Can a Genesis God be Explained from a Science Perspective? (part 1)

[Dante Writer]

So, it's not your thought experiment that needs challenge, but ours?


Fair enough. I just wonder why you do have these one sides challenges that are heavily anti-science and pro-religion every time? Do you have any challenges that do the opposite where you challenge established religion and pro-science? I don't think a single one of them so far has. I just wonder why?


See. You want to put it on the edge that there's a problem with science, because you want the answer to be something else, and you say that answer is not supposed to be religious. But I can't really pinpoint what non-religious anti-science belief you have.


Sure. My bias right now is based on some experience that last week or so. The experience I have is that each and every thread you've done is anti-science and anti-naturalism. I'm trying to figure you out rather than the questions you state, simply because your questions are very lopsided.


I'm not attacking you. I'm challenging you to respond to why your anti-naturalism and where you're going with all these threads. There's a pattern forming from your threads, and they all point to some form of religious views, which you deny you have, so you are the real mystery here, not your questions.

To me, I'm more curious about where you're going with all these questions rather than the questions themselves.

"So, it's not your thought experiment that needs challenge, but ours?"

Both- I would not ask for your thoughts if I did not expect what I said to be challenged.I f you can poke holes in it then I will use that in my own thought experiment which is and will need to be evaluated based on new information.

"Fair enough. I just wonder why you do have these one sides challenges that are heavily anti-science and pro-religion every time?"

The forum is for the discussion and debate of both science and creationism but only science and those that have a rigid view of science seem to have topics being discussed. in order to have common ground we have to look at how those beliefs can be explained through a science perspective.

My discussion is based on science unless you are claiming Natural laws do not exist and are not science?

You are not discussing the topic and instead trying to analyze me. Please get back on topic.

 

[Ouroboros]

"So, it's not your thought experiment that needs challenge, but ours?"

Both- I would not ask for your thoughts if I did not expect what I said to be challenged.I f you can poke holes in it then I will use that in my own thought experiment which is and will need to be evaluated based on new information.

"Fair enough. I just wonder why you do have these one sides challenges that are heavily anti-science and pro-religion every time?"

The forum is for the discussion and debate of both science and creationism but only science and those that have a rigid view of science seem to have topics being discussed. in order to have common ground we have to look at how those beliefs can be explained through a science perspective.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation.

My discussion is based on science unless you are claiming Natural laws do not exist and are not science?

??? I didn't claim anything. I was trying to understand why you're starting all these threads that seems to be anti-science.

You are not discussing the topic and instead trying to analyze me. Please get back on topic.

Sure. Just wanted to understand.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Disclaimer: This is not an attempt to promote any religion and I have no religious beliefs. It is only a thought experiment to understand the biblical book of Genesis from a science perspective and maybe find common ground for science and creationists to discuss. Since the story of creation in Genesis seems common in many religious and native beliefs I believe it is worth exploring deeper. I will not attempt to cover all things said in genesis and only those I find can be explained from a science perspective. I am using the KJV version for this discussion.

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

What in science do we know controls all things and holds the Universe together that could be called God?

There are Laws of nature and science that exist and control and direct everything in this Universe. We have only discovered some of those laws and man did not invent the laws and man like all forms in the Universe must follow those laws.

The Laws of energy, gravity, relativity, conservation, thermodynamics etc. exist and seem to be present in the entire Universe and the laws are what holds everything together and directs all actions in the Universe. The laws apply to all particles from the sub atomic quarks to planets and living organisms like humans.

Your body matter is held together by those laws and the energy that we call life inside your body is also a result of those laws. Without those laws there would be no form possible as the laws dictate how particles and matter stick together and how energy responds.

The Laws dictate how the Universe acts and it is through those laws that planets form and solar systems like the one we live in form. If no Laws were present there would be no Universe as we know it.

The Laws are separate from the Universe and do not have shape or form and the Laws simply exist and is an entity separate from the universe that has always existed. The big bang as described by science could not happen without those laws so the laws existed before that event. All action and reaction is dictated by the Laws.

For this discussion then I will say God is the Laws that created and directs the Heaven and Earth and all things in the Universe.

References:

Entity 1 -a thing with distinct and independent existence.

God 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

Your thoughts?

It heavily depends on how you define god. If its how a lot of people see him, your explanation seems a bit off the mark. Say some denomi of Christiainity do not believe that God loves them and god gave them life as a metahor. They actually believe that an entity or being or spirit (of Christ) loves them and he created the world.

The laws of nature do not create anything from then air and nothing just disapears. The Laws of nature are the nature of change not the nature of creation as said in Genesis. Genesis (as so the name means) implies that we had a begining. The laws of nature doesnt say life/energy has a begining. We keep making ourselfs and our god/s the center of the universe; we are not.

Personally, taking out any religio's interpretation of god from love to mythology, "god" is life. Life doesnt love us.Its no a person. We feel loved in life when we connect with ourselvves, our environment, and all living and in spirit.

That experience is god.

In my opinion, the laws of nature are what makes up god but if I were to associate god in relation to humans, god is the life experience we choose to have not a separate being who created ife a part from himself whether deist or theist worldview.

Also, since god is a personal experience and many take science as inpersonal, I guess there has to be another word to where ones personal experience with life they dont feel its dumbed down to the laws of nature.

I find it beautiful. Not everyone the same.

 

[Dante Writer]

The conflicting declarations in the Bible are clearly not science. They are not conclusions arrived at through the scientific method.

In re: laws of nature: The laws are artifacts of the Big Bang (expansion?), and could be different in different Universes.

"The conflicting declarations in the Bible are clearly not science."

The bible was written by non scientists to explain a phenomena before the science we have today existed.

The discussion is looking at the Genesis statements to see if they align with science.

I ask you again- where did the Laws come from in your theory?

 

[Dante Writer]

Ok. Thanks for the explanation.


??? I didn't claim anything. I was trying to understand why you're starting all these threads that seems to be anti-science.


Sure. Just wanted to understand.

"??? I didn't claim anything. I was trying to understand why you're starting all these threads that seems to be anti-science."

You- "See. You want to put it on the edge that there's a problem with science, because you want the answer to be something else, and you say that answer is not supposed to be religious. But I can't really pinpoint what non-religious anti-science belief you have."

That is a claim and based on your own biases not what I posted.

"threads that seems to be anti-science"

Again- unless you think the laws that govern science are not science you will have to explain your theory of why the Laws exist?

 

[Valjean]

The Bible doesn't "explain" so much as attribute. More an assertion of agency than an explanation of mechanism.
Time, matter, energy and their arrangement/balance/interactions -- laws -- popped into existence in the Big Bang.

 

[Dante Writer]

It heavily depends on how you define god. If its how a lot of people see him, your explanation seems a bit off the mark. Say some denomi of Christiainity do not believe that God loves them and god gave them life as a metahor. They actually believe that an entity or being or spirit (of Christ) loves them and he created the world.

The laws of nature do not create anything from then air and nothing just disapears. The Laws of nature are the nature of change not the nature of creation as said in Genesis. Genesis (as so the name means) implies that we had a begining. The laws of nature doesnt say life/energy has a begining. We keep making ourselfs and our god/s the center of the universe; we are not.

Personally, taking out any religio's interpretation of god from love to mythology, "god" is life. Life doesnt love us.Its no a person. We feel loved in life when we connect with ourselvves, our environment, and all living and in spirit.

That experience is god.

In my opinion, the laws of nature are what makes up god but if I were to associate god in relation to humans, god is the life experience we choose to have not a separate being who created ife a part from himself whether deist or theist worldview.

Also, since god is a personal experience and many take science as inpersonal, I guess there has to be another word to where ones personal experience with life they dont feel its dumbed down to the laws of nature.

I find it beautiful. Not everyone the same.

"It heavily depends on how you define god."

I agree and the purpose of this discussion was to define God using a science perspective.

""god" is life."

I can agree to the point that life as we understand it would not exist with out the Laws. The Laws are therefor necessary to life.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[viole]

Disclaimer: This is not an attempt to promote any religion and I have no religious beliefs. It is only a thought experiment to understand the biblical book of Genesis from a science perspective and maybe find common ground for science and creationists to discuss. Since the story of creation in Genesis seems common in many religious and native beliefs I believe it is worth exploring deeper. I will not attempt to cover all things said in genesis and only those I find can be explained from a science perspective. I am using the KJV version for this discussion.

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

What in science do we know controls all things and holds the Universe together that could be called God?

There are Laws of nature and science that exist and control and direct everything in this Universe. We have only discovered some of those laws and man did not invent the laws and man like all forms in the Universe must follow those laws.

The Laws of energy, gravity, relativity, conservation, thermodynamics etc. exist and seem to be present in the entire Universe and the laws are what holds everything together and directs all actions in the Universe. The laws apply to all particles from the sub atomic quarks to planets and living organisms like humans.

Your body matter is held together by those laws and the energy that we call life inside your body is also a result of those laws. Without those laws there would be no form possible as the laws dictate how particles and matter stick together and how energy responds.

The Laws dictate how the Universe acts and it is through those laws that planets form and solar systems like the one we live in form. If no Laws were present there would be no Universe as we know it.

The Laws are separate from the Universe and do not have shape or form and the Laws simply exist and is an entity separate from the universe that has always existed. The big bang as described by science could not happen without those laws so the laws existed before that event. All action and reaction is dictated by the Laws.

For this discussion then I will say God is the Laws that created and directs the Heaven and Earth and all things in the Universe.

References:

Entity 1 -a thing with distinct and independent existence.

God 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

Your thoughts?

Your description of law can be replaced with god. For instance, god is also separate from the universe, if you are not a Pan theist.

So, why do we need something above those "laws" if they are sufficient to explain the rest?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dante Writer]

The Bible doesn't "explain" so much as attribute. More an assertion of agency than an explanation of mechanism.
Time, matter, energy and their arrangement/balance/interactions -- laws -- popped into existence in the Big Bang.

The discussion is not about the bible as a whole.

The bible is based on a belief in a God.

I have proposed the Natural Laws fit that definition.

If you disagree then please explain why the Laws exist and when they came into existence?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1-."In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Your thoughts?

Upon what grounds do you defend the above translation?

I made it clear I am not defending any translation.

Where, precisely, did you make clear that you are not defending a particular translation?

I said that is the translation I was using for this discussion.

But why would you focus on a debatable translation of Gen.1 and then refuse shy away from taking responsibility for that choice and its implications?

 

[Dante Writer]

Your description of law can be replaced with god. For instance, god is also separate from the universe, if you are not a Pan theist.

So, why do we need something above those "laws" if they are sufficient to explain the rest?

Ciao

- viole

"Your description of law can be replaced with god. "

Yes that was my assertion that Laws fit the definition of God and it is logical that God also fits the definition of the Laws.

"So, why do we need something above those "laws" if they are sufficient to explain the rest?"

I do not assert that we do need or have anything "above" those Laws and nothing in my post asserts that.

 

[viole]

"Your description of law can be replaced with god. "

Yes that was my assertion that Laws fit the definition of God and it is logical that God also fits the definition of the Laws.

"So, why do we need something above those "laws" if they are sufficient to explain the rest?"

I do not assert that we do need or have anything "above" those Laws and nothing in my post asserts that.

Ok. So? We have laws, apparently, and that's it.

Now what?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dante Writer]

Where, precisely, did you make clear that you are not defending a particular translation?

But why would you focus on a debatable translation of Gen.1 and then refuse shy away from taking responsibility for that choice and its implications?

"But why would you focus on a debatable translation of Gen.1"

because this is a discussion I started and my choice was the KJV version which is commonly known.

If you want to discuss why I post discussions it is not the topic of discussion. I do it because this is a forum for discussion.

Now please address the topic and stay on topic or start your own discussion.

Can a Genesis God be Explained from a Science Perspective?

 

[Dante Writer]

Ok. So? We have laws, apparently, and that's it.

Now what?

Ciao

- viole

Well you are getting ahead of the discussion. As I noted this is Part 1.

You must first understand a science perspective of God before you can move on to deeper analogies.

 

[viole]

Well you are getting ahead of the discussion. As I noted this is Part 1.

You must first understand a science perspective of God before you can move on to deeper analogies.

God? There is no God.

I thought laws were sufficient.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dante Writer]

God? There is no God.

I thought laws were sufficient.

Ciao

- viole

You must first understand a science perspective of God before you can move on to deeper analogies.

Perspective: a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"But why would you focus on a debatable translation of Gen.1"

because this is a discussion I started and my choice was the KJV version which is commonly known.

So let me see if I understand this: you seek "a thought experiment to understand the biblical book of Genesis from a science perspective" while suggesting that an understanding of what the text actually says is of little concern. Seriously?

 

[Dante Writer]

So let me see if I understand this: you seek "a thought experiment to understand the biblical book of Genesis from a science perspective" while suggesting that an understanding of what the text actually says is of little concern. Seriously?

When you want to discus the topic come on back.

 

[Ouroboros]

So let me see if I understand this: you seek "a thought experiment to understand the biblical book of Genesis from a science perspective" while suggesting that an understanding of what the text actually says is of little concern. Seriously?

Good point.

If we're to analyze the fitness of the text to scientific view, then we have to analyze the text and critique different views of how to interpret it.

 

[viole]

You must first understand a science perspective of God before you can move on to deeper analogies.

Perspective: a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.

There Is no science perspective of God. I fail to see God in most scientific papers,

There is a perspective of God from some scientists. Not the same thing. Some of them coming from the indian continent have a perspective of God having the same nose as an elephant. Some other have the perspective of God talking to serpents.

Ciao

- viole