Our Sun is part of a Binary Star System: Fascinating to see what ancient religions understood

[Halbhh]

But if God is all-powerful, could he not create a world that was already prepared for us and did not need to be prepared through devastation and destruction?

Well, should physics be merely a window dressing then also?

Similar to what you ask -- why would physics even need to be around, work well -- God could just maintain all things without it.... Is physics merely window dressing?

In a way these questions are all forms of a very general question --
Why are things the way they are?

Why are there natural disasters? Why do people die in accidents, disease, etc.?

Even, Why do we have to live in bodies here on Earth, before being judged, and then getting eternal life, or eternal death?

Why?

We have to guess at some aspects. My view (just my view), is that we are here to learn to love and trust, or fail to. Trusting in the good leads very easily to finding God when you seek to find Him, if you seek to find Him with all of your heart. In a sense, by trusting in good, you are trusting in God, that good wins, that there is an ultimate triumph of good. There are so many passages pointing at that. This is just one of many --

6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”a

7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

[Wakalix]

An all powerful God could do that but why make it look old?

Why indeed? The universe certainly does not seem to be made for humans.

As far as I am concerned the first evidence of God's creation is found in the stones and the bones and the stars and that record was written millions even billions of years ago. It is only in the past few centuries that we have learned to read that record.

How are stones and bones and stars evidence of God?

 

[JackRT]

Why indeed? The universe certainly does not seem to be made for humans.

The abundance of planets discovered in recent decades around nearby stars plus the incredible abundance of life on this planet suggests to me that the universe might very well be "programmed" to produce life.

How are stones and bones and stars evidence of God?

They are not direct evidence of God but they are the evidence of how our universe has developed.

 

[Wakalix]

The abundance of planets discovered in recent decades around nearby stars plus the incredible abundance of life on this planet suggests to me that the universe might very well be "programmed" to produce life.

Of course we notice much life around us - intelligent life requires a "crane" (see Dawkins), a "crane" requires evolution or a similar process, evolution requires a long-lasting ecosystem, and a long-lasting ecosystem requires a significant number of organisms to be resistant to annihilation. The anthropic principle is sufficient to explain this - we don't need to invoke intent or design.

They are not direct evidence of God but they are the evidence of how our universe has developed.

Indeed - but what makes you think that it developed with intent, or by God's plan?

 

[JackRT]

Indeed - but what makes you think that it developed with intent, or by God's plan?

It is indeed possible that "In the beginning God ...." but I really don't think so.

 

[Wakalix]

Yeah, life lives by eating and/or replacing something that died. It's all endless journey to destruction in a way.

But why? Wouldn't a world without destruction and death be preferable to one with them?

Well, should physics be merely a window dressing then also?

If "window dressing" means "not directly relevant to happenings," as in, God directly interacts with and sustains the world continuously, then sure. If I was an omnibenevolent and omnipotent supernatural being, I wouldn't hand off my people to an amoral simulator, the same way I wouldn't let a child play in a road.

As many see it (or at least some like me), God as creator means that God when He created physics made it to work well.

That is indeed what it would take to reconcile science and non-YEC creationism.

That it even exists means He designed it.

But why do you think that?

But then, like you ask above....why would physics even need to be around, work well? God could just maintain all things without it, eh?.... Is physics merely window dressing?

Exactly.

In a way these questions are all forms of a very general question --
Why are things the way they are, regarding mortality, suffering, accidents, etc.?

Why are there natural disasters? Why do people die in accidents, disease, etc.?

Even, Why do we have to live in bodies here on Earth, before being judged, and then getting eternal life, or eternal death?

Why?

That's theodicy! I'm actually a bit interested in this topic since one of my favorite books (UNSONG) focuses on it. I'm totally up for a discussion of theodicy.

We have to guess at some aspects. My view (just my view), is that we are here to learn to love and trust, or fail to. Trusting in the good leads very easily to finding God when you seek to find Him, if you seek to find Him with all of your heart. In a sense, by trusting in good, you are trusting in God, that good wins, that there is an ultimate triumph of good.

Okay, but why? I'll ignore the question of "why would you think that," and instead ask: what purpose would this serve? God already knows whether somebody is virtuous or not; why would he need to put them through hardships to verify it? Perhaps the philosophical position that fully simulating a possibility is the same as creating it, within the simulation; since God can fully simulate any outcome, then he couldn't just imagine what we would do, since that alone would mean that a world has been created. Problems: first, it places a limit on God, which is traditionally held to be impossible. Why can't he simply make that restriction (imagination implies creation) not true? Second, if he is truly omniscient of all possibilities, then that means that he has created all possibilities. Actually, that last one might not be a problem...

And furthermore, is this life even a good test of virtue anyway? If the world looks uncaring, is it a sign that I am Evil to stop trusting that everything will always turn out okay?

There are so many passages pointing at that. This is just one of many --

6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”a

7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger

See, that's the thing. I can understand "reward self-sacrifice" and "punish wickedness," but why are unbelievers un-virtuous for simply having come to the wrong conclusion? This just seems like a religion designed to trap people's thoughts.

[URL='http://biblehub.com/romans/2-9.htm']9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.[/URL]

(Except in ordering, heh.)

But has the Gentile not rejected the truth? Why will they not suffer wrath and anger?

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

What exactly does "written on a heart" mean? Does it mean that people's consciences are always right?

 

[Wakalix]

It is indeed possible that "In the beginning God ...." but I really don't think so.

But then how are bones evidence of God? I just don't see a connection.

 

[JackRT]

But then how are bones evidence of God? I just don't see a connection.

Didn't I just say that I don't see the connection either?

 

[Wakalix]

Didn't I just say that I don't see the connection either?

An all powerful God could do that but why make it look old? As far as I am concerned the first evidence of God's creation is found in the stones and the bones and the stars and that record was written millions even billions of years ago. It is only in the past few centuries that we have learned to read that record.

Ah, so you didn't mean "evidence that God created something," but rather "evidence about the things that God created." Never mind, and sorry for misinterpreting you.

 

[Halbhh]

But why? Wouldn't a world without destruction and death be preferable to one with them?

If "window dressing" means "not directly relevant to happenings," as in, God directly interacts with and sustains the world continuously, then sure. If I was an omnibenevolent and omnipotent supernatural being, I wouldn't hand off my people to an amoral simulator, the same way I wouldn't let a child play in a road.

That is indeed what it would take to reconcile science and non-YEC creationism.

But why do you think that?

Exactly.

That's theodicy! I'm actually a bit interested in this topic since one of my favorite books (UNSONG) focuses on it. I'm totally up for a discussion of theodicy.

Okay, but why? I'll ignore the question of "why would you think that," and instead ask: what purpose would this serve? God already knows whether somebody is virtuous or not; why would he need to put them through hardships to verify it? Perhaps the philosophical position that fully simulating a possibility is the same as creating it, within the simulation; since God can fully simulate any outcome, then he couldn't just imagine what we would do, since that alone would mean that a world has been created. Problems: first, it places a limit on God, which is traditionally held to be impossible. Why can't he simply make that restriction (imagination implies creation) not true? Second, if he is truly omniscient of all possibilities, then that means that he has created all possibilities. Actually, that last one might not be a problem...

And furthermore, is this life even a good test of virtue anyway? If the world looks uncaring, is it a sign that I am Evil to stop trusting that everything will always turn out okay?

See, that's the thing. I can understand "reward self-sacrifice" and "punish wickedness," but why are unbelievers un-virtuous for simply having come to the wrong conclusion? This just seems like a religion designed to trap people's thoughts.

(Except in ordering, heh.)

But has the Gentile not rejected the truth? Why will they not suffer wrath and anger?

What exactly does "written on a heart" mean? Does it mean that people's consciences are always right?

Many do think God already sees what we will do ahead of time, but many don't. Many haven't thought on this, and for those that have there is more than one or two mainstream views. Some think, as you have a form of in your post, the idea that God already outcomes ahead of time. Now, this idea is based on reading certain passages a certain way, but ignoring other things that show otherwise in other passages.

So that already-determined notion is a viewpoint, but there are better views, that fit more scripture.

One view that fits more scripture better in my opinion is that God can see what direction we are going, but I think He likely made us able to suddenly change direction unpredictably, by design. He'd still be able to accomplish His plans even so. Because we are unpredictable, we have genuine free will, not just an illusion of free will, in that case.

We then would be here under a condition of real freedom.

 

[Wakalix]

Many do think God already sees what we will do ahead of time, as you've used a related form of above, but many don't. Many haven't thought on this, and for those that have there is more than one or two mainstream views. Some think, as you have a form of, the idea that God already knows all you will do ahead of time, but that is merely their guess based on reading certain passages a certain way, but ignoring other things that suggest otherwise in other passages.

So it's merely a viewpoint. There are better views, that fit more scripture imo.

One view that fits more scripture better in my opinion is that God can see what direction we are going, but I think He likely made us able to suddenly change direction unpredictably, by design. He'd still be able to accomplish His plans even so. Because we are unpredictable, we have genuine free will, not just an illusion of free will, in that case.

We then would be here under a condition of real freedom.

So your God is a limited God? Interesting. That could pose far less problems than an entirely omnipotent God.

 

[Halbhh]

So your God is a limited God? Interesting. That could pose far less problems than an entirely omnipotent God.

Able to do anything, in present tense, is...amazingly powerful. I don't call that limited. Can do anything, even sweep away this whole Universe and/or replace it -- that's not very limited.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well, should physics be merely a window dressing then also?

Similar to what you ask -- why would physics even need to be around, work well -- God could just maintain all things without it.... Is physics merely window dressing?

In a way these questions are all forms of a very general question --
Why are things the way they are?

Why are there natural disasters? Why do people die in accidents, disease, etc.?

Even, Why do we have to live in bodies here on Earth, before being judged, and then getting eternal life, or eternal death?

Why?

We have to guess at some aspects. My view (just my view), is that we are here to learn to love and trust, or fail to. Trusting in the good leads very easily to finding God when you seek to find Him, if you seek to find Him with all of your heart. In a sense, by trusting in good, you are trusting in God, that good wins, that there is an ultimate triumph of good. There are so many passages pointing at that. This is just one of many --

6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”a

7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Thank you for noting that

 

[Ophiolite]

Indeed. The total and complete lack of evidence for the theory is a tiny bit of a problem.

These guys argue that any companion has a mass of at most 44 times Jupiter (0.042 times that of the Sun itself). More recent work basically rules out a companion altogether.

While I agree the WISE data are reasonably convincing in regard to ruling out a binary companion I note, en passant, that your linked article also rules out any further giant planets. However, studies of the orbits of the largest TNOs point to a ninth planet of at least 10 Earth masses. This post-dates the WISE conclusions.

 

[Radagast]

I note, en passant, that your linked article also rules out any further giant planets. However, studies of the orbits of the largest TNOs point to a ninth planet of at least 10 Earth masses. This post-dates the WISE conclusions.

The linked article rules out another Saturn or Jupiter. You're talking about another Neptune or Uranus. The two statements are consistent.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Good review

• New Discovery Casts Doubt on How The Solar System Formed

 

[Halbhh]

Interesting to consider those specific dynamics you mentioned. And cool to know you have that as a hobby with cosmology and astronomy. I can definitely see what it is you're talking on when you lay it out like that.

I remember studying one time on how God made light and divided it from darkness. People assume that he made the sun on that day - but it was really light in the ENTIRE Universe. And it would take time. From an Old Earth perspective, time is not a problem.

I know this was a long time ago we were discussing this, but actually most people I meet seem to have bought the modern notion that the light of verse 3 was the big bang (and many never think it could be our own sun), but that fun sounding and delightful idea the light is the big bang is just a mistaken idea.

No big deal -- mistaken ideas are the norm, and not even really important usually.

If you care personally though for yourself, I strongly recommend to not be attached to any version/theory, and to let that light=big bang idea go in the trashcan with hundreds of other theories, because it does not fit the text, meaning all the verses (instead of only a select isolated verse). We should all let go of ideas that don't fit the text.

I don't think it's even important though whether we get our understanding of mere physical small details right, or rather it is not important if we don't place faith in such theories.

Neither is it of any importance for other people usually what we each think about small details not given in scripture, until a moment when we are talking to the less common seeker to whom it really matters, someone trying to find out if God exists, and a mere mistaken idea then being insisted to be the Truth (a small details physics about Genesis 1 we have as Truth with a capital T!!?? No!!) and that insistence then blocks them from seeking God -- then it can matter! Because if someone misrepresents their ideas (like verse 3 light = big bang) as being Truth with a capital T, that or any other theory (and some even daring to do the significant evil of asserting that those who don't think the idea is right are 'calling God a liar' -- a serious sin), this seems to a seeker to represent what Christianity may be (since the seeker usually has not read a gospel), and that blocks the seeker from God, by the obvious contradictions to reality the wrong idea implies. Instead of the Good News, a mere theory of Genesis 1 as the key to salvation!!?? And then a seeker blocked from God (for a time at least), unless He decides to help the seeker realize it's merely a claim from some mistaken individual.

But otherwise, most people even good readers cannot expect to ever know small details of creation that align to all (instead of only a few of) the verses I think. How can they? They would need very extensive reading in mainstream science even just in astrophysics, for instance. How many have done that? 0.0001%? While I can fit all the verses to modern planetary formation theory without any troubles, helpfully remembering Moses didn't know precisely what he was seeing in the vision (though there are brief narrations from God to help create a partial understanding instead of total lack of understanding for him), the way the verses fit perfectly to details from science theories is something at that only I'd guess 1% or less of people might care about, also. So, it's ideas that can only matter to a few to begin with. But meanwhile, we have those preaching their mere theories, without understanding, as Truth, no less. Perhaps they will be excused because they do not understand what they are doing, but I wonder.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I know this was a long time ago we were discussing this, but actually most people I meet seem to have bought the modern notion that the light of verse 3 was the big bang (and many never think it could be our own sun), but that fun sounding and delightful idea the light is the big bang is just a mistaken idea.

No big deal -- mistaken ideas are the norm, and not even really important usually.

If you care personally though for yourself, I strongly recommend to not be attached to any version/theory, and to let that light=big bang idea go in the trashcan with hundreds of other theories, because it does not fit the text, meaning all the verses (instead of only a select isolated verse). We should all let go of ideas that don't fit the text.

I don't think it's even important though whether we get our understanding of mere physical small details right, or rather it is not important if we don't place faith in such theories.

Neither is it of any importance for other people usually what we each think about small details not given in scripture, until a moment when we are talking to the less common seeker to whom it really matters, someone trying to find out if God exists, and a mere mistaken idea then being insisted to be the Truth (a small details physics about Genesis 1 we have as Truth with a capital T!!?? No!!) and that insistence then blocks them from seeking God -- then it can matter! Because if someone misrepresents their ideas (like verse 3 light = big bang) as being Truth with a capital T, that or any other theory (and some even daring to do the significant evil of asserting that those who don't think the idea is right are 'calling God a liar' -- a serious sin), this seems to a seeker to represent what Christianity may be (since the seeker usually has not read a gospel), and that blocks the seeker from God, by the obvious contradictions to reality the wrong idea implies. Instead of the Good News, a mere theory of Genesis 1 as the key to salvation!!?? And then a seeker blocked from God (for a time at least), unless He decides to help the seeker realize it's merely a claim from some mistaken individual.

But otherwise, most people even good readers cannot expect to ever know small details of creation that align to all (instead of only a few of) the verses I think. How can they? They would need very extensive reading in mainstream science even just in astrophysics, for instance. How many have done that? 0.0001%? While I can fit all the verses to modern planetary formation theory without any troubles, helpfully remembering Moses didn't know precisely what he was seeing in the vision (though there are brief narrations from God to help create a partial understanding instead of total lack of understanding for him), the way the verses fit perfectly to details from science theories is something at that only I'd guess 1% or less of people might care about, also. So, it's ideas that can only matter to a few to begin with. But meanwhile, we have those preaching their mere theories, without understanding, as Truth, no less. Perhaps they will be excused because they do not understand what they are doing, but I wonder.

Just seeing this so addressing it. I don't fall on my sword for things that take away from the larger narrative of a story with Creation and a Creator itself, so even discussions trying to say the Big Bang isn't in the text don't really go far if focusing on details - seen arguments both ways for it. And specifically, if folks try at any point to talk on dealing with all the verses and ignore what was noted in verse 14 of Genesis ("And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let the be the lights in the DOME of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule ove day and night, and to separate light from darkness.")

At the end of the day, as no one was there, it's a lot of debate that will always happen - with plenty of folks on both sides arguing because they love science. What the text notes plainly is that the heavenly bodies do not create light - but govern the light (created on the first day) and their purpose is regulatory and calendrical, as the designation of the sun and the moon as the greater light and the lesser light (verse 16) emphasizes thy are merely lights and not independent gods. And we already see Job 38:19 which notes the separate existence of light from the sun and it's also seen in other accounts.

I don't care to over-emphasize or minimize folks that prefer a Big Bang theory - I think multiverse theory has always made far more sense anyhow, as existence occurred way before Genesis which notes THIS one world where there was darkness and God brought light.

Thus, it's always gonna be 100% opinion saying the opinion of another on a text is "mistake" because they don't believe the Bible is against a Big Bang theory - and I've seen A LOT of folks turned away from Christ by folks arguing against Big Bang theory in scripture and missing the context/intent.

 

[Halbhh]

Just seeing this so addressing it. I don't fall on my sword for things that take away from the larger narrative of a story with Creation and a Creator itself, so even discussions trying to say the Big Bang isn't in the text don't really go far if focusing on details - seen arguments both ways for it.

To me the big bang is definitely in the text, in that "In the beginning God created the heavens (the Universe) and the Earth" meaning of course if a big bang happened, that's because God designed for it to happen or caused it to happen.

But that's a separate event from the 'light' onto Earth in particular being referred to on the first special day of creation for Earth. That light (verse 3, 4) created a morning and evening -- which means a source of light shining onto the Earth from one side, with the rotating Earth then causing a night and day cycle. This is simply clear from the text as you read it. So in verse 1 we see the creation of the Universe (thus any big bang of course), and then later in verse 3 we see the first light onto the forming Earth (not only dim star light, but a brighter light) which makes sense to be from the sun beginning the day/night cycle (clouds hide the heavens from the surface of Earth point of view though early on), but these details aren't the point of the text, which is instead the reality that God created all that is, our home here also, and "it was very good" for us as our home. The message includes centrally that all that is is "very good" for us. God could have made an Earth in an empty void of space, with only a diffuse constant light all the time, for example. But that was not what He did we can see in the text, but instead He made a light that caused morning, day, evening, and night, as we read.

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

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So this view is simply in keeping with the text, understanding that in the vision given Moses, the heavens were not at first visible at first, so we can presume they are obscured by cloudiness from the point of view which is from the surface of Earth, even though the day/night cycle has fully started, perfectly, meaning the sun is shining onto Earth, which is rotating, as it always has.

I've started to think this kind of debate though kills faith for those seeking God who have not yet found Him.

Because it makes it falsely appear as if Genesis is disproven by science, since people give versions of creation using assumptions not in the text about Genesis that are not like what we've discovered in the sciences.

So to the seekers not yet knowing God, many creationists unknowingly disprove God exists to these seekers by preaching their assumption based versions of Genesis 1.

Even though the opposite is really true, if a person knows the science and read the Bible carefully.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

To me the big bang is definitely in the text, in that "In the beginning God created the heavens (the Universe) and the Earth" meaning of course if a big bang happened, that's because God designed for it to happen or caused it to happen. It's just not the 'light' in particular being referred to on the first special day for Earth in particular. That light created a morning and evening -- which means a source of light shining onto the Earth from one side, with the rotating Earth then causing the night and day cycle. This is simply clear from the text, both the creation of the Universe and then also the first light from the sun beginning the day/night cycle, but these details aren't the point of the text, which is instead the reality that God created all that is, our home here also, and "it was very good" for us as our home.

You'd still have to leave out half the text to try arguing that and it would be out of order. As said before, Afolks try at any point to talk on dealing with all the verses and ignore what was noted in verse 14 of Genesis ("And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let the be the lights in the DOME of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule ove day and night, and to separate light from darkness.")

There's a reason Jewish scholars have noted talking on the text is problematic when ignoring the FULL story of Genesis in what played out - and further. It will always be problematic and IT'S no where in the text that Day 1 (verse 3) shows the light in verse 3 is the sun. That's entirely conjecture...

You can't jump from talking on morning/evening with the light meant rotation since that isn't in the full text itself. This is why folks have noted light could exist outside of darkness - without any of it meaning day and night had to happen immediately.

Like I said before, at the end of the day, I don't care to over-emphasize or minimize folks that prefer a Big Bang theory - I think multiverse theory has always made far more sense anyhow, as existence occurred way before Genesis which notes THIS one world where there was darkness and God brought light. There were always multiple dimensions and they have always intersected, which is why I tend to be skeptical when folks assume things happened ALL at once - and folks center entirely on Genesis instead of seeing what the worldview was in the Near-Eastern world as they explained more fully over time how God created things.