Stephen Hawking argued in his book ‘The Grand Design’ that the laws of physics allow for the spontaneous creation of the universe. Where do you stand on this debate?
>>23975624Why are the laws of the universe what they are?
Never read it but I imagine the logic boils down to "things exist, and god didn't create them, therefore they came into existence spontaneously."
>>23975625The Universe created itself, it’s perfectly possible for this to be the case according to the laws of physics as we know them today. Asking questions such as “why is this that way?” doesn’t make sense from a scientific point of view. What matters is how it works and not why it works that way.
>>23975624Are you using your senses to read this? I'm going to go ahead and let you in on something, Hawking can't use his senses to make sense of that one either. No one can. Yeah let's pull a Berkeley and call everything god, makes the notion of a god completely worthless, and apparently they still need to refer to these gods or pieces of god with the same words the rest of us use. The Berkeleyians here can't continue like the ones who don't know anything about budgies, he made sollipsism worthless.
>>23975624excellent, let's add it to the never ending list of theories.
>>23975624How did he write a book if he couldn’t move his hands or speak?
>>23975628It's honestly at least one or two steps better than "God did it."
>>23975624Marx didn't believe in God or a created universe Therefore I don't eitherSimple as
>>23975624He's just calling out the "unmoved mover" meme as retarded. Which it is.
>>23975624so are we back to flies just magically come into existence
>>23975624Parmenides already had a great theory for existence. Being as its own eternal form and existence as an illusory world as deciphered from its fragmentary and spurious nature. I am not sure I really buy into Parmenides but I think “that would be neat if that were true.”
>>23975669Either existence has always existed or it came from nothing. Pick one.
>>23975646Scientific theories hold more value than purely philosophical ones though.
>>23975678That’s just philosophy though, not science.
>gravity existingummmmm
>>23975685It’s science in that it is either real and his theory is correct or he is wrong and it isn’t. Metaphysics is science. It just can’t be proven. Apparently Parmenides’ theory had moral outcomes associated with it which he implemented in his laws when he was ruler of a city but they don’t survive. I wonder what Being’s ethical relation to the illusory world is. He didn’t wholesale repudiate life as an illusion not worth living.
>>23975624imagine what would happen to stephen hawking if he began to preach creationism tomorrow? who would love him still? who would still read him?
Western atheism is so gay. Half the people arguing against the existence of God are really just arguing against the Church.
>>23975726anon...
>>23975624I think it sounds like cause and effect are getting confused, and this just pushes the ultimate question to a more fundamental level in terms of physics. So things exist because the laws of physics allow them to, but where did these laws come from? They are descriptions of reality, but why are they the way that they are?God did not "light the blue touch paper" but who/what caused reality to function the way that it does in this way that we currently observe as "laws"?Ultimately science depends upon observation and experimentation in order to find truth, but there are limits to what can be observed, and what experiments can be performed.Science is correct because it is logical, but can all answers be derived via logic?
>>23975624The problem of saying that X created itself or X created X, is that to X start existing you need to assume the existence of X.
>>23975625It could very well be that they are that way as a simple matter of logical consistency. The further we get in physics the more we find what was once a phenomenon considered "physical" was actually a result of pure geometry or the like. Modern science is heading to something like Pythagoreanism, but instead of number being the fundamental, it's vector spaces and groups
>>23975624Right. Creatio ex nihilo.
>>23975624>against creationism>spontaneous CREATION
>>23975952Tell me more about it.
>>23975736"God" is such a retarded word in language though. It can mean absolutely anything, everything, or nothing depending on the person defining it. Just the most useless, misleading, and error inducing word possible.
>>23975624>spontaneous creation
>>23975684Prove itBut first give a scientific account for logic, reason, for words having meaning, even
>>23975625Because they are.
>>23975952Good post. I've held this notion for a while but I couldn't articulate it as succinctly as you have.
>>23975952read heim. you're ready. https://heim-theory.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Illobrand_von_Ludwiger-The_New_Worldview_of_the_Physicist_Burkhard_Heim.pdf
>>23975625Thats just how reality works
>>23975632At least most religion-fags "believe" in God or another higher being, rather than taking today's science-babble which changes every 10 years or so as a fact.
>>23975632>Asking questions such as “why is this that way?” doesn’t make sense from a scientific point of view. What matters is how it works and not why it works that way.That's a very reductive view. Questioning why the laws of the universe are what they are is absolutely within the realm of scientific enquiry. For a long time, things falling down was taken as a matter of fact and even with Newton's equations for motion we didn't have a better explanation until we understood it as a consequence of the curvature of space-time. "How" gives us the answers to natural phenomena using established knowledge but "why" is what ultimately pushes the frontiers of science forward.
>>23976123>At least
>>23975625Because your body is designed the way it is.
>>23975624A science fanatic argued with me that time did not work before the big bang. How did the bang happen if time was not moving?
>>23976279Since time and space are a continuum, a collapse of space would result in a collapse of time as well, and you're right, it doesn't make sense. There would be no way for the universe to transition from "no time" to "time." That's why the Big Bang doesn't seem like a traditional starting point. Time and space must have always been.
The universe was not created ex nihilo. Ex nihilo is the religious position on the universe's origin.
>>23976318The universe is creatio ex se and creatio continua
I made it. When i die you're all in big fucking trouble.
>>23975655Laws are the atheist's God of the gaps.
>>23976759meant for >>23975625
>>23975624>The laws of physics just stopped for this one specific instance because they just did
>>23975651Magic. He didn’t believe in God but God believed in him.
>>23975788You are getting hung up on laws. The physical laws aren't like speed limits which objects have to follow, they are implicit in the physical structures themselves. Take the inverse square laws for instance, they don't simply exist in the universe as part of a divine legal code, they necessarily follow from flux conservation over a sphere. See >>23975952. Currently it is not possible to reduce everything to geometric principles and some primitive substance but the question of "who made the laws" falls apart under analysis.
>>23976776The start of the universe places a hard limit on the applicability of science. To attribute any empirically derived law to a time prior to the start of the known universe would be to extrapolate beyond when we have license to do so.
>>23975624don't care, plus it's completely irrelevant so I extra don't care
>>23976915Some laws do just exist though, like the speed of light, various constants, gravity
>>23977920how do those immaterial laws act on the material universe?
>>23975624I dunno man, being a malformed worm who can't move or speak would probably convince ME that God doesn't exist.
>>23976318Which religions? As far as I know every creation myth begins with some black watery void/chaos that a God appears and constructs order out of. I've never read a creation myth that started with nothing.
>>23975624>Where do you stand on this debateNot with the fucking retard cripple who was known to frequent an island for pedophiles that's for sure. I'd tip his stupid mobility scooter over and ask him to think himself upright
>>23975624Herein lies the annoyingly persistent logical error of those physicists (like Alexander Vilenkin, Victor Stenger, or Lawrence Krauss) who claim that physics has now discovered how the universe can have spontaneously arisen from “nothingness,” without divine assistance. It does not really matter whether the theoretical models they propose may one day prove to be correct. Without exception, what they are actually talking about is merely the formation of our universe by way of a transition from one physical state to another, one manner of existence to another, but certainly not the spontaneous arising of existence from nonexistence (which is logically impossible). They often produce perfectly delightful books on the subject, I hasten to add, considered simply as tours of the latest developments in speculative cosmology; but as interventions in philosophical debates those books are quite simply irrelevant. As a matter of purely intellectual interest, it would be wonderful some day to know whether the universe was generated out of quantum fluctuation, belongs either to an infinite “ekpyrotic” succession of universes caused by colliding branes or to a “conformally cyclic” succession of bounded aeons, is the result of inflationary quantum tunneling out of a much smaller universe, arose locally out of a multiverse in either limited constant or eternal chaotic inflation, or what have you. As a matter strictly of ontology, however, none of these theories is of any consequence, because no purely physical cosmology has any bearing whatsoever upon the question of existence (though one or two such cosmologies might point in its direction). Again, the “distance” between being and nonbeing is qualitatively infinite, and so it is immaterial here how small, simple, vacuous, or impalpably indeterminate a physical state or event is: it is still infinitely removed from nonbeing and infinitely incapable of having created itself out of nothing. That the physical reality we know is the result of other physical realities has more or less been the assumption of most human cultures throughout history; but that, unfortunately, casts no light whatsoever on why it is that physical reality, being intrinsically contingent, should exist at all.
>>23978659To be clear here: not only has physics not yet arrived at an answer to this question, it never can. All physical events—all physical causes, all physical constituents of reality—are embraced within the history of nature, which is to say the history of what already has existence. The question of existence, however, concerns the very possibility of such a history, and the expectation that the sciences could possibly have anything to say on the matter is an example of what might be called the “pleonastic fallacy”: that is, the belief that an absolute qualitative difference can be overcome by a successive accumulation of extremely small and entirely relative quantitative steps. This is arguably the besetting mistake of all naturalist thinking, as it happens, in practically every sphere. In this context, the assumption at work is that if one could only reduce one’s picture of the original physical conditions of reality to the barest imaginable elements—say, the “quantum foam” and a handful of laws like the law of gravity, which all looks rather nothing-ish (relatively speaking)—then one will have succeeded in getting as near to nothing as makes no difference. In fact, one will be starting no nearer to nonbeing than if one were to begin with an infinitely realized multiverse: the difference from nonbeing remains infinite in either case. All quantum states are states within an existing quantum system, and all the laws governing that system merely describe its regularities and constraints. Any quantum fluctuation therein that produces, say, a universe is a new state within that system, but not a sudden emergence of reality from nonbeing. Cosmology simply cannot become ontology. The only intellectually consistent course for the metaphysical naturalist is to say that physical reality “just is” and then to leave off there, accepting that this “just is” remains a truth entirely in excess of all physical properties and causes: the single ineradicable “super-natural” fact within which all natural facts are forever contained, but about which we ought not to let ourselves think too much
>>23977924Becoming the chosen priest of the atomic order and being known as the greatest to commune with the particles, and becoming known worldwide as a great scientist, having students around the world read your writing, being considered one of the great minds of your time by a world of billions of people who can barely agree on anything and bringing the gospel of quantum reality to the masses was pretty important, that's not the life of a worm.
>>23978659assuming this isn't pasta, are there any modern physics books you'd recommend that don't make these mistakes
>>23977920Things like the speed of light and gravity are consequences of space-time geometry, constants can also be explained away. There is not yet a Theory of Everything to tie everything together into some fundamental relation, but everything that is talked about high-school science has some deeper explanation.
>>23978659They are basically committing a category error, because they think that the abstractions that we call laws are substances that can be credited with creation. Actually these laws are simply our abstractions of influences whose ultimate cause is the Creator. The qualitative difference is that the Creator is uncaused, and the will of the Creator is imposed on everything else, never the other way around.Philosophically, trying to take an abstraction like the law of gravity and not understand that isn't even a substance is to make a fundamental category error.Materialists are trying to pull a fast one here by pretending that science is "in their corner" instead of realizing that it's neutral. It does not require their presuppositions of pure materialism, this should be plainly obvious since many of the most successful scientists were theists and not pure materialists. That easily disproves the idea that science requires metaphysical materialism, when it obviously doesn't. And I should say that gaining more knowledge about the natural world, by definition, will not tell you about the supernatural cause behind why nature began to exist (or continues the way it does) in the first place. It will only tell you about what nature does, not necessarily about what is really behind it, i.e. what is causing these forces (which are our abstractions for how the natural world behaves) to work in the particular way that they do. You could understand them perfectly well, but still have gained no understanding of the cause (which is necessarily supernatural) behind why they are that way and not some other way.
>>23975624That literal retard Hawkings said nothing would create everything because gravity. All that literal retard has is foolish vain jangling and circular reasoning and foolishness. They're all fools, all those sci-fi religion faggots. They're midwit philosophers LARPing at scientists and they accomplish nothing and produce nothing and provide nothing since they're not even starting with a truth, they start with a lie then make up idiot theories and talking points and statements to defend the state-funded faggot sci-fi religion.The Bible is true. Hawkins is a cripple retard who God hated so much he put him in a wheelchair and wouldn't let him speak normally and now he's burning in hell like the faggot false prophet he was, just like where that faggot pedophile false prophet Dawkins is going.
>>23979953>That easily disproves the idea that science requires metaphysical materialism, when it obviously doesn't.Correct. Science, however, requires the absence of creationism, since the explanation of divine intent and scientific inquiry stand at odds.
>>23980000I don't understand. Creationism as I know the word means a belief that the universe was created by God, perhaps even according to its description in the Bible. How does that prevent me from sincerely wanting to study the chemical composition of various plants, animals, and minerals?
>>23975632
>>23979966>The Bible is trueThe Bible says Earth existed before the sun & all other stars. Also, that birds predate land animals. That can't be true, because planets form from elements produced by stellar fusion, and birds evolved from land animals.
>>23980025>The Bible says Earth existed before the sun & all other stars. Also, that birds predate land animals. That can't be true,It is true and you're a fool, probably a reprobate too.>because planets form from elements produced by stellar fusion>birds evolved from land animals.I don't care about your gayfag blind faith sci-fi religion and its creation myths which violates all the laws of science.Your religion is fake and gay and you believe it because the state school told you it was science despite violating laws of science and never being proven with the scientific method and because you're wicked and prefer the lies to the truth, the dark to the light, and you put evil for good and good for evil.tl;dr: You're a faggot.
>>23980027>I don't care about your gayfag blind faith sci-fi religion and its creation myths which violates all the laws of science.>Your religion is fake and gay and you believe it because the state school told you it was science despite violating laws of science and never being proven with the scientific method and because you're wicked and prefer the lies to the truth, the dark to the light, and you put evil for good and good for evil.>tl;dr: You're a faggot.None of this addresses the problem of the order of events in Genesis. May I surmise from this that you're aware it's indefensible and don't care to try?
>>23980029NTA in fact i'm arguing with him in another thread but the order of events in Genesis is not "indefensible." I will attempt to explain. If you believe that the Bible is true you believe that God is all-powerful. This would include the power to create things in the order that He pleases, in whatever way is necessary for it to "work." The thing that you're referring to as science is a couple of facts that were produced in isolation, and when taken in aggregate seem to "disprove" the Genesis narrative but that disproof is contingent on I. believing those facts and II. not believing in an all-powerful God. In other words, what does it matter if stars create chemicals that are in animals if God made those animals? Would He have to wait for stars to form and then explode first?
>>23980040>If you believe that the Bible is true you believe that God is all-powerful. This would include the power to create things in the order that He pleases, in whatever way is necessary for it to "work."This is an all-purpose explanatory mechanism under which nothing can be called a falsehood if it's in scripture, because we just say yahweh can do anything. This is presuppositional in that it doesn't prove yahweh exists first and, if we accept the presupposition, it breaks every rule to dismiss any possible error, likely its intended purpose.>'The thing that you're referring to as science is a couple of facts that were produced in isolation, and when taken in aggregate seem to "disprove" the Genesis narrative but that disproof is contingent on I. believing those facts and II. not believing in an all-powerful God."Is Yahweh a trickster? What does "Raquia" mean in Job 37:18?
>>23980044>This is an all-purpose explanatory mechanism under which nothing can be called a falsehood if it's in scriptureYes this is basically how faith works. Your second paragraph is more confusing. A quick Hebrew check indicates that you're probably talking about the word for "to spread out" and I'm not sure what it would be left in this form for in an English translation. What edition are you reading this from? As to whether or not God is a trickster...... well this is somewhat a matter of perspective, but certainly he never lies.
>>23980055>Yes this is basically how faith works.No truth ever had any need of faith.>A quick Hebrew check indicates that you're probably talking about the word for "to spread out" and I'm not sure what it would be left in this form for in an English translationIt refers to the process of beating out metal into bowls. The same verse describes the firmament as hard, and in some translations likens it to bronze, or molten glass. This is consistent with the common cosmology of the ancient near east including their neighbors Egypt & Babylon, in which Earth is a flat disc covered by a solid dome with waters both beneath & above. The firmament dividing those waters to make space for the Earth is in the first few paragraphs of Genesis. It is not an accurate cosmology.>ell this is somewhat a matter of perspective, but certainly he never lies.Creating deceptive appearances on purpose is lying
>>23980061>The same verse describes the firmament as hard, and in some translations likens it to bronze, or molten glass.It says a "molten looking glass," not "molten glass." A looking glass is another term for a mirror, and the word "molten" means that it is heated up into a fluid form rather than solid.Actually Job 37:18 is a great verse showing the scientific accuracy of the oldest books. The sky actually does act as a mirror, except it isn't solid. The term "molten" means it is a material that is heated up to a point where it is fluid instead of solid. Very scientifically accurate and I actually use this verse from Job to prove that point sometimes.
>>23975632>I have two apples because I added one apple to one appleYeah, but why was there were there apples at all? >YOU CAN'T ASK THAT QUESTION!!!
>>23977920>Just existYou don't really believe that. Obviously there are probably more fundamental reasons that those laws exist.
Oh, sounds like the scientists figured it out. And science is about observation and repeatable experiment, I am sure that Hawking created a universe from nothing to prove his theory, right?
>>23980609>It says a "molten looking glass," not "molten glass." A looking glass is another term for a mirror, and the word "molten" means that it is heated up into a fluid form rather than solid.NKJV: "With Him, have you spread out the skies, Strong as a cast metal mirror?"ESV: "Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?"KJV: "Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?"The hebrew word used makes it clear this is a solid surface.
>>23980040It is possible that God created the world in accordance with Genesis, but then the Bible would have omitted the fact that He made it in such a way that to an observer every bit of evidence supports the scientific theories and no bit of evidence supports the biblical account. That is defensible in the same way anything that isn't a logical contradiction is defensible, but indefensible in every other respect.
>>23981196>but then the Bible would have omitted the fact that He made it in such a way that to an observer every bit of evidence supports the scientific theories and no bit of evidence supports the biblical account.1. So, a trickster? 2. This scenario would seem to contradict Romans 1:20.
>>23981194You don't seem to know what the word "molten" in English actually means.>The hebrew word used makes it clear this is a solid surface.You should also look at the actual definition of the Hebrew word underlying the translation. See the lexicon. Don't just believe the ESV or NKJV. The word means something that has been heated into a fluid state and is poured out or can be poured out. Again, I use this verse all the time to prove the accuracy of the Bible in this place, since the sky really does reflect light while being non-solid.>KJV: "Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?"Right, exactly.>NKJV, ESVLow quality translations, just like NIV. You can find all kinds of problems and inaccuracies with those translations. They also don't agree with the KJV here either.I know that you and others want the Bible to be wrong, but it ain't.
>>23981292>You don't seem to know what the word "molten" in English actually means.I do, but I also know what the words strong and hard mean. Which describe its solidity, whereas "as a molten glass" describes its appearance.>You should also look at the actual definition of the Hebrew word underlying the translation. See the lexicon. Don't just believe the ESV or NKJV. The word means something that has been heated into a fluid state and is poured out or can be poured out. Again, I use this verse all the time to prove the accuracy of the Bible in this place, since the sky really does reflect light while being non-solid.That's for molten, not hard/strong.>Right, exactly.Is molten glass hard?>Low quality translations, just like NIV. You can find all kinds of problems and inaccuracies with those translations. They also don't agree with the KJV here either.Choose your preferred translation then.>I know that you and others want the Bible to be wrong, but it ain't.It's the other way around, you want it to be true but it isn't, and you assume motivational symmetry when you project. This is only the tip of the iceberg. It is accepted fact by every historian specializing in the ancient near east that Israel, Egypt and Babylon shared a common cosmology wherein Earth is a flat disc covered by a solid dome. Carved illustrations of this cosmology exist from that time.
>>23981309 I'd also like to observe that you've not made similar elaborate excuses for flat earth cosmology found in Egyptian or Babylonian religion, you're content to simply let them be wrong, even though it's the same cosmology found in the Bible. I recommend searching out Ben Stanhope, a scholar specializing in cosmologies of the ancient world.
>>23981309>It is accepted fact by every historian specializing in the ancient near east that Israel, Egypt and Babylon shared a common cosmology wherein Earth is a flat disc covered by a solid dome. Carved illustrations of this cosmology exist from that time.If there were Israelites participating in pagan mythology, that would be in line with the fact that many of them departed from the faith of Scripture, but it doesn't have any bearing on what the Bible itself actually says. This seems to be an irrelevant assertion even if it is assumed to be true.>Is molten glass hard?A molten mirror would be any fluid that is capable of reflecting light just like a regular mirror would. A "looking glass" is a term that refers to any mirror, and as such it does not necessarily have to be made of actual glass. Therefore this question is also not that relevant either. However, glass itself does have a melting point at which it becomes a fluid. It would be molten if it was in a fluid state.>That's for molten, not hard/strong.The term "strong" refers to the fact that it occupies space. If you compress air, it pushes back, creating "pressure." This is another concept that was later discovered empirically and it seems to be a correct insight in the Bible as well.>whereas "as a molten glass" describes its appearance.You mean "as a molten looking glass?"
>>23981343>If there were Israelites participating in pagan mythology, that would be in line with the fact that many of them departed from the faith of Scripture, but it doesn't have any bearing on what the Bible itself actually says. This seems to be an irrelevant assertion even if it is assumed to be true.The Bible itself is describing a cosmology near-identical to those of neighbors Egypt & Babylon, considered the best information at the time and undoubtedly where they borrowed it from.>A molten mirror would be any fluid that is capable of reflecting light just like a regular mirror would. A "looking glass" is a term that refers to any mirror, and as such it does not necessarily have to be made of actual glass. Therefore this question is also not that relevant either. However, glass itself does have a melting point at which it becomes a fluid. It would be molten if it was in a fluid state.So no, molten glass is not hard, glad we cleared that up.>The term "strong" refers to the fact that it occupies space. If you compress air, it pushes back, creating "pressure." This is another concept that was later discovered empirically and it seems to be a correct insight in the Bible as well.No, it doesn't. People at that time didn't have the knowledge you're crediting them with. Here's a Christian apologist disagreeing with you: https://biologos.org/articles/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-thats-not-the-point>"You mean "as a molten looking glass?""Yes, further underscoring that's a description of its appearance, where hard refers to solidity. But again, it doesn't come down to this single verse. Any single verse can be dissected and reinterpreted in a vacuum to mean whatever you want it to. The context of all other verses referencing cosmology make it very clear what historians specializing in this topic already know about how peoples of the ancient near east viewed the earth, sun, moon and stars.
>>23981360>Here's a Christian apologist disagreeing with you:He's wrong though.>So no, molten glass is not hard, glad we cleared that up.Correct. The atmosphere is also a fluid, just like anything that is in a molten state. The atmosphere is neither hard nor solid, although you could say it is "strong" in the sense that the earth's atmosphere has weight and exerts pressure.>People at that time didn't have the knowledge you're crediting them with.I know. But the source of inspiration for the Bible obviously did. Hence the point. They also reveal very clearly that the sky is like a mirror that reflects things. That wasn't something that was known empirically at the time of the book of Job either. This is why I like to use this verse as an example.>The context of all other verses referencing cosmology make it very clear what historians specializing in this topic already know about how peoples of the ancient near east viewed the earth, sun, moon and stars.I know the other verse they like to use is where the term "firmament" is used. But they seem to ignore completely the part where, in Genesis 1:20, it says that birds are flying "in the open firmament." How do birds fly through something that is solid? It's obviously not referring to a solid object if birds are said to fly through it in Genesis 1:20. The prospect of insistence on the solid dome thing just seems to be doomed from the start, if you can just plainly admit what the Bible says, which I guess some can't.
>>23981386>He's wrong though.That's Biologos. Do you know of Biologos? You suppose you're more knowledgeable concerning theology and apologetics?>Correct. The atmosphere is also a fluid, just like anything that is in a molten state. The atmosphere is neither hard nor solid, although you could say it is "strong" in the sense that the earth's atmosphere has weight and exerts pressure.The atmosphere is gaseous, not fluid. It is not hard, as any kind of mirror, it's gaseous.>I know. But the source of inspiration for the Bible obviously did. Hence the point. They also reveal very clearly that the sky is like a mirror that reflects things. That wasn't something that was known empirically at the time of the book of Job either. This is why I like to use this verse as an example.It was known the sky sometimes resembles a mirror of molten glass by anyone who ever saw a sunset. The verse also clearly indicates that it's solid.>"I know the other verse they like to use is where the term "firmament" is used. But they seem to ignore completely the part where, in Genesis 1:20, it says that birds are flying "in the open firmament." How do birds fly through something that is solid? It's obviously not referring to a solid object if birds are said to fly through it in Genesis 1:20"They fly within it. The firmament is meant to be a hollow dome shell.>"The prospect of insistence on the solid dome thing just seems to be doomed from the start, if you can just plainly admit what the Bible says, which I guess some can't."This is backwards and actually applies to you instead, as the Biologos source explains. The Bible is agreed by all Biblical scholars and historians specializing in the common cosmology of the ancient near east to depict Earth as a flat disc covered by a solid dome, which holds out the waters above.Anyway it looks like you're infinitely stubborn on this subject, so I'm gonna go do something more productive with my time. The Biologos article is there if you wish to read it.
>>23975624Is that actually a Hawking quote or just some retard on twitter pulling something out of their ass and adding an AI generated image on top of it?
>>23976047That’s because what you call “God” can’t be explained in human, mortal terms
>>23981403>That's Biologos. Do you know of Biologos?Nope.>The atmosphere is gaseous, not fluid.Anon, come on. Pic related on the definition of "fluid.">I'm gonna go do something more productive with my time.Ok, fine with me.
>>23975624The universe was created from the cosmic opposites and cow sacrifice.
You are literally just a bunch of chemicals rearranged to form life. everything else is window dressing (ego, personality, identity) that makes you think otherwise.There's no separation, you're just the environment
>>23981292>Cast, moltenThe passage is not talking about glass, it is talking about a mirror. Mirrors were made of bronze, so "Hard as a molten mirror" is referring to a cast bronze mirror. >>23981343Strong doesn't refer to "take up space". It is used to mean "hard" here.
>>23981636>Strong doesn't refer to "take up space". It is used to mean "hard" here.Have you heard of air pressure before? Did you know that the atmosphere has an actual weight? This is exactly what this is referring to.>Mirrors were made of bronze, so "Hard as a molten mirror"I don't know where you're getting this phrase, "Hard as a molten mirror" from. I can quote Job 37:18 from the KJV if you want, but it doesn't say that. You seem to have trouble with quoting things accurately without changing them.
>>23980061By God! has anyone ever told you you are infuriating? All truths require faith, as any tyro of philosophy will tell you! To know even where you are is to have faith in your eyes, faith in your mind, faith in your surroundings. Don't you dream and, while dreaming, believe that you are there as much as you believe in waking that you are here? Your sense perception is the same it is only by faith in your senses and in the laws of physics that you know yourself to be awake right now. It isn't clear to me what you're getting at with this rigamarole about beaten bronze. Without even getting into the question of whether or not it means what you say it means, what you say isn't even consistent. How is it that describing the sky as "beaten" "like a mirror" is coherent with a disc Earth and a dome firmament? You and your other interlocutor are fools for thinking that either of you can make sensible arguments using the definitions of single words with no Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. When you see the word "beaten" I see the word "spread out" because there are dozens of English translations, all of them equally as distant from even the Vulgate in quality. There are distinctions in ancient verbs that are finer than in modern languages; 4 words for true, 6 words for kill! and when they are brought into English the poor translator has to choose between 7 imperfect fits, and then you or, more likely, some grifter you've idly absorbed, try and make some asinine argument from the English word! As to your final point, I would like you to imagine that you had to describe the color blue to someone blind. It wouldn't be possible to "tell the truth" in the simplest manner of speaking and what trouble would you be in if you gave one of the million descriptions you could give, only for that same person to go on to see again! For very likely your description of blue did not match up with what they saw! This is the sort of situation that I imagine God and other spiritual beings have with us, and with things more complicated than blue.
>>23981664I took "Hard as a molten mirror" from the New Century Bible Commentary, the only remotely academic bible commentary of Job available online. Refer to the Jewish Study Bible or the NRSV for other translations. A looking glass is a glass mirror. The KJV translation is an anachronism, glass mirrors were a Roman invention. >Have you heard of air pressure before?This is an absurd translation, to call a metal strong refers to its strength/hardness. Your interpretation has nothing to substantiate it.
>>23981682>You and your other interlocutor are fools for thinking that either of you can make sensible arguments using the definitions of single words with no Hebrew, Greek, or Latin.Fine, then. "תַּרְקִיעַ עִמּוֹ לִשְׁחָקִים חֲזָקִים כִּרְאִי מוּצָק׃" Is that better for you, anon? Do you need me to give you the book name in Hebrew too?>There are distinctions in ancient verbs that are finer than in modern languages;Just because English is more analytic and has fewer conjugations than Hebrew or Greek doesn't mean we can't understand the differences or translate them accurately either. Ofc, no matter what anyone does there will seemingly always be radical skeptics who, for some reason, never think to criticize themselves. Right now for instance, based on your post you seem to think on some level that words have meaning since you are using them. Yet you seem to be arguing for the opposite, namely that truth can't be communicated by those means. Which is it, anon? Or maybe you should only write everything in Hebrew if you really think that would be the only language of meaningful communication? I do get kind of tired of y'all sometimes.
>>23981196>>23981211The French figured out years ago, of course to justify pedophilia, that what you call evidence is as ideologically motivated as the Bible, only produced by men less learned and less practiced than the religious men of old. Since you want to talk about evidence though, let us look at the evidence. I imagine you're talking about Carbon-14 dating and stellar expansion. Carbon-14 dating is not the wonder tool that you think it is and it produces varying results from the same sample. On top of this, Carbon-14 has been found in diamonds whose chemical structure would not have allowed for the introduction of new isotopes. If those diamonds had existed as long as the Earth has then all the C-14 would have decayed by now and we couldn't find any of it. As for stellar expansion, recently some troubles have been found with that evidence as well. See if the Big Bang theory is true then as we look deeper into space we would see that stars and galaxies are clustered closer together. This is because as we look farther away we are also looking at older space, and if the universe were constantly expanding then the older space would be closer together. We don't see that, instead we see that the distribution of stars is about the same going back as far as we can see. There are probably other pieces of evidence you've been raised on, given as a child in lieu of your mother's milk, that you would like to talk about like the dinosaurs or the tectonic plates. Please do so, and tell me how it disproves the Bible.
>>23981699>the only remotely academic bible commentary of JobThis is according to people who pretend to be the experts on the Bible while not even believing it to begin with. Who cares what these people think? They are funded by people who are ideologically antichrist.>Refer to the Jewish Study BibleSeriously, kid?
>>23981708There is nobody more motivated to understand the books of the Tanakh than the Jews, they have more of a reason to produce apologia than the christians and have been doing it for over 2000 years. And regardless of your translation, the verse has nothing to do with glass because glass mirrors are an anachronism.
>>23981713>There is nobody more motivated to understand the books of the Tanakh than the JewsThey are a gnostic group that are unrelated to the Old Testament Hebrews.
>>23981705>Carbon datingCarbon dating is not used for dating the earth but radiometric dating in general is. Are you trying to say that radioactive isotopes don't have a fixed rate of decay?>Stellar expansionGalaxies are moving apart. >Tectonic platesThere are so many geological features that could only occur naturally over a long period. The classic example is layered salt deposits that could only be explained by a cycle of saltwater lagoons forming followed by their evaporation, a process that would take far longer than a biblical timeframe.
>>23981700People often have trouble with this so I don't hold it against you but this has nothing to do with the conjugations, rather the verbs themselves. I am a Greek scholar first and foremost so I will evince this with an elementary example from that language. There is for instance the word βαλλω, and another verb λιθαζω. βαλλω means to throw, and is where we get bullet and ballistic from in English. It is pretty much the most elementary word for to throw. λιθαζω is a word derived from λιθος, meaning stone, from which we get Paleolithic. Since throwing rocks at people was a pretty popular past time in past time they invent this verb to describe it. Now in English, since throwing rocks at people has been a popular past time for quite a while, we also have this convenient verb "to stone," so you might think that that's done and dusted. But λιθαζω is also used at least once to describe "throwing something like a stone." Now here if we wanted to translate this elegantly into English we might just say "throw," and we would be placing someone arguing about this text on an anime forum in a position to embarrass themselves horribly by missing out on the complexities of this underlying word. This is only an elementary example though. There is also the word ιημι, which frequently means to throw but since it is sometimes simply to let loose you could say that it's a gentler word than βαλλεω. Homer of course prefers παλεω, possibly related to βαλλεω but also with the meaning of to shake. So if you bore with me through this extended exegesis you would have some idea of the difficulty we translators face even when we know what we're doing, which not all Bible translators have. tl;dr, The truth can be said in any language but some things are like Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray. Lost in Translation
>>23981732I don't have a lot of opinions on radioactive decay, and I'd like to avoid the subject beyond what I've already shared, which I heard from a reliable source, and I'd like to say too that in general these scientific models which produce time frames are ignorant or agnostic to the possibility of cataclysmic events.
>>23981743>reliable source>as opposed to the entire scientific establishmentRadiometric dating has a very understandable mechanism, and is reliable. "Catastrophic events" could not produce the geological features we observe. Especially something like a layered salt deposit.
>>23981735The word for mirror might be obscure, but ben Sirach used the word as mirror in the 2nd century BCE and so did the 11th centuey CE commentator Rashi. So do all the modern biblical commentators. Its the only reasonable interpretation.
uhm, cringe much?science is not settled on the big bangnobody knows what caused it
>>23981735What is useful about the facts of history in the case of Bible translation is that the English language basically got its grounding and existence on the basis of the English translation of the Bible. Before this, it had been an ephemeral and extremely regional and non-standardized language with huge differences between "dialects," if you want to be generous and call them that. Before the printing press, it was really bad.The point here is that, because the translation of the Bible was such a major influence, this whole language itself basically has its grounding in that translation. It's hard to say, then, that the translation (i.e. the KJV or Authorized version) is actually "wrong," when it could simply be a misapprehension on the part of the modern reader, who might not be well educated in the meanings of English words themselves, and more specifically how context determines their use, in line with Biblical contexts. To learn more about the English word, you can go back to the context in which the English translation of the Bible originally used that word, and thence to the original language text they used.Obviously context and grammatical aspect (aktionsart) is frequently going to be key to understanding the correct translation. A word with multiple meanings (and there are always many of these) can and will always be ambiguous until it is placed in its proper context. I do think however that English is well-equipped to express all of the ideas in the Bible, due to its historical roots in the printed translation of the Bible itself. I personally consider this an advantage, not a disadvantage, when it comes to Biblical studies in particular.I would also say on an exegetical note in addition to this, we are told in Scripture that every person needs to be guided into all truth by God. Otherwise, it wouldn't even really matter what language you know. You'd be beyond help. According to the Bible, you could be a master of the Biblical languages themselves and yet completely misunderstand without God's help, that is, if you are one to refuse it. And at the same time, the example of God's word being spoken in many different languages in Acts chapter 2 shows that it is possible for the word to be in other languages and be just as effective. The key is that without God, it is an impossible task, at least according to the Bible; to such a person, there will always be unending ambiguous interpretations and uncertainty about all things. Without guidance from the author of the words, you could always take the same thing a different way, if that makes sense.
>>23981973Delete the word "aktionsart," I didn't mean to put that in there. That has to do with the lexical aspect.
>>23981973This is certainly true, but all linguistic and extratextual evidence points to this verse being about the firmament. It being a very oblique allusion to the composition of the atmosphere that would have gone over the heads of everybody from the time of its writing to the 17th century is ridiculous.
>>23981997The Bible could have statements in it that we have yet to confirm, anon.When we find out another fact such as that life really is in the blood, or that Belshazzar actually existed, I and others will be there saying "told you so"; others will be right there moving the goalposts like the shameless low down dogs they are once again and with nary a word in response.
>>23975625Why did god set the laws of the universe as they are?
>>23982008OK, but Job 37:18 is about the firmament. And the methodology behind dismissing what is plainly presented as allegory in irder to create a tortured interpretation that would fit a 21st century understanding of science is bad hermeneutics.
>>23982029>OK, but Job 37:18 is about the firmament.See the last part of: >>23981386>And the methodology behind dismissing what is plainly presented as allegory?>to create a tortured interpretation that would fit a 21st century understanding of scienceWhat if that's just what it actually means, anon? Are you presupposing that it can't mean that, similar to how if you see Daniel predict future events, you might just assume it actually has to be written after them and is lying about when it was written, since you just flat out assume it cannot have accurate predictions or prophecies? If so, I can't say I agree with that methodology and I can see serious flaws in it – such as the fact that you assumed it couldn't be true without even considering the possibility that it really is. That is also probably the reason why these people like the iron dome thing so much. They think they can just presuppose it and work backwards from there – while thinking no one will call them out.
>>23982042People think that the bible is talking about the firmament because Genesis very clearly states it. It divides the upper and lower waters and when God wants to make it rain he opens it up a bit. What else could that be but a dome. This is made more plausible by the cosmological models of Israels neighbours, which had firmaments, and by the discussions of the firmament in the Talmud, which indicates that at least the Jews of the roman period thought the firmament was a dome.
>>23982050>It divides the upper and lower waters and when God wants to make it rain he opens it up a bit. What else could that be but a dome.Do you know what clouds are, anon?>and by the discussions of the firmament in the Talmud, which indicates that at least the Jews of the roman period thought the firmament was a dome.Yeah, of course the gnostics would have crazy ideas. I wouldn't follow them if I were you.
>>23982055The firmament is where the stars are placed. The water is behind the firmament (see also Psalms 148). The hatch of the firmament is released to let out water. It can't be clouds, which are below the firmament. Again, this is backed up by contemporary cosmological models and rabbinical judaism. Rabbinical judaism isn't gnostic.
>>23982067>The firmament is where the stars are placed.Are you really still going on with this? The firmament has מְאֹרֹת placed in it, meaning, lights. The "light" of the stars obviously isn't the same as the stars themselves. It's coming from them but is not the same thing as them. I'm surprised if someone didn't get the difference. The point is that on the fourth day, the light coming from the stars becomes visible in the sky, whereas before, the sky was completely dark and clouded so that the sun, moon and stars couldn't be seen from earth, since their light wasn't getting through before the fourth day. The Spirit of God is the witness, and His perspective is the earth's surface according to Genesis 1:2.>The hatch of the firmament is released to let out water.Balancings of clouds, like it says in Job 37:16. When water falls from the sky, that is due to rain, we scientifically understand this process now, anon.>It can't be clouds, which are below the firmament.If we allow that the firmament is the atmosphere, then they are indeed above it. That is to say, the firmament (composed of air) is between the clouds and the ocean, thus separating the two masses of water. The Bible refers to the heaven (or "atmosphere" in modern terms) in Genesis 1, as distinct from the "heaven of heavens" (space) and from the "third heaven" which is beyond that, where God's throne is (see 2 Cor. 12:2). I'm surprised you didn't know this or hadn't heard this about Biblical cosmology.
>>23982093You are starting from the perspective of everything in the bible conforming to the 21st century understanding of science. Don't start from this perspective.Genesis says God made the lights on day four. Lights are stars to the ancients, they had no knowledge of gaseous bodies, only of light. There is no mention of God removing clouds and the hebrew word for "made" is the same in "made the firmament", "made the stars" and "made the animals". To interpret this as "the light coming from the stars becomes visible in the sky, whereas before, the sky was completely dark and clouded so that the sun, moon and stars couldn't be seen from earth" is first to make anachronistic assumptions and second to add things into the text that dont exist.The water is above the firmament. Not below the firmament or in the firmament. The firmament is what separates the two. Rain coming from clouds and rain coming from above the firmament are not contradictory, the rain had to come from somewhere and only the greeks had any conception of a water cycle.
>>23982055>Do you know what clouds are, anonThe question is whether ancient christians knew what clouds really are. Are you going to argue that christians back then knew about precipitation?
>>23982139>Lights are stars to the ancientsAre you confusing the word "מָאוֹר" with the word "כּוֹכָב" right now? Because these both occur in the same verse. One means light, the other means star. It says the lights (the former word) are set in the firmament, not the stars actually. Anyone who is actually interested in the distinction can read Genesis 1:15-16 and look at it carefully this time.>and second to add things into the text that dont exist.I'm not proposing my words be added to Scripture. I guess you feel the need to go after me since that's all you've got left? I am surprised that you seem not to be aware of this stuff though. Psalm 78:23, Job 37, etc. Literally anyone from any time period would know that precipitation comes from clouds. This is true even if they might not know all the details about air having its own density and so forth, even though it also says the clouds have "balancings" in Job 37:16, which is another astute observation you wouldn't normally expect from a document that ancient.>Don't start from this perspective.I can do whatever I want, anon. I am treating this as an inspired word that reflects reality and it actually does, for anyone that pays attention to this stuff. That's why now is what I take to be a good opportunity to explain it all to everybody.>>23982157>Are you going to argue that christians back then knew about precipitation?Yes I am actually. You don't need to be Archimedes or Newton to know that rain and snow are associated with clouds, even if you do not understand everything about how clouds work. This is the absolute most basic of the basic. It stretches incredulity that you would not even know this much, anon. I'm thinking this has gotta be like some kind of gaslighting thing where you pretend not to understand, I guess. Oh well.
>>23976123That's how science works. We discover new things by the day. It's understandable to not like something that changes. Most people, religious people much rather have a set law of the world that never changes, or, most people follow Religion for it's moral teachings rather than an explanation of why the world, the universe, etc is what it is.
>>23982168In 1.14 God declares that he will make lights מָאוֹר in the firmament. In 1.15 he makes them. Then in 1.16 it specifies what they are, two great lights הַמָּא֤וֹר and the stars כּוֹכָב. Then in 1.17 it reaffirms he sets them in the firmament. The stars are light. They are not being confused. That precipitation comes from clouds doesn't answer the question of where that water comes from. The clouds balancing has nothing to do with water cycles, its the physical conception of balance, as in how he keeps these objects suspended in the air.
>>23975632which is why science is gay. anons will shit on you but this is a correct answer according to science believers. if the how never answers why, then science is not the answer to the fundamental questions of existence and reality. these laws of the universe aren't actually laws either. they are how we make sense of what we perceive as reality and they do explain a lot of how's, they also allows guys like Hawkins to hand wave away the idea of a grand architect from his high horse, which is wrong. the universe is not science. Hawkins knows science but he can't tell you why about shit, but he makes you believe he can. I believe in science but I also believe in the mystery and possibly of the great architect.
>>23982168>It stretches incredulityBecause people in antiquity never believed in anything incredulous, and i'm not even dissing religion with that statement.
>>23982198>The stars are light. They are not being confused.You're giving me the runaround now. The book of Genesis doesn't quite say what you said back here >>23982067 Specifically, the firmament (atmosphere) is where the light OF the stars are placed, not the stars themselves. That would be a really dumb misconception, anon, to confuse the light of the stars with the actual stars, considering they both have their own word. The light coming from the stars, sun and moon are a separate noun compared to the objects themselves. That's part of what I've shown. The light of these objects is what is made to appear in the heaven, i.e. from the perspective of a viewer/witness who is watching at the surface of the earth. Based on how this conversation is going I take it that you also do not know about the time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 either. Even though it is readily inferred. Oh well, anon.>That precipitation comes from clouds doesn't answer the question of where that water comes from.That's all it needs to answer, anon. You were saying biblical cosmology requires that the windows of heaven be a solid dome firmament as if they did not know that clouds carried rain when that's obvious. When they refer to the windows of heaven, it's an equally valid way to refer to the process of condensation followed by precipitation. The air can hold quite massive clouds, since (in a sense) it is "strong," but if that vapor starts to condense due to reaching saturation, you know what happens. Genesis chapter 1 and Psalm 148:4 (quoted before) describes this as the waters that are above the heaven, and is correct to do so. The firmament is created when the clouds are separated from the ocean in Genesis 1:7, with the air between them being "firmament" or "heaven." It's really not that complicated to understand.>>23982203The empirical method is fine for what it does but as you point out, it completely lacks teleology. The matter of teleology or the question of final causes, is left to other philosophical pursuits. I personally believe that everything that exists has a purpose, a "telos." Some are more proximate than others, but the highest and ultimate final cause is the glorification of God, so I hope we have accomplished that here.
>>23982225>The light coming from the stars, sun and moon are a separate noun compared to the objects themselvesWhere is this coming from? Here are some translations of Genesis 1:16-17>KJV: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth>NIV: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth>JSP: God made the two great lights, the greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth.Clearly he made the stars and put them IN the firmament on the fourth day. The word for "make" is "וַיַּ֣עַשׂ" and it is used in the same way as "make the firmament" and "make the animals". Stars here is הַכּוֹכָבִֽים, which unambiguously means star not starlight.
>>23982225>You were saying biblical cosmology requires that the windows of heaven be a solid dome firmamentThe description of the firmament is that it separates the water such that there is water below and water above the firmament. Your hypothesis satisfies this by claiming the part of the atmosphere below the clouds is the firmament. As I argue here, >>23982245 the stars, the sun, and the moon are set in the firmament, which entails they are below the clouds, obviously false. It follows that the atmosphere below the clouds or in the clouds cant be the firmament, and thus it must be above the clouds. As there is no equivalent to Aristotle's Meteorology in the Tanakh, I cannot explain how the water goes from above the firmament to the clouds, but surely it must as the clouds must get their water from somewhere.
>>23982245>Where is this coming from?It's coming from the full context of verses 14-17, which you left out the first half of possibly since it makes my point obvious.>The word for "make" is "וַיַּ֣עַשׂ" and it is used in the same way as "make the firmament" and "make the animals".Yes, verse 16 is telling us that these things were created by God. The antecedent to "them" is the lights, which we get from verses 14-16. This is much more obvious if you post the full context rather than leaving out the first half of it."And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good."- Genesis 1:14-18You can take verse 16 as a parenthetical statement that tells us what God created and why. The objects that were placed there are clearly, based on this, the lights. See the first two verses where it says, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven".By contrast, it doesn't say: "let there be stars in the firmament"; that would be a completely different statement. It doesn't actually say that.>As I argue here, >>23982245 the stars, the sun, and the moon are set in the firmament, which entails they are below the clouds, obviously false.Only the light of those objects are set in the firmament, not the objects themselves obviously.
>>23982260If you have no conception of planetary bodies, a light in the sky is precisely a light in the sky. "A greater light" and "the sun" refer to the same object, the euphemism likely used for theological reasons. This is evidenced by the usage of וַיַּ֣עַשׂ or make, which is used only to describe the creation of the two great lights and stars, the firmament, and animals. God created the great light in the same sense as he created animals, it can't be that he just moved the clouds to reveal sunlight. Besides, nowhere in Genesis is the creation of the sun or moon mentioned, the greater and lesser lights are their synonyms and this is backed up by every single commentator in antiquity. This established, you misunderstand where the clause is. 1.16 says "he made the two great lights,..., and the stars", with the ellipses being the specification of the lights. There is no second made, the two fonly words after the ellipses are literally "and stars". Then 1.17 affirms they all are in the firmament.
>>23982275>God created the great light in the same sense as he created animals, it can't be that he just moved the clouds to reveal sunlight. Besides, nowhere in Genesis is the creation of the sun or moon mentioned, the greater and lesser lights are their synonyms and this is backed up by every single commentator in antiquity.Yes, that doesn't change the point in any way. Verse 16 is parenthetical, it sets up how vv. 14-15, the setting up of lights in the firmament, were fulfilled. It's very relevant since those are the ultimate sources of the light. We get a parenthetical statement about how the celestial bodies were created (at some earlier point in time), since this fact is relevant as an offhand statement to tell the reader, and since the light coming from these celestial bodies was going to be allowed to shine in the firmament starting on the fourth day. As we see very plainly in Genesis 1:14-15, which is what you seem not to want to talk about, the light itself is explicitly what was actually set in the firmament. Of course, you left these verses out. But this is the antecedent for "they" in verse 17. This would be obvious to the reader who has read the passage in order and didn't artificially start in verse 16 for no real or apparent reason.Trying to quote verse 16-17 of this passage while leaving out 14-15 is similar, I must say, to how in Catholicism, they will often quote Matthew 16:18 and deliberately leave out verses 16-17, where the actual antecedent for "this rock" (i.e. the object of Peter's confession) is found. Trying to leave out the real antecedent of a statement since it doesn't suit your purposes is a trick that I would hope no one would use.
>>23982188>explanation of why the world, the universe, etc is what it is.science doesnt give an explanation of the universe.Atheism have turned science into a religion. You know how atheists say a bunch of deformed illiterate inbreds rolling in shit, beating their children and women anthropomorphized Nature when they said gods were an amalgamation of the base fears of early humans. Well since the day a few atheist bugmen created computers, they are saying the universe is like their high-school calculators too, but bigger lol. That's their big brain idea and that's how dumb atheists are lol.
>>23982288I didn't quote 1.14-15 because 1.16-17 is a specification which is more relevant to the discussion. It is not in a past time; there is nothing to indicate this, nor amy change in tense. What there is is a poetic structure where on the fourth day they repeat "to divide, to shine, to rule, to rule, to shine, to divide" which fits in to the greater symmetry of seven days.What is relevant about 1.14-1.15 is the subtle difference in "light", the light of 1.14 is light-source, מְאֹרֹת֙, the light in 1.15 is light in the greater context of "to shine light", as לִמְאוֹרֹת֙. The greater light and lesser light are within the weaker context of light, as הַמָּא֤וֹר, and so cpuldnt be prior to 1.14.
>>23975624"Things always happen causally except this one time at the beginning of time when the universe spontaneously started to exist but it was definitely not God guys anyway protect trans kids and go vote for Kamala Harris"
>>23975655It's a bit hard to believe in God when your religion revolves around envy and theft, I imagine.
