A question about the Christian theory of creation

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Was the universe scientific when the prophets, messiahs and saints of various faiths went around casting spells and performing miracles?

Err, yes?

Just like it was scientific before we knew what electrons were...

You know, miracles and science are pretty incompatible. Which is more likely - that people rise from the dead, or that religious texts are mistaken?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sn00py
There is a website, where a christian-"scientist" attempts to explain the paradox's/theories against the existance of God.

Over and over again, he comes up with the same answer, basically something like: God does not exist in our dimension, he exists in all dimensions, therefore in one specific demension he can make 1+1=4.

However, can God make 1+1=4 in OUR dimension?

Thus God is not almighty, thus the Christian perception of God does not exist, but only in our very powerful and complex minds.

What the hell is he talking about? That's meaningless babble.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Genesis is clear - the water existed before God created Heaven and Earth. And according to Genesis, Heaven is the name God gave to the firmament which divided the waters above from the waters below, and Earth is the name God gave to the dry land that appeared when the waters below were gathered and the boundary between land and sea was created. Not only is this a common feature among creation myths, its what science tells us about plate tectonics and continent building.

Plate tectonics tells us there's a ton of water surrounding us in space?

[Vesayen]

The Judao-Christian idea is not A or B but in fact, C.

C. G-D has always existed.

This does not work for human conception because we think lineraly.... if there was an A which was the first thing, then obviously there was something, before A, or a time before the existance of A.

Its a logic problem-it does not need to be consistant though, its religion.


I am immensly proud that most Jews do not accept the book of Braysheet(Genesis) with a stricly literal interpretation, doing so makes one look like a dumbass in modern society.

[Berzerker]

Plate tectonics tells us there's a ton of water surrounding us in space?

No, before plate tectonics built continents the world was covered with water, most if not all anyway. This was the situation before the proto-Earth suffered a massive collision and the oldest rocks and life forms date back very close to the time of this collision ~4 billion years ago. So the proto Earth gets hit hard, the Moon gets plastered with a wave of debris (the side facing us is the evidence), and the Earth-Moon system is pushed to a new orbit - a closer orbit where solar radiation is strong enough to allow for life to take off.

Most of these creation myths, including Genesis, speak of a world covered with water and how the creator "formed" the land. NA Indians believe this creator sent some animal down below the waters to bring mud up from below to form the land. The Norse (and others) describe a battle in which a giant is dis-membered and the Earth as we know it resulted from the battle. Genesis and the Sumerians describes the proto Earth as a watery dragon - tehom=tiamat - and the Egyptians believed all was water when the sacred mountain or mound rose thru the waters.

Science continues to corroborate the myths...

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Sandman


You know, miracles and science are pretty incompatible. Which is more likely - that people rise from the dead, or that religious texts are mistaken?

Err, with God?

Jon Miller

[beingofone]

Sandman :

You know, miracles and science are pretty incompatible. Which is more likely - that people rise from the dead, or that religious texts are mistaken?

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Science (not all) has a strong tendancy to believe that everything that is encountered can be explained by and through purely natural means of present constructed theories.

When something is encountered that transcends scientific theory rather than investigating the experience it is derided as delusion instead.

If we live in a universe that is not bounded (infinite) and the only constant of this universe is flux or change. The logical conclusion is that everything is a possibility. Yet this simple piece of logic is cast aside all in the name of 'honest' research.

For example; the blind faith in abiogenesis. Rather than admitting there is a possibility that consciousness may indeed transcend the physical, a theory is clinged to regardless the facts.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I have no idea what you are talking about.

But BS against the concept of god, or BS for the concept of god, all is still BS.

I don't know, Jon, the Christian concept of God is incomprehensible to most people.

Do you really understand something that's infinite? Something's that's omniscient and omnipotent? I mean really wrapping your head around these concepts.

[Jon Miller]

There are many nonChristians who make sense when talking about the Christian God (not saying that I agree with them, but they don't make nonsensical babble). Some even are on this site.

Jon Miller

[DaShi]

A little late, but that was expected.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Look at it from a scientist's point of view: Re: Big Bang.
Where would the elements necessary for the Big Bang originate?

Back at you.

Yeah, that's why I get so annoyed at followers of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang Theory is just a plagarized Creation Theory with the God part erased. In fact the Creation Theory is more scientifically sound than the Big Bang Theory as it includes a catalyst.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't know, Jon, the Christian concept of God is incomprehensible to most people.

Do you really understand something that's infinite? Something's that's omniscient and omnipotent? I mean really wrapping your head around these concepts.

Now you're just begging for it: do you "really" understand quantum mechanics? How are you with effects preceding their causes and outcomes remaining undetermined until observed and such? How well do you wrap your head around that? How about string theory, that must be beautifully intuitive...

As for the thread itself, I haven't read it all, but the subject is so far removed from human context as to make any argument about it nonsensical. "Was there stuff before there was, you know, stuff? Where did that stuff come from? What stuff was that stuff made of if there was no....stuff?"

[beingofone]

Elok,
Just a thought; take a second look at UR`s questions. It seems very genuine to me. Might be his thought is expanding right along with the rest of us.
I know I can`t keep up with the infinite. Just when I think I got it nailed, a new door pops open.


Jon,
I am a Christian.

Hmm - concerning TOE

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.
To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.
The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.

This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.

-- Unknown

David Bohm was one smart Jewish cookie. He was pathetic at math as his associate said but he understood intuitively, in seconds, what would take others weeks to do through math.

[Kuciwalker]

You aren't a physicist if you don't do math.

[Last Conformist]

Can we have aneeshm banned for misuse of the word "theory"?