Could You Believe If A New Genesis Theory Could Be Proven Logically?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Would that mean anything to you?

When I say "proven logically", I mean that every possible dot is connected, every inference and conceptual ramification is satisfied, every question is properly addressed with nothing at all asserted that requires any level of faith acceptance whatsoever, and the direct connection between this theory and every belief that bases every other major genesis theory can be clearly presented and logically defended.

In other words, the genesis theory itself is airtight and extremely plausible.

Would you be able to accept it, even if it didn't come with a burning bush?

If so, what would be the logical argument that would provide the tipping point, or would it be the sum total of the entire premise?

I've been convinced that no one really cares what's true or false about the genesis of physical existence - just so long as their narrative is declared to be correct, but I'm wondering if the question itself has actually been posed properly and specifically enough yet. Is there any possible information that - on its own, without signs and wonders - would be powerful enough to cause you to leave your beliefs behind?

edit on 6/1/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I would have to accept it. If I chose not to, I'm no better than the Christians, who choose which religion to follow and then believe it's real because they chose it.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
If it was fact based and proven by science, sure I definitely would. That's the main thing that keeps me away from most creationist beliefs. There's no way to verify any of it.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


It'd be very hard for such a theory to exist, since most versions of creation must invoke the supernatural and the supernatural is difficult to prove/disprove using science (some would argue its ultimately outside the purview of science altogether).

But if there was sound logic and evidence involved I'd be interested.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I can only accept self-evident Truth. For me all things infinite never began, cannot change, cannot end. All things finite can only begin, exist a period of time, then terminate. Infinite cannot generate from finite, but it is clear finite has generated because of infinite. The contents of what is the known Universe is all composed of finite, thus is not the origination or originator. The key for us finites is why would infinite generate finite anything. I'm on board with it has absolutely nothing to do with us, for us. Yet we are all used where it has everything to do with us, for the purposes of the infinite. Our obtaining evermore newness is a side light (but not to us).



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny
I can only accept self-evident Truth. For me all things infinite never began, cannot change, cannot end. All things finite can only begin, exist a period of time, then terminate. Infinite cannot generate from finite, but it is clear finite has generated because of infinite. The contents of what is the known Universe is all composed of finite, thus is not the origination or originator. The key for us finites is why would infinite generate finite anything. I'm on board with it has absolutely nothing to do with us, for us. Yet we are all used where it has everything to do with us, for the purposes of the infinite. Our obtaining evermore newness is a side light (but not to us).


I am on board with the theory that knowledge of the infinite is a benefit to us, and this is where and why the infinite created that which is finite. But it matters not whether we think it has anything to do with us, until we can understand infinite than how can we begin to speak on anything?

That said: I think all things which are finite will one day be able to be logically and rationally explained, but that does not mean we were not created by that which is infinite. And that (the infinite) is one thing I do not think science will ever be able to explain, unless they are only talking to stupid people.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I am up for anything that can be proven. With much debate still surrounding the pathway to our existence I am currently leaning towards time and space being infinite. If the constructs of these factors and be proven and shows there is actually a time of no time and a space of no space then great, until then the search continues. Good luck.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


There is probably only a specific ( and relatively small ) percentage of the population who even begin to ruminate on your question. For those others comfortable with their beliefs, whatever they may be, probably near zero percent will "jump ship".
For the more hungry of heart, and still somehow unfulfilled, discontented and/or searching, there might be a window of opportunity to embrace less orthodox and dogmatic explanations than worldly "religions" offer. If a thoughtful, logical, and sensible alternate is proposed, something may "click" and suddenly make sense to them.
That said, I have no idea where each individual's personal tipping point might be. Maybe it might be too personal to statistically predict? Simple logistics may not work here. Just a thought...
Good question, though.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by NorEaster
 


It'd be very hard for such a theory to exist, since most versions of creation must invoke the supernatural and the supernatural is difficult to prove/disprove using science (some would argue its ultimately outside the purview of science altogether).

But if there was sound logic and evidence involved I'd be interested.


It's not that hard for such a theory to exist. The only hard part is the isolation between the "rational" and the "empirical" imposed by the truce that the scientists and the religionists brokered several hundred years ago when they divided up the nature of reality between themselves. It has since saved many thousands of lives, but it's done nothing to advance humanity's understanding of the whole of this world we inhabit. Science isn't realistic enough to conceive of the fact that reality exists in forms that cannot be replicated in a laboratory, while religion has no interest whatsoever in reality. Science examines tiny random bits of trash and bones it finds in the dark, and makes up elaborate histories about them that fit the narratives it's agreed to embrace, as religion doesn't even bother to look beyond whatever stories were jazzed up thousands of years ago for its own interpretation of what's out there beyond the campfire's lighted circle. Truth is that both are like Helen Keller bobblehead dolls banging around and just getting more and more lost as they go.

Each side is rigidly dogmatic in its refusal to even entertain any grays that might exist between its own version of black and white, and will even go to ridiculous extremes to dismiss what clearly challenges its very strict paradigm in ways that should be compelling enough to initiate investigation, if nothing else. And now technology is outing both of them, and what's making a run for the helm is a bizarre blend of mysticism and nonsense, that hasn't got any restraint at all on its capacity for dismissal of literally everything including reality itself. It's like the French Revolution, where everyone's head gets chopped off eventually, since it's not about revolution at all, but about watching heads roll (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Yes, there is a very real way to examine and establish a responsible and practical theory of existential genesis. Not by taking one of the available sides. These sides exist as the result of Europe's moneyed elite and the Church reaching a practical impasse in the war to define reality. It's been a cold war ever since.

edit on 6/1/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny
I can only accept self-evident Truth. For me all things infinite never began, cannot change, cannot end. All things finite can only begin, exist a period of time, then terminate. Infinite cannot generate from finite, but it is clear finite has generated because of infinite. The contents of what is the known Universe is all composed of finite, thus is not the origination or originator. The key for us finites is why would infinite generate finite anything. I'm on board with it has absolutely nothing to do with us, for us. Yet we are all used where it has everything to do with us, for the purposes of the infinite. Our obtaining evermore newness is a side light (but not to us).


And yet an infinite presence (as in no beginning whatsoever, but as existing literally always with no emergence at all) is conceptually and logically abhorrent to everything that exists in any actual provable physical state, which suggests that if something is truly infinite, it can't physically associate in any sense whatsoever with that which is clearly and reliably real. This incompatibility prevents the infinite anything form being able to bring the finite anything into existence, which nullifies the idea of an infinite creator intelligence or consciousness or anything at all. Whatever it is that actively brings something into existence, exists in the same being state as that which it has brought into existence, and with only two being states (Absolute and Relative) to choose from, and the finite (that which is brought into existence) obviously existing in a Relative state of being, there's really no logical place for an infinite (Absolute being state) anything to fit into the process of physical emergence. Such a thing (if it could even exist) simply has no relevance whatsoever - well, beyond the belief system of human beings, of course.

If you carefully factor the idea of an infinite initiator having any involvement within the genesis of finite physical existence, you run into the same wall that everyone runs into that's ever tried to work this thing out. It's a dead end, and has been for thousands of years. You can't point to an entity that violates all the existential basics of everything that can be proven to exist, as the author, when there's no physical or contextual linkage possible between it and what it supposedly created. In truth, that sort of assertion is just the same as throwing up your hands and turning on the TV set.

And yet, all of this does exist. And there was an initial emergence. Obviously, the infinite something-or-other isn't the culprit, but something did occur. And since whatever it was that did bring it all into progressive development has to be based on what has developed since that initiating occurrence, determining what it was and how it happened is not unknowable. Hell, it's probably not even all that physically foreign to what still exists and still continues in progressive development. Like how carbon is still the basis of living matter on this planet, and always has been. Progressive development changes structure, but never the unitary basis of that structure. It just changes configuration and application. That's important to note here.
edit on 6/1/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 




Each side is rigidly dogmatic in its refusal to even entertain any grays that might exist between its own version of black and white,


Except that science doesn't have dogma, science has to remain open to new information so that it update constantly. The history of science has been the replacement of outdated or unproved ideas with those that garner new and better evidence. Even within the scientific community there are debates or what you might call "gray" areas. For instance there is even an ongoing debate on just where birds fit in the evolutionary lineage of theropod dinosaurs.



And now technology is outing both of them


New technology is developed with the help of science, not in spite of it.

Certainly modern mainstream science doesn't know everything and it's constantly discovering new information and thus updating it's hypotheses and theories and while it isn't perfect I don't think it's anything like you describe.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
The concern has never been how hard it is to gain faith.... Its always been about how hard it is to live without it....

O NO!!!! What if tomorrow all the athiests wake up christians!!!!!! We have to prepare!!!!!



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
. There's no way to verify any of it.


what if somewhere in our "junk DNA" some binary pattern says in ancientSumerian "copyright 6000 BC, Annunakki Genebanks Inc"



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I have written a school paper on dimensions and energy. The first thing my professor asked me was: Are you religious?

I compared my paper with the three first verses of genesis and the Big Bang theory. Because they were all very similar in theory. But it all depends on how you are instructed by others to read/interpret genesis to see the similarities between my theory and the Big Bang theory.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by NorEaster
 




Each side is rigidly dogmatic in its refusal to even entertain any grays that might exist between its own version of black and white,


Except that science doesn't have dogma, science has to remain open to new information so that it update constantly. The history of science has been the replacement of outdated or unproved ideas with those that garner new and better evidence. Even within the scientific community there are debates or what you might call "gray" areas. For instance there is even an ongoing debate on just where birds fit in the evolutionary lineage of theropod dinosaurs.


There are definitely reality possibilities that are dismissed by science without any effort to allow for the need to adjust the verification process to properly apply to the requirements presented by the physical specifics of these reality possibilities. Science still tries to impose its own examination criteria on what it chooses to examine, which is akin to looking for intelligence within a dead brain by splitting it with a cleaver and declaring intelligence to be nonexistent because no intelligence spilled out onto the table when the brain was opened. This is how science approaches at least 80% of what the human being (on this planet, anyway) has insisted that it has experienced directly. If science were a police detective, most crimes would remain unsolved forever.




And now technology is outing both of them


New technology is developed with the help of science, not in spite of it.


And yet Quantum Mechanics continues to baffle scientists, and give ammunition to crazies who deny the existence of reality itself. Let's face it, technology is on the verge of debunking the basic concepts of material existence, and forcing a complete reevaluation of what constitutes matter. I'd call that outing hard science.


Certainly modern mainstream science doesn't know everything and it's constantly discovering new information and thus updating it's hypotheses and theories and while it isn't perfect I don't think it's anything like you describe.


Except that if a physicist suggests a direction of inquiry that clashes with the standard industry line, he/she faces loss of tenure and career collapse. Here's a link to some folks you might like to look into.

www.worldnpa.org...

They're scientists who've determined that modern science is exactly like I've described, and is extremely dogmatic in how it finds new truth.

It's better than religion, but no less rooted in its own version of dogma.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I have written a school paper on dimensions and energy. The first thing my professor asked me was: Are you religious?

I compared my paper with the three first verses of genesis and the Big Bang theory. Because they were all very similar in theory. But it all depends on how you are instructed by others to read/interpret genesis to see the similarities between my theory and the Big Bang theory.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


So, how did the very first something emerge from a literal absence of anything, and what was it? If you know this answer, then you'll be able to be extremely specific in your description, since it would not be complex in any sense of what that word means. I'm just curious. It should take you less than 100 words to properly answer this question, although to defend it can take an entire book.

Yes, there is an answer, by the way.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
The concern has never been how hard it is to gain faith.... Its always been about how hard it is to live without it....

O NO!!!! What if tomorrow all the athiests wake up christians!!!!!! We have to prepare!!!!!


Faith, on its own, is a death trap. Ask any suicide bomber. No one has more faith in their version of the truth than a suicide bomber.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Each side is rigidly dogmatic in its refusal to even entertain any grays that might exist between its own version of black and white, and will even go to ridiculous extremes to dismiss what clearly challenges its very strict paradigm in ways that should be compelling enough to initiate investigation, if nothing else. And now technology is outing both of them, and what's making a run for the helm is a bizarre blend of mysticism and nonsense, that hasn't got any restraint at all on its capacity for dismissal of literally everything including reality itself. It's like the French Revolution, where everyone's head gets chopped off eventually, since it's not about revolution at all, but about watching heads roll (metaphorically speaking, of course).


Science is not dogmatic, it is fact based, and it is certainly acceptable to change as new things are discovered and new experiments are run. You are talking about it like they just find a bone and make assumptions without full analysis. This type of thinking is dangerous to society, as science is what enables us to be technologically advanced. NEVER compare religion and science in that way, they are completely different, but it doesn't mean that aren't compatible.


Originally posted by NorEaster
There are definitely reality possibilities that are dismissed by science without any effort to allow for the need to adjust the verification process to properly apply to the requirements presented by the physical specifics of these reality possibilities. Science still tries to impose its own examination criteria on what it chooses to examine, which is akin to looking for intelligence within a dead brain by splitting it with a cleaver and declaring intelligence to be nonexistent because no intelligence spilled out onto the table when the brain was opened.

Say what? Please list these examples and possibilities and the evidence that science has ignored or refused to experiment on. You basically don't seem to understand how the scientific method works. You can't experiment on anything if there's no evidence and nothing to base it on.


And yet Quantum Mechanics continues to baffle scientists, and give ammunition to crazies who deny the existence of reality itself. Let's face it, technology is on the verge of debunking the basic concepts of material existence, and forcing a complete reevaluation of what constitutes matter. I'd call that outing hard science.
Please list the experiments that prove what you are talking about. I just don't get why so many people talk about quantum mechanics as if it's proven. One of the first people to speak out against Quantum mechanics was Albert Einstein. Regardless I don't like to deal with small talk, I'm about experiments.


Except that if a physicist suggests a direction of inquiry that clashes with the standard industry line, he/she faces loss of tenure and career collapse.

Really.. Find me one scientist that used the scientific method to gather facts and was shot down without review. In science, things are peer reviewed before outright accepted. If you present something new, others will want to duplicate your experiments so they can verify them. Experiments are not ignored, especially if the peer review check verifies them.
edit on 2-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by prevenge

Originally posted by Barcs
. There's no way to verify any of it.


what if somewhere in our "junk DNA" some binary pattern says in ancientSumerian "copyright 6000 BC, Annunakki Genebanks Inc"


Then there WOULD be a way to verify it, but retroviruses in our DNA that go back millions upon millions of years, exist today and wouldn't make sense if that were true.
edit on 2-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Theres a reason that several religions that share the same text all behave differntly.... and it has a alot to do with their economic situation. Its hard to have somone living a comfortable life believe that killing themselves is for the best...

But i agree that all religion is a disease... a disease found in poverty.

Im not sure if youve done any research on abiogenesis but there are several leading theorys that explain quite well the origins of life. In a matter of a few years religion will be gone.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join