Cosmology

[Northbrook]

Hello, everyone, this is Lambrini. Want to talk about the origin of the universe? The Greek word for the study of the origin of the universe = COSMOLOGY.

There are two basic kinds of cosmology. One is physical cosmology. That is physicists and astronomers talking about how the universe originated. In the Seventies, there was a famous bestseller called "Cosmos" by Princeton astronomy professor Carl Sagan. He became a celebrity because of that book, appeared on the "Tonight Show," etc. I never read that book, did any of you? Well, if any of you did, or if any of you have more recently taken an astronomy course, read an astronomy article, etc, please post some of what you know about physical cosmology here.

The other kind of cosmology is religious cosmology. That is theologians talking about creationism. I personally believe in Adam and Eve, and I am proud of that. But I know one of our TAW members has been posting about a mythological interpretation of Adam and Eve, so if he would like to post some more here on this new thread, that would be of interest to me. Let's debate!

 

[Halbhh]

For me, debating much in astrophysics and many aspects of cosmology (like distances, time scales, this would be like debating chemistry.

It works. We observe chemistry happening.

God made it the laws of physics and they work great.

It works very well to support life -- "and it was very good."

 

[ArmyMatt]

material cosmology is great for figuring out the post fall material world.

 

[Northbrook]

If one takes a religious view of cosmology, it gives an answer to the famous question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Because in the Book of Genesis, it says that God created all the animals, including "the fowls, after their kind." (Here, "after" means "according to," as it does in French.) So the fowls appeared first, fully formed by the Creator. They did not grow from an egg. Hence, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Answer: the chicken!

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

It's complex, but I'll try to summarize.
Evolution is a phenomenon that generates increasingly complex information information, so it is a creative phenomenon. But if everything comes from the creation of new information, it means that the creation exists and therefore God has indeed created the world.
We can observe outside the biological world living organisms, for example a hurricane: it has a birth, it is generated by the meeting of several phenomena under specific conditions, it feeds on the energy that is present in the environment around him and then finally he dies.
Absolutely everything in the Universe resumes the same pattern as biological life, but less complex. The existence of the human being is therefore the completion of the fundamental principles of organizations of matter in the universe.
From this cosmological point of view, the Existence of God is absolutely indisputable. The only possibility of discussion that exists is this: what is the nature of this "God"? And that's called theology!

I mentioned Origen on the Garden of Eden, and here is Clement of Alexandria's commentary on creation:

Clement of Alexandria
Stromateis, Book 6 Chapter 16
For the creations on the different days followed in a most important succession; so that all things brought into existence might have honor from priority, created together in thought, but not being of equal worth. Nor was the creation of each signified by the voice, inasmuch as the creative work is said to have made them at once. For something must needs have been named first. Wherefore those things were announced first, from which came those that were second, all things being originated together from one essence by one power. For the will of God was one, in one identity. And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist.
http://www.orthodoxebooks.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/The Stromata - Clement of Alexandria.pdf

Cordially
Chrétien de Troyes

 

[Northbrook]

It's complex, but I'll try to summarize.
Evolution is a phenomenon that generates increasingly complex information information, so it is a creative phenomenon. But if everything comes from the creation of new information, it means that the creation exists and therefore God has indeed created the world.
We can observe outside the biological world living organisms, for example a hurricane: it has a birth, it is generated by the meeting of several phenomena under specific conditions, it feeds on the energy that is present in the environment around him and then finally he dies.
Absolutely everything in the Universe resumes the same pattern as biological life, but less complex. The existence of the human being is therefore the completion of the fundamental principles of organizations of matter in the universe.
From this cosmological point of view, the Existence of God is absolutely indisputable. The only possibility of discussion that exists is this: what is the nature of this "God"? And that's called theology!

I mentioned Origen on the Garden of Eden, and here is Clement of Alexandria's commentary on creation:


Cordially
Chrétien de Troyes

Christian, do you also perchance believe in the Gaia Hypothesis? The Gaia Hypothesis is a belief that the earth, in its way, is a living organism. Gaia was the Greek goddess of the earth.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

Christian, do you also perchance believe in the Gaia Hypothesis? The Gaia Hypothesis is a belief that the earth, in its way, is a living organism. Gaia was the Greek goddess of the earth.

No, that's not what I meant.
I'm trying to show that the whole universe follows a pattern similar to biological organisms and in my opinion they are non-living organisms. But I do not pretend they have a conscience, a spirit or a soul, or anything else. They are only phenomena.

 

[Halbhh]

God's design, physics, unifies all of creation, the large like the small.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

material cosmology is great for figuring out the post fall material world.

But more precisely, what is the cosmology of the Orthodox Church? I admit that this is a subject that I have never really studied.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But more precisely, what is the cosmology of the Orthodox Church? I admit that this is a subject that I have never really studied.

to quote Fr Schmemann, the world is good, the world is fallen, the world is redeemed.

we look to Christ for our true cosmology, as He is where the Uncreated and the created unite

 

[Northbrook]

But more precisely, what is the cosmology of the Orthodox Church? I admit that this is a subject that I have never really studied.

Well, Christian, I knew there was a forum on this website called "Physical & Life Sciences." So I went there just now and invited one or more of them to post here, about what the current views of astrophysics are on the origin of 1) the universe and 2) the earth. Specifically, I would like to know what that guy Neil DeGrasse Tyson thinks. He took over the show "Cosmos" from the late Carl Sagan. Once we know what the current views of astrophysics are, we can ask an Orthodox priest whether the views are congruent with those of Orthodoxy.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, Christian, I knew there was a forum on this website called "Physical & Life Sciences." So I went there just now and invited one or more of them to post here, about what the current views of astrophysics are on the origin of 1) the universe and 2) the earth. Specifically, I would like to know what that guy Neil DeGrasse Tyson thinks. He took over the show "Cosmos" from the late Carl Sagan. Once we know what the current views of astrophysics are, we can ask an Orthodox priest whether the views are congruent with those of Orthodoxy.

DeGrasse Tyson isn't who I'd listen to ever to learn much on astrophysics, because having seen a couple of his programs of Cosmos they are far less good than NOVA on PBS for instance.

And then next, even less good,
DeGrasse Tyson seems to have a bone to pick so that his programs have an ideological slant against faith. (He's an atheist, but seems to want to preach his ideology by going out of his way to over emphasize the errors of some Christians, painting their wrongs onto all faith..)

So, forget DeGrasse Tyson, and instead get the already more interesting and better done NOVA astrophysics episodes.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, Christian, I knew there was a forum on this website called "Physical & Life Sciences." So I went there just now and invited one or more of them to post here, about what the current views of astrophysics are on the origin of 1) the universe and 2) the earth. Specifically, I would like to know what that guy Neil DeGrasse Tyson thinks. He took over the show "Cosmos" from the late Carl Sagan. Once we know what the current views of astrophysics are, we can ask an Orthodox priest whether the views are congruent with those of Orthodoxy.

Cosmology is an ongoing interest of mine for decades now. Trying to summarize on this smartphone, the mainstream view...

The big bang is widely thought the start of this universe.

But, Recent high energy physics observations at the European CERN collider make our physics look actually "fine tuned" and "unnatural" physicists generally say.

The popular response to this include the Multiverse speculative theories, possibly never testable in any way. So to ascribe to one over other ideas requires a sort of faith, and this situation has continued for many years now.

 

[Northbrook]

Greetings, Orthodox Christians! This is Lambrini. I went to another forum, "Physical & Life Sciences," and started a thread there titled "Cosmology." Here is the link to it:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/cosmology.8078330/#post-73090093

Much like the participants in our TAW forum, the participants there are not necessarily agreed on the issues. One likes the TV program "Cosmos," now hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson since the death of Carl Sagan. Others prefer "NOVA" (on PBS). My "Cosmology" thread over there on "Physical & Life Sciences" is only one day old, so keep going back to it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hello, everyone, this is Lambrini. Want to talk about the origin of the universe? The Greek word for the study of the origin of the universe = COSMOLOGY.

There are two basic kinds of cosmology. One is physical cosmology. That is physicists and astronomers talking about how the universe originated. In the Seventies, there was a famous bestseller called "Cosmos" by Princeton astronomy professor Carl Sagan. He became a celebrity because of that book, appeared on the "Tonight Show," etc. I never read that book, did any of you? Well, if any of you did, or if any of you have more recently taken an astronomy course, read an astronomy article, etc, please post some of what you know about physical cosmology here.

The other kind of cosmology is religious cosmology. That is theologians talking about creationism. I personally believe in Adam and Eve, and I am proud of that. But I know one of our TAW members has been posting about a mythological interpretation of Adam and Eve, so if he would like to post some more here on this new thread, that would be of interest to me. Let's debate!

The problem is that the wrong physics for 99.9% of the universe is used, and so 95% of cosmology is nothing but epicycles and pseudoscience. Shown by the fact that every day astronomers are completely surprised by something as their theories have no predictive power in the slightest.... After which they then sledgehammer the observations to fit their epicycles, and then talk about revising theory but never actually do, and so are surprised over and over and over...... because no matter how surprised they are at what they find, the basic assumptions which led to those incorrect predictions are never questioned.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Cosmology is an ongoing interest of mine for decades now. Trying to summarize on this smartphone, the mainstream view...

The big bang is widely thought the start of this universe.

But, Recent high energy physics observations at the European CERN collider make our physics look actually "fine tuned" and "unnatural" physicists generally say.

The popular response to this include the Multiverse speculative theories, possibly never testable in any way. So to ascribe to one over other ideas requires a sort of faith, and this situation has continued for many years now.

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-113055333.html

The Big Bang theory has in reality already been falsified by numerous data, not that people actually let data interfere with their theories. Instead they just make up stuff like multiverses in an attempt to throw out that lifesaver to keep their beliefs alive... and having to admit to the obvious conclusion...

https://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang

 

[buzuxi02]

Yes we Orthodox believe Adam and Eve were real people not symbolic figures and are depicted so in icons as historical figures with their image and likeness.

The Church interprets Genesis with what our predecessors passed down. A mix of literal with allegorical and spiritual interpretation depending on verse.

And yes any interpretor can read big bang and evolution into the text. In fact many secularists who study ancient literature and ancient epics do believe Adam and Eve were based on real historical figures, just not necessarily the first humans on earth. The basic theory is that kings tended to be divinely appointed and thus Adam and Eve were the first royal family. Everyone under their dominion was (made) subject to them and they lived a good life befitting an anointed king and queen. Their fall from grace and expulsion from the garden is interpreted by these secular as simply meaning they were deposed and were run off from their throne either by corruption or being overthrown by a usurper (serpent). So you can read and interpret any theory into the text.
But we Orthodox rely on precedence not departing from the interpretations handed down to us.

 

[Halbhh]

dp

Just realized that the title of this thread is "Cosmology" but the intent was to discuss Adam and Eve -- these are both in the same thread. Heh heh, I had thought that was 2 different threads, but it's 2 discussions in 1 thread. We have two big topics at once here, with the connection only that God is behind them both.

 

[Halbhh]

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-113055333.html

The Big Bang theory has in reality already been falsified by numerous data, not that people actually let data interfere with their theories. Instead they just make up stuff like multiverses in an attempt to throw out that lifesaver to keep their beliefs alive... and having to admit to the obvious conclusion...

https://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang

** Feel free to respond instead in another thread instead of this one, though if we want to separate the 2 big topics **

If you've watched this 2 hour and 20 minute video, then can you summarize to me their hypotheses about the observations of redshift of galaxies in all directions showing they are receding from us at velocities roughly proportional to their distance -- cosmic expansion, and it would also be interesting to hear any alternative hypotheses about the relative smoothness of the cosmic background radiation to compete with the inflation theory.


God is behind it all. I bet we agree on that.

The question to me is never whether God is behind it all, but instead, we are trying to understand some pieces of the amazing things He has created.

 

[Halbhh]

dp