Pages

▼

Sunday, July 28, 2019

Has Science Disproved The First Line of The Bible?

Image result for stars in space



There has been a major development in the field of cosmology, one that may have a bearing on apologetics in the future. As atheist friend "Pixie" brought out in our discussions last week, a report by Ahmed Farag Ali (Benha University in Egypt) and   Saurya Das (University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada), their model removes the singularity and posits a universe with "no beginning and no end."[1] Some commentators have been saying the new model does away with the big bang, It does not but it does do away with the singularity, the theoretical mathematical point from which the universe supposedly emerged. In order to end the singularity the new model assumes an endless universe, making the concept of big bang seem incomprehensible.[2] But technically it doesn't actually do away with it.Brian Koberlein explains: "The catch is that by eliminating the singularity, 'the model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It  existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before ‘collapsing’ into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang. Unfortunately many articles confuse ‘no singularity’ with ‘no big bang.’'"[3]
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of cosmology.[4]
It is odd that it took physicists so long to change the model, They have been wanting to get rid of the singularity since the  day theists began saying it resembled the point of creation. "The new willingness to consider what might have happened before the bang is the latest swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked back and forth for millennia. In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture."[5]

 So much has been made of the coincidence between singularity and creation by apologists that it does feel like science is disproving creation. some might feel a sense of panic,
Christian apologists advocating the big bang include William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Hugh Ross, David Noebel and Lee Strobel. William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, was interviewed by Lee Strobel.1 Strobel asked, “And the universe came into being in what has been called the Big Bang?”2 Craig answered: “Exactly. As [astrophysicist] Stephen Hawking said, ‘Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.’”[6]
Yet not all Christian apologists support the Big bang. Johnathan F, Henry argues that apologists should abandon the big bang. [7] He quotes Alex Williams and John Hartnett begin with “Four Reasons to Reject the Big-Bang Theory.” Hartnet has a Ph.D in physics from University of Western Australia, He worked in their research department in meteorology. His reasons for ditching the BB are cosmological as well as theological.[8]

 Henry argues that "Genesis 1 teaches that the creation was a fiat via the spoken word of God, not a process such as the big bang.16 Seeing the big bang in Scripture is therefore a reading-in of extra-biblical beliefs—an eisegesis—and not an exegesis."[9] Most of Henry's article is about scientific failing of Big Bang."The singularity exemplifies the sort of gap that is likely to be closed by scientific progress, obviating special divine action. The apparent irrelevance of cardinality to practices of counting infinite sets in classical field theory and Fourier analysis is noted....."[10]

The two best arguments for God' existence were given us by modern scientific cosmology: fine tuning and the first cause, One can't help but feel this move is a purposeful attempt to get rid of the first cause argument, If there is no beginning to the universe then there is no first cause and no need for a creator. So this should mount a few problems for God arguments and escapologists. Does this mean the first line of the Bible is disproved by Science?

 But that's no more the case than saying that evolution disproves the Bible because it disproves six day creation.In the past I have made first caused arguments based upon the singularity. There is no need to assume this is the end of the matter, It's always going back and forth this is just one  report.  Belief in God is not dependent upon any one argument, God arguments are an attempt to smooth the way for those who have not experienced God, They are not the experience itself.

There are those who argue that "in the Beginning" does not refer to a first moment,
 'In the  beginning' in Gensis 1:1 was an unspecified lock of time not a moment not a moment in which God initially created the heavens and the earth. This point further develops the idea that the Earth was there before the seven days, but it goes beyond that and says that the heavens and the earth were not created instantaneously but just before the seven days. "The beginning   refers to a significant block of time not a moment...the Hebrew word reshith (beginning) is that it refers to the first part of a whole of something, sometimes the best or chief part.Biblical support for this is found in Job 8:7 and 42;12  which speak of Job's early life. 'Though your beginig was insignificant your end will increase greatly.'[11] 
The source also points to Hebrew scholar John Sailhamer "the term always refers to an extended yet indeterminate duration of time not a specific moment." [12] Moreover, there are two other words that are more appropriate to use for marking the beginning of a series (rishon, and techilla ) [13] Now one might argue this theory does not just say there's a long beginning but no beginning at all. Yet, the real point I am making is that "The beginning" need not reefer to all existence or to all space/time but our  earth or our galaxy or our part of the galaxy or the beginning of life in the galaxy. It may just be a way of saying "first of all..." In proverbs 8:22 the wisdom figure speaks of the beginning and says "in the earliest times of the earth." So "in the Begriming" might just mean in the part of the story that involves the earth. 

 There is also the research on the inevitable nature of heat death, in other words the universe will use up all its usable energy and die in darkness. Many studies have demonstrated the inevitable nature of heat death. Granted it is in the far far flung future. This would seem to contradict the idea of the universe having no end. If that is contradicted why assume  it has no beginning? If it's wrong about one it may be wrong about the other,[14]

So here we have the two basic approaches to the issue, either re-interpret  what beginning refers to or doubt the report based upon a a huge volume of data and opinion supporting the singularity. After all its just one report its caused a big stir but it;snot the new adopted first position of science.We don't need the singularity per se to assert that there must been a beginning to it all somewhere back. 
As shown in graph if universe reaches at the state of maximum entropy or the equilibrium state
universe will cool down, no further work can be proceed, all the available energy will be converted into
unavailable energy that situation called Heat Death.
In the case of sun and most other stars the out flow of heat can continue for many billions of years but
it is not inexhaustible. A normal star's heat is generated by nuclear processes in its interior as we shall see the
sun will eventually run out of fuel and unless overtaken by event. it will cool until it reaches the same
temperature as the surrounding space for whole universe this process will occur so that there will no more
energy or no sufficient available heat for the birth of new stars, so far further in future, There will be no stars,
No galaxy to form a new life only remain some amount of matter and black holes. Then black holes will start
to suck all the matters of the universe. At 10100years from big bang, black holes themselves will evaporate due
to Hawking radiation (Electromagnetic radiation which, according to theory, should be emitted by a black
hole. The radiation is due to the black hole capturing one of a particle-antiparticle pair created spontaneously
near to the event horizon.(Radius of a black hole)) What Remains? Only darkness. This is the Death of the

Universe
As shown in graph if universe reaches at the state of maximum entropy or the equilibrium state
universe will cool down, no further work can be proceed, all the available energy will be converted into
unavailable energy that situation called Heat Death.
In the case of sun and most other stars the out flow of heat can continue for many billions of years but
it is not inexhaustible. A normal star's heat is generated by nuclear processes in its interior as we shall see the
sun will eventually run out of fuel and unless overtaken by event. it will cool until it reaches the same
temperature as the surrounding space for whole universe this process will occur so that there will no more
energy or no sufficient available heat for the birth of new stars, so far further in future, There will be no stars,
No galaxy to form a new life only remain some amount of matter and black holes. Then black holes will start
to suck all the matters of the universe. At 10100years from big bang, black holes themselves will evaporate due
to Hawking radiation (Electromagnetic radiation which, according to theory, should be emitted by a black
hole. The radiation is due to the black hole capturing one of a particle-antiparticle pair created spontaneously
near to the event horizon.(Radius of a black hole)) What Remains? Only darkness. This is the Death of the
Aside from that phrase  in the beginning, one could argue the idea of no beginning eliminates the need or a first cause. But it doesn't, it just changes the trajectory. Instead of thinking of first chronological cause we need to think of God as primary cause in a metaphysical sense. Naturalistic things are still contingent and that means there still must be a necessary to pin them on; even if it's not chronological it's still ontological. To wit:
Universe
As shown in graph if universe reaches at the state of maximum entropy or the equilibrium state
universe will cool down, no further work can be proceed, all the available energy will be converted into

unavailable energy that situation called Heat Death.

1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exits at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
6. Therefore God exists.[15]


Notes



[1] Deborah Byrd, Science wire service, Earthsky, (Feb,19 2015)
[2] Ibid

[3] Brian Koberlein quoted in Ibid
[4]  
[5] Ibid


[6]  Jonatan F Henry, "Christian Apologists Should Abandon the Big Bang," JOURNAL OF CREATION (23(3) 2009) PDF 103
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_103-109.pdf
[accessed 8/29/19]

[7] Ibid

 [8] Ibid, he cites Williams, A. and Hartnett, J., Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s Universe Rediscovered, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp. 14–15, 2005.


 [9] Ibid. 103

 [10]J. Brian Pitts,   "Why the Big Bang Singularity Does Not Help the Kalām Cosmological Argument for Theism" British Journal For Philosophy of Science,  Volume 59, Issue 4, (December 2008,)  675–708
https://academic.oup.com/bjps/article/59/4/675/1581972
[accessed 8/29/19]

[11] Benjamin D. Smith Jr, point 2, Genesis, Science and The Begining: Evaluating Interpritationsof Genesis one on the Age of The earth. Eugene Or.:Wipf and  Stock publishers, 2018, 22.
https://books.google.com/books?id=UCVwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=does+genesis+%22in+the+beginning%22+refer+to+a+first+moment+of+time?&source=bl&ots=HkrUQYwVAy&sig=ACfU3U34s0R2jCuSS-KxrOCn8v6-Fl9HVw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP1I6cqdPjAhUPlKwKHb4tCfMQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=does%20genesis%20%22in%20the%20beginning%22%20refer%20to%20a%20first%20moment%20of%20time%3F&f=false
[accessed 8/29/19]

 [12] Ibid
[13] Ibid.

 [14] Conference Paper PDF, "Heat  death (the Ultimate fate of the  universe)." (Oct. 2015)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299618320_Heat_Death_The_Ultimate_Fate_of_the_Universe
As shown in graph if universe reaches at the state of maximum entropy or the equilibrium state
universe will cool down, no further work can be proceed, all the available energy will be converted into
[accessed 8/29/19]
unavailable energy that situation called Heat Death.

New study predicts the slow, inevitable death of the universe - The ...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../new-study-predicts-the-slow-inevitable-death-of-t...


Aug 11, 2015 - New study predicts the slow, inevitable death of the universe ... produced in the section of the universe they studied was twice what it is today. ... energy will increasingly waste away into forms that stars can't use, like heat. ... This unusually bright ancient galaxy may show signs of the first generation of stars.
[accessed 8/29/19]
15 Joseph "Cosmological Arguments," The Religious a priori (2010)
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2009/01/cosmological-argumemts.html

[accessed 8/29/19]

at

3 comments: