Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What the big bang says about God

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:

Ancient peoples told myths focusing on their subjective perspective (Israel), not from an objective point of view. Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic. It's probably the closest to the big bang theory.

As for life, scientists found that the universe was built for life. Astronomer Martin Rees in his book "Just six numbers", explains how structure of the cosmos depends on six parameters such as the strength of gravity. Each number has a certain value. He wonders how things would be different if these numbers took other values when the cosmos was made. If say the number assigned to gravity was larger then it would be stronger and stars would form more quickly. The number for the strong nuclear force (that which brings sub-atomic particles together) is at 0.007. If it were at 0.006 then it would be impossible to fuse hydrogen into deuterium and no helium or heavier elements (vital for life). If it was 0.008 then the strong nuclear force would be slightly stronger and hydrogen would have transformed into deuterium and helium too fast. It would burn out the hydrogen leaving no fuel for the stars " no life. He examines other 5 numbers and explains how changing any would affect the universe.

Physicist Freeman Dyson wrote "The more i examine the universe and the details of it's architecture, the more evidence i find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." The Anthropomorphic principle explains that the universe was designed for life. You can argue for multi parallel universes or big bangs but no evidence exists for such a position.

It then becomes more likely that the universe was "divinely orchestrated" than by chance though not direct proof for YHWH Elohim.
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:53:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If God wanted to create a universe built for us, he probably would have made it more hospitable.

Not hanging on a knife's edge.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 1:10:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:53:55 PM, janesix wrote:
If God wanted to create a universe built for us, he probably would have made it more hospitable.

Not hanging on a knife's edge.

How would you know?
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 1:39:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 1:10:05 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:53:55 PM, janesix wrote:
If God wanted to create a universe built for us, he probably would have made it more hospitable.

Not hanging on a knife's edge.

How would you know?

I didn't say I "know" anything.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 1:54:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:

Ancient peoples told myths focusing on their subjective perspective (Israel), not from an objective point of view. Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic. It's probably the closest to the big bang theory.

As for life, scientists found that the universe was built for life.

That is complete horse pucky. What the OP says is just how low believers will stoop to misinterpret and misrepresent what science says so they may justify their religious beliefs.

This should be in the Religion section with the other fabrications.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 1:59:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 1:54:38 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:

Ancient peoples told myths focusing on their subjective perspective (Israel), not from an objective point of view. Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic. It's probably the closest to the big bang theory.

As for life, scientists found that the universe was built for life.

That is complete horse pucky. What the OP says is just how low believers will stoop to misinterpret and misrepresent what science says so they may justify their religious beliefs.

This should be in the Religion section with the other fabrications.

How am i misrepresenting Science?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 3:25:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:
I think that's a construal of intention, TS. To justify that position, you'd need to explain how you know that this is what the author intended, and how you can be sure that this is how the original audience read it.

Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic.
Actually, here's an older creation myth that does the same. The text is from the Greater Bundahishn -- the Zoroastrian equivalent of Genesis, written in around the 6th-11th centuries AD due to Arab persecution, but based on much older oral traditions -- dating to the 15th to the 12th centuries BCE, when Persians first became monotheistic. Ohrmazd here is also known as Ahura-Mazda or the Zoroastrian God, while Ahriman is the Zoroastrian equivalent of Satan. [http://www.avesta.org...]

Here's a translation of the scripture:
1. It is thus manifest, [in the good Religion]: Ohrmazd was, forever, at the highest, in the Light, [for infinite time,] owing to omniscience and goodness.
2. The Light is the place and location of Ohrmazd; there is some one who calls it 'Endless Light'; and the omniscience and goodness are, forever, of Ohrmazd; there is someone who calls them 'Revelation'; Revelation has the interpretation of both these; one, that of the eternal, of Infinite Time; just as were Ohrmazd, Space, Revelation, and Time of Ohrmazd;
3. Ahriman was, at the abysmal station, in darkness, owing to after wit and destructive desire.
4. His destructive desire is raw; and that darkness is his location; there is someone who calls it 'Endless Darkness'.-
5. Betwixt them was Void,- there are some who call it 'Ether'-, wherein was their joining.
6. They both have finiteness and infinity. 7. For, the utmost height is that which one calls 'Endless Light,'- [that is, it is 'not limited'-;] and the abysmal station is the 'Endless Darkness', [and that is infinity. 8. And owing to boundary, both are finite,] -- that is, betwixt them is a Void, and they are not connected with each other.
[7] 9. And again, both the Spirits are finite in themselves. 10. And again, on account of the omniscience of Ohrmazd, everything in the creation of Ohrmazd is finite; for, they know the covenant of both the Spirits. 11. And again, there will be the complete predominance of the creatures of Ohrmazd, at the final material life, upto eternity and eternal progress; [and that is] infinity. 12. And may the creatures of Ahriman perish at the time when the final material life shall take place; that, too, is finiteness.
13. Ohrmazd knew, through omniscience: "The Evil Spirit exists, who will defeat and seize, and even intermingle, with envious desire, the eminent supporters, with several eminent agents, to the end;" He created, spiritually, those creatures which were requisite as those agents.
14. For three thousand years, the creatures remained in the spiritual state, that is, they were unthinking, unmoving, and intangible.
15. The Evil Spirit, on account of after-wit, was unaware of the existence of Ohrmazd; then, arising from that abyss, he came to [the precinct of] the luminous [stars]. 16. When he saw Ohrmazd, that Light, and the unseizable Lustre, he made an attack, for destruction, on account of his destructive desire and malicious nature. 17. He, [then,] saw valour and fortitude, which were greater than his own, returned to darkness, and miscreated many Devs, destroyers of the creatures, and rose for battle.
18. When Ohrmazd saw the creatures of the Evil Spirit, they appeared to Him formidable, defiled and bad creatures, [full of wickedness;] they did not delight Him.
19. Then, the Evil Spirit saw the creatures of Ohrmazd; they appeared to him very [acute] creatures, [ever] worthy of inquiry; the creatures and creation of Ohrmazd delighted him.
20. Then, in whatever manner, Ohrmazd knew the end of the affair, He proffered peace unto the Evil Spirit, and said: "Evil Spirit! bring thou help, and offer praise, unto My creatures, so that, at that dispensation, thou mayest [9] become deathless, without decrepitude, hungerless, and thirstless."
[21. Its meaning is this: "If thou wilt not head the contest, thou wilt not render thyself useless, and it will be profitable to us both."]
22. Thereupon, the Evil Spirit spoke: "I shall not bring help unto Thy creatures, nor shall I offer praise; I will, [rather,] destroy [Thee] and Thy creatures too, upto eternity and eternal progress; [I will convert] all Thy creatures to unfriendliness unto Thee and friendship unto me."
23. Its explanation is this: he imagined: "Ohrmazd is helpless owing to him, and therefore He proffers peace;" he does not accept it, and even leads an attack.
24. Thereupon, Ohrmazd spoke: "Thou art not omnific, O Evil Spirit!" that is, thou canst not destroy Me, "thou canst not so do unto My creatures too, that they may not return to My relationship."
25. Then, Ohrmazd knew, by means of omniscience: "If I do not fix a period for [his] contest too, he can do so unto My creatures, [as he will lead the onset and everlasting dispute and confusion; and during the confusion, he] can seduce [the creatures], and make them over to himself;" just as, even now, there are many men in the mingled state, who practise impiety more than piety, [that is, they are mostly performing the will of the Evil Spirit].
26. Thereupon, Ohrmazd spoke to the Evil Spirit: "[I project] the time fixed for the contest in the mingled state, to nine thousand years;" for, He knew that He would render the Evil Spirit useless, by this fixation of time.
27. Then, the Evil Spirit agreed to that covenant, on account of inability to foresee the end; just as, two men, fighting together, fix up a period, saying: "Let [us] fight such and such a day up till [night]."
28. Ohrmazd knew this too, by means of omniscience: Within these nine thousand years, three thousand years will pass all according to the will of Ohrmazd; three thousand years [will pass] in the mingled state, according to the [11] will of [both] Ohrmazd and Ahriman; and, in the final contest [He ought to render] the Evil Spirit useless, and He will withhold adversity from the creatures.
29. Then, Ohrmazd chanted forth the 'Ahunwar', that is, He uttered a 'Yatha ahu-vairyo' of twenty-one words; He showed to the Evil Spirit His own final victory, the inability of the Evil Spirit, the perishing of the Devs, the rising of the dead, the final material life, and the unopposed condition of the creatures, upto eternity and eternal progress.
30. When the Evil Spirit saw his own inability, and the perishing of all the Devs, he fell back into darkness, having become stupefied [and unconscious].

I hope that may be of interest and use.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 3:39:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 3:25:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:
I think that's a construal of intention, TS. To justify that position, you'd need to explain how you know that this is what the author intended, and how you can be sure that this is how the original audience read it.
Whoops forgot to post a source. In "The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate" John Walton says that Gen. 1 is about function not of material creation.
Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic.
Actually, here's an older creation myth that does the same. The text is from the Greater Bundahishn -- the Zoroastrian equivalent of Genesis, written in around the 6th-11th centuries AD due to Arab persecution, but based on much older oral traditions -- dating to the 15th to the 12th centuries BCE, when Persians first became monotheistic. Ohrmazd here is also known as Ahura-Mazda or the Zoroastrian God, while Ahriman is the Zoroastrian equivalent of Satan. [http://www.avesta.org...]

Here's a translation of the scripture:
1. It is thus manifest, [in the good Religion]: Ohrmazd was, forever, at the highest, in the Light, [for infinite time,] owing to omniscience and goodness.
2. The Light is the place and location of Ohrmazd; there is some one who calls it 'Endless Light'; and the omniscience and goodness are, forever, of Ohrmazd; there is someone who calls them 'Revelation'; Revelation has the interpretation of both these; one, that of the eternal, of Infinite Time; just as were Ohrmazd, Space, Revelation, and Time of Ohrmazd;
3. Ahriman was, at the abysmal station, in darkness, owing to after wit and destructive desire.
4. His destructive desire is raw; and that darkness is his location; there is someone who calls it 'Endless Darkness'.-
5. Betwixt them was Void,- there are some who call it 'Ether'-, wherein was their joining.
6. They both have finiteness and infinity. 7. For, the utmost height is that which one calls 'Endless Light,'- [that is, it is 'not limited'-;] and the abysmal station is the 'Endless Darkness', [and that is infinity. 8. And owing to boundary, both are finite,] -- that is, betwixt them is a Void, and they are not connected with each other.
[7] 9. And again, both the Spirits are finite in themselves. 10. And again, on account of the omniscience of Ohrmazd, everything in the creation of Ohrmazd is finite; for, they know the covenant of both the Spirits. 11. And again, there will be the complete predominance of the creatures of Ohrmazd, at the final material life, upto eternity and eternal progress; [and that is] infinity. 12. And may the creatures of Ahriman perish at the time when the final material life shall take place; that, too, is finiteness.
13. Ohrmazd knew, through omniscience: "The Evil Spirit exists, who will defeat and seize, and even intermingle, with envious desire, the eminent supporters, with several eminent agents, to the end;" He created, spiritually, those creatures which were requisite as those agents.
14. For three thousand years, the creatures remained in the spiritual state, that is, they were unthinking, unmoving, and intangible.
15. The Evil Spirit, on account of after-wit, was unaware of the existence of Ohrmazd; then, arising from that abyss, he came to [the precinct of] the luminous [stars]. 16. When he saw Ohrmazd, that Light, and the unseizable Lustre, he made an attack, for destruction, on account of his destructive desire and malicious nature. 17. He, [then,] saw valour and fortitude, which were greater than his own, returned to darkness, and miscreated many Devs, destroyers of the creatures, and rose for battle.

In Genesis, there is no cosmic battle between good and evil. God speaks his Word and things are made.

18. When Ohrmazd saw the creatures of the Evil Spirit, they appeared to Him formidable, defiled and bad creatures, [full of wickedness;] they did not delight Him.
19. Then, the Evil Spirit saw the creatures of Ohrmazd; they appeared to him very [acute] creatures, [ever] worthy of inquiry; the creatures and creation of Ohrmazd delighted him.
20. Then, in whatever manner, Ohrmazd knew the end of the affair, He proffered peace unto the Evil Spirit, and said: "Evil Spirit! bring thou help, and offer praise, unto My creatures, so that, at that dispensation, thou mayest [9] become deathless, without decrepitude, hungerless, and thirstless."
[21. Its meaning is this: "If thou wilt not head the contest, thou wilt not render thyself useless, and it will be profitable to us both."]
22. Thereupon, the Evil Spirit spoke: "I shall not bring help unto Thy creatures, nor shall I offer praise; I will, [rather,] destroy [Thee] and Thy creatures too, upto eternity and eternal progress; [I will convert] all Thy creatures to unfriendliness unto Thee and friendship unto me."
23. Its explanation is this: he imagined: "Ohrmazd is helpless owing to him, and therefore He proffers peace;" he does not accept it, and even leads an attack.
24. Thereupon, Ohrmazd spoke: "Thou art not omnific, O Evil Spirit!" that is, thou canst not destroy Me, "thou canst not so do unto My creatures too, that they may not return to My relationship."
25. Then, Ohrmazd knew, by means of omniscience: "If I do not fix a period for [his] contest too, he can do so unto My creatures, [as he will lead the onset and everlasting dispute and confusion; and during the confusion, he] can seduce [the creatures], and make them over to himself;" just as, even now, there are many men in the mingled state, who practise impiety more than piety, [that is, they are mostly performing the will of the Evil Spirit].
26. Thereupon, Ohrmazd spoke to the Evil Spirit: "[I project] the time fixed for the contest in the mingled state, to nine thousand years;" for, He knew that He would render the Evil Spirit useless, by this fixation of time.
27. Then, the Evil Spirit agreed to that covenant, on account of inability to foresee the end; just as, two men, fighting together, fix up a period, saying: "Let [us] fight such and such a day up till [night]."
28. Ohrmazd knew this too, by means of omniscience: Within these nine thousand years, three thousand years will pass all according to the will of Ohrmazd; three thousand years [will pass] in the mingled state, according to the [11] will of [both] Ohrmazd and Ahriman; and, in the final contest [He ought to render] the Evil Spirit useless, and He will withhold adversity from the creatures.
29. Then, Ohrmazd chanted forth the 'Ahunwar', that is, He uttered a 'Yatha ahu-vairyo' of twenty-one words; He showed to the Evil Spirit His own final victory, the inability of the Evil Spirit, the perishing of the Devs, the rising of the dead, the final material life, and the unopposed condition of the creatures, upto eternity and eternal progress.
30. When the Evil Spirit saw his own inability, and the perishing of all the Devs, he fell back into darkness, having become stupefied [and unconscious].

I hope that may be of interest and use.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:19:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 3:39:32 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:25:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:
I think that's a construal of intention, TS. To justify that position, you'd need to explain how you know that this is what the author intended, and how you can be sure that this is how the original audience read it.
Whoops forgot to post a source. In "The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate" John Walton says that Gen. 1 is about function not of material creation.
Then the burden of proof lies on Walton, and the burden of scrutiny lies on us to say whether he has supplied it. Else, there's the risk of the historian's fallacy -- to suppose that the author and intended readers of Genesis knew exactly what the modern historian does.

I haven't read Walton -- has shown himself free of the historian's fallacy?
Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic.
Actually, here's an older creation myth that does the same. The text is from the Greater Bundahishn -- the Zoroastrian equivalent of Genesis
In Genesis, there is no cosmic battle between good and evil. God speaks his Word and things are made.
I don't think that qualification relates to your claim, TS. My key points are that Genesis is not the oldest monotheistic creation myth, and that monotheistic gods tend to dictate what will occur, rather than working ritual to make it occur. :)

But no religious myth can credibly claim to predict a Big Bang unless it specifically predicts key falsifiable elements distinguishing that theory from other cosmological models. Among those I'd number the condensation of matter from energy, the recognition that stars are themselves burning matter exerting vast gravitational pull, that they're accelerating apart, and that planets accreted from gas and/or dust. All of those would be insights worthy of noting by anyone whose revelation included a detailed understanding of this cosmological theory, so their absence from any account is significant.

Absent such specific detail, the alternative hypothesis is much more credible: that some modern theologists seek to claim credit for their faith 'predicting' the Big Bang theory using the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy of painting the target after finding casual similarities.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:30:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 4:19:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:39:32 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:25:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:
I think that's a construal of intention, TS. To justify that position, you'd need to explain how you know that this is what the author intended, and how you can be sure that this is how the original audience read it.
Whoops forgot to post a source. In "The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate" John Walton says that Gen. 1 is about function not of material creation.
Then the burden of proof lies on Walton, and the burden of scrutiny lies on us to say whether he has supplied it. Else, there's the risk of the historian's fallacy -- to suppose that the author and intended readers of Genesis knew exactly what the modern historian does.

I haven't read Walton -- has shown himself free of the historian's fallacy?
Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic.
Actually, here's an older creation myth that does the same. The text is from the Greater Bundahishn -- the Zoroastrian equivalent of Genesis
In Genesis, there is no cosmic battle between good and evil. God speaks his Word and things are made.
I don't think that qualification relates to your claim, TS. My key points are that Genesis is not the oldest monotheistic creation myth, and that monotheistic gods tend to dictate what will occur, rather than working ritual to make it occur. :)

But no religious myth can credibly claim to predict a Big Bang unless it specifically predicts key falsifiable elements distinguishing that theory from other cosmological models. Among those I'd number the condensation of matter from energy, the recognition that stars are themselves burning matter exerting vast gravitational pull, that they're accelerating apart, and that planets accreted from gas and/or dust. All of those would be insights worthy of noting by anyone whose revelation included a detailed understanding of this cosmological theory, so their absence from any account is significant.

Absent such specific detail, the alternative hypothesis is much more credible: that some modern theologists seek to claim credit for their faith 'predicting' the Big Bang theory using the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy of painting the target after finding casual similarities.

That's because Genesis deals with metaphysical cosmology instead of physical. Thus the two aren't compatible.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:33:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 4:30:03 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:19:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
No religious myth can credibly claim to predict a Big Bang unless it specifically predicts key falsifiable elements distinguishing that theory from other cosmological models. Among those I'd number the condensation of matter from energy, the recognition that stars are themselves burning matter exerting vast gravitational pull, that they're accelerating apart, and that planets accreted from gas and/or dust. All of those would be insights worthy of noting by anyone whose revelation included a detailed understanding of this cosmological theory, so their absence from any account is significant.
Absent such specific detail, the alternative hypothesis is much more credible: that some modern theologists seek to claim credit for their faith 'predicting' the Big Bang theory using the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy of painting the target after finding casual similarities.
That's because Genesis deals with metaphysical cosmology instead of physical. Thus the two aren't compatible.

I think you have assumed your desired conclusion, TS. I'm concerned that you're injecting a lot of modern, abstract thought into ancient mythology without confirming that the authors and their intended readers used that thought in their everyday lives.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 7:09:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 4:33:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:30:03 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:19:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
No religious myth can credibly claim to predict a Big Bang unless it specifically predicts key falsifiable elements distinguishing that theory from other cosmological models. Among those I'd number the condensation of matter from energy, the recognition that stars are themselves burning matter exerting vast gravitational pull, that they're accelerating apart, and that planets accreted from gas and/or dust. All of those would be insights worthy of noting by anyone whose revelation included a detailed understanding of this cosmological theory, so their absence from any account is significant.
Absent such specific detail, the alternative hypothesis is much more credible: that some modern theologists seek to claim credit for their faith 'predicting' the Big Bang theory using the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy of painting the target after finding casual similarities.
That's because Genesis deals with metaphysical cosmology instead of physical. Thus the two aren't compatible.

I think you have assumed your desired conclusion, TS. I'm concerned that you're injecting a lot of modern, abstract thought into ancient mythology without confirming that the authors and their intended readers used that thought in their everyday lives.

I'd disagree. For example, the Hebrew word for bara "Create" implies a creation from something else not ex nihilo. According to mythology, myths in this case are dealing with national origins. Ancient people also had different models of cosmology than we do now. According to the ancient assumptions of the Bible, the Torah was not meant to be seen as "history" but as a way of life.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 7:25:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 1:59:22 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 1:54:38 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:

Ancient peoples told myths focusing on their subjective perspective (Israel), not from an objective point of view. Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic. It's probably the closest to the big bang theory.

As for life, scientists found that the universe was built for life.

That is complete horse pucky. What the OP says is just how low believers will stoop to misinterpret and misrepresent what science says so they may justify their religious beliefs.

This should be in the Religion section with the other fabrications.

How am i misrepresenting Science?

If you're not educated and trained in science, how do you know you're not misrepresenting it?

You're misrepresenting it because everything you said in the OP is completely pseudoscientific.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 7:29:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 7:09:52 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
According to mythology, myths in this case are dealing with national origins.
Yes, I agree. But if it's figurative there are now two problems:
1) Is the subject the universe, or the Israelite nation? What has modern physics to do with the latter?
2) Does figurative also mean it was not thought of as literal too, or is that an excluded middle argument?

According to the ancient assumptions of the Bible, the Torah was not meant to be seen as "history" but as a way of life.
I think it was a way of life too, but that doesn't make it not also a history -- perhaps a mythical one adopted as real. Many cultures derived identities from myths they believe.

And either way, it also invites historical evidence based on the lives led, rather than admitting a modern reinterpretation based on the lives we lead.

And that returns me to the question of the Historian's Fallacy. You're trying to bridge ideas only understood in the latter half of the 20th century using some of our best math and physics, with ideas held by people who never saw a telescope, and had their own beliefs about what stars were.

How do we avoid the Historian's Fallacy in this case? Did Walton even attempt to prevent it, and were those methods adequate? Quoting another author as a source doesn't abrogate our own responsibility for intellectual rigour.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 7:30:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 7:25:01 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 1:59:22 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 1:54:38 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:

Ancient peoples told myths focusing on their subjective perspective (Israel), not from an objective point of view. Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic. It's probably the closest to the big bang theory.

As for life, scientists found that the universe was built for life.

That is complete horse pucky. What the OP says is just how low believers will stoop to misinterpret and misrepresent what science says so they may justify their religious beliefs.

This should be in the Religion section with the other fabrications.

How am i misrepresenting Science?

If you're not educated and trained in science, how do you know you're not misrepresenting it?

You're misrepresenting it because everything you said in the OP is completely pseudoscientific.

I disagree. In a book on the Big Bang by Simon Singh who is a credible author he admits that the Anthropic principle hints at indirect evidence for God.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 7:38:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 7:30:12 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 7:25:01 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 1:59:22 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 1:54:38 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:

Ancient peoples told myths focusing on their subjective perspective (Israel), not from an objective point of view. Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic. It's probably the closest to the big bang theory.

As for life, scientists found that the universe was built for life.

That is complete horse pucky. What the OP says is just how low believers will stoop to misinterpret and misrepresent what science says so they may justify their religious beliefs.

This should be in the Religion section with the other fabrications.

How am i misrepresenting Science?

If you're not educated and trained in science, how do you know you're not misrepresenting it?

You're misrepresenting it because everything you said in the OP is completely pseudoscientific.

I disagree. In a book on the Big Bang by Simon Singh who is a credible author he admits that the Anthropic principle hints at indirect evidence for God.

What does "credible author" mean?

Oh. Some guy said so, so it must be true.

The same Simon Singh who is a pop-science writer because, according to him, he wasn't good enough to become a scientist? Also, isn't he an atheist?

Besides, how does what he said make your original post any less pseudoscientific?
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 7:52:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 7:29:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 7:09:52 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
According to mythology, myths in this case are dealing with national origins.
Yes, I agree. But if it's figurative there are now two problems:
1) Is the subject the universe, or the Israelite nation? What has modern physics to do with the latter?
2) Does figurative also mean it was not thought of as literal too, or is that an excluded middle argument?

Both but mostly on the Israelite nation.


According to the ancient assumptions of the Bible, the Torah was not meant to be seen as "history" but as a way of life.
I think it was a way of life too, but that doesn't make it not also a history -- perhaps a mythical one adopted as real. Many cultures derived identities from myths they believe.

And either way, it also invites historical evidence based on the lives led, rather than admitting a modern reinterpretation based on the lives we lead.

And that returns me to the question of the Historian's Fallacy. You're trying to bridge ideas only understood in the latter half of the 20th century using some of our best math and physics, with ideas held by people who never saw a telescope, and had their own beliefs about what stars were.

How do we avoid the Historian's Fallacy in this case? Did Walton even attempt to prevent it, and were those methods adequate? Quoting another author as a source doesn't abrogate our own responsibility for intellectual rigour.

I'm arguing for God being a possibility. I never argued that my version of God was proven.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 8:01:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 7:52:33 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 7:29:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 7:09:52 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
According to mythology, myths in this case are dealing with national origins.
Yes, I agree. But if it's figurative there are now two problems:
1) Is the subject the universe, or the Israelite nation? What has modern physics to do with the latter?
2) Does figurative also mean it was not thought of as literal too, or is that an excluded middle argument?
Both but mostly on the Israelite nation.
I think so too. I think Genesis describes the universe as the Israelites conceived it roughly during the Babylonian exile.

I don't myself imagine they were thinking much about a Big Bang. I also note (because I've quoted it), that Israelites and Zoroastrians were exchanging mythological ideas freely (Zoroastrianism is believed to have had a profound influence on Judaism and Christianity, but also to have borrowed from Judaism) -- and some Biblical scholarship shows that Mesopotamians were also influencing Israelites.

So I'm baffled as to how the Big Bang can reveal anything about the Yhwh the Israelites worshipped. As for the Yhwh the Christians worshipped, he's arguably a different being -- with a different set of deeds regarded as canon, a different temperament and a different relationship with humanity -- and arguably he's continuing to change as Christians change the way they see the universe, and their own morality.

The Christian Yhwh may still be redefined by Christians, as I suppose the modern Judaic Yhwh may be redefined, but I'd suggest that the Yhwh of the Pentateuch is past being redefined by modern knowledge.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 1:31:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:

Ancient peoples told myths focusing on their subjective perspective (Israel), not from an objective point of view. Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic. It's probably the closest to the big bang theory.

As for life, scientists found that the universe was built for life. Astronomer Martin Rees in his book "Just six numbers", explains how structure of the cosmos depends on six parameters such as the strength of gravity. Each number has a certain value. He wonders how things would be different if these numbers took other values when the cosmos was made.

1) Is it possible for those values to have been anything else, without other things changing around them.
2) is it possible that our definition or understanding of "life" is Terracentrical?

If say the number assigned to gravity was larger then it would be stronger and stars would form more quickly. The number for the strong nuclear force (that which b
rings sub-atomic particles together) is at 0.007. If it were at 0.006 then it would be impossible to fuse hydrogen into deuterium and no helium or heavier elements (vital for life).

Life that we understand. Or could recognize.

If it was 0.008 then the strong nuclear force would be slightly stronger and hydrogen would have transformed into deuterium and helium too fast. It would burn out the hydrogen leaving no fuel for the stars " no life. He examines other 5 numbers and explains how changing any would affect the universe.

Again, as we know it. And this all assumes that such things haven't happened before in another Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle.

Physicist Freeman Dyson wrote "The more i examine the universe and the details of it's architecture, the more evidence i find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." The Anthropomorphic principle explains that the universe was designed for life. You can argue for multi parallel universes or big bangs but no evidence exists for such a position.

... "The universe was designed for life". The universe is primarily a vacuum capable of snuffing out life in under 60 seconds. I am not confident I would go out on a limb and state that such a locale is designed to support life.

It then becomes more likely that the universe was "divinely orchestrated" than by chance though not direct proof for YHWH Elohim.

Is that due to our inability to understand alternatives, or the lack of desire to admit alternatives?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 2:43:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:

Ancient peoples told myths focusing on their subjective perspective (Israel), not from an objective point of view. Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic. It's probably the closest to the big bang theory.

As for life, scientists found that the universe was built for life. Astronomer Martin Rees in his book "Just six numbers", explains how structure of the cosmos depends on six parameters such as the strength of gravity. Each number has a certain value. He wonders how things would be different if these numbers took other values when the cosmos was made. If say the number assigned to gravity was larger then it would be stronger and stars would form more quickly. The number for the strong nuclear force (that which brings sub-atomic particles together) is at 0.007. If it were at 0.006 then it would be impossible to fuse hydrogen into deuterium and no helium or heavier elements (vital for life). If it was 0.008 then the strong nuclear force would be slightly stronger and hydrogen would have transformed into deuterium and helium too fast. It would burn out the hydrogen leaving no fuel for the stars " no life. He examines other 5 numbers and explains how changing any would affect the universe.

Physicist Freeman Dyson wrote "The more i examine the universe and the details of it's architecture, the more evidence i find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." The Anthropomorphic principle explains that the universe was designed for life. You can argue for multi parallel universes or big bangs but no evidence exists for such a position.

It then becomes more likely that the universe was "divinely orchestrated" than by chance though not direct proof for YHWH Elohim.

Any life form will find it's self in a universe which is compatible with it's existence, since if the universe was not it would not exist in that universe in the first place.

Yes we live in a life permitting universe, we also live in an ebola and black hole permitting universe.

But you don't hear them going around claiming oh it's all part of a divine plan.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 7:39:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 2:43:18 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:

Ancient peoples told myths focusing on their subjective perspective (Israel), not from an objective point of view. Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic. It's probably the closest to the big bang theory.

As for life, scientists found that the universe was built for life. Astronomer Martin Rees in his book "Just six numbers", explains how structure of the cosmos depends on six parameters such as the strength of gravity. Each number has a certain value. He wonders how things would be different if these numbers took other values when the cosmos was made. If say the number assigned to gravity was larger then it would be stronger and stars would form more quickly. The number for the strong nuclear force (that which brings sub-atomic particles together) is at 0.007. If it were at 0.006 then it would be impossible to fuse hydrogen into deuterium and no helium or heavier elements (vital for life). If it was 0.008 then the strong nuclear force would be slightly stronger and hydrogen would have transformed into deuterium and helium too fast. It would burn out the hydrogen leaving no fuel for the stars " no life. He examines other 5 numbers and explains how changing any would affect the universe.

Physicist Freeman Dyson wrote "The more i examine the universe and the details of it's architecture, the more evidence i find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." The Anthropomorphic principle explains that the universe was designed for life. You can argue for multi parallel universes or big bangs but no evidence exists for such a position.

It then becomes more likely that the universe was "divinely orchestrated" than by chance though not direct proof for YHWH Elohim.

Any life form will find it's self in a universe which is compatible with it's existence, since if the universe was not it would not exist in that universe in the first place.

Yes we live in a life permitting universe, we also live in an ebola and black hole permitting universe.

But you don't hear them going around claiming oh it's all part of a divine plan.

What kinds of claims do you think ebola and black holes make?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 7:43:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 7:39:39 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 2:43:18 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:

Ancient peoples told myths focusing on their subjective perspective (Israel), not from an objective point of view. Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic. It's probably the closest to the big bang theory.

As for life, scientists found that the universe was built for life. Astronomer Martin Rees in his book "Just six numbers", explains how structure of the cosmos depends on six parameters such as the strength of gravity. Each number has a certain value. He wonders how things would be different if these numbers took other values when the cosmos was made. If say the number assigned to gravity was larger then it would be stronger and stars would form more quickly. The number for the strong nuclear force (that which brings sub-atomic particles together) is at 0.007. If it were at 0.006 then it would be impossible to fuse hydrogen into deuterium and no helium or heavier elements (vital for life). If it was 0.008 then the strong nuclear force would be slightly stronger and hydrogen would have transformed into deuterium and helium too fast. It would burn out the hydrogen leaving no fuel for the stars " no life. He examines other 5 numbers and explains how changing any would affect the universe.

Physicist Freeman Dyson wrote "The more i examine the universe and the details of it's architecture, the more evidence i find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." The Anthropomorphic principle explains that the universe was designed for life. You can argue for multi parallel universes or big bangs but no evidence exists for such a position.

It then becomes more likely that the universe was "divinely orchestrated" than by chance though not direct proof for YHWH Elohim.

Any life form will find it's self in a universe which is compatible with it's existence, since if the universe was not it would not exist in that universe in the first place.

Yes we live in a life permitting universe, we also live in an ebola and black hole permitting universe.

But you don't hear them going around claiming oh it's all part of a divine plan.

What kinds of claims do you think ebola and black holes make?

Who knows, maybe they think to themselves, you know what are the odds that the universe I find myself in having just the right values that allow for my existence ? Pretty astronomical, I think we can infer intelligent design.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 10:57:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 1:31:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:

Ancient peoples told myths focusing on their subjective perspective (Israel), not from an objective point of view. Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic. It's probably the closest to the big bang theory.

As for life, scientists found that the universe was built for life. Astronomer Martin Rees in his book "Just six numbers", explains how structure of the cosmos depends on six parameters such as the strength of gravity. Each number has a certain value. He wonders how things would be different if these numbers took other values when the cosmos was made.

1) Is it possible for those values to have been anything else, without other things changing around them.

No, he explains that if for example the Strong nuclear force had a value other than the one set down, the atoms essential for life would fall apart. Hydrogen must be able to provide Helium in order for life to form.

2) is it possible that our definition or understanding of "life" is Terracentrical?

Yes since our planet seems to be the only one having life.

If say the number assigned to gravity was larger then it would be stronger and stars would form more quickly. The number for the strong nuclear force (that which b
rings sub-atomic particles together) is at 0.007. If it were at 0.006 then it would be impossible to fuse hydrogen into deuterium and no helium or heavier elements (vital for life).

Life that we understand. Or could recognize.

If it was 0.008 then the strong nuclear force would be slightly stronger and hydrogen would have transformed into deuterium and helium too fast. It would burn out the hydrogen leaving no fuel for the stars " no life. He examines other 5 numbers and explains how changing any would affect the universe.

Again, as we know it. And this all assumes that such things haven't happened before in another Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle.

Where's the evidence for that?


Physicist Freeman Dyson wrote "The more i examine the universe and the details of it's architecture, the more evidence i find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." The Anthropomorphic principle explains that the universe was designed for life. You can argue for multi parallel universes or big bangs but no evidence exists for such a position.

... "The universe was designed for life". The universe is primarily a vacuum capable of snuffing out life in under 60 seconds. I am not confident I would go out on a limb and state that such a locale is designed to support life.

It then becomes more likely that the universe was "divinely orchestrated" than by chance though not direct proof for YHWH Elohim.

Is that due to our inability to understand alternatives, or the lack of desire to admit alternatives?

Neither? I mean the math essentially says "it's impossible for any other way to create the universe than this."
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 11:13:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 8:01:06 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 7:52:33 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 7:29:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 7:09:52 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
According to mythology, myths in this case are dealing with national origins.
Yes, I agree. But if it's figurative there are now two problems:
1) Is the subject the universe, or the Israelite nation? What has modern physics to do with the latter?
2) Does figurative also mean it was not thought of as literal too, or is that an excluded middle argument?
Both but mostly on the Israelite nation.
I think so too. I think Genesis describes the universe as the Israelites conceived it roughly during the Babylonian exile.

Where's the evidence for that? Based on what i read, they kept common elements in their myths.

I don't myself imagine they were thinking much about a Big Bang. I also note (because I've quoted it), that Israelites and Zoroastrians were exchanging mythological ideas freely (Zoroastrianism is believed to have had a profound influence on Judaism and Christianity, but also to have borrowed from Judaism) -- and some Biblical scholarship shows that Mesopotamians were also influencing Israelites.

Well Israel was born from Mesopotamia.

So I'm baffled as to how the Big Bang can reveal anything about the Yhwh the Israelites worshipped. As for the Yhwh the Christians worshipped, he's arguably a different being -- with a different set of deeds regarded as canon, a different temperament and a different relationship with humanity -- and arguably he's continuing to change as Christians change the way they see the universe, and their own morality.

If it takes a life time to know God of course your ideas are going to change. I never said it revealed him explicitly. That's for another topic.

The Christian Yhwh may still be redefined by Christians, as I suppose the modern Judaic Yhwh may be redefined, but I'd suggest that the Yhwh of the Pentateuch is past being redefined by modern knowledge.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 11:18:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 10:57:40 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 1:31:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:

Ancient peoples told myths focusing on their subjective perspective (Israel), not from an objective point of view. Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic. It's probably the closest to the big bang theory.

As for life, scientists found that the universe was built for life. Astronomer Martin Rees in his book "Just six numbers", explains how structure of the cosmos depends on six parameters such as the strength of gravity. Each number has a certain value. He wonders how things would be different if these numbers took other values when the cosmos was made.

1) Is it possible for those values to have been anything else, without other things changing around them.

No, he explains that if for example the Strong nuclear force had a value other than the one set down, the atoms essential for life would fall apart. Hydrogen must be able to provide Helium in order for life to form.

The flaw in that is the fact the values were not "set down", the values for the strong nuclear force are the results of how the strong nuclear force works. If the result was different, there would be something different than the strong nuclear force that could sustain some other form of life, just not the carbon life forms that we are.

2) is it possible that our definition or understanding of "life" is Terracentrical?

Yes since our planet seems to be the only one having life.

That would show the universe is obviously NOT fine tuned for life or else life would be teeming everywhere.

If say the number assigned to gravity was larger then it would be stronger and stars would form more quickly. The number for the strong nuclear force (that which b
rings sub-atomic particles together) is at 0.007. If it were at 0.006 then it would be impossible to fuse hydrogen into deuterium and no helium or heavier elements (vital for life).

Life that we understand. Or could recognize.

If it was 0.008 then the strong nuclear force would be slightly stronger and hydrogen would have transformed into deuterium and helium too fast. It would burn out the hydrogen leaving no fuel for the stars " no life. He examines other 5 numbers and explains how changing any would affect the universe.

Again, as we know it. And this all assumes that such things haven't happened before in another Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle.

Where's the evidence for that?


Physicist Freeman Dyson wrote "The more i examine the universe and the details of it's architecture, the more evidence i find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." The Anthropomorphic principle explains that the universe was designed for life. You can argue for multi parallel universes or big bangs but no evidence exists for such a position.

... "The universe was designed for life". The universe is primarily a vacuum capable of snuffing out life in under 60 seconds. I am not confident I would go out on a limb and state that such a locale is designed to support life.

It then becomes more likely that the universe was "divinely orchestrated" than by chance though not direct proof for YHWH Elohim.

Is that due to our inability to understand alternatives, or the lack of desire to admit alternatives?

Neither? I mean the math essentially says "it's impossible for any other way to create the universe than this."

What math?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 11:25:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 11:18:02 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/15/2015 10:57:40 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 1:31:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:

Ancient peoples told myths focusing on their subjective perspective (Israel), not from an objective point of view. Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic. It's probably the closest to the big bang theory.

As for life, scientists found that the universe was built for life. Astronomer Martin Rees in his book "Just six numbers", explains how structure of the cosmos depends on six parameters such as the strength of gravity. Each number has a certain value. He wonders how things would be different if these numbers took other values when the cosmos was made.

1) Is it possible for those values to have been anything else, without other things changing around them.

No, he explains that if for example the Strong nuclear force had a value other than the one set down, the atoms essential for life would fall apart. Hydrogen must be able to provide Helium in order for life to form.

The flaw in that is the fact the values were not "set down", the values for the strong nuclear force are the results of how the strong nuclear force works. If the result was different, there would be something different than the strong nuclear force that could sustain some other form of life, just not the carbon life forms that we are.

We haven't found other life forms so we cannot make that argument.

2) is it possible that our definition or understanding of "life" is Terracentrical?

Yes since our planet seems to be the only one having life.

That would show the universe is obviously NOT fine tuned for life or else life would be teeming everywhere.

I never said it was. I said it wouldn't have terrestrial life.


If say the number assigned to gravity was larger then it would be stronger and stars would form more quickly. The number for the strong nuclear force (that which b
rings sub-atomic particles together) is at 0.007. If it were at 0.006 then it would be impossible to fuse hydrogen into deuterium and no helium or heavier elements (vital for life).

Life that we understand. Or could recognize.

If it was 0.008 then the strong nuclear force would be slightly stronger and hydrogen would have transformed into deuterium and helium too fast. It would burn out the hydrogen leaving no fuel for the stars " no life. He examines other 5 numbers and explains how changing any would affect the universe.

Again, as we know it. And this all assumes that such things haven't happened before in another Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle.

Where's the evidence for that?


Physicist Freeman Dyson wrote "The more i examine the universe and the details of it's architecture, the more evidence i find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." The Anthropomorphic principle explains that the universe was designed for life. You can argue for multi parallel universes or big bangs but no evidence exists for such a position.

... "The universe was designed for life". The universe is primarily a vacuum capable of snuffing out life in under 60 seconds. I am not confident I would go out on a limb and state that such a locale is designed to support life.

It then becomes more likely that the universe was "divinely orchestrated" than by chance though not direct proof for YHWH Elohim.

Is that due to our inability to understand alternatives, or the lack of desire to admit alternatives?

Neither? I mean the math essentially says "it's impossible for any other way to create the universe than this."

What math?

The math described in the book i mentioned earlier.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 12:10:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 11:25:57 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:18:02 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/15/2015 10:57:40 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 1:31:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:37:23 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Gen. 1-2 doesn't describe the "material" aspect of creation but the metaphysical aspect of creating order from chaos:

Ancient peoples told myths focusing on their subjective perspective (Israel), not from an objective point of view. Israel's creation is the only myth that proclaims the one true God as creator of the universe without magic. It's probably the closest to the big bang theory.

As for life, scientists found that the universe was built for life. Astronomer Martin Rees in his book "Just six numbers", explains how structure of the cosmos depends on six parameters such as the strength of gravity. Each number has a certain value. He wonders how things would be different if these numbers took other values when the cosmos was made.

1) Is it possible for those values to have been anything else, without other things changing around them.

No, he explains that if for example the Strong nuclear force had a value other than the one set down, the atoms essential for life would fall apart. Hydrogen must be able to provide Helium in order for life to form.

The flaw in that is the fact the values were not "set down", the values for the strong nuclear force are the results of how the strong nuclear force works. If the result was different, there would be something different than the strong nuclear force that could sustain some other form of life, just not the carbon life forms that we are.

We haven't found other life forms so we cannot make that argument.

We haven't found other life forms so we cannot make the argument for fine tuning, either.

2) is it possible that our definition or understanding of "life" is Terracentrical?

Yes since our planet seems to be the only one having life.

That would show the universe is obviously NOT fine tuned for life or else life would be teeming everywhere.

I never said it was. I said it wouldn't have terrestrial life.

Terrestrial life simply means life on Earth.


If say the number assigned to gravity was larger then it would be stronger and stars would form more quickly. The number for the strong nuclear force (that which b
rings sub-atomic particles together) is at 0.007. If it were at 0.006 then it would be impossible to fuse hydrogen into deuterium and no helium or heavier elements (vital for life).

Life that we understand. Or could recognize.

If it was 0.008 then the strong nuclear force would be slightly stronger and hydrogen would have transformed into deuterium and helium too fast. It would burn out the hydrogen leaving no fuel for the stars " no life. He examines other 5 numbers and explains how changing any would affect the universe.

Again, as we know it. And this all assumes that such things haven't happened before in another Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle.

Where's the evidence for that?


Physicist Freeman Dyson wrote "The more i examine the universe and the details of it's architecture, the more evidence i find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." The Anthropomorphic principle explains that the universe was designed for life. You can argue for multi parallel universes or big bangs but no evidence exists for such a position.

... "The universe was designed for life". The universe is primarily a vacuum capable of snuffing out life in under 60 seconds. I am not confident I would go out on a limb and state that such a locale is designed to support life.

It then becomes more likely that the universe was "divinely orchestrated" than by chance though not direct proof for YHWH Elohim.

Is that due to our inability to understand alternatives, or the lack of desire to admit alternatives?

Neither? I mean the math essentially says "it's impossible for any other way to create the universe than this."

What math?

The math described in the book i mentioned earlier.

The math only looks at six numbers, three of which are dimensions. The book does not take into account many other numbers that make up the physical laws.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 2:01:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 11:13:43 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 8:01:06 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I think Genesis describes the universe as the Israelites conceived it roughly during the Babylonian exile.
Where's the evidence for that? Based on what i read, they kept common elements in their myths.
Biblical scholars believe the Pentateuch were written around 600BCE through 400BCE. So the books are thought to have been commenced during the Babylonian exilic period and completed during the Persian period.

By 0 CE there's evidence that some Jews at least, were taking on ideas from Greek philosophy. Those ideas aren't reflected in the books of Pentateuch, which were completed by then, but are reflected in history, in the cultural struggles between Hellenised and more traditional Jews -- and those struggles form the social context in which is cast the ministry of Jesus.

Israelites and Zoroastrians were exchanging mythological ideas freely (Zoroastrianism is believed to have had a profound influence on Judaism and Christianity, but also to have borrowed from Judaism) -- and some Biblical scholarship shows that Mesopotamians were also influencing Israelites.
Well Israel was born from Mesopotamia.
Yes. And the whole region is on major trade-routes. There's a lot of cultural exchange throughout the Near East all through ancient times.

I'm baffled as to how the Big Bang can reveal anything about the Yhwh the Israelites worshipped. As for the Yhwh the Christians worshipped, he's arguably a different being
If it takes a life time to know God of course your ideas are going to change. I never said it revealed him explicitly. That's for another topic.
I think we might be at cross-purposes here, T_S. The Yhwh the Israelites understood and the universe they understood are both reflected in the Pentateuch. But the Yhwh modern Christians understand (actually there's more than one understanding), and the universe they understand aren't so much in the Bible, as in the oral and written traditions that have emerged in part referencing the Bible.

To see this, consider: Mediaeval Christians believed that virtually all consequence was moral. Every consequence arose directly from divine will, and divine will was moral, so how could it be otherwise? Apples fell from trees for moral reasons; cloud scudded across the sky because God willed it so, and that will was moral.

The world was an embodiment of moral dictate, so when you caught a cold, or the wheel fell off your cart, or it didn't rain for six weeks, it was inconceivable that this was not a consequence of individual or collective morality. In fact, to argue otherwise could get you censured, hurt, or even killed. So when your crops sprouted late, you didn't study more about agriculture, you'd pray that they'd sprout tomorrow.

Clock forward through the Renaissance and into the Enlightenment, and the universe has changed, and so has God.

People in the time of Newton are still using the same Bible, and still near-universally believe in God, but they don't believe that all consequence is moral. It's now physical.

What do they know that Mediaeval Europeans didn't? Simple: they've worked out through observation that physical consequence is predicted from physical states -- an idea modern Christians now take for granted.

Mediaeval philosophers didn't know that, because they lacked the tools and methods to confirm it. That insight is also lacking in the Pentateuch and the New Testament because ancient Jews didn't know it, and the only Europeans who suspected it were some Greek and later Roman and Arab philosophers who weren't sure how to prove it.

So from the Enlightenment onward, the god of Abraham is no longer a constantly-intervening presence in the world. Increasingly, God is more passive and supervisory, intervening only in extremity. After Darwin, God isn't even present during the development of life; and by the late 20th century, God didn't make the universe either -- for scientifically literate modern Christians, God can only have put the conditions in place for the Universe to appear.

So God's retreating from direct interaction in human existence and affairs.

Yet that would be inconceivable to the authors of the Pentateuch, for whom God was an immediate, interventionist, conversational presence.

I'm using this to point out that there's no use looking for ancient insights into modern physics, because the ancient Israelites didn't understand physical consequence as we do, and would have hotly denied it. Moreover, there's no point looking into an ancient scripture for a modern understanding of God, since modern beliefs about God are now only tenuously linked to the ancient scriptures. They're much more a product of the conversations in Christian cultures around modern morality and how the world works.

Essentially, I'm trying to argue that connecting the Big Bang to Genesis represents a series of category and historical errors. The two are poles apart, and it seems to me that only a poor scholar who didn't understand the history of science very well, and who thought Genesis had been written especially for him by people much like himself, would make that mistake.

I know some Christians do make that mistake, Truth_Seeker. But given the exalted virtue of your name, and the thoughtful reflection I see in your posts, I hope to persuade you not to. :)

In any case, I hope this helps. :)
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 2:15:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 8:01:06 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I think Genesis describes the universe as the Israelites conceived it roughly during the Babylonian exile.
Where's the evidence for that? Based on what i read, they kept common elements in their myths.
Biblical scholars believe the Pentateuch were written around 600BCE through 400BCE. So the books are thought to have been commenced during the Babylonian exilic period and completed during the Persian period.

By 0 CE there's evidence that some Jews at least, were taking on ideas from Greek philosophy. Those ideas aren't reflected in the books of Pentateuch, which were completed by then, but are reflected in history, in the cultural struggles between Hellenised and more traditional Jews -- and those struggles form the social context in which is cast the ministry of Jesus.

I need sources as in links lol.


Israelites and Zoroastrians were exchanging mythological ideas freely (Zoroastrianism is believed to have had a profound influence on Judaism and Christianity, but also to have borrowed from Judaism) -- and some Biblical scholarship shows that Mesopotamians were also influencing Israelites.
Well Israel was born from Mesopotamia.
Yes. And the whole region is on major trade-routes. There's a lot of cultural exchange throughout the Near East all through ancient times.

I'm baffled as to how the Big Bang can reveal anything about the Yhwh the Israelites worshipped. As for the Yhwh the Christians worshipped, he's arguably a different being
If it takes a life time to know God of course your ideas are going to change. I never said it revealed him explicitly. That's for another topic.
I think we might be at cross-purposes here, T_S. The Yhwh the Israelites understood and the universe they understood are both reflected in the Pentateuch. But the Yhwh modern Christians understand (actually there's more than one understanding), and the universe they understand aren't so much in the Bible, as in the oral and written traditions that have emerged in part referencing the Bible.

To see this, consider: Mediaeval Christians believed that virtually all consequence was moral. Every consequence arose directly from divine will, and divine will was moral, so how could it be otherwise? Apples fell from trees for moral reasons; cloud scudded across the sky because God willed it so, and that will was moral.

Actually it began with the ancients in Mesopotamia.

The world was an embodiment of moral dictate, so when you caught a cold, or the wheel fell off your cart, or it didn't rain for six weeks, it was inconceivable that this was not a consequence of individual or collective morality. In fact, to argue otherwise could get you censured, hurt, or even killed. So when your crops sprouted late, you didn't study more about agriculture, you'd pray that they'd sprout tomorrow.

Clock forward through the Renaissance and into the Enlightenment, and the universe has changed, and so has God.

People in the time of Newton are still using the same Bible, and still near-universally believe in God, but they don't believe that all consequence is moral. It's now physical.

Job provides a philosophical proposition that not everything is moral punishment.


What do they know that Mediaeval Europeans didn't? Simple: they've worked out through observation that physical consequence is predicted from physical states -- an idea modern Christians now take for granted.

Mediaeval philosophers didn't know that, because they lacked the tools and methods to confirm it. That insight is also lacking in the Pentateuch and the New Testament because ancient Jews didn't know it, and the only Europeans who suspected it were some Greek and later Roman and Arab philosophers who weren't sure how to prove it.

So from the Enlightenment onward, the god of Abraham is no longer a constantly-intervening presence in the world. Increasingly, God is more passive and supervisory, intervening only in extremity. After Darwin, God isn't even present during the development of life; and by the late 20th century, God didn't make the universe either -- for scientifically literate modern Christians, God can only have put the conditions in place for the Universe to appear.

So God's retreating from direct interaction in human existence and affairs.

Yet that would be inconceivable to the authors of the Pentateuch, for whom God was an immediate, interventionist, conversational presence.

I'm using this to point out that there's no use looking for ancient insights into modern physics, because the ancient Israelites didn't understand physical consequence as we do, and would have hotly denied it. Moreover, there's no point looking into an ancient scripture for a modern understanding of God, since modern beliefs about God are now only tenuously linked to the ancient scriptures. They're much more a product of the conversations in Christian cultures around modern morality and how the world works.

It doesn't make God lost in history, simply obscured. We can still say God caused everything.

Essentially, I'm trying to argue that connecting the Big Bang to Genesis represents a series of category and historical errors. The two are poles apart, and it seems to me that only a poor scholar who didn't understand the history of science very well, and who thought Genesis had been written especially for him by people much like himself, would make that mistake.

I know some Christians do make that mistake, Truth_Seeker. But given the exalted virtue of your name, and the thoughtful reflection I see in your posts, I hope to persuade you not to. :)

In any case, I hope this helps. :)

I'm trying to argue that most of the big bang does not support nor conflict with Genesis and some hints at the existence of God like the Anthromorphic principle.