A new theory for the creation of the universe.

[Sunstone]

In the beginning, before anything known to mankind existed, there was a supernatural, intelligent being that created the universe. It is thought that He first created space and then He created matter. It is likely that He supplied the energy from Himself to create the universe. The belief is there was no time dimension at this point and He could have created everything instantaneously but He chose to do it in steps to serve His purpose which was to set days, weeks, months and years for the people He would create later.

What would become to be known as day one, It is probable that He created the heavens and the earth and furnished light from Himself to set up day and night.

It seems to reason that He then made the firmament which separated the waters above it from the waters below and called that day two.

It could have happened on the third day when the waters below the firmament gathered together and for dry land to appear which He called earth. The best estimate is the earth brought forth vegetation, plants and trees bearing fruit after their kind.

On the fourth day, He created lights in the expanse to separate day from night and these were made to give light on earth. The great light, the sun, was to govern the day and the lesser light, the moon, was to govern the night. Up until this event, there was no mechanism for measuring time, IOW, there was no time dimension, now it is in place and waiting for intelligence to measure it. This belief is based on much circumstantial evidence that seems to support this view.

It is likely that He created the creatures in the waters and the birds of the sky on the fifth day. He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply, each after its own kind.

Most think it was day six when He created the living creatures on the earth, each after its own kind. Then He created man in His own image, male and female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply and to rule over the fish, the birds and over every living creature that moves on the earth.

Even though day four saw a mechanism put in place for measuring time, it was not until day six after the universe was created that there was an instrument, intelligence, to measure time. Most seem to agree with this theory.

There is a difference of opinion on exactly what point the laws of nature were created, some believing it was day one and others think it more likely to be day four.

Since God is outside of time and it means nothing to Him, He had a purpose for using six days, in man’s time frame, for the creation.


“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:9–11, NASB95)


Therefore, unless man can provide a provable explanation, using empirical evidence, of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence, I choose to believe in the supernatural.

I have tried to use a methodlogy used by science in presenting this new theory.

For what it's worth, I do not believe your "theory" even comes close to qualifying as science for several reasons. It was interesting, however, to learn that someone might think so.

 

[Valjean]

No, it's not. Genesis explains it quite well.

Genesis explains nothing. Assertions are not explanations.

Gen 1:5, 8, 13–14, 19, 23, 31; 2:2–4, 17; 3:5; 4:14; 5:1–2; 6:5; 7:4, 10–11, 13, 17, 24; 8:3, 6, 10 …

You keep basing your exegesis on this particular religious book. Why? before you use it as a reference you need to establish it as authoritative. You have not. You might as well be basing your argument on passages from the Gita or Tao te Ching.

Why can't God be behind the science? There is no beginning or ending to science, really. Even some scientists are suggesting this. Even God said ''I am the alpha and the omega.'' Why do you have a science vs faith mentality? Science and faith coexist, if you believe that God is behind the science.

No one's saying God can't be 'behind' science, nor are they saying a herd of pink unicorns couldn't be behind it all, but science can only work with evidence. if there is no actual evidence for something it's beyond science's purview.
We have a science vs faith mentality because science and faith are opposites and completely incompatible.
Faith is belief without evidence; unsubstantiated belief. Science is belief based exclusively on evidence and testing.

Science is always provisional, always falsifiable and always welcomes challenges. Religion is unfalsifiable and pretty much set in stone. It's tenets were not arrived at with evidence and testing and, in fact, it discourages evidence gathering, testing, or even questioning.
That's why.

 

[Curious George]

In the beginning, before anything known to mankind existed, there was a supernatural, intelligent being that created the universe. It is thought that He first created space and then He created matter. It is likely that He supplied the energy from Himself to create the universe. The belief is there was no time dimension at this point and He could have created everything instantaneously but He chose to do it in steps to serve His purpose which was to set days, weeks, months and years for the people He would create later.

What would become to be known as day one, It is probable that He created the heavens and the earth and furnished light from Himself to set up day and night.

It seems to reason that He then made the firmament which separated the waters above it from the waters below and called that day two.

It could have happened on the third day when the waters below the firmament gathered together and for dry land to appear which He called earth. The best estimate is the earth brought forth vegetation, plants and trees bearing fruit after their kind.

On the fourth day, He created lights in the expanse to separate day from night and these were made to give light on earth. The great light, the sun, was to govern the day and the lesser light, the moon, was to govern the night. Up until this event, there was no mechanism for measuring time, IOW, there was no time dimension, now it is in place and waiting for intelligence to measure it. This belief is based on much circumstantial evidence that seems to support this view.

It is likely that He created the creatures in the waters and the birds of the sky on the fifth day. He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply, each after its own kind.

Most think it was day six when He created the living creatures on the earth, each after its own kind. Then He created man in His own image, male and female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply and to rule over the fish, the birds and over every living creature that moves on the earth.

Even though day four saw a mechanism put in place for measuring time, it was not until day six after the universe was created that there was an instrument, intelligence, to measure time. Most seem to agree with this theory.

There is a difference of opinion on exactly what point the laws of nature were created, some believing it was day one and others think it more likely to be day four.

Since God is outside of time and it means nothing to Him, He had a purpose for using six days, in man’s time frame, for the creation.


“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:9–11, NASB95)


Therefore, unless man can provide a provable explanation, using empirical evidence, of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence, I choose to believe in the supernatural.

I have tried to use a methodlogy used by science in presenting this new theory.

Blu already pointed this out...but this is not possible.

If entity A created B then time would have had to exist. At one point B did exist at the next point B did exist. Therefore, there is a point in time that was before B existing. So by necessity time must have existed.

 

[Sapiens]

In the beginning, before anything known to mankind existed, there was a supernatural, intelligent being that created the universe. It is thought that He first created space and then He created matter. It is likely that He supplied the energy from Himself to create the universe. The belief is there was no time dimension at this point and He could have created everything instantaneously but He chose to do it in steps to serve His purpose which was to set days, weeks, months and years for the people He would create later.

What would become to be known as day one, It is probable that He created the heavens and the earth and furnished light from Himself to set up day and night.

It seems to reason that He then made the firmament which separated the waters above it from the waters below and called that day two.

It could have happened on the third day when the waters below the firmament gathered together and for dry land to appear which He called earth. The best estimate is the earth brought forth vegetation, plants and trees bearing fruit after their kind.

On the fourth day, He created lights in the expanse to separate day from night and these were made to give light on earth. The great light, the sun, was to govern the day and the lesser light, the moon, was to govern the night. Up until this event, there was no mechanism for measuring time, IOW, there was no time dimension, now it is in place and waiting for intelligence to measure it. This belief is based on much circumstantial evidence that seems to support this view.

It is likely that He created the creatures in the waters and the birds of the sky on the fifth day. He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply, each after its own kind.

Most think it was day six when He created the living creatures on the earth, each after its own kind. Then He created man in His own image, male and female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply and to rule over the fish, the birds and over every living creature that moves on the earth.

Even though day four saw a mechanism put in place for measuring time, it was not until day six after the universe was created that there was an instrument, intelligence, to measure time. Most seem to agree with this theory.

There is a difference of opinion on exactly what point the laws of nature were created, some believing it was day one and others think it more likely to be day four.

Since God is outside of time and it means nothing to Him, He had a purpose for using six days, in man’s time frame, for the creation.


“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:9–11, NASB95)


Therefore, unless man can provide a provable explanation, using empirical evidence, of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence, I choose to believe in the supernatural.

I have tried to use a methodlogy used by science in presenting this new theory.

No, you have failed to advance a Theory, all you have done is presented a fable and ask for a refutation that is something your fable is not, e.g. provable, when you should know full well that science does not deal in the provable, it deals in the elimination of the falsifiable.

 

[Native]

In the beginning, before anything known to mankind existed, there was a supernatural, intelligent being that created the universe.

If you read other than the biblical story of creation, some religious texts has it that the creation is eternal and there was no beginning, but everything is eternally changing between creation, dissolution and recreation. This is for instants stated in the Egyptian Story of Creation, the Ogdoad. Read here - Ancient Egypt: the Mythology - The Ogdoad of Hermopolis

Anyway, most of the global cultural creation stories starts off with an "in the beginning", and "before anything was created", but i don´t think this means "the beginning of our Universe", but "only" the telling of the ancient known part of the creation, namely our Milky Way.

The term "beginning" is just a telling technique in order to to describe the "circular principles of creation" and how the elements comes together and create "firm matter" out of the fluent cosmic rivers. The principle creation takes place via "two opposite but complementary forces", symbolized in most cultures as a female and male force. (And NOT by a single male god as assumed in the Abrahamic religions)

Read this paper "THE MILKY WAY MYTHOLOGY AND THE STORIES OF CREATION" - http://vixra.org/pdf/1109.0065v1.pdf

More illustrations on my Mytho-Cosmological website - Ancient Science. The Ancient and native Way of Knowledge

 

[Native]

Unlike religion, science is based on actual empirical evidence.

- And then science had to discard the Newtonian gravitational ideas of celestial motion when discovering the "galactic rotation curve".

That is: Cosmological science is also based on beliefs and ad hoc assumptions And frequently one can read that cosmological scientists are surprised over new findings that contradict former consensus "firm evidences".

 

[Native]

Science is always provisional, always falsifiable and always welcomes challenges. Religion is unfalsifiable and pretty much set in stone. It's tenets were not arrived at with evidence and testing and, in fact, it discourages evidence gathering, testing, or even questioning. That's why.

Religion, as in the religious Stories of Creation, is just as falsifiable as cosmological science - if one can connect the factual telling to the correct object. But this of course demands an insight in the mythical symbolism and in the Comparative Mythology from all over the world.

BTW: How do you falsify the supposed Big Bang?

 

[Curious George]

- And then science had to discard the Newtonian gravitational ideas of celestial motion when discovering the "galactic rotation curve".

That is: Cosmological science is also based on beliefs and ad hoc assumptions And frequently one can read that cosmological scientists are surprised over new findings that contradict former consensus "firm evidences".

Sometimes science can be slow to change. Sometimes science has to replace old ideas with better ideas. Sometimes science, at large, can show bias against competing ideas. But, this is a whole different ball game than ignoring the amount of evidence that is being suggested.

The general idea is-that even though there can be mistakes (no one claims science is infallible), even though there can be biases, and even though one might find an arbitrary assumption- we are distilling our way to towards truth.

It is a false equivalency to compare the two, (the beliefs and assumptions in science vs. the beliefs and assumptions in religion). Furthermore, it is a mistake to pit science against religion. Science does not say that no god exists. Science should be secular. Science is constantly changing, not with big swings left and right but funneling towards knowledge. Religion is choosing to be at odds with science by not adapting to our underatanding of the world and interpreting the knowledge that science brings.

If current science is wrong then it should be shown with the next part in the distillation process. If religious individuals really seek the truth then they should encourage their sons and daughters to study science and become part of the scientific discovery process.

Though I am an atheist, I would never discourage someone from studying religion. Great minds have and continue to partake in religious study. There is plenty to learn from religion. Why and how, to some, science has become a conspiracy, lying about evolution, lying about global warming, lying about a round earth is truly a mystery to me.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

On the fourth day, He created lights in the expanse to separate day from night and these were made to give light on earth. The great light, the sun, was to govern the day and the lesser light, the moon, was to govern the night. Up until this event, there was no mechanism for measuring time, IOW, there was no time dimension, now it is in place and waiting for intelligence to measure it. This belief is based on much circumstantial evidence that seems to support this view.

Well, the problem is, you already have plants; and without the stars, sun, etc. these plants would have existed in temperatures of absolute 0 and would have immediately perished right after creation. There is no evidence ... or logic ... that supports the creation myth; no matter how you rewrite it, it still fails.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It could have happened on the third day when the waters below the firmament gathered together and for dry land to appear which He called earth.

Except there is no "firmament". The "firmament" and the "waters of the deep" was the cosmological model borrowed from other religions and civilizations, including Babylon.

 

[Native]

It is a false equivalency to compare the two, (the beliefs and assumptions in science vs. the beliefs and assumptions in religion). Furthermore, it is a mistake to pit science against religion. Science does not say that no god exists. Science should be secular. Science is constantly changing, not with big swings left and right but funneling towards knowledge. Religion is choosing to be at odds with science by not adapting to our underatanding of the world and interpreting the knowledge that science brings.

When I compare religion and science here, I don´t mean the question of an existing god or not versus scientific cosmological discoveries, but the question of if we can find cosmological informations in the religious texts which can be compared to modern cosmological findings. so I think this is fair enough.

It can very well be that the western religious cultures are choosing to be ad odds with science, but lots of other religions are as scientific as modern science - and they often have a better overall cosmological understanding than modern science as well.

Just as some religious people, modern atheists are in the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathing waters when denying thousands of years of empirical and spiritual knowledge of cosmos.

 

[Curious George]

When I compare religion and science here, I don´t mean the question of an existing god or not versus scientific cosmological discoveries, but the question of if we can find cosmological informations in the religious texts which can be compared to modern cosmological findings. so I think this is fair enough.

It can very well be that the western religious cultures are choosing to be ad odds with science, but lots of other religions are as scientific as modern science - and they often have a better overall cosmological understanding than modern science as well.

Just as some religious people, modern atheists are in the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathing waters when denying thousands of years of empirical and spiritual knowledge of cosmos.

I should have qualified religuon with "some." You certainly have a valid point. Some western religion too embrace scientific understanding.

I am not so sure about modern atheists. I am modern, I am an atheist, did I leave that baby in the bath? I recognize that knowledge is everywhere. I recognize that others don't see things this way. But I hardly think that it has a relationship with atheism-was that baby god? Whereas the the dismissal of science bears at least some relation to some religions.

Cheers.

 

[Ted Evans]

Now all you need to do is check out the facts I gave you and amend your hypothesis so it fits reality.

I will most certainly do that.....just as soon as you provide empirical evidence of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence can you do that? Your answer will certainly be entertaining.

"reality"....in the beginning there was nothing, then nothing exploded and over billlllions and billlllions of years, nothing created the universe and all that it contains. Yes, that is irrefutable "reality".

 

[Ted Evans]

Your theory fails as a scientific theory of the universe as it says earth and universe were created in the same day when observations from nature shows they began to exist around 13.8 billion years and 4.5 billion years ago respectively.

Can you provide empirical evidence as to when "time" came into existence?

"No one has yet succeeded in using the Wheeler-DeWitt equation to integrate quantum theory with general relativity. Nevertheless, a sizable minority of physicists, Rovelli included, believe that any successful merger of the two great masterpieces of 20th-century physics will inevitably describe a universe in which, ultimately, there is no time."

 

[DavidFirth]

Genesis is also a book deceptively created yesterday by the devil with your firm belief on it programmed by the devil inserted in your headwhen he created you yesterday.

And here I thought you were above such nonsense. I guess not.

 

[Ted Evans]

You keep basing your exegesis on this particular religious book. Why? before you use it as a reference you need to establish it as authoritative. You have not. You might as well be basing your argument on passages from the Gita or Tao te Ching.

IMO, you would benefit from recognizing the context of what you quoted.

 

[Ted Evans]

So by necessity time must have existed.

Well, that leaves no doubt of an absolute. There are different views on the subject of time, would you agree?

"
The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality.

By “big things,” Rovelli means anything that exists much above the mysterious Planck scale. As of now there is no physical theory that completely describes what the universe is like below the Planck scale. One possibility is that if physicists ever manage to unify quantum theory and general relativity, space and time will be described by some modified version of quantum mechanics."

 

[Ted Evans]

science does not deal in the provable, it deals in the elimination of the falsifiable.

That sounds to me like an excuse for not being able to provide empirical evidence as to where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence. Is the existence of a supernatural, intelligent being falsifiable by science?

 

[Ted Evans]

This is for instants stated in the Egyptian Story of Creation, the Ogdoad

Can you tell me how many prophecies are in this book and how many of them can be proven to have come true exactly as they were written, centuries in advance?

 

[blü 2]

I will most certainly do that.....just as soon as you provide empirical evidence of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence can you do that? Your answer will certainly be entertaining.

"reality"....in the beginning there was nothing, then nothing exploded and over billlllions and billlllions of years, nothing created the universe and all that it contains. Yes, that is irrefutable "reality".

You're the one in touch with the manufacturer, no? Why not put those questions to him and let us know what he says? About time we know how to make universes.

Or do we have to wait for plodding science with its dreary insistence on hard evidence, honest reasoning, peer review and transparency to work it out for ourselves?

The same way we've had to work everything else out so far?