Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!unisoft!dual!ptsfa!qantel!hplabs!pyramid!ucat!pesnta!amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!sxnahm
From: sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (Stephen Nahm)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Praying to the Father; thoughts on the Holy Spirit & the Trinity
Message-ID: <548@ubvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Sep-86 23:44:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubvax.548
Posted: Tue Sep 23 23:44:13 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 01:43:26 EDT
References: <7568@tekecs.UUCP> <1503@mtx5a.UUCP> <7616@tekecs.UUCP> <256@prometheus.UUCP> <1270@utastro.UUCP> <257@prometheus.UUCP>
Reply-To: sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (Stephen Nahm)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: net
Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 47
Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:233 net.religion.christian:4717
Summary: Is "god" the Big Bang?

Expires:



Sender:


In article <257@prometheus.UUCP>, in defense of a set of assertions and
definitions which he gave to try to justify God, the Trinity and ???,
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:

>What was particularly upsetting to Houlahan was the number of new
>definitions and that no "explanation" was given.  The reason for that
>was that this hypothesis grew out of problems in physics and cosmology
>and not religion, so it's not exactly appropriate for this news group.
>
>Once the cosmology was "invented", however, it was interesting to look
>around for "strange things" to put in these strange places.

I *think* what you're saying is that one-space, two-space, three-space and
the Big Bang come from scientific hypotheses, and you then tried to hang
God, the Trinity, Angels and Man onto it.

This doesn't address Praig's criticism.  What you in fact are doing is
dreaming up a cosmology that would like to tie God and the Big Bang theory
together.  What it appears that you are doing is taking the scientific
hypothese of the Big Bang and deriving God, the Trinity, Angels and Man.

Which do *you* think you're trying to do?

Mr. Koloc proceeds with additional pseudo-scientific hand-waving, and ends
with:
>Anyway, the problem I was trying to solve had nothing to do with "where's
>GOD or what's the Trinity", it had to do with the source for the "energy
>/information" of the big bang. And, it looks like it came from a decay of
>a chunk of "two space" NOT GOD.  Well sort of NOT...
and
>So what if it's spooky that substance can be interpolated in both spaces
>and that the one space substance looks DIVINE.

The Big Bang theory indeed cannot explain what events preceded it.  If you
take the Big Bang theory to be true, you can try to explain what caused
it by inventing a "god" and saying that "god started it".  If you do this,
you have *defined* "god" to mean "that which caused the Big Bang." If you
then want to extrapolate Souls, Angels, and the Trinity from this god, well
good luck.  You're not going to do it by appealing to physics.

Since "god" generally refers to a supernatural being, I'd caution against
trying to tie god to the Big Bang (a (theoretically) natural phenomenon).
Better to say "some unknown natural phenomenon caused the Big Bang" and
leave it at that.
-- 
Steve Nahm                  UUCP route:       {amd|cae780}!ubvax!sxnahm
sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP           Internet address: amd!ubvax!sxnahm@decwrl.DEC.COM