Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[URAVIP2ME]

Agreed. I've often wondered why none of the holy books describe a better analogy that would more closely match the separate epochs of our expanding universe. The only reason that makes sense to me is that no gods were involved in any of the stories. Humans were theorizing according to life's experiences.

But what life's experience would Jeremiah have in order to pen words about a stretched-out ( expanded ) heavens - Jeremiah 10:12 Jeremiah 32:17
Scripture says God is a God of order - 1 Corinthians 14:33; Hebrews 11:3 - and the universe is in order. Can order form by itself ?

 

[prometheus11]

But what life's experience would Jeremiah have in order to pen words about a stretched-out ( expanded ) heavens - Jeremiah 10:12 Jeremiah 32:17

Almost anything. It's hard to say. People have been ingesting various entheogens since they've been shoving things in their mouths.

Scripture says God is a God of order - 1 Corinthians 14:33; Hebrews 11:3 - and the universe is in order. Can order form by itself ?

Order is a human concept. I would contend that the singularity was as orderly or more orderly than at any time since.

As far as order forming itself, no. The eye does not see itself, either.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Almost anything. It's hard to say. People have been ingesting various entheogens since they've been shoving things in their mouths.
Order is a human concept. I would contend that the singularity was as orderly or more orderly than at any time since.
As far as order forming itself, no. The eye does not see itself, either.

Is the order of gravity a human concept ?
Sure humans use knowledge such as to be able to land a space ship with accuracy due to universal laws.

 

[Shad]

But what life's experience would Jeremiah have in order to pen words about a stretched-out ( expanded ) heavens - Jeremiah 10:12 Jeremiah 32:17
Scripture says God is a God of order - 1 Corinthians 14:33; Hebrews 11:3 - and the universe is in order. Can order form by itself ?

Basic observation or reading Job. Beside that the idea of a stretched heaven is in a number of religions. It was a common idea in antiquity.

 

[prometheus11]

Is the order of gravity a human concept ?
Sure humans use knowledge such as to be able to land a space ship with accuracy due to universal laws.

The way we formulate it's effect is, but the effect is real because it produces a consistently measurable result. Exactly like dark energy does.

But concepts like "order" and "sentimental" and "cute" aren't some evident force in nature. Unlike gravity and dark energy and electromagnetism.

 

[gnostic]

But what life's experience would Jeremiah have in order to pen words about a stretched-out ( expanded ) heavens - Jeremiah 10:12 Jeremiah 32:17
Scripture says God is a God of order - 1 Corinthians 14:33; Hebrews 11:3 - and the universe is in order. Can order form by itself ?

Clearly, you are using verses in Jeremiah to referring the stretched out heavens to fit in with modern scientific cosmology- the Big Bang - the theory of expanding universe.

The heavens as described by every ancients is that of the sky, and not the entire universe.

The sky as in everything that's viewable with the naked eye. They view the sky as everything above the horizon that they could see, which would include not only the sun, moon and stars, but also clouds.

They have no understanding the universe, the galaxies and stars that they can't see (can't see without telescopes). They don't even understand that the sun is actually a star.

The sky from horizon to horizon, and referred the sky as a "dome" or "vault" or "firmament" or the one we are interested in is - the "expanse". The heavens referred to the sky and not to the universe, and the stretching out or expanding out of heavens (hence expanse) only referred to the sky, and not the expanding universe.

All you are doing is applying modern astronomy of the universe to ancient and very limited understanding of the sky.

And to let you know, Jeremiah is the the only person to refer the sky as heavens.

And the verses you cited from Jeremiah, have nothing to with the universe.

The 2nd verse (Jeremiah 32:17) stated that God stretched out his arms, not the heavens.

While more clearly Jeremiah in verse 10:12, he wrote as translated in KJV:

[12] He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

But a more precise translation from the New Jewish Publication Society 1985 (NJPS):

12 He made the earth by His might,
Established the world by His wisdom,
And by His understanding stretched out the skies. a

We know that it "stretched out" is referring to the skies and not the universe is because the very next verse:

13 When He makes His voice heard,
There is a rumbling of water in the skies;
He makes vapors rise from the end of the earth,
He makes lightning for the rain,
And brings forth wind from His treasuries.

It doesn't make sense for KJV's heavens mean "universe" because the universe don't have clouds that make "rain" and "lightnings". If you look at "vapors rise from the earth", this clearly means the clouds, because no rising vapours from the earth will ever have any effect to the universe, so heavens mean "sky" not the "universe".

We would only feel effects of wind on earth, if it came from the sky and not the universe.

So clouds, wind, rain and lightning. These are the sort you and I can see right now, just as Jeremiah back then in the 6th century CE. So the heavens that KJV used, really mean the sky, and not the universe.

Both verses 10:12 & 10:13 have to be read together in order to understand the context of the verse you had cited (Jeremiah 10:12) in your reply.

You can only understand KJV translation of 10:12, only if you read it (verse) with 10:13.

This is why I don't trust believers to make proper interpretations, because the believers such as yourself, will got out of their way to twist context of ancient passages so that it would fit in with the modern science. You really shouldn't do this mixing biblical passages with modern science.

Do you want to know why I say this?

Because your attempts have been clumsy, and by quoting only one verse like 10:12, without quoting the 2nd verse that followed -10:13 - it is a terribly dishonest tactics.

I have to ask you these:

Did you bother to read verse 13 when you read Jeremiah 10:12?

Did you simply thought that verse 13 was unrelated to verse 12?

Or did you purposefully withheld verse 13, to make your faulty point?​

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jeremiah 10:11-13 Heavens and earth - heavens could include both the spiritual heavens - 1 Kings 8:27 - and the physical heavens which include the mid-heavens where birds fly.

Abraham - Genesis 15:5; Genesis 22:17-18 - had No hubble telescope but with his naked eye could have seen thousands of stars. Abraham could see a googleplex of the grains of sand into the billions in connection to the number of heavenly stars.

1985 or the April 2013 edition of the Tanach which uses the word heavens and Not the word sky. General Editors.Rabbi Nosson Scheman and Rabbi Meir Ziotowitz

 

[gnostic]

Jeremiah 10:11-13 Heavens and earth - heavens could include both the spiritual heavens - 1 Kings 8:27 - and the physical heavens which include the mid-heavens where birds fly.

Why would a spiritual needs clouds ("vapors from the end from the earth") from the earth?

Why would the kingdom of God need clouds, wind, rain and lightning?

You are not making sense.

All the events that it is faulty described in 10:13, are physical events. (I'd say "faulty" because clouds, rain, wind and lightning occurred naturally, without the need for God to do anything. The verse is faulty because it rely on ignorance and superstition to believe that God is in any way involve it making it rainy or windy.)

If heaven is a spiritual place then it would be utterly pointless to have rain and lightning.

Why would god's heaven be anything like a physical and material earth? Why would spiritual heaven need rain or wind?

 

[gnostic]

You have avoided my questions, uravip2me.

Why do assume that verse 10:12 is referring to the Big Bang (expanding universe)?

Why have you omitted verse 13?

If you had properly understood both verses (10:12-13), you would see that it is only referring to the earth's very limited sky, and not the whole universe.

Jeremiah has no concept of the universe, so you shouldn't take the verse out of context, by twisting the verse to implied the Big Bang.

I know what you are doing, uravip2me, because I have seen both Christians and Muslims trying to twist their respective scriptures by attempting to apply modern science to poorly worded passages.

It is tactics of dishonest believers. Believers with weak faith because they have to lie to others.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Why would a spiritual needs clouds ("vapors from the end from the earth") from the earth?
Why would the kingdom of God need clouds, wind, rain and lightning?
You are not making sense.
All the events that it is faulty described in 10:13, are physical events. (I'd say "faulty" because clouds, rain, wind and lightning occurred naturally, without the need for God to do anything. The verse is faulty because it rely on ignorance and superstition to believe that God is in any way involve it making it rainy or windy.)
If heaven is a spiritual place then it would be utterly pointless to have rain and lightning.
Why would god's heaven be anything like a physical and material earth? Why would spiritual heaven need rain or wind?

The kingdom of God is heavenly. New Jerusalem, the seat of government, is located in heaven above - Galatians 4:26.
God's heavenly kingdom or heavenly government will bring Peace to Earth - Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:13-14
According to Scripture, God set in motion the water cycles for earth, Not for heaven.
Jesus will have earthly subjects from sea to sea - Psalms 72:8
So, there is No rain, lightning, wind, etc. in heaven. God's kingdom is to govern earth from heaven.
We do Not pray for God's heaven to come, but rather for God's kingdom or government to come.
We do Not pray ' take me away to the kingdom ' nor pray ' take me 'up' to the kingdom ', but pray for God's government to come so that God's will, God's purpose, be done right here on earth. On earth as it is in heaven. There is No crime, violence, war, sickness or death in heaven, So, we are praying for those same good peaceful healthy conditions to come and exist here on earth forever. Jesus, as king of God's kingdom government, will fulfill God's promise to Abraham - Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18; Revelation 22:2 that All of earth's nations will be blessed when Jesus ushers in global Peace on Earth among men of goodwill.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You have avoided my questions, uravip2me.
Why do assume that verse 10:12 is referring to the Big Bang (expanding universe)?
Why have you omitted verse 13?
If you had properly understood both verses (10:12-13), you would see that it is only referring to the earth's very limited sky, and not the whole universe.
Jeremiah has no concept of the universe, so you shouldn't take the verse out of context, by twisting the verse to implied the Big Bang.
I know what you are doing, uravip2me, because I have seen both Christians and Muslims trying to twist their respective scriptures by attempting to apply modern science to poorly worded passages.
It is tactics of dishonest believers. Believers with weak faith because they have to lie to others.

Please notice post #867 Jeremiah 10:11-13 is posted.
I want to apologize because I did Not intend to necessarily connect the Big Bang as being the expanding universe.
Don't some consider the Big Bang to be an explosion, whereas others some sort of expansion or spreading out with or without a Big Bang ?
Stretching out by God's power does indicate some sort of expansion - Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 32:17 ( <- great power )
Heavens in Scripture is used in connection to near by heavens ' sky ' and including the ' heaven of heavens ' where God dwells - 1 Kings 8:27; 1 Kings 8:39,30,49
So, heavens ( plural ) could include more than just the material heavens.

 

[prometheus11]

The "Big Bang" is a misnomer. It was a derisive term coined as a mockery against its central idea put forth by a Jesuit Priest, George Lamaitre.

It wasn't big and it didn't bang, but it sort of "exploded" but no oxygen or fire were present, so I can't see how it was an explosion.

First there was a very rapid inflation. (Far to rapid to even think about with a human brain). Then there was an expansion that is continuing even now.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The "Big Bang" is a misnomer. It was a derisive term coined as a mockery against its central idea put forth by a Jesuit Priest, George Lamaitre.

It wasn't big and it didn't bang, but it sort of "exploded" but no oxygen or fire were present, so I can't see how it was an explosion.

First there was a very rapid inflation. (Far to rapid to even think about with a human brain). Then there was an expansion that is continuing even now.

But it did bang. After expanding and cooling for about 380,000 years, matter decoupled from radiation, and the universe became transparent, all causing the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). It sort of rang the universe's bell, which is still ringing 13.8 billion years later. Its discovery in the 60s pretty much put a lock on the BB theory. It might be easier to think of it as the Big Ring or Big Bong.

BTW, the expansion, they've recently learned, is accelerating--so much so that we can't see beyond 13 billion years in any direction, because space expansion reaches superluminal velocity. Yes, space, energy and information still can't travel faster than light-speed (relatively speaking), but space can expand faster. Even more weird, the expansion was decelerating until about 7 billion years after the BB.

 

[prometheus11]

Yes, but most people think of the Big Bang as one event, like a bomb or gunshot. But even "ringing the bell" or "a bong" is more analogy.

And yes, 7 billion years after the inflationary epoch, the fairies started farting and that changed the deceleration of the universe into acceleration. [emoji14]

 

[Mycroft]

or none of them unless the ONE who created/evolved them communicates and informs us which one.
Topic open for Theists and Atheists alike.

Regards

The question you pose in the title of this thread cannot be answered at this time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But it did bang. After expanding and cooling for about 380,000 years, matter decoupled from radiation, and the universe became transparent, all causing the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). It sort of rang the universe's bell, which is still ringing 13.8 billion years later. Its discovery in the 60s pretty much put a lock on the BB theory. It might be easier to think of it as the Big Ring or Big Bong.

BTW, the expansion, they've recently learned, is accelerating--so much so that we can't see beyond 13 billion years in any direction, because space expansion reaches superluminal velocity. Yes, space, energy and information still can't travel faster than light-speed (relatively speaking), but space can expand faster. Even more weird, the expansion was decelerating until about 7 billion years after the BB.

The problem that I have with big bang theory....which is, imo, a most ridiculous theory, is that there is a beginning at all... I support a steady state theory doesn't defy reality and doesn't imagine things...it is as it is, as it was, and as it will always be....an infinite eternal universe where no beginning needs to be imagined and even more bizarre, no non-existence needs to be imagined from which the imagined beginning brings forth existence from non-existence...

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yes, but most people think of the Big Bang as one event, like a bomb or gunshot. But even "ringing the bell" or "a bong" is more analogy.

The CMB radiation isn't an analogy. You're quibbling over what we name it.

And yes, 7 billion years after the inflationary epoch, the fairies started farting and that changed the deceleration of the universe into acceleration. [emoji14]

That's an analogy. Why'n't you put those fairies in your back yard along with you pink unicorns.

The problem that I have with big bang theory....which is, imo, a most ridiculous theory,

Why don't you write a paper on that for the Cosmology Journal Quarterly. I'm sure they'd be happy to forward it on to the Flat Earth Society.

is that there is a beginning at all...

Well sure, once you've convinced those actually knowledgeable about the Big Bang that it never happened, that was surely follow. I'm sure you'd be fighting an uphill battle though....mostly with yourself.

I support a steady state theory doesn't defy reality and doesn't imagine things...it is as it is, as it was, and as it will always be....an infinite eternal universe where no beginning needs to be imagined and even more bizarre, no non-existence needs to be imagined from which the imagined beginning brings forth existence from non-existence...

Ohhhh, well then, why didn't you stipulate at the beginning that reality and fantasy were interchangeable, thus skirting those pesky little concepts of reason and science. ben d, as in around the.....?

 

[paarsurrey]

The question you pose in the title of this thread cannot be answered at this time.

Why? Please
Regards

 

[Mycroft]

Why? Please
Regards

Because there is no substantial definition for the 'nothing' to which you refer. Exactly what this 'nothing' was is still a matter of fierce debate. So the question cannot be answered.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why don't you write a paper on that for the Cosmology Journal Quarterly. I'm sure they'd be happy to forward it on to the Flat Earth Society.



Well sure, once you've convinced those actually knowledgeable about the Big Bang that it never happened, that was surely follow. I'm sure you'd be fighting an uphill battle though....mostly with yourself.



Ohhhh, well then, why didn't you stipulate at the beginning that reality and fantasy were interchangeable, thus skirting those pesky little concepts of reason and science. ben d, as in around the.....?

You know ThePainefulTruth....the first thing I notice when someone responds to one of my posts with an ad hom of sorts, is to quickly read on to see if they actually addressed the main point I was making.....mostly they don't...and so you don't disappoint...

If you are serious.then, instead of talking about the Flat Earth Society, answer me this....what caused the big bang....I mean really....this whole universe, if it had a beginning, there had to be a cause that science can explain ...at least that seems a logical and reasonable assumption to make.....yes? So what was the cause as understood by science?

Another ad hom, talking about post big bang evidence, or non-response....all would indicate you are unable to provide a scientific reason for the cause of the beginning of the universe...