tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post6000916803990343347..comments2024-03-29T07:00:09.641-07:00Comments on Foster's Theological Reflections: Job 26:7--Science Before Its Time?Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-59437698379124418792021-11-13T15:27:15.158-08:002021-11-13T15:27:15.158-08:00To add to your post, Roman, I don't want to ma...To add to your post, Roman, I don't want to make an argument for what Job means, and that was never the intent of this blog entry. I was trying to show that critics who want to make an issue of the earth "hanging upon nothing" are off the mark since they overlook the whole reason for Job being written, and they ignore its poetic and sapiential properties. Did Job or the writer of the book really believe that the earth was supported by pillars? Or is that poetry and figurative speech? None of this language should be pressed too far. Nevertheless, I don't believe Job 26:7 conflicts with modern science.<br /><br />I think you're correct that a bouncing universe would still be contingent. Yet, some of these cosmologists try to frame matters such that the universe did not need a Maker or Creator. Furthermore, I object to infinite universe theories on a number of grounds that include the questionable idea that an actual quantitative infinite can exist. It's also problematic for a Christian if we potentially place the universe on par with an infinite God or if we inadvertently destroy the Creator/creature divide. So, logically peaking, an infinite universe that's contingent is possible;; however, I have problems seeing how it melds with a Judeo-Christian Weltanschauung.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-78586774501347841192021-11-13T12:11:26.707-08:002021-11-13T12:11:26.707-08:00Yes, it would matter, Luke 14:15-16 doesn't ch...Yes, it would matter, Luke 14:15-16 doesn't change the fact that he came out of the tomb ... if some how they found the tomb, and found out that Jesus's bones were there (somehow) the Christian faith is null and void, and I gotta figure out a whole new worldview. <br /><br />The point is this is a historical (and thus, in some sense, scientific) data point that my faith actually depends on ... there are not many empirical facts that my faith depends on, very few actually, but this is one of them.<br /><br />As to the Job, it depends on many different things, i.e. what is the purpose of the verse, can it be applied in more than one way (one example of this is typology), can one draw more out of it than what it's meaning is historically, does it have futher implications? is it a figure of speach that ought not to be pressed? <br /><br />This has to be taken on a case by case basis ... I'm afraid I cannot really give a good argument with regards to the scripture in question ... not because of the scripture itself, or the strength of the case, but I just don't have the competence to do a proper exegesis, and then argue the case.<br /><br />Arguing over "big bang" vrs "big bounce" is irrelevant to God as first/cause ground of all being (which is the main sense in which he is creator in many theological systems). A bouncing universe doesn't change that at all ... since it is STILL contingent, i.e. it could have not exsited, or existed differently, be it infinite in the past or finite in the past.Romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08465384281243187922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-2274493779284524062021-11-13T07:28:33.487-08:002021-11-13T07:28:33.487-08:00If dynamic energy is an intrinsic property of God,...If dynamic energy is an intrinsic property of God, then it would seem it's a property he always had. Classical theism argues that God simply is his properties.<br /><br />I agree it's the same data, but some models account for data better than others. Also, I will check on the simplicity issue. That's an interesting point.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-80209025446443997232021-11-13T06:45:45.611-08:002021-11-13T06:45:45.611-08:00Roman, that exegesis would also have to be applied...Roman, that exegesis would also have to be applied to Job 26:6 and 7.<br /><br />https://biblehub.com/hebrew/veein_369.htm<br /><br />https://biblehub.com/hebrew/kesut_3682.htmDuncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-79832650203413488572021-11-13T01:03:44.670-08:002021-11-13T01:03:44.670-08:00I have to wonder how a bouncing universe affects c...I have to wonder how a bouncing universe affects contingency? Is Jehovah a god of dynamic energy or did he later start being a god of dynamic energy, and how would that even work for a god that does not change?Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-52037107544311677672021-11-13T00:57:32.658-08:002021-11-13T00:57:32.658-08:00"accounting for data" does not need diff..."accounting for data" does not need different data. It is the interpretation of the data and I don't see how they can say "provable" for bang but not bounce. I am not saying that bounce is correct. I am saying that we have an even playing field of speculation. The math for bounce is simpler and more elegant so I prefer that, but I see no way of justifying one model over the other by evidence.Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-66738727009995543772021-11-12T15:49:48.248-08:002021-11-12T15:49:48.248-08:00Duncan, we could think of matters this way:
1) Ei...Duncan, we could think of matters this way:<br /><br />1) Either God is necessary or God is contingent<br />2) God is not contingent<br />3) Therefore, God is necessary (i.e., God necessarily exists)<br /><br />If we reject God's necessity (his necessary existence), I'm not sure what other choice Christian theists have since positing God as a contingent being is not going to cut it for a Christian.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-84706272847227220932021-11-12T15:44:09.463-08:002021-11-12T15:44:09.463-08:00Aseity: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/ency...Aseity: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/aseity-aseitasEdgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-18549351351970341622021-11-12T15:37:24.726-08:002021-11-12T15:37:24.726-08:00There has to be some differences between the way t...There has to be some differences between the way that the Big Bang and Big Bounce account for data; otherwise, we would have a distinction without a difference. See https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/318301-big-bounce-or-big-bang-scientists-still-grappling-with-the-origin-of-the-universe<br /><br />There are more diffeences here than just math.<br /><br />To the point about aseity, both Thomas Aquinas, Edward Feser and a host of others make both claims: God is existence itself and he is a se esse, which makes God distinct from any other being. This is a common statement made in Thomist literature.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-49580761975114075072021-11-12T15:29:39.451-08:002021-11-12T15:29:39.451-08:00Duncan, you asked me which verses deal with God...Duncan, you asked me which verses deal with God's contingency, or by implication, God's necessity. I defined contingency in my prior post; it's not just about God creating the world, but also deals with the kind of being that God is, according to special and natural revelation.<br /><br />Isa. 44:6 is pertient when we discuss whether God is a contingent being like us and the universe as a whole. My existence is possible: if my parents never met, I would never have been. It's possible that I might cease to exist one day but the same cannot be said for God. As a non-contingent being, God is not dependent on anyone or on anything. So, Isaiah 44:6 calls the God of Israel (YHWH), the "first and the last." The first and last of what? Secondly, he declares there is no God before him. That part of the verse helps us to see in what sense God is "the first and the last." Jehovah's existence is not dependent on another deity or being. Contingency involves creation but is not limited to creation. It's more about God's necessary (a se esse) existence.<br /><br />Notice how this source defines contingency:<br /><br />Contingency is a term that occurs in philosophical discourse as well as in theology in a number of contexts and with a number of meanings. In its modern sense the English term contingency refers to events, processes, or properties that may occur, but are not certain to occur; or that have, but might not have, occurred, because they depend on factors beyond our knowledge or which themselves are contingent. Generally speaking, it refers to events, objects, and properties that could be otherwise, that do not have to be as they are, and that do not have to be at all, and for whose existence we cannot give a sufficient cause. Thus contingency covers a whole range of meanings, including “not necessary,” “by chance,” “random,” and “unpredictable.”<br /><br />https://oxfordre.com/religion/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-35Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-24955329040559266322021-11-12T14:07:27.636-08:002021-11-12T14:07:27.636-08:00Roman, I am not sure finding a body would matter:-...Roman, I am not sure finding a body would matter:-<br />https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=Luke+24%3A16Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-72146083266711720942021-11-12T13:05:19.841-08:002021-11-12T13:05:19.841-08:00Duncan, well, I suppose one would have to look at ...Duncan, well, I suppose one would have to look at the text and ask whether or not it's best read as a figure of speach, or whether it might be stating something about the world, it would require exegesis on multiple levels.<br /><br />Romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08465384281243187922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-5972500046757069432021-11-12T13:05:08.467-08:002021-11-12T13:05:08.467-08:00I am suggesting nothing apart from how verses can ...I am suggesting nothing apart from how verses can be used to tell something that they do not say.<br /><br />Isaiah 44 talking about all creation?<br /><br />"Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come— yes, let them foretell what will come."<br /><br />Isaiah 44:24 might be a better choice but it is still only speaking of sky and land and what God does/works.<br /><br />Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-76296424851852481972021-11-12T12:49:12.570-08:002021-11-12T12:49:12.570-08:00The observable phenomena are applicable to both th...The observable phenomena are applicable to both theories. It is only the theoretical math that differs.<br /><br />"some would say, he is existence itself." Vs "is a se esse and quite distinct from everything else."<br />Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-70276676795352425542021-11-12T11:10:13.714-08:002021-11-12T11:10:13.714-08:00At the end of the day, the most important consider...At the end of the day, the most important consideration for me is whether a theory or suggestion passes muster with the Bible. It's hard to see how the Big Bounce would gell with the idea of an eternal Creator who is a se esse and quite distinct from everything else.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-7360258872074278362021-11-12T11:01:17.371-08:002021-11-12T11:01:17.371-08:00Duncan, are you suggesting that God's existenc...Duncan, are you suggesting that God's existence is contingent? Does his existence depend on external factors or another being? Please show me where the Bible teaches that.<br /><br />When I say God's existence is not contingent, I mean he does not depend on anything or anyone else for his existence: God has always been and will always be. He is the very source of existence and some would say, he is existence itself. What I'm also saying is that God is uncreated. But you're aware of Psalm 36:9; 90:2; 93:2; Isaiah 44:6; John 5:26; Acts 17:24-25; Revelation 1:8. <br /><br />The Big Bang is not only based on math, but on observation like the cosmic background radiation and expanding universe. I can't say whether the Big Bounce is simpler; not sure what cosmologists have to say about that matter.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-8401936587317535502021-11-12T10:29:42.708-08:002021-11-12T10:29:42.708-08:00Science only deals with Planck time or space and o...Science only deals with Planck time or space and on that I agree, the things that are observable and measurable.<br /><br />But big bang and bounce are both mathematical models. Bounce is far simpler.Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-8851424516455531112021-11-12T10:09:57.922-08:002021-11-12T10:09:57.922-08:00Roman, as posted above we have a verse that says t...Roman, as posted above we have a verse that says the earth is not on visible pillars, however we also have verses (posted above) where is clearly states that it is on pillars. Heads you win, tails you win - How a can they BOTH be correct if it is on "nothing"?<br /><br />Edgar, for "the Bible indicates God is the only being whose existence is not contingent". Which verses did you have in mind?Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-15876460448602825302021-11-12T07:42:23.439-08:002021-11-12T07:42:23.439-08:00By its very nature, science cannot say what happen...By its very nature, science cannot say what happened at the moment of creation. Science only deals with Planck time or space, but that does not mean the Big Bang is not a theory of origins.<br /><br />Science doesn't have a universal consensus on many things, including time and space.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-29712365432665307662021-11-12T07:36:31.222-08:002021-11-12T07:36:31.222-08:00Duncan, I'm aware that no one can prove 100% t...Duncan, I'm aware that no one can prove 100% that the Big Bang occurred: a former science professor of mine used to say that science doesn't prove anything. Roger Penrose makes similar points about the Big Bang. We can't say that it actually happened, but the same can be said for the Big Bounce. <br /><br />However, I personally find the Big Bounce to be much less plausible than the Big Bang. Furthermore, the Bible indicates God is the only being whose existence is not contingent. Every other being owes its existence to him.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-65940575464534831492021-11-12T06:07:50.964-08:002021-11-12T06:07:50.964-08:00https://www.quantamagazine.org/big-bounce-models-r...https://www.quantamagazine.org/big-bounce-models-reignite-big-bang-debate-20180131/Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-23216164271692687282021-11-12T04:21:59.400-08:002021-11-12T04:21:59.400-08:00Duncan, my point is not that "it's a sign...Duncan, my point is not that "it's a sign"<br /><br />But merely that the historical reading is not the only way of reading a text, and that a scientific statement which coincides with a scientific fact, might be considered to be evidence of divine inspiration of the text, i.e. that whatever the writer of the bible personally though, God made sure correct information was included in the books that are "scripture."<br /><br />Of course the science might change, so one should be careful ... but I'm not afraid of putting the bible up to challenges like this ... if (somehow) it could be proven that Jesus's body is in a tomb, that would be extremely strong evidence that Christianity was false ... that's a scientific claim.<br /><br />Creation ex-nihilo is not primarily a scientific issue, and I think philosophically the arguments are extremely strong.Romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08465384281243187922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-15086329294422621042021-11-12T02:05:44.352-08:002021-11-12T02:05:44.352-08:00www.livescience.com/amp/what-came-before-big-bang....www.livescience.com/amp/what-came-before-big-bang.html<br /><br />The point ideas making is well recognised by all, as thi article states-<br /><br />"But as good as it is, we know that the Big Bang picture is not complete — there's a puzzle piece missing, and that piece is the earliest moments of the universe itself."<br /><br />Red shift And other phenomenon fit just the same in big bounce.Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-30192796337028586102021-11-12T01:29:13.899-08:002021-11-12T01:29:13.899-08:00https://www.mpg.de/15162036/W002_Visit-to_048-055....https://www.mpg.de/15162036/W002_Visit-to_048-055.pdfDuncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-56518891176272555652021-11-12T01:23:35.520-08:002021-11-12T01:23:35.520-08:00https://www.wired.com/story/what-if-the-big-bang-w...https://www.wired.com/story/what-if-the-big-bang-was-actually-a-big-bounce/Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.com