XDA

Excellent question, deserving a comparable answer. All I have is this: The cosmological theory is that - a scientific theory whose genesis was the observation that the (known) universe is expanding. Curiously, this universe seems to have come bundled with some cosmological values without which we wouldn't have come to be - the strength of gravity, for example, or the amount of hydrogen. So some scientists believe there may have been many other big bangs, trillions of them, perhaps, spread over an eternity that makes 14 billion seem like a fingersnap! Every now and then, one of these bangs in such a way that life becomes possible, and the rest is (or beomes) history. Bill Bryson (Short history of nearly everything) quotes Columbia scientist Edward tryton: "In answer to the question why it happened, i offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time". A far cry from Fiat lux, surely!
 

In other words, there's no real difference.
 

ok, try again, Mark!
Fiat lux implies at least:
* an entity external to the universe (or rather the multiverse, as the multiple uninverses of the multiple bangs are called).
* that that entity has the power to create light or least empower light to "be"
* that that entity intended light to be, presumably for a reason or purpose.

Tryton's "universes happen" quote was supposed to be a stark contrast to the teleological presumptions of the Vulgate; the "physical stance" vs the "intentional stance". Did the commander who uttered Fiat lux thereby determine lux's speed? decree that e would equal m times lux's speed squared? Is the light of fiat lux even the same as the physicists stream of photons?

Wittgenstein said something like "when we talk of God's eye, must we speak of eyebrows?" point being religion-speak has a point, physical-speak just reflects facts and physical explanations - the point of "God's eye" is that it sees everything, so your actions can never be hidden from Him. The point of fiat lux is that the universe has a point - it's here for a reason. Personally, given the reality of this universe, i find that profoundly scary.
 

Better. But you see the problem. Why not say the universe arose from the blood of a crow killed bringing fire to men or any of the million of silly creation myths. In the rankings of likeliness, the marble instantly to universe seems rather unlikely as the speed limit on light would necessarily be broken (and yes I know it was not real space back then). Just not bloody likely and just as 'because I said so' as fiat lux.
 

Bad Roger, bad Roger. There are no silly creation myths. Creation mths function as a bridge to bring us form there, when human life was not, to here, where human life is.

The only silly bridges are bridges to nowhere.

Myths are only silly if they pretend to be science.

Doug? Where are you Doug? On spring break? Help us Doug, the Borg are everywhere.
 

"Myths are only silly if they pretend to be science."


My point exactly.
 

"Doug? Where are you Doug? On spring break? Help us Doug, the Borg are everywhere."

Got it in one. I've been visiting grandmothers in AZ. It turns out that retirement mobile-home parks are remarkably short of internet access.

Science: Observe, hypothesize, predict, test prediction, modify hypothesis, rinse, repeat.

The history of the "big bang" theory is a microcosm of this process. In part:

We observe that extra-galactic objects have recognizable spectra, but that these spectra are doppler-shifted such that it appears everything is moving away from us, at speeds proportional to their apparent distances.

We hypothesize that this might be the result of an explosion.

[Much theory and math happens here.]

From this and a strongly supported part of the theory of relativity (things far away happened long ago) we predict that we should be able to "see" the big bang. We predict that there should be a relatively constant level of background radiation and predict a level. (Note the specificity and falsifiability of this prediction.)

We (humans, that is -- specifically Bell Labs, IIRC) take a look, "and there was light."

Now, this is _consistent_ with "Fiat lux!", but it is also consistent with practical-joking aliens who turned on the "lights" right before we started looking.

Big bang makes no statement about agency; "Fiat lux!" makes an explicit statement about agency. That is, there's nothing in the basic theory that excludes the possibility of an intentional act causing the big bang. But, since that is (at least currently) not falsifiable, it's not a proper subject for science.

If you can manage a way to falsify claims of agency, you'll have science, regardless of the result of the test. Absent specific and falsifiable claims, there is a fundamental and qualitative difference.

(FWIW, I don't find agency necessary. I'm not much of a "believer" in anything -- I don't "believe" that the sun will rise in the morning, though I assign a pretty high probability that it will.)