Part 1 looked at the reason why the question of God ‘s existence cannot be satisfied by an appeal to the imagination alone.
Part 2 looked at the different approaches to the question of creation by Philosophy, Religion, and Science.
Part 3, below, is a look at some of the scientific weaknesses of The Big Bang Theory,our modern Creation Myth
Photo Description: (Note- I added the “You are here” sign) Timeline of the universe. A representation of the evolution of the universe over 13.77 billion years. The far left depicts the earliest moment we can now probe, when a period of “inflation” produced a burst of exponential growth in the universe. (Size is depicted by the vertical extent of the grid in this graphic.) For the next several billion years, the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity. More recently, the expansion has begun to speed up again as the repulsive effects of dark energy have come to dominate the expansion of the universe. The afterglow light seen by WMAP was emitted about 375,000 years after inflation and has traversed the universe largely unimpeded since then. The conditions of earlier times are imprinted on this light; it also forms a backlight for later developments of the universe. Wikipedia media
Modern Myth Making
Before getting into why The Big Bang Theory has such a hold on the modern imagination, this post will look at the Cosmology as a science and some of the weaknesses of the Big Bang Theory.
While I have been working on my current series of posts, God Is Not A Unicorn, I thought it might help my case if I referred you to some heavy hitters in the field of Physics who could back me up – at least at the scientific end of my argument. Some time this week I will add a new post with a bibliography from scientists who are trying to give the general public a deeper insight into the troubles surrounding our current understanding of physical reality. For now, in this post, I give you Carver Mead.
Carver Mead is a pioneer in the field of microelectronics. He’s been trying to wake up the Physics community for a long time about the need to rethink the way we model the physical world. He is very soft spoken, but if you listen carefully to what he is saying you will find it is mind blowing.
ISSCC 2013 Plenary The Evolution of Technology Carver Mead, Professor Emeritus, Caltech, Pasadena, CA, USA
This is Part 2 in the series: God is Not a Unicorn: The Myth and Physics of Creation
In Part 1 we looked at the reason why the question of God ‘s existence cannot be satisfied by an appeal to the imagination alone.
The question of why is there something rather than nothing has been with us for as long as man first acquired language and began to ask questions about the world around him. It is not a simple question and it does not belong to one branch of knowledge. The discussion of it can get complicated quickly, as you can see from the quotation below. In this post I will try to break the question down into simpler language so that we can understand the various approaches to answering it more fully.
A common argument against the existence of God is to use an analogy with imaginary things such as unicorns. It is said that because unicorns are a product of human imagination then God must be too. The reasoning goes that because unicorns have never been seen, they do not exist and so the same must be true for God. But this is a poor analogy and it is important to understand why before dismissing the concept of God altogether as a fantasy.
Narwhal tusks and Marco Polo
First let us consider the origin of the unicorn. One theory for the imaginative invention of the Unicorn is that Narwhale tusks were the model for the type of horn we see on European representations of unicorns as in the photo above. These unicorns look like an antelope or a horse with the narwhale horn coming out of the middle of its forehead. It is possible the unicorn started as a tall tale from a fisherman or a beachcomber.