PDA

View Full Version : The Origin of Matter and Information



throwback
09-07-2011, 01:20 PM
Let me begin by attempting to define the terms I used in the title so that we can at least begin on the same page. My reference to matter in the title line is not just a reference to anything that has mass and takes up space but also to natural law and the processes born from those laws. So when I refer to matter, often times I am refering to that which is natural. As for what I meant by information, initially it is a reference to DNA and perhaps RNA as well. So, information can be understood at times to be a reference to that which acts upon and causes that which exists naturally to react. In a real sense here, information can be seen as a catalyst.

So, here are my musings and questions:
A. Did matter always exist? If so, then what of antimatter?

B. What type of environment makes it possibly for what we know as natural law to have the ability to be manifested?
- for instance, does gravity exist in a true void?

C. Can darkness be defined and can darkness travel or is it simply the absense of light and nothing more?

D. Where did DNA come from?
- How could it possibly have developed initially?
- Is it possible that this information always existed?

E. Is it possible that the universe itself is centrally (at its initial expansion point) or collectively sentient and self aware?

Richard Amiel McGough
09-07-2011, 01:49 PM
Let me begin by attempting to define the terms I used in the title so that we can at least begin on the same page. My reference to matter in the title line is not just a reference to anything that has mass and takes up space but also to natural law and the processes born from those laws. So when I refer to matter, often times I am refering to that which is natural. As for what I meant by information, initially it is a reference to DNA and perhaps RNA as well. So, information can be understood at times to be a reference to that which acts upon and causes that which exists naturally to react. In a real sense here, information can be seen as a catalyst.

So, here are my musings and questions:

A. Did matter always exist? If so, then what of antimatter?

B. What type of environment makes it possibly for what we know as natural law to have the ability to be manifested?
- for instance, does gravity exist in a true void?

C. Can darkness be defined and can darkness travel or is it simply the absense of light and nothing more?

D. Where did DNA come from?
- How could it possibly have developed initially?
- Is it possible that this information always existed?

E. Is it possible that the universe itself is centrally (at its initial expansion point) or collectively sentient and self aware?
Very interesting topic. And I appreciate your attempt to define your terms. And in that spirit, I think we should refine them a bit.

It seems like your idea of "matter" might best be understood as "anything that can be measured." And given the equivalence of matter and energy (E = mc^2) I think "matter/energy" or even just "energy" would do fine.

As for the "laws of nature" that govern matter/energy - I don't know if they "exist" independently of matter/energy or if they should be thought of as "existing" only when there is some "stuff" around.

As for information - I don't understand why you would want to define it in terms of DNA/RNA. Yes, DNA stores information, but the concept of information extends well beyond DNA. For example, this post contains information but no DNA.

So with these clarifications, I will attempt to answer your questions:

A) Anti-matter is just a type of matter. Whether matter/energy has always existed is unknown, but we our current theory says that both matter and time "began" with the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago. But it is possible that the matter/energy has always existed and the universe cycles through Big Bangs and Big Crunches, or that the matter/energy of this universe came from a larger "parent" universe. These questions cannot be answered with any certainty given our current scientific understanding.

B) I think it makes the most sense to say that natural laws exists independently of matter/energy. But that leads directly to the philosophical quagmire of ontology (What does it mean to "exist?" What does "is" mean?).

C) Darkness is defined as the absence of light.

D) The origin of DNA is one of the biggest scientific mysteries. The question if information always "existed" leads us back to the quagmire of ontology. What does it mean to say that "information" exists if it is not physically manifested in a medium like a CD or book or movie or mind? But if Mind is the foundation of Reality, then yes, I would say that information has always existed.

E) Yes, that is possible. It's called "Panpsychism." It's also possible that Matter and Mind are aspects of the "One Reality" or "Universal Mind" or "Mind of God." It could be "Matter/Mind."

Great questions!

throwback
09-08-2011, 06:57 AM
I'm at a point now where I take issue with calling the universe, the universe as I feel it's reasonable to believe that the universe is NOT all that there is. With that perhaps being the case, I prefer the term cosmos.
I guess I read way too much, but in the course of web surfing and channel surfing I have begun to wonder if perhaps the cosmos is in fact a white hole that is the other side of a black hole that exists within a different cosmos.
Is it possible that a much older cosmos exists that could potentially be the parent cosmos of ours? If so, that lends to numerous possibilities as to how our existense could have come about. Our cosmos could have been formed by natural means via the collapse of a star in the parent cosmos or perhap there in the other cosmos there exists a life form or forms intelligent enough to manufacture the creation of our cosmos via experimentation. If that is the case then is it too far fetched to surmize that the life forms responible for our cosmos could find a way to interact with our cosmos?

Gil
09-08-2011, 12:07 PM
Howdy throwback,

I am doing nothing right now, and do not mind mental trips to the far side
of everyday thinking.

Quote: Throwback > [Our cosmos could have been formed by natural means via the collapse of a star in the parent cosmos or perhaps there in the other cosmos there exists a life form or forms intelligent enough to manufacture the creation of our cosmos via experimentation. If that is the case then is it too far fetched to surmize that the life forms responsible for our cosmos could find a way to interact with our cosmos?]

Gil > Not the collapse of a star, way-way to small. The burning up of large stars, super novas through implosion - explosion are responsible for the forming of new elements.
A major Black hole may be formed by the collision of two galaxies of something like that.
Last I heard is that their undecided on the expansion - contraction theory
of the universe. The contraction, falling in on itself may form a major
black hole , creating a vortex large enough to form something on the other side.
More to the tune of another dimension or just another universe in another dimension. Kind of fun speculating.

I do not think that the creation of our cosmos by experimentation by a higher order of beings ever occurred.
There has always been a lot of talk about the alien/UFO connection.
I have no reason to disbelieve that aliens may have visited this planet in the past, present or into the future.

When we look into the origins of the universe through our most powerful telescopes we are in reality looking into the past.
Because of the vastness, distance is measured in light years.
What we see within the far reaches, in all probability do not even exist any more.
If any thing remains ,it is not what we can see.
Whether there is something new that has been made manifest we do not know.

Does life move on, and can we be a part of that life . I think so.
I do not think that within the plan and purpose of all that has been created that life as we know life to be ( within ourselves) is all that there is.
People talk about a heaven that is not of this world where we are to go after we depart these bodies of flesh , for Christians anyway, ( I have my ideas that cover all those that are not) and I see this heaven as a reality.
However others see Jesus Christ ( It is their right to see otherwise), but to me he is as he say's he is. The new man to be. Paul like myself have to be considered heretics by fundamentalist Christianity.

If dimensionality is a reality, we may move on to another dimension.
Also as an alternative we may go to some other place within our own cosmos,
perhaps to what may have existed ,that has now been changed to something else.

Wherever it may be, I do not think that we will have any remembrance of this life and body which we now find ourselves to be in.
I just depends on what one sees within scripture. ( most see what they see)
Only Life is eternal and without end.
It says nothing about remaining in a body that we receive after we discard this one.
we may pass through many bodies, within the plan and purpose that God has for man ( we upon this planet). It says that Life is eternal not our body that encloses man now
or in the future.
What is considered a corruptible body (our flesh) , the body we take on may be incorruptible, but it says nothing of even remaining in that incorruptible body.
It may be that an incorruptible body will also see change as life moves forward.

In my lifetime, I have watched in amazement the unfolding of theory
upon theory.
From the simple to the very complex beyond my own understanding and
background.

I see the direction your going with black holes.
Even minds like Peter Hawking have changed over time.
He thought that nothing could escape a black hole because of mass compressed to such a degree that the gravitation pull involved makes it impossible.
Now he say's that a black hole is a portal through which black matter/anti matter passes through and the intelligence within passes as in a vortex , along the insides of the hole.
His old thought was that everything was lost, almost to that of nothingness.
Now he say's that nothing is lost, all is retained within a different state.
He speculates that there is something on the other side.

Last I heard they are getting closer to solving the string theory that looks at
the origin of dimensions, we being within the third.

I haven't looked into any of it for a long time, but new schools of thought are popping up at a fast pace.

Heliograms and physical reality.

Parallel universes.

A force that is pushing against matter such as planets etc, that is the opposite to that of Newton's Gravity. Making that aspect of Newton's theory out of date.

The Electric universe and others.

Anti matter? I think it is the substance of which matter is formed.

As the saying go's, "there is nothing new under the sun."

Everything, that any field of science is investigating and developing theory's
about was already in existence and science is discovering what always was.

To me, the same go's for the written word of scripture.
What the old testament implied, the new testament brought to light.

Take the old theory of alchemy that most ancients clung to.
Fire - air- water - land/earth.
Outdated ? ignorance?
If one looks at the Big Bang theory from their old point of view
of four elements, that began with the more spiritual and moved toward the physical, the Big Bang follows the same path.

Then comes the question, " What preceded fire?".
Could it be the Holy Spirit of God, who is seen to be as Fire.
The Holy Spirit is the presence of GOD who in the beginning created.

Without Life, there would be no light.

Other life forms of the intelligent type ? Such as aliens in /or from outer space.
I think that lesser and higher forms of life exist within the vastness of the Cosmos.

To think that we humans are the cream of the crop is vanity.
Go sit on a bench down at Walmart and check em out.

Even Hugh Ross, the astrophysicist, see's the alien connection of UFO- ology
to be beings from another dimension. The beings being Demons.
I disagree with him on the demon part.

Some see angels as being connected to the UFO phenomenon.

What do we really know about angels, other than they are messengers of either good or evil. Paul was a messenger of the spirit of Jesus Christ.
They represent those who sent them. Gods, Lords etc., be they deity or man.
You can't say that the angel of the LORD that was going to kill Moses Son
if he did not circumcise him was Johnny good guy.

When I was growing up, that which was science fiction has been revealed to be a reality.

What of our present science fiction? Is it not tomorrows reality?


Gil :pop2:

Richard Amiel McGough
09-08-2011, 02:30 PM
Howdy throwback,

I am doing nothing right now, and do not mind mental trips to the far side
of everyday thinking.

Quote: Throwback > [Our cosmos could have been formed by natural means via the collapse of a star in the parent cosmos or perhaps there in the other cosmos there exists a life form or forms intelligent enough to manufacture the creation of our cosmos via experimentation. If that is the case then is it too far fetched to surmize that the life forms responsible for our cosmos could find a way to interact with our cosmos?]

Gil > Not the collapse of a star, way-way to small. The burning up of large stars, super novas through implosion - explosion are responsible for the forming of new elements.
A major Black hole may be formed by the collision of two galaxies of something like that.
Last I heard is that their undecided on the expansion - contraction theory
of the universe. The contraction, falling in on itself may form a major
black hole , creating a vortex large enough to form something on the other side.
More to the tune of another dimension or just another universe in another dimension. Kind of fun speculating.

I agree with Gil - a single star is of course too small. But it's possible I suppose to imagine a collision of two super-galaxies that each had a super-massive black hole and that all that matter spat out into this universe. But on the other hand, that doesn't seem very elegant to me. I like the idea of an equal creation of matter/anti-matter because of the balance. The mystery then is why didn't all the matter get annihilated by anti-matter? One possibility is that the distribution of matter and anti-matter was random, which would mean that there were small regions where a little matter or anti-matter would remain after everything else was annihilated. Then those "small" regions collapsed to form matter or anti-matter galaxies. And since the galaxies are separated by many lightyears they don't meet and annihilate each other very often. But I don't recall if there are any properties of anti-matter that would be observable from other galaxies. And though we have seen some colliding galaxies, we've never seen the collision of two that were made of matter and anti-matter! That' would be the biggest explosion since the Big Bang! I don't know if this idea has been floated before. I'll have to google it.



I do not think that the creation of our cosmos by experimentation by a higher order of beings ever occurred.
There has always been a lot of talk about the alien/UFO connection.
I have no reason to disbelieve that aliens may have visited this planet in the past, present or into the future.

I agree with both points. :thumb:

The "experimentation" idea is just a little too far out for me ... but then again, if we are speculating about the origin of the universe, I guess we already are pretty far "out there."



When we look into the origins of the universe through our most powerful telescopes we are in reality looking into the past.
Because of the vastness, distance is measured in light years.
What we see within the far reaches, in all probability do not even exist any more.
If any thing remains ,it is not what we can see.
Whether there is something new that has been made manifest we do not know.

Yep - and that's the nemesis of all the sic-fi space operas like Star Wars. The "warp drive" of Star Trek was just smoke and mirrors. There was no believable theory underlying it. Sure, you can "warp space-time" but that doesn't get around the problems of causality that would arise if relativity is true (which it seems to be).



Does life move on, and can we be a part of that life . I think so.
I do not think that within the plan and purpose of all that has been created that life as we know life to be ( within ourselves) is all that there is.
People talk about a heaven that is not of this world where we are to go after we depart these bodies of flesh , for Christians anyway, ( I have my ideas that cover all those that are not) and I see this heaven as a reality.
However others see Jesus Christ ( It is their right to see otherwise), but to me he is as he say's he is. The new man to be. Paul like myself have to be considered heretics by fundamentalist Christianity.

If dimensionality is a reality, we may move on to another dimension.
Also as an alternative we may go to some other place within our own cosmos,
perhaps to what may have existed ,that has now been changed to something else.

One thing for theists to think about is that God could have created a million universes before this one. Or simultaneously. Or an infinite number. Or it could be higher dimensions. Or ...



Wherever it may be, I do not think that we will have any remembrance of this life and body which we now find ourselves to be in.
I just depends on what one sees within scripture. ( most see what they see)
Only Life is eternal and without end.

I agree - life is eternal. And I tend to think of Mind as eternal too. We are the "offspring" of the Cosmic Mind is one way to look at it. Or perhaps each of us is an "incarnation" of the Cosmic Mind and we realize our true identity when we die and "wake up" from this dream.



In my lifetime, I have watched in amazement the unfolding of theory
upon theory.
From the simple to the very complex beyond my own understanding and
background.

I see the direction your going with black holes.
Even minds like Peter Hawking have changed over time.
He thought that nothing could escape a black hole because of mass compressed to such a degree that the gravitation pull involved makes it impossible.
Now he say's that a black hole is a portal through which black matter/anti matter passes through and the intelligence within passes as in a vortex , along the insides of the hole.
His old thought was that everything was lost, almost to that of nothingness.
Now he say's that nothing is lost, all is retained within a different state.
He speculates that there is something on the other side.

Fascinating stuff. I haven't read his latest works. But I do know about his big discovery of Hawking Radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation) back in 1974 which says that black holes can "evaporate" because random particle/anti-particle pairs that spontaneously emerge from the vacuum state near the event horizon can't rejoin to annihilate each other if one falls into the black hole. But I just thought of a problem with this - on average, the particle falling into the black hole would be either matter or anti-matter (50-50) so by this logic black holes should be emitting anti-matter. I'll have to look into this too.

BTW - it's Stephen Hawking.



Last I heard they are getting closer to solving the string theory that looks at
the origin of dimensions, we being within the third.

I haven't looked into any of it for a long time, but new schools of thought are popping up at a fast pace.

Heliograms and physical reality.

Parallel universes.

A force that is pushing against matter such as planets etc, that is the opposite to that of Newton's Gravity. Making that aspect of Newton's theory out of date.

The Electric universe and others.

Anti matter? I think it is the substance of which matter is formed.

Rose got a couple books by Brian Greene on String Theory - the Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos. I haven't read them yet.

Heliograms? Did you mean Holograms? I have a few books on that topic, such as the Holographic Universe by Talbot.

Anti-matter is always paired with matter. Why would you think it is the substance that matter is made of, and not vice versa? They seem perfectly symmetric to me.



As the saying go's, "there is nothing new under the sun."

Everything, that any field of science is investigating and developing theory's
about was already in existence and science is discovering what always was.

To me, the same go's for the written word of scripture.
What the old testament implied, the new testament brought to light.

Well, the thing that's "new" is the science itself, not the things that science seeks to understand.

As for the relation between the OT and NT - that makes sense to me.



Without Life, there would be no light.

Idealism, Berkeley, tree, forest, fall, sound?



To think that we humans are the cream of the crop is vanity.
Go sit on a bench down at Walmart and check em out.

Or do it virtually:

The People of Walmart (http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/photos/top-rated)

Be sure to scroll down. :lmbo:

Gil
09-09-2011, 01:01 PM
Howdy Richard,


R >One thing for theists to think about is that God could have created a million universes before this one. Or simultaneously. Or an infinite number. Or it could be higher dimensions. Or ...

Gil > Agree. Or, like looking at someone blowing soap bubbles.
Each bubble as a separate universe. Or, Macrocosms / Microcosms.
When they first came out with electron microscopes, they shaved the hair off a persons arm, then looked at it.
Lo and behold, there were little creatures that looked much like elephants
walking through a landscape of stumps.

R > I agree - life is eternal. And I tend to think of Mind as eternal too. We are the "offspring" of the Cosmic Mind is one way to look at it. Or perhaps each of us is an "incarnation" of the Cosmic Mind and we realize our true identity when we die and "wake up" from this dream.

Gil > I can agree with a Cosmic Mind.
It is about as close as one can get to comprehending the term GOD.

As you know, the Bible is not a chemistry or physics book.
"And let there be Light".
That light is the presence of the Holy Spirit within Life.

When looking at the Logos ( Word ) when GOD created,

[ "the expression of thought," not the mere name of an object, (a) as embodying a conception or idea, ]

Call it the Mind of GOD or a Cosmic Mind. That which was created was within an intelligent mind at the beginning. Cosmic Consciousness.
He thought, spoke the Word and it was acted upon by his presence within
the earth ( Not over, or upon but within).
His Word was the expression, and it was then made manifest by his presence which was the Holy Spirit. ( LORD). that is within Life.

R > BTW - it's Stephen Hawking.
Gil > Yeah, my slip.

R > Heliograms? Did you mean Holograms? I have a few books on that topic, such as the Holographic Universe by Talbot.
Gil > Yeah, forgot how to spell it.

R >Anti-matter is always paired with matter. Why would you think it is the substance that matter is made of, and not vice versa? They seem perfectly symmetric to me.

Gil> Its been a long time since I looked into it. I to may have to take another look.
Seems like anti matter precedes matter. In the universe itself there is mostly
matter with very little anti matter. It is for that reason why I suggested that anti matter may in some way form matter.
Then there is gas and black matter.
Or does anti matter form black matter which somehow holds or is the bonding agent of matter. There is plenty of that out there.
Hell, I don't know. Glad were just speculating .

Puzzling stuff. Like electron theory is a flow of electrons (negative pot.) and in transistor theory it is a flow of holes. ( positive Pot.)

R > Idealism, Berkeley, tree, forest, fall, sound?
Gil > yeah, something like that. :thumb:

Good stuff on the Walmart folk.

Gil :pop2:

Silence
10-29-2011, 08:33 AM
One of the best ways to get a good belly laugh is to find pictures of "Wal-martians" invading a store near you! Thanks for the link. There are plenty more to be found on Google.

jce
12-16-2011, 10:14 AM
One thing for theists to think about is that God could have created a million universes before this one. Or simultaneously. Or an infinite number. Or it could be higher dimensions. Or ...

Since man is created in the image of God, and all of man's abilities, including that of imagination, are part of the package, it would mean that there is nothing impossible, if it can be imagined, for the thought that inspires the imagination originates from God who is unlimited in His creative abilities. We are still growing and learning and with that thought in mind, will there be an end to learning? I think not because I believe in God.

"And God said, Let us make man in our imagination and in the imagination of God created He him, male and female created He them"

"And man said, Let us create God in our imagination and in the imagination of man created he him, male and female created he them".

Happy imagining to all of you dreamers out there and by all means... Dream Big!!!! Because our God is Great!!!

John

Richard Amiel McGough
12-16-2011, 12:29 PM
Since man is created in the image of God, and all of man's abilities, including that of imagination, are part of the package, it would mean that there is nothing impossible, if it can be imagined, for the thought that inspires the imagination originates from God who is unlimited in His creative abilities. We are still growing and learning and with that thought in mind, will there be an end to learning? I think not because I believe in God.

"And God said, Let us make man in our imagination and in the imagination of God created He him, male and female created He them"

"And man said, Let us create God in our imagination and in the imagination of man created he him, male and female created he them".

Happy imagining to all of you dreamers out there and by all means... Dream Big!!!! Because our God is Great!!!

John
Very cool! Thanks for expanding my imagination on this!

kathryn
12-16-2011, 12:35 PM
Since man is created in the image of God, and all of man's abilities, including that of imagination, are part of the package, it would mean that there is nothing impossible, if it can be imagined, for the thought that inspires the imagination originates from God who is unlimited in His creative abilities. We are still growing and learning and with that thought in mind, will there be an end to learning? I think not because I believe in God.

"And God said, Let us make man in our imagination and in the imagination of God created He him, male and female created He them"

"And man said, Let us create God in our imagination and in the imagination of man created he him, male and female created he them".

Happy imagining to all of you dreamers out there and by all means... Dream Big!!!! Because our God is Great!!!

John

:thumb::thumb::thumb: Yes John! Let it BE!!!

Rose
12-16-2011, 02:04 PM
Since man is created in the image of God, and all of man's abilities, including that of imagination, are part of the package, it would mean that there is nothing impossible, if it can be imagined, for the thought that inspires the imagination originates from God who is unlimited in His creative abilities. We are still growing and learning and with that thought in mind, will there be an end to learning? I think not because I believe in God.

"And God said, Let us make man in our imagination and in the imagination of God created He him, male and female created He them"

"And man said, Let us create God in our imagination and in the imagination of man created he him, male and female created he them".

Happy imagining to all of you dreamers out there and by all means... Dream Big!!!! Because our God is Great!!!

John

If history is our record there should be no end to learning. From the origins of life 3.8 billion years ago there has been a steady progression of growth, and from the time that humans split on the tree of life from primates 6 million years ago there has been a increase in knowledge and learning...so, we have a long history that promotes the idea of DREAMING BIG!!!!!

Rose

David M
02-17-2012, 06:12 AM
Hi to all

I am not going to speculate what might have been at or before the beginning of everything. Understanding the very beginning of everything is as impossible as grasping infinity.

I do not pretend to be a linguistics scholar but point out the simplest of answers to explain the beginning of what we can see. It seems appropriate to throw this into this thread.

Our word universe simply means uni (one) verse (word or phrase). The Bible has given us the answer;

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God

From what I have read in other threads on this forum the complete phrase; In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. using Hebrew Gematria reveals the divine stamp of the Creator in the phrase. Until recently, I had not appreciated the full beauty that Gematria brings to this phrase. Richard, in his the Bible Wheel website has given us an explanation of Gematria.

Another website you can easily find by doing a Google search is this: [URL="http://www.palmoni.net/gematria.htm"]http://www.palmoni.net/gematria.htm which shows the number 7 as a pervasive number throughout the Gematria of this phrase.

Numbers in the Bible have their own significance and the number '7' is associated with completeness. With this in mind, this phrase; In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth gives us completeness i.e. all we need to know. What God has not reveled belongs to Him as He has told us.



David

Richard Amiel McGough
02-17-2012, 10:03 AM
Hi to all

I am not going to speculate what might have been at or before the beginning of everything. Understanding the very beginning of everything is as impossible as grasping infinity.

I do not pretend to be a linguistics scholar but point out the simplest of answers to explain the beginning of what we can see. It seems appropriate to throw this into this thread.

Our word universe simply means uni (one) verse (word or phrase). The Bible has given us the answer;

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God

From what I have read in other threads on this forum the complete phrase; In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. using Hebrew Gematria reveals the divine stamp of the Creator in the phrase. Until recently, I had not appreciated the full beauty that Gematria brings to this phrase. Richard, in his the Bible Wheel website has given us an explanation of Gematria.

Another website you can easily find by doing a Google search is this: [URL="http://www.palmoni.net/gematria.htm"]http://www.palmoni.net/gematria.htm which shows the number 7 as a pervasive number throughout the Gematria of this phrase.

Numbers in the Bible have their own significance and the number '7' is associated with completeness. With this in mind, this phrase; In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth gives us completeness i.e. all we need to know. What God has not reveled belongs to Him as He has told us.



David
Hey there David,

The alphanumeric structure of Genesis 1:1 remains one of the mysteries that keeps me wondering about the origin of the Bible. It certainly looks like it was designed by a very intelligent being. But then when I read the text, I immediately am confounded because I know that God did not create "the heaven and the earth" in the "beginning." On the contrary, the earth came into existence about 4.5 billion years ago, whereas the "beginning" (Big Bang) happened about 13.7 billion years ago. So I am immediately confronted with a contradiction - the text appears to be designed, but what it says is not true.

And then the problem is quickly amplified as I read just a little further int the text. There is no such thing as a "firmament" that "divides the waters above from the waters below." That is just the old three-tier universe with a "dome" above a "flat earth" that was common in the mythological cosmology of the ancient Near East. And then I read just a little further, and encounter the absurd idea that the sun, moon, and stars were made on the Fourth Day, after the earth! It seems obvious to me that no amount of "design" in the alphanumeric structure of Genesis 1:1 can trump the errors of the plain text. So it's a mystery to me, and I can't see how any explanations could every fix the errors in the text of Genesis 1 unless, of course, we deny it is literal and choose to take it figuratively. But that is of little interest to me, since I don't feel like making up my own interpretation of the text.

All the best,

Richard

jce
04-10-2012, 03:35 PM
Just thinking.

What if the fundamental particles of nature were actually tiny living creatures carrying out orders delivered by the Creator? Their function would be to interact with each other in such a way as to materialize.

The implications of such an idea are far reaching, including the opening of a door to the "spiritual realm" where manifestations could suddenly appear and disappear in an instant. A world where miracles are nothing more, and nothing less, than the result of particles rearranging themselves to fulfill a command. In effect, all creation would be subject to His will, excepting of course, those particles in rebellion.

It is, at the very least, a simple, understandable concept.

God is Great!

John

Richard Amiel McGough
04-10-2012, 03:50 PM
Just thinking.

What if the fundamental particles of nature were actually tiny living creatures carrying out orders delivered by the Creator? Their function would be to interact with each other in such a way as to materialize.

The implications of such an idea are far reaching, including the opening of a door to the "spiritual realm" where manifestations could suddenly appear and disappear in an instant. A world where miracles are nothing more, and nothing less, than the result of particles rearranging themselves to fulfill a command. In effect, all creation would be subject to His will, excepting of course, those particles in rebellion.

It is, at the very least, a simple, understandable concept.

God is Great!

John
Hi John,

That's an interesting approach, but I don't see how giving the particles agency would really help anything. Couldn't we arrive at the same result through the traditional understanding of God as all-powerful? He "gives the command" and things happen accordingly.

When I was a Christian, I thought of the world as a thought in the mind of God. I saw the natural laws merely as the result of the fact that God's thoughts are very consistent. He could cause things to pop in and out of existence at will, but he doesn't usually act that way. I'm still inclined towards the "Idealist" view of reality in which consciousness/mind is the ground of being, but I don't think of it as Theism where God is an agent who goes about doing things like any other bit player in the cosmic drama. That idea doesn't make any sense to me, and it seems totally contrary to the way the world works. There is no evidence of any kind that there is a God who cares about what we do and intervenes in our affairs. If he exists, he has chosen to do everything possible to make it seem he does not exist. So if that's his will, who am I to defy him and say he exists?

Richard

jce
04-10-2012, 08:10 PM
Hi John,

That's an interesting approach, but I don't see how giving the particles agency would really help anything. Couldn't we arrive at the same result through the traditional understanding of God as all-powerful? He "gives the command" and things happen accordingly.

Richard

Hi Richard

Hope all is well!

The idea that led me to consider agency was the simplicity of it. It would certainly lend understanding to activities taking place in quantum mechanics and perhaps shed some light on the possibility of a spiritual dimension.

I don't disagree with the conventional approach to creation, but hey, let's face it... man has a long way to go in his pursuit of a unifying theory, and if we don't live forever, you and I are going to get kicked out of the theater before the end of the movie.

God's best to you Richard. Always good to chat!

John

Richard Amiel McGough
04-10-2012, 08:31 PM
Hi Richard

Hope all is well!

The idea that led me to consider agency was the simplicity of it. It would certainly lend understanding to activities taking place in quantum mechanics and perhaps shed some light on the possibility of a spiritual dimension.

I don't disagree with the conventional approach to creation, but hey, let's face it... man has a long way to go in his pursuit of a unifying theory, and if we don't live forever, you and I are going to get kicked out of the theater before the end of the movie.

God's best to you Richard. Always good to chat!

John
Hey there John,

This is a fun topic you introduced. And yes, we have much to learn!

I think we might find more light if I thought of "elementary particles" as the very "stuff of God" as opposed to created living beings. I mean, energy can be thought of ultimately as light, and light is a very good metaphor for God. Perhaps we are really "seeing God" when we see anything at all.

Great chatting,

Richard

jce
04-11-2012, 10:17 AM
Hey there John,

This is a fun topic you introduced. And yes, we have much to learn!

I think we might find more light if I thought of "elementary particles" as the very "stuff of God" as opposed to created living beings. I mean, energy can be thought of ultimately as light, and light is a very good metaphor for God. Perhaps we are really "seeing God" when we see anything at all.

Great chatting,

Richard

We need a "Like" link on posts so viewers could agree with a comment.

I "Like" your premise!

John

duxrow
04-11-2012, 10:59 AM
We need a "Like" link on posts so viewers could agree with a comment.

I "Like" your premise!

John

Great subject. Overwhelming too!343

"Anybody out there??" :sCo_hmmthink:

CWH
04-11-2012, 11:08 AM
We need a "Like" link on posts so viewers could agree with a comment.

I "Like" your premise!

John

Forget about the "Like" button; based on experience, surveys and questionnaires don't work in this forum. And hardly anyone used the thread ratings in this forum, not to say the "Like" button. Furthermore, the "Like" or "Unlike" button can be misused, same as the thread ratings.

God Blessed.:pray: