The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

a reply to: raymundoko

And that is supposed to mean what? I asked you a bunch of questions, isn't the point of asking questions to become more knowledgeable about something you lack information with?

originally posted by: raymundoko
So you don't even know the definition of reading comprehension.

I know it quite well, thanks.

You can't just read one line or one chapter of the bible and determine how it should be read. You have to read huge chunks of it to determine how other parts should be read.

I've read the entire thing multiple times.

Then, if you are educated in sciences, you can further extrapolate how it should be read. So if theologian A thinks it should be read X and Theologian B thinks it should be read Y, but Y disagrees with observed science, then A's X should be the more correct reading.

But when both X and Y disagree with observed science, and one agrees with a few cherry picked examples, but still disgrees with 95% of observed science in relation to the history of earth, you can logically dismiss both X and Y as myth or metaphor.

Again, God never said he made the Sun on day 4, the person seeing the creation vision did. Got simply said they became fully visible to the surface on day 4. You can tell when someone is talking based on the quotation marks. You learn that in grade school...

I also learned not to believe in magic and fairy tales in grade school.

Look man, I know you are emotionally connected to your faith and greatly want to reconcile the story with science but it cannot be done. I'm going to quote this verse for the LAST time.

"And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. "

Why can't you just accept that genesis was written by folks that didn't quite understand the world yet?

You can deny it all you like but it clearly says it there in black and white. God said AND God made. You insult my intelligence talking about reading comprehension, when it says it point blank that god made the sun and stars on day 4. Once again, you can't get it to fit with science without extreme cherry picking of evidence, and making it say what you want it to say rather than what's actually there on the page. God made them on day 4, hence the phrase "God made". When you invoke something like "the guy who saw the vision" and assume what his personal interpretation is on the matter, it changes the meaning of the verse. You are making it say what you want it to say. It's not only confirmation bias and cherry picking, but it's also known as backtracking. How are you not realizing this?

Why wouldn't the guy being given a vision by god, have a clear precise vision to see that "God made 2 great lights". Why would he say made, if he didn't actually see them made? Why would god (an all powerful entity) give Moses an unclear vision, if he wanted folks to believe it and follow it? There are just too many questions that pop up from inventing your own plot devices. It doesn't work. No matter how you look at genesis, the truth is that it conflicts with 95% of earth science, no matter how you interpret it.

If you are going to respond to this, please address my points and counterpoints instead of just repeating the original argument.

a reply to: Barcs

The fact you think god said that shows you don't understand what reading comprehension is. The more you quote it the more obvious it is. That section is clearly a statement by the author, not a quote of god.

Why would Moses need a clear vision? The purpose of the vision wasn't to scientifically educate moses or the patriarchs. It was just to show a display of power.

You should ditch the KJV and use extant texts of the original language.

As far as your statement on backtracking goes, this debate has been going on long before any science determined an age of the earth or how stars and planets form. Obviously it has been interpreted this way by scholars for hundreds of years.

A quick point, not sure if it's been made already.

The OP's premise is wrong. There was no light in the Big Bang. All matter was plasma then, and photons can't propagate through plasma. The first light was 280 thousand years later. It's what we call the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

originally posted by: Dewts
A quick point, not sure if it's been made already.

The OP's premise is wrong. There was no light in the Big Bang. All matter was plasma then, and photons can't propagate through plasma. The first light was 280 thousand years later. It's what we call the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

Good point, though I am sure that won't be any real obstacle to the creationist mindset - they will simply rationalize it away like they do everything else.

originally posted by: cooperton

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

(Genesis 1:2-3)


Similarly, our current explanation for the dawn of our universe is that there was an inexplicable explosion of light from emptiness - the big bang.

How were these biblical writers able to know this? We are left with the conclusion that this was indeed Divinely inspired.

It appears that they came in contact with some objective scientific data associated with the Universe OP. This data may have been past through history.

The more interesting data some may ignore is the mention of the interpreted or perceived SPIRIT of GOD, the metaphysical connection.

At times its sensed that some CREATOR Creations may be struggling with accepting the possibility that some Creations are not only based within their perceived understood boundaries of Existence.
In short some CREATOR Creations may be primarily Existing & inhabiting realms related to the Soul/Spirit/Internal Energy forms and realms, but can interact within the perceived physical boundaries of existence of others undetected. At first...

NAMASTE*******

I have a hard time believing the big bang theory. In all the vastness of outer space. Trillions of light years of space. And that is all we know how to measure with technology. Everything started i one spot and nothing existed elsewhere before that. I know thing are moving outward. But in a single galaxy that exists too. The whole system is a whole model affected by everything else s gravity. Explanation i do not have. But that doe not mean i will grasp at straws for an explanation. I am content to say we do not know enough yet and it should be investigated. Nothing wrong with not having knowledge. Why is this so taboo about some things. We freely admit we do not know some things but insist on non provable things ( theories ) for explanation for some.

It is possible some things may not be known
but scientific suggestions at times seem to carry some logic
this logic encourages more science to seek TRUTH
eventually.

If a suggestions seems to carry a more then usual amount of logic
deep consideration and encouragement is recommended...

a reply to: roth1

A theory is not a "non provable thing", quite the opposite in fact. In science, it is an explanation for a series of observations or facts.

You're probably meaning a hypothesis, but even that may or may not be "provable".

Everything started i one spot and nothing existed elsewhere before that

- that last part is an assumption on your part, the big bang theory does not speculate on that aspect. For all we know there wasn't a "before" as time itself started with the BB and to talk of time before that is kind of (or at least may well be) nonsensical.

And of course there is no shame at all in saying "I don't know". However, there is actually quite a bit of evidence for the big bang, and based on our current level of understanding I believe (provisionally - until evidence shows otherwise) it is the best current model we have for the origin of our universe.

I would look up the definition of theory if i were you. Science has been wrong many times with things it stated as theory or fact or hypothesis. History tell us the facts if we are patient enough. Grasping at straws only delays much needed info. Careful don't fall of the edge of the planet. a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: roth1
I would look up the definition of theory if i were you.

Okay. Lets do that.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

from Wiki

Remarkably close to what I just posted above, wouldn't you say?

I see you chose the best one suited to your opinion. Good one. Look further it is not the only way it is defined.
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: roth1
I see you chose the best one suited to your opinion. Good one. Look further it is not the only way it is defined.
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

No. I chose the definition for a "scientific theory" as opposed to the layman' s use of the word, since that is what we are discussing when we talk about the Big Bang theory. The fact that many people conflate the two is part of the whole problem and is why some people like yourself think a scientific theory is merely a "best guess" when in fact it is much more than that.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Barcs

The fact you think god said that shows you don't understand what reading comprehension is. The more you quote it the
more obvious it is. That section is clearly a statement by the author, not a quote of god.

Yes, it was a statement of the author that says, "God said". It later said, "God made". 2 very simple phrases with different meanings and both happened. What about when god said, "Let there be light"? You interpreted that as god making a literal separate energy source to fuel plants on earth, but then when he says it on day 4, it was just a statement of the author. That is a huge contradiction to your arguments.

If you wish to interpret "God said" as a metaphor, then you at least need to be consistent. I'm okay with you saying it was metaphorical, but if it is, why try to reconcile with science? If gods words = creation, then either way the verses say that plants were made before the sun, moon and stars. If gods words = a statement from the author, then there's no reason to assume light was created on day 1.

a reply to: EternalSolace

So what about before all the pushing and the shoving ceased and before newtonian mechanics took over? Was that predictable too?

Up to a point, perhaps. Irregularities in the quark-gluon plasma that made up the early universe are thought to explain the distribution of matter in the cosmos. But you'd probably need a computer as big as the universe to crunch the numbers.

I don't see how the expulsion of anything could be predictable in any way before it's expelled.

Nothing was 'expelled'. The universe merely grew in size and underwent some changes while growing.

I also have a hard time fathoming that there is no center of the universe or the infinite universe theory. For the universe to expand, it has to have an edge to expand. If it has edges, there has to be a center. If it was infinite, there could be no possible expansion or have edges to even expand.

Your difficulties are quite understandable, but I'm afraid they preclude further intelligent discussion of the subject.

a reply to: cooperton

The laws of nature are mathematically consistent, you don't think that all this order involved some sort of design?

No, I don't. The laws fall out of the processes that created the universe. If that process had unfolded differently, the laws would be different, and the universe probably wouldn't be able to sustain life; thus there would be no intelligences in the universe to observe its functioning and derive its laws. The anthropic principle — no doubt you've heard of it.

How could order come from a system that is becoming more and more chaotic with every passing moment?

Local aggregations of order are precisely how entropy is increased.

Mathematics define Divine Craftsmanship.

Possibly, but we have no way of knowing, and the idea has a lot of built-in difficulties. Where did the Craftsman come from?

a reply to: raymundoko

Who said anything about a hellish sky?

I did. It was one of two alternative readings of your 'interpretation' of Genesis.

So you favour the other — in direct contradiction to the text of Genesis (which your 'Jewish scholars' appear not to have read, either — have you got a citation for these scholars, by the way?). Not that it is in any way more plausible than the first.

What does the chronology of the big bang have do do with Genesis?

Isn't that the topic of the thread?

Science takes all things into account. Having worked with scientist for a job. I can tell you first hand how it works. Far better environment for expressing yourself than other places i have been. H****well Labs was good people. Just was not fond of gov work. Engineers from other places i have worked are more competitive with each other and not a cooperative from my experience. a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

a reply to: Astyanax

What's beyond intelligence is a belief that in a finite universe everything lined up perfectly to create a hospital planet with life with out an intelligent design.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Well, I happen to disagree, and my opinion, as I hope I have managed to make clear, is an informed one.