Posted on 06/23/2003 11:31:49 AM PDT by yonif
|
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/The_Big_Bang_and_the_Big_Question_A_Universe_without_God$.asp |
|
|
|
The Big Bang and the Big Question: A Universe without God?
Until the early twentieth century, astronomers entertained three possible models of the universe: 1. The universe could be static.
According to this theory, though the mutual gravitational attractions of stars and planets might hold them together in the form of solar systems and galaxies, each of these stellar-terrestrial groups slide through space along its own random trajectory, unrelated to the courses tracked by other groups of stars and planets.
The static model works for atheists and believers: Such a universe could have been created by God at some point in history, but it also could have existed forever without God. 2. The universe could be oscillating.
It might be a cosmic balloon alternately expanding and contracting. For a few billion years it would inflate, expanding into absolute nothingness. But the gravitational attraction of every star and planet pulling on every other would eventually slow this expansion until the whole process would reverse and the balloon would come crashing back in upon itself. All that existed would eventually smash together at the universe's center, releasing huge amounts of heat and light, spewing everything back out in all directions and beginning the expansion phase all over again.
Such a universe could also have been created by God or could have existed forever without God. 3. Finally, the universe could be open.
It might be a cosmic balloon that never implodes. If the total gravitational attraction of all stars and planets could not halt the initial expansion, as in the oscillating model, the universe would spill out into nothingness forever. Eventually the stars would burn out and a curtain of frozen darkness would enshroud all existence. Such a universe could never bring itself back to life. It would come into existence at a moment in history, blaze gloriously, and then pass into irrevocable night.
Crucially, the latter model proposes that before the one-time explosion, all the universe's matter and energy was contained in a singularity, a tiny dot that sat stable in space for eternity before it detonated.
This model proposes a paradox: Objects at rest -- like the initial singularity -- remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force; and yet, since the initial dot contained all matter and energy, nothing (at least, nothing natural) existed outside of this singularity that could have caused it to explode.
The simplest resolution of the paradox is to posit that something supernatural kicked the universe into being. The open model of the universe thus implies a supernatural Creator -- a God. THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY
In 1916 Albert Einstein released the first drafts of his general theory of relativity, and the scientific world went wild. It appeared that Einstein had revealed the deepest secrets of the universe. His equations also caused a few problems -- technical dilemmas, mathematical snags -- but not the sort of thing to interest newspapers or even popular science journals.
Two scientists noticed the glitches. Late in 1917 the Danish astronomer Willem de Sitter reviewed general relativity and returned a detailed response to Einstein, outlining the problem and proposing a radical solution: general relativity could work only if the entire universe was exploding, erupting out in all directions from a central point.
Einstein never responded to de Sitter's critique. Then, in 1922, Soviet mathematician Alexander Friedmann independently derived de Sitter's solution. If Einstein was right, Friedmann predicted, the universe must be expanding in all directions at high speed.
Meanwhile, across the sea, American astronomer Vesto Slipher actually witnessed the universe's explosive outward movement. Using the powerful telescope at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, Slipher discovered that dozens of galaxies were indeed rocketing away from a central point.
Between 1918 and 1922, de Sitter, Friedmann, and Slipher independently shared their findings with Einstein, but he strangely resisted their solution -- as if, in his brilliance, he realized the theological implications of an exploding universe.
Einstein even wrote a letter to Zeitschrift fur Physik, a prestigious technical journal, calling Friedmann's suggestions "suspicious," and to de Sitter Einstein jotted a note, "This circumstance [of an expanding universe] irritates me." In another note, Einstein reassured one of his colleagues, "I have not yet fallen in the hands of priests," a veiled reference to de Sitter, Friedmann, and Slipher. THE HUBBLE DISCOVERY
In 1925, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble dealt the static model of the universe a fatal blow. Using what was then the largest telescope in the world, Hubble revealed that every galaxy within 6 x 1017 miles of the Earth was receding.
Einstein tenaciously refused to acknowledge Hubble's work. He continued teaching the static model for five more years, until, at Hubble's request, he traveled from Berlin to Pasadena to personally examine the evidence. At the trip's conclusion, Einstein reluctantly admitted, "New observations by Hubble ... make it appear likely that the general structure of the universe is not static."
Einstein died in 1955, swayed but still not fully convinced that the universe was expanding. THE SOUND OF THE BIG BANG
Ten years later, in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were calibrating a supersensitive microwave detector at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey. No matter where the two scientists aimed the instrument, it picked up the same unidentified background noise -- a steady, three-degree Kelvin (3K) hum. On a hunch, the two Bell Labs employees looked over an essay on general relativity by a student of Alexander Friedmann. The essay predicted that the remnants of the universe's most recent explosion should be detectable in the form of weak microwave radiation, "around 5K or thereabouts."
The two scientists realized they had discovered the echo of the biggest explosion in history: "the Big Bang." For this discovery, Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize.
The discovery of the "3K hum" undermined the static model of the universe. There were only two models left: one that worked without God and one that did not.
The last issue to be settled was: Had the primordial universe exploded an infinite number of times (the oscillating model) or only once (the open model)?
Researchers knew the issue could be settled by determining the average density of the universe. If the universe contained the equivalent of about one hydrogen atom per ten cubic feet of space, then the gravitational attraction among all the universe's particles would be strong enough to stop and reverse the expansion. Eventually there would be a "big crunch," which would lead to another big bang (and then to another big crunch, etc.). If, on the other hand, the universe contained less than this density, then the big bang's explosive force would overcome all the gravitational pulls, and everything would sail out into nothingness forever. THE PANIC AND ITS RESOLUTION
Curiously, the death of the static model inspired panic in many quarters of the scientific world. Mathematicians, physicists, and astronomers joined forces to prove the eternity of the universe.
Dr. Robert Jastrow, arguably the greatest astrophysicist of the time and director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Center for Space Studies, was named head of the research project. For fifteen years Jastrow and his team tried to demonstrate the validity of the oscillating model, but the data told a different story.
In 1978 Jastrow released NASA's definitive report, shocking the public with his announcement that the open model was probably correct. On June 25 of that year, Jastrow wrote about his findings to the New York Times Magazine:
This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." ... [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
Dr. James Trefil, a physicist at the University of Virginia, independently confirmed Jastrow's discovery in 1983. Drs. John Barrow, an astronomer at the University of Sussex, and Frank Tipler, a mathematician and physicist at Tulane University, published similar results in 1986. GENESIS CONFIRMED
At the 1990 meeting of the American Astronomical Society, Professor John Mather of Columbia University, an astrophysicist who also serves on the staff of NASA's Goddard Center, presented "the most dramatic support ever" for an open universe.
According to the Boston Globe reporter covering the conference, Mather's keynote address was greeted with thunderous applause, which led the meeting's chairman, Dr. Geoffrey Burbridge, to comment: "It seems clear that the audience is in favor of the book of Genesis - at least, the first verse or so, which seems to have been confirmed."
In 1998, Drs. Ruth Daly, Erick Guerra, and Lin Wan of Princeton University announced to the American Astronomical Society, "We can state with 97.5 percent confidence that the universe will continue to expand forever."
Later that year, Dr. Allan Sandage, a world-renowned astrophysicist on the staff of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, was quoted in The New Republic saying, "The big bang is best understood as a miracle triggered by some kind of transcendent power."
Newsweek columnist George Will began his November 9, 1998, column with this quip: "Soon the American Civil Liberties Union or People for the American Way, or some similar faction of litigious secularism, will file suit against NASA, charging that the Hubble Space Telescope unconstitutionally gives comfort to the religiously inclined." PERMISSION TO BELIEVE
The same year, Newsweek reported a recent and unexpected swing of opinion among the once passionately agnostic: "Forty percent of American scientists now believe in a personal God - not merely an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a deity to whom they can pray."
There are, of course, mathematicians, physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists who choose not to believe in God today. For a variety of reasons, they choose instead to have faith that new natural laws will be discovered or that new evidence will appear and overturn the current model of an open, created universe.
But for many in the scientific community, the evidence is persuasive. For many, modern cosmology offers permission to believe.
LAWRENCE KELEMEN is the author of Permission to Believe: Four Rational Approaches to God's Existence (Targum/Feldheim, 1990) and Permission to Receive: Four Rational Approaches to the Torah's Divine Origin (Targum Press, 1996). He studied at U.C.L.A., Yeshiva University of Los Angeles, and Harvard University. He was also a downhill skiing instructor on the staff of the Mammoth Mountain Ski School in California and served as news director and anchorman for KMMT-FM radio station. Currently he teaches medieval and modern Jewish philosophy at Neve Yerushalayim College of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem.
This essay is excerpted from "Jewish Matters: A pocketbook of knowledge and inspiration." "Jewish Matters" includes short essays on topics from relationships, prayer, happiness, and Shabbat, written by top male and female educators from around the world. Deep, funny, and fascinating, "JM" is available in Jewish bookstores, and on Amazon.com , and Chapters.ca. More information and excerpts can be seen at www.jewishmatters.com.
Copyright © 1995 - 2003 Aish.com - http://www.aish.com
No, actually, Bob, if you had paid attention, I was calculating the chance of just one organism, one of the simplest on the face of the Earth, could have spontaneously just evolved.
And, in my post to you, I was talking FIGURATIVELY, not actual eternity. 4 years is not REALLY enternity. Try to keep up, Bob.
Really, Junior? Did it take them eons to discover the KT boundary in geology? I don't think so.
My point, Junior, wasn't that it takes millons or even billions of years for the sciences to discover something. My point was that in the 4 years they've been working on creating life in the ideal labratory setting, they still haven't been able to do it.
But in that exact same time, scinces, nearly all of them, have made amazing discoveries and advances.
If life truely did just spontaiously appear on Earth, Junior, as the athetists and agnostics would have you believe, why haven't we recreated it?
We can map the human genome in 4 years, but can't recreate it??
And of course, nobody seriously believes that the molecules of living systems "just fell together" one day. Evolution is not a random process.
But even if I accept your calculations (or rather, the calculations you've reposted from another website), they don't answer the question. They only address--however incorrectly--the probability of life as it in fact arose on Earth. What we need is the probability that life would arise somewhere in the universe by all possible methods. You've addressed only one method.
What kills all probability arguments, however, is not the uncalculable "all possible methods" requirement, but the "somewhere in the universe" requirement. We found out four months ago that the universe is spatially flat on the largest scales. What that means is that the universe is infinite in extent. Our Hubble volume is finite, of course, and that's what scientists mean when they say that the universe is finite, but there must exist stuff beyond our Hubble volume that we just can't see or travel to. The most distant galaxies we can see see themselves as being at the center of a Hubble volume just like ours, and so on, and so on, and so on.
So, I do not distinguish between believing the book of John or Mark, and then approach Genesis with speculative conjecture.
Further, as Jesus promised to his apostles and disciples, once He was lifted into heaven after the Ressurrection, God sent to all believers His Holy Spirit; to indwell them, and to make clear not only the inherent and inerrant Truth of the Bible, but also to search and make known to believers all of God's heart and desires for His children.
Long story short, I think that it is wrong to accept at face value the New Testament, and then to try to redefine or rewrite the Old Testament.
All that said, once you sincerely accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you are saved. Not much will change that.
You would call a 1 in 10-3,600,000 (1 with 3,600,000 zeroes after it) chance of life forming on Earth as negligible???
Either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Either way there are some awesome responsibilities coming our way.
Last I checked, coal or a salt dome isn't life. I didn't say these were the chances no chemical reaction could take place--they are merely the chemical actions that take place so carefully and rare, as to form life.
Would you agree that if we can reproduce these chemical reactions in a laborotory, then by your analogy, life should lifewise be so easy to reproduce?
And of course, nobody seriously believes that the molecules of living systems "just fell together" one day. Evolution is not a random process.
Yes, actually, that is what everybody is saying. To go from non-organic to organic--the chances are 1 in 10-36 million.
You've addressed only one method.
Please tell me of another method you have come accross to make life. Maybe it's just me, but I'm only certain of one method to form life. Every living thing on this planet can genenically trace it's roots back to one living organism. There are no geneically competing liveforms on this planet--and none we've found on other planets. So, if you've found another method--or even thought of one, I assure you, you would win the Noble Prize for discovering it.
What kills all probability arguments, however, is not the uncalculable "all possible methods" requirement, but the "somewhere in the universe" requirement.
No, actually, it isn't "killing all possible arguements', because that number applies not just to Earth, but to the entire universe. Your arguement is that "Life just wants to be". If that were so, we'd see life on the moon, we'd have found life on Mars, in asteroids, in meteors, etc. But that hasn't happen. Lifewise, if this were true, we'd have competing life forms on Earth in the form of other genetic-linked lifeforms, alien to our own, and we haven't seen that either.
Accept the calculations or don't. But if your going to express a differing opinion, at least exert something factual.
These are not conditions "We would like" but conditions that MUST be met for life. Not to even mention COMPLEX life. Unlike any other species on the face of this planet, you are differant--despite what the atheists might insist.
If there is some proven way for other life forms to form, please present it, I'm certain you would receive the Nobel prize for it.
As a result of random chance? Yes, therefore there leaves only Divine input/purpose to credit with such wonders.
That's like winning a powerball lotto and never even had bought a ticket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.