.
Oscillating universe -
. Baby universes -
. Multi verses -
. The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario -
. The Chaotic Inflationary universe -
. Brane-cosmology -
. Inflationary multi-verse -
. Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum -
. The many worlds hypothesis -
. The black hole hypothesis -
. Quantum gravity models -
. Vacuum fluctuation models -
. Multi verses -
. The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario -
. The Chaotic Inflationary universe -
. Brane-cosmology -
. Inflationary multi-verse -
. Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum -
. The many worlds hypothesis -
. The black hole hypothesis -
. Quantum gravity models -
. Vacuum fluctuation models -
.
Imaginary time model
This
last one is from Stephen Hawking who got tremendously excited because
his imaginary time and imaginary numbers helped explain away a
universe with a beginning. He got so excited that he actually had to
be reminded by colleagues that he was dealing in fantasy. Such is the
life of a desperate atheist scientist.
“Over the years, atheists have tried on several different models of the universe that dodge the need for a beginning while still requiring a big bang. But recent research has shot them all full of holes. It now seems certain that the universe did have a beginning.”
“New
Scientist”
It's a bit risky to think that an opinion piece in a popular publication about science indicates a paradigm shift towards, of all possible things, a creator thesis. The scientific consensus is a bit different, and based on assumptions that have been verified by latest experiments. Have a look at L. Krauss, for example.
ReplyDeleteBut there is a much more important reason why the question of a starting point for the big bang does not give any credit to your sect:
If there were a "prime mover", and if Aristotelian physics were applicable for such a unique process as the begin of the universe we live in (two really big ifs), then it surely can't be that Christian melange a trois of deities.
In your own holy texts YHV (being, by the way, all alone - no son, no Ghost) claims that he created light and darkness(wherever the light may come from), and then parted the waters, (waters are above and under the earth), then parted water and land, and created plants, then put up sun, moon and stars, then birds and water animals, then land animals, finally humans in a special creation act
I won't comment on the holes in that creation myth, god's account is rather close to similar folkloric tales about the origin of it all.
Now, how by Brahma's navel can you think that funny myth describes the act of starting the big bang? Where does your holy text say or even imply "I, YHV, started the big bang?"
Instead we learn he's doing pottery and forgets to fix the stars before he makes the plants.
How human.
So, by YHV's own words, whatever he did, it was by no means the big bang.
Just as an afterthought.
The universe you claim YHV created is a pretty big affair. 200,000,000,000 Galaxies, 200,000,000,000 Stars in each Galaxies, and most, if not all of those stars have planets.
The rhythm of day and night depends on the rotational speed of each planet. Now, your god is said to have performed all these acts within six rotations of planet earth, and to have rested for the seventh day. I won't comment that an omnipotent god, like a mere human, wants some rest after he's done a whole universe. That's pretty anthropocentric.
What I want to know is why he chose the rotation period of one of a gazillion planets, earth, for his life cycle. Again, a view that is completely ignorant of even the existence of a solar system.
Whatever YHV may be, he surely can't be Aristotle's "prime mover", setting into motion all of the universe. Not this simpleton desert dweller potter god.