Can I get some answers from either side?

Question

I just read what I think is a GREAT answer saying that everything we can detect in our own visible universe is contingent on SOMETHING being eternal/infinite. No matter which way we approach this, through God or science, we always come back to something had to ALWAYS contain everything else. My only contention is that God in the Bible is said to be "infinite, the alpha and the omega" (although I put no creedence in the image portrayed in the Bible, as it has been bastardized to be a man in the clouds watching everything go down). Isn't it possible that science and theists are striving to the same conclusion and arguing about it the whole way there? I'm not saying God created himself, I'm saying God (in terms of whatever this eternalness actually is) has ALWAYS been, becuase something (or someone, if you choose) has necessarily always been.

God, to me, IS this eternalness, that BOTH science and religion are trying to explain.

Are we mortal? Moreover, are we entirely mortal? Who can answer conclusively, either question, without faith in something else (science OR religion)?

M theory only allows for a single time dimension.

I choose not to rephrase. Why do I need to accomodate a mind that cannot grasp my thought? It IS only a thought. Why does one expect the burden to fall on me to explain it when I feel I already have to the best of my ability and the furthest reaches that the thought spans?

Answer 1

Well, I think there it gets down to a matter of semantics. If you redefine "god" to mean something like "energy" or "matter" then...it gets so far away from the original meaning as to become meaningless - if you get my .... meaning.

Answer 2

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
--Tao Te Ching

As soon as you define it as a deity or call it 'God', you've made it a particular thing and therefore, not eternal. ;-)

I see what you're saying and you're right. But I think to really get the answer we have to surrender to and accept the fact of mystery. It's there... but the more we try to define it in human terms, the farther we get from the truth.

(Science should by all means keep looking to figure out how things work, but I think most scientists do accept that there are some things we will never know and can only guess at, and that's just how it is. Just FYI in case anyone thinks that because I'm comfortable with the unknown, I'm against science... I"m not)

Answer 3

I believe the one thing we need to realize is the nature of the time span eternity, or the other word infinite. Since human beings have a start, and a middle and an end to their lives we tend to see all things in a linear progression. Never realizing that everything in nature runs in cycles. So our error is basing our linear existence upon the same linear time. A circle has no beginning, nor does it end, it just keep rotating in the same way all the time.

This can be seen an yet another universal constant, T=time and is constant in its movement in all directions. It does not however have a beginning or an end, and our limited capacity to truly comprehend the nature of something as vast as eternity, cannot change the scope of the event.

Man created God in yet another attempt to explain something we could not explain, to place within a sentient hand a reason we could not otherwise grasp. As we grow, evolve and find explanations closer to the truth, we will in time find less and less need for a God to explain those mysteries.

We will always however, have need for a spiritual mentor, a guide to keep us on what we consider the moral side. Whether or not we choose to call it God is yet another stage of our evolution.

Answer 4

Too bad you didn't provide a link back to that "GREAT" answer. What are you talking about, Mach's Principle? Dirac's sea of subatomic particles? Your contention is apparently, because the Bible claims God is the alpha and the omega, that the theists and the scientists are unknowingly striving towards the same conclusion. Sorry, but the truth is I just don't understand your point. You may well be onto something significant, but your idea did not survive the trip from your brain to my brain.

Suggest you rephrase and try again......

Edit: You're the one making the unsupported assertion. I'm just doing my best to understand your meaning. Apparently, you're so arrogant you imagine your flawless logic is beyond question. Who do you think you are, God Himself?

Answer 5

Infinity in both time and space probably do exist. To call this God is just explaining what we have not explained. Once we start really revealing the dimensions of time I think we will be able to answer more about life.

A few things, this solar system isn't infinite, our sun will die out. This universe isn't (time wise) infinite as it seems to have a beginning (big bang/God did it/whatever).

It's all really up in the air, but I agree with you in the sense that if God were real He would be free of the rules of time and space as we know them, and therefore, yes, be infinite.

But no.

Answer 6

Interesting

Answer 7

I believe in God when God is defined as: Universal Divine Principle, the root of ALL, from which all proceeds, and within which all shall be absorbed at the end of the great cycle of Being.

Answer 8

Same musings that all Christ-rejecters have used to rationalize and explain our existence.God's Word has indeed been preserved in the English language.It is the 1611 King James Bible.That has the answers my friend.Not philosophers or scientists.

Answer 9

Good job!
I am a Christian, but I don't see God as "a man in the clouds". I do see Jesus as God in the flesh.
I see "the fall" as a cosmic event, which resulted in entropy.
I see "salvation" as a cosmic event, as well, which will result in the entire cosmos being "made new".
I believe that Jesus is exactly Who He says He is...and I am compelled to my knees in silence....

Answer 10

Science must always leave room for religion, and the inverse is also true. However, I feel it is important to let one pick up where the other leaves off, letting science be the "how" and religion the "why".