In The Beginning? (Origins)

by BBella @, Sunday, December 14, 2008, 06:00 (5633 days ago)
edited by unknown, Sunday, December 14, 2008, 06:49

I've recently became ill (just a bad cold) and at the same time was given a notebook pc for my birthday, so have had time to neglect more pressing needs of life and taken the time to hunker down, relax and read the whole guide on this website (I know, I was told to in the beginning but have neglected to do so). I also tried to read all the comments as well and so feel more aware now of how many of my comments were already covered by the guide itself. Sorry about that dhw. But, one thought I see that is often used or refered to in the guide, aand/or sometimes taken for granted, is the question or belief of a beginning, or origin of all that IS...as if a beginning is a must? Altho there may have been one, what if there wasn't one? This may have been touched on but I don't think it has been discussed (altho I may have missed it if it was). - Scientist state the possibility of a big bang in "theory" but is this theory any more reliable than the first verse of the bible? When I studied Hebrew back years ago I remember this verse was also to mean another beginning of earths cycle not that it was the beginning of all things. Also I remember reading that the 6 days of creation was only a metaphor for innumerable amount of years that is giving the order in which they appeared. So, what about the idea there was no origin, everything just has always been, just always been changing? - Maybe we look for an origin or beginning because we visually see beginning and endings (life and death) happening before us and so we naturally seek such thing as origin or beginning and end to all things (seek and you will find?)? But, truly, doesn't the words "beginning" and "end" seem meaningless in the light of the fact that we cannot absolutely prove anytghing has a beginning or end, since all we are allowed to ever truly see with our own eyes, is everything within the midst of change? The only thing constant and permanent is change, so why do we even believe in beginnings and ends? - Even tho we say a person begins and ends on certain dates and time, truly those are only the dates our physical relationship with that person ends. But, there are even those who say that does not have to be the end of that relationship as it is believed by many that the spirit of that person lives on (which I see was touched on in the guide). But, truly, that person did not have an official moment of beginning, as that which he is made of had no beginning, and as far as we know, will continue physically, and even some say, spiritually after he has passed. It is only the name that had a beginning and possibly an end...and how real is that, as the names themselves are only sounds. - So, if the big bang theory is false (which is a big possibility), maybe mans whole idea of beginnings and endings are based on falsehood as well? And if so, inspite of mans theories, then the universe would have always existed and always will, just in an ever changing state of constantcy, which we ourselves would also be a part of in eternal existence. - So, if this is so, (not saying anything is for sure), the question would then be, what part of our conscience, as beings, remains thru this eternal existence?

In The Beginning?

by David Turell @, Monday, December 15, 2008, 02:34 (5632 days ago) @ BBella

But, one thought I see that is often used or refered to in the guide, aand/or sometimes taken for granted, is the question or belief of a beginning, or origin of all that IS...as if a beginning is a must? - BBella: The way a beginning has been discussed in past threads is whether the Big Bang was a true single creation from an absolute void OR are we really part of an eternal gigantic multiverse with new universes popping in and out of existence from each other like a giant sink full of detergent soap bubbles, all connected with each other. One theory is that a new one comes about through a black hole. Another eternal theory is that we are part of giant set of parallel membranes (from string/membrane theory)and universes are restarted by the membranes coming in contact, which reverses the universe's expansion. It contracts and goes back to a new Big Bang. String theory allows for an infinite number of universes. So there are only two alternatives: a beginning or an eternal scheme.
 
> Scientist state the possibility of a big bang in "theory" but is this theory any more reliable than the first verse of the bible? When I studied Hebrew back years ago I remember this verse was also to mean another beginning of earths cycle not that it was the beginning of all things. Also I remember reading that the 6 days of creation was only a metaphor for innumerable amount of years that is giving the order in which they appeared. So, what about the idea there was no origin, everything just has always been, just always been changing? - You are certainly right about the meaning oF YOM: day, year, eon, whatever is called for in the context of the Hebrew. You might be interested in Judah Landa's book, "In The Beginning Of", 2004, in which he reinterprets Genesis, and for example says "biraishit", the first word of Genesis really means "in the beginning of [God's creation of the heaven and the earth]". But Genesis says there was a beginning, and Nahmanides in his 13th century "Commentary on the Torah, Genesis 1:1" describes the creation just as the Big Bang theory states. (See "Genesis and the Big Bang",pg. 65, by Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph. D., 1990) 
 
 
> So, if this is so, (not saying anything is for sure), the question would then be, what part of our conscience, as beings, remains thru this eternal existence? - Do you mean "conscience" or consciousness? Consciousness implies survival of a soul. As humans it appears to me that we have a beginning when we are conceived. Each combination of DNA is unique, as forensic science shows us. There can be no reincarnation. But does the soul it creates in consciousness (probably at the quantum level) last forever?

In The Beginning?

by BBella @, Thursday, December 18, 2008, 05:46 (5629 days ago) @ David Turell

But, one thought I see that is often used or refered to in the guide, aand/or sometimes taken for granted, is the question or belief of a beginning, or origin of all that IS...as if a beginning is a must? 
> 
>[David Turell] The way a beginning has been discussed in past threads is.... - Thank you David for your response. My post was not really in response to past threads but mainly a comment, as was asked for, at the end of the guide page of the forum. I had noticed that, altho dhw does not himself claim to 'know' whether there was or was not a beginning, he would make remarks in the guide that sometimes sounds as if he believed there was a beginning, ex: - Absence of Evidence (The limitations of science) by dhw, Saturday, March 01, 2008, 15:52 in response to John Clinch dhw states: "Physical life exists, it must have had an origin, and of course science will advance in its understanding of the origin." - When I posted at the end of the page I was more or less making a comment about what dhw had written so far in the guide but also thought this would be an interesting discussion, as I had not found an indepth discussion on this subject yet, only had skirted around it...altho I may have missed it if it has been discussed indepth. - >So there are only two alternatives: a beginning or an eternal scheme. - Yes, I agree.
 
>You are certainly right about the meaning oF YOM: day, year, eon, whatever is called for in the context of the Hebrew. You might be interested in Judah Landa's book, "In The Beginning Of", 2004, in which he reinterprets Genesis, and for example says "biraishit", the first word of Genesis really means "in the beginning of [God's creation of the heaven and the earth]". - I have read Landa's book a few years back and altho I do not remember it in detail I appreciated his interesting view and expanded studies of the beginning and first chapters of Genesis. - >But Genesis says there was a beginning, and Nahmanides in his 13th century "Commentary on the Torah, Genesis 1:1" describes the creation just as the Big Bang theory states. (See "Genesis and the Big Bang",pg. 65, by Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph. D., 1990) 
 
It seems to me the bible does not agree with the big bang theory because scripture plainly says that God has no beginning nor end, it is only this earth time it is speaking of having a beginning (possibly). God is not nothing, God is something so there was something before this earth time and will be after this earth time. It also says that God is spirit not visible to the eye, which is not all that hard to grasp since molecules and atoms are not visible to the naked eye yet we now know they are there, so maybe God is plainly always before us it's just our eyes cannot see God. - God is also said to be the 3 O's, omnicient, omnipresent and omnipotent, meaning, he is everywhere at all time with all power. That says to me everything that IS is God, that includes all time, all things, anywhere, everywhere, everything, seen and unseen. Just because we can't see something doesnt mean it isnt there? So maybe it is not that God cannot be seen as much as we do not recognize what we are seeing, in just the way we do not recognize molecules or atoms when we look at them and yet they are plainly before us? 
 
I will finish my reply in the next post.

In The Beginning?

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 18, 2008, 18:07 (5628 days ago) @ BBella

But Genesis says there was a beginning, and Nahmanides in his 13th century "Commentary on the Torah, Genesis 1:1" describes the creation just as the Big Bang theory states. (See "Genesis and the Big Bang",pg. 65, by Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph. D., 1990) 
 
> It seems to me the bible does not agree with the big bang theory because scripture plainly says that God has no beginning nor end, it is only this earth time it is speaking of having a beginning (possibly). God is not nothing, God is something so there was something before this earth time and will be after this earth time. - Nahmanides quote does fit the Big Bang, and presumes that God is eternal for He does the creating. Remember I am using Nahmanides interpretation. The Earth has a definite beginning and an end. Our Sun blows up in 5 billion years. The Milky Way reaches Andromeda galaxy in 2 billion years. The Earth will not survive either one.
 
> God is also said to be the 3 O's, omnicient, omnipresent and omnipotent, meaning, he is everywhere at all time with all power. That says to me everything that IS is God, that includes all time, all things, anywhere, everywhere, everything, seen and unseen. > - I disagree with the 3 O's. No religion really knows what or who God is. But I do think, like Einstein and Spinoza that God is everywhere and in everything.

In The Beginning?

by BBella @, Thursday, December 18, 2008, 06:31 (5629 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Thursday, December 18, 2008, 06:41

[bbella]So, if this is so, (not saying anything is for sure), the question would then be, what part of our conscience, as beings, remains thru this eternal existence?
> 
> [DT] Do you mean "conscience" or consciousness? Consciousness implies survival of a soul. - I should maybe have said the awareness, the part of the mind that is self aware. I do not know if that is the soul but whatever awareness is, I believe it is eternal and has no beginning or end, just as everything else, altho it too may evolve just as everything else does. - >As humans it appears to me that we have a beginning when we are conceived. Each combination of DNA is unique, as forensic science shows us. - Altho two unique DNA combine at conception to become one unique 'new' human being, the DNA itself is not really all that unique since it's the same DNA from forever just a different combination...there is no brand new DNA created, only a different combination. Isn't that the same as our number system that uses 0-9 to make many different combinations of numbers yet they are all made from the same 10 numbers yet each number is unique?
 
>There can be no reincarnation. - How can you state so emphatically there can be no reincarnation? If perhaps there is no beginning or end of anything, and everything is only recycling, possibly the mind/awareness also recycles thru eternity as well? What is the reason for ruling it out completely? Thought and awareness is also part of the fabric of life as it too is energy. - >But does the soul it creates in consciousness (probably at the quantum level) last forever? - If by soul you mean awareness, I would think it depends on whether the whole idea of beginnings and endings is truly a fact or not? Maybe all that truly begins and has an end is the name/word something is called. We may see a leaf fall to the gound and 'die' but truly it is only recycling into something else we call by a different name. What I think of as God (if anything) would be the fabric that all that IS is made up of, and it is from this fabric everything seen and unseen pro-seeds from and has it's existence. If the leaf carries on eternally, just evolving into something else, why then would not awareness be as the leaf? Just because we may not remember being here before this lifetime, and some do, doesn't mean we weren't here before and won't be here after our body is recycled. The fabric our awareness is made up of is of the same unseen fabric we could call spirit, which is no more than the unseen aspect of all that IS. Of course this is no more than conjecture...but, it is also a possibility.

In The Beginning?

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 18, 2008, 15:30 (5628 days ago) @ BBella

We can philosophize about perpetual possibilities, but current cosmologic theory doesn't allow for that. If correct, this universe started 13.7 billion year ago. Its spacetime is 'flat', not concave or convex, which means it should expand forever into a heat death in 100 billion years or less. Studies of supernovas show that it is expanding faster and faster. Our sun will expand in size in 5 billion years, as it dies,will engulf the Earth and all life will disappear. In other words there is beginning and end. We are here during a favorable part of time for our universe. Worse that what I have described is that The Milky Way will meet up with the Andromeda galaxy in two billion years. That means chaos for this planet. Nothing is perpetual.

In The Beginning?

by BBella @, Saturday, December 20, 2008, 21:08 (5626 days ago) @ David Turell

We can philosophize about perpetual possibilities, but current cosmologic theory doesn't allow for that. If correct, this universe started 13.7 billion year ago. - This universe may have started 13.7 billion years ago but, what I am theorizing is, it didn't start from nothing. I began 53 years ago and I didn't start from nothing either. I believe there is no such thing as nothing, never has been and never will be, and 'nothing' can pop out of anywhere and prove any different. What I propose as well is there is no beginning or end of anything, only an evolving from one thing into another. When I die everything that is me will turn to dust and that dust will become something else, and then something else and so on. There is that possibility I believe that the mind/awareness, because it to is 'something' and not 'nothing' will continue on eternally as well...just in what form, I'm not sure. - >Its space time is 'flat', not concave or convex, which means it should expand forever into a heat death in 100 billion years or less. Studies of supernovas show that it is expanding faster and faster. Our sun will expand in size in 5 billion years, as it dies,will engulf the Earth and all life will disappear. - The above is a only a theory that is still being debated. - >In other words there is beginning and end. We are here during a favorable part of time for our universe. Worse that what I have described is that The Milky Way will meet up with the Andromeda galaxy in two billion years. That means chaos for this planet. Nothing is perpetual. - We can say that I have a beginning and an end, but in truth, only the form in which I am taking at this moment will end, yet, that which I am made of will have no end. So, just because an ant hill is an ant hill today does not mean it will be one tomorrow, but that which it is made of will be here forever, even if it takes the form of some universe a billion years from now. What you call beginning and ends is only the form in which something takes, not the matter in which it is made of. There is no proof that matter had a beginning or an end, it only goes on to take a different form.

In The Beginning?

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 21, 2008, 01:03 (5626 days ago) @ BBella

There is no proof that matter had a beginning or an end, it only goes on to take a different form. - I agree that the matter in this universe will transform itself into some other combination of atoms, molecules and particles and change its appearance as a different form of matter. - I think this universe had a beginning and will have an end. There is little doubt tht the Earth will be destroyed in 2 billion years when the galaxies meet. Its matter will join something else. Life as we know it will be gone, unless it springs up elsewhere, or we figure out how to take it elsewhere.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum