seriously disabled Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) If there really is a superhuman being out there with a strength levels on par with say Galactus or Eternity in the Marvel comics universe, then what is this being really made of? Is he/it even made from normal atoms of matter? What about dark matter? In case you don't know who Galactus and Eternity are then please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_(comics) Edited November 11, 2011 by seriously disabled
hypervalent_iodine Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) Radioactive unobtanium or similar, I should think. Maybe something from Tony Stark's particle accelerator - who can really say?! The answer to that last part is that no one can really say. People with comic book-esque super powers don't exist; trying to conjecture what they could be made of if they did exist is about as useful and scientifically valid as trying to figure out the top speed of a unicorn. Edited November 11, 2011 by hypervalent_iodine 1
Leader Bee Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 It kind of reminds me of how EA hired scientists to write an article on how Tiberium from the command and conquer universe works...
Phi for All Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Sounds like another question that could revolve around omnipotence. If God can do anything He wants, even circumvent His own physics, then His atoms could be made of _____________________, which is a substance so holy, so unique and so godlike that it defies description. Some say it can't even be defined by the written or spoken word, and that anyone who tries will be stru 4
hypervalent_iodine Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Sounds like another question that could revolve around omnipotence. If God can do anything He wants, even circumvent His own physics, then His atoms could be made of _____________________, Bolded, italicised, colourised and underlined for emphasis. which is a substance so holy, so unique and so godlike that it defies description. Some say it can't even be defined by the written or spoken word, and that anyone who tries will be stru But not before they have time to hit, 'reply', eh? 1
PhDwannabe Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Sounds like another question that could revolve around omnipotence. If God can do anything He wants, even circumvent His own physics, then His atoms could be made of _____________________, which is a substance so holy, so unique and so godlike that it defies description. Ah, yes, the classic question medieval theologians went round and round with for hundreds of years: could God construct a toaster so powerful that it toasted bread to such excessive blackness that even He couldn't bear to eat it?
ewmon Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Is God made of normal atoms? If there really is a superhuman being out there Maybe this is the first assumption in this thread with which Jews and Christians would disagree. Although we're made in God's image (whatever that might mean), God is infinitely more than any human could ever be (and more). This is also a primary belief of Muslims, if I may speak for them as well. So the God of the Abrahamic religions is not merely some über-human dude, even one with special powers. We are finite in time, size, power and knowledge; God is infinite in all those things ... and more.
chilehed Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 In Judeo/Christian theology, God's divine nature completely transcends time and space. He isn't made of atoms at all.
John Cuthber Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 I think the tooth fairy is made of the same stuff.
Jad Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 I don't think there's somebody out there that could answer you, but he said that his kingdom isn't physical in the bible...
rigney Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) ]ewmon: Maybe this is the first assumption in this thread with which Jews and Christians would disagree. Although we're made in God's image (whatever that might mean), God is infinitely more than any human could ever be (and more). This is also a primary belief of Muslims, if I may speak for them as well. So the God of the Abrahamic religions is not merely some über-human dude, even one with special powers. We are finite in time, size, power and knowledge; God is infinite in all those things ... and more. What does the phrase: "In GOD'S Image", mean? And if that phrase has meaning at all, what image are we talking about, and for what? Life in one form or another has reigned supreme here on planet earth for eons prior to mans introduction. Were those entities meaningless? And what about a few billion years hence. Whom or what will determine GODS image at that point?Unless science can refute religion in toto, that question will always be at the forefront. Edited November 23, 2011 by rigney
Latex Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 It's simple. God is made out of God particles. Pity we haven't discovered them.
doG Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Is God made of normal atoms? Define "God" please! 1
immortal Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 May be we will know how we are made in the image of god, when the rapture takes place and once we get spiritual bodies.
Dekan Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 It's simple. God is made out of God particles. Pity we haven't discovered them. You may have hit the truth. Perhaps God created us humans, so that we could discover what particles He's made of. He couldn't figure it out Himself. So He contracted the job out to CERN.
Latex Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 You may have hit the truth. Perhaps God created us humans, so that we could discover what particles He's made of. He couldn't figure it out Himself. So He contracted the job out to CERN. Think about it. If this hard to find and possibly non-theoretical boson actually does exist, there is a pretty good chance that the almighty may perhaps be made out of these celestial objects. But how they manifest themselves in our lesser world is beyond me.
Dekan Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Think about it. If this hard to find and possibly non-theoretical boson actually does exist, there is a pretty good chance that the almighty may perhaps be made out of these celestial objects. But how they manifest themselves in our lesser world is beyond me. Well, that could be the point. Suppose God is made of Higgs Bosons. And we humans, in our lesser world, actually find a Higgs. And describe it fully - mass, charge, spin, etc. Then God would be satisfied, and have no more need for humans. Could be a nine billion names of god disaster. Thank goodness CERN isn't in Tibet.
Latex Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Well, that could be the point. Suppose God is made of Higgs Bosons. And we humans, in our lesser world, actually find a Higgs. And describe it fully - mass, charge, spin, etc. Then God would be satisfied, and have no more need for humans. Could be a nine billion names of god disaster. Thank goodness CERN isn't in Tibet. It's the same principle as in that if we were to be visited by aliens, it would disprove at least 40% of the bible.
PeterJ Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I think if we believe that God might be made of atoms then we are a long way from understanding anything about religion. Still, it's fun to mock it. But I think the OP is right, the idea that God is made of atoms is utterly idiotic.
Dekan Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I think if we believe that God might be made of atoms then we are a long way from understanding anything about religion. Still, it's fun to mock it. But I think the OP is right, the idea that God is made of atoms is utterly idiotic. I agree, the idea does seem absurd. But perhaps it shouldn't be altogether dismissed. It could explain one mystery of cosmology. That is - why the Universe seems to be expanding. And moreover - expanding at an accelerating rate, instead of slowing down under the influence of its own internal gravity. In order to account for this accelerating expansion, cosmologists are desperately inventing concepts like the "Cosmological Constant", or "Dark Matter". But a better, simpler, answer might be the concept of God as made of atoms. Suppose God surrounds the entire Universe, as He surely must. As a kind of constant, fixed outer shell. Like an eggshell surrounds the yolk. If this "God-shell" is made of atoms, then the external gravitational attraction of all the atoms, will pull the inner Universe - the stars, galaxies etc, outwards. And outwards at an accelerating rate - according to the inverse-square law - as the shell is approached more nearly. Doesn't this seem plausible - could we perhaps have vague intuitions of it, in hymns like "Nearer my God to Thee"?
PeterJ Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 If there is any sense at all in this language, Dekan, which I doubt, then I would much prefer the idea that atoms are made out of God. It would not be much of a God who only appears after someone else has created the atoms. An idea I once explored is gravity as a repulsive force. I'm told that one French scientist put forward a fairly well developed theory early in the last century, and the idea makes a lot of sense to me. It seems an interesting way to account for expansion, with or without an initial Bang. The repulsive force at any point in space would be infinite or infinitessimal, depending on how we look at it, since it would be repulsed infinitely strongly from all directions of space out to the edge of its light cone. If there are no other objects local to a body in space, then the forces acting on it would be statistical and mostly cancel each other out. It would stay still in relation to the rest of the universe. Where there are objects local to each other, standing out against the background, then they would appear to be attracted. The two objects would shield each other from the repulsive force acting from their respective directions and so would be pushed towards each other. I'm not sure why this would be a crazy idea. Would it work? Is there a test that could decide between gravity as attraction or repulsion? I would have expected them to be equivalent and equally useful theories. So it ought to make no difference which way we look at it. But I wonder. What if this way of looking at gravity, or extra way, would allow us to make more sense of expansion, dark matter and so forth. Just musing. 1
Dekan Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 Thanks Peter. My previous post was meant to question the idea of a fundamental difference, even an opposition, between God and the material Universe. This kind of "dualistic" idea caused big mistakes in the past. As in the case of Aristotle. His dualistic approach, led him to make an absolute distinction - between the inner sub-lunary world, and the universe outside the moon's orbit. As you know, he thought the sub-lunary world, ie our Earth, was made of 4 inferior elements: earth, air, fire and water. Whereas, the outer Universe, the planets and stars, were made of a different, and superior element - the 5th element or "quintessence". Of course, Aristotle was wrong - Mars is made of rocks, and the stars of hydrogen, helium etc. There's no quintessence. Everything's made of the same stuff. Therefore, why can't God be made of the same stuff too? Leaving that aside - I'm extremely grateful to you for mentioning the French scientist, and the concept of gravity as a repulsive force. Googling revealed a rich vein. I hadn't realised, before reading your post, that the subject had been explored by past scientists in such depth. Fascinating stuff, and food for future thought - thanks!
IamJoseph Posted December 3, 2011 Posted December 3, 2011 (edited) If there really is a superhuman being out there with a strength levels on par with say Galactus or Eternity in the Marvel comics universe, then what is this being really made of? Is he/it even made from normal atoms of matter? What about dark matter? In case you don't know who Galactus and Eternity are then please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactus http://en.wikipedia....ternity_(comics) Hi. There seems a problem with the question and the links provided. The probem is commonplace and seen also with scientists and scholars today: at one time the atoms never existed. IMHO, before discussing the universe and a universe maker, one has to decide which universe they are speaking about and from: a finite or an infinite one? Amazingly, the very question leans on a finite universe, being related to time, and that at one point the universe never existed. Scientific evidence also points this way, more so than the premise of 'we don't know for certain'. After all the universe is expanding, which says it was not infinite 10 seconds ago. Why does this issue impact most pivotally, to the extent it is incoherent to discuss the subject without it? Because a finite universe means an absolutely and non-negotiably finite one; as with an infinite universe also having that same status right. The former position negates any pre- or prallel universe premise, as this will violate the finite factor. A finite universe also thereby negates space, time, matter, energy, forces, MV, string, nature - and 'ATOMS'. Correct me if I'm wrong but on the above basis - namely based on an absolutely finite universe perspective, there is no alterative to an external, pre-existing force for the universe's emergence. IOW, there is no alternative to Creationism. The first recording of the universe being finite is in Genesis 1/1: there was a 'BEGINNING'. Not a bad guess - one that stands up to state of art science and physics today? I see the genesis verse a wholly scientific premise, being one of only two choices, and the fact it is from a theology does not in itself dis-qualify it. Correct me if I'm wrong from a scientific POV only - take me up? Edited December 3, 2011 by IamJoseph
PeterJ Posted December 3, 2011 Posted December 3, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong but on the above basis - namely based on an absolutely finite universe perspective, there is no alterative to an external, pre-existing force for the universe's emergence. IOW, there is no alternative to Creationism. The first recording of the universe being finite is in Genesis 1/1: there was a 'BEGINNING'. Not a bad guess - one that stands up to state of art science and physics today? I see the genesis verse a wholly scientific premise, being one of only two choices, and the fact it is from a theology does not in itself dis-qualify it. Correct me if I'm wrong from a scientific POV only - take me up? A brave move, risking a mention of creationism. I would agree that a universe with a beginning needs a phenomena prior to (and post) that beginning to make sense. But creationism is a choice, one among a number of solutions. That is, we can agree about the need for a prior phenomenon without endorsing creationism.
IamJoseph Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 A brave move, risking a mention of creationism. Yes, its become a brave move in today's mindset. However, creationism refers primarilly to a cause factor, as in universe maker of a universe - its a scientific premise. If one sees only the theology cloak here, then one must equally give merit that such a premise, whether seen as correct or not, was indeed a new thought introduced by a theology, one that ushered in monotheism, and the premise of a finite universe and set the ball rolling to foster science itself. Why do we need science in an infinite universe - everything was alwats there, despite what science says? I would agree that a universe with a beginning needs a phenomena prior to (and post) that beginning to make sense. But creationism is a choice, one among a number of solutions. That is, we can agree about the need for a prior phenomenon without endorsing creationism. I agree in principle. The thing is we do not have an alternative to an indefinable and un-knowable source factor. Here, true creationism is not incorret, namely the source factor has to be a superior mind and power, else the notion of creating a universe becomes implausible. Until a sound alternative is at hand, there is no alternative to creationism.
Recommended Posts