Date:   8/17/2005 3:11:21 PM ( 19 y ago)
Popularity:   message viewed 1301 times
URL:   http://www.curezone.org/blogs/c/fm.asp?i=990060

Hello, thanks for your input.

I am no expert in physics, so let me see if I understand the point you are making about nothingness/emptiness/vacuum.

You seem to be saying that the physical must have had its source in the nonphysical or spiritual, based upon the laws and theories of physics. Although some today wish very much to believe that physical quanta can arise out of nothing, in defiance of the law of cause and effect (and in an effort to justify their faith in a physical universe that created itself), you appear to be saying that the cause is spiritual. Which, of course, means that it did in fact have a cause, just not one that is physical.

I would agree with you that there is a spiritual cause and sustenance of the physical universe. The Bible says in Colossians 1:16-17 that Jesus created all things, visible and invisible, and that all things are "held together in him".

Since it is observed that physical entities run down without added energy from outside themselves, and that the universe as a whole is running down toward heat death, it is reasonable to conclude that the physical universe had a beginning which was caused by a spiritual entity who gave it its energy. It is also reasonable to conclude that this same First Cause is what keeps the whole thing from flying apart, down to the subatomic particles. Atoms contain unimaginable amounts of energy, as nuclear bombs demonstrate. Yet it took quite a lot of scientific effort to learn how to break them apart.

On the other hand, as over 300 scientists have publicly stated, the Big Bang theory is in serious doubt. They have admitted that the theory was built upon an elaborate structure of highly speculative assumptions, and has now been sufficiently disproved by observational science. You may also be interested in this link:

http://www.defendyourfaith.com/

Click on the picture of the earth, and then on "Refuting Big Bang". Here is another article: http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/bigbang.htm , although they propose to replace Big Bang with Plasma cosmology which assumes "an evolving universe without beginning or end". I have neither the time nor the inclination to study it, but it just shows that the venerated theories of "science" aren't as etched in stone as they would like us to believe.

So I don't know for sure whether your theory depends heavily on Big Bang or not, but if it does, you will want to decide whether it needs an adjustment. I am not qualified to argue theoretical physics, but if your theory were to be reviewed by established physicists it would be something to consider. Of course I recommend open-minded and honest physicists who can be found at answersingenesis.org. I trust their judgment and would be most interested in their assessment of your ideas.


 

<< Return to the standard message view