The source of things yet unexplained.

A Multidisciplinary Contextualized Analysis of Select Passages From Genesis V2.0

[This is an excerpt from an exhaustive personal study of most of the first 9 chapters of the book of Genesis. This is a vastly expanded effort from the original version that can currently be found here downloadable for free. The purpose of this exercise is to compare a non-symbolic literal reading of the text to our current understanding of language, paleontology, and the physical sciences. Constructive discussion on the merits of this study is encouraged!]

Of the most enduring questions of science, philosophy, mathematics, and religion, none are more persistently fundamental than:

The nature of the universe.

This question might be more commonly phrased as, “How did the universe begin,” or “What is reality?” Of the various theories regarding the origins of the universe, there are persistent questions regarding its most fundamental nature and what initiated it.

As to its origins, from a Newtonian perspective, there is no reaction without action. From a chemical standpoint, even a supersaturated or high energy potential mixture needs to be shocked or catalyzed to motivate a different form. Even in mathematics, imbalance needs to exist or be introduced to drive a non-zero solution. But analysis of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) suggests that the early universe was highly isotropic and homogeneous. Ultimately, perfect balance in any real-world physical system is impossible, but this still doesn’t satisfactorily explain why the process began at all.

The advent of quantum physics has only exacerbated this discussion. Photons and other elementary particles in motion exist as probabilistic waves that are not in any one place until they are "observed" or interacted with in some way. This implies that before any particle can exist in any one place in the universe, there needs to be something or someone to interact with or "observe" it. This presents the strange possibility that an unobserved or interaction-free universe might never exist to begin with.

On the topic of the aptly named “observation problem” of quantum mechanics, Albert Einstein once asked Abraham Pais, “Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?” While attempting to disprove observation dependent results, Einstein’s own arguments contesting it eventually lead scientists to prove the observation problem to be true.

Alternatively, for those that still perceive the universe as an eternal never ending existence, a popular belief in centuries past, this replaced the question of how the universe began with how it can be a continuity with no ends. The question is still the same.

Paraphrasing the scientific philosophy of René Descartes, that we exist may be the only thing we can be certain of. And since the universe most certainly does now exist, this has left many physicists with the peculiar question of how these initial conditions and earliest quantum interactions spontaneously began.

The origin of life.

In chemistry, one can demonstrate the inevitability of certain chemicals interacting spontaneously, especially in exothermic processes that release energy while doing so. Cosmology further supports this emergent complexity through the processes of stellar and galactic nucleosynthesis. However, even with all the correct elements in proximity, there is no physical, chemical, or mathematical process that makes a complex form inevitable or even probable.

For example, simply having collected the ingredients to make a pizza or build a car does not necessitate that either will emerge without adding energy and directing assembly. Also, we would never assume that if we came across an uneaten pie or derelict vehicle that it was a natural formation. By virtue of their improbable structure, we would necessarily conclude them to be manmade.

After centuries of biological reverse engineering, we now have an understanding of the chemical processes of life down to the molecular scale. With our current technology, we can watch in real time the interplay between DNA and amino acids constructing the proteins that build all living things. These chemical chains fold into the universe’s tiniest yet most powerful machines.

Yet, like the pizza and car illustrations, a similar issue exists in biology. Even the simplest forms of life necessitate several codependent mechanisms that one would find difficult to conclude exist spontaneously:

Genetic material: Although the nucleotides that make up DNA might exist without life, usable genetic material does not organize spontaneously. The assembly into covalent chains is an endothermic process requiring energy and, therefore, improbable. There currently exists no evidence that genetic material has or could ever be formed by any abiotic process into a biologically usable form.

Ribosomes: A paradox unto itself, the ribosome is a folded protein that is formed from the transcription of genetic material. However, genetic material requires ribosomes to transcribe them into proteins. This existential codependence compounds the improbability of spontaneous abiotic formation of life.

Metabolic enzymes: Categorically, all proteins are the product of genetic and ribosomal processes. However, metabolic enzymes as well as ribosomes are proteins required to catalyze and essentially fuel the process. In other words, the process of life is untenable devoid of the products of the life process. This tertiary dependency also does not exist abiotically in a biologically usable form.

Human cognition.

What essentially separates mankind from all animal life is a drastically expanded cognitive capacity. One might argue we are no different than other sentient animals, but this downplays the significance of our divergence from the norm.

For instance, all animal species operate by terms of what they must do. Humans utilize ethical frameworks unavailable to animals for determining what we should do. Our capacity to accumulate, store, and pass on knowledge is also unique. And although our technological progress is often taken as a sign that humanity has continued to evolve, there has been little if any change in our cognitive capabilities. Mankind has always had the capacity for multi-generational knowledge and devising methods for documenting information going back millennia which is the reason we have the technology we enjoy now.

In any case, there is no scientific or physiological explanation for where consciousness comes from. Similar to how life can only be produced by life, consciousness only emerges through that process. Also, our biology necessarily enables and maintains this state of cognition. But it is a persisting mystery how that state manifests in each conscious creature, and how that state can be permanently lost due to even a brief interruption in metabolic support.

We know no more in regards to how cognition exists or came to be than when the Mandukya Upanishad was written over 2,500 years ago. The irony is the immense concern over artificial intelligence becoming conscious despite few physiological parallels as well as a lack of certainty regarding how to identify consciousness if it were to emerge.

Existence By Design

One might be surprised to realize that the term bā·rā (בָּרָא) which is typically translated “to create”, perhaps more accurately “to design”, is used in only 5 of the 35 verses of The Beginning (Gen 1:1-2:4). Furthermore, only two of those verses are among the eight specified occurrences during the six yamim (Gen 1:21, 1:27). The other three verses are prior to yom one (Gen 1:1), or in the conclusion and subscript (Gen 2:3-4).

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created (bā·rā בָּרָא) the heavens and the earth.” However, the heavens are “made” during yom 2 (Gen 1:7), and the earth “became” in yom 3 (Gen 1:9). This suggests that verse 1:1 was the “design” phase, not a formative one. The implication is that the universe was started by God’s execution of that design. The timing and nature of the universe is per parameters established by Him.

Genesis 1:21a “God created the large sea creatures and every living creature that moves”. The second appearance of bā·rā (בָּרָא) is associated with the first mention of animal life on yom 5. The origin of life is associated with an intentional design effort as though it would not have emerged on its own otherwise.

Interestingly, the second mention of animals on yom 6 uses the verb “to make” which suggests there may have been some formative influence, but no additional “design” required. The components necessary for realizing all the desired varieties of life were already extant.

Bā·rā (בָּרָא) is then mentioned three times in Genesis 1:27 stating essentially that “God created [mankind] in his own image”. The term for “image” or “phantom” (tselem צֶלֶם) implies a shadow’s likeness to a form, not that we are equivalent physically or have comparable capacities at scale. The use of that term likely refers to metaphysical or other implicit characteristics that humanity is imbued with. Genesis 3:22 suggests that the ability to judge good from evil is such a characteristic.

Taking into consideration the limited and specific usage of bā·rā (בָּרָא), we find it used to highlight specifically the three longest standing and persistently unanswerable questions: The origins of the universe, life, and human consciousness. And in dry and parsimonious language, the answer is only that it is because He designed and executed those three components explicitly.

This isn’t a plea to a “god of the gaps” philosophy, but as an acknowledgement that those persistent gaps are the very things highlighted in Genesis 1. The other six declarations using more pedestrian or even dismissive verbiage appear to be largely announcements of what is expected to emerge as the design is unfolding.