First Cause

[Whisper9999]

Hey guys! I'm coming out of the closet. I'm actually a traditional/orthodox/evangelical/charistmatic, etc., etc. Christian. But don't be afraid - I'm very tolerant in many ways and I always love a good discussion.

Anyway, I can't remember how I found your board, but it was (I think) through the word "mystic" as I LOVE that word as to me it means divine contact which has played a big role in my life. I actually laughed when I figured out what "wick" meant. But I hung around as this is a great board in many ways as the people here are generally interested in things non-physical, artistic, natural, etc. And these are qualities I value greatly and are simply not that easy to find!

But I do want to bring up a topic that hopefully will be challenging and non-offensive. I have tried to broach this subject on a couple of other posts, but I don't think anyone understood what I was saying, so I'll try to be a little more clear. Here's what I'm wondering:

"There's a lot of scientific evidence that makes it look like our universe was created: the Big Bang, the Origin of Life, the Fine Tuning of the Universe, and the Fine Tuning of our Solar System, etc. How does Paganism deal with this growing body of evidence that the universe may in fact have a First Cause?"

(Yes, I'm a weird combination of highly artistic and highly analytical.)

I hope that makes sense. I'm asking why you feel that the universe was NOT created by an intelligent First Cause.

And please if I'm being too offensive, just let me know. I realize that this is your board and I'm a foreigner in many ways, so I genuinely want to be respectful.

Peace from the Desert...

[Whisper9999]

Oops! I may have put this in the wrong forum...

[Ladyvi]

im fine with the ' first cause' falls into the will of the source. when one applies your will to a certain application. interesting things happen. most dont realize the power they have to create their reality around them.

[{Tigress}]

First cause also fits in my view of the universe at large. Order out of Chaos, and like Vi said, ordered by Will.

[Sleet]

"How does Peopleism deal with this growing body of evidence that the universe may in fact have a First Cause?"

I'm certainly not offended by any means, but I think that there's by no means any consensus that "There's a lot of scientific evidence that makes it look like our universe was created". Many, if not most, scientists would dispute that.

Nor am I certain that, if true, there's anything that needs to be dealt with. Maybe the God/Goddess/Whoever preceded the universe, rather than being a product of it. I don't know. Not sure it matters to me all that much.

[Brinclhof]

Being a scientist I have studied most of these theories and there are some gaps that have never been explained to my satisfaction. The big bang was caused the the superheating of Hydrogen and Helium molecules. I have never had anyone tell me where those hydrogen and helium molecules came from.

Look at it another way. Breaking down sub atomic particles. Atoms are made up of protons neutrons and electrons. Protons Neutron and Electrons are made up of quarks. Quarks are made up of hydrons. Hydrons are made up of strings. Strings are a series of number that have no physical value. How does a series of numbers turn into a physical substance.

I personally believe God said "Let there Light" and BOOOM the big bang. He started the ball rolling and created the world and man through the natural laws of the universe incuding evolution. Afterall he wrote the laws of the universe.

just my personal opinion.

[Whisper9999]

First cause also fits in my view of the universe at large. Order out of Chaos, and like Vi said, ordered by Will.
Now what do you guys mean by "Will of the Source"? I guess what's confusing me is that a First Cause has intelligence and a will, isn't that similar in concept to God?

[Aine of the Fae]

Evolution with Divine Intervention.

The Big Bang Theory is just that, theory and, as of now, cannot be proven OR disproven. Considering modern laws of physics, I'm leaning heavily toward the disproven side.

Yes, there is a LOT of evidence for creation, however there is also a LOT of evidence for and old Earth. The evidence seems to point more to Continual Creation than to sudden creation or random evolution.

One thing about evolution that I've learned from Creationist (the hard core, Christian kind :lol: ) is that for evolution to occur, new information has to be added to the genetic code and this simply DOES NOT occur! If spontaneous evolution occurs scientists would see evidence of new genetic information happening constantly. They have not seen it once. When changes do occur in a species, they see a LOSS of information, or a CHANGE of information but never and INCREASE.

This site:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

can explain it a lot better than I can. Mind you it's an Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian website, and some of their views are... well... anyway. They start with the assumption that the Bible is literal fact and show in a logical, consistent manner how scientific fact conforms to that view.

Many modern scientists start with the assumption that the Bible/Creation is false and TRY to show in a logical, consistent manner how scientific fact conforms to that view. So far, they are doing a very, very bad job of it.

Now mind you, I don't think either group has it entirely right. I think God created the Universe in such a way that we may never understand it. We don't have to view the Bible as literal fact, and I think to do so overlooks the spiritual lessons that it holds.

[Whisper9999]

I'm certainly not offended by any means, but I think that there's by no means any consensus that "There's a lot of scientific evidence that makes it look like our universe was created". Many, if not most, scientists would dispute that.


Actually, most top level scientists would take an "agnostic" approach imo. They are extremely cautious and don't want to embrace something that cannot be proven: that is how they were trained after all for 10+ years in school.

But I stand by my argument that the universe "looks" created even though it's certainly not universally accepted. Let me give just one example below regarding the physical constants of the universe. (Keep in mind that this research is brand new and has just been discovered in the last few decades!)

Secular scientists have noticed a fine tuning of the universe for life on planet earth that is unexplainable. What happened is that various astronomers and cosmologists independently discovered one or two characteristics of the universe that were tweaked into a very, low probability range for life in the universe. When you add up all these probabilites, well, you can draw your own conclusion. There are, I believe, around 50 of them right now, so I can't possibly put them all into a post, but here's a sampling:

1. Gravitational coupling constant. If this was slightly stronger, all stars in the universe would be significantly larger than our sun(with uneven luminosity making advanced life impossible). If this was slightly smaller, all stars in our universe would be significantly smaller than our sun and there would be no large elements in the universe (again making advanced life impossible).
2. Strong nuclear force. If this was slightly weaker, hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. If this were slightly stronger, there would be virtually no hydrogen in the universe.
3. Weak nuclear force. If this was slightly stonger, neutrons would decay more rapidly and there would be no helium which is necessary for stars to produce the heavy elements necessary for life. If this was slightly weaker, there would be an overabundance of helium which would lead to an overabundance of heavy elements. (Plus, neutrinos would be trapped within supernovae and unable to be expulsed into space.)
5. Expansion rate of the universe. According to none other than Alan Guth, this must be tuned to 1 in 10 to the 55th.

The list goes on and on including the ratio of proto mass to electron mass, the ratio of total protons to total electrons, the electromagnetic coupling constant, molecular energy levels, etc. And they are discovering many more regarding the "tuning" of our solar system as well which is whole 'nuther subjec (including the placement of Jupiter, the luminosity of our sun, etc., etc.)

In other words, the universe looks like a finely tuned machine....

[Sleet]

One thing about evolution that I've learned from Creationist (the hard core, Christian kind :lol: ) is that for evolution to occur, new information has to be added to the genetic code and this simply DOES NOT occur!

I've read this before, and to be honest those who further this theory misunderstand the second law of thermodynamics. There's nothing about random evolution that violates any laws of physics. (That doesn't mean it happened, but it's not true that it violates the laws of thermodynamics.)

If spontaneous evolution occurs scientists would see evidence of new genetic information happening constantly. They have not seen it once.

Not quite true either. It's seen all the time, for instance in antibiotic resistance, in viral mutation, in laboratory studies involving rapidly reproducing creautres like fruit flies, etc.

[HorseCrow]

Big Bang sounds fine to me, and in my life, that does not exclude the involvement of a higher power/will/intention.

[Whisper9999]

Being a scientist I have studied most of these theories and there are some gaps that have never been explained to my satisfaction. The big bang was caused the the superheating of Hydrogen and Helium molecules. I have never had anyone tell me where those hydrogen and helium molecules came from.

Look at it another way. Breaking down sub atomic particles. Atoms are made up of protons neutrons and electrons. Protons Neutron and Electrons are made up of quarks. Quarks are made up of hydrons. Hydrons are made up of strings. Strings are a series of number that have no physical value. How does a series of numbers turn into a physical substance.

I personally believe God said "Let there Light" and BOOOM the big bang. He started the ball rolling and created the world and man through the natural laws of the universe incuding evolution. Afterall he wrote the laws of the universe.

just my personal opinion.

I agree with everything you stated. I'm "old earth". It sounds like you've met a lot of Young Earth Christians and I'm definitely not one of those.

You asked where do the strings come from? And who created God is another question that commonly comes to mind. Well, keep in mind that God does not have to be created. Let me explain what I mean:

One of the most famous astrophysicists of the 20th century is Stephen Hawking, a wheelchair-bound scientist with Lou Gehrig's disease. He has become almost a household name because of his recent books and TV appearances. One of his pre-celebrity claims-to-fame (in the late 60's and early 70's) was co-authoring a set of papers that proved if relativity is true then all matter, energy, space AND time were created at the beginning of the universe. This leads to a monumental theological conclusion: out of the Big Bang came all space and time in our universe.

At the time Hawking co-wrote these papers, relativity's accuracy was just getting established. Today, relativity is known to be true to five places of the decimal and has been verified through a variety of independent experiments. So today we can definitely say that Hawking's early conclusions were credible and, most importantly, that they restate what the Bible has said all along: God created everything in our universe including time. (All other major religions are silent or imply/state a reincarnating or self-existing universe.)

Now, in fairness, I have to mention that everyone now realizes that you can't apply relativity to the pre-Quantum Gravity era (< 10-43 seconds). But my point is that nooone has even come close to disproving Hawking's ideas either. Essentially it just says that there was a First Cause responsible for the singularity and a t=0...

[mudweed]

Just out of curiosity here: to clarify, perhaps.
"There's a lot of scientific evidence that makes it look like our universe was created: the Big Bang, the Origin of Life, the Fine Tuning of the Universe, and the Fine Tuning of our Solar System, etc. How does Paganism deal with this growing body of evidence that the universe may in fact have a First Cause?"
I'm not sure if this was your quote or pulled from somewhere else, but it seems to imply that pagans tend to take the scientific view, and that Christianity is the only religion that follows a "first-cause" view. Maybe the question was meant on more of a person-by-person basis than as a generalization of Pagans' beliefs? (since we know how hard it is to categorize such a diverse set of people in the first place)

[Sleet]

Actually, most top level scientists would take an "agnostic" approach imo.

I agree, I was implying that that "agnostic" approach would be to disagree that there's enough evidence to make any sweeping declarations regarding intelligent design.

[Whisper9999]

Evolution with Divine Intervention.
Yes, there is a LOT of evidence for creation, however there is also a LOT of evidence for and old Earth.

I'm an old earth Creationist. As I pointed out above, you don't have to believe that the earth is 40,000 years old to be a creationist.

Don't know if the question on the byline was directed at me, but what do you mean by "fundamentalist"?

[Whisper9999]

I agree, I was implying that that "agnostic" approach would be to disagree that there's enough evidence to make any sweeping declarations regarding intelligent design.

Well, imo, events at the Origin of Life and the Big Bang and Creation of the Solar System look as we would expect if there was a Creator. However, it can always be argued of course that it just happens to looks that way because of a multiverse or infinite universe, etc. So there will probably always be an element of faith in all of this which is certainly not too surprising to me. :)

[Whisper9999]

Just out of curiosity here: to clarify, perhaps.

I'm not sure if this was your quote or pulled from somewhere else, but it seems to imply that pagans tend to take the scientific view, and that Christianity is the only religion that follows a "first-cause" view. Maybe the question was meant on more of a person-by-person basis than as a generalization of Pagans' beliefs? (since we know how hard it is to categorize such a diverse set of people in the first place)

Actually, let me state what I was asking a little more clearly:

The universe has now been shown to have a good possibility of being created. (No, it certainly cannot be proven.) Yet I've read through a lot of the threads and people commonly state their position as if they KNEW the pagan viewpoint was correct. I'm just asking: why the certitude?

I bet you'll say: human nature. We all think we're right... :)

[Sleet]

However, it can always be argued of course that it just happens to looks that way because of a multiverse or infinite universe, etc. So there will probably always be an element of faith in all of this which is certainly not too surprising to me. :)

Right. Scientists are out of a job the minute the answer is "God did it", because then they don't have anything else to investigate. So it's not a terribly useful answer to them, even if correct. ;)

- Sleet is a scientist, actually

[Whisper9999]

Right. Scientists are out of a job the minute the answer is "God did it", because then they don't have anything else to investigate. So it's not a terribly useful answer to them, even if correct. ;)

- Sleet is a scientist, actually

Oooh, I'm jealous. I've got an engineering background, although I don't do that anymore, and if I could just figure out how to live to be 200, I'd definitely like to pick up a PhD...I just love this stuff!

[Aine of the Fae]

I'm an old earth Creationist. As I pointed out above, you don't have to believe that the earth is 40,000 years old to be a creationist.

Don't know if the question on the byline was directed at me, but what do you mean by "fundamentalist"?


The byline is my signature. Shows up in every post, so no it was not specifically directed at you.

My definition of a fundamentalist? Someone who is so wrapped up in their "religion" that they fail to acknowledge spirituality. As it says, there are fundamentalists in every religion.

[Whisper9999]

The byline is my signature. Shows up in every post, so no it was not specifically directed at you.

My definition of a fundamentalist? Someone who is so wrapped up in their "religion" that they fail to acknowledge spirituality. As it says, there are fundamentalists in every religion.

Aaah, but this has a huge underlying assumption doesn't it? i.e. that religious belief and spirituality must be mutually exclusive?

[Tobias]

What does it matter really, if what we believe about our origins are slightly more accurate because of scientific discoveries? Do we benefit from having about 10% of the knowlage of how the physical universe was made?

Sometimes I look at our scientific knowlage and compare it to myth. It really is almost unbelievable to think of how big the universe is, where it all started, and what holds it together. It's almost just as unbelievable as any other creation myth come up with by the various people groups on this planet.


So what exactly is the difference? Personally I'd choose truth over a lie any day. But how much truth does our scientific study of the universe hold? Some estimate 10%, right?

I guess my opinions are affected by what became the "Religion of Evolution". Science found a bit of truth, and people ran wild with it. Soon we had people living by the principles of Survival of the Fittest, and Instinct was allowed to control our love lives at the expence of our emotional well being.

Did this "Scientific Discovery" help us in any way? Or did it do more damage than good? On the spiritual end of things, it wrecked havoc. Apparently it was the people who wanted freedom from the traditional religious boundries that embraced Evolution as their new set of standards.

I'm not saying that we should abandon our attempts to understand things. There's probably a lot of us on this board who look into the existence of the gods and other spiritual influences in a rather scientific way. This is the ultimate Science, IMO.

[Whisper9999]

It's almost just as unbelievable as any other creation myth come up with by the various people groups on this planet.


Actually, I would say that the universe is stranger than any myth. The idea of extradimensionality, quarks, quantum mechanics, the bending of space/time, black holes, etc. etc. are beyond our wildest expectations and imagination.

[Whisper9999]

What does it matter really, if what we believe about our origins are slightly more accurate because of scientific discoveries? Do we benefit from having about 10% of the knowlage of how the physical universe was made?


Well, it can matter in many ways imo. That's the point of my thread actually. Let me try to lay it out a little more clearly. There are kinds of two general categories of possibilites:

1. The universe sprang from an intelligent First Cause and the universe is tuned and designed for life. (theism and deism)
2. The universe just IS. The universe is all that there is (or more accurately stated: our univrse is part of a larger superset).

If #1 looks like a reasonable possibility, which I would argue is the case, then you are definitely gambling if you bet on #2 and all its correllaries.

I brought it up, because I get the definite impression that most people on this board assume #2 is a given or haven't given it much thought in light of current scientific evidence and so I'm asking why? Is it because of supernatural evidences? philosophical arguments? etc.

[Whisper9999]

I guess my opinions are affected by what became the "Religion of Evolution". Science found a bit of truth, and people ran wild with it. Soon we had people living by the principles of Survival of the Fittest, and Instinct was allowed to control our love lives at the expence of our emotional well being.


Yeah, I enjoyed getting force fed gradualism for a solid decade as well. So have you heard about punctuated equilibria?

[Brinclhof]

What does it matter really, if what we believe about our origins are slightly more accurate because of scientific discoveries? Do we benefit from having about 10% of the knowlage of how the physical universe was made?

Sometimes I look at our scientific knowlage and compare it to myth. It really is almost unbelievable to think of how big the universe is, where it all started, and what holds it together. It's almost just as unbelievable as any other creation myth come up with by the various people groups on this planet.



I agree with you. I took a mythology class in college in which we studied various creation myths. As part of my final exam I wrote the big bang theory in a form that constituted a creation myth. Personifying Hydrogen the male coupling with Helium the female to create the universe. The big bang theory is the scientist creation myth, just as the creation of Adam and eve is the Hebrew creation myth, I think it was the norse mythology in which the world was built out of the bones of one of the Gods, etc. All these creation myths are just Man kinds way of explaining things they do not understand.

Another common element in mythology across cultures is a Great Flood that destroys the world as some point leaving only one or two people alive to repopulate. From a scientific stand point this would be impossible due to an insufficient genetic pool to build a viable society.

(Genetics is the main reason I have a problem with the creation story as it appears in the bible, that and no dinosaurs. what did God put all those bones in the ground just to confuse us.) :rollingla

[samiaminsane]

1. The universe sprang from an intelligent First Cause and the universe is tuned and designed for life. (theism and deism)
2. The universe just IS. The universe is all that there is (or more accurately stated: our univrse is part of a larger superset).

I vote #2 here, because of many reasons, the greatest of which being: If someone/thing/power/existence created the universe, what created that which created the universe?

[Whisper9999]

Another common element in mythology across cultures is a Great Flood that destroys the world as some point leaving only one or two people alive to repopulate. From a scientific stand point this would be impossible due to an insufficient genetic pool to build a viable society.

(Genetics is the main reason I have a problem with the creation story as it appears in the bible, that and no dinosaurs. what did God put all those bones in the ground just to confuse us.) :rollingla

There are manay, many problems with a universal or global Flood, including a half billion species+dinosaurs on the ark, insufficient water, tectonics, the "Kangaroo" problem - the list goes on and on. So I absolutely agree with you.

Yet at the same time it is imo it is obvious that there was a Flood. Many, many cultures around the blobe have a Flood tradition and many of these predate Christian missionary activity. So anthropological evidence points to a Flood.

What I think you're missing is a logical (and fascinating) third option: a local Flood. As it turns out, there is evidence of a mesopotamian Flood at the approximate time that a Flood would ahve occurredd. Mankind was probably concentrated in this area and a local Flood could hav easily accomplished "the purpose".

Have you ever heard about this? It seems like you were excluding it as an option....

[Whisper9999]

I vote #2 here, because of many reasons, the greatest of which being: If someone/thing/power/existence created the universe, what created that which created the universe?

But that is the question: is what IS intelligent or is it just a force or set of physical properties? I say the evidence leans towards an intelligent I AM as the Bible states it.

[Whisper9999]

I(Genetics is the main reason I have a problem with the creation story as it appears in the bible, that and no dinosaurs. what did God put all those bones in the ground just to confuse us.) :rollingla

But, ironically, genetics, i.e. DNA and modern Origin of Life research, are one of the strongest arguments for Creation. If you haven't read the researcvh in this area, it's absolutely fascinating. Researchers have been completely dead ended as to how the first life could have occurred. Just to give you a taste as to how bad it is: Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, was one of the largest proponents of directed panspermia, the idea that earth was seeded from outer space! In other words, he basically was admitting that this could not have occurred by chance...I could go on and on here, but geology and astronomy have been devastating to materialism and correspond well with Genesis.

[Tsuchimaru]

I vote #2 here, because of many reasons, the greatest of which being: If someone/thing/power/existence created the universe, what created that which created the universe?

Gods I hate thinking about that. The list could go on forever. I refuse to believe that these things just exist without being created by another power/being/etc....

[Brinclhof]

What I think you're missing is a logical (and fascinating) third option: a local Flood. As it turns out, there is evidence of a mesopotamian Flood at the approximate time that a Flood would ahve occurredd. Mankind was probably concentrated in this area and a local Flood could hav easily accomplished "the purpose".

Have you ever heard about this? It seems like you were excluding it as an option....


sorry let me clarify. I was not stating I believe there was no flood. Far from it since so many cultures belive that there was a great flood that destroyed a good portion of the world I believe there must have been. What I was saying I didn't necessarily belive was that only 1 or 2 people (Noah and his family) survived. Most of the flood myths have this element of only 1 or 2 survivors that then repopulate the world. Along the same lines I don't belive in Adam and Eve.

I also feel that there is more than likely live some where else in the universe. Seems like an awful waste of space if we are the only people here. But that is a totally new can of worms that I don't really want to open at this time.

In an attempt to get back to the original question. I think most pagan's (at least from what I have read in this group) believe in some sort of divine intelligent being. A god or goddess, creator, earth mother....what ever name you want to give him or her. In most cases this being is intelligent. Now I'm not sure how many attribute creation to that being but there is definately a belief in an intelligent being or beings.

[Whisper9999]

what did God put all those bones in the ground just to confuse us.) :rollingla

I think this is only puzzling to those who were raised in a universe that was only supposed to be 40,000 years old. But, of course imo, modern scientific discoveries and old earth creationism/intelligent design have rendered that as simply another option available to people.

Now dinosaurs, the bending of space/time, quasars, an expanding universe, time dilation and all the other incredible findings only heighten my love and admiration for the intellect that was behind such a rich and complex universe. I truly am thankful to be alive to just get a glimpse of how incredible the aristry of all this is.

I personally find it very inspiring. The universe is terrrifying, awe-inspiring, and mind-bending. It is truly the great piece of workmanship that one can imagine...

[Brinclhof]

But, ironically, genetics, i.e. DNA and modern Origin of Life research, are one of the strongest arguments for Creation. If you haven't read the researcvh in this area, it's absolutely fascinating. Researchers have been completely dead ended as to how the first life could have occurred. Just to give you a taste as to how bad it is: Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, was one of the largest proponents of directed panspermia, the idea that earth was seeded from outer space! In other words, he basically was admitting that this could not have occurred by chance...I could go on and on here, but geology and astronomy have been devastating to materialism and correspond well with Genesis.

again the problem I have is with just two created beings. I believe in creation through evolution. there wasn't just 2 people (adam and Eve).

which came first the chicken or the egg?
creationist answer: The chicken God created the chicken so the chicken came first.
Evolutionist answer: Somewhere there was a creature that was almost a chicken and within its egg was a genetic mutation that created the first chicken. So the egg came first.

my Creation evolutionist answer. Got created a universe in which the laws permitted an ameba to eventually become a chicken.

[Whisper9999]

Gods I hate thinking about that. The list could go on forever. I refuse to believe that these things just exist without being created by another power/being/etc....

Do you remember looking into the sky as a child and wondering where all this came from? It's one of the most profound feelings in life if you ask me...

[Tsuchimaru]

Do you remember looking into the sky as a child and wondering where all this came from? It's one of the most profound feelings in life if you ask me...

I think that almost everyday....

[Whisper9999]

In an attempt to get back to the original question. I think most pagan's (at least from what I have read in this group) believe in some sort of divine intelligent being. A god or goddess, creator, earth mother....what ever name you want to give him or her. In most cases this being is intelligent. Now I'm not sure how many attribute creation to that being but there is definately a belief in an intelligent being or beings.

You know before I say anything else, I have to say that you guys are so entirely pleasant to discuss things with. I can't get over it. The materialists that I generally talk to are just vicious even when unprovoked. They curse, blaspheme, trash talk, character assassinate and occasionally discuss an issue or two...

Anyway, let me ask this out of curiosity. Those that believe beings or have even experienced them, don't you think they ask where the being came from since it probably was not responsible for the creation of the entire universe at the singularity?

Or do people just typically not go there?

[Whisper9999]

I think that almost everyday....

I marvel that life is so clearly profound and yet we so easily squander it on things that do not matter. Or at least I do...well, there's always tomorrow!

[Sleet]

In other words, he basically was admitting that this could not have occurred by chance...

Well, he had his opinion. Being co-discoverer of DNA doesn't necessarily make him any more qualified than any of the many more recent geneticists and molecular biologists who don't share his opinion.

I could go on and on here, but geology and astronomy have been devastating to materialism and correspond well with Genesis.

All I can say is that an awful lot of geologists and astronomers don't necessarily agree.

I'm not saying I don't believe in an intelligent creator, or an intelligent designer (I'm honestly not certain what I believe in terms of universal origin or life origin), but the evidence isn't absolutley conclusive. Nobody's found God's notarized signature on his work yet. ;)

[Tsuchimaru]

I marvel that life is so clearly profound and yet we so easily squander it on things that do not matter. Or at least I do...well, there's always tomorrow!

Agreed....foolish humanity...

[Whisper9999]

again the problem I have is with just two created beings. I believe in creation through evolution. there wasn't just 2 people (adam and Eve).

which came first the chicken or the egg?
creationist answer: The chicken God created the chicken so the chicken came first.
Evolutionist answer: Somewhere there was a creature that was almost a chicken and within its egg was a genetic mutation that created the first chicken. So the egg came first.

my Creation evolutionist answer. Got created a universe in which the laws permitted an ameba to eventually become a chicken.

Personally, I don't think evolution has that much to do with what I'm talking about. You're right - God could have worked through evolution. I personally think it's highly unlikely and that life on this earth had to be jumpstarted at various points. But it will be years, after significant mapping of various genomes is done, before that can be proven/disproven.

That's why I think it's more important to stick with Origin of Life and Origin of the Universe where the subjects are less subjective at this point in time. But that's just my two cents...

[Whisper9999]

Well, he had his opinion. Being co-discoverer of DNA doesn't necessarily make him any more qualified than any of the many more recent geneticists and molecular biologists who don't share his opinion.

All I can say is that an awful lot of geologists and astronomers don't necessarily agree.

I'm not saying I don't believe in an intelligent creator, or an intelligent designer (I'm honestly not certain what I believe in terms of universal origin or life origin), but the evidence isn't absolutley conclusive. Nobody's found God's notarized signature on his work yet. ;)

Absolutely, but that was my point: Origin of Life research is in complete disarray. Every avenue that they have gone down has dead-ended: RNA, thermal vents, comets, atmospheric conditions, the prebiotic soup, volcanoes, meteors and on and on. Every road they have turned down has unmovable, monolithic issue blocking the way beyond. And that is what has thrown heavy hitter like Hoyle, Crick, Shapior to throw up their hands and even look for alternatives that are more in the area of science fiction....

And, by the way, they are now left with a mere 50 million years for all this to occur which of course is a ridiculously short period of time for something as horrendously complex as early life which would have a miniumum of 250 genes and the accompanying suite of enzymes, proteins and life-sustaining metabolic/reproductive processes.

And while I'm on a roll: the earliest microfossils and geochemical evidence points to very complex life (cyanobacteria, etc.) at the dawn of earth's history (3.5 and 3.8 billion years respectively). Again, imo, only a SuperIntellect could have accomplished this...

[Tobias]

You know before I say anything else, I have to say that you guys are so entirely pleasant to discuss things with. I can't get over it. The materialists that I generally talk to are just vicious even when unprovoked. They curse, blaspheme, trash talk, character assassinate and occasionally discuss an issue or two...

Anyway, let me ask this out of curiosity. Those that believe beings or have even experienced them, don't you think they ask where the being came from since it probably was not responsible for the creation of the entire universe at the singularity?

Or do people just typically not go there?


I turn my back on this thread for an hour, and look what happens!


Anyway, I ask this question all the time. I first encountered God as a Christian over 20 years ago, have followed his voice very carefully ever since, and still wonder who or what he is. I'v talked with Angels, dead people, and more recently started talking with the trees and lake spirits.

The other day I was baffling over where the spirits of the lake and trees come from, and asked them. They bounced it right back at me, and asked where my spirit came from!! I don't think they know any better than we do, but we all seem to be made out of the same stuff.

God is a little more picky about being asked this kind of question. He doesn't seem to care much though if i want to believe that He created everything the way it is, or if I entertain thoughts that perhaps he was at one point made himself and is also a product of this universe. Where I feel he starts to disaprove is when I question if He is just one of a coalition of many beings, who pretend to be the Christian God -- like a spirit guide or something. Then again, mabey He is and I'm not ready to know that yet...

[Tobias]

Also, about the flood...

How did all the carnivores survive? Wouldn't they have wiped out all the other animals starting the minute they got off the Ark? How many sheep does a lion need to eat in the time it takes to reproduce them?

[Whisper9999]

Also, about the flood...

How did all the carnivores survive? Wouldn't they have wiped out all the other animals starting the minute they got off the Ark? How many sheep does a lion need to eat in the time it takes to reproduce them?

Don't know whether you missed my previous post but a local Flood answers all objections that I have heard to the Flood. Furthermore, it has geological evidence for it and corresponds with the Bible (which is important to me)...

[Whisper9999]

I turn my back on this thread for an hour, and look what happens!


Anyway, I ask this question all the time. I first encountered God as a Christian over 20 years ago, have followed his voice very carefully ever since, and still wonder who or what he is. I'v talked with Angels, dead people, and more recently started talking with the trees and lake spirits.

The other day I was baffling over where the spirits of the lake and trees come from, and asked them. They bounced it right back at me, and asked where my spirit came from!! I don't think they know any better than we do, but we all seem to be made out of the same stuff.

God is a little more picky about being asked this kind of question. He doesn't seem to care much though if i want to believe that He created everything the way it is, or if I entertain thoughts that perhaps he was at one point made himself and is also a product of this universe. Where I feel he starts to disaprove is when I question if He is just one of a coalition of many beings, who pretend to be the Christian God -- like a spirit guide or something. Then again, mabey He is and I'm not ready to know that yet...

But that's my question: if the entire universe exploded out of the singularity, what room is there for these deities in terms of worship? Do you see what I'm asking? Why not go straight to the Source? That's what i'm missing from paganism philosophically....

[Whisper9999]

Also, about the flood...

How did all the carnivores survive? Wouldn't they have wiped out all the other animals starting the minute they got off the Ark? How many sheep does a lion need to eat in the time it takes to reproduce them?

A global Flood has many logical inconsistencies. Another one are the kangaroos. Are we supposed to believe that the kangaroos hopped over a miraculous land bridge to the middle east and then post-Flood hopped back to Australia? But a local Flood gets rid of all those issues...

[Tobias]

But that's my question: if the entire universe exploded out of the singularity, what room is there for these deities in terms of worship? Do you see what I'm asking? Why not go straight to the Source? That's what i'm missing from paganism philosophically....


What do you mean by "worship"? Many people "worship" their favorite sports idol.

I don't think that many pagans actually worship their gods the way you think. It's more of a "Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type of relationship, isn't it?

It's been a long time since I've "worshiped" God. I found that He is not interested in that kind of stuff. He cares more about my development, and sure, asks me to trust his judgement on many things. Nothing that we all haven't had to experience with trusting our parents when we were too young and stupid to care for ourselves.

[Tobias]

A global Flood has many logical inconsistencies. Another one are the kangaroos. Are we supposed to believe that the kangaroos hopped over a miraculous land bridge to the middle east and then post-Flood hopped back to Australia? But a local Flood gets rid of all those issues...

Yeah, a local flood does make more sense. But isn't the flood story worldwide, and not just local to the Middle East? Could it have come from the rising of the sea level at the end of the last Ice Age?

This does nothing for Christians though, who believe every word of the Bible. For them the flood covered the tops of the highest mountains. I heard recently that for Mt Everest to be covered with water, then the Earth would have to have had 5 times more water than there currently is on this whole planet.

[Aine of the Fae]

Aaah, but this has a huge underlying assumption doesn't it? i.e. that religious belief and spirituality must be mutually exclusive?

Not necessarily must be, but quite often (in my experience) are mutually exclusive. People become so wrapped up in the rituals and the rules of religion that they forget how to love God, how to be with God. That's one of the things that angered Christ the most, that the religious leaders had become so wrapped up in their rules and scripture that they weren't feeling it anymore.

[Aine of the Fae]

Yeah, a local flood does make more sense. But isn't the flood story worldwide, and not just local to the Middle East? Could it have come from the rising of the sea level at the end of the last Ice Age?

This does nothing for Christians though, who believe every word of the Bible. For them the flood covered the tops of the highest mountains. I heard recently that for Mt Everest to be covered with water, then the Earth would have to have had 5 times more water than there currently is on this whole planet.

This is often a matter of exaggeration and mistranslation. The word used to convery world in the Biblical flood story can mean world or nation/country. And exaggeration is a common story telling tool.

[Tobias]

This is often a matter of exaggeration and mistranslation. The word used to convery world in the Biblical flood story can mean world or nation/country. And exaggeration is a common story telling tool.


There's plenty of evidence too, that this portion of Genesis was written during the Babalonian Exile, and was copied from a similar story they had there.

Actually, the first 5 books of the Bible appear to have been put togeather from 4 different sets of authors. That is why they keep repeating the same story a couple of times as you read them through. Gen 1 has a different story of creation from Gen 2. Only Fundimental Christians believe that Moses wrote the whole thing (including the part where he dies and is buried!)

[Whisper9999]

I don't think that many pagans actually worship their gods the way you think. It's more of a "Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type of relationship, isn't it?


Okay, now this has me curious. How can you "scratch the back" of a deity?

[Whisper9999]

Yeah, a local flood does make more sense. But isn't the flood story worldwide, and not just local to the Middle East? Could it have come from the rising of the sea level at the end of the last Ice Age?


There isn't enough water to cover the top of Everest. Not even close.

And if Flood Geology accounted for the earth's geology, it would have made all advanced life impossible. The effects of a large comet/meteor are devastating. Imagaine if the entire surface of the earth was reshaped through a Flood. There are so many problems with a global Floos that it's hard to go into it all. But they include, why did all the animals just happen to stratify according to their radioactive dates and complexity? etc. etc.

[Whisper9999]

This does nothing for Christians though, who believe every word of the Bible. For them the flood covered the tops of the highest mountains.

You have to take the Bible in context. Paul, for example, wrote in the New Testament that the gospel had gone out "into the whole world". Of course, the gospel had not gone to the aboriginies or native americans. In context he meant the entire Roman Empire. Remember we in the 21st century have the context of the entire globe, but the Old and New Testament writers were not writing with that perspective. So when it talks of the highest moutnains, it simpley means the highest moutains in that region.

You see, you and I would natturally think of Everest - that's our context since we have had a decade of geography. This is not the case with ancient writers. It's not fair to force them into our paradigm. This violates all rules of ancient interpretation including non-religious material.

So, again, in my opinion it would only bother Christians who have been brought up with the idea of a local Flood.

[Whisper9999]

Not necessarily must be, but quite often (in my experience) are mutually exclusive. People become so wrapped up in the rituals and the rules of religion that they forget how to love God, how to be with God. That's one of the things that angered Christ the most, that the religious leaders had become so wrapped up in their rules and scripture that they weren't feeling it anymore.

Very, very true. It is very easy for all of us to get wrapped up in the "easy" rules to follow and ignore the truly important things in life: love, integrity, honor, etc. Couldn't agree with you more.

[Aine of the Fae]

Okay, now this has me curious. How can you "scratch the back" of a deity?

Not literally scratch their back, but you do have a point.

"I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" generally indicates that you can do something for each other. I know what God can do for me, but really, what can I, a mere mortal, a human, do for God?

[Whisper9999]

There's plenty of evidence too, that this portion of Genesis was written during the Babalonian Exile, and was copied from a similar story they had there.

Actually, the first 5 books of the Bible appear to have been put togeather from 4 different sets of authors. That is why they keep repeating the same story a couple of times as you read them through. Gen 1 has a different story of creation from Gen 2. Only Fundimental Christians believe that Moses wrote the whole thing (including the part where he dies and is buried!)

Well, I'm sure where you're going with this. I'm not sure it's that relevant myself. Here's what I think is relevant: Genesis corresponds very nicely with the findings of modern astronomy, geology and paleontology. Now that to me is the acid test.

Why do I say that? Because if Genesis is scientifically accurate, then we're much more likely to accept it as a valid spiritual document.

[Whisper9999]

Not literally scratch their back, but you do have a point.

"I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" generally indicates that you can do something for each other. I know what God can do for me, but really, what can I, a mere mortal, a human, do for God?

Wow! Now that's a huge topic. And I think the rather long answer would only be of interest to me. :)

But I was asking what you felt like pagans felt they could do for their beings/gods/entities, etc. That was puzzling to me coming from my viewpoint...

[mudweed]

A bit late here, but I think you missed my point. It's probably been addressed somewhere in here, but let me try again.

Yet I've read through a lot of the threads and people commonly state their position as if they KNEW the pagan viewpoint was correct

What exactly is "the pagan viewpoint"? There isn't any single theory that all pagans hold.

[mudweed]

OK, now that I've gone through this thread, it seems that you're operating on some basic assumptions about pagans' views on divinity, including the idea that we all worship gods that came into being after creation. In fact, I think you said, "why not go back to the source."

But maybe we all worship the same god, we just call it by different names. :)

[Morr]

i didnt read all of the posts.. its kinda late and im really tired..

i believe that the world was created by some higher force... I believe it to be Divine and I dont give it names. I acknowlege a Divine existance and i think it appears to us in many forms during our daily life & routine whether its in nature, our friends, music, the stars & galaxies, etc..

however, i believe that this Divine used specific tools to create & mold our universe & world (and other realms that I believe exist). Tools such as - physics, biology, evolution, chemistry, etc (in our words & terms of science as we know it today). And i believe we can tap in and learn about these tools, but to a point.

Since everything in the world is programed to such perfection through these tools & laws that they provide, it only seems natural to me that a higher being/intellect have created/used them for creation of the worlds & of us.

some people have told me that my opinion is a way of "rationalizing" my beliefs. I dont feel as if its so. It just seems natural to me that creation & science go hand in hand rather then seperate.

[Whisper9999]

A bit late here, but I think you missed my point. It's probably been addressed somewhere in here, but let me try again.

What exactly is "the pagan viewpoint"? There isn't any single theory that all pagans hold.

Gotcha. You're right - that's tough to define just from the little I've seen. Gotta run...it's the weekend - woo hoo!

[Whisper9999]

OK, now that I've gone through this thread, it seems that you're operating on some basic assumptions about pagans' views on divinity, including the idea that we all worship gods that came into being after creation. In fact, I think you said, "why not go back to the source."

But maybe we all worship the same god, we just call it by different names. :)

Well, I was referring to the practice of worshipping individual entities that I've heard some refer to. But I recognize not all believe the same way on here, so that was poorly worded...Can't quite figure this board out, but that's okay!

[Whisper9999]

some people have told me that my opinion is a way of "rationalizing" my beliefs. I dont feel as if its so. It just seems natural to me that creation & science go hand in hand rather then seperate.

Couldn't agree more with this statement. Ps 119: "All the heavens declare the glory of the Lord..."

Peace and joy...

[Ladyvi]

ohh i agree that ultimately all those dieties are aspects of the once source. but sometimes we feel better having a tangible symbol we can visualize. me personally i dont mind having just bouncing balls of light to deal with. saves time.

[Whisper9999]

ohh i agree that ultimately all those dieties are aspects of the once source. but sometimes we feel better having a tangible symbol we can visualize. me personally i dont mind having just bouncing balls of light to deal with. saves time.

Well, you essentially have tthree competing religious philosophies to deal with:

1. Theism
2. Deism
3. Animism/Tribalism/New Age

It sounds like you're opting for #3. But how do you evaluate which one is actually correct? They can't all be correct of course as they all hopelessly contradict each other.

[Ladyvi]

not in the slightest . my path has a lot of shamanistic background. it isnt entirely so. i dont follow a particular path. a few dieties have tapped me . not me looking for diety. i was happy with balls of light.

as far as which one is correct ? .. all of them and none of them are correct.

[Phi]

Well, you essentially have tthree competing religious philosophies to deal with:

1. Theism
2. Deism
3. Animism/Tribalism/New Age

It sounds like you're opting for #3. But how do you evaluate which one is actually correct? They can't all be correct of course as they all hopelessly contradict each other.
I think you are incorrect with your limited list of chioces. There are more, and some do not fall into easy labels and categories.