So, if God created the universe, one can only assume He (or She or whatever) is much larger than that which He created. If this is the case, the simple act of looking at it would require some light to hit it, then travel to His holy eyes, where they could resolve it and thus determine whether or not it was “Good”. Given the relative size of just the observable universe (much less the actual universe), that “look” would take trillions upon trillions of years…by which time the universe would probably no longer exist, and certainly not as it did when he first decided to look at it.
Not only that, but what if he moved? I mean, would he be able to move his hand across his creation in a second, much like we would wave our hand over a ball of clay? That would require His holy hand to travel at trillions and trillions of times the speed of light. Something more massive than the universe breezing by at that inconceivable speed would likely destroy the universe as we know it as if it were a soap bubble, would it not?
OK OK, so God isn’t actually matter, he exists in a parallel universe, you say…well… he still would have to manipulate matter and somehow observe it. Just moving Betelgeuse (sp?) from, say Andromeda to the Milky Way (because it works much better there) would take trillions of years, because moving it faster than the speed of light would cause it to completely disintegrate. Besides which…if He isn’t made of Matter, why does he care at all about stuff that is? Isn’t there enough non matter stuff in his non-matter universe to play with?
Oh and the stars…what we are viewing currently for pretty much most of the stars in the night sky, as I understand it…is how they looked billions and trillions of years ago…they might not actually be there anymore at all.
So my question is…Why so big? It makes absolutely no sense to build something so infinitely massive just to essentially “decorate the sky”.
Don’t get me started on where Heaven might be…
I’m not a physicist…but I am looking for responses from both physicists and “intelligent design” proponents.
Physics concerns itself only with the physical, or natural world, not with the supernatural world. Physics has absolutely nothing to say about the nature of God, since God by definition does not need to obey the laws of physics. If he had to, he’d just be a material being like ourselves (however more powerful).
What if god IS the universe, and everything in it? No, I’m not high. I think that if there is a god, it’s much more likely that the god is woven into the fabric of existence, instead of being some massive sculptor holding the universe in the palm of their hand. And also, who says that the god is interventionist? He may not want to move the stars, or be unable to.
Anyway, what John Mace said is right, this is not a valid physics question.
I presonally know of no evidence that there is such a thing. But to the extent others think there is, physics (in fact, all science) cannot address it. That’s not a fault of science, that’s a feature, if you will.
John Mace, obviously your answer is logical and reasonable. I should clarify my question, I am seeking response to the plausibility from a “Creationist” and seeking clarity on the scope required/light speeds, and dimensions from the physics experts. I thought I had implied that in my question. I am merely posing that the speed of light and size of the universe underscore the utter nonsense of any form of scientific “evidence” for the existence of God or the theory of “Creation”. This theory, while utterly unscientific, is held by a significant number of people, so it does need to be continually addressed and challenged.
OK. I’m not sure they’re really IDers, but they could be Creationists of some sort. Maybe that’s what the OP really wants anyway… response from Creationists, either YEC or OEC.
I hope the OP doesn’t want us scientist to explain the rational that Creationists use. From all I can tell, the only rational is “it’s magic”. But then, I’m a godless heathen.
The basic problem is that you are asking theologians to explain things in some sort of coherent manner. That’s not what theology does. Theology is essentially the somewhat more literate and deliberate version of a kid writing an entire term paper on something he knows nothing about the night before it is due.
While you have defeated the particular statement I made with pure logic, I think given the position of Creationists as I understand it, God is not a fleet of nanobots. Touche though.
If we were all part of a great (perhaps Sims-like) computer program, could the speed of the processor or the size of the hard drive tell us anything about whether or not there was a Programmer?
I think it could tell us a lot about the programmers world. This is a different comment though, because a lot of what the Bible says about God, his character, his power, his actions, his desires, all relate to a physical realm. In order to truly accept what the bible says about God, you really are forced to try to reconcile the physical limitations of existence with the magnitude of his size. Now that we (Science) knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that the universe occupies such vast space that Light itself cannot span it, I believe it makes the job of reconciliation a lot more difficult, and therefore the position of any “Creation scientist” utterly impossible to defend.
Who says there’s scientific evidence of God? Even Behe (the Big Kahuna of IDers) says he doesn’t claim the Designer is God. And I’m not aware that even religious IDers try to square their beliefs with the laws of physics. Religion is based on faith and faith alone. Anyone tells you otherwise is talking out of his arse.
I still don’t see what point you’re trying to make.
Your argument shows that God can’t be part of the physical world. Fine, but I don’t think that any religion anywhere has ever claimed that. The basic principle of any theistic belief, not just creationism or ID, is that, if/when God acts in the world, He does so through supernatural means; He isn’t constrained by any “laws of nature”.
Indeed, being constrained by the laws of nature is an attribute that no god (not just a monotheistic god) could have, almost by definition.
I take it then, according to everyone on this board, it is fair to say we are all in agreement that there is no scienfic evidence for God, and that the existence of a “supernatural being” is unscientific, meaning unobservable, unprovable, and completely contrary to the laws of existence, thus the idea of trying to argue the existence of God through logic and or some kind of evidence in the observable world is ridiculous. I clicked on an ad link below where it asked, is God Real? Well, the clear answer is no. “Real” implies physical existence as we can define it, and God does not fall into those parameters.
