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

[Blastcat]

No, it's just that all translations are necessarily approximations.

Of course, that's true. I was being ironic. It seems to me that you would like us to accept your approximate translations instead of all the other Hebrew approximate translators of the Bible. When it comes to approximations, opinions vary.

Finally, with Biblical Hebrew and other ancient languages, culture presents a linguistic barrier. Many words, linguistic conventions, speech patterns, etc., differ radically from modern languages in general reflecting a time long past.

And some of which is LOST to us in translations. Good point. People who claim to know exactly what the Bible says are exaggerating their case.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Of course, that's true. I was being ironic. It seems to me that you would like us to accept your approximate translations instead of all the other Hebrew approximate translators of the Bible.

Not at all. Translators have to pick a single rendering of every passage in context so that the translation flows. I get to focus on a particular passage and use multiple words and variations of the same line to better convey the meaning. I have the kind of flexibility not available to translators

 

[serp777]

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?

To summarize, no it can't.

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.

Science tells us that first there was the big bang, then all the stars formed, then the planets formed, then earth gradually became habitable, and then finally life evolved on it long enough for us to appear. Pretty sure genesis covers almost none of that.

Furthermore, genesis doesn't describe ANY of these forces or scientific principles. If it did then that would actually be good evidence for God. All he needed was one line about electromagnetism and BOOM suddenly the bible becomes infinitely more credible.

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.

You're clearly not any kind of scientist nor have you researched the science of the big bag. All of the forces currently in the universe DID NOT EXIST at the moment of the big bang, nevermind before it. The electromagnetic force and the weak force were combined at higher temperatures, and then as the universe cooled, the electromagnetic force and the weak force split into two sperate forces. Scientists have hypothesized that, in fact, all the forces in the unvierse were actually just one force at the moment of the big bang. That is known as the theory of everything.

 

[Shad]

Right, but what I was getting at was that we shouldn't really think too highly or too negatively of people from the past or find that if they were right about something to be shocking.

Again the issue is their conclusion was based on a number of fallacious ideas.

 

[Blastcat]

Not at all. Translators have to pick a single rendering of every passage in context so that the translation flows. I get to focus on a particular passage and use multiple words and variations of the same line to better convey the meaning. I have the kind of flexibility not available to translators

You aren't a translator, and you don't care about how any of it flows. You pick particular passages and then figure out what it means to you.
Ok.

Sounds like a lot of fun.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You aren't a translator, and you don't care about how any of it flows.

I'm not producing a translation. I'm dealing with the text as translators do when e.g. they write commentaries on the text

 

[Blastcat]

I'm not producing a translation. I'm dealing with the text as translators do when e.g. they write commentaries on the text

So, you translate and comment on your translations. Great.

Sounds fascinating.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So, you translate and comment on your translations. Great.

Sounds fascinating.

Wrong. If I were translating, I would be forced to select a single way to render the passages in question and I wouldn't be able to comment on why I did so, the syntax involved, the grammatical properties of the passage, the lexemes and other units involved, etc. Translations don't provide descriptions of the language, they don't describe how the grammar of the language conveys meaning in the relevant passages, they rely on a single choice of a fixed form, and in general they depend upon a slew of restrictions. Scholars who deal with passages in texts do not have such limitations. They can render the passages in question in multiple ways and discuss the lexical, grammatical, syntactical, semantic, and conceptual nature of the constructions in the passages. It is a process fundamentally different from translation and FAR, FAR more informative.

 

[Blastcat]

Wrong. If I were translating, I would be forced to select a single way to render the passages in question and I wouldn't be able to comment on why I did so, the syntax involved, the grammatical properties of the passage, the lexemes and other units involved, etc.

Ok, great, you aren't translating, you're commenting.

 

[McBell]

All of the forces currently in the universe DID NOT EXIST at the moment of the big bang, nevermind before it.

Source please

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ok, great, you aren't translating, you're commenting.

I'm a analyzing. But out of curiosity, why the interest in using proper terminology to describe what I wrote? Why not so simply respond to the content?

 

[Blastcat]

I'm a analyzing. But out of curiosity, why the interest in using proper terminology to describe what I wrote? Why not so simply respond to the content?

Because I am way more interested in HOW people form their beliefs, than what they actually believe in. You have opinions about something, that's great. I just want to know how you arrived at them. It seems to me that I have to trust that your opinion is correct, because I don't know Hebrew.

Hope that answers your question.

 

[First Baseman]

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


The laws are neither 'things' nor entities.

Big Bang Theory is just a wild guess at best. It is one of the wildest pieces of speculation out there that atheists choose to accept as fact.

 

[McBell]

Big Bang Theory is just a wild guess at best. It is one of the wildest pieces of speculation out there that atheists choose to accept as fact.

Bold empty claim

 

[First Baseman]

Bold empty claim

Can you prove the Big Bang happened? No, no one can.

I rest my case.

 

[McBell]

Can you prove the Big Bang happened? No, no one can.

I rest my case.

nice strawman.

Can you prove all atheists take the big bang as fact?
Can you prove the big bang is "wild speculation"?
Can you prove the big bang is nothing more than a "wild guess"?

No, you can't.
Thus it is nothing more than a bold empty claim.

 

[metis]

We don't know if there were or weren't outside forces involved in the BB because we simply do not know what caused it, if anything caused it at all. The laws of physics at that point was so different than we regularly experience, and getting to understand them is so terribly difficult.

 

[metis]

Big Bang Theory is just a wild guess at best. It is one of the wildest pieces of speculation out there that atheists choose to accept as fact.

False on both counts, but you've been told this before.

 

[Valjean]

So what's the more reasonable alternative to the big bang?

I'm no physicist, but I'm sure there's more than just speculation behind the Big Bang Theory.
And what does it have to do with atheism?

 

[metis]

So what's the more reasonable alternative to the big bang?

I'm no physicist, but I'm sure there's more than just speculation behind the Big Bang Theory.
And what does it have to do with atheism?

Good points, and let me just comment on this further than on my last post.

There are three very substantial reasons why cosmologists are so certain about at least the basics of the BB. One is what they have observed through red-shift, which tells us that the universe is expanding and at an ever-increasing rate of speed.

Secondly, because they've been able to observe huge galaxies not too far from the "edge" of our universe that are continue to expand away from the others, they can and have calculated when singularity occurred, namely roughly 13.7 billion years ago, which is slightly older than I am.

Thirdly, the after-glow of the BB (background radiation) has been observed and studied, and these are reverberating radiation waves that have scattered in certain patterns that tell the cosmologists some aspects about the BB. If you take your t.v. off cable while it's still on, some of the "snow" you see is the effect of that radiation on your t.v. signal.

Obviously, there's a lot more that goes beyond anything I can tell you since this is not my field of science, but maybe at least it's a start.

BTW, you might even check out the Wikipedia article on the "Big Bang" as it seems quite decent.