The Fabric of the Cosmos: What is Space?

Post Reply New Topic

http://video.pbs.org/video/2163057527

From 25:47 - 26:28

I don't know if Brian Greene believes in God but I respect him for his pursuit of scientific truths. I'm also in pursuit of truths both spiritual and scientific. And nothing seems to elicit such a response than when science is mixed with religion. Now of course I'm not suggesting the Bible is a scientific book because it is not. Since 2 Timothy 3:16 states "all scriptures is inspired by God" then it's reasonable to conclude, as a spiritual truth, that the entire bible - from Genesis to Revelation - is inspired by God. With that said I find it interesting that over 2,500 years ago the following words were penned by a lowly prophet named Isaiah.

"Do YOU people not know? Do YOU not hear? Has it not been told to YOU from the outset? Have YOU not applied understanding from the foundations of the earth? There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell, the One who is reducing high officials to nothing, who has made the very judges of the earth as a mere unreality." (Isaiah 40:21-23)

Since the bible is inspired by God what Isaiah was merely doing was writing down God's words. In these verses Jehovah God tells ancients and modern day humans three very important fundamental facts about the planet and the universe we live in using descriptive language.

1. the shape of the earth ("the circle of the earth")
2. the scope and size of humans relative to the earth and universe. ("the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers")
3. space is liken to a fabric with all the properties of such an object ("the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell")

Only in the last hundred years have scientists have been able to prove the words of Isaiah 40:21-23 true and only recently discovered "the heavens [is] as a fine gauze" as the Nova video above shows.

I know people want to dismiss the bible as a book of fables, but the more you look into the bible the more you begin to understand that it had to be divine in origin. Isaiah could not have known these very simple details about the earth and the universe with out a telescope, a mathematics degree, or any form of scientific insights. Only Jehovah God - the One who created the universe and everything in it - would know these things, and would have communicated such knowledge to his chosen prophet.

I understand many of you are skeptical of the bible likely based on how the organized religions of the world hypocritically teach it. I'm not disrespecting you if you have those beliefs. But perhaps this post might help you see the bible's origins from a different perspective... one based purely on the truths found in God's word.

Pertaining to 1. A disk shaped earth would also fit.

To 2, relative to the earth we are smaller than grasshoppers.

3. Gauze and other flexible fabric is made of baryonic matter. Space is made of what is currently called (and badly so!) dark energy and dark matter neither of which is baryonic.

The bible is based on a totally bogus cosmology. For example Psalm 104:5

ruveyn

i know that "space" is vastly more complicated in current scientific discussion than my primitive understanding of it.


i decided what space was when i was about 9, and i have not really moved on since.
my simple idea is that "space" is the result of infinite possibilities of location in 3 dimensions (which is 4 dimensions really).

dimension 0. a "point" has no width or length or height. it does not really exist because it has zero dimensions, but yet it is infinitely possible to exist and so gives rise to the 1st dimension.

dimension 1 is an infinite number of adjacent "points" that constitute a (theoretical) "line". a "line" has infinite length, but no width or height, so it also does not exist in physical reality because its volume is zero.


dimension 2 is an infinite amount of adjacent lines that are parallel to each other on the same horizon, and therefore constitute a theoretical "plane". a plane has infinite length, and infinite width, but no height, and so has no existential place in reality other than a theoretical one, bec ause it has no volume.

dimension 3 is an infinite amount of planes that are horizontally congruent, but one "point" away in distance on top of each other horizontally.

that constitutes space. space exists eternally and infinitely, yet its constituents do not physically exist.

dimension 4 is a "point of time". it is an instant with no length or breadth or height. it does not exist because it happens for no duration at all. yet the whole universe of space is contained within every instant of time.

dimension 5 is a line of time which is an infinite instances one after the other ......yes i should stop there.

I wrote a really detailed replied and then decided "why?" You made it obvious from the past you not only don't care about the bible, you consider it a "book of fables". So whatever... believe whatever you want.

that my friend is human arrogance to assume that we are the "superior" species in the galaxy and that it was created FOR us, no we are merely a byproduct of existence NOT the goal of existence. the only difference between us and our fellow animals is our higher intellect. human arrogance clouds most of our species judgement making them think, oh so very misguidedly, that they are the supposed "Chosen Ones" of some obscure "Higher Power" no as the bible says we are made of dirt, and dirt is where we will return there is much truth in that, decomposition, we are all part of the same compost heap as Tyler Durten put it in Fight Club. with our meaningless lives coupled with our unbearably short lifespan how can anyone be arrogant enough to assume that we are so important to the Universe? we could go extinct tomorrow and life will still go on, hell i doubt the Universe will even register we even existed let alone disappeared. maybe extinction is in the Earth's best interest, considering how arrogant, wasteful, and destructive we are. we constantly take without giving back based on the fallacious idea that everything is owed to us. im no tree hugging hippie but any dolt with half a brain can see we are going through nonrenewable energy faster than the Earth can remake it, as it takes millions of years to make. we take without giving back. and that human arrogance is why, how arrogant to assume that everything revolves around our survival, if we are detrimental to the Earth then its only natural that, like pruning diseased and unhealthy branches off a plant, it will eliminate us to ensure its own health. and we are pretty unhealthy for it, so im all for human extinction if we deserve it. and the point when we deserve extinction is fast approaching given how much we consume and how little we produce

Thank you for your comment. If you want me to reply then please say something about my original post.

P.S. I'm not going to get into debates. If you start asserting your strident atheistic views (eyes your sig) and attacking me then please don't expect me to reply to your posts.

no attacks im merely stating our arrogance as a species will cause our own extinction im not talking about you im talking about almost everyone. in many ways i can be considered anti-human because i value nature more than humanity, im a self hating human. i find our species in general cruel and unworthy of life and we would be better of extinct, well maybe not us but the world would be. don't get me wrong i love life very much and would be sad for it to end but frankly we don't deserve it with how destructive we are

when i get passionate about a topic i tend to ramble my most sincere apologies

Psalm 104:5. Do you really honest to goodness believe the Earth is immovable?

Even in your terms that is absurd.

ruveyn

You consider virtually everything an attack, so where is the line drawn? Why even post a topic in the PPR if you don't intend to defend it?

I can tell the difference between an attack and an honest question. But as to your last question I'm starting to wonder that myself. Perhaps I should leave and never post what Witnesses believe. Let's let PPR become an Atheistic, Pagan stronghold... "free thinkers" aplenty. Does that sound good? After all PPR outnumbers me like, what? 5000 to 1? It's no big deal if one declared Witness decides to leave, right?

There are plenty of Witnesses on this site who do not announce who they are simply because of the way PPR acts. I don't think it immodest of me to say if I leave PPR likely won't get another Witness to share their beliefs.

One celled microbes reproduce by binary fission. They split in half.
Once in while they have sex. But thats rare.

But then one day a subset of microbes learned to cooperate,and to form multicellur plants and animals. This required the invention of true sexual reproduction. Simultaneously it meant organisms had to become mortal. The simulataneous invention of sex and death.

The upshot is that the pace of evolution quickened. The big multicellular creatures became varied, and led to us. All because of the twin inventions of sex and death.

Now look at Adam and Eve in the Genisis. They live in the unchanging world of the Garden of Eden. Then one day Eve presuades Adam to eat a piece of fruit- and God gets pissed and boots them of the Garden into the world we live in today. The fruit is often interpreted as being symbolic of sex. One of the results of expulsion of the GOE was that humans became mortal.

Sex and death. Invented at once.

Genisis is really a racial memory of the Cambrian Explosion 600 million years ago when our microbe ancestors invented both sex and death!

That theory occurred to me a few weeks when I was discussing the possible meanings of the Eden story with some people on this very website.

I mention this theory now because: agreeing with Kxmode that the Bible predicts future scientific discoveries will offend all of the strident Atheists.

But at the same time if I state that not only does Darwin not contradict the Bible, but that some parts of the Bible actually portray evolution I can also offend all of the religous folks.

So in one stroke I can offend everybody!

It's actually refreshing when someone posts a reply that is actually on topic. Thank you naturalplastic. :)

I'm not offended. Perhaps I can reason from the bible my point of view. You can, of course, reject it if you wish, but they're my shared beliefs. :)



Thank you for sharing that point. With regards the fruit often being interpreted as symbolic of sex consider these four biblical points.

1. Before Eve was created God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit of “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.” (Genesis 2:15-18) Because Adam was alone, this prohibition could not have referred to sexual relations.

2. God gave Adam and Eve an unambiguous command to “be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” (Genesis 1:28) Would a loving God instruct the first couple to “fill the earth” — which, of course, involved having sexual relations — and then sentence them to death for obeying his instructions? — 1 John 4:8.

3. It was when Eve’s husband was not with her that she “began taking of [the forbidden] fruit and eating it. Afterward she gave some also to her husband when with her and he began eating it.” — Genesis 3:6.

4. Adam and Eve were not censured when they had relations and brought forth children after being expelled from the Garden. (Genesis 4:1, 2)

Based on the above would you conclude the fruit did not represent their having sexual relations but was a literal fruit that grew on a tree? Does this new understanding help reshape your view of the forbidden fruit from the Genesis account?



It's not my place to disrespect your views.

If the bible had good cosmology, we would be using it to discover the secrets of the universe, instead of looking for the secrets of the universe in it after we found about them through actual science and experimentation.

The earth is not shaped like a circle.
-

The Bible was written long before the theory of evolution.

Your post lacks rationality.