If aliens were creationists...

[Joshua Howard]

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.
[...]

Fascinating, of course; but do we have any reason to believe that space/time and matter/energy share the same root origin?

My philosophy up to this point has been that the big bang theory would suggest the expansion/evolution of matter and energy within an already constant space/time continuum, which continued into infinity prior to that point, and will continue into the infinite future.

If your proposition is correct, then it seems that we should be embracing the possibility that the "spark" so to speak, which initiated the beginning of our universe, actually was created or set into motion by an entity or object which exists in a dimension wherein time and space do not exist.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

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.
[...]

Fascinating, of course; but do we have any reason to believe that space/time and matter/energy share the same root origin?

My philosophy up to this point has been that the big bang theory would suggest the expansion/evolution of matter and energy within an already constant space/time continuum, which continued into infinity prior to that point, and will continue into the infinite future.

If your proposition is correct, then it seems that we should be embracing the possibility that the "spark" so to speak, which initiated the beginning of our universe, actually was created or set into motion by an entity or object which exists in a dimension wherein time and space do not exist.

As I mentioned - according to the Big Bang theory, space and time appeared ~13.7 billion years ago and have been expanding ever since - this is a fundamental element of the theory (needed for the Big Bang theory to make sense - the devil is in the details, as the word goes), not something one can just throw away.
Space and time were/are not a preexisting stage in which matter/energy expand.

And about the "entity or object which exists in a dimension wherein time and space do not exist" and who created our universe - who/what created this creator; and who created the creator's creator; and so forth.
In the end, there are only two possibilities: either the universe (or its precursors) always existed (the chain is infinite, so to speak) or the universe just appeared at the moment of the big bang (if the chain is finite, why not save X steps and start with the big bang; it makes sense to go beyond it only when one has a theory that better explains how the pre-big bang universe appeared out of nothingness).

 

[PurpleBuddha]

to a flatlander any simple 3-d object in our universe if infinite to them.

Incomprehensible (or difficult to comprehend) does not equal infinite.

You might say that a three dimensional cube is made up of an infinite number of two dimensional squares stacked on top of each other, making it impossible for the flatlander to quantify how tall the square is (which actually fails because an infinite number of squares with no height still have no height when stacked upon each other). However, if you turn the flatlander's two dimensional plane on its side (ninety degrees) they can measure precisely how tall the cube is. Through this method, a simple mathematics could be devised by a flatlander to take measure of three dimensional objects. Of course, he would probably win the noble prize for flatlanders for having discovered an extra dimension.

 

[Joshua Howard]

^ I believe that there are still, even in the 21st century, a few people who reject the idea of earth as a sphere. They explain the apparent inconsistencies in their beliefs as being created by a mixture of illusion and conspiracy.

 

[Tom Riley]

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.

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".

Yeah, I learned about his whole argument in my Basic Problems Of Philosophy class last year... I don't think his argument flows well or makes sense. A lot of the conclusions he pulled up weren't supported by his premises at all...

 

[Urge]

If aliens came here, and where creationists, it would be natural to assume that they where not so much into biology, and much more intrested in physics and the more mechanical parts of science. Perhaps biology is not at all invented as a science among their folks? If they believed that the universe was only some thousand years old, it could either mean that their years are very, very long, or it could mean that they didnt look much at the movement of stars, and the developement of the universe and such. Perhaps a missing ability to think straight foreward and backwards about time on larger scales? (aliens might have som mental gaps, in some places, disabilities to think straight on some areas, while they might be more clever then us on others, perhaps they are all like rainman forexample) It could also be that the aliens landing at the whitehouse are not entirely representative for the the whole species. There could be different factions, nations or such at their homeworld, and that some of the religious folks came to us.

Annyway, if I was the president, talking with the aliens, I would go away from the subject, as they might become angry at our perspectives. If we ended up in a quarrel annyway, we might have something to teach them about biology, while they could teach us physics and travel-technology. For the alien-communicating president it might be a good idea to not claim to have the whole truth, or speak for everyone.

Chances are, we would use a very long time to learn how to communicate at a higher level annyway. So at the beginning, communictation will be mostly giving each other gifts and such.

 

[StarryEyed]

This scenario gives us three possibilities as far as I can see:

1. The aliens want to deceive us,

2. The aliens are aware of our divisions and wish to use this to cause us to rise against each other,

3. Virtually everything we think we know is wrong. This is the one possibility we can test. We allow the aliens to scientifically demonstrate that our science is flawed. If they can do this, we have to admit our error. If they cannot, it's possibility #1 or #2.

This is simplistic of course. Even in the case that the aliens convincingly demonstrate that our science is wrong, there will be doubts. If they are capable of traversing interstellar distances, they know far more than we do. Still, that may give them the ability to snow us regarding scientific reality.

Similarly, if the aliens affirm naturalistic origins, the faithful can always assume the aliens are minions of Satan (or what ever evil figure suits the individual's religion).

Aliens would heavily skew religious beliefs but it would take a long time before it would be universally adopted. Evolution rather than revolution.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

(I'm assuming the aliens present no credible evidence to overturn what we know about science.)

Personally, I would mention to the aliens that accepting a longer timeline need not invalidate any belief in deity, especially if their holy texts were written as long ago in their history as ours were. I would let them see that there are many on Earth who have had no trouble reconciling the two facets of truth--the scientific and the religious--without causing a contradiction between the two. Unlike someone contended upthread (I forget who), I don't think it's fair to say that MOST Christians worldwide believe that the world was created only a few thousand years ago. If that number was half worldwide (not just a US survey--remember, we aren't the only nation with a large Christian population), I would be surprised.

There are a number of such scientists that I would love to introduce them to, such as the head of the Human Genome Project (not sure if he's STILL working there anymore), Francis S. Collins. And I know there are many more who do in fact accept science without feeling they have to bend it around or else they're somehow threatening their belief. I would be that sort of scientist myself, were I more scientifically inclined. By meeting these faithful scientists, I think we could provide them a positive example of how this false dichotomy could be totally eliminated. Truth is truth, both found in the world, and found in the spirit.

But what I think a lot of people are missing is this. If you had aliens come to you with the exact SAME timeframe in mind for the creation that you find in literalist interpretations of the Christian Bible, wouldn't you want to ask them why that was? Wouldn't you want to see their holy texts and learn about their beliefs and try to figure out WHY there was such an unbelievably unlikely coincidence between their religion and a major Earth faith? I know that's the question I'd be asking, because the implications of such a coincidence could be major. There would be no PROOF, of course, but it would sure as heck be real food for thought on theological grounds.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

This scenario gives us three possibilities as far as I can see:

1. The aliens want to deceive us,

2. The aliens are aware of our divisions and wish to use this to cause us to rise against each other,

3. Virtually everything we think we know is wrong. This is the one possibility we can test. We allow the aliens to scientifically demonstrate that our science is flawed. If they can do this, we have to admit our error. If they cannot, it's possibility #1 or #2.

This is simplistic of course. Even in the case that the aliens convincingly demonstrate that our science is wrong, there will be doubts. If they are capable of traversing interstellar distances, they know far more than we do. Still, that may give them the ability to snow us regarding scientific reality.

Similarly, if the aliens affirm naturalistic origins, the faithful can always assume the aliens are minions of Satan (or what ever evil figure suits the individual's religion).

Aliens would heavily skew religious beliefs but it would take a long time before it would be universally adopted. Evolution rather than revolution.

I think the last thing you mentioned brings up something as interesting as the OP.

What if, as a more probable scenario, the aliens came and basically confirmed many of our scientific theories. Sure, we are probably off on a lot of the details, but when it comes to the age of the earth, that evolution occurs, etc...

How would the religious right in the U.S., for example, respond to this?

 

[Gepard]

[
What if, as a more probable scenario, the aliens came and basically confirmed many of our scientific theories. Sure, we are probably off on a lot of the details, but when it comes to the age of the earth, that evolution occurs, etc...

How would the religious right in the U.S., for example, respond to this?

They'd say they're demons, send by Satan to trick us. Or something along those lines. I'm sure a "test of faith" would enter into it somewhere.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

The extreme right probably would. But not all Christians, to include conservatives, would react that way. For my own part, their confirmation of our scientific theories would be a total non-event, because I already accepted them anyway. I can't even think of a single thing that science could discover--that is, science in its proper place and not being misused as an alternative to philosophy or theology as some are wont to do--that could possibly bother my faith. Aliens? Why not? Parallel universes? Why not? Why should there not be even more to Creation than I have ever imagined?

No doubt there would be a terrible upheaval, but I think under such circumstances I would feel compelled to speak out even more than I do, to try and make such senseless fighting STOP.

 

[T'Girl]

What if, as a more probable scenario, the aliens came and basically confirmed many of our scientific theories. Sure, we are probably off on a lot of the details, but when it comes to the age of the earth, that evolution occurs, etc...

So instead of being creationists, the aliens believed in intelligent design? The universe was created many billions of years ago, and that all life from early simple chemicals to modern life was created through a slow process of deliberately considered choices? They could still be spiritual beings who believed in more than themselves.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

^Why not? How do think young earthers would respond to that? What you described might be an even bigger threat to them.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

^Why not? How do think young earthers would respond to that? What you described might be an even bigger threat to them.

Interesting to hear you say it that way. I have been in the position of taking some VERY abusive words from fundamentalists who definitely seemed threatened by my beliefs when I made the mistake of thinking it was OK to speak openly in that particular Sunday school class. (Now, in other classes I believe I COULD speak--it was this particular venue.)

I think it might be because of the observation that in the account of the Fall, Eve was deceived by a twisting of the Scripture (and the same attempt was made--though it failed--in the three temptations of Jesus in the desert wilderness). To some, a position like mine is perceived as "twisting" and an attempt to deceive. I do not believe it to be so, of course--but some react even more violently to that, than to an outright denial of belief.

As you can imagine, this puts me in a VERY uncomfortable position: fundamentalist believers oppose me just as vehemently as atheists. This middle ground is a very thin isthmus indeed! That said, I feel very strongly about it and will not be swayed because I believe that there is SENSE in it.

 

[StarryEyed]

If there was a God who created the universe, would it really look any different?

Think of the way we build houses. First, we fabricate all the individual components - load-bearing members, wall panels, fasteners, etc. Then we assemble all these into the structure. If we could, wouldn't it be better to just assemble the structure out of atoms like a replicator? I think God would create the universe that way. We would see it as apparent randomness. God's knowledge and control of probabilities wouldn't be noticeable to us but it would be behind every quantum event in the universe. God still creates everything - no randomness involved. Free-will is somewhat of a problem but it's a problem in the literal Genesis view too.

Creationists could save themselves a lot of grief by modifying their beliefs to fit the facts of a 13+ billion year-old universe and evolution. They wouldn't have to give up all that much and they would save themselves from looking like reality-denying fools.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

[...] I can't even think of a single thing that science could discover--that is, science in its proper place and not being misused as an alternative to philosophy or theology as some are wont to do--that could possibly bother my faith.[...]

What about the ability to create life out of inanimate matter?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology

 

[T'Girl]

What about the ability to create life out of inanimate matter?

If a biologist or a geneticist creates life out of non-living material, then that happen through the efforts of a intelligent being, a confirmation that life doesn't come into existance all by itself. No?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

What about the ability to create life out of inanimate matter?

If a biologist or a geneticist creates life out of non-living material, then that happen through the efforts of a intelligent being, a confirmation that life doesn't come into existance all by itself. No?

Not quite.

Humans creating life out of non-living material will prove that "life" is only a series of complex bio-chemical reactions - NO supernatural "spark of life" required.

Humans successfully playing Dr. Frankenstein will do nothing to disprove the theory that life came into existance through the laws of physics and chemistry, "all by itself" - indeed, this feat will strongly support the theory:
Scientists created life in a laboratory/Life can be created in a laboratory?
Well, the Universe is the largest laboratory in existence!

 

[hyzmarca]

... E.g if for all intents and purposes they appeared highly advanced, yet they believed that the universe was created ten thousand years ago by a deity who took just a few days to make it?

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.

Another flaw in your reasoning, is that "right now the worlds most hyper-religious nations are poor and backward, whilst the scientifically enlightened secular west is powerful". That's simply not true, since the most powerful and technologically advanced nation is the US, that is also strongly religious, compared to the mostly secularized Europe.

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.

Secular Western society really goes back to The Enlightenment and the rise of Deism as a prominent religious philosophy, as it is as close as one can come to Atheism while still believing in a supreme god of some sort. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Deists and they intentionally designed the United States of America to be secular. The rise of fundamentalist Christianity is a 20th Century phenomenon.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

[...] I can't even think of a single thing that science could discover--that is, science in its proper place and not being misused as an alternative to philosophy or theology as some are wont to do--that could possibly bother my faith.[...]

What about the ability to create life out of inanimate matter?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology

I truly don't see how that's supposed to disprove my faith. There are some definite ethical and theological concerns, to my mind, about certain applications of such technology, but I don't see how the existence of it is supposed to disprove anything. That we can manipulate matter such that it becomes self-replicating and fits the definition is no surprise to me.

The matter that creates life is indeed bound by the laws of nature, so why should the discovery of techniques like these surprise me? The soul, our ability to know ourselves and to feel, is an entirely separate matter, one that science simply has no ability to prove or disprove. Personally I believe God WOULD provide such a being with a soul, if an entire sentient creature were created by this method, but I do not believe that it is our place to create intelligent beings with this technology, especially given that we seem to do a pretty poor job with standard procreation.