Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Faith1960

Guest
Who, if anyone, here has read this book by Br. Guy Consolmagno and Fr. Paul Mueller?
On pages 50 and 51 they’re talking about Stephen Hawking and how he and another physicist are trying to find out why there is something rather than nothing, by “invoking quantum fluctuations in the primordial gravity field that, they suggest could lead to the big bang”…-They go on to say that even if they’re right, “… it won’t put God out of a job…” “…why was there a primordial gravity field and why are there laws of physics that allow it to spontaneously go ‘bang’”

“Besides, if you start out by equating ‘The Entity That Starts the Universe’ with God” and then you show that gravity is what starts the Universe, then you haven’t proved there is no God, you’ve proved that God is gravity."

What does he mean, “proved God is gravity?”
 
IMO, it doesn’t mean anything, it’s just atheists (I believe S Hawking has avowed his atheism) giving believers a cheap shot. You get the “If…then” statement, right? IF gravity started the universe, THEN God is gravity… Kind of a lame joke.
 
IMO, it doesn’t mean anything, it’s just atheists (I believe S Hawking has avowed his atheism) giving believers a cheap shot. You get the “If…then” statement, right? IF gravity started the universe, THEN God is gravity… Kind of a lame joke.
They arent athiests. Ones a brother ones a priest and they both work for the Vatican Observatory.
I see I wasnt clear. The one saying that was Brother Guy talking about Hawking.
 
Who, if anyone, here has read this book by Br. Guy Consolmagno and Fr. Paul Mueller?
On pages 50 and 51 they’re talking about Stephen Hawking and how he and another physicist are trying to find out why there is something rather than nothing, by “invoking quantum fluctuations in the primordial gravity field that, they suggest could lead to the big bang”…-They go on to say that even if they’re right, “… it won’t put God out of a job…” “…why was there a primordial gravity field and why are there laws of physics that allow it to spontaneously go ‘bang’”

“Besides, if you start out by equating ‘The Entity That Starts the Universe’ with God” and then you show that gravity is what starts the Universe, then you haven’t proved there is no God, you’ve proved that God is gravity."

What does he mean, “proved God is gravity?”
No idea. 🍿
 
They arent athiests. Ones a brother ones a priest and they both work for the Vatican Observatory.
I see I wasnt clear. The one saying that was Brother Guy talking about Hawking.
I’m sorry-- I intentionally read and re-read the narrative before posting to make sure it was Stephen Hawking and another physicist (not one of the authors, Fr. Paul and Br. Guy); I know that the authors aren’t atheists and they wouldn’t make such a silly joke.

So I read it again, and to me the OP still reads as if it’s S.Hawking and “another” physicist…but I’ll take your word for it-- I guess I don’t get the “joke”:confused:
 
I still dont get what he meant by “God is gravity.”
IF the universe starter is Gravity
AND Christians think the universe starter is God
THEN Gravity = God

Maybe it’s physicist humor 🙂
 
I fail to see how the thread title and the original post have anything to do with each other. Answering the title question, my priest mentioned jokingly in a homily once that he would baptize a willing alien. As for your actual post, I have no idea. 🤷
 
IF the universe starter is Gravity
AND Christians think the universe starter is God
THEN Gravity = God

Maybe it’s physicist humor 🙂
And what does all this nonsense have to do with baptizing an extraterrestrial?? Show me one first! God Bless, Memaw
 
Gravity is a “power” of matter (a property), and, actually a power of differentiated matter if we are talking about actual gravity.(differentiated matter = real individual materially composed bodies, like the stars or a black hole).

Anyway, for there to be gravity there must be matter, which means it is not the first thing in any sense, and cannot be either the first of created things, nor can it be itself the first cause.

We know that God is Spirit, not in any way part of material reality (other than personally assuming human being in Jesus - the Person of the Son), so any investigation by science will never broach into the spiritual reality of God, nor of the angels.

As to baptizing aliens, such a thing would require a “special and verified revelation” from God, just as was given to Peter and Paul so that they would include the Gentiles in the Church. For now, we know it is for all peoples of the earth as our command. But, after saying that, I have not yet met an alien saying, “Here is water; what is to prevent you from baptizing me?” And, aliens do not descend from Adam and Eve, so …
 
And what does all this nonsense have to do with baptizing an extraterrestrial?? Show me one first! God Bless, Memaw
I thought the same thing, then I figured maybe it’s the title of the book…

Faith1960, can you tell us what’s the title of the book? And other than this confusing section, is it a good book? Thanks.
 
I thought the same thing, then I figured maybe it’s the title of the book…

Faith1960, can you tell us what’s the title of the book? And other than this confusing section, is it a good book? Thanks.
That’s the title of the book.
 
And what does all this nonsense have to do with baptizing an extraterrestrial?? Show me one first! God Bless, Memaw
The title of the book is Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial? In listening to their interview, it sounds like the title is more of a “grabber.” They do discuss the idea of souls and other intelligent beings, but is sounds like the work is more of an apologetic that faith and science are entirely reconcilable.
 
I still dont get what he meant by “God is gravity.”
Here’s my take on it – I don’t have the book, but I checked out the context on Google Books:

The authors are talking about one particular error in understanding the origins of creation: namely, the attempt (whether intentional or unintentional, explicit or implicit) to place God within creation. That is, rather than positing that God is distinct from creation, God as posited as being a force within creation, simply kicking it off.

So, as an example, they point to Hawking and Krauss, who, when asked “how did everything begin?” respond “fluctuations in a gravity field.” By doing so, they haven’t solved the problem – they’ve simply pushed the question down one level, but without crossing from the natural into what causes the natural.

So, in doing so, they haven’t proven that God does not exist; rather, they’re simply answering “where, then, is God?” with “in gravity.”

Does that sound right, and help a bit?
 
Here’s my take on it – I don’t have the book, but I checked out the context on Google Books:

The authors are talking about one particular error in understanding the origins of creation: namely, the attempt (whether intentional or unintentional, explicit or implicit) to place God within creation. That is, rather than positing that God is distinct from creation, God as posited as being a force within creation, simply kicking it off.

So, as an example, they point to Hawking and Krauss, who, when asked “how did everything begin?” respond “fluctuations in a gravity field.” By doing so, they haven’t solved the problem – they’ve simply pushed the question down one level, but without crossing from the natural into what causes the natural.

So, in doing so, they haven’t proven that God does not exist; rather, they’re simply answering “where, then, is God?” with “in gravity.”

Does that sound right, and help a bit?
Thanks. I emailed Br. Guy and he emailed back saying “…God is not a force of nature. God is not gravity, but if anyone reduces God to whatever force it was that started the Big Bang, then they are not talking about the same God I am, the are worshipping gravity instead… which is pretty foolish in my opinion.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top