Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Physics of Creation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    BINGO!!!

    I guessed right. I happen to have been reading his book, The Physics of Christianity, just this past week, and still have it on my nightstand.

    What a wild ride!!!

    -------

    Event Date: June 3, 2007 at 2:00 pm
    Location: Baxter Lecture Hall
    Speakers:
    Dr. Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University and the author of The Physics of Christianity, The Physics of Immortality, and The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
    Dr. Lawrence Krauss is Professor of Physics and Astronomy and Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, and the author of Hiding in the Mirror, Atom, Quintessence, and The Physics of Star Trek.
    In his book, The Physics of Christianity, Dr. Tipler argues that the God depicted by Jews and Christians, the Uncaused First Cause, is completely consistent with the Cosmological Singularity, an entity whose existence is required by physical law.
    How much mathematics are in the book and to what level? I haven’t studied math in some while, so if it is full of partial differential equations, count me out.
    So, what?

    believe it!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Roberterasmus View Post
      Bob,

      The stars were not necessarily "formed" on the fourth day. The term “let there be” is not necessarily a term for creation. Rather, there is a more commonsensical way in which to view the “days” of Genesis 1.

      The logical usage of terms "night" and "day", "evening and morning" in verse 5 of Genesis 1 (by Moses, by revelation) assumes the regular day that the Bible uses for 24 hours (I know you know this, but please hear me out…), but it also assumes a sun; one providing a morning and setting in order for there to be an evening. With the simple reading of verse 1, that the "heavens and the earth" were created and that God set to work on earth in verse 2 (you of all people note that the heavens are not in need of work), as it also logically and progressively states, the work on the stars on the fourth day isn't creation, but rather visibility. Let me explain.

      If Job 38 be believed, then there is comment on the beginnings there: In verse 4 God says to Job, “ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” Then He says, “ Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (verse 6 and 7) We see that we are at the beginning of all things and that it is established when God says of the earth, “ When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it,” (verse 9) Do we not see the “birth” of the earth and its swaddling in darkness reminiscent of Genesis 1:2 (that’s rhetorical, BTW)? The “darkness upon the face of the deep” could not be more clear; it was a band, a covering over the whole of God’s already created earth.

      The part that throws off or confuses most Christians when reading the Genesis account is the point of view of the author, Moses. The logical viewpoint is one who is ON the surface of the planet (certainly Moses had to have been “caught away” in the spirit, like many of the prophets, to write about such matters which were not personally experienced by him). If this be so then when the words are uttered, “Let there be light” we can see that the swaddling band had to have been dissipated somewhat for there to be an “evening and a morning”, else why use the words. You wouldn't if it were not so! Truth is truth.

      Bob, I contend that the account in verses 14 through 18 are not creation of heavenly bodies, but their appearance to someone ON the earth. So it is for the activities of the other days (literal days, BTW, as I’m sure you agree). What usually skews the Christian understanding is verse 16 where the English is translated, “And God MADE two great lights…” The semantic range of the Hebrew word for “made” is so great and yet we have squeezed it to mean, “create”. That is just not so ( I don't think it was ever translated "create" in the KJV....haven't checked other versions). It is better handled with the English verb “do” or “accomplish something”. The accomplishment here, in the context, was to “give” (the actual better translation for “set them” in verse 17) the lights in the firmament of heaven for “signs and seasons, for days and years”. They were to “rule” (most recent translation have “govern”, which is OK).

      This context is not about creating them, but (and pardon the pun) creating a more perfect role for the lights as God prepared (not created) the earth for the coming human population. I think you will see a more consistent thread of thought here when you translate things according to all the information that the Word provides.

      Bob
      You make some good points. Unfortunately we are all speculating here, and each person has their favorite speculation.

      My opinion is still that Moses gathered together (edited) a number of accounts and formed the single book of Genesis using written documents that were extant in his day. http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html

      That doesnt address the creation account, but it does explain the rest of Genesis.
      Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
      Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Ktoyou View Post
        How much mathematics are in the book and to what level? I haven’t studied math in some while, so if it is full of partial differential equations, count me out.
        The math is pretty obtuse for most people including me. The basic problem with understanding math equations in a specialized field is that one has to be very well acquainted with all the variables and their names and concepts before one can be fluent in reading the equations and understanding the implications.

        I am not at that point in the field where Tippler specializes, nor are the vast majority of people. But it is my opinion that it is not all that difficult to understand the concepts once one gets beyond having to puzzle over each variable and term one at a time.

        At least that has been my experience having worked on some seemingly horrifically complex and involved mathematical manipulations in another field: numerical techniques for solving partial differential equations, where one mildly famous technique bears my name (as well as 2 other colleagues).
        Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
        Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

        Comment


        • #34
          Bob,

          You are correct the link does not comment on the physics of creation. Regardless of how we think Moses put the pen to paper we are still confronted as Christians with the reality (not speculation, mind you) of "evening and morning, the first day" and what this points to in logical sequence; a sun and its light appearing to man.

          Your position of a "young earth" need only be modified by reading a "young biosphere" instead. Have all your theories of Noah's flood contributing to the fossil record, but leave the earth as old as the heavens (Genesis 1:1).

          re

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Roberterasmus View Post
            Have all your theories of Noah's flood contributing to the fossil record, but leave the earth as old as the heavens (Genesis 1:1).
            Frankly, I see no great necessity to do so, because it seems to limit what God might have done and scripture seems to be clear about there being six days.

            On the other hand I could be wrong. Of course I don't think I am in this case.

            Let's just say I like the idea of God "stretching out the heavens" rapidly on the first day, which may solve the starlight travel time problem and might also explain radioactivity and the apparent long ages of the rocks.

            And since the Earth is mentioned after the heavens, it was probably formed by God from material that had already been radioactively "aged" by the rapid expansion of space.
            Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
            Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

            Comment


            • #36
              Bob,

              I think you misunderstand my very Biblical stand on the days. They are literal, but they are not "creative" days of 24 hours, but rather "work" days. The Bible is very clear on Creation: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Then the book focuses on the earth.

              I also believe in the "stretching out of the heavens", but I do not see why you limit it to "rapidly on the first day". I don't see that explicitly called out and I don't see any reason to "solve the starlight travel time problem". There is no problem with starlight and time the way Genesis 1 describes things unless you force an interpretation that makes the six days "creation" days as opposed to "work" days.

              re

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Roberterasmus View Post
                Bob,

                I think you misunderstand my very Biblical stand on the days. They are literal, but they are not "creative" days of 24 hours, but rather "work" days. The Bible is very clear on Creation: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Then the book focuses on the earth.

                I also believe in the "stretching out of the heavens", but I do not see why you limit it to "rapidly on the first day". I don't see that explicitly called out and I don't see any reason to "solve the starlight travel time problem". There is no problem with starlight and time the way Genesis 1 describes things unless you force an interpretation that makes the six days "creation" days as opposed to "work" days.

                re
                I can understand your position, but I do not agree with it.
                Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Supremum View Post
                  GPS is the greatest achievement of Special Relativity.
                  Actually, GPS is the most common application of General Relativity, since clocks in a weaker gravitational field will tend to run more quickly. So those clocks up in the satellites will run faster than the ones here on the surface of the Earth, and in fact when they designed the GPS satellites they implemented a General Relativity switch, and quickly turned it on when they realized they needed it.
                  Tiger got to hunt,
                  Bird got to fly
                  Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why why?
                  Tiger got to sleep,
                  Bird got to land,
                  Man got to tell himself he understand.
                  -Bokonon

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by CRMRC View Post
                    Actually, GPS is the most common application of General Relativity, since clocks in a weaker gravitational field will tend to run more quickly. So those clocks up in the satellites will run faster than the ones here on the surface of the Earth, and in fact when they designed the GPS satellites they implemented a General Relativity switch, and quickly turned it on when they realized they needed it.
                    There is a good discussion of this by a scientist who was actually involved in the project when he was with the Bureau of Standards (as I recall). I will find and post the link.

                    http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog.../gps-twins.asp
                    and
                    http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...relativity.asp


                    He has a slightly different "take" on it.
                    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X