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

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

An "atemporal cause" is an oxymoron. Like a "married bachelor".

Causality necessarily requires temporal conditions.
Causes happen BEFORE effects.
There is no "before" the universe.

I addressed this in another post.

The only thing that is to be understood here, is you arguing strawmen.

Yeah, ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, you want a simple answer, though it may not be true. And that answer is 'Goddidit'. Be happy.

Life, including cellular structure, can be complicated. God allows certain things. It doesn't mean He will allow all things forever.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Yes. It has been an interesting journey. By the way, just to recount, I used to be an atheist and believed everything "science" taught me about evolution and the universe.

I used to be a Christian.

Don't get me wrong, I still am.

But I used to be, too.

 

[YoursTrue]

I used to be a Christian.

Don't get me wrong, I still am.

But I used to be, too.

Hebrews 11 has a really good description of faith, recounting those who exercised faith. After a description of these men and women, it ends as follows: "These were all commended for their faith, yet they did not receive what was promised. 40God had planned something better for us, so that together with us they would be made perfect."
(Looking forward...)

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Time is finite into the past. It's an inherent part of the universe. Time doesn't exist if the universe doesn't exist.
The start of the universe IS the start of time.

I agree. Did I say anything contrary to that, which is allowing you to tell me stuff that I already I agree with?

Also, causality is a temporal phenomenon. You can't invoke it in a context where no universe exists, as there is no "time" there for causes to occur in. The universe can't be an effect, because that means that a cause would have had to occur BEFORE the effect. ie "before time". Which is nonsensical.

If the universe/time are both finite (had a beginning), then what could give both their beginnings?

Please enlighten me.

Indeed. But not for the reasons that you think. See above. You seem to have an invalid understanding of what "time" actually is.

And you seem to not be able tot come to grips with the fact that...

1. Everything which begins to exist has a CAUSE.

It is in fact correct to say that universe has ALWAYS existed.
Always = a period of time. All of time, in fact.
Please, point me to a point in time when the universe didn't exist.

You can't do it. Because the universe IS space-time. Whenever there was time, there was an expanding universe.

Go back in time. At any point in time, the universe existed.

First of all, you are contradicting yourself, which is disgusting.

You: The universe is finite (in another post).

Also You: It is in fact correct to say that the universe has always existed.

Or, do you not understand what finite means?

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah but since infinite regression is impossible (even applies to God), we have to posit a different kind of causation...one of which the cause does not precede the effect.

Who said an infinite regress is impossible? Not me. In fact, I think it quite likely that the expansion phase that we are now in is only one phase of a much larger, eternal system.

For example, a bowling ball that has been resting on a cushion for eternity is the cause of the indentation on the cushion...however, the cause doesn't precede the effect, does it?

The the bowling ball has been resting for eternity and the indentation has been around that whole time, then there is no cause for the indentation. On the other hand, if the bowling ball is removed, the indentation would take time to go away: then the cause of its going away would be the removal of the bowling ball.

But it is still the cause, nevertheless.

I disagree. In this case, the indentation is a stable equilibrium with no beginning, so is uncaused.

Because..

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Prove it. I would say that the *correct* statement is that everything that has a cause has a cause in the universe.

Also, I would point to particle/anti-particle pairs that form spontaneously (in other words, they have no cause even though they start to exist).

The universe began to exist.

Not in the relevant way: there was no time when the universe did not exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I think a better deduction is as follows:

1. All causation happens within the universe and through time.

2. Time is part of the universe.

Therefore

3. The universe not be caused since that would imply a cause of time.

It is apparent that since the universe began to exist, an transcendent cause is necessary...which is why I expect causality to apply outside of the universe.

Again, I disagree. I don't agree that simply beginning means something has a cause (a pre-existent condition that leads via physical laws to the result).

Example; if there were an infinite amount of days which led to today, today would never arrive, because you cannot traverse infinity.

Why not? At any time, an infinite number of days had *already* been transversed. There is no pair of times that is infinitely far apart. There is no beginning: the sequence has simply always been going on.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how infinite and finite situations differ. Simply have the infinite number of days before the present be labeled by the negative integers. Each negative integer has a day and here is no first negative integer. Every day has an infinite number of previous days.

No logical problem.

You cannot traverse an infinite amount of discrete points in order to arrive a specific point...but you can arrive at a single point if you begin from single, discrete point.

Sure you can. You just need the events to be separated by decreasing time intervals and you can have everything happen in a finite duration. OR you can have infinitely many points of time corresponding to the infinitely many positions.

Again, no logical problem.

That is the only way we can arrive at today, would be if time itself had a beginning (the singularity).

Nope. That doe snot follow. You are assuming a start and that something actually has to go through an infinite amount of time. That need not be the case. There can be an infinite succession of things that each survive only a finite amount of time.

So yeah, the infinite regression thing is a PROBLEM...a problem that no fancy pancy scientific theory can help you (in general) with.

Sorry, but there really is no logical problem here. All you need to do is learn a bit more about how finite and infinite situations differ and the confusion will resolve.

Sorry, but that is false. The entropy will never decrease....entropy is one of the most understand aspects of physical sciences. It never fails.

Nope. there have been observed cases where entropy decreases. The observed cases occur in systems with a small number of molecules, but it has been observed to happen.

The point is that entropy is a *statistical construct*. It is not a fundamental quantity. And, over the *long* time, it will decrease.

For example, the chances of all molecules of gas in a room collecting in one corner are incredibly small. But they are not zero. And given enough time, it will happen. The entropy will decrease.

An apple that has been rotting in the sun will never become fresh again.

A 90 year old man will never regain his youthfulness.

It aint happening.

The Poincare recurrence time is incredibly long, but it is finite. given an infinite amount of time, a decrease of entropy is eventually guaranteed to happen in any volume you choose.

Now, I understand that atheists tend to view "time" as their God, as you are doing here...and you guys do the same thing with evolution.

"Given billions of years, anything can happen".

Not billions, in this s. Much, MUCH longer than that for a Poincare recurrence time.

Evolution happens because of both mutation and natural selection, which drastically decreases the time in getting to a stable point. Very large changes can happen fairly quickly in evolution (a few tens of millions of years).

Quite the nonsense.

Also, the low entropy conditions REQUIRED for human life had to be set (fine tuned), to the degree of 10^10^123, according to Roger Penrose (see Penrose on the initial conditions of the big bang).

Plenty of very good physicists disagree with his speculations on this.

These low entropy conditions had to be set as a prerequisite requirement from the MOMENT of the big bang.

Otherwise, life would not be permissible. So, you have an uphill battle, amigo.

10^10^123.

That is...ugly.

And roundly found to be wrong. Yes, the initial stages of the universe had to be very low entropy compared to today. But most of the universal expansion has been adiotrophic: with no change in entropy.

Second, and not only that...your argument is presupposing infinite time, when infinite time (as I just demonstrated), is precisely what CANNOT happen.

And I think your argument in this is just flat out wrong.

Well first of all, the theorem only has one condition in order for it to hold...which is that the average Hubble expansion is greater than zero.

That is it...and virtually all models meets that requirement...in fact it applies to...

1. Higher-dimensional bulk space-time.

2. Cyclic universes.

3. Bouncing universe.

4. Bubble universe.

5. Multiverses

6. Quantum Fluctuations

etc, etc, etc

But not cases where universes bud off from quantum percolation, for example.

T1he theory applies to ALL of those models, because they all meet the minimum requirement...or, they have other problems...and it is a reason why all of those models exist in the first place, which is because they all attempt to avoid an absolute beginning, which has been verified by the empirical evidence surrounding the STANDARD MODEL of the big bang.

And once again, did you read the paper and understand it? It supposes a link between the Hubble parameter and time dilation which is fairly commonly assumed, but may not be the case in a more general description.

And another thing I want to point out; it isn't enough to just simply toss out hypothesis'.

What you need is evidence to support your hypothesis...and without it, all you have are possibilities, and possibilities aren't evidence.

Guessing isn't evidence. Speculation isn't evidence.

With the BGV theorem we have actual mathematical proof...and with the standard big bang we have empirical evidence.

No, it is a mathematical proof that certain types of mathematical models cannot do certain things. Whether models satisfying those conditions are reasonable is yet to be seen. The BGV theorem should be considered yet another layer of speculation at this point

So you agree that there is no violation of the BGV theorem, even on the multiverse?

I don't know. I don't know if an average positive expansion is reasonable for a multiverse. I don't know if the link between the Hubble parameter and time dilation is reasonable when dealing with quantum gravity. The BGV argument is, essentially, a classical argument. I frankly think it won't apply when we get the correct theory of quantum gravity.

I'm glad we agree.

This is speculation and wishful thinking. I thought we relied on actual evidence in science?

In which case, all speculation about causality in the absence of natural laws should go away.

Show me evidence that a multiverse exists, and then we can talk about "which version of the multiverse is the case".

Until then, you don't even have a theory.

At this point, we don't know how to test our ideas of quantum gravity. The energies are too high for what we can do right now. So, yes, it is speculation. But it is speculation based on reasonable attempts to figure out a quantum theory of gravity.

That said, we have absolutely no evidence of causality outside of the universe. We have absolutely no evidence of causality that is independent of time. And we have absolutely no evidence the universe was designed other than wishful thinking based on supersitious beliefs.

Well when you consider the fact that natural law cannot be used to explain the origins of natural law, then an intelligent creator becomes less speculative.

Not at all. To even talk about causality requires the prior existence of natural laws, so even asking about a cause for them is a highly doubtful quest. Postulating a consciousness that is outside of those laws (subject to which other laws, exactly?) that can produce universes at a whim (through what technology?) is way farther out in terms of speculation.

I do not know you, but I am willing to bet money that you've spent a nice portion of your life arguing against the existence of God than you do with arguing against the truth value of atheism/naturalism.

What truth value for atheism? I am not convinced of the arguments and evidence given for the existence of deities. That is why I am an atheist. I have a variety of philosophical issues with the concept of a supernatural, as well as other questions about the nature and existence of causality.

I have no problem with a God identified with the universe. But I see no evidence at all that our universe was designed or created. Is it possible? Sure. But it is far flung speculation at best.

So, you can kill the whole "neutral" approach.

I've noticed that some unbelievers, that is what they do...they make it seem as if their stance is so neutral, but when dissect what they say and how they say it...it is clear that the scales are unevenly balanced and far from the neutral stuff that they like to portray.

Let me ask this. If I postulated a race of higher dimensional beings that have learned how to create universes and that ours is one of those made by a high school student as a project, would this satisfy you as a 'design' or a 'creator'? To me, it seems like a far more likely scenario that any classical religious speculation. But I don't believe it because there is no evidence for it even though it fits all the claims you make.

You are not neutral either, I would bet. I'm guessing my scenario would not be acceptable to you. Why not?

 

[Polymath257]

Question; a bowling ball that has been resting on a cushion for eternity...is the indentation of the cushion before the bowling ball and/or the cushion?

No, neither. There is no cause of the indentation if it has been eternal. it is a stable equilibrium that has always existed.

The universe began to exist. So obviously, causality must apply beyond the universe.

No, it did not begin to exist in the relevant way.: there was no time at which the universe did not exist.

Again, there are are at least 10 different interpretations of those quantum level events...and not all are indeterministic and there are at least two philosophical problems with it that you (or anyone else) is able to deal with.

More on that...sooner than you think.

And those that are deterministic have problems with relativistic physics and anti-matter. Quantum field theory does not. Bohmian mechanics is not used by physicists for many very good reasons, including that doesn't deal well with non-classical situations.

LOL.

If philosophical problems are irrelevant to physical reality, then I guess it was impossible for criminals to get convicted of crimes before the age of forensic science.

That isn't a philosophical problem. That is a problem of evidence and/or superstition.

I guess Sherlock Holmes or Columbo shouldn't have been able to solve crimes using good old philosophical reasoning...because after all, there were no DNA or finger print analysis during their times.

Foolishness.

Sherlock Holmes and Coumbo were fictional. But they used *empirical evidence* and physical laws to make their conclusions, not philosophical speculation.

I agree...so when I speak about how infinite regression is not possible, there is no need for you to speak about it, since we are in agreement.

We don't need to comment about stuff we already agree on.



What?



First of all, you already admitted that infinite regression is impossible. And you also admitted that the universe is finite.

Read it again. He said that an infinite regress would be impossible in a finite universe. He did NOT claim the universe to be finite. And in an infinite universe, an infinite regress may well be possible.

So as long as the universe is finite, then there must be an explanation for its existence, and quantum mechanics cannot help you here.

And why would you think the universe is finite? Current evidence points to a spatially flat universe, which would imply infinite extent.

And why would a finite universe require an explanation? All causlaity happens within the universe. So an explanation, which is simply a claim of causality, is precisely what cannot be applied to the universe, finite or not.

Quantum mechanics cannot explain how a universe can pop into existence out of nothing, nor can it explain the fine tuning of the universe.

Actually, Vilenkin (you know the one) has models where the universe *does* pop into existence because of quantum effects. So you are likely to be wrong in this.

Fine tuning is debatable from several directions, not least the assumption that the relevant constant *could* have different values.

Again, I understand that QM is the atheists cheat code, but it is a cheat code with no explanatory power whatsoever.

Not true. In fact, quantum mechanics is one of the best explanatory models humans have ever had.

Coo. And I feel as if there are very good reasons to suggest that God exists.

So now what?

Present the reasons and we shall see how coherent they are.

Well again, according to Vilenkin, a multiverse (if it exists) must have had a beginning (according to the BGV theorem).

The BGV theorem is very strong, but there are many known models that are plausible and not subject to its conclusions.

And according to Penrose, a multiverse (if it exists), must be fine-tuned.

And many physicists disagree with him here. His speculation is not backed up by evidence.

So, appeal to it as you must...doesn't change anything from the theistic perspective.

Yes, theism is impervious to evidence.

First of all, you are WRONG. We cannot see anything beyond the observable universe. There is nothing from within the observable universe, that can predict anything beyond it...at least, nothing physical.

No true. For example, the background radiation contains evidence about parts of the universe that are currently unobservable even though they were within our Hubble limit in the past.

The observed flatness of the observable universe puts tight constraints on parts o the universe that are just beyond what we can observe.

Even in multiverse theories, they are all part of the same physical reality, albeit different domains...but still, the same physical reality governed by the same natural laws....and there is no physical theory that you provide which will be able to demonstrate any other domain besides our own.

Actually, this very much depends on the specific multiverse theory you are dealing with. In many of them, the constants are different in each 'universe' with no actual value in the multiverse as a whole.

As for actually observing the effects of other universes, this also depends on the specifics of the multiverse theory. In some versions, different universe *can* interact via gravitation, leaving observable effects.

Second, again, the BGV theory applies to multiverses anyway, even if they did exist.

Maybe, maybe not. Whether the relevant Hubble parameter even makes sense in a multiverse scenario is unclear.

So, yeah..you are wrong.

But somehow not as wrong as you would like.

Well again, you have to do more than just come up with models, the models have to be more than possible, they have to be PLAUSIBLE.

Which is why the multiverse scenarios are investigated at all: they seem to naturally follow from attempts to unify quantum mechanics and gravity.

On the other hand, theism supposes a creator/designer that is conscious (with no laws allowing for such). that is able to create universe (with unknown and unknowable technology), that has no solid evidence to show existence (far less than, say dark matter), and has no actual way to use the speculation to resolve any actual physics problems (how did galaxies first form?)

That is why you haven't heard of any new discoveries involving multiverses. Why? Because they don't have empirical evidence supporting them.

Ther actually was one claim of an observation a few years ago. It didn't go anywhere (that I know of), but it is far from impossible.

And, once we can test between the different versions of quantum gravity, that alone will add plausibility to whichever multiverse scenario the winner uses.

But with the Standard Model, you have a history of new discoveries...a plethora of evidence which poured in over the course of the last hundred years.

That, is science. Not speculation, assumptions, wishful thinking, or hocus pocus.

Unless, of course, you postulate a non-material designer that existed before time and is able to design and create universe on a whim.

THAT sort of speculation you have no trouble with.

[QUOTE
I can care less how they came up with a multiverse. I care about whether or not it is true, and whether it would negate a finite universe even if it was true.

Guess what; the answer is no to both questions.[/QUOTE]

The first is unknown, but it would help to have a tested theory of quantum gravity. The second is an almost certain yes, actually.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree. Did I say anything contrary to that, which is allowing you to tell me stuff that I already I agree with?

If the universe/time are both finite (had a beginning), then what could give both their beginnings?

Please enlighten me.

What makes you think that *something* 'gave' then their 'beginnings'?

That seems like quite a stretch.

And you seem to not be able tot come to grips with the fact that...

1. Everything which begins to exist has a CAUSE.

All we actually have evidence of is

1'. Everything in the universe that began to exist has a cause within the universe.

And even this can be disputed. But such a statement doesn't serve your purposes as well, doe sit?

First of all, you are contradicting yourself, which is disgusting.

You: The universe is finite (in another post).

Not what he actually said: go read the original. it was an implication.

Also You: It is in fact correct to say that the universe has always existed.

Which is true whether the universe is finite or not. It has existed through all time.

Or, do you not understand what finite means?

Do you not understand the possibility that time is finite, which means that the universe has 'always existed' means it has 'existed for all time', which is consistent with a finite amount of time?

 

[YoursTrue]

What makes you think that *something* 'gave' then their 'beginnings'?

That seems like quite a stretch.

It does? Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That doe snot follow.

My bad. Sorry to interrupt.

 

[rational experiences]

Two separate topics.

One topic is a human being human. Conscious. Only telling stories. I believe I know why I exist. Really didn't. As any information he infers already exists too.

If it didn't exist he would not own any topic.

Then there is science the earth mass practice for machines only. Then a machines reaction.

Two totally separate themes.

Real science as formula and maths and laws is how to build mechanics. The next mechanics is how to mechanically react natural mass to get what a theist...a human wanted.

The circumstance a science of why a human exists was total fakery.

As science by human exists is as in the presence a human. Anything of science is present.

Basic intelligent human advice.

What using human intelligence means. First position life in the presence of rock.

Knowing rock existed God rock entity opened back in time to a volcanic release.

Stating human science hence is dangerous.

As any gas idea consciously was given via the heavens conscious mind support of a human aware.

Then you have stars fall. The earth's mass bio extinction converter activation.

Known by a thinker human.

Exact.

Changed the tribal life of mutual trade and origin human family. Origin means what is present now might not be historic origin. Ignored.

Bad brother mind emerged as sacrificed by gas the sacrificed body itself that fell as burning spirit.

Man's life had owned the holy spirit gas cold support. The teaching.

So brain changed. Groups cult emerged. Bullies. Murder. Threat. Vying for unnatural control. Of life and human status not family...slavery only.

Building cities of God by stone rock by men. Who usurped the family elders father mother. Put a crown upon his head. Rich man king. Brothers given lord positions. Trade.

Natural human aware memory.

Then informed men theoried technology. Built it.

Applied fallout constants as earth mass didn't own light. Gas burning. Falling.

Burnt their brains again. Self egotism lies humans memory changed. As did belief behaviour.

Natural life natural human memory living conditions was first. King and lord only human imposed titles living as humans.

Science brain constant changed fallout caused everyone's sexuality change into depraved burnt brain chemistry. Fake stories about human life of the past...lord king the human scientists men.

Lived in a holier heavens atmosphere first.

Science of men changed it...technology.

Baby man became adult father. His father stories fake...memories.

I heard natural father's real human memories. Stating scientific brother possessed by his science history only.

Thought only in his head first for machine only designs. Just as today relates it only to machines....fall.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Question; a bowling ball that has been resting on a cushion for eternity...is the indentation of the cushion before the bowling ball and/or the cushion?

So did you get that nonsense from Hamza Tzortzis?
The muslim copycat of william lame craig. lol

Anyhow, the question is nonsensical.
If there is an indentation, then there is a gravity source.
The gravity pulls the ball down and then the indentation happens.
This sequence of events requires time.

You, and Hamza, wish to ignore that inconvenient step. So you make it an imaginary "eternal" bowling ball on an "eternal cushion". You need to resort to that kind of nonsense to pretend as if causality doesn't require a sequence of events in temporal context.

Invoking magic and fantasy is all you can do to defend that.

The universe began to exist. So obviously, causality must apply beyond the universe.

You say it's "obvious", but the very properties of the universe that are required for the phenomenon of causality to manifest, do not exist when the universe doesn't exist.

That your mind, which evolved to avoid being eaten by lions - not to understand weird quantum physics and alike - can't wrap itself around that is irrelevant.

Physics is full of stuff that we can't wrap our minds around, but which are nevertheless true.

If philosophical problems are irrelevant to physical reality, then I guess it was impossible for criminals to get convicted of crimes before the age of forensic science.

Forensic science would be crime investigation based on evidence and scientific rules for evidence. And the reason why that is the standard today, is because it is a more reliable method of inquiry.

Having said that, your comment makes no sense.

I guess Sherlock Holmes or Columbo shouldn't have been able to solve crimes using good old philosophical reasoning

Reasoning based on evidence is very different from the type of "philosophical problems" you are talking about with respect to the frontiers of physics.

Having said that... both of those are fictional characters.
Funny how every "example" you give to make your points, come from fantasy and imagination. Like your "eternal bowling ball" that you (or rather: Hamza) invented while ignoring gravitational forces to make some silly point about causality

...because after all, there were no DNA or finger print analysis during their times.

Even if I would throw you a bone and agree that "philosophy" was how they solved crimes before the development of methods used today in forensics... once more, the only reason why those methods are used today, is because they are more reliable.

?

Indeed. Like that.

First of all, you already admitted that infinite regression is impossible. And you also admitted that the universe is finite.

I didn't say the universe is finite. I don't know if it is. There's nothing in physics that stops it from being infinite. Anyhow, I fail to see what that has to do with the point that quantum physics is spooky.

So as long as the universe is finite, then there must be an explanation for its existence, and quantum mechanics cannot help you here.

I agree there is an explanation for why the universe is the way it is.
However, that doesn't follow from "it is finite".

Additionally, quantum physics most certainly is involved in that explanation.

Quantum mechanics cannot explain how a universe can pop into existence out of nothing, nor can it explain the fine tuning of the universe.

Several models do exactly that.

But more importantly, are you saying that "the designer dun it" DOES explain it?

Again, I understand that QM is the atheists cheat code

No. Quantum physics is very real. Your internet device would not function if it wasn't.

, but it is a cheat code with no explanatory power whatsoever.

Your internet device would not work if that were the case.

Coo. And I feel as if there are very good reasons to suggest that God exists.
So now what?

You present those reasons?

Well again, according to Vilenkin, a multiverse (if it exists) must have had a beginning (according to the BGV theorem).
And according to Penrose, a multiverse (if it exists), must be fine-tuned.
So, appeal to it as you must...doesn't change anything from the theistic perspective.

I know it doesn't change anything. You'll just move your god backwards and plant him/her/it at the next gap in knowledge.

And then excuse him from every rule you imposed on everything else with a special pleading argument.

Having said that, according to many other physicists it can be eternal. According to even others it doesn't exist at all and the univese is in an eternal cycle of big bangs.

It is off course to be expected that you'll pick the ones that say something you can use to "fit" with your a priori beliefs. I expect nothing else.

Off course, you still have the very same problem.
You jump from "there is an unknown beginning" to "therefor, my god".

No reason, no evidence, nothing. Just confirmation bias.

First of all, you are WRONG. We cannot see anything beyond the observable universe. There is nothing from within the observable universe, that can predict anything beyond it...at least, nothing physical.

/facepalm

It's clear you have very little understanding of how science works.
They gather evidence.
Then they build testable models to explain that evidence.
They are testable because they make predictions.
In physics models, these predictions can flow from the math.
The multi-verse is such a prediction. It's the math itself that does this.
Other aspects of the math ARE testable.

When those check out, then they are indirect evidence for the prediction that you can't test due to logistical restrains (like the multi-verse - we can't poke "outside" of it, whatever that means).

Well again, you have to do more than just come up with models, the models have to be more than possible, they have to be PLAUSIBLE.

And they are.
The plausibility is demonstrated by the supporting data and the successes of testing predictions.

Tell me, how is a designer "plausible"? Which tests demonstrate it as plausible?

I can care less how they came up with a multiverse

I know. It shows.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I addressed this in another post.

No, you didn't.
You just restated your bare assertions and didn't address the points raised at all.

Inventing imaginary eternal bowling balls on cushions while ignoring gravity to try and argue against causality is not going to cut it.

 

[joelr]

You can't prove a negative, you can' 'prove' Genesis is a myth. You must look at Genesis as a compilation from many sources. I suggest Sumer/Akkadian until Abraham. Jewish after that.

You can't prove any ancient story about Herecles is a myth either. But there are probabilities. All of Genesis is borrowed mythology, creation, flood, the way Yahweh is written. Abraham is definitely a literary creation and Moses is considered a literary creation by most scholarship. Job has a Babylonian version. Some stories are probably rooted in history to some degree. The Gods and divine beings are total myth.

There's two accounts of the creation, the first one is bang on target in terms of the sequence of critical events. That's a mystery in itself..

Not a mystery. There are elements of all creation stories that match up with actual creation. Not a mystery. The Hindu creation story gets the time scale correct in some cases. Still not a mystery.
Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.
Genesis 1 bears both striking differences from and striking similarities to Babylon's national creation myth, the Enuma Elish.[19] On the side of similarities, both begin from a stage of chaotic waters before anything is created, in both a fixed dome-shaped "firmament" divides these waters from the habitable Earth, and both conclude with the creation of a human called "man" and the building of a temple for the god (in Genesis 1, this temple is the entire cosmos).

The Enuma Elish has also left traces on Genesis 2. Both begin with a series of statements of what did not exist at the moment when creation began; the Enuma Elish has a spring (in the sea) as the point where creation begins, paralleling the spring (on the land – Genesis 2 is notable for being a "dry" creation story) in Genesis 2:6 that "watered the whole face of the ground"; in both myths, Yahweh/the gods first create a man to serve him/them, then animals and vegetation. At the same time, and as with Genesis 1, the Jewish version has drastically changed its Babylonian model: Eve, for example, seems to fill the role of a mother goddess when, in Genesis 4:1, she says that she has "created a man with Yahweh", but she is not a divine being like her Babylonian counterpart.[25]

Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath. The two share numerous plot-details (e.g. the divine garden and the role of the first man in the garden, the creation of the man from a mixture of earth and divine substance, the chance of immortality, etc.), and have a similar overall theme: the gradual clarification of man's relationship with God(s) and animals.[26]

As for Abraham - you can't say it's a myth. You weren't there. You rely on SOME scholars, but they don't necessarily agree. And Genesis holds all sorts of names, culture, custom and events that would have been strange to people of Babylonian times. Had the OT been 'written' in Babylonian times then certainly it would have drawn on ancient sources.
And DNA, archaelogy, linguistics etc give credence to many things. The most exciting thing recently was the archaelogy at Tel el-Hammand on the 'well watered plains of Jordan.' If this stands up to peer review then it will accord quite nicely with the story of Abraham at that time.

Again you also cannot say Herecles was a myth. But it probably was. The Israelites were Canaanites before ~1200BCE. They were reading and believing in a different religion where EL was the main deity. There was no Abraham talking to a future deity who didn't yet exist. Even scripture says Yahweh was given Israel as his so there was no Yahweh/Israel and there was no Abraham to talk to Yahweh because even in the fictional story that God wasn't in charge of Israel. Also there are no Gods who talk to people. Theism isn't real, it hasn't

I am not sure the two authors of Hannibal's mythic-quality accounts were actually eye witnesses.
We dismiss Matthew, Peter, John, James, Luke and Paul's accounts as mere myths - then why can't I say that Homer, Socrates, Hannibal etc are myths? There's a doube standard here.

Well you can say they are myths? Who cares? But each is separate. If there is no historical evidence that Homer existed then he would possibly be a literary creation. Depends on the historicity and the claims.
That is not an apt comparison however. These are just people. People do exist. It's reasonable.
An apt comparision would be Greek and Roman deities. And those are definitely myth. Israel is real. The national deities are the myth part. Maybe Abraham existed? The myth part is that he talked to God. And that God showed up as a normal man walking with 2 other normal men. And Jacob has a wrestling match with God.

 

[PruePhillip]

You can't prove any ancient story about Herecles is a myth either. But there are probabilities. All of Genesis is borrowed mythology, creation, flood, the way Yahweh is written. Abraham is definitely a literary creation and Moses is considered a literary creation by most scholarship. Job has a Babylonian version. Some stories are probably rooted in history to some degree. The Gods and divine beings are total myth.




Not a mystery. There are elements of all creation stories that match up with actual creation. Not a mystery. The Hindu creation story gets the time scale correct in some cases. Still not a mystery.
Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.
Genesis 1 bears both striking differences from and striking similarities to Babylon's national creation myth, the Enuma Elish.[19] On the side of similarities, both begin from a stage of chaotic waters before anything is created, in both a fixed dome-shaped "firmament" divides these waters from the habitable Earth, and both conclude with the creation of a human called "man" and the building of a temple for the god (in Genesis 1, this temple is the entire cosmos).

The Enuma Elish has also left traces on Genesis 2. Both begin with a series of statements of what did not exist at the moment when creation began; the Enuma Elish has a spring (in the sea) as the point where creation begins, paralleling the spring (on the land – Genesis 2 is notable for being a "dry" creation story) in Genesis 2:6 that "watered the whole face of the ground"; in both myths, Yahweh/the gods first create a man to serve him/them, then animals and vegetation. At the same time, and as with Genesis 1, the Jewish version has drastically changed its Babylonian model: Eve, for example, seems to fill the role of a mother goddess when, in Genesis 4:1, she says that she has "created a man with Yahweh", but she is not a divine being like her Babylonian counterpart.[25]

Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath. The two share numerous plot-details (e.g. the divine garden and the role of the first man in the garden, the creation of the man from a mixture of earth and divine substance, the chance of immortality, etc.), and have a similar overall theme: the gradual clarification of man's relationship with God(s) and animals.[26]






Again you also cannot say Herecles was a myth. But it probably was. The Israelites were Canaanites before ~1200BCE. They were reading and believing in a different religion where EL was the main deity. There was no Abraham talking to a future deity who didn't yet exist. Even scripture says Yahweh was given Israel as his so there was no Yahweh/Israel and there was no Abraham to talk to Yahweh because even in the fictional story that God wasn't in charge of Israel. Also there are no Gods who talk to people. Theism isn't real, it hasn't





Well you can say they are myths? Who cares? But each is separate. If there is no historical evidence that Homer existed then he would possibly be a literary creation. Depends on the historicity and the claims.
That is not an apt comparison however. These are just people. People do exist. It's reasonable.
An apt comparision would be Greek and Roman deities. And those are definitely myth. Israel is real. The national deities are the myth part. Maybe Abraham existed? The myth part is that he talked to God. And that God showed up as a normal man walking with 2 other normal men. And Jacob has a wrestling match with God.

This point - Jews were Canaanites. Actually the Hebrews were not Canaanites, and marrying into them was frowned upon.
Arabs are not Canaanites either, as much as they want to be.
That pre-Abrahamic Genesis is similar to Akkadian/Sumer ought to be obvious - same source.
I like how you say that Abraham never spoke to God - how did you come to that conclusion?
I would have a slight element of skeptism when dealing with 'scholarship' - over the past 20-30 years things that 'scholars' declared have often turned out to be wrong. The last three things they got wrong were
1 - the size of Israeli population (Tinmar Valley excavations)
2 - the possibility of there being a real Sodom and Gomora (Tel el-Hammand excavations)
3 - that Hebrews could write in Joshua's day, or even that there even was a Joshua (Moses' general) (Mt Ebal excavations)

 

[joelr]

This point - Jews were Canaanites. Actually the Hebrews were not Canaanites, and marrying into them was frowned upon.
Arabs are not Canaanites either, as much as they want to be.

These people left Canaan peacefully for whatever reason and began a new society. But they were Canaanite people.

That pre-Abrahamic Genesis is similar to Akkadian/Sumer ought to be obvious - same source.
I like how you say that Abraham never spoke to God - how did you come to that conclusion?

There is no evidence of any theistic deity. None. Ever.
The way Yahweh is written about, his body, his emotions, his attributes, are exactly the same as Gods were written about since Sumer/Inana.
Francesca Stavrakopoulou writes about this in her new book. She also documents how the original Hebrew depicted God as a male with a male body.
The OT is not original material.

So no evidence of Gods. Nothing original in the Bible and all the previous deities are myths. Re-worked stories. In Genesis God wrestles with a man and appears as a man. Ridiculous mythology. The flood is a copy of Gilamesh. These are myths. Myths are fiction when it comes to the supernatural parts.

If Abraham has conversations with a God with zero evidence then so did Muhammad, so did Prince Arjuna speak with Krishna, so did the Cargo Cults, so did Joe Smith and all those are true.

I can't say for sure Muhammad didn't speak with God through Gabrielle but it's safe to say it's a myth. Same with Yahweh.

So if Abraham spoke to God then God appeared to him as a man. With 2 other men (who were also divine beings). God also wrestled with Jacob and Jacob forced him to bless him. So he was renamed Israel. God enjoys the pleasing smell of sacrifice
Aarons sons prepared for him as well. He has a nose? I guess because he liked the pleasing smell from Noahs ark as well (a line taken verbatim from Gilamesh) Yeah, that isn't mythology?
Of course God changed and by Johns gospel "no one has seen the Lord". Because now gospel writers were drawing on Greek Hellenism and Plato. This is a literary creation.

I would have a slight element of skeptism when dealing with 'scholarship' - over the past 20-30 years things that 'scholars' declared have often turned out to be wrong. The last three things they got wrong were
1 - the size of Israeli population (Tinmar Valley excavations)
2 - the possibility of there being a real Sodom and Gomora (Tel el-Hammand excavations)
3 - that Hebrews could write in Joshua's day, or even that there even was a Joshua (Moses' general) (Mt Ebal excavations)

As usual you are going with the fundamentalist interpretation. As usual scholars who care about what is actually true have issues with assumptions:

"In 1980, a structure on Mount Ebal was discovered by Israeli archaeologist Adam Zertal during the Manasseh Hill Country Survey.[21] The University of Haifa and the Israel Exploration Society excavated the structure over eight seasons from 1982 to 1989, and uncovered scarabs, seals, and animal bones dating to the Iron Age I period.[21] Today, most archeologists agree that the structure was a site of an early Israelite cultic activity. Zertal suggested that the structure was possibly the altar described in the Book of Joshua as where Joshua built an altar to Yahweh and renewed the Covenant in a large ceremony. This identification is controversial and has been disputed by a number of archaeologists.[22][23]"


The Tel el-Hammand isn't believed to be the fictional Sodom and Gomora and the air burst theory is highly doubted:
Tell el-Hammam - Wikipedia

So you are not even sourcing scholars but fundamentalists who are forcing ideas onto finds.

This is how scholars discovered Genesis was not original:
Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text

Genesis/Enuma Elish

The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.


Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.



Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.



How about the discovery of the
Ain Dara temple? Like older religions temples were literal places were deities lived. In Ain Dara there are giant footprints in the concrete which then walk into the holy of holies, where Yahweh lived. The temple was built for deities to dwell while on Earth. This was not unique to Jerusalem. It is complete mythology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If the universe/time are both finite (had a beginning), then what could give both their beginnings?
Please enlighten me.

Physicists are working on answering that question.
The origins of the universe are currently unknown.

And you seem to not be able tot come to grips with the fact that...
1. Everything which begins to exist has a CAUSE.

...in the universe.

And even that isn't universally true either.
First, nothing really "begins" to exist in the universe as everything is for the most part just reallocation of already existing things.
Second, this gets fishy at the quantum level, to say the least.
Third, this is a statement about what you see IN the universe. To the extent that it is true, it is only so inside the universe as it manifests through the physics of the universe.

No universe = no physics of the universe = no manifestations of phenomenon produced by the physics of the universe.

First of all, you are contradicting yourself,

I'm not.

You: The universe is finite (in another post).

When have I said that the universe is finite?
I said that it is finite into the past.
Space-time had a beginning at T = 0. It is currently 13.7 billion years old, according to current understanding. That's a finite age.

That's when the space-time continuum started.
That is the point that time started flowing. The start of time.
So indeed: go back in time. Pick any point in time. The universe existed then.
So how is it wrong to say that the universe always existed? Since "always" here literally means "for all of time"?

Also You: It is in fact correct to say that the universe has always existed.
Or, do you not understand what finite means?

I do.
You don't seem to understand what "time" means.

Again:
1. always = for all of time.
2. time = inherent part of the universe. The space-time continuum.
3. Time started when the universe came into existence at T = 0, 13.7 billion years ago. Thus finite into the past (not necessarily into the future...)

Therefor, whenever there was time, there was a universe. If there's a universe, there is time.
Consider the universe to be a coin and space being one side and time being the other side.
Remove the coin = remove the sides. And you can't have just 1 side.

The coin doesn't exist without the sides.
The sides don't exist without the coin.

If one is present, so is necessarily the other. They are different aspects of the same thing.


So... for all of time, the universe existed.
Whenever there was time, there was a universe.
Hence, the universe always existed.

 

[PruePhillip]

These people left Canaan peacefully for whatever reason and began a new society. But they were Canaanite people.

The Tel el-Hammond site is of special interest to me. This hasn't yet met with peer review support. But if they found 'shocked quartz' then I would take that as a positive. Clearly something happened because earlier this area was quite fertile, then lay salt crusted and fallow till Greek-Roman times. Never heard of that before (of course, a lot of Mesopotamia was salt damaged but that's different)
I do recall the Alverez days when people ridiculed the idea of a meterorite causing the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Canaan was on the nose to the Hebrews, just as Hebrews were on the nose to Canaanites and Egyptians, and everyone else.

The issue here is that we are both rehashing boilerpoints from minimalist and maximalist positions. On the whole I take the view that the Abrahamic story till Jesus to be essentially historical. And there's tons of evidence that the world around these accounts was more or less as it's recorded - everything from the price of slaves to the existance of kings. What's to be contested is the thing we can't contest - the dealings of God with these people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Tel el-Hammond site is of special interest to me. This hasn't yet met with peer review support. But if they found 'shocked quartz' then I would take that as a positive. Clearly something happened because earlier this area was quite fertile, then lay salt crusted and fallow till Greek-Roman times. Never heard of that before (of course, a lot of Mesopotamia was salt damaged but that's different)
I do recall the Alverez days when people ridiculed the idea of a meterorite causing the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Canaan was on the nose to the Hebrews, just as Hebrews were on the nose to Canaanites and Egyptians, and everyone else.

The issue here is that we are both rehashing boilerpoints from minimalist and maximalist positions. On the whole I take the view that the Abrahamic story till Jesus to be essentially historical. And there's tons of evidence that the world around these accounts was more or less as it's recorded - everything from the price of slaves to the existance of kings. What's to be contested is the thing we can't contest - the dealings of God with these people.

Even if true it does not support your myth. It only tells of an event in the past that likely led to a myth.

You are trying to use scientific evidence which means that you need to have a testable hypothesis to even claim evidence. What is your testable hypothesis? What reasonable test based on your hypothesis's predictions could show it to be wrong? That is a very important question to answer if you want to claim to have evidence.

 

[PruePhillip]

Even if true it does not support your myth. It only tells of an event in the past that likely led to a myth.

You are trying to use scientific evidence which means that you need to have a testable hypothesis to even claim evidence. What is your testable hypothesis? What reasonable test based on your hypothesis's predictions could show it to be wrong? That is a very important question to answer if you want to claim to have evidence.

Ever heard it said you can never win an argument with a conspiracy theorist?
Claim 1 - There was no catastrophe in the Jordan Plain - it's just a myth
Claim 2 - So yes, something DID happen in the Jordan Plain, but the myth was built around this event.

What does it take for YOU to be 'convinced' the Abrahamic story was true. Genesis said it happened at night. Abraham was on the lee side of the mountain range and Lot was in Zoar, down south. There was an exodus from the region afterwards.