Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
58,343
edits
Changes
mLine 3:
Line 3: − + Line 18:
Line 18: − + Line 24:
Line 24: − + Line 35:
Line 35: − + Line 43:
Line 43: − + Line 94:
Line 94: − + Line 110:
Line 110: − + Line 126:
Line 126: − + − + − + − + Line 154:
Line 154: − + Line 161:
Line 161: − + Line 187:
Line 187: − + Line 220:
Line 220: − + Line 227:
Line 227: − + Line 237:
Line 237: − + Line 250:
Line 250: − + − + − +
HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://www.icr.org → https://www.icr.org (2), http://creation.com → https://creation.com (3), http://www.amazon.com → https://www.amazon.com
|-
|-
| style="padding:15px;" |«''The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man.»''
| style="padding:15px;" |«''The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man.»''
<div style="padding-left:40px;">— [[G.K. Chesterton]]<ref>{{cite book |title=The Book of Job, with an Introduction by G.K. Chesterton |chapter=An introduction |publisher=Cambridge Scholars Publishing |year=1907, 2010 |isbn=9781152628328 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=kzNHQwAACAAJ}}</ref> </div>
<div style="padding-left:40px;">— [[G.K. Chesterton]]<ref>{{cite book |title=The Book of Job, with an Introduction by G.K. Chesterton |chapter=An introduction |publisher=Cambridge Scholars Publishing |year=1907, 2010 |isbn=9781152628328 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kzNHQwAACAAJ}}</ref> </div>
|}
|}
In physical realms the '''singularity''' is an event that due to its nature is assumed to only happened once<ref name="LENNOX">{{cite book
In physical realms the '''singularity''' is an event that due to its nature is assumed to only happened once<ref name="LENNOX">{{cite book
|author=Christine Dao
|author=Christine Dao
|publisher=Institute for Creation Research
|publisher=Institute for Creation Research
|url=http://www.icr.org/article/3751/313/
|url=https://www.icr.org/article/3751/313/
|access date=02.02.2014
|access date=02.02.2014
}}</ref>|group=note}}, [[Isaac Newton]]{{#tag:ref|cf."This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "''pantokrator''," or Universal Ruler...Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where....God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance.…It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where....And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy." ''Newton, I.: General Scholium. Translated by Motte, A. 1825. Newton's Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy''<ref>{{cite web
}}</ref>|group=note}}, [[Isaac Newton]]{{#tag:ref|cf."This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "''pantokrator''," or Universal Ruler...Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where....God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance.…It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where....And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy." ''Newton, I.: General Scholium. Translated by Motte, A. 1825. Newton's Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy''<ref>{{cite web
|author=Christine Dao
|author=Christine Dao
|publisher=Institute for Creation Research
|publisher=Institute for Creation Research
|url=http://www.icr.org/article/newton/
|url=https://www.icr.org/article/newton/
|access date=22.04.2012
|access date=22.04.2012
}}</ref>|group=note}}, and [[Lord Kelvin|William Kelvin]] distinguished between primary and [[Natural causes|secondary (''natural'') causes]].{{#tag:ref|Adherents of [[methodological naturalism]] such as E.J.Larson often mistakenly portray these scientists from their position as "freely mix[ing] matters of supernatural and natural causation" without recognizing the real difference they made between primary and secondary (natural) causes.<ref>{{cite book
}}</ref>|group=note}}, and [[Lord Kelvin|William Kelvin]] distinguished between primary and [[Natural causes|secondary (''natural'') causes]].{{#tag:ref|Adherents of [[methodological naturalism]] such as E.J.Larson often mistakenly portray these scientists from their position as "freely mix[ing] matters of supernatural and natural causation" without recognizing the real difference they made between primary and secondary (natural) causes.<ref>{{cite book
|pages=350
|pages=350
|isbn=0-8129-6849-2
|isbn=0-8129-6849-2
|url=http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Remarkable-History-Scientific-Chronicles/dp/0679642889
|url=https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Remarkable-History-Scientific-Chronicles/dp/0679642889
|quote=Indeed, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, William Gilbert, John Ray, and many other prior scientific luminaries freely mixed matters of supernatural and natural causation.}}</ref> Adam Sedgwick's review of the [[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection|''Origin'']] published in the Spectator on 24 March 1860 criticised [[Darwin]]'s theory for unflinching materialism and for utterly repudiating final causes.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Darwin, C. R. to Lyell, Charles [24 Mar – 3 Apr 1860]|publisher=the University of Cambridge Darwin Correspondence Project |accessdate=17-Mar-2013|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2734#back-mark-2734.f5|quote=C.Darwin referes to a passage in Sedgwick's review ([Sedgwick] 1860, p. 286): But I cannot conclude without expressing my detestation of the theory, because of its unflinching materialism; … because it utterly repudiates final causes, and thereby indicates a demoralised understanding on the part of its advocates.}}</ref>|group=note}} A ''primary cause'' was meant to be a ''[[First Cause|first cause]]'' to explain singularities.<ref name="skeptics">{{Cite book
|quote=Indeed, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, William Gilbert, John Ray, and many other prior scientific luminaries freely mixed matters of supernatural and natural causation.}}</ref> Adam Sedgwick's review of the [[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection|''Origin'']] published in the Spectator on 24 March 1860 criticised [[Darwin]]'s theory for unflinching materialism and for utterly repudiating final causes.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Darwin, C. R. to Lyell, Charles [24 Mar – 3 Apr 1860]|publisher=the University of Cambridge Darwin Correspondence Project |accessdate=17-Mar-2013|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2734#back-mark-2734.f5|quote=C.Darwin referes to a passage in Sedgwick's review ([Sedgwick] 1860, p. 286): But I cannot conclude without expressing my detestation of the theory, because of its unflinching materialism; … because it utterly repudiates final causes, and thereby indicates a demoralised understanding on the part of its advocates.}}</ref>|group=note}} A ''primary cause'' was meant to be a ''[[First Cause|first cause]]'' to explain singularities.<ref name="skeptics">{{Cite book
| author = Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
| author = Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
| pages = 213–215
| pages = 213–215
| isbn = 978-0-8010-7164-5
| isbn = 978-0-8010-7164-5
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=hF24HwAACAAJ&dq=when+skeptics+ask&hl=en&sa=X&ei=imcgT7foFpPU4QS1m5yIDw&redir_esc=y
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=hF24HwAACAAJ&dq=when+skeptics+ask&hl=en&sa=X&ei=imcgT7foFpPU4QS1m5yIDw&redir_esc=y
| accessdate = 25.1.2012
| accessdate = 25.1.2012
| publisher = Victor Books, Baker Books
| publisher = Victor Books, Baker Books
|url=http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm
|url=http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm
|quote=You can imagine the problems though -- how do we interpret an infinite mass or infinite energy or infinite force? Usually we assume that there is some new set of laws or some new way of looking at the problem that makes the apparent singularity go away. ...Most people worry about singularities involving general relativity: two examples being a black hole and the singularity that classical general relativity predicts was our universe at the moment it began. If you try to apply the laws of general relativity in these situations you will inevitably find the same 1/x singularities I've been talking about. How are we going to resolve these singularities? We expect quantum mechanics to do the job, since it is the theory that correctly describes physics at small distance scales. Unfortunately, while we have good theories of atomic physics, we don't real have a good theory of quantum gravity. Many of us think string theory will ultimately provide the resolution to these problems. In short then, a singularity represents an infinity and we generally don't think nature is infinite. The problem arises from not having some kind of 'floor' built into a theory that keeps you from taking the limit of 1/x as x goes to zero. The way out is to apply a new theory that has such a floor, such as quantum mechanics or string theory (quantum gravity).}}</ref> According to C.J.S. Clarke, no final satisfactory statement emerges of what a singularity really is like.<ref>{{cite book
|quote=You can imagine the problems though -- how do we interpret an infinite mass or infinite energy or infinite force? Usually we assume that there is some new set of laws or some new way of looking at the problem that makes the apparent singularity go away. ...Most people worry about singularities involving general relativity: two examples being a black hole and the singularity that classical general relativity predicts was our universe at the moment it began. If you try to apply the laws of general relativity in these situations you will inevitably find the same 1/x singularities I've been talking about. How are we going to resolve these singularities? We expect quantum mechanics to do the job, since it is the theory that correctly describes physics at small distance scales. Unfortunately, while we have good theories of atomic physics, we don't real have a good theory of quantum gravity. Many of us think string theory will ultimately provide the resolution to these problems. In short then, a singularity represents an infinity and we generally don't think nature is infinite. The problem arises from not having some kind of 'floor' built into a theory that keeps you from taking the limit of 1/x as x goes to zero. The way out is to apply a new theory that has such a floor, such as quantum mechanics or string theory (quantum gravity).}}</ref> According to C.J.S. Clarke, no final satisfactory statement emerges of what a singularity really is like.<ref>{{cite book
|author=C.J.S. Clarke|title=The Analysis of Space-Time Singularities|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge, UK|year=1993|page=152|pages=175|isbn=0-521-43796-2|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=Mh9sT9moNM-Sswa6g5XQAg&id=aeUADsSiC1QC&dq=Clarke+The+analysis+of+space-time+singularities&q=final+satisfactory+statement#v=snippet&q=final%20satisfactory%20statement&f=false|quote=It is perhaps one of the disappointments of the subject of time-space singularities, as it was established by the definitive work of Hawking and Penrose in the early 1970s, that no final satisfactory statement emerges of what a singularity really is like.}}</ref> This is in fact just other way of saying and acknowledging that contemporary modern science has no satisfactory explanations on the origins of the universe, matter and life (i.e. physical existence) despite many scientists try, by using bluff, to make general public to think otherwise.<ref>{{cite web |title=About Deniable Darwin|url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php|accessdate=June 22, 2013|quote=When it comes to some of life’s most profound questions—the origins of life, of matter, of the universe itself—does modern science already have everything all figured out? Many scientists would like us to think they are mere steps away from solving all the deep enigmas of physical existence. Consummate skeptic David Berlinski shows that all such confidence is at best a bluff. In essays about evolution using humor and wit, Berlinski shows how lost today’s scientists really are. His new book The Deniable Darwin frees us from the superstition of preening [[scientism]] and illuminates the path to a renewal of real science.}}</ref>
|author=C.J.S. Clarke|title=The Analysis of Space-Time Singularities|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge, UK|year=1993|page=152|pages=175|isbn=0-521-43796-2|url=https://books.google.com/books?ei=Mh9sT9moNM-Sswa6g5XQAg&id=aeUADsSiC1QC&dq=Clarke+The+analysis+of+space-time+singularities&q=final+satisfactory+statement#v=snippet&q=final%20satisfactory%20statement&f=false|quote=It is perhaps one of the disappointments of the subject of time-space singularities, as it was established by the definitive work of Hawking and Penrose in the early 1970s, that no final satisfactory statement emerges of what a singularity really is like.}}</ref> This is in fact just other way of saying and acknowledging that contemporary modern science has no satisfactory explanations on the origins of the universe, matter and life (i.e. physical existence) despite many scientists try, by using bluff, to make general public to think otherwise.<ref>{{cite web |title=About Deniable Darwin|url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php|accessdate=June 22, 2013|quote=When it comes to some of life’s most profound questions—the origins of life, of matter, of the universe itself—does modern science already have everything all figured out? Many scientists would like us to think they are mere steps away from solving all the deep enigmas of physical existence. Consummate skeptic David Berlinski shows that all such confidence is at best a bluff. In essays about evolution using humor and wit, Berlinski shows how lost today’s scientists really are. His new book The Deniable Darwin frees us from the superstition of preening [[scientism]] and illuminates the path to a renewal of real science.}}</ref>
== The big bang singularity ==
== The big bang singularity ==
|date= 14 February 2002
|date= 14 February 2002
|publisher=BBC
|publisher=BBC
|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml
|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml
|quote=NARRATOR: If everything in the Universe was to be explained then String Theory and the Big Bang would now seamlessly merge and they'd complement each other perfectly. After all, one concerned the birth of the Universe and the other all the matter in it. It was surely a foregone conclusion. Physics seemed to be on the edge of glory, but it all went terribly wrong. Try as they might they just couldn't get the two ideas to merge and then, after 10 years of struggling, something even worse happened: their two pet theories now began to self-destruct. The first problem appeared with the Big Bang. The cosmologists had assumed that as they worked backwards in time they would eventually work their way back all the way to the beginning of the Big Bang. There would be no awkward gaps, but after years of end-less refinement there was one gap which refused to disappear, the most important one of all. ALAN GUTH: In spite of the fact that we call it the Big Bang Theory it really says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn't even describe, doesn't really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this bang. MICHIO KAKU: The fundamental problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the Big Bang. Well some people say what's wrong with that, what's wrong with having the laws of physics collapse? Well for a physicist this is a disaster. All our lives we've dedicated to the proposition that the Universe obeys knowable laws, laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics and here we have the centrepiece of the Universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law. NARRATOR: The very beginning of the Big Bang was the single biggest mystery in all of cosmology. It was called the singularity. PAUL STEINHARDT: When you extrapolate Einstein's general Theory of Relativity back to the beginning you discover what we call a singularity, a cosmic singularity, which is to say that the equations blow up.}}</ref>
|quote=NARRATOR: If everything in the Universe was to be explained then String Theory and the Big Bang would now seamlessly merge and they'd complement each other perfectly. After all, one concerned the birth of the Universe and the other all the matter in it. It was surely a foregone conclusion. Physics seemed to be on the edge of glory, but it all went terribly wrong. Try as they might they just couldn't get the two ideas to merge and then, after 10 years of struggling, something even worse happened: their two pet theories now began to self-destruct. The first problem appeared with the Big Bang. The cosmologists had assumed that as they worked backwards in time they would eventually work their way back all the way to the beginning of the Big Bang. There would be no awkward gaps, but after years of end-less refinement there was one gap which refused to disappear, the most important one of all. ALAN GUTH: In spite of the fact that we call it the Big Bang Theory it really says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn't even describe, doesn't really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this bang. MICHIO KAKU: The fundamental problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the Big Bang. Well some people say what's wrong with that, what's wrong with having the laws of physics collapse? Well for a physicist this is a disaster. All our lives we've dedicated to the proposition that the Universe obeys knowable laws, laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics and here we have the centrepiece of the Universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law. NARRATOR: The very beginning of the Big Bang was the single biggest mystery in all of cosmology. It was called the singularity. PAUL STEINHARDT: When you extrapolate Einstein's general Theory of Relativity back to the beginning you discover what we call a singularity, a cosmic singularity, which is to say that the equations blow up.}}</ref>
|url= http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_people_0_iv.html
|url= http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_people_0_iv.html
|access date= 09.03.2012
|access date= 09.03.2012
|quote= ESA: We seem to agree that the Big Bang started with an 'inflation', a short period of high-speed expansion. But what happened before that? Joseph Silk: Maybe long before inflation there was a Universe that was collapsing near a singularity, which then inflated again, so there was already a history before the Big Bang. Some people think there was a 'pre-Big Bang'. One possibility is that this pre-Big Bang, ''if there was such a place'', would have made lots of entropy (the amount of disorder in the Universe). And the Universe we live in does have huge amounts of entropy. That's one theory. But ''we have no understanding of how to change from collapsing to expanding. There's no physical way to explain that transition.'' Some people believe that they have explanations the pre-Big Bang, so it's a respectable theory.}}</ref> (cf. [[Victor J. Stenger]]: ''"In the scenario I presented, our universe is described as having "tunneled" through the [[chaos]] ...from ''prior universe'' that existed for all previous time"'';<ref name="WhomadeGod"/> Neil Turok, Cambridge University: ''"And the Big Bang is the aftermath of some encounter between two parallel worlds"''<ref name="BBC"/>{{#tag:ref|The idea of ''parallel universes'' is not new and it is native to many [[Gnostic]] heresies. Basilidean mythology, for instance, sets the number of ''"heavens"'' (cosmic spheres) at three hundred and sixty five.<ref name="Hart">{{cite book |title=Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies|author=David Bentley Hart|publisher=YALE University Press|year=2010|pages=140|isbn=978-03-0016-4299|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=NtG5QQAACAAJ&dq=Ateist+delusions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LWKgUezkCumF4ATem4DYCA&redir_esc=y}}</ref> According to [[Alan Guth]], evidently by applying the [[Logic of possibility]] and Gnostic thought, ''"essentially anything that can happen does happen in one of the alternatives which means that superimposed on top of the Universe that we know of is an alternative universe where Al Gore is President and Elvis Presley is still alive."''<ref name="BBC"/>|group=note}}), or put their hope to [[quantum mechanics]].<ref name="PhysLink"/><ref name="DismantlingBB">{{cite book|author=Alex Williams, John Hartnett|title=Dismantling the Big Bang|publisher=Master Books|location=Green Forest, AR, USA|year=2005|page=101|pages=346|isbn=978-0-89051-437-5|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartnett+dismantling+the+big+bang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvNwT_6nJJOP4gTP6fG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hartnett%20dismantling%20the%20big%20bang&f=false|quote=It is simply assumed that space was expanding right from the beginning and the substance of the universe "went along for the ride", and was thereby carried out of the singular state. No one can explain how, so they place their hope for an explanation in quantum gravity...At this stage it is still in the realm of speculation. ... Big-bang theory is based on the laws of physics but those laws cannot explain the important components of the model. The big-bang universe begins in a singularity (all matter, energy, space and time crushed into a point of infinite density) and there is no known mechanism to start the universe expanding out of the singularity - the equations in the theory only work after the expansion has begun.}}</ref> Some resort to the assertion that the world was ''uncaused'' (cf. [[Carl Sagan]]: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be")<ref name="skeptics"/> while other dismiss the question of ''the first cause'' altogether (cf. Hawking: "To ask what happened before the universe began is like asking for a point on the Earth at 91 degrees north latitude. Instead of talking about the universe being created, and maybe coming to and end, one should just say: the universe is.").<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>
|quote= ESA: We seem to agree that the Big Bang started with an 'inflation', a short period of high-speed expansion. But what happened before that? Joseph Silk: Maybe long before inflation there was a Universe that was collapsing near a singularity, which then inflated again, so there was already a history before the Big Bang. Some people think there was a 'pre-Big Bang'. One possibility is that this pre-Big Bang, ''if there was such a place'', would have made lots of entropy (the amount of disorder in the Universe). And the Universe we live in does have huge amounts of entropy. That's one theory. But ''we have no understanding of how to change from collapsing to expanding. There's no physical way to explain that transition.'' Some people believe that they have explanations the pre-Big Bang, so it's a respectable theory.}}</ref> (cf. [[Victor J. Stenger]]: ''"In the scenario I presented, our universe is described as having "tunneled" through the [[chaos]] ...from ''prior universe'' that existed for all previous time"'';<ref name="WhomadeGod"/> Neil Turok, Cambridge University: ''"And the Big Bang is the aftermath of some encounter between two parallel worlds"''<ref name="BBC"/>{{#tag:ref|The idea of ''parallel universes'' is not new and it is native to many [[Gnostic]] heresies. Basilidean mythology, for instance, sets the number of ''"heavens"'' (cosmic spheres) at three hundred and sixty five.<ref name="Hart">{{cite book |title=Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies|author=David Bentley Hart|publisher=YALE University Press|year=2010|pages=140|isbn=978-03-0016-4299|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NtG5QQAACAAJ&dq=Ateist+delusions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LWKgUezkCumF4ATem4DYCA&redir_esc=y}}</ref> According to [[Alan Guth]], evidently by applying the [[Logic of possibility]] and Gnostic thought, ''"essentially anything that can happen does happen in one of the alternatives which means that superimposed on top of the Universe that we know of is an alternative universe where Al Gore is President and Elvis Presley is still alive."''<ref name="BBC"/>|group=note}}), or put their hope to [[quantum mechanics]].<ref name="PhysLink"/><ref name="DismantlingBB">{{cite book|author=Alex Williams, John Hartnett|title=Dismantling the Big Bang|publisher=Master Books|location=Green Forest, AR, USA|year=2005|page=101|pages=346|isbn=978-0-89051-437-5|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartnett+dismantling+the+big+bang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvNwT_6nJJOP4gTP6fG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hartnett%20dismantling%20the%20big%20bang&f=false|quote=It is simply assumed that space was expanding right from the beginning and the substance of the universe "went along for the ride", and was thereby carried out of the singular state. No one can explain how, so they place their hope for an explanation in quantum gravity...At this stage it is still in the realm of speculation. ... Big-bang theory is based on the laws of physics but those laws cannot explain the important components of the model. The big-bang universe begins in a singularity (all matter, energy, space and time crushed into a point of infinite density) and there is no known mechanism to start the universe expanding out of the singularity - the equations in the theory only work after the expansion has begun.}}</ref> Some resort to the assertion that the world was ''uncaused'' (cf. [[Carl Sagan]]: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be")<ref name="skeptics"/> while other dismiss the question of ''the first cause'' altogether (cf. Hawking: "To ask what happened before the universe began is like asking for a point on the Earth at 91 degrees north latitude. Instead of talking about the universe being created, and maybe coming to and end, one should just say: the universe is.").<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>
== The hot big bang singularity ==
== The hot big bang singularity ==
The big bang singularity is sometimes named '''the ''hot'' big bang singularity''' to emphasize the fact <ref name="WhomadeGod"/> that while going back in the time towards the origin of the universe, all matter and ''energy'' in the universe gets squeezed together into a "pinhead" - a process that would make it "very, very, very ''hot''".<ref name="WhomadeGod"/><ref name="NAS"/> Hot Big Bang singularity appears to be in violation of [[The First Law of Thermodynamics|the first law of thermodynamics]] since the global energy needed to run universe has come from nowhere and the principles of nineteenth-century physics require that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Thus, the hot Big Bang singularity remains beyond any [[cause and effect|causal]] scheme and the creation of the universe is still unexplained by any force, field, power, potency, influence or instrumentality known to physics or humankind.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> The [hot] big bang singularity does not represent a physical concept, because it cannot be accommodated by a physical theory. It is a point at which physical theories give the way.<ref name="Devils"/>
The big bang singularity is sometimes named '''the ''hot'' big bang singularity''' to emphasize the fact <ref name="WhomadeGod"/> that while going back in the time towards the origin of the universe, all matter and ''energy'' in the universe gets squeezed together into a "pinhead" - a process that would make it "very, very, very ''hot''".<ref name="WhomadeGod"/><ref name="NAS"/> Hot Big Bang singularity appears to be in violation of [[The First Law of Thermodynamics|the first law of thermodynamics]] since the global energy needed to run universe has come from nowhere and the principles of nineteenth century physics require that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Thus, the hot Big Bang singularity remains beyond any [[cause and effect|causal]] scheme and the creation of the universe is still unexplained by any force, field, power, potency, influence or instrumentality known to physics or humankind.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> The [hot] big bang singularity does not represent a physical concept, because it cannot be accommodated by a physical theory. It is a point at which physical theories give the way.<ref name="Devils"/>
== Antipathy to the idea of beginning ==
== Antipathy to the idea of beginning ==
''See Also:'' [[Horror of a Divine Foot]]<br/>
''See Also:'' [[Horror of a Divine Foot]]<br/>
[[John Lennox|J.C. Lennox]] points out that the supporters of various schools of [[materialism]] violate the scientific [[Socratic principle]] by letting their worldview to play a role in their antipathy to the idea of beginning. Among them are [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] (cf. ''"Did the God created the world, or has the world been in existence eternally?"''), [[Stephen Hawking]] (cf.''"the idea that the time has beginning...smacks of divine intervention"'') and Sir John Maddox, a former editor of ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' (cf. ''"ultimite origin of our world [gave creationists] ample justification [for their beliefs]"'').<ref name="LENNOX"/> To many the notion of the beginning of the universe was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event -the creation.<ref>{{cite book |title=Darwin's Black Box |author=Michael J. Behe |publisher=Free Press |location= New York, London |year=1996, 2006 |pages=244 |isbn=978-0743-290319 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=4IKhPwAACAAJ&dq=behe+darwin%27s+black+box&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DEPBUbS_GoKI4gT9oYCoBg&redir_esc=y}}</ref> The prominent physicist [[Arthur Eddington|A.S. Eddington]] also voiced his utter disgust with such an idea:
[[John Lennox|J.C. Lennox]] points out that the supporters of various schools of [[materialism]] violate the scientific [[Socratic principle]] by letting their worldview to play a role in their antipathy to the idea of beginning. Among them are [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] (cf. ''"Did the God created the world, or has the world been in existence eternally?"''), [[Stephen Hawking]] (cf.''"the idea that the time has beginning...smacks of divine intervention"'') and Sir John Maddox, a former editor of ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' (cf. ''"ultimite origin of our world [gave creationists] ample justification [for their beliefs]"'').<ref name="LENNOX"/> To many the notion of the beginning of the universe was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event -the creation.<ref>{{cite book |title=Darwin's Black Box |author=Michael J. Behe |publisher=Free Press |location= New York, London |year=1996, 2006 |pages=244 |isbn=978-0743-290319 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4IKhPwAACAAJ&dq=behe+darwin%27s+black+box&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DEPBUbS_GoKI4gT9oYCoBg&redir_esc=y}}</ref> The prominent physicist [[Arthur Eddington|A.S. Eddington]] also voiced his utter disgust with such an idea:
''"Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind"''<ref>{{cite book |author=John MacQueen, Stanley L. Jaki |title=Cosmos and creator |publisher=Scottish Academic Press |year=1980 |pages=5, 145|isbn=978-0707-302904|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=i0PBUe-qOoiC4ATMjIDwDw&id=MhouAAAAMAAJ&dq=jaki+cosmos+and+creator&q=repugnant#search_anchor}}</ref> The late Professor [[Carl Sagan|C. Sagan]] wrote in the introduction to the book ''"A brief history of time"'' by [[Stephen Hawking]] that ''"This book is also about God...or perhaps about the absence of God...a universe with no edge in space and no beginning or end in time [leaves] nothing for the Creator to do."''<ref name="DismantlingBB"/>{{#tag:ref|cf.[[Horror of a unique position]]|group=note}}
''"Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind"''<ref>{{cite book |author=John MacQueen, Stanley L. Jaki |title=Cosmos and creator |publisher=Scottish Academic Press |year=1980 |pages=5, 145|isbn=978-0707-302904|url=https://books.google.com/books?ei=i0PBUe-qOoiC4ATMjIDwDw&id=MhouAAAAMAAJ&dq=jaki+cosmos+and+creator&q=repugnant#search_anchor}}</ref> The late Professor [[Carl Sagan|C. Sagan]] wrote in the introduction to the book ''"A brief history of time"'' by [[Stephen Hawking]] that ''"This book is also about God...or perhaps about the absence of God...a universe with no edge in space and no beginning or end in time [leaves] nothing for the Creator to do."''<ref name="DismantlingBB"/>{{#tag:ref|cf.[[Horror of a unique position]]|group=note}}
The similar position was in the 18th century expressed by [[James Hutton]], whose aphorism ''"The revolt, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find [[Age of the Earth#Evolutionists vs. .E2.80.9Codius spectre.E2.80.9D Kelvin|no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end]]"'' was acсompanying the onset of [[uniformitarian]] [[geology]] and [[Darwinian]] [[evolutionism]]. Their partisans however were not only ones having problem with the idea of beginning. As late as in 1913, Arthur Holmes wrote that ''"Even at the present day there exist barbaric tribes to whom it has never occured that the earth may have had a beginning."''<ref name="Holmes1913">{{cite web |title= The age of the earth |author= Arthur Holmes |publisher= Harper |place=London |year= 1913 |chapter=1 |pages=1 |url= https://archive.org/details/ageofearth00holmuoft |accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote= }}</ref>
The similar position was in the 18th century expressed by [[James Hutton]], whose aphorism ''"The revolt, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find [[Age of the Earth#Evolutionists vs. .E2.80.9Codius spectre.E2.80.9D Kelvin|no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end]]"'' was acсompanying the onset of [[uniformitarian]] [[geology]] and [[Darwinian]] [[evolutionism]]. Their partisans however were not only ones having problem with the idea of beginning. As late as in 1913, Arthur Holmes wrote that ''"Even at the present day there exist barbaric tribes to whom it has never occured that the earth may have had a beginning."''<ref name="Holmes1913">{{cite web |title= The age of the earth |author= Arthur Holmes |publisher= Harper |place=London |year= 1913 |chapter=1 |pages=1 |url= https://archive.org/details/ageofearth00holmuoft |accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote= }}</ref>
|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=naked-singularities
|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=naked-singularities
|access date=08.03.2012
|access date=08.03.2012
|quote=A black hole has two parts. At its core is a singularity, the infinitesimal point into which all the matter of the star gets crushed. Surrounding the singularity is the region of space from which escape is impossible, the perimeter of which is called the event horizon. Once something enters the event horizon, it loses all hope of exiting. Whatever light the falling body gives off is trapped, too, so an outside observer never sees it again. It ultimately crashes into the singularity. Conventional wisdom has it that a large star eventually collapses to a black hole, but some theoretical models suggest it might instead become a so-called naked singularity. Sorting out what happens is one of the most important unresolved problems in [[astrophysics]].The discovery of naked singularities would transform the search for a unified theory of physics, not least by providing direct observational tests of such a theory.}}</ref> Berlinski writes with irony that until recently, great physicists have attempted with dignity to respect the distinction between what is known and what is not. He continues that contemporary cosmologists compromised their scrupulousness and feel free to say anything that pops into their heads, uncorrected by any criticism beyond the trivial.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>{{#tag:ref|cf."When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything."<ref>{{cite book|author=Don Bierle|title=Surprised by Faith|chapter=3|publisher=FaithSearch International (www.faithsearch.org)|location=Chaska, MN, USA|year=2004|page=67|pages=143|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=iP7tAQAACAAJ&dq=DonBierle+Surprised+by+faith&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z5FnT4rkLqOo4gTRl9D6Bw&redir_esc=y|isbn=978-0-9714-1008-4|quote=}}</ref> (paraphrased G.K. Chesterton) or more precisely attributed: "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense." ([[G.K. Chesterton]]) "The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything" (É.L. Cammaerts)<ref>{{cite journal|author=Nigel Rees |title=First things|year=1997|issue=69-74|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=NuQnAAAAYAAJ&q=%22The+first+effect+of+not+believing+in+God+is+to+believe+in+anything%22|quote=}}</ref>|group=note}}
|quote=A black hole has two parts. At its core is a singularity, the infinitesimal point into which all the matter of the star gets crushed. Surrounding the singularity is the region of space from which escape is impossible, the perimeter of which is called the event horizon. Once something enters the event horizon, it loses all hope of exiting. Whatever light the falling body gives off is trapped, too, so an outside observer never sees it again. It ultimately crashes into the singularity. Conventional wisdom has it that a large star eventually collapses to a black hole, but some theoretical models suggest it might instead become a so-called naked singularity. Sorting out what happens is one of the most important unresolved problems in [[astrophysics]].The discovery of naked singularities would transform the search for a unified theory of physics, not least by providing direct observational tests of such a theory.}}</ref> Berlinski writes with irony that until recently, great physicists have attempted with dignity to respect the distinction between what is known and what is not. He continues that contemporary cosmologists compromised their scrupulousness and feel free to say anything that pops into their heads, uncorrected by any criticism beyond the trivial.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>{{#tag:ref|cf."When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything."<ref>{{cite book|author=Don Bierle|title=Surprised by Faith|chapter=3|publisher=FaithSearch International (www.faithsearch.org)|location=Chaska, MN, USA|year=2004|page=67|pages=143|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iP7tAQAACAAJ&dq=DonBierle+Surprised+by+faith&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z5FnT4rkLqOo4gTRl9D6Bw&redir_esc=y|isbn=978-0-9714-1008-4|quote=}}</ref> (paraphrased G.K. Chesterton) or more precisely attributed: "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense." ([[G.K. Chesterton]]) "The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything" (É.L. Cammaerts)<ref>{{cite journal|author=Nigel Rees |title=First things|year=1997|issue=69-74|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NuQnAAAAYAAJ&q=%22The+first+effect+of+not+believing+in+God+is+to+believe+in+anything%22|quote=}}</ref>|group=note}}
== Einstein on singularity ==
== Einstein on singularity ==
== Biological singularity ==
== Biological singularity ==
According to [[Werner Gitt|W.Gitt]] the French chemist and microbiologist [[Louis Pasteur|L.Pasteur]] in 1864 rejected the doctrine of [[spontaneous generation]] of living cells in his historical lecture at the Sorbonne university in Paris and formulated a [[scientific law]] about life expressed in latin words like [[Law of biogenesis|''Omne vivum ex vivo'']] (All life comes [only] from life) that has never been disproved by [[experiment]].<ref name="Excuse">{{cite book
According to [[Werner Gitt|W.Gitt]] the French chemist and microbiologist [[Louis Pasteur|L.Pasteur]] in 1864 rejected the doctrine of [[spontaneous generation]] of living cells in his historical lecture at the Sorbonne university in Paris and formulated a [[scientific law]] about life expressed in Latin words like [[Law of biogenesis|''Omne vivum ex vivo'']] (All life comes [only] from life) that has never been disproved by [[experiment]].<ref name="Excuse">{{cite book
|title=Without Excuse
|title=Without Excuse
|author=Werner Gitt
|author=Werner Gitt
|pages=390
|pages=390
|isbn=0-520-02649-7
|isbn=0-520-02649-7
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=NMAf65cDmAQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ayala+Studies+in+the+Philosophy+of+Biology&source=bl&ots=_AdLVUJ-Ty&sig=DgTuY14OElB3PW9uTfvfZBM7VnU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uhxiULPQB4SB4gSeooCoCg&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=barrier&f=false
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NMAf65cDmAQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ayala+Studies+in+the+Philosophy+of+Biology&source=bl&ots=_AdLVUJ-Ty&sig=DgTuY14OElB3PW9uTfvfZBM7VnU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uhxiULPQB4SB4gSeooCoCg&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=barrier&f=false
|quote=What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.(quoted Popper, K.R., 1974. Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science)
|quote=What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.(quoted Popper, K.R., 1974. Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science)
}}</ref>
}}</ref>
|publisher= JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(3) creation.com
|publisher= JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(3) creation.com
|date = 2009
|date = 2009
|url= http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_103-109.pdf
|url= https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_103-109.pdf
|access date=27.09.2012
|access date=27.09.2012
}}</ref> or in 'An interview with creationist physicist/cosmologist John Hartnett'.<ref>{{cite web
}}</ref> or in 'An interview with creationist physicist/cosmologist John Hartnett'.<ref>{{cite web
|publisher= Creation 25(4):37–39
|publisher= Creation 25(4):37–39
|date = September 2003
|date = September 2003
|url= http://creation.com/exploding-the-big-bang
|url= https://creation.com/exploding-the-big-bang
|access date=27.09.2012
|access date=27.09.2012
}}</ref>|group=note}} are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."<ref name="WhomadeGod"/> The [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] object to God as a final explanation for ''ultimate cause'', yet they themselves have no explanation for the existence of the mass/energy of which the universe is formed and thus must regard it essentially as a ''brute fact''. Due to the [[law of causality]], [[explanation in science]], if it is to avoid [[infinite regress]], always leads to certain things that are regarded as ''ultimate''.<ref name="LENNOX"/> American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist Robert Jastrow closes his book ''God and the Astronomers'' with these words: "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the ''power of reason'', the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."<ref name="Jastrow">{{cite book
}}</ref>|group=note}} are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."<ref name="WhomadeGod"/> The [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] object to God as a final explanation for ''ultimate cause'', yet they themselves have no explanation for the existence of the mass/energy of which the universe is formed and thus must regard it essentially as a ''brute fact''. Due to the [[law of causality]], [[explanation in science]], if it is to avoid [[infinite regress]], always leads to certain things that are regarded as ''ultimate''.<ref name="LENNOX"/> American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist Robert Jastrow closes his book ''God and the Astronomers'' with these words: "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the ''power of reason'', the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."<ref name="Jastrow">{{cite book
|page=107
|page=107
|isbn=978-0-393-85006-2
|isbn=978-0-393-85006-2
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1IfLYHv5pyUC&dq=inauthor:%22Robert+Jastrow%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cF9aT6TIMcPe4QSK77jeDw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA}}</ref>
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1IfLYHv5pyUC&dq=inauthor:%22Robert+Jastrow%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cF9aT6TIMcPe4QSK77jeDw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA}}</ref>
== Notes ==
== Notes ==
== External links ==
== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pP8ENlWfRk&feature=related ''The Case for a Creator'']: [[Lee Strobel]] & [[William Lane Craig]] on the [[Big Bang]] and the [[Cosmological argument#Cosmological arguments|Kalam Cosmological Argument]]
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pP8ENlWfRk&feature=related ''The Case for a Creator'']: [[Lee Strobel]] & [[William Lane Craig]] on the [[Big Bang]] and the [[Cosmological argument#Cosmological arguments|Kalam Cosmological Argument]]
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_13-14.pdf Daniel Schmidt: [[String theory]] and the origin of the universe—new idea, old problem]
*[https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_13-14.pdf Daniel Schmidt: [[String theory]] and the origin of the universe—new idea, old problem]
[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]
[[Category:Philosophy of Science]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Physics]]