As creation stories go, the big bang is a good one
nautil.us
nautil.us
It was never declared to be absolute truth.
Maybe I'm being a bit too pedantic.
> No. That is just so called scientists guessing. Everyone knows existence was created 4000 years ago by God. Anyone that tells you otherwise is delusional.[0]
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/u85guq/c...
Sure, let's assume it's true. Where did God come from?
new Infinity().start()
The Bible says that God has no beginning (or end), he exists outside the bounds of time. Though it is hard to wrap our heads around that concept, there is no reason to think it is not possible, considering the rhetorical questions above.
On the one end God is just some kind of vague abstract energy that acts akin to some force fate and ends up not being that different to an agnostic or scientific viewpoint of the world.
On the other end you get a highly personified God that thinks in a human-like way with highly specific wants and desires who acts as a moral authority in addition to being a creator (although the rationale behind them being a moral authority never seems to be explained)
I think God as a metaphor for the unknown needs little justification (as you say nobody really has a better explanation). But God as a human-like moral authority doesn't in any way follow from that, and there is lots of reason to think that there is no such God.
Isn't that a consequence of the is-ought problem?[0] Where can "oughts" come from? Perhaps this is the same sort of question as "From where does the state derive its authority to impose laws?".
I don't think answering any of these questions are beyond the bounds of our abilities to inquire rationally, form explanations, improve those explanations through criticism, etc. It's true that there will be no "ultimate answer," because for any current best explanation we have about the origins or workings of the world we can ask the question "why is it that way rather than some other way?" And if we later develop an explanation that answers that question, we can ask the same question of that new explanation. That process will never end, but that doesn't mean any one instance of that question will be beyond our abilities.
Solving just the immediate questions in this life has a nice parsimonious feel to it, actually, like dropping hints for a sequel in the first movie of a (potentially infinite?) series.
We can also assume it's false. Where did God come from? A human social construct to provide comforting answers per geographic or cultural associations.
More importantly though, religion is meant to explain the meaning of life, not that the chain of events that lead to it. It has fundamentally different, though not necessarily incompatible, goals than science. So in short, the answer is that from a religious perspective, it doesn't matter.
From God's perspective, though, it doesn't matter if the prayer occurs before or after the event, (assuming God exists outside of time and knows everything that has happened and will ever happen).
That might seem to open the possibility that believers could pray for events to be retroactively changed from a known (to them) outcome to a different outcome (rewriting their memories in the process), but presumably the claim is that God's will is revealed through the outcomes themselves, and the believer should update their desires based on that revealed will.
Given that take - there is no distinction between the universe being billions of years old and the universe having been "fast forwarded" to 2000BC. This is being perceived by an entity that sits outside the passage of time. Everything is arguably "fast forwarded" in that the entirety of creation - along with everything before and after creation - is being experienced simultaneously by a timeless being.
> Last Thursdayism is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old.[0]
It says the earth existed for an unknown period of time, before God began to prepare it for habitation. The period of this preparation is also not given (it could be arbitrarily long). Genesis also gives an order of appearance of life (plants -> animals -> man) that roughly agrees with the fossil record.
There is nothing in Genesis that is at variance with known science, and nothing in it that actually supports a young earth.
Yes, it turns out it's also an idea that philosophy-crafters and science-crafters can also get wrong:
This is so absurd a claim I don't know where to begin. But how about the claim that the sky is a vault which separate the waters above from the waters below? The sky is not actually a vault with water above it, at least according to science.
Or how about the claim that the sun and moon and stars was created after plants and trees were created?
But you don't even have to accept this sequence of events. Even now we have large amounts of water suspended in the atmosphere (as clouds) and large amounts on the earth's surface (as described above). I'm not sure what is inaccurate about the description of this general state of affairs in Genesis.
My implicit claim is that the information in Genesis is coming from a superior source who would know, but you are saying that Genesis cannot be accurate because those who wrote it could not know what was scientifically accurate.
The writers of the Bible books generally claimed that the information they wrote down was inspired.
Just goes to show that people and books which claim to be divinely inspired tend not to be very reliable.
Instead, it is claimed to be a divine revelation, given by God to explain (using language and ideas that would be most useful to most people) the important truths about the Creation process and Man's place within it.
1. God is the architect of the universe
2. God is eternal and has no beginning
3. There was probably a historical Adam and Eve.
The rest is extremely important for the philosophical basis of:
1. sinfulness of humanity
2. dignity of humanity (image of God)
3. the problem that justice can't be both restorative and retributive
4. inkling toward a solution to 3. (forgiveness/sacrifice/charity)
And much more... it's a deep text.
So how about God creating the sun, moon, and stars after creating plants and trees?
I don't think claims about vaults of water should be read as an architectural blueprint or an Ikea furniture assembly instruction booklet.
There is a three dimensional region of the atmosphere which is above sea level and below the level at which clouds (floating bodies of water) can form. It's perfectly reasonable to poetically call that region a vault that separates the waters above from the waters below.
> Or how about the claim that the sun and moon and stars was created after plants and trees were created?
That's a great point, actually, although note that the narrative starts with the creation of "light" and the day-night cycle, before the creation of the trees and plants. Therefore one interpretation of the fourth day narrative is that it describes the sky becoming clearer so that these individual bodies can be seen.
I think there is still some speculation among scientists about what the atmosphere of the early Earth was like, but it seems that it was greatly influenced by volcanism, and there was a thick haze of hydrocarbons for a large period of its history.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00167...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21598-haze-clears-on-...
It is not an interpretation which is justified by the text, but sure - you can interpret any text any way you want. But you are basically just writing your own text then.
You could conclude that there is no logically consistent interpretation possible, and if your prior is that the narrative can't be correct then I suppose that's an appealing conclusion, but I think it is just as reasonable to say that the text is describing (at least poetically) the subjective experience of a nominal observer on the surface of the Earth as it is being formed.
The simplistic meaning is not "uncomfortable", it's ruled out (or at least made questionable) by the text which precedes it. For the other passages there is no such apparent contradiction.
> If you at least were consistent in your interpretation
For all the other passages, there is no difference between "creating" and "making visible", because there was nothing obscuring the view of the observer. (I suppose that most of the fish species wouldn't have been visible because of the depths or areas where they live, but an observer could have noticed at least some local sea creatures).
I think it relates to the common Sky on Earth and Sky Earth Separation theme in myths from on around the world. Often people/ancestors/heroes/gods seem to have lived in a hollow between Sky Father and Earth Mother. Later in time both always get separated.
Now for the interpretation - What is Sky Father?
Is it the sky as we know it? We can't touch it, so probably not. Suppose it actually is something touchable, that looks like "terrible crystal", maybe even looks like the sky that we know. Something where people could take shelter in like in a vault, or cave.
I think the Sky Father is some kind of (ice age?) glacier and the hollow between Sky and Earth is a glacial cave. Ice is a terrible cold crystal, firm, touchable, looks like the sky. Ice caves exist, but they dont provide a great home, but they separate the waters above from the waters below. There is always something to find with subterranean water in mythology.. Now if there is a geothermal spring below a glacier or chunk of ice, it could form a survivable space, that ticks all the marks.
Many myths from all around the world share those elements to some degree, but I will here point only at one particular example, from - least expected - the Māori, that I find especially interesting, because of its mentioning of "extreme cold".
https://www.sacred-texts.com/pac/lww/lww3.htm
Some excerpts (my comments marked with > at line begin):
The Rangi-nui [great sky], which stands above, felt a desire towards Papa-tua-nuku [the earth], whose belly was turned up [towards him]; he desired her as a wife. So Rangi came down to Papa. In that period the amount of light was nil; absolute and complete darkness [po-kutikuti kakarauri] prevailed; there was no sun, no moon, no stars, no clouds, no light, no mist—no ripples stirred the surface of ocean; no breath of air, a complete and absolute stillness.
And so Rangi-nui dwelt with Papa-tua-nuku as his wife; and then he set [hikaia = whakato, to set, plant] plants to cover the nakedness of Papa; for her armpits, her head, and the body; and after that the smaller trees to clothe them both, for the body of the earth was naked. Subsequently he placed the upstanding trees of the forest, and now Papa felt a great warmth, which was all-embracing.
Because Rangi-nui overlaid and completely covered Papa-tua-nuku, the growth of all things could not mature, nor could anything bear fruit [or increase]; they were in an unstable condition, floating about the Ao-pouri [the world of darkness], and this was their appearance: some were crawling [after the manner of lizards], some were upright with the arms held up, some were lying with the knees partly drawn p. 118 up, some lying on their sides, some were lying stretched out at full length, some on their backs, some were stooping, some with their heads bent down, some with their legs drawn up, some embracing, some kicking out with legs and arms, some kneeling, some standing, some inhaling deep breaths, some with exhausted breath, some crawling, some walking, some feeling about in the dark, some arising, some gazing, some sitting still, and in many other attitudes—they were all within the embrace of Rangi-nui and Papa.6
It was after this manner that they dwelt in Pō, within the space included in the embrace of their parents. It was very long that condition of affairs existed; until at last a faint glimmering of light, a scintillation like the light of a star was seen, or like the Will-o-the-wisp at night. And now commenced a desire on the part of the family of gods to go forth from between their parents to follow the faint appearance of light. Some of them [the gods] consented, some did not; and thus it became a matter of strife between them. Tāne (68), Tu-pai (69)11 and others said, "Let us seek a means by which we may go forth." The matter was then assented to.
Now, at a certain time after [that discussion] Ue-poto (28) went to bathe and wash away the clammy feeling arising through the warmth of their dwelling place [within the embrace of their parents]. He was carried away outside on the current of their mother's urine, and found himself outside in a gentle cooling breeze, which was sweet scented in the nostrils of Ue-poto. He thought, this is the best place, here outside, so he called out under the sides of his parents: "O sirs! Come outside, for this is a pleasant place for us."
When the menstruous time of their mother Earth came, then Tāne (68) came forth. This was in the seventh Pō, or age of their desire to search for the "way of the female"12 in order to go forth. On reaching the outside world, they then saw that it was indeed a pleasant place for them [to dwell]. There was, however, a drawback; for the different kinds of the cold of Heaven [or space], Wero-i-te-ninihi, Wero-i-te-wawana, Kŭna-wiri, Maeke, and Kotokoto, there spread out their intense cold.13 Hence, did Rangi and Papa closely embrace [to exclude the cold from ther offspring], and, hence, also originated the 'goose-flesh,' and trembling through cold [from which mankind suffers to this day]. These are the enemies that afflicted the family14 of their father. In consequence of this, they sheltered under the sides of their mother, where they found warmth, which they named Whakaruru-taha [shelter-by-the-side], which name came down to us, and is applied to a warm and pleasant place where no winds blow.
Now, when Rangi-nui had been properly placed in position as is now to be seen, the blood from the arms dripped down on to Papa [the Earth], and hence is the horu [red oxide of iron], and the pukepoto [blue phosphate of iron], that his descendants in this world use in painting.19 And hence also is the red appearance that inflames the skies at sunrise or sunset—that is the blood of Rangi's arms.
The part where the first man was created directly from the dust of the earth?
The part where the first woman was created from the rib of the first man?
The talking snake?
The magic trees?
The angel with the flaming sword?
The existence of God?!
Consider, if something happens once in a billions years, does the fact that you (and everyone who has ever existed) have never seen it happen necessarily mean it is impossible?
You might be asking for scientific proof of non-existance, but that cannot be provided for pretty much anything. For instance, you cannot (yet) prove that there is NOT a teapot orbiting at the same distance from the sun as Pluto.
By claiming we need to disprove God, you are missing the point. You're being asked to PROVE God.
Much of religion is desirable (godlike friendly entities, everlasting life, real justice). However we have no evidence any of it is true. I wish some of it was. Wrath of god, less desirable.
The information in Genesis gives information about several things that agree with known science (even at a time where there was no modern scientific knowledge to speak of). Now, if there are other things in it that seem to go beyond our experience, there is no reason to suddenly doubt it's accuracy.
Also, about the null hypothesis thing: Let's say I claim I'm a sentient being. You dispute that claim. On who should the burden of proof fall?
I believe the only accurate and objective measure of truth is the scientific process. In the absence of running the tests myself, I would examine the process taken and make a trust-based assessment about the practitioners. Not ideal, I agree.
It seems likely that your statement is true, I can't think of any such belief right now.
> The information in Genesis gives information about several things that agree with known science ... there is no reason to suddenly doubt it's accuracy.
The internet is full of both truth and lies. Just because there is some truth, does not mean there are NOT also some lies / mistakes. The same is true of all works.
Just because some part of Genesis (or Tolkien's the Hobbit) matches reality (for instance, eating delicious apples)... does not mean the whole thing is accurate truth.
> Let's say I claim I'm a sentient being. You dispute that claim. On who should the burden of proof fall?
This is some deep ethics. Initially I would look to prove that you could effect your environment somehow. God clearly cannot, based on experiments relating to Prayer.
One means would be a Turing test?
Generally these are very deep discussions relating to sentience, the effects of that. I'd say that discussing that here would be a distraction from the proof thing.
If you approach things with an open mind and consider the witness of people who witnessed the events, the agreement with known scientific facts, the satisfying answers given to the deep questions of life, and the sound advice given regarding practical aspects of life which works, then the logical conclusion is that the Bible contains accurate information that comes from a higher source, God.
But these things have been politicized. It is anathema for most scientists (and people who follow the science and think they know so much) to admit the limits of the simplistic scientific method that they follow.
"Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
That seems pretty clear and explicit: man -> plants -> animals.
And then the first woman is formed from the rib of the first man.
Not to mention earth existing before the stars. Before even light!
How can you say this is all consistent with known science? Do you consider it a mistranslation or an absurdly contorted metaphor or something?
This passage is simply saying there was no human agriculture on the earth, because rain as we know did not exist, and there were no humans to do the work.
> 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
Generally plants were existing, but this passage is saying that just prior to forming man, a special garden was planted for them to start with. In effect God was starting an agricultural project to hand over the the first man, for them to dominate the flora with time.
> And then the first woman is formed from the rib of the first man.
What is impossible about that?
> Not to mention earth existing before the stars. Before even light!
Nowhere does Genesis say or imply that
> This passage is simply saying there was no human agriculture on the earth, because rain as we know did not exist, and there were no humans to do the work.
Assuming that that passage is talking about human agriculture is a very generous interpretation - it is specifically saying that plants had no reason to exist prior to human beings, and that would conflict with plant fossils (and a whole bunch of other fossils) pre-dating 2000 BC. I know it isn't uncommon to argue that fossils were the production of God to give us something to assemble in the main halls of our museums but I find that argument to be extremely weak and rely on God assuming they'd need to give us something we didn't know we'd need if it didn't exist. If there were no fossils predating, say, 500 AD, we'd probably try and come up with scientific justifications as to why fossils can only survive 1500 years.
> > 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
> Generally plants were existing, but this passage is saying that just prior to forming man, a special garden was planted for them to start with. In effect God was starting an agricultural project to hand over the the first man, for them to dominate the flora with time.
Again, I think you're reading in some assumptions into the text - I've actually always read that passage to imply that the world was essentially an unformed wasteland prior to the creation of the garden of eden - that the "made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground" was a sort of spontaneous creation of life.
> > And then the first woman is formed from the rib of the first man.
> What is impossible about that?
It is strange that in four thousand years of existence not once have we seen asexual rib-based reproduction occur again spontaneously - if this option was on the table you'd assume it'd occasionally happen again. Also, it clashes with a lot of our understanding of genetics, actually in a way worse than the first man being created from the rib of a woman - there is an x-chromosom that would need to be created somewhere in this process.
Since earlier in Genesis it is made clear that plants were created before animals, I think it is the only consistent interpretation. Also, maybe "Agriculture" was not the best word to use; I meant any deliberate human action on the flora, not necessarily to produce food.
> Again, I think you're reading in some assumptions into the text - I've actually always read that passage to imply that the world was essentially an unformed wasteland prior to the creation of the garden of eden - that the "made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground" was a sort of spontaneous creation of life.
All the plants in the garden were already existing; that expression "made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground" apparently means the garden was a showcase of the wonderful variety of plant life existing.
> What is impossible about that?
I honestly don't know where to begin. Perhaps you can explain how that is compatible with what we know of the biological history of genders, sexual reproduction and anatomy?
>> Not to mention earth existing before the stars. Before even light!
> Nowhere does Genesis say or imply that
It's literally the first thing it says:
"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
Earth, then light.
Then, later (after land, vegetation, the sky, etc), stars:
"14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night..."
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
Earth, then light.
This is talking from the perspective of an observer on earth. Light in a general, diffuse form started to penetrate the atmosphere at some point (this is the "creation" of light at 1:3). Then there was an expanse (vault) created to form a division between water below and those above. For an observer on earth, light would have only gradually penetrated the waters above. Eventually, the sun and moon and stars, and their motions, would become visible (1:14-18)
Most obvious is that in chapter 1, animals are said to exist before people ("fifth day", "sixth day"). In chapter 2, however, this happens in the reverse order ("It is not good that man should be alone... formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air"). The latter disagrees with not only the former, but also with basically all evidence we have.
Interestingly, there's an extensive tradition of negative theology, that is the study of what we can't know about God. This isn't exclusively a Christian thing, but seems to be the result of the Skeptic tradition of Hellenic philosophy coming into contact with the Abrahamic faiths.
John Scotus wrote that "God is not, because he transcends being". Something to think about.
Even the average Catholic is required to believe that all humans are descended from a literal first man (Humani Generis, p. 37).
I would posit that someone believing in YEC is strongly correlated to their willingness to accept and embrace other unpopular and/or hard tenets of their religion. There are, for instance, plenty of Catholics who believe in evolution, but most of those do not go beyond what Catholicism requires in the way of fasting or sexuality. Thus raising the question 'what makes someone a religious person?'...
And the same applies to all facts. Scientists, of course, all rely on the same insight, and don't believe anything except experiments; plus God, if they care to.
Also, by definition, no-one is able to infer what would have happened "before" the Big Bang. Even time as we know it doesn't make sense then.
It's conditional.
It's like posting a wiki entry of those who have tenure at major universities and claiming it's because those people believe in universities.
It takes real effort to push back against the disinformation of the day.