The Beginning

[SelfSim]

Well yes, a lot of these discussions tend to get mired in semantics.. but our mental models are an attempt to describe the ordering principles, inadequate as they may be.

Everything we write here is based on semantic meanings. The thing is though, we all seem to completely ignore/forget where, and more importantly, how those meanings came to be. (its like a blind spot we all have). There are only two known ways for those meanings to come into existence .. either via the scientific objective method, or by just by way of beliefs.

PS: We're off-track here and I don't mean to derail this thread. I'm going to go quiet on this side topic for a while .. interesting as it is. I've only answered some questions out of politeness and to hopefully satisfy some curiosities. Cheers

 

[BCP1928]

The model of 'the Universe' was most likely created originally, from our visual perceptions (although a lot more human-ness has been thrown into it since). There is no need for it to necessarily refer to it as 'a something' existing independently from the descriptive model, although we all seem addicted to that belief .. (myself included). That belief adds nothing to scientific models, as it cannot be objectively tested. It is an optional belief. The only difference, perhaps, between you and me, is that I know its a belief.

'Orderliness' is a model conceived by the mind too .. one could argue that its one of the basics for us to make sense of our perceptions. Again, its origin is a creation by our own mind .. and only perhaps, (and undemonstrably), something beyond it (which make it a comforting belief).

Who, me? I'm not even sure there's a cat in the box at all.

 

[JulieB67]

I'm not really wondering what caused God. Its more so there's two possible. God created the universe or the big bang.

God essentially was the big bang when it comes to what happened to the earth.

The earth is millions, if not billions of years old, and the bible does not dispute this. In fact that Bible states that the scoffers in the last days are "willingly ignorant" that the heavens are of "old" (diiferent Greek word than most of the other Greek words utilized for old) and the earth was standing in and out of the water. When was it covered in water? Already in verse two of Genesis -before the 6 day creation period of this age.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." -
The word void is bohuw -

void
922
bohuw (bo'-hoo); from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:
KJV - emptiness, void.

But he tells us in Isaiah, he did not create it that way. He created it to be inhabited. So we know then he did not created a mass covered in water (in a ruined state) So that also tells us it became that way. So we know that the word "was" should be translated "became"

was
1961 hayah
hayah (haw-yaw); a primitive root [compare OT:1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):KJV - beacon, altogether, be (-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, follow, happen, have, last, pertain, quit (oneself-), require, use.

The bible is not a complete history or science book but it does touch upon that time in Jeremiah 4-

He takes us back to Genesis 1:2


Jeremiah 4:23 "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light."-

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

Jeremiah 4:24 "I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

Notice all the hills moved lightly,? Everything shifted at that point. That's why in certain maps everything looks like it used to fit together. God literally shook the earth (and he will again in the future)

Jeremiah 4:25 "I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled."


Jeremiah 4:26 "I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger."

It was once a paradise and it will be again in the future.


Jeremiah 4:27 "For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end."

And he didn't. But we aren't talking about Noah here, remember in context, he took us to Genesis 1. And In Noah's time, there were men saved.

And once again, the word itself states that latter day scoffers are willingly ignorant about how old the heavens and earth are-

II Peter 3:4 "And saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? for since the father fell asleep, all thing continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."


II Peter 3:5 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water"


Point being what is thousands of years compared to how old the earth really is.

 

[stevil]

I don't get the problem. There was God. And nothing but God. Then God created something.

What am I missing?

If god is complete and perfect and needs nothing.
Why then, after an eternity of simply basking in his own glory, did he decide to create something? Did he get bored, lonely, did he feel he needs something more? Was it somewhat of a midlife crises, where he decided he needed to create people to worship him, to praise him, to pray to him, to thank him. Did he feel he needed a little external praise, because simply telling himself how perfect and great he is, wasn't doing it for him any more?

Why all of a sudden did he get fidgety and decide to create a universe and millions of worshippers for whom he created 10 commandments, 4 of which were all about himself being Number 01?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Ok so I'm trying to become a Christian. However, in the back of my head I keep creating questions. For instance, how can you say God created everything before the big bang (God being an uncaused first cause) and not the bang itself. I know some will say there is a cause and effect. Yes, but this situation is different because it's before time. A cause cannot be before matter and time so it was nothing. Therefore the bang be an uncaused first cause. I don't understand how God can be one but the bang itself cannot. Thanks for your help.

The first thing to consider is that we are asking questions similarly to how a man may have asked questions 3,000 years ago. That is, we still don't know very much.

But one thing we do know is that the whole universe is made out of, essentially, nothing. i.e. "matter" is, in a way, just coagulated energy. Your hands don't really touch, and there is really very little there in the way of protons, neutrons and electrons. and they also are mostly just empty space. How empty? I like to imagine a single satellite orbiting around the earth, eventually creating a sphere in its trajectory, and then representing it as a sphere, like the earth. But in reality that satellite takes essentially NONE of the space represented by the sphere. Same with atoms.

So, basically, our reality doesn't physically exist as we think of it. Rather, it's all about our interpretation of the input to our senses that gives "physical" objects physicality. When we clap our hands together, if feels like they touch, but they don't. At the molecular level they are pushing each other away much as magnets push each other away, giving the impression that they "touch". It's really just the force that we feel.

All of the above is just to say that we really don't know what the heck is going on. We only think we do because we know so much more than early man did. But in reality, we're just suffering from more and more "dunning Kruger effect" the more we know. We think we've figured out a lot more of what there is to know than we actually have.

 

[Bradskii]

If god is complete and perfect and needs nothing.
Why then, after an eternity of simply basking in his own glory, did he decide to create something? Did he get bored, lonely, did he feel he needs something more? Was it somewhat of a midlife crises, where he decided he needed to create people to worship him, to praise him, to pray to him, to thank him. Did he feel he needed a little external praise, because simply telling himself how perfect and great he is, wasn't doing it for him any more?

Why all of a sudden did he get fidgety and decide to create a universe and millions of worshippers for whom he created 10 commandments, 4 of which were all about himself being Number 01?

Makes no sense to me either...

 

[stevil]

Makes no sense to me either...

And then for those that don't offer the worship and praise, they get sent to his buddy who is obligated to torture them for an eternity.

Lovely religion this. Totally unnecessary, totally egotistical and manipulative.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The first thing to consider is that we are asking questions similarly to how a man may have asked questions 3,000 years ago. That is, we still don't know very much.

But one thing we do know is that the whole universe is made out of, essentially, nothing. i.e. "matter" is, in a way, just coagulated energy.

Umm, no.

The fundamental (point) particles have mass from their interaction with the Higgs field, the composite particles (neutrons and protons) from their binding energy.

Your hands don't really touch, and there is really very little there in the way of protons, neutrons and electrons. and they also are mostly just empty space.

So? It is the repulsion of the electron clouds of the atoms that keep them apart.

How empty? I like to imagine a single satellite orbiting around the earth, eventually creating a sphere in its trajectory, and then representing it as a sphere, like the earth. But in reality that satellite takes essentially NONE of the space represented by the sphere. Same with atoms

What's the point of this?

So, basically, our reality doesn't physically exist as we think of it. Rather, it's all about our interpretation of the input to our senses that gives "physical" objects physicality. When we clap our hands together, if feels like they touch, but they don't. At the molecular level they are pushing each other away much as magnets push each other away, giving the impression that they "touch". It's really just the force that we feel.

What your brain perceives as "touch" is the response of neurons stimulated by forces and transmitted to the brain. That wouldn't be any different if atoms were solid spheres or what they actually are.

All of the above is just to say that we really don't know what the heck is going on. We only think we do because we know so much more than early man did. But in reality, we're just suffering from more and more "dunning Kruger effect" the more we know. We think we've figured out a lot more of what there is to know than we actually have.

Oh, now I see. This is just an effort to dismiss knowledge. Does some scientific knowledge scare you or something? Does it challenge your personal opinions or sense of self? I really don't get this kind of attitude toward discovered reality.

 

[stevil]

I like to imagine a single satellite orbiting around the earth, eventually creating a sphere in its trajectory, and then representing it as a sphere, like the earth. But in reality that satellite takes essentially NONE of the space represented by the sphere. Same with atoms.

Yes, atoms are mostly empty space. But atoms are even weirder. The electrons don't travel in a regular orbit around the proton. Their position is based on probabilities, they don't have to travel in a discrete path e.g. to get from A to C they don't have to go through B.

All of the above is just to say that we really don't know what the heck is going on. We only think we do because we know so much more than early man did. But in reality, we're just suffering from more and more "dunning Kruger effect" the more we know. We think we've figured out a lot more of what there is to know than we actually have.

We'll the exciting thing about science is that humanity is learning more and more all the time. We don't throw out learnings from the past, we don't invalidate our knowledge, we fine tune it. e.g. Newton's laws of motion and gravity etc are all still used today, even though Einstein's Special and General relativity are more accurate in extreme situations.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Umm, no.

The fundamental (point) particles have mass from their interaction with the Higgs field, the composite particles (neutrons and protons) from their binding energy.


So? It is the repulsion of the electron clouds of the atoms that keep them apart.

What's the point of this?

What your brain perceives as "touch" is the response of neurons stimulated by forces and transmitted to the brain. That wouldn't be any different if atoms were solid spheres or what they actually are.

Oh, now I see. This is just an effort to dismiss knowledge. Does some scientific knowledge scare you or something? Does it challenge your personal opinions or sense of self? I really don't get this kind of attitude toward discovered reality.

My whole point was stated: Basically, nothing that we see as the physical realm actually exists. We just use our senses to interpret it as physicality. Then, when you reduce "we" to "me", what exactly are you? In my opinion, something from outside this physical realm that occupies a body (biological machine). My body is not me. My body is something I occupy, much like I may occupy a car that I drive. And the "me" within my body is much like the driver of a modern "drive by wire" car. That is, the "brain" is the computer through which the driver controls the car, but the brain is not the driver. It is a part of the car.

All just hypothesis, of course. But like I said, as a species I think that the more we learn, we are so enamored with our newly acquired knowledge that we suffer from an ever increasing Dunning Kruger effect. This is just all my opinion, of course, and much of what I said in this and the previous post is for illustrative purposes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

My whole point was stated: Basically, nothing that we see as the physical realm actually exists. We just use our senses to interpret it as physicality. Then, when you reduce "we" to "me", what exactly are you? In my opinion, something from outside this physical realm that occupies a body (biological machine). My body is not me. My body is something I occupy, much like I may occupy a car that I drive. And the "me" within my body is much like the driver of a modern "drive by wire" car. That is, the "brain" is the computer through which the driver controls the car, but the brain is not the driver. It is a part of the car.

You're somewhere in the wave function of you electrons.

All just hypothesis, of course. But like I said, as a species I think that the more we learn, we are so enamored with our newly acquired knowledge that we suffer from an ever increasing Dunning Kruger effect. This is just all my opinion, of course, and much of what I said in this and the previous post is for illustrative purposes.

This seems to be the core of your argument. As best I can tell your argument is that we shouldn't trust the results of modern science because it understands things in ways that seem unfamiliar or unintuitive and it might change some more. Did I get this wrong?

The things you mentioned are all well supported by evidence. That is the currency of science.

 

[stevil]

My whole point was stated: Basically, nothing that we see as the physical realm actually exists. We just use our senses to interpret it as physicality. Then, when you reduce "we" to "me", what exactly are you? In my opinion, something from outside this physical realm that occupies a body (biological machine). My body is not me. My body is something I occupy, much like I may occupy a car that I drive. And the "me" within my body is much like the driver of a modern "drive by wire" car. That is, the "brain" is the computer through which the driver controls the car, but the brain is not the driver. It is a part of the car.

It would be cool if that were true. Just think of the amazing things we could potentially do.
We could jump from one car to another. Heist another's body and take over control of them. Perhaps jump in and read the memories imprinted in their brains. Perhaps jump in and tweak some things, manipulate their minds.

But alas, we are just physical matter, we are just the bodies. The only real way to shift into another body is to scoop out the brain and insert it into another body.

It's strange to me, that many Christians believe a person (soul) is a seperate thing from the body, and yet get upset when a person (soul) tells people that they are in the wrong gendered body.
If souls were completely seperate from the body, then wouldn't it be possible to have a male soul placed into a female body?

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh, now I see. This is just an effort to dismiss knowledge. Does some scientific knowledge scare you or something? Does it challenge your personal opinions or sense of self? I really don't get this kind of attitude toward discovered reality.

I have a explanation for this sort of attitude. It may not be the reason @Reasonably Sane holds it, but I suspect it often applies. People's reaction to change and uncertainty varies across a wide spectrum. Some people relish it, for without it there is no route to discovery. Such people would tend to gravitate to science, either as a practitioner, or as a "follower". Those who seek security and definitive answers will condemn the uncertainty as a weakness, even a fatal flaw.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

You're somewhere in the wave function of you electrons.


This seems to be the core of your argument. As best I can tell your argument is that we shouldn't trust the results of modern science because it understands things in ways that seem unfamiliar or unintuitive and it might change some more. Did I get this wrong?

The things you mentioned are all well supported by evidence. That is the currency of science.

No. It's not the results I have a problem with. I've always loved science. I consider the creation in which we live to be "God's erector set" and he gave us brains and curiosity to try to figure out how it works. It's extremely interesting. I just don't like when it gets politicized. In fact, the modern politicization of science is what's caused a lot of people to stop trusting science. Maybe that's why there are so many flat earthers and moon landing deniers. And no, I'm not one of them. And FWIW, I'm a creationist that does not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, but I do believe the age of man is roughly that old. And that is the context in which the bible speaks of creation. It's about earth and those that dwell on it and those whom God created as its caretakers in this particular age.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

It would be cool if that were true. Just think of the amazing things we could potentially do.
We could jump from one car to another. Heist another's body and take over control of them. Perhaps jump in and read the memories imprinted in their brains. Perhaps jump in and tweak some things, manipulate their minds.

But alas, we are just physical matter, we are just the bodies. The only real way to shift into another body is to scoop out the brain and insert it into another body.

It's strange to me, that many Christians believe a person (soul) is a seperate thing from the body, and yet get upset when a person (soul) tells people that they are in the wrong gendered body.
If souls were completely seperate from the body, then wouldn't it be possible to have a male soul placed into a female body?

I disagree. I occupy a physical body, but the body is not me. I'm like the driver of a drive-by-wire car. And the computer in the car is the "brain", and the driver is the "mind/soul". The car dies, but I don't. Regarding male and female souls, I believe we are influenced by the body we occupy. It's why we want food, sex, etc. It's why the Lord talks of the war between the spirit and the flesh. It's why there is no marriage in heaven.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No. It's not the results I have a problem with. I've always loved science. I consider the creation in which we live to be "God's erector set" and he gave us brains and curiosity to try to figure out how it works. It's extremely interesting. I just don't like when it gets politicized. In fact, the modern politicization of science is what's caused a lot of people to stop trusting science. Maybe that's why there are so many flat earthers and moon landing deniers. And no, I'm not one of them. And FWIW, I'm a creationist that does not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, but I do believe the age of man is roughly that old. And that is the context in which the bible speaks of creation. It's about earth and those that dwell on it and those whom God created as its caretakers in this particular age.

There is no politics in this thread (I checked) but there is a lot of injection of religion into science and your interpretation of physics was wrong.

 

[stevil]

I disagree. I occupy a physical body, but the body is not me. I'm like the driver of a drive-by-wire car. And the computer in the car is the "brain", and the driver is the "mind/soul". The car dies, but I don't. Regarding male and female souls, I believe we are influenced by the body we occupy. It's why we want food, sex, etc. It's why the Lord talks of the war between the spirit and the flesh. It's why there is no marriage in heaven.

Is god a male? Does god have a physical body?

 

[dlamberth]

I don't get the problem. There was God. And nothing but God. Then God created something.

What am I missing?

The way I see it, it's the creating process where the problem arises.

 

[Estrid]

No. It's not the results I have a problem with. I've always loved science. I consider the creation in which we live to be "God's erector set" and he gave us brains and curiosity to try to figure out how it works. It's extremely interesting. I just don't like when it gets politicized. In fact, the modern politicization of science is what's caused a lot of people to stop trusting science. Maybe that's why there are so many flat earthers and moon landing deniers. And no, I'm not one of them. And FWIW, I'm a creationist that does not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, but I do believe the age of man is roughly that old. And that is the context in which the bible speaks of creation. It's about earth and those that dwell on it and those whom God created as its caretakers in this particular age.

Choosimg to accept such science as fits a
selected belief, rejecting that which does not
regardless of data, really is not consistent with
any respect or love for science, as it is directly
contrary to the deepest meaning of science.

 

[BCP1928]

Choosimg to accept such science as fits a
selected belief, rejecting that which does not
regardless of data, really is not consistent with
any respect or love for science, as it is directly
contrary to the deepest meaning of science.

It does not show much love for God, either.