Time, Part 1: Science vs Theology & The Big Bang Theory

A teacher once said, after struggling over his material, “Where should I begin?” A wise person in the room called out, “at the beginning.” That wise person’s name was Captain Obvious. So today, we shall start “at the beginning.” But there is a significance to this that must not be overlooked. There was a beginning. Theology teaches “in the beginning.” Science teaches there was a beginning to our world. In theology, it’s God’s spoken words; in science it’s the Big Bang theory.

Now, I typically take a view towards science that is much different than most conservative Christians. God created this world, so how could learning about it be bad? The typical Christian move is to view science in opposition to Christianity. It’s funny though, because these are the same people who embrace science when they find evidence “for the flood.” Now, this doesn’t mean that science is my God or that science = truth. Do you realize that that is exactly the way we view science? Think about how many sentences start with “scientists say….” Science isn’t truth; science is a method to get to truth. It’s method is empiricism (which is knowing things by the 5 senses [taste, smell, hear, see, feel]). Theology isn’t truth either. Theology systematizes our limited understanding of God, who is truth. Theology fails, but theology has no hubris. The theologian knows God is too far above us to fully be understood. We know only what he reveals. Science, though, tends to say that everything is already revealed by the discovery of the senses. In every age, scientists think that they know everything. They love to hold this knowledge over us in the “dumb public.” “Oh great scientist, please tell me EXACTLY how the world works.” Mr. Scientist might be so benevolent to us and our feeble minds if we’re lucky. After all, scientists throughout history have known everything right? Oh wait; it appears “truth” changes. It appears scientists realize they got some things wrong. If science would just admit that it is “an attempt” to understand our natural world, the people like me would leave it alone. Where it goes wrong is the prideful grasp it holds over truth. The smartest ancients thought the earth was the center of the universe (not just religious people). The Romans thought the last planet was Jupiter. Well, we found more planets. We later found out that the world was larger than just our galaxy. Hubble (whom the Hubble telescope is named after) discovered that our galaxy is just one of many. The size of our known universe was infinitely larger than we ever thought. And it was this discovery that was the root of the eventual Big Bang Theory.

The discovery of multiple galaxies was a complete shock, but not as much as what these galaxies were doing. The galaxies were not static but were moving away from each other. Now, what does this matter? Well, taking all 3 of Newton’s laws of motion into consideration shows us that if something is acted upon causing it to move, then we can measure its trajectory. If we can measure where it’s going, then we should be able to measure where it came from. The only difference is looking back rather than forward. Throw a baseball straight up into the air. It will travel up, stop, and then down. The fact that galaxies are moving away from each other seems to show that they were once close. If we go back in time, then, we would see the galaxies together just like when the hand was about to release the ball. If movement is known (train leaves Chicago at 7:00 AM headed 50 mph), then we can measure the time it would take to get to “x.” However, if it has already arrived at “x,” then we could tell when it left “y” (e.g. The train left Chicago traveling 50 mph and arrived at New York at 12PM. From that we could calculate backwards to know it left Chicago at 7 AM.)

So, if everything was once close, how close? The Big Bang Theory states that everything was infinitely close and infinitely small. Everything in the whole universe was about the size of an atom. This atom spontaneously explodes, and over time, our world formed. The lightest element like helium fused under great pressure and heat to form heavier elements like hydrogen. This process of fusion (which humans, so far, cannot replicate) is what lead to progressively heavier elements.

Now immediately, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “well where did this tiny atom come from?” This is where the writer halts to leave the reader in suspense….

Time: Introduction

I’ve decided to do a new series. Time is one of my favorite subjects. I’ve always found it interesting. I promise, there will be no crazy conspiracies in this one. At church, we’re studying a book called “Driven by Eternity.” The series has been good so far, but it’s not really what inspired me to write about time. That is about time in relation to heaven and hell. This is about time in relation to the past, our current world and theoretical possibilities. Recently, the science channel (yes, I love the science channel), had 4 hour long shows on time. I like science a lot. Anytime I watch science shows, I’m continually thinking about what they’re saying in terms of Christianity. Well, that is exactly what this series will be about. It isn’t science. It isn’t theology. It is somewhere in between. I have nothing more than a high school education regarding science, so you know…uh…I’m not an expert. What I will do is discuss some of the major problems and interesting things about time. By the way, did you know that “science” comes form Latin meaning “I know”? It is also why, based on that definition, theology used to be called “The Queen of the sciences.” Theology was supposed to be about knowing God. Isn’t that ironic?

Okay, so what in the world am I going to talk about? Okay, allow me at this point to stop worrying about grammar. Time is a dimension (the 4th). Ever wanted to know why old people drive slowly? Ever wanted to know if that old wives tell about time slowing down during a near-death experiment was true or not? Ever wonder if we could live longer than we do and why the Bible says that some people lived nearly 1,000 years? Is time travel possible? How old is the universe and the earth really? What does the Big Bang theory really say? Is time internal or external? Is it relative? Was time invented with a watch? Is time just change? If time travel were possible, wouldn’t that cause problems? Wouldn’t we already have those “time travel visitors” here? Why is Einstein known as such a brain? What is the theory of general relativity?

Now, I’m not going to answer these questions. I’m going to talk about the problems and interesting ideas/solutions. Pack your bags. This is going to be a trip.

Bridezilla

Why is it that women are completely irrational and illogical. Or maybe more accurately, why is that they hit a switch and turn into this? I was flipping the channels tonight and came across Bridezilla. The woman on there was crazy. All sense of perspective and logic had deserted her. She got angry at her fiance because he was having fun at his bachelor party and she wasn't having fun yet at her bachlerette party. Bridezilla's perspective = Her bridesmaids didn't call her! Reality = Her phone was dead. Bridezilla = They were horrible and she wasn't going to go out no matter what. Reality = She later went out and danced. Bridezilla = Her boyfriend was a jerk for not calling her to see how her day was going. Reality = He didn't call the moment her day went south and he was having fun at his party (which involved no strippers). She later gets ahold of him and of course is angry. He left his party and came over to her hotel room where she yelled about her day which, of course, was his fault. He, of course, did what every guy would do and say stuff about how simple the issue was...how ludicrous it was for her to be upset over the situation. He told her all the ways to solve the problem and continued to not understand why he was to blame.

Why is it that we see the world so differently? How can logic not matter?

This week, I heard a woman tell a story about her and her husband. She told a story about how her husband did something horrible. Of course, I listen to the story and think, that's exactly what I would have done.

I think her husband's parents were going to come over. The husband tells them this isn't a good idea because the house is a wreck. (This is the part that I would have done. If the house isn't clean, then I would just say that). However, she got EXTREMELY mad at him because he told his parents this. Why? To the husband, all he did is state a reality. All he did was present the problem to the idea and the solution (which was to go somewhere else). As the woman was telling the story, I thought, that is exactly what I would have said, but then it hit me why she was mad. She was mad because, to most women, their house is a reflection of them. So a beautiful, well decorated house is a beautiful woman, wife, and mother. To a man, it's a dirty house...nothing more. The man wasn't saying "my wife doesn't clean our house...she's a horrible wife" but you can bet that that is exactly how her female mind translated "the house isn't clean." Men don't translate what women say into "what they really mean." I think this is nearly all that women do. You don't have to decode us...we'll say what we mean. We'll always just solve the problem you're telling us about even though you don't want us to solve it. Which then, we'll think, why did you act like you needed help with the problem then? They just wanted talk to you about what happened to them. Which we then think, "who cares? Stuff happened to me all day and I just solved it. Do you want to hear about how I took out the garbage but the cans were overflowing?"

So how do people get together? Hmm...I have a feeling this blog might get me into trouble. Maybe you women should "just talk this problem out with your husbands and then solve it yourselves instead of listening to what he says.

153

I’ve done 2 blogs on numerology. Why not go ahead and make it 3…”The Lord’s Holy Number.” Insert scary music here or maybe just the “intense chipmunk” video. Have you seen that? Youtube it. Anyway, what I’m about to talk about I’ve already discussed with a friend, so sorry friend but this is going to be repetitive…and yes I’m trying my material out on you first.

153. Simple number…I think not.

John 21:11 – “Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.”

This is the story that comes after Peter’s denials of Christ. Peter went back to his old job of being a fisherman because he had denied the Christ just like Jesus said he would. I thought it was interesting that he named the exact amount of fish he caught. Jesus told him to cast his net on the other side and what was worthless all day turned into a full net. There is a lot to be taken from the story. For instance, you could say that working on our own without guidance is futile. With God's direction, we will "see a harvest." Another way to look at it is why did he name the exact amount? Bragging fisherman? Is he trying to tell us that this was a miracle because the typical nets at that time couldn't hold that many fish (“even with so many the net was not torn”)? Does 153 stand for something? Fish is ixthus in Greek. The early Christians used IXTHUS as an "anagram" (I think that's what it's called). It's in the catacombs of Rome.

I = Iesous = Jesus (pronounced “E A soos”) Sounds a little like Spanish "Jesus."
X = Christos = Christ
Th = Theos = God
U = Uios = Son
S = Semerion = Savior

We use fish all the time to symbolize Christianity. My church's official email address is "fishermansnet@...". Anybody have a Jesus fish? Some of them come with Greek letters…the same that I listed above. Look at some strange properties of 153:

If you add 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17=153
You may remember my 6.6.06 blog which said that if you do this same thing with the numbers of a roulette wheel, you’ll end up with 666 (1 through 36). Basically 1 through 17 = 153

I found this one on my own. Ready for this:
153 x 1 = 153 which adds up to 9 (1+5+3=9)
153 x 2 = 306 which adds up to 9 (3+0+6=9)
153 x 3 = 459 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (4+5+9=18 divided by 2=9)
153 x 4 = 612 which adds up to 9 (6+1+2=9)
153 x 5 = 765 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (7+6+5=18 divided by 2=9)
153 x 6 = 918 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (9+1+8=18 divided by 2=9)
153 x 7 = 1071 which adds up to 9 (1+0+7+1=9)
153 x 8 = 1224 which adds up to 9 (1+2+2+4=9)
153 x 9 = 1377 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (1+3+7+7=9)
153 x 10 = 1530 which adds up to 9

I’m tired of trying to see how long it will work. 10 times is pretty good. We’re pretty familiar with the fact that “9” does this (e.g. 9x2 or 9x10) but why/how does 153 work?

Oh remember when I used the above figure and stopped at 17 and how lately I’ve been talking about 9? 17 x 9 = 153

153 = 1x1x1 + 5x5x5 + 3x3x3 (This is really written as 1 cubed + 3 cubed + 5 cubed =153)

I don’t know how much of this is true and how much is wikipeidiology but check this out:

“The precision of the number of fish has long been considered peculiar, and many scholars, throughout history, have argued that 153 has some deeper significance. Jerome, for example, claimed that the Greeks had identified that there were exactly 153 species of fish in the sea (modern marine biology puts the figure as something over 29,000, though the disciples were fishing in the Sea of Tibeias, which actually is a lake)....In the time of Pythagoras, 153 was most significant for being one of the two numbers in the closest fraction known, at the time, to the true value of the square root of 3, the fraction in question being 265/153 (the difference between this and the square root of 3 is merely 0.000025......). The ratio of 153:265 was consequently known throughout the Hellenic world as the measure of the fish.
The fact that the measure of the fish was known to include 153, as one of its two numbers, and that the measure of how many fish the disciples are said to have caught is also 153, has not gone unnoticed by many scholars….”
Reference from "Catch of fish" (as of 7/9/07)


To investigate this further try:

http://www.shyamsundergupta.com/c153.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_of_153_fish


I don't know. Numerology is weird. I just like to think about it. You didn't happen to notice that I used exactly 153 lines to write this did you?...or did I?

Globalism, Part 15: Miracles

David Hume is famous for his writings on miracles. He presents many arguments as to why miracles don’t happen. He asks for proof based on empirical science. Most often, the only proof is eyewitness testimony. Well, he quickly dismantles the validity of eyewitnesses. Actually, he is quite right that eyewitness testimony isn’t a very strong proof. However, if you’ve known somebody their whole life and know that they were blind and now they see, isn’t that a pretty good witness? I guess, my point is that eyewitness testimony’s value could be properly evaluated in continuum format. Basically, how credible is the source? How much did the source witness both before, during, and after the event, etc.

My point in all of this is that I think our world is going to turn on David Hume. He wrote during the Enlightenment when man was “becoming” God himself. He no longer explained everything by “God.” What happened in the natural world happened because the world is orderly of its own accord. This leads to evolution and the death of God movement. I think our world, during the 21st Century, is going to return to the belief in miracles. However, it won’t be through the old system. What I think is going to happen is a synthesis of the religious miracle and the scientific. That is, science is going to discover “the way” people are healed. Ever wonder how miracles happen in other religions, cults? David Hume used this as a reason as to why miracles don’t happen. If your individual religion teaches that it is the only one to know God, and God is the one who causes miracles, then other religions shouldn’t have miracles. Basically, I believe science is genuinely going to pick up on a power. What ancient people understood has been thrown aside as “mysticism” by the scientific community. In the future, miracles will be embraced by science.

Oprah’s “The Secret.” Star Wars’ “The Force.” Pseudo-Christianity’s “Positive Confession Movement.” These are all examples of the use of a “force” to bring about miracles/positive things. All humans have access to the power of what was thought to be “supernatural.” How so? Well, the Christian viewpoint is that we have access to a God who can, via prayer, decide to suspend his natural laws for the sake of the individual and for his greater purpose. To the witch, he/she has the ability to chant a mantra and conjure up the powers of “the earth.” This is known as “black magic.” The Positive Confession Movement within our own churches is actually sorcery. To try to force God to do something based on his word is sorcery. Be careful in how you use God’s word. Don’t take a verse out of context and “speak” it out and say “God will do this or he will be a liar, and God cannot lie, so he will do.” The Devil tried this maneuver in Matthew 4:6-7. He used Scripture as a reason for Jesus to “force” God to do something.

“If You are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Matthew 4:6-7

You aren’t God and you don’t use “rayma” words to make God do anything. He is sovereign. As far as miracles becoming scientific, that is just an idea/prediction of mine. I truly believe science and religion are going to merge in the coming years. Right now they are polar opposites. Science is all about methodology and repetition. Think about sorcery with its steps including specific chants for specific results. Sounds like the scientific method to me. Think about that passage in revelation about the beast being healed of a deadly wound and it shocks the world. Is this beast and the false prophet going to know about this “scientific truth”? I hope you realize that I’m still saying that miracles come from the supernatural. I’m just saying that they can come from God or from demonic forces. This explains how a miracle can happen outside of Christianity. I just believe that the scientific community of the 21st Century is going to pick up on this possibility, but misunderstand it as science when it is actually black magic. Think about the rise of eastern philosophies regarding wellness. Consider yoga and terms such as “aura” and “energies.” “For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.” (Matt. 24:24)

The Positive Confession Movement within Christianity teaches that prayer using the word creates the miracle. God gives us the ability, and we must “have enough faith to call it out.” Don’t you see how prayer has been converted into a “chant”? God is not to be put into a box and turned into an equation where if we do A and B we will get C. God gives by grace and sovereignty, not because you did A and B.