Perhaps someone might know. I have never heard recently nor do I recall
learning the purported cause of the Big Bang. Many theories are out there
though. I like others believe Gen 1:1-2 to describe before the big bang and
the "Let there be light" as the big bang. Here's a thought. God hovering
over the waters is the force of God which binds the singularity and keeps it
from expanding (pressure). At the moment when God says let there be light,
he releases his hold on the singularity and the surrounding vacuum of space,
or possibly gravitational force (although most say this did not exist prior,
but perhaps not in the singularity) pulls the universe outward. That of
course would explain the fact that the universe expands but not like an
explosion. Its dynamic is different. Proximity to a vacuum source or
gravitational force would cause things closer to the outer area of the
envelope/balloon to move faster than those further inside the balloon.
Without God's presence over the balloon we expand. This would also lead to
the conclusion that some come to when saying that God is not actively
involved in the Universe, but of course may intervene from time to time. God
essentially left the universe. You might say he was here for the
construction phase and now he's of course in day 7 kicking back and watching
us make fools of ourselves with ideas like this. Not to say that he's
sadistic mind you. Anyway, what's your take on this.?
Another thought. In a singularity matter is of course destroyed. Time stops
but gravity still surrounds it.
My thought: Gravity does not exist in the singularity due to the matter
drawn in which is destroyed. It exists separate but works in tandem. At some
point the gravitational hold is released and the singularity expands. Since
we know that matter develops as a natural part of the cooling down process,
perhaps it is the introduction of the one other things that has no
explanation for being. That is TIME. Since God exists without time, he is
the force binding it. Then when he introduces time into the equation, we
begin to expand and shall we say be created. Without this time, we would not
exist physically. Physical things have shape and distance, but without time
energy has no physical shape. So time is the one none physical
element/force. It does not effect anything directly. So why does it exist
and for what purpose? I would conclude that this is the catalyst for the
universe. Without it nothing would exist physically. I would further
conclude, that God is the energy that binds and surrounds us, but his
introduction of time is what made us. Essentially he did not have to make
each and every thing in the universe, but rather he only had to create time.
The rest happened as its result. To further express this, we also theorize
that the universe is infinite in size. I would say that it is not physically
infinite. Since time does not exist outside of the universe it appears
infinite to us, and is of course with respect to time. This is God's realm,
where time does not exist.
Scientists are also debating whether there is sufficient mass to cause the
collapse of the universe. Some point to black matter. If there is an unseen
force (absence of God) outside the universe, and God returns then would his
existence then cause the compression of the universe. As in Revelation, "the
stars roll up like a scroll". I wish I were a mathematician. I would love to
be able to do some serious calculations. The question would be, just as we
can only see back 12 billion years, if the universe were already beginning
to compress how long would it take for us to see this effect. Due to the
delay of light, it may well be already happening but we may not see it for
up to some billion years. And due to acceleration, by the time we do begin
to see the furthest stars coming in instead of out, our time would nearly be
up. It may well be that God will take time away and the whole thing will be
collapsed back together. And unlike creation which may take, relative to
time, billions of years, it would only take a second to undue it if time
were removed.
Don P
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Howard J. Van Till
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:18 PM
To: John (Burgy) Burgeson
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: YECs and the Big Bang.
>From: "John (Burgy) Burgeson" <hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com>
> "You may have seen those white on black billboards with their (usually
> legalistic) messages signed "God". One of them in this area a while ago
had
> God's message as "Big Bang? You've got to be kidding!""
>
> Somewhere recently (it may have been on this LISTSERV, but was more
likely
> in one Of Howard's books) I read that the "Big bang" was more of a
> "blossoming out" than an explosion. That picture of it is a lot more
> satisfying to me.
>
> Thinking about it I am almost sure it was in PORTRAITS OF CREATION, but
may
> have been in a section not written by Howard.
It's in my chapter on "The Scientific Investigation of Cosmic History," p.
110.
"But the big bang of which cosmologists speak is not at all like a
destructive or disordering explosion. Quite the contrary; the initial rapid
expansion of the universe is a constructive process that sets the stage and
prepares the players for the historical drama that is to follow. Perhaps
this primordial episode should be renamed. Instead of "big bang" we might
call it the "grand opening," or "act one" of the drama of cosmic history.
Or, to try a different metaphor, the first episode is not to be compared
with the boom of a nuclear bomb in wartime, but with the bloom of a flower
blossom in springtime. These metaphors may fail to have the dramatic appeal
of a big bang, but they more faithfully convey the idea that coherence,
integrity, order, and structure are developed, not destroyed, during the
initial episode of cosmic history."
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 17:54:42 EDT