No theory of creation

[khut]

science cannot explain creation.
all the big bang theory says is stuff exploded and expaned, which anylogical person can tell you doesnt describe the beginning but the middle.
and if it wasnt for string theory then the universe would be a globe, because if only hydrogen and helium expanded not encountering any other force then the universe wold have expanded evanly and not formed into blobs.
so where did the strings come from. and to say its all a big circle of expansion and contraction, is just another way of saying we cant figure out the start point.

and if god created the universe, where was he when he did it.
and if he was allways there, where was he.
so this is allso clearly not the beginning but the middle.

so can someone give me one theory on creation that desribes the beginning and not the middle.

(starring blankly into space doesnt seem to be helping me at all).

 

[iBrian]

If you presume a beginning, you always have to presume that there was something before then to start it off.

However, if God transcends reality, then you can argue that God is effectively like an infinite constant - never before or after anything, but simply present in some form in all aspects, dimensions, and scales, of the universe and beyond.

 

[khut]

ok i see what you are saying but what do you mean beyond reality, do you mean imaginary.

you are falling back on the allways there argument.
allways where.

so in other words you are saying the universe was also allways there in some form, because the universe is allso a description of the nothing bits around the stuff.

so you dont beleive in creation, more of an ongoing thing with no ends.

id like to hear more of your ideas on this as my searches thru science and religion has resulted in a bunch of descriptions of the middle as i said before.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Khut,

you may be interested in the theory known as Abiogenesis. you can read about it here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Abiogenesis is the theory of how life first appeared on earth, it does not talk about how the cosmos may have come into existence, those are different theories.

the Rapid Inflation Theory doesn't really say that things "exploded" since there would have to already exist something for it to explode into. what it is saying is that it expanded and what is within said expanse is the universe.

personally, it is my view that the Rapid Inflation theories are insufficient to describe what we've observed, thus, i am more in favor of the No Boundary Proposal coupled with the Anthropic Principle as postulated by Drs. Hawking and Turok.

 

[Friend]

Salaam for all

The 20th century has witnessed the demolition of the claim of materialism: that everything in the universe is the result of chance and not design. Research conducted since the 1960s consistently demonstrates that all the physical equilibriums of the universe in general and of our world in particularly are intricately designed to make life possible. As this research deepened, it was discovered each and every one of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, of the fundamental forces such as gravity and electromagnetism, and of the details of the structure of atoms and the elements of the universe has been precisely tailored so that human beings may live. ​

​

Scientists today call this extraordinary design the "anthropic principle". This is the principle that every detail in the universe has been carefully arranged to make human life possible. To sum up, the philosophy called materialism has been utterly refuted by modern science. From its position as the dominant scientific view of the 19th century, materialism collapsed into fiction in the 20th. ​

​

This is an indisputable truth that we may reach by using our intelligence. Allah declares this reality in His holy book, the Qur'an, which He inspired as a guide for humanity fourteen centuries ago. He states that He has created the universe when it was not, for a particular purpose, and with all its systems and balances specifically designed for human life. ​

Allah invites people to consider this truth in the following verse:

Are you stronger in structure or is heaven? He built it. He raised its vault high and made it level. He darkened its night and brought forth its morning light. After that He smoothed out the earth… (Surat an Naziat: 27-30) ​

​

Elsewhere it is declared in the Qur'an that a person should see and consider all the systems and balances in the universe that have been created for him by Allah and derive a lesson from his observations: ​

He has made night and day subservient to you, and the sun and moon and stars, all subject to His command. There is certainly Signs in that for people who pay heed. (Surat an-Nahl: 12) ​

​

In yet another verse of the Qur'an, it is pointed out: ​

He makes night merge into day and day merge into night, and He has made the sun and moon subservient, each one running until a specified time. That is Allah, your Lord. The Kingdom is His. Those you call on besides Him have no power over even the smallest speck.(Surah Fatir: 13) ​

​

​

The 1920s were important years in the development of modern astronomy. In 1922, the Russian physicist Alexandra Friedman produced computations showing that the structure of the universe was not static and that even a tiny impulse might be sufficient to cause the whole structure to expand or contract according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. George Lemaitre was the first to recognize what Friedman's work meant. Based on these computations, the Belgian astronomer Lemaitre declared that the universe had a beginning and that it was expanding as a result of something that had triggered it. He also stated that the rate of radiation could be used as a measure of the aftermath of that "something". ​

​

To be continued……………….​

 

[Friend]

The theoretical musings of these two scientists did not attract much attention and probably would have been ignored except for new observational evidence that rocked the scientific world in 1929. That year the American astronomer Edwin Hubble, working at the California Mount Wilson observatory, made one of the most important discoveries in the history of astronomy. Observing a number of stars through his huge telescope, he discovered that their light was shifted towards the red end of the spectrum and, crucially, that this shift was directly related to the distance of the stars from Earth. This discovery shook the very basis of the universe model held until then. ​

According to the recognized rules of physics, the spectra of light beams travelling towards the point of observation tend towards violet while the spectra of light beams moving away from the point of observation tend towards red. (Just like the fading of a train's whistle as it moves away from the observer) Hubble's observation showed that according to this law, the heavenly bodies were moving away from us. Before long, Hubble made another important discovery; The stars weren't just racing away from Earth; they were racing away from each other as well. The only conclusion that could be derived from a universe where everything moves away from everything else is that the universe constantly "expands".​

Allah said in Al Quraan :" It is We Who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it." (Surat adh-Dhariyat: 47)

"Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the Earth were closed up, so We split them, and We made from water everything living? Will they not then believe?" ( Surat Al Anbia 21:30)​

Hubble had found observational evidence for something that George Lemaitre had "prophesized" a short while ago and one of the greatest minds of our age had recognized almost fifteen years earlier. In 1915, Albert Einstein had concluded that the universe could not be static because of calculations based on his recently-discovered theory of relativity (thus anticipating the conclusions of Friedman and Lemaitre).​

Shocked by his findings, Einstein added a "cosmological constant" to his equations in order to "make the answer come out right" because astronomers assured him that the universe was static and there was no other way to make his equations match such a model. Years later, Einstein was to admit that his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his career.​

Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding led to the emergence of another model that needed no fiddling around with to make the equations work right. If the universe was getting bigger as time advanced, going back in time meant that it was getting smaller; and if one went back far enough, everything would shrink and converge at a single point. The conclusion to be derived from this model was that at some time, all the matter in the universe was compacted in a single point-mass that had "zero volume" because of its immense gravitational force. Our universe came into being as the result of the explosion of this point-mass that had zero volume. This explosion has come to be called the "the Big Bang" and its existence has repeatedly been confirmed by observational evidence. ​

There was another truth that the Big Bang pointed to. To say that something has zero volume is tantamount to saying that it is "nothing". The whole universe was created from this "nothing". And furthermore this universe had a beginning, contrary to the view of materialism, which holds that "the universe has existed for eternity". ​

Finally , if some one saw you in the street in the middle of your life ,does this mean that you wasn't baby or child in the past ?..............​

If you see beautiful house built ,does this mean he is suddenly formed without beginning point ?

 

[Postmaster]

God created the world and universe and thats all there is to it.

 

[Vajradhara]

hey.... you can believe whatever makes you sleep better at night


no worries, you don't have to agree to any scientific theory or anything of the sort.

however, to say that science hasn't even given it a go is not accurate.

 

[Bandit]

i think some of these studies are good. I also think people are taking the long back road to get to some answers when many answers are right in front them. some feel there is need to explore every speck of dust and atom and every star they can see. some just accept that it is the way it is.

I know a web lacky who is so trenched in technology that he believes it will one day be able to split the spirit of man from the body . Then i asked him will science and technology also be able to create spirits?

I said this once before. Bones are bones and spirit is spirit.
Depends on what direction the individual wants to search, what they feel is more important.
Both directions are important, but could one have quicker answers and better perception?
I am sticking with creation and the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob as creator of all things.

Thanks for a cool forum Brian that lets everyone speak and speak fairly.

 

[Quahom1]

There are also 11 known dimensions to the universe as we know it, however, we only understand 4 of them (vaguely). When Brian stated "...if God transcends reality, then you can argue that God is effectively like an infinite constant - never before or after anything, but simply present in some form in all aspects, dimensions, and scales, of the universe and beyond...", that could explain where the "creator" was during this "middle" of creation.

If we understand only 4 out of eleven dimensions to existence, we've got a ways to go before we can begin to understand creation, I should think.

v/r

Q

 

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

There are also 11 known dimensions to the universe as we know it, however, we only understand 4 of them (vaguely).

If we understand only 4 out of eleven dimensions to existence, we've got a ways to go before we can begin to understand creation, I should think.

v/r

Q

What you are saying is that there are 11 known dimensions to the universe as we know it, but that doesn't preclude more dimensions beyond the 11. I mean, could this "creator"/"creatrix" reside in, say, the 14th dimension? Just some food for thought.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

 

[Hyozan]

God created the world and universe and thats all there is to it.

With respect, but that's just shifting the question aside; in that case who created God?

It is the nature of western languages to have a mandatory subject for a verb, e.g. "IT rains", "LIGHTNING flashes". As Watts stated, this is a law of grammar, not a law of nature. Heisenberg stated that to observe a phenomena is to influence it - therefore, one thing cannot exist completely independent from another (which, incidentally, is the same conclusion the Taoists and Buddhists have come to).

If you want to state that there is a God and that he/she created the universe, then this implies that the universe also gave rise to God - this, by the way, is a far more accurate rendering of "I and the Father are one" (greek: Hen, Hebrew: echad) than the King James version.
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Greek: Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown write of this verse: Our language admits not of the precision of the original in this saying, 'We (two Persons) are One (Thing).' Perhaps 'one interest' expresses nearly, though not quite, the purport of the saying.

Hebrew: The Hebrew word echad has as one of its prominent meanings "unity"

Sounds like interdependent arising to me...
[/font]

 

[arthra]

For myself i think creation is an ongoing process... it didn't stop on the sixth day. The nature of God is to create continually...

Is it possible for us to prove that to everyone's satisfaction?...most likely not so.

The concept of creation is an ancient one that harkins back to a simplified explanation for people who wanted it or thought they needed it.

Does our concept of creation have to be from "nothing" or can it not be from previous material.

If from some sort of a generic previous material then we can still have a molder or shaper or a process of change going on. And a continual relationship between the material and the spiritual realities.

Also I don't feel there necessarily needs to be a conflict in thinking between those who subscribe to evolution and vast periods of developement and a creation process.

Independent origination could be part of an Independent Originator's process of creating... but since we have only a limited view and our senses have to be amplified by so much instrumentation and artificial means we're still hampered i think and have only a small vantage point to draw many conclusions....intellectually, that is, and we're still very limited in how we perceive the cosmos.

- Art

 

[Quahom1]

What you are saying is that there are 11 known dimensions to the universe as we know it, but that doesn't preclude more dimensions beyond the 11. I mean, could this "creator"/"creatrix" reside in, say, the 14th dimension? Just some food for thought.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

Of course! Or else another possibility is that the "creator" exists outside all dimensions, or exists "inside" all dimensions...or both!

v/r

Q

 

[Friend]

Of course! Or else another possibility is that the "creator" exists outside all dimensions, or exists "inside" all dimensions...or both!

v/r

Q

Salaam
I agree with you ......

 

[Bandit]

there is probably a lot more than 11 dimensions.
I like that...

Of course! Or else another possibility is that the "creator" exists outside all dimensions, or exists "inside" all dimensions...or both!

 

[Friend]

Salaam to all

If science is to replace religion ,it shall have to discover the ultimate and absolute explanation .Let us take the example of a machine which is functioning without our being able to see how it works because it is enclosed in a metallic casing .When we remove this casing, we can see how the various cog wheels move in conjunction with a number of other parts of the mechanism . Does this mean that , in discovering the mechanics of the things , we have truly understood the cause of its motion ?have we really grasped its secrets ? And does the possession of knowledge about the functioning of a machine give us proof that it is self -manufacturing , self replicating and works automatically ? If the answer to this is " No" then how do a few glances at the mechanism of the universe prove that this entire system came into existence unaided and of its own accord , and is continuing to function independently ?

 

[Quahom1]

Salaam to all

If science is to replace religion ,it shall have to discover the ultimate and absolute explanation .Let us take the example of a machine which is functioning without our being able to see how it works because it is enclosed in a metallic casing .When we remove this casing, we can see how the various cog wheels move in conjunction with a number of other parts of the mechanism . Does this mean that , in discovering the mechanics of the things , we have truly understood the cause of its motion ?have we really grasped its secrets ? And does the possession of knowledge about the functioning of a machine give us proof that it is self -manufacturing , self replicating and works automatically ? If the answer to this is " No" then how do a few glances at the mechanism of the universe prove that this entire system came into existence unaided and of its own accord , and is continuing to function independently ?

Ah' Lan Friend,

I believe you are correct. And I think Science will never replace religion for one simple reason:

Science is "cold", wherein Religion is "warm" (it can get pretty hot at times too)

Seriously, even scientists today are beginning to question the dogma they've been taught about the beginning of the universe, and "how" it came into being. So, you are in good company in your thoughts...

v/r

Q