Sunday, 24 June 2018

TL:DR: The Genesis Question part nine

Hi, Everybody!







And if you're looking for Dave's Stuff, search for "Cerebus Archive.

Sunday Funday:

1 April 18

Hi Matt!

You must be running out of my Biblical commentaries along about now. So…

Courtesy of 
Okay, back to Appendix A.  Mr Ross writes:

Biblically, the "foundations of the earth" indeed are "immovable" in spite of any revolution of the earth about the sun or rotation of the earth about its axis because the Bible verses making such statements always are from the perspective, or point of view, of an observer on the surface of the earth.
 It seems to me that all that does is to establish that "immovable" can only be used accurately in quotation marks.  If what you are discussing is the earth as a physical object.  Not only isn't the earth as a physical object immovable -- it's moving at tens of thousands of miles per hour -- it's not even immovable in the larger temporal sense if you want to modify your meaning to "the earth follows the same period of rotation and the same trajectory for billions of years".  That's true, but, ultimately to call that "immovable" requires discounting the effect the sun going nova is going to have on the earth's rotation and trajectory.  Which will be profound. Billions of years from now but, in a cosmological sense, the day after tomorrow.

I think this suggests God's larger point as well:  that the "immovable" "foundations of the earth" are not primarily physical in nature, while still having physical properties.

I would theorize that -- like the Giant Stars formed after the Big Bang and everything that came after them -- everything that is physically incarnated in the universe is an enactment of the seminal processes that formed the Giant Stars which were already in process of being "hurled outward" from the Big Bang Ground Zero point.

They attempted to imitate the Big Bang and failed to do so, but in their failure to do so, engaged in centrifugal and centripetal physical enactments.  The bad news (for the Giant Stars) was: no Big Bang, the good news was: the centrifugal and centripetal physical enactments proved propulsive in nature which allowed for -- and actually compelled -- accelerated outward-bound movement.  The Giant Stars expired, but in expiring, hurled outward Less Giant Stars and ultimately entire galaxies.

Which rather solves, to me, the question of why the universe is expanding and, in fact, accelerating in that expansion rather than decelerating (seemingly contrary to the laws of entropy):

God planned it that way.

The Big Bang is a good example of the Genesis concept of "created to make": the Big Bang was "created to make" the Giant Stars;  the Giant Stars were "created to make" the Lesser Giant Stars; the Lesser Giant Stars were "created to make" galaxies; the galaxies were "created to make" solar systems, etc. etc. until ultimately the individual stars were "created to make" planets, asteroids and comets and planets -- some of them -- were "created to make" animals and people. So, in that sense, the foundations of the earth are, indeed, immovable as are the foundations of the "everything between the earth and the Giant Stars" out of which the earth originally came.  God knew that none of his creations would be able to imitate the Big Bang but that the compulsion to imitate the Big Bang on the part of His creations would create the accelerating expanding universe as a giant tapestry/canvas of enactments. Compulsion resulting in propulsion.

Be fruitful and multiply.

That part, I'm pretty sure, is Immovable.

But, it seems to me, accepting that requires accepting that we are limited in our perceptions, that each generation in our epoch has been convinced that they have attained to absolute irrefutable knowledge, scriptural, scientific, philosophical or all three.  And each generation has ultimately been proved wrong because there are very few "facts" that are refuted within a single human lifetime of 70 or 80 years.  We get to view part of the jigsaw puzzle being assembled but only part.  More theories prove to be just theories than prove to be verifiable facts.

Galileo was certainly right in criticizing the Church for not recognizing the new facts which his telescope revealed but even his own conclusions were far from "immovable".  Einstein's Theory of Relativity proved far from "immovable" even as he developed it.  What appears "immovable" in our own context, breaks down as you approach the speed of light.  We are still engaged in attempting to find "immovable" scientific facts to plug the ensuing scientific leaks.

We have proven the existence of the God Particle.  But, now that we know that, what do we know?

It seems to me that God makes His Point through science that a large body of irrefutable facts are not the same thing as knowledge -- let alone Knowledge.  There is God and there is the Big Bang and, arguably, everything after that is erosional failure, subject to entropy (not, so far, generally, with the expanding outward bound accelerating universe a product of God's will, but specifically with each "created to make" enactment which is finite in form and finite in lifespan from the Giant Stars on down).

We aren't here, I don't think, to Figure Things Out in a purely literal factual sense -- the implicit ambition of the sciences: to build an impervious construct of irrefutable facts that explain all observed phenomena -- although it is a given that we will expend a great deal of time and energy trying to figure things out in a purely literal factual sense.  I think my theories "hold water" but even the extent to which they "hold water" seems to me to be completely immaterial when placed alongside how I behave, what I choose to do and what I choose not to do, my worship of God and the -- God willing, lifelong -- enactment of my faith.

Because it seems to me that the construct itself is very basic:  God created His first creation prior to the Big Bang and that creation immediately decided that he/she/it was God -- and wanted to create his/her/its own creation.

Creation being the sole province of God, God in a good example of "undeserved kindness" created the illusion of creation in His creation:  birth.  Women do not create babies. Women gestate babies and give birth to babies.  Babies, set in motion by the fertilizing of the female egg by the male sperm, create themselves using their mothers for raw materials. If you're basically ignorant -- and it seems to me that the YHWH was always basically ignorant -- it's a distinction without a difference.  Creation or birth.  Same thing.

This,  it seems to me, is the small-scale enactment of the process by which the seminal YHWHs, the Giant Stars came into being prior to their actual physical incarnation after the Big Bang.

They didn't create themselves (although they thought they did) and they didn't create each other and they didn't create God (although at least one of them thought he/she/it did). The seminal YHWH was created by God and God imbued the seminal YHWH with the ability to gestate YHWHs -- birth -- "created to make".   And God created the "trigger" which would set that in motion:  the Father and the "seed" within the Father. And said to the Father and to the seminal YHWH, "Be fruitful and multiply".

Had any one of those seminal YHWH's been God or Other God, they would have, by now, created another Big Bang.  They haven't.  So, the Big Bang proves God's point:  that only God is God and everyone else purporting to be God is just a self-deluded YHWH of some kind.





Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

Aw, poor Dave.

-- Damian

Anonymous said...

I know Damian's being sarcastic but, seriously, poor Dave. It really is sad to watch him slowly disappear into his own mind.