Morcan Books & Films

It appears the universe may not have started with a BANG! That is if the latest science challenging the notion of the Big Bang Theory is correct.

This revelation has gotten members of our ‘Underground Knowledge’ discussion group on Goodreads.com fairly worked up, with those of an atheistic or scientific bent butting heads with those of a religious persuasion as members debate the role of God in the creation of the universe.

It (the discussion that is) all began with a comment by a group moderator. He drew attention to a news item that quotes a theoretical physicist as declaring new research suggests the age of the universe could be infinite. That same article quotes another scientist as declaring “We (scientists) really have no right to say that the universe begins with a big bang.”

The news item referred to is at: https://au.news.yahoo.com/technology/…

The research referred to, incidentally, pertains to a paper published Feb. 4 in the journal Physical Letters B, and another paper that is currently under peer review, which was published in the preprint journal arXiv.

One of our members responded by quoting Genesis 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. She adds, “It’s the simple truth that I believe in.”

Another member countered by saying, “Unfortunately it’s not a simple truth: it is not simple and may not be the truth. E.g. who or what created god? According to Genesis, the universe was created about 6500 BC or something, whereas we know the Universe to be 13.8 billion years old. So Genesis is wrong anyway. “Who or what is god” is equivalent to the question to which Physics is seeking an answer. The big bang hypothesis assumes quantum mechanics is equivalent to god… With the big bang, there is a better explanation for reality and god isn’t needed. By the Occam’s razor principle we can therefore do without him.

To which the first member answered, “To answer the question, “who or what created god?” Nothing and no one created God. God has simply always existed. He was. He is. And He will be.”

Members’ (further) comments follow. (Names withheld):

At the risk of again being laughed at; the paths to god encompass the pre-destined pursuits of failing “knowledge” and the beauty of faith.

Other hypotheses such as a recycling universe, which is certainly not a new idea, may have a different role for quantum mechanics. Something that goes on forever (a recycling universe) is unsatisfactory as it doesn’t explain how it got there in the first place. Why is there something rather than nothing?

How does the new proposal handle the background radiation issue? Some sites worth reading: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ … http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne…

I believe the Big Bang Theory is very ridiculous and requires EVEN MORE FAITH than believing that a loving God created the universe in six days (which is totally the truth, and very simple to accept.)

Keep in mind most modern Christians do not state the world is 4-6,000 years old anymore. Most accept that the Earth is billions of years old as per science’s findings. The belief that it’s only a few thousand years old is now about as popular a Christian belief as the old Biblical viewpoint that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Certainly some Christian sects and other minority offshoots (e.g. Seventh Day Adventists) push the old 4,000 year old Biblical belief, but not mainstream Christianity as a whole…FYI, the Aboriginal (native) people in Australia are estimated to go back to around 50,000 years.

The bottom line is the Bible was written by men (not any supernatural entity) and written in a time when people had little scientific understanding…

The Bible was Not written by men. It was spoken through men but God-breathed (God spoke it it to them or supernaturally showed them what to write).

Any Christian scholar will inform you the Bible was most certainly written by men. Afterall, nobody is saying the books that formed the Bible fell out of the sky already written. Each book in the Bible had authors – hence the Book of Job, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew etc. Furthermore, it’s historically proven many or all of these books were edited at later dates (e.g. the Council of Nicea biblical edits in 353AD conducted by the Romans).

There are actually various other scientific theories that have been proposed regarding the background radiation. For example, Japanese scientist and member of this group Takaaki Musha has proposed that the cosmic background radiation is not due to the after-glow of a Big Bang, but rather it’s due to the Cherenkov radiation from tachyon pairs created from a ZPF vacuum.

Back to the point about the universe possibly recycling. Didn’t Hubble himself have that idea? Wasn’t he the one who thought up the phrase “big bang” as a frustrated way of saying how silly the whole idea was? Of course science is full of silly ideas that ultimately survive the full test of scientific enquiry, such as evolution itself. It will probably take a long time to dismiss the “big bang” theory [no pun intended!]. We can get very close to the point when the current universe began — a tiny fraction of a second. After this point the laws of physics as currently known can work to produce the universe as it is. However close we can get we may never know for sure how the universe began.

There may indeed be a few ideas going around such as parallel universes and/or holographic loop, but these don’t seem testable. This makes it unsatisfactory. I can’t possibly see how the universe could be physically infinite. Closed, certainly. In other words if we keep racing for the exit then we can’t get out, even after an infinite time. This is because ultimately space curves in on itself according to principles of general relativity.

To view the entire discussion thread, or better still to have YOUR say, go to: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2237090-the-big-bang-theory—debunked