Re: God Vs Science

Posted by Pasti on Mar 14, 2004 at 04:39

Re: God Vs Science (peep)

"Science says, "In the beginning, the heavens and earth (meaning the Universe) came to be." Please note that "in the beginning" refers to the start of Time as we know it, and that such began concurrently with the beginning of physical Universe, making Time an integral component of space itself, hence the descriptor "space-time continuum"."

Actually science does not say this.You assume that there was a beginning,the Big Bang,which is only correct in classical general relativity.At some point,someplace about the Planck scale,classical general relativity should break down,and quantum gravitational effects should come into play, solving, at least allegedly the problem of the initial singularity, of the Big Bang (in the sense of removing this singularity).

This is very much similar to the classical and quantum theory of electromagnetism.In classical electromagnetism, the electric field/potential blows away at the position of the charge, while in the quantum version, such divergencies disappear,through something called renormalization.

In view of this experience with the electromagnetism, it would be rather dumb to stick to the Big Bang theory and to consider it definitive at all scales.

"Science says, too, that the Universe, sometime shortly after it came into existence, experienced a great expansion or "inflation", with much more breadth and/or depth being added to it. Also, the whole of it was initially opaque (i.e., "darkness was on the face of the deep.")."

Yes, there was inflation.But the universe, whatever its scale, was not opaque.Au contraire, it was perfectly transparent,since, for example,close to the Planck scale,there were no structures that could absorb photons.At most, there was only scattering.
So actually, "darkness was NOT on the face of the deep" as you imply.

"Ah, but if this indeed be what Science says, then how and why is ALL of this (quite voluminous, really) 19th, 20th, and 21st century information readily found in just the first two verses of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, which is said to have been penned over 2000 thousand years ago?"

You do realize the inadequacy of your argument, don't you?I can do much better than that and I can say in only one phrase:And there is the Universe as we know it today.

The parallel between what science says and what the first two verses in the Old Testament is a rather forced one.
Science says there was no god in the beginning,no earth, no heaven,but only very, very intense light.
The Old Testament says there was a god,an Earth,a heaven, some water,and some darkness.Where exactly do you see any similarity?I personally don't.
Moreover, the Old Testament seems to refer to a very modern universe, from the scientific viewpoint.A universe in which elements exist,dark voids also exist,and such a universe is billions of years away from the Planck time (very close to the initial classical singularity, the Big Bang)

"Hmm, with point sufficiently made (albeit vaguely perhaps), should it next be said, "Let there be light"?"

There already was light, in the scientific "beginning".Darkness came much later,by the time the Universe "cooled down" enough,for a good few billions of years, as I said before.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]