Theology and Relativity

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 65
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Excellent thread, Nord-man. I ponder this sort of thing frequently, trying to make sense of it all. Some random thoughts that jump in and out of my cranial region include:



    ? I wonder if the concept of "many existences" or "multiple life outcomes" for every man woman and child, existing all at once... is ITSELF the mind of God. God can see all the different paths everyone and every thing in the universe could potentially follow, but the randomness of events (with respect to inanimate particles, energies or objects) in proximity with one another, and our own choices, end up creating a "reality" which is sort of like God's version of going to the movies.



    Maybe God can see every potential choice we will have to make tomorrow (including who we bump into, etc), but he doesn't actually know what we'll choose to do. Maybe he doesn't *want* to know... follow?



    ?I cannot fathom a God, who is at once able to create seemingly infinite and magnificent universes, from a sphere of elementary particles the size of a ping-pong ball (much smaller actually but it helps to have visuals)...



    ...a God who has designed everything we see, and yet perhaps designed none of it (meaning I believe it is possible he simply made the machinery of the universe and put it into motion, watching it grow and change second by second, and millions of years at a time)...



    ...a God who has a spiritual connection with us, who can perhaps even relate to or on some higher level sympathize with us...



    ...and who at the same time, is petty enough to look upon us and say "go into the buildings which you have made in my honor and praise me regularly; do all the things your ancestors have written about, or I'll toss you into the most horrible, wretched existence you can imagine when you die. Forever, mmmKAY?"



    As somsone said earlier, DOES NOT COMPUTE.





    ? A God with such qualities surely would not covet praise and recognition for his works from the likes of us IMO. It would be analgous to Michael Angelo validating his art (and thus his life), based on whether or not a bunch of pre-schoolers could "truly appreciate it" and let him hear about it too. God is likely so far beyond us... beyond our puniness and lack of evolved brains... that I am more inclined to believe if he put us here intentionally at all (rather than just watching it happen), he did so in order that our spirits eventually return to "the source". A way to keep him company and at the same time shed his understanding to us. Which leads me to:



    ?_How incredibly lonely must it feel like to be God? If he is even remotely like us, then what we share in common must be things that are ethereal and pure in their nature (feelings and emotion namely). By pure I mean: love is love, lonliness is lonliness and anger is anger. Feelings and emotions -- by themselves -- have no form, no rules, no boundaries... no real definition. They simply ARE. We know them when we feel them and that's it. Even if we know *why* we're feeling those things, it doesn't make the definition of the thing any less elusive.



    Thus I believe it is these *types* of qualities God must have, since he too simply IS (AFAWK). So, is he capable of feeling lonely? Is he likely to want other intelligent beings to be awed and understand the same things he is awed by and understands? Because if any being in this Universe or Multiverse is alone in terms of stature and his unique type of presence, it would be God.



    ?_If God has a sense of judging us in terms of our actions, and punishing us for bad actions (over a lifetime)... wouldn't it be more logical that such a higher life form would say "OK, I want all of these people to be with me one day... I want each person who has ever wondered or despaired about the purpose of life to FINALLY GET IT. I want them to be a part of me. The only way that they're NOT going to get that chance, is if they deny their own humanity and kill, rape, etc. And in that case, they will simply cease to be. The fear they feel in their dying moments will turn out to be reality for them, and they'll understand that the moment they die. The rest will see that there is nothing to fear."



    That's sort of my take on how such a God might perceive us / determine whether or not we should "go back to the source". Too many Matrix movies... I know... but seriously. Sometimes when I look at human religion -- any religion -- I am baffled at how people equate that with God. So many were so obviously created and molded into forms of social control, that I don't even understand how a thinking person can miss the resemblance of that vs. "what God must really be like". Look up in the sky at night... look around, listen! These seem to me to NOT be the works of a judging, insecure God, but of a God whose patience and understanding must be infinitely beyond our comprehension.



    ?_Sometimes Buddhism sort of makes sense to me, but even that is screwy in parts.



  • Reply 42 of 65
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Very deep Moogs...You raise tons of profound questions that I am going to try and put my puny brain towards answering.



    I have always secretly admired those who were happy to have their spiritual needs served without need for questions.

    But on the otherhand, I don't like churches that expect their parishioners to leave their questions, doubts and brains at the door along with their hats and coats.



    I hope you continue asking such questions...because in the end your searching will bring you to the truth.



    In my searching I always found solace in this passage.



    " Ask and Ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asks shall receive, and he that seeks shall find; and to he who knocks on my fathers' door,it shall be opened unto him "



    Matthew.7:7
  • Reply 43 of 65
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    I hope you are correct. Would certainly be disconcerting to seek and find nothing... I guess none of us will know until our own fateful days.



    Another thought:



    ? Perhaps, the reason that we get more and more profound questions the more we study things like multiverses and string theory, is not because we are trying to understand some abstract thing that we perceive as having a "physical presence" (all around us), but because we are actually trying to understand God and don't realize it.



    Perhaps when we look into the stars we are actually see a physical manifestation of God in some sense. I look at those astounding Hubble pictures which show literally thousands upon thousands of galaxies in a single shot and think... "the molecules that make God?" That's probably getting a little too exisential or something but it fits the thread.



    Indeed, Stephen Hawking ends his Brief History of Time with the thought that once we understand how the Universe came to be, we will then "understand the mind of God". I'm inclined to agree.



    ? Smartest thing I ever read in Wired is a letter from this month's issue. Something to the effect of "As if any thinking person believes God and Science are mutually exclusive..." Amazed they actually printed it, given their bias / penchant for exaggerating the value of all things tech / science.
  • Reply 44 of 65
    Multiple universes--time being relative to the physical experience. What does it all matter anyway guys? God is within us and without us. The Kabbalists say that God gave up "himself" to create the universe. God is the nothingness out of which everything IS. I like this explanation of things. It pulls all the monotheistic religions together and fits Buddism in there as well.

    As to the relationship between science and religion, hasn't science become the latest religion? And, my favorite development, on the macrocostic as well as the microcostic levels, we are now finding that reality is as we perceive it to be--that the mere act of observing changes what is observed. How can you not LOVE that?
  • Reply 45 of 65
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Wonderful insights both of you.



    From my perspective, science in both the Islamic & Christian arenas was born out of our ongoing search for "GOD".





    Indeed I'd go as far as to suggest, if it wasn't for this "eternal" quest, almost none of the arts, mathematics or sciences as we know them would have evolved.



    It might seem like a long bow to draw, but I believe almost all of mankinds' greatest endeavours ( and sadly some of the worst ) stem this internal need..

    namely, to know the " Mind of God ".
  • Reply 46 of 65
    For info on the theory of parallel universes this is by far the best and most modern discussion I have encountered:



    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...880000&catID=2



    There is mounting astronomical evidence that the universe, at creation and subsequently, was infinite in size, and of statistically and thermodynamically uniform density, which, if true, leads one to conclude that identical finite volumes of space exist throughout the universe.



    If one chooses a finite volume, one can calculate the distance to an identical volume. One can choose the finite volume to be the entire observable universe, as viewed from Earth. Thus there is a distance to an identical vantage point/universe, which until this point, has evolved identically to our own, and for all intents and purposes is identical. The distance to such an identical volume is, if I recall correctly, 10^212 meters--a few hundred orders of magnitude further than the most distant objects we can see.



    My question is: suppose this is true and identical copies of me with the potential to choose differently exist elsewhere, what does that do to the question of the soul? Given that I have no awareness of my other copies, this implies:



    1) The identical copies have different souls, of which there are infinitely many different versions

    2) Manifestations of a soul are fixed in local space, with infinitely many manifestations



    I need some coffee.\ The Barney music is getting to me.
  • Reply 47 of 65
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    I'll try again shortly BSD-man, but that link is producing a blank page for me... sounds interesting though.





    Quote:

    From "ami":

    God is within us and without us. The Kabbalists say that God gave up "himself" to create the universe. God is the nothingness out of which everything IS.





    I suppose that could make sense on a certain level. God being everywhere and nowhere at the same time, having the form of everything and nothing (discrete) at the same time. If that were the case I almost can see how you could tie a concept like reincarnation into it. When you die, you return to the source: in our case, the earth (which would be God) and thereafter you are reborn into another form... perhaps not even a human one. Perhaps not even an *animate* one. Could be we're reincarnated as a tree.



    However even if that is all off, the more relevant point is that



    ? Possibly, none of the world's religions are correct in general, but all of them have elements of correctness. Perhaps taking those elements together (were we to know which ones they are) would actually lead us to the GUT to end all theories. Which leads me to



    ?_I don't believe for one second that -- were the Christian religion to be the most correct -- that all the good, caring people in the world who are: Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist... even Agnostic or Atheist... would be snuffed out or damned at the end of their lives, because their parents chose the wrong religion for them. Because in reality, the vast majority of religious people in this world stick with the general type that their parents chose. There are very few who go from Chistianity to Islam or Islam to Buddhism for example.



    So my point is, this would support the notion that perhaps all of the world's religions merely have elements of correctness, but all are fundamentally incorrect. But in the end, those who don't deny their humanity, end up in "The Big House" (wherever or whatever that might be) at some point, regardless of their religion.
  • Reply 48 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    I'll try again shortly BSD-man, but that link is producing a blank page for me... sounds interesting though.





    It worked for me first time but not now.



    Try www.sciam.com and do a search for "parallel universes". It should be the first to pop up, and it's on the free part of the site.
  • Reply 49 of 65
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    (two pages of believers and non-believers discussing science and religion with no flames ... eye heart this thread)
  • Reply 50 of 65
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    James: SciAm still painfully slow to load but at least something IS loading this time around.



    Harald: does kind of make me all teary-eyed.
  • Reply 51 of 65
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    (two pages of believers and non-believers discussing science and religion with no flames ... eye heart this thread)



    I think a very serious case of tolerance has broken out in Ao of late....Someone is slipping something into our drinks late at night or what ?.....zzzzzzzzzzzzz\



    PS :



    Given that much of our modern science stems from what we would now call theology & alchemy..might also explain something of the common ground...
  • Reply 52 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    Excellent thread, Nord-man. I ponder this sort of thing frequently, trying to make sense of it all. Some random thoughts that jump in and out of my cranial region include:



    Thanks Moogs,



    I generally agree with a lot of the points you raised regarding the questionable morality of God as represented in several religions. I once elaborated on how my expectations of a god worthy of worship led me to my agnosticism. In short, if there is a god, he/she/it would not be the kind of god to punish people who say, "if there is a god..." Indeed, a worthy god wouldn't punish or allow punishment via a surrogate he/she/it created (i.e. the devil). Infinite forgiveness and love wouldn't allow for such.



    I do agree with the sentiment that science, in many ways, is an effort to know God free from the biases of dogma. Of course, here "God" is a euphamism for "nature," and does not imbue the concept with any ethical mandates. In actual practice, each scientist can have there own, unique conceptions of God and still advance the elucidation of nature's god.



    That's all for another thread, however. I've been surprised to find so little objection from theists about the thesis of the thread starter. Most theists I've talked to personally, balk at the idea of discontinous timelines between heaven and hell, for what reason I don't know.



    No objection has been raised to relativity's impact on the "First Cause" argument, either. One nagging fear I have is that little objection is raised simply because theists know that such arguments won't translate well to the average believer. Their abstractness from everyday experience is so great that their validity is irrelavant. Granted, conclusions about conditions of the big bang are still speculative, but the basic conclusions relativity makes about the maleability of time are highly supported.



    Admittedly, I'm out of my field when talking about physics, but my suspicion stems from my work in biology. I once asked a fellow researcher, who was a creationist, what he thought about the fact that chickens have the genes for making teeth. He responded, and I'm not making this up, that this didn't matter because most people don't care about genes or molecular biology. This was particularly surprising coming from a guy who supported "Intelligent Design" theory who's sole argument is that you can detect the hallmarks of intelligence with molecular biology.
  • Reply 53 of 65
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    That is screwy, but in the interest of keeping the "debating" out of the discussion of possibilities (really what this thread seems to be -- and I like it), I will stear back a bit:



    The thing that sometimes makes the least amount of sense to me, is how people of many religions attempt to give a stereotypical human persona to God. As I was saying before, I do ponder whether any similarities between us might be of emotional sort... but that is different than ascribing an "emotional personality". Which is what people do IMO when they say that "Do this and God will reward / God will punish".



    Perhaps it all goes back to the notion of God as a "Father", because when they do this, what they're really saying is: God is the ultimate parent, looking over your shoulder, questioning everything you do, and ultimately doling out some sort of response intended to reward or punish... it just seems incredibly silly when you really think about it.



    We're ascribing to God -- this being we believe to be above and beyond us in so many ways and to such a huge magnitude-- the qualities that forced us all to stop living with our parents! God as Raymond's Mother, if you will. Aieeeee!









    James: finally got some of those SciAm pages to load. Got about 5 pages through. Need to stop now and absorb. Very cool / interesting stuff. Thanks for linking that to this thread. Highly relevant, though it certainly can lead to even more confusion... but we already expected that.
  • Reply 54 of 65
    aaplaapl Posts: 124member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Nordstrodamus



    .

    .

    Infinite forgiveness and love wouldn't allow for such.






    And therein lies the error in the above prescribed theology.
  • Reply 55 of 65
    aaplaapl Posts: 124member
    .

    .

    .



    Morpheus: You know why we are here.



    Merovingian: Hmph... I am a trafficker of information, I know everything I can. The question is, do you know why you are here?



    Morpheus: We are looking for the Keymaker.



    Merovingian: Oh yes, it is true. The Keymaker, of course. But this is not a reason, this is not a `why.' The Keymaker himself, his very nature, is means, it is not an end, and so, to look for him is to be looking for a means to do... what?



    Neo: You know the answer to that question.



    Merovingian: But do you? You think you do but you do not. You are here because you were sent here, you were told to come here and you obeyed. [Laughs] It is, of course, the way of all things. You see, there is only one constant, one universal, it is the only real truth: causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect.



    Morpheus: Everything begins with choice.



    Merovingian: No. Wrong. Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without. Look there, at that woman. My God, just look at her. Affecting everyone around her, so obvious, so bourgeois, so boring. But wait... Watch - you see, I have sent her dessert, a very special dessert. I wrote it myself. It starts so simply, each line of the program creating a new effect, just like poetry. First, a rush... heat... her heart flutters. You can see it, Neo, yes? She does not understand why - is it the wine? No. What is it then, what is the reason? And soon it does not matter, soon the why and the reason are gone, and all that matters is the feeling itself. This is the nature of the universe. We struggle against it, we fight to deny it, but it is of course pretense, it is a lie. Beneath our poised appearance, the truth is we are completely out of control. Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the `why.' `Why' is what separates us from them, you from me. `Why' is the only real social power, without it you are powerless. And this is how you come to me, without `why,' without power. Another link in the chain. But fear not, since I have seen how good you are at following orders, I will tell you what to do next. Run back, and give the fortune teller this message: Her time is almost up. Now I have some real business to do, I will say adieu and goodbye.
  • Reply 56 of 65
    xenuxenu Posts: 204member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquafire

    I think a very serious case of tolerance has broken out in Ao of late....Someone is slipping something into our drinks late at night or what ?.....zzzzzzzzzzzzz\



    PS :



    Given that much of our modern science stems from what we would now call theology & alchemy..might also explain something of the common ground...




    I thinks it is more to do with the lack of facts and evidence - it's just fun speculation.
  • Reply 57 of 65
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    I wrote this for language class yesterday:



    [Future Theory]



    The future is the universe, the ripples of space and time destined to hit shore. The future is unpredictable to you, but it is far from being random. Every cause has an effect, and there is no escaping this universal law: there are no choices in the universe, only particles following their own trajectories. The beginning of tomorrow is the end of today, a seamless link between the present and the future, ever advancing, always present. Time is like the very wind that blows on the surface of our planet: it itself is completely invisible, undetectable to the eye or ear. But when it whistles through the buildings and the trees shiver, we know that it is there. We cannot see or feel time, but instead observe what it does. There is nothing that happens in this universe that was not triggered by something that happened prior. There is no such thing as ?random? or ?spontaneous?; every incident that appears to you spontaneous or random just seems that way because you didn?t see the cause that triggered that effect. Thus, in the universe, there is an illusion of control; an illusion also of will. Each neuron that fires in your brain resulted from a previous neuron?s action, and that neuron will also trigger yet another neuron to discharge. This network of firing neurons, your brain, your mind, has a cause for every effect. How can you be actions be voluntary, how can you make decisions based on what you think, if your thoughts aren?t under your control? The answer is simple: you can?t.
  • Reply 58 of 65
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    How did I know the Merovingian would make it into this thread? That's probably the best scene in the second movie; it's the only one where the [sense of arrogance] works. The only pretentious dialog that works. That French actor plays a great slyme-bag, just like Hugo Weaving plays a great sinister bastard. Weaving also plays a great Elf, so he has some cinematic range. A multiverse unto himself.









    Anyway, If choice is an illusion (this goes to Placebo too -- interesting theory btw; I like the wave hitting the shore analogy) created between those with power and those without, the natural extension is that God has already made all of our choices for us, because he has set everything into motion long before we ever got here. Things that would determine the circumstances of our birth and our life and thus "not beyond a measure of control".







    Even so, I still think it more reasonable that he simply set everything around us into motion, and sat back to watch the show. To see how we react to it -- and maybe to see how our mutliverse twins react to it. Like playing witha massive train set when you were a kid... wouldn't it have been more fun if you could've just turned it on and watch as the tracks got re-routed, the engines broken down and were repaired by little men, etc? Vs. just going around the same loop over and over, only changing as you add little Lincoln Logs to the cargo cars?
  • Reply 59 of 65
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    How did I know the Merovingian would make it into this thread? That's probably the best scene in the second movie; it's the only one where the [sense of arrogance] works. The only pretentious dialog that works. That French actor plays a great slyme-bag, just like Hugo Weaving plays a great sinister bastard. Weaving also plays a great Elf, so he has some cinematic range. A multiverse unto himself.









    Anyway, If choice is an illusion (this goes to Placebo too -- interesting theory btw; I like the wave hitting the shore analogy) created between those with power and those without, the natural extension is that God has already made all of our choices for us, because he has set everything into motion long before we ever got here. Things that would determine the circumstances of our birth and our life and thus "not beyond a measure of control".







    Even so, I still think it more reasonable that he simply set everything around us into motion, and sat back to watch the show. To see how we react to it -- and maybe to see how our mutliverse twins react to it. Like playing witha massive train set when you were a kid... wouldn't it have been more fun if you could've just turned it on and watch as the tracks got re-routed, the engines broken down and were repaired by little men, etc? Vs. just going around the same loop over and over, only changing as you add little Lincoln Logs to the cargo cars?




    I thought of this way before Matrix Reloaded came out. This isn't "behind the scenes with the Merovingian"



    He was my favorite character in Reloaded by far, though.
  • Reply 60 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquafire

    I think a very serious case of tolerance has broken out in Ao of late....Someone is slipping something into our drinks late at night or what ?.....zzzzzzzzzzzzz\





    Shhh please don't tell



    Fellows
Sign In or Register to comment.