What would a universe built by God in six days look like?

[Chany]

Hello Chany,

Actually we are talking about God's creation, which is how 'stuff got here'. God exists in the spiritual realm. God created the physical realm, which is all that exists in our physical existence. God did not create from stuff He found laying around. God created everything physical into existence. Scientists tell us that 'creation' happened at the 'big bang'. Ok, what proof do scientists have that everything physical, empty space, matter and energy, came into existence at the 'big bang'?

Scientists theorize that the mass of 1 septillion stars, along with all the matter in the universe, suddenly popped into existence, from nothing, a nanosecond before the 'big bang'. However, all scientific proof, along with common sense, tells us this cannot happen.

So what scientific proof do you have that the mass of 1 septillion stars, along with all the other mass in the universe, along with empty space, suddenly popped into existence, a the 'big bang'?

Once again, you are talking about the origin of the matter. I am talking about how old the matter is since the time of its first existence.

I'm discussing age. Not origin, age.

 

[StevenMerten]

Once again, you are talking about the origin of the matter. I am talking about how old the matter is since the time of its first existence.

I'm discussing age. Not origin, age.

Hello Chany,

We are talking about God's creation. You say you do not care where or how all things physical came into existence, you only care when all things physical came into existence. Don't the two go together? If all things physical cannot be proven by science, or common sense, as even possible of coming into existence, from nothing, what is the sense of talking about when scientists tell us they think this happened? Scientists, along with you have no proof at all as to how everything physical, matter energy and empty space, came into existence from nothing. Would you agree? You want proof from me that God created everything, yet you, and scientists, have nothing to 'Prove' that everything physical came into existence, without God, at a point in physical time, other than when God said He created everything physical. So prove to us that you have some evidence of just how everything physical came into existence when you and scientists say it did. You want proof so prove.

 

[Needing_Grace]

Hello Chany,

In the 'Big Bang' theory the mass of 1 septillion stars, along with all the other mass in the universe, suddenly popped into existence from nothing. It was about the size of a grapefruit. Then it exploded and empty space, somehow came into existence and stretched out ahead of the exploding mass. Science has a proven 'law of conservation' that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only change from one form to another. Science has never even seen matter, just pop into existence, not even one atom. Nor have they any proof that matter can just pop into existence from nothing.

Do you agree that science has no proof of the mass of 1 septillion stars just popping into existence, or even one atom?

Do you have any proof that matter, energy or empty space, can just pop into existence from nothing?

Ya might want to look into quantum mechanics.

 

[Chany]

Ya might want to look into quantum mechanics.

I knew I was forgetting something. Thanks.

 

[StevenMerten]

Ya might want to look into quantum mechanics.

Hello Needing Grace,

If you are an expert or studied quantum mechanics, please bring us some quotes to look at. What would really be interesting is if you had an article where science had an experiment where they did bring something physical, even one atom, into existence from nothing, which would counter the natural law of conservation. Then, of course, the discussion of how likely could the mass of 1 septillion stars, along with all the other mass in the universe, could pop into existence, from nothing, without God.

 

[FriendlyJosh]

God can do absolutely anything He wills, and in any time frame since it's my understanding that He exists outside of time of course. Also in The Bible I believe it says that a day for The Lord is like a thousand for us, i'm not sure if the person speaking literally meant a thousand or was just indicating it was a long time, either way I just know I love The Lord and however old the earth is, I think it's a blessing The Lord created it and us at all.

 

[bill5]

If all things physical cannot be proven by science, or common sense, as even possible of coming into existence, from nothing, what is the sense of talking about when scientists tell us they think this happened?

Because it's human nature and logical for a wide variety of reasons for us to understand the world/universe we live in. That actually needs to be said?

Scientists, along with you have no proof at all as to how everything physical, matter energy and empty space, came into existence from nothing.

Well duh.

You want proof from me that God created everything,

I guess I missed that post. And the idea of providing such proof is pretty ridiculous.

yet you, and scientists, have nothing to 'Prove' that everything physical came into existence, without God,

Again: duh. And?

You want proof so prove.

? Sorry but this doesn't even make sense.

If your point is "maybe we can't scientifically prove God created everything, but it can't be disproven either," again that states the incredibly obvious. This is why I shake my head and immediately dismiss anyone who comes at me with that silly and childish "prove God exists!" as if He were some kind of scientific phenomena.

It seems that most people agree with your OP, so I'm not sure what you're getting at now - or did you just want to debate for the sake of it

 

[StevenMerten]

If your point is "maybe we can't scientifically prove God created everything, but it can't be disproven either," again that states the incredibly obvious. This is why I shake my head and immediately dismiss anyone who comes at me with that silly and childish "prove God exists!" as if He were some kind of scientific phenomena.

It seems that most people agree with your OP, so I'm not sure what you're getting at now - or did you just want to debate for the sake of it

Hello Bill,

Thanks for the support.

Yes, on previous posts, we were discussing points which came down to, if you cannot prove it, it cannot be used for discussing God's creation in six days. The point is that much of science, and all of scientific theory on just how matter, energy and empty space came into existence, has no proof. They are only theory. The scientifically proven fact on matter and energy, in the law of conservation, is that they do not/cannot come into existence from nothing, but only transform from one form to another. So the 'big bang' theory, which needs the mass of 1 septillion stars to just pop into existence from nothing, without God, before it explodes into our universe, to be called 'creation' by scientists, goes against science and common sense.

Can science prove that God could not have created our universe in six days, six thousand years ago? No they cannot. Could our All Powerful God have created our universe six thousand years ago? Yes God can.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Can science prove that God could not have created our universe in six days, six thousand years ago? No they cannot. Could our All Powerful God have created our universe six thousand years ago? Yes God can.

Science cannot "prove" that the world is greater than 6000 years old, by if the standard of proof is an article of faith.

Science deals with what can be physically observed, and from Hebrews 11 we know that faith specifically rejects those things. Science cannot "prove" that the solar system is not geocentric, to the standards of religious faith; I know because I've had a few go-arounds with geocentrists. For that matter, science cannot "prove" that the moon is not made of green cheese, to the standards of religious dogma.

But...

Neither can religion prove to the standards of the scientific method, anything at all that is an article of faith.

Notice Hebrews 11:1

Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.​

So if you believe it in faith, that means you do NOT have physical evidence or proof, but only a belief in what you hope for, evidence of things not seen.

So you can't take science to task for not being able to prove an article of faith when the Holy Bible defines faith as things that are invisible, not seen, and hoped for. Faith is not a superset of science, nor does science claim to be a superset of faith. They work in two different realms; the observable, and the invisible-hoped for.

So to say you have faith that the universe was created in six 24-hour days, is to say "I hope it was," and "I believe it although there is no tangible evidence to support me." If you make it more than that, then you need to revisit what faith actually is.

Here are a couple short excerpts from JPII from 1979, speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences about, among other things, the Galileo case. I'm not trying to get you to change your mind; it's clear that's not going to happen. What I am trying to change is your dismissal of science and its theories and conclusions, vis-à-vis based on your choice to regard literalistic interpretations of Genesis as evidence of science being wrong.

8. Another crisis, similar to the one we are speaking of, can be mentioned here. In the last century and at the beginning of our own, advances in the historical sciences made it possible to acquire a new understanding of the Bible and of the biblical world. The rationalist context in which these data were most often presented seemed to make them dangerous to the Christian faith. Certain people, in their concern to defend the faith, thought it necessary to reject firmly-based historical conclusions. That was a hasty and unhappy decision. The work of a pioneer like Fr Lagrange was able to make the necessary discernment on the basis of dependable criteria.

...

9. If contemporary culture is marked by a tendency to scientism, the cultural horizon of Galileo's age was uniform and carried the imprint of a particular philosophical formation. This unitary character of culture, which in itself is positive and desirable even in our own day, was one of the reasons for Galileo's condemnation. The majority of theologians did not recognize the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation, and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.

...

Before Bellarmine, this same wisdom and same respect for the divine Word guided St Augustine when he wrote: "If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly. It is not the meaning of Scripture which is opposed to the truth but the meaning which he has wanted to give to it. That which is opposed to Scripture is not what is in Scripture but what he has placed there himself, believing that this is what Scripture meant".(5) A century ago, Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus: "Truth cannot contradict truth and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself".

...

12. Another lesson which we can draw is that the different branches of knowledge call for different methods. Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. Let us recall the celebrated saying attributed to Baronius "Spiritui Sancto mentem fuisse nos docere quomodo ad coelum eatur, non quomodo coelum gradiatur". In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition. The two realms are not altogether foreign to each other, they have points of contact. The methodologies proper to each make it possible to bring out different aspects of reality.​

So you may believe what you will, but you have no basis for insisting anyone who doesn't agree is in any way deficient on the topic. And in fact an insistence that science must conform to the literal sense of scripture was considered at least by JPII to be an erroneous position.


Alan

 

[bill5]

The point is that much of science, and all of scientific theory on just how matter, energy and empty space came into existence, has no proof. They are only theory.

Frankly I don't get the impression you've read or understood previous posts which already addressed this, but I'll try one more time: science doesn't even have a theory about how everything came into existence. The big bang is about what happened immediately AFTER that and how the universe came into being via that explosion/etc. It says NOTHING about anything happening "without God" or "with God," nor should it. So when you say "the 'big bang' theory needs the mass of 1 septillion stars to just pop into existence from nothing without God," sorry, you're wrong. It doesn't "need God" or to address God one way or other because that is a religious matter, not a scientific one. Science describes the "how," not the "why" (or if you prefer, the "who"), which is a religious/philosophic matter.

Can science prove that God could not have created our universe in six days, six thousand years ago? No they cannot. Could our All Powerful God have created our universe six thousand years ago? Yes God can.

I'm sorry but if that's your argument for a "young Earth," it's a weak one. For one thing, you can't prove a negative (at least not directly). Second, what science CAN (and has) proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, is that our world and universe are much, much older than 6000ish years. It isn't about what "God could do," it's about what has actually happened, regardless of why or who did it.

Science cannot "prove" that the world is greater than 6000 years old, by if the standard of proof is an article of faith.

But that doesn't make any sense either (which is maybe what you're getting at?). Proof is proof. An "article of faith" is not a "standard of proof." For ex. I can prove 2+2=4 beyond any doubt whatsoever; it is not a matter of belief or opinion, but unquestionable, irrefutable fact. If someone says "well my religious beliefs teach that 2+2=67," they're wrong. That's not an opinion; that's a fact. Period. It's not about another religion BELIEVING it, it's provable, just like the Earth revolves around the sun is provable. Someone jamming their fingers in their ears and going "I DON'T BELIEVE IT NANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" doesn't change that in the least.

Science deals with what can be physically observed, and from Hebrews 11 we know that faith specifically rejects those things.

Well, Hebrews 11 says nothing about "rejecting science," only that it isn't what faith is about (but again, maybe is what you were driving at).

Faith is not a superset of science, nor does science claim to be a superset of faith. They work in two different realms; the observable, and the invisible-hoped for.

Exactly what I was getting at, thx

 

[freezerman2000]

The Universe is still being created.There are new stars being born as we chat.
Even when the last one is in the process of coming into existence,creation will be continuing.
Creation will cease only when there are no more new objects being created.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The Universe is still being created.There are new stars being born as we chat.
Even when the last one is in the process of coming into existence,creation will be continuing.
Creation will cease only when there are no more new objects being created.

That's a great observation!

 

[Needing_Grace]

The Universe is still being created.There are new stars being born as we chat.
Even when the last one is in the process of coming into existence,creation will be continuing.
Creation will cease only when there are no more new objects being created.

Hmmm...and since stars are element factories (they fuse heavier elements from lighter ones, i.e., hydrogen to helium fusion is taking place in Sol, about 4.5 B years old with fuel for at least 8 B more, as we speak), creation's processes are going to be taking place for a very long time.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

But that doesn't make any sense either (which is maybe what you're getting at?). Proof is proof. An "article of faith" is not a "standard of proof." For ex. I can prove 2+2=4 beyond any doubt whatsoever; it is not a matter of belief or opinion, but unquestionable, irrefutable fact. If someone says "well my religious beliefs teach that 2+2=67," they're wrong. That's not an opinion; that's a fact. Period. It's not about another religion BELIEVING it, it's provable, just like the Earth revolves around the sun is provable. Someone jamming their fingers in their ears and going "I DON'T BELIEVE IT NANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" doesn't change that in the least.

Yes, this is much like what I was getting at.

In this case, if the Church herself actually taught that Genesis is to be taken literally, then I'd have to choose between what I honestly believe based on overwhelming evidence of, for example, earth being more than 6000 years old, and what the Church teaches about it. Luckily she doesn't teach that.

Well, Hebrews 11 says nothing about "rejecting science," only that it isn't what faith is about (but again, maybe is what you were driving at).

Yes. Hebrews 11 describes "faith" as the evidence of things not seen, and of things hoped for. Neither one constitutes "proof" in the scientific sense. And if we do have "proof" in the scientific sense, then it is no longer "unseen" or "hoped for," but "proven fact." IMO even before science calls something "proven," it has seen plenty to put the kibosh on some of these lines of reasoning.

And from JPII's speech, it is clear to me that he considers science as a more "authoritative" way to discover the characteristics of the physical world, compared to literal interpretations of scripture.

For example, the "theory of gravity" isn't "proven" but anyone who thinks there is no such thing is in a different world than the one I live in.

More generally, to "prove" anything that is faith-based, is impossible if the faith in the data is part of the faith. If it could be proven, it would not require faith. If it's based on faith, then it can't be proven. To refute that is to refute scripture itself.

Exactly what I was getting at, thx

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Hmmm...and since stars are element factories (they fuse heavier elements from lighter ones, i.e., hydrogen to helium fusion is taking place in Sol, about 4.5 B years old with fuel for at least 8 B more, as we speak), creation's processes are going to be taking place for a very long time.

Sometimes I like to think of black holes as God's vacuum cleaners, where He sucks substance out of one reality and Big Bangs them into another. Maybe the black holes we can observe now, and actually preparing to Big Bang us into existence. Maybe there is some sort of "stuff" we don't even know about, getting sucked in my black holes, that is necessary for "life" to animate dirt, minerals, water, etc.

I'm not prepared to argue or defend this; it's just something I like to toss around in my mind. If anyone thinks I'm a wacko for thinking of that, you're probably right.

Alan

 

[StevenMerten]

Hello All,

I wanted to discuss the scientifically proven fact that physical time is not the constant that most people envision when thinking of the time of 'big bang' 'creation' as 14 billion years ago.

If you look through the Hubble telescope, at a star 14 billion light years away, from our prospective of physical time, it took that light 14 billion years to get from there to here. Thus science tells us when we look at a star 14 billion light years away, we are looking at the 'beginning of time'.

Now lets say that you board your, fast as light, space ship at the physical time that a ray of light from the 'big bang' was emitted. You travel with the ray of light to earth, 14 billion light years away. How long did it take you to get from the 'big bang' 'creation' period, to earth, 14 billion light years away? Most people would say it took 14 billion years to travel 14 billion light years. This is not true. It only took you seconds or days to travel the 14 billion light years to earth, from the 'big bang' 'creation'. Do we all agree?

The speed of light is the constant and physical time is a variable which changes dramatically the closer your speed reaches the speed of light.

Lets say you take a trip to a star 14 billion light years away, traveling at the speed of light. It will take you a couple of days to get there. When you get there, you call mom to tell her you made it there safely. The person on the other end of the phone tells you, your mom does not live here anymore. She died 14 billion years ago. Does this all make sense to everyone? Of course you cannot really call mom after traveling 14 billion light years in seconds or days.

Physical time of 14 billion years since the big bang is only from our prospective, and speed, on earth. For a guy traveling at the speed of light, from the day the big bang happened, landing on earth, the big bang happened just the other day. Does this make sense to everyone? What we experience as physical time, is a variable, not a constant. It all depends on what speed you are traveling at to calculate how long ago the big bang happened. Dose this make sense to everyone?

Our astronauts and satellites operate at a slower rate of time because their speed is faster in orbit in space, than we on earth. They use the same clocks, it is just that physical rate of time is different due to their increased speed. This is a proven fact that we deal with when calculating elapsed physical time in orbit compared to elapsed physical time on earth.

Because physical time is a variable, not a constant, it is unfair to use it when calculating when God created the universe. Physical time all depends on how fast you are moving. What do you think?

Time dilation and space flight

Time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to travel further into the future while aging very little, in that their great speed slows down the rate of passage of on-board time. That is, the ship's clock (and according to relativity, any human traveling with it) shows less elapsed time than the clocks of observers on earth. For sufficiently high speeds the effect is dramatic.[2] For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years at home. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel through the entire known Universe in one human lifetime.[21] The space travelers could return to Earth billions of years in the future. A scenario based on this idea was presented in the novel Planet of the Apes by Pierre Boulle.

Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AlanFromWichita]

According to my calculations, if you travel 14 billion light years in "a couple days," that means you were not moving at the speed of light at all, but at approximately 0.9999999999999999999999999362 times the speed of light, using .005 years in the time dilation formula.

If you actually travel AT the speed of light compared to another reference frame, it takes zero time to get anywhere compared to that reference frame.

Alan

 

[ebia]

Hello All, I wanted to discuss the scientifically proven fact that physical time is not the constant that most people envision when thinking of the time of 'big bang' 'creation' as 14 billion years ago. If you look through the Hubble telescope, at a star 14 billion light years away, from our prospective of physical time, it took that light 14 billion years to get from there to here. Thus science tells us when we look at a star 14 billion light years away, we are looking at the 'beginning of time'. Now lets say that you board your, fast as light, space ship at the physical time that a ray of light from the 'big bang' was emitted. You travel with the ray of light to earth, 14 billion light years away. How long did it take you to get from the 'big bang' 'creation' period, to earth, 14 billion light years away? Most people would say it took 14 billion years to travel 14 billion light years. This is not true. It only took you seconds or days to travel the 14 billion light years to earth, from the 'big bang' 'creation'. Do we all agree? The speed of light is the constant and physical time is a variable which changes dramatically the closer your speed reaches the speed of light. Lets say you take a trip to a star 14 billion light years away, traveling at the speed of light. It will take you a couple of days to get there. When you get there, you call mom to tell her you made it there safely. The person on the other end of the phone tells you, your mom does not live here anymore. She died 14 billion years ago. Does this all make sense to everyone? Of course you cannot really call mom after traveling 14 billion light years in seconds or days. Physical time of 14 billion years since the big bang is only from our prospective, and speed, on earth. For a guy traveling at the speed of light, from the day the big bang happened, landing on earth, the big bang happened just the other day. Does this make sense to everyone? What we experience as physical time, is a variable, not a constant. It all depends on what speed you are traveling at to calculate how long ago the big bang happened. Dose this make sense to everyone? Our astronauts and satellites operate at a slower rate of time because their speed is faster in orbit in space, than we on earth. They use the same clocks, it is just that physical rate of time is different due to their increased speed. This is a proven fact that we deal with when calculating elapsed physical time in orbit compared to elapsed physical time on earth. Because physical time is a variable, not a constant, it is unfair to use it when calculating when God created the universe. Physical time all depends on how fast you are moving. What do you think?

Not too bad until you get to the last bit. Because we understand how time varies we can still use it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

How can "speed" through space and time be fixed, when both space and time are relative? Assuming we're talking about through a vacuum, that is, because light speed as measured on earth varies depending on the media.

Has anybody ever thought about "nothing?" Where there isn't even a vacuum? I wonder if there are "places" where not even time and space exist, but somehow interacts with our world? Who knows in the spirit world, eh?

 

[bill5]

According to my calculations, if you travel 14 billion light years in "a couple days," that means you were not moving at the speed of light at all, but at approximately 0.9999999999999999999999999362 times the speed of light, using .005 years in the time dilation formula.

Your math needs a little work, as does SM's. And again there is confusion between time and distance. The universe is estimated at about 14 billion years old, not "14 billion light years."

And somewhere that's a light year away, travelling at the speed of light, takes a year to get there. By definition. As far as we know, you cannot travel at or faster than the speed of light, so you can't travel "14 billion light years" in any less than a little over 14 billion years, at best.

But this all has already been laid out, so I think this thread is played out -