Slashdot Mirror
Vatican Says Alien Life Plausible
An anonymous reader writes "According to BBC, the director of the Vatican Observatory stated in an article titled 'Aliens Are My Brother' that intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space. 'The search for forms of extraterrestrial life does not contradict belief in God. — Just as there are multiple forms of life on earth, so there could exist intelligent beings in outer space created by God.' Mind that this is not the same director who said that evolution is more than a mere theory — that was Father Coyne. I myself agree. There might be intelligent beings created by God in outer space even if there are none here on earth."
And who is this God they are referring to ?
SPACE POPE INDAHOUS
I'm waiting for an answer from a legitimate authority.
Whale
Doesn't the Pope have direct communication with god? Why doesn't he just ask for christ's sake?
C.
"Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
... just made humans as a cautionary example, and shows us on CCTVs all over the Universe as a sort of "The More You Know!" service.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
there is a related announcement coming soon from world leaders,
and this pronouncement from the vatican is so that they don't bleed followers in the mayhem to follow.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
C.S. Lewis came to this conclusion years ago. Glad the Catholics finally caught up with us Protestants.
But of course only WE were created in His image, right?
And is the Catholic church going to fund expeditions to these alien civilisations in order to convert them? Kinda sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Apologizing to Galileo, Hell is a metaphor, evolution is real, now aliens could exist. The Vatican is really taking their modernization seriously, aren't they?
UFO true believers stop pestering the UK government and start demanding to see the Vatican's top secret UFO files?
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
So is the pope God's representative on Earth, or God's representative for everywhere outside of heaven ?
Nullius in verba
You know, after a long history of not-so-good behavior in the face of science (eg, Galileo), it is good to see that the Catholic Church is recognizing that much of current scientific thinking is consistent with scientific ideas.
In fact, Catholic high schools even teach evolution, recognizing that you can still choose to believe in God as the creator alongside a belief in evolution as the mechanism of creation.
I see the acknowledgment of the possibility of alien life along this same vein. I wonder, though, how the creation of freaky-ass-bug-eyed aliens would fit into the "God created man is his own image" idea. Perhaps that God is so wacky and cool he can take on any shape?
(So long, and thanks for all the fish!)
I'm glad that the Catholic Church is taking an educated view of the sciences, with the support of evolution, and now this. Of course this will also lead to many useless comments about pedophilia, non-existance of God, and other useless flame wars.
Scientific illiteracy here in the states is really bad, and I'm embaressed that my church has a more progressive attitude than our current administration. This should change with the next admin thankfully.
This is Slashdot, and everyone needs to get their 2 cents in, but please try to submit meaningful/useful posts.
..........FULL STOP.
The aliens, I wonder.... What do they look like?
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
So does that mean that any intelligent alien life is doomed to hell because they don't have the benefit of baptism and the forgiveness of original sin? Did they get a messiah from the catholic god and does that imply more than one "jesus"?
Or, being that they are not human and never ate from the garden of eaden does that mean that original sin doesn't apply to them? Better yet, does that make them more holy then humans and therefore closer to the catholic god?
I don't see how the catholic clergy can just say "yeah alien life doesn't contradict our religeon" without addressing these questiosn.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
no? then don't worry about it.
Next week they'll be approving a new brand of condoms. They're open at both ends ...
Kevin Smith on Prince
If an alien world were encountered with a Bliznorp claiming to receive instruction from Q'thalis Almighty, would the Pope claim to be God's infallible messenger on Earth, or for everywhere outside heaven? For his followers, then, wouldn't the Pope need to confirm the Bliznorp's authority on the homeworld of the sentient grey blobs of Shronos, lest a new "Space Catholicism" denomination be created believing in individual Popes for each inhabited world?
I am increasingly impressed with what was originally a very controversial nomination by the catholic church. May the forward thinking continue!
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
The present Pope seems to be a lot more forward-thinking and progressive than previous popes. There was a very interesting read in Time magazine recently (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727724,00.html) that showed not only his stance on America (the main topic of the article) but also his beliefs/forward thinking mentality.
Because the other Shaltinack's jupilberry shrub is always a more mauvey shade of pinky russette?
"Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
and to think it was only in 1992 that the pope admitted the earth moved.
Hello Earthlings, my name Zorbo, I'm from the planet sh388wg32 in what you call the Andromeda galaxy and I think the time has come to reveal ourselves to you. The reason I am contacting you now is that we have some Good News for you creatures, the all powerful creator of everything (Zippin52, praise be His name) has a plan for you and everyone you know!!! Can I take a little of your time to explain why we're all imperfect and need saving in His forgiveness??!
Yes Catholic church, that is precisely how idiotic you sound right now.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
It does sound familiar, but probably for a different reason than you're thinking. There was a (rather depressing) book about that scenario that I read recently called The Sparrow. (See also wikipedia link.)
It's the same old problem of infinite regress when you try to state that a complex thing has to have a more complex designer. An über-powerful deity has to be much more complex than a human (or alien) and you end up with a bigger problem than the one you started with and you have explained exactly zero. And that's without even mentioning that there is no evidence of any form of supernatural creation of living beings (or anything else for that matter).
Bruno suggested that there could be an infinite number of worlds and that they could be inhabited by intelligent life.
For this they burned him at the stake.
Galileo was only 'shown the instruments' of torture and placed under house arrest.
Bruno is the guy they need to apologize to!
I have a panel from a Calvin and Hobbes strip that says it best:
Calvin says "The best proof for the existance of alien life is the fact that none of it has ever tried to contact us!"
"I never get lost because everybody tells me where to go"
That is one problem with religion, its absolute, unless reality slaps it in the face and it 'adapts' to adjust.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I find it offensive that some people are still implying that God is /unable/ to create extraterrestrial life.
Sigs are for Terrorists.
...the Flat Earth society has just announced that there might be alien life "after and slightly beneath the fringes".
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Why can't a Catholic priest be an astronomer? A Catholic priest, Father Georges Lemaitre, came up with the Big Bang theory
Never let reality temper imagination
it only helps increase their membership... Read about the "SUPERCLASS" here: http://teaminfinity.com/COMMUNICAE-12556.shtml and the role they will play in the ROLLOUT of the "ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY" http://roboeco.com/neila
The Future is already here, just unevenly distributed... THE ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY NOW! http://RoboEco.com/slash
We call this hedging your bets.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Are thrilled to see that our Earther brethren have finally publically acknowledged our existence. Please prepare your altar boys for our arrival.
If god is omnipotent than he(she/it) can appear in any form (say a burning bush).
Therefore god must have created us in the image of the only part of him that doesn't change. His morality, his way of thinking and his personality. We have a dim image of this immutable portion of god.
Therefore aliens COULD look very different but still be created in his image.
The only remaining question is how did they get so many light years from eden?
"It would be a devastating blow to our antiquated systems.." This is only true because they will expect us to be their slaves. The return of the Orion Empire. This is going to suck. Believe it.
Science and religion need each other, and many astronomers believe in God, he assures readers.
Religion needs science because, well, religion is pretty bad at explaining almost everything that happens around us.
But why does science need religion again? I will agree with science needing philosophy, but I don't see how any one particular interpretation of (simplified) philosophy and faith/belief therein can help science.
"Pray for intelligent life somewhere up in space because there bugger all down here on earth"
They're gonna need a longer stick for THAT collection basket!!!
Is the space pope reptilian?
It takes only the most basic of reading and comprehension skills to understand that nobody was saying that extraterrestrial life was 'plausible'. I guess that's expecting too much around here.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Now, now, don't you go putting words in the Vatican's mouth. They didn't say anything about Douglas DC-8 airplanes.
"Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
The vatican is starting to come around, great. Why do I care? They have proved themselves to be an outdated monster in the same way the RIAA and the US goverment has done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Gabriel_Funes
And I quote, "an Argentine Jesuit priest and astronomer, is the current director of the Vatican Observatory. He has a master's degree in Astronomy from the Universidad Nacional de CÃrdoba in Argentina and a doctorate from the University of Padua in Italy"
The guy is almost certainly much more educated that you are.
For all the people (at least the non-Jews) living before Jesus.
It is a pretty old theological problem, as far I know the "consensus view" is that there probably exists some special arrangements for them.
the classic anti-religion diatrabe of /.?
That's the REAL question we all want answered!
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
And for all those offtopic morons that say that the Pope is responsible of the pandemies on Africa due to the Church's point against condoms: the Church is also against extra-marital sex, and if you are determined to ignore the last point, what stops you to ignore also the first one? Are you hypocrites, or what?
Inseminates great; Less pleasure!
In other words, we're the 0.91 release.
or star trek.
yes, yes, universal translators.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
well thank goodness for this - what a joke that they have an astronomer.
Clearly the bible creation story isn't about our planet. Maybe this leaky work of fantasy/science fiction is more plausible on another world.. or in another dimension.. or.. nevermind.
yeah yeah, -1 flamebait, whatever
No. The Jews get fucked way too often for Israel to be married.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76/22-24#22
(Note that there have been a lot of anonymous posts in this thread. I should post anonymous to save my karma, but I wont. Don't mod me down purely out of disagreement. That would be childish. Post instead. I will remain civil.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
My double negative parser segfaulted.
I don't therefore I'm not.
But will they pour hot grits over a statue of Natalie Portman?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Man, it's really going to suck when the burning bushes come to Earth to forge an alliance and somebody throws water on them.
When you get right down to it, nothing can contradict that a supernatural being exists outside of it's actually appearing to us ... at which point it would become a natural being since we could observe it.
I can believe that the only two people in the world are Steven Hawking and Darl McBride and that ice cream is made from grub worms. If anyone provides me with evidence to the contrary, I can always say "Ah, but that's just what $DEITY wants you to think!"
The only thing a belief in a deity doesn't support is non-belief in a deity.
With God, pretty much anything is possible.
God spoke to me.
That is why we are on earth. After all look around you. Does this place look like the land of milk and honey. Hell even the honey bees are dying off.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
There's nothing specifically precluding evolution, homosexuality as a non-sin, condom use as cool, the planets not being perfect spheres or female priests who can have sex either. Yet these are all things that the church either has or continues to oppose.
There are two answers, as far as I understand it. I'm not a theologian, not religious, and this is vague recollection supported by wikipedia articles.
Historically, the view of the church is that if a person dies unbaptized, they go to hell. But obviously that brings about problems, many of which you brought up above. So, there came the idea of Limbo, which is basically a place that's not quite as bad as hell, but outside Gods' kingdom. This was a place for unbaptized children, pagans who had never heard the word of God but had lived morally, etc. (and presumably aliens). But if you had heard the word and chose not to believe it, you still go to hell.
I don't really understand all the theological issues and all that, but somehow this was not "official" and just something theologians worked out on their own, so as a Catholic you weren't required to believe in it. Pope Benedict "formally dissolved" this idea (not sure what that means), and the current thinking is that it's possible for unbaptized people that haven't heard the word to go directly to heaven.
If you want a more complete (and surely more accurate) explanation, I would suggest talking to a priest.
The universe is a simulation running on a great cosmic computer that one might describe as God's mind. Another name for the pattern that makes up the software state of the universe is 'image'. Our universe and everything in it were created 'within' God's image. We are mental constructs created to explore the possibilities of what is possible. Because when you are all that exists it is fun to imagine what else there might be.
I believe the Vatican did exactly this. Collecting sperm in the obvious way for the purpose of artificial insemination is taboo for Catholics. But I believe it's acceptable to use a 'leaky' condom that gives each individual spermatozoon a chance of causing conception while leaving a usable residue in the condom.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
The important message is that good scientific ideas can come from anywhere, even from Catholic priests, and you don't judge an idea by where it came from, but by whether or not it does a good job, for example by making falsifiable predictions.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Perhaps an all-power, omnipotent being can travel faster the speed of light.
Naaaaah, that's crazy talk!
Well, thats the thing... nothing contradict that -A- super being exists. But God with a capital G is a very specific one that is supposed to have had specific influence on Earth, and, among other things, made humans "special". That is quite a bit easier to contradict.
No, because it was a Shoe
Down with categorical imperatives
faith in us down here. Look what he says about humans... "There might be intelligent beings created by God in outer space even if there are none here on earth."
First of all, this is not a formal pronouncement of the church. It's not doctrine or anything like that. It's a theological musing. That said, it's a wholly reasonable musing. I don't think very many Catholic theologians would debate it, much less argue that it's flat-out wrong (ie, heresy). I also know he's not the first Vatican official to consider the question, even dating back to Lewis' time. Heck, it's something I myself wondered about, and came to the same conclusion. Alternately, a lot of theologians have fancied a pagan alien, who like mankind, is redeemed by Christ's act in Jerusalem (on earth), but not yet heard the Gospels. The Native Americans would be an example of a similar case.
The statement amounts to "we don't know." Is it really "catching up to the Protestants" to say, "we don't know.?" If you're suggesting this as a measure of the legitimacy of a religion, I suggest you re-examine your values.
However, the Lewis angle got my memory churning. I don't know what other works he might have had on the topic, but the Space Trilogy is a very good set of science fiction fantasy books Lewis wrote to explore the idea of aliens from a theological standpoint.
He presents first a civillization created before humanity, met by a human space traveler. They went through their own sinful fall from grace, and God performed some unspecified act of redemption. Since then, they've as a society gotten past many of the turmoils humanity is going through related to violence and greed. In the second book, he presents a newly created civillization...a new Adam and Eve. As before, they have the free will to choose God's way or their own. They again face a temptation from a smooth-talking demon, but in this case the space traveler sees their plight and plays angel-on-the-shoulder.
The third book returns back to earth and bounces around abuse of power and technology. It's kind of an odd fit into the trilogy, but still interesting on its own merits.
I remember talking to one agnostic who enjoyed the trilogy, as like the Chronicles of Narnia, it's not overtly Christian. At the same time, it gives a lot of food for thought about Christian doctrines, in this case, original sin.
Scientology may well be right.
I tend to avoid hanging it on people who hold strong beliefs about the existence of aliens. Partly because I believe in freedom of religion and think it is rude to ridicule the faith of another, but mostly because religious nut-job whackos can be really dangerous.
<tinfoilhat>... maybe this statement means that the CoS has successfully infiltrated the RCC and is a step closer to world domination ...</tinfoilhat>
I don't therefore I'm not.
The bible says that God is compassionate, considering this it is most likely that those who never have the opportunity to believe either go to heaven or some how are reincarnated or something and are given the opportunity to do so, perhaps alternate realities or dimensions to give them the opportunity, after all life is pretty hellish would it not be fitting to return unbelievers into it until they did believe. obviously this is just speculation, tho it does bring up an interesting array of ideas.
Crypto! You are not authorized to write articles for the Vatican Observatory. Return to the invasion site immediately!
I don't therefore I'm not.
One answer is Relativity. More specifically, it should be General Relativity. As God's time is infinite i.e. from where we see His time is freezed, or His characters unchanged in time. Therefore, God should be sitting in a place where the gravity is infinite so that His time relative to us is infinitely long. If Peter is right, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2Pe3:8), then His time may not be totally infinite.
In the genesis of the universe, the gravity is close to infinite and the clock is running very slowly and it is where God is. The time dulate with the universe expanses i.e. our time runs much faster then God's clock. 1000 years in our time, to God is one day. Since His word is a constant with time, so we call His word the Truth as history revealing this truth is repeating in different time and space. It is the bible stories all about.
If there is a structure to all these Truths, the structure must be exceedingly simple as God is unique & singularity ref Jam1:7 (who does not change like shifting shadows). In fact, this elegant structure is the Word Himself John1:1. It is Jesus Christ.
Actually, ex utero fertilization is generally (although I don't believe officially) considered illicit because it to some degree separates procreation from sex (the theology goes both ways...the dignity of a human demands that their creation be the result of a loving act). The punctured condoms are for collecting samples for sperm counts, etc. Because doing this allows sperm to be collected without intentionally sterilizing sexual intercourse, it is considered acceptable.
There may be zero chance of conception (for example, a woman who had her ovaries removed due to cancer), but having sex in that case is not wrong (assuming they're married, of course), because the persons involved are not deliberately sterilizing the act. They are not excluding God.
There is a difference between something not currently being understood, and something not being understandable. I've heard people talk about this argument that, since we don't understand X, the only explanation for it is God, and call it the "God of the Gaps" - that is, the argument that God must exist to explain a current gap in our understanding of the universe. The problem is, science keeps coming along filling in those gaps. Yes, it usually, so far, has introduced at least one new gap for every gap it fills in, but the point is, our current ignorance of the mechanism for some observable phenomenon, or hole in our current theories (like the theory of the Big Bang necessarily raises the obvious question - what caused the Big Bang to happen? What came before the Big Bang?) does not in and of itself prove the existence of God.
My point is, when your whole faith is based upon a gap in knowledge, there is a significant chance that the argument for your faith can be discredited by advances in Science. We may, quite possibly, in the course of time come to understand how to correlate "certain chemical and electrical processes" with "self-awareness". As for "We have no way to tell what happens to our 'souls' before birth or after death", currently we have no way to tell if we actually have souls. The concept of the soul comes from a faith in the supernatural. I'm not saying we do not have souls, but what I'm saying is, how could you possibly tell what happens to 'souls', when you can't even find any way to actually prove the existence of a soul? I can't come up with any meaningful theory of how many Unicorns it would take to move an object of Mass 'M' up a hill with incline I, since I can't prove the existence of Unicorns or come up with any kind of average force that an average Unicorn can apply on an object.
Perhaps capn' Kirk can answer that for you...
just a thought.
I think they are just hedging their position in case life is discovered... because after all, if it's not this God, it must be another God, no? So better claim it all for them. Kind of like Armstrong landing on the Moon and planting an American flag. You know, just in case.
Next week they'll be approving a new brand of condoms. They're open at both ends
So, the whole debate is open-ended then?Gelgamek overlords.
No trataron nunca hablar español,verdad?
El doble negativo es NECESARIO.
Right, because clearly we know everything there is to know about the universe.
What's that sound? Could it be the sound of the entire point of religion flying over the heads of engineers and computer scientists?
The existence of Lucky Charms does not prove the reality of leprechauns, but it does go a long way in the direction.
I'd mod you up.
BTW it's Militia, not military. There is a difference. If it was just the military they wouldn't need to put it in the Constitution.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The Vatican are trying to update their status in society because if they don't, they lose followers, I wonder if sometime in the future they will "approve" human cloning too by saying something like "maybe God wanted us humans to create clones", I don't know, they'll try anything to manipulate society, but let's see what happens...
So does this mean their going to forgive Galileo?
In other words, do you have any evidence for those claims that you are making?
Furthermore, we (humans) are not exploring space for the sole reason of looking for intelligent life. There are other reasons/benefits to space exploration.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
--Frederick Douglass
Oh yeah, well what does the Space Pope have to say about this?
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Rather than worrying about alien life, the pope should worry about the millions whose deaths he has been responsible for by interfering with the distribution of contraceptives. And I don't just mean Catholics, I mean people who don't follow his cult.
Sucks to be those aliens... since they have no way to learn about Jesus (except, of course, the Gray aliens that visit earth all the time) all those extraterrestrials will burn in hell since they never accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Brings up an interesting question - what percentage of hell is human? With all those alien species being sent to hell by default, I bet humans make up an extremely small percentage of hell's population. Even the Greys that visit earth have likely not become Catholics. Though in that one episode of South Park there was one alien species that actually was Catholic. But that's just one species, and south park is just a cartoon anyway. Make believe TV shows have no place in a discussion about magical human beings and aliens.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Oh, that opens up so many questions. I'll do my own take on the Epicurean riddle:
If a god is omnipotent, then it follows that said god is omniscient. If it thus knows all, then it would come to the quick conclusion that creating natural beings with its morality would relegate itself to obsolescence.
To wit: If a deity is possessed of nothing but righteousness, then we would already have heaven on earth, as there would be no sin. If, however, we do possess the same ethos and moral constructs, then the very presence of sin removes the ability for a deity to be all-compassionate, and so the promise of a blessed afterlife carries no weight. Or, better yet, the afterlife mythos is wrong, and we all return to the ether and dirt upon death. It's thus logical to ask, in all cases: do we still need a deity?
If God is all-capable, why create more than one (possibly flawed) copy with different phenotypes expressing the same "immutable spirit"?
If you're inclined to believing in supernatural origins, then each planet is an ant farm. Nothing more, nothing less.
Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
The article identified by the first link in your defamatory signature presents a scenario in which, contradicting a number of ivory-tower academic theories, the natural choices of ordinary people actually maximizes their return. In what way do you suggest this impugns libertarianism, which holds that the preferences of ordinary people should be respected as far as possible, and that they should not be prohibited from making whatever personal choices they wish?
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
They wouldn't be affected by original sin and hence wouldn't need to be saved, or baptized or anything of that nature. They would be as like adam and eve before original sin (unless they have their own scripture that said otherwise).
There is no reason whatsoever that such an announcement would be done to the pope first. Most probably scientific would be the first to know, military second. That would be leaked to your next media quicker than you can sigh. And if not6 it would be put a clamp on it , even if the price to shut people up would be to summary kill them. There is no other reason to think that the pope would be told first in secrecy other than paranoia.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"The only remaining question is how did they get so many light years from eden?" that is the glass half empty point of view. The glass half full point of view is "How did they get so many light year from hell and purgatory ?".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Alien Life Plausible - is it because, it does not contradict belief in God.
When you reach the point that you burn at the stake 5 years old kids for witchcraft (well, they "mercifully" strangled them before burning them) then one could argue that even for the epoch they went beyond reasonable.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"So even in the oldest context, Evolution fits fine with the Bible." which would somehow say that the bible is the mass to measure everything on it.
So it should read "the bible stories can be made fit with evolution (which we know to be a very successful theory at explaining all life today as we know it)". It is not that evolution fits, it is that the bible is interpreted in the light of evolution.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Although as a scientific I will be the first to agree that a lot is open because we don't have any evidence to start a theory on, the example you chose are not very good :
"Science can't explain how the 20 amino acids we require to exist form on their own" : some experience were used to create many of those amino acid under abiogenic condition, if not all amino acid. The oldest of those is the miller-urey experiment which created 2 or 3 type of amino acid.
", nor how they combine and fold themselves into the hundreds of various proteins we require to function," we do know how amino acid are added at the end of a protein chains, AFAIK with the ribosome in the body. We do also know why protein fold in 3d and why this is important to their function. We do know how they evolved. What we don't know is how to predict function and form of a random protein from their amino acid constituent. We don't "know" either how the first protein looked like, although we have pretty good idea with polymerisation / physical globule formation of long amino acid and carbon chains.
" nor why all the thousands of processes that occur within a cell occur. This all appears to happen "just for the hell of it" mmmmh. Care to tell us what many of the 1000 process biologist says what they are for and just occurs for the heck of it ? Cite please a few dozen specific one. Because it looks like strawman.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Evolution is fact in the same sense that gravity is fact. We know it happens. There are things we can point to and say "look, evolution".
Evolutionary Theory also exists ("The Theory of Evolution" is a misnomer as there isn't really one single theory, rather a lot of complementary and sometimes competing theories for parts of what might be considered, in toto, "evolution") also exists in the same sense the Newton's Theory of Gravity and General Relativity exist.
So yes, a theory exists to explain the facts but that doesn't mean there is no fact.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
when catholic officially embraces Scientology. Any day now...
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
...Because the church is well known for being an authority on science. Totally.
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
Who comes up with this stuff, whoever comes up with it clearly have too much time on their hands.
If only Slashdot had existed earlier they'd have had somewhere else to waste their time and would be nowhere near as intrusive into peoples lives.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
"Moses! Moses!"
"My mom had forbidden me to talk to burning bushes!"
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"God created man in his own image and man, being a gentleman, returned the favor."
...and Father Angelo Sekki discovered that the Sun is actually a star
"Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo
Sure... Nothing X Nothing = 2x Nothing... wait no...
Well if it "does not end" when you die, then I'd say eternity is a long time if you are still imperfect in your "eternal life" after you die. Way too long.
The first 10000 years might be fun, maybe still fun after 100,000 years too, but eternity is a very very very long time. After a few trillion years do you think you can tell the difference between what you are experiencing and Hell?
The prospect of eternal existence without being somehow "fixed/changed" by God (or whatever) so that I can continue to _enjoy_ it, does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Only a few religions address this problem.
Assuming peaceful first contact with a more-advanced civilization, I would be interested to see the Catholic Church's reaction when extraterrestrials' religion or religions are explained and are totally different than the religions on earth, or if the extraterrestrials reveal a complete lack of religion and see religion as absurd.
If such a civilization had a documented history of more than a few thousand years, it would likely have a devastating effect on earthly religions.
I was always of the understanding that his creation of us in his image referred to us having free will. That feature that distinguishes us from, say, Gabriel and Lucifer. Presumably other aliens would have it to...
Look out!
The Catholic church and aliens is a topic that has been "covered" in literature. One really good example is The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell; it tells the story of a failed Jesuit mission to an alien world, and, all sci-fi trappings set aside, is also a very interesting book from a theological viewpoint. A number of philosophical/theological points that the author tries to make in that book will probably only be comprehensible to Catholics (or at least practising Christians), but for those it makes a fascinating read. And for all others it might even provide some insight into the moral and ethical quirks of our worldview.
A.
However, if these life forms are really intelligent, they probably already use metric. Or, even better, Planck units :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
Signature omitted in order to save space. Thanks for your understanding.
... have issued a press statement that only female and child aliens from Venus who visit Texas Ranches on clear nights in UFOs are allowed to be baptized as Mormon Christians.
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
and so we were left at a partial implementation of the image with bad sectors at the top, middle (especially) and the bottom (er... ahem!)
So you see, closed source is not a good idea even if you try to be so good and use disk cloning.
God hadn't heard of hard disk crashes, you know...
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
intelligent space faring aliens are more likely to believe in it.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
to screw up (pun maybe intended) the image.
That fool also messed up the cropping at the very top of the image, instead focusing on beautifying the part just below the top (of the image, you pervert...). A few blobs and brushes here and there got us variety and disparity.
Had the guy used GIMP or TuxPaint, things would have been perfect, ya know...
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
it is more than logical conclusion.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Richard Dawkins' website (The God Delusion) http://richarddawkins.net/ also has a chat feature for atheists.
Visit http://smallpophypothesis.net/
You'll need to register. Some mods there are assholes, but otherwise it is OK.
Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
Seen the last MIB scene where you zoom out to finally see two mighty master beings playing with marbles, each of which are cosmoses in their own with their own "rules" and "laws".
Zooming out could go on nearly forever, given the speed at which the Big Bang created things in such variety - everything's dynmamic and creation and destruction are daily "boring" business in the cosmos. *Real* space tourism!
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
The pope doesn't really deny science as much anymore. I'm not a big fan, but John Paul even supported the Big Bang theory.
They still fall on the first test of science, even if they try to cover themselves in a science jacket the way a wolf hides in a sheep's skin: Their primary assumption ("there is a god according to our specifications") is not only un-tested, it's also non-falsifiable, and as such, unscientific.
Logic 101 tells us that if you start with a wrong assumption, every conclusion you derive from it is worse then false, it's meaningless.
Personally, I think these are just old men struggling to keep their empire up and running, like the RIAA or MPAA. They'll do anything to justify their faith, no matter what. And that's their second failure: They don't allow the option that they're completely wrong. Hitchins is right, the only question you need to ask anyone of any religious faith is: "What would it take for you to say 'I'm wrong, there is no god'?". If the answer is - as it usually will be - an elaborate wiggling around that ultimately ends in "nothing can convince me of that", just in more cautious words, you can stop discussing with that guy, because it's pointless.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
To further clarify the common usage of the word plausible for you, if you dispute my reading, you may reference the "common usage guide" in the Webster's Unabridged Dictionary which states:
For your benefit, I'll neglect your dastardly use of a triple negative which actually parses to the opposite of what you mean.
Oh, I'm sorry. Are my "most basic reading comprehension skills" showing?
As I said, there are things you can point to and say "that's evolution" in the same sense that you can point to a falling object and say "that's gravity".
Things that are seen as it happens, not just digging up a few bones and constructing a theory.
Those links are just the first two things I found from a quick internet search. However there is an abundance of such observations where evolution can be said to have been observed as a matter of fact.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Nah... Even that part is covered.
$DEITY believes in you even if you don't believe in he/she/it.
After all... Christians alone had like 2000 years to come up with ready answers to any question that questions $DEITY.
But the time or man-hours involved is not the issue here.
Its the "The Wizard Did It" all-solving solution that logic can't compete with.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The very concept of 'creation' is not compatible with the concept of an omnipotent and omniscient God. The concept of 'creation' implies the existence of a time-space continuum, because creating something means to alter the state of something. But the existence of a time-space continuum that God exists in comes in direct contradiction with the concept of an omnipotent and omniscient God: if there is a structure larger than God that God lives in, then God is not infinite. It also raises the question of how this God-universe was created.
Even if God and this time-space continuum was one and the same, the concept of creation means that the two dimensions of this universe (space and time - space is one dimension with 3 components) also exist in the God-universe. Which means that either the God-universe had a start or it existed for ever. If the God-universe existed for ever, why this universe can not exist for ever? if, on the other hand, the God-universe had a start, then who created it? both outcomes are problematic.
Christians will now tell me that I don't understand God, and I can't speak for things I don't understand. Ok, I accept that, but I will ask them the same question: how do they understand that I don't understand God? by what criteria they can identify that my conclusions are wrong? what do they compare them against?
Jefferson's vision was of a Swiss style on-demand military with NO standing army. My point was that "bear arms" doesn't refer, as the National Gun-nut Assoc. would have you believe, to carrying a gun through the woods shooting squirrels.
As for the Catholic Mafia who keeps modding me down, do you not understand that this MF was a Nazi or does it just not matter to you?
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
I would really interested in some speculations here: if all life is wiped-out on earth, I mean no dna left at all anywhere. If the planet, presumably being in just the "right" place in the solar system, could spontaneously repopulate itself in 2-3 billion years? Let's assume that the sun would not vary in temperature over that period. If the answer is generally yes, then why don't we see more evidence of "intelligent" life elsewhere in the galaxy?
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
This would serve to explain why aliens speak english in the movies. I mean we're all made in God's image, right? And God is an American, right? And God speaks english, so aliens must also speak it on their home planets.
-- Boycott Shell
He should be shot. The Big Bang Theory is an atrocious show.
The right to bear arms is guaranteed. No restrictions are placed on it in the amendment; it doesn't say "the right to bear arms for the purpose of national defense" although it does discuss that as a justification for why people should be able to bear arms.
Most significantly, the founding fathers felt that a revolution once in a while was necessary and inevitable. Keep in mind that this nation was founded on revolution. Unfortunately the purpose of any bureaucracy is to self-perpetuate, something that the founders failed to sufficiently take into account IMO (although they did a very good job in most respects, as far as anyone can tell. The USA is actually the most democratic society of any size ever... as scary as that is.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I claim you don't understand through a flaw in your above logic....
True we are in a universe that is winding down (entropy) and will eventually end.
True, for god to have ultimate power over this universe he must be greater and or outside the universe.
Question: Why must we assume that the place god interacts from MUST have had a begining?
Now I agree, I can't comprehend what that would be like...but my personal inabilities DOES NOT mean that it can't be true. (Talk to most people about the specifics of quantum mechanics and you will find a similar sort of opinion)
You can never prove something does not exist. Nothing can contradict the idea of a super natural being in abstract, but then there is also no empirical reason to believe it exists. As soon as you come up with empirical reasons to believe it exists, those can certainly be contradicted. This doesn't detract from the possibility of believing out of faith alone.
And time is big.
Meeting alien life isn't just a matter of somewhere, it's a problem of somewhen as well. There probably have been and will be countless instances of intelligent life that just never traverse the same space at the same time as another.
First Reply (to Parent): Okay, repeat after me: Evolution is NOT the same as adaptation. I am tired of hearing these two terms used interchangeably, especially in the Creation vs Evolution arguement! Adaptation is the natural process whereby an organism ADAPTS physiologically to it's environment. We're talking small changes here, folks, for specific purposes. The two examples you cited are GREAT examples of adapting, NOT evolving. Evolution is taking adaptation to it's illogical conclusion, that if enough adaptations happen over a long enough period of time, then suddenly we have two completely different species! No sane Christian will argue that God made creatures capable of adapting to their environment. What we WILL argue with is the thought that long-term evolution can be proven my short-term adaptation. There is no OBSERVABLE evidence for evolution, as the time-scale needed is too large, understand? Second Reply (regarding article): Actually, most Christian will argue that the Bible (our basis for belief) is great proof that aliens do NOT exist. The end of all Creation is described as being destroyed by fire after the Millinial Reign, directly after Satan et al are thrown into the burning lake. Another way the end is described is "All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll" (Isaiah 34:4) Boy. that doesn't sound very fair to any alien life-forms, does it? If they are intelligent, then they sin, as stated in Romans (3:23): "Al have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." And yet, Christ never died for them, as the Bible is quite clear that He came and died only once: "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God." (1st Peter 3:18) The Bible also states that God is wholly Just, so wouldn't it be out of character for Him to create a race of intelligent, sinful beings, and then kill them with no hope of restitution? I don't know what "god" YOU serve, but the Lord God Almighty, Yahweh, is NOT that kind of God!
Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
in "Fountains of Paradise". The discovery of an extraterrestrial intelligence completely invalidates all of the Earth's religions on the grounds that the Earth is no longer the center of the universe and that humans are no longer the sole intelligence in the universe. These premises are the keystone of all religions.
Oh, come on. That's just so weak. Sure, omnipotence would imply that god could change form. It would also imply that s/he could change anything -- personality, morality, laws of physics -- whatever. How could any omnipotent being have an immutable (meaning it cannot be changed) core?
It is possible you need to examine your beliefs a little more closely. If you did that, though, you might find that god and logic were as incompatible as imnipotence and immutability.
Actually, this falls in line PERFECTLY.
We are basing this on the concept that each of us has an immortal component (call it a soul).
The soul is a reflection of God. The soul is the "image of God."
To use a technological/sci fi analogy, you are not your brain in your body. Your consciousness could (in sci fi/future tech) be transfered into a computer. YOU would still exist...your body wouldn't. Your form would change but the portion of you that is fundamentally you would remain the same.
As for Christianity and religion, I suggest you try researching the history with out pre-conceived prejudices. Christianity has more historical proof behind it than most secular organizations (like ancient Egypt or other river delta civilizations). In addition the internal logic is absolutely consistent and is actually a remarkable support for scientific exploration.
If you can put down your pre-conceived ideas and actually do a real, scientific examination of the history and associated data you would find that a Christian type God IS the logical conclusion. The way it has been practiced is often messed up but the fundamentals stand on the tests of logic.
If Jamie modeled his "holy communication device" after the Ark of the Covenant, he just might actually make contact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant
At the least, it may well be a "shocking" experience.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Normally when one says "The Vatican says," he is referring to an encyclical by the Pope or a statement by one of the chief offices. This a an astronomer who happens to be a priest speculating. He works as director of an observatory, but it's not like this is Church policy.
Advice: on VPS providers
Electronic thumb. http://hhgproject.org/entries/electronicthumb.html
From skeptic anoted bible :
In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3), sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite.
A few clarification why it is not the correct order :
1) Bird were certainly late at the party after the reptile were created.
2) Sun and star were certainly created before planet and earth (heavy element were created in novae IIRC)
3) Whales are mammalians, a late addition to the animal worlds. Certainly came after the reptilians and insects.
4) more damning as said above angiosperm are a late addition only 130+ million year old roughly
Quote : " 2. Go throgh a textbook on evolution with the list you wrote in step one and you will discover something very odd. Same order."
Only if you don't know when flower came into the evolutionary tree, ignore that whale are mammals, ignore that byrd are late addition too, ignore basic astronomy. Oh well anyway let us ignore science altogether , and you are right
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
UC Berkeley respectfully disagrees with you. Or are you trying to pawn off the whole micro/macroevolution distinction that has no real scientific basis? I'm sorry, but adaptation can be precisely what evolution is. More generally, evolution is merely a change over time (not necessarily of an adaptive nature), nothing more, nothing less. Adaptations, I think we will all agree, are definitely changes over time. "Long term evolution" as you put it (again, there is no scientific basis for this kind of distinction) is merely the accumulation of many such individual adaptations. Or are you going to now claim that individual adaptations can occur, but prohibit their combination? Please.
If you still insist on believing that nonsense, you might want to look into something called transfinite induction, and consider how it might be applied to properties such as adaptation. I think you may be (unpleasantly) surprised by its logical inevitability.
I have one question to the Vatican guys : Did Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the aliens too ??
PS : I believe in God the unique creator of the universe and all forms of life it contains.
But I am sorry I can't handle the three in one shampoo theory, with a god that has a wife and a son and considers children guilty for what their late ancestors did!
Get the facts
I'm actually surprised that ANYONE replied to my post, as most non-pro-evolution posts get ignored, or marked "troll". Ragardless, thank you for having enough faith in your belief in evolution to reply! Open minds are happy minds. If you want to define evolution as being = to adaptation, you are welcome to. This DOES seem to be the secular view of things, but it glosses over what most of the arguement is about, and neatly avoids the fact that if it takes millions of years for a species to split and become incompatible genetically (thereby "evolving"), Science has an issue with proof, since the actual evolution of a species is not specifically observable. This also leaves you stuck in something of a rut: For an animal to evolve into a new animal, it would take a large amount of time for individual adaptations to add up. Therefore, there MUST be millions of years of Earth's history! And since there's millions of years worth of adaptations, evolution must be true! So, evolution proves millions of years which proves evolution? Sounds a bit like a circular reference to me! Observing small changes, leaping to the conclusion that this must be how every trait of every animal was created, stretching the earth's timeline to fit the model of evolution and THEN using evolution to prove the revised timeline? Hmm. And they say it takes faith to believe in God!
Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
You did not understand my words.
To create something means a change of state. The universe goes from state A to state B.
Since there is a flow (A -> B), there is time.
Therefore, if God created something, there is a timespace that encloses God.
You are asking why the place God interacts from must have had a beginning...a valid question. Let's name this place the God-universe. There are two possible answers:
1) the God-universe is eternal.
2) the God-universe is not eternal.
Let's examine case 1.
If the God-universe is eternal, and since it contains the same concept of time and space as our universe (because of the concept of creation, see above), then the God-universe's entropy would be infinite, which would not allow anything to be created. Therefore, either the creation did not happen, or the God-universe is not eternal. Since we exist, it seems the God-universe is not eternal.
So, we have conclusively proven that it's not possible for a universe that can change states to be eternal. Therefore, someone must have created the God-universe.
This leads to infinite recursion, and therefore the initial proposition must be wrong, i.e. that someone created this universe.
The concept of creation also leads to another issue: if God is infinite in all directions, can he create something so as that what exists after the creation is greater than what existed before creation?
In mathematics, it's not possible to add something to infinite, and therefore one can not make comparisons with infinite numbers. The formula 'infinite + 1 > infinite' is not a valid mathematical formula.
Therefore, an infinite God can not create anything, because if he did, he would not be infinite.
So either God does not exist, or there was no creation. Since we exist, the only logical conclusion is that God does not exist, at least as we think God is (an omnipotent and omniscient being).
Finally, the concept of omniscient God comes in direct contradiction with the concept of free will.
We are talking about evolution.
If you want to talk about biogenesis you might want to find somewhere more relevant.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Your argument is based on causality.
However even in our own universe, causality is not mandated. Some of the interesting features of quantum mechanics is that it can actually disconnect the cause from the effect. This even allows you to experience the effect BEFORE the cause has happened. It is only through a gradual summation of these strange effects do we get the universe we experience....and this is all in a universe with very sane and predictable rules (ours).
Current theories show that a universe with our laws (which allow for our type of life) are no more likely than any other combination.
There is no reason to expect that the "universe" god exists in is mandated to follow the laws of causality as we experience them. There is no reason to expect that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies. As such, god could certainly have existed for all of time (there may not be time anyway) and at the same time created our universe. This is not a proof of god rather it is disputing your proof.
This is all based on current physics much of which is already exploited in some technology (therefore more than well proven).
Your argument as stated does not seem to have merit. Please update it if you like.
As for your statement about free will. This was not part of the original discussion but still a fun thought experiment.
#1 you are basing the statement on the assumption that we have free will from gods perspective. We may, we may not however we DO have reasonable free will from our perspective.
#2 From a position of faith I personally believe that god has granted us true free will. The reason is actually biblically based, we are asked to choose Christ and without free will there can be no choice. Therefore how can this be? While I concede that an all powerful god has the ability to short circuit free will, this does not mean that free will WILL be short circuited. Free will is a gift from god and is provided by god specifically NOT looking at our futures. This does not mean he is not all knowing, only that he hasn't already observed the result. Like quantum theory states, so long as you don't observe it you don't FORCE a result.
Free will for us means a sacrifice for God. I hope you use your gift well.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
You are using what, even charitably, can only be described as a non-standard definition of evolution. It sets up a convenient straw man, but it just isn't what any scientists actually hold to be the case. Evolution is NOT, I repeat NOT defined, by ANYBODY in terms of "genetic incompatibility." That's not what scientists mean when they say evolution, and it's at best a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to argue otherwise.
I will nip your argument in the bud though. It does not take millions of years for a species to become genetically incompatible for breeding purposes. You need look no further than domesticated dogs to see an example of that. So if that's the measure by which you would have us gauge evolution, then I refute you thus, with the domestic dog: something that has indisputably been observed throughout the recorded course of human history to have "evolved" (by your definition at least).
But that's all pointless because you're arguing against a straw man. You've defined evolution to be something that nobody is claiming it to be for purposes of arguing against that which it isn't. I will say it again: evolution is change in inheritable traits over time. Full stop. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is not "genetic incompatibility" (speciation is probably what you mean by this I'm guessing), although that is obviously an eventual product of evolution.
The reason most people obviously refuse to debate you is that you refuse to debate on the actual grounds that are in question. If you don't argue against what evolution actually is there's absolutely no point in pursuing that folly.
If that is your understanding then it is a sad reflection on something. Given the relatively free availability of information these day I think it can only be a sad reflection on you.
By that I mean you would have to be willfully ignorant to suggest science posits any such thing.
A lot of different scientific arenas are used to estimate the earths age but evolution is not one of them.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Unfortunately, there are (pleasureable) ways around that birth control method too ;-)
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
My argument is not based on causality, it is based on the concept of change: any system that can change states has the concept of 'before' and 'after', and therefore time. If that system contains matter, it also has the concept of space.
A note on causality: experiencing the effect before experiencing the cause does not mean the effect happened before the cause, nor does it mean that the effect is disconnected from the cause.
For the god-universe, I am not saying that it has matter as we know it or that the laws of thermodynamics are in use in the god-universe. I am saying that the god-universe has a space-time, implied by the concept of creation. The existence of space-time in the god-universe invalidates the omnipotent and omniscient properties of god.
The existence of space-time in the god-universe also implies the existence of entropy working in the same manner as the entropy of our universe, albeit with a different mechanism and materials. If entropy does not exist in a universe, then nothing could be created in it: any creation would be randomly destroyed.
Finally, the concept of creation implies the existence of some form of energy converted into our universe.
The proposition that time may not exist anyway is not valid, as long as we have changes in a system. The very existence of change implies a state before and a different state after an event, which is the definition of time.
As for free will, I will reply with a question: does Indiana Jones have free will when he is faced with the dilemma to open the Ark of the Covenant or not? he thinks he has, but we know he does not. And we know he is going to open it. Same thing goes with God: we think we have free will, but the script is already written, and God knows it.
God does not need to observe the result, because he has created it, so the argument is moot.
For the sake of what-the-fuck!? Adaption on a genetic level IS evolution. We can see it happening under a microscope. Quickly, jump on an other bandwagon, I think yours is beyond repair.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
For instance, string theory predicts a "greater" universe of M-Branes. These are, by necessity of the observations in our universe, eternal having neither a creation nor an end point yet by your definition they have time because periodically they collide which is what created the big bang.
I dispute your contention that change mandates an end and therefore a beginning. Time can also be defined in terms of a reference beginning point which in an endless universe does not exist ergo no time (something of a tautology I know but still a valid definition of time) The existence of space-time in the god-universe also implies the existence of entropy working in the same manner as the entropy of our universe, albeit with a different mechanism and materials. If entropy does not exist in a universe, then nothing could be created in it: any creation would be randomly destroyed. Actually, it is entropy itself that causes the random destruction. What if there was no trend? What if an atom stayed in place unless acted upon by a consciousness? There is actually nothing that precludes this scenario and that easily allows for creation without mandating terminals for the universe. Actually, some physicist think that OUR universe was only caused by the presence of our conscious ability to interpret it. Due to the separation of cause and effect, since we were GOING to be here the quantum supposition in our area collapsed creating the universe within our view (defined by about 15 billion light years.) Outside this area the universe is a standing wave and has not condensed at all. All this is very esoteric and I won't pretend to understand it much at all but all these theories are based on observations of OUR universe. We have already proven that temporal infinity does not preclude change outside of our universe.
As for Indiana Jones, what is the difference if I am watching it for the first time with my kid on the couch? I may have the fast forward button but I choose not to know what is going to happen. It is still a surprise to me (god) just like it is a surprise to my child (people) when Indy and whats her name got tied up and all the Nazi's got melted. Since there is no one else around who knows more about the plot, there is no material difference.
If you want to look at it your way than even if god DIDN'T exist there would be no free will. We can predict the future with arbitrary accuracy based on our current knowledge. Given a great enough knowledge we could predict everything that will happen to you till you die. Having a generous god is the ONLY way we could possibly have free will.
SPACE TEMPLARS! I know it does sound like a horrible B movie...
Religious interplantary crusades?
we got em...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ori_(Stargate)
Would none humanoid intelligent life "prove the existence" to the believers of another god who made them in its image?
...they'll say: "This species is still stuck on ideologies!"
-- thinkyhead software and media
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
Italian wall lizards introduced to islands in Croatia evolved larger heads, a totally different gut structure, and switched their diet from insects to plants. All in under 40 years.
-- thinkyhead software and media
AFAIK, Evolution is still a theory. A very convincing theory, I do not doubt that, but a theory nonetheless.
Yes, evolution is a theory. But, my friend, theories are as good as you get. That's how science works! No hypothesis, no matter how widely accepted, ever goes beyond the status of "the best theory so far."
The case with evolution is very strong. It is what you should rightly call a "well-established theory." In natural language, the scientific status of evolution is "most certainly correct, but needing more study to understand all its driving dynamics."
Now, if evolution were considered an untested idea, it would be called "the evolutionary hypothesis" and then you could say "The evolutionary hypothesis is still just a hypothesis. A very convincing hypotheses, I do not doubt that, but an untested hypothesis nonetheless."
In fact, we have observed natural selection in action. The surprising phylogenic changes over even short periods can easily be extrapolated to the huge spans of time since animals evolved - time enough for the profligate diversity of all the species on Earth to arrive at their current forms. By examining DNA we have discovered clear links between all mammals, for example, between dinosaurs and birds, the common heritage of all prokaryotes like you, me, and broccoli.
The evidence will continue to pile up until it reaches the moon and beyond, but there will always be some people reluctant to accept the implications. For them it will always be "just a theory." To prevent reason being undermined by this muddy meme we need to press the point that a theory is a very strong idea.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Never heard of this theory. Why does everyone think E.T. will be more advanced than us? If they are, then they would find us first. We would be no threat to them so why not make contact. On the otherhand, if we find life out there chances are we will be more advanced.
That's what we all do. My assumptions are based on logic, however. Logic is universal and can not be different in other universes.
But the m-branes are not omnipotent and omniscient, i.e. infinite in capabilities and in knowledge. They exist within a structure which is larger than them, a structure that encloses them.
No, you did not understand. Change does not mandate an end and a beginning. Change dictates the existence of a space-time that is greater than God. Therefore God is not omnipotent and omniscient, because the god-universe is greater than the God. But this fact leads to the conclusion that God could not have created the god-universe, so either the god-universe is eternal or someone else created it.
Indeed. But if entropy exists in this universe, is it controlled by God? if God does not control it, then God is not omnipotent and omniscient...if God controls the entropy, then he has intentions, which can not be an attribute of an infinite entity. Intentions come from feelings, feelings come from instincts, instincts are created by nature. God can't have all these, because God is omnipotent and omniscient. Unless God is not.
And what moves the atoms of the consciousness? obviously, the consciousness itself is composed of something, otherwise it would not exist.
That's an urban myth created by the misinterpretation of the Schrodiger's Cat experiment and the false interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. The wave function collapses as soon as it comes in contact not with a conscious observer, but with another particle. This collapse is necessary for the universe to exist, and it has nothing to do with the presence of a conscious observer.
Nope, there's the false interpretation again. A particle is a wave until it needs to interact with another particle. The twin slit experiment takes place with or without our presence. The photon particles maintain their wave properties in front of our eyes. They don't collapse even if we are there. They only collapse when we try to measure them using another photon.
Indeed, but the problem here is how do we fit an omnipotent and omniscient god in the picture. It seems that, fr
One Alien to the other: Told ya it was from this species the dumb-asses that ate the fucking apple!!!!
Alien addressing us: How old is this planet? We need to set our time machine clock and go fix your stupid error.
Church: 6,000 years old! Don't listen to the talking snake!
Slashdot: OMG pwnd!!!!