The key point is - power of being.
Likewise. You are missing the void: there is no beginning of beginnings. No end of beginnings.
God - the Eternal, like any infinity - can not change.
A Christian says: In the beginning was the Word … and continues from this.
Thus, I would describe your comment as peculiar sophistry.
That’s a non sequitur. My comment is a brute fact. Yours is in the hermeneutic of wooden literalism. And mine does not in any way preclude yours: if God grounds being then the Word is always the beginning from eternity, God is the continuous if null then !null principle.
What does not follow? The discussion is the creation as we understand it (the observed age of the Universe), and the beginning of this creation which is stated as creation from nothing. The Biblical teaching is that God created the heavens and the earth, and we cannot consider as anything before this, as the creation is everything.
You can’t, but the brute fact of the infinite eternity of unchangeable nature, with its if null then !null principle in unchangeable God or no, remains.
Bill, quite honestly, i had never thought of this before. I always go back to thinking that our Earth and Human beings, despite our flaws, are just too perfect to have come about instantly, and instead, were created for a certain environment for some kind of purpose. Doesn’t feel like Natural processes could be solely responsible.
Can you tell im not a scientist!
We’ve known this for 60 odd years and Ross (another one to add to the sad list above, although not in their league) had nothing to do with it. And it’s two generations. Sol is a grandchild population I star. The result of two waves of supernovae. What this entirely natural process ‘proves’ about God I cannot imagine, let alone what the entirely natural process of dark energy negentropy, sorry, negentropic dark energy, accelerating the expansion of spacetime says about Him.
The energies of God doctrine provide an understanding of how God sustains His creation; it is absurd to say they at not nothing or whatever. The beginning is when God (the Word) creates all there is. Since this encapsulates time and space, we would argue that the beginning is just that, a beginning of time and the rest.
The notion of nothing is required by how we use language - since there is a beginning, there cannot be something prior to that. Also, the creation is a gift (it is not necessary) from God, and our capacity to comprehend it, study, provide scientific insights, also speak to our place within the Creation."
John 1: 1-3 says that In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It then proceeds to say that He created everything, and nothing was created that He did not create. Creation is a product of the mind of God. Scientifically there is “nothing” to examine physically or evaluate in a lab, but, like gravity, we can know intuitively and perhaps spiritually that it is there.
Then you asked, “Can you tell im not a scientist!” as if it may be a problem. The issue is actually a question of “Who will you believe?” The scientific stuff I point to are not my ideas. However, most of it originated with Max Planck. James Clerk Maxwell, Niels Bohr, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein, and subsequent Nobel laureates. Einstein’s math teacher came up with the Minkowski Spacetime four-dimensional manifold to understand the setting for relativity. Britannica or Wikipedia can define the Initial Singularity. I trust these scientific resources, and I recommend them to you.
Theologically, the Bible is not a science book, but when explained in context with the Quantum Field Theory, it does ‘ring true.’ Ex nihilo creation, by the Word of God, works as the universal Initial Singularity delivery mechanism as a quantum field. De novo creation by the Word of the Creator, instructing the new beginnings of Genesis, works by exciting the Standard Model of Elemental Particles to initialize material things at His direction. The Creator used the scientific principles He created the make His creation.
Einstein pointed out, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” I agree.
I think you are quite right to understand that “Human beings, despite our flaws, are just too perfect to have come about instantly, and instead, were created for a certain environment for some kind of purpose. Doesn’t feel like Natural processes could be solely responsible.” That statement probably speaks volumes about the 13.8 billion years from the Initial Singularity and 3.8 to 4 billion years of our galaxy and planetary system. Our infinite God (Alpha and Omega) rules the time and eternity realms for His purposes. The Biblical books of John and Revelation go into some of the fundamentals of God’s ways and purposes, even when they go deep and wide. The technicalities are not as important as His offer of a spiritual relationship and even adoption into His family.
His Word is true, and our response is vital to us as well as desirable by Him.
That is a very confusing post. Who wrote what in response to what? What does ‘1d’ mean? You are quoting @GJDS without attribution, as if you wrote it.
I’m glad you agree with Einstein, that
the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions
“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions…”
I can’t help but notice the paradox in the verses you have chosen to refute my point:
Such anthropomorphic language must of course be metaphorical - but what it describes is surely not easily defined. Since such verses have had such influence, let’s think about the metaphors more closely: Is breath immaterial? What is a word without a means of transmission and a receiver?
Paul did not dispute the poet who expressed that “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28)
I am NOT saying that some form of matter or energy existed apart from God, just that losing one’s faith based on a perceived contradiction between a scientific understanding of the big bang and scripture is totally unnecessary and would be a pretty sad thing.
In fact materiality itself seems to me intrinsically linked with the Person of Christ, who is Himself the Word, “through whom all things were made”, while uncreated, he became incarnate, and after death, resurrected with a glorified body.
There are many puzzling things difficult to grasp or define in Christianity - a fact the Eastern Orthodox churches have long recognised. We should instead focus on the much more readily accessible life and teachings of Jesus.
The Spirit being God’s Pneúma or ‘Breath’ certainly does not denote anything material, nor does our having a spirit or soul necessarily either. So this fits:
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.
Indeed. Recall my affinity for the suggestion about QM:
(I don’t think I was trying to refute your point, but was pretty much agreeing with it.)
The flaw in the reasoning is this: “If God did indeed make the universe, then His actions should also be detectable” (sort of quotation) is a non-sequateur. God is sovereign , and hence may be overt or covert as He wishes. There is absolutely no imperative for His actions to be overt and detectable, whilst there is abundant scope for God to covertly influence anything He wishes through a combination of quantum fluctuations and the so-called butterfly effect. The latter is a bucket term for numerous amplifiers which can (and do) result in a huge array of Biblical to Current events. From a scientific perspective randomness, and ‘God did it’ are intrinsically indistinguishable.
Please join up the dots on how divine quantum fluctuations and turbulence result in a huge array of Biblical to Current events.
- X says:
- "To say that the evidence is against the universe’s making sense is an absurd statement. If the universe actually does not make sense, then we should just fold our tents and get drunk or something instead of wasting our time trying to explain the universe. The actual situation is that evidence must be interpreted and it is always interpreted either on the basis of some theory or else on the basis of some set of inchoate presumptions. If one starts out with false fundamental notions, then one will also read falsity that is not in the evidence itself into the interpretation of that evidence. If the evidence seems not to make sense, that is your clue that an examination of the assumptions used in interpreting that evidence is in order.”
- To Epimenides of Crete [7th or 6th century BC], alleged “author” of Cretica are attributed praise of Zeus, “in whom we live, move, and have being” and “we are his offspring”.
Hymn to Zeus
- Most glorious of the Immortals, many named, Almighty for ever.
Zeus, ruler of Nature, that governest all things with law,
Hail! for lawful it is that all mortals should address Thee.
For we are Thy offspring, taking the image only of Thy voice, as many mortal things as live and move upon the earth.
Therefore will I hymn Thee, and sing Thy might forever.
For Thee doth all this universe that circles round the earth obey, moving whithersoever Thou leadest, and is gladly swayed by Thee,
Such a minister hast Thou in Thine invincible hands ; — the two-edged, blazing, imperishable thunderbolt.
For under its stroke all Nature shuddereth, and by it thou guidest aright the Universal Reason, that roams through all things, mingling itself with the greater and the lesser lights, till it have grown so great, and become supreme king over all.
Nor is aught done on the earth without Thee, O God, nor in the divine sphere of the heavens, nor in the sea,
Save the works that evil men do in their folly —
Yea, but Thou knowest even to find a place for superfluous things, and to order that which is disorderly, and things not dear to men are dear to Thee.
Thus clost Thou harmonise into One all good and evil things, that there should be one everlasting Reason of them all.
And this the evil among mortal men avoid and heed not; wretched, ever desiring to possess the good, yet they nor see nor hear the universal Law of God, which obeying with all their heart, their life would be well.
But they rush graceless each to his own aim.
Some cherishing lust for fame, the nurse of evil strife,
Some bent on monstrous gain,
Some turned to folly and the sweet works of the flesh,
Hastening, indeed, to bring the very contrary of these things to pass.
But Thou, O Zeus, the All giver, Dweller in the darkness of cloud, Lord of thunder, save Thou men from their unhappy folly,
Which do Thou, O Father, scatter from their souls ; and give them to discover the wisdom, in whose assurance
Thou governest all things with justice ;
So that being honoured, they may pay Thee honour.
Hymning Thy works continually, as it beseems a mortal man.
Since there can be no greater glory for men or Gods than this,
Duly to praise for ever the Universal Law.
- Most glorious of the Immortals, many named, Almighty for ever.
- Hymn to Zeus
- Aratus (3rd century BC), author of Phaenomena, a book describing the constellations and weather signs, wrote:
- “From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood. He tells what time the soil is best for the labour of the ox and for the mattock, and what time the seasons are favourable both for the planting of trees and for casting all manner of seeds. For himself it was who set the signs in heaven, and marked out the constellations, and for the year devised what stars chiefly should give to men right signs of the seasons, to the end that all things might grow unfailingly. Wherefore him do men ever worship first and last. Hail, O Father, mighty marvel, mighty blessing unto men. Hail to thee and to the Elder Race! Hail, ye Muses, right kindly, every one! But for me, too, in answer to my prayer direct all my lay, even as is meet, to tell the stars.”
- Callimachus of Cyrene, [3rd century BC], author of a Hymn to Zeus, wrote:
- “At libations to Zeus what else should rather be sung than the god himself, mighty for ever, king for evermore, router of the Pelagonians, dealer of justice to the sons of Heaven?”
- “How shall we sing of him – as lord of Dicte or of Lycaeum? My soul is all in doubt, since debated is his birth. O Zeus, some say that thou wert born on the hills of Ida; others, O Zeus, say in Arcadia; did these or those, O Father lie? “Cretans are ever liars.” Yea, a tomb, O Lord, for thee the Cretans builded; but thou didst not die, for thou art for ever.”
- Note: "This proverbial saying, attributed to Epimenides, is quoted by St. Paul. Ep. Tit. i. 12, “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies” and seems to be alluded to by Aratus, Phaen. 30 ei eteon dê. The explanation given by Athenodorus of Eretria ap. Ptolem. Hephaest. In Photii Bibl. p. 150 Bekk. Is that Thetis and Medea, having a dispute as to which of them was the fairer, entrusted the decision to Idomeneus of Crete. He decided in favour of Thetis, whereon Medea said, “Cretans are always liars” and cursed them that they should never speak the truth.
- Note: “The Cretan legend was that Zeus was a prince who was slain by a wild boar and buried in Crete. His tomb was variously localized and the tradition of “the tomb of Zeus” attaches to several places even in modern times, especially to Mount Iuktas.”
The suggestion that, because X does not have a complete theory of the universe and all its parts and and how the universe works proves that X’s claim that "the universe makes sense" must be false is not only unreasonable, it is also silly. So also would be the suggestion that mainstream science’s view of the universe could, much less should, be harmonized with Epimenides’, Cleanthes’, Aratus’, or Calimachus’ views of Zeus.
A cosmos that "make sense" and a god “in whom we live, move, and have being” and “whose offspring we are” are indistinguishable.
I’m a physicist and a Christian, and there are two quick things to say here. One is that the traditional phrase “creatio ex nihilo” is rather misleading. It should read not “creation out of nothing” but “creation not out of something”. Nothing existed before the start of creation. You can get nothing out of nothing. The second is that Krauss et al define a “nothing” which is actually a kind of universal quantum field, in other words a physical entity out of which they can propose quantum processes that could do various things - not really nothing at all - but this is all total conjecture, of course. I discuss these things in more detail in my book “Signposts to God” which I hope the moderators will not mind my mentioning. Hope this helps.
Nature, whether creation in God or no, has always existed. The simplest quasi-rational explanation is that nihilo is unstable. But none of the four levels of nine types of multiverse mentions that. There are no signposts to God in physics, i.e. Greek for nature. Nature alone is stranger than God. Not rational. Not reasonable. Not intuitive. Not in the negentropic dark energy driven accelerating expansion of spacetime. Not in the collision of 11D branes that nucleate universes. They aren’t signposts to anything at all.
Ha! I’m reminded of an old joke.
- Mr. X goes to Doctor Z for a consult.
- Doctor Z asks: “What can I do for you?”
- Mr. X says: "My last doctor says I have an incurable cancer. Can you do anything for me?
- Doctor Z says: “Why, yes, I can. Just a moment …” Doctor Z then reaches into a desk drawer, pulls out a gun, and shoots Mr. X, killing him.
- Doctor Z then buzzes his receptionist and says: “Send the next patient in.”
- Mr. Y walks into the Doctor’s office, and Doctor Z says to him: “Hello, henceforth, you are Mr. X, and you’ve been cured.”
I’m afraid these quasi-mystical statements do not add up to anything scientific even though the vocabulary is impressive. “Nothing” cannot be ascribed any characteristics, certainly not instability since that implies the existence of time. There are good physical arguments against the cosmos always having existed - but this is not the place to expound them. Even Krauss was persuaded in debate that the universe “probably” had a beginning. But please continue to exercise faith and love!
I know the universe had a beginning, like the infinity of others from eternity, unless it’s an infinite inflationary ergodic one of course. Nothing cannot be rationally ascribed the characteristic of instability. So what? Postmodernism is right, rationality is just a narrative, reality is something else.
Nature’s eternity isn’t mystical. The multiverse isn’t mystical. The accelerating expansion of the universe isn’t mystical. Mysterious, yes.