455 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

Physical laws (of nature) don't explain the creation of the universe.   The physics of the very large does not agree with the physics of the very small.   Until we prove a unifying theory from the competing theories out there or another one we haven't even dreamed of yet, physics will be as far away from "simple" as we can get.   We don't know the nature of the creator, whether it's a higher sentient being or whether it's a mindless event brought about by some unknown cause.  In my opinion, all theories should be entertained without all the self-assured squabbles over one another's beliefs.  

The craziest ideas can sometimes reveal a wrinkle of truth when that truth is stubbornly hard to find.  Brainstorming doesn't discourage wild and loose thinking for that reason.

Is the earth perfect?   On a relative basis compared to anything else out there we know of, hell yeah.

[Hasina]

Earth's perfect for the life that lives on it, other planets could be said to be perfect in their own ways, geographically, meteorologically, etc. Life shouldn't be seen as some special gift that the universe gave 'birth' to or a special created being , it's just a by product of the mechanics of the universe. But someone will argue 'can you prove that it's not'? Of course I can't, that's not my point. We've displaced ourselves many times from special places in the universe, who's to say life is this perfect thing? It's not, especially if you look around at the way we wantonly destroy the planet.

Edited by Hasina, 29 September 2012 - 09:06 PM.

[Ben Masada]

Dr. D, on 29 September 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

This discourse is interesting because it’s a microcosm of human history.  In the days when superstition and legends were regarded as truth, the universe and everything in it was created by a supreme being.

In Greek tradition, the Earth created the sky.  The Rig Veda tales expanded on that and had the Earth and sky creating the gods.  Babylonian accounts are those that probably align best with modern science since it has a planet (where the astroid belt is) being destroyed and part of it becoming the Earth.  Egyptians had a goose and gander creating an egg that became the sun. . . .

And then came the Bible story, told twice in Genesis for emphasis, with its elements well known to all.

Man has progressed to the point that his theories are now tested and verified or rejected.  He is moving forward toward understanding his universe and all that’s in it.  Unfortunately, some people have been left behind, still clinging to mythology, legends and imagination.

Well, we have scored a victory in 1822 when the theory of the big bang was formulated. Till then, and since the time of Aristotle, the universe was believed to be eternal; without beginning and without end. Now, they have verified that the universe did have a beginning after all with the big bang. They haven't even credited the Bible for having been telling this for thousands of years. (Gen. 1:1)

Ben

[Hasina]

The  Big Bang's not proven, just the best supported theory.

Edited by Hasina, 29 September 2012 - 09:10 PM.

[Yamato]

All theories of anthropic reasoning should be entertained without any self-assured long-winded op-eds that libel and lambast someone else's preferred theory just because it's different from our own.   We're still figuring out the nature of the universe and imho we shouldn't compensate for that fact with big words and excessive word counts that seek to promote our own beliefs over others'.

[Dr. D]

Ben Masada, on 29 September 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Well, we have scored a victory in 1822 when the theory of the big bang was formulated. Till then, and since the time of Aristotle, the universe was believed to be eternal; without beginning and without end. Now, they have verified that the universe did have a beginning after all with the big bang. They haven't even credited the Bible for having been telling this for thousands of years. (Gen. 1:1)

Ben

When you have a tale told in such vague terms as we find in Genesis, any later discovery can be made to fit.  The problem is that it has to be "made" to fit, it doesn't do it on its own.

[Roy Perry]

God first

thanks Ben Masada
Hell is in the grave Christ even die we all die

the key is to evolve into a creature not like we are now

to changed into some thing other than what we are

that is the new birth evoling or being born from flesh unto a god like creature

that the truth

with love and a holy kiss Roy

Edited by Roy Perry, 29 September 2012 - 10:28 PM.

[Ben Masada]

Hasina, on 29 September 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

The  Big Bang's not proven, just the best supported theory.

Although the big bang has not been proven, it means a kind of partial victory for the Bible that has been saying for thousands of years that the universe had a beginning. Since Aristotle and until Lamartre in 1822, when the theory of the big bang was built, it was believed that the universe was without a beginning. Eternal, that is. That it had always been there. But with the theory of the big bang, scientists in general and cosmologists in particular had to change their views about the eternal existence of the universe to the opinion that it did have a beginning after all.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 02 October 2012 - 06:19 PM.

[Hasina]

Ben Masada, on 02 October 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Although the big bang has not been proven, it means a kind of partial victory for the Bible that has been saying for thousands of years that the universe had a beginning. Since Aristotle and until Lamartre in 1822, when the theory of the big bang was built, it was believed that the universe was without a beginning. Eternal, that is. That it had always been there. But with the theory of the big bang, scientists in general and cosmologists in particular had to change their views about the eternal existence of the universe to the opinion that it did have a beginning after all.

Ben

Also a 'victory' for the Quran then.

[Ben Masada]

Dr. D, on 29 September 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

When you have a tale told in such vague terms as we find in Genesis, any later discovery can be made to fit.  The problem is that it has to be "made" to fit, it doesn't do it on its own.

Tell me Dr., the Bible says that "In the beginning God created the universe." In 1822 Lamartre found out about the big bang and said that it was the beginning of the universe. The cosmologists took from there and spread the news that the universe had indeed had a beginning. If the biblical account was that vague as you imply, how could men of astral knowledge agree that the big bang was indeed an evidence for the origin of the universe?  What do you mean by "it has to be made to fit?" IMHO, the big bang does fit Genesis 1:1 as a glove fits the hand.

Ben

[Dr. D]

Ben Masada, on 29 September 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Well, we have scored a victory in 1822 when the theory of the big bang was formulated. Till then, and since the time of Aristotle, the universe was believed to be eternal; without beginning and without end. Now, they have verified that the universe did have a beginning after all with the big bang. They haven't even credited the Bible for having been telling this for thousands of years. (Gen. 1:1)

Ben

And the Enuma Elish, Rig Veda, the tales of Ginnungagap and countless ancient belief systems.  It is not such a remarkable achievement for early civilizations to conclude that everything must have a beginning and certainly the Bible deserves no more credit than any other work except that it came much later than most and included tales adopted from earlier beliefs.

[Dr. D]

Ben Masada, on 02 October 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Tell me Dr., the Bible says that "In the beginning God created the universe." In 1822 Lamartre found out about the big bang and said that it was the beginning of the universe. The cosmologists took from there and spread the news that the universe had indeed had a beginning. If the biblical account was that vague as you imply, how could men of astral knowledge agree that the big bang was indeed an evidence for the origin of the universe?  What do you mean by "it has to be made to fit?" IMHO, the big bang does fit Genesis 1:1 as a glove fits the hand.

Ben

Of course it’s childishly vague.  To simply state “in the beginning” is not profound and fades in the wake of other, earlier beliefs.  The Egyptians spoke of the “liquid-like primeval abyss . . . . they spoke of the “endless everywhere” that was “without boundaries or directions.”  Imagine that, to know that space has no direction!  The Egyptian Nu/Ny/Nun represented unpolarized matter.  Now that’s being specific and graphic.

The Incan god Viracocha created the universe with the same simplicity of the Bible.

And yes, the Babylonian Enuma Elish is incredibly detailed in its tale of the creation of the universe.

Some of the most primitive creation tales include the idea that everything had a beginning.  The Iroquois, creation tales from Hokkaido, even the divers myths all agree that there was a beginning.

[Ben Masada]

a

Hasina, on 02 October 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

Also a 'victory' for the Quran then.

Well, yes, why not? The writers of the Quran copied a lot from the Bible. In fact, there is a certain tradition that the writers of the Quran were the Rabbis of Medina. It happens that Muhammad, before he went out on his wars of conquest, he assigned the Rabbis of Medina to write a Muslem Bible in exchange for their lives and liberty to practice Judaism without hostility. And Quran was the name given to that Muslim Bible. I am not sure how much of truth there is to that tradition. But it was a facsimile to the Greek Septuagint, a translation done by 70 Rabbis in Alexandria from the Hebrew Scriptures in the original. The tradition goes further that Muhammad did not stand by his word to the Rabbis of Medina and executed them plus other wise Jews up to about 300 of them. He probably wanted to spare future generations of Muslims the humiliation that their Quran had been written by the Jews. Well, as I said above, I wonder how much of this story is true.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Dr. D, on 02 October 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

And the Enuma Elish, Rig Veda, the tales of Ginnungagap and countless ancient belief systems.  It is not such a remarkable achievement for early civilizations to conclude that everything must have a beginning and certainly the Bible deserves no more credit than any other work except that it came much later than most and included tales adopted from earlier beliefs.

That's amazing Dr. D. You don't give us a chance to breathe free. I thought we had scored something original to enhance our credibility but... the bite on our throat is too tight.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 02 October 2012 - 07:05 PM.

[Ben Masada]

Dr. D, on 02 October 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

Of course it’s childishly vague.  To simply state “in the beginning” is not profound and fades in the wake of other, earlier beliefs.  The Egyptians spoke of the “liquid-like primeval abyss . . . . they spoke of the “endless everywhere” that was “without boundaries or directions.”  Imagine that, to know that space has no direction!  The Egyptian Nu/Ny/Nun represented unpolarized matter.  Now that’s being specific and graphic.

The Incan god Viracocha created the universe with the same simplicity of the Bible.

And yes, the Babylonian Enuma Elish is incredibly detailed in its tale of the creation of the universe.

Some of the most primitive creation tales include the idea that everything had a beginning.  The Iroquois, creation tales from Hokkaido, even the divers myths all agree that there was a beginning.

Indeed, it seems to me, we were not original at all. In fact, the Bible calls the Egyptian liquid-like primeval abyss without boundaries and direction as a situation of "Tohu vavohu," an absolute chaos as the condition of the universe before order was introduced.

Ben