If there is life elsewhere, in another universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter StrawberryJam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tuno said:
Say you are visiting here from another planet. Which of the 14 creation stories common in the world you to go with, and on what basis? What Universally acceptable criteria would one use?
Click to expand...
In the bible there are two creation stories. I don’t know about the other 12. But it’s safer to go with science’s proof for the existence of God and creation, the evidence from physics about an initial singularity implying a creation event and a boundary or finitude of space-time as well as the evidence of the extremely high improbability of an anthropic universe. There are other proofs of design, but I don’t think the idea of this thread is to get into the origin of the universe. Besides the scientists on this board can better explain origin, if you follow their posts.
 
mindlight said:
Regarding the account of the creation of the universe yes I believe good theology can probably tell us more than bad science.
Click to expand...
What bad science do you refer to?

The hypothosis of ID?

If so, I agree the case is very weak.
 
4Horsemen said:
In the bible there are two creation stories. I don’t know about the other 12. But it’s safer to go with science’s proof for the existence of God and creation, the evidence from physics about an initial singularity implying a creation event and a boundary or finitude of space-time as well as the evidence of the extremely high improbability of an anthropic universe. There are other proofs of design, but I don’t think the idea of this thread is to get into the origin of the universe. Besides the scientists on this board can better explain origin, if you follow their posts.
Click to expand...
Having not one but two “stories” to tell what you observe in your world is one thing.

They both rely on a narrative that tells us what we need to know according to the Christian God about salvation for eternity. Not a care about the 2,000 years after coming in the flesh.
 
4Horsemen said:
In the bible there are two creation stories. I don’t know about the other 12. But it’s safer to go with science’s proof for the existence of God and creation, the evidence from physics about an initial singularity implying a creation event and a boundary or finitude of space-time as well as the evidence of the extremely high improbability of an anthropic universe. There are other proofs of design, but I don’t think the idea of this thread is to get into the origin of the universe. Besides the scientists on this board can better explain origin, if you follow their posts.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but what proof of God has science?!?!?! That is almost funny, but I think you are serious! But you are right, that would be for another thread. (whew!)
 
Tuno said:
I’m sorry, but what proof of God has science?!?!?! That is almost funny, but I think you are serious! But you are right, that would be for another thread. (whew!)
Click to expand...
Science does not need to prove or disprove/ argue against a Christian God.

Science must never stray into that foray, for if it does it is no longer a valid instrument in any way. It is the only instrument I would choose if given any choice in the face of reality.;
 
StrawberryJam said:
Science does not need to prove or disprove/ argue against a Christian God.

Science must never stray into that foray, for if it does it is no longer a valid instrument in any way. It is the only instrument I would choose if given any choice in the face of reality.;
Click to expand...
In the face of reality as manifestation, science is the tool that can bring clarity within it’s scope of inquiry, which does not include the anthropomorphic Christian God or any other “thought” deity. In the Face of God as All, there is nothing to prove or disprove. 🙂
 
StrawberryJam said:
Having not one but two “stories” to tell what you observe in your world is one thing.

They both rely on a narrative that tells us what we need to know according to the Christian God about salvation for eternity. Not a care about the 2,000 years after coming in the flesh.
Click to expand...
My point is that Christians rely on the Bible for moral and doctrinal truths. It is not a science book. We rely on science for truths about our natural world/universe. Kids in Catholic grade schools have science books that teach science not religion. So, 2000 years later since Jesus walked the earth, the New Testament is relevant. (Maybe I’m not understanding where you’re going with that "Not a care . . . " sentence.) The creation stories are told to human beings know that God created the world and us and saw it was “good.” The stories are to be interpreted as God’s goodness, not that it took 6 days for creation to happen.

As for the OP, “If there is life elsewhere, in another universe,” it’s a possibility, but our knowledge hasn’t caught up to that question. Maybe, there is another universe, and God is dealing with His creation accordingly.
 
Tuno said:
I’m sorry, but what proof of God has science?!?!?! That is almost funny, but I think you are serious! But you are right, that would be for another thread. (whew!)
Click to expand...
NOTE: I didn’t mean that science can actually PROVE the existence of God, but it can lead us in a direction that we can conclude it took an invincible, intelligent being. Read the book New Proofs for the Existence of God–Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert J. Spitzer. You’ll find the statements of some physicists who mapped out the cosmological arguments that lead in a direction to evidence of intelligent design.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Must Jesus be crucifyed in all of them, if God exists and must be consistant?
If there are multiple universes, Is God having Jesus go in the flesh to die for all life in it? One by one?
Click to expand...
No ,Christ would not need to have been Incarnated or die in other possible universes (supposing such things exist…). When Christ became man, He took up a created human nature. He became God that was also part of creation. His sacrifice on the Cross liberated all the created world from sin and ultimately death (as we say in the east). Since other possible universes also are created, and would be created by the same God. I think one can assume that Christ’s one Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection is way more then enough to save all possible created universes, and not just ours.

With that said, I find the whole notion of parallel worlds and alternate universes to be more science fiction then fact. Though I do not necessarily reject the idea that other “Universes” could exist within this physical realm way beyond our reach.
 
Tuno said:
Say you are visiting here from another planet. Which of the 14 creation stories common in the world you to go with, and on what basis? What Universally acceptable criteria would one use?
Click to expand...
Interesting question. We can rule out the myriad of regional creation myths since from the wording of your question those are not universally acceptable.
So we look at the universally acceptable creation myths that are found everywhere on planet earth. There is only 1 of those.
 
Well, if there is we sure wouldn’t know about it would we! So why even ask the question?
 
Formosus said:
No ,Christ would not need to have been Incarnated or die in other possible universes (supposing such things exist…). When Christ became man, He took up a created human nature. He became God that was also part of creation. His sacrifice on the Cross liberated all the created world from sin and ultimately death (as we say in the east). Since other possible universes also are created, and would be created by the same God. I think one can assume that Christ’s one Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection is way more then enough to save all possible created universes, and not just ours.

With that said, I find the whole notion of parallel worlds and alternate universes to be more science fiction then fact. Though I do not necessarily reject the idea that other “Universes” could exist within this physical realm way beyond our reach.
Click to expand...
So, in your view Christ would never have to be physically present to witness to the life in other universes? One would be enough for all then. No narratives for them, no witness or miracles for them. Just redemption for those who believed in, something they never saw or heard about?
 
StrawberryJam said:
Sorry for asking this, but you have confused me here.
What happens to “us” personally could be non personal in nature. And simply a result of natural causes. I don’t even how what you mean by “what happens to us”
Click to expand...
Many things that happen to us are impersonal because we live in an impersonal world and are subject to impersonal laws of nature. We usually die as the result of impersonal causes. But is that a complete description of life? Are we just cogs in an impersonal machine?

We are not just bodies but persons who are more than biological machines. Our inner life is far more significant than physical events because physical events do not explain why they exist or why we exist. We can control and change ourselves and our environment. What we make of life depends on ourselves and not on physical events. We can choose to be positive or negative - to live in heaven or hell now, not in a distant future.

That is why we are affected by the Death and Resurrection of Jesus because He uplifted us by being uplifted on the Cross and glorified as a result of His love. He not only showed us the way to heaven but He is the Way. If we identify ourselves with Him as He identified Himself with us we share His life in heaven - not only when we die but now on earth. That is the reason men and women have been capable of astonishing feats of courage and endurance in the face of evil and injustice. Love is the greatest power there is and it can transform us even if we are unaware it exists. It only remains for us to love others as He loves us: when we love others we are united to Him and nothing can ever separate us…
 
StrawberryJam said:
Science does not need to prove or disprove/ argue against a Christian God.

Science must never stray into that foray, for if it does it is no longer a valid instrument in any way. It is the only instrument I would choose if given any choice in the face of reality.;
Click to expand...
Do you make your most important decisions **solely **on the basis of scientific knowledge? 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
Do you make your most important decisions **solely **on the basis of scientific knowledge? 🙂
Click to expand...
That is like asking your dentist how many teeth must you brush.
He will tell you only the ones you want to save.
 
tonyrey said:
Many things that happen to us are impersonal because we live in an impersonal world and are subject to impersonal laws of nature. We usually die as the result of impersonal causes. But is that a complete description of life? Are we just cogs in an impersonal machine?

We are not just bodies but persons who are more than biological machines. Our inner life is far more significant than physical events because physical events do not explain why they exist or why we exist. We can control and change ourselves and our environment. What we make of life depends on ourselves and not on physical events. We can choose to be positive or negative - to live in heaven or hell now, not in a distant future.

That is why we are affected by the Death and Resurrection of Jesus because He uplifted us by being uplifted on the Cross and glorified as a result of His love. He not only showed us the way to heaven but He is the Way. If we identify ourselves with Him as He identified Himself with us we share His life in heaven - not only when we die but now on earth. That is the reason men and women have been capable of astonishing feats of courage and endurance in the face of evil and injustice. Love is the greatest power there is and it can transform us even if we are unaware it exists. It only remains for us to love others as He loves us: when we love others we are united to Him and nothing can ever separate us…
Click to expand...
We don’t have and can not pretend to know what a complete description of life really is.
That is why it is best not to be in a position where you can not be open to new evidence.
 
StrawberryJam said:
We don’t have and can not pretend to know what a complete description of life really is.
That is why it is best not to be in a position where you can not be open to new evidence.
Click to expand...
And how could anyone possibly be in such a position?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top