Hi, pam-powers:
You are using terms in very unconventional ways, and (for me, at least) this is getting in the way of understanding the point of view that you are trying to express.
pam-powers writes:
We're trying to explain how the dimensions of this universe - which are relativity and quantum mechanics - came about as a result of the broken relation with God.
("We"? You and who else? Not an important question, really -- just curious.)
The "dimensions of this universe," as I understand it/them, are the three familiar physical dimensions of space, plus the dimension of time, which for most people (if they are like me) is hard to picture as a "dimension", but that's just because we aren't accustomed to picturing things in more than three dimensions. Anyway, that's basically it: four dimensions.
Relativity and quantum mechanics are not dimensions (of this or any universe); they are labels that refer to a couple of complex attempts at modeling physical reality in mathematical terms -- they are two theories that try to account for observable physical phenomena, by describing the unobservable structure that underlies the phenomena. To the extent that I understand them (which is admittedly very little), they are not yet fully reconciled into a single "unified" theory; one of them (quantum) applies very well at the atomic and sub-atomic scale (describing the behavior of particles), while the other (relativity) applies very well at the astronomical scale (describing the behavior of stars and planets, and of light traversing vast distances). Well, that's what I'm able to understand based on the descriptions provided by those who, I trust, understand the mathematics involved.
At the "normal" human scale, of course, they both seem to be somewhat irrelevant and fairly hard to understand -- the theories of Newton and his contemporaries/followers are good enough for most of our day-to-day concerns. (Even "rocket science" can be reasonably successful, I think, just on the basis of Newtonian math, although knowing the speed of light is very important for accurate space travel, and Newton lacked a good estimate for it. Nailing down that constant was tricky, and I think Einstein may have helped with that.)
If you are trying to explain anything about the physical nature of the universe as being the result of some event or condition involving man and God, you'll be better off using terms from philosophy rather than physics. In any event, if you want to use terms that people normally consider "scientific" in order to refer to something completely different, you really need to provide your intended definition -- "Here, I am using the word 'dimension' to refer to ...", "By 'relativity', I mean ...", and so on. That takes more time and space, but when you skip that part, you fail to communicate.
Man's relation to God is central. The world Adam lived in before he sinned existed in entirely different dimensions than the one today and these dimensions were defined by his relation to God.
Let me try to paraphrase: We now have over two thousand years of recorded history, during which a significant portion of the human population (i.e. a portion having the ability to record history) has expressed a firm belief in a single deity (creator and ruler) and in the ability to have a personal relationship and communication with that deity. Expressions of this belief, including quotations of verbal exchanges between man and deity, have had a persistent and dominant presence in the written records. (In my understanding, this part represents the statement: "Man's relation to God is central.")
Now, it turns out that portions of the information in the oldest written records of the man/God relationship (in this case, the parts in Genesis about creation, Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and so on), are not directly compatible or reconcilable with the logical conclusions that we would need to make about the physical development of the universe, the Earth, life on Earth, and the human race, based on our own observations of our current physical reality.
That is, some things are expressed in the Bible as "events that occurred" or "conditions that existed", but in order for these very old descriptions of events and conditions to be held as true, our detailed understanding of physics, astronomy, geology and biology, built up over just a few hundred years of meticulous observation and measurement, would need to be abandoned. And as a result of that, much of what we depend on in our day-to-day use of scientific results (space travel, oil exploration, genetic engineering, animal husbandry, DNA sequencing, nuclear power, ...) would need to be considered false.
Therefore, the "reality" described in the Bible must have been radically different -- physically independent -- from the reality that surrounds us today. (I'm not sure, but I think this expresses the "different dimensions" ascribed to the time of Adam versus those of today.)
It would simplify the matter a great deal if you just treat the passages in Genesis as allegorical, as "hypothetical" descriptions of conditions and events that were assembled to spark the imagination, to suggest explanations for things, to inspire awe and wonder, and to instill obedience, rather than to present factual reports of actual history. You can still regard them as being guided, inspired, and even spoken by God -- there would be no basis for denying that in any objective sense.
But if you really are trying to twist the theories of physics so that you can sustain some notion of "physical reality" for these Bible passages, I think you are missing the essential points, both of science and of the Bible. I sincerely apologize if I have misunderstood your intent.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (added "Hi pam-powers" at top, to clarify who I was replying to)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (spelling correction)
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
) Anyway, do be careful about the risk of attracting the "wrong sort of people"... and best of luck to you, honestly.
™ Version 4.2