B
buffalo
Guest
In the beginning (time) God created the heavens(space) and the earth (matter). What is before the beginning?
- Status
L
Lui
Guest
But is it like that? Isn’t it just that atheists don’t speculate? It depends how atheism is defined. Is being non-religious and non-believing the same as atheism or would you consider atheism as a separate faith with specific defined beliefs? I would think there is no clear definition of atheism.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
“In the beginning” is an English insertion that does not reflect the Hebrew syntax:
Until modern times the first line was always translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Several comparable ancient cosmogonies, discovered in recent times, have a “when…then” construction, confirming the translation “when…then” here as well. “When” introduces the pre-creation state and “then” introduces the creative act affecting that state. The traditional translation, “In the beginning,” does not reflect the Hebrew syntax of the clause.
B
buffalo
Guest
Atheism is a faith. (theism has not convinced me with proof that I want, so I put my faith in chance)
Agnosticism is not sure.
a·the·ism
sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif
noun 1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Interesting, because all honest scientists (for example) do speculate. That’s part of the task of science: to speculate. So either atheists are afraid of what they might find/conclude as a result of speculation, or they are not intellectually honest in this respect. (IOW, they do not demand the same intellectual rigor of themselves that they demand of believers.)
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
ahisma
Genesis mentions nothing about a singularity, nor an absolute “beginning” of the cosmos.
But it did say this 3,000 years ago.
“Let there be light!”
Pure coincidence?
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
Genesis mentions nothing about a singularity, nor an absolute “beginning” of the cosmos.
But it did say this 3,000 years ago.
“Let there be light!”
Pure coincidence?
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Nope, it’s not a coincidence.
By the way, the fact that Genesis doesn’t mention a “Big Bang” singularity is actually good news. The Big Bang theory doesn’t say anything about whether there existed a previous cosmos, or something, that created the conditions for the Big Bang to occur; and I think that most physicists would say that there was “something” (even if just a “quantum vacuum”) before the Big Bang. So, the Big Bang wasn’t the absolute beginning of material reality.
Likewise, if we look at Genesis, without imposing later ideas of “creatio ex nihilo” into Genesis, we find that God created the cosmos from pre-existing chaotic forms. That would be consistent with a Big Bang that arose from a previous cosmos, or quantum vacuum even.
And the “Let there be Light” would correspond to the Big Bang that created our cosmos from a previous cosmos or quantum vacuum.
So, no, it’s not a coincidence.
L
Lui
Guest
Ok, thanks. That’s what I meant with definition of atheism. I can imagine that many people who regard themselves atheists are actually non-believers which is slightly different according to this definition. Not to believe in the Christian God is not necessarily a belief there definitely is no God. Also, to say “I don’t believe in God” is different than saying “I believe it is a fact that there is no God”.
I’m sure many people don’t even care if there is a Christian God just as little as they care if Big Foot exists. These people are technically not really atheists or am I wrong.? I can imagine that many scientists just try to figure things out and don’t even include the concept in Christianity just like they don’t include the concept of Santa Claus which has no influence on their work.
L
Lui
Guest
I have never called myself an atheist so I don’t know why you are trying to label me with any brand of atheism.
L
Lui
Guest
I would consider myself more as a person who doesn’t know what will happen after death, if there is a God or not, if we are reborn or whatever. I don’t claim to KNOW anything because in reality nobody knows. All faiths, including atheism, are assumptions. I believe there is no natural law. I don’t claim to know it. I just claim that natural law is a theory and not a fact, just like the Christian religion and every other belief is a faith/theory and not a fact. According to Buffalo’s definition, I would probably be agnostic, if you need to label me.
E
edwest2
Guest
Based on your statements, how does anyone make a decision about anything? Facts exist. If I don’t pay my utility bills, the power gets shut off. If I drink substance A, I know that it will poison me. If I drink substance B, like water, I know for a fact that my body needs it.
We all make decisions based on what we believe, often from second-hand sources. I want to repair something and I buy a repair manual. I follow the directions and the device works again. So belief and trust do matter in our daily lives.
Peace,
Ed
We all make decisions based on what we believe, often from second-hand sources. I want to repair something and I buy a repair manual. I follow the directions and the device works again. So belief and trust do matter in our daily lives.
Peace,
Ed
L
levinas12
Guest
I still think “creatio ex nihilo” reflects what happened.
This is the basis for the Christian distinction (contrary to Aristotle): that the world is totally unnecessary, that the world does not provide its own “grounding”. As St. Anselm put it, God-without-the-world as just as great as God-with-the-world. God does not need the world to be God; God is not incomplete without the world.
N.B. It may be that “creatio ex nihilo” is a more advanced philosophical/theological concept. But it is not incompatible with the Hebrew meaning of the text. It would be fair to say that the Hebrew emphasizes total formlessness without any order at all (we might say today “without any information”). God is the One who introduces the order. I’m not sure what you mean by chaotic “forms”. But I’m sure that the Hebrew does not suggest that there were “forms” in the original chaos. And I’m sure that Hebrew is not consistent with a “previous cosmos” (because God’s act of creation is the source of all the order).
A
Ahimsa
Guest
That’s OK. The only problem here is that if “God created the world out of nothingness”, then that means that the “nothingness” exists, which means that “nothingness” must have been created by God. And then you have God creating “nothingness” out of “nothingness”, which is rather bizarre.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
ahimsa
The Big Bang theory doesn’t say anything about whether there existed a previous cosmos, or something, that created the conditions for the Big Bang to occur; and I think that most physicists would say that there was “something” (even if just a “quantum vacuum”) before the Big Bang. So, the Big Bang wasn’t the absolute beginning of material reality.
Everything you’ve said is true. There was “something.” But we cannot know what the something was because time and the laws of the universe did not exist until the Bang.
We call that something God. You are free to call it what you like. But you can never know anything about the singularity. You are as free to speculate as you like, but you’ll never be able to explain why the description of the initial stages of the universe is consistent between Genesis and the Big Bang. Coincidence?
What’s interesting about all this is that we do have a start to the universe, which contradicts Einstein’s initial belief that the universe always existed. He had no proof of that either, but when the proof came in that the universe did not always exist, he was irked by the news because it did not fit in with his idea that Genesis was all phony baloney.
The Big Bang theory doesn’t say anything about whether there existed a previous cosmos, or something, that created the conditions for the Big Bang to occur; and I think that most physicists would say that there was “something” (even if just a “quantum vacuum”) before the Big Bang. So, the Big Bang wasn’t the absolute beginning of material reality.
Everything you’ve said is true. There was “something.” But we cannot know what the something was because time and the laws of the universe did not exist until the Bang.
We call that something God. You are free to call it what you like. But you can never know anything about the singularity. You are as free to speculate as you like, but you’ll never be able to explain why the description of the initial stages of the universe is consistent between Genesis and the Big Bang. Coincidence?
What’s interesting about all this is that we do have a start to the universe, which contradicts Einstein’s initial belief that the universe always existed. He had no proof of that either, but when the proof came in that the universe did not always exist, he was irked by the news because it did not fit in with his idea that Genesis was all phony baloney.
L
levinas12
Guest
I don’t think that it means that “nothingness” exists as some weird entity. It is not as if God is a potter making something out a clay of “nothingness”. There is no clay. In this crucial respect, God’s act of creation is not like a human “production” which always requires pre-existing stuff. God is the absolute “source”.
L
Lui
Guest
I didn’t say that FACTS in general don’t exist. I said that religions and atheism, plus natural law is a theory not a fact.
I consider birth, life and death a fact. Whatever was before that or is after that is something I don’t know.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Well, that’s assuming that the Bang originated from a true singularity, “infinitely” small (if that’s possible). Another possible version of the Bang is that the Bang orignated not from some infinitely small point, but from the actions of a previous universe, instead. In such a scenario, some sort of laws existed prior to the Bang, and the Big Bang that we know about, is simply one Bang in a potentially endless series of Bangs.
Actually, both Einstein and you could be right. Einstein could be right, in the sense that multiple universes have always existed; and you could be right in that our universe had a distinct beginning.
- Status