h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes, I know of no specific time for moderators to act. Perhaps I can post my response section by section and see which part gets grabbed.

PLEASE let me know if any of it starts sounding abusive of the rules. I couldn't find anything.

Section 2:
Yes, radioactive decay (any decay, really) is a result of physical laws in a not completely stable universe (it is always changing, after all).
[You'll also note that 'stability' and 'behaviour' have no meaning if time does not exist, which seems to contradict your claim that God does/might exist 'outside time'. ]
This, however, is another example of anthropomorphism; ascribing things common to our existence with a supreme being who (if it exists) may not be corporeal or constrained by concepts like time.

Quantum theory is another fine way to describe the universe and its quirkiness, but imagining that it is the end product of human science would be presumptuous. Newton was close, Einstein was closer, Quantum may be our best yet; but there is more to come, I promise you. And, plenty of people laughed at Einstein.

Yes, I know of no specific time for moderators to act. Perhaps I can post my response section by section and see which part gets grabbed.

PLEASE let me know if any of it starts sounding abusive of the rules. I couldn't find anything.

Section 3:
We do have a problem with the concept of infinite being. This also implies time-spatial coordinates in the way we perceive it. Another example of either anthropomorphism or limitations of the language. If you were a clam, living at the bottom of the sea, what would your vocabulary have to describe the sensation of a windy day on the Himalayas?

Brane theory:
Yes, a theory with a lot of potential for mental exploration. You might even call it meditation, because it is also pretty untestable (at least at this point).

Again, we have a problem with taking a metaphor literally, I'm afraid, if you though I was suggesting that people contend that the Bible was written by five year olds. I was speaking of the limitations of a very knowledgeable being trying to communicate advanced and complex thoughts to a much less knowledgeable being with a more primitive vocabulary. If you are writing things down that are coming to you in images, but without a common frame of reference, you are being shown, not taught. The resulting 'interpretation' comes down to the writer's ability to translate those complex thoughts and images into their vocabulary.

Maybe it would be better to try to watch a taped tv show with the sound off, and write down the plot and action. Then go back and see how accurately you understood it. I might not even know if it was a comedy or drama. Did you ever hear that God 'sat down with' the writers? I've only heard it claimed that the Bible is supposed to represent the 'inspired word of god'.

I'll try to get back with a theory of universe creation from a god perspective.

Oh, and thank you very much for the chuckle about the lizards!!

Hmm, well I'm watching as well, and see nothing even remotely yikesable. Must be another bore hitchiker checking out the buttons on the screen - or the phantom yikeser's back

Back to

Closer and closer still to agreement on so many things...

"But [Dawkins] quite clearly and plainly states that any God would have to evolve from some simpler entity."

As I said, I've not seen him claim that, and if he does then I disagree with him. In fact, it's so obviously wrong that I'd be very surprised if he does claim it; can you give a link to a specific example?

I have heard him say frequently something similar; that ID claims God must exist because 'complexity cannot arise from simplicity without an external guiding intelligence'. Dawkins answers this by pointing out that either God is complex and appeared from nothing (in which case complexity can appear without a designer) or that God is simple (in which case by the IDers own logic he cannot have created complexity) or that he started out simple and became complex (in which case complexity can appear stepwise from simplicity without an outside influence). If he's settled on the third of those as the only option, I don't see why.

The only other point I still disagree with you on is your wide-ranging application of the word 'anthropomorphic'. I don't think that saying 'something outside time cannot have cause and effect' is anthropomorphism. Granted that we poor humans have trouble visualising what 'outside space and time' might mean, but I don't think that means that all our answers are anthropomorphic. Likewise, saying that either something is constrained by the known laws of physics, or by other laws, or is completely unconstrained doesn't seem to me to be anthropomorphic.

It seems that we have managed to completely avoid the opening topic, which was whether ID / Creationism should be taught in school RE lessons. So I'm slightly surprised to have changed my mind on this during the debate. I now think that it should. It seems to me that expecting kids to reject ID when they know nothing of it is like expecting them not to get pregnant if you don't have sex education; doomed to failure.

What I would like to see is somthing in GCSE science about what differentiates science from pseudo-science. Or, for that matter, philosophy rather than just religion being taught, which could cover the same area.

Gif

Gif:

Both sound good to me. I don't even care if it's covered in mythologies!

back to work:

Wikipedia defines it this way:
Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics and qualities to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena.

Merriam Webster had this entry:
anthropomorphic: an·thro·po·mor·phic
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin anthropomorphus of human form, from Greek anthropomorphos, from anthrop- + -morphos -morphous
1 : described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes
2 : ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things

I'd settle for either. I don't think it's healthy or accurate to ascribe even the characteristics of our universe, much less ourselves, to dieties unless their mythology specifically says that they live on such-and-such mountain or in such-and-such sea.

If a god created the universe, I feel pretty certain that he didn't do so to contain himself, just as I might design a clay pot to put on a shelf. The fact that WE make things to contain ourselves is attributable to the environment in which we have evolved.

Now, let me explain the philosophy under which I've connected a creator being to our existence. I'm not asking anyone to accept or agree with it, but we'll have a common frame of reference for discussion.

All men are just that, mere men, no matter what their rank or fame or wealth or power. I do not believe that God favours one sports team over another, or one country over another.
I also do not consider myself to be god material, but I do take the occasional stab at philosophising what it would be like and how I would set about creating a universe (and what I might subsequently do with it).

I've described the paradox that I felt impels me to accept the presence of a sentient hand in our existence. Is it possible that such a thing still means nothing; a minor byproduct of a completely unrelated god event, after which we were flung to the dustbin and forgotten? Well, yes. But, if I really wanted to create a universe, these seem to be the steps I'd have to take (anthropomorphic as my viewpoint is. ).

Okay, I'm god and I've decided to be creative. I am all that exists, so I've nothing to 'use'.

Hmm, making something from nothing. How would I do that? Well, nothing is the answer to a null equation. I can create something, and still be null, by simply assuring that the 'stuff' cancels out at the end!

I take my two big godhands and pull nothing apart into positive something and negative something; I think I'll call them matter and anti-matter.
Naturally, this results in a most significant amount of released energy, especially where the two might still overlap. Like a good potter, I get more stuff than I really need and work it down to the amount that is useful.

Hmmm?! An expanding set of coordinates containing stuff and energy! Interesting!

Before it gets too large, perhaps even before the pull, I define some basic limitations, like Gravity. The stuff begins to clump, and blow apart again, Each time I allow the stuff to pack tighter to facilitate the creation of denser and denser elements with which to play.

What shall I do tomorrow?

Hi FT,

So is time a 'uniquely human' characteristic? I think it applies to a lot more than just humans. 'Uniquely human' characteristics would be emotions, intelligence and so on. (Yes, I realise that's a bit species-ist.)



So far I've been arguing that there are equally good alternatives to God as an explanation for the start of the Universe.

Now let me try something a little different; I don't think that God does explain the origin of reality. Your argument is that the omniverse is 'designed' for human life, and that this is so unlikely by chance that there must be a 'designer', i.e. God, right?

Yet how much less likely is it that an omniverse would exist with a God in it? Or even capable of having a God in it? Surely, if the only answer to human life is a superior being, the only answer to a superior being is a yet-more-superior-still being? And then where would she come from?

We seem to be left with an infitite chain of uber-Gods. I don't see how this explains anything. Perhaps you can explain it a bit more?

Gif

Gif:

Sorry that things got a bit busy, and I haven't been back to finish the point I was beginning to make. But, for now, I'll just respond to the latest part of the thread.

I don't know how it is that I seem to keep miscommunicating.

1) No, I do not believe that time is necessarily uniquely human, or even uniquely 'our universe'; I just don't know that it would apply to a God.

2) No, I don't believe the omniverse - as you have defined it - is designed for human life. That was the view that you attributed to 'outside our universe', and therefore a potential view of a god level dimensionality (or non-dimensionality).

3) No, if you were referring to The Universe, I do not believe that the Universe was so unlikely 'human friendly', that there must be a designer. That theory is the concept of Intelligent Design as proof of God's existence, and I reject the theory.

4) I don't believe that there is any way to calculate the likelihood, chance, odds, or statistical probability of there being an omniverse that includes a god. If we could calculate it, we could compare the result with the probability of a Celestial Teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monster, godless universe, etc. and see if there is any significant difference in likelihood.

If we could, I suspect that the god theory would win over the Celestial Teapot and the Spaghetti Monster for the simple reason that - if they existed - they could also be considered gods; therefore, the chances that there is A God would be better than those of their existing one particular god (god being a conceptual term and not a specific entity).

5) I'm not certain that our universe being the creation of a god is the only answer to our existence, I just have no other theory that logically fits the observable fact of its existence - given the logic problem that the BB represents.

6) While I would have to admit to the 'possibility' of an infinite chain of uber-Gods, I would have to also assert that - if our universe was created by A Uber-God - any others would be so far out of our experience that even considering them would be a) outside any human frame of reference, fruitless, b) fruitless, and c) meaningless.

At the same time, acknowledging that we have not even begun to discuss what a god IS, the generally accepted meaning of 'god' is 'the origin'. The suggestion of a chain of uber-gods is more linear thinking, that one event must follow another. I know it's not easy, but one must reject linear time to begin to discuss gods, existence, or the BB, whether god driven or not.

We live in a Universe with a time-arrow that always points forward. Making the assumption that there must be a similar Omniverse time-arrow is universopomorphic. It may not be incorrect, but we have no frame of reference that gives us any logical reason to try to impose one upon it.

It's all about the logic.

Now, if you were to propose an alternative to why the eternal BB banged, or where it came from some time before it to bang, I'm very ready to consider it. It just has to be logical and fit what we do know about our universe. Otherwise, it is just so much theory and conjecture.

Theory and conjecture is also fine, but that was how god concept evolved.

Hi FT,

We seem to be getting closer and closer to agreement. I thought you were arguing from design when you were in fact arguing from 'first cause'. Other than that, I agree with your first four points (provided that by 'the God theory' you are not refering to any specific religion).



5) You wrote: "I'm not certain that our universe being the creation of a god is the only answer to our existence, I just have no other theory that logically fits the observable fact of its existence - given the logic problem that the BB represents."

- My point in my last post was that the god theory does not logically fit the observable fact of the universe's existence either. It suffers from exactly the same logic problem that the BB represents.



6) Probably true - but the same could be said of God.



"the generally accepted meaning of 'god' is 'the origin'" - partly. God needs other elements also, such as being sentient; the Big Bang doesn't count as a 'god'.



The 'chain of gods' idea doesn't require time; it's about causality. Just as you are happy to accept that God could have existed before time, outside time or at all times, yet be responsible for 'causing' the universe, ditto for 'uber-gods' causing god.


Finally, I also agree with you that we cannot know whether there is an alternative 'omniverse time' dimension (or more than one, but that makes my head hurt!) I only suggested it as a possibility, and since I don't have any evidence for it am happy to discard it. If you're asking for an alternative to God as a cause of the universe, how about: nothing. There was no cause. The universe came into existence spontaneously.

Sorry I couldn't work lizards into this one.

Gif

Gee, I miss the lizards, Gif.

I'm still trying to see the forest for the trees (is there an analogous metaphor using lizards?).

I'm glad the first four points were understood.

[ 5) You wrote: "I'm not certain that our universe being the creation of a god is the only answer to our existence, I just have no other theory that logically fits the observable fact of its existence - given the logic problem that the BB represents."]

Well, I am assuming that OUR universe is a closed system. Unfortunately, since the only frame of reference I have is a cause and effect universe, I'm forced to consider the BB as THE event that made its current state possible. Currently, there is no significant resistance to the idea that the BB began it, and a crunch will never come, making it a one-time, one-way existence.

Physicists aren't ever too comfortable in feeling that they have anything solidly pinned down anymore, but this is one area of general agreement; we live in an 'open' universe that began as an 'event' involving a 'singularity' which will eventually expand and cool until it is worn out and dead.

So, my dilemma was fathoming how and why the 'event' happened. Logic tells me that the eternally stable is just that, eternal and stable; so, my conclusion was that it was either not eternal, or that it was made unstable. that doesn't sound like something that should be so easily dismissed by claiming spontaneous generation. We used to have proponents of spontaneous generation of life, but all human experience has eliminated it as a factor on our world. Why be so eager to use it as a factor in creating a whole universe?

For us, the BB is an established 'fact' (until we find a theory even more consistent with the evidence). Although chains of uber-gods must be considered, one postulated, assuming their existence would first require considering one god or set of gods involved with the creation of our universe and we have not proven that yet.

----------------------------
By the way, there is a safety factor involved, isn't there? This overheard conversation may hint at why belief may be the safer course:

By the way: I certainly don't ask others to accept my viewpoint, or change their opinions, or judge them on theirs; but I believe our minds should be open to all possibilites, not only all non-god possibilities (true story, though perhaps not verbatim):

Christian: Yes, we accept Jesus Christ as the promised Saviour of the Old Testament.
Jew: We don't believe he was the one. We're still waiting for the true Saviour.
C: I think it's safer to be a Christian.
J: How do you figure that?
C: Well, if we are wrong we sinned, the real saviour will show up, and we'll probably be forgiven if we repent. If you're wrong, you rejected your Saviour and nailed him to a cross. It's too late to take it back and repent.
J: Hmmm, let me think about that.

I don't know where it might have gone from there."
---------------------------------------

So Here's the logic dilemma.

Given: the big bang

Either:
The singularity had always been there, and the bang happened because of an instability.
The singularity had not always been there, and the bang happened after it came into existence.

Therefore, in reverse order:

A) If the singularity had not always been there, something or someone called it into existence, perhaps for the purpose of creating the universe. Saying it 'just happened' is an even cheesier 'out' than thinking a god did it. We live in a cause and effect universe.

B) If the singularity had always been there, eternally stable, and the bang was made to happen by an entity (normally referred to as a deity or god), we cannot know anything further as more things than we can understand would need to be involved.

C) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang happened because of its instability, we have a paradox.
A perpetual, infinite existence in a stable state would not logically support a sudden instability. All previous points in 'time' would be like all previous points; and, as there is nothing external to act upon it, it would never become unstable enough to 'bang', even in an infinite time period.

That is the dilemma in a nutshell. Of course, if you take away the big bang, the dilemma disappears, but that leaves an even larger gap in our understanding.

Hi FT,

Good to see you're still here. In no particular order:


Um, 'see the gecko for the scales'?




The conversation you present is a variation on the line of argument usually known as 'Pascal's Wager'. There are numerous problems with it: for instance, Odin, Allah, Thoth, Zeus, Pachamama and thousands of other gods will throw both Christians and Jews into various types of Hell. The Old Testament Jewish God wasn't particularly forgiving of those (like Christians, from a Jewish perspective) who worshipped false idols, either. So no established religion improves your chances of getting into heaven. A life devoted to a reward after death is wasted if there is no afterlife.

Pascal was a mathematician, and formed his argument from probabilities. There is a specific probabilistic rejection of it, but since you haven't used that form of the argument I won't give it here.

Incidentally: "you rejected your Saviour and nailed him to a cross" - a Biblically supported sentiment responsible for some of the greatest crimes of the last 1500 years. David Koresh claimed to be the second coming of Jesus - would it be 'safer' for Christians to become Koreshians, by the same logic?



To the best of my understanding of physics, your comments on science are correct and I agree completely. Note, though, that the 'multiple Big Bangs' predicted by 'Brane Theory are open; they do not (necessarily, though they may sometimes) lead to 'Big Crunches'. Thus there may (or may not) be an infinite number of separate singularities, each creating a universe exactly like our own, then running down and cooling. This is a separate idea from the Bang-Crunch-Bang-Crunch-Bang idea (hereafter: BCBCBCBCBCBCBCBCBCBCBCBC Theory), which would contradict the open universe we observe.

Your statement of the dilemma still assumes there was time before the Big Bang; and it also assumes there has been only one BB. I'd certainly disagree with your points A and C:

A) We don't live in a 100% cause-and-effect universe. I've already pointed out that Quantum Theory shows that. Even before QT was developed, it was clear that using 'everything has a cause' to prove 'God has no cause' doesn't work. I'm not saying there is no puzzle here - I'm just saying that citing the existence of a god or gods doesn't help.

C) You are confusing 'eternal' with 'stable'. Something could exist forever in an eternally changing state (presumably, your conception of God would be an example of this?). You are also assuming that time existed before the BB. No time, no eternity. No eternity, no problem.

To rephrase your comment: If you take away God, the dilemma remains, but grows no larger or smaller. That's why this cannot be used as an argument in favour of God's existence.




As if my a miracle () the paper today (Times) has a story about someone declared dead in a hospital in Ireland and found to be alive 45 mins later. The hospital is launching a full investigation and has admitted a mistake was made; there is no mention of any particular prayer or religious belief (indeed, the family had already been told the patient was dead). Of course, it doesn't specifically say that there weren't prayers said either. None the less, had prayers been said (and I'd guess over 50% of people would pray for a very ill relative), this would look like a miracle and might even be held up as a 'classic example' of a miracle. No doubt sceptics like myself would be asked why we 'refused to belive the evidence'.

So: miracles, first cause, design and Pascal's Wager - I think we've covered pretty much every major argument for God's existence, unless you want to have a crack at personal experience?

Gif

Hey there, Gif:

Sorry I've been kind of spotty in my replies. New job, heavy time investment.

Yes, the conversation was just a conversation. Not much to recommend it, logically. Certainly it's not 'safer' to join anything resembling a cult. The moment anyone says they're a god, and cannot provide convincing demonstrations of god-like powers, they deserve to be laughed at. Even religions that build their dogma by extracting one thread of some mainstream religion, and blowing it out of proportion (snake handlers, dance and music haters, racists, etc.) have to be assumed crude knockoffs.

The logic in your "A life devoted to a reward after death is wasted if there is no afterlife", cannot be denied. The counter argument would be that without an afterlife, life is a random series of events without any payback, not worth getting emotional over. If, when the universe has cooled to the point where it cannot sustain life, there has been nothing extracted and valued, the whole general mish-mash becomes a futile quest for meaning and a waste.

A life led with that as a realization could easily lend one to either narcissism or despondency. I would either lead a life of self indulgence because of the lack of ultimate consequence, or simply decide that a life of pain and discomfort of a certain level would make living less desirable than non-existence, and simply end it.

Perhaps that is why some cling to the idea of a god that has 'something' in mind for them later.

But, back to the science (as opposed the theory). We feel that we've found evidence to support the BB (background radiation of the type and frequency we calculated), and subsequent evidence of an ever-expanding universe (red-shift indicating that all galaxies and almost all stars are constantly moving away from each other at a speed that is beyond gravity's ability to reverse). Bringing conjectures like brane theory into the mix, just to obfuscate the relatively obvious and proven one-way, one-time through nature of the universe is no better really than calling upon dieties. We can certainly conjecture and theorize; but, until we find evidence that supports them (in empirically observable ways), they are ghosts, goblins, and faeries.

The reason that I consider the biblical 'message' different from the rest, is precisely the same reason that I don't consider it a scientific tome. It's the limitation of the language of which I spoke.

Given the limits of the descriptive abilities of the ancient vocabularies, the Book of Genesis is a remarkably accurate description of the path that creating a universe takes. The BB, the coelescing of matter, separation of water and land, emergence of life, and evolution to man is, to me, nearly beyond chance. Sure they described it from an earth-centric view, but most primitive religions had it fall out of some god's armpit or sneezed out of its left nostril, and let it ride around on the backs of amphibians or reptiles. The difference from the Greek, Roman, and other god religions is astounding.

When I couple the increasingly unlikelihood of these ancient people inventing genesis that close to modern scientific theory with my logical connundrum regarding the impetus of the BB, I don't feel I'm left with a choice of whether to give the creator-being concept serious consideration.

It's the same credence I give to E=mc2 or that the effect of gravity reduces at the square of the distance leaps of genius that I have always found so impressive, but at even a greater scale considering the lack of scientific rigor or even consideration.

This does not mean that I am as in awe of all the books of the old and/or new testaments, but it does give me reason to consider it more seriously than I would David Koresh.

I do not try to influence others' beliefs, but merely to explain from where my viewpoint originates.

Hi FT,

I know what time pressures are like - I was pretty sure I was being the slow one and you were waiting for me!

If you're based in the UK, there's an excellent article in this week's New Scientist that runs through the 3 most prominent current theories concerning what - if anything - came before the Big Bang. It's an interesting read - plus you can check whether I've been talking out of my singularity Each of the 3 main theories has a different explanation for how the early universe came to have low entropy. The author seems to favour the holographic theory, which I really don't understand much about. Obviously, there's no mention of God.

Each of the 3 theories also makes different testable predictions. The next generation of instruments (i.e. over the next 10 years) should start giving some definitive answers, so 2 (or all 3) will be ruled out fairly soon. This is what makes them different to the ideas of fairies and gods, which can never be disproved.



As to the accuracy of the Bible account - what accuracy? The more famous of the two Genesis accounts of the creation is little more than a list of features of the Earth. Even the order is wrong. It describes a flat Earth under a solid firmament. It says water preceded land. It says plants preceded the Sun. For that matter, it says day and night preceeded the Sun. It says Man was created separately from the Animals (which are in turn divided into land, air and sea rather than any biological groupings). It says the Earth is 6000 years old. Even allowing for a lack of scientific terminology, the Hebrews could have described these things far more accurately if they had genuine insight into them.

Then look at what they left out - no mention of the Big Bang, inflation, 14 billion years of history, squillions of stars and planets, 4 billion years of evolution, four out of the five kingdoms of life, hygiene, lizards...

Here are a handful of creation myths that are at least as accurate:

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_16.html : begins with a void and even described the primordial egg as an egg.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/g/greek_creation_myths.html : more of same, including clear descriptions of aliens.

What about Norse myths: http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation.html ? Now there, surely, is a description of the Big Bang. The universe begins in fire and flame. The Earth is surrounded by an infinite, freezing void. Modern humans appear during an ice age. Sure, you have to overlook the parts about ice giants, which are obviously poetic or metaphorical or literally true in a spiritual sense. Or perhaps they're glaciers.

Here's one that involves lizards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miwok_mythology

The point is, you can read 'accuracy' into any myth if you are prepared to overlook or re-interpret parts of it enough. The day someone can use the Bible to make a testable prediction is the day I believe it is divinely inspired.


Then there's the Flood. Oh boy.




I can see and understand why you would want to believe that God exists in order to give life, the universe and everything some meaning. Of course, I'm sure you'll agree that that alone doesn't give any evidence that God does exist, but can you explain why the existence of God would give your life meaning? Even the existence of an eternal afterlife would give you more life, but not necessarily a more meaningful life. My own view is that life has whatever meaning we give it. I'm enjoying my life. I try to help others enjoy theirs where I can (but probably not as much as I should). That's meaning enough for me.

Gif

We seem to keep going over the same ground here; but that's okay.

Let me try again, but do try to read and think, rather than read and react. (I really didn't want to get this basic. We apparently have a difference in our exposure to the "Holy Bible".

I agree that a lot of the bible is rubbish. Many of the stories are identical to stories from earlier cultures, like the flood. Some are historically verified through other writers like Josephus. The only one that concerns me is Chapter One of the Book of Genesis, so I'll reproduce it here, with my opinion on how it meshes with the science we know.

Remember that 90% of learning is deciding what to call things.

--------------------------------------------
I'm God, now, and I want to relate the story of my creation to a B.C. citizen with a limited human vocabulary. Do I choose words from his language? I think not; too limiting. Do I use sounds? Now what would creation sound like? No, not sound; not touch, and certainly not taste. It kind leaves me with 'vision', in two senses of the word. I'll simply show him some 13+ billion years of evolution.

But, wait!? He'll die before the first star ignites!

Okay, I'll simply have to speed up the film, and quite a bit, especially during the boring formative period.

1 (P) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
I can make this broad statement in his language, just to try to inform him of what he is about to see.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
He doesn't understand 'universe', so of course he'll interpret the utter blackness as 'earth'; but there's no form, it's void, darkness is everywhere. I do let him sense that I am there, however. So what if he interprets it as my 'face' moving on the 'waters'. He'll learn better in good time.
It would be more accurate if he had the words for me to say "Let there be energy," at which I took the nothing and pulled it apart into matter and anti-matter, establishing a balance.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Big burst!! Subatomic particles aplenty, but all he'll notice is the abundance of highly energetic photons.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
I give him a sense of my satisfaction. This was intentional. I speed up the part where the photons keep knocking particles apart, and get to the first sun, just to show the pattern. I allowed the energy to expand into the void, beginning the cooling process that allowed particles to stay joined without being knocked apart by energetic photons.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
I'll show him the next bit tomorrow, never minding that he'll assume that the preamble was MY first day at this, because days, as he knows days, will not exist until the rotation of his planet is in place.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament [some translations say 'dome'] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Back again! I show him how I let clouds of matter start to clump, to separate bodies of matter from the surrounding vacuum of space, and God made the first stars, separating the matter from the 'ether' surrounding it. I call the dome "the sun", and repeatedly allowed suns to nova and reform until a sufficient number of elements were available from which to build.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
I show the formation of planets (spectacular at high speed, and very magical looking, how I separated the clouds of stardust from the space around it).

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
That's about all he can take today. Boy, this is gonna take at least a WEEK!

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
I show him how I let the lighter, vaporous elements form gases, held in place by gravity, while the rest of the planets' matter cools, and let the combinable elements cool to liquids and gather in the hollows of the solidifying planet.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Then I show him how the ammonia-methane atmosphere creates a planet entirely covered with a liquid looking gas, and how the condensation as it cools. The view I show him is initially from space, when I zoom in, below the cloud layer, it makes it look like land suddenly appears, of course.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Not that he'll understand it, but I show him how I created the unicellular creatures and their progeny in a myriad of varieties, allowing the strongest to succeed. I concentrate first on plant species in the seas, and move quickly to familiar ground for him, the land.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
He 'sees' me bring forth an abundant array of life forms that could convert energy and mass to living matter that could create duplicates of themselves. His introductory course to the concept of evolution. Too bad he hasn't a word for it.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
He looks absolutely frazzled. I'll catch him tomorrow when he has rested.

14 And God 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:
I ignore the fact that he thinks so linearly. I back up to show him what's going on with the rest of the universe, how I set the orbits and rotations of my creations be set in motion and their dance begin.

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
I let the atmosphere clear enough so that the light of all heavenly objects can pass through to the earth.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
I try to 'explain' how I allowed gravition of the suns to hold on to their disc's planets and objects, and the planets to hold objects of their own. Again, he sees only the pretty lights.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
It should be obvious by now that 'firmament' does not translate as solid ground. So now I set these motions in play so that all rotating planets should receive light. This course in celestial mechanics cannot go well, considering his lack of knowledge and language skills, but I have to include it or lose my opportunity to show that I knew what I was doing. He'll figure it out, in time.

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
I finally get to his day and night, to maintain a period of darkness and a period of light to create a flow of movement that would encourage life and diversity of weather and seasons.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Tomorrow, we get to the good stuff.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
I show how I made the water to be filled with an abundance of living species, and let some leave the waters to live beneath the dome of the sky and above the earth.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
More evolution, but I'm covering millions of years in a single lesson. His view is spotty and his interpretation sketchy; but he's getting the idea. I am the source, and evolution is the tool.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
I left them to determine, through natural selection, which creatures would thrive and which should perish.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Not too bad, but perhaps I should have broken that into two lessons.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Yes, now I'll concentrate more on the ones with which he is most familiar, land animals.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Some species last and evolve, others die off. I've established that is now the order of things.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Now the part that he's really been asking about, his own existence. I show him how I made man of these creatures, after Our likeness, god and angel - spirit in essence but physical in form. He anthropomorphises that his visage must be akin to my own physical form, never mind that he's never seen me.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
I make of the humans the dominant species anyway by virtue of his brain, opposable thumb, and indominatable spirit. He's the best I've got. "Be fertile and multiply", I say. "Let's see what you can make of this world and its resources."

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
I tell him, "I'd prefer you stay vegetarian, and suggest you stay away from algae and fungi...". Red meat isn't good for you, and some of the mushrooms are poisonous.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
"... and, leave some habitat and resources for my other creations. Don't take it all. Oh, and watch out for the carnivores".

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Now it was time to give man his freewill opportunity to survive and thrive, basically telling him that I'm a hands-off kind of god.
--------------------------------------------

There you have it. If you still cannot see the correlation, and stop thinking so linearly and literally about the chapter, there is nothing I could do that could make it any more transparent. The idea wasn't a scientific tome, but simply "Here is why you're here, and don't forget that I'm the one who done it".

If the chapter got just a couple of things right, pure chance. Several things right, statistical clustering. I cannot explain how 31 short lines could possibly tell the story any better or more clearly given the limitations of man at the time of the 'message'.

Of course, I don't ask anyone else to buy all this, but this is why it works for me.

Those other stories you pointed out, don't even come close.

wow. just wow. You just did what my very cafflick A'Level biology teacher did 20 years ago. I didn't quite 'get' it all, but it definitely stuck.

*copy and paste with credit*

Thanks

As you were, now

Hiya Wilma! Glad to see you hadn't abandoned us.

It seems we have a parochial similarity in our backgrounds, except that the nuns teaching in my 'caphlick' school didn't even try to help us make sense of things. Religion was religion and science stayed science. Don't dare ask about dinosaurs and stuff during religion classes!

I actually do believe some of the biblical stories, even if they weren't original or unique to the old testament. There is evidence of an unusually severe flood in the area. We can't help that people are so egocentric that they just assume that the whole world is flooded when all they can really say is that their area of the world was flooded.

Our current knowledge of the ability of volcanos to have devastating effect on areas far from the eruption can certainly account for some of the fire and brimstone action.

I think that a lot of the books were written as well as the authors could manage at the time. Whether they were 'inspired' or not, whether it all represents 'The Word', I cannot say.

Take care,

Gives a whole new twist to the term 'Absolute truth' when they really mean 'Truth, insofar as my little brain can cope with it' - that should be attributed to Winnie the Pooh, though I doubt he ever got that far in his philosophising

Oh, I never went anywhere, I have been reading this thread with great humilty at 1. the combined volume of knowledge, 2. the sheer power of conviction and 3. the skills of civilised debate (aka sharing knowledge).

Back to


W

your bit on genesis,

the reason the ancient hebrews didn't understand these ideas was, as soon as someone started to explain these ideas they were stoned.

religion is very interested in maintaining the status quo, and as soon as someone shows up saying they can prove god does not exist they get surrounded by very angry priests with very sharp knives muttering words like, heresy and sacrifice.

i mean look what happened when someone said, wouldn't it be good if we were all nice to each other, he got nailed to a piece of wood

cheers

You're absolutely right about religions' oppression of science. Just look at what they did to Galileo!

They certainly seem to want us kept in our place (by which I'm assuming they mean 'in the dark').

For an interesting twist of a theory on 'why', you may want to check out the novel "Inherit the Stars" (first of the three 'Giants Novels' on which I wrote an entry.)

When there is disagreement between science and religion, I figure science is probably closer to 'the truth', and that there are things that religion just doesn't understand. That's the problem with a static book ruling your theology; It's like using a 2,000 year old textbook to study physics, chemistry, or anthropology.



PS: I always loved the bit about 'nailed to a tree...'

Hi FT,

I had someone visit school during RE lessons to make similar claims to this.

The trouble is that any sufficiently complex creation myth can be made to sound as though it is describing reality (or anything else) if you are prepared to twist its meaning enough. Your interpretation of Genesis:

(1) assumes that God is less competent at explaining things than the average schoolteacher;

(2) assumes that the listener is incapable of grasping new concepts even when whole days are spent on them, and indeed is so dense s/he can't tell the difference between a story told over 7 days and a story about 7 days;

(3) in places contradicts the Biblical text (e.g. you talk about carnivores immediately after quoting the Bible saying all creatures were herbivores; you mention evolution a couple of times where the Bible gives no hint of it; and you try to read 'firmament' as 'sun', which isn't what the text says and makes no sense in context. Take a look at, for example, what you've written for verse 6 and tell me honestly whether you think there's any connection between the text and your interpretation other than wishful thinking);

(4) in places contradicts science (you have plants appearing before sunlight, and you still can't get rid of that pesky description of the sky as a solid firmament or dome); and

(5) in places contradicts itself (e.g. Day 1 you zoom in on Earth from space, yet a couple of days later our pupil sees stars for the first time).

On top of that, your only stated reason for prefering the Genesis version over others was that it got the order of events correct - and yet it doesn't; to deal with that you have to use phrases like 'let's back up a bit...'

Let's compare that with, for example, our Norse version:


Muspell
The first world to exist was Muspell, a place of light and heat whose flames are so hot that those who are not

native to that land cannot endure it.
- Obviously our Norse berserkers aren't going to understand a 'Big Bang'. The closest they're going to get is images of huge amounts of fire. As discussed, there would have been no visible light during the Big Bang, so this is a far more accurate description than in Genesis.

Surt sits at Muspell's border, guarding the land with a flaming sword. At the end of the world he will vanquish all the gods and burn the whole world with fire.
- 'Antimatter' isn't likely to be in their vocab either. Let's call it 'Surt' - it's as good a new word as any.

The BB requires the separation of matter (Muspell) and antimatter (Surt). If the two come into contact, everything will be destroyed. Our Norsemen probably can't understand that, so the clearest I can explain it is 'the whole world and the gods' - i.e. everything they know and everything they don't. The world will end when the Sun goes nova, so it's literally true that it will be 'burnt with fire'.


Ginnungagap and Niflheim
Beyond Muspell lay the great and yawning void named Ginnungagap, and beyond Ginnungagap lay the dark, cold realm of

Niflheim.
Ice, frost, wind, rain and heavy cold emanated from Niflheim, meeting in Ginnungagap the soft air, heat, light, and soft air from Muspell.
- Apparently my ancient Norseman has no problem with the concept of outer space, unlike your ancient Hebrew. Here we have the atmosphere (Ginunggugnagunapp ar something) and the vacuum of space (Nilfheim). Looks like my Noreseman can get the wrong end of the stick occasionally too, as he seems to think that cold weather comes from cold space.


Ymir
Where heat and cold met appeared thawing drops, and this running fluid grew into a giant frost ogre named Ymir.
- Clear description of condensation. Formation of first liquid leads to appearance of life. Norsemen have no word for 'cold-adapted single-celled organisms'. 'Frost ogre' is the best I could do to indicate life forms unlike any they see around them.

Frost ogres
Ymir slept, falling into a sweat. Under his left arm there grew a man and a woman. And one of his legs begot a son with the other. This was the beginning of the frost ogres.
- In cold temperatures, simple life-forms metabolise more slowly. 'Slept' is the closest I could get using Norse vocab. Note the specificity of 'left arm'. All life is based on left-handed amino acids. (OK, modern English says 'hand', Norse says 'arm'; neither is more accurate.) Likewise, no word for 'cillia', 'pesudopods' or 'microvilli', so I've had to use 'leg' to indicate reproductive organs of single-celled life. I could have used 'arm', but that would have given a false image of dexterity. I think my Norseman has chosen his word well.

Audhumla
Thawing frost then became a cow called Audhumla. Four rivers of milk ran from her teats, and she fed Ymir.
- Origin of sexual reproduction as the world warms ('cow' is the first gender-specific word used in this story). Origin of parasites immediately afterwards. (Ymir = simplest life, as above. Simplest life feeding on sexually reproducing life = parasites.)



I'll stop there as it's wearing a bit thin. I'm sure you get the idea. I could go on to show how the several species of human are described (known as Buri, Bor, and Bestla to the Norse, plus Homo floriensis being very accurately described as a 'dwarf'). I think the Norse version beats the Hebrew one hands down!

I'm going to dash off now, as I'm on honeymoon for 3 weeks. Sorry this was a little rushed, but I just couldn't resist replying to your post before I go! It's always nice to talk things like this through with someone who knows what they're talking about. Sorry I won't be around for a while.

I would agree that our exposure to the Bible seems to have been different; that said, I am reasonably familiar with the first couple of pages and their scientific inaccuracies. Is it possible that your exposure to the Bible has primed you to lend it a respect it doesn't deserve?

Hi Wilma, good to see you're still with us.

Hi Gideon, and welcome! Looks like you sneaked a Douglas Adams quote past someone named after a Hitch-hikers' character! Hoopy.

Sorry it's a little rushed, hope it didn't come across as too abrupt, gonna run now!

Gif

Just reread FT's post and realise you did spot the Adams reference. Sorry, did say I was rushing!

Gif