49 replies to this topic

[Howard509]

Though the big bang is not mentioned in the Urantia Book, I believe that it is compatible, even helpful, to the message of the Urantia Book as a revelation. With big bang cosmology, scientists have mathematically proved that the universe had a biginning, thus requiring a first cause, the Universal Father.

Furthermore, the Urantia Book teaches that the very presence of God is located at the geographical center of infinity, and that the universe was patterned after Paradise. What if the big bang was the universe's expansion from the centerpoint of Havona? Science has shown that the universe had a beginning, yet they are not able to tell us what caused the big bang or what existed before it happened.

Background

The Big Bang itself is a scientific theory, and as such stands or falls by its agreement with observations.^[2] But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality it carries theological implications regarding the concept of creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing").^[3][4][5] In addition, many theologians and physicists have viewed the Big Bang as implicating theism;^[6][7] a popular philosophical argument for the existence of God known as the Kalām cosmological argument rests in the concepts of the Big Bang.^[8][9] In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory,^[10] who rejected the implication that the universe had a beginning.^[11][12]
Christianity

Further information: Bible and science and Catholic Church and science
Pope Pius XII declared, at the November 22, 1951, opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that the Big Bang theory does not conflict with the Catholic concept of creation.^[13][14] Conservative Protestant Christian denominations have also welcomed the Big Bang theory as supporting a historical interpretation of the doctrine of creation.^[15]
http://en.wikipedia....Big_Bang_theory

The Urantia Book states that it's not divinely inspired in its cosmology and that it would need to be amended at a future date, as to not provide "unearned knowledge." Of all cosmological models, the big bang explains the most lines of evidence and is the most supported by the math. Of all cosmological models, big bang theory lends the most support to there being an uncaused first cause.

There have been many books and articles written showing how big bang cosmology supports belief in a Creator God. Here is an example:
http://www.reasonabl...-bang-cosmology

Edited by Howard509, 02 December 2012 - 06:53 PM.

[Louis aka loucol]

Hi Howard509:

TUB tells us that The Central Universe is existential. IMO, this is not compatible with the Big Bang Theory.

Regards, Louis

[Nelson G]

TUB tells us that The Central Universe is existential. IMO, this is not compatible with the Big Bang Theory_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TUB also tells us that space respires. What will our cosmologists tell us when the red shift becomes blue?

Edited by Nelson G, 02 December 2012 - 04:46 PM.

[Howard509]

Hi Howard509:

TUB tells us that The Central Universe is existential. IMO, this is not compatible with the Big Bang Theory.

Regards, Louis

Did the universe expand from the centerpoint of Havona? Why is that not a question worth asking?

The Urantia Book states that it's not divinely inspired in its cosmology and that it would need to be amended at a future date, as to not provide "unearned knowledge." Of all cosmological models, the big bang explains the most lines of evidence and is the most supported by the math. Of all cosmological models, big bang theory lends the most support to there being an uncaused first cause.

There have been many books and articles written showing how big bang cosmology supports belief in a Creator God. Here is an example:
http://www.reasonabl...-bang-cosmology

Since the big bang tells us that the universe has expanded since its inception, that leaves open the question from where did it expand? I would say, based on the Urantia Book, that it was from the geographical center of infinity.

When the big bang was first proposed, the scientific community protested the theory for its theological implications. When it was shown to the best explanation for the available evidence, it was accepted. Stephen Hawking later proved the big bang, and since then has attempted to provide alternative explanations that would not require a first cause.

Why reject a theory out of hand that requires an uncaused first cause, the universal Father, and shows that the universe expanded from its centerpoint?

What's the evidence for the Big Bang?

For one thing, we look in the sky and see it! The universe is permeated with microwave radiation that has been traveling through space ever since the universe cooled to the point where it was transparent. The detailed spectrum and anisotropy (lumpiness) of the radiation have been measured with excellent precision by the Cosmic Microwave Background Explorer (COBE) satellite, and the agreement with theory is so good that scientists can even relate its features to quantities like the speed of sound waves traveling through the Big Bang fireball.

We also currently observe that the universe is expanding. Not only does this suggest that in the past everything must have been closer together, but it can even be proven mathematically from Einstein's general theory of relativity that the current expanding state of the universe traces back to a time when what is now the entire observable universe was smaller than a single atom.

The Big Bang theory makes a variety of predictions that have been borne out by observations. For example, it predicts that hydrogen and helium would be the only elements created in appreciable quantities in the early universe, and indeed we observe that the oldest stars contain only very small amounts of heavier elements.
http://www.lightandm...tion/index.html

Main Evidence

The Big Bang is the leading theory that almost all astrophysicists believe explains the origin of the universe. This is because all observations so far made support the Big Bang theory; there are four main lines of evidence that are most-often used.

The first was discussed above: The expansion of the universe. The universe is expanding now, so in the past it must have been smaller. If it were smaller in the past, then there probably was a time when it was infinitesimally small. One could ask why don't we think that it might be expanding now but it could have been shrinking before and we just don't know about it. The answer is that there is simply no mechanism that we know about that could accomplish this transition on a universal scale.

The second line of evidence is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) that was discovered in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from Bell Labs. They were working with a microwave receiver used to communicate with the Telstar satellite, but were getting noise from every direction they pointed the receiver. It was coming from all over the sky at what seemed to be exactly the same frequency. This was the first evidence for the CMB, and they later shared a Nobel Prize for this discovery.

WMAP CMB PictureThe CMB is an "echo" left over from when the universe was approximately 300,000 years old, as predicted by the Big Bang model. As something becomes compressed, as matter was when the universe was young, it becomes hot. The actual "heat" comes from particles' movements - the faster they move, the more energetic they are, and so the more heat we see. The universe was so hot before it was 300,000 years old that atoms could not form. Because of this, photons - particles of light - could not move around, for they kept reacting with electrons - the negatively charged parts of atoms.

Therefore, during this period, the universe was effectively opaque. Once the universe had reached 300,000 years old, atoms could form, and electrons were now bound to a nucleus. Once this happened, photons could move about freely. This "first light" is the CMB, and its existence is a very strong indication that the Big Bang occurred.

The third major pillar of the Big Bang theory lies in the abundance of the different elements of the universe. The theory predicts that certain amounts of hydrogen (~72%), helium (~28%), and other elements should be made. Observations have shown almost exactly the amounts that are predicted.

The fourth piece is that the Big Bang theory is the only one that comprehensively lays down a framework for the eventual evolution of the universe as we observe it today.
http://burro.astr.cw...os_bigbang.html

Edited by Howard509, 02 December 2012 - 06:46 PM.

[Howard509]

TUB tells us that The Central Universe is existential. IMO, this is not compatible with the Big Bang Theory_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TUB also tells us that space respires. What will our cosmologists tell us when the red shift becomes blue?

Perhaps a big bang is followed by a big crunch. This has already been proposed by the scientific community.

[Howard509]

In the documentary The Story of Everything, Stephen Hawking presents multiple evidences for the origin of the universe, the solar system, and the first life forms, saying that it suggests an intelligent designer for the laws of the universe.



Hawking then suggests that there need not be a Creator if we allow for multiple universes, and that somehow, this is the universe where things happened just right for the appearance of intelligence life.

If the scientific community understands the theological implications of big bang cosmology as currently evidenced and demonstrated, why can't we understand it too?

[Louis aka loucol]

Hi Howard:

The Central Universe 'flashed' into existence in the eternal past. There has always been time-space. The big bang theory suggests a universe that expanded from a singularity. This means that there was a start to time and time-space. TUB is quite clear that there was no beginning to time. This, IMO, disqualifies the big bang as compatible with TUB. One must choose which one to believe. The Big Crunch of science suggest that the universe contracts back to a singularity. Now, there is some who propose a cycling universe and that would at least be compatible with what TUB says.

Regards, Louis

Edited by loucol, 02 December 2012 - 07:34 PM.

[Cal]

Perhaps a big bang is followed by a big crunch. This has already been proposed by the scientific community.

Scientists generally thought there was one of two scenarios to happen, either that the force of gravity would eventually cause a slowdown and reversal (and "crunch") of the universe, or the outward momentum of the initial big bang would be shown to be too much for gravity to counteract and so everything would perpetually drift apart from each other. I think some people also thought perhaps there could be a way these forces would end up being finely balanced where the universe's expansion would gradually slow to a stop but not necessarily reverse and "crunch".

One of the more significant and unexpected discoveries in physics in recent decades is that none of these are the case, instead the universe's rate of expansion has been shown to be accelerating faster and faster from an active unknown force "dark energy" that's pushing everything apart.

The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for this.

http://www.nobelpriz...2011/press.html

"The discovery came as a complete surprise even to the Laureates themselves."

[Lev Schoonhoven]

For those enamoured of the Big Bang theory, I recommend this article.

[JR Sherrod]

The history of the Local Universe of Nebadon, a relatively young creation in the 7th Superuniverse of Orvonton, is detailed as having an administrative start about 987 Billion years ago; and our Master Son actually took possession of the new Universe about 400 Billion years ago.

The Big Bang theory claims a maximum age of all of the complete cosmos of a scant 14 Billion years. That is only 1/26 the timeframe of the actual time Michael has been the possessing Creator Son of this portion of Orvonton. The two simply aren't compatible.

The question of what will scientists deduce when the general red-shift reverses to a blue-shift, is going to vastly influenced by about a Billion years of history which will pass before the blue-shift change. I am absolutely certain that there will have been at least one visit by a Magisterial Son, and maybe even Christ Michael - maybe several visits, even hundreds. SHOOT - all of today's scientists will most likely be all the way into Havona by then! They will know the truth, I am convinced.

[Nigel Nunn]

Hi all,

When folks say "science has proven", what's actually happened is that recent telescopes have allowed a precise mapping of the distribution of galaxy redshifts. By assuming such redshifts are an indicator of distance, researchers adopt "a cosmology of redshifts". Surprisingly (given those famous limitations of revelation), the author of paper 12 states bluntly that using redshifts in this way will lead us up the garden path:

"Although your spectroscopic estimations of astronomic velocities are fairly reliable when applied to the starry realms belonging to your superuniverse and its associate superuniverses, such reckonings with reference to the realms of outer space are wholly unreliable. Spectral lines are displaced from the normal towards the violet by an approaching star; likewise these lines are displaced towards the red by a receding star. Many influences interpose to make it appear that the recessional velocity of the external universes increases at the rate of more than one hundred miles a second for every million light-years increase in distance. By this method of reckoning, subsequent to the perfection of more powerful telescopes, it will appear that these far-distant systems are in flight from this part of the universe at the unbelievable rate of more than thirty thousand miles a second. But this apparent speed of recession is not real; it results from numerous factors of error ... " (134.3) 12:4.14

PS: that 2011 Nobel prize was awarded for extrapolating the assumptions upon which redshift cosmology is based. This may turn out to be embarrassing, for all concerned

Nigel

[Bradly aka/fanofVan]

I love science and scientists....and one of the things I love most about it/them is the consistant disproving of former facts or theories in the relentless quest for objective reality. Science disproves itself best. Every new technology and theorom leads to expanded possibilities, potentials, and probabilities by discovery of conflicts, inconsistancies, and oppositional phenomena. It should not be surprising to any that our limited science, perspective, and technologies will face more change to come than our Revelation, even though It does tell us to not be surprised by humanity's evolving scientific improvements which will lead to discoveries by us not revealed by the authors....this fact of incompletion is a norm for every text book, eh? Ours will also be revised by our experience as believers through personal revelation and by our species' progress in science and philosophy and religion. This does not mean there are inaccuracies presented as some claim but rather, the context presented is simply not as complete or detailed as some impatiently require. But our Revelation is greater than its scientific presentations, no? Now that the Pope is a believer in the BB, look for further scientific revision for his further consternation.

[Cal]

Hi all,

When folks say "science has proven", what's actually happened is that recent telescopes have allowed a precise mapping of the distribution of galaxy redshifts. By assuming such redshifts are an indicator of distance, researchers adopt "a cosmology of redshifts". Surprisingly (given those famous limitations of revelation), the author of paper 12 states bluntly that using redshifts in this way will lead us up the garden path:

"Although your spectroscopic estimations of astronomic velocities are fairly reliable when applied to the starry realms belonging to your superuniverse and its associate superuniverses, such reckonings with reference to the realms of outer space are wholly unreliable. Spectral lines are displaced from the normal towards the violet by an approaching star; likewise these lines are displaced towards the red by a receding star. Many influences interpose to make it appear that the recessional velocity of the external universes increases at the rate of more than one hundred miles a second for every million light-years increase in distance. By this method of reckoning, subsequent to the perfection of more powerful telescopes, it will appear that these far-distant systems are in flight from this part of the universe at the unbelievable rate of more than thirty thousand miles a second. But this apparent speed of recession is not real; it results from numerous factors of error ... " (134.3) 12:4.14

PS: that 2011 Nobel prize was awarded for extrapolating the assumptions upon which redshift cosmology is based. This may turn out to be embarrassing, for all concerned

Nigel

After that paragraph you quoted from Paper 12 is then this one:

"But the greatest of all such distortions arises because the vast universes of outer space, in the realms next to the domains of the seven superuniverses, seem to be revolving in a direction opposite to that of the grand universe. That is, these myriads of nebulae and their accompanying suns and spheres are at the present time revolving clockwise about the central creation. The seven superuniverses revolve about Paradise in a counterclockwise direction. It appears that the second outer universe of galaxies, like the seven superuniverses, revolves counterclockwise about Paradise."

I've always had trouble visualizing how this would lead to red shift in all observed galaxies like scientists see, and maybe someone can explain it if they don't mind. I would be grateful! If distortion is from rotation of a whole outer space layer that is surrounding us in the inner grand universe of 7 superuniverses and Havona, then from our vantage point in the inner grand universe, only half of these galaxies further out should be red shifted it seems, while the other half would appear to be blue shifted.

Imagine a large playground merry-go-round that is spinning round and round. Also imagine that there is a rotating ring built just beyond the edge which is separately rotating in the opposite direction of the merry-go-round.

If you were in the very middle of the merry-go-round (Isle of Paradise in grand universe), then nothing on either the merry-go-round itself or the counter-rotating disk would have an appearance of either moving away (red shift) or moving toward you (blue shift). They would just have sideways rotational motion from that point of view.

(There is also space respiration to consider, but the paragraph says the "greatest of all such distortions" on the red shift effect is the counter rotational movement instead of respiration, so I think we can set that aside for just the moment in visualizing this.)

Now let's say we aren't in the middle of the merry-go-round but are sitting on the disc off-center. While it rotates, let's say our back is directly facing the center (the Isle of Paradise) and so we are directly looking outwards. In just this narrow line of sight, we will have an observation the same as if on Paradise -- both the edge of the merry-go-round disc and the counter-rotating ring beyond it would be moving sideways rotationally.

But if we would be looking off to one side, the rotating ring would have an appearance of still moving sideways but also to a certain amount away from us (red shift!). So there it can be seen, a distortion causing apparent "speed of recession" that "is not real". But -- the difficulty I have is that by simply looking off to the other side, the observation would be of the ring moving sideways also but instead a certain amount toward us (blue shift). This should apply to observations in fully one half of the sky and be symmetrical to the other half of the sky showing red shift, and I'd be very curious to hear more from anyone (or a pointer to an article somewhere) that can clarify how the rotations described in the UB as the "greatest of all distortions" end up giving only a one-sided result of only red shift galaxies instead of half the sky showing red shift and half showing blue.

Also interesting to note I've always thought, going back to respiration, I find it fascinating that the UB does describe where the central universe is, in Paper 15 section 3:

"Observation of the so-called Milky Way discloses the comparative increase in Orvonton stellar density when the heavens are viewed in one direction, while on either side the density diminishes; the number of stars and other spheres decreases away from the chief plane of our material superuniverse. When the angle of observation is propitious, gazing through the main body of this realm of maxi mum density, you are looking toward the residential universe and the center of all things."

This seems to give us a very interesting place to point telescopes in the future -- the exact opposite place in the sky from the "center of all things". In looking this direction, "the greatest of all distortions" is exactly neutralized and there is no red shift or blue shift from that rotational effect. It will be interesting to find out if the measured Hubble constant drops off noticeably as should be the case.

Edited by Cal, 03 December 2012 - 02:04 PM.

[Howard509]

I am not going to spend too much effort arguing the big bang theory, as it's already been well accepted by the scientific community and is, at present time, the best explanation for the available evidence. If you believe you have an explanation which better fits the available data, please submit it to a peer reviewed science journal and perhaps you'll win a Nobel prize. I do not mean that sarcastically.

Due to its reluctance to allow for a beginning to the universe, with all the theological implications that beginning would entail, the scientific community would not have accepted the big bang theory if not for it being demonstrated by multiple lines of evidence. Perhaps current estimates as to the age of the universe are off, but the point still stands that the big bang theory demonstrates the necessity for an uncaused first cause and may suggest that the universe expanded from the centerpoint of the universe at Paradise.

Edited by Howard509, 04 December 2012 - 01:07 AM.

[Bradly aka/fanofVan]

And there are many who still believe, and have all the evidence needed to prove their belief, that earth remains the center of the universe. Believe what you will Howard, but I choose to believe the Revelation which actually does explain what science only theorizes and does so without a First Source and Center. I understand the pope now says his god created the big bang.....which makes him half right anyway and more right than godless science...but not all science is without God, eh? Many of our greatest scientists were bishops afterall....of course they were defrocked and rediculed as heretics by their priestly masters....which did not make them wrong. How can one have so much faith in human science theories but not in its historical track record of accurately disproving prior facts and beliefs by better science? Especially when compared and in conflict with the consistancies within the Revelation?

Howard - could you explain what you mean by this - " but the point still stands that the big bang theory demonstrates the necessity for an uncaused first cause". Is God the "uncaused first cause"? Sorry to be so dense.


A little note from "All About Science" :


You are here: Science >> Big Bang Theory


Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.
Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.^{1, 2} According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."³ The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing.
.

Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."⁴

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.⁵ Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.⁶ Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.
Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"?

[-Scott-]

The main reason people theorize a big bang is because of the expansion of the universe. The u.b explains this with respiration.

[Howard509]

Let's please not pretend to be astrophysicists. I believe that someone with a strong faith in God should not fear the discoveries of science and should welcome them when they evidence God's handiwork. William Lane Craig, an evangelical Christian, has done just that:

http://www.reasonabl...-bang-cosmology

As believers in the Urantia Book, which is not a dogmatic and institutionalized faith, shouldn't we have the same openness to scientific discovery?

[Bradly aka/fanofVan]

Theory is not discovery and the pretense of knowledge is not knowledge. And those who believe the Revelation over an old and worn out scientific theory, already discredited by science itself, does not indicate a "dogmatic" narrow mindedness. Please believe what you wish. While you have failed thus far to list a single error in TUB, despite many attempts to do so, I recognize your tenacity in rejecting the Revelation yourself and your persistant efforts to bring doubt to others by inference, and innuendo. You ask that others be open minded while closing your own. I wish you well with the truths you have discovered and embraced in our shared text and hope you find further truths still withn to soothe your many doubts. Until then, please anticipate further insights into text in support of your discovery of the truth and truths in the Revelation itself.

[Louis aka loucol]

Hi Howard:

You and others may be interested in the website of Stephen J Crothers. He is someone who argues against big bangs and black holes etc. and does the math. (sorry, I don't have web address) His latest latest papers addresses a response to the claim of a black hole in Nova Scorpii and Quasar 3C 279 by Brian Schmidt et al..

BTW, Nigel Nunn on this very forum is an actual astrophysicist and would be someone to consult with this topic. I assume that Nigel is familiar with these chaps. especially since they are 'down under' compatriots.

Regards, Louis

[-Scott-]

Let's please not pretend to be astrophysicists

This is not rocket science. Scientists are making a simple theory based on a observation of the expanding universe. They are not offering much proof at all for their theory, and it is after all just a theory.

Edited by -Scott-, 08 December 2012 - 12:13 PM.