Ah, it might be difficult for some. Is English your native language?I have difficulty with that historical stage of English. I can't seem to read and understand Shakespeare, for example.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ah, it might be difficult for some. Is English your native language?I have difficulty with that historical stage of English. I can't seem to read and understand Shakespeare, for example.
Ok, so your position is that the BB emerged from "an idea that has nothing that corresponds to it", or a "no meaning" type of nothing.
Ah, it might be difficult for some. Is English your native language?
Curious which one.Maybe boring for you and I, but for a religious Jew, especially an Orthodox one, it is among the objects of greatest scrutiny. Strangely enough, Numbers contains my favorite verse in the entirety of the Bible.
Ok, can we agree the universe began from "an idea that has nothing that corresponds to it",No. I don't think the BB 'emerged'.
Numbers 23:9. This is probably because that verse reflects my having, in recent years, come to regard the nation-state with a bit of a jaundiced eye. Partly this is because I feel that as with every human organization, it ends up being self serving, but mostly it is because I perceive that virtually every square foot of habitable land upon this earth is claimed as sovereign territory by one nation-state or another, severely limiting my personal movement on my “home planet”. In this, it is not so much the nation-state that I dislike, as the territorial nation-state. Also, I know that this is the logical consequence of human overpopulation, but that doesn’t seem to make me feel any better about the situation.Curious which one.
I don't know about "many of you" and I am not "set in my beliefs".I realize at this point many of you are set in your beliefs and believe in evolution of any kind. Whether on earth or maybe somewhere else in the universe. Have a good day.
The Bible is stories compiled and written by men. Genesis is a re-working of Mesopotamian mythology, this is taught in advanced college Hebrew Bible courses at Yale and Harvard. Yahweh is a typical Near Eastern deity, the commandments are a small part of the Egyptian codes, Proverbs contains an Egyptian book of wisdom, and so on. It looks to be man-made, as all religious scriptures are.yeah, the math. LOL great. I love it -- "support life..." maybe you think before mankind exterminates itself (which, by the way, I don't think will happen BECAUSE of what the Bible says, but many scientifically inclined persons without hope or knowledge of the holy scriptures do )
Other stars are too far away for us to ever get to other solar systems. Not for a long time at least. It's possible there is simple life on the moon Europa because it has water and volcanic vents. Life formed on Earth deep in water near vents as well. We don't know? Of course it's possible.-- astronauts will find "life" that evolved in other places? Or maybe life that just appeared in other places? Or maybe living beings that think and feel will visit the earth?
What methodology did you use to determine life exists nowhere else except Earth? All of science believes life is probably common in the universe as does most religious people as well. The old school "it's only us" exists in small pockets of fundamentalists. Were this a few hundred years ago you would be saying germs are not real, God and devils create illness and telling me to have a nice day in your smugness.The life we can somewhat enjoy here is not found any other place. But if you think it may be found, hey, have a nice day if the elements beyond your control permit it.
It just happened. God did it.
IMO both are beliefs, just at different ends.
The point of the expansion could have existed for infinty. Until our science allows us to go that far back no one knows.
There was, there wasnt... are beliefs.
This makes any conversation about the topic with you an exercise in futility imo.Ah, yes! This is very true, and is the reason why I find myself interested in Advaita as the philosophical basis of religion, which is partly why I appear here in the first place. What you speak of is a different category of error. It involves a misperception of certain substantial things which exist, based upon the limitations of the physiology of human sense-perception. Both an apparently solid human being and a collection of atoms which are/is 99.9999996% empty space are real things having substance. The consideration of abstractions as being real, on the other hand, involves not a misperception, but rather a logical error which attributes reality to something merely conceived within the mind.
The standard GR/space-time model doesn't 'begin' at all. The whole space-time is a 4-dimensional 'object'. Time is entirely internal to it. Things only begin within space-time.Ok, can we agree the universe began from "an idea that has nothing that corresponds to it",
Naturalism, ie science, is never proven. Science must be independent of emotions, and reason and rational thinking is limited to the independent investigation of knowledge through the scientific methods, which you evade in almost all your posts.
But if we look back in time, we are looking back to a beginning of spacetime. Perhaps science will one day have the ability to see the beginning. The light at the end of the tunnel.The standard GR/space-time model doesn't 'begin' at all. The whole space-time is a 4-dimensional 'object'. Time is entirely internal to it. Things only begin within space-time.
You are looking and the furthest point on one direction through the manifold. It makes no more sense to think that is going to give you an answers as to why the space-time exists than looking at the north pole for why the earth exists.But if we look back in time, we are looking back to a beginning of spacetime.
I am not talking about why space time exists, I already know, you said time only happens in spacetime and I agree. But if there was a beginning, you may theoretically be able to see the beginning from within spacetime.You are looking and the furthest point on one direction through the manifold. It makes no more sense to think that is going to give you an answers as to why the space-time exists than looking at the north pole for why the earth exists.
Care to explain your position on this, then? I can’t recall your having done so.This makes any conversation about the topic with you an exercise in futility imo.
Still not addressing the issues of science and scientific methods. Again . . .Well, I just learned to do the 7 different versions of science as per Danish culture different than your one natural science. So we are playing cognitive relativism and we deal with that differently.
But if we look back in time, we are looking back to a beginning of spacetime. Perhaps science will one day have the ability to see the beginning. The light at the end of the tunnel.
Yes, appealing to ancient tribal philosophy has little to offer contemporary science.This makes any conversation about the topic with you an exercise in futility imo.
Ok, can we agree the universe began from "an idea that has nothing that corresponds to it",