Religious books and a description of the Origins of the Universe according to science?

[Thomas]

ESTIMATED

Quite. We're all working with estimates.

This theory would appear to support the biblical statement, that the process of the division of the waters above from the waters below, [See Genesis 1: 6; KJV] or the division of the solar nebula cloud from the greater Galactic nebula cloud, began some five billion years ago, and that the whole process took just a few hundred million years, about 400 million years in fact, and the creation of our entire solar system was completed by about 4.6 billion years ago.

OK

our Milky-Way galaxy would be formed in the second generation of the universe, as the active universal forces brought about a division of the Solar nebular cloud [The Waters Below] from the Galactic nebular cloud [The Waters Above].

Hmmm. I could probably come up with a dozen alternative offerings that fit the Scriptural account. Darkness on the face of the deep being, of course, Dark Matter, and so on.

Much like the prophecies of Nostradamus can be applied to almost any situation, a fair dose of confirmation bias is at play, and should be accounted for.

This, of course, confirmation bias can be levelled at my own Catholic beliefs.

 

[Thomas]

continued from previous post.

Scientific confirmation of Genesis aside, is this heading towards some Big Reveal?

I only ask, because at the root of my inquiry is: If Genesis can be read to agree with the current cosmology ... so what?

I mean, I happen to think nothing in Genesis contradicts evolution. I do not read the Hexameron as literal 24-hour periods, but rather regard the whole thing in a metaphysical light. I think the 'light' speken of in the beginning is not solar or stellar or any kind of physical radiation.

The Hebrew Scriptures aren't about cosmology, they're about something far more meaningful. Man's relation with the Divine does not depend on science, nor does it need scientific validation.

Likewise, the physical sciences are, by their axioms, unsuited to the question of the existence of God, because it's axiomatic that God transcends all manner of empirical determination ... The sacred scribes of (nearly) every sacred tradition were well aware of that ...

So why the 21st century continues this non-debate is a symptom of a lack of understanding.

+++

By all means proceed with this theorising, it's obviously of interest to you, and may well be to others, and indeed there's elements that I have smiled and nodded at. You've obviously done a lot of research. But we must acknowledge that it's not infallible, nor is it proof that the ancient scribe understood 'scientific cosmology' and more than they mused over quantum mechanics ... and I do wonder if it's all leading somewhere ...

Best regards.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am not, in any childish "Do too, do not, do too squabble my friend.
I have simply answered the questions put to me by the kid with the scribbling on his head.

That is not an answer, that is an assertion.
Rather than lengthy posts give the reasons preferably in four lines.

 

[The Anointed]

Scientific confirmation of Genesis aside, is this heading towards some Big Reveal?

It was a big revelation to me.

I only ask, because at the root of my inquiry is: If Genesis can be read to agree with the current cosmology ... so what?

O how deep is the book of genesis

I mean, I happen to think nothing in Genesis contradicts evolution. I do not read the Hexameron as literal 24-hour periods, but rather regard the whole thing in a metaphysical light. I think the 'light' speken of in the beginning is not solar or stellar or any kind of physical radiation.

And I believe that God did call the first light into existence to light up the darkness of the expanding space and that the six days of creation are six separate generations of the universe.

According to the ancients, we live in an eternal oscillating universe that expands outward and contracts back to its beginning in space time, a living universal being who is all that exists, and in who, all that is, exists. A universe that exists in the two states of seemingly visible matter and invisible energy.

“Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all, the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara, or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds would seem as an eternity, or but a moment in time.

‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that proceeds the next creative day. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest in which we now exist are referred to in the book of Genesis 2: 4; as the “GENERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE.”

The English word “Generation,” is translated from the Hebrew “toledoth,” which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as ‘births,’ or ‘descendants,’ such as “These are the generations of Adam,” or “these are the generations of Abraham, and Genesis 2: 4; it is written concerning the six days of creation; “These are the generations of the Universe or the heavens and earth, etc.” And the ‘Great Day’ in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which those who attain to perfection, are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not attain to perfection are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles of endless rebirths that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

To the Hindu, Lord Krishnu, the ‘EIGHTH’ manifestation, or rather, the eighth descendant of Vishnu the savior, is the Supreme Personality to have developed within Brahman, the root of which word [Brahman] originally meant 'SPEECH' much like the 'WORD'.

Enoch the righteous, wrote that God created an ‘EIGHTH’ day also, so that it should be the first after his works, and it is a day eternal with neither hours, days, weeks, months or years, for all time is stuck together in one aeon, etc, etc, and all who enter into the generation of the Light beings, are able to visit all those worlds that still exist in Space-Time, but not in our time.

A series of worlds following one upon the other-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.

The Hebrew Scriptures aren't about cosmology, they're about something far more meaningful. Man's relation with the Divine does not depend on science, nor does it need scientific validation.

Likewise, the physical sciences are, by their axioms, unsuited to the question of the existence of God, because it's axiomatic that God transcends all manner of empirical determination ... The sacred scribes of (nearly) every sacred tradition were well aware of that ...

So why the 21st century continues this non-debate is a symptom of a lack of understanding.

i believe Paul who said that everything that can be known about God is plain to us, for he made it plain in the creation. Which I see as the manifestation of himself.

+++

By all means proceed with this theorising, it's obviously of interest to you, and may well be to others, and indeed there's elements that I have smiled and nodded at. You've obviously done a lot of research. But we must acknowledge that it's not infallible, nor is it proof that the ancient scribe understood 'scientific cosmology' and more than they mused over quantum mechanics ... and I do wonder if it's all leading somewhere ...


Best regards.

Well thank you for your blessing and your permission to continue on in my religious endeavors.

 

[Thomas]

O how deep is the book of genesis

Deep indeed, but then as we know, that's the nature of sacra doctrina, it's a gateway to the Transcendent, the Infinite.

And I believe that God did call the first light into existence to light up the darkness of the expanding space and that the six days of creation are six separate generations of the universe.

Here we differ. I stress the metaphysical sense, whereas you seem to stress the physical sense.

Well thank you for your blessing and your permission to continue on in my religious endeavors.

Oh dear ... have I offended?

 

[wil]

have the evidence that proves to me that there is a creator and that creator, is the creator of all that exists

We are fully aware you BELIEVE, you have evidence that proves to YOU! (whatever)

We are clueless as to why you think it proves anything to everybody

I am not, in any childish "Do too, do not, do too squabble my friend

That was EXACTLY where you were when I made the comment, you have now reverted to your tldr response mode.

It makes for an interesting show from my seat in the audience, but I don't see many heads nodding in agreement with your rock solid conjecture

 

[The Anointed]

We are fully aware you BELIEVE, you have evidence that proves to YOU! (whatever)

When you say 'WE' are you one of those people who believe that they have the authority to speak for everyone on this forum?

We are clueless as to why you think it proves anything to everybody

I said that I have the evidence that proves to 'ME' that there is a creator and that creator, is the creator of all that exists. So, what makes you say that I 'THINK' that evidence proves everything to EVERYBODY? Do you believe that you are some sort of mind reader, or are you just trying to twist what I had said?

That was EXACTLY where you were when I made the comment, you have now reverted to your tldr response mode.

Wrong again, I was simply answering the questions of the kid with the scribble on his head, and after those answers, [YES] and [I HAVE SCIENCE TO PROVE IT] I have ignored the boy.

It makes for an interesting show from my seat in the audience, but I don't see many heads nodding in agreement with your rock solid conjecture

Not unless you have Superman vision, anyway, do continue to enjoy the show old mate, cos there's more to come.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

From observation of the Scripture I got the impression that God never revealed natural science. The prophets received inspiration letting their thoughts be guided by the Holy Spirit. Still, they were restricted in that they had to be able to think what is inspired.
One of the 99 attributive Names of Allah is "Teacher". But He didn't teach facts. He taught us how to live in His creation, to become one with His Rule and His Spirit.

What we find out by science is part of His rules. If we use this knowledge to strengthen our efforts to live in harmony with Him, it will be fruitful. If not, our knowledge will not save us but put us in serious danger.

 

[EricPH]

I believe the first sentence in Genesis to be an absolute truth. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. How God created the heavens and the Earth, is open to interpretation and speculation.

The science around creation is fascinating, but unless it includes God, I have no interest.

 

[RJM]

The science around creation is fascinating, but unless it includes God, I have no interest.

That's up to you. Who else cares?

 

[theMadJW]

A few years ago, I ventured into the claim that the Quran gave a detailed description on how Allah created the Universe. Or let me elaborate a bit more.
An Islamic Scholar, Zakir Naik participated in a debate with Dr. William Campbell at the University of Chicago with the theme: 'the Bible, the Quran, in relation to science. In the year 2000
At that stage I was still an Atheist, and I was fascinated at what this scholar said, especially as he was making a mockery of the Christian Dr Campbell.

After I watched the video where about 3 000 audience was entertained by Dr Naik's antics, I decided to investigate all his claims for my own benefit.

I especially liked the statement Dr Naik said:
"If the God of the Bible gave an incorrect description on how He created everything, we can conclude with safety that such a God can not be God at all!"

Well, this was when I was introduced to the Quran, and I started to collect every book on the subject, learned about Dr Maurice Buchaile (Who incidentally was the source of Dr Naik's information) and other Muslim scholars such as Ahmad Deedad etc.

It took me about 3 years to work through the Bible, the Quran and these external information to get an answer.
Once I discovered how lies was preached and spread on what the Bible and Quran said etc. I realized that the Quran was in error, yet I could not prove the Bible wrong at all concerning its description about the Origins of the Universe.

Eventually I realized that this simple description corresponded exactly to what science knows today.
Actually, I was shocked to learn that science plagiarized Genesis 1 on the subject. But more on that at a later stage.

I think that bringing this journey which I walked 15 years ago to you, might do one of 2 things.
1. You will get information you never knew before and will make you to rethink claims made by Muslim scholars.
2. You will be able to refute the facts that I believe is evidence that the God of the Bible is the only God.

But before I start to give my story, Perhaps you would like to give me your point of view about the topic.
What do you think?
Does the Bible or Quran have any value to scientific descriptions?
Is it evidence that God authored the scriptures in question?
Or is this totally far founded and there is no ancient scripture describing science as we know it today?

There was something about the moon I can't remember!

 

[EricPH]

That's up to you. Who else cares?

Science has no conclusive evidence; to show how the universe and life came to be. The BB is unsatisfactory, because you have to ask, where did the matter and energy come from, that set the BB in motion?

 

[RJM]

Science has no conclusive evidence; to show how the universe and life came to be. The BB is unsatisfactory, because you have to ask, where did the matter and energy come from, that set the BB in motion?

But that's the whole point of science not to resort to supernatural explanations. Science can never say 'God did it' and that rests the case. Science can never be controlled in what questions it asks or what answers it gets by people who don't like the answers? I do apologise if my tone sounded rude, however.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Not unless you have Superman vision, anyway, do continue to enjoy the show old mate, cos there's more to come.

Apparently not?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't look to the Bible or Qur'an to learn about science..

Looking at Bible or Quran will not help you to learn about science. For a beginning, check Wikipedia or Google Search.

 

[RJM]

Science has no conclusive evidence; to show how the universe and life came to be. The BB is unsatisfactory, because you have to ask, where did the matter and energy come from, that set the BB in motion?

Again I apologize for the rude sounding tone of my original response. It just doesn't fly to start a scientific discussion about the BB and evolution etc, by saying: "I refuse to even hear whatever you have to say, unless you include God?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Science has no conclusive evidence; to show how the universe and life came to be. The BB is unsatisfactory, because you have to ask, where did the matter and energy come from, that set the BB in motion?

First causes questions start to become about the philosophy of science and lend themselves to philosophy or theology more broadly, because, science is data driven, history is too in a different way, and trying to get data that support any theory gets harder and harder the farther you go back in time. Archaeology and ancient history run into this problem as well. Geology not so much as the rocks and earth structures being studied are very old, thus there is data millions of years old for that type of science to study. Life sciences are a little trickier but they have fossils and they can extrapolate a lot of information from data they can collect from recent genetic information. I am saying this as a non-expert in any of those fields.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara, or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds would seem as an eternity, or but a moment in time.

‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that proceeds the next creative day. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest in which we now exist are referred to in the book of Genesis 2: 4; as the “GENERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE.”

To the Hindu, Lord Krishnu, the ‘EIGHTH’ manifestation, or rather, the eighth descendant of Vishnu the savior, is the Supreme Personality to have developed within Brahman, the root of which word [Brahman] originally meant 'SPEECH' much like the 'WORD'.

Do not write about what you do not know, and do not give a wrong twist to what other's believe. You did not even spell Krishna correctly.
The creation in Hinduism is instantaneous, much like the Big Bang. God desires it and it springs up. Science postulates that Big Bang and 'Inflation' (expansion of the universe) took just 10^-32 second. Why would a God labor for six days to create the universe?

"The inflationary epoch is believed to have lasted from 10^−36 seconds to between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds after the Big Bang."

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Manvantara is an epoch of time, a time for change. Manvantara is not followed by a 'pralaya' (Great dissolution). A manvantara lasts for 306,720,000 human years while 'pralaya' occurs after 311.04 trillion years. The current manvantara has 426,876 years to go. That is the life cycle of the universe as believed by theist Hindus. They believe that we are in the 51st Kalpa (an epoch greater than a manvantara, consisting of 14 manvantaras each). We have sort of crossed half the time and 156 trillion years remaining for the next 'Pralaya'.
(Of course, I am an atheist Hindu and do not believe in any clap-trap whether Hindu or any other).

Brahman is from the PIE root bṛh- "to swell, expand, grow, enlarge" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman#Etymology_and_related_terms. That is what the universe did after coming into existence and still does. Universe is called Brahma in Sanskrit, Hindi. and many other Indian languages derived from Indo-European root language - that which expanded.

 

[EricPH]

Again I apologize for the rude sounding tone of my original response.

No need to apologise, I understand my response can be seen as confrontational.

It just doesn't fly to start a scientific discussion about the BB and evolution etc, by saying: "I refuse to even hear whatever you have to say, unless you include God?

Science will never have convincing proof in my lifetime, to show how the universe and life came to be. We have lots of interesting and conflicting ideas, but no hard evidence how matter and energy first came into existence. To be fair, the BB, probably destroyed any pre-existing evidence.

The most any of us can claim is beliefs, some believe the universe came into existence by natural causes. I believe God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

 

[RJM]

Science will never have convincing proof in my lifetime, to show how the universe and life came to be. We have lots of interesting and conflicting ideas, but no hard evidence how matter and energy first came into existence. To be fair, the BB, probably destroyed any pre-existing evidence.

I know. I quite understand.

There's been this mission creep in science from correctly insisting that faith beliefs should not influence research into nature, to actively insisting there is no greater power. That is not a scientific statement, imo

In a way I think it's a reaction to the Bible thumping pressure by religionists. As always the two extreme sides deserve and perpetuate one another, with ordinary people caught in the crossfire. I'm sure there are many scientists who are happy to quietly get on with their research, without diverting to write books crusading against religion -- the 'shut up and calculate' approach.

I personally have no problem at all accepting abiogenesis and BB theories into my faith, as the mechanism of nature. The problem would be to refuse to even consider them, because they don't fit my own religious beliefs?

The complexity of a single blade of grass is an infinitely wonderful revelation, imo