The possibility of a Grand Creator, responsible for the very shaping of matter, time and life.....ONE SENTIENT EN Y ALONE, defys science as I understand it.
Now on the other hand, polytheism has its allure....
No kidding. Reading aliens into the Bible is what we would call eisegesis
Cults and "alternative movements" do this all the time with the Bible, reading what they want to be in it, and not really taking into consideration the cultural and linguistic context of the writer.
Ezekiel, especially in the original Hebrew, is beautiful and haunting (and uplifting) enough -- it doesn't need aliens.
Well, yes. The god of monotheism by definition exists ESSENTIALLY outside of space and time. This is not to say that He cannot enter into creation and do what he will, but in his essence he is not a part of the universe (how can he be? he made it!) As such, he cannot be observed or "studied" or quantified scientifically. We can do this with creation (indeed, modern science developed due to the western theistic idea that creation is orderly and teleologically-driven, and can be studied), but not with God himself.
But what's the allure of polytheism? Modern examples being ... Mormonism, Hinduism, and of course classical Roman and Greek polytheism.
Semantics. We are discussing the possibility. Theoretically we can build a machine to rip the very fabric of space-time, all we need is a massive object spun to a speed near "c" and energy enough to start such a contraption.
X is possible with Y and Z. Y and Z are to be determined. ()
That would be on the order of something we've never come close to doing.
All of our cool technology, as great and mighty as it is, still operates in the same space-time as ancient man did, and as we do now. To rip the fabric of space-time (or just harness it so we can go somewhere --and go somewhere we'd actually want to go, like a planet full of beautiful women and no men) would be something no man has ever done before.
And how would we steer this contraption? I wouldn't want to end up on Pluto, except perhaps to take photos for a few minutes.
The difference between the belief (or possibilty in my case) of a species that exists in the same fabric of reality that I do, in comparison to the belief of a being (or beings) that exist in a different reality altogether than I is universe-sized, IMO.
It was a joke that you ruined by having to explain it now. If you were to tell me that many beings crafted space-time as we know it, I'd find that explanation much more plausible than one being.But what's the allure of polytheism? Modern examples being ... Mormonism, Hinduism, and of course classical Roman and Greek polytheism.
Hey DarkReign, you never responded to my post on Dark Matter.
Again, semantics. Blackholes do exist (which is what I meant by tearing a hole in space-time....not a wormhole...wormholes are theory only). We know how they start, we know the conditions that need to be met, etc.
So, in theory, we could reproduce nature in that sense. But the means to do it are unfathomable, thus making it only an excercise in "What if...".
But, it is possible but so close to zero looking at the list of need criteria (a starting mass millions (billions?) of times denser than our sun, spun to a speed near the speed of light, etc).
Very true, we do operate under the same laws as prehistoric dinosaurs.
But what we have now over then is perspective and knowledge. And some say perception is reality.
Knowledge in that we understand more advanced concepts of gravity, electromagnetism and the nuclear forces. Blackholes werent even proven until...what, less than 30 years ago? They had been speculated by Einstein, but were never observed empirically until the latter portion of the 20th century.
The inner mechanics were understood soon after Einstein (thank you, Mr Newton), but couldnt be proven until other advances were made in (of all things) telescopes and their ability to "see" in different spectrums of light and waves (micro, gama, etc).
Perception is reality.
Only when scientists pinpointed what they thought to be blackhole, then waited for a known bright star to pass behind it, did they prove their very existence. Now, its being suggested black holes arent uncommon, but quite the opposite. That galaxies are kept together because of a massive black hole at the center. All theory, I know, but the sheer amount of discovered black holes is suggesting their preponderance...and if they are so common, then they have a use or a function.
You know, I didnt know Mormons were polytheists.
No .
Scientists have no idea what the nature of 95% of the matter in the universe is. They have no idea how to reconcile gravity with the accelerating expansion of the universe. They have no idea how to reconcile contemporary understanding of energy with the accelerating expansion of the universe.
They are at a dead end, similar to the one physicists were at in the 1880's when blackbody radiation had them stumped.
Um, sorry.
Do remember, though, that belief in beings that exist outside of our reality (i.e., God) is not based primarily on the evidence. At least it ought not to be. This is not to say there is no evidence; on the contrary, I think the evidence for a god is rather convincing. But the evidence (in science, history, etc.) is not the basis on our belief.
Polytheism, I guess, is satisfactory to the extent that it gets God off the hook for bad things that happen in the world (the gods are not all-powerful -- there are many of them), and for seemingly contradictory forces at work in nature (i.e., the god of gravity working against the god of womens' breasts
No joke. They don't advertise that one on TV. But the doctrine of eternal progression (men become gods) is a fundamental one for them. This is polytheism (or perhaps monarcho-theism; we become gods, but there's one God; it's hard to nail them down).
I did, I think, a nice piece of work on their metaphysic last summer, if you're interested.
Ah yes, the all-inclusive "dark matter". The catchy term for scientists to explain the they dont know. The understanding that "something" is definintely acting equally and opposite to gravity between the spaces of known matter.
I realize the paradox of Big Bang. Are we ever expanding? Or are we expanding only to eventually collapse? How can we expand forever with such an immeasureable massive object(s) at the very center?They have no idea how to reconcile gravity with the accelerating expansion of the universe. They have no idea how to reconcile contemporary understanding of energy with the accelerating expansion of the universe.
If so, are we the first iteration? Moreover, is Big Bang completely and utterly flawed?
I completely understand.
Im not familiar with the reference. Im off to do some reading.They are at a dead end, similar to the one physicists were at in the 1880's when blackbody radiation had them stumped.
I like to mix philosophy with these sorts of arguments because its fitting. There were numerous dead-ends to our current dead-end. All a matter of perspective. For example, scientists are approaching the entire universal picture from a Big Bang perspective only because if Big Bang is true, then so many things are explained. Not all, just most, maybe even as little as some.
But if that very frame of reference we stand in is wrong, then our conclusions will reach an end under said reference (at some point). I am not saying we are at that point, just that that time will come (if it ever does).
I thought the Big Bang was pretty much established -- red shift observed, it seems to fit the models for how galaxies and stars are born. And, theologically speaking, it is satisfying, for there clearly was a beginning.
Wasn't there a theory that dark matter/dark energy could be used as a fuel source.
I thought I read that somewhere.
What would these space travellers eat?
If I were on a ship for 2000 years, I'd at least want some decent food.
Cryostasis.
They don't need to eat when they're inanimate.
It worked in Aliens.
Um, sorry.No need to apologize. I actually forgot to add an emoticon after the "ruined joke" sentence.
I think you just took two paragraphs to explain faith.Do remember, though, that belief in beings that exist outside of our reality (i.e., God) is not based primarily on the evidence. At least it ought not to be. This is not to say there is no evidence; on the contrary, I think the evidence for a god is rather convincing. But the evidence (in science, history, etc.) is not the basis on our belief.
Polytheism, I guess, is satisfactory to the extent that it gets God off the hook for bad things that happen in the world (the gods are not all-powerful -- there are many of them), and for seemingly contradictory forces at work in nature (i.e., the god of gravity working against the god of womens' breasts
Which is fine, but its not my way. Monotheistic or Polytheistic for that matter. Since this is automatically a belief topic, Ill sum my belief up.
All religion is wrong. Man made ins utions of control, which is the only thing humans crave via our objects of importance. Control over a chaotic existence, control over nature, control over animals and most importantly control over other humans.
I believe there is a "God" in the loosest sense of the term. But it is not as far away as heaven and you are no closer when in a church.
I completely agree, so its out there. But it is still the Big Bang Theory for a reason. That was my only point.
Dark matter or dark energy are very vague terms on purpose. Theyre catch-alls.
Nothing more. So when someone or something suggests harnessing such a force, they are referring to the potential energy IF such a material exists outside of very controlled lab experiments that leave unexplainable trace debris that exist for less than a femtosecond.
Its not a dead end, in my mind. But its more than beyond our scope of understanding at the moment (and that moment is going to be very, very long).
Very well. You are correct in saying that human religions have aspects of control structures in them, some more than others. Religion (or religious authority) can be and is a very bad thing when in the wrong hands. In a non-theistic universe, this explanation for religion is good enough. On the other hand, if there is a god, we would be well served to figure out what we can about him, and hopefully "get on his good side." I mean, if he's God, he gets to make the rules, no?
Now ... are there any good alternatives to the expanding universe? I know Einstein got stuck on the eternal, static universe (as did the early Mormons!!), but he eventually came around.
Fly first class next time, you cheap ass.
Commoners...
I have a feeling they'd be eating slop like in the Alien movies.
Doesn't sound like much of a life for me. Give me sunshine, Spurs games on the TV, and pretty women.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote