Has Science Disproved The First Line of The Bible?

By -
Image result for stars in space



There has been a major development in the field of cosmology, one that may have a bearing on apologetics in the future. As atheist friend "Pixie" brought out in our discussions last week, a report by Ahmed Farag Ali (Benha University in Egypt) and   Saurya Das (University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada), their model removes the singularity and posits a universe with "no beginning and no end."[1] Some commentators have been saying the new model does away with the big bang, It does not but it does do away with the singularity, the theoretical mathematical point from which the universe supposedly emerged. In order to end the singularity the new model assumes an endless universe, making the concept of big bang seem incomprehensible.[2] But technically it doesn't actually do away with it.Brian Koberlein explains: "The catch is that by eliminating the singularity, 'the model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It  existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before ‘collapsing’ into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang. Unfortunately many articles confuse ‘no singularity’ with ‘no big bang.’'"[3]
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of cosmology.[4]
It is odd that it took physicists so long to change the model, They have been wanting to get rid of the singularity since the  day theists began saying it resembled the point of creation. "The new willingness to consider what might have happened before the bang is the latest swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked back and forth for millennia. In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture."[5]

So much has been made of the coincidence between singularity and creation by apologists that it does feel like science is disproving creation. some might feel a sense of panic,
Christian apologists advocating the big bang include William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Hugh Ross, David Noebel and Lee Strobel. William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, was interviewed by Lee Strobel.1 Strobel asked, “And the universe came into being in what has been called the Big Bang?”2 Craig answered: “Exactly. As [astrophysicist] Stephen Hawking said, ‘Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.’”[6]
Yet not all Christian apologists support the Big bang. Johnathan F, Henry argues that apologists should abandon the big bang. [7] He quotes Alex Williams and John Hartnett begin with “Four Reasons to Reject the Big-Bang Theory.” Hartnet has a Ph.D in physics from University of Western Australia, He worked in their research department in meteorology. His reasons for ditching the BB are cosmological as well as theological.[8]

Henry argues that "Genesis 1 teaches that the creation was a fiat via the spoken word of God, not a process such as the big bang.16 Seeing the big bang in Scripture is therefore a reading-in of extra-biblical beliefs—an eisegesis—and not an exegesis."[9] Most of Henry's article is about scientific failing of Big Bang."The singularity exemplifies the sort of gap that is likely to be closed by scientific progress, obviating special divine action. The apparent irrelevance of cardinality to practices of counting infinite sets in classical field theory and Fourier analysis is noted....."[10]

The two best arguments for God' existence were given us by modern scientific cosmology: fine tuning and the first cause, One can't help but feel this move is a purposeful attempt to get rid of the first cause argument, If there is no beginning to the universe then there is no first cause and no need for a creator. So this should mount a few problems for God arguments and escapologists. Does this mean the first line of the Bible is disproved by Science?

But that's no more the case than saying that evolution disproves the Bible because it disproves six day creation.In the past I have made first caused arguments based upon the singularity. There is no need to assume this is the end of the matter, It's always going back and forth this is just one  report.  Belief in God is not dependent upon any one argument, God arguments are an attempt to smooth the way for those who have not experienced God, They are not the experience itself.

There are those who argue that "in the Beginning" does not refer to a first moment,
 'In the  beginning' in Gensis 1:1 was an unspecified lock of time not a moment not a moment in which God initially created the heavens and the earth. This point further develops the idea that the Earth was there before the seven days, but it goes beyond that and says that the heavens and the earth were not created instantaneously but just before the seven days. "The beginning   refers to a significant block of time not a moment...the Hebrew word reshith (beginning) is that it refers to the first part of a whole of something, sometimes the best or chief part.Biblical support for this is found in Job 8:7 and 42;12  which speak of Job's early life. 'Though your beginig was insignificant your end will increase greatly.'[11] 
The source also points to Hebrew scholar John Sailhamer "the term always refers to an extended yet indeterminate duration of time not a specific moment." [12] Moreover, there are two other words that are more appropriate to use for marking the beginning of a series (rishon, and techilla ) [13] Now one might argue this theory does not just say there's a long beginning but no beginning at all. Yet, the real point I am making is that "The beginning" need not reefer to all existence or to all space/time but our  earth or our galaxy or our part of the galaxy or the beginning of life in the galaxy. It may just be a way of saying "first of all..." In proverbs 8:22 the wisdom figure speaks of the beginning and says "in the earliest times of the earth." So "in the Begriming" might just mean in the part of the story that involves the earth. 

There is also the research on the inevitable nature of heat death, in other words the universe will use up all its usable energy and die in darkness. Many studies have demonstrated the inevitable nature of heat death. Granted it is in the far far flung future. This would seem to contradict the idea of the universe having no end. If that is contradicted why assume  it has no beginning? If it's wrong about one it may be wrong about the other,[14]

So here we have the two basic approaches to the issue, either re-interpret  what beginning refers to or doubt the report based upon a a huge volume of data and opinion supporting the singularity. After all its just one report its caused a big stir but it;snot the new adopted first position of science.We don't need the singularity per se to assert that there must been a beginning to it all somewhere back. 
As shown in graph if universe reaches at the state of maximum entropy or the equilibrium state
universe will cool down, no further work can be proceed, all the available energy will be converted into
unavailable energy that situation called Heat Death.
In the case of sun and most other stars the out flow of heat can continue for many billions of years but
it is not inexhaustible. A normal star's heat is generated by nuclear processes in its interior as we shall see the
sun will eventually run out of fuel and unless overtaken by event. it will cool until it reaches the same
temperature as the surrounding space for whole universe this process will occur so that there will no more
energy or no sufficient available heat for the birth of new stars, so far further in future, There will be no stars,
No galaxy to form a new life only remain some amount of matter and black holes. Then black holes will start
to suck all the matters of the universe. At 10100years from big bang, black holes themselves will evaporate due
to Hawking radiation (Electromagnetic radiation which, according to theory, should be emitted by a black
hole. The radiation is due to the black hole capturing one of a particle-antiparticle pair created spontaneously
near to the event horizon.(Radius of a black hole)) What Remains? Only darkness. This is the Death of the

Universe
As shown in graph if universe reaches at the state of maximum entropy or the equilibrium state
universe will cool down, no further work can be proceed, all the available energy will be converted into
unavailable energy that situation called Heat Death.
In the case of sun and most other stars the out flow of heat can continue for many billions of years but
it is not inexhaustible. A normal star's heat is generated by nuclear processes in its interior as we shall see the
sun will eventually run out of fuel and unless overtaken by event. it will cool until it reaches the same
temperature as the surrounding space for whole universe this process will occur so that there will no more
energy or no sufficient available heat for the birth of new stars, so far further in future, There will be no stars,
No galaxy to form a new life only remain some amount of matter and black holes. Then black holes will start
to suck all the matters of the universe. At 10100years from big bang, black holes themselves will evaporate due
to Hawking radiation (Electromagnetic radiation which, according to theory, should be emitted by a black
hole. The radiation is due to the black hole capturing one of a particle-antiparticle pair created spontaneously
near to the event horizon.(Radius of a black hole)) What Remains? Only darkness. This is the Death of the
Aside from that phrase  in the beginning, one could argue the idea of no beginning eliminates the need or a first cause. But it doesn't, it just changes the trajectory. Instead of thinking of first chronological cause we need to think of God as primary cause in a metaphysical sense. Naturalistic things are still contingent and that means there still must be a necessary to pin them on; even if it's not chronological it's still ontological. To wit:
Universe
As shown in graph if universe reaches at the state of maximum entropy or the equilibrium state
universe will cool down, no further work can be proceed, all the available energy will be converted into

unavailable energy that situation called Heat Death.

1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exits at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
6. Therefore God exists.[15]




Notes


[1] Deborah Byrd, Science wire service, Earthsky, (Feb,19 2015)
[2] Ibid

[3] Brian Koberlein quoted in Ibid
[4]  
[5] Ibid


[6]  Jonatan F Henry, "Christian Apologists Should Abandon the Big Bang," JOURNAL OF CREATION (23(3) 2009) PDF 103
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_103-109.pdf
[accessed 8/29/19]

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid, he cites Williams, A. and Hartnett, J., Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s Universe Rediscovered, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp. 14–15, 2005.


[9] Ibid. 103

[10]J. Brian Pitts,   "Why the Big Bang Singularity Does Not Help the Kalām Cosmological Argument for Theism" British Journal For Philosophy of Science,  Volume 59, Issue 4, (December 2008,)  675–708
https://academic.oup.com/bjps/article/59/4/675/1581972
[accessed 8/29/19]

[11] Benjamin D. Smith Jr, point 2, Genesis, Science and The Begining: Evaluating Interpritationsof Genesis one on the Age of The earth. Eugene Or.:Wipf and  Stock publishers, 2018, 22.
https://books.google.com/books?id=UCVwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=does+genesis+%22in+the+beginning%22+refer+to+a+first+moment+of+time?&source=bl&ots=HkrUQYwVAy&sig=ACfU3U34s0R2jCuSS-KxrOCn8v6-Fl9HVw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP1I6cqdPjAhUPlKwKHb4tCfMQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=does%20genesis%20%22in%20the%20beginning%22%20refer%20to%20a%20first%20moment%20of%20time%3F&f=false
[accessed 8/29/19]

[12] Ibid


[13] Ibid.

[14] Conference Paper PDF, "Heat  death (the Ultimate fate of the  universe)." (Oct. 2015)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299618320_Heat_Death_The_Ultimate_Fate_of_the_Universe
As shown in graph if universe reaches at the state of maximum entropy or the equilibrium state
universe will cool down, no further work can be proceed, all the available energy will be converted into
[accessed 8/29/19]
unavailable energy that situation called Heat Death.

New study predicts the slow, inevitable death of the universe - The ...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../new-study-predicts-the-slow-inevitable-death-of-t...


Aug 11, 2015 - New study predicts the slow, inevitable death of the universe ... produced in the section of the universe they studied was twice what it is today. ... energy will increasingly waste away into forms that stars can't use, like heat. ... This unusually bright ancient galaxy may show signs of the first generation of stars.
[accessed 8/29/19] 
15 Joseph "Cosmological Arguments," The Religious a priori (2010)
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2009/01/cosmological-argumemts.html

[accessed 8/29/19]



Comments

The Pixie said…
No singularity does not preclude a beginning to the universe. The singularity is an artefact of our approximations, which we know fail at the Big Bang, but what did happen then, and whether that was the start of the universe is still not known. Genesis 1:1 has not been refuted, and may well still be true.
7/29/2019 12:36:00 AM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
I was quoting the scientists and other from the articles, They said it, argue with them.
7/29/2019 06:39:00 AM
Unknown said…
So as to make your twroomtalk prevalent, you should offer magnificent and solid content. The web is stacked with blogs that are dormant and this is one of the most noticeably terrible things a blogger can let occur.
8/08/2019 07:08:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

By -
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated. In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article . Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I ...
Read more

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

By J. P Holding -
Image
I first made this post in 2012, and since then I've made a sort of mini-career out of tracking down bogus quotes like this one (including a video version below). It's a sort of fun microcosm of the way information is mishandled in the Information Age. ** I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. – Mahatma Gandhi A Christian can probably expect to get this quote thrown at them at least once in their lifetime, and waved in their face many more. I had it put to me recently, but my experience with this sort of thing immediately led me to wonder -- is it real? The evidence at this point seems to be no. The first signal of a problem was that anywhere I found it, no source was given. That's often a sign that something is being passed around uncritically. Whether online sources or books, no one seemed to have a source for this quote. A second warning was that the quote has been given more than one context. As ...
Read more

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

By -
A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer: You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels." Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus ...
Read more

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

By -
Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise. For example, consider the following from the "talking points": Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body. What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need. ...
Read more

Tillich, part 2: What does it mean to say "God is Being Itself?"

By -
 In this essay, which is a chapter from the new book I'm now working on, I'm moving toward defining what I think Tillich means exactly by being itself. It's a long journey but an important one. What does Tillich actually mean by “being itself?” Does he mean the same things as other theologians who use the phrase? It’s a mysterious sounding phrase and Tillich never actually comes out and says what he means by it. As I will show there is a reason for this, and I will show what I think that reason in is. In the mean time the task of this chapter is to deduce exactly what Tillich actually means by this phrase. There are three basic possibilities: Three alternatives as to meaning (1) The basic fact that things exist is all that the concept of “God” amounts to. (2) There is a special quality to being, an impersonal aspect” ground of being” or “being itself” and that quality constitutes ‘the divine.’ This possibility excludes God as “king of the universe.” (3) God is b...
Read more

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

By -
We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles: This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible. We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD: John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and Influence Dr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism. The Righteousness of God in the Pauline Corpus Dr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the Apocalypse Dr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book o...
Read more

The Folded Napkin Legend

By J. P Holding -
I wrote about t his "urban legend" a few years ago, but it's typical of the silly urban legends we hear about now and then, such as the idea that the head of Proctor and Gamble went on Oprah to pledge his allegiance to Satanism. Christians are no less gullible for this sort of nonsense than anyone else, and frankly, some seem more gullible to believe anything that they consider "edifying". It's no wonder we're mesmerized by self-comfort tunes like "I Can Only Imagine" that contain about as much useful theology as a thimble. ** The Gospel of John (20:7) tells us that the napkin, which was placed over the face of Jesus, was not just thrown aside like the grave clothes. The Bible takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin was neatly folded, and was placed at the head of that stony coffin.... In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day. The fol...
Read more

Do you say this of your own accord? (John 18:34, ESV)

By -
Image
One of the most well-known events in Scriptures is Jesus' exchange with Pontius Pilate at his trial as described in John 18. In verse 38 of that chapter, Pilate asks the question that may be the most ironic in the history of the world, "What is truth?" A less known but equally intriguing saying of Jesus from an apologetics viewpoint can be found in Jesus' response to an earlier question in the same trial. It is a question that is not often quoted, but on those rare occasions when it is quoted, Jesus' response is often overlooked as not particularly important or relevant to today's world. However, it is my experience (as well as the experience of many people who have truly spent time studying the Scriptures) that little, if any, of what Jesus said in the Bible lacks significance across time. To best understand the response, it's important to see the response in context. The situation is this: Jesus has been arrested following His betrayal by Judas I...
Read more

A Botched Abortion Shows the Lies of Pro-Choice Proponents

By -
One of the classes I teach at the university is a course on Ethics, and I am using a book by Ralph Dolgoff, Donna Harrington and Frank M. Lowenberg entitled " Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice " as the text. Overall, I think that it is a good Ethics textbook largely because it provides a balanced viewpoint on the need for values in social work. For example, the book makes the argument (without committing to it) that those engaged in social work cannot avoid making value judgments in ethical decisions because trying to do what is right necessarily involves making an value choice. Also, I book notes that some (including me) think it is ethically wrong for a social worker to cover-up her own values when counseling another person because it creates a false (and ultimately unproductive) relationship with the person being counseled. Still, one of the exemplars in the book gave me pause – not because I thought it raised a deep ethical quandary, but because I wondered how ...
Read more

A Non-Biblical Historian Accepts the Key "Minimum Facts" Supporting Jesus' Resurrection

By -
In their book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus , Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona argue for the historical reality of Jesus' bodily resurrection using the "minimum facts" approach. Rather than get bogged down in inerrancy and other debates, they focus on the key facts demonstrating Jesus' resurrection. For them, the key facts are: *Jesus' death by crucifixion. *Disciples' Beliefs that Jesus Appeared. *Conversion of Paul. *Conversion of James. *Empty Tomb. William L. Craig, another significant apologist for the historical bodily resurrection of Jesus likewise focuses, in his accessible The Son Rises , on the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection appearance. Craig gives special emphasis to Jesus' honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus' appearances to James and Paul and their subsequent commitment to the Christian cause. Craig, Licona, and Habermas argue that these basic facts are generally supported by most of the relevant sc...
Read more