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

[Acim]

Rather simple, evidence for the existence of the physical world is found in shared common observations.

So, within intersubjectivity then, yes? What are these common observations using to detect said existence? Is it something that presupposes the existence or something notably outside the domain of the physical world, and therefore objective?

The "great divide' that you pretend keen interest in is nothing more than the requirement in science for such evidence while religion often happily depends on "personal" special knowledge.

I would say science, at its foundation, ALWAYS depends on personal knowledge/awareness. I'm yet to find an exception to this. Let me know if you do.

 

[Acim]

Picking one is your game, my point is that there are many and that, in conversation, agreement as to definitions are important and that playing semantic games with disparate meanings to attempt to confound your interlocutor may be tactically effective, but it is intellectually dishonest.

How is it intellectually dishonest?

I observe you as clearly picking one definition for 'faith' then projecting that type of rationale on to me, claiming it dishonest and disassociating yourself from all equal activity in any wrongdoing.

If person wishes to use definition of God that doesn't include the terms supernatural in that definition, you are stating they must for 'that is in the dictionary!' Yes, it is, in one or a few instances, but not all. So your version of agreement appears like stubbornness in not willing to accept any definition but the one you say is most accurate, ya know, according to your opinion. But with regards to faith, then any dictionary definition of that term, ya know like the first one, is to be completely ignored and only the one that pertains to religion is to be seen as accurate for all future (and really past) cases of the term.

How so intellectually honest of you.

 

[Sapiens]

So, within intersubjectivity then, yes? What are these common observations using to detect said existence? Is it something that presupposes the existence or something notably outside the domain of the physical world, and therefore objective?

I'm not going to waste time with that sort of sophist crap. If that's the best you can do ... knock yourself out, I've found it, since High School, to be both too obviously just contentious rather than honestly inquistive as well as to boring to want to play.

I would say science, at its foundation, ALWAYS depends on personal knowledge/awareness. I'm yet to find an exception to this. Let me know if you do.

All science is an exception to that. Drop the word "personal" and you've got it.

How is it intellectually dishonest?

I observe you as clearly picking one definition for 'faith' then projecting that type of rationale on to me, claiming it dishonest and disassociating yourself from all equal activity in any wrongdoing.

If person wishes to use definition of God that doesn't include the terms supernatural in that definition, you are stating they must for 'that is in the dictionary!' Yes, it is, in one or a few instances, but not all.

Then please give us all an example of an Abrahamic God that does not partake of supernaturalism. I can see making that case for some pantheistic and polytheistic religions were the "gods" are more on the order of the "spirit of the river" and are invoked solely in celebration or anthropomorphication of said river, but who exercise no supernatural power over the river

So your version of agreement appears like stubbornness in not willing to accept any definition but the one you say is most accurate, ya know, according to your opinion. But with regards to faith, then any dictionary definition of that term, ya know like the first one, is to be completely ignored and only the one that pertains to religion is to be seen as accurate for all future (and really past) cases of the term.

Quite the opposite, I'm pointing out that are often multiple and sometimes even contradictory meanings for words and that shopping for a definition without recognition of this is foolhardy. However, in the case had hand, attempting to divorce supernaturalism from the word God is disingenuous, at best, and intentionally deceitful at worst.

How so intellectually honest of you.

Why thank you, how unexpected.

 

[Acim]

I'm not going to waste time with that sort of sophist crap. If that's the best you can do ... knock yourself out, I've found it, since High School, to be both too obviously just contentious rather than honestly inquistive as well as to boring to want to play.

Your choice. I'll understand it as you don't actually have a rebuttal and rather bow out than attempt one.

All science is an exception to that. Drop the word "personal" and you've got it.

Why would I drop that when it would be observably inaccurate.

Then please give us all an example of an Abrahamic God that does not partake of supernaturalism. I can see making that case for some pantheistic and polytheistic religions were the "gods" are more on the order of the "spirit of the river" and are invoked solely in celebration or anthropomorphication of said river, but who exercise no supernatural power over the river

You'll allow for me to come from say NT to provide example of passage that would plausibly show God(s) are amongst us (or are us)? The passage I am ready to draw upon is not making supernatural claims. I would argue it is doing the opposite, but would say it is debatable.

I could come from other source material to provide the example(s), and even be of the Abrahamic God, but seeing as they are non canonical, then I'm guessing you wish to stick to canon.

Quite the opposite, I'm pointing out that are often multiple and sometimes even contradictory meanings for words and that shopping for a definition without recognition of this is foolhardy. However, in the case had hand, attempting to divorce supernaturalism from the word God is disingenuous, at best, and intentionally deceitful at worst.

I would strongly disagree with the last assertion. IMO, it is no different than trying to divorce faith from foundation of science given dictionary definition of faith. Pick a definition of faith that only pertains to religion and then the assertion does hold some merit, but is disingenuous at best and intentionally deceitful at worst. Do the same with definition of God and suddenly a whole new standard of appropriateness is at work and only one side gets to determine the proper definition, selected from a range of plausible definitions.

 

[Sapiens]

Your choice. I'll understand it as you don't actually have a rebuttal and rather bow out than attempt one.

You understand nothing and assume everything and keep trying to play Pigeon Chess.

 

[Acim]

You understand nothing and assume everything and keep trying to play Pigeon Chess.

Keep making it about the persona and not the points up for discussion.

 

[Sapiens]

Keep making it about the persona and not the points up for discussion.

The tactics used cannot be divorced from the person ... so I win! See?

 

[Dante Writer]

The tactics used cannot be divorced from the person ... so I win! See?

"The tactics used cannot be divorced from the person ... so I win! See?"

What I see is you are still under the immature impression that a discussion is about winning.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Correctly identifying a specific creation event, as opposed to a static/ eternal universe is a pretty good start for Genesis in terms of scientific validation

It mentions the Earth being water covered at one point
And then being one continent and one ocean
Animal life beginning in the ocean
life appearing in specific stages, sudden appearences, fully formed as opposed to smooth transitions
the number of stars in the universe being comparable to the number of grains of sand
even concepts of smaller dimensions distorting to create larger ones, the universe expanding, being opened like a curtain or tent to create space to occupy.

much of this used to be dismissed as religious pseudoscience not so long ago.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"
What I see is you are still under the immature impression that a discussion is about winning.

Let's then talk about mature impressions ...

You ask: "Can a Genesis God be Explained from a Science Perspective?" and reference Genesis 1.1.
Why not give us your "mature impression" of what that text conveys so that we might have an informed understanding of what you mean when you speak of the "Genesis God."

 

[McBell]

Let's then talk about mature impressions ...

You ask: "Can a Genesis God be Explained from a Science Perspective?" and reference Genesis 1.1.
Why not give us your "mature impression" of what that text conveys so that we might have an informed understanding of what you mean when you speak of the "Genesis God."

I sincerely hope you are not holding your breath...

 

[Sapiens]

"The tactics used cannot be divorced from the person ... so I win! See?"

What I see is you are still under the immature impression that a discussion is about winning.

What you should be seeing is how Pigeon Chess works, as I was just treating you to a taste of your own medicine. See how it reduces the dialect to meaninglessness?

 

[Native]

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."

It is my firm conviction that one can interpret the many cultural Stories of Creation in a scientifical way, simply by interpreting "god and goddesses" as natural forces. Such an example can be read in the Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogdoad#In_Egyptian_mythology - which states the elements to be of eternal character and where the male/female description corresponds to the two qualities of magnetism, attraction and repulsion.

The sentense: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." can be read in several stories of creation, but this should IMO not be read as creation of the entire Universe, "just" as a description of the creation of the local part of it, our Milky Way. the ancient known part of of the World.

The problem of "the two time creation of the Earth" in the Bible, derives from a misinterpretation of the term, "soil" the first firm elements which is formatted in the process in the Milky Way center. Here "soil" is interpreted as the Earth.

"Celestial oceans. rivers and foam" are ancient mythical names for "fluent cosmic clouds of gas and dust" which comes together in the swirling creation. Even the Flood Myth is an ancient description of the "foamy looking" Milky Way itself. This myth is scholarly misinterpreted to deal with a Flood, which once ran all over the Earth in a divine revenge, instead of the correct interpretation of a River/Flood running all around the Earth up in the Sky.

OK for now - Take a look at my Mytho-Cosmological site - http://www.native-science.net/index.html

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is my firm conviction that one can interpret the many cultural Stories of Creation in a scientifical way, simply by interpreting "god and goddesses" as natural forces

'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

- Lewis Carroll​

 

[Moishe3rd]

Paraphrasing here but-
The Ramban; Nahmanides, a 13th Century Great Jewish Rabbi, interpreted "tohu v' bohu" - the Void; emptiness; nothingness; formless; etc. - as The Absolute Nothingness that ever was. He posited that This Nothingness was an Absolute Point of Nothing in G-d's Creation. It was all of the Nothing that ever was and ever could be. Etcetera.
Which, in my humble opinion, pretty much describes the theoretical Black Hole that scientists postulate exploded into the Big Bang which, of course, happened when Hashem said "Let there be light!"
I do not know the figures but, I do know that scientists estimated that that there was a very long period (for us) of "time" after the Big Bang where all that existed would have been "Light" in the form of Energy.
Rabbi Isaac ben Samuel of Acre was a 14th Century kabbalist who estimated that, based on the Torah and the Zohar, the Universe was approximately 15 billion years old (give or take a couple billion)....

I don't look for the Torah to confirm science. But, I find it cute and interesting when science appears to confirm the Torah.
When the Big Bang was first proposed, those scientists were vilified as that would seem to indicate that there was a Beginning.... And, all good rational scientists of the time knew that could not be possible, mainly because the Torah said that there was, indeed, a Beginning....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... the Torah said that there was, indeed, a Beginning....

I doubt it.

 

[metis]

I think trying to jam Torah into objective science is much like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole, as they really do cover different things and have entirely different approaches-- evidence versus faith, the latter of which needs no objectively-derived evidence.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think trying to jam Torah into objective science is much like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole, as they really do cover different things and have entirely different approaches-- evidence versus faith, the latter of which needs no objectively-derived evidence.

But you can objectively jam strawberries into a jar and make a jam.

 

[metis]

But you can objectively jam strawberries into a jar and make a jam.

Preserves the thought.

 

[Ouroboros]

Preserves the thought.

Didn't want to spread the idea to thick, but some people love an open mind, and others love just an open face sandwich.