[QUOTE=uperkurk;43484769]For all those people who think we're intelligently designed or that the universe is fine tuned for life let me just give a quick run down of why we are not intelligently designed and that the universe is not fine tuned for life at all.
Just look at this list and tell me if you really believe we and the universe were designed. Trust me you'd never hire god to build you a dam or a sky scraper... it's probably going to be a poor design.
[B][U]Universe[/U][/B]
1) Most places in the universe will kill life instantely. Just look at the volume of the universe where you can't live, you will die instantely... That's not what I call the garden of eden.
2) Galaxy orbits once every couple hundred million years so you're bound to come close to a supernova that kills everyone on the surface.
3) We're on a collision course with Andromeda...
4) The universe is expanding and speeding up which means we're on a one way trip to oblivion, forget hell and fire, you should be more worried about absolute zero.
[B][U]Earth[/U][/B]
1) Earthquakes, tornados, volcanoes and tsunamis which kill hundreds of thousands of people.
2) We cannot live on two thirds of the Earths surface.
3) Mass extinctions, diseases, climate shift and killer asteroids.
4) 99% of all life that has ever lived on Earth is now extinct.
5) It took ~3.5billion years to make multi-cellular life... That's hardly efficient design if the end product is humans.
[B][U]Humans[/U][/B] (nature killing us all by itself)
1) Aggressive childhood lukemia, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, parkinsons and the list is endless.
2) The human eye receives so much praise but anyone who has ever seen the full electromagnetic spectrum would know just how blind we actually are. We are sitting ducks for ionizing radiation, radon ect.
3) We have to eat constantly because we're warm blooded. A crocodile can eat a chicken a month and it's fine.
4) CO, CH4, CO2. These gases, you can't smell them, see them, taste them but if you breath them in you're in trouble.
5) We eat, drink, breath and talk all through the same whole in our face guaranteeing that some percentage of us will choke to death each year.
The universe definitely is not here for us and it wasn't designed. If it was designed then god is a terrible designer who needs to go back to school.[/QUOTE]
I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Neil's a pretty awesome guy
[QUOTE=Explosions;43485784]I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson.[/QUOTE]
I think everyone loves him! lol he has a way of getting points across.
If the sentient being is timeless, then it at least is a very different kind of sentience than we know of. Since it is timeless, it is essentially frozen in the same mindset through all time. If a sentient being can't even have one thought that leads to another, I'm not sure I want to use the word sentient to describe it. How exactly can you be timeless and sentient? How would that really work?
And if it isn't sentient, what else could it be? Would it be absolute nonsense to say that the self causing, eternal thing is causation / change / time itself?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;43494430]If the sentient being is timeless, then it at least is a very different kind of sentience than we know of. Since it is timeless, it is essentially frozen in the same mindset through all time. If a sentient being can't even have one thought that leads to another, I'm not sure I want to use the word sentient to describe it. How exactly can you be timeless and sentient? How would that really work?
And if it isn't sentient, what else could it be? Would it be absolute nonsense to say that the self causing, eternal thing is causation / change / time itself?[/QUOTE]
This right here is what makes discussion of God, Himself, so difficult. If He exists, then his existence is so wildly different from ours that the closest we can come to any kind of understand is in analogy to what we know. It would be impossible to TRULY understand it completely, only to have a vague idea.
yeah but in the meantime we're not basing the idea of his existence off of much of anything besides the fact we exist and have no solid answer for that right now.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;43494430]If the sentient being is timeless, then it at least is a very different kind of sentience than we know of. Since it is timeless, it is essentially frozen in the same mindset through all time. If a sentient being can't even have one thought that leads to another, I'm not sure I want to use the word sentient to describe it. How exactly can you be timeless and sentient? How would that really work?
And if it isn't sentient, what else could it be? Would it be absolute nonsense to say that the self causing, eternal thing is causation / change / time itself?[/QUOTE]
As I understand a god that exists outside of space and time doesn't require time in order to exist. There is a sense that everything god does happens at the exact same instant. We experience the universe in a linear motion but a god outside of time would experience all that he ever plans to do at once.
Carl Sagan once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and why is it logical that we're trying to explain the universe which we don't understand with something which is even harder to understand than the universe itself?
All through history humans have replaced the unknown with god because humans don't like to not know the answer. People used to think god moved the planets and the Earth, then Newton came along, but Newton himself couldn't explain how ALL the stars could move in such uniform motion so he referenced god. Then the French mathematician Laplace came along and figured it out, god was removed from the equation and problem solved. Then we didn't know how humans got here... So again god was referenced, then Darwin came along and god is no longer needed.
My point is that at the moment we might reference god for the creation of the universe because we see the answer as being unanswerable... but this is a typical trait of mankind which has been proved through history even by some of the best minds in physics.
Einstein himself even said "God does not play dice" with reference to quantum mehcanics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle but guess what? We now understand why "god does play dice" and so as mankind evolves and our minds solve problems, god gets pushed back further and further... Hopefully we can figure our how the big bang happened then god will be pushed back further.
It's the very reason religion on a global scale has dropped 40% sinse the 1900's.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43495718]yeah but in the meantime we're not basing the idea of his existence off of much of anything besides the fact we exist and have no solid answer for that right now.[/QUOTE]
Our existance is just as much evidence, if not more, against a god as it is for one.
More quasi-philosophical nonsense:
If you have absolutely nothing, which includes the absence of rules or restrictions, would you get something? The existence of that something wouldn't violate any existing rules, since there are no existing rules.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43445680]The problem with this is that infinity doesn't actually exist in reality. It's simply a theoretical idea used to help bridge the gap where mathematics has trouble using regular algebra.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect. Infinity really does exist. There ARE an infinite number of numbers. There ARE an infinite number of primes. There are an infinitely many points between the number 1 and 2 on a number line.
Infinity does exist. Just because it hurts your head it doesn't mean it's not real. Hell, I'm reading a book on mathematics at the moment with an entire chapter dedicated to just this very point.
Other than being a headache I don't see any issue with the universe coming from nothing. If you accept that as you rewind time backwards toward the big bang that the laws of physics stop being... as they currently are; i.e. sensible in any way (like I'm talking in the second leading up to the big bang (remember, we're moving backwards in time here, so that's the second JUST after the big bang)), I don't see why it's impossible to concede that the laws of physics, and even the 'laws of logic' themselves would break down entirely at the point of the universes birth. If no physics exists, if no logic exists, then there doesn't need to any cause for an effect. Hell, the entire notion of cause and effect itself would be nonsense at that point.
[QUOTE=sltungle;43533842]Incorrect. Infinity really does exist. There ARE an infinite number of numbers. There ARE an infinite number of primes. There are an infinitely many points between the number 1 and 2 on a number line.
Infinity does exist. Just because it hurts your head it doesn't mean it's not real. Hell, I'm reading a book on mathematics at the moment with an entire chapter dedicated to just this very point.
Other than being a headache I don't see any issue with the universe coming from nothing. If you accept that as you rewind time backwards toward the big bang that the laws of physics stop being... as they currently are; i.e. sensible in any way (like I'm talking in the second leading up to the big bang (remember, we're moving backwards in time here, so that's the second JUST after the big bang)), I don't see why it's impossible to concede that the laws of physics, and even the 'laws of logic' themselves would break down entirely at the point of the universes birth. If no physics exists, if no logic exists, then there doesn't need to any cause for an effect. Hell, the entire notion of cause and effect itself would be nonsense at that point.[/QUOTE]
It is practically certain that something must have existed without cause (when talking temporally) or reason (when talking eternally, looking at the highest level structures of the multiverse). If everything has a cause then you could keep going infinitely backwards through time, either finding yourself going in a loop or an eternal tunnel. A loop isn't too difficult to work with, but an infinite tunnel suggests an infinite amount of universes.
Even if you have a structure that internally has no beginning or end, when considering that structure as a whole you can think about the reason why it exists (no longer in terms of time, as time may exist only within the structure). If there is somehow an explanation for it, you then consider the structure that enforces that explanation. Now we have a similar series as we did when looking for causes, looking at the system from more abstracted viewpoints. If this chain of reasons keeps going infinitely, then you consider the reason for the whole infinite structure. Eventually something must simply exist without a reason.
So we know that at least one entity can exist without a reason, but why should it be limited to one? The existence of that entity required nothing, had no cost, and so there would be no reason to restrict the amount of existent entities. You may naturally suppose there would be an infinite number of entities that exist without cause or reason, in their own independent universes with every possible structure. Perhaps only universes that are non-contradictory can exist, which would give credence to a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis"]Mathematical Universe[/URL].
[QUOTE=Ziks;43533939]It is practically certain that something must have existed without cause (when talking temporally) or reason (when talking eternally, looking at the highest level structures of the multiverse). If everything has a cause then you could keep going infinitely backwards through time, either finding yourself going in a loop or an eternal tunnel. A loop isn't too difficult to work with, but an infinite tunnel suggests an infinite amount of universes.
Even if you have a structure that internally has no beginning or end, when considering that structure as a whole you can think about the reason why it exists (no longer in terms of time, as time may exist only within the structure). If there is somehow an explanation for it, you then consider the structure that enforces that explanation. Now we have a similar series as we did when looking for causes, looking at the system from more abstracted viewpoints. If this chain of reasons keeps going infinitely, then you consider the reason for the whole infinite structure. Eventually something must simply exist without a reason.
So we know that at least one entity can exist without a reason, but why should it be limited to one? The existence of that entity required nothing, had no cost, and so there would be no reason to restrict the amount of existent entities. You may naturally suppose there would be an infinite number of entities that exist without cause or reason, in their own independent universes with every possible structure. Perhaps only universes that are non-contradictory can exist, which would give credence to a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis"]Mathematical Universe[/URL].[/QUOTE]
I wonder why people have such trouble with accepting negative infinity? I mean they're quite happy to concede that infinity doesn't have an end, so why can't negative infinity not have a beginning? Like I've said in my OP only three options can be true...
1) God has always existed and he is the creator of everything.
2) The universe created itself from absolutely nothing.
3) The universe has always existed in one form or another.
**When I say universe I do not mean our big bang universe, I'm refering to the first ever thing.**
It doesn't matter how many layers you peel back, you'll always end up at one of these three options. Which is more likely? Certainly the universe having always existed seems to be the most likely and logical.
[QUOTE=uperkurk;43535202]I wonder why people have such trouble with accepting negative infinity? I mean they're quite happy to concede that infinity doesn't have an end, so why can't negative infinity not have a beginning? Like I've said in my OP only three options can be true...
1) God has always existed and he is the creator of everything.
2) The universe created itself from absolutely nothing.
3) The universe has always existed in one form or another.
**When I say universe I do not mean our big bang universe, I'm refering to the first ever thing.**
It doesn't matter how many layers you peel back, you'll always end up at one of these three options. Which is more likely? Certainly the universe having always existed seems to be the most likely and logical.[/QUOTE]
We're not sure that time really applies to whatever structure encompasses the classical universe (everything that has / will / can causally affect us), so if you peel back as far as you can go you're pretty much only left with (2). That doesn't exclude a god, because by your definition of universe that god is an element of the universe.
As the existence of absolutely nothing is the only thing we can assume without an explanation, and nothing can be derived from nothing, something must exist without an explanation from absolutely nothing.
[QUOTE=Ziks;43535398]We're not sure that time really applies to whatever structure encompasses the classical universe (everything that has / will / can causally affect us), so if you peel back as far as you can go you're pretty much only left with (2). That doesn't exclude a god, because by your definition of universe that god is an element of the universe.
As the existence of absolutely nothing is the only thing we can assume without an explanation, and nothing can be derived from nothing, something must exist without an explanation from absolutely nothing.[/QUOTE]
I really cannot accept that nothing existed at some point. True nothingness simply cannot exist and even if it did nothing cannot produce something. A post earlier argued that if there is nothing, then there is no rules or laws so there is nothing preventing something from happening. This isn't true because for something to happen, there needs to be a framwork for that something to happen.
There has been a big hype recently in a universe from nothing where Dr Lawrence Krauss talks about how the universe came from nothing but I strongly encourage you not to take what he is saying is being literally nothing.
In his book he specifically says "The laws of quantum mechanics state that if you have nothing, you'll always end up with something" and this is true... but there are different levels of nothingness and you still need the framework of quantum mechanical laws for this nothing to produce something.
Don't think of our universe as being inside something else... Assuming the multiverse theory is wrong and our universe is the only universe then our universe IS everything and so doesn't need to be inside of something because it is everything.
So if our understanding of god is correct, then god is eternal and has always existed. If there is no god then the first ever thing to be true must have either created itself from nothing, or always existed.
P.S god having always existed and the universe having always existed are pretty much the same thing, the only difference is we're replacing natural creation with a supernatural element.
Hello, I'm a humble autistic bipolar individual with a visuospatial IQ of 146. I've been thinking about the universe since I was 5 years old. So here's my theory:
Example: 0.999999...(infinite numbers) = 1
Matter = +0.999999... = 1 (Positive energy, addition of energy [movement, matter, light])
Space = -0.999999... = -1 (Negative energy, reduction of energy [black holes, dark matter and dark energy])
Matter + Space = 0 (unentanglement of space-time)
+ 1 - 1 = 0
Eternity is trying to happen, that's the causal link to the beginning of the universe. We are simply experiencing the unfolding of a universe where space is reducing matter, and matter is reducing space, and because time never ends, this will go on forever. The concept eternity is void, but time goes on nevertheless just like the number nines in 0.99999...
If you think about it, where does all the matter go that goes into a black hole? Is there really such a thing as a singularity, or could it just be matter that refolds itself into space? Maybe gravity is just everything expanding all at once, to the tiniest particle, so it would look like gravity is a pulling force. Perhaps this is why dark energy and dark matter has gravity, it's simply expanding with the rest of the universe.
Photons have therefore no weight because they're the product of the domino-effect gravity causes between particles.
Quantum fluctuations could simply be energy as either space or matter out of place. Ask yourself, what is movement in eternity? Because with no space and no matter, eternity creates the time:
0.99999... = 1
This led me to: 0 + Eternity = existence from nothing.
I have no formal education in any of this.
Black Holes have been proven to give off as much energy as they consume I believe
[QUOTE=uperkurk;43535873]I really cannot accept that nothing existed at some point. True nothingness simply cannot exist and even if it did nothing cannot produce something. A post earlier argued that if there is nothing, then there is no rules or laws so there is nothing preventing something from happening. This isn't true because for something to happen, there needs to be a framwork for that something to happen.
There has been a big hype recently in a universe from nothing where Dr Lawrence Krauss talks about how the universe came from nothing but I strongly encourage you not to take what he is saying is being literally nothing.
In his book he specifically says "The laws of quantum mechanics state that if you have nothing, you'll always end up with something" and this is true... but there are different levels of nothingness and you still need the framework of quantum mechanical laws for this nothing to produce something.
Don't think of our universe as being inside something else... Assuming the multiverse theory is wrong and our universe is the only universe then our universe IS everything and so doesn't need to be inside of something because it is everything.
So if our understanding of god is correct, then god is eternal and has always existed. If there is no god then the first ever thing to be true must have either created itself from nothing, or always existed.
P.S god having always existed and the universe having always existed are pretty much the same thing, the only difference is we're replacing natural creation with a supernatural element.[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about a point in time where nothing existed, I'm talking about nothing as a concept where not even time applies. Absolute nothing. Is it true that something exists? Yes, we can be pretty damn sure of that. So it is possible for something to exist when you would expect absolute nothing. Why limit it to one instance of something? You would expect an infinite amount of independent somethings, because some limiting mechanism would increase complexity.
[editline]14th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43536699]Black Holes have been proven to give off as much energy as they consume I believe[/QUOTE]
Well they conserve energy at least, in that their mass increases. They would probably be in the Matter category rather than the Space one.
[QUOTE=Memnoth;43536544]Hello, I'm a humble autistic bipolar individual with a visuospatial IQ of 146. I've been thinking about the universe since I was 5 years old. So here's my theory:
Example: 0.999999...(infinite numbers) = 1
Matter = +0.999999... = 1 (Positive energy, addition of energy [movement, matter, light])
Space = -0.999999... = -1 (Negative energy, reduction of energy [black holes, dark matter and dark energy])
Matter + Space = 0 (unentanglement of space-time)
+ 1 - 1 = 0
Eternity is trying to happen, that's the causal link to the beginning of the universe. We are simply experiencing the unfolding of a universe where space is reducing matter, and matter is reducing space, and because time never ends, this will go on forever. The concept eternity is void, but time goes on nevertheless just like the number nines in 0.99999...
If you think about it, where does all the matter go that goes into a black hole? Is there really such a thing as a singularity, or could it just be matter that refolds itself into space? Maybe gravity is just everything expanding all at once, to the tiniest particle, so it would look like gravity is a pulling force. Perhaps this is why dark energy and dark matter has gravity, it's simply expanding with the rest of the universe.
Photons have therefore no weight because they're the product of the domino-effect gravity causes between particles.
Quantum fluctuations could simply be energy as either space or matter out of place. Ask yourself, what is movement in eternity? Because with no space and no matter, eternity creates the time:
0.99999... = 1
This led me to: 0 + Eternity = existence from nothing.
I have no formal education in any of this.[/QUOTE]
What you're talking about is the total net energy of the universe being equal to 0. This does not mean the universe has no energy, it just means that the total net energy is 0.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43536699]Black Holes have been proven to give off as much energy as they consume I believe[/QUOTE]
Actually the seem to give off more than thy consume which is the confusing thing. Seem hawking radiation for more information.
[QUOTE=uperkurk;43535873]I really cannot accept that nothing existed at some point. True nothingness simply cannot exist and even if it did nothing cannot produce something. A post earlier argued that if there is nothing, then there is no rules or laws so there is nothing preventing something from happening. This isn't true because for something to happen, there needs to be a framwork for that something to happen.[/QUOTE]
Why, though? The notion that something can only exist within some higher framework is a notion that only exists because we have laws of physics, and more abstractly, laws of logic. Without ANY form of laws that notion may break down.
The second you have no rules or laws in any way shape or form, the second you have true nothingness I don't see why you couldn't somehow (I don't know how, it boggles the mind to try and think about it) then wind up with something. It seems completely counterintuitive, but of course it would bloody seem that way. You're trying to talk about a completely alien concept.
It's like trying to visualise a fourth spatial dimension. You just can't fucking do it because you don't live in a universe that has four spatial dimensions (well, you might, but if so they're 'raveled up' and you only experience three). Doesn't mean four spatial dimensions can't exist; higher dimensional mathematics does exist. Similarly you wouldn't ever be able to imagine a time (well, even 'a time' is a shitty phrase, but no words exist for what we're trying to talk about, so it'll have to do) when there were no physical laws, or even logical laws, but... fuck, there may have been such a time.
[QUOTE=sltungle;43592282]Why, though? The notion that something can only exist within some higher framework is a notion that only exists because we have laws of physics, and more abstractly, laws of logic. Without ANY form of laws that notion may break down.
The second you have no rules or laws in any way shape or form, the second you have true nothingness I don't see why you couldn't somehow (I don't know how, it boggles the mind to try and think about it) then wind up with something. It seems completely counterintuitive, but of course it would bloody seem that way. You're trying to talk about a completely alien concept.
It's like trying to visualise a fourth spatial dimension. You just can't fucking do it because you don't live in a universe that has four spatial dimensions (well, you might, but if so they're 'raveled up' and you only experience three). Doesn't mean four spatial dimensions can't exist; higher dimensional mathematics does exist. Similarly you wouldn't ever be able to imagine a time (well, even 'a time' is a shitty phrase, but no words exist for what we're trying to talk about, so it'll have to do) when there were no physical laws, or even logical laws, but... fuck, there may have been such a time.[/QUOTE]
This is true and it probably is just my limited ability to comprehend it. I don't know to be honest I just think it's something which humans cannot comprehend at the moment. It's like trying to explain to a caveman how a jet engine works.
Kind of tangential, but I'd love an answer to something I've been wondering about from someone who is a bit more knowledgeable about cosmology than I am. Wouldn't the existence of a level I multiverse (as defined by Tegmark) and the application of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics effectively lead to a level III multiverse (within the level I), meaning that and observer specific predictions made by the Many Worlds interpretation would also be true (such as quantum immortality)?
If in a level I multiverse there are infinitely many instances of universes identical to a given universe before a quantum measurement is made for which there is a probability distribution over all possible outcomes, each outcome would occur in the proportion of those previously identical universes that correspond to the probability of that outcome (under the Copenhagen interpretation). Does this make sense, or is there something I've mixed up?
[QUOTE=Ziks;43704081]Kind of tangential, but I'd love an answer to something I've been wondering about from someone who is a bit more knowledgeable about cosmology than I am. Wouldn't the existence of a level I multiverse (as defined by Tegmark) and the application of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics effectively lead to a level III multiverse (within the level I), meaning that and observer specific predictions made by the Many Worlds interpretation would also be true (such as quantum immortality)?
If in a level I multiverse there are infinitely many instances of universes identical to a given universe before a quantum measurement is made for which there is a probability distribution over all possible outcomes, each outcome would occur in the proportion of those previously identical universes that correspond to the probability of that outcome (under the Copenhagen interpretation). Does this make sense, or is there something I've mixed up?[/QUOTE]
I don't see how it would follow that type I multiverse + Copenhagen = many-worlds. Many worlds is designed to make wavefunction collapse only apparent, but this doesn't avoid that. You don't have a new world for each quantum possibility, you just have a bunch of "worlds" (but not really since they will intersect as time goes on) and wavefunction collapse.
Also, you should note that it is not [I]certain[/I] that a type-I universe would mean any possibility is out there somewhere. It is [I]almost[/I] certain, and there is a distinction.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43714422]I don't see how it would follow that type I multiverse + Copenhagen = many-worlds. Many worlds is designed to make wavefunction collapse only apparent, but this doesn't avoid that. You don't have a new world for each quantum possibility, you just have a bunch of "worlds" (but not really since they will intersect as time goes on) and wavefunction collapse.
Also, you should note that it is not [I]certain[/I] that a type-I universe would mean any possibility is out there somewhere. It is [I]almost[/I] certain, and there is a distinction.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't have claimed that they would be equal, only that some of the phenomena that a subjective observer would experience under Many Worlds would arise. I suppose if it is not certain that there would be another region the size of the observable universe out there with the exact same state then that would invalidate my claim.
[QUOTE=uperkurk;43445242]I disagree. I think no matter how complex or how many layers of creation, magic or whatever else, when we get to the very essence of creation of anything, the answer must be one of those 3 I listed.[/QUOTE]
If it was so complex you could not understand it, then how can you say these 3 ways you've stated are the only definitive ways possible. Is it not possible that way C isn't possible or that there is a 4th option? How would you know if it is more complex than you or I could fathom?
Nobody living or dead from earth has ever seen the universe coming to existence. All known or accepted theories about creation and physics of said universe has come from us earthlings who think they know everything. The truth is we know how physics works in our on observable spectrum, but how can you know about what you cannot or never observe?
[QUOTE=dzstone;43747278]If it was so complex you could not understand it, then how can you say these 3 ways you've stated are the only definitive ways possible. Is it not possible that way C isn't possible or that there is a 4th option? How would you know if it is more complex than you or I could fathom?
Nobody living or dead from earth has ever seen the universe coming to existence. All known or accepted theories about creation and physics of said universe has come from us earthlings who think they know everything. The truth is we know how physics works in our on observable spectrum, but how can you know about what you cannot or never observe?[/QUOTE]
whilst that's all true
it's entirely pointless to speculate that physics just around the galactic corner are totally different from here without a reason to believe that.
[QUOTE=uperkurk;43438037]toys → humans → universe → god → X → Y → Z → ... → ∞ and so we clearly see that if everything needs to be created by something else, then in fact nothing can exist in the first place. So far so good... but some people will say the chain stops at god, because he is eternal and always existed but is this not the exact same conclusion that we already made with option C? That the universe has always existed? Why must we replace the laws of physics with god at the foundations?[/QUOTE]
There is a common misunderstanding when it comes to God's involvement in creation and I think it comes down to what you define as creation. If you literally look at the very first verse in Genesis, it says "In the beginning..."
It think there is a lot involved in those first 3 words that is overlooked. I've always seen this as meaning that our universe didn't exist before "the beginning." That includes time itself... which is difficult to imagine since how can there be a [I]before[/I] for time? But if there was no time without creation, then there wasn't physics as we observe today. Our logic is based on states describing physical possibility, how would that apply without time? Without time, there would be no change. Someone observing our universe, from outside of it, wouldn't see it from some location looking at some frame of time. In the Bible, God is referred to as never changing. This fits the idea of God not occupying this universe and time.
But then is the question if God is even relevant if He doesn't exist in our realm? Well, though He doesn't exist here I don't think that means He is unable to act here. I best visualize it as a mono-directional interaction. In other words, He can "act" on us and we can react but He isn't changed by it.
The point I'm trying to make, though not very directly, is that God isn't a product of the laws of His creation. That being that he has his own laws of "physics" and "logic" that apply to Himself.
Sorry if this is disorganized and badly worded. It's really hard to explain but I've been able to make it consistent enough in my mind to accept it even though I'm never going to be able to explain a lot of it. It's really a philosophy at this point.
[editline]7th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43750582]whilst that's all true
it's entirely pointless to speculate that physics just around the galactic corner are totally different from here without a reason to believe that.[/QUOTE]
You can't say anything about extra-universe physics unless you can open your mind to the possibility. You can dismiss it but that's a really fixed way of thinking. Just because it can sound ridiculous doesn't mean it can't be credible or real.
Doesn't the word universe mean everything that exists? I never really got the idea behind "multiverses". If we find more stuff, shouldn't our understanding of what the universe is simply expand beyond what it is now? In the same way an omnipotent being wouldn't exist outside of everything that exists. So basically B and C are the exact same choice, except with B you need to believe a bunch of other really weird shit.
Edit:
As to the post above: There is no evidence anywhere for god's existence. Show some evidence that parts of the universe do not operate on the same rules as everything else and I will be very excited. From what we know so far, the universe makes a lot more sense if there isn't some omnipotent being pulling all the strings.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
