genesis made simple

[Frank Merton]

I had thought even the Roman Catholic theologians had abandoned first cause theology. It seems the message hasn't gotten down to the laity.

[jugoso]

I don't know that believers in Adam and Eve as literal figures is the consensus, if you include Asia in your calculations. Logic and reason are the enemies of faith, and when faith prevails you have dark ages.

I agree with your first statement but not necessarily your second.

Logic is the technique of philosophy, its method of expression. Within the domain of true science, reason is always amenable to genuine logic; within the domain of true religion, faith is always logical from the basis of an inner viewpoint, even though such faith may appear to be quite unfounded from the inlooking viewpoint of the scientific approach. From outward, looking within, the universe may appear to be material; from within, looking out, the same universe appears to be wholly spiritual. Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness, but through the mediation of a philosophy strengthened by revelation, logic may confirm both the inward and the outward view, thereby effecting the stabilization of both science and religion. Thus, through common contact with the logic of philosophy, may both science and religion become increasingly tolerant of each other, less and less skeptical.

Reason is the act of recognizing the conclusions of consciousness with regard to the experience in and with the physical world of energy and matter. Faith is the act of recognizing the validity of spiritual consciousness — something which is incapable of other mortal proof. Logic is the synthetic truth-seeking progression of the unity of faith and reason and is founded on the constitutive mind endowments of mortal beings, the innate recognition of things, meanings, and values.

Source: Urantia Book. If you can, ignore the source and just comment on the content.

Edited October 16, 2013 by jugoso

[danielost]

Where then? I don't mean your truth or mine. Where is the Truth to be found? Jesus said that it is to be found in the Word of God which was given to the Jews only and to no other people on earth. (John 17:17; Psalm 147:19,20) How do you take this?

This is not true. There are ten and half tribes of isreal not represented by the jews, they also have the word of god at least the five books of moses. And the sumaratines also have the word of god.

[danielost]

I have said this before. To assume a creator you must assume the existence of an entity more complex than the universe it created, which begs the question, where did this creator come from? In the words of Carl Sagan, if you assume the creator needed no creator, why not skip a step and assume the universe needed no creator? Occam's razor tells us the simplest solution is usually correct. If the universe can be shown to have arisen through natural processes (and I think it can), why should we complicate the issue by proposing an unnecessary creator, other than to satisfy a preconceived notion that there was one? I don't claim it is impossible that there was a creator just that there is no evidence for such and to paraphrase LaPlace we have no need of one to explain our existence

Use your occums razer on this guestion then. How was man made via biogenesis which requires a million little accidents or a supreme being made man.

As for evidence you have to be open to the evidenc or you won't see it.

As for what the jews got at the time of jesus that no on else had gotten was jesus.

[Ben Masada]

I have said this before. To assume a creator you must assume the existence of an entity more complex than the universe it created, which begs the question, where did this creator come from? In the words of Carl Sagan, if you assume the creator needed no creator, why not skip a step and assume the universe needed no creator? Occam's razor tells us the simplest solution is usually correct. If the universe can be shown to have arisen through natural processes (and I think it can), why should we complicate the issue by proposing an unnecessary creator, other than to satisfy a preconceived notion that there was one? I don't claim it is impossible that there was a creator just that there is no evidence for such and to paraphrase LaPlace we have no need of one to explain our existence

No problem, I am ready to consider Carl Sagan's views if you can give me a logical evidence that the universe did not have a beginning. But to do so, you have to neutralize the theory of the BB. because Carl Sagan himself speaks of the BB as the origin of the universe in his book "Cosmos" which is a contradiction of himself in terms. How could something have began without having had a beginning? That's not logical at all. That's crazy! So, we are to skip the Creator and go where, to a universe which began without a beginning? That's a joke!

[Frank Merton]

Whether the Big Bang is the origin of space/time or there was something "before" it is undecided.

[Ben Masada]

Whether the Big Bang is the origin of space/time or there was something "before" it is undecided.

Do you believe that universe exist? Assuming that your answer is yes, something has been decided. Since it could not have caused itself to exist, some one did it and that's what we are about to decide.

[Etu Malku]

Casual reading of Genesis like this causes many false conclusions.

In the beginning God created the heaven (singular) and the earth. We do not know when the beginning was but it was before the six day creation event. It could have been millions of years.

Let me stop you there and tell you that there are two conflicting Creation stories in Genesis, after the Creation story ends at Genesis 2:4, the Christian bible begins another story that is a very different account. Just further proof that this book is not the word of any god but an edited book by man.

However long it was, God gave Lucifer for a covering of the earth. The second verse tells what had become of the heaven and earth under the authority of Lucifer.

Lucifer is no where mentioned in the Christian bible, the KJV Isaiah 14:12 is a misinterpretation of Jerome's Vulgate and has been incorrectly associated with the Lucifer, fallen angel story by Milton and the Book of Enoch.

Lucifer is a pre-Christian Roman deity.

And the earth was ("hayah" meaning "became") confusion and emptiness. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The same words "tohu and bohu" translated "without form and void" are translated "confusion and emptiness" in Isaiah 34:11. Putting "confusion and emptiness" in that verse gives a picture of what God saw when He looked down at His heaven and earth. He further explains in the next verse that the earth is completely submerged in water. And God knew sin had entered by one man, Lucifer. He set about a plan, which started with six days of creation.

God bless us all is my prayer.

Further nonsense . . .

[spacecowboy342]

No problem, I am ready to consider Carl Sagan's views if you can give me a logical evidence that the universe did not have a beginning. But to do so, you have to neutralize the theory of the BB. because Carl Sagan himself speaks of the BB as the origin of the universe in his book "Cosmos" which is a contradiction of himself in terms. How could something have began without having had a beginning? That's not logical at all. That's crazy! So, we are to skip the Creator and go where, to a universe which began without a beginning? That's a joke!

I'm not sure what you mean by the universe having begun without a beginning. Their are many theories in cosmology concerning the universe's beginning. It is possible that what we think of as the universe started by the big bang is just a local event among an infinite number of universes. This is just speculation as nothing like this has been observed obviously.There is also a theory that the universe began from nothing by quantum fluctuation. The sum total of energy in the universe is 0 so this might not be as far fetched as you might think. I am no physicist so I don't know if I can do justice to trying to explain the various theories but God is not necessary for any of them.

[spacecowboy342]

Do you believe that universe exist? Assuming that your answer is yes, something has been decided. Since it could not have caused itself to exist, some one did it and that's what we are about to decide.

Why could it not have caused itself to exist?

[spacecowboy342]

If you are so sure that you can hold that one up, show me the evidences of how the universe exists without something much more powerful have caused it to exist. As every one knows, it could not have caused itself to exist. For heaven's sake where am I going to get some answers? If there is no logical sense in my question, how is it that I don't get any logical answer?

Edited October 19, 2013 by spacecowboy342

[Ben Masada]

I'm not sure what you mean by the universe having begun without a beginning. Their are many theories in cosmology concerning the universe's beginning. It is possible that what we think of as the universe started by the big bang is just a local event among an infinite number of universes. This is just speculation as nothing like this has been observed obviously.There is also a theory that the universe began from nothing by quantum fluctuation. The sum total of energy in the universe is 0 so this might not be as far fetched as you might think. I am no physicist so I don't know if I can do justice to trying to explain the various theories but God is not necessary for any of them.

That's not me but those who claim that the universe never had a beginning. You are comparing the BB to the explosion of Super Nova now. I would be willing to accept that but super nova are part of the universe and they have happened more than several times since the universe began. You should have asked Einstein about quantum fluctuation. He said the Quantum Mechanics theory was up to beguile us into errors in our search for an uniform basis for Physics because in his belief it was an incomplete representation of real things. (This if from his book, "Our of My Later Years")

[spacecowboy342]

That's not me but those who claim that the universe never had a beginning. You are comparing the BB to the explosion of Super Nova now. I would be willing to accept that but super nova are part of the universe and they have happened more than several times since the universe began. You should have asked Einstein about quantum fluctuation. He said the Quantum Mechanics theory was up to beguile us into errors in our search for an uniform basis for Physics because in his belief it was an incomplete representation of real things. (This if from his book, "Our of My Later Years")

I am not comparing the big bang to a supernova explosion. The two are nothing similar. I am saying what we understand as the big bang could have been but one of many in an infinite universe. I agree that Einstein didn't like QM but I see his failure to refute it as evidence for it's validity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HqZxXZK7c

[Ben Masada]

I am not comparing the big bang to a supernova explosion. The two are nothing similar. I am saying what we understand as the big bang could have been but one of many in an infinite universe. I agree that Einstein didn't like QM but I see his failure to refute it as evidence for it's validity.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HqZxXZK7c[/media]

I saw the video but I do not understand what you meant for me to learn from it. Perhaps to enjoy a stand-up comedian who contradicts himself more than several times? To begin with, he says that the universe came out of nothing as if a rabbit is taken out of a magician's hat. Then at the end he gives the age of the universe to be 2.72 billions years old. How about 3 billions years ago, where was the universe? It did not exist. So the universe did have a beginning. Could the universe have caused itself to exist 2.72 billion years ago? Impossible. Perhaps it just appeared from nowhere. If this makes sense to you, you have all the right in the world to claim. I demand only the right to say that it does not make any sense to me.

[Frank Merton]

Do you believe that universe exist? Assuming that your answer is yes, something has been decided. Since it could not have caused itself to exist, some one did it and that's what we are about to decide.

Your assertion that the universe could not have caused itself to exist reveals a basic failure of comprehension of reality on your part. Things don't of course cause themselves; what happens is that natural processes happen that cause things. Natural processes are sometimes comprehensible, such as natural selection, but the universe is a big place with all sorts of activities that are out of our ken. The fact that we don't see how something can happen doesn't mean it can't happen.

[Ben Masada]

Your assertion that the universe could not have caused itself to exist reveals a basic failure of comprehension of reality on your part. Things don't of course cause themselves; what happens is that natural processes happen that cause things. Natural processes are sometimes comprehensible, such as natural selection, but the universe is a big place with all sorts of activities that are out of our ken. The fact that we don't see how something can happen doesn't mean it can't happen.

On the contrary, my assertion that the universe could not have caused itself to exist rather reveals logical wisdom that you cannot grasp. At least focus on this logical explanation: The universe could not have caused itself to exist because it had to exist to do so. Since it already existed it did not have to cause itself to exist. Don't tell me you didn't get it! Since things do not cause themselves to exist but they were caused by natural processes as you try a new one, who or what has caused the natural processes for things to happen? Nature must exist to cause natural processes. What do you understand by nature?

It does not matter how big is the universe. What matters is that it did not cause itself to exist. Since you do not know who did it, don't be so ready to rule out the probability of the Primal Cause.

[Frank Merton]

I grasp what you say perfectly fine; I once thought that way myself. It took some effort to see through it, and you don't want to make that effort for ideological reasons.

[Ben Masada]

I grasp what you say perfectly fine; I once thought that way myself. It took some effort to see through it, and you don't want to make that effort for ideological reasons.

Forget the ideological reasons! I am open to any ideology if it makes sense to me. Just speak up and I will tell you if I agree with you and why not if I don't.

[Frank Merton]

Don't expect the universe to "make sense." The universe doesn't give a damn whether you understand it or not. The fact is we know things happen without prior cause and therefore we are under no illusion some deity has to be its prior cause, and, besides, if it is such a deity, what caused it? In the end no matter what you say there has to be something without prior cause.

[Ben Masada]

Don't expect the universe to "make sense." The universe doesn't give a damn whether you understand it or not. The fact is we know things happen without prior cause and therefore we are under no illusion some deity has to be its prior cause, and, besides, if it is such a deity, what caused it? In the end no matter what you say there has to be something without prior cause.

Why don't you provide me with the evidence of something that exists without having been caused to exist? By already pointing to the end without explaining the beginning makes no sense.

[White Crane Feather]

But you have the advantage of living in a country where you're properly educated, and not exposed so much to the irrational leanings of creationists. According to polls, you would likely be a minority in many areas of the USA (and elsewhere, no doubt).

Or moderates simply don't answer polls. Honestly, the us is not full of creationists. They are here but it's just a sub culture like anything else. There are many sub cultures here. Creationists just happen to be loud ones.

[Frank Merton]

Polls can be conducted in such a way, depending on how one selects the sample and how one words the question, to get any result you want. For that reason I can't think of a recent poll I've credited. Besides, so a majority thinks this or that? So what?

[White Crane Feather]

1) we know that virtual particles exist

2) we know that they are subject to quantum effects like tunneling

3) we know that eventually a very long eventually like 10^500 years a mass of particles can by sheer accident tunnel to the same place.

We have a very easily explained mechanism for a Big Bang. There is no reason to invoke other things. Now. The deeper reality that creates the rules in which nature operates by is a very interesting mystery.

I propose there was no beginning. Even dark energy might just be a property of the vacuum. There are some interesting papers that show that an intergalactic casimere affect could be the culprit. If this is true space itself ( proper space) as opposed to the space between things would not have ever been created. I'm not sure what there is to create anyway. http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=15&sessionId=3&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=199008

Even in genisus it doesn't say god. created the deep, but merely altered it.

Edited October 21, 2013 by White Crane Feather

[White Crane Feather]

Polls can be conducted in such a way, depending on how one selects the sample and how one words the question, to get any result you want. For that reason I can't think of a recent poll I've credited. Besides, so a majority thinks this or that? So what?

Well I live here frank, and I don't particularly like the false image bible thumpers give the rest of my countrymen. I can tell you that I have worked with thousands of families over the years and only a few are that way. Even the Mormons are more moderate and scientific than what is represented here or out an about. I know a Mormon that is literally a rocket scientist and writes off the baloney.

[Frank Merton]

I have problems about the idea of a beginning-less universe. Keep in mind there would be nothing "before" the beginning -- that is not a "nothing" of emptiness but a "nothing" of no time. So whenever the beginning was that is really, truly, absolutely the beginning. It is not the "beginning" of "our time" in some sort of super-time, but the real start.

Now the problem I see if there has always been something, that there was no beginning, is that means infinity. The past is infinitely, endlessly, "back there." How does it get from endlessly far in the past to now? Infinity is not a number we can add to and subtract from.

That doesn't mean I think the Big Bang is necessarily that "beginning." It might be but probably not.