# God and physics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2003, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794 "2003-01-15T19:04:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Gaijin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/838e76/32.png) [@Gaijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaijin)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/21 "2003-01-16T00:44:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by akrako1 \* > \*\* When God (or G-d for some of you (??)) comes down to Earth in human form (Jesus, Rama, Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddah, Mohammed) he seems to be subject to the Laws of Physics. \*\* Eek! Islam does not teach that Mohammed was God come down to Earth. Although I believe there are a few sects that worship Buddah as a god and/or various Hindu dieties, for the most part, Buddhism teaches that Buddah was a mere man, not God come down to Earth. I wasn’t too sure, so had to [look it up](http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bridge/5452/zpapers/ZEVELTON.html) , and affirmed that Zoroastrianism teaches that Zarathushstra, or Zoroaster, was a man, not God come down to Earth. I gather from [this source](http://www.ramayana.com/who_is_rama.htm) that Rama was, indeed, a god who took on human form via birth, a la Jesus. Had to check. I’m pretty sure Krishna is a Hindu deity, and I’m positive about Jesus. But Buddha, Mohammed, and Zoroaster were men. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/22 "2003-01-16T00:55:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tdn \* > \*\*This is assuming that by “Heaven and Earth”, we mean the universe itself. But it could also mean our planet and the sky above it. That would still be The Beginning, from our point of view. Who’s to say that God didn’t show up some few billion years after the Big Bang? \*\* Well, on examining the context, the “Creative Days” started after God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:6-8 seems to be describing the heavens as our sky. The second creative day. Some theologins have felt that the 6 “days” refers only to preparing the Earth for human habitation. YMMV. This doesn’t fit well with Creationism, though. My personal guess is that God could have created the Universe by means of the Bing Bang some 14 Billion years ago. I don’t see anything in the Bible that specifically disproves this. And it mixes known science and beliefe in a Diety rather well. For me anyways. ---
**Author:** ![akrako1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@akrako1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akrako1)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/23 "2003-01-16T01:16:31Z")
Sorry, Gaijin, I didn’t mean to offend anyone’s beliefs. I personally believe, and have been tought by my master, that Jesus, Rama, Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddah & Mohammed are all major incarnations of the same God. They are all the God-Man form of the same diety - simply come down to different cultures at different times when needed. Even though he is referred to as a ‘son of god’ or even ‘son of man’, I consider Jesus to be one of the major incarnations of God on earth. Muslims are on the right track - acknowledging that the god of the Jews, Jesus, and Mohammed are all continuous aspects of the same God. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/24 "2003-01-16T06:18:30Z")
Okay, Vishnu, part of the trinity of classic Vedanta Hinduism, had over a dozen incarnations as humans, the two significant ones of which are as Krishna and Rama. Some Hindu-Buddhist syncretes claim that Siddhartha Gautama of the Sakyamuni clan was also an incarnation of Vishnu. There’s supposed to be one final incarnation of Vishnu, IIRC named Maitreya. AFAIK, Brahma and Siva never incarnated according to Hindu doctrine. Baha’i considers that all the major religion-founders down to and including Mohammed were “mirrors” whereby their followers could see God – Baha’ullah being the last such “mirror.” Christianity, of course, insists that there is only one true God, and that only the Second Person of it incarnated, and that only once, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Islam is horrified at the idea that Allah the Merciful, above and distinct from His creation, might be thought to have ever entered into it to live as one of us. I believe that Judaism feels much the same way. With regard to the OP: > [@](#): > > If God is omnipresent, are His thought processes (divine synapses?) subject to the limitations of light speed? Nope. He knows all from an eternal (not time-limited) perspective and is everywhere present at once. > [@](#): > > Is God composed of the same stuff (electrons, photons, etc.) as the rest of the universe? Well, that depends on what you mean by “the rest of the universe.” It can be shown that the characteristics ascribed to God correspond to those required by taking the Lorenz transfer equations to a limit of infinity, hence those of a superluminal particle moving at infinite speed within a closed universe. Hence if God interacts with His (physical) universe through physical form (other than in the capacity of Jesus the Incarnate Son, grist for a separate debate), He does it through such particles. And the reason why God “cannot be proven” through physical-science means is that we cannot detect superluminal particles (Cherenkov radiation, representing a very specialized exception to that rule, to one side). > [@](#): > > If so, was there a God before the Big Bang? “Before the Big Bang” is like “below absolute zero” or “north of the North Pole” – a verbalizable concept corresponding to nothing legitimate in the physical universe. > [@](#): > > In short – is God subject to the laws of physics? Why or why not? Yes and no. No, not necessarily – He created them along with the universe which they describe, and can alter them if He sees fit. Yes, IMHO – by self-limitation. He will “play by the rules” He made. ---
**Author:** ![Quitesane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/8dc957/32.png) [@Quitesane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quitesane)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/25 "2003-01-16T11:35:42Z")
> [@](#): > > [1] No because God transcends time and space. How else could He be everywhere at once? > … > [3] Yes, but He was lonely. If he trancends time and space, when exactly (in his frame of reference) did he create the universe, and when was he lonely? For him, our universe will always exist (somewhere in time), and so i see no reason for him to be lonely, “before” or “after” the big bang. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/26 "2003-01-16T12:13:52Z")
Well said, Quitesane. From His eternal reference frame, the universe does not yet exist, is ongoing, and is finished — all three simultaneously. ---
**Author:** ![BURNER](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@BURNER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BURNER)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/27 "2003-01-16T13:20:47Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not really sure if I’m asking these questions in a serious way, or just engaging in mental masturbation. But I’m truly curious as to what peoples’ opinions are, and in what direction this thread could take, assuming it survives more than five posts. > > If God is omnipresent, are His thought processes (divine synapses?) subject to the limitations of light speed? > > Is God composed of the same stuff (electrons, photons, etc.) as the rest of the universe? > > If so, was there a God before the Big Bang? > > In short – is God subject to the laws of physics? Why or why not? My opinion on this depends on which god we are talking about. If its the Muslim/Christian version , then No according to their books god is only subjected to his own cruel and capricious whims. If we go back and look at the old gods of greek,roman,norse and egyptian mythology the answer would change to mostly yes. THe old gods got into fights,got drunk , had sex and generaly were a bunch of rowdy partiers. It is kind of hard to pick fights and get drunk if you arent subjected to the laws of physics. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/28 "2003-01-16T14:15:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*TDN wrote: > > It comes from Jesus. > > “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” — John 3:6 > > “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” — John 4:24 > > “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” — John 6:63 \*\* Sorry, but this is pretty much a non-answer. Let’s assume that Jesus actually existed, that God exists, and that the Bible is correct – some big credibility stretches already. All you’ve said is that spirit != flesh. This in no way proves that spirit is not particulate. There are a lot of things that are not flesh. Looking around the room, I see a telephone, a pad of paper, a plastic water bottle. All relatively flesh-free. Does that make them holy? Non-corporeal? Outside of the realm of quantum mechanics? No? Then why must spirit be outside of that realm? ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/29 "2003-01-16T14:25:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*“Before the Big Bang” is like “below absolute zero” or “north of the North Pole” – a verbalizable concept corresponding to nothing legitimate in the physical universe. > > (snip) > > He created them along with the universe \*\* I’m having a crisis of logic here. So did God plan on creating the universe before it existed? Which could never have happened? Can God live north of the North Pole? Wouldn’t it make much more sense if God is either a) The same age as the universe, or b) Younger? ---
**Author:** ![Dragline](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@Dragline](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dragline)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/30 "2003-01-16T14:46:44Z")
It seems to me that if God existed “before” or independent of the Big Bang, with no passage of time, no events to happen, what would suddenly provoke him into a creative mood? It should be all the same. You can’t mean he was perfect, and then CHANGED? ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/31 "2003-01-16T14:54:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dragline \* > \*\*It seems to me that if God existed “before” or independent of the Big Bang, with no passage of time, no events to happen, what would suddenly provoke him into a creative mood? It should be all the same. You can’t mean he was perfect, and then CHANGED? \*\* Excellent point. It would follow that God was, at best, a product of the BB, and not the creator of it. And therefore subject to the physical laws of it. ---
**Author:** ![Quitesane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/8dc957/32.png) [@Quitesane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quitesane)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/32 "2003-01-16T15:07:31Z")
> [@](#): > > So did God plan on creating the universe before it existed? Which could never have happened? This is only true if god exists in our space/time (which was created during the BB). If you accept that he trancends space and time, causality (as we know it) makes no sense, and so neither does your question. > [@](#): > > Can God live north of the North Pole? The “[Can God change the value of Pi](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=152895)” thread might interest you. Your question is similar (IMHO). ---
**Author:** ![Gaijin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/838e76/32.png) [@Gaijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaijin)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/33 "2003-01-16T19:59:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by akrako1 \* > \*\* I personally believe, and have been tought by my master… \*\* Ah! I thought you were making the claim in a manner insinuating that those religions taught that of their founders. I’d have not made the correction had I known that the idea of all of those characters being God-incarnations was a part of your belief system. Mia culpa. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/34 "2003-01-16T20:08:40Z")
The philosophers deal with that problem of time being essential to our conceptions while it’s not to God’s by saying that He is “ontologically prior to” whatever is being addressed that He caused/created. In other words, He is the _cause_ of it without necessarily having existed at a time prior to it. (This is particularly useful in discussing things that exist in Eternity rather than time, such as Heaven.) Closest useful analogy is a classic one: if one places two books on a table simultaneously, one atop the other, the bottom one is holding the other one up – it’s the cause of the other book’s being suspended above the surface of the table. Yet it was not there prior to the other book. Does that help at all? ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/35 "2003-01-16T21:20:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*Does that help at all? \*\* Quite a bit, actually. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/36 "2003-01-18T08:36:48Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Libertarian_ > **Well said, Quitesane. From His eternal reference frame, the universe does not yet exist, is ongoing, and is finished — all three multaneously.** Good point by both posters. My “lonely” was a reference to a primative story I’d read, about when God came into Being. He said with great authority “I AM” then He looked around and was afraid because He realized He was alone. I don’t have a cite but if you read all of Joseph Campbell’s books you will come across it. According to **Lib** ’s statement, when God declared that what He had created was “Good” it may be because He already knew the the outcome. However, it would kick the story of Noah in the butt, for the same reason. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/37 "2003-01-18T10:50:06Z")
Tdn wrote: > [@](#): > > Sorry, but this is pretty much a non-answer. Let’s assume that Jesus actually existed, that God exists, and that the Bible is correct – some big credibility stretches already. What you asked for was where the notion came from. What do those objections have to do with that? Shakespeare might never have existed, and yet the origin of the notion that we should kill all the lawyers can be traced directly to him. > [@](#): > > All you’ve said is that spirit != flesh. This in no way proves that spirit is not particulate. There are a lot of things that are not flesh. Looking around the room, I see a telephone, a pad of paper, a plastic water bottle. All relatively flesh-free. Does that make them holy? Non-corporeal? Outside of the realm of quantum mechanics? The term for “flesh” is [symbol]sarx[/symbol], and is used to indicate “natural or physical origin, generation or relationship”. See [Strongs 4561](http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1042886131-1620.html). But you really don’t need to be a linguist to understand what Jesus was saying. “The spirit is like the wind,” He taught, “you do not know where it comes from or where it is going.” In fact, the term “spirit” is [symbol]pneuma[/symbol], and is used 385 times by Jesus in reference to God. See [Strongs 4151](http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1042886314-9757.html). It is the same word used for breath or wind. In addition, I will present a logical tableau: Hypothesis: God is supernatural 1. Jesus is supernatural. (“My kingdom is not of this world.” — John 18:36) 2. Jesus is God. (“I and the Father are one.” — John 10:30) God is supernatural (1, 2 by Modus Ponens) QED Disagree if you like, but kindly reserve accusations about “non-answers” for people who dodge your questions. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/38 "2003-01-18T11:29:38Z")
Dragline wrote: > [@](#): > > It seems to me that if God existed “before” or independent of the Big Bang, with no passage of time, no events to happen, what would suddenly provoke him into a creative mood? It should be all the same. You can’t mean he was perfect, and then CHANGED? First, the notion that events may not occur without a “passage of time” is a non sequitur. Time is merely entropy, forcing events in a unilateral direction. Events may occur in a context of multilateral direction or even simultanaeity without time. Second, the agencies of provocation and mood are violations of Ockham’s Razor — “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum”. It may simply be that creation is God’s will. Finally, perfection is not aspectful. A perfect circle is still perfect even when its diameter has changed and, in some cases, even when its C/D ratio is not pi. ---
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/39 "2003-01-18T21:51:10Z")
\*\* Polycarp\*\* > [@](#): > > The philosophers deal with that problem of time being essential to our conceptions while it’s not to God’s by saying that He is “ontologically prior to” whatever is being addressed that He caused/created. In other words, He is the cause of it without necessarily having existed at a time prior to it. (This is particularly useful in discussing things that exist in Eternity rather than time, such as Heaven.) Perhaps there is no **prior** to any moment. There is no past or future. They are aspects/perceptions of what constitute that which alone exists, **the present** > [@](#): > > if one places two books on a table simultaneously, one atop the other, the bottom one is holding the other one up – it’s the cause of the other book’s being suspended above the surface of the table. Yet it was not there prior to the other book. Does that help at all? But the table was there prior to the placing of books. ---
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/40 "2003-01-18T21:54:12Z")
\*\* Libertarian\*\* > [@](#): > > It may simply be that creation is God’s will. What separates god from her/is will? Or an entity from its attributes? > [@](#): > > Finally, perfection is not aspectful. A perfect circle is still perfect even when its diameter has changed and, in some cases, even when its C/D ratio is not pi. Is there such a thing as a perfect circle? Isn’t “perfection" a flawed notion? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794.md?page=3)