Religion

pinto

(106,886 posts) Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:37 PM Jan 2013

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

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Big Bang & Genesis (Original Post) pinto Jan 2013 OP

Interesting, though I am sure that those much more versed in astrophysics than I cbayer Jan 2013 #1

This message was self-deleted by its author JustFiveMoreMinutes Jan 2013 #2

Disagree. Time is a function of light. As is mass. pinto Jan 2013 #5

Well, I've heard of spacetime... but never lighttime. JustFiveMoreMinutes Jan 2013 #6

Night and day is keyed to earth's rotation on its axis-not the revolution. digonswine Jan 2013 #9

So do many of the apologists. longship Jan 2013 #3

Hi. No cosmologist here either. Or biblical scholar as well. LOL, far from either. pinto Jan 2013 #8

Is science really a religion?? Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #4

Here's a quote from its first proponent: rug Jan 2013 #7

Have you read the Bible? intaglio Jan 2013 #10

Interesting read. Thats my opinion Jan 2013 #11

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

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

Reply to pinto (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:42 PM

Jan 2013

would be able to point out the big differences.

Response to pinto (Original post)

JustFiveMoreMinutes This message was self-deleted by its author.

pinto

(106,886 posts)

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

Reply to JustFiveMoreMinutes (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:10 PM

Jan 2013

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.

JustFiveMoreMinutes

(2,133 posts)

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

Reply to pinto (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:14 PM

Jan 2013

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'.

digonswine

(1,485 posts)

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

Reply to pinto (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:41 PM

Jan 2013

longship

(40,416 posts)

3. So do many of the apologists.

Reply to pinto (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:56 PM

Jan 2013

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!

pinto

(106,886 posts)

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

Reply to longship (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:32 PM

Jan 2013

Thanks for the added info.

Angry Dragon

(36,693 posts)

4. Is science really a religion??

Reply to pinto (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:58 PM

Jan 2013

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

rug

(82,333 posts)

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

Reply to pinto (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:31 PM

Jan 2013

As far as I see, such a theory [of the primeval atom] 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

intaglio

(8,170 posts)

10. Have you read the Bible?

Reply to pinto (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:48 PM

Jan 2013

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

Thats my opinion

(2,001 posts)

11. Interesting read.

Reply to pinto (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:32 PM

Jan 2013

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 discussion