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

[McBell]

If you want respect for your posts- start showing respect!

You would do good to follow your own advice.

 

[Ouroboros]

You could start your own thread on that, right?

So, you're saying that the content of Genesis is unimportant in how we fit Genesis to science?

Well, then, the answer is simple. Whatever you want, works. And no discussion needed.

 

[Ouroboros]

^ pretty dishonest.

He wants a discussion but without hearing your opinions.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"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?

Actually sayak88 is right. What you describe as laws are in fact the observed and tested properties and interactions involving forces and matter.

 

[McBell]

If you do not like the topic. Start your own and ignore my discussions in the future please.

It is not the topic that is disliked.
It is your disrespectful handling of the topic that is disliked.
it is your childishness that is disliked.
It is your egomaniacal posts that is disliked.
It is your off topicness that is disliked.


Seems the biggest problem with this thread is your posts after the OP.....

 

[Desert Snake]

So, you're saying that the content of Genesis is unimportant in how we fit Genesis to science?

Well, thenn, the answer is simple. Whatever you want, works. And no discussion needed.

I didn't write, or infer that....at all.
Anyone can create their own threads regarding the interpretation of Genesis, and thusly, if they want, how that would affect this dialogue, OP question. If no one is going to do that, then why are you criticizing the OP, for not presenting other peoples theoretical arguments?

 

[Ouroboros]

I didn't write, or infer that....at all.
Anyone can create their own threads regarding the interpretation of Genesis, and thusly, if they want, how that would affect this dialogue, OP question. If no one is going to do that, then why are you criticizing the OP, for not presenting other peoples theoretical arguments?

I didnt't criticize him for that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You have added nothing of substance ...

... or, conversely, you have understood nothing of substance.

To presume to teach us how science might inform our understanding of Gen.1 without first having some understanding of the literal issues surround this verse is just silly.

 

[Dante Writer]

Actually sayak88 is right. What you describe as laws are in fact the observed and tested properties and interactions involving forces and matter.

"What you describe as laws are in fact the observed and tested properties and interactions involving forces and matter."

This puts the cart before the horse. You are claiming matter forms without laws and then laws become a property of matter.

Show me your evidence for that please since it seems counter to logic and violates the very laws you claim.

Example: The law of energy states energy can not be created or destroyed.

By your assumptions energy could be created because no law exists and the law only becomes a property of that energy after it is created.

 

[Desert Snake]

You could start your own thread on that, right?

I wrote this.

So, you're saying that the content of Genesis is unimportant in how we fit Genesis to science?

Well, thenn, the answer is simple. Whatever you want, works. And no discussion needed.

You then responded, with this.

Where is the logical basis for this argument/presumption. Where did it come from?

 

[Dante Writer]

I would say the same about your avoiding exploring the interpretations.


So speaking in the void and creating man from clay isn't part of Genesis?


My description is that Genesis is allegorical and metaphorical. So you can fit anything you want by contorting the meanings.


Sure.


I didn't say I don't like the topic, but if you want to explore the topic, you have to be open to other people's views.

You can explore the interpretations all you want in your own thread.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"What you describe as laws are in fact the observed and tested properties and interactions involving forces and matter."

This puts the cart before the horse. You are claiming matter forms without laws and then laws become a property of matter.

Show me your evidence for that please since it seems counter to logic and violates the very laws you claim.

Example: The law of energy states energy can not be created or destroyed.

By your assumptions energy could be created because no law exists and the law only becomes a property of that energy after it is created.

You just got it backwards.

How was the law of energy determined in the first place?

Answer: Determination via observation and testing.

Mind you the possibility that observed and tested laws may only be provisional depending upon how it's approached. There might be a discovery someday that may require changes to what was once considered once a constant. Already seems to be the case in quantum physics and astronomy where known laws appear to be defied or not applicible for one reason or another.

 

[Dante Writer]

You just got it backwards.

How was the law of energy determined in the first place?

Answer: Determination via observation and testing.

Mind you the possibility that observed and tested laws may only be provisional depending upon how it's approached. There might be a discovery someday that may require changes to what was once considered once a constant. Already seems to be the case in quantum physics and astronomy where known laws appear to be defied or not applicible for one reason or another.

Determination and testing of a law does not create a law.

You are trying to say the law is just the perspective of man and obviously that is not correct because we have lots of evidence from before man existed that the laws were in effect.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Determination and testing of a law does not create a law.

You are trying to say the law is just the perspective of man and obviously that is not correct because we have lots of evidence from before man existed that the laws were in effect.

I don't think you quite understand. They are explaining that laws are descriptions of phenomena. They're not saying that the laws didn't apply until we observed them.

 

[Acim]

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.

Man did invent the (scientific) laws.

I say this because....

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.

Others will claim that man invented God.

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?

I think the Genesis narrative glosses over an overwhelming amount of information that a particular perspective would find is not sufficient enough to adequately describe origins and early history of the universe.

My personal thought is none of this actually matters to life today, but is fun / interesting to discuss or debate.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You can explore the interpretations all you want in your own thread.

At issue is not how one interprets the text but, rather, how one translates the text.

Tell us, DW, what do you think Genesis 1:1-3 says?

 

[Acim]

At issue is not how one interprets the text but, rather, how one translates the text.

Tell us, DW, what do you think Genesis 1:1-3 says?

We are, or DW is, to translate the Genesis text into another language?

 

[Dante Writer]

Man did invent the (scientific) laws.

I say this because....



Others will claim that man invented God.



I think the Genesis narrative glosses over an overwhelming amount of information that a particular perspective would find is not sufficient enough to adequately describe origins and early history of the universe.

My personal thought is none of this actually matters to life today, but is fun / interesting to discuss or debate.

"Man did invent the (scientific) laws. I say this because....Others will claim that man invented God."

Well, we have lots of evidence that the laws existed before man and man must also follow those laws.

The laws and our description of the Laws from our limited intelligence are not the same thing. We call them Laws because that is how humans refer to things that are out of our control. You could call them Natures codes or the great I am or God and the Laws by any other name still exist and existed before man and before the Universe otherwise the Universe would not exist.

The Genesis narrative was written by a non scientists to explain the phenomena they could observe with a philosophical perspective.

My discussion was to take that perspective and see if it can be matched with a science perspective that people on this forum agree with or at least find some common ground from which to discuss.

I realize there are many anti-religious zealots on this forum that are not going to like this discussion and want no common ground with creationists but the majority of people in this world do have some religious perspective and if we can bridge that into a science perspective then they can then expand their beliefs into a more science based education. That is my hope anyway!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

At issue is not how one interprets the text but, rather, how one translates the text.

Tell us, DW, what do you think Genesis 1:1-3 says?

We are, or DW is, to translate the Genesis text into another language?

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're asking. Would you mind rewording the question?

 

[Acim]

"Man did invent the (scientific) laws. I say this because....Others will claim that man invented God."

Well, we have lots of evidence that the laws existed before man and man must also follow those laws.

Not as conceptions, or ways in which we (choose to) understand said 'laws.' They don't even technically exist now outside of mental constructs that can be expressed and read by other humans.

The laws and our description of the Laws from our limited intelligence are not the same thing. We call them Laws because that is how humans refer to things that are out of our control. You could call them Natures codes or the great I am or God and the Laws by any other name still exist and existed before man and before the Universe otherwise the Universe would not exist.

Perhaps the Universe doesn't exist. I don't see why that ought to be removed from the discussion as if that is verboten consideration. I have faith that the laws exist as mental constructs, which may be expressed in words, writing, what have you. I do not find the laws (as we've described them) are actually observable in the physical world. Anymore than saying, God is found in nature if you just look at nature (and understand things from that perspective).

The Genesis narrative was written by a non scientists to explain the phenomena they could observe with a philosophical perspective.

My discussion was to take that perspective and see if it can be matched with a science perspective that people on this forum agree with or at least find some common ground from which to discuss.

I realize there are many anti-religious zealots on this forum that are not going to like this discussion and want no common ground with creationists but the majority of people in this world do have some religious perspective and if we can bridge that into a science perspective then they can then expand their beliefs into a more science based education. That is my hope anyway!

The bridge is very challenging, if not impossible, to find if one side is excluding the other as the basis of its endeavor: that no god, supernatural being, intelligent designer can ever be said as causation for any physical phenomenon UNLESS, or until, the evidence clearly indicates such an entity. Even then, I highly doubt the perspective would categorize it as anything but 'natural.'

Personally, I think the bridge works both ways. Given over reliance on the physical, I don't fully get why some spiritual people would attempt to reconcile the two as if they need to be matched up. Both CLEARLY rely on faith. To the degree that is doubted, I am ALWAYS up for that discussion. Once the faith proposition is accepted, then choices are made as to how to proceed from there. Tales of the past are just that, tales. Fictional, mental constructs. Fun and interesting to discuss, but not readily observable as 'reality.'