Generally I do not reprint or repost other people's articles but this was so far over-the-top, it warranted putting out in full because of its absurdity.
In science's headlong rush to devise theories that do away with the need for God, they have begun to come up with more and more zany boneheaded theories. This article from weblog "io9" has to be the cream of the crop. I guess they figure that any explanation is better than God or the Bible. A vain attempt to rationaize a system outside the system. The problem with all this absurd zaniness is that the explanations have become so convoluted and absurd that perhaps...just perhaps...the idea that it was indeed God who created and sustains the universe...is the most plausible explanation...
Without further adieu....the absurd article:
Five Weird Theories of What Lies Outside the Universe by Ed Grabianowski
Physicists have long studied the nature of the universe. But some go a step further into the unknown (and probably unknowable), contemplating what lies outside the boundaries of our universe.(Thanks to Anakupto for the post)
Is it possible that something else exists beyond existence? Yes. Here are five theories about what that "something" might be.
The "outside the universe" question gets tricky right off the bat, because first you have to define the universe. One common answer is called the observable universe, and it's defined by the speed of light. Since we can only see things when the light they emit or reflect reaches us, we can never see farther than the farthest distance light can travel in the time the universe has existed. That means the observable universe keeps getting bigger, but it is finite – the amount is sometimes referred to as the Hubble Volume, after the telescope that has given us our most distant views of the universe. We'll never be able to see beyond that boundary, so for all intents and purposes, it's the only universe we'll ever interact with....
View rest of article here
5 comments:
I have no doubt that they are precluding God, but the article does not say that. Why do these ideas necessitate precluding God? They probably seem silly to some (most), but they are just ideas that people are throwing around. I would bet that some of these guys may even be Christians (gasp!). One time I was talking to a Christian (can't remember if it was before or after I was walking with God) about life on other planets. He told me that he believes that if there is life on other planets, he would bet that Jesus died there as well. I thought it was a little bit crazy, but his point was received. God loves His creation and is active in all of it. We have no clue what "all of it" even is. It is fun to think about what might lie outside of the Hubble Volume. What ideas do you have?
This precludes God on a few counts. They may just be “ideas” people are “throwing around” but they are unbiblical ideas that are being thrown. My job as a theologian and teacher is to discern when these ideas become dangerous or “exalt themselves against God”. If they “exalt themselves against God, the Bible informs be that I am to “tear them down”. This means I am to discredit them and show them for the absurd statements that they are (2 Corinthians 10:1-5)…that fly in the face and flaunt themselves in front of an everlasting and infinite God who has already given us the Truth that we need. Without going on an extensive diatribe...(1) The argument of the "observable" universe is a philosophical game of semantics. (2) Anyone with proper theology knows for a fact that the universe is not infinite. It had a beginning (Genesis 1:1) therefore it is finite. It is being argued early in the article as a "closed system" i.e: Hubbles Bubble and later self-contradicts in the article when stating that there may be infinite parallel or infinite bubbles. Having had a beginning they are not infinite, they are finite. That based solely in physical time-bound fact. If we enter the realm of theology we know that God need s to reside outside the universe as He is not “of” or “part” of the Creation. That being the case, anything material or physical cannot be infinite since it has been created…it is outside the possibilities of its existence in relation to God, a truly infinite being.
In other words, nothing physical can ever be truly infinite. Only God is infinite…and He is Spirit not physical. So the statement that anything physical either in quantity or size is a violation of the Law of Non-contradiction based on what I understand to be the truth about God. That being said about truth...
To answer your question…I don’t have theories (with and “s”) I have an idea based on the Bible..which is to say Biblical fact. God is the only thing that exists outside of our single finite universe. (Please don’t force me to explain my stance on the “heavens and the earth” and God’s omnipotence (it’ll be nauseatingly wordy)
The postmodern world believes that even after someone like me has arrived at a truth claim (as I have done) I should continue to be open minded or “keep my mind open” to other truths. If I have already determined what is true why would I continue to look for the truth I have already found? This becomes an unreasonable expectation/proposition. Why would an observer maintain open-mindedness to a second alternative view when truth can only be one of them and the observer (me) has already determined which is true?
It is then the one who disbelieves (you) this belief or opinion (which I have posited in this post and 625 before -based in the belief in the Bible) in the face of the best truth argument that then becomes… liable to offer a better explanation. The onus of proof to explain becomes, in this case…your issue. For me to continue to stay open-minded in the face of my clearly explained truth then becomes foolishness. There can only be one truth. You tell me, which one is it? I already know the answer. Truth is not dependant on a viewer or viewpoint (you or I). Real truth is absolute regardless of whether you or I exist or not. That truth is Christ and the Bible. Just because someone else’s map to the truth is wrong doesn’t mean the truth itself is wrong.
i don't think phils disbelieves though, lol!
Acts 17:28 (New International Version)
28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[a] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[b]
Footnotes:
Acts 17:28 From the Cretan philosopher Epimenides
Acts 17:28 From the Cilician Stoic philosopher Aratus
Since the only universe we can interact with is smaller than the actual universe, then we should understand that we can never prove origin or define the universe. Some say that technologies will in the future allow us to see further and possibly obtain this information. The problem with this is that it is just wishful thinking. It isn't actually an extrapolation of real possibilities, it is a postulation from imagination. The reason is simple.
The laws of nature give observation a smaller scope than the boundaries of existing matter.
Unless we can change our ability to observe, the ends of the universe will never be seen. The Hubble volume should humble our opinion of knowledge. The secular world makes knowledge a god and sometimes even the Church does unaware but there is a limit to our ability to have knowledge so it is an inadequate god; a non-omni god. Knowledge itself cannot communicate its comprehensive curriculum to us and we cannot search it out.
There are many atheist who do not know that they reason with the hidden premise that this full knowledge is obtainable. They consider themselves humble thinkers because they cannot see this arrogant premise. Once an individual recognizes that knowledge cannot serve as a god and that it is only a tool to be used as far as we are able, then the idea of God is more attainable intellectually. That is not to say that the idea of God is unintellectual, just that it is more so in the atheist mind once this obstacle is overcome.
Simply put: more scientifically atheist thinkers should take this fact of not being able to obtain the knowledge of origin or definition of universe into account.
Complex but a well articulated point of view snsar asiejd. Have to admit you lost me on some of it but one thing in particular jumps off the screen at me.
"Once an individual recognizes that knowledge cannot serve as a god and that it is only a tool to be used as far as we are able, then the idea of God is more attainable intellectually. That is not to say that the idea of God is unintellectual, just that it is more so in the atheist mind once this obstacle is overcome."
Well articulated...
Post a Comment