Ok, so what is my thought you're not doubt wondering. It has to do with how a being like God (or Yahweh, whatever you want to call it) could form. Ok, if you break matter down to it's smallest elements, you get quarks and leptons, which are made out of energy. Energy as we know it, can’t be created or destroyed, so it probably always existed. Knowing that there are billions of galaxies, and billions of stars within these galaxies, and the existence of dark matter, the universe it full of matter. So what was the universe like before the big bang? It was probably just a sea of energy (or quarks and leptons). Now, going out of the science a little, could a being of pure energy exist? We dream them up for shows like Star Trek (Q anyone?) and Babylon 5, so it is at least a conceivable concept. Couldn't somewhere in this sea of energy, conscious thought be born? We speculate self replicating molecules forming themselves, is it inconceivable that somehow, a god being formed? What I'm trying to do hear, is apply a scientific reason for a god being's existence. I have no idea if a being made of pure energy is beyond the bounds of science, so feel free to shoot holes in it if you want. Just a thought I had.
The biggest hole I saw was here: "So what was the universe like before the big bang? It was probably just a sea of energy (or quarks and leptons)." There was no universe. No leptons, no energy, no matter, no space, no time. Absolutely nothing in the deepest sence. Big Bang Cosmology at its finest. The Bible teaches that God was around before the universe (Gen 1:1). It teaches that he is a transcendent creator who created our universe independent of space, time, matter, and the energy in our resent day universe. Which is exacly what Cosmology seems to require. YOu didn't really mention anything on Superstring theory which is telling us more about quarks and leptons and energy. No more point-like particles. Little tiny strings. "It has to do with how a being like God (or Yahweh, whatever you want to call it) could form." THe Bible does not teach that God formed. It teaches that He always existed. You are limiting God to our universe. Something that the Bible does not teach. It is one of the only Holy Books in the world to have a doctrine of a transcendent creator. Only those books which borrow from the Bible have similar claims like the koran and mormon writings. An extradimensional creator is exclusively found in the Bible. peace, Vinnie
Vinnie-- That's a great hole to note. I offer the following, based largely on observation: * When I was 12, or so, I asked my Lutheran preacher some questions which may have forever set me on a path not aligned with the church. For instance, I asked about a book I'd read when I was 9 in which the author asserted that a certain incident in (I think) Ezekiel was a Biblical Ufo sighting. Years later, when in college, my History of Religion prof covered that passage, and we later shared a good laugh when I recounted the story. But by the end of that night when I was 12, the Ezekiel question and one other finally set off good ol' Pastor Les Olsen. For the record, my college prof explained it as the prophet seeing the Ark of the Covenant. * The second question that irked Pastor Les was version of your own question, Vinnie: What comes before God? In Catholic school, I heard "void" (supporting ex nihlo creation) and timelessness (alpha/omega); I've also been given various chaos/chronos descriptions; Lutheranism, though, thinks of it as a Question We Don't Ask. At any rate, since I've made a progression out of it, I might as well wrap up by saying that, before the end of the night, Pastor Les was so frustrated by a general lack of attention from our confirmation class that he considered the questions to be those of a provocateur, and immediately began knocking over furniture, throwing Bibles (mainly at me), and swearing loud oaths against stupid children. As you can imagine, though, the ideas of what came before God, and what came before the Big Bang, have played heavily in my mind over time. As to what came before God, I do not believe we can answer that question without figuring a way to scientifically test theologies. But I rarely hear even that from people of faith. And that's a difficulty I have with accepting the value of the religious creation over the scientific creation. So where I generally feel that there is no answer, or at least a person willing to offer an answer about what came before God, I think that speaks much about the depth of the faith and its association to the natural Universe which its God allegedly created. However, ask any astrophysicist what came before the Big Bang and your answer will be, "Don't know. Stay tuned." Theistically speaking, that's the only answer that will suffice in the objective arena. To assume that the Big Bang is all there is resembles a common process between many religions, where the people may not necessarily have discovered God, but discovered something and decided it was God. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
I’d have to check to make sure there is nothing more to the origins of the universe in cosmology other than the big bang, but I do think you’re correct. A somewhat lacking theory is it not? And I didn’t mention the superstring theory because I haven’t read it. I heard about it once, I tried a search on it, but I couldn’t find anything, except for the guy who created the theory’s home phone number and address, hehe (and how to purchase the book of course). If you have a URL to where I can read this theory, I’d appreciate it greatly. Oh, and I don’t really care what the bible teaches about Yahweh.
I have a cool article on SuperString theory from ... well, it's either Science or Scientific American, from a couple of months ago. All I can comprehend about SST is that it's unique, beautiful, and, currently, flawed. I cannot speak to the nature of its flaws, as I do not yet understand them. However, two things I noticed in the article which I found important: Higgs Field: This theoretical statistical model describes an event, its myriad potential states, and its final state. The actual picture illustrations looked like a marble in the crown of a sombrero. As such, its value is zero; when the marble is moved down into the brim, it has "chosen", as such. Whoever can figure out a Higgs Field and explain it to me in plain or undergraduate English ... I'll buy you a beer. Watch ice freeze: This image is helpful, apparently, in understanding the theoretical process by which the strings came to be. As water cools, it does not freeze uniformly, but in patches which "grow" toward each other. When two frozen sections meet, a seam occurs. Applied to a lepton soup or other such environment, the theory says that the universe cooled disparately, and where these sections occurred, there were seams. If the Higgs Field determines a favorable set of circumstances, the disparate sections come together much like two bubbles. If the Field determines a different set of circumstances, the seam remains and develops into a string. This, at least, is what I got out of it. SST is vitally related to Dark Matter Theory, though a number of solutions to DMT would preclude strings. But that, literally, is all I've got. In the meantime, imagine the Universe like a child's bedroom ceiling, strung intricately with models. The gravitational force of the strings allegedly causes matter to accrete around the string; spiral galaxies literally become pinwheels, as such. I'll stop now, but merely because I've waded in over my head. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
I stand corrected on my citation. Gangui, Alejandro. "Superconducting Cosmic Strings". American Scientist, vol. 88, no. 3: May-June, 2000. I checked the website, www.sigmaxi.org , but only the abstract is available online from the article. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke) [This message has been edited by tiassa (edited August 23, 2000).]
I've found a lot of books on super string theory at Barnes & Noble. If you have a similar large bookstore in your area, check them out. (Just remember, it's the "super-string theory", not the "silly-string theory" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
Someone, Now let me see if I've got this right? You don't even know if you believe in God, or the existence of such a being, and yet you allow yourself to think that you understand Him enough to interpret His word and judge Him? Wow, how does that happen? Uh, I mean, you know, using some type of logic or common sense anyway? You don't know He exists....but you sure as hell do know that He kills babies right? Wow, you crack me up dude! LMAO! OH MY! I just went back and re-read...how you "all of a sudden" don't care what the Bible teaches about Yaweh!!!!! Oh really?!?!?!? I would have never guessed that in a million years!!!! But are you sure you don't mean to say that you don't care what the Bible teaches about Yaweh, EXCEPT THE UNDISBUTABLE FACT THAT HE KILLS BABIES? Uuuuuu....uu....yuk. I'm sorry...I have to say it...please forgive me....but Someone,....you are soooooo FOS. ------------------ You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe. [This message has been edited by Lori (edited August 23, 2000).]
aren't we all? aren't we all .... ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
Uh, well, yes, we all are sometimes. I honestly do try to have an understanding of what I'm talking about though. If I don't, then I either ask questions of someone who does understand, or I keep my mouth shut for fear of SOUNDING LIKE AN IDIOT, and I study up. I see people do that all the time...my husband used to do it...high school drop out...never read anything...actually he was "defensive" about learning...like it was insulting or something...it was like he assumed knowledge to be inherent or something...and yet he would talk about stuff that he had absolutely no clue about...and he would just pull these nonsensical arguements right out of his ass, and be so cocky and "preachy", like he actually had half a clue what he was talking about...he would go on and on...and I always was just amazed, like how in the world can he possibly think that he knows ANYTHING about said topic, when he knows damn well he's never ever ever studied it, or learned anything about it at all? It just amazes me. And that, in my opinion, is what Someone7, and a lot of other people do, regarding Christianity. ------------------ You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Well, thankfully, in America, one needs not be a PhD before inquiring about the fundamental aspects of an idea. Secondly, while I wouldn't say it the same way, it is difficult to care what the Bible teaches about Yahweh. I care a great deal more what it tells me, and I only make that distinction because "teaches" seems to imply some sort of rabinnical molding of the ideas. I'm capable of drawing that distinction, at least. But in the sense of teaches, as applies to practice--that is, in the sense of working morality in the Universe, it is difficult to approach what the Bible teaches about Yahweh, his motives, and his devices, as much of the actual doings recounted fail to reflect the glorified principles modern Christianity derives from the tales. In that sense, the only thing the Bible teaches me about Yahweh and morality is that we are moral simply because God says so. Historically, though, what the Bible tells about Yahweh teaches me a great deal about history, cultural anthropology, and psychology. Morality being derived from our own experiences, observations, and considerations, however, it is hardly possible to say that my interactions with the god of the Hebrews has failed to affect my moral vision. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
You might like reading 'The Spiritual Universe' By Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D. " One physicists vision of spirit, soul, matter, and self " Brouse it first, you may not like it. I haven't made it through the book, but so far I kind of injoy it. But I'm not saying I believe it, I just like throwing different ideals around. This is not the kind of book Lori or anyone coming from her concept of God, Creation, and the like. But some people would injoy the different twist it put forward on this subject. (Lori, this is not a put down against you, I'm just saying it's not your cup of tea, nor anyone elses who believes as you do and you would probably see the whole ideal as insane, and anti God). Anyway, I like it. Just wish I had more time to read and get through it. I read too dam slow, and have little time anymore to do so anymore.
Tiassa, One of the flaws of SST is the fact that it requires such intense mathmatics thaat most belive it will never be posible to calculate all the formulas that would be required to explain it. Non the less it is still fun to study. Who knows what else it might lead to even it is "wrong".
Is that all? Hey, I'm an American: we say the same thing about our federal budget Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Actually, that's an impressive hurdle. Is it the formulaic construction or the management of variables? (I know, we're sorta sidetracked, but hey ... it came up Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) I suppose it would be wise, then, to leave it simply at the idea that I hold that we can never figure a certain aspect of the Universe (or God, or anything "infinite) due to the simple fact that we haven't enough brain cells to account for the individual factors, no matter how densely we compress the data. (Watch us try to manage the variables of artificial intelligence here in a few years; that'll be fun.) thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
“Now let me see if I've got this right? You don't even know if you believe in God, or the existence of such a being, and yet you allow yourself to think that you understand Him enough to interpret His word and judge Him? Wow, how does that happen? Uh, I mean, you know, using some type of logic or common sense anyway? You don't know He exists....but you sure as hell do know that He kills babies right? Wow, you crack me up dude! LMAO!” I know your ancient Hebrew god ordered the deaths of everyone (including infants) in Amalek because it says so in your religion’s holy book. Do I believe a god really ordered this? No, I believe it to be just another tale of the ancient Jews. What I was thinking about had to do with how a powerful entity could form at the beginning of the universe, not how Yahweh could have formed (though I didn't say it couldn't be Yahweh, or Zeus, or Odin, etc, etc). And what authority do you have to interpret away Yahweh ordering death to everyone (including infants) in Amalek? Surely your loving, all forgiving god would have forgave the people of Amalek for the crimes their ancestors committed in the past, unless he was/is a genocidal maniac, hehe. “OH MY! I just went back and re-read...how you "all of a sudden" don't care what the Bible teaches about Yaweh!!!!! Oh really?!?!?!? I would have never guessed that in a million years!!!! But are you sure you don't mean to say that you don't care what the Bible teaches about Yaweh, EXCEPT THE UNDISBUTABLE FACT THAT HE KILLS BABIES? Uuuuuu....uu....yuk. I'm sorry...I have to say it...please forgive me....but Someone,....you are soooooo FOS.” Yes, I really don’t care what any holy book says about any god, be it Yahweh, Zeus, Odin or Ganesh (they are just stories after all). I really don’t see how speculating how a god like being could form has anything to do with Yahweh ordering the deaths of babies. It was just a thought I had about it, nothing more. You wonder about these types of things when you read enough fantasy novels and watch enough science fiction shows. Am I not allowed to discuss these thoughts with others just because I haven’t read the old and new testaments in every language they have ever been translated in? How can you judge exactly how much I know about the bible based off of a few posts? You don’t know if I’m an ex-priest or the Pope’s nephew, how can you judge exactly how much I know about it? Because I don’t interpret the scripture exactly like you do? Don’t make me laugh. [This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited August 29, 2000).]
Hence my argument that no god ordered the killings. Snide laughter aside, if the bible is 100% true, then we must assume that it is true that man is born to trouble and we should take everything reported by a human source to be fallible. Since the whole bible is essentially reported by a human (whether or not the human was taking dictation by god, which would make it hear-say anyway), we can assume that it is fallible. But for the sake of argument, what if god was real and was NOT all-loving and all-forgiving? What if we had tangible proof of his existence and of his order to get our butts in shape or he's going to wipe us all out? What if he showed up downtown and cut loose with a barrage of fireballs that levelled a few city blocks and said "Worship or die"? (Bear in mind that when you die your soul is at his mercy.) Would it change things, or would we atheists still be trying to find a logical explanation for it? If he really did create us, would that validate the right to take our lives whenever he pleased?
Tiassa, It appears to be a problem with managing the variables. There's just to many of them! It makes the most basic formula extreamly lengthy and difficult. The problem I have with it is the fact that on the surface it is simple, but inorder to make it work in all cases we must bend so many all ready proven rules. Instead of the theory confirming any observations it directly contradicts them, and in order to make heads or tails we have to manipulate what we all ready know through exaggerated mathmatical tricks. To top it off it was just a thought and not realy a theory. So many of the people involved in the study of SST want so badly for it to be the magic bullet that they try to twist the world around us to fit the mold. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good things that it has brought about, but I belive that it is not the be all end all answer to all of our questions. Just like many Ideas / theorys that have come before it is niether right or wrong. Even a "wrong" theory can teach us a great deal and can be built upon. In the same respect "correct" theorys have thier flaws and have been built upon to help deepen our understanding. Such as the Copenhagen interpritation, it helped bring about a better understanding of Quantum Mechanics, but could only go so far. Now to twist this into a contribution to the religus debate. Lori and Someone, When I sit back and watch 2 or more people on this board say that they are right and the other is wrong I am reminded of the basics behind the above. Christains belive that we can not fully understand the reasoning and thinking of God. On the other hand Athiests can not fully understand the nature of the universe, becuase all is not known about the universe. This leads us to the fact that niether is right or wrong, becuase we can not fully understand the belief systems of both parties due to a lack of knowlage. we can only assume, and we all know what they say about assuming anything. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, if the event is basically true, it is most likely just a story that someone knew and wrote down, several years after it happened, and with more than enough time to be exaggerated. If it was wrote down then and there, then it was probably just a lie. Indeed, Samuel did say to Saul that Yahweh did tell him to tell Saul that he shall be anointed king of Israel, and to smite Amalek. That is hearsay.
