Before creation be it the big bang or fill in the blank what was before that?
What is eternity? All good questions
Fellows
I despair.
Why are they good questions?
What is eternity?
Does it make sense to discuss the era before what we call time started?
Does it make sense to go beyond Plank time and the Plank scale?
What sex is the turtle, and why does it matter?
Could it be that there is an end? Could it be that at a certain phase transition amplitude altered phases go through inflation? Could that be the "cut-off"?
When we add up the generations of the Bible, we come to 5758 years.
Actually, this year it's 5763, but then again it's the age of the universe Herr Schr?der is discussing, that's billions of years, so five years more or less aren't going to put anybody out of business.
Though I do admire his rendition of the English transliteration of בראשית: ?Be'reasheet?; mine's much simpler.
While belief in the Torah can easily be reconciled with today's science (but then, Maimonides reconciled it with Aristotelian science, which was harder), and indeed many do just that, all those jugglings to try to ?prove God? or ?discover God? is not only childish from the angle of science, but seen from a Torah angle they're also less than respectful to the notion of a deity who doesn't let itself be discovered or proved, but only revealed on its own terms.
And of course, if something is revealed, it remains hidden the rest of the time (yes, that means now).
So one's left with the thought that rather than melding science with religion, keeping each in its own realm is preferrable, separated like halavi is from bassari to keep both kosher.
Actually, this year it's 5763, but then again it's the age of the universe Herr Schr?der is discussing, that's billions of years, so five years more or less aren't going to put anybody out of business.
Though I do admire his rendition of the English transliteration of בראשית: ?Be'reasheet?; mine's much simpler.
While belief in the Torah can easily be reconciled with today's science (but then, Maimonides reconciled it with Aristotelian science, which was harder), and indeed many do just that, all those jugglings to try to ?prove God? or ?discover God? is not only childish from the angle of science, but seen from a Torah angle they're also less than respectful to the notion of a deity who doesn't let itself be discovered or proved, but only revealed on its own terms.
And of course, if something is revealed, it remains hidden the rest of the time (yes, that means now).
So one's left with the thought that rather than melding science with religion, keeping each in its own realm is preferrable, separated like halavi is from bassari to keep both kosher.
Good post Immanuel. When Napoleon ask Foucault : and where is god in that experience, Foucault answered : god is not an hypothesis. A centurie later Lemaitre , a catholic priest and a nobel prize, explain that science and religion should not be mixed. He loved the answer of foucault and added, after god is not an hypothesis, i have too much respect for him.
Actually, this year it's 5763, but then again it's the age of the universe Herr Schr?der is discussing, that's billions of years, so five years more or less aren't going to put anybody out of business.
Though I do admire his rendition of the English transliteration of בראשית: ?Be'reasheet?; mine's much simpler.
While belief in the Torah can easily be reconciled with today's science (but then, Maimonides reconciled it with Aristotelian science, which was harder), and indeed many do just that, all those jugglings to try to ?prove God? or ?discover God? is not only childish from the angle of science, but seen from a Torah angle they're also less than respectful to the notion of a deity who doesn't let itself be discovered or proved, but only revealed on its own terms.
And of course, if something is revealed, it remains hidden the rest of the time (yes, that means now).
So one's left with the thought that rather than melding science with religion, keeping each in its own realm is preferrable, separated like halavi is from bassari to keep both kosher.
Great Post! I really have to agree 100% with what you say.
That reminds me a a story about ants. In the ant world, everything is mainly sensed through chemical signiatures, some touch and a little polarised light.
Anyway, in this story two ants set out to prove the existence of " humans ". Some ants speak in hushed tones of a " fearful darkness " coming down near them with a great shaking of the earth.
Not to be daunted, these two ants continue to search high and low, asking other ants if they have ever encountered these things called humans...They lay down the equivilant of chemical questions. Sadly these only attract other ants and no humans.
In the meantime, the colony is busy collecting the veritable manna that collects nearby...( they live near a bus stop )and the two ants make the connection that the "manna" is somehow connected to the " Humans ".So they decide to set up an altar and offer little lumps of sugar to these invisible humans..a way to say thanks.
Al the other ants tell them that they're crazy to believe in something that cannot be experienced directly, but these two ants persist in this new found faith. So they set up their altar with the little lumps of sugar..and then they wait...and wait some more...
Finally just as they're about to give up, they feel the earth tremble, they sense the sky directly above them getting darker...they're faith has been proved.
" no one will doubt us now " they rejoice.
They quickly grab the lumps of sugar and raise them towards the decending darkness.......Squash...
Which goes to prove both the OT & the Torah are correct...In saying that you cannot gaze upon the face of God without paying the ultimate cost...
Sure that's not a typo error..you don't mean 10 billion do you?
I can't think of any cosmologists who would suggest the figure of 100 billion...unless they're trying to promote a hybrid " Steady-state with lots of material popping out of nothingness " but I think the "Cosmic background radiation" evidence has pretty well put a very nail into the steady state coffin.8)
It's not a type and yes, there are cosmologists looking into a steady-state type theory. Remember when cosmic background radiation was first discovered it was thought that it should be 20-30K(elvin) degrees, not the present 3.5 or so. Background radiation didn't answer everything.
Gen 1:1. "In the beginning." To expound the term "beginning", of Christ, is altogether frivolous. For Moses simply intends to assert that the world was not perfected at its very commencement, in the manner in which it is now seen, but that it was created an empty chaos of heaven and earth. His language therefore may be thus explained. When God in the beginning created the heaven and the earth, the earth was empty and waste. He moreover teaches by the word "created," that what before did not exist was now made; for he has not used the term "yatsar", which signifies to frame or forms but "bara", which signifies to create. Therefore his meaning is, that the world was made out of nothing. Hence the folly of those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter existed from eternity; and who gather nothing else from the narration of Moses than that the world was furnished with new ornaments, and received a form of which it was before destitute. This indeed was formerly a common fable among heathens, who had received only an obscure report of the creation, and who, according to custom, adulterated the truth of God with strange figments; but for Christian men to labour (as Steuchus does) in maintaining this gross error is absurd and intolerable. Let this, then be maintained in the first place, that the world is not eternal but was created by God. There is no doubt that Moses gives the name of heaven and earth to that confused mass which he, shortly afterwards, (verse 2,) denominates waters. The reason of which is, that this matter was to be the seed of the whole world. Besides, this is the generally recognized division of the world.
I have actually read Dr. Schroeder's book. It was quite good, but I read it sophomore year of high school, so I don't know what I'd think of it now.
But I have been wondering lately...
I have been trying to reconcile the idea of entropy, the universe's tendency toward disorder, with ??? ???? (tohu v'vohu), the bible's claim that the universe started in a state that was "unformed and void." What I can't seem to figure out is, at the beginning of the universe, before gravitational waves caused the uniform universe to "clump," and the universe was indeed entirely uniform, was it considered to be in a state of order or disorder?
I think of it this way: the common example of the universe's natural tendency toward disorder is this: when you drop a glass, it will break into may pieces. Clearly this is more disorderly than the single glass. There is no such natural tendency for the universe to put that glass back together when you throw the pieces back up to the table. If, however, everything in the universe is "broken" into infinitesimally small pieces then it is entirely uniform. Where, then, is the disorder? Is there some kind of of threshold where, once disorder overtakes order, that disorder becomes order? And how does the idea of an entirely uniform universe relate to a universe that was "unformed and void"?
Before you get too far with that train of thought, you should note that entropy has to do with energy states, not necessarily the physical arrangement of matter.
Life can be defined as boundaries which strive to retain order and energy against the dissipation of energy and the dissolution of order which is the natural result of entropy.
Moving packets of energy conservation... systems of maintaining energy against its natural tendency to dissipate: order against the natural tendency to become chaos.
We are part of a larger system(a 'life') who's eventual goal it will be to combat Universal entropy: it is the Design . . . we are to be of the agents of the future collapse of the Universe, the inflow of the final Yuga . . a collapse from which we will harness the energy to start all over again.
all this against the complete expansion to nullity.
That's my religion Du Jour . . . or Du minute . . . I guess . . . for now
It's not a type and yes, there are cosmologists looking into a steady-state type theory. Remember when cosmic background radiation was first discovered it was thought that it should be 20-30K(elvin) degrees, not the present 3.5 or so. Background radiation didn't answer everything.
What do you think about the findings in "This Link"
Just more to make things interesting with this issue.
The new data show the universe to be 13.7 billion years old, to within 200 million years
(emphasis mine)
note that different sub-disciplines have contributed data that causes the scientific theories to be revised, yet still support the theories as the most plausible explanation of the detectable data
Comments
and before that?
and before that?
and before that?
and before that?
. . . .
Turtles all the way down!!!!
Originally posted by pfflam
And before that?
and before that?
and before that?
and before that?
and before that?
. . . .
Turtles all the way down!!!!
pfflam that is a great question.
Before creation be it the big bang or fill in the blank what was before that?
What is eternity? All good questions
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
pfflam that is a great question.
Before creation be it the big bang or fill in the blank what was before that?
What is eternity? All good questions
Fellows
I despair.
Why are they good questions?
What is eternity?
Does it make sense to discuss the era before what we call time started?
Does it make sense to go beyond Plank time and the Plank scale?
What sex is the turtle, and why does it matter?
Could it be that there is an end? Could it be that at a certain phase transition amplitude altered phases go through inflation? Could that be the "cut-off"?
Hmmmm? Der Kanzler der Zahlen?
When we add up the generations of the Bible, we come to 5758 years.
Actually, this year it's 5763, but then again it's the age of the universe Herr Schr?der is discussing, that's billions of years, so five years more or less aren't going to put anybody out of business.
Though I do admire his rendition of the English transliteration of בראשית: ?Be'reasheet?; mine's much simpler.
While belief in the Torah can easily be reconciled with today's science (but then, Maimonides reconciled it with Aristotelian science, which was harder), and indeed many do just that, all those jugglings to try to ?prove God? or ?discover God? is not only childish from the angle of science, but seen from a Torah angle they're also less than respectful to the notion of a deity who doesn't let itself be discovered or proved, but only revealed on its own terms.
And of course, if something is revealed, it remains hidden the rest of the time (yes, that means now).
So one's left with the thought that rather than melding science with religion, keeping each in its own realm is preferrable, separated like halavi is from bassari to keep both kosher.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
?Who is Gerald Schroeder??
Hmmmm? Der Kanzler der Zahlen?
Actually, this year it's 5763, but then again it's the age of the universe Herr Schr?der is discussing, that's billions of years, so five years more or less aren't going to put anybody out of business.
Though I do admire his rendition of the English transliteration of בראשית: ?Be'reasheet?; mine's much simpler.
While belief in the Torah can easily be reconciled with today's science (but then, Maimonides reconciled it with Aristotelian science, which was harder), and indeed many do just that, all those jugglings to try to ?prove God? or ?discover God? is not only childish from the angle of science, but seen from a Torah angle they're also less than respectful to the notion of a deity who doesn't let itself be discovered or proved, but only revealed on its own terms.
And of course, if something is revealed, it remains hidden the rest of the time (yes, that means now).
So one's left with the thought that rather than melding science with religion, keeping each in its own realm is preferrable, separated like halavi is from bassari to keep both kosher.
Good post Immanuel. When Napoleon ask Foucault : and where is god in that experience, Foucault answered : god is not an hypothesis. A centurie later Lemaitre , a catholic priest and a nobel prize, explain that science and religion should not be mixed. He loved the answer of foucault and added, after god is not an hypothesis, i have too much respect for him.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
?Who is Gerald Schroeder??
Hmmmm? Der Kanzler der Zahlen?
Actually, this year it's 5763, but then again it's the age of the universe Herr Schr?der is discussing, that's billions of years, so five years more or less aren't going to put anybody out of business.
Though I do admire his rendition of the English transliteration of בראשית: ?Be'reasheet?; mine's much simpler.
While belief in the Torah can easily be reconciled with today's science (but then, Maimonides reconciled it with Aristotelian science, which was harder), and indeed many do just that, all those jugglings to try to ?prove God? or ?discover God? is not only childish from the angle of science, but seen from a Torah angle they're also less than respectful to the notion of a deity who doesn't let itself be discovered or proved, but only revealed on its own terms.
And of course, if something is revealed, it remains hidden the rest of the time (yes, that means now).
So one's left with the thought that rather than melding science with religion, keeping each in its own realm is preferrable, separated like halavi is from bassari to keep both kosher.
Great Post! I really have to agree 100% with what you say.
Fellowship
Anyway, in this story two ants set out to prove the existence of " humans ". Some ants speak in hushed tones of a " fearful darkness " coming down near them with a great shaking of the earth.
Not to be daunted, these two ants continue to search high and low, asking other ants if they have ever encountered these things called humans...They lay down the equivilant of chemical questions. Sadly these only attract other ants and no humans.
In the meantime, the colony is busy collecting the veritable manna that collects nearby...( they live near a bus stop )and the two ants make the connection that the "manna" is somehow connected to the " Humans ".So they decide to set up an altar and offer little lumps of sugar to these invisible humans..a way to say thanks.
Al the other ants tell them that they're crazy to believe in something that cannot be experienced directly, but these two ants persist in this new found faith. So they set up their altar with the little lumps of sugar..and then they wait...and wait some more...
Finally just as they're about to give up, they feel the earth tremble, they sense the sky directly above them getting darker...they're faith has been proved.
" no one will doubt us now " they rejoice.
They quickly grab the lumps of sugar and raise them towards the decending darkness.......Squash...
Which goes to prove both the OT & the Torah are correct...In saying that you cannot gaze upon the face of God without paying the ultimate cost...
( no offence intended anyone )
Just another hunter, like a wolf in the sun
Just another junkie on a scoring run
Just another victim of the things he has done
Just another day -- in the life of a loaded gun
The odds get even; you name the game
The odds get even; the stakes are the same
You bet your life...
Just another winner, pours his life down the drain
Just another island in a hurricane
Just another loser, like a cat in the rain
Just another day -- in the path of a speeding train
The odds get even; you name the game
The odds get even; the stakes are the same
You bet your life...
anarchist reactionary running-dog revisionist
hindu muslim catholic creation/evolutionist
rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
minimal expressionist post-modern neo-symbolist
Armchair rocket scientist graffiti existentialist
Deconstruction primitive performance photo-realist
Be-bop or a one-drop or a hip-hop lite-pop-metallist
Gold adult contemporary urban country capitalist
Just another gypsy with a plastic guitar
Just another dancer with her eyes on the stars
Just another dreamer who was going too far
Just another drunk -- at the wheel of a stolen car
The odds get even; you name the game
The odds get even; the stakes are the same
You bet your life...
Originally posted by aquafire
Sure that's not a typo error..you don't mean 10 billion do you?
I can't think of any cosmologists who would suggest the figure of 100 billion...unless they're trying to promote a hybrid " Steady-state with lots of material popping out of nothingness " but I think the "Cosmic background radiation" evidence has pretty well put a very nail into the steady state coffin.8)
It's not a type and yes, there are cosmologists looking into a steady-state type theory. Remember when cosmic background radiation was first discovered it was thought that it should be 20-30K(elvin) degrees, not the present 3.5 or so. Background radiation didn't answer everything.
Originally posted by alcimedes
42
good answer!!
and correct, too!!!!
Gen 1:1. "In the beginning." To expound the term "beginning", of Christ, is altogether frivolous. For Moses simply intends to assert that the world was not perfected at its very commencement, in the manner in which it is now seen, but that it was created an empty chaos of heaven and earth. His language therefore may be thus explained. When God in the beginning created the heaven and the earth, the earth was empty and waste. He moreover teaches by the word "created," that what before did not exist was now made; for he has not used the term "yatsar", which signifies to frame or forms but "bara", which signifies to create. Therefore his meaning is, that the world was made out of nothing. Hence the folly of those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter existed from eternity; and who gather nothing else from the narration of Moses than that the world was furnished with new ornaments, and received a form of which it was before destitute. This indeed was formerly a common fable among heathens, who had received only an obscure report of the creation, and who, according to custom, adulterated the truth of God with strange figments; but for Christian men to labour (as Steuchus does) in maintaining this gross error is absurd and intolerable. Let this, then be maintained in the first place, that the world is not eternal but was created by God. There is no doubt that Moses gives the name of heaven and earth to that confused mass which he, shortly afterwards, (verse 2,) denominates waters. The reason of which is, that this matter was to be the seed of the whole world. Besides, this is the generally recognized division of the world.
/QUOTE]
But I have been wondering lately...
I have been trying to reconcile the idea of entropy, the universe's tendency toward disorder, with ??? ???? (tohu v'vohu), the bible's claim that the universe started in a state that was "unformed and void." What I can't seem to figure out is, at the beginning of the universe, before gravitational waves caused the uniform universe to "clump," and the universe was indeed entirely uniform, was it considered to be in a state of order or disorder?
I think of it this way: the common example of the universe's natural tendency toward disorder is this: when you drop a glass, it will break into may pieces. Clearly this is more disorderly than the single glass. There is no such natural tendency for the universe to put that glass back together when you throw the pieces back up to the table. If, however, everything in the universe is "broken" into infinitesimally small pieces then it is entirely uniform. Where, then, is the disorder? Is there some kind of of threshold where, once disorder overtakes order, that disorder becomes order? And how does the idea of an entirely uniform universe relate to a universe that was "unformed and void"?
EDIT: Immanuel, how do you post hebrew?
Moving packets of energy conservation... systems of maintaining energy against its natural tendency to dissipate: order against the natural tendency to become chaos.
We are part of a larger system(a 'life') who's eventual goal it will be to combat Universal entropy: it is the Design . . . we are to be of the agents of the future collapse of the Universe, the inflow of the final Yuga . . a collapse from which we will harness the energy to start all over again.
all this against the complete expansion to nullity.
That's my religion Du Jour . . . or Du minute . . . I guess . . . for now
Originally posted by Outsider
It's not a type and yes, there are cosmologists looking into a steady-state type theory. Remember when cosmic background radiation was first discovered it was thought that it should be 20-30K(elvin) degrees, not the present 3.5 or so. Background radiation didn't answer everything.
What do you think about the findings in "This Link"
Just more to make things interesting with this issue.
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What do you think about the findings in "This Link"
Just more to make things interesting with this issue.
Fellows
How about YOU tell us what YOU think for once? Xenu may not have said it in the nicest way but he's fundamentally right about you.
The new data show the universe to be 13.7 billion years old, to within 200 million years
(emphasis mine)
note that different sub-disciplines have contributed data that causes the scientific theories to be revised, yet still support the theories as the most plausible explanation of the detectable data
allacademic.com
physicsweb.org
space-time.info
Cornell Theory Center
Physical Sciences Information Gateway
SciTecLibrary.com
Scirus.com
All worth a Bookmark!
Fellowship