Jonathan H. B. Lobl

I think that you are combining topics in Cosmology, that are separate issues. The basic "problem" is that Astronomers made their calculations -- and the results did not add up. The "problem" is that they calculated all known mass -- and discovered that there is more gravity in the Universe, than they can explain with the available mass. For example, they calculated the spin rate of various galaxies, and did the math, to see if the Black Hole at the center of the Galaxy, had enough mass, to sustain that spin. The numbers did not add up. At the rate of galactic spin, the galaxies should be flying apart. There is more gravity than they can explain. One possible answer is "Dark Matter". A hypothetical something which they can not detect -- which is about 90% of the Universe. Another possible answer, is gravity leaking in, from outside the Universe. Another big question is "Dark Energy". The unknown force which is expanding the space between the galaxies. Yes. Space itself is expanding. It turns out that "Nothing" is really something -- and is unstable. I get a bit lost about the discussion about "virtual particles" which flash in and out of existence. It seems that space itself follows the quantum laws. There are other issues in Cosmology. They will have to wait. This is hurting my head.

There is overlap in the fields of Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology. Between them, I think the study of needs and values is covered. What does metaphysics offer; that these fields of study do not? You have defined metaphysics. That does not mean that metaphysics, has a monopoly on needs and values. I think that these needs and values are better met in other places. In Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology.

In this translation, Spirit gets a capital S. That's already a theological statement. Spirit -- one third part of the Trinity. The word in Jewish translations, is wind. The Hebrew word is Ruach. No matter how we dance around it, Genesis has the Earth show up, before the Sun and other stars. This violates planetary physics. In addition, Plant life shows up before the Sun. Trees and grass without Sunlight? No. Not even sea plankton. The Earth has no firmament. The Earth is not a snow globe.

None of us are in a position to argue the latest Cosmological physics. A few findings are gaining wide acceptance. The scientific consensus is not going to Steady State. The speed in which the Universe is expanding -- is increasing. I want to be clear on that. The galaxies are not flying through space. The space between the galaxies is expanding. More, the space between the galaxies is expanding at an increased speed. The real Universe is strange enough. Invoking the supernatural is not helpful.

Of course. Hebrew language. So obvious. Now.

Oh, those invisible assumptions. I'm going to have to think about this.

A thoughtful response. Still, I don't think you have -- yet -- made your case. Are you talking philosophy, in the manner of David Hume? Perhaps psychology or sociology? Anthropology? None of this is metaphysics. They all deal with fullfilment, belonging, needs and values. In what way does metaphysics, make a real contribution? Perhaps we mean something different, by metaphysics?

Not saying there couldn't be a God of all creation. Yes. Such a god could exist. Is there any solid reason to believe, that such a god does exist? Just that these passages may just be simplified explanations of something no one could truly grasp at the time. Alright. Not bad for that time. That was then. This is now. In the distant future, nobody will be studying the Cosmology and Physics of today. Thus, may not be literal, as some folks do take. No. Not literal. That leaves the legitimate issues of poetry and culture. Is there enough spiritual truth and insight -- in poetic language -- to make these passages relevant to the present? To the future? Maybe. These are cultural issues. Yes. I think that these are important cultural artifacts. They should be studied. At minimum, Genesis as early literature, will always be important.

Yes.

In fairness, it is the most closed minds, that speak with total certitude. This kind of caution about meaning, suggests -- to me -- a thoughtful examination and open mindedness. I have to respect that.

There are some interesting ideas in modern physics and cosmology. I don't think this thread is the place for it. More to the point. It's not enough to say that a god created the Universe. Even if this is so -- I doubt it -- the question remains. Which god? There is the God of the Bible. There is the God of Deism. There is the God of Pantheism. There is the God of Hinduism. Without getting stuck on the details, of competing ideas in physics -- there is natural process. My vote is for natural process.

Religious Christians know well enough, that the Norse gods are mythology -- that the Greek gods are mythology. Their God is different. Their God is real. So they talk to their invisible friend. Worse, they expect the rest of us, to be afraid of their invisible friend. None of this is metaphysics. It's culture. Even Atheists, fall into the trap, of talking about evidence. Who looks for evidence, that Thor is running around with his Hammer? We get stuck talking about evidence for God. It comes down to emotion. God beliefs are about culture and emotion, with invisible assumptions. Not so much about facts.

As people, I expect we are all stubborn about our passions. What matters is yielding to the evidence. The company is agreeable and the conversation is pleasant. It's enough.

A lot of my objections to the Bible follow the same pattern. As literal history -- as science -- Scripture is at best problematic. If we are looking at poetic expression -- I'm not motivated to argue with artistic expression. Back to the opening lines. Modern translation varies greatly. I don't remember which translation it was. "In the beginning, God began creating the Heavens and the Earth." It changes everything. In the standard version, Creation was long ago and far away. It feels like a fairy tale. In this version, Creation is still happening.

Yes. As you point out, these are interesting times for Cosmology and Physics. Also, as you point out -- an interesting time for secular scientists, who were loath to accept a starting time for the Universe. A Genesis style "Beginning." The difference between a mind set of religion and science; is that when new evidence is presented -- a scientist follows that evidence wherever it takes him -- regardless of personal bias. Regardless of likes and dislikes. Regardless of beliefs. I like to think that this is my orientation, to evidence regarding God. In the absence of evidence, I don't believe that God exists. Presented with compelling evidence -- like it or not -- I am prepared to reconsider, regardless of where the evidence takes me. I think that most Atheists would say something similar.

I cheerfully agree with you, that the Creation "Days" of Genesis, could be a large, indeterminate time. That just means we are using the language of poetry, instead of more precise measurement. A tougher problem is sequence. Having the Sun, Moon and the other stars, all turn up on the fourth day -- that's a much tougher pill to swallow.

I was making an attempt at humor. It's an old usage, but a physic is something that fights constipation. Like prune juice. So it follows, that a meta physic is something stronger than a regular physic. Something that will remove all fecal matter from the colon. I thought a bit of humor/levity would help an overly serious topic. Well, I tried. Ignoring my failed attempt at comedy -- what has metaphysics done for Humanity? What potential good, can come from meta-physics? By my standards, the mind of Man is still full of crap.

Not commentaries, but a question. Does Genesis 1:16 have anything to do with Astrology? Or am I seeing something that isn't there?

Alright. The Fundamental Nature of Reality. Quantum Mechanics has been informative. Cosmology, certainly. We are not the center of the Universe. Geology informs us of the Earth's core. It's not Hell. The space probes have not crashed into the Firmament. We have a world view that did not come from philosophy. Mind and Matter. Neuro-biology has been interesting. The structure, chemistry, cellular structure, synaptic structure, etc. of the brain. No answers yet, on the nature of consciousness. What useful answers -- demonstrated to be true -- have come from philosophy? Between substance and attribute: Chemistry, Biology, Geology and Physics. Potentiality and Actuality: Chemistry and Physics. Ontology? I had to look that up. "The branch of philosophy that deals with being." Alright. What useful anything -- That has been demonstrated to be true -- has come from Ontology? That really puts the physic in meta-physics. IMO. The prime force behind Ontology, is arguing about God. I think that Science needs to be informed, by Philosophic questions of right and wrong. Questions of values and ethics mean something. "What is the good life?" Such questions are important without having objective answers. Such questions guide actions. Metaphysics? Good for keeping students up late at night arguing. Good for Pot sales. Good for You Tube videos. Good for book sales. Anything that matters? No. IMO

Whenever religion is under discussion, there is a mountain of invisible assumptions. One of my favorites. "God gives us free will." No. God does no such thing. Free will is not given. It is asserted. Or discovered. Or seized. Free will is not a gift. It's a choice. "What is my purpose in life?" Seriously? People want an outside agency, to tell them, what their purpose is?" Why? It is up to the individual, to decide their purpose for themselves. Or learn to live with out it. I have lived with some wonderful cats. They were happy, most of the time. They loved and were loved in return. They enjoyed their food, their play, their exercise and their sleep. By my standards, they had successful lives. Then they died, as all flesh does. Did they need a purpose? No. As Atheists, we like to do our own thinking. But oh -- those invisible religious assumptions. It's so easy to slip back into a religious mind set -- and never see it. Why are we here? Basic biology. We were brought about by natural process. Much like the Universe. "God" is not an answer. "God" answers nothing.

The examples that you cite are not meta-physics. They are philosophy. The utility of philosophy -- rhymes with futility ---- should have it's own thread. In my opinion, meta-physics should only be resorted to, when regular physics -- such as prune juice and fiber -- fail. Seriously. When the non-believer says that, the Creation story in Genesis is silly -- what is the standard response? Oh yeah? Then where did everything come from?" Meta-physics. An affliction and a waste of time. "You ask -- ""Why are we here?" I'm here, because my parents had sex.

I prefer a default of don't care. Life is too short, for arguments about meta-physics. Even the questions are meaningless. In the end, it's about faith and belief. There is no arguing with either.