It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Big Bang not in Creation Stories

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
This is more of a question....

Are there any examples or correlations in the creation stories and the 'Big Bang'?
There's non stop mention of water and waters, plausibly having to do with Hydrogen gas and plasma beginnings, but where's the mention of a great expansion?

water and waters aren't always a metaphor for hydrogen, rather Water is singular and Waters being plural, as Waters is sometimes used to described to be the whole of said system, like that of the Electromagnetic Spectrum and Water(again singular) to that of a specific range with in the spectrum...

The Theogony of Hesiod
translated by Hugh G. Evelyn-White

(ll. 1-25) From the Heliconian Muses let us begin to sing, who hold the great and holy mount of Helicon, and dance on soft feet about the deep-blue spring and the altar of the almighty son of Cronos, and, when they have washed their tender bodies in Permessus or in the Horse's Spring or Olmeius, make their fair, lovely dances upon highest Helicon and move with vigorous feet. Thence they arise and go abroad by night, veiled in thick mist, and utter their song with lovely voice, praising Zeus the aegis...

"...deep-blue spring...washed...veiled in thick mist...."


niv.scripturetext.com...
Genesis 1
New International Version
The Beginning

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth wasa formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Egypt

www.globalegyptianmuseum.org...
Personification of the primeval waters, the original shapeless sea of chaos. At creation, the first island or primeval hill on which the creator god Atum appeared rose out of these waters. Because they were a primeval element, Nun was regarded as one of the members of the Hermopolitan Ogdoad, with Naunet as his partner www.egyptianmyths.net...
Despite all the various Creation myths that the Egyptians subscribed to, they had one thing in common, Nun. Even though the myths named different gods as the original creator, they all agreed that he sprang from Nun, the primordial waters. Nun was more than an ocean, he was a limitless expanse of motionless water. Even after the world was created, Nun continued to exist at it's margins and would one day return to destroy it and begin the cycle again.

And many others.....



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Dude, don't just use the bible. Search from Qur"an too
Second line


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
we (humans) are a small part (earth) of a much larger living organism (universe).



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


In the book of Genesis, the lord said let there be light! Do you really think anything religion offers is actually going to explain the origin of the universe? How could man possibly know? To the universe, mankind has the lifespan of a fly.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


The Kabbalah: A Study of the Ten Luminous Emanations from Rabbi Isaac Luria with the Commentaries Sufficient for the Beginner Vol. II

Vis a vis Foucault's Pendulum, by Umberto Eco:


The book begins with a long quotation in Hebrew, which comes from page seven of Philip Berg's book The Kabbalah: A Study of the Ten Luminous Emanations from Rabbi Isaac Luria with the Commentaries Sufficient for the Beginner Vol. II, published in Jerusalem by the Kabbalah Centre in 1973. The quotation translates into English as follows:

When the Light of the Endless was drawn in the form of a straight line in the Void... it was not drawn and extended immediately downwards, indeed it extended slowly — that is to say, at first the Line of Light began to extend and at the very start of its extension in the secret of the Line it was drawn and shaped into a wheel, perfectly circular all around.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_Pendulum

edit on 10/27/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: color



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
I remember reading somewhere in Hinduism a phrase that say's "The power of hot urgency" to explain the beginning of creation. Maybe this is akin to the Big Bang!



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
So, humans have been around what, a couple hundred thousand years at most?

The Universe is like 16 billion years old. No creation story that we have ever written is going to have the Big Bang in it. We weren't around to experience it, if it even happened! "Sacred texts" are simply written with people's experiences and the myths that they have made up to explain themselves. (I am not saying God is not real, I am saying Adam and Eve is not real). That doesn't discredit religion, but it does show the silliness of literal interpretations of what were just narratives of people's coming into existence, based on what the people could observe from their location in time and space.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 

Excellent read; I liked Name of The Rose as well, but they ruined it with the movie.
I especially like where he describes the pendulum. Sharp mind....

I personally don't believe in the big bang, but I also don't take the ancient texts literally when it comes to creation. Whatever is being described there is perhaps beyond the writer's comprehension. I feel as though some day it will be revealed to us, or if not, it won't matter. From what I've been looking at, the big bang is history, being pretty much replaced by something new. I believe it was at space.com, but I'm not sure. I don't get paid to keep up with the links...



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
@Hootsmanwhereis...
"The power of hot urgency" would make sense,
"A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature was about a billion (one thousand million; 109; SI prefix giga-) kelvin and the density was about that of air, neutrons combined with protons to form the Universe's deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis.[40] Most protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei."

1 Billion Kelvin hot enough?

@Evolutions...


>
New International Version
The Beginning

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth wasa formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

"After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles"

well, there's some of your day 2 for ya, when Protons aka Light came to into propagation after annihilation after annihilation...

@Knight....
Agreed, we are the fruits of the tree of life, hence the whole apple thing...
For the creation of man, see the Thread that the title references the Tower of Bable being solved...
Although i would imply that there is a almost a type of linguistic "scale invariance" application to the story of Adam, equating to both Man and Atom, but I haven't done much thinking about the topic..

Scale Invarriance:
In physics and mathematics, scale invariance is a feature of objects or laws that do not change if scales of length, energy, or other variables, are multiplied by a common factor. The technical term for this transformation is a dilatation (also known as dilation), and the dilatations can also form part of a larger conformal symmetry..

much of the texts seem to follow a pattern that is of the invariance principal
"In cognitive linguistics, the invariance principle is a simple attempt to explain similarities and differences between how an idea is understood in "ordinary" usage, and how it is understood when used as a conceptual metaphor."

Combining both, the invariance principal and scale invariance, that are kinda one in the same just different context, can be a powerful tool in my opinion to understanding the texts....

@Somefreak...
I have not dug much into the qu'ran. Having said that, from what I have, I have only just opened random pages and began reading. From what i've read, i would say it coincides and explains the same, just in different ways...well certain parts that is...
The Qu'ran is....hmmm... how to put this..., almost of a different species....kinda like humanity is to monkeys(omg dont give me "oh that's racist crap" because that has nothing to do with my metaphor), i mean a more evolved(or different, but from the same) type of texts...

THE QUESTION WAS. Does anyone know of any examples or correlations that can be drawn from Creation Stories(myths) and the 'Big Bang'



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
The Big bang is Only ONE theory people have as to how the universe formed. There is no scientific facts that prove there is any truth to it. It's just the most popular one with scientists.

There are many really good theories on how the universe formed and many way better than the Big Bang. That's why your not going to find it in any religious books.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by spacekc929
 


"No creation story that we have ever written is going to have the big bang in it"
Under the premise because no one was around to witness it?

CHECK OUT......Bicameralism

Bicameralism
"Bicameralism (the philosophy of "two-chamberedness") is a hypothesis in psychology that argues that the human brain once assumed a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a bicameral mind. The term was coined by psychologist Julian Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, wherein he made the case that a bicameral mentality was the normal and ubiquitous state of the human mind as recently as 3000 years ago."

"Jaynes' case for bicameralism

According to Jaynes ancient people in the bicameral state of mind would have experienced the world in a manner that has some similarities to that of a schizophrenic. Rather than making conscious evaluations in novel or unexpected situations, the person would hallucinate a voice or "god" giving admonitory advice or commands and obey without question: one would not be at all conscious of one's own thought processes per se"

"Breakdown of bicameralism

Jaynes theorized that a shift from bicameralism marked the beginning of introspection and consciousness as we know it today. According to Jaynes, this bicameral mentality began malfunctioning or "breaking down" during the second millennium BC. He speculates that primitive ancient societies tended to collapse periodically, (as in Egypt's Intermediate Periods and the periodically vanishing cities of the Mayas) as changes in the environment strained the socio-cultural equilibria sustained by this bicameral mindset."

"The idea that language is a necessary component of subjective consciousness and more abstract forms of thinking has been gaining acceptance in recent years, with proponents such as Andy Clark, Daniel Dennett, William H. Calvin, Merlin Donald, John Limber, Howard Margolis, Peter Carruthers, and José Luis Bermúdez.[7] Philosopher Gary Williams has recently defended Julian Jaynes against Ned Block's criticisms in the journal Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences."

now....

It might be a stretch..... but considering our brains are designed by the universe....
CHECK THIS OUT..
sprott.physics.wisc.edu...

I would imply that it's entirely plausible, that some how, people were 'spoken to by 'God'', and was able then to comprehend, or at least convey the true understanding of the universe....

And then there is always the "Alien" interaction aspect that many beleive.... i dont think it does tho..... But, if true, they could have told man.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


I KNOW JOHN....

That's exactly the point i'm trying to get at here... HAHAHA, you beat me to the punch though....

BRAVO



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Here is a kicker , the possible re-population after an extinction level event by a higher evolved entity . Combining the scientific and religious . Let there be light , as to removing what ever was blocking out the sun light . Not that much different from just a simple changing location , looking for another inhabitable planet to live on and start again .

Just that there very well may be a structured time time ( play book ) from TPTB including the church .
edit on 27-10-2011 by watchdog8110 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Do the religious rulers want us to look for our creators ? The scientific scholars are apparently looking for other life in a smaller aspect . But the science community as per the government is looking for other inhabitable planets to live on . When theories get close to uncovering what is behind a curtain that they don't want to be revealed just yet , a distraction is added to the picture like wars and economic fails of the week .



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 

The bicameral mind hypothesis doesn’t imply that gods exist and spoke to humans. It proposes that when people first started thinking, they experienced the thinking ‘voice’ in their heads as the voice of some other being, when it was really their own newly conscious selves they were hearing. Jaynes’s hypothesis is pretty dodgy, but even if it were proven it offers no comfort to those who wish to believe in gods or spirits. On the contrary, Jaynes was offering a materialist, psychological explanation for the qualia of religious experience.

I understand your proposition somewhat like this: (1) some being somewhere – we can call it a god, if we like – was around to experience of the beginning of the universe; (2) in certain states of mind, some early humans were able to share this experience, if only in the form of a story told them by this being, this god. (3) These stories, the creation myths of mankind, are thus veracious accounts of the origin of the universe.

But how could you know any of this? I would guess you don’t; you’re just suggesting it as a possibility. And, on the basis of this possibility, you’re asking us whether the big bang theory is disproved if we can find no big-bang-like story in any of the world’s accounts of creation. Seems like an odd way to judge a theory in physical cosmology; what’s wrong with the usual tests?

Creation stories vary considerably, as you must be aware. If human beings were getting these stories from gods, why did the gods tell different stories to different folk? Were they trying to confuse us?

It all sounds a bit fishy to me.


edit on 27/10/11 by Astyanax because: a finity.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


In the book of Genesis, the lord said let there be light! Do you really think anything religion offers is actually going to explain the origin of the universe? How could man possibly know? To the universe, mankind has the lifespan of a fly.


Before creation there was a void, nothing. Then God said let there be light. There is no mention if that light just appeared or if it exploded out of a tiny point to fill the universe. In my opinion, that sounds a lot like the big bang though.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


Hindu:

The Chandogya Upanishad 3:19:1-4 relates how the world was nonexistent, became existent, and then became an egg. After a year, the egg broke open and a silver part and a gold part emerged. The silver part became the earth and the golden part became the sky. The various parts of the egg became the features of the heavens and earth. The sun, which in this myth is equated with Brahman, was born from the egg along with all beings who arose.

In this myth, there is no explanation of what caused the egg to form, and there does not seem to be any conscious entity who caused it to come about. It seems to have just happened. Many see in this an analogy to the Big Bang. But who knows?



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
"I understand your proposition somewhat like this: (1) some being somewhere – we can call it a god, if we like – was around to experience of the beginning of the universe; (2) in certain states of mind, some early humans were able to share this experience, if only in the form of a story told them by this being, this god. (3) These stories, the creation myths of mankind, are thus veracious accounts of the origin of the universe.

But how could you know any of this? I would guess you don’t; you’re just suggesting it as a possibility. And, on the basis of this possibility, you’re asking us whether the big bang theory is disproved if we can find no big-bang-like story in any of the world’s accounts of creation. Seems like an odd way to judge a theory in physical cosmology; what’s wrong with the usual tests?

Creation stories vary considerably, as you must be aware. If human beings were getting these stories from gods, why did the gods tell different stories to different folk? Were they trying to confuse us?"

now....

(1) I'm not suggesting that, it was a 'some being', it's obvious to me that there was no conscious being other than that of the Universe, or what the Universe is a construct of.

(2) I'm not suggesting that early man was able to "share" this experience, rather be able to perceive it with out applying reasoning or comprehension. Meaning, they(or select few) were already predispositioned to receiving this information, for the construct of their conscious, subconscious understanding was influenced by the 'energy' in which surrounded them. Being with out the distractions of evolved communications and understandings of the material plane, including other people, they were more easily influenced and had a heightened state of perceptual cognitive abilities to said material plane. It's not that they were able to understand it, rather they were able to receive it...'subconsciously', and then having the ability to consciously 'listen to their inner voice' in regards to the truths about the metaphysical world.
Kind of a confusing way to put it, but yeah....
(This is not my area of interest, i'm not claiming to have it all figured out)

I'm not saying this is what I beleive, it's just theory....

The result of these interactions then equated to Pantheism (is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.), which then gave rise to Paganism understanding. In trying to convey these understandings with a limited ability, this then gave rise to equating 'gods' with cosmological bodies and their relationships and events that were of the early Cosmos passed down through symbolic renderings...
see: David Talbott's film 'Symbols of an Alien Sky

I love how conversations on ATS get off topic soooo quickly...

I'm not going to restate the question again, rather I ask that you stick to it with your answers and comments please.....

If you'd like to discuss the evolution of communications and consciousness.....maybe i'll just have to start a thread on the topic... for now stick to the one that I had set forth in the beggining....



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
@wildoracle..
"The Chandogya Upanishad 3:19:1-4 relates how the world was nonexistent, became existent, and then became an egg. After a year, the egg broke open and a silver part and a gold part emerged. The silver part became the earth and the golden part became the sky. The various parts of the egg became the features of the heavens and earth. The sun, which in this myth is equated with Brahman, was born from the egg along with all beings who arose."
----------------------------------------------------------------(now to wiki lol)--------------
"According to the Puranas, Brahma is self-born in the lotus flower. Another legend says that Brahmā was born in water. A seed that later became the golden egg. From this golden egg, Brahma the creator was born, as Hiranyagarbha. The remaining materials of this golden egg expanded into the Brahm-anda or Universe. Being born in water, Brahmā is also called Kanja (born in water). Brahmā is said also to be the son of the Supreme Being, Brahman, and the female energy known as Prakrti or Maya."

---------------------hinduismbeliefs.blogspot.com...

This Vedic cosmogony opens by taking us to the limits of our capacity to think. Our ordinary ways of thinking depend on dualities: yes and no, subject and object, is and isn’t. This song presses beyond this duality by invoking a time that is no time, a place that is no place. It is a time and place where there is neither nothing nor not-nothing.

The hymn introduces an entity only known as That One. The identity of That One is not clear, but we do know that it breaths by its own power:

“Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning. With no distinguishing sign, all this was water. The life force was covered with emptiness. That One arose with the power of heat.”

now...............

Lets take a look at,

“Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning. With no distinguishing sign, all this was water. The life force was covered with emptiness. That One arose with the power of heat.”

Welll...
There's darkness, just like that of Genesis, there's water....just like Genesis,
There's no distinguishing sign(or form), just like Genesis
Then we have, "That One arose with the power of heat", well, like stated in the previous post.... Can one equate the temp of 1 Billion Kelvin, with that of heat?

I will be the first to admit that I know just about absolutely nothing about the Hindu creation story....

Having said that, from what I've skimmed through out of curiousity, it's seemingly easier to equate than Genesis and the Theogony of Hesiod, that of Nun or Primeval waters, and that of the Sumerian accounts....

I find it amazing that all these culture all around the world, used the same building techniques with out knowing eachother...
All seemingly have, just about the same creation story, just using different metaphors....

And then we are surrounded by people that think...."Oh those mystics and ancient cultures, their beleifs had no meaning"..... Dont sit there and deamonize that of which you dont understand people, lol

As far as, "Another legend says that Brahmā was born in water. A seed that later became the golden egg. From this golden egg, Brahma the creator was born, as Hiranyagarbha."

Well, born of water, aka, coming from the time when the universe was filled with deuterium and hellium nuclei, as well as later cooling and annihilations slowed down as it cooled protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei(aka Genesis 1: 6And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.”.... Well, there's some basis' for metaphoric 'water', considering deutererium, hydrogen and hellium nuclei are the building blocks of it.... well not hellium, but there's more to that story to be addressed later...

I would suggest that Genesis 1: 1-8 are in reference to the Cosmos only, after which begins to reference earth its self as well as keeping true to the invariant principle so that it pertains to Earth as well...

The shell or Egg reference the entirety of the universe itself, again..."Another legend says that Brahmā was born in water. A seed that later became the golden egg."

If you have any links to the actual texts I would love to have them....



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 

Hi again. May I suggest that you use the Quote button on your reply page when you quote portions of other people’s posts in future? It would make your posts considerably easier to read.

Now:


(1) I'm not suggesting that, it was a 'some being', it's obvious to me that there was no conscious being other than that of the Universe, or what the Universe is a construct of.

I said ‘some being’ because that includes all possibilities including that of a self-aware or sentient universe. The important point is that somehow the experience was recorded by some entity that could interact with humans and pass it on 13 billion years later. If you want to call that entity the Universe, by all means do so. I understood you correctly the first time.


(2) I'm not suggesting that early man was able to "share" this experience, rather be able to perceive it with out applying reasoning or comprehension.

That is exactly what I mean by ‘share’. To perceive something is to have an experience of it.


Meaning, they (or a select few) were already predisposed to receive this information, for the construct of their conscious, subconscious understanding was influenced by the 'energy' in which surrounded them.

Clearly understood the first time – although it is, of course, mere speculation.


Being without the distractions of evolved communications and understandings of the material plane, including other people, they were more easily influenced and had a heightened state of perceptual cognitive abilities to said material plane.

Again, this is pure speculation.


It's not that they were able to understand it, rather they were able to receive it...'subconsciously', and then having the ability to consciously 'listen to their inner voice' in regards to the truths about the metaphysical world...

Yet again, pure speculation. Interesting, but a complete waste of time unless you can produce some evidence to prove it. Have you any?


This is not my area of interest, i'm not claiming to have it all figured out.

But this process is absolutely critical to your thesis. If you have no physical evidence for it, then you must at least propose a credible, logically watertight mechanism for putting these pictures of the beginning of the universe into human heads. Without it, we have nothing to discuss, just a very far-fetched idea that can never be verified.


I'm not saying this is what I believe, it's just theory....

And on this theory, you propose another theory about the big bang. Theory upon theory. What earthly use could it be to discuss such a thing? We could never establish the truth of it.


The result of these interactions then equated to Pantheism... which then gave rise to Paganism... equating 'gods' with cosmological bodies... passed down through symbolic renderings...
see: David Talbott's film 'Symbols of an Alien Sky

Yes, yes. You have already explained this. But until you can convince with your premises, it is foolish and illegitimate to derive further ideas from them. That is my point.


I love how conversations on ATS get off topic soooo quickly...

We are right on topic. I am asking you to verify or explain your assumptions. You are dodging the question.


I'm not going to restate the question again...

There is no need to do so. I understand you perfectly; what you are suggesting is not very difficult or profound, just absurdly far-fetched. Please stop confusing the issue and address my question – if you can.


If you'd like to discuss the evolution of communications and consciousness...

Not particularly. Just answer the question, please. Where is the evidence to support your thesis?


edit on 27/10/11 by Astyanax because: of more italics.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join