From: cree@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Michael Cree)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: opinions on the big bang needing a external cause
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:47:00 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Mark Schlegel (schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu) wrote:
: Could people on this channel post some opinions on whether they think the
: universe can be self sufficient (i.e. does it have to have a specific cause)
: or did it have to be externally created (by God).

It is very interesting to observe what current world renowned cosmologists
are trying to do at present which is to obtain an equation which describes
the physics of the whole universe and is self evident and could not be
otherwise! That, indeed, would be a very phenonemal achievement,
particularly in the light of Goedal's incompleteness theorems which (very
roughly) state that no mathematical theory is complete in itself, thus one
must appeal to something outside the theory to prove it.

Personally I cannot see how the universe can be self evident. That I believe
in God gives a rather convenient explanation for the universe :-)

While we are on this topic, I would like to mention that I recently heard
an interview on our local radio between a creation research scientist (whose
name I cannot remember) and Dr Hugh Ross (an evangelical Christian and
astrophysicist) which was prerecorded somewhere in USA. The creation
scientist's argument basically consisted of saying that Ross's science was
indistinguishable from that produced by Athiest scientists and thus must be
wrong!!!!!!!!

However it is interesting to note how scientists have tried very very hard
to get away from big bang cosmology, particularly the singularity at the 
origin of time, which implies a creation type event including the formation
of matter out of nothing. Thus theories like the steady state model and the
oscillating model have had very prolonged deaths due to many die hards
who can't face the evidence. And they are still trying hard to get rid of
that nasty singulatiy and awful creation of matter by now proposing, for
example, that the universe is one great big virtual particle that just
popped into existence due to some (rather convenient) quantum fluctuation,
notwithstanding that this also involves creation of matter from nothing
and the observation of a virtual particle (in this case, the universe) which
heretofore has never been seen, and indeed, would surely be remarkable
if one ever was.

That the bang theory, which implies the creation of time and of matter, has
stood such attacks is, at least I think, significant. I personally believe
(though I wouldn't bet my life on it) that God was behind the big bang.
Ohh, when I say I wouldn't bet my life on it, I'm talking about the big bang
theory, not God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cree                              Gold there is
cree@elec.canterbury.ac.nz                 and rubies in abundance;
                                          But lips that speak knowledge
                                           are a rare jewel. (Prov 20:15)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[As I understand it, in theories like this, a singularity is an area
where the mathematics produces impossible (e.g. infinite) values.
Thus strictly speaking the model breaks down at that point.  Some
Christians may conclude that at this point God performs a miracle, but
all one can really say is that the model doesn't say what happens.  I
don't think it's unreasonable for scientists to look for a model that
doesn't break down.  --clh]