-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Universe From Nothing
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
MichaelleahciM
Member
Yet the book is flawed as it refutes creatures, well before humans. The book states God created the Earth in seven days and brought forth man. Apparently God created Dinosaurs on what, the 5th day? The statement is supposed to be the Word of God and yet science has proven it false as well false that the Earth is the center of the Universe. If the book which purports His Word as perfect, and it is proven otherwise. Then the house of cards must fall.
gnostic
The Lost One
There are many definitions to energy, and there are number of definitions for fields, and there are fewer when using “energy” and “field” together...because they can be “connected” or “related”.
But to “consciousness”...?
Consciousness that predated any physical life forms?
Are you saying “consciousness” even predated the universe itself?
How’s that any better than “supreme being”, whether you call it “god”, “creator”, (intelligent) “designer”, “spirit”, “fairy”, “alien”, “mr Ed”, “flying spaghetti monster”, the hippo in tutu, and so on?
The consciousness that transcends everything, is nothing more than just another long line of unsubstantiated superstitions or conjectures...
...in another word, it is just “woo”.
Yes, I know of some physicists who advocate the connections between “consciousness” with Quantum Physics (QP), and a number of them who believe such things, are trying but without any verifiable evidence to support their eastern philosophies with QP, this is nothing more than a pseudoscience philosophy or cultist religion.
MichaelleahciM
Member
I would say that 18 billion years ago, the universe didn't exist, not much to argue there . But I'd argue the quantum field was. I works for me, and as history proves, everyone believes whatever they want too, it's their right, if they don't try to shove it down throats. It also looks certain that physicists agree everything in this, the universe is a derivative of the quantum, so it's a very short jump to, everything, including consciousness, the material world is nothing but energy, we never physically can touch, are composed of mostly empty space, we don't see with our eyes, we see pictures inside the mind.
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
Physicists advocating connections between consciousness and Quantum Physics are no different from biologists like Behe who believes in Genesis and discounts evolution.
An advanced degree cannot necessarily overcome indoctrination into and belief of woo.
gnostic
The Lost One
You are right. Qualifications in higher education don’t mean much to such scientists, if they allow their preconceptions of their faiths overshadowed scientific rationality and empirical evidence.
Hi @URAVIP2ME
I just wanted to remind you of a single point that you and I have discussed before. You keep referring to Isaiah 40:26 as meaning material things were made "out of God's Power", out of his "strength" (e.g his "dynamic energy" as you call it).
Isaiah 40:26 does not tell us that he made things out of his "power" or his "strength" . The specific verse you quote (Isaiah 40:26) simply tells he made things, but does not tell us what he made them out of. I think this is a case of reading theology into a text.
Clear
Τωτζσετζω
There is Nothing in Genesis as to how long each creative day is.
Nor does it say if each day is of the same length of time or differing lengths of time.
ALL of the SIX creative days are summed up by the word DAY at Genesis 2:4.
Even today we speak of grandfather's day and we know we are Not speaking about a 24 hour day but a length of time.
Scripture does Not teach Earth is the center, rather the heavens were created first long before Earth.- Job 26:7
Plus, God's 7th day is still on going as God's rest day from further creation on Earth.
CMBR ( cosmic microwave background radiation ) is Not out of harmony with known science and Scripture.
The ' house of cards ' that must fall is 'man's house' because man has dominated man to man's hurt, to man's injury.
Last edited:
In the Hebrew Scripture I read:
Raise your eyes on high and see Who created these things! He brings forth their legions by number; He calls to each of them by name; by the abundance of His power and by the vigor of His strength, not one is missing !
To me, 'created' ( by the Creator) He uses His Vigor, His power the things He brought forth.
So, the world in all its grandeur must have a Creator, and the Creator who has vigorous power and great strength. - Revelation 4:11
What is great power and strength but dynamic energy.
God stretches out the heavens according to Isaiah 40:22B. It also takes power and strength ( energy ) to do that.
Compare Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 27:7; Jeremiah 32:17; Job 26:7
1) REGARDING WHAT GOD CREATED MATERIAL THINGS FROM
URAVIP2ME said : "In the Hebrew Scripture I read:
Raise your eyes on high and see Who created these things! He brings forth their legions by number; He calls to each of them by name; by the abundance of His power and by the vigor of His strength, not one is missing !
To me, 'created' ( by the Creator) He uses His Vigor, His power the things He brought forth." (post #149)
The important commercial phrase in your commentis "to me". You are applying a personal interpretation when you read the sentence.
2) THE ANCIENT INTERPRETATION OF CREATION OUT OF "MATTER" VERSUS THE INTERPRETATION OF CREATION FROM "ENERGY" OR "VIGOR" OR "POWER"
For example when we had this conversation last time you offered your personal interpretation of scripture saying "Scripture does Not teach that God used material matter to create the visible world.”
If your personal interpretation of scripture has God using something other than material to create material things, what does your interpretation have God using to create material things? Can you be specific? For example, you say “God used …His great "Power and Strength" ( His abundant dynamic energy ) to create the material realm.”
Are you referring to matter existing in a different form, such as Einsteins theory that E=mc2 in referring to matter (mass) in a different form (energy)?
While I can certainly agree that it took vigor and work and energy and diligence and knowledge and intelligence and will power for God to assemble the worlds out of whatever was there, (whether matter was in a material form or if matter was in the form of energy) the material world is not made OF vigor and work and knowledge and intelligence and will power as though these characteristics of God were actual material itself.
For example the ancient Judeo-Christian interpretation that God used matter in it’s base and chaotic form to create organized material things (like planets) seems more rational and logical than your interpretation. What advantage does your theory have over the earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation of scripture where they interpreted the scriptures to mean God created material things out of matter?
3) THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT SUPPORT THE THEORY THAT NOTHING BUT GOD EXISTED BEFORE GOD CREATED THE OBJECTS IN BIBLICAL GENESIS
You again reference the same scriptures you referenced the last time we had this conversation. As with the prior conversation, the scriptures you referenced do not support your theory.
Isaiah 40:26 simply says God “created these things”, it does not tell us there was “nothing but God” before creation nor does it say things were created out of pure energy.
You quoted Jeremiah 10:12 But this simply describes God “made the earth “by his power”. It does not tell us the earth is created OF power, simply that God used his ability and power to make the earth. A builder can claim that he builds a house “by his own power and wisdom” but no one assumes it is made of cosmic energy, but rather it is assumed the builder used wood and bricks and mortar. Neither does this verse say there was “nothing but God” before creation.
You quoted Jeremiah 32:17 but this simply tells us the same thing (God created…) Like the other verses, it does not support your theory.
Finally, you quoted Psalms 104:30, but again, this verse simply tells us things “are created” but does not support your theory.
What advantage does your interpretation and theory have over early Judeo-Christian interpretation that God created material things out of matter? Do you have any reason why your personal interpretation should take precedent over the ancient Judeo-Christian interpretation?
Clear
τωειτζτζω
URAVIP2ME said : "In the Hebrew Scripture I read:
Raise your eyes on high and see Who created these things! He brings forth their legions by number; He calls to each of them by name; by the abundance of His power and by the vigor of His strength, not one is missing !
To me, 'created' ( by the Creator) He uses His Vigor, His power the things He brought forth." (post #149)
The important commercial phrase in your commentis "to me". You are applying a personal interpretation when you read the sentence.
2) THE ANCIENT INTERPRETATION OF CREATION OUT OF "MATTER" VERSUS THE INTERPRETATION OF CREATION FROM "ENERGY" OR "VIGOR" OR "POWER"
For example when we had this conversation last time you offered your personal interpretation of scripture saying "Scripture does Not teach that God used material matter to create the visible world.”
If your personal interpretation of scripture has God using something other than material to create material things, what does your interpretation have God using to create material things? Can you be specific? For example, you say “God used …His great "Power and Strength" ( His abundant dynamic energy ) to create the material realm.”
Are you referring to matter existing in a different form, such as Einsteins theory that E=mc2 in referring to matter (mass) in a different form (energy)?
While I can certainly agree that it took vigor and work and energy and diligence and knowledge and intelligence and will power for God to assemble the worlds out of whatever was there, (whether matter was in a material form or if matter was in the form of energy) the material world is not made OF vigor and work and knowledge and intelligence and will power as though these characteristics of God were actual material itself.
For example the ancient Judeo-Christian interpretation that God used matter in it’s base and chaotic form to create organized material things (like planets) seems more rational and logical than your interpretation. What advantage does your theory have over the earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation of scripture where they interpreted the scriptures to mean God created material things out of matter?
3) THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT SUPPORT THE THEORY THAT NOTHING BUT GOD EXISTED BEFORE GOD CREATED THE OBJECTS IN BIBLICAL GENESIS
You again reference the same scriptures you referenced the last time we had this conversation. As with the prior conversation, the scriptures you referenced do not support your theory.
Isaiah 40:26 simply says God “created these things”, it does not tell us there was “nothing but God” before creation nor does it say things were created out of pure energy.
You quoted Jeremiah 10:12 But this simply describes God “made the earth “by his power”. It does not tell us the earth is created OF power, simply that God used his ability and power to make the earth. A builder can claim that he builds a house “by his own power and wisdom” but no one assumes it is made of cosmic energy, but rather it is assumed the builder used wood and bricks and mortar. Neither does this verse say there was “nothing but God” before creation.
You quoted Jeremiah 32:17 but this simply tells us the same thing (God created…) Like the other verses, it does not support your theory.
Finally, you quoted Psalms 104:30, but again, this verse simply tells us things “are created” but does not support your theory.
What advantage does your interpretation and theory have over early Judeo-Christian interpretation that God created material things out of matter? Do you have any reason why your personal interpretation should take precedent over the ancient Judeo-Christian interpretation?
Clear
τωειτζτζω
Last edited:
You've misunderstood what was written. Some of the verses(by this, I mean the "words") that you have used were not spoken by god, instead, it was spoken by those who were speaking to and/or about god.
Carefully note what you've said here. It may take power and strength to accomplish such feat, but that does not mean that it was made of such power and strength.
Example:
A human can use his/her power and strength to build a house, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the house was made of the human's power and strength. Instead, the house was made of wood and stones.
God has power, God has strength. God has other traits: God has feelings, God has standards, however, God "IS" love.
God used His power and strength to build a house ( earthly home for us ) but that doesn't necessarily mean the house ( earth ) was made 'of' God's power and strength. Instead the house ( earth ) was made of ( constructed of ) wood and stone and the dust of the earth, etc.
As Creator, then God used His power and strength to create the visible world out of His created material things.
And that's supposed to explain that it's made up of god's energy? How?
I can't believe you would compare someone like Eugene Wigner with Behe. Heck, I have some problems even with the comparison of Roger Penrose and Henry Stapp with Behe, but the idea of a connection between mind and measurement goes back into the foundations of quantum physics, all the way to Bohr and Heisenberg, although it was Wigner who as far as I know first took this view as fundamental to quantum theory. Hence the term "Wigner's friend."
ecco
Veteran Member
dedicated to the new information philosophy
Wigner claimed that a quantum measurement requires the mind of a conscious observer, without which wave functions never collapse and nothing ever happens in the universe.
Wigner claimed that a quantum measurement requires the mind of a conscious observer, without which wave functions never collapse and nothing ever happens in the universe.
How would conscious observers have formed before there were conscious observers?
Even brilliant minds sometimes turn to woo.
Ask a scientist as to what is current scientific knowledge.
In Scripture, can't be spirit first because God sends forth his spirit........ - Psalms 104:30
Since God is from everlasting ( No beginning ) only God was first before anything else - Psalms 90:2.
A central difference between Behe and those who view consciousness as fundamental to quantum theory is that in the case of Behe we have a well-established theory nearly universally accepted by those in relevant fields on the one hand and Behe with his own ideas and interpretations on the other. In the case of quantum theory, the relevance of human minds as “observers” is built into the basic mathematical structures of the theory, which takes as its fundamental components not the mathematical representation of the dynamical system but “observables” and their algebras. In the Heisenberg picture, the state itself is subsumed by the observables, while in the Schrödinger picture the actual attributes of any given physical system are again given by the observables associated with it. The orthodox interpretation of quantum theory is based primarily on the ideas of Bohr and Heisenberg, both of whom considered the (conscious) observer as again a fundamental, inescapable part of the nature of physical theories in general and quantum theory in particular.
In perhaps the most common formulation, pure states are described in terms of equivalence classes of elements in some complex finite or infinite dimensional space, but even for simple one-level, non-interacting systems any attribute or measureable property of interest is given either by the state preparation (and therefore encoded in the mathematical representation of the state) or by the statistical properties of the operator from the relevant observable algebra acting on the state and projecting it onto a subspace yielding the measurement outcome. But what constitutes a measurement and for whom does the observable yield a specific outcome? Wigner’s insight was to realize that there is no formal distinction (and neither perhaps a conceptual one) between the standard view of the quantum state in a particular experimental arrangement as a “black box” and that entire arrangement plus the experimenter from the perspective of an outsider. This is entirely consistent with the standard formulation emphasized initially by e.g., Bohr and Heisenberg in which we only ask of the theory that it consistently yield valid predictions rather than be understood as a description of any underlying physical processes (Bohr famously denied even the existence of a quantum world in favor of abstract mathematics).
Naturally, many physicists in later years and generations have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the received interpretation.
But once again, rather than (as with Behe) a situation in which a few physicists stand against some consensus, we have instead no consensus at all but a diverse number of interpretations and a number of working FAPP schemes. For some, quantum theory only makes sense in terms of an observer. For some, it is clearly a subjective tool for conscious agents in the form of a non-classical probability framework. For others, like Stapp (whose views are built on Heisenberg’s) it is the natural progression of physics in that it finally includes us as conscious observers and the role we play. For others, it is best understood in a simpler form in which all probabilies are yielded in some possible world/universe or in some “mind” (the many-world and many-mind interpretations, respectively). For others, we should take information as fundamental an interpret quantum theory in this light (but information for whom?). The list goes on and on.
But there are many interpretations and formulations (many of which are inaccessible to the layperson, unlike your typical popular nonsense on quantum minds or similar balderdash) going back to the origins of the theory in which conscious observers are a central component to the theory.