An intellctual challange about one of the key issues of mankind

[Neonanocyborgasm]

There is no way to know or to have a shot at what is likely how a potential God is or other forms of potential supreme beings are

I think you should rephrase this in German.

 

[warpus]

In other word's you are only an authority if you have enough peers behind you to back you up?

No, when you've proven yourself to be one.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Attriction limits movement, but without it, we also have no way to trigger impulse or to control direction. Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, points out that reason (and induction - ergo, observation) are the anchors that prevents imagination from becaming lunacy.

Regards .

Yes, but lunacy is not the only or even the most likely outcome when one lessens the grip of rationality. An over indulgence of rationality can lead to psychopathic (?) behavior.

Yes, it does. But you and I have a greatly different conception of the subconscious. As far as I can tell, our subconscious is also trained by observation & rationality. It's just that we don't interpret the signals from our emotional centers well. When I explain the neuroanatomy of the emotional centers, I point out that emotions are a sensory experience, they 'flavor' the percepts. Emotional computation, much like gut computation, is not completely integrated with our consciousness and thus interacts with incomplete signalling. The neuroanatomy of the emotional centers were designed by evolution and trained in the same rational universe that the rest of my senses were. You CAN use the subconscious to augment your perceived intelligence, but you have to be aware that it can be deceived just as easily as your primary senses.

I'm not sure what a rational universe" is, but I know that most of us see the universe though a "rational lens, so it certainly appears rational. Your schizoid patients , I think, see the universe less rationally and might not agree that the universe is a rational place. I don't think we can just ignore the role of the observer. If we are looking for orderliness in the universe, we will probably find it and humans are exceptionally good at finding ways to organize things even if they are not really organized. Religion is a good example of this. We use religion to bring order to what otherwise appears to be chaos.

Eh? Observation, when coupled with rational thought, has lead to all discoveries and inventions that humans have ever made.

Yes they have, but they have also cordoned off much of human experience as unproven and false because reason is not a good guide there. I do not dispute the value of science and what it can and will discover, but it does actively discredit what falls outside of its particular methodology.

Precisely. If gods exist the effects of their actions will be observable and not explainable by any natural means. This leads to two possibilities:

1. If no effects of possible gods are observed, perhaps we're haven't found them yet. Perhaps, indeed. This is a called the God Of The Gaps reasoning. Many atheists consider this to be the last refuge of religious reasoning. I reject this idea as reasonable. It's like what happens when you turn off an old TV screen: At first the whole screen is alive and interesting, but then the only light is confined to a fast-retreating glow at the center of the screen, lingering for a half-minute, then finally gone. For good.

2. If an effect is observed but not yet explainable within the current framework of scientific understanding this does not automatically mean that gods exist. It simply means that we don't yet know why something happens. We now have a half-millenium (at least!) of experience with this situation. Given enough time, effort, and imagination, we eventually find a natural explanation for observed phenomena.

"If gods exist, the effects of their actions will be observable and not explainable by any natural means." I'm not sure this statement is true. While the exact nature of god comes into play in all this, let's ignore that for the moment. What if, at one level, god acts in the world through perfectly ordinary events to fulfill whatever is on god's mind. And then, at a different level, outside of the electro magnetic spectrum, gods sustains the universe in some godly fashion. In such a scenario, god and science might never cross paths and the need for debate would fade and we would all have discuss politics. Science would be free to push the limits of what it "knows" through observation and rationality and those who experience god in their daily lives get to explore the limits of what they can experience and imagine of god with or without the aid of reason.

 

[warpus]

Yes they have, but they have also cordoned off much of human experience as unproven and false because reason is not a good guide there. I do not dispute the value of science and what it can and will discover, but it does actively discredit what falls outside of its particular methodology.

How can science discredit anything though? Science is basically just a method, a way of doing things. You plug in data and reason -> you sometimes get results. Scientists do not forbid the exploration of other human experiences at all. How many scientists are spiritual? play in rock bands? and so forth?

I really have to stress the below as well:

All the human discoveries and inventions ever made happened when humans (or sometimes cats) used rational thought in conjunction with observational data.

Okay, so just kidding about the cats, but you agreed with that statement. It seems to be a pretty good combination of things when the result is every single invention ever invented and every single discovery ever discovered.

 

[Traitorfish]

In other word's you are only an authority if you have enough peers behind you to back you up?

Yes. That's why academic texts have reference lists.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Then one would argue back then there is no God, because of that very fact, that He does not choose to reveal Himself to all.

The problem is that if a person claims that God has revealed himself to him/her, other explanations for such a supposed revelation are way more likely. Delusions. Yes this does mean that if God revealed himself in deed to a few people, they would be called crazy even thou they actually know an important truth. But if one considers all factors, it is still the safest bet. And that is what knowledge is about. Finding out what is the safest bet. Until at one point we'll just assume this bet as a truth and call it knowledge. I.e. if I see a chair I won't touch it and measure every time I see one. I'll just assume so. And rightfully so. Chances are too low that at one point there suddenly is no chair even though I see one to use up my time exploring that chance.

I am still hoping for a response of you to my last post

I think you should rephrase this in German.

Why is that? As mentioned earlier I forgot to add "based on knowledge gained so far" and I guess I could write it in a more digestible manner. I'll take care of that.
There

There is no way to know or to have a shot at the likely nature of a potential God or other forms of potential supreme beings, based on all the knowledge collectively gained by humanity so far

Better?

No, when you've proven yourself to be one.

Even that is false. You people are defining how we determine who is an expert. Not what an expert actually is.

 

[Birdjaguar]

How can science discredit anything though? Science is basically just a method, a way of doing things. You plug in data and reason -> you sometimes get results. Scientists do not forbid the exploration of other human experiences at all. How many scientists are spiritual? play in rock bands? and so forth?

I really have to stress the below as well:

All the human discoveries and inventions ever made happened when humans (or sometimes cats) used rational thought in conjunction with observational data.

Okay, so just kidding about the cats, but you agreed with that statement. It seems to be a pretty good combination of things when the result is every single invention ever invented and every single discovery ever discovered.

Again, I do agree that it is a good combination for discovery of how things work and inventing new things. If one accepts that in the end everything can/will be brought under the umbrella of scientific methodology, then there will be no place for irrationality and experience (or god) in our lives. Everything can be explained.

Or, one can accept that science has it limits and there are things that we cannot/will not ever understand through science. In this instance irrationality, experience and perhaps even god have a place of importance among us.

Whether or not we actually have a choice in the matter is a whole other question.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Birdjaguar
I would think it to be beyond debate that we will never be able to explain everything using science. The number if things to be discovered is most likely infinite after all.
But I don't see the relation to believing in god except that we will never be able to prove that God does not exist. But that again is common knowledge.

 

[timtofly]

Yes, but lunacy is not the only or even the most likely outcome when one lessens the grip of rationality. An over indulgence of rationality can lead to psychopathic (?) behavior.

I'm not sure what a rational universe" is, but I know that most of us see the universe though a "rational lens, so it certainly appears rational. Your schizoid patients , I think, see the universe less rationally and might not agree that the universe is a rational place. I don't think we can just ignore the role of the observer. If we are looking for orderliness in the universe, we will probably find it and humans are exceptionally good at finding ways to organize things even if they are not really organized. Religion is a good example of this. We use religion to bring order to what otherwise appears to be chaos.

Yes they have, but they have also cordoned off much of human experience as unproven and false because reason is not a good guide there. I do not dispute the value of science and what it can and will discover, but it does actively discredit what falls outside of its particular methodology.



"If gods exist, the effects of their actions will be observable and not explainable by any natural means." I'm not sure this statement is true. While the exact nature of god comes into play in all this, let's ignore that for the moment. What if, at one level, god acts in the world through perfectly ordinary events to fulfill whatever is on god's mind. And then, at a different level, outside of the electro magnetic spectrum, gods sustains the universe in some godly fashion. In such a scenario, god and science might never cross paths and the need for debate would fade and we would all have discuss politics. Science would be free to push the limits of what it "knows" through observation and rationality and those who experience god in their daily lives get to explore the limits of what they can experience and imagine of god with or without the aid of reason.

Science does not explain how and why things happen. It just makes observable the knowledge we have and the ability to take facts and make predictions. Science can guess at what may happen in the future, but if predictions prove to be false, they are discarded. That does not discredit science, but pushes it to try harder for the correct answer. This allows human rational to have faith in science.

The rational of the observable is stronger and easier to explain than the rational of faith. Science in itself is not the problem. Science is just a tool.

Peter Grimes is very correct in his statement. However: God is not observable because "He does not reveal Himself". God is not observable because our "observations fall short of an ability to see any revelations". We have rational that allows us to explain a tremendous amount of things, but we cannot explain everything. We can observe the patterns of the weather, and we have gained a lot of ground, but we still cannot predict who will die as a result of the weather.

Immortality has always been an endeavor of our imagination since we have seen the first person die. Many try to explain what happens, but no one can thwart death. It is true that our rational has tried to explain death and reason it all out, but we cannot stop it. We also have the capacity to reason out a God. However the same reasoning we have that anything can be a delusion, also nullifies the ability to explain a God that could have created us.

Think about it for a second. We are smarter now and our wildest imagination cannot be proven. Back in the "stone" age when people were "ignorant", the largest "hoax" in history was started that people have refused to even try to rationalize. Thousands of people have kept up the lie and still have hope that it is true. They can talk about it, but it is unable to be observed by all, thus the majority has only one (rational default thought process) and that is science.

@ Warpus

Science can discredit, because it is a tool that can be used to cast doubt. Doubt is a very powerful tool that can be used, but is it an ethical tool?

Why is trolling fun? It is a humerous way to cast doubt. In the fable of the Troll, it was the troll that said, "You cannot do this". He was proven wrong, but only by those who saw past his ruse.

 

[warpus]

Even that is false. You people are defining how we determine who is an expert. Not what an expert actually is.

Well, yeah, that's the easier route. The definition of what an expert is depends on the field you're talking about.

Again, I do agree that it is a good combination for discovery of how things work and inventing new things. If one accepts that in the end everything can/will be brought under the umbrella of scientific methodology, then there will be no place for irrationality and experience (or god) in our lives. Everything can be explained.

Not everything can be brought under the umbrella of scientific methodology. There IS room for irrationality and religion. Not everything can be explained.

None of this contradicts with what I've been saying about science.

Or, one can accept that science has it limits and there are things that we cannot/will not ever understand through science. In this instance irrationality, experience and perhaps even god have a place of importance among us.

Yep, science has limits. Of course!

And yep, there's different forms of understanding, such as the understanding between two lovers for example, when they know what the other is thinking without speaking a word. Or when a monk meditates and comes closer to understanding himself in a deep trance.

There's room for all of that, and there's room for science. The realm of science is figuring out how stuff works, why things happen, making predictions about the future, and so on.. Let's leave this realm to science, because it is has demonstrated that it is superior at combining observable facts with reasoned thought to produce new knowledge about the Universe we live in.

All those other types of knowledge and understanding can play too, but they belong to different realms.

And like you used to say, if you bring the wrong tool (religion) for the job (figuring out how things in the Universe work).. you're not going to accomplish anything.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Why is that? As mentioned earlier I forgot to add "based on knowledge gained so far" and I guess I could write it in a more digestible manner. I'll take care of that.
There

Better?

Still sounds like gibberish. I suggested German due to my perceived language barrier.

 

[timtofly]

Sort of, but not really. In my opinion you're an expert on a subject when other people with a great degree of skill, training, and expertise in that same subject treat you as an expert.

I could be considered close to an expert in my field - I could teach a college level class, I could advise a graduate student. But I don't consider myself an absolute authority. Compared to the man on the street I'm an expert. Compared to my peers I'm at least average.


Yes, that would severely limit not only our knowledge, but also our *potential* knowledge and - most importantly - gods' potential powers. If gods are only capable of perturbing our neuronal firing patterns, then that fundamentally limits a god's freedom of action. In other words, that's not at all a god anything like the ones talked about in the bible.
speaking of which...

I'd say it's a common MYTH that the bible is the most sold book of all time. It could be true, but it's far from clear and depends on how you categorize the data. Besides, just because something's all over the place doesn't make it important. If that were the case Herpes would have more voting power in the US than people
EDIT: just re-read what you wrote.


Brain washing is decidedly not a way to gain knowledge. It's a method for imparting propaganda - which is pretty much defined as a skewed view of reality. So I don't think this counts. And if someone came up to me and said that they know something because the thought just popped into their head I'd be very skeptical of it. If, however, they said they believed something, well, that's fine. Go right ahead. You can believe anything you want. It may or may not be right, and you belief won't make a difference.

Just two points:

The Bible does talk about how thoughts can be manipulated internally. Most people who have come up with great ideas, usually credit an outside force. It is the natural thing to do. If a person says "that it was my own idea", they are usually seen as arrogant. Thought policing is a slippery slope, I am sure that most would not want to be held accountable by their thoughts. That is why we have the ability to reason and hopefully think before acting.

I think we agree on brainwashing, but it does provide a false sense of knowledge gained.

The problem is that if a person claims that God has revealed himself to him/her, other explanations for such a supposed revelation are way more likely. Delusions. Yes this does mean that if God revealed himself in deed to a few people, they would be called crazy even thou they actually know an important truth. But if one considers all factors, it is still the safest bet. And that is what knowledge is about. Finding out what is the safest bet. Until at one point we'll just assume this bet as a truth and call it knowledge. I.e. if I see a chair I won't touch it and measure every time I see one. I'll just assume so. And rightfully so. Chances are too low that at one point there suddenly is no chair even though I see one to use up my time exploring that chance.

I am still hoping for a response of you to my last post

Why is that? As mentioned earlier I forgot to add "based on knowledge gained so far" and I guess I could write it in a more digestible manner. I'll take care of that.
There

Better?

Even that is false. You people are defining how we determine who is an expert. Not what an expert actually is.

Post #57 was my response, but I purposely avoided answering your question(s) directly. Not because I refuse to, but not sure common ground has been reached. According to most responses I get, it is hard to understand my post. I am still trying to get to the point where; what makes sense to me rationally or irrationally; and my ability to communcate my thoughts in a comprehensive manner.

My delusion or knowledge: I can honestly say that God has not audibly spoken to me, ever. Anything that I know has been from reading about it. I am not an audible learner. I enjoy listening, but would rather learn through "viewing". If my "imagination" can kick in during listening, then I am ok, If not, I fall asleep. It is not that what is being said is boring perse, but I either have already had thoughts on the subject and it does not hold my attention or basically the definition of boring.

Faith is not that much different from science. In fact, if faith is not realized (rationalized), then it does become a delusion and falsifies itself. Doubt is realized and faith is lost. It is a little known fact that if a prophesy/prediction from God did not come to pass, that the one who had claimed to be "of God" was to be killed. Obviously it seemed that God did not want any one to cast doubt on His revelations. People may call this a fabrication, but supposedly the reason that the Jews wanted Jesus crucified was blasphemy and false prophecy.

Just like science can be used to strengthen a person's rational, so can faith. The problem is only the individual knows if he is delusional or not, since unlike science, faith is personal and not observable by all.

 

[warpus]

Most people who have come up with great ideas, usually credit an outside force.

I would like to contest that.

I challenge you to a battle of SCIENCE

Provide observational evidence for your claim.

 

[Berzerker]

God created the heavens (1st) and the earth (2nd).

Did God create these twice? In the 1st verse and in later verses when God creates Heaven and Earth "again"? The first verse is more accurately interpreted as saying "In the beginning when God created Heaven and Earth", or, "In the beginning of God's creation of Heaven and Earth". Genesis doesn't start with the 1st verse, it begins with the 2nd verse and Heaven and Earth dont actually show up in the story until after the waters and the Light (day) and more.

And take note of how God "created" the Earth, He gathered together the waters into Seas and the land appeared - you will never find in the Bible a claim that God created the waters in Gen 1:2, that verse describes the situation as God arrives to "create" and Light was His first act of creation. But the 2nd verse also shows the Earth did exist in a prior form, submerged under the water (ie not dry). That means the planet already existed too (covered by water), God didn't create this planet, God created the land. Look at how God defines "Earth", after the waters recede He calls it dry land.

You interpret this as a universe and a spinning world. I just say that it happened. Then God said let there be light. For those of you who think that this was a story from a stone age perspective, how else would they pass along the notion that this light was day and night?

I interpret night and day as a spinning world within range of a star, not the universe. And I interpret the "darkness" upon the waters in Gen 1:2 followed by the Light to mean that a dark water, covered world was given an orbital spin (or a new one) and a new orbit closer to that star.

Genesis and these various creation myths are not stories about the universe, they are stories about how this planet came to have life, and most of these myths say the same basic thing - the primordial world was covered by water and "God" brought forth land and life. The science says the same thing, but the god of science is a celestial collision ~ 4 bya followed by plate tectonics and life.

I imagine the collision would have pushed the Earth closer to the Sun leaving behind a bunch of debris and water/ice, that makes the asteroid belt a possible location for the hammered bracelet called Heaven, a screen dividing the solar system into 4 inner and 4 outer planets, or 5 inner and 5 outer (counting the moon and Pluto) with the latter fitting the description of the planets in the Enuma Elish.

There is no need for a spinning world to cause light and darkness if there is no sun sending that light to begin with.

But the Sun did exist, God called the Light "Day" and the darkness He called "Night", we know what causes this phenomenon - a spinning world close to a star. The Sun only appears in Genesis later because it wasn't relevant to what happened to the primordial world in Gen 1:2...

The first day was not light from the sun and probably not even a reference to a spinning earth. The earth spinning did not result in night and day. The earth was just spinning in the darkness of space.

Gen 1:2 shows it was in darkness and covered by water, and as a consequence of God's "wind" and the "Light", the world now had day and night. I'm not one to insist on literal interpretations since I dont even believe the 6 days of creation refer to actual days, but I'm having trouble finding a suitable metaphor to replace light/day and darkness/night. It sounds like you've replaced the Sun with God until the Sun appears in the story.

Seems to me that if a bright flash of energy (the big bang) that caused the universe to form and that formation was God, that if it started to make sense to people that those who reject God would start to discredit the Big Bang theory.

Some people have a hard time believing the creator of the universe came down here to write books, thats understandable.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Still sounds like gibberish. I suggested German due to my perceived language barrier.

Do you speak German? Also I was (and to a degree till am) sure to have done a decent job this time At least if one wants to stay with one sentence.

Post #57 was my response, but I purposely avoided answering your question(s) directly. Not because I refuse to, but not sure common ground has been reached. According to most responses I get, it is hard to understand my post.

So hard that I wouldn't have dreamed that this post was supposed to be related to mine. Which is why I would wish you responded to it directly, as this makes it way easier for me to comprehend and otherwise I feel we will get nowhere. Because frankly - often you don't make the impression to know where you are actually trying to go with your posts. So I think me giving the direction is the only hope we have if the purpose of this thread is supposed to have a chance.

Faith is not that much different from science. In fact, if faith is not realized (rationalized), then it does become a delusion and falsifies itself.

How so?

Just like science can be used to strengthen a person's rational, so can faith.

Again, how so?

 

[timtofly]

Do you speak German? Also I was (and to a degree till am) sure to have done a decent job this time At least if one wants to stay with one sentence.

So hard that I wouldn't have dreamed that this post was supposed to be related to mine. Which is why I would wish you responded to it directly, as this makes it way easier for me to comprehend and otherwise I feel we will get nowhere. Because frankly - often you don't make the impression to know where you are actually trying to go with your posts. So I think me giving the direction is the only hope we have if the purpose of this thread is supposed to have a chance.

How so?

Again, how so?

Ok, thanks for understanding my communication dillema. Believe it or not in real life, I do not say enough and am even worse, because I assume that others know what I am thinking.

Both science and faith are predicated on the known. Both do not know the outcome, but test are done to prove the prediction. Here is where the doubt comes in, and people have this false idea that faith is blind and cannot be based on the known.

It is in the thought process that an impression is given, that one must carry out something that is beyond their power to do. Faith does not come first, but the knowledge that is given in the "task" itself. It is not even the doing that counts, but the willingness to allow another to do it through oneself. That is why it is subjective and personal. No one else knows what is going on. It is the ability to realize that there is one greater than you that has done it through you, and faith is strengthened. This happens over and over as long as one is willing to give up their rights and allow themselves to be part of creation, instead of just being a "consumer" of creation.

That may have been too metaphysical, but it is about as concise as I can put it.

The results of faith/obedience and science are just as rational as science, and neither can really be explained, but they can be observed. It is easier for science due to it's repeatability. It is harder to repeat the metaphysical, especially since it is a personal command and not external. Remember that the brain can be mapped, but there is still a lot of unexplained things that happen in it.

Science can take predictions and make them understandable. Faith is personal and really only can be observed personally. Actually Faith can be observed, by more than one, however, even being open and vulnerable to others in matters of faith takes more faith than discussing the latest findings in science, because science is not personal, but a topic that can be picked up and discarded very easily.

Religion and the way people reject it is how faith can falsify itself. I have had feelings of doubt, but I have had more times where faith was strengthened. I am not sure if an athiest can explain why they doubt there is a God. IMO, He did let them down, from their perspective.

Did God create these twice? In the 1st verse and in later verses when God creates Heaven and Earth "again"? The first verse is more accurately interpreted as saying "In the beginning when God created Heaven and Earth", or, "In the beginning of God's creation of Heaven and Earth". Genesis doesn't start with the 1st verse, it begins with the 2nd verse and Heaven and Earth dont actually show up in the story until after the waters and the Light (day) and more.

And take note of how God "created" the Earth, He gathered together the waters into Seas and the land appeared - you will never find in the Bible a claim that God created the waters in Gen 1:2, that verse describes the situation as God arrives to "create" and Light was His first act of creation. But the 2nd verse also shows the Earth did exist in a prior form, submerged under the water (ie not dry). That means the planet already existed too (covered by water), God didn't create this planet, God created the land. Look at how God defines "Earth", after the waters recede He calls it dry land.



I interpret night and day as a spinning world within range of a star, not the universe. And I interpret the "darkness" upon the waters in Gen 1:2 followed by the Light to mean that a dark water, covered world was given an orbital spin (or a new one) and a new orbit closer to that star.

Genesis and these various creation myths are not stories about the universe, they are stories about how this planet came to have life, and most of these myths say the same basic thing - the primordial world was covered by water and "God" brought forth land and life. The science says the same thing, but the god of science is a celestial collision ~ 4 bya followed by plate tectonics and life.

I imagine the collision would have pushed the Earth closer to the Sun leaving behind a bunch of debris and water/ice, that makes the asteroid belt a possible location for the hammered bracelet called Heaven, a screen dividing the solar system into 4 inner and 4 outer planets, or 5 inner and 5 outer (counting the moon and Pluto) with the latter fitting the description of the planets in the Enuma Elish.



But the Sun did exist, God called the Light "Day" and the darkness He called "Night", we know what causes this phenomenon - a spinning world close to a star. The Sun only appears in Genesis later because it wasn't relevant to what happened to the primordial world in Gen 1:2...



Gen 1:2 shows it was in darkness and covered by water, and as a consequence of God's "wind" and the "Light", the world now had day and night. I'm not one to insist on literal interpretations since I dont even believe the 6 days of creation refer to actual days, but I'm having trouble finding a suitable metaphor to replace light/day and darkness/night. It sounds like you've replaced the Sun with God until the Sun appears in the story.



Some people have a hard time believing the creator of the universe came down here to write books, thats understandable.

It still seems that you are putting too much into a simple concept. Here is the Hebrew Text (in english) from the Jewish Library:

Spoiler :

1: IN THE beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.

2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of G-d hovered over the face of the waters.

3 And G-d said: 'Let there be light' And there was light.

4 And G-d saw the light, that it was good; and G-d divided the light from the darkness.

5 And G-d called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

6 And G-d said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters'.

7 And G-d made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

8 And G-d called the firmament Heaven And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 And G-d said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear' And it was so.

10 And G-d called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and G-d saw that it was good.

11 And G-d said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth' And it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and G-d saw that it was good.

13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14 And G-d said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;

15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth' And it was so.

16 And G-d made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.

17 And G-d set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and G-d saw that it was good.

19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

I really have nothing to add to what is said here. The word create is in the first verse.

God said let there be light. There is nothing really confusing about how light travels through the universe, and not neccessarily from the sun. I may have read it wrong, but is it not true that energy from a super nova as it is travelling through space can also join with certain matter and form new stars?

If God is the light of the "big bang" and He dispersed all of the energy at the point or directly after the creating of the heaven and the earth, that scientifically as this matter was being spread, it could have been preparing the universe and even forming other galaxies in the process?

It was not until there was a protective canopy of water surrounding the earth that He allowed the sun and the moon to exist. It was not that the earth was the center, but that in perspective to the "need" for time, it became a focal point. We still have not agreed on the need for time, or if it is possible to exist outside of it. If we could travel faster than this "God" light, then we may have well of figured God out also.

If God had given us a more complicated account, or if as supposed this was handed down through mythology, would it be easier or harder to comprehend? I am not adding anything to the account, I am trying to reason out what happened. I am not trying to downplay your explanation either. I have not had the privilege of even reading about similiar accounts.

Actually I interpret the let there be light as God infusing the universe as Himself. God is the light that is hid from our observation, but can be revealed at any moment. In my opinion, evening and morning and the fact that there is night and day is the ability of God to reveal or not reveal Himslef to us. I point to the verse that states that the sun and the moon were placed there for several reasons. I also propose that those reasons were not immedietely incorporated into reality, but were available for later insertion. The only obvious one was the actual night and day at the end of the list for the obvious reason that there was a sun that allowed night and day to exist.

My apologies to SiLL if this is derailing the thread.

 

[Berzerker]

1: IN THE beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.

2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of G-d hovered over the face of the waters.

Okay, how can you interpret that to mean God created the Earth in Gen 1:1 but the Earth is unformed and void in the very next verse? To me it reads, "In the beginning when God created Heaven and Earth, the Earth was unformed and void, etc... It either reads that way or you must explain why Heaven and Earth appear again later in the story. Were they created twice? No, the 1st verse tells us the title of the story that follows - God created Heaven and Earth and here's how he did it.

6 And G-d said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters'.

7 And G-d made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

8 And G-d called the firmament Heaven And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

According to you Heaven was already created in Gen 1:1 and here it is being created on the 2nd day, how do you explain that? And if this firmament called Heaven is the universe, why doesn't it encompass the waters rather than dividing them?

9 And G-d said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear' And it was so.

10 And G-d called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and G-d saw that it was good.

And the Earth appears on the 3rd day? You said Heaven and Earth were already created but they dont show up until the 2nd and 3rd days? And God called the dry land Earth. The dry land, not the planet... God did not create the waters, Heaven is the firmament placed amidst the waters to divide them and the Earth is the dry land, neither is water...

14 And G-d said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years

The universe is not limited to a few lights in the sky we use for calendars.

It was not until there was a protective canopy of water surrounding the earth that He allowed the sun and the moon to exist.

The Earth was under water in Gen 1:2

 

[FredLC]

Yes, but lunacy is not the only or even the most likely outcome when one lessens the grip of rationality. An over indulgence of rationality can lead to psychopathic (?) behavior.

Come again? Too much reason is the seed of psychopathic behavior?

I'm dying to see you defend this one, I'll even leave out commenting on lunacy for now.

Regards .

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@timtofly
First thanks for sharing your personal experience with faith. I think I understand what you mean. I even sincerely know the feeling that there is something "bigger", something that is responsible, "above" us. But in contrast to you, I decided to not give in, to rather "consume" as you name it.

And the reason I did this is what I already discussed - the aspect of likeliness. I.e. I have this feeling you are talking about, this "power" of emotional nature, and my instincts may lead me into the direction of God. Because God actually is the source? Maybe. But there are other possible explanations. There is always the possibility that my feelings, my instincts fool me. They do so on a regular basis. In fact, empirics show us that reality and emotional reality are two very distinct entities. They can overlap, but they can also strongly diverge.

I.e. instincts told people that the world is flat. Wasn't the case. Instincts told people that the sun revolves around the earth. Wasn't the case. The list goes on and on and on, those are just demonstratively obvious examples. To name an example of another category - instincts told people the Jews are the devil. Wasn't the case.
So when looking at the empirics, I conclude that instincts - while surely useful in many ways - can't be actually trusted when it comes to explaining the world, the universe or the very nature of existence. Instinctive explanations have no reliable likeness to be true in those instances.
As a consequence, I don't trust this sense of a higher being.

However, if this instinct is so intense that you feel compelled to assume so anyway, I can understand that. But can you understand why I say it is by objective standards not likely?

My apologies to SiLL if this is derailing the thread.

I am derailing threads all the time.