Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 407 of 506 (696914)
04-19-2013 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by Straggler
04-19-2013 12:17 PM


Re: Predictions
Straggler writes:
The obvious disparity here is that quantum field theory is one of the most successful scientific theories ever devised. It has demonstrated itself able to make predictions which have led to new discoveries. The ability of QFT to accurately predict experimental results has been described as comparable to determining the distance from Boston to Pasadena to within the thickness of a human hair.
What has your "goddidit" hypothesis ever led to the discovery of?
If the answer to that is "nothing" why do you think we should even put the two things in the same ballpark of credence?
That misses the point, and is absolutely the wrong question. In order for science to come to all the miraculous discoveries it has required intelligence and reason. The notion of God isn't about coming up with a flat screen television as impressive as that my be.
If "goddidit" then God is ultimately responsible for all intelligence and reason and for all of the discoveries of science - every last one.
So it always come back to the basic question. Which is more plausible - is intelligence the result of the chance coming together of mindless, non or uni-dimensional particles or is it the result of an intelligent first cause.

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 402 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 12:17 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2013 2:22 PM GDR has replied
 Message 409 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2013 2:46 PM GDR has replied
 Message 415 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 7:18 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 410 of 506 (696928)
04-19-2013 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by PaulK
04-19-2013 2:22 PM


Re: Predictions
PaulK writes:
The question is, is it more plausible that the most basic part of reality is simple or a massively complex ordered entity ?
The most basic part of "natural" reality is complex arrangement of particles that appear to have properties that are either non-dimensional or uni-dimensional. In the end we know something about the properties of these particles but in the end know very little about. They pop in and out of our perceived existence. They don't take our perceived form until they are observed and then we find that they go back in time in order to be observed.
Even if you can imagine all of that forming without an intelligent first cause you then have to believe that somehow there was a chance coming together of these particles to form atoms, and then molecules. It takes a great deal of faith to believe all of this.
However now that there are atoms and molecules to our great fortune these all combined to form an incredibly small living cell which has a complexity that would at least rival any of our computers.
Now that we have cells, again with incredible good fortune of these cells coming together in such a way that far more complex life forms with the ability to actually think, even if it was only instinct and based on survival.
Then we have to believe that these life forms evolved into humans with the intelligence humans to understand today's science and to have developed a code of morality.
Again I ask, Which is more plausible? That all of that happened by blind chance or is there an intelligent first cause. I can't begin to generate enough faith to conceive of the first choice as being even the least bit plausible.

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 408 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2013 2:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2013 3:07 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 414 by bluegenes, posted 04-19-2013 4:44 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 411 of 506 (696929)
04-19-2013 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Tangle
04-19-2013 2:46 PM


Re: Predictions
Tangle writes:
Quite apart from a 'first cause' being a logical paradox of its own, mathematicians are proving - to themselves at least - that the universe can indeed manufacture itself.
That again points to design. It is consistent with what we have observed. Evolution once started can roll along on its own. Life reproduces itself. YOu have to believe that all of that can come about from what we know of beginnings without any intelligent initiative.
Tangle writes:
Then, of course, we have the total non-sequitur that the God of the first cause knows or cares about us and needs worshipping as a result - now that is just totally implausible.
That is the difference between theistic and the deistic beliefs. Deism requires that we believe in an intelligent first cause but then having got the whole thing rolling had no further interest in his/her/its project. In my view that again is highly implausible.
The worshipping part is another question. I see it as being for our benefit and not His.

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 409 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2013 2:46 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2013 3:43 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 416 of 506 (696961)
04-19-2013 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 413 by Tangle
04-19-2013 3:43 PM


Re: Predictions
Tangle writes:
Now you are going to say that something needs to set up the conditions for it to create itself and I'm going to say no it doesn't.
It is a matter of belief and we have come to different beliefs. IMHO the answer of an intelligent first cause is far more plausible than not. You obviously disagree.
Tangle writes:
And all I can say further about it is that Hawking et al believe that they can prove it mathematically but the rest of us normals have no chance of even beginning to understand it.
The point remains that it seems possible that we can show that a first cause is unnecessary.
That is simply "science of the gaps". Also, showing that a first cause isn't necessary wouldn't prove that there wasn't one.

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 413 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2013 3:43 PM Tangle has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 417 of 506 (696962)
04-19-2013 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by bluegenes
04-19-2013 4:44 PM


Re: Predictions
bluegenes writes:
Why? If you can believe that a god who can design all the things you mentioned does not itself require intelligent design, then you can easily believe all the things you mention don't require intelligent design.
I’m going to copy this over from what I wrote on another thread a while back concerning who created God. The same objection keeps coming up on different threads so this is actually the third time I've posted this.
In "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene, (one of my favourite books), he writes the following after talking about how we only experience time in one direction, and that we would expect there to be a law that confirms this.
quote:
"The perplexing thing is that no one has discovered any such law. What's more, the laws of physics that have been articulated from Newton through Maxwell and Einstein, and up to until today, show a complete symmetry between past and future. Nowhere in any of these laws do we find a stipulation that they apply one way in time but not the other. Nowhere is there any distinction between how the laws look or behave when applied in either direction in time. The laws treat what we call past and future on a completely equal footing."
It seems that our current understanding of the laws of physics indicate that theoretically it should be possible to exist by either going forward or back in time. This alone would allow for an infinite existence. We also know that some scientific theories such as string theory suggest that there might be even more, and maybe even 26 spacetime dimensions. In our existence that has 3 spatial dimensions we can move infinitely around our globe. I am not claiming this as anything but highly speculative but it seems to me that If our intelligent creator experienced existence in a world with 3 dimensions of time, then he/she/it would be able to move around infinitely in time just as we can travel infinitely around our globe.
It seems to me that this gives one possible explanation that allows for a creator that has always existed, and will always exist, negating the need for a creator of the creator.

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 414 by bluegenes, posted 04-19-2013 4:44 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by bluegenes, posted 04-20-2013 2:04 AM GDR has replied
 Message 423 by Percy, posted 04-20-2013 7:20 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 418 of 506 (696965)
04-19-2013 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by Straggler
04-19-2013 7:18 PM


Re: Predictions
Straggler writes:
Saying that the cause of intelligence is an existing intelligence doesn't make sense does it? If intelligence already exists then it is not and cannot be the cause of intelligence.
We can't talk about an intelligence that already exists in our own time line as it has been repeatedly pointed out the idea of time prior to T=0 is meaningless. However if we are an emergent property of an eternal intelligence than it is fits.
See my reply to bluegenes.
Straggler writes:
So the question becomes thus - Do complex things like intelligence evolve from simple beginnings or do they just come/exist from nothing prior?
All the evidence suggests the former.......
If you believe the former then you are saying that the evolution from having nothing but fundamental particles to intelligent life is simple. That certainly exceeds what my feeble brain would call simple.

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 415 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 7:18 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by Straggler, posted 04-20-2013 4:25 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 420 of 506 (696990)
04-20-2013 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by bluegenes
04-20-2013 2:04 AM


Re: Predictions
bluegenes writes:
It will keep coming up, because your reply doesn't answer my point. You expressed incredulity at all kinds of things, from atoms to intelligent biological beings, coming into existence without being intelligently designed, but you find it credible that a god capable of designing all these things doesn't require intelligent design.
That last takes away any reason for your initial incredulity.
Your thinking is linear. The explanation I gave gives a theory that is consistent with current scientific theory, or probably more accurately scientific speculation, of the rationale for an eternal being.
I've also quoted this before but the headline in a 2010 Scientific American was "Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter - An Entire Universe May be Silently Interwoven With Our Own". If God is eternal then He always was and always will be, with no design required. Just because we only experience change in one direction doesn't mean that God's dimension is restricted in the same way.
We all have incredulity in our beliefs. Sure I find it incredulous that all that we perceive could naturally come from mindless particles. You express incredulity at the thought of an intelligent first cause.

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 419 by bluegenes, posted 04-20-2013 2:04 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2013 3:37 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 422 by bluegenes, posted 04-20-2013 3:40 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 428 of 506 (697035)
04-20-2013 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by Percy
04-20-2013 7:20 AM


Re: Predictions
I hope everyone else doesn't mind but everyone has roughly the same criticisms so I'll just reply to Percy's post.
Percy writes:
Greene raises this point so he can later explain why it *isn't* possible to go either direction in time. If you continue reading past page 145 and on through the section on entropy that begins on page 151 you'll understand why time can't flow in either direction. Sure, some equations like f=ma work equally well in either time direction, but the universe obeys *all* its laws (including entropy), not just some of them.
I'm certainly not in a position to argue the details of science with you or anyone else around here for that matter, but that wasn't the point that I was trying to make. Yes, we live in an entropic world and that is the reason that we experience time or change the way we do.
Mathematically, as I understand Greene, time should be able to flow in either direction which of course for us it doesn't, and Greene does give the reason for that. I'm only suggesting that the mathematics point to the possibility of a non-entropic existence.
Here is a quote from the website of Julian Barbour
quote:
Closely related to this work is my study of time. Mach remarked It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive through the changes of things. Thus, time as such does not exist but only change. Much of my research has been devoted to the implications of this insight. I have shown how, alongside the relativity of motion, the notion of time as change can be built into the foundations of dynamics. In fact, this idea is contained in a hidden form within general relativity. Its potential consequences for the yet to be found quantum mechanics of the universe are profound. The quantum universe is likely to be static. Motion and the apparent passage of time may be nothing but very well founded illusions. This is the thesis of The End of Time (books), which is aimed both at the general reader and physicists.
I only quote this as from what I read "time", or the way we experience change, is one of the biggest puzzles physicists face.
Many scientific theories such as "string theory" suggest that there additional time dimensions. Also as I pointed out with that headline from Scientific American we may be interwoven with other dimensions or universes.
The point of all this is that the idea that eternal or non-entropic existence in another dimension or universe isn't inconceivable scientifically. Therefore the concept of an eternal god who doesn't need an intelligent designer is conceivable scientifically.
Of course it doesn't prove anything but it does give the start of a possible answer to the question of who created the creator.

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 423 by Percy, posted 04-20-2013 7:20 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2013 5:29 PM GDR has replied
 Message 433 by Straggler, posted 04-20-2013 5:37 PM GDR has replied
 Message 434 by Percy, posted 04-20-2013 5:44 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 435 of 506 (697044)
04-20-2013 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by PaulK
04-20-2013 5:29 PM


Re: Predictions
PaulK writes:
What you're missing is that you aren't offering ANY explanation of how this incredibly complex entity could exist. All you're doing is hand waving.
It's pretty clear that you know that your position is rationally indefensible, that's why you don't even attempt to really address the issue.
Assuming that God exists would you really expect that anyone could answer that question? I can't and I'm not trying to. The only point that I was making was to attempt to show that the question of who created the creator involves a question of time. Our minds only work in terms of past present and future and therefore for anything to be created its creator would have to exist before its creation.
As I said we have a poor understanding of time. We experience it in one dimension. If we only had one spatial dimension we would have no understanding of what it would mean to live in a three dimensional universe. I'm suggesting that science tells us that other dimensions of time are possible but from our single dimensional view point we have no concept of what they would look like.
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.

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 432 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2013 5:29 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2013 2:18 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


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 replied

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

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


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 seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


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 replied

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

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


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 replied

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

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 458 of 506 (697188)
04-22-2013 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by PaulK
04-22-2013 1:36 AM


Re: Predictions
PaulK writes:
Personally I'd say that you were trying to CREATE a gap to fill. Your whole argument assumes that existing explanations - even for the existence of atoms!!! - are so inadequate that simply assuming this entity is MORE plausible.
The explanation of why everything from atoms to intelligence exists is unknown. I'm simply saying that IMHO the belief that the root cause was intelligent is more plausible than not.

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 451 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2013 1:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2013 1:11 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 483 by Taq, posted 04-24-2013 1:03 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 462 of 506 (697217)
04-22-2013 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by Straggler
04-22-2013 9:12 AM


Re: ScienceFictionology
Straggler writes:
So we have an alternate universe with similar but different physical laws to our own universe. Laws which allow eternal existence by virtue of there being no T=0. And residing in that universe we have uncreated intelligent being(s). Beings which are constrained by the physical laws of that universe in a similar fashion to the way we are constrained by the physical laws of our own universe (otherwise why would it matter whether that universe allows eternal existence or not?) It is this/these intelligent being(s) that are responsible for creating our universe. Presumably by utilising the physical laws of their own universe.........
Is this all correct?
I suppose but frankly that is more detailed than what I’m suggesting. Let me try it another way. Here is the on line definition of universe.
quote:
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
Now for instance does this include dark matter and dark energy? Is there more to our universe that we don’t perceive with our 5 senses? So I’ve not sure what terminology to use. I’ve used the term universe in the same way that Scientific American did but maybe that isn’t the term that should be used. If there is more to our universe than what we perceive with our 5 senses then maybe I should be suggesting an expanded idea of our own universe, when I suggest that our universe, as we think of it, is an emergent property of a greater reality without knowing what term to use for the greater reality itself.
Frankly I’m just looking at possible ways to marry science and theology which is the topic of this thread. From a theoretical science POV we have this.
1/ As SA says, An Entire Universe May be Silently Interwoven With Our Own.
2/ There is much scientific speculation about additional universes and dimensions including other possible time dimensions.
3/ Time is a variable dependent on speed/gravity.
4/ QM tells us that particles don’t take on the form that we perceive until we perceive them and then creates the history to make that happen
5/Science tells us that what we perceive is only about 4.5% of our universe.
From a Christian POV
1/ God is eternal
2/ God interacts with us which in some sense makes Him co-located
All I’m doing is trying to speculate as to how these things might all fit together assuming that the Christian POV is accurate.
Straggler writes:
Whenever something is proclaimed to be so mysterious that god should be inserted into it - It is very arguably a god of the gaps argument.
I don’t think so. If my Christian beliefs are accurate, then there has to be a consistency with good science. I’m not rejecting any current science and I’m speculating as to how science might have an impact on theology, which as I say is the question that seems to be being asked in the OP.
Straggler writes:
A being residing in another physical universe where the physical laws allow for both eternal existence and the ability to create new universes (like ours) which are programmed for intelligence to evolve - Sounds more like advanced alien beings than any notion of an omnipotent god doesn't it?
I think when we talk about alien beings we are talking about life in our universe that is directly perceivable to us. All I’m saying is that as science suggests that there might be other universes or dimensions that aren’t perceivable to us and may have a different set of laws, (physical or not), than we do. That makes it consistent with Christian thought, which is not to say that it proves anything. It is at this point speculation. Maybe someday it will be less so.
Edited by GDR, : Submitted by mistake prior to previewing

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 453 by Straggler, posted 04-22-2013 9:12 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by Straggler, posted 04-22-2013 3:17 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024