Are there any resources that attempt to explain:
Thank you.
Greetings and welcome! Are you asking from a scientific standpoint? I donât think that they offer anything different from that
Like @Randy, Iâm not really sure what you mean here. I would also add, Iâm not sure what you are trying to get at with these questions? Are these kind of like gotcha questions for Christians who are fine with at least the core of the big bang model? Are you trying to ask some questions about modern cosmology? Or something else?
From a science perspective the answer to these question are :
From a perspective of faith, I donât see how questions 2 to 4 challenge the existence of God and 1 actually is arguably a good indication on the existence of God, itâs certainly not a contradiction.
Most physicists take the presence of a singularity in a solution to an equation describing a system to be an indication that the equation stops being a good description near the singularity. Since we already know we donât have a good theory to describe physics at energy densities like those very early in the Big Bang, I donât worry about the singularity.
I donât think âGod did itâ really satisfies any scientist , whether she is a Christian or not. âGod only knowsâ however, is a pretty good answer for such speculation on both sides of the lay/scientist and believer/non divide. You canât really approach empirical questions for which no conceivable evidence can be found with any real expectation of a serious analysis of the evidence you donât have.
Rationality is the only resource you need. Beyond a smidgin of science.
Another procreation based on M-theory and observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), states that the Universe is but one of many in a multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists.
M-theory may provide a framework for developing a unified theory of all of the fundamental forces of nature.
So there is no spooky fine tuning.
But you donât mean any of that do you? You just mean we only know of one universe by observation. Rationality therefore says there are infinite from eternity.
So the reason for the apparency is not thinking rationally.
The Big Bang is the beginning of the measurable physical universe which includes its measures of time and space. Thus to talk about before or outside according to such measures is nonsensical. But you can speculate about other measures of time such as Godâs own as creator of the physical universe and accordingly before the beginning of the physical universe there is only the existence of spiritual things such as God.
The Big Bang happened everywhere in the known universe leaving behind the cosmic background microwave radiation for all to measure.
That is a matter for theological speculation since nothing measurable tells us anything about it. Biologos being a Christian organization and like all Christian organizations believe God is the creator and thus the cause for that event.
That is not a correct understanding of the Big Bang. Perhaps you need to study more.
Only bosons donât take up any space, all particles of matter are fermions and the Pauli exclusion principle keeps them from occupying the same space. This is in fact what keeps neutron stars from collapsing into a black hole. But even that can be overcome where too much energy of any kind in too small a space will collapse into a black hole. So the correct answer is that all energy and matter did not exist at the time when the universe was that small. These came into the universe later.
Of course at this point we are delving into science which is highly theoretical and difficult to prove. Evidence for the big bang is overwhelming. But there is a lot of theory about the details early on where the evidence is a little more difficult to acquire.
Lots of great math, physics and logic in all the replies, but the thoughts behind the replies seem to be circumscribed by manâs collective understanding of our universe and processed through the lens of a settled knowledge base, which also appears preclude any thought beyond our current state of understanding, which is understandable. For instance, âmitchellmckainâ explains that âall that energy and matterââŚâcame into the universe laterâ, but if thatâs the logical argument, is there also an explanation of where that outside of the system energy and matter came from?
We know that man once believed Earth was the center of the universe (or at least of our solar system anyway, and those observing interpreted what they saw through that observation. Given how many discoveries happen everyday, we definitely know that we do not know everything today and likely also have an inaccurate and/or incomplete understanding of what we think we know about the observable universe.
Since even on our own planet there is so much we do not know about how lots of things work, it just seems a huge leap to believe we fully understand whatâs happening in parts of the known universe very far away, which we cannot visit and only see the light that was sent millions or billions of years ago.
Getting back to Earth, I have a reasonable grasp of the concept of evolution of living organisms by means of natural selection, but am still uncomfortable with the idea of âprimordial gooâ spontaneously forming any living plants and animals, even single-cell ones. It is my understanding that Darwin formed most or all of his hypotheses without the benefit of knowing about genetics or the microbiology of cells and living tissues which we now know work together in very complicated ways. Correct??
I also understand the biblical account of creation found in Genesis was not created through centuries of scientific inquiry.
Maybe the answers to the questions we consider are simply unknowable within our lifetimes? If that is the case, are we to be content with the âprimordial gooâ to âliving creatureâ explanation for all that we see on Earth or do we make room for a creator that put everything into motion?
Rationality therefore says there are infinite from eternity.
Some peopleâs rationality says that, and anyone else who cannot accept the facts that time had a beginning and that God is independent of it. There are at least a couple here of whom that seems to be true.
Yes. It came from a change in the zero-point energy of the vacuum, i.e. from the energy of space-time itself. You can find this in explanations of the inflation model of cosmology.
Abiogenesis has come a long way from such ad-hoc descriptions. If you want to learn more about this I suggest looking up âmetabolism first theoriesâ and âprebiotic evolutionâ. The fact is that self-organizing processes are common in the universe. And it is coming clear that the early earth had complex chemicals in sufficient quantities for them to be involved in interacting chemical cycles capable of such self-organization. Accordingly the genetic molecules of DNA and RNA are likely the product of an long process of evolution of such interacting chemical cycles.
I think we are very close. And soon we will have computer simulations of these processes with an ability to calculate the probability of the various proposed steps in the evolution of these genetic molecules. It will be only the beginning, to be sure. But from it we will have the ability to refine a working model of how life arose on this planet.
âLuckâ* not being in my active vocabulary, and Godâs sovereignty being comprehensive, Iâm okay with abiogenesis, too.
Â
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
Proverbs 16:33
Â
*If anyone wishes me good luck (and especially if they are Christian), my standard reply is, âDo mean that in the strict theological sense of the word?â XD
Notice this does not say simply that âevery decision is from the Lord.â God doesnât make decision for us to sin. That decision is our own.
But there are all kinds of things in life where we do not make the decision and even those which are not determined by any physical conditions. The casting of lots may well be an example of events like this and since Jesus says God will not refuse our requests for guidance then it is reasonable to believe God is making the decisions in such cases. However this does not mean God will necessarily give us the answers we want.
But should this be taken literally or is it a metaphor? Examining the context wasnât terribly helpful. But ultimately the meaning is pretty much the same either way. As a metaphor it is still basically saying that many events which seem to be a matter of chance is decided by God when it is important for doing His will. But there is little reason to take to go so far as saying God is in control of everything for that meaning would not require any metaphor in the first place (besides being contrary to other things in the Bible where things clearly do not go the way God wants them).
I think that many people here on the forum, myself included, would say that these two statements are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, to both I say âyesâ. 
Zero-point energy - Interesting hypothesis and explanation, but still Iâm left wondering 1) where the âzero-point energy of the vacuumâ got its subatomic energy, and 2) where the vacuum came from?
Abiogenesis - Thanks for mentioning that. I looked up a few articles to read the latest hypotheses. The conception of the process seems plausible, but it is my understanding the hypothesis has not and cannot be tested because it requires extreme conditions which are not accessible using any existing means.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.