[Aireal]

I got feed up with Creationists knocking science and twisting it all out of shape.

So in my new book, http://www.simplylogicandreason.com/

I show that Genesis and current scientific theories like the Big Bang and Evolution are not in conflict with Genesis and that Modern Creationist have apparently not even read their own Bibles. Should cause some lively debates. What do you think?

[Moontanman]

Aireal, on 22 April 2011 - 08:58 AM, said:

I got feed up with Creationists knocking science and twisting it all out of shape.

So in my new book, http://www.simplylogicandreason.com/

I show that Genesis and current scientific theories like the Big Bang and Evolution are not in conflict with Genesis and that Modern Creationist have apparently not even read their own Bibles. Should cause some lively debates. What do you think?

So what happens when Science abandons the big bang theory? How does the Bible not conflict with evolution or do i need to buy your book to find out? Can anyone say spam???

[chilehed]

Moontanman, on 22 April 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

...How does the Bible not conflict with evolution...?

It doesn't conflict with it because the relevant passages are written in a literary form which indicates that it's not intended to communicate historical events in the same manner that one would intend to communicate the details of what happened at, for example, the building of the Hoover Dam. And the actual Hebrew text itself doesn't demand a 144-hour creation, there's quite a bit of ambiguity in the words and phrasing used and when you account for that then the idea of an old universe is seen to not contradict the story.

And no, you don't need to buy his book to hear good explanations of this, all you have to do is google around a bit.

[The Polymath]

What he meant by "Do I have to buy the book to find out" was probably more along the lines of "Will you explain your ideas by answering the dozens of questions that will inevitably pop up?"

This is an important point here at Hypography, as it shows wheather or not your book/theory/etc. holds up even with dozens of people trying to find fault with it.

[Aireal]

As for being spam, I was a regular poster on this forum for years, till I took a break to write my book.

The literary wording of Genesis is open enough that even if the Big Bang was disproved, other theories would fit just as well.

The Hebrew shows a Panentheist view of God, which works through the Laws of science. So reconciling it with Genesis was no big deal, the problem was Evolution, especially when it comes to mankind.

Without giving away too much, let me point out that Mankind is created in chapter one, and Adam and Eve in chapter two. This contradiction has long been a problem, but was the solution to resolving the conflict.

[The Polymath]

But isn't the Big Bang held to be opposing religous views such as those put forth in the Bible (seven days for the whole universe by a singe person who already existed)?

[Moontanman]

Aireal, on 22 April 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

As for being spam, I was a regular poster on this forum for years, till I took a break to write my book.

Yeah 64 posts in 6 years is regular...

Quote

The literary wording of Genesis is open enough that even if the Big Bang was disproved, other theories would fit just as well.

Then why bother to try and reconcile them?

Quote

The Hebrew shows a Panentheist view of God, which works through the Laws of science. So reconciling it with Genesis was no big deal, the problem was Evolution, especially when it comes to mankind.

You need to clarify this for sure....

Quote

Without giving away too much, let me point out that Mankind is created in chapter one, and Adam and Eve in chapter two. This contradiction has long been a problem, but was the solution to resolving the conflict.

So we do have to buy your book before we can discuss this?

[Aireal]

The Polymath

Very few Christians believe in a literal 6 days, the Hebrew does not suggest a 24 hour day. Some rather vocal fundamentalists believe in a 6 24 hour day for creation, but they are a minority.

Moontanman

Sorry I did not post enough for you in the 4 years I was on here. I happen to have a life and only posted if I felt something deserved a post.

The point in reconciling them has more to do with refuting the fundamentalist creationists, as stated in the excerpt from the book. They butcher science even worse than the Bible, would think you could see the value in that at the least.

A quick google of Panentheism would clarify this as well, but here are the basics.

There are 3 basic views of God. Pantheist, All of God is creation, the Laws of science that govern creation are the Laws of God, Nature worship is a primitive example of this, Einstein professed this view for most his life.

At the other end you have the Theist view of a God completely removed from creation and works in a supernatural manner with no regard for the laws of nature. This is the view held by most modern religions, including many Christians.

Panentheism fall in the middle of these extremes. God works through the laws of science, creation is part of God rather than all of God however. I am not the only theologian who is beginning to see this as the Hebrew is examined. Most English translations have not looked at the Hebrew in hundreds of years.

I go into this deeper in the book, that that is the basics.

Lastly, good question. In fact, there is nothing in my book that I have not posted about extensively for at least a decade, so I don’t mind sharing. Except in the second part which is pure physics, though some of the old related work was posted.

On the other hand, I do need to sell at least some books to cover the costs of publication.

So I will try to answer questions, and still hold back a few items of interest if I can.

[The Polymath]

Even without a literal 6-day/7-day/non-24-hour-day/etc. translation, then the Big Bang is still completely different than what is in most, if not all religios text that include the topic of how the universe started.

[Aireal]

The Polymath

You are quite correct, most world religions have a Theist view of God.

Panentheist. God used part of his energy to create matter.

Science E=mc2

Both have energy being used to create matter, so the views are not too hard to reconcile.

Many native cultures had a Panentheist view, partly because it is more logical than a Theist god who magically creates stuff out of nothing.

As a Native American, I was surprised to find the Hebrew gave a Panentheist view, till the priesthood took over and created religion.

[The Polymath]

What E=mc2 means is that in every kilogram of mass (m) there is 90,000,000,000,000,000 newton meters per second's worth of energy.

Quote

Panentheist. God used part of his energy to create matter.

Science E=mc2

Both have energy being used to create matter, so the views are not too hard to reconcile.

Where does the energy come from, then? Does it just magically appear?

Remember the law of conservation of mass and energy: the amount of energy and mass in a closed system (in this case the universe) must remain constant.

[Moontanman]

Aireal, on 22 April 2011 - 09:09 PM, said:

The Polymath

You are quite correct, most world religions have a Theist view of God.

Panentheist. God used part of his energy to create matter.

Science E=mc2

Both have energy being used to create matter, so the views are not too hard to reconcile.

Many native cultures had a Panentheist view, partly because it is more logical than a Theist god who magically creates stuff out of nothing.

As a Native American, I was surprised to find the Hebrew gave a Panentheist view, till the priesthood took over and created religion.

That is an interesting assertion, my Pagan friends make that same claim about the Hebrew religion. BTW, I think my assertion that 64 posts in 6 years is hardly a regular poster is spot on and the idea that you can come in and troll your book with out being willing to discuss the details is spamming IMHO but now you have peaked my interest. I don't think discussing your book in detail here would keep people from buying it, quite the opposite in fact.

The idea that any theory of creation can be reconciled with the bible if you use logic and reason is dishonest in my opinion and begs the question "Why bother to try to reconcile the bible with science if it only a matter of interpreting the bible correctly?" Very few if any fundamentalist religionists would see it your way I am sure and most others would see it as a feeble attempt to merge two incompatible schools of thought. How can you call it applying logic when the interpretation can be seen to embrace anything, this makes it meaningless IMHO.

I too am of Native American ancestry

[Aireal]

The Polymath

You hit upon the heart of the problem, God can not be proved, and I don’t even try.

But physics is not without its creation problems, where did all the energy for the Big Bang come from, “Does it just magically appear?”

But believers have many definitions for the concept of God, non-believers tend to have just one view. But if there is a God, a believer must ask themselves some hard questions. Does their view of God work through the Laws of science, or does it act like a spoiled child with magical abilities. If there is a God, and creation did not magically appear, then there must be some process, some material that God used to form the universe, and before time and matter existed, the only material God had was himself, his energy.

Physics tells us that time starts at the Big Bang, how then can physics ask, What came in time before time existed? Till science can answer these questions, we are stuck with religion.

Plus there is debate among physicists if the universe is indeed a closed system. Gravitational effects from outside our universe are currently being debated.


Moontanman

While 64 posts in 4 years is not a lot to many people, it was for me at the time. I was on the forum almost daily. But as a post often requires a reply, I seldom posted if someone else could answer the question. I was a Moderator on another forum at the time, and working, so yes, I did not post a lot, sorry.

If you think my thread is spam please report it and have it removed, no skin off my back, less work and posting for sure.

Plus I am willing to discuss it, or at least 90% of it.

As for trying to reconcile science and faith, I am not the first. Einstein tried to reconcile his faith with science, as did many other scientists over time. Deism arose in the Renaissance because scientist tried to do the same. So I am not a radical in this, it has a long history.

Of course it does not make sense to someone who does not believe in a God, and that is fine, not out to convert anyone. From their point of view, it is a waste. But my book was not aimed at them, but believers looking to reconcile their faith in a modern scientific world.

Every sect thinks they have the CORRECT view of what the Bible says. I tell people in my book not to listen to them or me. I can be just as wrong as the next guy. People should read, learn and answer these questions for themselves and not depend on others, like me.

Faith should be a personal thing between them and God. When that personal faith turns into a religion with doctrines and laws, it has went too far. For me, the story of the Bible is a story of the struggle between these opposing views of God, one personal and private, the other religious and public.

[C1ay]

Aireal, on 23 April 2011 - 09:55 AM, said:

But physics is not without its creation problems, where did all the energy for the Big Bang come from, “Does it just magically appear?”

Maybe it has existed forever. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Aireal, on 23 April 2011 - 09:55 AM, said:

Physics tells us that time starts at the Big Bang, how then can physics ask, What came in time before time existed?

There is a theory that theorizes the Universe we live in today started with the Big Bang and time in our Universe started with that event. This is not proven though and science freely states we 'think' this is what happened.

Aireal, on 23 April 2011 - 09:55 AM, said:

Till science can answer these questions, we are stuck with religion.

No we're not. The only answer we're stuck with is 'we don't know'. There doesn't "have" to be an answer for everything. There are phenomena we can't explain yet but that doesn't mean we have to turn to religion and just make up the answers. We're still looking for answers and that's all that matters. Making up answers is just being dishonest.

[The Polymath]

Aireal, on 23 April 2011 - 09:55 AM, said:

You hit upon the heart of the problem, God can not be proved, and I don’t even try.

...Isn't it kinda required for a god to exist in order for Christianity/Islam/etc to be anywhere near true?

Aireal, on 23 April 2011 - 09:55 AM, said:

But physics is not without its creation problems, where did all the energy for the Big Bang come from, “Does it just magically appear?”

Look up the term 'negative quantum fluctuation'. It is a part of quantum mechanics. Unfortunatly, I have little idea of what it is, so I am unable to explain it (in fact, I'm not entirely sure I have the right term). Can anyone else give it a try?

Aireal, on 23 April 2011 - 09:55 AM, said:

Physics tells us that time starts at the Big Bang, how then can physics ask, What came in time before time existed? Till science can answer these questions, we are stuck with religion.

"What came in the time before time?"

Nothing. Not just a vacuum, but nothing. Not time, not space.

How about an anology:

Your old PC that ran Windows breaks down, so you decide to get a new one. You decide to get a Macintosh. You buy it, bring it home, and try to get your files off of your old hard drive by simply plugging it into the Mac. The cable fits and the hard drive is not broken, but the Mac cannot 'read' what is on the hard drive. This is because the files are different types than what the Mac can read. So, the computer asks you to reformat the drive, or in other words, to change the format to one it is able to use. Think of this reformatting as similar to the Big Bang. Once the drive had been reformatted, the computer 'knows' where things are (space & time), and is now able to access them. So, think of the Big Bang as 'reformatting' the nothing that was before into time and space. It's not a great anology, but it works.

Aireal, on 23 April 2011 - 09:55 AM, said:

Plus there is debate among physicists if the universe is indeed a closed system. Gravitational effects from outside our universe are currently being debated.

If, indeed, there is a multiverse of universes, then you simply expand the 'closed system' label to the multiverse, instead of just a single universe.

Aireal, on 23 April 2011 - 09:55 AM, said:

Faith should be a personal thing between them and God. When that personal faith turns into a religion with doctrines and laws, it has went too far. For me, the story of the Bible is a story of the struggle between these opposing views of God, one personal and private, the other religious and public.

So the book is an arguement/collection of arguements against organized religion? Or is this just your personal view? Could you clarify this?