Is it possible that the universe could be eternal??...

[LinuxGal]

In all fairness to Genesis, virtual photons cannot be seen.

close enough for religious work.

In another place the Bible has 10 times pi equal to 30 rather than 31, so I guess you're right.

[LinuxGal]

Genesis 1 is a summary. In just one page, a flawless overview of 13.79 B. years of natural history written some 3 tya that miraculously describes the sequential steps (which perfectly align with the scientific record) by which Earth became ready for human habitation. Genesis 2 like all other references adds details to the summary. Gen 2, in particular, gives a spiritual perspective on creation; thus, it begins to elaborate on the ‘purpose’ of creation.

In Genesis 1, birds were created on day five. Man was created after birds, on day six.

Then in Genesis 2, man was created before birds.

Oops.

[Mister Agenda]

There are two possibilities: the universe had a beginning or it didn't. Only omniscience can explain a religion getting that one right. /s

[Mister Agenda]

Genesis 1 is a summary.

How do you know that it is a summary of a long period of time as opposed to a literal account of a short one?  This is just shameless retconning.

Meh, I'd rather have them distort their religion to fit science than vice versa.

[Jehanne]

There are two possibilities: the universe had a beginning or it didn't. Only omniscience can explain a religion getting that one right. /s

Finite, yet unbounded, may be a third possibility.

[Mister Agenda]

There are two possibilities: the universe had a beginning or it didn't. Only omniscience can explain a religion getting that one right. /s

Finite, yet unbounded, may be a third possibility.

Not sure how that doesn't mean 'didn't have a beginning'.

[LinuxGal]

How do you know that it is a summary of a long period of time as opposed to a literal account of a short one?  This is just shameless retconning.

Meh, I'd rather have them distort their religion to fit science than vice versa.

They can distort science all they want, as long as their papers don't even make the pre-print archive.

[Jehanne]

Finite, yet unbounded, may be a third possibility.

Not sure how that doesn't mean 'didn't have a beginning'.

Wikipedia -- Hartle–Hawking state

[Angrboda]

Not sure how that doesn't mean 'didn't have a beginning'.

Wikipedia -- Hartle–Hawking state

I think Mister Agenda's point is that there is a valid instance of the excluded middle here, and Hawking-Hartle doesn't rebut that conclusion.

It's the same as saying that an atheist lacks a belief in a god, yet in some way, unspecified, an ignostic doesn't fall into that category.

[Jehanne]

Wikipedia -- Hartle–Hawking state

I think Mister Agenda's point is that there is a valid instance of the excluded middle here, and Hawking-Hartle doesn't rebut that conclusion.

It's the same as saying that an atheist lacks a belief in a god, yet in some way, unspecified, an ignostic doesn't fall into that category.

The present paper demonstrates the failure of the principle of excluded middle (PEM) in the lattice of all closed linear subspaces of a Hilbert space (usually defined as quantum logic). Namely, it is shown that for a qubit, a proposition and its negation can be both false. Since PEM is the assumed theorem of quantum logic, this raises the question: If PEM holds in the orthocomplemented lattice of all propositions of the quantum system, then how the failure of PEM in quantum logic can be explained? Alternatively, if the propositions relating to the quantum system do not obey PEM, then what is the semantics of those propositions? Possible answers to these questions are analyzed in the present paper

.
arXiv -- Do quantum propositions obey the principle of excluded middle?

It's one (preprint) paper by one author, which doesn't prove anything, but, maybe there is more here than meets the eye, or Aristotelian dialectic logic.