In the Beginning...

[Leoreth]

How do we kill this thread?

cant kill whats already dead

 

[timtofly]

It may surprise you to know that Numeri, nor Exodus, nor Genesis are counted among the Bible's historical books. And here's - in part - why:



Source missing.



I'm so glad. In case you missed the jist of my comment: no 1 or 2 million people could have survived for 40 years in the desert. That's not even possible today.

Secondly, according to Numeri the Hebrew tribes had a fighting force of 600,000 men. The Egyptian army under Ramses II consisted of 40,000 total - and swept through Palestine and Syria without opposition to face the Hittites at Kadesh.

And yet, 600,000 Hebrews were unable to take a single city in Palestine.

Something tells me these ancient Hebrews couldn't count.

Something tells me you create straw men to make a point. Perhaps the Hebrew writers did too. You failed to mention that though, so they probably did not. It should not be that hard to get males who have nothing to do to form groups of fifty, one hundred, and even one thousand. Communist nations today like to show off their troops in array. So humans seem fairly capable of doing so.

Let's get rid of the straw man that these were trained fighting troops. More than likely not even 500 of the 605,0000 men counted would have the ability to muster any form of combat. 500 x 10,000 = 500,000. It would take at least 600 to train 10,000 troops each.

We do know that there were 70 men appointed over a group of 50. That is 350. If each of the 350 were over a group of 100 that would be 35,000. If the 350 were over a group of 1000 that would be 350,000. The odds would be that out of 305,000 people it may be possible to find 600 males who picked up fighting from the Egyptians. That still does not tell how many males we have who actually were willing to fight. In fact we were told, that all of the original 605,000 males refused to fight.

Btw, if you had 350 over 10,000 each, there would be 3.5m. We were told they could group by 1000. It would not be that difficult to put 10 groups of 1000 people together. Ever been to a football stadium?

Are you trying to make a point that no one can survive in the middle east today? How many people live in Jordan, and Iraq today? Or in the dessert between them? The whole point was they were a displaced people group and half if not more did die in the dessert whether or not it took 40 years.

Why do you need a source for 400 years? You already stated, you do not accept most if anything written in the Torah.

 

[Perfection]

500 x 10,000 = 500,000

 

[Agent327]

Something tells me you create straw men to make a point. Perhaps the Hebrew writers did too. You failed to mention that though, so they probably did not. (...)

You already stated, you do not accept most if anything written in the Torah.

Interesting straw man you got there.

Also interesting how you completely miss the point that the Hebrew tribes when entering Palestine could not possibly have numbered 1 or 2 million. Interesting as well that you completely read over me pointing out that Genesis, Exodus and Numeri are not counted among what is considered as being the Bible's historical books. That's not mine, but scholarly opinion.

 

[timtofly]

70 * 50 does not equal 350. It equals 3,500. I need a new math editor.

Interesting straw man you got there.

Also interesting how you completely miss the point that the Hebrew tribes when entering Palestine could not possibly have numbered 1 or 2 million. Interesting as well that you completely read over me pointing out that Genesis, Exodus and Numeri are not counted among what is considered as being the Bible's historical books. That's not mine, but scholarly opinion.

You requested chapter and verse. Even when I attempted to do any math, you evaded the point by comparing the event to some military endeavor. If I give you chapter and verse, the answer comes back about "scholarly opinion". Do you not accept such "opinion"? That seems very vague, and attributing the Torah, as not being a part of their intended historical writings, you avoided the point that the author was God. What the Hebrews did or how they handled the writing after the experience, does not change that fact. The Hebrews called it the Law, and defined it as a covenant between them and the entity that gave this Law to them.

I agree that the Torah is not history as given by scholarly opinion. Perhaps if you share your definition of history, I can understand why you disagree with that straw man. I can only guess that if the Torah was not historical, then it never happened. I may be wrong, but have you not been pointing out that logically "nothing makes sense" as it was "written" so therefore it is not historical nor has any relevance at all?

Now we are back to the point that the Hebrews fabricated their whole elaborate history. If they got all their information right or wrong, they were terrible at their religion. I also think that scholarly opinion points out that a religion starts at the point of the experience and does not waver much from the given precepts. Now you want me to accept that they made it up at least 750 years after the event, and then wrote a history of 750 years to boot. Then to top it off at least another 2,610 year history before that, just before they were captured by the Babylonians whom they copied parts from, then again re-edited just to lie to future generations that they were a legitimate religion. That is the straw man of the scholarly assumptions, because that seems to be the only plausible explanation if there was never a Moses and encounter with this entity they called God. That is what biblical critics want to argue instead of legitimizing an actual entity that we, and every religion refers to in concept, God. God being a concept around which a religion is formed, does not negate the fact that such an entity does not exist. Nor does the fact that there are religions, prove that God actually exist. The only proof is actual contact with God.

Religion has always been, and can only be a description of the unknown aspects of God. Like wise, science can only be the revelation of the unknown aspects of the universe. Philosophy seems to be the reasoning and logic to reconcile God with the universe.

 

[Berzerker]

Actually, it does no such thing. It might make the 7th day holy though.

Not all days were holy, but the day identified by the number 7 was.

Close enough. But that means there was no light. Not, as you claim:

It means there was no day, the world wasn't spinning near a star yet but was covered by water and darkness.

Which the Genesis authors simply neglected to mention?

They mentioned it, the world went from water and darkness (further from the sun at the snow line) to day and night with the sky ruled by two great lights. Those lights weren't so great further from the sun where the world was covered by water and darkness.

The authors also said the water was one before God divided it with Heaven - that means the water, including our water, was located where Heaven is now. Thats the firmament, the hammered out bracelet - the asteroid belt.

And that means more of our water is on the other side of Heaven - the waters above were separated from the waters below. The waters below became our seas and the water above can be found beyond the snow line.

Which is incorrect. 'Signs' is something we find in astrology, not astronomy. (Which, interestingly, is exactly what I commented.)

You ignored etc... It means more than just signs. How do you know what astronomers were doing back then? They were watching the sky for signs, like the heliacal rising of stars to tell the time of year or the age. Like Jesus being the lamb and the fish, Aries was giving way to Pisces.

You may have noticed Genesis follows the order of whole numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7.

But why?

Still not showing any god being replaced. Marduk, in the Babylonian version, took over the role of creator god. It may surprise you to know that each Mesopotamian city had its own city god. This was the central god for that city. Ergo, they would use their city god in the rol of creator god if that befitted their mythology.

Did earlier versions give Marduk the role of creator? The link said Anu, Enlil and Ninurta were the heroes of an earlier version and Marduk replaced one of them (Ninurta) and his father Ea replaced Enlil. Anu remained because he was the father of both Enlil and Ea.

No, it wasn't. What on Earth would make you think that land (a matter) could be without form? Everything material has form.

I didn't say land or matter was without form, I said (dry) land submerged by an ocean is not in the form of dry land.

The first part of that statement is correct.

The Enuma Elish is recorded knowledge

It was an explanation of what was most likely to happen.

From a single impact... Not multiple impacts. And I dont buy that either, there is not a near 100% chance an object at the asteroid belt would fall into the sun because of a collision.

No. I'm pointing out that you have more chance of winning the lottery 10 times in a row.

Thats near 100%... But that was your prediction from a single impact. You said multiple 'precise' impacts could have delivered the Earth to this location from the asteroid belt. Well, if they weren't quite precise the Earth might have ended up a little closer or a little further from the sun. And yet those multiple impacts would have been precise for delivering Earth a little closer or further from the sun.

You fail to acknowledge the conclusion: no such impacts occurred. Ergo, Earth didn't start out t the asteroid belt.

Earth has been hit many times, the period 4+bya preceding the appearance of dry land and life is called the late heavy bombardment because the Earth was pummeled so badly our evidence of that earlier world was nearly destroyed leaving us some zircons...and of course the water.

And recent research suggests during this period several large impactors collided with the Earth. The Enuma Elish describes several "winds" striking Tiamat as Marduk deals the final blow before having another wind take part of her corpse to a new location (here).

I'll explain the sentence to you (i.e. what you wrote):

1) Ptolemy described the visible

2) that doesn't preclude planets that were unseen.

You may notice that visible contradicts unseen.

Now do you understand what you wrote?

The word was preclude... Visible planets do not preclude the existence of unseen planets. I know an unseen planet is not visible (you built my alleged lie on that straw man?). And I know a seen planet doesn't mean unseen planets dont exist. Your picture of Ptolemy's "universe" shows 11 concentric circles surrounding the world. That makes 12... Not 5, or 7...

I'm not sure why you expect a link from me to something which is public knowledge. Am I the guardian of public knowledge?

When I said the planets were wanderers you claimed:

Sure. Except only Mercury is described as 'the wanderer'. So no need for your generalizations.

Where is your link claiming only Mercury was described as "the wanderer"? Did you cherry pick your evidence? Well, you haven't shown any evidence yet... But your argument does ignore the significant data showing Mercury wasn't the only wanderer.

You said I was making generalizations, I expect you to back it up.

Indeed. Now explain why other mammals with big heads have less trouble giving birth than humans.

Because their birth canals provide more room for those big heads than women. I already posted a link showing our hominid ancestors didn't suffer nearly as much as anatomically modern women.

None of which are large numbers. 1,000 would be a large number. Or 684. Or 600,000 Hebrews arriving in Palestine.

I didn't say 9, 12 and 13 were large numbers, I said they were larger than 5 or 7.

Are you arguing something? Because none of the statements in that paragraph follows from the previous.

You said Arakhor was over estimating me when he called me deceitful whereas you said I was intellectually dishonest. If you're right and deceit is easier than intellectual dishonesty then Arakhor is under estimating me. And if he's right you are the one over estimating me.

Broad generalizations are by definition inaccurate. That's kind of why we call them broad generalization.

So where is this broad generalization and why is it inaccurate?

But since you missed my repeatedly pointing out your broad generalization, here it is again: 'Earth started out at the asteroid field'.

That wasn't your complaint, here's what you said:

This is an example of cherry picking: you're focusing on numbers appearing in different ancient cultures and presenting this as 'evidence'.

Evidence of what? I pointed out the Inca and Sumerians both incorporated 12 into their cosmology and you called that cherry picking. How is it cherry picking? Where is the significant data that contradicts my claim about the Inca and Sumerians? Then you decided it was a broad generalization (why?) and by definition inaccurate (how?).

For soem reason even this fact fails to be processed by you, and we still hear you claiming 'Earth started out at the asteroid field'. Without any evidence whatsoever. Calling that a broad generalization is an understatement.

Why is it a broad generalization?

Simple. You neglect the possibility that the number 12 occurs in 2 cultures by sheer coincidence. You immediatley assume a connection. For which, again, we have no evidence.

I've cited the use of 12 in several cosmologies from around the world and there's many more. At what point do these coincidences become evidence of a connection? How is what I said inaccurate?

Broad generalization no 2. Here's no 3:

See above. (And various pages of this thread.)

Then you should have no problem quoting it... Where is this significant data contradicting me?

I call you dyslexic.

Didn't Trump mock somebody with a disability?

Which is your response to:

I don't see any mention of sun, moon, planets in there.

You aint reading the debates, how would you know what was mentioned or not? I'm not the one here arguing the number 7 refers to the sun, moon and 5 visible planets. Others made that argument... Argue with them.

1) science does not support Genesis
2) Genesis sometimes is in accordance with science.

Try processing that for a few seconds. (Keep in mind Genesis is not a science book, so no presence of science in Genesis is required. It might be about elves and ogres or the big bad wolf.)

There's a difference between the science doesn't support Genesis and sometimes the science supports Genesis...but its just a coincidence when that happens, got it.

The world was watery. This is not fact, it's fiction. The world didn't become watery until much, much later.

Genesis doesn't say the universe was watery, it says the world was covered by water before dry land and life appeared. Thats around 4 bya during or following the late heavy bombardment. Even if you were right about when the world became watery, Genesis is supported by the science if it was covered by water before land and life showed up.

Btw, just how much later are you talking about? The link I posted suggested our water predates the lunar cataclysm ~4.5 bya and was present when the Earth formed.

What?

People were made in the image of the gods on the 6th day and were told to be fruitful and fill the Earth (now there's DNA evidence of one very large migration out of Africa about 70kya). We were in Africa over 200kya but didn't leave for 130k, but once we did leave it took only ~55ky to reach S America.

Its like a slave owner freed a multitude of slaves and told them to spread out. According to Mesopotamian myth the first peoples were created to serve the gods. Genesis refers to a time when there was no Adam to till the ground. And when there was, his job was to maintain the Garden.

And what makes daylight, pray?

Rotating near the sun

A subtle difference, I'm sure.

Nothing subtle about chopping up sentences to remove context...

But God didn't create the stars, he made them to serve for signs and seasons etc for earthly observers. They were given a new role in Earth's sky because the world (and eventually the dry land) acquired night and day, ie spinning closer to the sun.

 

[Arakhor]

Agent, in English, we commonly refer to the fourth book of the Bible as Numbers. No biggie, though.

But God didn't create the stars, he made them to serve for signs and seasons etc for earthly observers. They were given a new role in Earth's sky because the world (and eventually the dry land) acquired night and day, ie spinning closer to the sun.

You keep saying this, but it's totally unfalsifiable.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So is God in general unfortunately.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, yes, but fortunately we're allegedly proving that Genesis conforms to "The Science" (TM) (R), rather than the existence of God as a whole.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ah. Berzerker is saying ice is water. And that there was no water when the Bible refers to the 'deep'

 

[timtofly]

Well, yes, but fortunately we're allegedly proving that Genesis conforms to "The Science" (TM) (R), rather than the existence of God as a whole.

How can we move to science when we have barely conformed it to astronomy/astrology? The ancients thought the universe was like an ocean/primordial soup. That was just a figure of speech. I can only assume that science views the void as nothingness that is evolving into dark matter. Anything not near a star would be too "cold" to form liquid gases, much less frozen ones. The cosmology would be as matter was changing further away from the heat of the star, it would freeze, until gravitational forces brought matter back in any form and allow it to "thaw" out. A nebulae technically would be a bunch of different gases, having no central heat source. When it gives birth to a star, that star effects some matter, and at the same time some of those gases are untouched until they do get closer to the star. If the ancients were referring to this gas as an ocean, "water" would be descriptive of one form of gas, but not the literal physical form. It would seem though that "water" was the catch all descriptive term, other than mist. The Hebrews mention snow/hoar frost in their writings, so it would seem that they could have easily identified ice as ice if such water was actually frozen. Science forbid that heat was more uniform at that time, and things were not as frozen as they are now.

I am curious though why some mock God as being violent, when they claim the universe is totally chaotic, and it takes billions of tries to get things right.

 

[Arakhor]

Presumably, an omnipotent and omniscient God gets it right on the first try.

 

[Berzerker]

You keep saying this, but it's totally unfalsifiable.

Why?

Ah. Berzerker is saying ice is water. And that there was no water when the Bible refers to the 'deep'

There's water and ice here and beyond the snow line, but where did I say there was no water?

The deep (biblical tehom) refers to the ocean covering the world before land and life appear.

 

[Agent327]

Why?

You are asking why something is falsifiable? There is no why to that.

The deep (biblical tehom) refers to the ocean covering the world before land and life appear.

Does it now. Or perhaps it refers to the same concept in Greek creation mythology: chaos (literally 'the yawning'). I.e. void, emptiness.

Mr Strawman?

I am curious though why some mock God as being violent, when they claim the universe is totally chaotic, and it takes billions of tries to get things right.

Interestingly, no astronomer or cosmologist claims this.

Not all days were holy, but the day identified by the number 7 was.

There's no such day though. There is a day on which God rested, and this happened to be the 7th day. Which is why Jews consider this a holy day - not because of number 7, but because rested on that day.

It means there was no day, the world wasn't spinning near a star yet but was covered by water and darkness.

... which is exactly what it does not mean. How about simply sticking to the facts?

]They mentioned it, the world went from water and darkness (further from the sun at the snow line) to day and night with the sky ruled by two great lights. Those lights weren't so great further from the sun where the world was covered by water and darkness.

One of those lights was the sun. I'm sure this is an interesting theory, but we find nothing about it in Genesis. (Also, who is 'they'?)

The authors also said the water was one before God divided it with Heaven - that means the water, including our water, was located where Heaven is now. Thats the firmament, the hammered out bracelet - the asteroid belt.

No, that doesn't follow at all. Everything past 'that means' might be termed broad, inaccurate and unjustified generalization.

And that means more of our water is on the other side of Heaven - the waters above were separated from the waters below. The waters below became our seas and the water above can be found beyond the snow line.

I've no clue what 'the other side of Heaven' is supposed to be. You're just speculating away, it seems.

It means more than just signs. How do you know what astronomers were doing back then? They were watching the sky for signs, like the heliacal rising of stars to tell the time of year or the age. Like Jesus being the lamb and the fish, Aries was giving way to Pisces.

It may surprise you to know astronomy is quite an old science, which relies on observation. It has nothing to do with 'looking for signs', which is mumbojumbo.

But why?

You are asking why the Genesis author is familiar with whole numbers and their order? Would you rather have him mix the number order up, showing ancient Hebrews couldn't even count till 10?

The link said Anu, Enlil and Ninurta were the heroes of an earlier version and Marduk replaced one of them (Ninurta) and his father Ea replaced Enlil. Anu remained because he was the father of both Enlil and Ea.

It seems to surprise you that the earliest Sumerian versions don't comply with the later Babylonian one, which places the Babylonian city god central. Well, that's because in earlier times Babylon wasn't that important. Hence we don't find Marduk in the Sumerian creation myth.

It still doesn't follow the Babylonians 'kicked' a god.

I didn't say land or matter was without form, I said (dry) land submerged by an ocean is not in the form of dry land.

That would seem rather obvious.

The Enuma Elish is recorded knowledge

Yes and no.

From a single impact... Not multiple impacts. And I dont buy that either, there is not a near 100% chance an object at the asteroid belt would fall into the sun because of a collision.

Nobody claims that.

Thats near 100%... But that was your prediction from a single impact. You said multiple 'precise' impacts could have delivered the Earth to this location from the asteroid belt.

I didn't predict anything. I merely repeated what was being pointed out. Let's try again.

If Earth were a rocket starting out at the asteroid belt, it would need multiple thrusts to adjust its position once it arrived at where Earth is now. Unfortunately, Earth is not a rocket and has no thrusters. Now do you understand the magnitude of the problem?

Earth has been hit many times, the period 4+bya preceding the appearance of dry land and life is called the late heavy bombardment
because the Earth was pummeled so badly our evidence of that earlier world was nearly destroyed leaving us some zircons

This is utter nonsense.

And recent research suggests during this period several large impactors collided with the Earth. The Enuma Elish describes several "winds" striking Tiamat as Marduk deals the final blow before having another wind take part of her corpse to a new location (here).

You really should stop trying to read 'science' into writings which have no clue what science is.

Visible planets do not preclude the existence of unseen planets.

That is correct. In an ancient context, however, unseen would also mean unknowable.

Where is your link claiming only Mercury was described as "the wanderer"? Did you cherry pick your evidence? Well, you haven't shown any evidence yet... But your argument does ignore the significant data showing Mercury wasn't the only wanderer.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here other than 'I'm too lazy to google'.

You said I was making generalizations, I expect you to back it up.

And I expect you to actually read when I give examples of your broad generalizations.

Because their birth canals provide more room for those big heads than women. I already posted a link showing our hominid ancestors didn't suffer nearly as much as anatomically modern women.

But you fail to see why our hominid ancestors didn't suffer the same affliction. It's because they weren't fully bipedal yet. any palaeobiologist can tell you this. and the reason for this is that our ancestors were more apelike. which simply explains why only human women have such trouble birthing: we're the only fully bipedal mammals.

You said Arakhor was over estimating me when he called me deceitful whereas you said I was intellectually dishonest. If you're right and deceit is easier than intellectual dishonesty then Arakhor is under estimating me. And if he's right you are the one over estimating me.

It seems you can actually argue logically. If only you applied that to the asteroid belt theory.

So where is this broad generalization and why is it inaccurate?

I suggest you read back what you just quote (as it explains exactly why we speak of 'broad generalization'), then go back to reading my entire post. It seems you missed where I pointed out where you employ broad generalizations.

Alternatively, you can simply look at this:

It means there was no day, the world wasn't spinning near a star yet but was covered by water and darkness.

It doesn't mean that at all. You are generalizing from a specific in Genesis. and you are doing so broadly, as you aren't even referring to anything specific in Genesis. Which makes it quite inaccurate.

Evidence of what? I pointed out the Inca and Sumerians both incorporated 12 into their cosmology and you called that cherry picking.

No, I did not. Cheery picking is pointing out that Incas and Sumerians both used 12 in their cosmology and concluding something from that other than that they used number 12. But they also used other numbers. You haven't made clear use of the number 12 has any meaning. (Resulting in a broad, inaccurate generalization.)

Why is it a broad generalization?

It's not. It's way beyond that.

Cherry picking, followed by broad generalization:

I've cited the use of 12 in several cosmologies from around the world and there's many more. At what point do these coincidences become evidence of a connection? How is what I said inaccurate?

Because it only shows they knew the number 12.

Then you should have no problem quoting it...

You quote me quoting broad generalizations, then ask me to quote it?

Didn't Trump mock somebody with a disability?

Dyslexia is not a disability in my book - especially if it's highly selective dyslexia. You seem 'unable' to read things that contradict your broadly generalized theories. That's unfortunate. But I wouldn't call it a disability.

You aint reading the debates, how would you know what was mentioned or not? I'm not the one here arguing the number 7 refers to the sun, moon and 5 visible planets. Others made that argument...

They're not arguing about the number 7 having 'a special meaning'.

There's a difference between the science doesn't support Genesis and sometimes the science supports Genesis...but its just a coincidence when that happens, got it.

No, you don't. Perhaps you should try reading (and writing) a bit slower. It really helps, you know.

Genesis doesn't say the universe was watery, it says the world was covered by water before dry land and life appeared. Thats around 4 bya during or following the late heavy bombardment.

And you know this how?

Even if you were right about when the world became watery, Genesis is supported by the science if it was covered by water before land and life showed up.

Genesis also mentions people. People exist. Ergo, science supports Genesis.

Sorry, but that is not a logical argument.

Btw, just how much later are you talking about? The link I posted suggested our water predates the lunar cataclysm ~4.5 bya and was present when the Earth formed.

If it did, it would be nonsensical, and you'd do better not to link to it.)

People were made in the image of the gods on the 6th day and were told to be fruitful and fill the Earth

Already this is incorrect.

Genesis refers to a time when there was no Adam to till the ground. And when there was, his job was to maintain the Garden.

No, it wasn't.

Rotating near the sun

No, rotating around a sun. There's no need for daylight to exist that the planet should actually be near. It may well be far out and still have daylight.

Nothing subtle about chopping up sentences to remove context...

I'm not claiming that is subtle. I am claiming that is highly useful to point out illogicalities in argument.

But God didn't create the stars, he made them to serve for signs and seasons etc for earthly observers. They were given a new role in Earth's sky because the world (and eventually the dry land) acquired night and day, ie spinning closer to the sun.

Seeing as Genesis clearly says God created the light, it's pretty certain (as in 100 % exactly) that he created the stars. If you like to argue otherwise, we need something of a logical argument for it, which you are not providing.

Simply repeating ad nauseam 'God didn't create the stars' is not an argument.

 

[timtofly]

Presumably, an omnipotent and omniscient God gets it right on the first try.

Who says it is the first time? The Bible mentions there is going to be a next time. We are just assuming it is, but it may not be. Berzerker is dead set we are only talking about the solar system, but the Hebrews state, it is about the entire universe including the constellations. Not in Genesis, but later by the psalmist when referring to the act of creation in The Law. If in fact verse one is not creation, then there was a previous universe, prior to this one that God ended, and then started over again to form this one.

It is more than likely, Berzerker's point can be falsifiable. We have observations of stars forming, and naturally God does not appear to be involved in the process. The phrase in Genesis "the stars also" is hardly definitive of anything much less an action. Is that the planets or the fixed stars of the zodiac?

@ Agent327
Can you give me a quote from an astronomer or cosmologist where they claim God is violent? Otherwise evolution comes across as violence whether or not some professional makes it sound safe and friendly. If God has not been deemed barbaric by the same professional I rest my case.

 

[Perfection]

But God didn't create the stars, he made them to serve for signs and seasons etc for earthly observers. They were given a new role in Earth's sky because the world (and eventually the dry land) acquired night and day, ie spinning closer to the sun.

Where'd the stars come from?

 

[Arakhor]

It is more than likely, Berzerker's point can be falsifiable. We have observations of stars forming, and naturally God does not appear to be involved in the process. The phrase in Genesis "the stars also" is hardly definitive of anything much less an action. Is that the planets or the fixed stars of the zodiac?

We can no more show that God wasn't involved in the process any more than we can show that he was, which is precisely the point about it being entirely unfalsifiable.

 

[El_Machinae]

There's water and ice here and beyond the snow line, but where did I say there was no water?

You lost me. What was there first, the water or the light?

 

[timtofly]

We can no more show that God wasn't involved in the process any more than we can show that he was, which is precisely the point about it being entirely unfalsifiable.

It is not entirely unfalsifiable, it is practically impossible. Is it possible to declare there is no God? Proving that God did it would make the statement false. Proving that there is no God would make the statement false. I am not sure that we as humans can just declare if something can be possible, but if we can or cannot it does not make the statement void of being falsified. It just makes it impractical.

Perhaps that is the point I am missing: something can only be falsified if we as humans can observe such falsification. I guess that leaves all abstract thought out of the scientific method. I am not convinced that God is an abstract thought. Some even use God as a point in opposition to abstract thought. If we use abstract thought to argue abstract thought, then all we get is an abstract answer. That may be a reality to some, but not to all. How do we reconcile this duality in reality?

Some say leave science to science and religion to religion. God in reality is hardly a religion than the "Rich" controlling the government makes the government a religion, because they sit as an unknown to the rest of the governed. God being an "unknown" does not prove there is no God, but it does allow for a religion to capitalize on that fact.

Just because humans today, when backed into a corner admit that God is the final answer; mean that the ancients "made" up this concept to explain the same thing. Ancients wrote that there was a God and that there was a way to interact with this God. And that had little to do with answering all of life's questions.

 

[Berzerker]

Berzerker is dead set we are only talking about the solar system, but the Hebrews state, it is about the entire universe including the constellations. Not in Genesis, but later by the psalmist when referring to the act of creation in The Law.

The (visible) stars were made to serve for signs etc on the 4th day, they cannot be the universe.
And that they appear on the 4th day matters to the story, the dry land called Earth didn't show up until the 3rd day. The universe is not being described, just our sky. Did the psalmist say God created the water?

If in fact verse one is not creation, then there was a previous universe, prior to this one that God ended, and then started over again to form this one.

Gnostics used this text to propose that the original creator god, called the "Pléroma" or "Bythós" (from the Greek, meaning "Deep") pre-existed Elohim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehom

The first verse tells us God created the firmament and dry land. They dont appear in the story until the 2nd and 3rd days. They were preceded by tehom, the dark, water covered world in Gen 1:2...

If the 1st verse refers to "heavens" rather than the singular "Heaven" that was placed amidst the waters, they - the heavens - followed both the firmament called Heaven and dry land called Earth.

Where'd the stars come from?

Ultimately from whatever caused existence... But they were already in existence before the 4th day, they had to wait for the dry land called Earth to appear before they could serve a role in it's sky.

We can no more show that God wasn't involved in the process any more than we can show that he was, which is precisely the point about it being entirely unfalsifiable.

I dont think we're using the same definition of God, mine can be verified or falsified. Either a collision at the asteroid belt resulted in plate tectonics and life or it didn't and our science will figure it out. We're already doing that, our water came from the asteroid belt and the world formed in the presence of water. That tells me the world didn't form here, it formed out there.

@ El Mac - Genesis says our water was one (tehom) and it was divided by the firmament. The water below the snow line (asteroid belt) became our seas, the water above had a different fate. It survives to this day as ice coating various objects or as a liquid in bodies of water on asteroids and moons or trapped within rocks, like the debris left behind by the collision that visits us in the form of meteorites.