I figured for the first post, I might as well start at the beginning. In case anyone ever reads this, I tend to ramble. This is kind of just a place for me to add a small, and I do mean small, degree of coherence to my thoughts. If it helps or entertains you, by all means, feel free to read on. Comments are always welcome.
So what was the beginning? I would say it is arrogant to think that we can know. We can believe. We can model. But know? We show such arrogance. The typical Christian knows that God created the universe. They typical Scientist knows that the universe was "created" by the Big Bang. These are both smart people. It is easy to look across that fence and say, you are a fool. Have you not seen? Have you not read?
What are the "facts" that cause this?
The homogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebula. This was the beginning. It was a scientific theory presented by a Roman Catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre based partly on observations by Hubble in 1924(the man, not the telescope). This is the core of the big bang theory. It was presented in 1927. The problem it addressed was this. First off, no matter where we look, all we see is nebula (the objects actually seen were other galaxies, but in 1927, these objects were termed nebula). Every nebula that we see appears to be going away from us. This observation leads one to an expanding universe. If the universe is expanding, every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in the universe. One of the things this theory predicted was background radiation. This prediction is why we love this theory. Science is all about coming up with a model that predicts something and then testing that prediction. Enter CMB.
CMB is Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. The theory basically states that in the beginning, the world was without form. No, really. I mean it. No form. No light. No time. No day. No night. Then, something happened. We don't really know what, but 4 seconds later, things were quite different. There was light. There was form. There was time. Back to the beginning. So the "world" was without form. Everything existed, and I'm not an expert here, but basically as Quarks. Free Quarks. Still Quarks? Well, not really. Moving? Well, not really. If you don't have time, you can't have vibration, and if you can't have vibration, you can't have light. See, no one can really imagine this. We just can't. It's beyond us. It's a hill in flatland. When this "thing" that happened went off, Light was created. A lot of it. And it went everywhere. This is not a 30 watt light bulb. This is not a 300 watt light bulb. this is not a 30000000000000000000 watt light bulb. This is more light than you or I can possibly imagine. The quarks started organizing themselves into protons, neutrons, electrons, and all the other "ons" scientists like to use to sound cool. The theory predicts that this light would still be around. It was so bright, it would still be bouncing off of everything in existence.
Well, we finally got cool enough to be able to look for it. At first, we couldn't find it. But then, with the expanding universe, the prediction changes. The light, via the Doppler effect, gets shifted down to the microwave level. In the mid 1960s, we were able to test for this. And when we did, repeatedly, we found it. Every galaxy out there seems to be reflecting this CMB just as the theory predicts. Remember, this theory predates this measurement. This kind of thing really gets scientists excited. If you want to measure it, get an analog TV and turn to a channel you don't get. The static you will see exceeds the static we can account for without CMB. But with this CMB, it's exactly what you expect.
We really see this happening. Now, where's the thological problem here? One of the first things to keep in mind is that the big bang theory does not attempt to theorize on the creation of the universe. It only talks about changes in state, from one state to another. It's what happens when you "rewind" the expanding universe. But it doesn't attempt, at least not that I have ever read, to say what created this Quark soup. The "universe" predated the big bang. Well, kind of. Kind of not since there was no time.
The only real problem I see, theologically, is time line. The timing in Genesis does not appear to be consistent with measurement. measurement gives us a life of a few billion years. The Word, from what others have told me, as I've never really studied it chronologically, predicts a few thousand. Kind of a big difference.
Too big for God? No. Too big for the box we instinctively put on God? Yes. The best answer I've got to this question is, "I don't know." The fear of The Lord is to be the beginning of knowledge. To me, the most important derivative is "I don't know." I may believe. But know? Knowledge based on incomplete data, which by definition is our condition, is not knowledge, but arrogance.
So what was the beginning? I would say it is arrogant to think that we can know. We can believe. We can model. But know? We show such arrogance. The typical Christian knows that God created the universe. They typical Scientist knows that the universe was "created" by the Big Bang. These are both smart people. It is easy to look across that fence and say, you are a fool. Have you not seen? Have you not read?
What are the "facts" that cause this?
The homogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebula. This was the beginning. It was a scientific theory presented by a Roman Catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre
CMB is Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. The theory basically states that in the beginning, the world was without form. No, really. I mean it. No form. No light. No time. No day. No night. Then, something happened. We don't really know what, but 4 seconds later, things were quite different. There was light. There was form. There was time. Back to the beginning. So the "world" was without form. Everything existed, and I'm not an expert here, but basically as Quarks. Free Quarks. Still Quarks? Well, not really. Moving? Well, not really. If you don't have time, you can't have vibration, and if you can't have vibration, you can't have light. See, no one can really imagine this. We just can't. It's beyond us. It's a hill in flatland. When this "thing" that happened went off, Light was created. A lot of it. And it went everywhere. This is not a 30 watt light bulb. This is not a 300 watt light bulb. this is not a 30000000000000000000 watt light bulb. This is more light than you or I can possibly imagine. The quarks started organizing themselves into protons, neutrons, electrons, and all the other "ons" scientists like to use to sound cool. The theory predicts that this light would still be around. It was so bright, it would still be bouncing off of everything in existence.
Well, we finally got cool enough to be able to look for it. At first, we couldn't find it. But then, with the expanding universe, the prediction changes. The light, via the Doppler effect, gets shifted down to the microwave level. In the mid 1960s, we were able to test for this. And when we did, repeatedly, we found it. Every galaxy out there seems to be reflecting this CMB just as the theory predicts. Remember, this theory predates this measurement. This kind of thing really gets scientists excited. If you want to measure it, get an analog TV and turn to a channel you don't get. The static you will see exceeds the static we can account for without CMB. But with this CMB, it's exactly what you expect.
We really see this happening. Now, where's the thological problem here? One of the first things to keep in mind is that the big bang theory does not attempt to theorize on the creation of the universe. It only talks about changes in state, from one state to another. It's what happens when you "rewind" the expanding universe. But it doesn't attempt, at least not that I have ever read, to say what created this Quark soup. The "universe" predated the big bang. Well, kind of. Kind of not since there was no time.
The only real problem I see, theologically, is time line. The timing in Genesis does not appear to be consistent with measurement. measurement gives us a life of a few billion years. The Word, from what others have told me, as I've never really studied it chronologically, predicts a few thousand. Kind of a big difference.
Too big for God? No. Too big for the box we instinctively put on God? Yes. The best answer I've got to this question is, "I don't know." The fear of The Lord is to be the beginning of knowledge. To me, the most important derivative is "I don't know." I may believe. But know? Knowledge based on incomplete data, which by definition is our condition, is not knowledge, but arrogance.
Comments