READ ABOUT DETROIT AND SOLUTIONS TO ITS PROBLEMS. CLICK HERE.

Sunday, October 04, 2009

Creation Thoughts

SEARCH BLOG: RELIGION and SCIENCE

Once in awhile, it is relaxing to free your mind from the mundane aspects of existence and think about bigger things. And what could be bigger than the Big Bang Theory. No, not the new television show... the original Big Bang Theory. Actually, the original theory may have originated from other than physicists or mathematicians, but we just don't recognize it as such.

From a presentation by Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein of the University of Michigan:

One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning. 

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb where fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe. 
Read more... and this primer from NASA.
From Genesis:
1 First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Big Bang... God... creative force... something happened... we think now we know more than we did back 4,000 years ago. Well, how much do we know about the beginning? We have this model... this concept... of an enormous universe that sprang from a pin-point. We have this allegorical-biblical account of a creator that made a universe... the heavens and the earth... spring from a void.

While we know a lot about the observable universe through the fantastic machinery of the 20th and 21st centuries, what do we really know more about the absolute beginning now than was described in a poetic fashion 4,000 years ago? I'd suggest... very little.

It is possible to be an agnostic or an atheist and unwittingly have a scientific theory-belief about the creation event of this universe that is eerily similar to the poetic vision of the Old Testament writers. Now there is ample observational data that strongly supports the Big Bang theory. Yet, even working backward through the mathematics and the observations, we only know with extremely high probability that something triggered a creation event.

Our mathematics and observations lead us away from the Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni image of a white-bearded, powerful being toward a dizzy array of mathematical symbols and formulae. But in the end, we are left with...

This is definitely not an argument for Intelligent Design.

 This is just an observation that at some point we are left only with, "I don't know... and will probably never know." And at that point it comes down to some form of belief. "And then a miracle happens" is what we say when we cannot observe or deduce or infer an explanation.

 Our minds, through science, can make better sense of that which we can observe or deduce or infer, but there is always the limiting point. That is not an argument for religion or belief based on decidedly distorted reasoning or non-verifiable picture of the universe. It is also not an argument against science or a rational methodology. It is just that when we get to the limiting point, we simply cannot know... because we simply cannot go back beyond the first few moments to before the instant of creation.
But both the account in Genesis and the Big Bang Theory that says our universe is finite and had a beginning leads us to the same conclusion: there must be something more. Unfortunately, we simply cannot know what. But did you ever wonder how some guy in the Middle East ever came up with that story? Perhaps it is nothing more than having too much time one one's hands.

 For more on this, click here... and here. Oh, yes, I did minor in philosophy... enough to be dangerous. And, yes, the cartoon above is quite appropriate.

Okay, you can go back to thinking about housing and health care and Obama and Iran.
..

Labels:

Can"t Find It?

Use the SEARCH BLOG feature at the upper left. For example, try "Global Warming".

You can also use the "LABELS" below or at the end of each post to find related posts.

Blog Archive

Cost of Gasoline - Enter Your Zipcode or Click on Map

Detroit Gas Prices provided by GasBuddy.com
Click here to add this map to your website.

CO2 Cap and Trade

There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.
Henry Louis Mencken (1880–1956)
“The Divine Afflatus,” A Mencken Chrestomathy, chapter 25, p. 443 (1949)
... and one could add "not all human problems really are."
It was beautiful and simple, as truly great swindles are.
- O. Henry
... The Government is on course for an embarrassing showdown with the European Union, business groups and environmental charities after refusing to guarantee that billions of pounds of revenue it stands to earn from carbon-permit trading will be spent on combating climate change.
The Independent (UK)

Tracking Interest Rates

Tracking Interest Rates

FEDERAL RESERVE & HOUSING

SEARCH BLOG: FEDERAL RESERVE for full versions... or use the Blog Archive pulldown menu.

February 3, 2006 Go back to 1999-2000 and see what the Fed did. They are following the same pattern for 2005-06. If it ain't broke, the Fed will fix it... and good!
August 29, 2006 The Federal Reserve always acts on old information... and is the only cause of U.S. recessions.
December 5, 2006 Last spring I wrote about what I saw to be a sharp downturn in the economy in the "rustbelt" states, particularly Michigan.
March 28, 2007
The Federal Reserve sees no need to cut interest rates in the light of adverse recent economic data, Ben Bernanke said on Wednesday.
The Fed chairman said ”to date, the incoming data have supported the view that the current stance of policy is likely to foster sustainable economic growth and a gradual ebbing in core inflation”.

July 21, 2007 My guess is that if there is an interest rate change, a cut is more likely than an increase. The key variables to be watching at this point are real estate prices and the inventory of unsold homes.
August 11, 2007 I suspect that within 6 months the Federal Reserve will be forced to lower interest rates before housing becomes a black hole.
September 11, 2007 It only means that the overall process has flaws guaranteeing it will be slow in responding to changes in the economy... and tend to over-react as a result.
September 18, 2007 I think a 4% rate is really what is needed to turn the economy back on the right course. The rate may not get there, but more cuts will be needed with employment rates down and foreclosure rates up.
October 25, 2007 How long will it be before I will be able to write: "The Federal Reserve lowered its lending rate to 4% in response to the collapse of the U.S. housing market and massive numbers of foreclosures that threaten the banking and mortgage sectors."
November 28, 2007 FED VICE CHAIRMAN DONALD KOHN
"Should the elevated turbulence persist, it would increase the possibility of further tightening in financial conditions for households and businesses," he said.

"Uncertainties about the economic outlook are unusually high right now," he said. "These uncertainties require flexible and pragmatic policymaking -- nimble is the adjective I used a few weeks ago."
http://www.reuters.com/

December 11, 2007 Somehow the Fed misses the obvious.
fed_rate_moves_425_small.gif
[Image from: CNNMoney.com]
December 13, 2007 [from The Christian Science Monitor]
"The odds of a recession are now above 50 percent," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "We are right on the edge of a recession in part because of the Fed's reluctance to reduce interest rates more aggressively." [see my comments of September 11]
January 7, 2008 The real problem now is that consumers can't rescue the economy and manufacturing, which is already weakening, will continue to weaken. We've gutted the forces that could avoid a downturn. The question is not whether there will be a recession, but can it be dampened sufficiently so that it is very short.
January 11, 2008 This is death by a thousand cuts.
January 13, 2008 [N.Y. Times]
“The question is not whether we will have a recession, but how deep and prolonged it will be,” said David Rosenberg, the chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch. “Even if the Fed’s moves are going to work, it will not show up until the later part of 2008 or 2009.”
January 17, 2008 A few days ago, Anna Schwartz, nonagenarian economist, implicated the Federal Reserve as the cause of the present lending crisis [from the Telegraph - UK]:
The high priestess of US monetarism - a revered figure at the Fed - says the central bank is itself the chief cause of the credit bubble, and now seems stunned as the consequences of its own actions engulf the financial system. "The new group at the Fed is not equal to the problem that faces it," she says, daring to utter a thought that fellow critics mostly utter sotto voce.
January 22, 2008 The cut has become infected and a limb is in danger. Ben Bernanke is panicking and the Fed has its emergency triage team cutting rates... this time by 3/4%. ...

What should the Federal Reserve do now? Step back... and don't be so anxious to raise rates at the first sign of economic improvement.
Individuals and businesses need stability in their financial cost structures so that they can plan effectively and keep their ships afloat. Wildly fluctuating rates... regardless of what the absolute levels are... create problems. Either too much spending or too much fear. It's just not that difficult to comprehend. Why has it been so difficult for the Fed?

About Me

My photo
Michigan, United States
Air Force (SAC) captain 1968-72. Retired after 35 years of business and logistical planning, including running a small business. Two sons with advanced degrees; one with a business and pre-law degree. Beautiful wife who has put up with me for 4 decades. Education: B.A. (Sociology major; minors in philosopy, English literature, and German) M.S. Operations Management (like a mixture of an MBA with logistical planning)