God Is Not A Unicorn Series
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.
Continue reading “Cosmology: Modern Science Creation Story aka The Big Bang Theory (Part 3)”
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.
Continue reading “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? (Part 2)”
Spoiler Alert: It’s a myth.
The Heat Death of the Universe was first proposed by Lord Kelvin in the late 19th century. It is a conjecture that the universe is expanding and will continue to expand until all the thermal energy of the universe is expended causing all physical processes to cease.
This faulty and uninspiring mental image of the universe has been a part of the cultural milieu of the scientific community for so long that it has become a part of the popular culture’s understanding of Reality and is rarely challenged.
This apocalyptic vision originated from the observation of physical and chemical processes under specific, local conditions and then extrapolated to include the fate of the entire universe.
“It’s just the abyss, dear. Try not to gaze into it”
We call this kind of analysis empiricism, which is a bottom-up approach to knowledge. While empiricism is a powerful scientific tool, it has its limitations.
the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.Google definition
Physics gives us knowledge when observing concrete (physical), local systems. We can control and submit these local systems to scientific experimentation. We fail sometimes to realize how little we can observe about the universe. From our tiny perch on this small planet whirling about in the vastness of space what can we really know for certain about the fate of the universe?
Continue reading “Looking Into the Abyss: Is The Universe Doomed to End In Heat Death Or Is That A Scientific Myth?”