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

[Dante Writer]

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?

 

[sayak83]

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?

unfortunately, laws are properties of matter-energy or space-time and are not external or independent of them. For example the conservation of energy law is a direct outcome of the translation symmetry property that time has (see Noether's theorem). Its a misnomer to call the laws of physics and the laws of human society by the same word law. While the laws of nature are intrinsic properties of the materials of nature (and hence necessarily possesses them like all properties), laws of humans are externally imposed and are not inherent.

 

[Valjean]

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.

 

[Dante Writer]

unfortunately, laws are properties of matter-energy or space-time and are not external or independent of them. For example the conservation of energy law is a direct outcome of the translation symmetry property that time has (see Noether's theorem). Its a misnomer to call the laws of physics and the laws of human society by the same word law. While the laws of nature are intrinsic properties of the materials of nature (and hence necessarily possesses them like all properties), laws of humans are externally imposed and are not inherent.

"unfortunately, laws are properties of matter-energy"

This is a contradiction. Energy and matter are directed by the laws and would not exist without the laws.

How does energy and matter come into existence without laws in your theory?

 

[George-ananda]

Your thoughts?

I'm not clear on the question (?) but I will say any thought of God 'as the laws of the universe' have little in common with the Biblical conception of God as an entity with conscious intentions and with great attention to mankind's events.

 

[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 laws are artifacts of the Big Bang (expansion?"

Your evidence for that that theory is what?

"and could be different in different Universes"

Evidence for different Universes?

 

[Dante Writer]

I'm not clear on the question (?) but I will say any thought of God 'as the laws of the universe' have little in common with the Biblical conception of God as an entity with conscious intentions and with great attention to mankind's events.

"Biblical conception of God as an entity with conscious intentions"

As I stated I am not addressing the entire bible or any religions interpretation of Genesis.

"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"

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.

"with conscious intentions "

Do the Laws show intention and consciousness?

Why do Laws allow certain actions and prevent others if there was not an intention or purpose?

 

[Valjean]

The physics is complicated, Dante.

 

[Valjean]

The laws are not entities.

 

[Dante Writer]

The physics is complicated, Dante.

So you do not have an explanation other than it is complicated?

Can you show me in the big bang theory where it says the Laws were created?

 

[Dante Writer]

The laws are not entities.

The laws are not entities.

Entity 1 -a thing with distinct and independent existence.

The Laws seem to be universal applying to all things in the Universe but has no shape or form as we know it.

That would make Laws a thing with distinct and independent existence and an entity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

Upon what grounds do you defend the above translation?

 

[Ouroboros]

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.
...
Your thoughts?

If it's just a thought experiment, and you want people's thoughts, why do you argue so much against their views? I'm sorry, you say you don't promote religion and have no religious beliefs, but your very hard stance regarding your points lean heavily against natural science and more into the religious perspectives. Perhaps it's not intentional, but each and every discussion sounds like "Evolution is false", "Science got it wrong", "The word is Designed by an Intelligent Designer." And so on. It sure sounds religious, even if you claim you're not.

In other words, you're the real conundrum, and the big mystery is where you really are placing your beliefs, moreso than the questions you post.

 

[George-ananda]

Do the Laws show intention and consciousness?

No.

"
Why do Laws allow certain actions and prevent others if there was not an intention or purpose?

I'm a little confused by the question. The laws exist but show no intention or purpose as I see it. Intention and purpose only have meaning when a conscious entity is interpreting the events.

 

[Dante Writer]

Upon what grounds do you defend the above translation?

I made it clear I am not defending any translation. I said that is the translation I was using for this discussion.

 

[Dante Writer]

If it's just a thought experiment, and you want people's thoughts, why do you argue so much against their views? I'm sorry, you say you don't promote religion and have no religious beliefs, but your very hard stance regarding your points lean heavily against natural science and more into the religious perspectives. Perhaps it's not intentional, but each and every discussion sounds like "Evolution is false", "Science got it wrong", "The word is Designed by an Intelligent Designer." And so on. It sure sounds religious, even if you claim you're not.

In other words, you're the real conundrum, and the big mystery is where you really are placing your beliefs, moreso than the questions you post.

A thought experiment requires challenge to your own ideas. How else will you know if they have substance?

You are free to challenge what I have said but of course I will respond to that challenge.

What I described is Natural Science unless you are claiming the Laws of Nature and Science do not exist?

Your opinion of my intentions means nothing and is a reflection of your own bias.

Instead of attacking me why don't you explain the natural and scientific laws and why they exist?

 

[Valjean]

So you do not have an explanation other than it is complicated?

Can you show me in the big bang theory where it says the Laws were created?

I'm expressing doubt that you've read about or are familiar with the Big Bang Theory.

Entity 1 -a thing with distinct and independent existence..

The laws are neither 'things' nor entities.

 

[Dante Writer]

No.

I'm a little confused by the question. The laws exist but show no intention or purpose as I see it. Intention and purpose only have meaning when a conscious entity is interpreting the events.

Why do the laws exist at all then and what would happen if no Natural Laws existed?

pur·pose

1. 1.
   the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

 

[Dante Writer]

I'm expressing doubt that you've read about or are familiar with the Big Bang Theory.


The laws are neither 'things' nor entities.

"I'm expressing doubt that you've read about or are familiar with the Big Bang Theory."

Then please enlighten me and tell us in that theory where it says Natural laws were created?

"The laws are neither 'things' nor entities."

Restating your opinion that they are not is not evidence or fact.

I have shown you that the Laws fit the definition of an entity.

Unless you can tell me what the Laws are then that definition stands.

 

[Ouroboros]

A thought experiment requires challenge to your own ideas. How else will you know if they have substance?

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

You are free to challenge what I have said but of course I will respond to that challenge.

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?

What I described is Natural Science unless you are claiming the Laws of Nature and Science do not exist?

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.

Your opinion of my intentions means nothing and is a reflection of your own bias.

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.

Instead of attacking me why don't you explain the natural and scientific laws and why they exist?

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.