10 September 2007

I'm not a scientist, mathematician or astronomer. But the following blows my mind.


If, one second after the Big Bang, the ratio of the density of the universe to its expansion rate had differed from its assumed value by only one part in the 1015 (that’s one followed by 15 zeros) the universe would have either quickly collapsed upon itself or ballooned so rapidly that stars and galaxies could not have condensed from the primal matter…The coin was flipped into the air 1015, and it came down on its edge but once. If all the grains of sand, on all the beaches of the Earth were possible universes—that, universes consistent with the laws of physics as we know them—and only one of those grains of sand were a universe that allowed for the existence of intelligent life, then that one grain of sand is the universe we inhabit (from scientist and astronomer Chet Raymo).
Posted by at

9 comments:

jon zebedee said...

it is a great mystery.

creation and/or evolution will probably never be proven either way.

but i think we can be equally in awe of science that makes the case for evolution, as we can be for science that points toward a designer.

for me, it is more plausible that the creation story in genesis is a beautiful metaphor. much like other such stories in many, many ancient cultures. to seek out scientific explanations to prove the metaphor misses the point.

11 September, 2007
Anonymous said...

jz,

Reading Genesis from the Jewish perspective over the last few years has been deeply rewarding.

The rabbi's have a great feel for allowing Genesis 1-3 to be poetry...but poetry that makes claims for "who's who and what's what".

12 September, 2007
jon zebedee said...

i wish i would have grown up looking at the bible from a jewish perspective. i wouldn't have wasted my time defending faith from a modern, white, middle class perspective.

great book: http://www.amazon.com/Liberating-Gospels-Reading-Bible-Jewish/dp/0060675578

thank you for being open to seeing the idea of god from other perspectives. it means alot to those, like myself, who made the leap out of fundamentalism.

we've come a long way since our chorus days.

12 September, 2007
Anonymous said...

I believe that we can show respect to those from the Jewish perspective, but I would much rather see it from the Messianiac Jewish perspective which accounts that we have a Savior. There is value in traditions such as the Passover, Seder meals, what have you. I respect the culture. There's nothing wrong with defending the gospel from a modern, white, fundamentalist perspective if that's who you are and truly believe(as I do). If I view the Scripture from an inerrant, evangelical perspective, I won't apologize and hide what I feel is right. I am not ashamed about what I believe. See the blog below about being "who you is, not who you ain't".

Now that I got that out of my system, I deeply appreciate and am pleasantly surprised that you believe in creation and not evolution(as that appears to be what you are implying), Josh.

David Metzler,
Rochester College alum

12 September, 2007
Anonymous said...

David,

I know you know via blogging--you don't have to identify yourself fully now (last name, alum status).

I do believe in Creation...always have. I'm surprised you were surprised!

Thanks for posting

12 September, 2007
jon zebedee said...

i wonder if dave was somehow confusing both of our reply/posts? either way. thanks for the thoughts, dave.

at the end of the day, i am lead to believe that the jewish creation story is one of so many wonderful stories that point toward an extraordinary explanation to our beginnings. it isn't the scientific and literal explanation, but rather mythological and theological. (my latest blog posting has a link about 10 such stories)

these stories were crafted by ancient cultures who didn't have the science or technology to see the universe as we now see it. we now see superstition in so many of their explanations because science has opened our eyes. (and sadly closed them in so many instances).

seeing things from a modern/white/fundamentalist point of view has only caused problems for me. it is a limited perspective and puts "god" in a definable box. which is where we would like to keep "him". cause really, who needs mystery? :)

13 September, 2007
Anonymous said...

Yes...maybe our two posts were mixed up...that makes more sense.

jz--

When people hear "mythological" they think "untrue" or "didn't happent"--I know that's not what the word means in the classic sense, nor how you mean it in your post.

Myth describes how the world came to be from a particular cultures perspective.

While I appreciate other creation myths, I believe that the Jewish Creation Story is the one that reflects and articulates reality as I know it to be in the truest way. Scripture's authority is found in her ability to most authentically connect and explain our world, our reality, our sin, our pain, and our need for re-creation.

That's the language I use.

Thanks for your thoughts!

13 September, 2007
jon zebedee said...

sounds like you've read a little joseph campbell and marcus borg perhaps?

sounds like i have too much free time on my hands...i've made too many comments.

Take Care
:)

13 September, 2007
Josh Graves said...

jz

I've enjoyed the dialog. I've read a little Borg--not enough to say he's seeped into my language.

I would say that language comes more from my post-liberal studies and its relation to philosophy, etc.

14 September, 2007

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)