h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Mikey,

I didn't hear the radio programme, so could I ask whether they were saying that these parallel universes had different laws of physics to ours, or that they had no laws of physics?

I'd always understood that God was not bound by any laws of physics, rather than having to obey different laws.

Gif

Ed

<>

Scientists believe in all sorts of stuff that makes little rational sense!...parallel universes etc, places in the universe where you need to suspend 3 dimensional thought in order to understand it!...time travel's also difficult to imagine. 'A parallel universe that may be less than a millimetre away' was another of their discussion points on the radio program!

The scientists in the interview conjectured that these other universes may also have intelligent life far more evolved than us.

I'm just trying to make the point that it isn't that big a jump from this train of thought to a belief in a 'spiritual' world that may be more intelligent than us/able to communicate with us...? It all leads to another point...there is far far more to this universe of ours than we humans yet understand; perhaps we need to be open-minded to the notion that there might be a Creator?!?!

In the words or Chris de Burgh: 'Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na'

Mikey2

Gif

Hi

Different laws of physics

Mikey2

Hmm, so they're talking about parallel universes that didn't create ours, and differ in things like the strength of gravity.

It's not really what I'd thought people meant by 'God'. At best you might get Superman-type creatures that are physically and mentally stronger than us (but incapable of ever meeting us). But I wouldn't consider Superman to be God if I met him.

And, of course, parallel universes with slightly different laws of physics would undercut the cosmological argument, the last remaining argument for God's existence.

Gif

Hi Gif

re Preparing for the Passover...

I assume you are referring to John 19:31. This passage has nothing to do with the preparation for the Passover. That has long ago been prepared for and eaten -- Christ and His disciples have had their meal and made their way to the Garden of Gethsemane after darkness fell ( see Matt 26:17-36 ; Mark 14:12-32 ; Luke 22:7-39 and John 13:1-30 and 18:1 ). Again, it's still the same day (14 Nissan) that commenced at sundown and is to end the following sundown. Trust me(or just ask any observant Jew).

What John 19:31 refers to is the preparation for the Sabbath Day which in that particular year, followed the Passover. There could be no bodies hanging on crosses on the sabbath, for that would have been a defilement to the religious observances.

If you are referring to another verse in John, please identify it.

Regards

RC

Hi Rick,

Close, but no. I'm looking at John 19:14, which specifically mentions the Passover: 'it was the preparation of the passover'.

Gif

Hi Gif

Why would anyone seek to advance the theory of the Holy Trinity unless the Bible teaches it (the very idea makes absolutely no sense at all to an intelligent human mind!)? I certainly have never been able to comprehend it (though I only claim average intelligence).

The fact is, that even without a direct biblical reference to explain the Trinity, the concept is clearly revealed by Scripture. That was the conclusion of the four Ecumenical Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. Over the space of more than 125 years (from Nicea to Chalcedon), the best theological minds were forced to accept this premise (note that the participants of the Nicene council would all have died by the time Chalcedon played out; thus, at the last, there was nobody coming to re-affirm their initial decision -- no need for anyone to save face in the event that an error was made. No, there was complete agreement that the Bible teaches the Trinity.

A brief summarization : we have a single God. See references in Isaiah 44:6 and Mark 12:29 (a reprise of a passage in Deut.) Second, there is a plurality within the single Godhead (see Gen. 1:26 ; Gen. 11:7 (the Hebrew supports the 1st person plural).

The command to baptise in Matt. 28:19 comes to the disciples to do so in the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit (the Greek insists on the singular " name " -- not " names " ). Thus we have one God who is represented in three distinct persons who are in perfect harmony. John 14:25 also strongly implies the Trinity. There are verses elsewhere that collectively adduce the notion of a tri-partite Divinity, but they more-or-less repeat the verses I have quoted.

Cheers

RC

Hi Gif

You raise a good point; it does cause some confusion.

I have checked other translations and optional renderings.
The New English Bible shows " It was Friday in Passover... " Again. I hate to reiterate this, but I do think the confusion may be brought about by the often interchangable use of Unleavened Bread and Passover (see Chron. 30:13-15 ; Mark 14:1 and Luke 22:1 ).

The other three Gospel accounts are clear that the Passover meal was ended at this juncture. That places the crucifixion after the Passover preparation not before.



Rick

>Hi Gif

You raise a good point<

Don't be so double entendre royalrcrompton.You can take suggestions like that into the public bar please.

The Holy orders.........

M1:
>>Scientists believe in all sorts of stuff that makes little rational sense!...

Careful now! What they said was that they make sense to the extent that assuming them allows us to explain phenomena in our own world.


>>'A parallel universe that may be less than a millimetre away' was another of their discussion points on the radio program!

But he didn't mean that in the 3 1/2 D way we can understand. He wasn't implying that the distance is small enough to hop across. Think of it more as a metaphor.

>>The scientists in the interview conjectured that these other universes may also have intelligent life far more evolved than us.

'Conjectured' is the word. They made it clear that it would be de facto impossible to know anything about the other universes.

>>I'm just trying to make the point that it isn't that big a jump from this train of thought to a belief in a 'spiritual' world that may be more intelligent than us/able to communicate with us...?

You're on the wrong train, I fear. The point is that nothing could hop from one universe to another.

Besides - it's only one hypothesis and one way of explaining it. I'm given to understand by people who know more about it than I ever could that the smart money is on 11-odd dimensions bundled up in a tiny, tiny space.

But a more fundamental objection that I have is to the idea of looking for god in ever more unlikely places. OK - so say I keep an open mind and admit that god isn't impossible, just very, very likely. (I do think that god's impossible - or, at least, meaningless - but that's another story.) Even than I'd have to object that finding a novel place where he might have been hiding all this time doesn't make him any more likely. We still have no evidence for his having done anything!

And even if we speculate that god might be some kind of highly evolved lifeform that can hop across from another universe - I'm happy to accept that there may be beings cleverer than us in *this* universe, let alone another one. But c'mon...is your god merely a technologically superior alien? What have aliens got to say about important stuff like morality, anyway? The idea of basing a religion around them would be as absurd as us telling leopards 'Thou shallt not kill'. I'd kinda hoped this god we were talking about was something more pervasive than that.

Hi Edward the Bonobo

re

God reveals Himself to whom He wills (se John 14:6) and saves the objects of His love (see Rom. 9:13-24). It is all of grace. According to Scripture, we cannot even seek the true and living God (cf. Psalm 53:1-4 ; 14:1-4 ; Rom. 3:10-12).

I can relate to your thinking. That was also my personal frustrated perspective prior to finding faith in Jesus Christ. But God drew me by His gracious love. I cannot begin to describe its incredible effect. Without that which Reform theologians refer to as " effectual grace, " humans simply cannot fathom the notion of a God who stands outside human reasoning. But as the Lord has said, " My ways are not your ways..."

God does not denigrate human logic. He has bestowed some measure of intelligence and horse-sense to us all to work out day-to-day problems. But God doesn't operate within our framework of logic because He has no problems to solve or solutions to find. He is the " string-puller " and His will is brought to pass according to His pleasure -- and that by wisdom. God is personified as wisdom in the first few chapters of Proverbs.

Regards

RC

Nice try, RC. He might get me for a sunbeam yet. Even if I haven't a damned clue what you mean by any of that.

The Bartender serves The Father a

You do know Ed I've already sent RC to the public bar. Please continue your convo there, and let we wasters get on with our wasting out of earshot of filthy double entendres about Gif's points, that he raises so well.

<<'it makes sense' meaning 'that's logical' when it really only means 'it satisfies me' I think that this is where Vicky and the others are coming from>.

Actually, to a large extent, that's right. A non-controversial example is a spoon in the kitchen here at work. The handle *looks and feels * like greenstone (NZ jade.) Yet greenstone is expensive, and actually there are issues of ownership of the resource. Therefore it can't be greenstone, and must be something else, because if it was greenstone, the owner would have it in a display cabinet at their home, and not in an office kitchen.

That makes sense, seems logical = it satisfies me. (I still love that spoon!)

Vicky

<<'God must exist because I personally think so'.>>

No, there's a lot more to it than that! Remember reason, authority and experience?

In fact, I was going to say "unfair" bringing in the MMR - autism link, and sneaking it in as the same thought of thing as God.

But I know of at least one case where a child *did* end up with a disability (not autism) as a result of the triple vaccine. Those who believe in a link between vaccines and illness have data on their aide, although it's probably flawed.

Still not the same thing as a belief in God though...

<>

Okay, silly why?

We meant the above, which isn't the same as not meaning what we said, though it is the same thing as not meaning what you think we said. If I am explaining well! (I'm probably not.)

>>authority

On whose authority can we say god exists?

>>Okay, silly why?

Because you still have to give me some evidence of an observed phenomenon that cannot be explained in terms of the same physical laws that we use to explain everything else.

Hi Rick,

On the Trinity, when the same commandment of Jesus is quoted in Mark (in the disputed end-section), Luke, John and Acts, it is given differently (mentioning baptism in the name of Jesus, but not the Father or Holy Ghost). The reference to the Trinity is not in the Hebrew Shem Tov version http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/shemtovweb.html of Matthew. So there is a little (albeit weak) textual evidence that this phrase also is a later addition.

More to the point, it does not provide a clear description of the doctrine of the Trinity. If, for example, we found an ancient text saying something like 'I conquer this territory in the name of Caesar, the Republic and the people of Rome!', we wouldn't conclude that Caesar is the people of Rome, would we?

I think that the best argument against the clarity of the Trinity in the NT is to throw your own question back at you; why would so many early Christians have been non-Trinitarian if the early Gospels so clearly taught Trinitarianism?



As to why anyone would seek to advance it, obviously you're asking me to speculate, and I'm happy to do so. Basically early Christians had a problem. They believed that (a) Jesus was God and (b) Jesus died. So how does God die? There were many early answers to this problem, all of which had theological problems. Trinitarianism won out, and by the time of the Nicean council and all subsequent councils was the majority view (not leastly due to a little creative editing of the scriptures and persecution of the 'heretics' who disagreed).

Gif