Genesis Correlates With Science

[PoliticalChic]

It is a giant leap to connect Genesis with quantum physics.

The question of what there was before the big bang is just an accident of how we think and how language works. Because everything in our existence has antecedents, we infer that such is always true. Even someone who believes in God might ask where God came from. But for God to be God, there could have been no precursor. If the big bang is true, it is a similar linguistic and mental quandary.

So....were did the energy of the Big Bang come from?

I could fun with ya and say, "It just was! You have to have faith! It was a miracle!"

But I won't do that.

It is probably a question without an answer, one we ask because we can and must, being how we are. More likely is that it's the wrong question. When and if we understand things better, we may find an explanation for how it came to be, but there may not be a 'before'.

Hard to get one's head around, isn't it?

Here's why it's more than a word problem with no real meaning:

Once science confronted Einstein with the question of whether the universe was stable, an awful lot of effort went into the Hubble, and the red shift explanation.

See where I'm going?
There was proof that the universe was moving away from some original position.....ultimately traced back some 13,700 million years.



If it was worth answering the question of where the universe started....then it's worth trying to deal with the obvious question about the source of the energy.


Only theology has a bridge to the answer....and based on that fact, there is inordinate hostility from some in the science community.


1. Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown, has written in “Finding Darwin's God,” that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God. Francis Sellers Collins , physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HG) has written a book about his Christian faith. Then there was Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia).
And Einstein: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

2. But, today, there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!’ And, not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science. Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything.
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."


So.....where did the energy come from?


(Sorry about ending the sentence with a preposition.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Genesis is so childlike and unbelievable as to make people who spout off about it as fact, look stupid. The Bible is not to be taken literally. It is full of old myths, old and symbolism working through metaphors
God is a concept...a human construct.

To some extent, yes, this is true and indisputable. The Bible should not be taken literally. To do so is the worst kind of folly.

The extent to which God is a human construct, however, is infinitely debatable. Do humans project their behavior into their deities? I am convinced that they always have, because that is just a part of human nature, just like jealousy, invention, ambivalence, and a host of other facets of good old fashioned human frailty.

The Bible is highly symbolic, especially the OT. Taking it literally is more of a Christian tendency than a Jewish one. PC is an adult and can speak for herself, but I don't know that her OP is necessarily meant to say that the Genesis story is a literal one. As a symbolic representation of the origin of the Universe, the points presented have merit.

As far as I'm concerned, peoples' reliance on faith, science, or any combination of the two is their business as is their desire to share it or proselytize, and others' acceptance or resistance to it. Ain't the 1st Amendment grand?

"I don't know that her OP is necessarily meant to say that the Genesis story is a literal one..."


This is not about the Bible as a whole....much of which is metaphorical.

Chapter one of Genesis is provably correct as to the order of events in the creation of the universe, and life on our planet.
It corresponds to the order accepted by modern science.
Amazingly.

My series of posts is meant to show that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

God is necessary for morality to survive.

According to you there was no morality before a god. Interesting. Or there was always morality because there was always a god. More interesting.

We know that at one point man's ancestors started to bury their dead with symbolic items...the Bear Caves in Europe. Was Jesus' dad teaching mankind how to pray at this time? Was man learning to identify himself with others...compassion?

see Dante's profile image "Thou art that"

We do know at some point mankind cared for each other because we find signs that early mankind is traveling with injured or crippled family(?). Where these people ignorant of Jesus' dad, and if so why? If man was created in a god's image, that god must have been one fucking backwards troll

Why not get PoliChicster to debate this one-on-one (which is what the Bull Ring is for) with another member?

then she could wow us all without interference...

I want the 'interference.'

You don't realize that yet?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Genesis is so childlike and unbelievable as to make people who spout off about it as fact, look stupid. The Bible is not to be taken literally. It is full of old myths, old and symbolism working through metaphors
God is a concept...a human construct.

To some extent, yes, this is true and indisputable. The Bible should not be taken literally. To do so is the worst kind of folly.

The extent to which God is a human construct, however, is infinitely debatable. Do humans project their behavior into their deities? I am convinced that they always have, because that is just a part of human nature, just like jealousy, invention, ambivalence, and a host of other facets of good old fashioned human frailty.

The Bible is highly symbolic, especially the OT. Taking it literally is more of a Christian tendency than a Jewish one. PC is an adult and can speak for herself, but I don't know that her OP is necessarily meant to say that the Genesis story is a literal one. As a symbolic representation of the origin of the Universe, the points presented have merit.

As far as I'm concerned, peoples' reliance on faith, science, or any combination of the two is their business as is their desire to share it or proselytize, and others' acceptance or resistance to it. Ain't the 1st Amendment grand?

"I don't know that her OP is necessarily meant to say that the Genesis story is a literal one..."


This is not about the Bible as a whole....much of which is metaphorical.

Chapter one of Genesis is provably correct as to the order of events in the creation of the universe, and life on our planet.
It corresponds to the order accepted by modern science.
Amazingly.

My series of posts is meant to show that.

That is how I understood it. There is so much focus on literal vs. metaphorical that I think most people miss the deeper point, even if I do have my particular beefs with fundamentalism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no "current understanding" that energy can be "generated" at the Big Bang, at least among anyone who knows anything about Physics.

And how you can get from the FLoT to energy created at the Big Bang is beyond rationalization!!!!

And you know less about the 'multiverse' than you do about the Big Bang or the FLoT, and you know NOTHING about the Big Bang and the FLoT.

Where

was

the

energy

prior

to

the

Big Bang?

Prior to the Big Bang, all the energy of the Universe was compressed into one point, known as a singularity.

Always happy to educate you.

Where did it come from?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is a giant leap to connect Genesis with quantum physics.

The question of what there was before the big bang is just an accident of how we think and how language works. Because everything in our existence has antecedents, we infer that such is always true. Even someone who believes in God might ask where God came from. But for God to be God, there could have been no precursor. If the big bang is true, it is a similar linguistic and mental quandary.

So....were did the energy of the Big Bang come from?

Like your God, energy always exists, but unlike your God, energy can be measured.

Pretend you're brighter than a second grader, i.e., brighter than you are.

Discussions require an accepted dictionary definition of terms.

For God, the definition includes always was, is, will be, i.e., omnipresent.

There is no such aspect for 'energy.'



Isn't it time for you to simply accept who your are, and what you are?

 

[PoliticalChic]

God is necessary for morality to survive.

According to you there was no morality before a god. Interesting. Or there was always morality because there was always a god. More interesting.

We know that at one point man's ancestors started to bury their dead with symbolic items...the Bear Caves in Europe. Was Jesus' dad teaching mankind how to pray at this time? Was man learning to identify himself with others...compassion?

see Dante's profile image "Thou art that"

We do know at some point mankind cared for each other because we find signs that early mankind is traveling with injured or crippled family(?). Where these people ignorant of Jesus' dad, and if so why? If man was created in a god's image, that god must have been one fucking backwards troll

1. "According to you there was no morality before a god."
This is senseless. Morality pertains to mankind.
Without God, there is no moral demand placed on mankind.

2. "We know that at one point man's ancestors ..."
The understanding of God at issue is based on the Judeo-Christian concept.

3. "...at some point mankind cared for each..."
There can be good people at any place, or time.
Morality is important as a societal aspect.
Sans morality, we can expect the law of the jungle.

4. I understand the vulgarity as your response when you can't deal with what
you realize makes sense.


5. Dennis Prager once said something along these lines on his radio program:

If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective.

Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had reason on their side.

Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God."
I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To some extent, yes, this is true and indisputable. The Bible should not be taken literally. To do so is the worst kind of folly.

The extent to which God is a human construct, however, is infinitely debatable. Do humans project their behavior into their deities? I am convinced that they always have, because that is just a part of human nature, just like jealousy, invention, ambivalence, and a host of other facets of good old fashioned human frailty.

The Bible is highly symbolic, especially the OT. Taking it literally is more of a Christian tendency than a Jewish one. PC is an adult and can speak for herself, but I don't know that her OP is necessarily meant to say that the Genesis story is a literal one. As a symbolic representation of the origin of the Universe, the points presented have merit.

As far as I'm concerned, peoples' reliance on faith, science, or any combination of the two is their business as is their desire to share it or proselytize, and others' acceptance or resistance to it. Ain't the 1st Amendment grand?

"I don't know that her OP is necessarily meant to say that the Genesis story is a literal one..."


This is not about the Bible as a whole....much of which is metaphorical.

Chapter one of Genesis is provably correct as to the order of events in the creation of the universe, and life on our planet.
It corresponds to the order accepted by modern science.
Amazingly.

My series of posts is meant to show that.

That is how I understood it. There is so much focus on literal vs. metaphorical that I think most people miss the deeper point, even if I do have my particular beefs with fundamentalism.

Only fundamentalists treat the Bible literally.
But...of course, there are parts that are to be treated literally. That's why I posted the thread about biblical archaeology.

 

[NYcarbineer]

there is no proof god exsists.

that means the bible is fiction when it talk about god.


there is some historical stories in the bible but NO proof of god.

Actually, there is lots of proof.

Let's remember that prior to this decade, atoms had never been seen, yet indirect evidence was accepted as proof.

I'd say the same is true for the concept under discussion.


Unless you have some 'proof' of the non-existence.

You don't have to prove something doesn't exist when there is no credible evidence that supports an argument for its existence.

To claim that the lack of evidence that God exists is proof that he does exist is an argument for the proven existence of every god that humankind has ever imagined throughout the existence of the species.

In fact, by your reasoning, Christianity, which claims to be monotheistic, is proven to be in error because obviously more than one god exists.

 

[edthecynic]

So....were did the energy of the Big Bang come from?

Like your God, energy always exists, but unlike your God, energy can be measured.

Pretend you're brighter than a second grader, i.e., brighter than you are.

Discussions require an accepted dictionary definition of terms.

For God, the definition includes always was, is, will be, i.e., omnipresent.

There is no such aspect for 'energy.'



Isn't it time for you to simply accept who your are, and what you are?

Again you show your complete ignorance of the First Law of Thermodynamics while spouting your pompous arrogant condescension.

FLoT: Energy can neither be created/increase (energy always was) nor destroyed/decrease (always will be). Since energy can neither increase nor decrease, in all its forms it will exist in the same total quantity (always remain the same).

We know energy exists because it can be measured, can God be measured?

P.S.- Always was, is, will be, means God is eternal, not omnipresent which means everywhere at the same time.

 

[Old Rocks]

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system.




2. The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.

3. The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.

a. In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.”
Greek Astronomy




4. Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.

a. An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.

5. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!

6. The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.





7. So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?

8. And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’

9. Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they? Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense: light needs the sun....doesn't it?

a. Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life.
But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.





10. Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis.
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.




Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here.
LIght....energy....but no sun...

But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

It's bullshit. And which account are saying is correct? There are two of them, you know.

 

[there4eyeM]

From what my experience of life has been, I understand completely how and why people believe in spirits and gods. It isn't exactly how I view the universe, but it is comprehensible. The 'essence', 'all', 'the whole' has a character that humans can easily anthropormorphize.

I can't put words on it, and perhaps words aren't appropriate, as they diminish things sometimes. Maybe (read "certainly"), that is why Moses did not receive a noun from inside the burning bush. A name would define God. The verb is much closer to the feeling of It All.

That there is mystery, sometimes even a sense of humor, in the universe cannot be denied. I don't know what the ramifications of that are and cannot define it; my wisdom is not that great. At the same time, I do know enough to say that no one else knows, either.

I would add that, while I don't believe in god as classically defined, I have belief that there is something behind what we perceive to be everything.

 

[edthecynic]

Genesis is so childlike and unbelievable as to make people who spout off about it as fact, look stupid. The Bible is not to be taken literally. It is full of old myths, old and symbolism working through metaphors
God is a concept...a human construct.

To some extent, yes, this is true and indisputable. The Bible should not be taken literally. To do so is the worst kind of folly.

The extent to which God is a human construct, however, is infinitely debatable. Do humans project their behavior into their deities? I am convinced that they always have, because that is just a part of human nature, just like jealousy, invention, ambivalence, and a host of other facets of good old fashioned human frailty.

The Bible is highly symbolic, especially the OT. Taking it literally is more of a Christian tendency than a Jewish one. PC is an adult and can speak for herself, but I don't know that her OP is necessarily meant to say that the Genesis story is a literal one. As a symbolic representation of the origin of the Universe, the points presented have merit.

As far as I'm concerned, peoples' reliance on faith, science, or any combination of the two is their business as is their desire to share it or proselytize, and others' acceptance or resistance to it. Ain't the 1st Amendment grand?

"I don't know that her OP is necessarily meant to say that the Genesis story is a literal one..."


This is not about the Bible as a whole....much of which is metaphorical.

Chapter one of Genesis is provably correct as to the order of events in the creation of the universe, and life on our planet.
It corresponds to the order accepted by modern science.
Amazingly.

My series of posts is meant to show that.

Your series of posts only show you will lie in the face of the truth.

There is no accepted order by modern science that has a wasted Earth and the deep seas created before the light. This has already been shown to you earlier in this thread only to be ignored by you because you have no response to it other than to just repeat what you know to be a lie.

Thank you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Like your God, energy always exists, but unlike your God, energy can be measured.

Pretend you're brighter than a second grader, i.e., brighter than you are.

Discussions require an accepted dictionary definition of terms.

For God, the definition includes always was, is, will be, i.e., omnipresent.

There is no such aspect for 'energy.'



Isn't it time for you to simply accept who your are, and what you are?

Again you show your complete ignorance of the First Law of Thermodynamics while spouting your pompous arrogant condescension.

FLoT: Energy can neither be created/increase (energy always was) nor destroyed/decrease (always will be). Since energy can neither increase nor decrease, in all its forms it will exist in the same total quantity (always remain the same).

We know energy exists because it can be measured, can God be measured?

P.S.- Always was, is, will be, means God is eternal, not omnipresent which means everywhere at the same time.

"We know energy exists because it can be measured, can God be measured?"

Where did it come from.

 

[there4eyeM]

Discussions require an accepted dictionary definition of terms.

For God, the definition includes always was, is, will be, i.e., omnipresent.

There is no such aspect for 'energy.'





"We know energy exists because it can be measured, can God be measured?"

P.S.- Always was, is, will be, means God is eternal, not omnipresent which means everywhere at the same time.

"We know energy exists because it can be measured, can God be measured?"

Where did it come from.

There is no 'it'.

'It' came from our heads, from our incapacity to think outside our limits of thinking. 'It' is a name humans have placed on something they have reduced to a concept. To function, our thinking has to have a name, even if we don't at all know what the concept or presence or thing truly is. Like light, gravity and life, we know we observe something, but do not know what they are, cannot fully define them.

 

[edthecynic]

Pretend you're brighter than a second grader, i.e., brighter than you are.

Discussions require an accepted dictionary definition of terms.

For God, the definition includes always was, is, will be, i.e., omnipresent.

There is no such aspect for 'energy.'



Isn't it time for you to simply accept who your are, and what you are?

Again you show your complete ignorance of the First Law of Thermodynamics while spouting your pompous arrogant condescension.

FLoT: Energy can neither be created/increase (energy always was) nor destroyed/decrease (always will be). Since energy can neither increase nor decrease, in all its forms it will exist in the same total quantity (always remain the same).

We know energy exists because it can be measured, can God be measured?

P.S.- Always was, is, will be, means God is eternal, not omnipresent which means everywhere at the same time.

"We know energy exists because it can be measured, can God be measured?"

Where did it come from.

Again I bring you to the FLoT, the most basic principle in science, "energy cannot be created (it doesn't "come from") nor destroyed (it's not going either)."
Energy IS.

You desperately need a refresher in Grammar School science!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Again you show your complete ignorance of the First Law of Thermodynamics while spouting your pompous arrogant condescension.

FLoT: Energy can neither be created/increase (energy always was) nor destroyed/decrease (always will be). Since energy can neither increase nor decrease, in all its forms it will exist in the same total quantity (always remain the same).

We know energy exists because it can be measured, can God be measured?

P.S.- Always was, is, will be, means God is eternal, not omnipresent which means everywhere at the same time.

"We know energy exists because it can be measured, can God be measured?"

Where did it come from.

Again I bring you to the FLoT, the most basic principle in science, "energy cannot be created (it doesn't "come from") nor destroyed (it's not going either)."
Energy IS.

You desperately need a refresher in Grammar School science!

Seems that once the pods take your mind, the ability to question is replaced with the desire to accept.
Fine.

The taking over of your mind was a part-time endeavor.

I can see where it would be advantageous for you to attempt to co-opt the concept of 'eternal,' but it is neither true nor accurate.



Being as weak as you are, the ease with which liberalism could mesmerize, and constrict any nascent insight, was within the blink of an eye.

I can do well without another 'is too, is too' post from you.

I suspect that you realize the weakness of your position, but, in any case, continuing is boring.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"We know energy exists because it can be measured, can God be measured?"

Where did it come from.

There is no 'it'.

'It' came from our heads, from our incapacity to think outside our limits of thinking. 'It' is a name humans have placed on something they have reduced to a concept. To function, our thinking has to have a name, even if we don't at all know what the concept or presence or thing truly is. Like light, gravity and life, we know we observe something, but do not know what they are, cannot fully define them.

I believe the issue has been exhausted.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

According to you there was no morality before a god. Interesting. Or there was always morality because there was always a god. More interesting.

We know that at one point man's ancestors started to bury their dead with symbolic items...the Bear Caves in Europe. Was Jesus' dad teaching mankind how to pray at this time? Was man learning to identify himself with others...compassion?



We do know at some point mankind cared for each other because we find signs that early mankind is traveling with injured or crippled family(?). Where these people ignorant of Jesus' dad, and if so why? If man was created in a god's image, that god must have been one fucking backwards troll

Why not get PoliChicster to debate this one-on-one (which is what the Bull Ring is for) with another member?

then she could wow us all without interference...

I want the 'interference.'

You don't realize that yet?

Please stop acting like a coward...we know you are not. Why? Why act like a cowardly dipshit? Step up your game.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

God is necessary for morality to survive.

According to you there was no morality before a god. Interesting. Or there was always morality because there was always a god. More interesting.

We know that at one point man's ancestors started to bury their dead with symbolic items...the Bear Caves in Europe. Was Jesus' dad teaching mankind how to pray at this time? Was man learning to identify himself with others...compassion?

see Dante's profile image "Thou art that"

We do know at some point mankind cared for each other because we find signs that early mankind is traveling with injured or crippled family(?). Where these people ignorant of Jesus' dad, and if so why? If man was created in a god's image, that god must have been one fucking backwards troll

1. "According to you there was no morality before a god."
This is senseless. Morality pertains to mankind.
Without God, there is no moral demand placed on mankind.

2. "We know that at one point man's ancestors ..."
The understanding of God at issue is based on the Judeo-Christian concept.

3. "...at some point mankind cared for each..."
There can be good people at any place, or time.
Morality is important as a societal aspect.
Sans morality, we can expect the law of the jungle.

4. I understand the vulgarity as your response when you can't deal with what
you realize makes sense.


5. Dennis Prager once said something along these lines on his radio program:

If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective.

Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had reason on their side.

Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God."
I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.

In the Bull Ring | God is necessary for morality to survive | Polichickster v Dante

http://www.usmessageboard.com/bull-...urvive-polichickster-v-dante.html#post6785671