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

[Acim]

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

What do you mean by translating the text?

 

[Dante Writer]

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.



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 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.'

Well, we could say everything is just imagination and we are not even having this discussion.

There are theories to that but I do exist as far as my intelligence and senses are capable of interpreting so I have to start from that point.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Sapiens]

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


The laws are neither 'things' nor entities.

Laws are descriptions, models of processes that are sufficiently consistent and simple enough to be considered, for all intents, predictable.

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?

DW is not big on being constrained by the correct use of words' definitions.

I can just as easily make the claim that you are only avoiding answering on topic questions because you are a feared they will undermine your agenda.

Wow.
i never realized just how much fun making bold empty claims were.
Especially if I do not have to worry about credibility of supporting them with anything other than more bold empty claims.
I can see now why it is so addictive.

Indeed.

Ignorant rubbish.

Absolutely!

And now you are already back to elementary school behavior?

Sadly your post is just plain flat out not true.
I have a higher percentage of on topic posts in this thread than you do.

That is true.

You have added nothing of substance to the discussion and will be ignored for the rest of this discussion.

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

You already said that, you're starting to stutter.

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.

Correct, the phenomena or process does not "care" how it is described. Here before us, here after we're gone.

"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!

You are missing the critical factor, EVIDENCE. Evidence is the difference between faith and confidence. The requirement for and production of evidence is the great divide, it defines the absence of common ground.

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.



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 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.'

Historically the religionists have claimed supernatural explanations, gotten it all wrong, and left it to science to pull mankind's chestnuts our of the fire. Religion has no track record of being able to render the universe into a more predictable place, it only introduces a completely unnecessary layer of randomness that can be inflicted on the universe by things that are not constrained by the aforementioned "laws."

 

[Dante Writer]

Laws are descriptions, models of processes that are sufficiently consistent and simple enough to be considered, for all intents, predictable.

DW is not big on being constrained by the correct use of words' definitions.

Indeed.

Absolutely!

That is true.

You already said that, you're starting to stutter.

Correct, the phenomena or process does not "care" how it is described. Here before us, here after we're gone.

You are missing the critical factor, EVIDENCE. Evidence is the difference between faith and confidence. The requirement for and production of evidence is the great divide, it defines the absence of common ground.
Historically the religionists have claimed supernatural explanations, gotten it all wrong, and left it to science to pull mankind's chestnuts our of the fire. Religion has no track record of being able to render the universe into a more predictable place, it only introduces a completely unnecessary layer of randomness that can be inflicted on the universe by things that are not constrained by the aforementioned "laws."

"Laws are descriptions, models of processes that are sufficiently consistent and simple enough to be considered, for all intents, predictable."

You are confusing the man made term "law" which describes a phenomenon observable and testable with the phenomenon itself.

If you think Law of gravity is only a term then you can prove that by defying gravity- go for it.

The results or outcome of that law phenomenon when applied in the universe existed before man and before the term law existed and it will exist after you are gone.

If you are claiming there is no evidence that science laws exist or that the laws are random then put it to the test and defy gravity or create energy from nothing.

Here again we see how people like Sapiens wants to ignore the topic because it challenges their beliefs and instead he focuses on arguing over a word which makes no difference to the substance of the debate. Call laws by any other name and they will still exist and without them the Universe as we know it would not exit and you would not exist at least not in any form we call man.

Sapiens- what is holding the matter in your body together right now?

 

[McBell]

"Laws are descriptions, models of processes that are sufficiently consistent and simple enough to be considered, for all intents, predictable."

You are confusing the man made term "law" which describes a phenomenon observable and testable with the phenomenon itself.

If you think Law of gravity is only a term then you can prove that by defying gravity- go for it.

The results or outcome of that law when applied in the universe existed before man and before the term law existed.

If you are claiming there is no evidence that science laws exist or that the laws are random then put it to the test and defy gravity or create energy from nothing.

Here again we see how people like Sapiens wants to ignore the topic because it challenges their beliefs and instead focuses on arguing over a word which makes no difference to the substance of the debate. Call laws by any other name and they will still exist and without them the Universe as we know it would not exit and you would not exist.

Sapiens- what is holding the matter in your body together right now?

One wonders why you are unable/unwilling to desist with your constant personification.

 

[Dante Writer]

One wonders why you are unable/unwilling to desist with your constant personification.

Can you believe Mestemia actually pays so it can troll here and has never posted a single discussion to the forum recently.

Sad sad sad!

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

No Supernatural being can be explained from a scientific perspective

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What do you mean by translating the text?

@Dante Writer presumably wants a discussion on science and Genesis 1.1 suggesting that he claims some understanding of both. Genesis was written in Biblical Hebrew. I'd like to know what he believes it says.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can you believe Mestemia actually pays so it can troll here and has never posted a single discussion to the forum recently.

Sad sad sad!

What is sad is your childish ad hominem.

 

[sayak83]

"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?

Nothing has ever come into existence. Energy-matter-mass-energy along with all their properties (the laws of physics are also merely properties of energy-mass-space-time quartet) have always existed in some form or the other. They simply change their manifestations as they interact with one another in different manner in accordance to their inherent natures. That inherent nature or inherent set of properties they possess is what we call "laws". There are no creations or destructions, only transformations in accordance with the inherent nature of these primordial substances.

 

[Dante Writer]

Nothing has ever come into existence. Energy-matter-mass-energy along with all their properties (the laws of physics are also merely properties of energy-mass-space-time quartet) have always existed in some form or the other. They simply change their manifestations as they interact with one another in different manner in accordance to their inherent natures. That inherent nature or inherent set of properties they possess is what we call "laws". There are no creations or destructions, only transformations in accordance with the inherent nature of these primordial substances.

Wow- that is quite the theory or imagination you have there!

You say- "Nothing has ever come into existence."
You say- "the laws of physics are also merely properties of energy-mass-space-time quartet) have always existed in some form or the other."

The scientists say:

" Before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics, no time and certainly no particles."

http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/pparc/14-16/particles/particlesbigbang1.html

Did you get that- Before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics, no time, and certainly no particles.

Care to try again?

 

[Dante Writer]

No Supernatural being can be explained from a scientific perspective

Where in that Genesis quote does it say God is super natural?

 

[Sapiens]

Where in that Genesis quote does it say God is super natural?

It's part of the definition of the word "god."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Where in that Genesis quote does it say God is super natural?

What did the Genesis quote say?

 

[Dante Writer]

Sapiens apparently wasn't able to a

Laws are descriptions, models of processes that are sufficiently consistent and simple enough to be considered, for all intents, predictable.

DW is not big on being constrained by the correct use of words' definitions.

Indeed.

Absolutely!

That is true.

You already said that, you're starting to stutter.

Correct, the phenomena or process does not "care" how it is described. Here before us, here after we're gone.

You are missing the critical factor, EVIDENCE. Evidence is the difference between faith and confidence. The requirement for and production of evidence is the great divide, it defines the absence of common ground.
Historically the religionists have claimed supernatural explanations, gotten it all wrong, and left it to science to pull mankind's chestnuts our of the fire. Religion has no track record of being able to render the universe into a more predictable place, it only introduces a completely unnecessary layer of randomness that can be inflicted on the universe by things that are not constrained by the aforementioned "laws."

Sapiens apparently wasn't able to answer the question: Sapiens- what is holding the matter in your body together right now?

So I will give a general answer: It is a result of a special force(s) not yet known and the result of a law of conservation of energy and involves quarks that mysteriously appear and disappear.

"By the way, the fact that the various particles inside the proton are colliding with each other, appearing and disappearing in the process, doesn’t affect this discussion — because in every such collision, energy is conserved (i.e. the amount of it is unchanged). The mass-energy and motion-energy of the quarks and gluons may change, and their overall interaction-energy may change, but the total energy of the proton doesn’t change, even though the stuff inside is continually rearranged. So the proton’s mass is constant, despite the maelstrom within.

Ok. It’s important to take a moment to drink this all in. How remarkable is this! Almost all mass found in the ordinary matter around us is that of the nucleons within atoms. And most of that mass comes from the chaos intrinsic to a proton or neutron — from the motion-energy of a nucleon’s quarks, gluons and anti-quarks, and from the interaction-energy of the strong nuclear forces that hold a nucleon intact. Yes: our planet, our bodies and our breath are what they are as a result of a silent, and until recently unimaginable, internal pandemonium."

http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...the-structure-of-matter/protons-and-neutrons/

So what we do know is the Laws of physics somehow keep the pandemonium that is occurring inside a nucleon in check otherwise your matter would fly apart or fall into a black hole or something else?

 

[Dante Writer]

It's part of the definition of the word "god."

That is a religious perception.

God

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

I posted that definition in my OP and no mention of super natural.

Try again!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Did you get that- Before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics, no time, and certainly no particles.

Care to try again?

Before the Big Bang? Care to try again?

 

[Dante Writer]

Before the Big Bang? Care to try again?

Yes the big bang is just one theory. However it is the prevalent theory in science and that theory says physics laws did not exist before the bang.

I said clearly in my posts the laws had to exist or the big bang could not have occurred.

Me in the OP " If no Laws were present there would be no Universe as we know it."

So your link supports what I am saying.

If you do not believe in the big bang then say that.

Sayak has shown from his comments he does believe in the big bang so I answered him from that science perspective.

 

[Sapiens]

Sapiens apparently wasn't able to a



Sapiens apparently wasn't able to answer the question: Sapiens- what is holding the matter in your body together right now?

All you need to is open a dictionary ... it's right there for you.

So I will give a general answer: It is a result of a special force(s) not yet known and the result of a law of conservation of energy and involves quarks that mysteriously appear and disappear.

So instead you offer up an argument from ignorance, good show.

 

[Sapiens]

That is a religious perception.

God

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

I posted that definition in my OP and no mention of super natural.

Try again!

You just can't stay out of the old quote mine, I guess bad habits are hard to break

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
   synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead;
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
   "a moon god"