I Have A Few Points To Make On Cosmogony

www.m-w.com...
cosmogony
Main Entry: cos·mog·o·ny
Pronunciation: käz-'mä-g&-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: New Latin cosmogonia, from Greek kosmogonia, from kosmos + gonos offspring; akin to Greek genos race -- more at KIN
1 : a theory of the origin of the universe
2 : the creation or origin of the world or universe

Essentially Webster's dictionary states that cosmogony is the study of beginnings. When one debates the origin of the universe, one must stop and consider what he/she believes. There are multitudes of belief systems concerning the origins of the universe.

(1) The universe is random. It is only by blind fate that any of the solar systems, stars, planets,quasars,black holes, people, et cetera, even exixt.

(2) The Universe was created by a creative intelligence. This is the theory I personally subscribe to.

(3) The Big Bang

(4) String Theory

There are several others that I will not go into here. My main goal in this essay is to examine a couple of different views on cosmogony and decide which ones are acceptable in terms of objective reality.

Bel
www.pantheon.org...
by Micha F. Lindemans
The supreme god of pre-Islamic Palmyra, in ancient Syria, and the god of the sky. His name means "lord" or "master". Together with the gods Aglibol and Yarhibol he forms a powerful triad. His attributes are the eagle and lightning bolts.
Linguistically the same as Baal.

It is also an ancient appellation of Enlil and Marduk.

Now,the whole ideology of Yahweh seems to me to be derived from the Sumerian gods of the Middle East. Even the Old Testament is chock full of references to Moloch,Astaroth,Astartes (Black Virgin), et cetera. So, in all reality, no matter what one wants to call God or the creative force it is still a singular force.

The paganistic beliefs of the Sumerians,early Jews, Greeks, et cetera, were just complexities of monotheistic beliefs. While it is true that pagans believed in attributes of a single God, that is all these other so called gods were, attributes of a singularity.

The more I have studied ancient philosophies and practices, the more apparent monotheism became apparent to me in ancient culture. The Egyptians were monotheistic long before it became the status quo.

www.earth-history.com...
On the other hand, de Rougé wrote in 1860, "The unity of a supreme and self-existent being, his eternity, his almightiness, and eternal reproduction as God; the attribution of the creation of the world and of all living beings to this supreme God; the immortality of the soul, completed by the dogma of punishments and rewards; such is the sublime and persistent base which, notwithstanding all deviations and all mythological embellishments, must secure for the beliefs of the Ancient Egyptians a most honourable place among the religions of antiquity." 5 And in his work on the Religion and Mythology of the Ancient Egyptians 6 Brugsch expressed his conviction that, from the earliest times, a nameless, incomprehensible and eternal God was worshipped by the inhabitants of the Valley of the Nile.

Despite what many "scholars" say, it is apparent that monotheism was prevalent even in polytheistic cultures. Most gods and goddesses were just representations of attributes or "temperments" of the singular God.

My point is, .....from the beginning of time there has been an idea, no matter the name, that a creative force was and is responsible for our existence. So, why so much discussion about the "big bang" and "cosmic accidentalism"?



CREATION ACCORDING TO SCIENCE

The Big Bang Theory

Representation of the universe according to inflationary cosmology.
The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.

Sounds fair enough. However, in recent years several scientists say that it almost appears as if the universe "bloomed" into existence rather than violently exploding into existence. Hmmmmm

In other words, it's as if there was actually an intention behind the creation of the universe rather than it just being a random act of happenstance. That makes sense to me. It actually falls in line with what not only the mystics of old have said for centuries, but it also falls in line with what we know intuitively.

jonvon.net...
everything that springs from the universe springs from it intelligently. each thing is an expression of intelligence. i think about alan watts' proclamation that we do not people the earth, the earth peoples. i love that thought. it is like, the earth is a hand and we are these little fingers springing up from it. little flower petals blooming for a time and then disappearing. blooming and dying, blooming and dying. time capture stop motion frame thingy moving quick quick moving.

You see, creationism is the most viable argument as far as cosmogony is concerned. It not only seems right intuitively, the deeper we go down the "rabbit's hole" the more scientifically sound it seems to be as well. What non-cretionists need to realize is that history does not lie, ancient people believed what they did for a reason. As we delve deeper into the study of ancient culture, we learn just how brilliant the ancient cultures were and that we would be wise to take some lessons from them.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 16-8-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Hmmmmm....interesting that no one is responding.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Cosmogeny is a joke. Let's see a show of hand from people who've witnessed the universe's "birth". That's right, NO ONE know's factually how it went down. NO ONE's seen it happen. Neither religion nor science, no matter how smug they want to be about it, has the answer.

Now,the whole ideology of Yahweh seems to me to be derived from the Sumerian gods of the Middle East. Even the Old Testament is chock full of references to Moloch,Astaroth,Astartes (Black Virgin), et cetera. So, in all reality, no matter what one wants to call God or the creative force it is still a singular force.

I somewhat agree here, modern monotheism does seem to be a branch off of the summerian religion. BUT, summerians were the first to even have a written language and so were the first we could really learn about as far as religous belief systems. That tells us nothing about the various religions created by man prior to that. And so to me seems like a rather pointless endeavour to try and put a stop all on them.

The paganistic beliefs of the Sumerians,early Jews, Greeks, et cetera, were just complexities of monotheistic beliefs. While it is true that pagans believed in attributes of a single God, that is all these other so called gods were, attributes of a singularity.

That's your opinion. Their religions seem to teach otherwise however.

The more I have studied ancient philosophies and practices, the more apparent monotheism became apparent to me in ancient culture. The Egyptians were monotheistic long before it became the status quo.

Really now? See, the more I studied religion, the more it became apparent to me that it was created by man. The more apparent it became that religous teachings have EVOLVED in what they have faith in and etc. And it's most certainly apparent that it's continuing to evolve today. You try going back just even 400 years ago and try saying what your saying here. You'd be murdered for even suggesting this stuff.

I'm sure galileo can tell you all about it.

Despite what many "scholars" say, it is apparent that monotheism was prevalent even in polytheistic cultures. Most gods and goddesses were just representations of attributes or "temperments" of the singular God.

Despite what's been discovered. DESPITE what's been learned. I believe something entirely different without any evidence but my own opinions. I'm sorry, credibility just went out the door here.

My point is, .....from the beginning of time there has been an idea, no matter the name, that a creative force was and is responsible for our existence. So, why so much discussion about the "big bang" and "cosmic accidentalism"?

Exercise that brain. When did we develope the technologies to discover the thing's we've recently discovered? Common sense. That's really all there is to it.

Sounds fair enough. However, in recent years several scientists say that it almost appears as if the universe "bloomed" into existence rather than violently exploding into existence. Hmmmmm

I'm curious where you got that big bang information from. I've never heard that it was a giant explosion except from religous folk. Seems like that's the biggest misconception they have. And even if HOW the universe came to be is changed 100 billion times by science, that's FINE. They are just THEORIES. GUESS'S. Just like this creator invented by man. Science will never have an actual answer, just GUESS'S. Science is not out to destroy "god". Never has been. It's people's lack of FAITH that is the problem. If people had so much faith then why are they so bothered by a GUESS?

In other words, it's as if there was actually an intention behind the creation of the universe rather than it just being a random act of happenstance. That makes sense to me. It actually falls in line with what not only the mystics of old have said for centuries, but it also falls in line with what we know intuitively.

See, intuitivley, I know that we won't ever know. But hey, that's just my own individual intuition.

You see, creationism is the most viable argument as far as cosmogony is concerned. It not only seems right intuitively, the deeper we go down the "rabbit's hole" the more scientifically sound it seems to be as well. What non-cretionists need to realize is that history does not lie, ancient people believed what they did for a reason. As we delve deeper into the study of ancient culture, we learn just how brilliant the ancient cultures were and that we would be wise to take some lessons from them.

No, it's not the most viable and this post has done nothing to even try and show that it is. It's your opinion, come's off as your opinion. Just reeks of trying to posit that your opinion is viable fact. Grow up. History DOES lie. History is written by the victor. Everyone know's this, and if they don't, they need to get out from under that rock of theirs. I bet you didn't even know that alot of today's theories have already been developed by people back in ancient times, but religion squashed those theories. Galileo wasn't even the first to discover the earth revolved around the sun. We should be so much more advanced then we are now had religion not tried and destroyed anything that seemingly went against what it preached.

You really think you've got it all figured out. How arrogant. Your no better then most of humanity. Sheep.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
What non-cretionists need to realize is that history does not lie, ancient people believed what they did for a reason.

And that reason was: They didn't know any better.

If ancient people were right, then why do we put fertilizer on our crops to make them grow, rather than remove the hearts of captured enemy warriors and offer them to Tlaloc? That works too, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Prot0n
No, it's not the most viable and this post has done nothing to even try and show that it is. It's your opinion, come's off as your opinion. Just reeks of trying to posit that your opinion is viable fact. Grow up. History DOES lie. History is written by the victor. Everyone know's this, and if they don't, they need to get out from under that rock of theirs. I bet you didn't even know that alot of today's theories have already been developed by people back in ancient times, but religion squashed those theories. Galileo wasn't even the first to discover the earth revolved around the sun. We should be so much more advanced then we are now had religion not tried and destroyed anything that seemingly went against what it preached.

You really think you've got it all figured out. How arrogant. Your no better then most of humanity. Sheep.

[Clears Throat] Wow, that's quite an emotional argument you put up there,little fella!! I love it when people argue from emotion.

I bet you didn't even know that alot of today's theories have already been developed by people back in ancient times, but religion squashed those theories. Galileo wasn't even the first to discover the earth revolved around the sun. We should be so much more advanced then we are now had religion not tried and destroyed anything that seemingly went against what it preached.

Then you most certainly lose your "bet",little fella. I am quite aware that there are theories that many things were known centuries before it was "discovered". You assume much about me, but you know nothing about me.

[edit on 22-8-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]