"In the beginning, God... (the First Cause of all the realities that has followed)... Reality evolving: Ex 3:14 God said to Moshe, ("Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh," [I am/will be what I am/will be,"] and added), "Here is what to say to the people of Isra'el: 'Ehyeh:' [I am, or, I Will Be What I Become], has sent me to you.'" Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted of Seven Stages: 1) The Inflation Era 2) The Quark Era 3) Hadron Era 4) Lepton Era 5) Nucleosynthesis Era 6) Opaque Era 7) Matter Era,... in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2), the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which congealed into the planet) earth. Fact: The Formative - Hadean Era/ First Day: From The Big Bang to 4.5 Years Ago The Early Universe originated with the expansion of an unbelievably hot and dense "something;" hotter than the tens of millions of Kelvins in the cores of most stars, denser than the trillions of grams per cubic centimeter in the nucleus of any atom. Precisely what that state was, we cannot say for sure. And why it "exploded," we really don't know. At best, science contends that in the beginning a singularity released an outward burst of pure, radiant energy. Why the Universe suddenly began expanding more than 10 billion years ago is a most intractable query, so formidable that scientists are currently unaware even how to formulate a meaningful question about it.
Bravo, cupid dave. Indeed, there is a great deal more science expressed in the Holy Bible than just the first sentence of the first chapter of the first book. "He hangeth the earth upon nothing." "Rivers empty into the ocean and yet the ocean is not full." "I am fearfully and wonderfully made." Oh how this one sentence has been validated to an extraordinary degree in the past century. Statisticians and information theory scholars laugh at the pretense that the insuperable statistics of biological synthesis are simply waved away by long periods of time, as if probabilities were time dependent. Adding any one of 20 amino acids to the next link in the chain of a sequence remains a 1 in 20 chance whether it is added today or in 100,000 years. 1 in 20 is 1 in 20. Slowly, quickly, any way. Nor does information create itself randomly. It has been estimated that the entire creative capacity of the universe over all time is something on the order of a few hundred bits of information, hardly the stuff of thousands of polypeptides and DNA. The space, or number of possible sequences, of a polypeptide such as human hemoglobin, is roughly 10 to the 700th power. "Impossible" can be defined as 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power. 10^50 grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to pluto. Imagine being blindfolded and selecting 1 special, unique grain of sand in 15 spheres the size of our solar system on your first and ONLY try. No, not an infinite number of tries. Impossible is not infinity over 10^50. It is 1 over 10^50. Take your time. But just do it on your first and only try. Think of that absurdity next time you see a huge expanse of desert sand on television.....
The Science is just added to support what the verse already said,... or do you have a more specific criticism? People do not see that the verse is correct when the Facts of Reality explain that thus was the "In the beginning." "The spirit of 'God:'" Shechinah Although we usually speak of G-d in masculine terms, there are times when we refer to G-d using feminine terms. The Shechinah, the manifestation of G-d's presence that fills the universe, is conceived of in feminine terms, and the word Shechinah is a feminine word. Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, (a spinning cloud of molten matter and gases), and void (of spherical shape- an accretion disk), and darkness: [choshek: obscurity] was upon the face of the deep (ring: [tehowm: the deep primeval abyss]). And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (the pan-en-theistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon the face: [paniym: presence] of the "waters," (meaning these transitory things: [mayim: Hebrew]) Rom. 1:20 For, from the creation of the (material Universe which we know as the)... world, the invisible things of him, (i.e.; Reality),... are clearly seen, (empirically, by the rational application of the methods of our science), being understood (pan-en-theistically, i.e.; "God," seen as Truth in his Natural Laws), by (a progression of theories concerning) the things that are made, (and by our on-going observation of the natural laws appropriate to them), even his (pre-Big Bang presence as the Uncaused First Cause of all) eternal, (transcendent) power and Godhead (in Trinity with Truth); so that (even the atheists), they are without excuse:
You're premise is the assumption that evolution (big bang, chemical evolution, stellar evolution, abiogenesis, macro evolution, and billions of years) is true.
This first man was created in Eden, a Sumerian word which means ‘flat terrain’. In the Epic of Gilgamesh , Eden is mentioned as the garden of the gods and is located somewhere in Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. http://www.ancient-origins.net/huma...-beings-according-ancient-sumerian-texts-0065
Guess what, Michio Kaku believes in intelligent design. http://ageac.org/en/multimedia/scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists-2/ - - - Updated - - - No it isn't. But I think this thread is leaning toward theistic evolution so I wouldn't want to derail the thread.
of course it is. this thread is leaning toward the OP making (*)(*)(*)(*) up to rationalize the fact the bible is incorrect.
I see...so because one(1) scientist cannot explain what he has created from unexplained hypothesis it proves that your God amongst the other thousands created everything with it's mind?
We can go back and forth with this. Like I said I don't want to derail the thread. No, he trying to rationalize and say the Bible agrees with evolution.
It's my understanding that Kaku is near to on par with Einstein as far as being smart and being famous am I'm correct? And in the video they were saying that they had evidence for it. He is not some run-of-the-mill scientist that you can just blow off. So is the real reason you blow this off is becuase he's only one guy or is it because you don't like his claims? I'm willing to bet that if it was anything else (especially if he said he disproved a creator) you'll take his word for it with no question. But to fulfill your request Richard Dawkins is toying with the idea that we are living in a hologram. And as any person who has a basic knowledge in computers would know it takes a intelligent programmer to make such a hologram. He has also said that we could be a product of aliens. Which that really only kicks the can down the road. https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/...eriment-will-test-the-nature-of-the-universe/
How much more *scientific* it is to claim that NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL created everything without any mind whatsoever. Yes indeed, everything including matter, information, energy, elegance, correspondence, beauty from..... Please explain your *hypothesis* of NOTHING----> EVERYTHING. And be precise. Others, please google A Matter of Gravity, by Professor John Lennox, of Oxford.
The article is so brief, the descriptions/statements so vague, it might mean something else altogether .... or, maybe Kaku never even said any of it. That's your only source?
? The medieval people made up everything the church people tells today,... They had to be all wrong,... since they did not KNOW about the Big Bang nor about how planets,... like Earth,... actually formed into spheres. Now that we know,... yes,... Genesis then does make sense.
Eden,... in the Hebrew,... means "a place of joy." And the garden means "a fenced off place." These two ideas support the argument that the place" is inside the mind of Adam. Adam with draws to himself,... and during the "long sleep" of his continuing evolution,... his psyche develops, as Eve is the Anima inside his head.
Truth be told...I had never heard of him until you decided to post his hypothetical research and extrapolations. So I read what you posted and looked into his work...interesting. Thing is, he does not say a God exists let alone your particular version. Instead he states that his models cannot be fully explained and thus he leaves open all possibilities and that it cannot be shown mathematically that his calculations did not require something outside scientific understanding to be completed...you have simply decided to finish his hypothesis by doing what Theists usually do and fill in the gaps with God.
there's nothing to go back and forth over. It's scientific fact. the bible is demonstrably incorrect. he is making (*)(*)(*)(*) up to rationalize this away. - - - Updated - - - yes, this is the case with every religion. the bible is supposed to be the word of god. them not knowing about such things is irrelevant. no, genesis makes no sense as it is completely incorrect.
No, I also have this. http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-univer...ntists-who-can-say-the-word-god-and-not-blush And this though at a glance I don't think it mentions Kaku. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18612-knowing-the-mind-of-god-seven-theories-of-everything/ So appearantly they are admitting that the universe has a mind behind its creation.
Actually...that is what YOU are saying. As seems a common practice, you state your opinion as fact.....bad habit.
What I don't understand is why some people believe that the orgins of the universe require some guiding "mind". considering the known size of the universe and that our knowledge of life is restricted to a single planet within it, I find it rather odd that some people insist god created something billions of billions of billions times larger than our puny little biosphere of INANIMATE MATTER and energies so we could worship him. Given that the foundation of the monotheistic religions are based on metal age stories and medieval dogma, the biblical arguments for god seem rather lame in the light of current knowledge. The fact is that the "god of the gaps" during the metal ages was based on monumental ignorance of natural forces, only slightly more ignorant than the medieval men who "interpreted/created" today's religious dogma. The scriptures are held up as absolute proof of god's existence and its involvement with humanity, yet the major stories that supposedly supply that proof are themselves ignorant contemporary interpretations of natural events seeking explanations.
Apparently not;but I understand why some people might think that because of the articles headliner. Sensational headliners can be misleading which those are both prime examples of.
