A Universe From Nothing

[ecco]

Seems to me the angelic realm of creation is being ignored.
God first made the heavens and in those spirit heavens were the angels.
So, long before the material world came into existence there was the angelic realm of existence.

What is your evidence for this? Actually, what is your source for this?

The material end will be as in the beginning a beautiful paradisical Earth as the Garden of Eden was a sample.

So, paradise on earth for eternity instead of paradise in heaven for eternity.

From paradise (Eden) lost in Genesis, to paradise (Eden) found in Revelation.

Sure sounds like someone is proselytizing.

 

[ecco]

I would like to take the liberty to reply about the two accounts of creation because they are just from two different viewpoints:
1st account describes the creation of heaven and earth and all in them. - Genesis 1:1to Genesis 2:4.
1st account is constructed chronologically divided into six consecutive creative ' days '.
2nd account concentrates on the creation of the human race and its downfall. - Genesis 2:5 to Genesis 4:26.
2nd account is written in order of topical importance.
Genesis chapter 2 adds some details, which do Not conflict, and just takes up at a point of the 3rd creative day.

@Native and @LightofTruth both referred to two different creations, see post #84, not two versions of one creation. If you disagree with them, you should direct your comments to them.

 

[ecco]

Considering the age of the earth and the universe, there may have been more than two creations.

The first verse of the Bible is a general statement telling us what God did in 6 days. It is not telling us that God created the heaven and earth out of nothing. That is made clear when each day of creation explains what God did on each day. And by verse 1 of chap. 2. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."
So, before each day of creation is explained what God did on each day, the earth existed and was submerged in water.

I realize this is your opinion based on your need to try to reconcile your religious beliefs with scientific beliefs. However, my comment was directed to @Native in response to...
Native said: ↑

This scholarly and global misconception is the cause of the fameous "two time creation of the Earth" problem. This happend when scholars and laymen ignores the ancient stories of creation and its astronomical and cosmological contents.​

...Particularly the problem caused by scholars ignoring ancient stories of creation.

 

[Bird123]

Theists often make the claim that atheists believe in a universe that came into existence out of nothing. I find this very strange, because I (though I don't speak for all atheists) don't believe this. I don't know where the universe came from, if it had a cause, and if so, what its cause was. But I don't believe it came from "nothing." Theists, on the other hand, very clearly DO believe the universe was made from nothing. Theists (at least, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish theists) assert with absolute certainty that a magical being created the entire universe out of thin air with a spoken incantation. This magical immortal superman literally poofed the universe into existence out of absolutely nothing. Now, as I said before, I don't know where the universe came from, and whatever the cause of the universe is, if we ever find it out, I think it may very well seem like a miracle. I recognize that our existence is a huge mystery and is very special and improbable. But I highly doubt that the explanation for it is a magical superman who created it all out of thin air. That sounds like a very childish solution invented by primitive people who wanted an explanation for something that none of us may ever understand.

How about this: The universe is not old enough for all this to be created out of random chance so we can rule that one out.

Let's look around. Can you see anything? How about evidence of intelligence? Clearly, intelligence exists far beyond that of mankind. This is a good starting point. What else can be Discovered?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What is your evidence for this? Actually, what is your source for this?
So, paradise on earth for eternity instead of paradise in heaven for eternity. .............

I merely post what I find to be what the Bible really teaches.
A paradisical Earth was what was offered to Adam and Eve as long as they kept God's Law.
They could live forever on Earth if they obeyed God's Law. No other hope was offered for mankind.
'Paradise in Heaven for eternity' was Not introduced until Jesus was on the scene - John 3:13.
That heavenly hope is only for people like those of Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18.
The humble ' sheep ' of Matthew 25:31-33,37 are Not offered eternity in Heaven but to remain alive on Earth.
They can live through the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14,9.
Thus, they will be the first part of the humble meek people who will inherit the Earth as Jesus promised at Matthew 5:5. - Psalms 37:9-11.
They will be here on Earth to welcome back resurrected ones who do Not have that heavenly calling as Jesus' ' brothers ' .
So, in Scripture there are two (2) hopes:
One heavenly hope for a ' little flock ' of people as per Luke 12:32, and an earthly hope for Jesus' other sheep ' - John 10:16.
That earthly hope of living forever on Earth will start at the soon coming ' time of separation ' to take place on Earth.

 

[Native]

@Especially "Ecco" and "Gnostic" - But all are welcome to reply.

I realize this is your opinion based on your need to try to reconcile your religious beliefs with scientific beliefs. However, my comment was directed to @Native in response to...

Native said: ↑
This scholarly and global misconception is the cause of the fameous "two time creation of the Earth" problem. This happend when scholars and laymen ignores the ancient stories of creation and its astronomical and cosmological contents....

Particularly the problem caused by scholars ignoring ancient stories of creation.

The explanation of the “two time creation of earth/Earth problem". (Yes there are really links to this issue )

Pre-creation: Genesis 1:1–2

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

My comment:
Note this is about pre-creation: “The heavens and the earth is a set phrase meaning "everything", i.e., the cosmos” as mentioned in this linked article.

But some scholars and laymen take the term “earth” here to count for the planet Earth, despite “the earth was without form, and void” = not yet created.

This misconception constitutes the problem of the “first creation of Earth”.

Quote:
First day: Day 1 begins with the creation of light. God creates by spoken command and names the elements of the world as he creates them.

My comment:
Here the elements begins to create the first firm matter.

Second day: And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters . . .”

My comment:
This is a common religious/mythical explanation of the creation of the first firm matter in the creation, often mentioned as "mud and soil" in several other cultural stories of creation Terms which STILL not yet refers to the Earth.

Third day
And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.

My comment:
The underlined sentence is not again the Earth, but the “first firm soil”. The gathering of “waters in one place” can only be understood in the mythical context of the cosmological “primordial waters” as defined here:

"In creation myths, the primordial waters are often represented as originally having filled the entire universe, being the first source of the gods cosmos with the act of creation corresponding to the establishment of an inhabitable space separate from the enveloping waters".

My comment:
This ”primordial waters” can be compared in general to describe the modern term of “cosmic clouds of gas and dust” from which galaxies, stars and planets are created.

11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind . . .”

My comment:
This is a principle description of what grows from the soils and STILL not a description of the creation of our Solar System and Earth.

“On the third day, the waters withdraw, creating a ring of ocean surrounding a single circular continent.[52] By the end of the third day God has created a foundational environment of light, heavens, seas and earth.[53]

My comment:
What is this “single circular continent”? Why isn´t it described as a spherical shape if it should be the Earth? Is it just a flat circular shape floating in the cosmos as the proponents of the Flat Earth take it?

​

In order to understand this “single circular continent” scenario, we have to think of the ancient world view of cosmos which at its largest included the Milky Way galaxy. Our ancestor´s didn´t and couldn´t have described a creation of the entire Universe, even if their basic perceptions of the creation were of an universal matter. They described the local part of the Universe and not the entire Universe.

Andromeda galaxy as an example of a "single circular continent", floating in the "cosmic waters".

In several cultural myths of creation it is told that “our earliest ancestors came from an Island in a Sea”. If connecting the biblical term “waters of creation” with this “single circular continent in the waters” and with the creation of the local part of the Universe, this can only describe the circular somewhat flattish “continent”, the Milky Way galaxy.

Fourth day

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; . . .”

My comment:
Here the capital EARTH is created and incorporated in the overall picture of the Creation.

My conclusions:

Even if the biblical story of creation isn´t the most elaborated and detailed explanation it – of course – still can be compared to other cultural stories of creation, as for instants the Egyptian, and the Ogdoad, where the “primordial cosmic watery elements and qualities” creates a central Light, which again creates everything in the ancient known part of the Universe, our Milky Way galaxy, nicely resembled by the Egyptian goddesses Nut and Hathor, the galactic Great Mother Goddesses of creation.

The Garden of Eden

“The name derives from the Akkadian edinnu, from a Sumerian word edin meaning "plain" or "steppe", closely related to an Aramaic root word meaning "fruitful, well-watered".

My comment:
Again we have the "watering" concept connected to the creation..

Quote:
“The location of Eden is described in the Book of Genesis as the source of four tributaries. Among scholars who consider it to have been real, there have been various suggestions for its location: at the head of the Persian Gulf, in southern Mesopotamia (now Iraq) where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run into the sea; and in Armenia”.

My comment:
"Among scholars who consider it (The Garden of Eden) to have been real" - these scholars indirectly take the creation of the ancient known part of the Universe to have taken place in these geographic locations which is non sense. They cannot make the logical connections because they are ignorant of the cosmological contents in the creation stories, as also in this quote:

"Genesis 2:10–14 lists four rivers in association with the garden of Eden: Pishon, Gihon, Chidekel (the Tigris), and Phirat (the Euphrates). It also refers to the land of Cush—translated/interpreted as Ethiopia, but thought by some to equate to Cossaea, a Greek name for the land of the Kassites".

My Comment:
If holding onto the very Genesis 2:10–14 story of creation, these 4 rivers of course aren´t located on the Earth as this isn´t even made yet. Again the "watery" concepts in the creation fools scholars to think of geographic rivers instead of "celestial and cosmological rivers of gas and dust" from which the Garden of Eden is made.

Quote:
“The Garden of Eden is considered to be mythological by most scholars".

My comment:
This reveals that these scholars - and lots of "ordinary persons" - just take myths as myths without any relevant contents at all. They have become mythical ignorants.

- If scholars and laymen have no clues of the astronomical and cosmological content and the symbolic/allegoric context in ancient global Myths of Creation - they basically don´t understand what´s going on.

 

[Yazata]

Theists often make the claim that atheists believe in a universe that came into existence out of nothing.

Some of them obviously do.

https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468

I find this very strange, because I (though I don't speak for all atheists) don't believe this. I don't know where the universe came from, if it had a cause, and if so, what its cause was.

I strongly agree with that. However it isn't precisely an atheist position, but rather an agnostic one.

But I don't believe it came from "nothing."

Maybe not in a temporal sense. But even if reality extends infinitely into the past, with no initial origin, one can still ask why such a temporally infinite chain of being exists, instead of nothing at all. That's the fundamental ontological question in my opinion. Why does existence exist?

Theists, on the other hand, very clearly DO believe the universe was made from nothing.

Well, natural theology typically conceives of 'God' as whatever the answers are to a set of fundamental metaphysical questions -- first cause, ground of being, source of cosmic order, why there is something rather than nothing. The traditional "theistic proofs" work this way.

(Natural theology is the variety of theology that seeks to arrive at knowledge of God from knowledge of our natural world. It's typically contrasted with revealed theology, the sort of knowledge of God supposedly obtained through scripture or from revelatory tradition (the Bible, the Quran, the Vedic traditions).

Having said that, let me distinguish two rather different concepts of God.

1) First, there's 'God' as first-cause, source of cosmic order and the reason why there is something rather than nothing. The philosophical 'God' of the traditional theistic arguments. Generally speaking, this is the concept of "God" that natural theology addresses.

2) And second, there's figures like Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu and Krishna, the highly personified deities that we encounter in religious myth and in the pages of religious "scriptures". These are generally speaking the deities of revealed religion.

If we go with natural theology and simply define God is as whatever the answer is to a set of metaphysical questions and if we accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason as a premise, then it's trivial to construct a logical proof of the existence of God.

1. The universe exists. (seemingly self-evident)

2. For every x, if x exists, then a sufficient reason exists for why x exists (Principle of Sufficient Reason.)

3. God is the universe's sufficient reason (by definition from natural theology)

4. A sufficient reason for the universe exists (from 1 and 2)

5. God exists (from 3 and 4)

There are obviously many objections that can be made to that. One might want to argue that 'exists' is being used equivocally. One might want to question the Principle of Sufficient Reason. And from the religious perspective, these kind of arguments don't deliver up a religious deity, something that is Holy and a suitable object of religious worship. We certainly don't have any convincing reason to equate this "God" with Yahweh, Allah or any of the Hindu deities. All we have is a rather tendentious religious name applied to whatever unknown something supposedly performs some metaphysical function.

Perhaps one of the things that makes me an agnostic rather than an atheist is that I take these questions very seriously. But unlike the theists, I don't already believe that I possess the secret of the universe and I doubt whether humans ever will.

 

[Clear]

The early belief that material things are made of matter forms part of the motivation for continual curiosity as to the nature of that matter and the search for knowledge concerning matter and how it might be used. The belief that material things are made of matter underlies physical sciences and progress in working with matter.

Are you trying to make a coherent argument that the ancient belief that material things are made of some form of matter (e.g. energy or something else) is incorrect?

You have not made a coherent or important point yet. What is your criticism regarding the ancient belief that material things are made of a form of matter and NOT made of nothing?

Clear

I am CLEARLY making the argument that what the ancients believed is immaterial. Some stuff some of them believed turned out to be somewhat correct. Much of what most of them believed turned out to be wrong. As I said - immaterial.

If some believed that rocks were made of something rather than nothing - OK Big Whoop.

Hi @ecco

Regarding your theory of irrelevance of belief

Your theory that belief is irrelevant or immaterial is incredibly naïve and lacks common sense and represents a poorly thought out theory (if it was thought out at all)

Belief is one of the great motivating principles that move individuals to carry out ideas. As examples of this principle, Great explorers first believed in their ideas, in order to carry them out.

Columbus first believed in his great venture of discovery such that he lobbied leaders for years to grant him financial support to carry it out with results that changed the fate of the world development.

Galileos belief that he could both make and improve upon a telescope contributed to the advancement of scientific knowledge of our solar system.

Van Leeuwenhoeks belief that he could understand and improve upon the microscope drove him to improve it which allowed the discovery of bacteria and cell division, further discoveries others used for medical benefit were furthered by Van Leeuwenhoeks belief driven persistence .

Isaac Newtons belief that there was an order to the world furthered his application of math and science to describing and explaining physics of matter. His work in optics, physics, gravity, all were motivated by an underlying belief that he could discover principles by which nature worked.


Individual belief motivates negative events as well.

Hitlers belief in the principles of the Aryan race motivated him to support programs to manipulate world populations to the advantage of some and which resulted in the death of many million others.

Ecco, even your own belief in your theory that "belief is irrelevant (or 'immaterial')" motivates you to endure public humiliation of having offered a silly, non-sensical and naive theory in a public forum where individuals are able to, at once, see the incoherence and insupportable nature of your theory that "beliefs don’t matter".


Obviously beliefs and confidence in what we believe matters and is relevant to and is a powerful motivation underlying almost all cognitive and physical efforts in the lives of intelligent individuals.

Clear
ειδρδρφυω

 

[ecco]

I merely post what I find to be what the Bible really teaches.
A paradisical Earth was what was offered to Adam and Eve as long as they kept God's Law.
They could live forever on Earth if they obeyed God's Law. No other hope was offered for mankind.
'Paradise in Heaven for eternity' was Not introduced until Jesus was on the scene - John 3:13.
That heavenly hope is only for people like those of Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18.
The humble ' sheep ' of Matthew 25:31-33,37 are Not offered eternity in Heaven but to remain alive on Earth.
They can live through the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14,9.
Thus, they will be the first part of the humble meek people who will inherit the Earth as Jesus promised at Matthew 5:5. - Psalms 37:9-11.
They will be here on Earth to welcome back resurrected ones who do Not have that heavenly calling as Jesus' ' brothers ' .
So, in Scripture there are two (2) hopes:
One heavenly hope for a ' little flock ' of people as per Luke 12:32, and an earthly hope for Jesus' other sheep ' - John 10:16.
That earthly hope of living forever on Earth will start at the soon coming ' time of separation ' to take place on Earth.

None of which addresses your claim that:

"long before the material world came into existence there was the angelic realm of existence.
Seems to me the angelic realm of creation is being ignored.
God first made the heavens and in those spirit heavens were the angels.
So, long before the material world came into existence there was the angelic realm of existence."​

 

[ecco]

How about this: The universe is not old enough for all this to be created out of random chance so we can rule that one out.

Incredulity is no substitute for scientific knowledge.

 

[ecco]

@Especially "Ecco" and "Gnostic" - But all are welcome to reply.

The explanation of the “two time creation of earth/Earth problem". (Yes there are really links to this issue )

Pre-creation: Genesis 1:1–2

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

My comment:
Note this is about pre-creation: “The heavens and the earth is a set phrase meaning "everything", i.e., the cosmos” as mentioned in this linked article.

But some scholars and laymen take the term “earth” here to count for the planet Earth, despite “the earth was without form, and void” = not yet created.

This misconception constitutes the problem of the “first creation of Earth”.

Quote:
First day: Day 1 begins with the creation of light. God creates by spoken command and names the elements of the world as he creates them.

My comment:
Here the elements begins to create the first firm matter.

Second day: And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters . . .”

My comment:
This is a common religious/mythical explanation of the creation of the first firm matter in the creation, often mentioned as "mud and soil" in several other cultural stories of creation Terms which STILL not yet refers to the Earth.

Third day
And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.

My comment:
The underlined sentence is not again the Earth, but the “first firm soil”. The gathering of “waters in one place” can only be understood in the mythical context of the cosmological “primordial waters” as defined here:

"In creation myths, the primordial waters are often represented as originally having filled the entire universe, being the first source of the gods cosmos with the act of creation corresponding to the establishment of an inhabitable space separate from the enveloping waters".

My comment:
This ”primordial waters” can be compared in general to describe the modern term of “cosmic clouds of gas and dust” from which galaxies, stars and planets are created.

11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind . . .”

My comment:
This is a principle description of what grows from the soils and STILL not a description of the creation of our Solar System and Earth.

“On the third day, the waters withdraw, creating a ring of ocean surrounding a single circular continent.[52] By the end of the third day God has created a foundational environment of light, heavens, seas and earth.[53]

My comment:
What is this “single circular continent”? Why isn´t it described as a spherical shape if it should be the Earth? Is it just a flat circular shape floating in the cosmos as the proponents of the Flat Earth take it?

​

In order to understand this “single circular continent” scenario, we have to think of the ancient world view of cosmos which at its largest included the Milky Way galaxy. Our ancestor´s didn´t and couldn´t have described a creation of the entire Universe, even if their basic perceptions of the creation were of an universal matter. They described the local part of the Universe and not the entire Universe.

Andromeda galaxy as an example of a "single circular continent", floating in the "cosmic waters".

In several cultural myths of creation it is told that “our earliest ancestors came from an Island in a Sea”. If connecting the biblical term “waters of creation” with this “single circular continent in the waters” and with the creation of the local part of the Universe, this can only describe the circular somewhat flattish “continent”, the Milky Way galaxy.

Fourth day

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; . . .”

My comment:
Here the capital EARTH is created and incorporated in the overall picture of the Creation.

My conclusions:

Even if the biblical story of creation isn´t the most elaborated and detailed explanation it – of course – still can be compared to other cultural stories of creation, as for instants the Egyptian, and the Ogdoad, where the “primordial cosmic watery elements and qualities” creates a central Light, which again creates everything in the ancient known part of the Universe, our Milky Way galaxy, nicely resembled by the Egyptian goddesses Nut and Hathor, the galactic Great Mother Goddesses of creation.

The Garden of Eden

“The name derives from the Akkadian edinnu, from a Sumerian word edin meaning "plain" or "steppe", closely related to an Aramaic root word meaning "fruitful, well-watered".

My comment:
Again we have the "watering" concept connected to the creation..

Quote:
“The location of Eden is described in the Book of Genesis as the source of four tributaries. Among scholars who consider it to have been real, there have been various suggestions for its location: at the head of the Persian Gulf, in southern Mesopotamia (now Iraq) where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run into the sea; and in Armenia”.

My comment:
"Among scholars who consider it (The Garden of Eden) to have been real" - these scholars indirectly take the creation of the ancient known part of the Universe to have taken place in these geographic locations which is non sense. They cannot make the logical connections because they are ignorant of the cosmological contents in the creation stories, as also in this quote:

"Genesis 2:10–14 lists four rivers in association with the garden of Eden: Pishon, Gihon, Chidekel (the Tigris), and Phirat (the Euphrates). It also refers to the land of Cush—translated/interpreted as Ethiopia, but thought by some to equate to Cossaea, a Greek name for the land of the Kassites".

My Comment:
If holding onto the very Genesis 2:10–14 story of creation, these 4 rivers of course aren´t located on the Earth as this isn´t even made yet. Again the "watery" concepts in the creation fools scholars to think of geographic rivers instead of "celestial and cosmological rivers of gas and dust" from which the Garden of Eden is made.

Quote:
“The Garden of Eden is considered to be mythological by most scholars".

My comment:
This reveals that these scholars - and lots of "ordinary persons" - just take myths as myths without any relevant contents at all. They have become mythical ignorants.

- If scholars and laymen have no clues of the astronomical and cosmological content and the symbolic/allegoric context in ancient global Myths of Creation - they basically don´t understand what´s going on.

I hope you didn't expect me to read that wall of words. However, I did skim through it and found nothing to address your claim...

Native said: ↑
This scholarly and global misconception is the cause of the fameous "two time creation of the Earth" problem. This happend when scholars and laymen ignores the ancient stories of creation and its astronomical and cosmological contents....

Particularly the problem caused by scholars ignoring ancient stories of creation.​

Specifically, what scholars are having problems with a "two time creation of the Earth" problem. What are the fields of studies of these scholars?

 

[ecco]

In order to understand this “single circular continent” scenario, we have to think of the ancient world view of cosmos which at its largest included the Milky Way galaxy. Our ancestor´s didn´t and couldn´t have described a creation of the entire Universe, even if their basic perceptions of the creation were of an universal matter. They described the local part of the Universe and not the entire Universe.

Andromeda galaxy as an example of a "single circular continent", floating in the "cosmic waters".

If "Our ancestor´s didn´t and couldn´t have described a creation of the entire Universe, even if their basic perceptions of the creation were of an universal matter. ", why did you post a picture of a galaxy they couldn't have seen as anything more than just another star?

Why did you include a quote referring to a continent floating in cosmic waters?

 

[ecco]

Third day
And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.

My comment:

The underlined sentence is not again the Earth, but the “first firm soil”. The gathering of “waters in one place” can only be understood in the mythical context of the cosmological “primordial waters” as defined here:

WHAT?!? It clearly says: "God called the dry land Earth". On what do you base your assertion that God was lying?

Then you go on to make another nonsensical assertion: "The gathering of “waters in one place” can only be understood in the mythical context of the cosmological “primordial waters” as defined here". ONLY? Really? How about understanding that the narrators were probably referring to a large sea or the ocean?

We'll also ignore the fact that all the waters aren't gathered into one place.

"In creation myths

, the primordial waters are often represented as originally having filled the entire universe, being the first source of the gods cosmos with the act of creation corresponding to the establishment of an inhabitable space separate from the enveloping waters".

This ”primordial waters” can be compared in general to describe the modern term of “cosmic clouds of gas and dust” from which galaxies, stars and planets are created.

Sure. And primordial waters can be compared in general to describe sperm. Anyone can stretch anything to suit one's own beliefs if one is not too concerned with integrity.

 

[ecco]

Some of them obviously do.

https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468

I strongly agree with that [don't know where the universe came from]. However it isn't precisely an atheist position, but rather an agnostic one.

Why do you reference Krause's book as evidence that atheists believe the universe came from nothing? Can you quote any selection from the book supporting that?


I can't speak for other atheists, but I am very comfortable saying I don't know the origins of our universe. I am also comfortable saying we may never know.

 

[ecco]

Ecco, even your own belief in your theory that "belief is irrelevant (or 'immaterial')" motivates you to endure public humiliation of having offered a silly, non-sensical and naive theory in a public forum where individuals are able to, at once, see the incoherence and insupportable nature of your theory that "beliefs don’t matter".

Public humiliation? At your hand? How silly of you to believe that.

If anything, it is you who should feel humiliated by your lack of reading comprehension. But I'll try to explain it to you, in a step by step manner.

I am CLEARLY making the argument that what the ancients believed is immaterial.

Note the word "ancients". This CLEARLY refers to people who lived long ago.
Note the word "believed". This CLEARLY refers to something that occurred in the past.

Taken together, "ancients" and "believed" CLEARLY refers to the beliefs of people who lived long ago. In the context of this discussion, had you been able to follow it, the beliefs of people living 3,000 - 6,000 years ago.

Note the word "is" before the word "immaterial". The "is" CLEARLY refers to the present tense.

Is it becoming clearer yet?

My closing comment in the post you were referring to was:

If some believed that rocks were made of something rather than nothing - OK Big Whoop.​

It seems you disagree with that. Perhaps you can explain why it matters to you what they believed. Perhaps you can explain how it affects today's scientific understandings.

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING EARLY CHRISTIANITY, THEIR LITERATURE AND ANCIENT BELIEF

. In the context of this discussion, had you been able to follow it, the beliefs of people living 3,000 - 6,000 years ago..

You are confused. My first post was #35 where I pointed out “the creation of the material worlds from matter was the default teaching of early christianity and the ancients were NOT unaware of matter and how it was used in creation from chaotic matter”. This is the context of our conversation regarding early (ancient) Christian belief.

I might point out that Neither early Christianity nor their literature (from which I gave multiple examples), were in existence “3,000-6,000 years ago". This is historically incoherent.

Secondly, your theory that “belief doesn’t matter” lacks data, logic and coherence. The principle of belief as a factor in motivations and behaviors applies to intelligent individuals of all ages. If belief motivates and affects modern intelligent individuals, why would beliefs not matter and affect the “early Christians” we are discussing?

Your theory is incoherent on this point.

Note the word "ancients". This CLEARLY refers to people who lived long ago.

I understand, I had a grandfather who was ancient. Your theory is non-historic since the “Early Christianity” I referred to did not exist “3,000 – 6,000” years ago. This is yet another incoherence inside your theory.


2) INCOHERENT AND INSUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION IS A PROBLEM FOR THE THEORY THAT BELIEFS DON'T MATTER
Your inability to clearly describe your theory that “belief doesn’t matter” is another problem with your theory. You will need to clearly describe your theory if it is going to ever achieve better reasonableness and potential coherence.

For example, In post #82, you describe multiple beliefs (earth centric, sheep markings, slavery, etc.) and you then asked Why do you think what they believed is important?”

I responded that beliefs in all ages is an important motivator in discovery and gave examples, from the beliefs of Columbus, Galileo, Van Leeuwenhoek, and Isaac Newton as powerful motivations in their discoveries that advanced knowledge of mankind. I also pointed out that beliefs have negative effects such as Hitlers beliefs concerning race inferiorities and the disastrous effect of his belief. History tells us that beliefs and their effects, matter.

Note the word "believed". This CLEARLY refers to something that occurred in the past.

Good to know. This does not indicate “3,000 - 6,000 years ago” past.

5 minutes ago I “believed” I was going to meet my wife for lunch. 5 minutes ago is also past tense.

Past tense merely means “past”, not “3,000-6,000” years ago.. You are conflating your assumptions into your descriptions and somehow lost track of the original context regarding “Christians and ancients” and their beliefs..

Note the word "is" before the word "immaterial". The "is" CLEARLY refers to the present tense.

Also good to know. Are you sure you want to spend your life arguing petty semantics to justify vagueness in your theory? What you need is data, rational thought and coherence, rather than appealing to semantic justifications.

If some believed that rocks were made of something rather than nothing - OK Big Whoop.

This description of your theory lacks details enough to be logical and coherent to apply in any specific way.. Give us details and data and apply logical reason to those data and then present that data and conclusion for discussion.

For example, WHO are the “some” who believed? Are they small Christian children throwing rocks or the early Christian proto-scientists and discoverers who were attempting to gain understanding of the world of physics? Your theory lacks data and coherence. Give us specific data.

How does your theory that "beliefs don’t matter" propose to show the ideas held by such examples as Columbus, Galileo, Van Leeuwenhoek, Isaac Newton, and Hitler "didn't matter"? History itself demonstrates that beliefs and their effects, matter.

How does your theory deal with the role of belief in progressive improvement of knowledge and progressive discovery. That is, early simple beliefs help form a basis upon which other, more complicated ideas and discoveries are formed. If Galileo did not first believe in the first reports and descriptions of a telescope, would he have made the effort to create one himself? Galileos belief mattered.

If one is speaking of two kids playing marbles, then it may not matter whether they believe in conservation of energy (or matter). If one of the kids is Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier, the Father of Chemistry, then a lack of a developing belief that he could discover properties of matter would have changed his role in the development of our knowledge of modern Chemistry. His belief one way or the other, mattered.

Public humiliation? At your hand? How silly of you to believe that.

You are confused. I would not consciously attempt to shame anyone.

I do not need to humiliate you. Anyone who can read and think intelligently will immediately see the incoherence and irrational nature of your theory that "beliefs don't matter". Not only are intelligent individuals aware of how beliefs affected world history of leaders in various sciences and explorations, but they are able to look at their own lives and behaviors and see that their own beliefs affect their behaviors. Their beliefs affect which car brand they buy, their beliefs affect which stocks they invest in, and their beliefs and confidence level even affect whether to put the brake on or mash the gas peddle when judging a yellow light at an intersection.

What we believe in and other types of confidence changes our behaviors. They matter.

Ecco, Your theory that "beliefs don’t matter" is illogical, incoherent, and inconsistent with behavioral observation and with history.

Clear
ειφιακσε

 

[Bird123]

Incredulity is no substitute for scientific knowledge.

Statistics, time and math.

 

[Native]

I hope you didn't expect me to read that wall of words. However, I did skim through it and found nothing to address your claim...

Well, I HOPED you would - but I didn´t expect it according to your usual reading method:
Notising "the wall of words" without trying to understand the contents and then just refuse it all.

Specifically, what scholars are having problems with a "two time creation of the Earth" problem. What are the fields of studies of these scholars?

You could have the answer of this if you´ve read the "wall of words". So try to read the post and deduce for yourself "what scholars".

 

[Native]

If "Our ancestor´s didn´t and couldn´t have described a creation of the entire Universe, even if their basic perceptions of the creation were of an universal matter. ", why did you post a picture of a galaxy they couldn't have seen as anything more than just another star?

You could have the answer of this if you´ve read the "wall of words".

 

[Native]

WHAT?!? It clearly says: "God called the dry land Earth". On what do you base your assertion that God was lying?

It´s OK by me if you don´t believe in the "two time creation of earth/Earth problem" even if I linked you to this.

It´s not an intrigant question of a lying god. You could have avoid this intrigant arguing by incorporating this nice method:

You could have the answer of this if you´ve read the "wall of words".

Sure. And primordial waters can be compared in general to describe sperm. Anyone can stretch anything to suit one's own beliefs if one is not too concerned with integrity.

Ha You´re speaking of "concerning with integry"? Very funny indeed