Origins and Dark Energy/Matter

[mindlight]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
I previously posted a version of this post on General Theology by mistake from the Blackberry. I got some interesting responses but wanted to hear what the real scientists had to say on this one also and have revised it in accordance with what I learnt there.
Apparently 26% of the mass/energy of the universe is accounted for by dark matter. A further 70% is accounted for by dark energy which essentially inhabits the vast open spaces between the stars. Thus the observable matter/energy of the universe on which modern physics bases many of its conclusions is a mere 4% of what is actually out there.
My questions:
1) How certain can we be about the universe in which we live if we can only observe such a small sample of what is actually there.
2) If dark matter/dark energy is essentially unobservable except in its impacts on the relatively unimportant observable universe is the scientific method, e.g observation and deduction based on observed facts, something that will ever resolve its mysteries. Or are their approaches in modern science which promise to yield more insights?
3) is it fair to say that the formlessness and emptiness of the original condition in genesis 1 is similar in many ways to the known facts about dark matter/energy. In which case the Genesis days that followed the initial creation of the heavens and the earth could also be seen as a description of the patterns, life, and light which the dark stuff lacks.
4) Could hebrews 11 v 3 be coceived as referring to dark matter when it suggests that God formed what is seen from what is not seen with a word of command?
5) How does dark matter and energy work with gravity and with light for instance. Do its properties include anti-gravity and what is the nature of its darkness.Are these things forces in their own right or merely lacking the qualities of their opposites?
6) Some suggest that the dark matter/energy is the spiritual substance of the universe by which God formed and on which foundation he has based its essential organisation. What do you think about that?
7) Why don't we have more clues about the nature of the universe in the bible?
8) Is it possible that the effects which we attribute to dark matter/energy could have other causes e.g. the impingement of parallel universes onto our own?

 

[gluadys]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
I previously posted a version of this post on General Theology by mistake from the Blackberry. I got some interesting responses but wanted to hear what the real scientists had to say on this one also and have revised it in accordance with what I learnt there.
Apparently 26% of the mass/energy of the universe is accounted for by dark matter. A further 70% is accounted for by dark energy which essentially inhabits the vast open spaces between the stars. Thus the observable matter/energy of the universe on which modern physics bases many of its conclusions is a mere 4% of what is actually out there.
My questions:
1) How certain can we be about the universe in which we live if we can only observe such a small sample of what is actually there.
2) If dark matter/dark energy is essentially unobservable except in its impacts on the relatively unimportant observable universe is the scientific method, e.g observation and deduction based on observed facts, something that will ever resolve its mysteries. Or are their approaches in modern science which promise to yield more insights?
3) is it fair to say that the formlessness and emptiness of the original condition in genesis 1 is similar in many ways to the known facts about dark matter/energy. In which case the Genesis days that followed the initial creation of the heavens and the earth could also be seen as a description of the patterns, life, and light which the dark stuff lacks.
4) Could hebrews 11 v 3 be coceived as referring to dark matter when it suggests that God formed what is seen from what is not seen with a word of command?
5) How does dark matter and energy work with gravity and with light for instance. Do its properties include anti-gravity and what is the nature of its darkness.Are these things forces in their own right or merely lacking the qualities of their opposites?
6) Some suggest that the dark matter/energy is the spiritual substance of the universe by which God formed and on which foundation he has based its essential organisation. What do you think about that?
7) Why don't we have more clues about the nature of the universe in the bible?
8) Is it possible that the effects which we attribute to dark matter/energy could have other causes e.g. the impingement of parallel universes onto our own?

I am not a scientist and will not attempt an answer to most of your questions. But a few questions are not really about science.

1) How certain can we be about the universe in which we live if we can only observe such a small sample of what is actually there.

I have yet to hear of a scientist who claims we are certain about anything.


4) Could hebrews 11 v 3 be coceived as referring to dark matter when it suggests that God formed what is seen from what is not seen with a word of command?

No. The biblical writers were speaking from a different frame of reference. Such a correlation would be entirely modern and not the original intent of the author. There is no direct mention of modern scientific information in scripture.

The writer of Hebrews most likely considered the "things that are not seen" as non-corporeal and immaterial, not as very tiny bits of non-luminescent matter. On that basis, dark matter is much too physical to qualify as his intended referent.

7) Why don't we have more clues about the nature of the universe in the bible?

Because that is not its purpose. As Galileo said, the scriptures tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. God gave us his creation to tell us about the nature of the universe.

 

[Mallon]

This gets back to the "incriminating" question I've been trying to ask you in the "Creationists: How certain are you of your interpretation of Genesis?" thread, marktheblake. Why are you looking to the Bible for information on dark matter? Or more generally, why would you expect to find 21st century science in the Bible?

 

[mindlight]

This gets back to the "incriminating" question I've been trying to ask you in the "Creationists: How certain are you of your interpretation of Genesis?" thread, marktheblake. Why are you looking to the Bible for information on dark matter? Or more generally, why would you expect to find 21st century science in the Bible?

Well that was a fairly predictable response. I understand your view that the bible has nothing to say to modern scientists.

However questions 1,2,5,and 8 did not require you to accept by presuppositions on that and I would be genuinely interested in your views on this.

 

[mindlight]

I am not a scientist and will not attempt an answer to most of your questions. But a few questions are not really about science.

1) How certain can we be about the universe in which we live if we can only observe such a small sample of what is actually there.

I have yet to hear of a scientist who claims we are certain about anything.


4) Could hebrews 11 v 3 be coceived as referring to dark matter when it suggests that God formed what is seen from what is not seen with a word of command?

No. The biblical writers were speaking from a different frame of reference. Such a correlation would be entirely modern and not the original intent of the author. There is no direct mention of modern scientific information in scripture.

The writer of Hebrews most likely considered the "things that are not seen" as non-corporeal and immaterial, not as very tiny bits of non-luminescent matter. On that basis, dark matter is much too physical to qualify as his intended referent.

7) Why don't we have more clues about the nature of the universe in the bible?

Because that is not its purpose. As Galileo said, the scriptures tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. God gave us his creation to tell us about the nature of the universe.

I somehow thought you might say that ;-)

However you never really answered my response in other threads so I will pose you a direct question.

Modern science asserts a beginning to the universe. Since the bible also asserts that there was a time when the universe was not can the bible be interpreted as making historical statements with immense scientific value and in this case apparently accuracy?

How would someone in the context have known their was a beginning to the universe? Other cultures e.g Hinduism came to very different conclusions.

 

[juvenissun]

4) Could hebrews 11 v 3 be coceived as referring to dark matter when it suggests that God formed what is seen from what is not seen with a word of command?

The writer of Hebrews most likely considered the "things that are not seen" as non-corporeal and immaterial,

What is the "practical purpose" of giving such a ridiculous idea?

 

[juvenissun]

This gets back to the "incriminating" question I've been trying to ask you in the "Creationists: How certain are you of your interpretation of Genesis?" thread, marktheblake. Why are you looking to the Bible for information on dark matter? Or more generally, why would you expect to find 21st century science in the Bible?

21st century is too conservative. I expect some truth in the Genesis, for example, be revealed by science of 25th century.

 

[juvenissun]

I somehow thought you might say that ;-)

However you never really answered my response in other threads so I will pose you a direct question.

Modern science asserts a beginning to the universe. Since the bible also asserts that there was a time when the universe was not can the bible be interpreted as making historical statements with immense scientific value and in this case apparently accuracy?

How would someone in the context have known their was a beginning to the universe? Other cultures e.g Hinduism came to very different conclusions.

Excellent. Thanks.

Another very common philosophical idea is the cycling, which suggested a running system with no beginning and no end. In fact, it seems to be a better or a more "reasonable" one then that with a beginning/end or one simply goes on forever.

I think some people are disappointing when the current model says this universe would end in a big chill.

 

[gluadys]

I somehow thought you might say that ;-)
Modern science asserts a beginning to the universe. Since the bible also asserts that there was a time when the universe was not can the bible be interpreted as making historical statements with immense scientific value and in this case apparently accuracy?

No, the bible was making a theological statement, identifying God as a sovereign creator. Science still does not necessarily support that. It does support the thesis that the known universe had a beginning, but if you have looked at all at speculative theories about the origin of the known universe, you will have come across the notion that it is a "bubble" generated in an pre-existing quantum vacuum or the consequence of colliding 'branes or one of many universes. All such speculation continues to assume the eternal (non-created) status of matter. Science has NOT come to the firm conclusion that the known universe was created out of nothing. Scientists are quite comfortable with the notion that the known universe is only part of a larger mega-universe which does not have a beginning.

So theologically, the question has merely been pushed back a step. Does the big bang represent creation ex nihilo, consistent with biblical revelation, or is it merely one of many events in an eternal and uncreated mega-universe, consistent with pagan theologies?

Creation remains, today as in the past, an affirmation of faith in revealed truth, not demonstrable on a solely scientific basis.

 

[gluadys]

What is the "practical purpose" of giving such a ridiculous idea?

How very modern to think it is a ridiculous idea. I suppose you think a spiritual body is a ridiculous idea too.

I have come to see this rejection of a spiritual world as a hallmark of modern creationism. Very consistent with modern scientism. But hardly biblical.

 

[gluadys]

Well that was a fairly predictable response. I understand your view that the bible has nothing to say to modern scientists.

Not wanting to speak for Mallon here, but I think the point is that the bible has nothing to say on modern science. It certainly has plenty to say to modern scientists as to every human being.

 

[Mallon]

Well that was a fairly predictable response. I understand your view that the bible has nothing to say to modern scientists.

However questions 1,2,5,and 8 did not require you to accept by presuppositions on that and I would be genuinely interested in your views on this.

You still haven't answered the question, mindlight, so I'll ask it a fourth time:

Why would you expect to find 21st century science in the Bible?

You must expect to see scientific insight in the Scriptures, given the way you're formulated your questions. My question is about why you have those expectations.

Not wanting to speak for Mallon here, but I think the point is that the bible has nothing to say on modern science.

I'm not trying to make a point at all, really. You're right in saying that I don't think the Bible has anything to say about modern science. But my line of questioning isn't related to what I believe. It's related to what mindlight believes.

 

[juvenissun]

How very modern to think it is a ridiculous idea. I suppose you think a spiritual body is a ridiculous idea too.

I have come to see this rejection of a spiritual world as a hallmark of modern creationism. Very consistent with modern scientism. But hardly biblical.

You are avoiding my question. What does the Hebrews 11:3 mean according to you? Why does Paul (?) want to say that?

 

[juvenissun]

You must expect to see scientific insight in the Scriptures, given the way you're formulated your questions. My question is about why you have those expectations.

Give you my logic answer:

I have seen example 1, example 2, ... example m. So I expect to see example m+1, ... example m+2 ... and example n.

 

[mindlight]

You still haven't answered the question, mindlight, so I'll ask it a fourth time:

Why would you expect to find 21st century science in the Bible?

You must expect to see scientific insight in the Scriptures, given the way you're formulated your questions. My question is about why you have those expectations.

I'm not trying to make a point at all, really. You're right in saying that I don't think the Bible has anything to say about modern science. But my line of questioning isn't related to what I believe. It's related to what mindlight believes.

God reveals Himself in history. The word becomes flesh. The bible books are given to historical individuals. The whole nature of scripture is that God works in history. We read prophecies that meant one thing in their original contexts as referring to a Messiah whom the original authors did not see in them. Jesus rose from the dead is an historical statement or it is meaningless.

Incarnation is fundamental to the nature of scripture as it is also in the manner in which God reveals Himself to man in Jesus Christ.

Scientists who are blind to this historical dimension of scripture will refuse scientific implications of these events because of their science, but not with scriptural understanding. The primary witness to creation can only be God science sees only degraded echoes and appears confused even about those.

Liberals who dispute the scriptural account do so to support a hermeneutic that allows to appear rational to their worldly audiences rather than to God.

when i read Genesis i see a series of revelations about God in definite historical events which have scientific explanations.

1- the universe has a beginning
2- was created out of nothing
3- we are all descendants of adam and eve
4- the universe is young
5- there was global historical flood
6- the original substance of the universe lacked light, form and was empty

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think that this mentality is of the same sort that gets a thrill out of "evidence" from the Bible code.

It's the "See. Our God really is real. I told you." Kind of a desperate hope for external validation. It is this sort of thing that makes me seriously say that the TE really does have more faith than a YEC (on average).

 

[juvenissun]

I think that this mentality is of the same sort that gets a thrill out of "evidence" from the Bible code.

It's the "See. Our God really is real. I told you." Kind of a desperate hope for external validation. It is this sort of thing that makes me seriously say that the TE really does have more faith than a YEC (on average).

I told you that my reason is a logic one. It is something in addition to faith. It is perfectly arguable.

 

[gluadys]

You are avoiding my question. What does the Hebrews 11:3 mean according to you? Why does Paul (?) want to say that?

I think the author is alluding to what the Greek philosophers called "forms". Forms, especially as conceived by Plato, are the immaterial, heavenly templates from which material bodies take their model. Plato thought of the forms as eternal, and he also thought of matter as eternal. When the writer here says that "by faith we understand that the worlds (note the plural) were prepared by the word of God..." I think he is refuting the pagan belief in the self-sustaining eternity of the cosmos and affirming that all worlds: the world of forms and the world of material things are creations. But since material creations take their shape from the interaction of form and matter, the things which are seen--material things--are made from things that are not seen---immaterial forms.


I certainly do not think the contrast the writer is making is so trivial a one as between big material things for which we need no microscope and little material things whose invisibility to us is only due to size. It is more a contrast between two natures, material and spiritual.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I told you that my reason is a logic one. It is something in addition to faith. It is perfectly arguable.

It can only be called logical if each of your examples (example 1 ... example m) justifiably belongs in the sequence.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical.

 

[mindlight]

I think that this mentality is of the same sort that gets a thrill out of "evidence" from the Bible code.

The book the Bible Code is rubbish fiction but there are undoubtedly dimensions to scripture which remain hidden to the majority of scholars. When Jesus came the first time scholars similarly did not understand that many of the scriptures they had read all of their lives referred to him. People have definite intrepretation of Revelation but these are probably mainly wrong also.

It's the "See. Our God really is real. I told you." Kind of a desperate hope for external validation. It is this sort of thing that makes me seriously say that the TE really does have more faith than a YEC (on average).

You will need to explain this accusation a little more cause it sound like nonsense to me in its present format.

I have no need to prove the existence of God to you or anyone else for any need in myself. I know him personally through Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit who lives in me. Laugh at that at your peril.

The argument I have put to Mallon and Glaudys has nothing to do with any attempt to convince others who are godless that they are blind to the ultimate reality in the universe i.e Its Creator. This blindness has to do with sin, hardness of heart and unbelief and will require the grace and mercy of God to change not scientific reasonings.

What I have said is a theological statement that the nature of divine inspiration as revealed in the scriptures as a whole and in the Christian experience of Christ does not square with the TE approach to Genesis. Specifically they make the following erroneous claims:

1) They will mostly accept that Jesus is an historical person, lived among us and may even have performed miracles like the feeding of the 5000 or turning water into wine or walking on water. But the Genesis 1-11 account which has always been interpreted historically is not in their view an historical account and can now be reinterpreted to allow them to get on with their science unfettered by any biblical boundaries to what science can say.

2) That scripture cannot mean things to us that it could not have meant to its original audience. This is completely preposterous if one accepts any transcendence to our Divinity of his history and creation. If God inspired it then of course he would know better than the person through whom he inspired what was written and would enhance that persons words to include dimensions inaccessible to them at their present level of understanding and experience. Any artist whose ever created something, in which they saw something completely new in 5 years later, will understand this view of inspiration. The classic example of this is Isaiah 53 almost universally quoted by Christians as a reference to Jesus himself in the OT. It meant a different thing however to the Jews in its original context.

3) That historical books and statements cannot have scientific implications. If God is an eyewitness to creation himself and has said there was a beginning then all the theories about eternal recurring doughnuts, cycles , parallel universes injecting into emptiness to create new universes become pure fiction on a par with the "Bible Code".