The Christian Downfall ---The Error Of Balaam

[Neo]

Excellent to see you both on the same page.

It's the difference between pantheism and panantheism.

 

[Mendalla]

Before anything was , energy included

God is

Interestingly, I just read a piece in Scientific American by a group from the Perimeter Institute. They have formulated a hypothesis about what came before the Big Bang. The Big Bang may have been the result of a star in a four-dimensional (that's four physical dimensions, not three physical + 1 time like ours) universe collapsing into a black hole. And, best of all, unlike some other multidimensional universe hypotheses, this one come with testable predictions. IOW, we can test this one to see if it fits observations and thereby determine if it is at least feasible. If this hypothesis passes the tests and is confirmed to at least some extent; if we are a three dimensional offshoot of a four dimensional universe, that tends to suggest that there may be no "before anything was", just an ongoing chain of events with, potentially, no beginning or end.

Does this mean no God? No, of course not. It means, however, that the traditional notion of a Creator as first cause of a discreet Creation likely gets replaced by something like process theology where Creation is an ongoing act of God rather than something with a discreet beginning and end. And, certainly, our universe still has a discreet beginning (and maybe ending) and our solar system/planet definitely have both. Maybe God is the God of our universe and other universes have their own gods? Or is God that which encompasses all of the many universes and dimensions, some kind of multidimensional, multiuniversal entity?

 

[Neo]

The very question of what was "before" the Big Bang has problems as the definition of time, as we know it, didn't exist before space.

Carl Sagan, and others, contended that our three dimensional world is a part and parcel of a multi-dimensional universe and can never be separated from it, just as a 2-d shadow could not exist without a 3-d form.

 

[Mendalla]

The very question of what was "before" the Big Bang has problems as the definition of time, as we know it, didn't exist before space.

Carl Sagan, and others, contended that our three dimensional world is a part and parcel of a multi-dimensional universe and can never be separated from it, just as a 2-d shadow could not exist without a 3-d form.

In fact, the shadow analogy is exactly what this group is using to explain their hypothesis. Our universe with its three physical dimensions is a 3D shadow of the 4D parent universe. They even cite Plato's Parable of the Cave.

The thing is, if we are an offshoot of a previously existing universe, then the whole question of where "time" begins changes. Time for us begins at the Big Bang but time for the four dimensional "parent" universe began with its "Big Bang" and so on. Because the singularity of the four dimensional black hole cuts us off from the "parent" universe, we really do not have any interaction with it and could simply ignore it for purposes of keeping time but, at the same time (heh heh) I think that when we are thinking about origins, as in cosmology and theology, we do need to account for it in our understanding of existence. And, if God transcends time itself, as someone like bb would likely contend, that implies God was present in that previous universe and its predecessor and so on.

 

[Jaebius]

Even if our 3D universe came out of a 4D one [and that's one huge IF] - there would still have to be a first cause for that 4D singularity. We call that first cause God.

 

[Mendalla]

Even if our 3D universe came out of a 4D one [and that's one huge IF] - there would still have to be a first cause for that 4D singularity. We call that first cause God.

Except that that 4D universe (and that IF may be answered within the coming decade since the experiments needed to test the hypothesis mostly involve collecting and analyzing various observations of the cosmic background radiation) may have originated with a 5D original and so on. It could be an infinite chain of creations that is still going on. After all, what is to say that our black holes are not spawning 2D universes a la Flatland? There may not be a first cause or, if there is, it lies out in some 16-odd dimensional reality (which has been theorized by the string theory folks) that has always been there. And that is where we would find God to my mind. I don't think losing God as First Cause devalues the notion of God that much. God becomes the engine of an ongoing process of creation rather than the engineer of a one time event. It still positions God as a transcendant Creator over a reality that is even more wondrous and complex than we have imagined before. The difference is that God is still creating and always will be. It magnifies, rather than diminishes, God's power and majesty.

 

[Jaebius]

Except that that 4D universe (and that IF may be answered within the coming decade since the experiments needed to test the hypothesis mostly involve collecting and analyzing various observations of the cosmic background radiation) may have originated with a 5D original and so on. It could be an infinite chain of creations that is still going on. After all, what is to say that our black holes are not spawning 2D universes a la Flatland? There may not be a first cause or, if there is, it lies out in some 16-odd dimensional reality (which has been theorized by the string theory folks) that has always been there. And that is where we would find God to my mind. I don't think losing God as First Cause devalues the notion of God that much. God becomes the engine of an ongoing process of creation rather than the engineer of a one time event. It still positions God as a transcendant Creator over a reality that is even more wondrous and complex than we have imagined before. The difference is that God is still creating and always will be. It magnifies, rather than diminishes, God's power and majesty.

It's all a very interesting - hypothetical - and intellectual puzzle to be challenged by - isn't it. And yet - it's also so unnecessary. We know that God created our universe ex nihilo - because we have the Genesis accounts.

 

[Mendalla]

Which can only be taken on faith, however. You are welcome to your faith, but my experience is of a much bigger, much more complex picture of the universe than I feel Genesis 1 provides and and that experience informs me as much as, perhaps more than, any book.

 

[airclean33]

It's all a very interesting - hypothetical - and intellectual puzzle to be challenged by - isn't it. And yet - it's also so unnecessary. We know that God created our universe ex nihilo - because we have the Genesis accounts.

Hi Pr.Jae---I was going to tell Mendalla that we know of three heavens. But GOD never said that is all there was. When GOD comes into the third heaven . It always seems He is coming from far away.

 

[Mendalla]

Hi Pr.Jae---I was going to tell Mendalla that we know of three heavens. But GOD never said that is all there was. When GOD comes into the third heaven . It always seems He is coming from far away.

I like that line "It always seems He is coming from far away". A podcast I recently listened to talks (partly, there are lots of other ideas tossed about, too) about God and religion as being about what is coming, about hope for the future and movement forward. It even proposes that God is a verb; not a being but a "becoming".

 

[blackbelt1961]

Which can only be taken on faith,

and mans theories? no faith there uh

You are welcome to your faith, but my experience is of a much bigger, much more complex picture of the universe than I feel Genesis 1 provides and and that experience informs me as much as, perhaps more than, any book.

and mans theories? we don't read them from books uh

 

[revsdd]

I like that line "It always seems He is coming from far away". A podcast I recently listened to talks (partly, there are lots of other ideas tossed about, too) about God and religion as being about what is coming, about hope for the future and movement forward. It even proposes that God is a verb; not a being but a "becoming".

Interesting concept which spurs thought for me, but it ultimately seems to me that such an understanding of God or religion (I prefer the word faith, which isn't exactly the same as religion) has the potential to reduce the interest of those of faith in transforming society on the basis that it's not about today; it's about what's coming. Faith isn't just about "hope for the future." It's about believing that things can be better in the here and now.

I don't mind the image of God as a verb (in fact, it rather appeals to me) but I'm not sure that there's as much of a distinction between being and becoming as is suggested. I believe God to be complete, and not in process of becoming. But I also believe that God is a being who constantly creates and transforms that which is created, and in that sense God as "becoming" works for me. The word for me would refer not to God's own nature, but to God's impact on the universe(s) - all of which in my view owe their existence to God.

 

[Delightful Life]

Even if our 3D universe came out of a 4D one [and that's one huge IF] - there would still have to be a first cause for that 4D singularity. We call that first cause God.

I grok :3 Glad to see you're using SCIENCE :3 Physicists are true, hard-core theologians

One of my favourite ones is:

Let's stay with 'everything came into existence at the big bang'. Ok, so from that event came everything.

Which includes us, observers.

Now, the observers brought the big bang into being...

Then there doesn't 'have' to be a causeless cause for the big bang. Its a never-ending loop. Big bang created 'us' created big bang created...

This idea is courtesy of a Physicist Bigshot called John Wheeler

And that's just one of the 'beginningless' models that's on the scientist table

 

[Delightful Life]

Here's an interesting snippett from a much longer discussion that illustrates just how nuanced the discussion aboot cosmic origins is, how one should be full of care to be aware of how words and ideas are context-dependent, why it is important to look outside of one's own head (and logic) for Truth (the world is how it is no matter how or what we think) and what happens when people mistake their own ideas with being able to somehow know what other people are thinking (as I find WLC does with scientists)

the full talk just between Carroll & Craig can be viewed here, chock-full of awesomeness

 

[Delightful Life]

Which can only be taken on faith, however. You are welcome to your faith, but my experience is of a much bigger, much more complex picture of the universe than I feel Genesis 1 provides and and that experience informs me as much as, perhaps more than, any book.

thus the difference between art and science -- science determines the 'is' and with art (which includes religious faith) we determine the ought

science -- human beings are self-aware & alive & have feelings
religious faith -- human beings are special

 

[Neo]

It's all a very interesting - hypothetical - and intellectual puzzle to be challenged by - isn't it. And yet - it's also so unnecessary. We know that God created our universe ex nihilo - because we have the Genesis accounts.

This is one point that both science and the Bible already agree on, and is that light came darkness, form from the formless. Whether or not the discussion is "unnecessary" is debatable.

 

[Neo]

From Maitreya’s Teachings on
Being and Becoming:

Being and Becoming are two modalities. Being is unchanging, whereas becoming is a process in time and space. Man, in his Being, is the Self. In his becoming, he is the soul — the reflection of the Self.

Mind, spirit and body are the temples of the Lord which man inhabits. Spirit is Shiv shakti, which is energy. Mind is Brahma, which is thought formation. Body is Prakriti, which is material substance and can also be thought of as material activity. These terms can be thought of as nouns, but they can also be thought of as movement or processes.

The destiny of the Self is to be free. Considered in its freedom, in its Being, it is called Atman. Within the limitations of time and space, in its becoming, it is the soul, or Jiva.

The Self is not energy (Shiv shakti, spirit); the Self is not thought formation (Brahma, or mind); the Self is not material activity (Prakriti, the body). The destiny of the Self is to enter and leave these temples of the Lord at will.

 

[crazyheart]

And yet not everyone who calls themselves a Christian really is one. One reason I believe that is because it's part of my story. Back when I was a kid I called myself a Christian - because I went to church and Sunday School - participated in Family Cluster - sang in church choirs - etc. - but I had yet to be truly born from above. It wasn't until I was in my 20s that God made me his child.

This is really hurtful to children who are not christened or baptised All children are children of God, imo.

 

[Jaebius]

This is really hurtful to children who are not christened or baptised All children are children of God, imo.

Actually crazyheart - it has nothing to do with who has been christened/baptized and who has not. It does have to do with my life before I accepted God's free gift of salvation through Christ Jesus and afterwards.

 

[GordW]

Jae I think you missed the point. CH suggested (and I agree) that ALL children, regardless of faith or lack thereof, are sons and daughters of God. Which is specifically NOT what you suggested, you suggested only those who have made a profession of Christian faith are children of God