Early writings in my book.

This is for FUCt....i spoke with him the chat room about a week or so ago. You know who you are.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theoreticly speaking, one could assume that all of creation is a giant burst of energy. This is supported by the "Big Bang" theory.Although we have no complete theory of the relevant physics, there are many indications that yield sound experimental results, that time itself did not have much meaning near the Big Bang event. This means that there was no 'time' as we know this concept 'before' the Big Bang. That being the case, the question of what happened before the Big Bang is now a question without any possible physical answer. So it seems as though scientists who demand answers are reverting to the oldest,bestselling book of all time. The Holy Bible.

That once there was nothing, then with a great blast of energy the solar system and its orbits were created.(Gen1.1) All perfectly allgined and perfecly sized to create the gravity,weather, and Tempurature.If things were differently alligned in the universe, even by a fraction of a degree, I belive that choas would abound.

But How could something be created out of nothing. It can't."Nothing is created out of nothing, and nothing is annihilated and goes to nothing; there is only composition and decomposition, and this makes the universe run." Matter can neither be destroyed nor created, only changed. In the quantum world, we see things 'appearing' out of nothing all the time. Scientist and professors referr to this as "The Universe" acting. LOL. All creation screams of his existence.


So something was there before, other wise, the "universe"(God) would not act. In the Beginning there was only God. And Darkness. So he created the stars and placed them in a pattern to give us signs. To show us the obviousness of his existence. To even show us things about ourselves, charactaristics,pro's, cons about our personality. This has been confused by the 'New Age' astronomers as something 'natural', or even unexplainable.Most call this creation, "Zodiak". By saying Natural they rule out the possibility of God. I say, by saying natural they point directly at God.

I have this discussion all too often as I have studied astrophysics for many years. In order to avoid repeating the same old arguments I would just like to raise a point to you. Ultimately, you claim that the fault in modern physics is the lack of any absolute. While this may be true, thanks to recent discoveries involving the stopping of light, the bible presents absolutely no grounds to claim it as an absolute. It is blind faith that provides this absolute, with no grounds whatsoever. So while you are attempting to present a logical argument, you are in fact contradicting yourself by claiming that we cannot blindly follow physic discoveries and yet we can blindly follow stories. As stephen malkmus says, "No more absolutes".

I think you are wrong. Not only because I'm an agnostic but also because you don't seem to have your facts straight. Before big bang there were matter, but in such immense density and smallness that it exploded.
What brought this matter to its density? There have been theories of black holes sucking up the whole universe and each other, until only one enormous black hole left, that is the start for the big bang. This theory works well because it seems that the universe is bent, so that any black hole will eventually meet. And the density that caused the big bang could've been created by black holes.

You also say that "So it seems as though scientists who demand answers are reverting to the oldest,bestselling book of all time. The Holy Bible.". FIrst of all, who are these scientists?
Second, why the bible? The koran also has a story about the creation of all things, as have all other religions, older than christianity. Also note that the bible is by no means old. It is approximetly 1700 years and based on the Tora, which is about 3000 years older.

I respect your opinion and I must say that your text is very well written, but I see no signs of 'Him' anywhere.

actually mankan, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci...000/727073.stm

oh and mankan, the origin of humanity in the qu'ran, bible and torah are all based on the same doctrins.

existence= 0*0=Infinite

we jsut are. thats the way it is,
creation is most likly such a complex pattern of thought, we cant even conseve it. and to think we can conseve something thats on such a large scale, makes all the more wrong. think about it, if we dont even understand fully how our own mind works, how can we understand how all of what we see was created?

Thanks for the interesting link, celfie.

You are right, SarinMage, but that's not the point here. Either you accept 'the fact that we will never be able to understand the creation of things' (those who do either don't care, or believe in God), or you accept the facts. There's only three options: you don't care, you believe in God, or you believe in the human intelligence.
I believe in the human intelligence, although believing in God would be easier: no more worries about the Big Bang, no more worries about the fabric of the universe: God is your all-in-one solution. I find this insulting for the human brain. The only problem is we're researching something we ourselves belong to.

If i may suggest a book to you negative, check out The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He is interesting because he holds a PhD in earth sciences and nuclear physics and is also a jewish Rabbi. This book discusses direct links between the book of genesis and modern astrophysics theories. It provides exactly what you are claiming to not be possible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Mankan
I think you are wrong. Not only because I'm an agnostic but also because you don't seem to have your facts straight. Before big bang there were matter, but in such immense density and smallness that it exploded.
What brought this matter to its density? There have been theories of black holes sucking up the whole universe and each other, until only one enormous black hole left, that is the start for the big bang. This theory works well because it seems that the universe is bent, so that any black hole will eventually meet. And the density that caused the big bang could've been created by black holes.
.

---

Very interesting statment. However, this matter that was there, this black hole that was there....somthing put that in motion.

Note: If I was telling people to have blind faith, I would not have posted somthing like this. I would have posted telling you that Jesus Died on the cross for your sins....ect.....What I am trying to do is take the scientific 'undetermined' and determine it. :)
Also the Tora, The Quran, AND The Bible were all derivitive from each other. If you read the first 5 books of each you will notcie the similaritys. They ALL are right in my opion. I belive that all these "gods" are the same. I think, Man created religion. We are screwed up.

I mean what causes a Star to collaps and create a black hole? Where did the matter in the beginning come from? Was there a beginning to our existence? Have we always been here? No? Then Who Was?

My point I guess is this. Where man and his Science fail's, God and his word succeeds.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by celfie
If i may suggest a book to you negative, check out The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He is interesting because he holds a PhD in earth sciences and nuclear physics and is also a jewish Rabbi. This book discusses direct links between the book of genesis and modern astrophysics theories. It provides exactly what you are claiming to not be possible.

---

Thanks for the tip again, celfie.
But... what exactly did I claim to not be possible?

that one can believe not in both but in one or the other segregated

I agree, I belive in Human Intelligence which is why i was hoping I could get my point across by posting this. I figured you guys are pretty intelligent individuals.To me, the intelligent answer is creation. Since man CANNOT find answers elsewhere. Where not knowing an answer being ignorant, knowing it being Intelligent.

I can see how most could call this knowledge a "theory". Much like Darwins theory. But correct me if I am wrong, Public school's teach it as fact. Thats rather strange don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Dr Toker
I agree, I belive in Human Intelligence which is why i was hoping I could get my point across by posting this. I figured you guys are pretty intelligent individuals.To me, the intelligent answer is creation. Since man CANNOT find answers elsewhere. Where not knowing an answer being ignorant, knowing it being Intelligent.

---

Let me get this straight. You believe that we're pretty intelligent individuals. You state that we don't know the answer, and then say that the intelligent answer to something we don't know about is an assumption?

Quote:

---

I can see how most could call this knowledge a "theory". Much like Darwins theory. But correct me if I am wrong, Public school's teach it as fact. Thats rather strange don't you think?

---

Which 'knowledge' are you referring to? Creationism?

It seems as though my words got mixed up a little....

Originally posted here by chsh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me get this straight. You believe that we're pretty intelligent individuals. You state that we don't know the answer, and then say that the intelligent answer to something we don't know about is an assumption?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To me, the intelligent answer is creation. Its not an assumption. The Bible,Tora, Quran is older than any science book you can dig up. So no, its not an assumption. It is a decision made to belive the older text book.
Humans have been intelligent for a long time.I dont think darwin was the first smart person....<- (dismiss that if you dont understand.)

Hey guys, lets not get upset...It seems as though everytime anyone brings up God/Creation
everybody freaks out. Demons gettin jumpy guys? LOL
thats a joke.....calm down

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Dr Toker
To me, the intelligent answer is creation. Its not an assumption. The Bible,Tora, Quran is older than any science book you can dig up. So no, its not an assumption. It is a decision made to belive the older text book.

---

So we should believe Newton's Laws over Einstein's Theories simply because his stuff is older? I do not see the intelligence in that. By the way, The Bible is nowhere near as old as the Torah and the Qur'an. The Bible (the old Testament) was adapted from the Torah, and the rest was written anywhere from 1700 years ago up to as recent as 900 years ago. There are also very many different versions of the Bible, so which particular interpretation are you going to use?

I suppose we also have to ignore the simple fact that 1/6th of our population (15%, or roughly 925 Million) don't follow a particular major religion, or that almost half the planet doesn't pay attention to any of those three books.

(Numbers from ReligiousTolerance.org and Adherents.com)

I'd also like to point out the Ancient Egyptians. They understood math well before most other cultures, and Ancient Egyptians left forumlae and etc. on their walls. So maybe it's not in book form, but it's still an instructional guide, and therefore equivalent to a 'science book'. Quite appropriate considering your use of the term 'dig up', I think. :)

And let's just leave Ancient China/Japan and Ancient Central America alone too, simply because it would be redundant to say the same thing.

Quote:

---

Humans have been intelligent for a long time.I dont think darwin was the first smart person....<- (dismiss that if you dont understand.)

Hey guys, lets not get upset...It seems as though everytime anyone brings up God/Creation
everybody freaks out. Demons gettin jumpy guys? LOL
thats a joke.....calm down

---

Just to clarify, I wasn't upset then, I'm not upset now, I am simply debating your point.

Actually, the oldest mythology about the creation of the Universe is Taoism. Taoism has its base in ancient China. I personally think that their version of the universe reflects reality more than most religions. You can see the working of Yin/Yang in the working of the universe. Even on the Quantuum level the interplay of positive and negative form the particles of the universe. In Taoism the primary creation was nothing more than a field of energy with no form at all. From the one (the void) came the two (Yin/Yang) and then came the three and from this came the ten thousand things as seperate and individual from the other.
The idea of the formless void accurately reflects the state of quantuum flux (probabilities) that scientist have observed.
And, if you at the idea of physical states, you can see the 5 elements of Taoism as well as the 5 elements of Greek Philosophy.
Earth = the solid state
Water = the liquid state
Air = the gaseous state
Fire = the plasma state
Spirit(void) = the quantuum state.

The Taoist version of the elements is a little different.

The point to this message is that Judeo-Christian religion is by no means the oldest. And there are others that give a more justifiable version of the creation of the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by chsh

So we should believe Newton's Laws over Einstein's Theories simply because his stuff is older? I do not see the intelligence in that. .
\

---

I assuming this is a rehtorical question. I wasnt saying simply because the theory is older, because it has a solid answer for us. I can see the dislike of absolutes, and I'll keep that in mind.
But this is they way i see The Creator. I see all of us in him. I close my eyes and see a figure, in the shape of a man, with the whole universe inside him.With our galaxy right over his heart. Since we are all inside this 'Super Being' this explains him Omnicience. You ever think about how that movie MIB ended. I know you have.

Maybe there are mircscopic galaxys and what ever obtains/created them is omnicient to that creation. I mean we create theses HUGE computer networks, and shyt we are gods in that network. Not to be arrogant but, we control the networks we create.

This has been so awesome....I am going to copy all these replys and use them for reference and arguments. Thank you guys so much for all he bad ass replys.

jainism is actually the oldest of religions, taoism only became a religion during the classical age.

DrToker, why is it that you take only one rhetorical sentence of my post into consideration, and discard the other points I made? I would honestly like to debate this, which was why I thought you had started the thread. I apologize if I was mistaken.

when you say 'my book', what do you mean

Well Chsh i guess I just can't argue with the fact that the Tora is Older than the Bible ect...
cause honestly I don't know for sure. I try not to talk about things I dont know about. I am sure you can respect that.

But I do know that all these books state that "God" created the universe, so I am using all three interpretations. I am not talking about 'who' God is, I am talking about God Creating The Universe. Which god you say that is is up to you.

Jainism is actually the oldest of religions, taoism only became a religion during the classical age.

The oldest religion, that we have information of, is the NeoLithic Goddess religion. Dating and archeological excavation have dated a lot of the information in the area of 10,000 BC. There is an excavation of a whole city dedicated to the ancient worship of the goddess. The goddess religions held sway until the War-Based Patriarchal invasions. The evidence points to the fact that the godess religions were mostly peaceful. Not completely but mostly. Marja Gimbutas, an archeologist, has written several books. As well as Barbara Walker.


Eglaelin

Aren't we sort of slipping away from the thread here. Of course there are enourmous amounts of religions older than christianity, islam or whatever.

Personaly, I would say that man created god, not the other way around. It is in our nature to try to comprehend our existence. Why we exist and how we got created in the first place. To give absolute answers to these kind of questions we need something metaphysical. A God that is so great that we cant/don't need to comprehend it/him.

What I don't understand is why it is so hard to use the same view on sciences such as physics. There are alot of stuff we don't understand and it doesn't have to be the work of a god. Why just not accept that there is stuff we don't know?

Anyway, I'm backing out of this thread now I think. Great posts. Thanks for an interesting debate.

Cheers,

*Copys All replys

All philosophy is dogma.
You can only decide which dogma you subscribeto.
To be "objective" or "undogmatic" is the negation of thought.
Everyone starts somewhere, with some basic assumptions, or dogma.
:cool:

More comments on this topic can be found in
This Thread
:cool:

Hey celfie, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, he’s the dude with the cat… right? Sounds interesting.


In the ancient herbew mystical teachings like ‘the book of creation’ and the cabbala, which are based on even earlier teaching from Babylonia and Assyria, creation has a very strong correlation to astrophysics.

They speak of ‘the first utterance’, later stated, as ‘in the beginning was the word’ which can be compared to ‘the big bang’. Existence coming into being.
Very simply put, upon coming into being it becomes expansion, then contraction (while still expanding). Out of this comes order, which leads to law…. All on its way to becoming the matter we all know and love.

Its some fascinating stuff.

The ancients seem to possess a truth that science is just discovering. The ancients had no way of discovering these things, no hubels or electron microscopes. No chambers or particle accelerators. So where did this knowledge come from.

I'm going to jump in here since, I'm bored anyway, and I'm finding some of this interesting.
a few points - Neg, why can't we have human reasoning and God? I do not find the two mutually exclusive. I operate just fine with both relevant. Also from what I read, jainism or the mother goddess religion is not the oldest. The forerunner of AMORC is said to be more than 30,000 years old. Now watch someone come up with an older one, and, that's fine.
Also - I think man did in fact create religion, but not God.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gold eagle
I'm going to jump in here since, I'm bored anyway, and I'm finding some of this interesting.
a few points - Neg, why can't we have human reasoning and God? I do not find the two mutually exclusive. I operate just fine with both relevant. Also from what I read, jainism or the mother goddess religion is not the oldest. The forerunner of AMORC is said to be more than 30,000 years old. Now watch someone come up with an older one, and, that's fine.
Also - I think man did in fact create religion, but not God.

---

The Rosicrucian's link their history to the reign of Pharao Tutmosis III, who ruled over Egypt from 1500 to 1447 B.C. I have no information that predates that on the Rosicrucian's. The idea that the AMORC has it roots in some society around 28000 BC is the same as the Wiccan's claiming to be a passed down religion from times of the godess worshippers.

The information that I gave on the Goddess religion is the result of Archeological excavations and dating methods. If you have some reliable information on the birth of the AMORC to the time period indicated I would appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by celfie
If i may suggest a book to you negative, check out The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He is interesting because he holds a PhD in earth sciences and nuclear physics and is also a jewish Rabbi. This book discusses direct links between the book of genesis and modern astrophysics theories. It provides exactly what you are claiming to not be possible.

---

Read the book. Fascinating read

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Celfie
If i may suggest a book to you negative, check out The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He is interesting because he holds a PhD in earth sciences and nuclear physics and is also a jewish Rabbi. This book discusses direct links between the book of genesis and modern astrophysics theories. It provides exactly what you are claiming to not be possible.

---

Okies, I ordered my copy of that book (couldn't find it anywhere here)...
Allow me to make some remarks already though: it maybe so that there are direct links between the book of genesis and modern astrophysics theories, but that doesn't change my point of view: modern astrophysics did not get this knowledge from 'a higher source'; all of this knowledge came directly from the human mind. It may even be so that the findings of modern astrophysics match exactly what is described in the book of genesis. The result may be the same, the way you came to that result isn't. So, my point still stands...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mankan
To give absolute answers to these kind of questions we need something metaphysical. A God that is so great that we cant/don't need to comprehend it/him.

---

I also need something metaphysical to 'answer' these kind of questions... My 'answer' would be 'a force' rather than 'a God' though, and I'm pretty sure science will, one day, fill those gasps.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RCGreen
All philosophy is dogma.
You can only decide which dogma you subscribeto.
To be "objective" or "undogmatic" is the negation of thought.
Everyone starts somewhere, with some basic assumptions, or dogma.

---

True, very true...
If you take your point of view, we all are making basic assumptions here. Some of us believe in scientific assumptions, some of us believe in God. For me, God is just too big of an assumption to start with...

Gold Eagle, I hope this also answered your question on my point of view...

We are actually having a discussion of what was before the big bang here...

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=223117

I'm hoping to get into the deeper details of time and space and what the beginning was like... come join if your interested

Negative. Ok I think I got it now. The idea of God does not alone satisfy your reason.
Eg-
On the AMORC I think you have something there as I used to be conversant with both rosicrucian and wicca adherents. They both showed "proof" of this concept regarding the theme you mentioned. I don't have such details on hand.
I was corrected by an aboriginal of Australia once, who pointed out their ancient ways reach back by 35,000 years. Since there is little written surviving record, archeologists have shown their old australian societies are really old but, I don't know of the validity of the claim.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tedob1
Hey celfie, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, he’s the dude with the cat… right? Sounds interesting.

---

Actually, The guy with the cat is Erwin Schroedinger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eglaelin:
The Rosicrucian's link their history to the reign of Pharao Tutmosis III, who ruled over Egypt from 1500 to 1447 B.C. I have no information that predates that on the Rosicrucian's. The idea that the AMORC has it roots in some society around 28000 BC is the same as the Wiccan's claiming to be a passed down religion from times of the godess worshippers.

---

The Ancient Egyptians have probably one of the oldest well-documented religions around. It's also considered far older than even 2000 BC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Negative:
I also need something metaphysical to 'answer' these kind of questions... My 'answer' would be 'a force' rather than 'a God' though, and I'm pretty sure science will, one day, fill those gasps.

---

This is more akin to how I see 'god'. More as the order of the universe, not necessarily an all-powerful sentient being.

what of the sumerian religions - don't we have some traces of their beliefs?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by chsh

This is more akin to how I see 'god'. More as the order of the universe, not necessarily an all-powerful sentient being.

---

This is an interesting statement. Order of the universe...I like that. Kinda goes with what I was saying about the "universe" acting, and the unexplainable something coming from 'nothing' situation we were talking about earlier.

Before the big bang, we (scientificly) assume there was a very dence ball of mass. Which exploded to create all this. This compacted matter came from a black hole, that used to be a star. So we have this cycle of exploding and imploding....chew on that.

So I present you guys with this question.

Can something come from nothing? Did the first star come from nothing?
Did this universe, and all its gasses,matters, and life forms come from the imploding and exploding of the sun?

did anything ever actually explode though......maybe it all just is.... can we really be certian that there was a start? again i say. The human mind cannot understand the things behind how existence came to be, how it was created, and why its there. How can we say we can understand creation, when we barely understand how our own minds work.

there was not start, there is no end, there is no question, and there is no answer.

a simple statement, that consists of nothing, but is completly understood. The connection between all things that exist. What is that connection? Nothing but the ablility to perceve, or be perceved. Nothing but the fact of 'Being', or existing.

does that make any sense??

Logic states that there was a beginning, and there will be an end, aside from what the Bible says.
I mean you how could existence just 'be'. Is it all that simple? I doubt it. I think the answers to the cosmos and God will eventually be figured out through math. See the fibonicci factors. I think thats what its called.

why does it have to be complex? jsut because we cannot understand it at first glance, means its complex?

why cant it be that simple, why does it have to be hard to understand?

perhaps its just the human flaw of wanting the perfect answer......

if logic says that there must be a beginning, then logic says that there was none. We werent there, nor do we have any way of observing what happened then, or tracing back every event thats happened between the "beginning" and now. its not logical to think that we can make a logical decision on weather there is a beginnning.

(yes, that also means its not logical to say that there was no beginning, i know)

maybe we are looking at things the wrong way.... maybe our "superior" ability to reason and solve complex problems actually inhibits our ability to understand the truth, perhaps its only the simplist of minds that can understand it.

compare us to almost any other creature on this earth....and tell me....

whos happier:

Us as humans... who have to worry about large scale warefare and immensly confusing social conditions, with politics and such,
:3pow: :shootem:

or

the simple animal.
leads its life jsut trying to live. yes, it has fears of death and such... but what else does it have to worry about.... no insanly complex social structure, no worries about large scale warefare, jsut worries about itself... and its offspring

nothing more nothing less.

the most complex is not always the best answer.