Saturday, October 13, 2007

A good argument against the veracity of the Bible.

>>>...I could see your point if there were really good arguments against the Bible's veracity...

Hi, Jim. I agree that *bad* arguments against the Bible's veracity abound. I am probably a disappointment to some on this very blog because I am quick to point out a weak argument, and quick to side with a good one, even if it is not in keeping with the declared purpose of this list (http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com).

Obviously, there are so many assertions made in the Bible, such as the alleged resurrection of Jesus, which it is difficult to prove one way or another because of the inaccessibility of the alleged witnesses and the resurrected Jesus.

Also, many of the arguments made against the Bible are very petty, and many are just wrong!

But for me, the one discovery that more than anything else laid bare the very human and primitive nature of the Bible was its complete ignorance in the matter of cosmology. Its story is played out in a world that is completely different from the real world. We have the Biblical description, we have the telescopes and there is no match.

I'm referring to the following Biblical view of the world:

* the sky ceiling

Gen 1:
6  And God said, Let there be a firmament [rigid structure] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from

the waters.
7  And God made the firmament [rigid structure], and divided the waters which were under the firmament [rigid structure] from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

I understand why "Moses" might imagine that there was a ceiling holding waters above the dry land. I understand why pre-scientific people might accept this view. Why not? The sky is blue, so it certainly looks like water. It rains, snows and hails, so obviously there is water up there. And to support water, you need a solid structure. You just need "windows" (they didn't have glass - windows were just portals). It really seemed to fit the data that they had back then.

Further, Moses thought that God was a manlike deity who lived in a similar civilization to the one he was familiar with, just above the sky ceiling. This is why repeatedly the prophets would see the heavens open and see God in his throne room, accompanied by messengers who regularly came down to the land to gather intel and report to the great king. Or, they would be dispatched to come to the land to bring messages from the great king. These messengers were God's sons, and they, like God, were men as well. In fact, some abandoned their sky home to come to the land and live the American dream.

Is this just a shortcoming in the Genesis account? No, it is a false view of the world that persists on every page of the Bible. Here is an obvious example from Revelation:

Re 4:1  After this I looked, and, behold, a door [a hatch] was opened in heaven [the rigid sky ceiling]: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

Re 11:12  And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

Note that "heaven" just means "sky." If you look at Christian art through the centuries you will see that this was clearly how it was understood. But with the invention of the telescope, it has been redescribed as a place that exists in the "spirit dimension." This appeal to dualism is clearly a dodge. The obvious fact is that the telescope revealed that the cosmology of the Church was wrong.

Note that one does not "switch dimensions" to get to "a spiritual heaven" but rather one travels, rocket like, to the sky:

Acts 1:
9  And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10  And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11  Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

So, to my mind, this is "a good argument against the veracity of the Bible." It is clearly not written by a God who had any inkling about the immensity of space, or that we are on the side of a spinning ball. It was written by pre-scientific men who were ignorant of things we now know by direct observation. They believed and spoke of matters in the Bible **which we do not need to go back in time to confidently falsify**.

I can produce reams of scriptures that echo this error if you need them.

I cover this and other "Shockers" in my book, "Bible Shockers!" http://bibleshockers.com

Bill Ross

23 comments:

Stephen said...

I have just read your blog. Your argument re sky ceiling etc falls down when you read on in Genesis about the flood. The expanse on Gen 1:6 in the midst of the waters was the atmosphere, sky. The earth orignally was surrounded in water and water was at it's centre. This may explain the slower aging process in original creation (that is discounting the effect of the fall ie sin). The waters were then released when God judged the world by a flood. The other verses you quote must be understood in their context. The verses in Revelation do not mean a literal door in heaven but it depicts in picture language the access and egress from heaven. Willing to chat but not sure if you have an open mind of are already set in your views. Stephen

WoundedEgo said...

Hi, Stephen.

Did you know that your name is "crown" in Greek? I think it is a great name.

I could be wrong, of course, but I try to call them as I see them, and I can't help but see this issue the way that I have described. If you show me something I haven't seen before, I'll lap it up like a dog, I assure you.

The issue of the cosmology is not one that I derive from a few obscure texts. On every page of the scriptures, God is "up." This in itself betrays a primitive understanding of the universe, since we are on the side of a spinning ball, and what is "up" in the morning is "down" in the evening. Yet, God is always "above."

So you have an unrelenting testimony to the ancient Hebrew view of the universe that is geocentric.

Certainly you can see why I might understand this to be the cosmology represented in the scriptures, no? I mean, consider this scene:

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Clearly the "Ancient of Days" is none other than God himself, yes? And the clouds accompany the "human being" as he approaches him, yes? So the clouds are the frontier of the sky kingdom. This is why Jesus must *ascend* to God, rather than "cross dimensions" into a "spirit realm."

Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

2Sa 22:12 And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies.

Job 22:14 Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.

Psa 18:11 He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.

Psa 68:34 Ascribe ye strength unto God: his excellency is over Israel, and his strength [stronghold] is in the clouds.

Psa 78:23 Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven,

Psa 97:2 Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne.

Psa 104:3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:

Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Nah 1:3 The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.

Where is God? In his "heaven" (sky):

Psa 11:4 The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD'S throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men.

And what is "heaven?"

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament [solid structure] Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Tim Goree said...

Is it at all possible that Heaven is an actual place in the universe? If so, anyone who was visited by a being from Heaven would certainly be observed entering and leaving the Earth from and to the sky (just like a rocket). When observing a rocket lift off, it appears to go nearly straight up, no matter what its final destination is, right?

In Isaiah, Satan states his goal to take over Heaven and become greater than God. In that statement, he says a few interesting things about where Heaven is physically located. Isaiah 14:13 and 14:
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

"above the heights of the clouds" and "above the stars of God" are statements that are reasonable, knowing what we know about space. The reference to the direction "north" is particularly interesting. If you look to the north from any location on the planet, you are looking in the same direction. Carrying a virtual gaze through to its endpoint takes you to the North Pole, then in a particular direction off in space (the direction that the North Pole of Earth points).

Astronomers have discovered, using the telescopes that you claim have invalidated the Bible, that in that particular direction of space there appears to be a hole in the sky where there are no stars. A possible physical passageway?

This reminds me of Job 26:7 which says:
"He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth on nothing."

Oh, and Stephen is right when he references the idea that the Earth at one time was surrounded by water. There is plenty of scientific evidence that supports the idea of the Earth having a climate (even at the poles) that was tropical. There is a theory that before the flood, nobody had actually ever seen the Sun directly because of constant cloud cover. This would explain why, after the flood, a rainbow (the first one ever) would have been an amazing (and memorable) sight (and promise from God). As you probably know, it takes the Sun shining through water particles at a particular angle to produce one.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>Is it at all possible that Heaven is an actual place in the universe?

The Hebrew and Greek words just mean "sky" or "skies" (skies being in layers). And yes, these are above us, spread out like a tent:

Genesis 1:8a And God called the firmament Heaven...

"Firmament" means "[solid ]structure." It held rain water. So yes, it refers to a particular place in the "universe" (though the ancients had a watery conception of the universe, ala Thales).

>>>If so, anyone who was visited by a being from Heaven would certainly be observed entering and leaving the Earth from and to the sky (just like a rocket).

Yes. I think you are agreeing with me...

>>>When observing a rocket lift off, it appears to go nearly straight up, no matter what its final destination is, right?

Current technology has striven to escape gravity by traveling as straight a line as possible. The next generation will use lift, like airplanes do, for most of the trip, so will follow a different path. I don't think that arguing that Jesus would have conserved energy by traveling straight up, even if God's kingdom had rotated off the horizon is really meaningful. Clearly, God is always up because they believed the land, abyss and sky structure to be stationary. In fact, they were connected by pillars.

>>>In Isaiah, Satan states his goal to take over Heaven and become greater than God.

I'm afraid that that is a reference to Nebuchadnezzar, who attempted to build the tower of Babylon (now Iraq) to reach the sky.

>>>In that statement, he says a few interesting things about where Heaven is physically located. Isaiah 14:13 and 14:
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
"above the heights of the clouds" and "above the stars of God" are statements that are reasonable, knowing what we know about space.

Yes, but God expresses concern that he will accomplish it with his puny tower:

Genesis 1:
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 ¶ And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>The reference to the direction "north" is particularly interesting. If you look to the north from any location on the planet, you are looking in the same direction. Carrying a virtual gaze through to its endpoint takes you to the North Pole, then in a particular direction off in space (the direction that the North Pole of Earth points).

So, are you suggesting that Jesus took off straight up, then, when he escaped gravity, he turned North, and then arrived at the new Jerusalem? If so, then what would God see when he looked down? He would see only Santa and his elves. But what the scriptures report is that he sees men, but they are so tiny from way up there that they look like grasshoppers to him:

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, ***and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers***; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Note that the dry land is approximately in the shape of a circle below him, and the sky is like a curtain (a thin canopy) which forms a tent to live in. Who lives in it? God. And the sun:

Psalm 19:
1b The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
...
4b In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

But even the North is not static in reality, as the spinning ball travels in a vast elipstic orbit around the sun. The difference between the winter and summer solstices is about a couple hundred million miles. So a stationary object would at times be a couple hundred miles from that which is at another time beneath it. At the center of the orbit, it would be above the sun, and a minimum of 91 million miles from our planet.

Also, our planet is tilted, but the tilt does not change, regardless of which side of the sun it is on, so if it moved to the opposite side of the new Jerusalem, the axis would point in a different direction.

Astronomy will not fix this problem.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>Astronomers have discovered, using the telescopes that you claim have invalidated the Bible, that in that particular direction of space there appears to be a hole in the sky where there are no stars. A possible physical passageway?
This reminds me of Job 26:7 which says:
"He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth on nothing."

The word translated "north" is TSAWFON/BOREALIS - which is what they called the "north wind." His point is that the north wind travels around with no visible support.

But as you go on in the passage, because he clearly believes that the sky structure is supported by pillars (note verse 11):

7 He stretcheth out the north [wind] over the empty place, and hangeth the earth [dry land] upon nothing.
8 He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.
9 He holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it.
10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

>>>Oh, and Stephen is right when he references the idea that the Earth at one time was surrounded by water. There is plenty of scientific evidence that supports the idea of the Earth having a climate (even at the poles) that was tropical.

Well that is interesting. Is Stephen aware that there are 40,000 years of ice layers at Vostok? Would that be tropical ice?

>>>There is a theory that before the flood, nobody had actually ever seen the Sun directly because of constant cloud cover. This would explain why, after the flood, a rainbow (the first one ever) would have been an amazing (and memorable) sight (and promise from God). As you probably know, it takes the Sun shining through water particles at a particular angle to produce one.

You can get it from a hose on a sunny day:

Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

TriCoachTre' said...

In addition, hell is depicted as below the earth level. The cosmology of the Bible doesn't raise any concern for veracity to me. In fact, the Bible talks about currents of water under the earth before man even verified them. Also, the magnetic field around the earth is described "when he set a compass upon the face of the depth"(Proverbs 8:27).

Your arguments about up and north don't hold much weight. If one is looking up in Jerusalem, then up is up. This is not a very good argument against veracity! Also, there is a 'hole' in the ozone near the North Pole; perhaps that's the old throne of Satan who used to rule the place?

Think of this, too, in that we have been placed on the spiral arm of this galaxy and not deep in it. That allows us to have a fairly clear atmosphere to see other solar systems. In our position, we're able to measure our surroundings but still have an habitable place.

WoundedEgo said...

Thanks for posting.

The "compass" is actually a mistranslation. See some of the more modern translations here:

http://bible.cc/proverbs/8-27.htm

The verse is actually saying that the dry land [earth, not the planet] is a flat roundish structure underneath the sky, where God is.

The idea of "currents under the dry land [earth, not the planet]" is that the dry land was placed on mysterious pillars on the surface of a bottomless ocean:

Psalm 24:
1 ¶ «A Psalm of David.» The earth is the LORD’S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
2 For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.

And yes, hADES is the "underworld" - directly from Greek mythology.

Have a great day.

Glenn said...

I love how this line is used by the religious nutz! "The other verses you quote must be understood in their context." The religious nutz say this when someone is using quotes from the bible to show just how twisted and sick their religion really is. Then the religious nutz do the same thing! They read a line from the bible and try to convince everyone that what the words say is not what they mean. If the entire bible was quoted, the religious nutz would say it was all taken out of context! It doesn't matter what line you quote, the religious nutz would say you're taking it out of context if you don't see it their way. The bible is nothing more than a bunch of recycled stories from other dead religions. Most people don't realize that christianity is an arabic religion. I know, their headquarters is in Rome, but it's origin is the middle east. The middle east, you know, where all the terrorists come from. Where women are demonized. Where people are convinced by someone to blow up themselves, and "gods enemies". If you believe in talking snakes, 900 year old people, and that you have an "invisible friend", STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM ME!

-Don said...

Thank you for a very insightful post. I too have major problems with the validity of the Bible based on elements of science (cosmology). For me if God is this all powerful creature and doesn't want people to screw up his message then why is it so far from observable science? I see numerous arguments where we are supposed to realize that humans mess things up but isn't the whole point of the "word of God" that it is perfect and instead we are left with multiple errors. If it was truly the word of God then he should have thrown in some stuff that would stand the test of time. Nothing in Genesis even comes close to this idea. If you can't even get the intro right why should I believe anything else?

For a moment lets assume it's ok to mess up on the cosmology though, it was the stupid humans doing bad interpretation...what about the morality? We are supposed to love everyone but kill anyone that does anything unacceptable?? You aren't supposed to question anything God says in his book but you should kill others for no reason other than they don't accept it.

Then the part that is really amazing to me, I am supposed to believe completely in the Bible (a book) without any personal evidence of miracles and yet the disciples that followed Jesus were allowed to be skeptics (Saul : Paul) until miracles were shown to them...and now I get to go to hell for eternity for those doubts. Shouldn't God give me the same knowledge that those in the past were given to make my choice? Knowing that technology would eventually exist that could prove/disprove his power shouldn't he be showing some miracles to us now in a lab? If it was important to demonstrate proof of miracles then why pick a time in history when that proof was impossible? Skepticism is part of what makes us human and it seems awfully cruel to want to punish us for eternity when you can't even produce a consistent story.

The zealots can't even agree which books are the bible. Isn't it a sin to leave out parts? The current Bible is a mix of the stories that blend to form an idea that supports the guys that are doing the picking. It wasn't written directly by the hero of the story either. Wouldn't Jesus have done a better job of telling the story than a bunch of guys that didn't write it until many years after the events?

So I submit that the only way the Bible can have any merit is if God is a lawyer and wants to trick humanity with a lot of flawed writings. The only ones that should be "saved" are those that question it and can see the flaws and demand for more. For me the Bible shows exactly what not to be...a foolish person that accepts anything that is written despite obvious flaws just because someone wants to call it holy.

WoundedEgo said...

Thanks for posting, Don.

-Don said...

Very nice explanation here, I like the details provided verse by verse. I've gotten past fighting over the small parts of the Bible and instead focus on the glaring issues...cosmology is one of them. Genesis is about as far from science as is possible. The religious arguments to try and prove it are so laughable it is hardly worth debate. A book that is said to be perfect that can't seem to get any of the details right. Given the God described in that likes to send locusts and stuff when he gets pissed...you would think he would have wiped out humanity long ago for messing it up.

How about the larger picture errors? We are supposed to love everyone regardless of their crimes unless that crime is disagreeing with the Bible...then we kill them. Usually death isn't good enough, it has to be something dramatic like the whole town stoning them to death.

Lastly we are supposed to believe in the Bible based on faith but the actual writers couldn't believe things on faith without proof via miracles. So I am supposed to believe a story where the writers admit they wouldn't believe it if they hadn't seen it, some even didn't believe it until more proof was given later (like Paul being a skeptic until Jesus appeared after death)...but I am to suffer eternally for having the same skepticism they had but without any proof. Why did God see it necessary to give them repeated bits of proof, numerous miracles didn't prove it so let me resurrect a dead guy but I have to accept it on faith. It simply defies logic.

The only real miracle I see here is that so many still believe in a story that is obviously flawed that preaches a morality that is obviously flawed. It is good that some followers do good things in the name of it, that is about it's only real value.

-Don said...

Oops, thought my first post didn't make it...I got an error. Thought it was length so I tried to summarize :)

WoundedEgo said...

Don, again, thanks for posting.

So are you quite satisfied with the atheistic and scientific view of this reality?

Jeff O'Toole said...

I think a central concept to keep in mind is that if the bible is inspired by God it is written for the benefit of people that have lived across thousands of years. We tend to think (sometimes) that the bible must only make sense to us. If it was written purely for our age it would express things differently.

Also keep in mind that the purpose of the Bible is not Cosmology, Biology or any other scientific endeavor - it is to teach us about our relationship with God and man. So when a message is given to a people who are less scientifically advanced than ourselves, the idea is not to clear up their scientific misunderstandings along the way.

I remember someone arguing that the bible was wrong because it called a whale a big fish instead of a mammal. The debate about whether the "big fish" was actually a whale or not aside, it is unreasonable to expect the bible to say something along the lines of "Jonah was swallowed by what you call a big fish but is actually a sea creature of a class you have yet to discover". The classification of the animal is irrelevant to the story and is easily understood by us in our day too.

So the ancient Hebrews had a belief about the structure of the Cosmos. The bible does not set out to correct this understanding - its message is about God. So an ancient Hebrew does not get a vision of being translated into another dimension (a concept he has no understanding of) but instead sees a door open in the heavens. This picture is still useful to us today even though we think in terms of dimensions. The movie Stargate among others pictures portals as "gates" to symbolize a point of entry to another dimension.

The creation story is different because there is nothing to imply it is symbolic. As such I agree with those that say atmospheric conditions were consistent with a firmament prior to the flood (as is evident in Genesis).

WoundedEgo said...

Hi, Jeff. Thanks for visiting and commenting.

As to the idea that there was an ice expanse in Genesis 1 that is no longer there after the flood does not cohere because the stories all the way through the scriptures presume that it is still there.

Tony Joyce said...

Glad to find this post, as its currently something I too am studying. I have come upon a question that really can only be answered by creation...thus far. Its simple, Oxygen. How did it come to be?

Of course water on the planet explains that, however, as far as I can tell there is no 'real' explanation for the creation of that element in the scientific model of things.

Just something to considee.

Also, there arenthings like 'dark energy', etc. that are really just fictional numbers being used to explain things. Explore the interior of an atom and you will see what i am expressing.

The point is, we cant know, unless we "know". And the word written in the Bible so long ago foretold of this falling away from the creator. Whether one holds to this faith or not, the move away from scriptural beliefs toward physical (i.e. mortal) understanding is definatly underway.

Personally, I believe we are supposed to explore and question, as it is this which allows us to see the miracle of creation...whatever our beliefs, and in doing so we cant but see the perfection it all. And it is quite spectacular.

Seeking to explain why something must not be true based on the interpretaion of the words is really just accademic bickering. The reality is a lot of science is just theory on what we observe at this moment, and at this moment science has a lot more explaining to do than the Bible. Which, from my point of view is the rules. Play by them, or make your own...the results are the same... We will never know the truth as long as we are mortal.

And I think any good scientist would acknowledge that, at least theoretically, intelligent design can not be dismissed...

my 2 cents. Again thanks for the topic.

Tony Joyce said...

Sorry. I forgot to ask what is wrong with the morality of the Bible. So far as I understand it, you got your 10 commandments...and Jesus preaching love and giving us all a break from the wrath of God.

The rest of it is man doing everything we are told not to do, aka free will.
Please forgive the double post.

WoundedEgo said...

The process of identifying credible explanations of how various things came to be has two methodologies:

* how did god do it?
* how did physics do it?

Whenever physics fails to provide an explanation god wins a point (and vice-versa).

So far physics is 99.99999% more likely to get you to Pluto than is religion...

Tony Joyce said...

I will bypass the pluto statement, because i can not see how travelling 3 billion miles is relevant.

But am I understanding you correctly: in that you are saying that if we can assign a measurement system to something, be it time, force, distance, etc. then it disproves intelligent design?

WoundedEgo said...

Hi Tony and thank you for your comment.

I'm saying that science is useful in predicting events while religion is not. If you think that you can pray and make snow hail tomorrow while I look at weather data and say that there is no way... well... do you really think your prayer is going to suspend the weather cycle? Granted that in the grand scheme of things such an anomaly might occur but it would have a physical cause.

Scientists don't "pray their way" to Pluto. They deduce from analysis of physics and they get there.

Preferring Genesis 1 to scientific inquiry is a foolish bet.

Tony Joyce said...

Thank you for taking time to post on an interesting topic.

Yes, i see your point, and perhaps my ignorance led me to believe we are talking about cosmolgy...in relation to creationism.

So I will take a ride here. Sure, weather is science, and it can be predicted with some accuracy due to it being observable over time and having the knowledge of a myriad of sciences to draw data from. But it is within the whole of the sciences that the overall picture must be viewed.

Consider, the weather relies upon every particle in the universe to function - according to science, based on gravity. Due to earths magnetic field and its mass, distance from sun, the sun itself, etc we have an atmosphere...now if one just stopped and thought about all the systems right down to the atomic level that allows you and I to exist here you will innevitably end up in one of 3 places.

first, everything that exists has always existed and can only be in one of two states. Static, in which nothing changes (and remember we are on the atomic level, according to laws of physics), in which case we can not exist. or active, in which everything is active and all existance is being slowly crushed. Again according to the laws we could not exist. As well, the galaxies appear to be moving apart, which leads to pulsing universe theories, etc. which require more theories to explain.

This all has to be considered right down to the sub atomic particle level, based on the laws of physics.(with which i mostly agree)


Or you might consider, an infinite universe. No beginning, no end infinite possibilites in which case everything that exists is in yours or someone elses mind, or, well the possibilities are infinite.
Or the third, which seems to be the ongoing thought, it all came from nothing...which defys ALL human laws, physics, logical, or otherwise.

Now, based on science - even theoretical science, from multiverse down to the mystical quarks and gluons and whatever might be hiding inside that which makes up atoms. Add in forces like energy, magnetism, gravity, and probably billions more - they are all mysteries. And the sciences that try to explain them, and does often explain the physical cause and effect, like water to ice - doesnt explain how it all came to be. And never will.

Enter Intelligent design, or creationism, or whatever you choose to call it.

Now because you mention Gen 1, I will qualify myself as not religous, I do believe in God and Jesus and the overall message of the Bible. But I study many sciences and theories, because the more intricate this 'universe' becomes through our discoverys, the more amazing it becomes- by all the laws of physics...even theory...one starts to see the probability that such a structure could form at all, let alone from nothing, is infinitly small.

But it really is up to us individually, Science presents us a way to understand the mechanics, sometimes theoritically, of how it all works...but why is it all here? That depends on where we put our faith, who we put our faith in and how far we are willing to look.

Just as an aside, I like to think we exist in the mind of God.

WoundedEgo said...

I'm of the opinion that there is no defensible explanation for what is. It is, but really shouldn't be. That is, it is absurd to have an un-caused cause. So in the US you have two main competing views:

* the Big Bang (which explains things very well as far back as to a singularity but no further)

* that there always was an all powerful Jew, his father and a ghost. This explains things and yet does not explain any rational reason why these three beings should be there in the first place!

So my thought is that I accept the science of the Big Bang and abandon the question of the ultimate origin of the singularity as it is unanswerable at this time.