The Woman Who Knew Everything... Comments

That's sad it's in the Fiction section. I know the Dead Sea Scrolls (Old Testament) are on display and are considered Historical documents and that there is factual documentation that many key figures in the Bible actually did live. This will be fun to read about what everyone thinks.. =)

Haven't been in the library for a while, but the last place I found the Bible is in the Fiction section. I guess we all see what we want to see in it.

Hi Everybody, I am a skeptic and am somewhat educated in science. I believe in honest research and open mindedness in all things. It is amazing to me how often in the history of mankind how many scientists spoke with a religious zeal only to be found wrong. When Einstein announced his theories he was laughed at, couldn't get a job at the Universities, and couldn't get a speaking engagement, all for daring to offer a (now well proven) theory that opposed the conventional wisdom regarding time, matter and space. Science and the Bible are perfectly in unison. In fact I'd like anyone to give an example where proper translation and interpretation of the bible contradicts good solid provable science. After all, Darwin, at one time a devout Christian, still maintained that only God could make an eye. And before someones brings up Adam and Eve, try to remember the Hebrew translation to other languages can be slightly off, especially several thousand years ago. =) Here are some Bible prophesies to take a look at. These are actual events that have taken place. Aside from having a wonderful Spiritual relationship with God (His free gift to me) I believe that Jesus knew a thing or two... that's why He voluntarily allowed Himself to be nailed on a cross and thus fulfilled over 137 prophecies in one day...That's good enough for me. He actually was a person. And in that time people who stood to defend their "religion" died horrific deaths- worse than today. It would have been much easier for them to have just denied their Faith altogether. Israel restored as a nation 1948 Jerusalem restored to the Jews 1967 A lack of peace in the Middle East duh! global weather disturbances famine (25% of the world goes to bed hungry and millions are dying of starvation), unusual diseases (aids, ebola, hantivirus, sars, bird flu, antibiotic resistant bacteria, Marburg, West Nile, Legionaires, Tularemia, terrorism and on an on!) Earthquakes increasing dramatically Famine racial strife wars and rumors of wars great increase in travel and knowledge people turning to religion, but not Christianity (new religions are many) Christianity preached to all the world (basically done) At time like that of Noah . . .violence and immorality China would be able to field a 200 million man army (they can now) Every one of these is fulfilled now, I do believe that science and the Bible will reconcile one day. I am not a religious zealot in fact, Jesus hated "religion" (it's a man made thing) but these facts are hard to dispute or discredit. Just thought I'd throw my 2 pennies in... :-) Lala

Ewilson, you are putting words in my mouth. I am not making an argument that there is a Creator. As a Christian, I believe there is a God. One of the ways I reconcile religion and science is to think that maybe the Bible (etc...) was explained to us in terms that we could understand at the time. As we are evolving and our capacity to understand the world is expanding eventually everything will become clearer and we will understand these mysteries. I hate to quote anything from the Bible, because I never read the whole thing. I just see these themes in the repeated in life. Look how much our species has grown. How our knowledge expanded over the centuries. If there is a Creator, how can we expect to understand the universe if we are not equally as intelligent. And since Eve made Adam eat the fruit of knowledge, I think we are going to find out.

lottelotte, the argument that the universe is too complex for our current mental capacity to understand may very well be true. But... that doesn't require there to be a Creator. That's faulty reasoning. It's like saying that because someone is not smart enough to do complex math equations, that the equations must have been invented by a Creator. But there are people who are smart enough to do complex math equations. What does that do to the argument that a Creator created those math equations? I'm not trying to prove there is no God. I'm asking for a reasonable definition of God that isn't clearly wrong. Most of the reasons people believe in God are easily explained through natural laws when closely analyzed; especially ancient mythical religions like... well, I won't mention any names! :-) I propose God be defined as the awe and reverence we feel for life, the beauty and organization of the cosmos, and whatever makes us feel fulfilled and happy. That way everyone can believe in God. Let's do away with the obsolete view of a supernatural being that created the universe; watches our every move; punishes the "wicked"; and rewards the faithful. Where did the supernatural being come from? If it is beyond our explanation, why not say the universe is beyond our explanation (which we know isn't true)? There's just no need for the concept of a Creator to explain anything about life or the universe. Does anybody out there share this perspective with me?

Matt, it's refreshing to hear a religious person who is actually willing to look at things a little deeper than what's written in 3000 year old "scriptures." You've got me that I shouldn't have assumed time is linear. There could be multiple time dimensions and I often consider that. And if there were a Creator, I suppose It could exist in a higher dimension. However, that there are higher dimensions doesn't mean that beings from those higher dimensions created ours. Second, the argument that because we can't explain something it must be God is invalid. There was a time thousands of years ago when we couldn't explain rain or thunder. Then we figured it out. We've even figured out the age of the universe. There's no reason to believe that we won't eventually be able to explain how matter can come out of what appears to be "nothing." There's no reason to enter a Creator into the equation; especially one with the human-like qualities that religions have ascribed to "It." That Hawking speech was really cool. It must have been from before 1998 though, because the big crunch model has been disproved. In 1998 two scientific teams independently introduced proof that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and will continue to do so forever. Here's a sample article about it: Will the Universe Expand Forever?. I'm not sure what that does to Hawking's arguments in that article. While one of the greatest geniuses ever, he can still be wrong as he often admits. So in summary, because we can't explain it, doesn't mean there had to be a Creator. But, in your defense, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I think the issue is not whether "God" exists, but finding a refined, updated definition of God that isn't obviously inaccurate (such as the God described in the religious texts).

True. It is a paradox if you want to believe that "time" is linear. However, what if the Creator existed outside our dimension of "real time", and existed within another dimension of "imaginary time". Hawking wrote about these two time lines as a horizontal (real time) and vertical (imaginary time) axis (here). Hawking provides a hypothesis of how the Big Bang could exist without the presence of an external Creator. I think he has a very interesting hypothesis, but my problem remains with the "creation" of the "elements." He says that gravity helped create the elements necessary for the Big Bang theory, which doesn't entirely make sense. Where did all the initial atoms come from that gravity used to make elements? What do you think?

I don't know how to teach my dog linear algebra. But I can teach him to sit and play dead. Maybe the same is true for "us" when it comes to the mysteries of the universe. Maybe God is working on a tutorial "Mysteries of the Universe" website, but our ability to access is hindered because we still have older versions of Java.

Interesting answers Matt. The thing is that not only was matter created in the big bang, but "time" was created too according to the creationist theory. But how can time come from timelessness? It means that the Creator "existed" (paste tense) before time and then created time. That's a paradox because in order to create something there has to be a TIME that it didn't exist. That's a challenging thing to try to understand, but if you give up and say "it's beyond our ability to know" then we might as well stop all scientific endeavors altogether. One thing I will concede is that there could be dimensions way beyond our current view of the universe (parallel dimensions, universes, realms, etc). In fact, it's probably likely. How does anyone know that the Creator is outside our physical dimensions? Perhaps the laws of nature allow for such a being. It will still be science to me. Science is just the systematic search for truth that can be verified as true. If there's a God we should be able to verify that as true. And if He doesn't want us to know about Him, why leave so many "clues" like books written by so called prophets? And if He does want us to know, why not make it much more clear? Why not inscribe the ten commandments on the moon (as suggested by Carl Sagan). Instead we have old scriptures that can easily be explained as written by humans. I don't know the answers, but I can't except answers that don't make sense either.

The reason a Creator fits the mold so easily is that the Creator is outside our physical dimensions (e.g. supernatural). You can't say the same about our physical universe. Any element(s) that ultimately triggered the Big Bang would have needed to have been created at some point. Hydrogen. Carbon. Whatever. Those physical objects must be derived from some kind of beginning. But hey... it's all just best guess, right?