"Who created the god particle?"

tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Who created the god particle?"

I just thought I'd post one article on the news of the Higg's Boson for those who may never watch anything besides Seinfeld re-runs. Every news source has an article, but NG just happened to be the last one I came across.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120704-god-particle-higgs-boson-new-cern-science/

I titled this because I was with my uncle and mother because of a death in the family, and this story came on the news.  The first thing out of my christian uncle's mouth was "Yeah, but who created the god particle?"

I just laughed and nodded my head.  I told him that they aren't making any wild claims and it was great step and exciting news for science.

Then I asked him what it would take for him to seriously question the story of genesis.

His reply was "Only the word of god"

WTF  

Oh, by the way he is only my uncle by marriage.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Understand his position,

 Understand his position, though.

If science discovered the Christian God he'd be bound by his religion to deny its existence.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I wasn't really surprised by

I wasn't really surprised by his initial statement.

The punch line was the story of genesis IS supposedly the word of god.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:I just

tonyjeffers wrote:

I just thought I'd post one article on the news of the Higg's Boson for those who may never watch anything besides Seinfeld re-runs. Every news source has an article, but NG just happened to be the last one I came across.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120704-god-particle-higgs-boson-new-cern-science/

I titled this because I was with my uncle and mother because of a death in the family, and this story came on the news.  The first thing out of my christian uncle's mouth was "Yeah, but who created the god particle?"

I just laughed and nodded my head.  I told him that they aren't making any wild claims and it was great step and exciting news for science.

Then I asked him what it would take for him to seriously question the story of genesis.

His reply was "Only the word of god"

WTF  

Oh, by the way he is only my uncle by marriage.

 

If you told you uncle the TRUTH that Jesus is a myth would his head explode?

Well, we know it wasn't the mythical Jesus that created Higg's Boson.  They believe in cartoon like fantasy like talking snakes, turning water into wine, and the entire earth created in 6 days!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

I just thought I'd post one article on the news of the Higg's Boson for those who may never watch anything besides Seinfeld re-runs. Every news source has an article, but NG just happened to be the last one I came across.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120704-god-particle-higgs-boson-new-cern-science/

I titled this because I was with my uncle and mother because of a death in the family, and this story came on the news.  The first thing out of my christian uncle's mouth was "Yeah, but who created the god particle?"

I just laughed and nodded my head.  I told him that they aren't making any wild claims and it was great step and exciting news for science.

Then I asked him what it would take for him to seriously question the story of genesis.

His reply was "Only the word of god"

WTF  

Oh, by the way he is only my uncle by marriage.

 

 

If you told you uncle the TRUTH that Jesus is a myth would his head explode?

Well, we know it wasn't the mythical Jesus that created Higg's Boson.  They believe in cartoon like fantasy like talking snakes, turning water into wine, and the entire earth created in 6 days!

 

JNE   I read part of your link. I stopped just because I was a little tired and unfocused, but it seems well written and easy to follow.  I've stated before that I'm still a little ignorant on the matter basically from laziness and the fact that most writings i've  tried to read are very side tracking and hard to follow requiring allot of outside confirmation.  Looks like it's bundles together very well and I will try and finish it tommorrow.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:I just

tonyjeffers wrote:

I just thought I'd post one article on the news of the Higg's Boson for those who may never watch anything besides Seinfeld re-runs. Every news source has an article, but NG just happened to be the last one I came across.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120704-god-particle-higgs-boson-new-cern-science/

I titled this because I was with my uncle and mother because of a death in the family, and this story came on the news.  The first thing out of my christian uncle's mouth was "Yeah, but who created the god particle?"

G-d created the G-d Particle?

Look, you think the Big Bang was anything other than a giant burst of energy, covering a huge range of the electromagnetic spectrum?  Sort of like, a rapidly expanding ball of light?  Sort of like ... "Let there be light!"?

Tell your crazy Christian relatives they are denying the existence of G-d by denying Science.  THAT could very well cause their heads to explode.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

I just thought I'd post one article on the news of the Higg's Boson for those who may never watch anything besides Seinfeld re-runs. Every news source has an article, but NG just happened to be the last one I came across.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120704-god-particle-higgs-boson-new-cern-science/

I titled this because I was with my uncle and mother because of a death in the family, and this story came on the news.  The first thing out of my christian uncle's mouth was "Yeah, but who created the god particle?"

G-d created the G-d Particle?

Look, you think the Big Bang was anything other than a giant burst of energy, covering a huge range of the electromagnetic spectrum?  Sort of like, a rapidly expanding ball of light?  Sort of like ... "Let there be light!"?

Tell your crazy Christian relatives they are denying the existence of G-d by denying Science.  THAT could very well cause their heads to explode.

God created the god particle? cool.

You want to get into who created god?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

I just thought I'd post one article on the news of the Higg's Boson for those who may never watch anything besides Seinfeld re-runs. Every news source has an article, but NG just happened to be the last one I came across.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120704-god-particle-higgs-boson-new-cern-science/

I titled this because I was with my uncle and mother because of a death in the family, and this story came on the news.  The first thing out of my christian uncle's mouth was "Yeah, but who created the god particle?"

G-d created the G-d Particle?

Look, you think the Big Bang was anything other than a giant burst of energy, covering a huge range of the electromagnetic spectrum?  Sort of like, a rapidly expanding ball of light?  Sort of like ... "Let there be light!"?

Tell your crazy Christian relatives they are denying the existence of G-d by denying Science.  THAT could very well cause their heads to explode.

God created the god particle? cool.

You want to get into who created god?

G-d wasn't created.

Care to get into who created the particles in the Standard Model?  You've got a lot more "things that weren't created" in your ideology than I've got in mine.  I think I'm going to stick with mine -- Occam's Razor.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

I just thought I'd post one article on the news of the Higg's Boson for those who may never watch anything besides Seinfeld re-runs. Every news source has an article, but NG just happened to be the last one I came across.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120704-god-particle-higgs-boson-new-cern-science/

I titled this because I was with my uncle and mother because of a death in the family, and this story came on the news.  The first thing out of my christian uncle's mouth was "Yeah, but who created the god particle?"

G-d created the G-d Particle?

Look, you think the Big Bang was anything other than a giant burst of energy, covering a huge range of the electromagnetic spectrum?  Sort of like, a rapidly expanding ball of light?  Sort of like ... "Let there be light!"?

Tell your crazy Christian relatives they are denying the existence of G-d by denying Science.  THAT could very well cause their heads to explode.

God created the god particle? cool.

You want to get into who created god?

G-d wasn't created.

Care to get into who created the particles in the Standard Model?  You've got a lot more "things that weren't created" in your ideology than I've got in mine.  I think I'm going to stick with mine -- Occam's Razor.

Ah, the special plead - a refuge for the fearful.

See, I'm not afraid of saying "I don't know" when confronted with something that I honestly don't know. I don't need to add magic to make my lack of knowledge a special "mystery".

I think you just got cut by Occam's Razor.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

I just thought I'd post one article on the news of the Higg's Boson for those who may never watch anything besides Seinfeld re-runs. Every news source has an article, but NG just happened to be the last one I came across.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120704-god-particle-higgs-boson-new-cern-science/

I titled this because I was with my uncle and mother because of a death in the family, and this story came on the news.  The first thing out of my christian uncle's mouth was "Yeah, but who created the god particle?"

G-d created the G-d Particle?

Look, you think the Big Bang was anything other than a giant burst of energy, covering a huge range of the electromagnetic spectrum?  Sort of like, a rapidly expanding ball of light?  Sort of like ... "Let there be light!"?

Tell your crazy Christian relatives they are denying the existence of G-d by denying Science.  THAT could very well cause their heads to explode.

God created the god particle? cool.

You want to get into who created god?

G-d wasn't created.

Care to get into who created the particles in the Standard Model?  You've got a lot more "things that weren't created" in your ideology than I've got in mine.  I think I'm going to stick with mine -- Occam's Razor.

Ah, the special plead - a refuge for the fearful.

See, I'm not afraid of saying "I don't know" when confronted with something that I honestly don't know. I don't need to add magic to make my lack of knowledge a special "mystery".

I think you just got cut by Occam's Razor.

Fearful?  The Universe exists.  What's to be afraid of?  It's not like Sagg A* is going to jump out and gobble you up like that giant cloud of dust its getting ready to eat (yum, yum).

See, I'm perfectly willing to attribute anything that is "uncreated" to a vague and poorly defined concept I identify as "G-d" which I freely admit is a vague and poorly defined concept I identify as "G-d".  It makes the non-existence of G-d rather impossible, oddly enough.

Or put another way, my conceptualization of G-d doesn't involve "mystery".  The only thing "mysterious" is unlocking the mysterious of the Universe, which is a path to understanding the "mind of G-d".

Here's a Steven Hawking quote --

Quote:
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.

While I would agree, in theory, with the lack of need for G-d, this quote tells me that G-d does, in fact, exist --

Quote:
Many people would claim that the boundary conditions are not part of physics but belong to metaphysics or religion. They would claim that nature had complete freedom to start the universe off any way it wanted. That may be so, but it could also have made it evolve in a completely arbitrary and random manner. Yet all the evidence is that it evolves in a regular way according to certain laws. It would therefore seem reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the boundary conditions.

I'm going with "G-d created the boundary conditions, too."

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

I just thought I'd post one article on the news of the Higg's Boson for those who may never watch anything besides Seinfeld re-runs. Every news source has an article, but NG just happened to be the last one I came across.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120704-god-particle-higgs-boson-new-cern-science/

I titled this because I was with my uncle and mother because of a death in the family, and this story came on the news.  The first thing out of my christian uncle's mouth was "Yeah, but who created the god particle?"

G-d created the G-d Particle?

Look, you think the Big Bang was anything other than a giant burst of energy, covering a huge range of the electromagnetic spectrum?  Sort of like, a rapidly expanding ball of light?  Sort of like ... "Let there be light!"?

Tell your crazy Christian relatives they are denying the existence of G-d by denying Science.  THAT could very well cause their heads to explode.

God created the god particle? cool.

You want to get into who created god?

G-d wasn't created.

Care to get into who created the particles in the Standard Model?  You've got a lot more "things that weren't created" in your ideology than I've got in mine.  I think I'm going to stick with mine -- Occam's Razor.

Ah, the special plead - a refuge for the fearful.

See, I'm not afraid of saying "I don't know" when confronted with something that I honestly don't know. I don't need to add magic to make my lack of knowledge a special "mystery".

I think you just got cut by Occam's Razor.

Fearful?  The Universe exists.  What's to be afraid of?  It's not like Sagg A* is going to jump out and gobble you up like that giant cloud of dust its getting ready to eat (yum, yum).

See, I'm perfectly willing to attribute anything that is "uncreated" to a vague and poorly defined concept I identify as "G-d" which I freely admit is a vague and poorly defined concept I identify as "G-d".  It makes the non-existence of G-d rather impossible, oddly enough.

Or put another way, my conceptualization of G-d doesn't involve "mystery".  The only thing "mysterious" is unlocking the mysterious of the Universe, which is a path to understanding the "mind of G-d".

Here's a Steven Hawking quote --

Quote:
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.

While I would agree, in theory, with the lack of need for G-d, this quote tells me that G-d does, in fact, exist --

Quote:
Many people would claim that the boundary conditions are not part of physics but belong to metaphysics or religion. They would claim that nature had complete freedom to start the universe off any way it wanted. That may be so, but it could also have made it evolve in a completely arbitrary and random manner. Yet all the evidence is that it evolves in a regular way according to certain laws. It would therefore seem reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the boundary conditions.

I'm going with "G-d created the boundary conditions, too."

So your definition is not mysterious - It's simply vague, poorly defined and therefore malleable. You want God to exist so you misconstrue Hawking. Or do you in fact believe in an impersonal God as he thinks might be possible?

You want God to be necessary so you define him into whatever you need (much like his creators - the Canaanites).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers

tonyjeffers wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

I just thought I'd post one article on the news of the Higg's Boson for those who may never watch anything besides Seinfeld re-runs. Every news source has an article, but NG just happened to be the last one I came across.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120704-god-particle-higgs-boson-new-cern-science/

I titled this because I was with my uncle and mother because of a death in the family, and this story came on the news.  The first thing out of my christian uncle's mouth was "Yeah, but who created the god particle?"

I just laughed and nodded my head.  I told him that they aren't making any wild claims and it was great step and exciting news for science.

Then I asked him what it would take for him to seriously question the story of genesis.

His reply was "Only the word of god"

WTF  

Oh, by the way he is only my uncle by marriage.

 

 

If you told you uncle the TRUTH that Jesus is a myth would his head explode?

Well, we know it wasn't the mythical Jesus that created Higg's Boson.  They believe in cartoon like fantasy like talking snakes, turning water into wine, and the entire earth created in 6 days!

 

JNE   I read part of your link. I stopped just because I was a little tired and unfocused, but it seems well written and easy to follow.  I've stated before that I'm still a little ignorant on the matter basically from laziness and the fact that most writings i've  tried to read are very side tracking and hard to follow requiring allot of outside confirmation.  Looks like it's bundles together very well and I will try and finish it tommorrow.

Glad you like it buddy! Come hang out in the Jesus Mythicist part of the forum for more great info on the mythology of Jesus!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Whatever structure or

Whatever structure or attributes of REALITY lead to, or allowed for, the Big Bang event, assuming unnecessary attributes such as some analog of 'will' or conscious 'intent' is not really justifiable, and definitely stretches the Occam's Razor principle more than a little.

Anything which "comes into existence" needs nothing more than some minimum level of random energy fluctuation, which depends on the net energy of the thing which is 'created'. In the case of our universe, there is a consensus that its net energy content is zero, since gravitational potential energy is treated as negative. So it needed no specific 'cause', just perhaps the pre-existence of such 'Laws'. A super sentient 'being' would also be dependent on some specific structure or 'laws' in Reality for it to be part of 'what existed'. So the God hypothesis doesn't actually explain anything, it just introduces something else even more complex than our universe, requiring an ultimate explanation itself. We don't know the Ultimate reason for existence, but proposing or assuming a creator 'being' doesn't really help.

Read Laurence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing". I have. I think he is more qualified than you,Furry, to discuss this topic.

Trying to fit the Big Bang into the Genesis narrative is also rather a stretch - 'in the beginning' it claims that Heaven and  Earth were created, NOT a 'ball of light'. Genesis clearly envisaged 'Let there be light' as light illuminating the Earth, which simply does not fit the idea of the early BB energy being the actual source of that light.  Over the period when the Universe was very hot and dominated by photons and high-energy particles, there were no objects to be illuminated.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Trying to

BobSpence wrote:

Trying to fit the Big Bang into the Genesis narrative is also rather a stretch - 'in the beginning' it claims that Heaven and  Earth were created, NOT a 'ball of light'. Genesis clearly envisaged 'Let there be light' as light illuminating the Earth, which simply does not fit the idea of the early BB energy being the actual source of that light.  Over the period when the Universe was very hot and dominated by photons and high-energy particles, there were no objects to be illuminated.

Actually it does say "light" and it doesn't say "Earth".  Fourth word, third verse, "light".  Then, after "light", there is "dark".  Which was about 375,000 after the Big Bang.  And then there was light, again, about 800 million years later.

Read it in Hebrew.  Makes a lot more sense that way.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I'm going with "G-d created the boundary conditions, too."

So your definition is not mysterious - It's simply vague, poorly defined and therefore malleable. You want God to exist so you misconstrue Hawking. Or do you in fact believe in an impersonal God as he thinks might be possible?

You want God to be necessary so you define him into whatever you need (much like his creators - the Canaanites).

G-d isn't a "person" and G-d doesn't have arms and legs and a head and body.  G-d doesn't have a penis.  G-d doesn't tinker, or pull the non-existent cosmic puppet strings.

The gods the Canaanites made up -- they had those sorts of things.  Not that the Canaanites "invented" the concept of deities in the first place ..

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote: G-d

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

G-d isn't a "person" and G-d doesn't have arms and legs and a head and body.  G-d doesn't have a penis.  G-d doesn't tinker, or pull the non-existent cosmic puppet strings.

The gods the Canaanites made up -- they had those sorts of things.  Not that the Canaanites "invented" the concept of deities in the first place ..

From my limited understanding, this seems to be sort of a panentheistic view of things. However, when I got curious and tried to search it ( I didn't really try that hard or research it all of that much, I have to admit) there seemed to be some MAJOR difference between panentheism and pantheism. Couldn't really tell that much of a difference but I might have been able to figure it out if I had read some more. 

 

Can anyone give me a shortcut definition ? 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I'm going with "G-d created the boundary conditions, too."

So your definition is not mysterious - It's simply vague, poorly defined and therefore malleable. You want God to exist so you misconstrue Hawking. Or do you in fact believe in an impersonal God as he thinks might be possible?

You want God to be necessary so you define him into whatever you need (much like his creators - the Canaanites).

G-d isn't a "person" and G-d doesn't have arms and legs and a head and body.  G-d doesn't have a penis.  G-d doesn't tinker, or pull the non-existent cosmic puppet strings.

The gods the Canaanites made up -- they had those sorts of things.  Not that the Canaanites "invented" the concept of deities in the first place ..

The Canaanites didn't invent the concept of deities - they did invent the one written of in the Torah.

Or are you saying that you're a Jewish deist and your "god" is a glorified thought experiment?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Furry

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I'm going with "G-d created the boundary conditions, too."

So your definition is not mysterious - It's simply vague, poorly defined and therefore malleable. You want God to exist so you misconstrue Hawking. Or do you in fact believe in an impersonal God as he thinks might be possible?

You want God to be necessary so you define him into whatever you need (much like his creators - the Canaanites).

G-d isn't a "person" and G-d doesn't have arms and legs and a head and body.  G-d doesn't have a penis.  G-d doesn't tinker, or pull the non-existent cosmic puppet strings.

The gods the Canaanites made up -- they had those sorts of things.  Not that the Canaanites "invented" the

 

deleted, by advisement of Ktulu

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Trying to fit the Big Bang into the Genesis narrative is also rather a stretch - 'in the beginning' it claims that Heaven and  Earth were created, NOT a 'ball of light'. Genesis clearly envisaged 'Let there be light' as light illuminating the Earth, which simply does not fit the idea of the early BB energy being the actual source of that light.  Over the period when the Universe was very hot and dominated by photons and high-energy particles, there were no objects to be illuminated.

Actually it does say "light" and it doesn't say "Earth".  Fourth word, third verse, "light".  Then, after "light", there is "dark".  Which was about 375,000 after the Big Bang.  And then there was light, again, about 800 million years later.

Read it in Hebrew.  Makes a lot more sense that way.

My point was that it doesn't say it started as a ball of light, as would be more consistent with the BB scenario, in the way you tried to argue.I looked at Genesis in the "Complete Jewish Bible" on BibleGateway, and it says pretty much the same thing. Are you saying they used a word not referring to the planet?

Genesis seems focussed on the planet, unsurprisingly, since the writers knew of only a small part of the surface of the planet, rather than having any clue as to the true nature of the Universe. They even thought water dominated at the start, with dry land appearing later, another of the countless mismatches between the account of Genesis and the actual sequence of events "in the beginning".

Your attempts to dance around this are a joke.

 

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
To anyone interested here is

To anyone interested here is a link I got from Buddy- a preacher I debated with here. It took me a while to learn my way around it, but if you hover on all the abbreviations it tells what they mean. It has about every form of bible and translation -interlinear Greek and Hebrew. This isn't the homepage -it's G !:2 .    Biblos       http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1-2.htm

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Either way, this g-d think

Either way, this g-d think that Furry keep alluding to is a rather worthless concept.   Or maybe you can clue me in?

You can't even really describe it or prove to us anything about it.   Not what it is, not what it wants, nothing.

So what's the point in even entertaining the idea of it's maybe existence?

Utterly useless.

The Christian and Muslim god at least anounces why you should believe in it.   Believe or burn in hell, bitches.  That I can understand as needing my attention when first brought up.

Some god like thing that is just some primary instigator of reality but otherwise doesn't really have anything to do with us?   Ok, whatever.   Why should I devote half a second of thought to it again?  I see zero benefit.  And zero harm in ignoring it.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 772
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The word of God

tonyjeffers wrote:

I just thought I'd post one article on the news of the Higg's Boson for those who may never watch anything besides Seinfeld re-runs. Every news source has an article, but NG just happened to be the last one I came across.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120704-god-particle-higgs-boson-new-cern-science/

I titled this because I was with my uncle and mother because of a death in the family, and this story came on the news.  The first thing out of my christian uncle's mouth was "Yeah, but who created the god particle?"

I just laughed and nodded my head.  I told him that they aren't making any wild claims and it was great step and exciting news for science.

Then I asked him what it would take for him to seriously question the story of genesis.

His reply was "Only the word of god"

WTF  

Oh, by the way he is only my uncle by marriage.

Creates man, not the material universe. Biblical creation is a spiritual undertaking presented in abstract, and symbols using material (cosmic) labels to express (or tell) the construction of something spiritual (personage). JC is also expressed or told as "the word of God", or, referred to as. The word in this case is "the beginning". The book deals with people, man, folks, as it's centerpiece, not the material universe. It's the construction of 'the inner being/self". If the beginning is the word of God, and JC is the word of God, then it's not about the physical or the material, which makes it about "us" and our condition. As in---I am the "way" and the "life", which means he is about a particular "way" of life.

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God (new testament extract). That means the beginning is the same as JC. JC is not the universe but rather a "person". The beginning is about the construction/forming of a particular person of type, not a body and has little or nothing to do with the material universe. In this case "Adam", as JC is referred to be Adam the 2nd (biblical extract). That means that Adam and JC are of the same personage ( as in-kindred spirits). Just as --there are many species of dog, but inward are still all the same. JC and Adam are persons of the same type or mentality, not the same physical body or a reincarnation of the physical. Incarnate can be used to explain the sameness of the two, but in mind (Personage) not the physical. JC and Adam are about being of a specific mental condition.

 This explains the discrepancies in the interpretation of Genesis that won't make sense in the material interpretations. The inner self (mental) isn't constructed as a material, there-fore it cannot be expressed the same.

 One problem is the European interpretation. To be understood the book cannot be interpreted from a viewpoint of European mindset. The book isn't of European origin, it is middle eastern. It can't be understood when read as Euro-English as middle easterners didn't use the Euro method of word string constructions. 

   For instance---there are three creations taking place in Genesis. The 1st is creation as presented. The 2nd is as such--these are the generations of Adam in the day (knowledge) That the lord God created him, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he "them" (consider "them&quotEye-wink and called "their" name Adam in the Day (enlightenment) that they were created. ( the 2nd in this case is the same and an explanation of the 1st). The 3rd--- These are the generations of the heavens and the earth (spirit and soul). What this one  is about is an explanation of is the transition (the process of the 1st) from one kind of person into another. Dust of the ground is "the before". Dust in this case is the same as , not formed. When formed is the same as man, but different then "Dust". The remainder is -formed man different from the previous. In the fall of Adam they returned to what they were before creation. There-fore then-creation is the forming of a special personage----different from---What????

So--the God particle then is a matter of physics, not psychiatry. The book has the contents then, for us to understand the rudiments of living in peace, not discern material construction. You may be confusing Europeanism with Christianity. Europeans have never been Christians. That,s why to you all Christianity is a bad deal. No, Europeanism has been the bad deal.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 772
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

I just thought I'd post one article on the news of the Higg's Boson for those who may never watch anything besides Seinfeld re-runs. Every news source has an article, but NG just happened to be the last one I came across.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120704-god-particle-higgs-boson-new-cern-science/

I titled this because I was with my uncle and mother because of a death in the family, and this story came on the news.  The first thing out of my christian uncle's mouth was "Yeah, but who created the god particle?"

G-d created the G-d Particle?

Look, you think the Big Bang was anything other than a giant burst of energy, covering a huge range of the electromagnetic spectrum?  Sort of like, a rapidly expanding ball of light?  Sort of like ... "Let there be light!"?

Tell your crazy Christian relatives they are denying the existence of G-d by denying Science.  THAT could very well cause their heads to explode.

God created the god particle? cool.

You want to get into who created god?

"God" is a natural phenomenon in the universe as well as material. A Christian God was not created in the big bang, nor was any Christian God existing before that. Any creator of anything can be considered "God". On the first count, God can be anything that is greater then one's self. The forces that caused the big bang can be considered "God". God doesn't have to be an intelligence, as he/it/ can be the powers that create. Or, God can be the same as the force that creates.

   A Christian God is a "Way" ( Way can also mean "God", as in - a Way of being). Any and all forces can be considered God. In our group we consider all forces to be God. There are forces you can do something about and there are those that one cannot. What forces or processes create material is not known, yet. What the elements are that caused the big bang are unknown as yet. We look at it the other way---material wasn't created by any Christian God, but rather, a Christian God was created by material, which in this case, God develops or is formed (in essence) by the big bang, as the forming of all material is due to it, but the Christian "God" forms later.

 

In order for a Christian "God/Way" to exist there must first be a brain for the being to form within. In proper Christianity that form is refered to as God. A Christian is a person of a particular mindset, and in order for there to be a mind there must first be a brain. This is what the book is about and for and not about material, but rather about the product of a brain, as within it the person is. A Christian God is about "what" kind of person is present. There are only two possible directions of being-human and animal-there is no other to consider. Human is it's state of mind/being and animal is of it's. Christianity is of the human state. That means everyone has Christianity but doesn't/didn't understand what it is. As the book says---it's so simple a child can write it down. An Apostle points out---first there was the physical and then the spiritual---the material came first. It would have to---there must be a brain (made of material) before a person can reside or form within it.

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Trying to fit the Big Bang into the Genesis narrative is also rather a stretch - 'in the beginning' it claims that Heaven and  Earth were created, NOT a 'ball of light'. Genesis clearly envisaged 'Let there be light' as light illuminating the Earth, which simply does not fit the idea of the early BB energy being the actual source of that light.  Over the period when the Universe was very hot and dominated by photons and high-energy particles, there were no objects to be illuminated.

Actually it does say "light" and it doesn't say "Earth".  Fourth word, third verse, "light".  Then, after "light", there is "dark".  Which was about 375,000 after the Big Bang.  And then there was light, again, about 800 million years later.

Read it in Hebrew.  Makes a lot more sense that way.

My point was that it doesn't say it started as a ball of light, as would be more consistent with the BB scenario, in the way you tried to argue.I looked at Genesis in the "Complete Jewish Bible" on BibleGateway, and it says pretty much the same thing. Are you saying they used a word not referring to the planet?

There's Hebrew, and then there's English.  They are not the same and many concepts which make perfect sense in Hebrew make NO sense in English.

Consider this -- the Torah does not say the Universe started on the back of a Turtle or as a pile of Jello brand pudding.  It says "light".

Does the Torah say "Earth"?  No, "Eretz" is not "Earth".  It's a sort of nondescript "region" or "area".  It could be a city, a state, a town, a nation (in the "land" sense).  It could be the entire Earth.  But it is not "the Earth".

Quote:
Genesis seems focussed on the planet, unsurprisingly, since the writers knew of only a small part of the surface of the planet, rather than having any clue as to the true nature of the Universe. They even thought water dominated at the start, with dry land appearing later, another of the countless mismatches between the account of Genesis and the actual sequence of events "in the beginning".

Genesis gets things right that people didn't even know where "right" until very recently.  If you take the position that G-d (l'havdil) spoke King James English (my father seemed to believe that Jesus surely spoke it ...), you're absolute right.  But if you bother to learn Hebrew, let's just say that you're suddenly very wrong.

Hebrew doesn't work like English.

Quote:
Your attempts to dance around this are a joke.

Your failure to actually read the texts in Hebrew is the punch line?

G-d creates by a process of differentiation -- the dry land from the water, the six days of work from the Sabbath, the secular from the profane, the common ancestor we share with chimps into genus Pan and genus Homo, the elementary particles condensing from the super-heated soup of the early Universe into the present.  The search for the Higgs is a search for yet another distinction -- yet another way in which this was differentiated from that.

The sum total of the Universe, which has zero net total energy, doesn't change.  It is still zero, even though the component parts, all of which add up to zero, have been differentiated into things which appear to not be zero.  G-d created the Universe from nothing, and if you add it all back up, the answer is still nothing.

Try dancing around that one.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 772
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I kind of Agree.

BobSpence wrote:

Whatever structure or attributes of REALITY lead to, or allowed for, the Big Bang event, assuming unnecessary attributes such as some analog of 'will' or conscious 'intent' is not really justifiable, and definitely stretches the Occam's Razor principle more than a little.

Anything which "comes into existence" needs nothing more than some minimum level of random energy fluctuation, which depends on the net energy of the thing which is 'created'. In the case of our universe, there is a consensus that its net energy content is zero, since gravitational potential energy is treated as negative. So it needed no specific 'cause', just perhaps the pre-existence of such 'Laws'. A super sentient 'being' would also be dependent on some specific structure or 'laws' in Reality for it to be part of 'what existed'. So the God hypothesis doesn't actually explain anything, it just introduces something else even more complex than our universe, requiring an ultimate explanation itself. We don't know the Ultimate reason for existence, but proposing or assuming a creator 'being' doesn't really help.

Read Laurence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing". I have. I think he is more qualified than you,Furry, to discuss this topic.

Trying to fit the Big Bang into the Genesis narrative is also rather a stretch - 'in the beginning' it claims that Heaven and  Earth were created, NOT a 'ball of light'. Genesis clearly envisaged 'Let there be light' as light illuminating the Earth, which simply does not fit the idea of the early BB energy being the actual source of that light.  Over the period when the Universe was very hot and dominated by photons and high-energy particles, there were no objects to be illuminated.

One can go back to stating: What created the "what" that caused the big bang. Apparently the universe has the ability to create. Then, can this God particle (base particle) be broken down to show something even more minute. There's definitely no discernible intelligent makings going on. Intelligence can only reside within a material form, a brain. There's no brain in space somewhere. Maybe there's an item that can be seen as "existence" itself. probably "ability".  I don't see why or how intelligence need be required for something to exist. A rock contains no intelligence but yet is. In your understanding of this particle-is this the smallest or can it be broken down to smaller particles. In other words--is this it, the end of the line and the particle is as small as it gets.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Furry

"The sum total of the Universe, which has zero net total energy, doesn't change.  It is still zero, even though the component parts, all of which add up to zero, have been differentiated into things which appear to not be zero.  " -Furry

Still no god required.  -Hawking put it simply

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 772
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Eggzackly

tonyjeffers wrote:

"The sum total of the Universe, which has zero net total energy, doesn't change.  It is still zero, even though the component parts, all of which add up to zero, have been differentiated into things which appear to not be zero.  " -Furry

Still no god required.  -Hawking put it simply

The material is just that, material. How it got here/there still remains to be understood. It may be a dangerous thing to find out.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 772
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes but

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Trying to fit the Big Bang into the Genesis narrative is also rather a stretch - 'in the beginning' it claims that Heaven and  Earth were created, NOT a 'ball of light'. Genesis clearly envisaged 'Let there be light' as light illuminating the Earth, which simply does not fit the idea of the early BB energy being the actual source of that light.  Over the period when the Universe was very hot and dominated by photons and high-energy particles, there were no objects to be illuminated.

Actually it does say "light" and it doesn't say "Earth".  Fourth word, third verse, "light".  Then, after "light", there is "dark".  Which was about 375,000 after the Big Bang.  And then there was light, again, about 800 million years later.

Read it in Hebrew.  Makes a lot more sense that way.

My point was that it doesn't say it started as a ball of light, as would be more consistent with the BB scenario, in the way you tried to argue.I looked at Genesis in the "Complete Jewish Bible" on BibleGateway, and it says pretty much the same thing. Are you saying they used a word not referring to the planet?

There's Hebrew, and then there's English.  They are not the same and many concepts which make perfect sense in Hebrew make NO sense in English.

Consider this -- the Torah does not say the Universe started on the back of a Turtle or as a pile of Jello brand pudding.  It says "light".

Does the Torah say "Earth"?  No, "Eretz" is not "Earth".  It's a sort of nondescript "region" or "area".  It could be a city, a state, a town, a nation (in the "land" sense).  It could be the entire Earth.  But it is not "the Earth".

Quote:
Genesis seems focussed on the planet, unsurprisingly, since the writers knew of only a small part of the surface of the planet, rather than having any clue as to the true nature of the Universe. They even thought water dominated at the start, with dry land appearing later, another of the countless mismatches between the account of Genesis and the actual sequence of events "in the beginning".

Genesis gets things right that people didn't even know where "right" until very recently.  If you take the position that G-d (l'havdil) spoke King James English (my father seemed to believe that Jesus surely spoke it ...), you're absolute right.  But if you bother to learn Hebrew, let's just say that you're suddenly very wrong.

Hebrew doesn't work like English.

Quote:
Your attempts to dance around this are a joke.

Your failure to actually read the texts in Hebrew is the punch line?

G-d creates by a process of differentiation -- the dry land from the water, the six days of work from the Sabbath, the secular from the profane, the common ancestor we share with chimps into genus Pan and genus Homo, the elementary particles condensing from the super-heated soup of the early Universe into the present.  The search for the Higgs is a search for yet another distinction -- yet another way in which this was differentiated from that.

The sum total of the Universe, which has zero net total energy, doesn't change.  It is still zero, even though the component parts, all of which add up to zero, have been differentiated into things which appear to not be zero.  G-d created the Universe from nothing, and if you add it all back up, the answer is still nothing.

Try dancing around that one.

"IF' Genesis is a material construction then why is carbon 14 as it is and then make a universe that contradicts itself, as C-14 is a material and works as a watch. If the material was formed 7000 years ago then how was C-14 created before that when it takes a means to construct the C-14 at a time of the material creation. The C-14 clockworks doesn't fit the 7000 year span. That's like--- a watch being made before the material existed to make the watch. The universe cannot outdo itself, or the laws of fizziks are moot.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:"The sum

tonyjeffers wrote:

"The sum total of the Universe, which has zero net total energy, doesn't change.  It is still zero, even though the component parts, all of which add up to zero, have been differentiated into things which appear to not be zero.  " -Furry

Still no god required.  -Hawking put it simply

Yes, but if there is a G-d, Hawking is very much in my corner Eye-wink

There are a surprisingly huge number of Physicists who are some form of Deist, and most of those subscribe to some form of "First Mover" philosophy, as opposed to the Christian or Muslim "Puppet Master with a Penis" philosophy.

I'd like to think I'm in good company.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Your failure to actually read the texts in Hebrew is the punch line?

G-d creates by a process of differentiation -- the dry land from the water, the six days of work from the Sabbath, the secular from the profane, the common ancestor we share with chimps into genus Pan and genus Homo, the elementary particles condensing from the super-heated soup of the early Universe into the present.  The search for the Higgs is a search for yet another distinction -- yet another way in which this was differentiated from that.

The sum total of the Universe, which has zero net total energy, doesn't change.  It is still zero, even though the component parts, all of which add up to zero, have been differentiated into things which appear to not be zero.  G-d created the Universe from nothing, and if you add it all back up, the answer is still nothing.

Try dancing around that one.

"IF' Genesis is a material construction then why is carbon 14 as it is and then make a universe that contradicts itself, as C-14 is a material and works as a watch. If the material was formed 7000 years ago then how was C-14 created before that when it takes a means to construct the C-14 at a time of the material creation. The C-14 clockworks doesn't fit the 7000 year span. That's like--- a watch being made before the material existed to make the watch. The universe cannot outdo itself, or the laws of fizziks are moot.

According to Genesis the entire Universe is 5,778 years, plus six time periods of unknown length, in age.

I choose approximately 2.3 billion years for each of the six time periods of unknown length.

Problem solved.

Oh -- and 100% consistent with the Hebrew.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:tonyjeffers

Old Seer wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

"The sum total of the Universe, which has zero net total energy, doesn't change.  It is still zero, even though the component parts, all of which add up to zero, have been differentiated into things which appear to not be zero.  " -Furry

Still no god required.  -Hawking put it simply

The material is just that, material. How it got here/there still remains to be understood. It may be a dangerous thing to find out.

Some not only see it as dangerous but as man wanting to be god.   This guy made a video   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWlabKzkdB0   "The god particle and man's desire for divinity" , and even likened it to the recent news of the 30 "GM" genetically modified babies born in the U.S.

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-43766/Worlds-GM-babies-born.html

"The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilised in an attempt to enable them to conceive.

Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults --two women and one man.

The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and incorporated them into their 'germline' means that they will, in turn, be able to pass them on to their own offspring.

Altering the human germline - in effect tinkering with the very make-up of our species - is a technique shunned by the vast majority of the world's scientists.

Geneticists fear that one day this method could be used to create new races of humans with extra, desired characteristics such as strength or high intelligence"

 

 

I've already seen comments along the lines of "These children must not be allowed to reproduce".   Burning at  the stake is a bit out-dated but I'm sure they will be jumpy at the sounds of gunshots.

The god particle and the start of the new master race all in one year?  This is gonna get interesting.

I wonder if someday health insurance will be cheaper for "GM"s"  once they get the bugs worked out and humans have much fewer defects.  Will they call it a tax or a penalty for naturally defective babies?  Puzzled

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 772
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
It's not consistant

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Your failure to actually read the texts in Hebrew is the punch line?

G-d creates by a process of differentiation -- the dry land from the water, the six days of work from the Sabbath, the secular from the profane, the common ancestor we share with chimps into genus Pan and genus Homo, the elementary particles condensing from the super-heated soup of the early Universe into the present.  The search for the Higgs is a search for yet another distinction -- yet another way in which this was differentiated from that.

The sum total of the Universe, which has zero net total energy, doesn't change.  It is still zero, even though the component parts, all of which add up to zero, have been differentiated into things which appear to not be zero.  G-d created the Universe from nothing, and if you add it all back up, the answer is still nothing.

Try dancing around that one.

"IF' Genesis is a material construction then why is carbon 14 as it is and then make a universe that contradicts itself, as C-14 is a material and works as a watch. If the material was formed 7000 years ago then how was C-14 created before that when it takes a means to construct the C-14 at a time of the material creation. The C-14 clockworks doesn't fit the 7000 year span. That's like--- a watch being made before the material existed to make the watch. The universe cannot outdo itself, or the laws of fizziks are moot.

According to Genesis the entire Universe is 5,778 years, plus six time periods of unknown length, in age.

I choose approximately 2.3 billion years for each of the six time periods of unknown length.

Problem solved.

Oh -- and 100% consistent with the Hebrew.

with physics. Do your people agree with your interpretations, that is, do the Jewish historians agree on your info.

I do agree there is terrible discrepancies between English and Hebrew translations. We had big problems on accounts of that. It's not written in sequence as English is written.

What you may not agree with on our part. Your book is "key" to acquiring peace on this planet. The uniqueness is the God of the Israelites. They were the only one's that had a God understood to be a spiritual entity that couldn't be pictured,  as other middle eastern religions had statues pictures etc. ( if we got that correct). We couldn't find an exact explanation anywhere in the writings. We found references to people and/or prophets, but not one that actually explains "what". However, "what" can be descerned by the trail of evidence through the generations. There looks to be a disconnect after the fall of Adam.

We use what we refer to as "universal construction". That is how things are known to work or exist from a basis of physics. Creation in Genesis doesn't fit universal construction. Things don't work that way.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 772
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Understood.

tonyjeffers wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

"The sum total of the Universe, which has zero net total energy, doesn't change.  It is still zero, even though the component parts, all of which add up to zero, have been differentiated into things which appear to not be zero.  " -Furry

Still no god required.  -Hawking put it simply

The material is just that, material. How it got here/there still remains to be understood. It may be a dangerous thing to find out.

Some not only see it as dangerous but as man wanting to be god.   This guy made a video   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWlabKzkdB0   "The god particle and man's desire for divinity" , and even likened it to the recent news of the 30 "GM" genetically modified babies born in the U.S.

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-43766/Worlds-GM-babies-born.html

"The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilised in an attempt to enable them to conceive.

Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults --two women and one man.

The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and incorporated them into their 'germline' means that they will, in turn, be able to pass them on to their own offspring.

Altering the human germline - in effect tinkering with the very make-up of our species - is a technique shunned by the vast majority of the world's scientists.

Geneticists fear that one day this method could be used to create new races of humans with extra, desired characteristics such as strength or high intelligence"

 

 

I've already seen comments along the lines of "These children must not be allowed to reproduce".   Burning at  the stake is a bit out-dated but I'm sure they will be jumpy at the sounds of gunshots.

The god particle and the start of the new master race all in one year?  This is gonna get interesting.

I wonder if someday health insurance will be cheaper for "GM"s"  once they get the bugs worked out and humans have much fewer defects.  Will they call it a tax or a penalty for naturally defective babies?  Puzzled

 

What about the "God Gene". We,ve contemplated these things also. For instance---what if this tampering (which we disagree with) produces a smart dog. that is--- the ability to reason beyond that which a dog does presently. If so, and they use this gene on a dog and the dog ends up as smart as we--------------------is that dog a human being?????. Because in our quest for answers we find that in many case human is considered from a base of intelligence. If so- there,s real problems. You cannot then just put the dog away because it isn't wanted, a human would be being killed in this instance. In other cases human is gets consideration as a "kind of body". In others---a kind of person. Which one is or isn't or do all apply. If there's such a thing as a smart gene and a dog can acquire it then it can go to school from the first grade on through college and learn anything we can, would that not be so. You can put the rest together for yourself I'm sure. BUT. Is that dog a human or not. If so---we've got problems big time.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Some clarification: The

Some clarification: 

The Higgs Boson is NOT proposed as the fundamental constituent of all other particles, ie the 'smallest'. In fact, all 'bosons' are a separate category from 'fermions', which include 'quarks' ( the component particles of protons and neutrons ) and 'leptons' (electrons, positrons and muons). Nothing to do with its 'size'.

Its importance is as what give rise to mass in the universe, which is a fundamental property of matter. The tag 'God particle' was applied as a somewhat playful reference to its importance in the current model of particle physics.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Trying to fit the Big Bang into the Genesis narrative is also rather a stretch - 'in the beginning' it claims that Heaven and  Earth were created, NOT a 'ball of light'. Genesis clearly envisaged 'Let there be light' as light illuminating the Earth, which simply does not fit the idea of the early BB energy being the actual source of that light.  Over the period when the Universe was very hot and dominated by photons and high-energy particles, there were no objects to be illuminated.

Actually it does say "light" and it doesn't say "Earth".  Fourth word, third verse, "light".  Then, after "light", there is "dark".  Which was about 375,000 after the Big Bang.  And then there was light, again, about 800 million years later.

Read it in Hebrew.  Makes a lot more sense that way.

My point was that it doesn't say it started as a ball of light, as would be more consistent with the BB scenario, in the way you tried to argue.I looked at Genesis in the "Complete Jewish Bible" on BibleGateway, and it says pretty much the same thing. Are you saying they used a word not referring to the planet?

There's Hebrew, and then there's English.  They are not the same and many concepts which make perfect sense in Hebrew make NO sense in English.

Consider this -- the Torah does not say the Universe started on the back of a Turtle or as a pile of Jello brand pudding.  It says "light".

Does the Torah say "Earth"?  No, "Eretz" is not "Earth".  It's a sort of nondescript "region" or "area".  It could be a city, a state, a town, a nation (in the "land" sense).  It could be the entire Earth.  But it is not "the Earth".

Still doesn't work. There was no such thing within the 'singularity'.

Quote:

Quote:
Genesis seems focussed on the planet, unsurprisingly, since the writers knew of only a small part of the surface of the planet, rather than having any clue as to the true nature of the Universe. They even thought water dominated at the start, with dry land appearing later, another of the countless mismatches between the account of Genesis and the actual sequence of events "in the beginning".

Genesis gets things right that people didn't even know where "right" until very recently.  If you take the position that G-d (l'havdil) spoke King James English (my father seemed to believe that Jesus surely spoke it ...), you're absolute right.  But if you bother to learn Hebrew, let's just say that you're suddenly very wrong.

Hebrew doesn't work like English.

Quote:
Your attempts to dance around this are a joke.

Your failure to actually read the texts in Hebrew is the punch line?

G-d creates by a process of differentiation -- the dry land from the water, the six days of work from the Sabbath, the secular from the profane, the common ancestor we share with chimps into genus Pan and genus Homo, the elementary particles condensing from the super-heated soup of the early Universe into the present.  The search for the Higgs is a search for yet another distinction -- yet another way in which this was differentiated from that.

Initially there was only dry matter and gas/vapour, no liquid water on the planet. No 'differentiation'. Just cooling which allowed liquid water to form.

There is some validity to claiming 'differentiation' as describing what was happenning as particles 'condensed' out of the primordial energy which filled the early universe, but it simply makes no sense to apply it to the search for the Higgs.

Quote:

The sum total of the Universe, which has zero net total energy, doesn't change.  It is still zero, even though the component parts, all of which add up to zero, have been differentiated into things which appear to not be zero.  G-d created the Universe from nothing, and if you add it all back up, the answer is still nothing.

Try dancing around that one.

I already stated that the universe has zero net energy, which is not the same as saying it is made up of things which are zero themselves. It is about it being made of things which are either positive or negative in equivalent energy, with the positive quantities exactly balancing the negatives. You are tripping over your own feet in your dance. Apart from your reference to G-d, you are agreeing with me, so there is nothing for me to 'dance around'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The sum total of the Universe, which has zero net total energy, doesn't change.  It is still zero, even though the component parts, all of which add up to zero, have been differentiated into things which appear to not be zero.  G-d created the Universe from nothing, and if you add it all back up, the answer is still nothing.

Try dancing around that one.

I already stated that the universe has zero net energy, which is not the same as saying it is made up of things which are zero themselves. It is about it being made of things which are either positive or negative in equivalent energy, with the positive quantities exactly balancing the negatives. You are tripping over your own feet in your dance. Apart from your reference to G-d, you are agreeing with me, so there is nothing for me to 'dance around'.

Let's see.

According to Jewish belief, G-d creates by differentiation of ... positive from negative, "dry land from water", secular from profane ... and the Universe was created from ... a bunch of nothing (the verb used means "created from nothing", not "built from something&quotEye-wink ... and was ... formless and chaotic ... initially.

To make something "Holy" is to make it "separate", or "distinct".  Like the way particles are "distinct" from each other.  Or like how the Torah says G-d recreates the Universe, instant by instant, the way Quantum Mechanics says it does.

For a G-d you don't think exists, I'd say a bunch of Bronze Age goat herders managed to guess pretty well.

Your problem with the texts is that you read them in English.  Once you get away from English, it works a LOT better than you'd imagine.

Keep this in mind -- there are, per capita, more Jews with Nobel prizes (including ones in Physics) than any other group.  And for many Jews, much of their education is straight out of the Torah, if not through primary education, at least early education.  Age of the Universe?  Not a problem -- those "six days of creation" aren't part of our calendar.

Now, with Christians and the KJV -- lots of problems.  They can't seem to remember that Genesis says G-d created man, male and female, G-d created them.  They think it was Adam, then Eve (from a rib, a cheaper cut of meat ...)

Go read this list -- http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/nobels.html -- then come back and tell me that we aren't on to something.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10626
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Understand

jcgadfly wrote:

 Understand his position, though.

If science discovered the Christian God he'd be bound by his religion to deny its existence.

Rofl.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The sum total of the Universe, which has zero net total energy, doesn't change.  It is still zero, even though the component parts, all of which add up to zero, have been differentiated into things which appear to not be zero.  G-d created the Universe from nothing, and if you add it all back up, the answer is still nothing.

Try dancing around that one.

I already stated that the universe has zero net energy, which is not the same as saying it is made up of things which are zero themselves. It is about it being made of things which are either positive or negative in equivalent energy, with the positive quantities exactly balancing the negatives. You are tripping over your own feet in your dance. Apart from your reference to G-d, you are agreeing with me, so there is nothing for me to 'dance around'.

Let's see.

According to Jewish belief, G-d creates by differentiation of ... positive from negative, "dry land from water", secular from profane ... and the Universe was created from ... a bunch of nothing (the verb used means "created from nothing", not "built from something&quotEye-wink ... and was ... formless and chaotic ... initially.

To make something "Holy" is to make it "separate", or "distinct".  Like the way particles are "distinct" from each other.  Or like how the Torah says G-d recreates the Universe, instant by instant, the way Quantum Mechanics says it does.

For a G-d you don't think exists, I'd say a bunch of Bronze Age goat herders managed to guess pretty well.

Your problem with the texts is that you read them in English.  Once you get away from English, it works a LOT better than you'd imagine.

Keep this in mind -- there are, per capita, more Jews with Nobel prizes (including ones in Physics) than any other group.  And for many Jews, much of their education is straight out of the Torah, if not through primary education, at least early education.  Age of the Universe?  Not a problem -- those "six days of creation" aren't part of our calendar.

Now, with Christians and the KJV -- lots of problems.  They can't seem to remember that Genesis says G-d created man, male and female, G-d created them.  They think it was Adam, then Eve (from a rib, a cheaper cut of meat ...)

Go read this list -- http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/nobels.html -- then come back and tell me that we aren't on to something.

 

The large amount of jewish people who have contributed to humanity in important ways is not because of your Torah, but because jews had no choice but to be the best intellectually and at surviving in society (being useful to discriminating christians, to be blunt) or face destruction.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker