Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[YoursTrue]

wow. You reading comprehension is very selective.

The order of creation are different between Genesis 1 & Genesis 2, differed.

In Genesis 1, the order is - plants, marine animals & birds, land animals, then human.

In Genesis 2, the order is - human (man), then plants, animals and human (woman).

in Genesis 2:5, it clearly stated there were no plants anywhere on Earth, when Adam was created in verse 2:7. Plants were only created after Adam, in 2:8, followed by animals in 2:19. So in 2:7, human (Adam) was created BEFORE plants (2:8) and land animals (2:19) and birds (2:19).

Here is what I see from the Bible (Genesis 2:5-7 Berean Study Bible translation)
"Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But springs welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being."

So in v. 5 it says no shrub had appeared and no plant sprouted because God had not yet sent rain, AND there was no man to cultivate the ground. Then verse 6 says that springs welled up from the earth and water the surface. AFTER THAT God formed man from the dust of the ground and the man became a living being. (verse 7) As I said, I'm not a scientist, but from what I'm reading, moisture in the air and in the soil is very, very important for vegetation to grow.

So I don't see a contradiction in chapter 2 of Genesis regarding the unfolding (sequence) of events.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Remember that the BB theory, the explanations have only applied to our observations of the Observable Universe, so there are no before the Big Bang.

You are looking at alternative cosmological models, like one of the models of Multiverse (that you had favoured in previous posts), which go beyond the BB perspective…except those other alternative models, including the Multiverse, are currently untestable & untested, and are not (yet) “science”…and may never be science.

You seemed to forget that science HAVE TO BE BASED ON AVAILABLE EVIDENCE & DATA. Untested models are never accepted as science.

Sure, the BB theory, do have some problems, but what theories are completely void of unanswered questions, or of mysteries?

And sure, alternative models may think “outside-the-box” of the big bang theory, but what good are the out-of-box alternatives, if you cannot test them in any ways?

For any new hypothesis to become a new scientific theory, the hypothesis must undergo the 2nd half of Scientific Method, which is to test the hypothesis.

Without tests, how do we determine whether a hypothesis is any good?

So what was the reality before the BB? You say there was no before the BB. I agree, there was nothing before the BB! But nothing does not exist, so there must have been something?

 

[YoursTrue]

Remember that the BB theory, the explanations have only applied to our observations of the Observable Universe, so there are no before the Big Bang.

You are looking at alternative cosmological models, like one of the models of Multiverse (that you had favoured in previous posts), which go beyond the BB perspective…except those other alternative models, including the Multiverse, are currently untestable & untested, and are not (yet) “science”…and may never be science.

You seemed to forget that science HAVE TO BE BASED ON AVAILABLE EVIDENCE & DATA. Untested models are never accepted as science.

Sure, the BB theory, do have some problems, but what theories are completely void of unanswered questions, or of mysteries?

And sure, alternative models may think “outside-the-box” of the big bang theory, but what good are the out-of-box alternatives, if you cannot test them in any ways?

For any new hypothesis to become a new scientific theory, the hypothesis must undergo the 2nd half of Scientific Method, which is to test the hypothesis.

Without tests, how do we determine whether a hypothesis is any good?

Regarding the "Big Bang," and what existed before that, I think the scientific jury is still pondering over the ideas. (in other words, wondering...) What existed before the Big Bang?

 

[gnostic]

Here is what I see from the Bible (Genesis 2:5-7 Berean Study Bible translation)
"Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But springs welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being."

So in v. 5 it says no shrub had appeared and no plant sprouted because God had not yet sent rain, AND there was no man to cultivate the ground. Then verse 6 says that springs welled up from the earth and water the surface. AFTER THAT God formed man from the dust of the ground and the man became a living being. (verse 7) As I said, I'm not a scientist, but from what I'm reading, moisture in the air and in the soil is very, very important for vegetation to grow.

So I don't see a contradiction in chapter 2 of Genesis regarding the unfolding (sequence) of events.

You do realize that you are making apologetic excuses.

The “apology“ is simply interpretation, where you take the original context of a passage, and take them out-of-context. Apologetic criticism are often the worse type of literary scholarship. And that’s what you are doing here.

Read Genesis 2 as they are, not as in the way you would prefer to have interpreted them.

You are making excuses. You are taking genesis 2:5-8, completely out-of-context.

This is why I think all JW followers are completely dishonest and incompetent with biblical scholarship. They like to change everything about the Bible, without regards to the original contexts.

The 2 chapters on their orders of creation, differed from one another, and that’s fact about them. You are simply twisting those verses out-of-context.

And it is same with 6-day creation.

Each creative day comprised of an evening and a morning; the day do not comprised of weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia, etc.

You are taking the days in Genesis 1, out of context, just as you do with the order of creation in Genesis 2. You have invented excuses, where you can twist the passages out-of-context.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Here is what I see from the Bible (Genesis 2:5-7 Berean Study Bible translation)
"Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But springs welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being."

So in v. 5 it says no shrub had appeared and no plant sprouted because God had not yet sent rain, AND there was no man to cultivate the ground. Then verse 6 says that springs welled up from the earth and water the surface. AFTER THAT God formed man from the dust of the ground and the man became a living being. (verse 7) As I said, I'm not a scientist, but from what I'm reading, moisture in the air and in the soil is very, very important for vegetation to grow.

So I don't see a contradiction in chapter 2 of Genesis regarding the unfolding (sequence) of events.

You stopped quoting too soon, go on to Genesis 2:8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. So "had planted" implies past tense, and it was in this garden that God put man that he formed in Genesis 2:7.

 

[gnostic]

So what was the reality before the BB? You say there was no before the BB. I agree, there was nothing before the BB! But nothing does not exist, so there must have been something?

You are still throwing the “nothing” around.

That’s just you misinterpreting what everyone say.

It is just more of the same strawman arguments, I am tired of explaining & clarifying to you, that’s not what any of the model are saying, but you bringing it up every single bloody times.

You don’t understand that the universe is everything, everything that exist, stars, planets, galaxies, life on Earth, elementary particles, quantum fields, spacetime, etc. They are part of the universe in this current state, and before the the Recombination Epoch (before The CMBR), the universe was completely in a different state, where the universe was hot & dense opaque plasma universe. What the BB theory doesn’t say or explain, if the universe, is eternal or not…as they have no evidence & data, to say one way or another.

The BB theory leave the question of pre-Planck Epoch, as an unanswered & open question.

Is the universe, eternal? They don’t know.​

​

Did the universe exist cyclically, before our current universe (thus Cyclical Universe model, or the Big Bounce)? They don’t know.​

​

Are there more than one universe (thus the Multiverse models)? They don’t know.​

As I said, the questions above, referred to alternative models, that have currently have no evidence & no data, to support them, untested, hence none of them are “science”. They are just imaginative out-of-the-box mathematical reasoning, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do realize that you are making apologetic excuses.

The “apology“ is simply interpretation, where you take the original context of a passage, and take them out-of-context. Apologetic criticism are often the worse type of literary scholarship. And that’s what you are doing here.

Read Genesis 2 as they are, not as in the way you would prefer to have interpreted them.

You are making excuses. You are taking genesis 2:5-8, completely out-of-context.

This is why I think all JW followers are completely dishonest and incompetent with biblical scholarship. They like to change everything about the Bible, without regards to the original contexts.

The 2 chapters on their orders of creation, differed from one another, and that’s fact about them. You are simply twisting those verses out-of-context.

And it is same with 6-day creation.

Each creative day comprised of an evening and a morning; the day do not comprised of weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia, etc.

You are taking the days in Genesis 1, out of context, just as you do with the order of creation in Genesis 2. You have invented excuses, where you can twist the passages out-of-context.

I am saying (1) why I do not agree they are contradictory and (2) why I am not taking the statements out of context. I have given you reasons but you have not really refuted them.

 

[gnostic]

Regarding the "Big Bang," and what existed before that, I think the scientific jury is still pondering over the ideas. (in other words, wondering...) What existed before the Big Bang?

My guess, is that you are thinking God, Creator or Designer. These are just simply superstitions, of some imaginary agent that most likely don’t exist.

If you were going by the natural law, we really don’t know if the universe is eternal or not. Based on the current evidence & data, this is the only Universe, and that’s the only thing that the Big Bang theory has been trying to explain and to test those explanations.

Anything that go beyond the Big Bang theory, is outside of the BB scopes and therefore outside of their purviews.

Unfortunately, people like you and @Ben Dhyan , don’t understand that.

ben has been bringing up thing that are not only outside of purviews of the BB theory, he wanting to promote alternative model, that is untested (no evidence & no data), and therefore not scientific.

you, on the other hand, clearly want to rely on people’s superstitions.

Superstition is just ignorance and fear of the unknown, seeking comforts with imaginary all-powerful & all-knowing being or agent.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am saying (1) why I do not agree they are contradictory and (2) why I am not taking the statements out of context. I have given you reasons but you have not really refuted them.

Insofar as day goes, there is no reason for me to believe that each day referred to was a 24 hour period. Rather it was a period of time for each aspect of creation. Even scientists have periods as they see it of what happened, like Devonian, Cambrian, etc. of course they denote them in the millions of years...
The word day can be used to denote an aspect of time, such as "in your mother's day..." There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[YoursTrue]

My guess, is that you are thinking God, Creator or Designer. These are just simply superstitions, of some imaginary agent that most likely don’t exist.

If you were going by the natural law, we really don’t know if the universe is eternal or not. Based on the current evidence & data, this is the only Universe, and that’s the only thing that the Big Bang theory has been trying to explain and to test those explanations.

Anything that go beyond the Big Bang theory, is outside of the BB scopes and therefore outside of their purviews.

Unfortunately, people like you and @Ben Dhyan , don’t understand that.

ben has been bringing up thing that are not only outside of purviews of the BB theory, he wanting to promote alternative model, that is untested (no evidence & no data), and therefore not scientific.

you, on the other hand, clearly want to rely on people’s superstitions.

Superstition is just ignorance and fear of the unknown, seeking comforts with imaginary all-powerful & all-knowing being or agent.

I believe the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

You stopped quoting too soon, go on to Genesis 2:8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. So "had planted" implies past tense, and it was in this garden that God put man that he formed in Genesis 2:7.

I am pretty sure God didn't plant a garden just exactly at the same time that he placed Adam there.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Ben Dhyan about the order of creation, the days are not mentioned in Genesis 2. Verse 4 also rounds it up by using the word day in a different aspect. Not contradictory but actually helps to understand it better that the word day used there does not mean each day was 24 hours. I don't see it as contradictory but rather as a summary of events leading up to Adam's existence.

 

[ChieftheCef]

I believe space-time/quantum foam/background/3d has always existed. It is matter who matter/energy who was created

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are still throwing the “nothing” around.

That’s just you misinterpreting what everyone say.

It is just more of the same strawman arguments, I am tired of explaining & clarifying to you, that’s not what any of the model are saying, but you bringing it up every single bloody times.

You don’t understand that the universe is everything, everything that exist, stars, planets, galaxies, life on Earth, elementary particles, quantum fields, spacetime, etc. They are part of the universe in this current state, and before the the Recombination Epoch (before The CMBR), the universe was completely in a different state, where the universe was hot & dense opaque plasma universe. What the BB theory doesn’t say or explain, if the universe, is eternal or not…as they have no evidence & data, to say one way or another.

The BB theory leave the question of pre-Planck Epoch, as an unanswered & open question.

Is the universe, eternal? They don’t know.​

​

Did the universe exist cyclically, before our current universe (thus Cyclical Universe model, or the Big Bounce)? They don’t know.​

​

Are there more than one universe (thus the Multiverse models)? They don’t know.​

As I said, the questions above, referred to alternative models, that have currently have no evidence & no data, to support them, untested, hence none of them are “science”. They are just imaginative out-of-the-box mathematical reasoning, nothing more, nothing less.

"The BB theory leave the question of pre-Planck Epoch, as an unanswered & open question."

My guess why the BB theory does not address it is because science does not know, and they admit it, and that is fine.

But that doesn't stop non-BB theory purists to speculate logically as to what was in the past time direction prior to the theoretical BB. We can rule nonexistence out based on logic, so that leaves an infinite universe most probably along the lines of a multiverse.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

@Ben Dhyan about the order of creation, the days are not mentioned in Genesis 2. Verse 4 also rounds it up by using the word day in a different aspect. Not contradictory but actually helps to understand it better that the word day used there does not mean each day was 24 hours. I don't see it as contradictory but rather as a summary of events leading up to Adam's existence.

Yes, trying to get God making man before the plant kingdom is pretty desperate stuff on the part of the atheists, I would not waste time on it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am pretty sure God didn't plant a garden just exactly at the same time that he placed Adam there.

Precisely, Adam was put there after the garden had been planted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the Bible.

No, you believe your interpretation of the Bible and you cannot really justify that. You have also failed at justifying your personal interpretation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Precisely, Adam was put there after the garden had been planted.

The stories do not work as history. They can work as morality tales.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The stories do not work as history. They can work as morality tales.

It is not so much history, creative evolution had to involve the sequence of mineral kingdom, plant kingdom, animal kingdom, and then mankind, it is common sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not so much history, creative evolution had to involve the sequence of mineral kingdom, plant kingdom, animal kingdom, and then mankind, it is common sense.

When someone appeals to "common sense" they have already lost the argument.

Try to support your scientific beliefs with science, not by making up nonsense.