The Biblical Big Bang

[JimL]

I think God used the ideas and concepts that people were familiar with in order to make it clear that God created everything including numerous things that people worshiped as gods rather than try to convey a science lesson.

Or just maybe people used the ideas and concepts that people were familiar with in order to explain their concept of creation.

[lee_merrill]

But not ex nihilo.

[rossum]

So, it was not from "nothing" but from nothing and God. If God were not already present then there would still be nothing.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I'm familiar with your idea shunya, but if you mean that the substance of the natural world existed eternally alongside of the substance of the supernatural then what you're suggesting amounts to there being two distinct eternal substances. The one can't be the reflection of the other because they are distinct in nature. You might as well say there are two gods.

Of course what I propose may be rejected because of the lack of objective evidence, but is a better option than the culture bound anthoporpnic God with hands on CReation from absolutely nothing. There may or may not be two eternal substances, but to me that's ok. Attributes of God are not necessarily distinctly physical. For example the Laws of Natureare reflected in the physical existence as attributes of God, but in and of themselves are not physical. The actual fundamental nature of our physical existence is grounded in the Quantum nothingness, which alone borders on non-physical. Reflecting the attribute of God does not translate to God being physical.

[lee_merrill]

So, it was not from "nothing" but from nothing and God. If God were not already present then there would still be nothing.

But creation ex nihilo implies a Creator! It just means God did not create using pre-existing matter or energy.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Much of the initial opposition to the Big Bang theory from some scientists was that it too closely resembled what is written in Genesis.

The Big Bang may not be the best explanation for the origin of the universe. If the cyclic models turn out to be the best explanation would 'some' reject it because it does not closely resemble what is written in Genesis.

Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/big-bounce-simulations-challenge-the-big-bang-20200804/

Big Bounce Simulations Challenge the Big Bang

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

So, it was not from "nothing" but from nothing and God. If God were not already present then there would still be nothing.

If the substance of the universe differs from the substance of it's creator then it was created by that creator ex nihilo, puff, from out of nothing. To say it was created out of "nothing and god" doesn't make sense, because nothing denotes no-thing, not some-thing.

[JimL]

Of course what I propose may be rejected because of the lack of objective evidence, but is a better option than the culture bound anthoporpnic God with hands on CReation from absolutely nothing. There may or may not be two eternal substances, but to me that's ok. Attributes of God are not necessarily distinctly physical. For example the Laws of Natureare reflected in the physical existence as attributes of God, but in and of themselves are not physical.

I don't understand. What attributes are you talking about with respect to god and nature? And why would the laws of nature be the attributes of non nature?

The actual fundamental nature of our physical existence is grounded in the Quantum nothingness, which alone borders on non-physical. Reflecting the attribute of God does not translate to God being physical.

Not nothingness. Nothing comes from nothing.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=JimL;770933]I don't understand. What attributes are you talking about with respect to god and nature? And why would the laws of nature be the attributes of non nature? I God exists God is God and doesnot fit in any human synario. I just offered an alternative religious view that does fit an infinite eternal physical existence reflecting the attibutes of God.

Not nothingness. Nothing comes from nothing.

All our physcial existence arises from Quantum Nothingness. Look it up.

[JimL]

I God exists God is God and doesnot fit in any human synario.

That's not necessarily true. Even you apply to god human attributes. But even if so, even if god does not fit any human scenario, that's no reason to make up non human scenarios.

I just offered an alternative religious view that does fit an infinite eternal physical existence reflecting the attibutes of God.

Well okay, that's an idea, but I just don't think the universe being a reflection of gods attributes makes any sense from the human perspective. I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that exactly.

All our physcial existence arises from Quantum Nothingness. Look it up.

What is a quantum fluctuation, shunya? It isn't "nothing" fluctuating.

[rossum]

But creation ex nihilo implies a Creator! It just means God did not create using pre-existing matter or energy.

In some cases He did just that: "Let the waters bring forth..." "Let the earth bring forth..." and Adam was fashioned from pre-existing dust/clay. Genesis says God used a variety of methods.

[rossum]

If the substance of the universe differs from the substance of it's creator ...

I reject the concept of "substance"; it is a reification and has no real existence outside human imagination.

[shunyadragon]

That's not necessarily true. Even you apply to god human attributes. But even if so, even if god does not fit any human scenario, that's no reason to make up non human scenarios.

Well okay, that's an idea, but I just don't think the universe being a reflection of gods attributes makes any sense from the human perspective. I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that exactly.

That's ok, but I am not arguing for the existence of God. I am giving alternative to the origins of the universe, and object to justifying a scientific interpretation of Genesis, based on the Big Bang Theory, which may not be how the universe began. The other problem is if the Big Bang is how our universe began it is very very unlikely that we are the only universe in a possibly infinite and eternal physical existence.

What is a quantum fluctuation, shunya? It isn't "nothing" fluctuating.

Quantum Nothing fluctuating.

Actually, this thread should be in apoogetics, because science is not a 'reason to believe.'

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are correct of course:

Why the Bible is not a science textbook:

FADE IN:

SCENE: Inside a tent in the desert. There is a small table and chair in the middle of the tent. Some baggage is stacked at the back.

Characters: GOD invisible and omnipresent. MOSES offstage.

MOSES enters the tent.

MOSES: "What a day! If I ever see another grain of sand I swear that I am goi..."

GOD: "Moses!"

MOSES: (surprised) "Yes Lord!"

GOD: "Get pen, ink and papyrus."

MOSES goes to the baggage and fetches a pen, ink and papyrus. He takes them to the table and sits down.

GOD: "Begin writing."

MOSES: "Yes Lord."

GOD: "In the beginning I created a quantum fluctuation at the hyper-sub-quark level ..."

MOSES: (interrupting) "Sorry Lord. Was that spelled K-W-A-H-K?"

GOD: "Hmmm. I foresee a problem. Humans will not discover hyper-sub-quarks for another 8,726 years three months and sixteen days. Perhaps something less cosmological might work better. Moses, begin a new sheet of papyrus."

MOSES picks up a new piece of papyrus and prepares to write.

GOD: "In the beginning I created deoxyribonucleic acid ..."

MOSES: (interrupting) "Sorry Lord, but could you spell that please?"

GOD: "Oy vey! Why did I make these people so dumb?"

GOD touches a finger to Moses' forehead.

MOSES: "Ah, now I understand. Thank you for giving me all that knowledge Lord. Unfortunately I see a problem. If I write 'deoxyribonucleic acid' then none of the other Israelites will know what the he... heck I have written about unless you touch all their foreheads as well."

GOD: "Hmmm. A good point Moses. Let me think about it for a few thousand years."

MOSES: "But what do I do while I am waiting?"

GOD: "Never mind, I have finished thinking."

MOSES: "That was never thousands of years."

GOD: (angrily) "Do you doubt Me! Time is Mine to command. It is subject to Me, not Me to it."

MOSES: (humbly) "Sorry Lord."

GOD: "Start a new piece of papyrus."

MOSES picks up a new piece of papyrus and prepares to write.

GOD: "In the beginning I created the heavens and the earth ..."

FADE OUT:

That is brilliant. On a par with Socrates meeting Jesus!

[JimL]

I reject the concept of "substance"; it is a reification and has no real existence outside human imagination.

Not sure what you mean by that rossum. A reification of what, non-existence?