Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[Aupmanyav]

Foamy universes still have to come from a parent universe which has to come from ?

No. IMHO, it came from 'absolute nothing' - 'Ex-nihilo'.

I was addressing 'multiple Big Bangs' and oh... how I hate that tem 'Big Bang' .. Hoyle is called the Big Bang Basher because he felt such a beginning implied a creator ..

Yeah, there can be multiple 'Big Bangs', and existence and non-existence could be something like changing of phase. Multiple bangs in case Many-World theory are possible. Somewhere in another dimension, they could be occurring even now. I don't know how Hoyle is Big Bang Basher? 'Ex-nihilo' does not require a creator. Yeah, those who do not want to know more than what their scriptures say, do hate the word 'Big Bang'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Plus, the Canaanite city of Megiddo have archive near the royal palace, that stored thousands of fragments of clay tablets, none of them mention anything about Israel, or of Abraham, Jacob or Joshua. What is funny is that there are pieces of fragments of the epic of Gilgamesh, but nothing remotely “biblical”.

Perhaps the clan/clans who came with Moses termed themselves Jews and called their possession as Israel at a later date, much in the way Indo-Aryans termed North-West India as 'Aryavarta' (Land of Aryans). It was not any land of Aryans.

I am fine with a wandering man founding a tribe who are today called Hebrews. We can identify them via these genes.

Genes do not help after more than 2,000 years of mixing. And was there no mixing even before 2,000 years? I suppose Jews too have Nearderthal genes, just like Europeans.

So why the big deal believing in a wandering Hebrew called Abraham? Because there's a lot at stake.

No big deal. We will accept it if evidence is available,. At the moment it is just a story. Nothing at stake. Existence of Abraham does not prove existence of God.

If we are going to apply a standard of skepticism towards Abraham or Moses then we need to apply the same standard of skepticism to all historic figures.

Please do. Nothing at stake. It should be done only that way. No leeway for anyone.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Been watching a video about slavery in the Middle East. Ten million Africans were slaves, so too were many Europeans, Indians and Persians.
Islam sought to moderate the practice, as Judaism did, but the author made the point, paraphrasing him - 'You can say you will ban slavery but you may as well say you will ban poverty.'
The Abrahamic faiths did not invent slavery. They didn't invent riding on donkey's backs either. They didn't invent killing an animal to eat it. They didn't invent crime. They didn't invent adultery. They didn't invent warfare. --------- nor were they ever going to be able to stop these practices.

He's god.
If he can tell men not to have sex with other men, what you can eat on which day of the week, what clothes to wear,... he can also tell you not to treat people as private property.

No, instead, he doesn't condemn it at all. Not even a little bit. Instead, he regulates it and tells you how to purchase slaves, how to trick hebrew slaves into becoming slaves for life, how to beat them, ... in the NT slaves are even literally told to obbey their masters. Isn't there even a story about a runaway slave who's told that he needs to return to his master?

Seriously, there is no excuse for such.

A just and moral god would not regulate an evil practice like slavery. Instead, he would say to stop it.
Any other commandment on the matter would be immoral.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the Christian faith there should be no slavery.

Yet the bible explicitly condones and even regulates the practice.
NOWHERE does it even HINT at stopping the practice. Ever.

Au contraire. It tells runaways to return to their master. It tells slaves to obbey their masters. The bible tells masters that they can pretty much do what they want with their slaves because, and I quote, "they are your money". Which is to say: private property.

Where it did happen during colonial times it wasn't driven by Christian ideas but in BREACH of those ideals.
The best and most gentle summaries of Christian thought are given by Paul in his letter to Philemon. Here the escaped slave was as worthy of human dignity as Paul was. Paul sent the slave back to Philemon,but asked that Philemon treat his slave as if the slave was Paul himself.
Here there was respect for the law. And in Greek Roman society the law permitted slavery. It also permitted divorce, homosexuality and warfare. But it wasn't the Christian's place to be a social activist and change the world - the Christian had to change him or herself. And it says somewhere in scripture,to the effect, 'He who leads into captivity will be led into captivity.'

Name me one verse where the practice of slavery is explicitly condemned.

I can't find one. All I fine are passages where it is explicitly allowed, regulated and permitted.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Now we have the Jordan Valley catastophe, and Abraham was exactly 100 years old when it happened.
The salt issue - says Lot's wife turned to salt.

Even if it was an air burst, how does it prove Abraham and his God (of course, nothing about his 100 years)? And after the air burst, there is no problem in people going there (as it happened in Chelyabinsk event). So, Lot's wife could not have been turned into salt (or shocked quarts) after the event. That could have happened only if she was there when the burst occurred and never went with Lot.

 

[PruePhillip]

Even if it was an air burst how does it prove Abraham (of course, nothing about his 100 years)? And after the air burst, there is no problem in people going there (as it happened in Chelyabinsk event). So, Lot's wife could not have been turned into salt (or shocked quarts) after the event. That could have happened only if she was there when the burst occurred.

Abraham was exactly 100 years old when Sodom was destroyed. Says that it happened at night and he was on the Western, lee side of the mountain range near Jericho. Two groups of unlucky people here - those destroyed instantly by the heat and shock, and those caught by the shock wave which carried large amount of the Dead Sea with it. EVERYTHING became a pillar of salt.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yet the bible explicitly condones and even regulates the practice.
NOWHERE does it even HINT at stopping the practice. Ever.

Au contraire. It tells runaways to return to their master. It tells slaves to obbey their masters. The bible tells masters that they can pretty much do what they want with their slaves because, and I quote, "they are your money". Which is to say: private property.



Name me one verse where the practice of slavery is explicitly condemned.

I can't find one. All I fine are passages where it is explicitly allowed, regulated and permitted.

You are confusing the singular issue of slavery with the general issue of respecting the law.
In Christianity you must obey the law, even if you fee it's injust.
The bible did not specifically condemn slavery because it was a part of the fabric of the ancient world, just as it did not condemn beasts of burden.
Here's one verse re slavery and murder - "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword." Rev 13.

But if you read Philemon you see this man was to accept back the runaway slave, but that slave was no less important than Paul was - perhaps the most famous and significant Christian of his age.

 

[PruePhillip]

He's god.
If he can tell men not to have sex with other men, what you can eat on which day of the week, what clothes to wear,... he can also tell you not to treat people as private property.

No, instead, he doesn't condemn it at all. Not even a little bit. Instead, he regulates it and tells you how to purchase slaves, how to trick hebrew slaves into becoming slaves for life, how to beat them, ... in the NT slaves are even literally told to obbey their masters. Isn't there even a story about a runaway slave who's told that he needs to return to his master?

Seriously, there is no excuse for such.

A just and moral god would not regulate an evil practice like slavery. Instead, he would say to stop it.
Any other commandment on the matter would be immoral.

A just and moral God would stop murder, adultery, theft, blasphemy, unjust taxation, corruption, hate, envy, war, riot, rape.....
what God gave us were two fundamental laws - love God and love your fellow man.
But he also gave us free will. It's for us to determine the course of our own lives.

 

[PruePhillip]

No. IMHO, it came from 'absolute nothing' - 'Ex-nihilo'.Yeah, there can be multiple 'Big Bangs', and existence and non-existence could be something like changing of phase. Multiple bangs in case Many-World theory are possible. Somewhere in another dimension, they could be occurring even now. I don't know how Hoyle is Big Bang Basher? 'Ex-nihilo' does not require a creator. Yeah, those who do not want to know more than what their scriptures say, do hate the word 'Big Bang'.

No creator. It just happened. Guess that's magic because there were no 'other' universes, no 'other' Big Bangs, no 'other' dimensions etc..
Hoyle didn't like this 'Big Bang' for one major reason - IT IMPLIED A CREATOR.

 

[PruePhillip]

You should talk to archaeologists and historians then. They do not seem to think that Moses was real.

The history of the Bible is largely mythical. It improved as time went on. The Bible is mixture of legends, myth, and history, with the history getting stronger as the Bible gets younger.

Yes, no evidence for a wandering Jew called Moses.
But what happens if we FIND some evidence, as we did with the mythic King David?
Well, you will join the chorus of people saying, 'Just because there was a real person called Moses doesn't mean......'
This just happened with the Jordan Valley catastrophe (not recorded in any history document)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A just and moral God would stop murder, adultery, theft, blasphemy, unjust taxation, corruption, hate, envy, war, riot, rape.....
what God gave us were two fundamental laws - love God and love your fellow man.
But he also gave us free will. It's for us to determine the course of our own lives.

So we are just going to ignore exodus 21 and all that jazz?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

because there were no 'other' universes, no 'other' Big Bangs, no 'other' dimensions etc..

And you know this, how?

Hoyle didn't like this 'Big Bang' for one major reason - IT IMPLIED A CREATOR.

Lol, no it doesn't.

 

[PruePhillip]

And you know this, how?
Lol, no it doesn't.

Well you would have to talk to Hoyle about the issue - a beginning to the universe is problematic because all the tools to create said universe or universes did not exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are confusing the singular issue of slavery with the general issue of respecting the law.

No.

I am saying that the law explicitly allows and regulates the practice.

The bible did not specifically condemn slavery because it was a part of the fabric of the ancient world, just as it did not condemn beasts of burden.

All the other things the bible does forbid, were also things part of the ancient world.
If nobody were doing them, then there would be no point in explicitly forbidding it, now would there?

Here's one verse re slavery and murder - "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword." Rev 13.

Here's another from exodus

20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, no evidence for a wandering Jew called Moses.
But what happens if we FIND some evidence, as we did with the mythic King David?

Then all the exodus stories still don't match the actual evidence.

Well, you will join the chorus of people saying, 'Just because there was a real person called Moses doesn't mean......'

And they'ld be correct.

It's like finding evidence that Hercules is based on an actual old greek champion in whatever.
Surely you wouldn't think that that somehow reinforces the idea that he is a demi-god who killed the hydra and whatnot?

This just happened with the Jordan Valley catastrophe (not recorded in any history document)

Don't know anything about that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well you would have to talk to Hoyle about the issue - a beginning to the universe is problematic because all the tools to create said universe or universes did not exist.

So no word on any creator then. In fact, it says the opposite. That there's nothing there to do any creating...

But off course, however you wish to interpret this, it is essentially a statement in ignorance.

The correct answer is that we don't know what is beyond the universe.
His statement about the "tools" refers to the physics of the universe. Today we know that quantum physics isn't like that. It isn't time and space dependent like the physics on a classical level is.

 

[rational experiences]

What's first mythical is humans science.

Living is first highest humans position with earth. As God said law...O earth.

The stone...rock.

The St one rock.

ST is short for S Ain T .
Ain meaning zero spaces law body.

Oldest and highest coldest and without light but of flesh and spirit. Earth origin heavens origins.

Holy terms. Wisdom.

That story isn't actually planetary taught.

It's only human thought. Stories as wanted to be explained by humans. Chosen terms. Rights to choose explanation.

Hence humans said it's basic human wisdom. Natural. Holiest.

Basic.

So you ask a human. You applied mythology yourself as science.

It hence does not make logical sense to a natural human conscious position.

Who argues. All of us own it first.

As science by term natural law owns no human story itself.

So if you personally aren't controlled in mind by human want to design then build to then reuse the design to attack earths mass.....science makes no sense.

The myth itself.

In laws if you ask is it relative to flood.

Law says no. It shouldn't. Only rain by droplet evaporation equals droplet release. Equal equal.

Burning extra gas mass above causes huge sheet mass water evaporation. Off ground. Gods terms not man's terms.

Gods terms are only ever by planet status in the past only. Not present. Humans own gods present presence now taught humans.

Don't look back it says as fresh water was first. But salt water was second.

Carpenter tectonic salted water.

Bio life in fresh water. Minerals were always separate.

Changes beneath us is earth masses as mineral owner.... causes fresh water to change in evaporation processes. The warning.

Holy water was held above. We only walked on water. As water by terminology had owned bio minerals.

A myth of teaching.... as why should you teach what was natural always first?

What science caused hence was myth.

 

[PruePhillip]

So no word on any creator then. In fact, it says the opposite. That there's nothing there to do any creating...

But off course, however you wish to interpret this, it is essentially a statement in ignorance.

The correct answer is that we don't know what is beyond the universe.
His statement about the "tools" refers to the physics of the universe. Today we know that quantum physics isn't like that. It isn't time and space dependent like the physics on a classical level is.

Quantum physics exists within a framework of space and time.
SOMETHING or SOMEONE out side of the physical world created our universe. And we must presume it was for a reason.

 

[PruePhillip]

Then all the exodus stories still don't match the actual evidence.



And they'ld be correct.

It's like finding evidence that Hercules is based on an actual old greek champion in whatever.
Surely you wouldn't think that that somehow reinforces the idea that he is a demi-god who killed the hydra and whatnot?



Don't know anything about that.

Ok, the Jordan Valley catastrophe happened ca 1650 BC with an airburst over the 'well watered plains of Jordan' as Genesis states.
People up until Roman times would not have called the Jordan Valley the 'well watered plains' but rather the 'salt desert.'
50,000 people are estimated to have died. The cities of the plain were flattened, some torn clean off their foundation.
Genesis says that Abraham was on the West side of the mountain range, and that Lot had moved to Zoar, down south of the Dead Sea.
If any other document had stated this it would be called 'history' and people would seek for its cause. As it's the bible people call it a myth.
There's a lot at stake here - it's why we argue about this rather than the gods on Mt Olympus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, no evidence for a wandering Jew called Moses.
But what happens if we FIND some evidence, as we did with the mythic King David?
Well, you will join the chorus of people saying, 'Just because there was a real person called Moses doesn't mean......'
This just happened with the Jordan Valley catastrophe (not recorded in any history document)

Rather pointless question. What if we find evidence that Abraham Lincoln hunted vampires?