If aliens were creationists...
- Thread starter skep155
- Start date
The ultimate answer is 42, it's the question we need to find.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Anyway, I don't think that science has quite gotten to the point to completely discredit the existence of a higher power. For one it seems a bit difficult to argue that something doesn't exist. Which is an argument the religious types have been using for years.
Now, not being able to prove it doesn't exsist doesn't mean mean that it does exist. But think back a couple hundered years, or even further, and the scientists would have laughed at you about the idea of electrons, protons, quarks, etc. Those things were unknown to use until we developed a way to see them. Even now we are developing ways to see and study the quantum level of things. Something that one of my friends, who was catholic but at the same time very interested in science, referred to as "Gods Layer." Maybe not the best analogy, but considering what I've read on the subject and interpreted while having no official education, it seems it could apply.
I've always wondered what the world would be like if Religion and Science worked together, instead of fighting like they do. Both are trying to understand the universe, just from different points of view.
Anyway, rambling done. Hopefully I made at least a couple people go "Hmm."
Wow! That sounds great. I'm all for the working together. Now if you could convince the other side to stop trying to force my child to pray to their god in school, to stop denying basic human rights to certain people because of an adherence to a ancient nomadic middle-eastern tribal code, and most of all, stop trying to prevent the fundamental basics of modern biology from being taught in public schools, I, as a scientific-minded person, will get right on that working together thing.
It kind of goes both ways. I agree with you, but you have one side saying there is absolutely no way Evolution is real, and the other side saying there is absolutely no way God is real. My opinion, evolution is real and IF there is a god then he's probably perfectly able of influencing it. Thats more for the philosophy class though I suppose.
Now, don't get me wrong, forcing someone to pray is wrong, forcing them to do anything really is kind of wrong (although I'd be willing to bet they feel the same about teaching their kids the big bang theory), human rights good, but those are more social then scientific. And even from a scientific stand point, scientists used to be ok with human testing that to today's standards amounted to little more then torture.
Both sides have positives, both sides have negatives.
How do you know that?
If there is a science that forces people to deny god, that is wrong. If scientists try to force people to deny god, that too is wrong. I do not see many of them doing this. I see several denying that they believe in god and also advocating god should not be taught in school.
This is reasonable. The scientific things you mention are things that can and should be taught because they are based on observation. Regarding the big bang, we can actually see back in time about 13 billion years when pointing the Hubble out there. We get to witness these things as they unfolded like we have a video of it. The new large scopes about to come online are supposed to be able to see even further back to within a few 100 million years of the beginning, just as the first light appears when the first starts started 'turning on.' And these direct observations are in addition the smoking gun - cosmic microwave background radiation. Various Christian faith's really should go the way of the Catholics at least in this regard and simply point to the big bang as the first moment of creation. To continue denying such an established reality really does not help their credibility.
The only justification for not teaching people about this is that they would feel more comfortable remaining ignorant.
When it comes to god and creation, which ones do we teach about? All of them? I am not sure there is enough time in all the years of K-12 education for this. Do we narrow it down to a few? What do we teach? There are no facts to learn about, as it is a matter of faith. Do we want schools teaching faith to our children? Do we also want the schools to be responsible for their moral code? As a parent, I feel that is my domain. The school is there to teach my kids about the rest. If some people are threatened by losing their ignorance, perhaps home school is the best place for them so they do not hold back the rest who could actually benefit from learning.
Everything that we know of relies on some form of dimensional space; thus logic suggests that the same rule must apply to everything in existance. If we can't measure something, by all present definitions, it does not exist.
If the Universe does not occupy infinite space, then an unanswerable question is raised. It is the same as saying that - using the same rules of measurement in both places - there are twelve inches to a foot at my house... but at yours, there are none.
Perhaps it is presumptuous for me to suggest that I "know" anything about the entirely unexplored; but nevertheless, we are talking about the existence of universal dimension. I kind of have our measured existences as collateral.
That said, there isn't any proof to suggest that we are not all playing out a computer simulation stored in a little box on someone's desk, of course; but even that has dimensions, and if such is the case, then it is only natural to wonder what lies beyond the big desk upon which we are existing.
This is like trying to explain TRON and back it up with science. I will stop now.
My question to you: If nothing is nothing, can nothing exist?
I am not following your argument as to why the conclusion is that he universe must occupy infinite space. How do you equate the claim that the universe is finite to there being no standard units of measurement? I am not trying to be critical, I just want to understand the point you are making.
I do agree it would be a complicated matter, and that would be likely considered one of the great understatements of the decade. And please believe me, I'm not saying that we should start teaching religion. As you said, for one there is just simply to many of them. But that doesn't mean at least some touch of the subject could be beneficial.
One example I could give would be my high school though. We had a philosophy class there, which did go into different people's beliefs. Barely skimmed the surface to be sure, and I suppose one could say there were no "facts" involved in the curriculum, but I think its important in understand different people's view points.
This may get me chased out, but one might consider that while it is Faith, religion several centuries ago was the "Science" of the time. They made observations with the limited knowledge they had, and made the best guess they could at how the world worked. What they forgot to do was update their view as more things were leaned.
Perhaps we are relying on differing definitions of what the universe is. I define it as the sum of all existance; if, however, you view it as an object which we are included in, much as you would a galaxy, then quite naturally units of measurements should not be questioned.
If existance comes to an end, however, (at least in my mind) there must be some logical way of interfacing our understanding of existance with our understanding of nonexistance.
As an example, assuming that the world is flat - as once was believed - creates a logical problem; how does a 2-D Earth fit into a 3-D universe? Similarly, while attempting to think about this openly, how can a 3-D universe fit into/mesh with a 0-D void of time or space?
If the Universe is not infinite, what would happen if a Starship flew into the boundry? This is the same question asked once about sailing ships.
I don't think there is a "Barrier" so to speak. What exists beyond that farthest star is just more and more vacuum. Granted, I could be wrong, and we'll likely never find out unless we get there.
On a semi-related tangent, The Atlantic had an article six years ago that explored how Earth's major religions would handle extraterrestrial life.
Most (not all) christians do not believe the world was created in the year 4004 BC, That hypothesis comes from James Ussher (1581-1656) Archbishop of Ireland. Personally I hold that his methodology was flawed.
Yes, and the secular west only goes back approximately forty or fifty years, before which it was the religious west or christian west. The Japanese are another example of a (non christian) spiritual technological society. The increasingly advanced India another. The majority of the basic scientific discoveries that form the base of our knowledge, were made by scientists who were men of faith.
I alway think of the possibility of there being multiple points of creation in the universe, seperated by billions of light years. Expanding spheres of galaxies just out of sight of each other.
T'Girl
Last edited:
Rii
Rear Admiral
Almost everyone is familiar with Descartes' "I think, therefore I am", but few people are aware of its context, namely that it was the first premise in an argument establishing observation as a valid basis for the conduct of science, with one of the later premises being "God exists, and is no deceiver".
As PurpleBuddha said, Scientists aren't out to disprove anyone's god. In fact, most of them probably wouldn't mind an elective on the history of various religions. I also think science teachers need to teach about the ethics of science and the social responsibility of scientists. Where we do have a problem is when religion starts to barge into the science classroom. Science, from photosynthesis to the big bang and including evolution, is based not on old stories and faith, but on observation and examination.
I have yet to see widespread instances of scientists barging into Sunday school and demanding that the story of Noah be changed to fit modern geology. I do see Christians in Texas and other places doing their best to strip evolution from science classrooms.
Actually, I have wondered about many of those questions.
But to the final point, the universe could be finite without having an obvious barrier. Or at a least a barrier you could get to by merely moving forward. It is likely not something you can fly into, which I see you were hinting at with the sailing ships point. On earth you cannot cross the edge merely by moving forward. You have to think in terms of lifting off the surface. If there is a barrier to this possibly finite universe, perhaps in terms of some multiverse theory, simply traveling through space is probably not enough to find it, even if we could exceed the speed of light and travel for as long as we like. That would not necessarily make this universe any more infinite than the earth.
The barrier for leaving earth is gravity, who knows what the barrier for leaving the universe may be.
Edit: For this discussion I view the universe as something contained within space time. And more specifically, if there is a multiverse, the term universe is meant to refer to the universe contained by the space time in which we live. Our local universe.
Usually I think of the term 'existence' to refer to all that is, known and unknown. I am not saying this is the best way to look at things. I am just adding this edit as an attempt to make the words I use a bit more clear.
Last edited:
I know I wouldn't mind religion being offered to those who choose a class as an elective. I took two of them myself in college (the Philosophy of Good and Evil was a particularly interesting class). I would, however, not expect to see religion pop up as an alternative in calculus as a solution to a formula. Likewise, it would be just as unhelpful in biology or physics and just as out of place.
I hope you are not trying to make a statement of value. Since being outspokenly atheist was almost a death warrant in most places, I'm quite skeptical of professions of faith made under duress. Scientists come in all flavours, religious and atheists. However, very few of them (read, almost none) are creationist.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
The Big bang theory - space/time/matter/energy started to expand ~13.7 billion years ago from an infinitely small point and are still expanding today.
This means that space/time are not infinite.
What's beyond them?
Science makes no statement about that because there are no facts about this "beyond". And science is based on facts.
If a person reaches with a starship the edge of space/time, I guess this person will be in the unique position to gather data about what lies beyond them - of course, in the absence of space/time, I don't see how one can actually fly with the starship beyond our universe.
About the absence of time - there are several analogies:
Photons don't age; time stands still for them - one could say that time doesn't exist for them. Also, photons, apparently, only have two spatial dimensions.
In the center of a blach hole - in the singularity, time stands still also, it doesn't flow. You could say that time becomes a frozen eternity - a fitting analogy for absence of time.
Similar threads
