Big Bang vs. Creation of Mature Universe = Same thing

di11on

Hi folks,

I've been thinking about two ideas that are usually presented as alternatives, but in my view must actually be identical. Bear with me.

So take the conventional scientific view of the development of the universe. Some initial event - call it the Big Bang eventually leads to the universe as we know it today.

Young Earth creationists will explain the embedded history of the universe by saying that God could create a tree with rings in it, for example, illustrating that God could instantaneously create a mature universe.

For the sake of argument, let's say God did create this mature universe. Let's also take this example of the tree with rings. God instantly creates a mature universe with trees, which have rings. These rings would need to be consistent with the physical biological processes that would lead to them. So if God instantly created a world with a certain tree that had certain rings, that tree would have to have an implied age.

Let's extend this idea. The furthest star visible to the naked eye is 16,308 light years away meaning that it took the light 16,308 years to get here from there. The furthest detected astronomical objects are 13 billion light years away meaning that the radiation from them took 13 billion years to get here. God could have instantly created these objects but for a consistent universe, he would have had to also instantly create the universe with the light already on its way to us, in the same way that a tree would be created with rings. So similarly to the fact that the tree rings imply an age of that tree, the processes that lead to light reaching us from distant stars etc imply a certain minimum age for these objects and the universe in general.

Then take gravitational waves, now we're going back even further. If you believe that the universe was created mature with these waves already on their way, then you must accept the implied process and the fact this this constitutes an implied age for the universe.

So while you may believe in an instantly created mature universe, you must also believe that things like tree rings, visible distant astronomical objects, fossils, etc. etc. etc. all represent an embedded or suggested history, built into the mature universe.

So, the scientist explains the processes that explain this embedded history of the universe and this is consistent with how the processes will continue to explain future events also.

So it actually makes no difference whatsoever whether you believe in a mature instantly created universe or a universe that developed over billions and billions of years, you are really believing the same thing because the embedded history still has to be explained.

This was the main conclusion of my thought experiment - but here's a final thought:

Distant astronomical objects exhibit a phenomenon called redshift, meaning that the frequency of radiation from distant objects appears higher relative to closer objects. This is usually explained by assuming the universe is expanding over time. What if it was, but in the sense that spacetime is expanding - or that time was expanding. This could mean that all the suggested history of the universe actually happened very quickly, thus essentially reconciling both ideas?

Thoughts?

Edit: What I'm saying is, if you don't believe in the Big Bang but rather the instant creation of a mature universe, this "mature universe" implies the Big Bang anyway, so it's the same thing.

desertcircus

di11on wrote: »

Hi folks,

I've been thinking about two ideas that are usually presented as alternatives, but in my view must actually be identical. Bear with me.

So take the convention scientific view of the development of the universe. Some initial event - call it the Big Bang eventually leads to the universe as we know it today.

Young Earth creationists will explain the embedded history of the universe by saying that God could create a tree with rings in it, for example, illustrating that God could instantaneously create a mature universe.

For the sake of argument, let's say God did create this mature universe. Let's also take this example of the tree with rings. God instantly creates a mature universe with trees, which have rings. These rings would need to be consistent with the physical biological processes that would lead to them. So if God instantly created a world with a certain tree that had certain rings, that tree would have to have an implied age.

Let's extend this idea. The furthest star visible to the naked eye is 16,308 light years away meaning that it took the light 16,308 years to get here from there. The furthest detected astronomical objects are 13 billion light years away meaning that the radiation from them took 13 billion years to get here. God could have instantly created these objects but for a consistent universe, he would have had to also instantly create the universe with the light already on its way to us, in the same way that a tree would be created with rings. So similarly to the fact that the tree rings imply an age of that tree, the processes that lead to light reaching us from distant stars etc imply a certain minimum age for these objects and the universe in general.

Then take gravitational waves, now we're going back even further. If you believe that the universe was created mature with these waves already on their way, then you must accept the implied process and the fact this this constitutes an implied age for the universe.

So while you may believe in an instantly created mature universe, you must also believe that things like tree rings, visible distant astronomical objects, fossils, etc. etc. etc. all represent an embedded or suggested history, built into the mature universe.

So, the scientist explains the processes that explain this embedded history of the universe and this is consistent with how the processes will continue to explain future events also.

So it actually makes no difference whatsoever whether you believe in a mature instantly created universe or a universe that developed over billions and billions of years, you are really believing the same thing because the embedded history still has to be explained.

This was the main conclusion of my thought experiment - but here's a final thought:

Distant astronomical objects exhibit a phenomenon called redshift, meaning that the frequency of radiation from distant objects appears higher relative to closer objects. This is usually explained by assuming the universe is expanding over time. What if it was, but in the sense that spacetime is expanding - or that time was expanding. This could mean that all the suggested history of the universe actually happened very quickly, thus essentially reconciling both ideas?

Thoughts?

Why does the Big Bang require embedded history?

di11on

desertcircus wrote: »

Why does the Big Bang require embedded history?

No no, that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, if you don't believe in the Big Bang but rather the instant creation of a mature universe, this "mature universe" implies the Big Bang anyway, so it's the same thing.

I'll edit the original post to make this clearer.

Overheal

So how do I know the universe wasn't created this morning and everything in it, including my memories and perception of time, were built in their static position as a function of time f(t)=t^4+t^3+t^2+t^1

then when it was set into motion, POOF, suddenly f'(t) f''(t) and f'''(t) etc begin functioning.

Seems more like a thought experiment than a theory OP.

It seems the most logical when making an enclosed system (a universe) to created a single function (a bang) from which all other functions are derived, rather than the rather bizarre concept that there is an infinite matrix of accelerations, energies, velocities, and times for everything, which were foiled out at an arbitrary point in the history of the universe (cough 6000 yrs) and set into motion with each and every equation in this infinite matrix all true to one another. And I appreciate the irony of the appeal to nature here.

The book, Conversations with God, opens up with what I thought was a greater analogy of God that coexists with the Big Bang and throws out this creationist nonsense: if god is everything he was at one time all matter and energy at the singularity of the universe, which after some indeterminate time exploded - or in theological terms, wished to know itself, which must be done through reflection, and thus splitting into an ever increasing number of equal and/or complex parts.

di11on

Overheal wrote: »

It seems the most logical when making an enclosed system (a universe) to created a single function (a bang) from which all other functions are derived, rather than the rather bizarre concept that there is an infinite matrix of accelerations, energies, velocities, and times for everything...

That is my point

Blackhorse Slim

Young earth creationists are making up "facts" to fit their theory. Science comes up with theories to explain observable facts. There is no reason to think they could both be right.

Harika

Why would god make it appear that the universe is 13 billion years old, when he is anyway timeless and he could have created it 13 billion years ago, wait for 13 billion year and then create mankind and send Jesus? BTW: Pastafarians "believe", that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe 5000 years ago but makes it look like it is 13 billion years old to test their faith.

EirWatcher

Overheal wrote: »

if god is everything he was at one time all matter and energy at the singularity of the universe, which after some indeterminate time exploded - or in theological terms, wished to know itself, which must be done through reflection, and thus splitting into an ever increasing number of equal and/or complex parts.

God is supernatural.
Can you conflate His nature and the (more limited) nature of His creation?

Overheal

EirWatcher wrote: »

God is supernatural.
Can you conflate His nature and the (more limited) nature of His creation?

God in this hyperbole is the programmer, and evolution, kinematics, gravity, energy, etc. are the functions and code.

Like any good programmer, God wouldn't sit there at the cosmic keyboard and type out every 0 and 1 (or Qbit or Cosmo-bit). That would be exceedingly tedious, and beyond the need of such an omnipotent being who could simply create a base procedural function (involving the number 42 somewhere) that once ran would create all things from the initial values (the singularity at the center at the universe aka the big crunch of mass and energy)

di11on

Overheal wrote: »

God in this hyperbole is the programmer, and evolution, kinematics, gravity, energy, etc. are the functions and code.

Like any good programmer, God wouldn't sit there at the cosmic keyboard and type out every 0 and 1 (or Qbit or Cosmo-bit). That would be exceedingly tedious, and beyond the need of such an omnipotent being who could simply create a base procedural function (involving the number 42 somewhere) that once ran would create all things from the initial values (the singularity at the center at the universe aka the big crunch of mass and energy)

Yes... a process and the initial conditions, with us as the intended result.

EirWatcher

Overheal wrote: »

God in this hyperbole is the programmer, and evolution, kinematics, gravity, energy, etc. are the functions and code.

I hope He debugged it first!

... or maybe that's our job

Stealthfins

I often wondered if light speeds up when going through space.
Maybe celestial objects are much closer than we think.

The Chieftain

Seems to me that this and several other threads are just a form of trolling, with "science" as the bait. I thought this was the Christianity forum, not cosmology or general relativity.

Delirium

The Chieftain wrote: »

Seems to me that this and several other threads are just a form of trolling, with "science" as the bait. I thought this was the Christianity forum, not cosmology or general relativity.

MOD NOTE

If you see posts that you view as trolling, please report them.

Don't make accusations on thread/ derail threads.

Thanks for your attention.

hinault

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

If you see posts that you view as trolling, please report them.

Don't make accusations on thread/ derail threads.

Thanks for your attention.

Why?

This section of the site isn't being moderated.