Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 It certainly meshes better with science than the old "ZAP ZAP ZAP ZAP the universe is created in 144 hours" hokum. That's not to say he COULDN'T have done that. He is omnipotent, after all. But there is a lot of debate over the meaning of seven days. I'm literal on most of the Bible, with the exception of Creation and Prophecy.
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 That's not to say he COULDN'T have done that. He is omnipotent, after all. But there is a lot of debate over the meaning of seven days. I'm literal on most of the Bible, with the exception of Creation and Prophecy. Hate to break it to you...but unless you're reading it in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin, you're not literal. Translation is interpretive by definition. Had a great argument with a pastor in a Bible church on that point a few years ago. Don't get me wrong, I like the King James Bible...but don't even start to tell me it's the literal word of God - it's not even the literal word of the original Bible! Mohammed at least got it right when he said "If you translate the Koran from Arabic, it's no longer the Word of God."
Gene Frenkle Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 That's not to say he COULDN'T have done that. He is omnipotent, after all. But there is a lot of debate over the meaning of seven days. I'm literal on most of the Bible, with the exception of Creation and Prophecy. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus On the other hand, we're Bills fans. SOMEONE is !@#$ing with us.
murra Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 On the other hand, we're Bills fans. SOMEONE is !@#$ing with us. I've heard Ralph complimented, but never so far as to be called "God".
DrFishfinder Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 I honestly don't know that I can explain that without some serious math. Best I can think to start you off with is to suggest you look up P.A.M. Dirac's equations describing the existence of the electron, which is such a brilliant theory that no one's ever heard of it (it doesn't exactly capture the public imagination). But it does at least suggest the existence of "something" (an electron) from "nothing" (the gauge field defined by the equations of state). Plus...you're operating under a set of assumptions that break down - severly - when you start talking about quantum or relativistic physics, never mind both at the same time. On the level of the normal world, a bowling ball exists - you can touch it, see it, throw it at some pins, you can even argue about global warming with it judging by conner's posts. But when your talking at a "creating the universe" level, you're talking about equations that allow for the existence of "negative energy" of a sort, so that when the stuff that makes up the bowling ball was created fifteen billion years ago it was counter-balanced by the creation of something else that results in a net creation of nothing. But again...serious math involved (I'm getting a headache just remembering it). Well, you are a couple of Sears Towers over my head, DCT, and no, I'm not being sarcastic. I know when I'm out-noodled. I will give P.A.M. a try, but I gotta tellya, A Brief History of Time is probably more my speed. I don't have the background (i.e. not a chance in hell of any background, whatsoever), to digest quantum and/or relativistic physics. As a layperson, it is pretty difficult to hear someone say, "See, there's nothing. And now it's something. Wait....now it's back to nothing again." It pretty much sounds like a Penn & Teller routine. I'm starting to lean towards replacing "nothing" with "undefinable" and "something" with "definable".
The Big Cat Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 That's not to say he COULDN'T have done that. He is omnipotent, after all. How fantastically convenient.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Hate to break it to you...but unless you're reading it in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin, you're not literal. Translation is interpretive by definition. Had a great argument with a pastor in a Bible church on that point a few years ago. Don't get me wrong, I like the King James Bible...but don't even start to tell me it's the literal word of God - it's not even the literal word of the original Bible! Mohammed at least got it right when he said "If you translate the Koran from Arabic, it's no longer the Word of God." Intent is key. And by the way, Greek would be the third language..not Latin. The epistles were written in Greek or Hebrew by the Apostles. Your point is a good one. I'd think the Lord of the universe would be more than willing to accept intent so long as some sort of understanding exists. He understands there are a myriad of languages, and that not eveyone will speak Hebrew.
DrFishfinder Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Hate to break it to you...but unless you're reading it in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin, you're not literal. Translation is interpretive by definition. Had a great argument with a pastor in a Bible church on that point a few years ago. Don't get me wrong, I like the King James Bible...but don't even start to tell me it's the literal word of God - it's not even the literal word of the original Bible! Mohammed at least got it right when he said "If you translate the Koran from Arabic, it's no longer the Word of God." Wow....this is dangerously close to forking off into yet another topic....
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Not the case. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Again, not the case. He has provided provision to take care of sin and evil. It's called the cruxifiction and resurrection. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? From rebellious humanity and the Devil. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Moot point, given the above repsonses.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 How fantastically convenient. Glad you approve. Now my life is complete.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 On the other hand, we're Bills fans. SOMEONE is !@#$ing with us. I struggle with that nearly every day of my life. It's almost enough to make me believe that god exists and is a Pats* fan.
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Well, you are a couple of Sears Towers over my head, DCT, and no, I'm not being sarcastic. I know when I'm out-noodled. I will give P.A.M. a try, but I gotta tellya, A Brief History of Time is probably more my speed. I don't have the background (i.e. not a chance in hell of any background, whatsoever), to digest quantum and/or relativistic physics. As a layperson, it is pretty difficult to hear someone say, "See, there's nothing. And now it's something. Wait....now it's back to nothing again." It pretty much sounds like a Penn & Teller routine. I'm starting to lean towards replacing "nothing" with "undefinable" and "something" with "definable". Good luck with Dirac's equation...I studied it for a year, and I still don't understand it. When I said "best to start with", it was a comparative. Actually, A Brief History of Time is probably a good place to start - Hawking's best know theory, on radiation from black holes, is dependent on "something from nothing" vacuum fluctuations, so I wouldn't be surprised if he goes into it. Otherwise...if you're really interested in learning (in the colloquial "Discovery Channel" sense) some physics, any of Feynman's books would be good. But ****...if this stuff were easy, I wouldn't have had to spend a quarter of my life studying it. And all I use it for is arguing on message boards. Go !@#$ing figure.
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Intent is key. And by the way, Greek would be the third language..not Latin. The epistles were written in Greek or Hebrew by the Apostles. Your point is a good one. I'd think the Lord of the universe would be more than willing to accept intent so long as some sort of understanding exists. He understands there are a myriad of languages, and that not eveyone will speak Hebrew. Hmmm. I was going to say Greek, but I would have figured the epistles to the Romans at least were in Latin. And if "intent" is key...then you're not actually taking it literally, are you?
DrFishfinder Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Doesn't mean it was "something", either. Really, it doesn't mean anything other than "we don't know". And it actually is possible for "nothing" to become a particle. Physical laws (Heisenberg uncertainty principle, specifically) allow the creation of small amounts of energy for a very brief period of time. In fact, the mass of the electron can be predicted (not just measured) precisely based in part on that principle - and becomes infinite in its absence. Physics can get very, very weird. Yeah...but you kind-of have to do that in science. Unless differences are observable, you have to make the assumption that two different things are otherwise the same until otherwise demonstrated, if only because it's difficult to operate under the opposite assumption. I'm still leaning towards replacing "nothing" with "undefinable" or perhaps "unmeasurable". But, I guess if one can accept the idea that "something" always was (had no beginning, has no end) then it's not too far of a slide down the Richter Scale to believe that "nothing" can become "something". Afterthought: Nah....I'm going with "undefinable" or "unmeasureable".
LeviF Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Not the case. Again, not the case. He has provided provision to take care of sin and evil. It's called the cruxifiction and resurrection. From rebellious humanity and the Devil. Moot point, given the above repsonses. The problem of evil is much more complicated than Epicurus put it. There have been some great debates and books and "theodicies" written in response to it.
John Adams Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 That's not to say he COULDN'T have done that. He is omnipotent, after all. But there is a lot of debate over the meaning of seven days. I'm literal on most of the Bible, with the exception of Creation and Prophecy. So god put 2 of every animal on a boat made by a guy but didn't make the world in seven days? Yeah, that distinction makes sense!
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 I'm still leaning towards replacing "nothing" with "undefinable" or perhaps "unmeasurable". But, I guess if one can accept the idea that "something" always was (had no beginning, has no end) then it's not too far of a slide down the Richter Scale to believe that "nothing" can become "something". Afterthought: Nah....I'm going with "undefinable" or "unmeasureable". My point being, though, that under physical laws "undefinable" or "unmeasurable" can be reasonably equivalent to "nothing". Ever hear of Schroedinger's cat?
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 So god put 2 of every animal on a boat made by a guy but didn't make the world in seven days? Yeah, that distinction makes sense! Quantum superposition of states. Or mabe the animals, "two by two" were actually Cooper Pairs, and thus act like a Bose-Einstein condensate... Ah, nerd humor. Too bad I'm the only one that got that.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Hmmm. I was going to say Greek, but I would have figured the epistles to the Romans at least were in Latin. And if "intent" is key...then you're not actually taking it literally, are you? Everntually, I'd like to enter seminary school. Until that time such that I learn Greek and Hebrew, I have to do the best I can with the skills that I have. The Lord is a God of forgiveness, and he understands the heart of all men. By the way, Thank you for the respectful and dignified conversation.
Recommended Posts