Judas130
04-05-2009, 06:15 PM
:alien:
wasn't sure if this was to go here, or in the Philosophical section, either way...I'd like to hear the theistic views and justifications, and what your belief on the subject matter may be. The following is adapted from varying texts:
Issues regarding the origin of the universe:
- the big bang theory
- steady state theory
- Creatio ex nihilio
The Big Bang:
It is generally believed the universe began with a ‘hot big bang’ somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years ago. The big bang was the point from which the present universe expanded outwards in an explosion of energy and heat – termed as a space-time singularity. Space and time began with the big bang and our universe is similar to that of an expanding bubble, with matter moving outwards from the original point where the explosion occurred, said to be proven with red shift (in 1929 Hubble observed a red shift in the light coming from distant galaxies, which led to the theory that the universe is expanding in all directions. From the speed of expansion, it is also possible to predict the age of the universe.
The theory also predicted the existence throughout the universe of stable, light elements (principally hydrogen) produced at the earliest stage (unlike the heavier elements, formed later within stars) and this has been found to be the case.
Steady State theory:
Proposed in the 1950s by Hoyle, Bondi and Gold, it argues that as the universe expands, new matter is created so that its density remains constant. A series of ‘mini big bangs’ producing galaxies ensued. This has largely given way to the standard big bang theory.
Creatio ex nihilio
The Creation Myth proposes that God created the world out of nothing rather than out of any pre-existing material – this was important in distinguishing orthodox Christianity with the Gnostic view that matter was evil, since it was held that God could create no evil thing directly.
1) Deists believe that God and the world are two separate things; God is located outside the world and his being there makes no difference to the workings of the world, the machine that has been created by him/it and left to run alone
2) Theists believe that God is both immanent within and yet transcends the world. Whatever is happening in the world is therefore seen as part of God’s activity there is no separate material order with which he is not concerned.
3) Quantum Theory claims that sub-atomic particles come into existence without having a particular antecedent cause and a quantum understanding of gravity might therefore conceive of space-time being created out of nothing with the same unpredictability, therefore serving to be more compatible with creatio ex nihilio than the older Newtonian physics.
4) Saying a particle can appear from nothing is not relevant to a God creating a universe from nothing. Christian doctrine focuses on agency (eg. God made the world) while the big bang and other theories focus on mechanisms in how the world came to existence - Theists could claim that the big bang was the mechanism by which the universe/earth was made, while still stating that God was the agent of that creation.
John Macquarrie (Principles of Christian Theology) examines what the creation myth says about human meaning and values. If one believes themselves to be a creation of a God then they will be answerable to it, subject to its demands, and would feel able to receive its grace. However, if one does not believe God to be the agent of creation then one would feel independent, answerable only to oneself and nothing external. Existentialism separates religious importance in the creation from any scientific view; making fact irrelevant – what matters is the personal significance.
Using existentialism, we can se that Deism, being concerned with an external creator, finds the actual mechanisms of creation irrelevant, requiring only a sense that there is a form of intelligent design in the world. With pantheism there are also problems with views about the origin of existence as the belief identifies God and the world – thus concepts concerning the world, concern God. For theists however, God is within, yet transcends the physical – with much emphasis on Him being ‘within’ the world, having an active role in the ways of the world. Yet how can this role square with empirical fact/scientific proof?
There is a temptation amongst some to place God in the holes within scientific theory and fact. Yet as science explains something, there seems no need to suggest that it was brough about by God. The more science explains, the smaller the hole in which God can be placed.
J. Habgood: In a world made up of objects, God has to be thought of either as an objector as a concept. If the former, there seems to be less and less space for him in our scheme of things as scientific knowledge advances; if the latter, religion is a private fantasy.
- I think what must be stressed, is literal interpretations of genesis, which have been warned against by the Church countless times. Only really since the late 1900s in the American bible belt have these literal interpretations been popular, while even men such as Augustine wished to see the creation myth viewed in an allegorical sense, and to be read not literally, but scanned for meaning - an example taken up by Philo. In Victorian Europe, people did not read the bible in a literal sense and Darwin was met with success - top clergymen were leading scientists - it is Britian that caused these conservative problems, yet soon Darwin was accepted as fact here also. Philo mentioned the contradiction in Genesis whereby man is created after/with the plants and animals - while later being created first. Philo teaches us to look deeper than the text, for some deeper meaning - perhaps if Augustine or Philo were about now, they would see ideas such as Darwin's evolutionary theory to be perfectly compatible, as they wouldn't take Genesis literally - a theist can be a strong man of God, and believe in evolution - agent and mechanism? Narrow minded creationism and narrow minded megadarwinists (or whatever Richard Dawkins is) are wrong in how they set out their ideals.
peace.
wasn't sure if this was to go here, or in the Philosophical section, either way...I'd like to hear the theistic views and justifications, and what your belief on the subject matter may be. The following is adapted from varying texts:
Issues regarding the origin of the universe:
- the big bang theory
- steady state theory
- Creatio ex nihilio
The Big Bang:
It is generally believed the universe began with a ‘hot big bang’ somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years ago. The big bang was the point from which the present universe expanded outwards in an explosion of energy and heat – termed as a space-time singularity. Space and time began with the big bang and our universe is similar to that of an expanding bubble, with matter moving outwards from the original point where the explosion occurred, said to be proven with red shift (in 1929 Hubble observed a red shift in the light coming from distant galaxies, which led to the theory that the universe is expanding in all directions. From the speed of expansion, it is also possible to predict the age of the universe.
The theory also predicted the existence throughout the universe of stable, light elements (principally hydrogen) produced at the earliest stage (unlike the heavier elements, formed later within stars) and this has been found to be the case.
Steady State theory:
Proposed in the 1950s by Hoyle, Bondi and Gold, it argues that as the universe expands, new matter is created so that its density remains constant. A series of ‘mini big bangs’ producing galaxies ensued. This has largely given way to the standard big bang theory.
Creatio ex nihilio
The Creation Myth proposes that God created the world out of nothing rather than out of any pre-existing material – this was important in distinguishing orthodox Christianity with the Gnostic view that matter was evil, since it was held that God could create no evil thing directly.
1) Deists believe that God and the world are two separate things; God is located outside the world and his being there makes no difference to the workings of the world, the machine that has been created by him/it and left to run alone
2) Theists believe that God is both immanent within and yet transcends the world. Whatever is happening in the world is therefore seen as part of God’s activity there is no separate material order with which he is not concerned.
3) Quantum Theory claims that sub-atomic particles come into existence without having a particular antecedent cause and a quantum understanding of gravity might therefore conceive of space-time being created out of nothing with the same unpredictability, therefore serving to be more compatible with creatio ex nihilio than the older Newtonian physics.
4) Saying a particle can appear from nothing is not relevant to a God creating a universe from nothing. Christian doctrine focuses on agency (eg. God made the world) while the big bang and other theories focus on mechanisms in how the world came to existence - Theists could claim that the big bang was the mechanism by which the universe/earth was made, while still stating that God was the agent of that creation.
John Macquarrie (Principles of Christian Theology) examines what the creation myth says about human meaning and values. If one believes themselves to be a creation of a God then they will be answerable to it, subject to its demands, and would feel able to receive its grace. However, if one does not believe God to be the agent of creation then one would feel independent, answerable only to oneself and nothing external. Existentialism separates religious importance in the creation from any scientific view; making fact irrelevant – what matters is the personal significance.
Using existentialism, we can se that Deism, being concerned with an external creator, finds the actual mechanisms of creation irrelevant, requiring only a sense that there is a form of intelligent design in the world. With pantheism there are also problems with views about the origin of existence as the belief identifies God and the world – thus concepts concerning the world, concern God. For theists however, God is within, yet transcends the physical – with much emphasis on Him being ‘within’ the world, having an active role in the ways of the world. Yet how can this role square with empirical fact/scientific proof?
There is a temptation amongst some to place God in the holes within scientific theory and fact. Yet as science explains something, there seems no need to suggest that it was brough about by God. The more science explains, the smaller the hole in which God can be placed.
J. Habgood: In a world made up of objects, God has to be thought of either as an objector as a concept. If the former, there seems to be less and less space for him in our scheme of things as scientific knowledge advances; if the latter, religion is a private fantasy.
- I think what must be stressed, is literal interpretations of genesis, which have been warned against by the Church countless times. Only really since the late 1900s in the American bible belt have these literal interpretations been popular, while even men such as Augustine wished to see the creation myth viewed in an allegorical sense, and to be read not literally, but scanned for meaning - an example taken up by Philo. In Victorian Europe, people did not read the bible in a literal sense and Darwin was met with success - top clergymen were leading scientists - it is Britian that caused these conservative problems, yet soon Darwin was accepted as fact here also. Philo mentioned the contradiction in Genesis whereby man is created after/with the plants and animals - while later being created first. Philo teaches us to look deeper than the text, for some deeper meaning - perhaps if Augustine or Philo were about now, they would see ideas such as Darwin's evolutionary theory to be perfectly compatible, as they wouldn't take Genesis literally - a theist can be a strong man of God, and believe in evolution - agent and mechanism? Narrow minded creationism and narrow minded megadarwinists (or whatever Richard Dawkins is) are wrong in how they set out their ideals.
peace.