in the Andromeda Galaxy, this is irrelevant to us and so pink unicorns can safely be disregarded and treated as non-existing for all practical purposes.

Lol – are you asking me to explain your version of scientism to you?

Nope, I'm asking you to explain what you understand a singularity to comprise as you seem dissatisfied with my explanations.

BB cosmology as a theory does no harm to science or my theology. No argument required.

Then how does the BB singularity fit into this science/theology and why do you seem to struggle with the idea that time did not exist before the BB?

But where did the water in the lake come from – from nothing? And who designed the dammed lake in the first place? I’ll be dammed if I can figure out your 'reservoir of energy' that may have appeared in a form our physics are not yet able to explain’.

It's an analogy to help you grasp the idea of an energy potential, not a description of BB cosmology.

Of course who can – your 'reasoning' here is similar to your ‘evolution of the gaps’ that you were forced to fall back on in your 'monkey-man' quagmire. You may want to go back to the drawing board and re-group. You appear to be digging a rather deep hole and you really should stop digging. Remember - we are dealing with reality here - not fairy-tales - right?

I am beginning to think we are seeing evidence of false memory syndrome here, rather than selective memory syndrome. Perhaps you can link to or reference the posts in which I made any reference to a 'monkey-man'? Failing this, it would seem that you are simply misrepresenting my position yet again.

 

[zeke]

There is no 'before' as time only began with the expansion of the singularity, which is why I placed 'always' in inverted commas.

And you have proof there was no ‘before’ before time or are you simply waving your hands again?

By the way, how are you getting on with finding an explanation of what the nothing was that God created the Universe out of and, if it wasn't nothing, what the something he used was?

Elementary, my friend - the universe came into existence from matter created by God.

And I will call your bluff by asking you to either link to or reference the thread and post number in which you did this.

No bluff to call and you never answered the question - are teapots and unicorns the pinnacle of your philosophical expertise? Those who can only present unicorns and teapots as a defense against God are self-relegated to the ‘hack’ category.

I have proposed no such 'something from nothing' idea; this is simply your misrepresentation of my argument and is incorrect.

Wasn't that what you were trying to say in your "energy potential" spiel? Maybe you can expand/expound more about what you thought you were trying to say. Please include a little science this time.

Time is a coordinate and absent a reference point to locate it has no intrinsic attributes.

Lol – what do you think you are trying to say here? Before BB singularity there was God who created the universe. If we are to know anything before singularity we must make an appeal to God. Hawking appears to agree...

I was interested in the question of whether there had been a Big Bang singularity, because that was crucial to an understanding of the origin of the universe. Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God. (Origin of the Universe)​

It's an analogy to help you grasp the idea of an energy potential, not a description of BB cosmology.

Your dammed lake appears to have crashed and burned. Poor analogy at best. Does your energy potential have anything to do with power crystals?

 

[lordkalvan]

And you have proof there was no ‘before’ before time or are you simply waving your hands again?

It is a consequence of BB cosmology, which you have recently expressed your familiarity and lack of problems with. Perhaps you would care to explain how you imagine there was a 'before' when there is no means of locating reference points for the coordinate system we call time?

Elementary, my friend - the universe came into existence from matter created by God.

From nothing or from something, my friend? Would you care to explain how God allegedly 'created' and what he 'created' from?

No bluff to call and you never answered the question - are teapots and unicorns the pinnacle of your philosophical expertise? Those who can only present unicorns and teapots as a defense against God are self-relegated to the ‘hack’ category.

I think we can all see that you have a very idiosyncratic idea of what constitutes a counter argument.

Wasn't that what you were trying to say in your "energy potential" spiel? Maybe you can expand/expound more about what you thought you were trying to say. Please include a little science this time.

You seem to have a problem with the idea of a singularity, despite stating that you have no problems with BB cosmology. Can you tell us what your understanding of a singularity comprises, or is this yet another question that you prefer persistently to dodge?

Lol – what do you think you are trying to say here? Before BB singularity there was God who created the universe.

This appears to be an unsupported assertion, but let's grant your assumption for the sake of argument: is it within the bounds of possibility, in your opinion, that God 'used' a singularity to create our part of the Universe/Multiverse and thereafter allowed creation to proceed naturalistically and, if not, why not? And again, in terms of BB cosmology, there was no 'before'.

If we are to know anything before singularity we must make an appeal to God. Hawking appears to agree...

I was interested in the question of whether there had been a Big Bang singularity, because that was crucial to an understanding of the origin of the universe. Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God. (Origin of the Universe)​

.

Making an appeal to one imaginary supernatural deity is, in and of itself, no more meaningful than appealing to another. What makes your version of God preferable to Odin, Zeus, Amun or any other imaginary deity? What makes any version of a supernatural deity a more valid hypothesis than appealing to an alien technology from a highly advanced and distant future? When it comes to handwaving, I am surprised that you are so ready to engage in it yourself when you are so prompt to criticise it when you imagine you see it in others.

ETA Apparently Hawking has changed his mind about the need to invoke God just because some things might remain beyond our immediate understanding:

'It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.'

Quoted here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

Your dammed lake appears to have crashed and burned. Poor analogy at best. Does your energy potential have anything to do with power crystals?

Why is it a poor analogy? Please elaborate with something more meaningful than scoffing. Perhaps you can offer us a better analogy to describe an energy potential?

Perhaps you might also like to return to those points from my post that you have chosen to ignore, as well. I try to do you the courtesy of at least acknowledging and responding to the entirety of your posts; why are you disinclined to extend the same courtesy to mine?

Or, alternatively, perhaps you would prefer to get on with supporting the substance of your assertion that is relevant to this thread, i.e. that the phrase 'stretched out' as used in the Bible corresponds directly with the currently held theory that our part of the Universe/Multiverse expanded and is countinuing to expand from a singularity?

 

[William Whitehead]

Friends,

Wow, this tread has gone way beyond my original thoughts.

I would like to mention something that has come up in the thread. The universe originating in a singularity. That term, singularity, is not well defined. I have a physicist friend who thinks that a singularity opens up the door to another dimension, maybe even 26 other dimensions! I have other physicist friends who do not believe that singularity's exist or ever will exist. And I have friends who have ideas that fall somewhere in between.

Thus the concept of a singularity is a lot like believing in God. There is no way to either prove or disprove your ideas.

There is one important difference. God is with me all of the time. I speak to God and God speaks to me. I experience God's presence in a way that I can't prove but I know is real. Reason and science are not why I am a man of faith. I have faith because I am not alone.

Peace,
Pastor Bill