Re: Cosmogony from the Book of Genesis.
- From: "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 07:35:04 GMT
"LEJ Brouwer" <intuitionist1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151104749.860656.220600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "LEJ Brouwer" <intuitionist1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1151026159.282399.94530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Let us contemplate the following...
| > |
| > | 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
| >
| > Ok, contemplating...
| > What's a beginning?
|
| That's a very interesting question. Clearly the 'creation' of the
| universe entails the creation of both space and time.
Clearly?
Not clear to me. The universe I live in has conservation laws.
That means:
Forever and ever, Amen.
No end.
No end, no beginning.
No beginning, no creation.
Always was, always will be.
Clearly and blatantly obviously and in fact quite indubitably, I can
also be a bigot if I choose to be and claim that my ideas are
smarter than your ideas. I can quote your Holey Book with
its contradictions to my choosing. Thou shalt not kill or suffer
a witch to live. Does that include sorcerers, I wonder?
God is merciful, vengeance is mine, he sayeth.
Mother Nature causes volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes
to kill people, God cleans up the mess, thank God. Better not blame
God, better to kiss his arse and be 'saved'.
| The word
| 'beginning' has no meaning in the usual sense if time does not already
| exist, and so this could possibly refer to the creation event itself if
| this occurred at a particular point in the finite past. However, if the
| universe has always been in existence (i.e. there is no initial time),
| then this interpretation cannot be correct.
Let's leave out the "if"s and "possibly"s and "more likely"s and "best
efforts"
and all other forms of idle speculation, shall we?
The god of supernatural.physics.relativity is Einstein, not Jehovah, Allah,
Zarathustra, Buddha, Ra, Zeus, Jupiter or Thor, so you are really writing
to the wrong newsgroup. This is sci.physics.relativity where I discuss
natural phenomena, not miracles.
| >From the context, it seems more likely to be a 'best effort' at
| explaining to us in terms which we can grasp with reference to our own
| experiences, the concept that the universe was 'created' (again
| 'created' like any other verb, does not really make sense unless time
| already exists) by God who, 'being' the 'creator' of spacetime, must
| also transcend it. Because the words 'created' and 'beginning' refer to
| things which transcend the physical realm, it is not really possible
| for us to understand them except indirectly by analogy. The statement
| is therefore a metaphor for a greater reality which is beyond our
| grasp.
|
| Well that's my half-penny's worth on the matter.
| - Sabbir
<yawn>... Since it is beyond your grasp there is no point in discussing it.
Have a nice flame.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/flame.gif
Androcles.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cosmogony from the Book of Genesis.
- From: LEJ Brouwer
- Re: Cosmogony from the Book of Genesis.
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: Cosmogony from the Book of Genesis.
- References:
- Cosmogony from the Book of Genesis.
- From: LEJ Brouwer
- Re: Cosmogony from the Book of Genesis.
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: Cosmogony from the Book of Genesis.
- From: LEJ Brouwer
- Cosmogony from the Book of Genesis.
- Prev by Date: Re: The Present.
- Next by Date: Re: Cosmogony from the Book of Genesis.
- Previous by thread: Re: Cosmogony from the Book of Genesis.
- Next by thread: Re: Cosmogony from the Book of Genesis.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|