Skip to main content

In the beginning, there was the Big Bang. A quantum flux necessity triggered the existence of the Universe from nothing. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle explains it all. From where the Big Bang came is a mystery, if indeed it is a valid question, but smart individuals of our species are contemplating it. What is certain is that all of time, space, and energy emerged at this time. Nobody and nothing existed before.

In the first second after the BB, there was only one force. Soon thereafter, the four known forces of the Universe emerged. Darkness was the state of all existence for thousands of years, because fusion is a function of stars and stars did not emerge for a very long time.
According to Einstein, force and matter are algebraic expressions of each other. In the hot, early stages of the Universe, some energy transformed into matter. And Einstein said “it is good”.

Thus, matter and energy exist.

Well within one second after the BB, quarks congealed. Protons and neutrons emerge, at about one second after the BB. And we consider it good, because we depend on them. This was 13.7 Billion years ago.

About 7 billion years ago, the Sun formed from material that was created from the previous quark compilation into matter and from matter that came from earlier stars’ violent lifecycles. And we consider this good, as well, because we are made of starstuff. Thank the stars for your existence. They gave their lives so that we live.

Soon thereafter, say, 1.5 Billion years, from the matter left over in the gravity well of the Sun, planets were formed. And we consider them good, because we cannot conceive of life anywhere else. Our own planet was a hellish place, with a molten surface and constantly subjected to severe meteor strikes. Comets struck as well, contributing water to the primitive system of the Earth. The early water was immediately evaporated, but as the Earth cooled, rained down enough to form the seas and rivers. And we find this is good, as we are made of water.

Surprisingly soon, life began. Earth was not like it is now. It had an atmosphere of methane, sulfur dioxide, and other corrosive compounds. But we are made of the same things. Chemicals, affected by heat and electricity, combined in countless forms. Some of them combined in forms that could replicate themselves. We have demonstrated this possibility in laboratories.

For about 2 billion years, these self-replicating chemicals became, very slowly, more complicated, as required to replicate more successfully. Eventually, they formed cellular life. And it was good, as we are cellular beings. Much trial and error was involved.

Cellular life flourished, as it was a successful evolutionary experiment. Due to natural mutation and Natural Selection, cellular life evolved into many forms. About half of those forms still exist today. And it was good, as we exist in one of those forms. All of these forms were in the water. This is understandable, since we are essentially made of water to this day. Water is good. And along the way, because of Natural Selection, life became dependent on the also corrosive oxygen that was emitted by plant life.

Inevitably, life emerged onto the land. First came the plants, then the insects, mutations of sea creatures. Perhaps the first more advanced animal was Tiktaalik. And it was wonderful and amazing that creatures made of water emerged into the harsh sunshine. Imagine how many species tried and failed.
Tiktaalik would be recognizable today. A vertebrate, symmetrical along his spine, with four limbs, perhaps a head, a neck, and internal organs similar to ours. And the evening and the morning was the sixth day. No need for further divine intervention, although none is required for any of this.

Species evolved. Cold-blooded reptiles became warm blooded. Mammals, such as us, evolved from them. Birds are the only remaining examples of dinosaurs; they are massively similar in structure.

Ecce Homo. Eventually, after hundreds of millions of years, humans evolved into our current form. We still have more in common with Tiktaalik than not. Bilaterally symmetrical, four limbs, a head with sensory organs, five phalanges on each limb, etc. This design dates to the Cambrian Explosion, hundreds of millions of years ago.

About 150,000 years ago, we emerged as humans. Other more-or-less human species emerged as well, but we survived. Luck had something to do with it.

About 40,000 years ago, we invented the gods. Our brains seek systems and patterns. These things serve us well, but we got carried away. We wanted to know why the sun rises and sets. We invented gods that explained it. We wanted to know why the seasons happened, and the tides ebbed and flowed, and the gods explained it.

And it was sufficient, until recently, and it was not good, but it was all we had.

And we invented worship. And we invented warfare for those barbarians who did not understand the proper gods. And we became incurious about the real nature of reality.

10,000 years or so ago, we invented agriculture. We began to domesticate animals. This was not so long ago, all things considered. These are important technologies we still enjoy. About 6000 years ago, we invented writing. This was yesterday.

And that is Genesis. From there, it becomes history.



For at least 100,000 years, humans have pondered the stars. Do orangutans ponder them now?

And man made god in his image, and in his ignorance.
--For at least 100,000 years, humans have pondered the stars. Do orangutans ponder them now?--
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

And there you have it.

Wonderful BJBG. Ya know what I love about this Genesis? There is evidence to support it. And I don't mean itself either. LOL Everything written in your Genesis can be evidenced through science.

I agree that man made gods to answer the unanswerable at the time. The beliefs have been around for so long that it will take many more centuries to evolve beyond it, even knowing what we know now.

Thank you BJBG. I applaud you for stepping up to the challenge. Way to knock it out of the ballpark. Smiler
As usual Billy Bob your romance with Carl Sagan has dulled your sword.

Quantum flux necessity? A science fiction term used to describe a quantum flux quake, quantum flux travel, quantum flux drugs. There is even a quantum flux jack*** cartoon.

Jank tell Billy Bob I’m sorry I forced him to make a Quantum Flux Fool out of him self.
quote:
Originally posted by rramlimnn:
As usual Billy Bob your romance with Carl Sagan has dulled your sword.

Quantum flux necessity? A science fiction term used to describe a quantum flux quake, quantum flux travel, quantum flux drugs. There is even a quantum flux ******* cartoon.

Jank tell Billy Bob I’m sorry I forced him to make a Quantum Flux Fool out of him self.

Hi Rram,

I can just see Stan Laurel of Laurel and Hardy saying, "He really needed no help!"

Y'all come back now, ya heah?

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Laurel__-_Hardy__Flying_-_Deuces-1939-1
This is a moment in which I miss Aude (Neal).
He was well educated enough in both science and religion to have offered a great debate with you here. A bonafide, constructive debate.
I don't know that there will ever be anyone like him. Especially in the areas of science and religion, and the reconciliation of the two.

**Moment of silence for Aude Sapere, who totally would have "gotten" this. Frowner
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
This is a moment in which I miss Aude (Neal).
He was well educated enough in both science and religion to have offered a great debate with you here. A bonafide, constructive debate.
I don't know that there will ever be anyone like him. Especially in the areas of science and religion, and the reconciliation of the two.

**Moment of silence for Aude Sapere, who totally would have "gotten" this. Frowner


I miss him too. He would have corrected my mistakes. I don't mind being wrong, I only mind when those who are wrong won't admit it.

Still, I think that, within reasonable error bars, my post is correct. I'm waiting for intelligent critiques.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Bill and Ramm...be honest...you didn't really even read it ..did you. There was no need to read it you already have all the answers right?
BG did what you asked..he gave you a well thought out response...your reply...silly jokes. Come on guys..man up. Give him a reasonable rebuttal.

HOW DOES ONE REBUT COMEDIC VERBOSITY?

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Sylvester-Cat-2_TEXT
Before the big bang there was nothing. No time, space, or matter. Everyone realizes that this implies a Creator that is beyond time, space, and matter. That is why atheistic scientists like John Maddox, the former editor of Nature, said that "the big bang is philosophically unacceptable ... It is a theory that will be gone in ten years." He said that in 1989.
Yes Leo I read it.

Most of what Billy stated is ‘close’ enough to the current theories held by big bang scientist to count. I suspect but there are several errors in the post a result of Billy not understanding what he read regarding big bang model.

The quantum flux necessity is a sci-fi term and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle certainly does not explain such.

I think Heisingberg was a name dropping ploy to make the wording look plausible.

Those of us who understand it know different.

Most of every thing Bill said was plagiarized straight from dawkins .

I will say this: Billy is at least trying to learn a few things about Quantum Physics due to my encouragement over the many months I have insisted .

The date lines of past history is nothing new and unproven.

Overall Billy I would give you a d-minus. You did try.
quote:
Originally posted by Chuck Norris:
Before the big bang there was nothing. No time, space, or matter. Everyone realizes that this implies a Creator that is beyond time, space, and matter. That is why atheistic scientists like John Maddox, the former editor of Nature, said that "the big bang is philosophically unacceptable ... It is a theory that will be gone in ten years." He said that in 1989.


Seems Mr. Maddox was wrong.

Chuck, you may imagine a timeless, immaterial god, but that is yet another God-of-the-gaps sort of god. Time and again that god has been dissolved by the advance of knowledge.

It is far from obvious that such a god must exist. Indeed, such a god would be much more complex than the universe he created. This poses more problems than it solves.

Who made this god? Your argument seems to be "everything had a creator", so where is the uber-god who made god?

There's not one, you say? He made himself? Then why invent god? One can just as easily say that the universe-system is self-creating. We know the universe exists, we are it. We know no such thing about god.
A nice bit on writing Billy Bob. It was a very enjoyable read. Thank you for the effort. The mixing of Bible poetry with a summary of science, evidence and facts is quite pleasing and is infinitely more meaningful and impressive (to me) than the ancient conjecture and assumption that typically fills that manner of poesy.

One of the great and beautiful things about science is that no matter how perfectly one writes something explaining our understanding of the world/universe as of today, it may well sound naive and simple tomorrow. As human beings, our knowledge and understanding of the nature of all things is ever-renewed through the self-correcting process of science.

The only time creation myths change happen in an effort to incorporate more science into it to be less embarrassing to it's followers. Even if the ancient writers of the Bible or Koran, etc. were individuals that knew everything that could be known scientifically and mathematically at the time, their books would be severely lacking in a matter of generations. The Bible and Koran and others are indeed obsolete, save for the little bit of positive ethics, which are completely unoriginal and existed long before their writing and far predate the teachings of Jesus or Mohammed, etc.

Yet the difficulty of science to demystify the quality of nature to the unknowing masses is that if one were to actually try to describe and prove fully just about any statement in this version of Genesis, it would take at least a large book and an expert for reference. A fully explained, scientific Genesis story would be longer and infinitely more complex than all the religious holy books ever written. It's just much easier to say and hear that "God did it" "God has a plan for you" "Wait until you're dead, then everything will be alright". This, I believe, is one of the reasons why modern science sometimes stutters against ancient myth for the attention of modern humans with ancient brains. Hundreds of years of terraced scientific understanding of the nature of things is just very difficult to encapsulate in simple statements. I applaud your attempt.
Thanks, A.,

I enjoyed writing it. I didn't spend a lot of time on it.

I completely agree with the modern human/ancient mind notion. There must be a reason why perfectly intelligent people who have been exposed to science, history, and reason reject it in favor of a fairy tale. Luckily, the clerics no longer enjoy the same power they once did, and belief is now optional. More and more of us are exercising that option.

Let me return the compliment; I enjoy your writings as well. Please keep them coming.
"Call it the big bang. Call it creation. Let the creating force be a potential field if the idea of God is bothersome to you, but realize the fact that the nonphysical gave rise to the physical. Unless the vast amounts of scientific data and conclusions drawn by atheistic as well as devout scientists are in extreme error, our universe had a metaphysical beginning."

Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph.D. in
Earth Sciences and Nuclear Physics, MIT

Billy Joe Bob Gene,

I think the most plausible explanation for what we see around us (something rather than nothing; DNA and the interpreting structures that understand it; self-replication; sexual reproduction; the amazing biological cell; the mind/brain interface; consciousness; ethics; altruism; love; beauty; truth, etc., etc.) is God. You may call label this as "God-of-the-gaps", but isn't that just saying that you have faith that somehow, someday "naturalistic" theories will be posited that will allow you to remain in your dogmatic slumbers?
quote:
Originally posted by Chuck Norris:
"Call it the big bang. Call it creation. Let the creating force be a potential field if the idea of God is bothersome to you, but realize the fact that the nonphysical gave rise to the physical. Unless the vast amounts of scientific data and conclusions drawn by atheistic as well as devout scientists are in extreme error, our universe had a metaphysical beginning."

Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph.D. in
Earth Sciences and Nuclear Physics, MIT

Billy Joe Bob Gene,

I think the most plausible explanation for what we see around us (something rather than nothing; DNA and the interpreting structures that understand it; self-replication; sexual reproduction; the amazing biological cell; the mind/brain interface; consciousness; ethics; altruism; love; beauty; truth, etc., etc.) is God. You may call label this as "God-of-the-gaps", but isn't that just saying that you have faith that somehow, someday "naturalistic" theories will be posited that will allow you to remain in your dogmatic slumbers?


Gerald Schroeder would say that, wouldn't he? In truth, he knows no more about what happened before the Big Bang than do you and I.

I'm not sure I want everything explained, like love and beauty. But, as these are real things, there are likely natural explanations for them. We can imagine what they are.

God used to make the wind blow and the lightning strike. He no longer does. We can explain those, and other, things without him. I imagine the source of the universe is much simpler without god.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
A great writing. All plausible.
The cold blooded animals turning warm blooded is a thought producer. Now there is evidence that the dinosaurs were warm blooded. That leaves where did the birds come from?

All I have to do is put God at the beginning, and we have no disagreements.

Hi B50,

Are you speaking on behalf of your New Age religion -- or your Wiccan religion?

For you certainly are not speaking for the Christian religion.

It seems you mistakenly put on the wrong "hat" this morning.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
quote:
Originally posted by Chuck Norris:
I think the most plausible explanation for what we see around us (something rather than nothing; DNA and the interpreting structures that understand it; self-replication; sexual reproduction; the amazing biological cell; the mind/brain interface; consciousness; ethics; altruism; love; beauty; truth, etc., etc.) is God. You may call label this as "God-of-the-gaps", but isn't that just saying that you have faith that somehow, someday "naturalistic" theories will be posited that will allow you to remain in your dogmatic slumbers?


Am butting in, but:
- A god is not an explanation, it's a guess.
- there are natural explanations for every phenomenon. It's science's ongoing task to find them.
- who are the ones in "dogmatic slumber"? Dogma can't rightly be used to describe science. Science is the anti-dogma.
People use the Big Bang theory as a way of proving existence was created without God, which is pretty ironic. The theory was first introduced by a Catholic Priest, Georges Lemaître.

I noticed a logical problem that has popped up. The statement that something came from nothing followed by the question "who created the creator?".

If you believe that something can come from nothing, then why would something have been needed to create the creator? If you can believe the primeval atom was uncaused, meaning it was just always in existence, then why doubt that a creator is uncaused? To believe one statement but not the other is self defeating. It's like if someone said "I hate people who hate." The sentence is logically invalid.

Yes, I believe the Big Bang happened. I don't believe that something just appeared out of nothing for no reason and pow, we're here. That hasn't been proven scientifically, nor can it.

I think we can all agree that everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe obviously had a beginning. Therefore the universe had to have a cause.

The force behind that cause obviously has to be outside it. Therefore, the cause of time, matter, and space is outside the boundaries of time, matter, and space. If that cause is outside the boundaries of time, then it is infinite. So just as it's impossible for something to come from nothing, it's impossible for the universe to simply pop into existence with no cause behind it. The cause behind the Big Bang and the creation of time, matter, and energy has to be bigger and beyond the boundaries of it's creation. That cause is what I see as God.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
A great writing. All plausible.
The cold blooded animals turning warm blooded is a thought producer. Now there is evidence that the dinosaurs were warm blooded. That leaves where did the birds come from?

All I have to do is put God at the beginning, and we have no disagreements.

Hi B50,

Are you speaking on behalf of your New Age religion -- or your Wiccan religion?

For you certainly are not speaking for the Christian religion.

It seems you mistakenly put on the wrong "hat" this morning.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


I have many hats Bill. I have one red one that I really like.



Nash, well put. Above, beyond, and outside the realm of what we can see and measure.
NashBama,

- The Big Bang theory doesn't prove the inexistence of a god or gods. However, it is certainly well outside of Biblical or any other religion's creation story.
- God of the gaps is precisely what you're talking about. Since we don't know the real reason for something yet, then therefore: God must've done it. Theists provide 0 proof, yet believe that the absence of evidence is good enough to call "God". Clearly science doesn't know every cause and in those gaps of knowledge is where "God" makes a meager existence, waiting to be flushed out by the eventual flow of knowledge.

- "I think we can all agree that everything that has a beginning has a cause." - check!
"The universe obviously had a beginning." - check!
"Therefore the universe had to have a cause." - check!
"The force behind that cause obviously has to be outside it." - Obviously?? Based on what? It might possibly be, but there is nothing necessarily obvious about this claim at all. It's an unexplained assumption and a huge leap from the previous three statements - then, of course, the rest of your final argument follows completely based on that major and unsubstantiated assumption, which makes it all kinds of wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
A great writing. All plausible.
The cold blooded animals turning warm blooded is a thought producer. Now there is evidence that the dinosaurs were warm blooded. That leaves where did the birds come from?

All I have to do is put God at the beginning, and we have no disagreements.

Hi B50,

Are you speaking on behalf of your New Age religion -- or your Wiccan religion?

For you certainly are not speaking for the Christian religion.

It seems you mistakenly put on the wrong "hat" this morning.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

I have many hats Bill. I have one red one that I really like.

Hi B50,

Which hat will YOU be wearing when YOU stand before Jesus Christ in judgment -- the red New Age hat -- or the red Wiccan hat?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Baby-Girl-Stubborn-1
quote:
- The Big Bang theory doesn't prove the inexistence of a god or gods. However, it is certainly well outside of Biblical or any other religion's creation story.


Not really. Like I said, I believe the Big Bang theory to be a very real possibility. I don't think it is outside or conflicts with the Bible. Monsignor Lemaître didn't give up his belief in God even though he is responsible for formulating the Big Bang Theory.

quote:
God of the gaps is precisely what you're talking about. Since we don't know the real reason for something yet, then therefore: God must've done it. Theists provide 0 proof, yet believe that the absence of evidence is good enough to call "God". Clearly science doesn't know every cause and in those gaps of knowledge is where "God" makes a meager existence, waiting to be flushed out by the eventual flow of knowledge.


Not really. I've read Dawkins' "God Delusion" and I understand why he sees a lot of arguments in favor of God as the "God of the Gaps". In many cases, he's right. However, I think he confuses the process of elimination with filling a gap. When you eliminate the least possible scenarios, you're left with the truth.

Example: I'm re-stringing my Les Paul right now. Let's say that I bust one of the brand new strings while tuning. This leaves three possible scenarios. One, the tuner isn't accurate and the string got too tight. Two, the string itself is faulty. Three, my dumb butt didn't pay attention and screwed up.

So how would I figure out what happened? Eliminate the least possible. The tuner is accurate, the strings are fine, that leaves one answer.

So Theists apply this when considering our existence. Of all the possible scenarios, the most plausible is that the universe was caused by something greater than the universe.

quote:
"The force behind that cause obviously has to be outside it." - Obviously?? Based on what? It might possibly be, but there is nothing necessarily obvious about this claim at all. It's an unexplained assumption and a huge leap from the previous three statements - then, of course, the rest of your final argument follows completely based on that major and unsubstantiated assumption, which makes it all kinds of wrong.


Based on the fact that something can't create itself into existence. My Les Paul has a beginning and it has a cause. It came into existence because someone greater than it began the process of building it.

The same with the universe. If the universe has a beginning and a cause, then the force behind it had to be greater than the universe itself. If this wasn't true, then that means the universe created itself into existence.

So now we have two scenarios, the universe created itself or something greater than the universe created it. Using the process of elimination, which is more likely?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×