HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » The Big Bang & Genesi...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:37 PM

The Big Bang & Genesis

I've always found the similarities, and their differences, interesting.

*************

Both posit a "time" before there was time. A void of sorts. And essentially an unknown.

Both posit a singularity as a starting point for it all. Whether it be god or a primordial hot ball of gasses.

Both are framed in a sequence of events. An historical time line as convoluted some of it may be.

Both cite light as the beginning of time. Here they seem to clearly coexist.
"Let there be light" and the Big Bang. The "first day" reflects the basic relationship between light and time, imo.

Both recognize the eventual formation of matter. Albeit in different sequence.

Both seem to echo an event horizon - a point where the unknown essentially remains unknown.

**************

This simple correlation breaks down beyond the opening synopsis - scientifically, religiously, culturally. Just find it really interesting in and of itself.





11 replies, 888 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Big Bang & Genesis (Original post)
pinto Jan 2013 OP
cbayer Jan 2013 #1
JustFiveMoreMinutes Jan 2013 #2
pinto Jan 2013 #5
JustFiveMoreMinutes Jan 2013 #6
digonswine Jan 2013 #9
longship Jan 2013 #3
pinto Jan 2013 #8
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #4
rug Jan 2013 #7
intaglio Jan 2013 #10
Thats my opinion Jan 2013 #11

Response to pinto (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:42 PM

1. Interesting, though I am sure that those much more versed in astrophysics than I

would be able to point out the big differences.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Original post)


Response to JustFiveMoreMinutes (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:10 PM

5. Disagree. Time is a function of light. As is mass.

Agree though, night and day is keyed to earth's revolution around the sun. And time was often measured in train schedules, which were the impetus for public and consistent time reckoning. The time thing I mentioned is more theoretical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:14 PM

6. Well, I've heard of spacetime... but never lighttime.

And yes, the arrow of time and well aware of Sean Carroll and Brian Greene... but don't quite understand your importance of 'light' as opposed to 'space'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:41 PM

9. Night and day is keyed to earth's rotation on its axis-not the revolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:56 PM

3. So do many of the apologists.

William Lane Craig and especially Dinesh D'Sousa both use the same type of argument that Genesis aligns with the Big Bang cosmology.

But it really is bunkum since there are really two separate creation accounts in Genesis and neither really aligns with current science of Big Bang cosmology (which has evolved along with the quantum gravity models on which it is based).

Craig and D'Sousa state only a cartoon version of Big Bang when they make their arguments.

Myself, I am no cosmologist either. However, it is natural that people would think about these things and I still like to discuss them because they are a great opportunity to bridge a gap in understanding.

Plus... It's fun.

Good topic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:32 PM

8. Hi. No cosmologist here either. Or biblical scholar as well. LOL, far from either.

Thanks for the added info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:58 PM

4. Is science really a religion??

There are forces in the universe that want you to worship them
What better way to worship than to study and understand the forces .............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:31 PM

7. Here's a quote from its first proponent:

As far as I see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in non-singular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt to familiarity with God, as were Laplace's chiquenaude or Jeans' finger. It is consonant with the wording of Isaiah speaking of the 'Hidden God' hidden even in the beginning of the universe ... Science has not to surrender in face of the Universe and when Pascal tries to infer the existence of God from the supposed infinitude of Nature, we may think that he is looking in the wrong direction.

— Monsignor Georges Lemaître


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:48 PM

10. Have you read the Bible?

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
It says nothing about the creation of the universe just of the earth and that in a confused manner that bears no relation to any of the evidence found by astronomy or physics. The "deep" referred to in v2 is the ocean.

Of course you could go with the second account of the creation in Genesis 2 - but that is even shorter on the detail of the beginning.
2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:32 PM

11. Interesting read.

The two Genesis creation stories in the first two chapters cannot be reconciled. They are STORIES, not scientific or pseudo-scientific,
explanations. They come from two different historic eras and only point in wonder to that which is beyond the imagination. No responsible theologian these days would attempt to line them up with the continuing changes in cosmology. All we know is that the mystery of creation is exactly that a MYSTERY. We point to its wonder. Science has come a long way in describing the what. Religion still only points to the why. I trust the quest of science. But the poetry of the religious stories is involved in a very different quest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread