Cosmic Theology

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
American Deist
Apprentice
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

Cosmic Theology

Post #1

Post by American Deist »

Many people don't understand just how massive the universe really is. Light travels at 671,000,000 mph and it takes light anywhere from 100,000 to 180,000 Earth years to cross our galaxy, the Milky Way. Our little galaxy contains hundreds of billions of stars, with each star potentially containing several planets in orbit around it, just like our Sun. On top of it, there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the known universe. Some of those galaxies are so far away that light has been traveling from them for billions of years and is just now visible to us.

On Earth, our years are approximately three hundred sixty-five days and six hours long. That is why every four years we have a "leap year;" to account for those accumulated twenty-four hours. Other planets have a different length of time that makes up a year, which is simply how long it takes for a planet to orbit its star. For example, Mars takes six hundred eighty-seven days to orbit the Sun. Obviously Mars would not have the same calendar as Earth. Bear that in mind as we think on a cosmic scale.

We know that there are other galaxies with planets. Science and technology allows us to see the shift in brightness when a planet passes in front of its star. The ancients that wrote the Bible did not have such luxuries. Early mankind had Earth centered religions because of the lack of science and technology. The belief that Earth is the center of creation is called geocentricity. The Roman Catholic Church held that belief for centuries, and even put Galileo on trial for challenging it. The Church was eventually proven wrong...again.

Now think about life on other planets. I am of the opinion that we are not alone in this universe. The odds that Earth is unique with sentient beings is astronomically small. How small are those odds? Well, let's say each star has 1 planet, and each galaxy has 100,000,000,000 stars (VERY conservative estimate). We know that the Hubble has tracked at least 100,000,000,000 galaxies. Whew! What does all of that mean? If only 0.0000001% of those planets have alien life, there are 1 billion alien civilizations!

[(100,000,000,000 x 100,000,000,000) x 0.0000001%]

Those other planets, whether in our galaxy or one that is billions of light years away, do not follow our Earth based calendar. They do not share our history, culture, theology, or language. If other planets have intelligent beings, and those beings developed religions just like we did, do you think that they would use the same stories, names and dates? No, of course not! Their holy books would differ greatly from ours.

Just because we lack the means to visit those planets does not mean that life is nonexistent elsewhere in the cosmos. It is asinine to even think that, especially if your opinion is based off archaic writings written by people that thought the Earth was the center of creation. Heck, our own Sun is not even the center of our galaxy; we're on one of the spiral arms of the Milky Way.

The birth of Jesus is celebrated throughout Christendom on December 25th, of the Earth calendar. Why December 25th? Well it is not because that was Jesus' actual birthday! That day was selected during the reign of the Roman Empire. Not only did the Romans hold a Saturnalia festival in late December, but northern and western pagans throughout Europe also celebrated various festivals around the same time. To top it off, Emperor Aurelian established the feast of the birth of Sol Invictus on December 25th. Rome controlled much of the world during the time of Jesus and for several centuries after. The dates and festivals were already in place, so the simplest thing for Christians to do was to adopt what was already in practice and make it their own.

The concept of a creator deity is most likely not unique to Earth. That can be inferred because civilizations across the world, that did not have any known contact with each other, came up with the idea of gods and goddesses. If it happened here, it could happen elsewhere. Interestingly enough, that very concept would be the common denominator between planets with intelligent life. The name of the deity is merely based on the language spoken. For example, in English one might say God, but in German it would be Gott. In Arabic it is Allah. The name is irrelevant, it is the belief that matters.

Does it all sound crazy? For many people I am sure it does. But for those that think outside of the box, especially on a cosmic scale, it not only makes perfect sense, but it also expands your religious outlook. Suddenly, our pettiness on Earth seems rather silly.
I am only responsible for what I say, not what you fail to understand!
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: ET

Post #11

Post by bluethread »

William wrote: The OP and subsequent posts remind me of why I think of the gods of the bible as being ET.

The reason for this is because all the stories can be understood as literal far better in that context than in the context of having to introduce a supernatural element in order to explain them.
Yes, a common mental construct for accepting the supernatural is to redefine it as natural that we do not yet understand.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: ET

Post #12

Post by William »

bluethread wrote:
William wrote: The OP and subsequent posts remind me of why I think of the gods of the bible as being ET.

The reason for this is because all the stories can be understood as literal far better in that context than in the context of having to introduce a supernatural element in order to explain them.
Yes, a common mental construct for accepting the supernatural is to redefine it as natural that we do not yet understand.
Yes - but then there is no reason to even call anything 'supernatural'. :) Like with the magicians illusion, one can say "it is not something that can not be explained, through physics and science, if indeed the knowledge one day will come along and help us to do the explaining."
Of course we should not consider any illusion of magic to being 'supernatural' simple because it cannot be explained, and 'looks' at the time as if it could defy any possible physical explanation. There will always be a most natural explanation to any such thing.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: ET

Post #13

Post by bluethread »

William wrote: There will always be a most natural explanation to any such thing.
In the opinion of the empirical rationalist.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #14

Post by William »

bluethread wrote:
American Deist wrote: [Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

The reason why the Scriptures are geocentric is because ancient man did not have telescopes. They stood on the earth, looked at the sky, and made up stories to explain what they saw. They did not know any better.

You can't look at the Scriptures through a modern lens. You have to put yourself in their culture, in their geographic location, and in their mindset as uneducated people by today's standards.
Though I think your judgement regarding THE reason the Scriptures are geocentric is a bit self serving, I agree with you on the best way of understanding them. Even today most people live geocentric lives. Most of us accept information about things out in space, generally by faith, but most of what we say, do and write is geocentric, including science fiction. I can't think of any work of science fiction that accurately represents space as observation and experimentation has established it.
I think the main reason for this 'I am the center of the universe" pov is because subjectively speaking, that is always the case and can only ever be the case for any conscious self aware entity.

This is why we see the importance of scientific discovery because it gives us an objective view in which to subjectively work towards, even as a collective of subjective minds.

Say for example, the internet evolves into something we can wirelessly connect our brain to and access all the data of every other human beings experience on the planet likewise connected to that and we could have all that information in sync and simultaneously...then essentially that would be what we were, altogether, subjectively speaking.

No human brain, of course, is able to handle such a thing (too much data) but if an entity were able to do this then that is what the entity would BE in relation to self identity and subjective experience as a conscious self aware being.

Which is to say that, no matter how small a form or how large a form, the capabilities of that form in relation to the consciousness within that form, it will always be a subjective experience that the consciousness has.

The objective lies outside of its self, and can only be reacted to in relation to the form/capabilities of the form.

That is why I cannot subjectively look out at the stars and say 'there is no GOD', because the stars do not objectively show this to being the case.
I could subjectively interpret that this is what the stars are showing me, but really?

Best I can really do in such a situation is to say "maybe there is maybe there isn't but I will examine everything as if there is a GOD, and from that see if I can determine by the creation, what the creator might be like and how the creator might subjectively view things.

Why?

Because I want to and I find it really interesting.

:)

:)

Monta
Guru
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:29 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #15

Post by Monta »

[Replying to post 14 by William]

"Best I can really do in such a situation is to say "maybe there is maybe there isn't but I will examine everything as if there is a GOD, and from that see if I can determine by the creation, what the creator might be like and how the creator might subjectively view things.

Why?

Because I want to and I find it really interesting. "

To examine, to question, to research... wise path.

Besides interesting we owe it to ourselves.
Life without God and a life with God is HUGEly different.

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #16

Post by Neatras »

[Replying to post 15 by Monta]

I find your focus on William's post to be encouraging only insofar as he professes an interest in presuming God's existence prior to beginning any actual investigation. Would you be so forthright in complimenting someone if they similarly stated they would examine the universe "without any speculation on the existence of a god, or lack thereof"?

I smell a double standard, and wonder if perhaps you're reinforcing confirmation bias. It's well known that when someone goes out of their way to model reality through the lens of there being a creator, they come to make several (faulty) assumptions later on that fit their predisposition.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #17

Post by Divine Insight »

Monta wrote: Life without God and a life with God is HUGEly different.
Why should it be? :-k

Why should your behavior, or your outlook on life, be influenced by whether or not a God exists?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Monta
Guru
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:29 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #18

Post by Monta »

[Replying to Neatras]

"I smell a double standard, and wonder if perhaps you're reinforcing confirmation bias. It's well known that when someone goes out of their way to model reality through the lens of there being a creator, they come to make several (faulty) assumptions later on that fit their predisposition."

I am surprised yu see it that way.

My response to William is totally unbiased.
An Atheist could easily use the same wording

"To examine, to question, to research... wise path.

Besides interesting we owe it to ourselves.
Life without God and a life with God is HUGEly different."

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: ET

Post #19

Post by Kenisaw »

bluethread wrote:
William wrote: There will always be a most natural explanation to any such thing.
In the opinion of the empirical rationalist.
And based on history so far...

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: ET

Post #20

Post by bluethread »

Kenisaw wrote:
bluethread wrote:
William wrote: There will always be a most natural explanation to any such thing.
In the opinion of the empirical rationalist.
And based on history so far...
Again, as viewed from the prospective of the empirical rationalist. One can view history from many perspectives.

Post Reply