Unless God went on a roadtrip and seeded life on planets whenever he stopped to pee.
A Scientific Parallel To Religious Questions
- Thread starter Dryson
- Start date
- Status
Too bad that the universe is so big, even IF we assume that life on all planets are somehow divinely connected, we currently don't have any means to traverse the distance!
For the sake of argument, we don't even have any theories that might allow us any forms of propulsion to traverse such distances!
I don't think that Alcubierre warp drive or any related theories could theoretically allow such distant travel, at least not in any meaningful time frame.
I don't know, maybe with enough energy, you could warp space that fast and far, but I'm no quantum physicist.
I suppose that maybe, artificial wormholes might allow travel so far out, but we don't even currently have an inkling on how to form wormholes, and we're talking about travel between galaxies, even galactic clusters!
And you're assuming that the evolution of life on all planets is somehow related, as opposed to evolving independently, and that we'd somehow be able to find clues telling us about the creator of the universe.
But what makes you even think that'd we even have an idea what to look for, let alone interpret it into something meaningful?
Sorry, but there is no way to currently prove or debunk your hypothesis.
That's actually already demonstrated to be false, because there was no life found on comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
You are probably correct. But if an alien species is monitoring Earth from afar they would have already have plotted the planets and other celestials in orbit around the sun.
Even a large ship filled with nothing traveling from Earth to beyond Pluto would be more than enough to attract their attention.
3."Where was the Creator created?"
Using data collection equipment we could venture to say that the Creator would be located somewhere in Quantum Space - time or the Space-time that resides either below or above or in between normal Space - time.
Trying to locate where the Creator was created at will thus give us more data and understanding of how the Universe functions on different levels or planes or dimensions.
Using data collection equipment we could venture to say that the Creator would be located somewhere in Quantum Space - time or the Space-time that resides either below or above or in between normal Space - time.
Trying to locate where the Creator was created at will thus give us more data and understanding of how the Universe functions on different levels or planes or dimensions.
Um, but what does god need with an intergalactic Port-o-Potty.
Or a Divine Appendage, for that matter?
...unless, you mean, he...he just - uh, untethers?
This whole thing is balderdash made of haphazardly strung together terms with no real meaning worth considering. All you have here is technobable tripe worthy of a Star Trek episode, and a bad one at that.
We are God pee.
As a practising Jew, I'd say that none of these are relevant questions. Jewish philosophers, the prime example being Maimonides, hold that the nature of God is above and beyond human comprehension, and that all attempts to describe God by humans are inadequate and insufficient with anthropomorphism assigned to God merely being a literary crutch to try and explain the ineffable. "Who created the Creator?" is nonsense as we are discussing a concept that human beings can never succeed in fully comprehending.
Which is a great thing to bear in mind when discussing God on the internet.
As a practising scientist, religion has no bearing on how I work or in the empirical understanding of the world around me. God, and whether there is a God, is irrelevant.
See Dryson, here you go again. Using terms which IFAIK have no existence.
You're off assuming again, with nothing to back things up, and you're getting ridiculed for it, again.
We could venture to say that the Creator could be located in some higher dimension, but that is just idle speculation on your part, with currently no way to prove or disprove your supposition.
I'm only continuing to bring this up, because I'd hate for { Google Spy } to lock down yet another one of your threads.
I'd advise that when you make idle speculation, that you admit it for what it is, because the way that your currently wording things, it seems that you actually believe that this is how the universe would work out, which everyone here has every right to be skeptical about.
There is a fine line between speculation and scientific hypothesis.
Right. After all, exactly what "data collection equipment" could we possibly be talking about? That sounds as vague as Mr. Spock's "sensors", whatever those are.
I'm not flinging accusations here, as this is provable by looking at the posting history, but-- Dryson isn't interested in discussion. When challenged, he either dismisses the poster as closed-minded, dismisses the post, or (more often) just ignores it.
I can't think of one time he has actually accepted a correction and amended his subsequent arguments accordingly. He just moves on to the next wild speculation.
That's not what this forum is for.
I'm not flinging accusations here, as this is provable by looking at the posting history, but-- Dryson isn't interested in discussion. When challenged, he either dismisses the poster as closed-minded, dismisses the post, or (more often) just ignores it.
I can't think of one time he has actually accepted a correction and amended his subsequent arguments accordingly. He just moves on to the next wild speculation.
That's not what this forum is for.
It's interesting to me as a former Christian how the religion tries to clean the aforementioned up using circular reasoning. They do attempt to anthropomorphize, "God," by making God also Jesus - one in the same.
The more I thought about it as an adult the concept of, "The Trinity," that God is man, spirit, and some abstract being all in one made little or no sense at all.
I have to wonder if early Christians actually believed that or rather in order to preserve the power of the church, and to make Jesus a deity, they changed the story to fit the politics of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries.
As a more mature adult I've come to look at Jesus as more likely to be a very, "rabble-rousing," Jew of his day. Ironically, if Jesus were alive today and retained the values he exposed 2000 years ago, he'd be at best a moderate Jew and by some measure an Orthodox Jew - especially related to his written views on divorce.
More on topic: I don't think science will ever answer any questions about God and his/its existence. Belief is a matter of faith To state it more simply how can we scientifically prove the concept of love? Both at the end of the day are a matter of faith not science.
We can measure people electrochemical reactions to faith - either the believe in a diety or in loving someone but either tenants are inherently unprovable.
As far as I'm aware, Jesus literally being God made flesh was basically a retcon by early Christian leaders and not something Jesus himself ever claimed. There's little doubt he considered himself the promised messiah, but plenty of doubt he ever claimed to actually be God.
There's an interesting book, 'The Closing of the Western Mind' by Charles Freeman on the early church and the development of Christianity. There had been a diverse number of interpretations of Jesus and God, there were a large number who didn't think of Jesus as God, and the Trinity was also not part of all the variations. Those things became the primary version under Constantine and later emperors as a means of social control and power for the emperors. When the Roman Empire fell in the West, the Church took up a lot of that authority which had been wielded by the emperors. It's an interesting read if you like that sort of thing.
1."Why was the Creator created?"
To try and explain the processes of the natural world that were not understood at the time.
2."How was the Creator created?"
Through myth creation, used to answer Q1
3."Where was the Creator created?"
In any large gathering of humanity that led to tribe/community/socirty/civilisation.
4."When was the Creator created?"
Since homo reached sapiency.
5."With what was the Creator created with or from?"
Mythology built from observable natural occurrences, which sometimes appreared to be alyterd by prayer, when the asnere was more often coincidence.
6."Who created the Creator?"
We did.
To try and explain the processes of the natural world that were not understood at the time.
2."How was the Creator created?"
Through myth creation, used to answer Q1
3."Where was the Creator created?"
In any large gathering of humanity that led to tribe/community/socirty/civilisation.
4."When was the Creator created?"
Since homo reached sapiency.
5."With what was the Creator created with or from?"
Mythology built from observable natural occurrences, which sometimes appreared to be alyterd by prayer, when the asnere was more often coincidence.
6."Who created the Creator?"
We did.
The passages in Scripture that support the concept that Jesus was not God, was not equal to God, and was willingly and wholeheartedly subordinate to God are clear, indisputable, and fit the context in which they are recorded. The passages in Scripture that supporters of the Trinity use to prove that Jesus was part of some "unknowable" triune Godhead have to be sliced out of context, folded and refolded, mixed, and then slid in place as a "support" of a preconceived notion.
One of my favorites - "Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot move it?"
That one has messed with both philosopher and theologist heads alike for centuries.
That one has messed with both philosopher and theologist heads alike for centuries.
- Status
