Blastcat
Active Member
I think that proves it to me. Genesis doesn't say heaven first then earth. It DOES say earth first then sun.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can a Genesis God be Explained from a Science Perspective? (part 1)
- Thread starter Dante Writer
- Start date
I think that proves it to me. Genesis doesn't say heaven first then earth. It DOES say earth first then sun.
This is not true. It is certainly not an accurate description of the origin of the universe according to the big bang theory, but it is also not true of basic processes at the atomic and subatomic levels and questionable at best in astrophysics and physical cosmology.
From a more philosophical perspective, the assertion that only physical/material things should be accorded an ontological status is extremely controversial. To give some counterexamples (i.e., examples of non-physical things which have been argued to be ontological), we have
1) Mathematical entities (Plato and Tegmark are the most extreme here, while Penrose's view is more tenable)
2) Emergent properties
3) Qualia
4) Pilot waves in Bohmian mechanics
5) Probabilities in Kastner's version of the transactional interpretation of quantum physics
6) Information
7) Functional or relational emergence (e.g., metabolism or the mind), a special instance of emergence where the higher-level relations/functions determine causal structure and future states of the systems whence they emerge and must be understood as existing because without understanding the systems they govern in the context of their existence you aren't actually dealing with the systems in question; i.e., without the functionally emergent and causally efficacious example of metabolism, you don't have cells because the component parts do not make up the cells without the function that makes them components of cells; this is discussed in considerable detail in Mikulecky, D. C. (2005). The Circle That Never Ends: Can Complexity be Made Simple? In D. Bonchev & D. H. Rouvray (Eds.). Complexity in Chemistry, Biology, and Ecology (Mathematical and Computational Chemistry). Springer.
No, it doesn't. It literally says "at an initial moment, there was a single act of creation." It not only doesn't say that either the earth or sun was created first, it specifically states that there was only one, single creative act which simultaneously resulted in the earth and sun together. At an initial moment, both earth and sun were simultaneously created. That's what the Hebrew says.
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
Which part translates into Sun? I thought it was heavens and the earth right? Not necessarily Sun and the Earth or was that what was meant as well by heaven? If so, what is the translation regarding the greater and lesser light referring too?
Blastcat
Active Member
Science tells us nothing about something like that. You would have to go to religion for that kind of thing.
Humans did invent these laws, as what we call "natural laws" are merely descriptions for how the universe works.
Agreed. Although we can't observe all of the universe, we do notice a remarkable regularity of how it works.
Unfortunately, the "laws" you are talking about are our DESCRIPTIONS of reality, not prescriptions.
The laws do not dictate anything. They are used to explain how things work.
If the laws are said to be part of the universe, it would be surprising if they weren't a part of it. Your reasoning about how the laws needing to exist before the big bang are stimulating, but hardly convincing due to the utter lack of information that we have about ANYTHING before the big bang.
Yes, why not just go with that?
It's not as if anyone cares if it's true.
God 1. seems to be a nice hypothesis without any evidence for it's existence. I don't see the point of this thread.
Shad
Veteran Member
You missed the point or didn't understand. As per the comment I was responding to. "That Genesis would say we have a beginning doesn't need divine aspiration, one simple needs to look around and see that in this world most things have a beginning most have an end." This point takes the idea that most things begin to exist applied via inductive logic to another object in which we do not know. The former begin to exist does have certain properties which are not applicable to the other object. Its nothing more than "All Swans are white" aka the Problem of Induction. I was attacking the word play and inductive logic presented as if it were deductive.
Always possible.
Correct me if my paraphrase of your argument is wrong: You are asserting that it is invalid to infer that because our experience tells us that existing things begin to exist, naturally the universe began to exist and by extension the author(s) of Genesis would naturally assert the universe also had a beginning.
I mostly agree, but I don't think you need this argument.
There are many examples, from ancient Greece and China to 19th and early 20th century physics, of cultures or social groups not only positing an eternal universe (I include cyclic universes with infinitely many cycles here), but holding that it is ridiculous to suppose a beginning to the cosmos. In fact, as you may know, the origin of the term "big bang" was Fred Hoyle's derisive, dismissive way of referring to the (as far as he was concerned) ludicrous idea that the universe had an origin/beginning.
Clearly, then, the argument that we should expect creation cosmologies because of everyday experience fails, as it can't explain the plethora of alternative cosmologies throughout history in which there was no beginning.
It's true that reasoning inductively can lead to false conclusions. We need only one black swan to prove the induction that all swans are white false. But I don't see anywhere in the original argument you responded to the statement that we can suppose the author(s) of Genesis were correct in inductively reasoning that because we are used to things beginning to exist, therefore the universe did to. Merely that we don't need divine aspiration to explain Genesis BECAUSE the authors (and people more generally) used such inductive reasoning.
In other words, you seem to be stating that we can't conclude that because we are used to things beginning to exist, everything must begin to exist (i.e., we can't treat inductive inferences as if they were deductive conclusions). But the argument wasn't about the validity or soundness of such reasoning. It concerned whether or not we can suspect such reasoning to explain creation in Genesis.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
I was talking about the shift when "begin" applies to other objects is not the same as "begins" means to the universe. When I began to exist there was a point in time in which I didn't exist. A clear before/after dynamic. This is not applicable to the universe if, as believed, time is part of the universe. It is a sleight of hand like trick in which the more technical aspects are omitted in order to use the basic definition of "begin" from a dictionary.
I have no issues with what you have provided regarding the technical view. As per above I was attacking the language used which is deceptive
Shad
Veteran Member
Just because X part has a cause does not mean the whole does. Objects within the universe have a cause thus the universe must have a cause. Things in the universe have a beginning thus the universe must have a beginning. Using the Big Bang as supporting evidence is ad hoc as the argument in the basic form before this discovery is still based on such a fallacy.
No part. I was just using the terms from the post I quoted. In my original post analyzing the Hebrew, I don't use "sun"
Blastcat
Active Member
Oh, sorry, I only read the English translations. I guess the translators don't know the Hebrew too well.
No, it's just that all translations are necessarily approximations. How true this is for all translations is generally not appreciated. One way of beginning to appreciate the kind of distance that exists between a translation of a text and the source text is to consider simple words in related languages. Take the word "house" in English (which is a Germanic language). How would you translate it into German? Haus? Heim? There is never any 1-to-1 mapping between lexemes (words) in one language and those in another.
But this isn't even the real problem. The real problem is that words really on the basic units of language- constructions are. About half language consists of idioms, prefabs (i.e., prefabricated phrases/constructions like "pull strings", "leave aside", "that being said", etc.), and other structures that consist of linguistic units like words but aren't reducible to them. Additionally, in most languages a great deal of meaning and syntax consists of the forms various parts of speech take. In Hebrew, for example, the "dictionary form" of verbs is the 3rd person masculine. In other words, verbs in Hebrew encode gender, person, and number via morphology. In languages like Navajo, practically the entire language consists of verbs and things you "tack on" to them (adjectives like "red", for example, don't exist and we find instead stative verbs like "be red"). There are specialized dictionaries for mathematicians, engineers, scientists, and other academics who have to read journals and other scholarship in German, because German words are usually built up out of multiple single German words according to some fairly complicated "rules", making it impossible to get most of the language in a regular dictionary and in particular technical terms you need to know to read research in a particular field. Ancient Greek contains an large number of particles (words like "but") that are convey both syntactic and semantic information in ways so complicated that there's a required ~600 page reference text The Greek Particles solely devoted to the syntax and semantics of a handful of these particles (in Hellenistic Greek, things became significantly simpler, but still important enough to merit treatments Greek particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and exegetical studies (New Testament tools and studies) by Thrall). Hittite is an Indo-European language, yet if you know Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin it will still seem to be fundamentally foreign, as it is the language which most closely adheres to the active-stative alignment of Pre-Indo-European (transitivity functions differently, verbs are used in place of many adjectives as in languages like Navajo, instead of just active and passive voice verbs can also be middle as in Greek but unlike Greek active and middle voices work differently, reflecting the active-stative alignment of Pre-IE, etc.).
Finally, with Biblical Hebrew and other ancient languages, culture presents a linguistic barrier. Many words, linguistic conventions, speech patterns, etc., differ radically from modern languages in general reflecting a time long past.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
That was your first mistake.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
the first page got off to a bad start....
if you want to hold science and God together ...it can be done
been doing it for years
I believe in God because of science
I have no religion
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I like King James....1960ed
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
I am aware, it was more to explain as you explained in your second part of people using inductive reasoning. The basis of my argument was that when discussing people from "back in the day" we shouldn't really disparage them or really elevate them either.
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
Right, but what I was getting at was that we shouldn't really think too highly or too negatively of people from the past or find that if they were right about something to be shocking.
idea
Question Everything
In "a" beginning God "organized" the heavens and the earth....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html
see also http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/vocabulary_studies.html
Child Root
Transliteration: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.
Definition: Reference:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html
see also http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/vocabulary_studies.html
Child Root
Transliteration: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.
Definition: Reference:
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
I was being sarcastic.
Ah. Well that analysis of the Hebrew was a waste of time, then. Oh well.