It would be a shame if you were here to peddle a false dichotomy, Soldat.

(October 17, 2016 at 3:02 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: ...the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew...She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb "bara"...does not mean "to create" but to "spatially separate".

Definitely a minority opinion. All the more unlikely since verse four uses a different word, root Beit-Dalet-Lamed, which means commonly means "separate", the same thing as "divide".

(October 17, 2016 at 3:02 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Also the Hebrew word used for God in Gen 1:1 is "Elohim" and that is plural.

Meaning what exactly? If you are suggesting polytheism then you do so only by ignoring the whole counsel of Scripture. The best interpretation of that word choice was that the author is referring to the Divine Council which would include not only YHVH but the various heavenly host mentioned elsewhere, such as cherubim, angels, and seraphim.

(October 17, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: ""to set it all in motion"? Who says it hasn't been in motion since forever?
How do you know?"

Anybody who is still stuck on this, you need to get with the times.
"All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning" -Vilenkin

Get with the times, huh?
Did I say Universe? Or did I say "all"? Can you envisage a scenario where those two are not coincident? I can.
Can we, humans, affirm that all that exists is contained in this Universe? NO.

Ultimately, you can't claim anything about any beginning, because you don't know if there was one... you can only claim something about this Universe....

(October 17, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: "Everything only applies to what we observe (as far as we know)"

So you agree with me?

"Wasn't it Thomas Aquinas that first put this "uncaused cause" into writing? He didn't even know about the big-bang! Kudos to him! But... still wrong!"

The big bang doesn't prove anything in that regard, all it does is confirm there was a begining. Anything before that is theory. Any attempt at a material explanation is self deafeating. Only a supernatural cause is plausable.

Confirm that our Universe had a beginning. Keep up with the times.
The big bang can't tell you anything about space-time... only about the space-time contained within this Universe.

Don't act like a smug human, thinking you know things you can't possibly know.
If you want to be honest, all you can say is that you don't know if there is a beginning. Anything else, you'll be having to preface everything with a mighty big IF.

(October 17, 2016 at 3:02 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 2:52 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: I don't know exactly HOW the God created everything, just like you don't. It's all theory.

We know it would have to be simutaniously, the bible accounts for this...

In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)

Some theories are better than others...like one's that use known science and have far greater predictive power + much less special pleading.


And nothing for nothing but....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew.

She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb "bara", which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean "to create" but to "spatially separate".
The first sentence should now read "in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth"

Also the Hebrew word used for God in Gen 1:1 is "Elohim" and that is plural.



Also, are you at all familiar with the Ain Soph Aur and the Tzimtzum of the ancient Judiac creation story?

This all sounds very interesting, i'll have to dig into the details once i get off work, i've been a naughty boy texting on the clock.

But i can say right now none of this disproves the creation account in genesis. Also, elohiem is still accurate within the context of the trinity doctrine, you've probably heard of it. This inference at a triarchy is repeated throughout the bible, for example john1:1.
In the begining was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god.

The word is reference to Jesus



Also i would agree with you, the goal is to find the most probable answer isn't that correct? Well it certainly doesn't lie in favor of matter created mind/ order out of chaos theory.

Psalm 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
Psalm 82:6 I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most high.
Psalm 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

(October 17, 2016 at 3:55 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 3:02 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: ...the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew...She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb "bara"...does not mean "to create" but to "spatially separate".

Definitely a minority opinion. All the more unlikely since verse four uses a different word, root Beit-Dalet-Lamed, which means commonly means "separate", the same thing as "divide".

(October 17, 2016 at 3:02 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Also the Hebrew word used for God in Gen 1:1 is "Elohim" and that is plural.

Meaning what exactly? If you are suggesting polytheism then you do so only by ignoring the whole counsel of Scripture. The best interpretation of that word choice was that the author is referring to the Divine Council which would include not only YHVH but the various heavenly host mentioned elsewhere, such as cherubim, angels, and seraphim.

Is majority opinion an indication of truth?

Bara' from Strong's concordance: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1254.htm

I. בָּרָא53 verb shape, create (compare Arabic probably loan-word, form, fashion by cutting, shape out, pare a reed for writing, a stick for an arrow, but also , create; Phoenician הברא CISi. 347 incisor, a trade involving cutting; Assyrian barû, make, create, COTGloss & Hpt KAT2Gloss 1 but dubious; Sabean ברא found, build, DHMZMG 1883, 413, synonym בנה; BaZA. 1888, 58, compare Assyrian banû, create, beget, with change of liquid; Aramaic בְּרָא, , create) —

And both are present in Gen 1:1. The pre-existing matter (Body of God) is shaped/formed into the heavens (stars) and earth (planets). The space between is created "ex nihilo", it is the relative "nothing" (space) created to have individual and separate "somethings" with borders (atoms, planets, stars, you, me, the universe)


An Infinite God is both One and All-ness. Are not all the individual colors present in unified white light? God is One that becomes a divided wholeness within creation in order to fully support it. Panenthism: God is both wholey one beyond creation and spread through it.

A literal/oral tradition retelling would read "In a beginning, created the God's of the heavens and the earth."

http://kehillatisrael.net/docs/dt/dt_bereshit.html

Truth is a relationship between an abstract and the concrete. When I say this pen is blue, it's only true insofar as the adjective blue is accurately descriptive of the pen. Truth is a relationship between two things, and that relationship only occurs in thought. So no, truth would not exist if there were no minds. Would it be true that the pen is blue if there were no one around to think it? No. The relationship only has meaning as something which the pen approaches if there is a mind to conceive of that congruity. Without such, all you have are things in themselves.

"The creator is the source of objectivity."
This is nothing more than a bare assertion. If there is no creator, then this is just gibberish. And even on your own terms it's not necessarily true. Most theologians agree that God is not able to do the logically impossible. Moreover, God's nature is such that he embodies truth; he can't violate his own nature. (by the definition of essence) So God is constrained by the laws of logic. Can God violate the PNC? If God is constrained by logic, then that is an objective truth that he did not create.

So we have a cosmological argument and some gibberish about a creator. This is all very underwhelming.

(October 17, 2016 at 4:25 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: But i can say right now none of this disproves the creation account in genesis. Also, elohiem is still accurate within the context of the trinity doctrine, you've probably heard of it. This inference at a triarchy is repeated throughout the bible, for example john1:1.
In the begining was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god.

The word is reference to Jesus



Also i would agree with you, the goal is to find the most probable answer isn't that correct? Well it certainly doesn't lie in favor of matter created mind/ order out of chaos theory.

I'm not trying to disprove it, I'm working to cut through it straightly as per 2 Tim 2:15

An extant infinite, considered as pure mass that has no border, has 3 relativistic spatial relationships with it's own substance/being. If you can immerse your consciousness/imagination in it and explore it, I'm fairly certain you can tell me what those very specific qualities of existence are.

Hint: Think of a sphere who's center is everywhere and finite periphery is nowhere.

Hey, that sound's familiar "I am the Eternal...I am that which created the Word...I am the Word." Egyptian book of coming forth by Day (wrongly translated "book of the dead")

The Word was a self expression of self existence by the original, eternal GOD. Imagine GOD looking around as an infinity and expressing (formation by vibration) "I am that I am" (I am that which is, I exist, my Name is forever). That is the vibration, the expression that creates the space to divide the heavens from the earth. Look up sono-luminescence and you will witness a vibration over waters that creates relative space and light in a lab.

I look for the most comprehensive model with the most evidential predictability and least special pleading/most simple and elegant solution aka Occam's razor.

(October 17, 2016 at 12:36 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 12:15 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Causality applies to THINGS IN our world.  You do not know that the Universe itself was ever caused to come into existence.  If you are going to say, "Well, everything is caused, but something may be uncaused," then this is special pleading-- and if you want to do that, why not hypothesize that the Universe is eternal and uncreated, instead of inventing a Sky Daddy to fulfill that role?

The Prime Mover and First Cause demonstrations take no stand with respect to whether the physical universe had a beginning or if it is eternal. The idea that the Big-Bang justifies either demonstration is a modern misconception.

Secondly, the debate takes for granted a modern notion of causality that has become problematic, i.e. that cause-effect relationships are based solely on temporally successive events. Just as embodied objects appear solid, but are not actually so, the idea of prior events are the 'cause' of later 'effects' creates an infinite regress of intermediate causes.

1)  Not talking about Big-Bang.
2)  What's less logical about an infinite regress than an uncaused cause?

As far as I can see it, either the Universe was never created, and is eternal, which blows the mind.  OR something created it, and what created THAT, and mind blown.  OR something created it, but itself never needed to be created, and mind blown.

None of these philosophical solutions really solves the problem we're honestly talking about-- that the reality of existence is incomprehensible to human understanding.  The God idea in this context is a philosophical cop-out, since it establishes a philosophical paradox in order to remedy a philosophical paradox.

It is the King of all Special Pleading.

(October 17, 2016 at 7:11 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 12:36 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The Prime Mover and First Cause demonstrations take no stand with respect to whether the physical universe had a beginning or if it is eternal. The idea that the Big-Bang justifies either demonstration is a modern misconception.

Secondly, the debate takes for granted a modern notion of causality that has become problematic, i.e. that cause-effect relationships are based solely on temporally successive events. Just as embodied objects appear solid, but are not actually so, the idea of prior events are the 'cause' of later 'effects' creates an infinite regress of intermediate causes.

1)  Not talking about Big-Bang.
2)  What's less logical about an infinite regress than an uncaused cause?

As far as I can see it, either the Universe was never created, and is eternal, which blows the mind.  OR something created it, and what created THAT, and mind blown.  OR something created it, but itself never needed to be created, and mind blown.

None of these philosophical solutions really solves the problem we're honestly talking about-- that the reality of existence is incomprehensible to human understanding.  The God idea in this context is a philosophical cop-out, since it establishes a philosophical paradox in order to remedy a philosophical paradox.

It is the King of all Special Pleading.

When you talk about "the universe" what is it's dominant quality?