I did not leave, I just got tired of reading responses which were not relevant to the original post and people running off on irrelvent rabbit trails. So I just ignored it until a few days ago when I looked at the thread and found some interesting and, at least tangentially related, posts.
First was
Consular Corps who put forth an idea that “Universe” should include “all of existence.” But I think that really poses a problem for materialists as it implies that a material definition of “Universe” is inadequate. It potentially puts the materialist in a position where he must include that which he does not believe exists in his concept of Universe.
Strangely, I think both the materialist and Theist have very similar concepts of “Universe.” That concept would be that Universe connotes all that exists in our space-time continuum. But
CC’s idea also brings to mind questions of how do multiverses and dimensions and The Theory of Everything fit into this more expansive concept of universe. I think it far more comprehensible to consider the Universe as being limited to our expanding material time-space continuum while leaving open the option that something else might exist beyond the Universe’s edges or within its spaces.
The word “universe,” of course, did not exist at any time when the writings in the Bible were inscribed. Nor did paleo-Hebrew even have a word that meant all of everything. However, that concept was covered by the Gen. 1:1 phrase Heavens and Earth. There is a paleo-Hebrew word which is translated everything, but it is more of a limiting word than the expansive meaning we give it. To them it was used to connote all of a group such as all things which are green, all things which have four legs or all thing that live and breathe.
My point here is only to show that materialist and Theists (as well as almost all of science) have settled on the idea that Universe refers to all that exists in our time-space continuum.
But then
CC goes into what appears to be a reference to Cyclic Universe or Ekpyrotic Theory which are fun to consider but have relatively little support. It is probably more fruitful, for now, to look at those concepts which seem better supported by what we are actually able to substantiate.
We are limited by the problem that our only real reference points are the Universe within which we live. Thus, we can only explain that which may not be in our Universe by analogy to our Universe. We do not know for certain that the physical laws applicable in our Universe are laws that equally apply without.
But then I came upon the interesting exchange between
Cole Grey and
Ex-chemist which revolved around the idea of the transcendent qualities of a creator.
Cole ended is first post with the question, “[This] doesn’t really solve the issue of why not Egyptian, Haitian, voodoo, Brahma, etc. creators? “ (Please note that was only one of three qualities I suggested might be required of a creator.)
This is exactly the question my original post was intended to elicit. If there are a number of candidates for the office of creator, how do we determine which candidate receives our vote, so to speak. So,
Ex-chemist, I did not just bugger off. It is true that many religions have similar concepts including a transcendent creator but that does not mean they are all alike. Nor are their similarities as important as their differences.
Humans and chimpanzees, it has been shown, have 96 to 98 percent of the same DNA strands meaning there are different in only two to four percent of their DNA makeup depending on the method of analysis being employed. So what is more important and what differentiates between the two – the 96 to 98 percent which is the same or the two to four percent which is different?
So, of what consequence is it that many of the religions of the world have similar origins and stories? That should, in my opinion, suggest that , historically, they all had similar (or maybe even the same) experiences and observations in common. But the early word of mouth recounting of those experiences and observations diverged as each one was carried forwards with more or less accuracy. Their stories became metaphoric explanations of things civilizations had experienced. So, even if two religions were 98 percent alike, the more important aspects would be that two percent which is different.
One of the biggest differences, to me, is what I discussed earlier in a response to Q. There, I compared the Genesis 1 account of the cosmogony of the Earth with the generally accepted scientific cosmogony. Even ChatGPT recognizes this account as being unique among ancient origin accounts.
Chat GPT said:
“The Genesis account is distinct in its detailed, day-by-day structure and theological emphasis. While it shares motifs like the separation of elements and progressive creation with other ancient stories, its linear, symmetrical development and focus on divine order, human dignity, and ethical purpose set it apart as a unique narrative within the ancient Near Eastern literary context.”
It just seems like something to take into consideration.