Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2017 6:54 PM
461 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), Astrophile, NoNukes, nwr, Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 456 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,991 Year: 6,597/21,208 Month: 2,358/2,634 Week: 21/525 Day: 21/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2829
30
31323334Next
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 436 of 506 (697046)
04-20-2013 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by Straggler
04-20-2013 5:37 PM


Re: Predictions
Straggler writes:

So where exactly are you suggesting this godly intelligence exists? Within the (backwards and forwards) time of our universe that began at T=0?
Did god begin at T=0 too......?

First off I agree that what saying is highly speculative. I've read a few books on time and and cosmology and of course we all agree that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

In putting together some of the theories that I have read about I put this out for consideration. It seems to me conceivable that our universe is an emergent property of a greater reality. We do have a universe where particles pop in and out of existence - where particles don't become what they are to become until they're observed - where it seems that only 4.5% or so of what exists is normally perceivable to us - where something that seems so solid is actually all, or nearly all empty space and so on.

If we are actually part of a greater reality that is all around us, but not perceivable to us, then at this point in our understanding of things we have no knowledge of the dimensions of space and time that might be possible in the greater reality from which we are split off.

It is Biblical consistent to suggest that there is God's heavenly dimension and our Earthly one and that there is no spatial difference between the two, and that we are limited to perceiving this universe with the limitations of our 5 senses. The Bible tells us that at the end of time heaven and earth will be one so my understanding from all that would be that at some point our universe will be meshed back in to the greater reality.

I don't think that this is exactly how it is but it does seem to me to be an answer that satisfies the Christian faith and is consistent with some of the more speculative theories of science.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Straggler, posted 04-20-2013 5:37 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Straggler, posted 04-20-2013 7:22 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 437 of 506 (697047)
04-20-2013 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by Percy
04-20-2013 5:44 PM


Re: Predictions
GDR writes:

I'm only suggesting that the mathematics point to the possibility of a non-entropic existence.

Percy writes:

This, too, is wrong.

I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to say. I'm not saying that we could experience a non-entropic life here. I am saying that by the mathematics it is conceivable that there could exist a universe that is non-entropic but not perceivable by us.

Percy writes:

Your argument is rather fluid and ambiguous, but you almost seem to be arguing that if something could be true of some other universe, then it could also be true of our universe.

I obviously didn't make my point well. I think that it might be cleared up in my last couple of posts. Mind you, something as speculative as this is bound to be fluid and ambiguous.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Percy, posted 04-20-2013 5:44 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9324
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 438 of 506 (697051)
04-20-2013 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Just being real
04-20-2013 3:38 PM


I’m going to assume that your answer would be yes, having the scientific mind that you do. So this demonstrates at least two different sciences we can look to that are searching for intelligence from non-human life forms.

I understand that you are describing a SETI type investigation. None of the signals you describe would indicate intelligence to me, but perhaps if you were also to add some modulation that might distinguish the signal from naturally occurring phenomena, then maybe you'd be on to something. Something ordinary but not Creator good level super ordinary. And that's the topic of the thread. Simply finding intelligence outside the galaxy would be exciting.

There are three things that are required to be present at one time. There must of course be the transmission of information (transmitter), there must be the independent reception of the information (receiver), and thirdly the observer must be able to make the connection that the information used by the receiver is completely independent of the transmitter and that only that information arranged in that order will initiate the response.

The above however is just the same CSI ID nonsense I've seen pushed a dozen times. It does not extend from SETI. I don't need to identify an intended receiver to recognize that I have no natural explanation for a signal bearing, say a long repeated sequence of prime numbers in descending order. If a signal like that shows up, then the source is worth investigating further.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Just being real, posted 04-20-2013 3:38 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by Just being real, posted 04-21-2013 2:13 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 446 by Percy, posted 04-21-2013 3:30 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Straggler
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 439 of 506 (697052)
04-20-2013 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by GDR
04-20-2013 6:13 PM


Re: Predictions
Is it still your contention that intelligence originated when an intelligent creator created intelligence?

Does intelligence require an intelligent creator? Or not?

You spoke at some length (quite possibly wrongly - but that is by the by) about the time reversible nature of our universe - Unless you are suggesting this intelligent creator exists within the time component of our universe (which began at T=0) what relevance does this have?

Now you seem to be suggesting to Percy that this intelligent creator exists in an alternate physical universe. But what are you suggesting created the alternate universe in which this intelligence resides?

I still don't get where exactly you are suggesting this entity exists - Can you clarify?

At the moment it sounds like a god of the gaps where even the gaps are ambiguous......

GDR writes:

If we are actually part of a greater reality that is all around us, but not perceivable to us, then at this point in our understanding of things we have no knowledge of the dimensions of space and time that might be possible in the greater reality from which we are split off.

When we talk about extra dimensions within our universe (string theory and suchlike) we are talking about spatial dimensions which didn't expand in the Big Bang. Are you suggesting god dwells there?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by GDR, posted 04-20-2013 6:13 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by GDR, posted 04-21-2013 11:15 AM Straggler has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 440 of 506 (697080)
04-21-2013 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by GDR
04-20-2013 5:52 PM


Re: Predictions
quote:

Assuming that God exists would you really expect that anyone could answer that question? I can't and I'm not trying to.

An intellectually honest person would at least admit that they had no answer and accept that it had a serious impact in the plausibility of their view.

quote:

I am only saying that in a universe with more than 1 time dimension it is possible to have an eternal existence, which would not then require a creator as it would mean that it just always was.

Even if that is true it isn't relevant it's more an argument against the idea that our universe requires a cause.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by GDR, posted 04-20-2013 5:52 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1059
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 441 of 506 (697088)
04-21-2013 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by NoNukes
04-20-2013 12:54 PM


Re: Green doing an illusion.
There is no $#%& hole. Greene's explanation is a convincing, entertaining and useful tale of probability, thermodynamics, and other concepts put together to explain entropy. In fact, I think pages 155 and forward include one of the best explanations of entropy I have seen in a popular science book. But Greene's use of the term "second law of thermodynamics" gives the deceit away. How is that not part of physics between Newton and now?

Obviously it is. The modern treatment of entropy is early 19th century physics. Can we simply call thermodynamics chemistry and math rather than physics? Grrr...


The problem in a way stems from the fact that, in a sense, entropy isn't "real" and is not part of the fundamental laws of physics.
(I'll just include an explanation of Entropy, sorry to bore anybody who knows this stuff.)
Essentially all of the fundamental laws are time reversible. Newton's laws will tell you how an object falls from space down on to the Earth, but it will also tell you how an object on the Earth will rise up into space, as time goes backwards. It doesn't seem to pick out either direction as the natural arrow of time. Same with General Relativity and most Quantum Field theories.

Of course the difficult thing about applying the laws in reverse in the actual universe is that future states are more generic in real life. So if I have two rocks sitting on the ground, and if one fell from space and the other didn't, there won't really be much difference between them. I'll have to scrutinize the two rocks to see if I can detect traces of falling through an atmosphere on one of them. Only then can I apply the laws in reverse successfully and have the correct one rise into space.

Imagine this experiment was done on a planet with a very thin atmosphere, so that the only difference between the rocks was some micrometer scale friction burns on one of them. This means I'd have to measure the rocks to a good degree of accuracy to reverse time. Compare this to the forward time description. One rock starts in space, the other on the ground, it's obvious what will happen as time flows forward. I don't need micrometer scale information about the rocks.

Now take the extreme of the Sun. Try to reverse time there, it would be almost impossible to know which random atoms in the Sun should unmelt and reform into a comet that hit the Sun in the Devonian period. You'd need atomic level detail of the entire Sun! Again compare this with the forward time evolution, you start with a comet pointed at the Sun, it's easy to guess what will happen.

The point being the difference between the two states, where the was Sun hit by a comet and the state where it was not, is at the atomic scale. They are very difficult to tell apart.

The general point is that later in time states all tend to be difficult to tell apart. They are more generic. Entropy is just a measure of this generic-ness.

This increase of generic-ness is what marks one direction of time from another in the real universe. However there are two problems with this:
1) Generic-ness is not a fundamental, physically real, quantity. It describes how difficult it would be to tell two states apart, but this isn't really a parameter that enters directly into the equations of General Relativity and Quantum Field theory.
2) The only reason this could work as a way to tell the directions apart, is if one end of time was in a highly non-generic state, you could then label that "the beginning" and define forward as the direction where generic-ness increases. There is no explanation for why this is true. Why was the Big Bang so non-generic (low entropy)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2013 12:54 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2013 8:51 AM Son Goku has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9324
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 442 of 506 (697094)
04-21-2013 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 441 by Son Goku
04-21-2013 7:21 AM


Re: Green doing an illusion.
Now take the extreme of the Sun. Try to reverse time there, it would be almost impossible to know which random atoms in the Sun should unmelt and reform into a comet that hit the Sun in the Devonian period. You'd need atomic level detail of the entire Sun! Again compare this with the forward time evolution, you start with a comet pointed at the Sun, it's easy to guess what will happen.

This is pretty much the same explanation Greene uses. Just as well done, in fact. Surely there's a book in you somewhere?

The only reason this could work as a way to tell the directions apart, is if one end of time was in a highly non-generic state, you could then label that "the beginning" and define forward as the direction where generic-ness increases. There is no explanation for why this is true. Why was the Big Bang so non-generic (low entropy)?

But it isn't just the Big Bang that allows us to tell the direction of time. Every time we drop an egg, open a bottle of soda, or kick dust on other runners on a track field, we find the same direction for the arrow of time. Perhaps I'm quibbling over the definition for fundamental, but entropy sure seems universal.

Second law of Thermodynamics not one of the laws of physics? In a sense? Still seems like cheating to me.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Son Goku, posted 04-21-2013 7:21 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by Son Goku, posted 04-21-2013 4:03 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 443 of 506 (697101)
04-21-2013 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by Straggler
04-20-2013 7:22 PM


Re: Predictions
Straggler writes:

Is it still your contention that intelligence originated when an intelligent creator created intelligence?

Not really. My proposal is that intelligence has always existed.

Straggler writes:

Does intelligence require an intelligent creator? Or not?

In our universe yes.

Straggler writes:

You spoke at some length (quite possibly wrongly - but that is by the by) about the time reversible nature of our universe - Unless you are suggesting this intelligent creator exists within the time component of our universe (which began at T=0) what relevance does this have?


I'm suggesting that this intelligence is part of some greater reality that is interlocked with our universe in ways that we don't perceive with our 5 senses, and that our universe is an emergent property of that greater reality. I'm only proposing that possibly this greater reality would have more than one dimension of time and as a result is infinite in time, so it would allow infinite movement in time the same way that we can move infinitely around in our 3 spatial dimensions.

Straggler writes:

Now you seem to be suggesting to Percy that this intelligent creator exists in an alternate physical universe. But what are you suggesting created the alternate universe in which this intelligence resides?

It always was in the way that I explained in my previous paragraph.

Straggler writes:

I still don't get where exactly you are suggesting this entity exists - Can you clarify?

I'll go back to the headline in SA. "An Entire Universe May be Silently Interwoven With Our Own".

Straggler writes:

At the moment it sounds like a god of the gaps where even the gaps are ambiguous......


It isn't a god of the gaps as there isn't a gap to fill. I am firmly convinced that we should view science as a natural theology and so I am trying to allow the little science I know, (little being the key word there), to inform my theological and philosophical beliefs. As to the ambiguous part, I have to agree but I might add god of the very speculative.

Straggler writes:

When we talk about extra dimensions within our universe (string theory and suchlike) we are talking about spatial dimensions which didn't expand in the Big Bang. Are you suggesting god dwells there?

Well science seems to talk about parallel universes, multi-universes etc. Science seems to agree that there is a great deal that we aren't able to perceive. There's dark matter and dark energy, where do particles go and come from as they pop in and out of existence,and time itself is something of an enigma with some theories having extra dimensions of time.

It does seem to me that as science uncovers the mysteries of the universe it keeps finding that the universe is more mysterious than ever.

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Straggler, posted 04-20-2013 7:22 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2013 7:06 PM GDR has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1287 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 444 of 506 (697113)
04-21-2013 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by NoNukes
04-20-2013 7:16 PM


None of the signals you describe would indicate intelligence to me, but perhaps if you were also to add some modulation that might distinguish the signal from naturally occurring phenomena, then maybe you'd be on to something.

So you're saying that SETI is wasting all their time and money looking for what Jill Tarter (SETI Director) tells us is exactly what they are looking for to detect intelligent life?

Something ordinary but not Creator good level super ordinary. And that's the topic of the thread. Simply finding intelligence outside the galaxy would be exciting

Yes I understand what the topic of this thread is. But we have to be on the same page here first. I'm trying to discern exactly what in your eyes qualifies as evidence for intelligence. Because if you hold to some higher standard than do SETI scientists and marine biologists then this conversation is doomed before it starts.

The above however is just the same CSI ID nonsense I've seen pushed a dozen times.

I know you may think so but I would point out that that CSI "nonsense" that you have heard, does in fact make a very fatal flaw. Complexity does not equate to intelligence. A snow flake can be very complex and yet formed completely by natural laws of physics. So complex information can not be used to detect intelligence. If you drop a hand full of marbles off a tall building onto a typewriter below, the information it produces would be very complex and the odds of reproducing it would be beyond astronomical.

What I am talking about here is detecting information that has intent or purpose. Not merely complex. That is what I am pointing out is exactly what SETI looks for to detect ET and what marine biologists look for in dolphins.

I don't need to identify an intended receiver to recognize that I have no natural explanation for a signal bearing, say a long repeated sequence of prime numbers in descending order.

Well now you are implying that ET might be insane. Because only insane people would go to the trouble to transmit a signal with absolutely no intended receiver. Even a message in a bottle tossed into the ocean is done so with the hope of eventually making its way into the hands of someone to receive it. Again if we detected such a signal then we might actually be the intended receiver as well as the observer.

If a signal like that shows up, then the source is worth investigating further.

Exactly! Specified information is worth investigating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2013 7:16 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by bluegenes, posted 04-21-2013 3:22 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 448 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2013 4:56 PM Just being real has responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2967
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 445 of 506 (697116)
04-21-2013 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by Just being real
04-21-2013 2:13 PM


Questions (again).
Just being real writes:

Exactly! Specified information is worth investigating.

I asked you some questions relating to your idea of "specified information" in Message 405.

Why are the things you list below "specified information".

bluegenes writes:

Just being real writes:

Likewise just because we have never observed God doesn't mean we can't detect His effects. And I think that these effects are clearly and scientifically detectable. All one needs do is look for specified information where the only possible ramification is that it was formed by a supremely intelligent being. i.e...laws of physics, the arrangement of the cosmos, the parameters of our solar system and planet to support life, the specified code in DNA etc...

(1) Why do any of the things you've listed require a "supremely intelligent being"?

(2) Are you suggesting that miracles (lawless magic) would be evidence against a physical law making god?

(3) What force, if any, constrains your god to create a world with the physical regularities that we call laws?

(4) What laws, if any, would your god be subject to?

(5) If he is not subject to any constraints (laws) then how can the hypothesis "God created the world" make any predictions about the world?

(6) Wouldn't any world of any description be compatible with the hypothesis?

(7) If (6) then how could observations of this world provide evidence for a creator god?

(8) If you think that the the DNA code cannot come about by the physical processes of this world, do you also think that your god made the world with the wrong type of physical nature for our type of life?

(9) In your opinion, did it require a miracle (law breaking) to bring about DNA based life?

Any answers?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Just being real, posted 04-21-2013 2:13 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 10:49 AM bluegenes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 446 of 506 (697117)
04-21-2013 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by NoNukes
04-20-2013 7:16 PM


NoNukes writes:

None of the signals you describe would indicate intelligence to me...

SETI looks for narrow bandwidth signals because of the unlikelihood they would occur naturally.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2013 7:16 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1059
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 447 of 506 (697118)
04-21-2013 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by NoNukes
04-21-2013 8:51 AM


Re: Green doing an illusion.
But it isn't just the Big Bang that allows us to tell the direction of time. Every time we drop an egg, open a bottle of soda, or kick dust on other runners on a track field, we find the same direction for the arrow of time.

The only problem is that from the point of view of the fundamental laws, there is no reason for the states in one direction of time to have lower entropy than the states in the other direction. The reason we can tell the direction of time via the events you describe is because the low entropy states always come first.

The fact that low entropy states come first and that we can use this to tell the arrow of time has the immediate implication that states have lower and lower entropy as we go further and further back in time. Ultimately the state of the Big Bang had extremely low entropy.

If the universe had began as a homogeneous soup of matter (which is "more likely", i.e. more generic/higher entropy), then the states in the past and the future would have similar amounts of entropy and neither direction would be distinguished.

Without the Big Bang having low entropy, you wouldn't be able to use the methods you described above.

Perhaps I'm quibbling over the definition for fundamental, but entropy sure seems universal.

Basically, the universe (down to a very fine scale) is the result of the interactions of quantum fields and spacetime. Those fields and spacetime itself do not have entropy as a property. It's a derived quantity, useful for discussing large scale objects, but as fundamentally real as temperature or tensile strength. In other words, entropy is an emergent quantity and since you use entropy to tell the direction of time, the arrow of time is itself an emergent property.

Forwards or backwards in time, the fundamental quantum fields don't care, they literally can't tell the difference. However large scale objects built out of the fields do prefer one direction, for the reason that the large scale objects were in a very specific (non-generic) state at the big bang.

Edited by Son Goku, : Typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2013 8:51 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Percy, posted 04-22-2013 7:28 AM Son Goku has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9324
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 448 of 506 (697119)
04-21-2013 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by Just being real
04-21-2013 2:13 PM


Because only insane people would go to the trouble to transmit a signal with absolutely no intended receiver.

The signals need not be transmitted for the purpose of reception. They might be a bi-product of some energy use.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Just being real, posted 04-21-2013 2:13 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 10:56 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Straggler
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 449 of 506 (697124)
04-21-2013 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by GDR
04-21-2013 11:15 AM


Re: Predictions
So we have an uncreated intelligence which exists in time in an uncreated universe which has a time dimension with no T=0.

Is this correct?

Straggler writes:

Does intelligence require an intelligent creator? Or not?

GDR writes:

In our universe yes.

Why the qualification of "our universe"?

GDR writes:

It does seem to me that as science uncovers the mysteries of the universe it keeps finding that the universe is more mysterious than ever.

GDR writes:

It isn't a god of the gaps as there isn't a gap to fill.

Mystery. Gap. Tomato. Tomahto.

GDR writes:

Well science seems to talk about parallel universes, multi-universes etc. Science seems to agree that there is a great deal that we aren't able to perceive.

That is different to saying that it is inherently empirically imperceptible. If we are going off into wild speculation then there is nothing in the laws of physics which prohibits the creation of wormholes or blackholes as bridges between universes in a multiverse. If this is the case and we combine it with your suggestion then meeting god (or establishing his existence) would be a matter of engineering and technology (type 3 civilisation) rather than spirituality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by GDR, posted 04-21-2013 11:15 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by GDR, posted 04-22-2013 12:57 AM Straggler has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 450 of 506 (697139)
04-22-2013 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by Straggler
04-21-2013 7:06 PM


Re: Predictions
Straggler writes:

So we have an uncreated intelligence which exists {in time} in an uncreated universe which has a time dimension with no T=0.
Is this correct?

Yes except I would take out the part of your quote I put in brackets {in time}

Straggler writes:

Why the qualification of "our universe"?

Because we did have a point where T=0. In a universe where T= infinity there is no need for a first cause as it just always existed.

Straggler writes:

Mystery. Gap. Tomato. Tomahto.

I'm not trying to fill a gap. I'm just trying to put together what I have read from a theological, philosophical and scientific point of view and trying to picture a possible scenario where it all fits together. The question was asked, as it often is, who created the creator and I'm just suggesting what I think is a possible, but anything but conclusive, answer to the question. I believe from what I read that a multi-time dimensional universe is not contrary to any science that I know of and that it does seem to be consistent with some of the more theoretical theoretic science that exists today.

GDR writes:

Well science seems to talk about parallel universes, multi-universes etc. Science seems to agree that there is a great deal that we aren't able to perceive.

Straggler writes:

That is different to saying that it is inherently empirically imperceptible. If we are going off into wild speculation then there is nothing in the laws of physics which prohibits the creation of wormholes or blackholes as bridges between universes in a multiverse. If this is the case and we combine it with your suggestion then meeting god (or establishing his existence) would be a matter of engineering and technology (type 3 civilisation) rather than spirituality.

If I had to write that sentence of mine over I would add the words "as of today" at the end of it. I do believe that we do interact with God's universe or dimension in some spiritual sense, but I don't rule out the possibility that at some point in the future science may very well be able to connect or discover that universe and/or other universes.

I believe that human reason is a gift of God and so I have confidence that through that reason we will be able to discover things that are unimaginable to us today.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2013 7:06 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2013 1:36 AM GDR has responded
 Message 453 by Straggler, posted 04-22-2013 9:12 AM GDR has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2829
30
31323334Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017