Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I just watched a episode of Curiosity on the discovery channel. Stephen Hawkins a cosmologist, was giving his thoughts on God not existing. He based his theory on modern day science. The conclusion that he came up with was that the universe started from nothing. So everything within the universe, even down to our perfect condition planet which supports an abundance of life is all just a coincidence. He also said if there's not a god then the chances of life after death is slim to none. KMC what's your take on the matter?

I would say that none of this is particularly new or original.

People have been saying what Hawking says here for decades if not centuries.

Though I would say that the lack of a God doesn't mean there isn't an afterlife and vice versa.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I would say that none of this is particularly new or original.

People have been saying what Hawking says here for decades if not centuries.

Though I would say that the lack of a God doesn't mean there isn't an afterlife and vice versa. I just find that hard to believe that everything was made from nothing. There's a cause for every action. I don't believe God is what man makes him, she, or it out to be, but I do believe that there's a force within the universe that drives us.

Originally posted by heru
I just find that hard to believe that everything was made from nothing. There's a cause for every action. I don't believe God is what man makes him, she, or it out to be, but I do believe that there's a force within the universe that drives us. Mainstream Christian belief holds that God created the Universe ex nihilo.

So the issue isn't that a Christian doesn't believe that something can come from nothing, the issue is that a mainstream Christian doesn't believe that something can come from nothing without some kind of intelligent design/initiative of God.

Yes. Yes He did.


You're welcome.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Mainstream Christian belief holds that God created the Universe ex nihilo.

So the issue isn't that a Christian doesn't believe that something can come from nothing, the issue is that a mainstream Christian doesn't believe that something can come from nothing without some kind of intelligent design/initiative of God. I wouldn't consider myself a Christian or a main stream Christian. Religion it self is a man made mechanism infuse to produce order, fear and sanctuary, and in a lot of cases confusion as well.

My answer is the correct one:










Probably not.

I posit that not only did God create the universe, he also created the rules which caused the universe to be created.


People forget that the "created itself" was created due to a set of rules. Those rules were God's actual creation.


So I have two ideas:

God directly created the original singularity that burst into our universe.

God created all the rules that resulted in the universe coming from nothing.



The result is the same: God created the universe.


It's difficult for me to intellectually accept that "gravity" is to blame for the universe when the concept of "gravity" is not even known until very brief moments AFTER the universe burst into existence. Making a sweeping conclusion that gravity is to blame is a bit strange and definitely not factual. We actually have no idea if a concept of gravity existed before the explosion. Physics (if you even want to call it that) would be so different that we really won't have a way to comprehend it. In my opinion, that's waaaaaaay more freaky or mind boggling than thinking about an after life or pleasing the creating God.


I guess you could label me as a pragmatic atheist...but a practicing theist. I'm going through the motions of "theism" but not wholly convinced of either way.

I'll answer with another question: Does it really matter?

Like the Empire State Building was designed by the firm Shreve, Lamb and Harmon which is a kind of intresting thing to know but it doesn't alter my life (and I doubt it would alter my life even if I worked there).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'll answer with another question: Does it really matter?

Like the Empire State Building was designed by the firm Shreve, Lamb and Harmon which is a kind of intresting thing to know but it doesn't alter my life (and I doubt it would alter my life even if I worked there).

Good point and we are almost the same in our reasoning. So why the **** do we keep arguing about it?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I posit that not only did God create the universe, he also created the rules which caused the universe to be created.


People forget that the "created itself" was created due to a set of rules. Those rules were God's actual creation.


So I have two ideas:

God directly created the original singularity that burst into our universe.

God created all the rules that resulted in the universe coming from nothing.



The result is the same: God created the universe.


It's difficult for me to intellectually accept that "gravity" is to blame for the universe when the concept of "gravity" is not even known until very brief moments AFTER the universe burst into existence. Making a sweeping conclusion that gravity is to blame is a bit strange and definitely not factual. We actually have no idea if a concept of gravity existed before the explosion. Physics (if you even want to call it that) would be so different that we really won't have a way to comprehend it. In my opinion, that's waaaaaaay more freaky or mind boggling than thinking about an after life or pleasing the creating God.


I guess you could label me as a pragmatic atheist...but a practicing theist. I'm going through the motions of "theism" but not wholly convinced of either way.
This sounds a bit like the Watchmaker argument.

Infinite regress ftw. ha-som

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'll answer with another question: Does it really matter?

Like the Empire State Building was designed by the firm Shreve, Lamb and Harmon which is a kind of intresting thing to know but it doesn't alter my life (and I doubt it would alter my life even if I worked there). Apathetic agnosticism is a very underrated point of view.

Yes I believe that he did.

Originally posted by heru
I just find that hard to believe that everything was made from nothing. There's a cause for every action. I don't believe God is what man makes him, she, or it out to be, but I do believe that there's a force within the universe that drives us. It's called the laws of physics dude.

And you can either use science to find out what they are and how they act (if done correctly you'll find science works 100% of the time) and you'll have a greater understanding of how we came to be.

To say you watched Hawkins, I doubt you were paying much attention since he usually explains what he's talking about.

http://www.blogtv.com/people/dprjones here's a debate about God and science etc happening right now!

Edit: By saying you can't understand how perfection came from coincidence sounds like a strawman. Define perfection, define coincidence. Then we might get somewhere.

Obviously I don't think something can come from nothing. Nothing produces nothing. Unless you want to define "nothing" as something other than nothing.

I once heard an argument that the universe and all of us were just rearranged particles of nothing.

Don't a lot of these arguments presume that there was ever a nothing for reality to spring from?

If we were to take Sir Roger Penrose's Big Bounce theory as fact then the Universe rather than being a finite event where from nothing sprung everything as in the Big Bang is actually just one part of an infinite cycle of bangs and crunches.

Originally posted by parenthesis
It's called the laws of physics dude.

And you can either use science to find out what they are and how they act (if done correctly you'll find science works 100% of the time) and you'll have a greater understanding of how we came to be.

To say you watched Hawkins, I doubt you were paying much attention since he usually explains what he's talking about.

http://www.blogtv.com/people/dprjones here's a debate about God and science etc happening right now!

Edit: By saying you can't understand how perfection came from coincidence sounds like a strawman. Define perfection, define coincidence. Then we might get somewhere. I watched, paid attention and understood what he was saying, but I myself as well as countless others on this planet have been through things on a spiritual level that Hawkins theory could not explain. He also said that because he does not believe that there's a God, that life after death possibly does not exist. He probably gave up on God years ago since he's been spending his life frozen and bounded to a wheel chair, but he can only speak for himself. I personally believe, based on my life experiences, not what someone told me. That there's a force beyond the comprehension of the human mind. What I do know for certain is, we will all get our chance to find out the answer to these theories once our time here expires.

Well, we are all atoms, and atoms mostly contain nothing, so that might be what you heard. ermm

We all came from a rapid expansion 14 billion years ago; shortly after a lot of hydrogen reacted with itself, until eventually stars formed creating other elements where more reactions occurred eventually creating the universe as it stands now.

I don't know what happened before the big bang, some speculate an implosion, others think other things.

The beauty of science is that it uses what we already know to absolutely happen to work out what must have happened (dubbed deductive reasoning) or it observes what happens then works out why it happens thus knowing new things that absolutely happen (dubbed inductive reasoning).

The alternative is of course using whatever ideas or stories trigger the chemicals in your brain to make you feel satisfied to think what happened (sometimes dubbed religion).

Originally posted by heru
I watched, paid attention and understood what he was saying, but I myself as well as countless others on this planet have been through things on a spiritual level that Hawkins theory could not explain.

Hawking isn't a psychologist

Yes.

Originally posted by inimalist
Hawking isn't a psychologist He's a scientist. awesome

My opinion is there is no god.

Something can come from nothing. Diffrence is that a theist will tell you what that nothing looks like and their name (Yaweh, Cronos, Ra, Odin) and convince you it's a something...a creator. If one could imagine that there's a being that's always existed, then we can also believe the universe has always existed but in different states. For all this talk about how amazing the creator and his power is, people over look the possibility that the universe could've have always had it's rules and pieces. The argument is in essence how can you explain the something came from nothing? The only possible explanation, for the theist, is to use the super natural, impossible, to explain the natural's beginning.

If god and his powers can't be explained, why is it hard to consider that the laws of the universe have always existed without any creator's involvement? If the argument is no one created god (he's always existed), then I say the laws of physics and the universe have always existed. The big bang is merely a cycle of the universe. Soon it all collapses into a singularity and sits there until another big bang occurs. We are all a result of a god without conscience...we call it the universe.

Conventionally speaking, I'd vote nyet.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Don't a lot of these arguments presume that there was ever a nothing for reality to spring from?

If we were to take Sir Roger Penrose's Big Bounce theory as fact then the Universe rather than being a finite event where from nothing sprung everything as in the Big Bang is actually just one part of an infinite cycle of bangs and crunches.

As I hear it, the Big Bounce theory has been basically refuted. The current cosmological view is that matter, space, and time all had a beginning at the Big Bang. Not a re-making.

Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
My opinion is there is no god.

Something can come from nothing. Diffrence is that a theist will tell you what that nothing looks like and their name (Yaweh, Cronos, Ra, Odin) and convince you it's a something...a creator. If one could imagine that there's a being that's always existed, then we can also believe the universe has always existed but in different states. For all this talk about how amazing the creator and his power is, people over look the possibility that the universe could've have always had it's rules and pieces. The argument is in essence how can you explain the something came from nothing? The only possible explanation, for the theist, is to use the super natural, impossible, to explain the natural's beginning.

If god and his powers can't be explained, why is it hard to consider that the laws of the universe have always existed without any creator's involvement? If the argument is no one created god (he's always existed), then I say the laws of physics and the universe have always existed. The big bang is merely a cycle of the universe. Soon it all collapses into a singularity and sits there until another big bang occurs. We are all a result of a god without conscience...we call it the universe.

We could believe the universe always existed. But that's not what modern cosmology has found. The current cosmological view is that the universe is not eternal. Matter, space, and time itself all began to exist at the Big Bang. As it was said, the current cosmological view is that the universe came into existence ex nihilo. Meaning "from nothing." Not "from a previous universe singularity re-exploding".

Originally posted by TacDavey
We could believe the universe always existed. But that's not what modern cosmology has found. The current cosmological view is that the universe is not eternal. Matter, space, and time itself all began to exist at the Big Bang. As it was said, the current cosmological view is that the universe came into existence ex nihilo. Meaning "from nothing." Not "from a previous universe singularity re-exploding".

Except that it really hasn't found that.

It's found that it can't yet see past the big bang, in fact science has yet to find a way to see all the way back to the very beginning. Physicists assume there was nothing beforehand simply because they feel that makes the fewest assumptions. The basis is more Occam's razor than any empirical or theoretical work showing it must be that way.

Sure, everything we know about the universe began with the big bang but tells us nothing about things beyond the universe. Personally multiverse theories of the origin seem as baseless to me as divine ones. It seems to me that the only intellectually honest statement is that we don't have enough information to make a difinitive statement.

Originally posted by TacDavey
As I hear it, the Big Bounce theory has been basically refuted. The current cosmological view is that matter, space, and time all had a beginning at the Big Bang. Not a re-making.

ive seen competing mathematical models

what have you seen that suggests only a single big bang event? or rather, that proves conclusively that the models of continuous rebirth of the universe are false?

Originally posted by parenthesis
He's a scientist. awesome

sure, if you want to call that science....

Looking at a personal look at Toltec, Aboriginal and Pagan religion.

The universe exists in a state of constant flux between The Known, Intent and the Unknown.

At certain stages the Unknown will hold dominion over reality in a state of complete Void.
In other stages the The Known will exist allowing the Physical, Mental and Astral Planes to exist in harmony.
Intent allows both to expand causing a constant powerplay between all.



In other words I theorize at one of the many of the beginnings of time,
when only void existed, "everything" still existed. All it took was a fleeting spark to activate the "everything". A battle of ideas took place until the Known could once again achieve "active" omnipotence. A Big Bang takes place and the physical becomes reality.

God is just the condensation of "the Known" in it's most centered form.
We humans must understand and take full advantage of "Intent" for it is as powerful as the other two forces and we must not underestimate our free will and make selfish harmful choices lest we damn ourselves.
The "Known" can't change what exists in our lives but to which we know.

I do believe in a form of Hell. For I believe overindulgence is the Devil. And we as physical beings are all guilty of it. The pain we feel in life is usually due to such.

So do I believe God created the universe? No.

It was already there. It was always there. Moving in a constant cycle.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It seems to me that the only intellectually honest statement is that we don't have enough information to make a difinitive statement.



People take with Hawking says as "scripture". Don't blame them: it's easier to believe than what the God-Believers call "scriptures."

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Personally multiverse theories of the origin seem as baseless to me as divine ones. It seems to me that the only intellectually honest statement is that we don't have enough information to make a difinitive statement. Cosmological agnosticism?

While currently we don't have enough information to make a definitive statement, I've always felt the multiverse theories are, at least in theory, empirically testable (eg, I'm still waiting on the verdict of what those circular "bruise" patterns in the CMB are, or what some LHC experiments may turn up). At the very least, theories which involve extra dimensions enable (afaik) mathematical unification of gravity with the other forces.

Originally posted by Mindship
Cosmological agnosticism?

While currently we don't have enough information to make a definitive statement, I've always felt the multiverse theories are, at least in theory, empirically testable (eg, I'm still waiting on the verdict of what those circular "bruise" patterns in the CMB are, or what some LHC experiments may turn up). At the very least, theories which involve extra dimensions enable (afaik) mathematical unification of gravity with the other forces.

I also subscribe to the multi-verse ideas. It seems to be workable with several observable phenomena in our quantum and astrophysics fields, one of which you already named.

However, they are still not proof positive. It's still a theory...it works well with some things...but they are still theories that still have quite a few problems.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that it really hasn't found that.

It's found that it can't yet see past the big bang, in fact science has yet to find a way to see all the way back to the very beginning. Physicists assume there was nothing beforehand simply because they feel that makes the fewest assumptions. The basis is more Occam's razor than any empirical or theoretical work showing it must be that way.

Sure, everything we know about the universe began with the big bang but tells us nothing about things beyond the universe. Personally multiverse theories of the origin seem as baseless to me as divine ones. It seems to me that the only intellectually honest statement is that we don't have enough information to make a difinitive statement.

That's not what all the experts are saying. According to them, the current cosmological stance is that the universe began from nothing at the Big Bang.

Originally posted by inimalist
ive seen competing mathematical models

what have you seen that suggests only a single big bang event? or rather, that proves conclusively that the models of continuous rebirth of the universe are false?

I've personally seen nothing. I'm telling you what the expert cosmologists are saying.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's not what all the experts are saying. According to them, the current cosmological stance is that the universe began from nothing at the Big Bang.

Can you get citations from somewhere other than popular science sources or off-hand quotes? Journals maybe? I have never heard of any method for getting empirical data about the conditions of reality prior to the big bang.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Can you get citations from somewhere other than popular science sources or off-hand quotes? Journals maybe? I have never heard of any method for getting empirical data about the conditions of reality prior to the big bang.

Sorry, I don't know of any specific journals about the studies. I likely wouldn't understand the methods even if I read about them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
However, they are still not proof positive. It's still a theory...it works well with some things...but they are still theories that still have quite a few problems. Indeed. I just didn't think the multiverse idea was entirely, empirically 'baseless'.

And wouldn't it be something if it turned out that they were indeed all wrong: it would suddenly be much harder to physically explain why our one-shot-in-the-dark universe was so 'finely tuned' (ie, the 'coincidence' of it all would be much harder to swallow, imo).

On the other hand, I would also be somewhat dismayed. I would think Something Infinitely Unimaginable/Unimaginably Infinite could churn out more than one measely Hubble volume.

Originally posted by Mindship
Indeed. I just didn't think the multiverse idea was entirely, empirically 'baseless'.

And wouldn't it be something if it turned out that they were indeed all wrong: it would suddenly be much harder to physically explain why our one-shot-in-the-dark universe was so 'finely tuned' (ie, the 'coincidence' of it all would be much harder to swallow, imo).

On the other hand, I would also be somewhat dismayed. I would think Something Infinitely Unimaginable/Unimaginably Infinite could churn out more than one measely Hubble volume.


I had a theory (baseless) that we really do have a hubble universe and it is entirely self-contained. Meaning, there may still be other universes out there (or things we do not have the ability to comprehend...not for a lack of theorizing it, but because our own limitations inside of our set of physics would make it literally impossible to comprehend) but we literally will have no way of touching/testing/observing them due to it being impossible no matter how technologically advanced we become.

They universe is extremely finely tuned. Some "fine-tuning" is so very specific that it vastly eclipses the number of years until heat-death. It's pretty creepy and weird, to me. But, like the multiverse idea goes, there could be an almost infinite number of universes out there that are so very NOT finely tuned that it balances out the extreme improbability of our very much tuned universe. We talked about this before, I believe.




Anyway, some quantum physicists believe in an objective truth that we can superficially "touch" with our minds. (Prof. Amit Goswami). Some would call this objective truth "God". I am accepting of this type of "God" as well. Did it create the universe? Maybe. Based on the "objective truth" ideas, our thinking ability has the power to create or alter outcomes (this is actual fact, ie, particle duality) and the ultra high "consciousness" is so far removed from ours that it has the ability to alter outcomes at a cosmological scale. It could be the universe or some sort of super-dimensional construct that does not really resemble sentience as we would recognize it. There could also be levels of "sentienceness" that are too far removed from our ability to quantify and represent them in anthropic symbols (don't forget that even our words and concepts of words are technically symbols).


Is it arrogance for me to want to transcend to such levels of consciousness? Is it futility and silly pipe dreams?

Even if I merged with some sort of "super-consciousness", it would still be acceptable to me. That's technically losing the individual sense of self so I suppose it is not really "sentient arrogance".



So back to the thread: no matter what, God created the universe. No matter how it is cut up, quantified, observed, or discovered, in some way, it can be symbolically reduced to "God" doing the creating. Pantheism...or a very crude form of it, would say that the universe IS God. So if the universe created itself from nothing, it's still God, our God, even if it doesn't have a benevolent sentience that we recognize. It's still a form of God. Sure, it's a bit silly, but not for everyone. That also means we are god.




I wonder, have we created universes in our own experimentation? What if our experiments have resonating effects through the "ether" of the multiverse and we actually create universes that way? That would make us creating gods. Unwittingly so, but still Creators with a capital C. That would certainly marginalize what it means to be "God", for sure.



I can continue to go on and on about this stuff. So I'll stop here. This conversation is best had after smoking a bowl and taking psychedelics, to be honest.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Sorry, I don't know of any specific journals about the studies. I likely wouldn't understand the methods even if I read about them.

Whether we understand the methods are immaterial to knowing if they exist or not. I find that most of the time when people say that "big name scientists believe this" its based on popsci TV shows or offhand comments that they've made rather than having even a passing familiarity with the science that is being done. It's an appeal to authority that I'm particularly skeptical of as a result.

http://xkcd.com/947/ (mouseover text is relevant)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can continue to go on and on about this stuff. So I'll stop here. This conversation is best had after smoking a bowl and taking psychedelics, to be honest. That's what grad school is for.

Yes. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yes. Prove me wrong.

No. Now prove me wrong.

I meant to respond to this before, but I was at work and it was time to go home:Originally posted by dadudemon
Anyway, some quantum physicists believe in an objective truth that we can superficially "touch" with our minds. (Prof. Amit Goswami). Some would call this objective truth "God". I am accepting of this type of "God" as well. Did it create the universe? Maybe. Based on the "objective truth" ideas, our thinking ability has the power to create or alter outcomes (this is actual fact, ie, particle duality) and the ultra high "consciousness" is so far removed from ours that it has the ability to alter outcomes at a cosmological scale. It could be the universe or some sort of super-dimensional construct that does not really resemble sentience as we would recognize it. There could also be levels of "sentienceness" that are too far removed from our ability to quantify and represent them in anthropic symbols (don't forget that even our words and concepts of words are technically symbols).


Is it arrogance for me to want to transcend to such levels of consciousness? Is it futility and silly pipe dreams?

Even if I merged with some sort of "super-consciousness", it would still be acceptable to me. That's technically losing the individual sense of self so I suppose it is not really "sentient arrogance".
I can't believe you're not a meditator (ie, I don't recall you ever mentioning it).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Based on the "objective truth" ideas, our thinking ability has the power to create or alter outcomes (this is actual fact, ie, particle duality)

You can't alter that outcome of that sort of thing, its random. At best you can be the cause of an "observation", which basically anything can do.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is it arrogance for me to want to transcend to such levels of consciousness? Is it futility and silly pipe dreams?

Mu. You do not even understand enough to ask the question.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can't alter that outcome of that sort of thing, its random. At best you can be the cause of an "observation", which basically anything can do.

It's not random and you have no idea what you're talking about.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Mu. You do not even understand enough to ask the question.

I could take this multiple ways but I'll take it the least rude option possible.

I do understand enough to ask the question because I understood enough to ask it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Whether we understand the methods are immaterial to knowing if they exist or not. I find that most of the time when people say that "big name scientists believe this" its based on popsci TV shows or offhand comments that they've made rather than having even a passing familiarity with the science that is being done. It's an appeal to authority that I'm particularly skeptical of as a result.

http://xkcd.com/947/ (mouseover text is relevant)

I have the quotes if you want them.

I think our comprehension is not quite at the level to understand what created the universe, its far larger than we can probably understand, that does not mean you have to slot a "god" figuire in where he may or may not fit to cover something. Theres nothing wrong with just saying you dont know and leaving it at that. This covers the "something came from nothing" argument, whereby theres not necesserily "nothing" there, it just does not have to be God, it could be a force we have yet to discover or observe.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I think our comprehension is not quite at the level to understand what created the universe, its far larger than we can probably understand, that does not mean you have to slot a "god" figuire in where he may or may not fit to cover something. Theres nothing wrong with just saying you dont know and leaving it at that. This covers the "something came from nothing" argument, whereby theres not necesserily "nothing" there, it just does not have to be God, it could be a force we have yet to discover or observe.

By that logic I could deny your "force" explanation by claiming that one day we may find God.

That seems to rely upon belief in a "force" that may or may not be discovered sometime in the future and currently has no evidence supporting it.

It almost sounds like you are denying the current findings because you don't want them to be true. Not because you have any valid reason to believe they are wrong.

Well we have many forces attributed to our knowledge and zero findings of Gods, I would say my "suggestion" is more sound and more likely. Also, what "current" findings? There are no "findings" of God or are you talking about something else?

If a god did create this universe, I really doubt its a god that is already in a religion (catholicism, christianity, etc.) because we really have no findings or evidence to believe so.

Just because we can not understand how the universe was created does not mean we have to give credit to some god. In fact, thats the exact reason why we should not say a god created the universe... because we don't know.

I am not denying the existence of a god, I am just saying its very, very unlikely that it was a god of some sort who created the universe, imo. Physics and nature are weird, I doubt we would ever understand it fully. Most people get lazy and instead of saying "i dont know" and thinking about it, they just fall to the easy solution and say "god" did it.

No, God created the universe.

Define god please.

Originally posted by Transmaniacon
Define god please.

The something that created the universe/multiverse.


You're welcome.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The something that created the universe/multiverse.


You're welcome. i'm going to say no, i like the idea of god being a by product of the universe

Originally posted by Transmaniacon
Define god please. The omnipotent being that created everything.

Originally posted by Transmaniacon
i'm going to say no, i like the idea of god being a by product of the universe

That's actually what I believe the Judeo-Christian God is: a by-product of the universe.

ddm, what is up with your ava and sig?

Originally posted by Mindset
ddm, what is up with your ava and sig?

It looks delicious. That's what's up.

Originally posted by Transmaniacon
Define god please. Well, if we define God as the Creator of the Universe, then, by definition, we've answered this thread's question.

/thread.

If your labeling "whatever created the universe" then I agree with that interpretation, its when you add the whole "sentient" addition, and the 3 O's things get into what is imo fiction.

Originally posted by Burning thought
If your labeling "whatever created the universe" then I agree with that interpretation, its when you add the whole "sentient" addition, and the 3 O's things get into what is imo fiction. I think you just hit the nail on the head when debating the existence of 'God': is the universe (and beyond?) -- as a whole -- conscious?

As for the 3 O's...I'm gonna let someone else touch that one.

I would say theres no reason to belive it is concious and any conclusion we make would likely be far off, whether it is or is not, cannot be gauged or tested.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Well we have many forces attributed to our knowledge and zero findings of Gods, I would say my "suggestion" is more sound and more likely. Also, what "current" findings? There are no "findings" of God or are you talking about something else?

Your suggestion doesn't use any force we know of. It relies almost completely on us discovering one sometime in the future. If we apply that same logic to the existence of God, I can claim it's logical to believe in God because we'll probably find God at some point in the future. Which isn't a valid reason to believe in God.

I wasn't talking about findings of God. I was talking about cosmological findings and what they currently say about the origin of the universe.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I would say theres no reason to belive it is concious and any conclusion we make would likely be far off, whether it is or is not, cannot be gauged or tested. Empirically, no.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I was talking about cosmological findings and what they currently say about the origin of the universe.

which, by whom?

Originally posted by inimalist
which, by whom?

The findings that state that the universe had a beginning at the Big Bang and came into existence ex nihilo. This is coming from Steven Hawking, Velenkin, Penrose, to name a few. It's basically the current accepted cosmological stance. This very topic was started because the original poster watched a tv program about Steven Hawking talking about how the universe began from nothing.

Not sure it was nothing, I thought it was from high heat and density.

It's the physicist's nothing.

there is a creator..... who knows what he it is but whats it hurt to say a prayer to the dude that made it all happen better safe than sorry...cause sorry none of u have the answers..but if hes out there he does...Im taking the safe bet

hope heaven is filled with uncovered breasts

Well, I'm almost 100% for sure that the God that created the universe would not care even one iota about some species living on a planet about 13.7 billion years after He/She/It created this universe. It is probably the epitome of arrogance for humans to think that such a Creator would care. Here we are thinking that a Being Who's consciousnesses transcends 11 dimensions is some how taking a personal interest in over 20 billion (since the beginning of humans) humans' lives.


However, there's that part of me that hopes in those things. Small part...but it's still there.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I'm almost 100% for sure that the God that created the universe would not care even one iota about some species living on a planet about 13.7 billion years after He/She/It created this universe. It is probably the epitome of arrogance for humans to think that such a Creator would care. Here we are thinking that a Being Who's consciousnesses transcends 11 dimensions is some how taking a personal interest in over 20 billion (since the beginning of humans) humans' lives.


However, there's that part of me that hopes in those things. Small part...but it's still there.
Well if we think of God as just a really big human or as a human with us as microbes then yeah, it is pretty silly to think that he'd care about us/want to micromanage us.

But if we think of him as an all-knowing, all-understanding being then it becomes much more likely that he cares.

And maybe rather than thinking of a hypothetical god as a scientist who creates a culture in a pietri dish and can only see it as a collection of microbial bacteria maybe we should instead think of a hypothetical god as a writer, someone who creates a world and lives that world, loves it, cares about it to the tiniest detail.

/ramble

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well if we think of God as just a really big human or as a human with us as microbes then yeah, it is pretty silly to think that he'd care about us/want to micromanage us.

But if we think of him as an all-knowing, all-understanding being then it becomes much more likely that he cares.

And maybe rather than thinking of a hypothetical god as a scientist who creates a culture in a pietri dish and can only see it as a collection of microbial bacteria maybe we should instead think of a hypothetical god as a writer, someone who creates a world and lives that world, loves it, cares about it to the tiniest detail.

/ramble


But would not there be thousands or even millions (or in the case of a multiverse...almost an infinite to infinite) number of other sentient creations of His/Hers/It?


It because much more difficult for such a being to care about a single individual in a drop of the infinite: a single element becomes infinitely small in such a reality.


But, yes, I like the idea of an interactive Creator. At least one that takes an interest in the individual being good...but not to the point of overt interference.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But would not there be thousands or even millions (or in the case of a multiverse...almost an infinite to infinite) number of other sentient creations of His/Hers/It?


It because much more difficult for such a being to care about a single individual in a drop of the infinite: a single element becomes infinitely small in such a reality.


But, yes, I like the idea of an interactive Creator. At least one that takes an interest in the individual being good...but not to the point of overt interference.
This has always been my problem with organized religion, that it seems unfair that God should only reveal His Word to a minority of the population of one tiny world among many.

But I think there's a certain folly in trying to understand how an Infinite Consciousness might work with your finite consciousness.

As someone who gravitates toward Sartre, I think God is usually only a hypothetical discussion piece and not something to be relied on.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not sure it was nothing, I thought it was from high heat and density.

The word they used was nothing. Ex nihilo means "out of nothing."

Originally posted by Jack Daniels
there is a creator..... who knows what he it is but whats it hurt to say a prayer to the dude that made it all happen better safe than sorry...cause sorry none of u have the answers..but if hes out there he does...Im taking the safe bet

1) you talk as if thats a fact

2) if he really is an all powerful, all knowing god, then he will know your intentions for prayers are bad. If your "praying" just to save your ass, then you might as well not pray at all, you act like your doing something good.

the universe is infinite and did not have a creation point

the universe created god when it created man

respect the universe

Originally posted by TacDavey
The findings that state that the universe had a beginning at the Big Bang and came into existence ex nihilo. This is coming from Steven Hawking, Velenkin, Penrose, to name a few. It's basically the current accepted cosmological stance. This very topic was started because the original poster watched a tv program about Steven Hawking talking about how the universe began from nothing.

big bang theory came from a catholic priest called lemaitre

it should be called the big bullshit theory

just because it is accepted by scientists does not mean it is law, it is THEORY not LAW

remember when the world thought the earth was flat and at centre of the universe

well now they gone back to believing the earth is centre of universe and some scientists talk about how the universe is FLAT

such a joke scientists of today, same ones who talk Bullshit about dangers of CO2 on future of mankind, yet the solution is not to stop the problem, but instead charge people for the use

****in idiot planet

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can't alter that outcome of that sort of thing, its random. At best you can be the cause of an "observation", which basically anything can do.

DfPeprQ7oGc

Enjoy!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I'm almost 100% for sure that the God that created the universe would not care even one iota about some species living on a planet about 13.7 billion years after He/She/It created this universe. It is probably the epitome of arrogance for humans to think that such a Creator would care. Here we are thinking that a Being Who's consciousnesses transcends 11 dimensions is some how taking a personal interest in over 20 billion (since the beginning of humans) humans' lives.


However, there's that part of me that hopes in those things. Small part...but it's still there.


But what if we're all "one" stoned

Originally posted by ares834
DfPeprQ7oGc

Enjoy!

Yes, random was the wrong word entirely but there's still nothing privileged about "the mind" in it. Variations of the experiment include mechanical observers.

Originally posted by ares834
Enjoy! Meh. Copenhagen spin.

Originally posted by heru
I just watched a episode of Curiosity on the discovery channel. Stephen Hawkins a cosmologist, was giving his thoughts on God not existing. He based his theory on modern day science. The conclusion that he came up with was that the universe started from nothing. So everything within the universe, even down to our perfect condition planet which supports an abundance of life is all just a coincidence. He also said if there's not a god then the chances of life after death is slim to none. KMC what's your take on the matter?

Hawkings is overated and if he said some of the stuff he said there you can see hes a guy that likes to make assumptions.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, random was the wrong word entirely but there's still nothing privileged about "the mind" in it. Variations of the experiment include mechanical observers.

Fair enough. I would tend to agree.

Originally posted by Mindship
Meh. Copenhagen spin.

Copenhagen has the advantage of presenting things in the way one would actually experience them. It's one step away from "shut up and calculate".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Copenhagen has the advantage of presenting things in the way one would actually experience them. It's one step away from "shut up and calculate". Still, I find the 'many-worlds' more mind-blowing.

Originally posted by Mindship
Still, I find the 'many-worlds' more mind-blowing.

Really? I find it more prosaic.
Copenhagen says we have one fundamentally bizarre world.
MW says we have lots of simple worlds.

Leaving aside the math and science (which is 99% incomprehensible to me for both interpretations) I still don't see any special appeals to MW. The idea of other universes isn't special, we've had it since people looked up and saw the moon or wondered where they went when they dreamed.

God is the one and only creator of all creations

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, random was the wrong word entirely but there's still nothing privileged about "the mind" in it. Variations of the experiment include mechanical observers.

The...mechanical observer does not solve the problems associated with the observer effect (and measurement problem). It certainly does not remove consciousness from the observation even a little.

I will concede this: a superposed system experiences a wavefunction collapse when it reaches a specific size and/or complexity independent of any observer. So the "consciousness affects the outcome" does't hold true once you pass a certain point...cause...we live in a "collapsed waveform" macroscopic world.


Some say that there is a universally sized waveform and, thus, prevents a waveform collapse from actually occurring but, instead, there are multiple waveforms interacting at different states and scales and the conscious observer phenomena is a form of an illusion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The...mechanical observer does not solve the problems associated with the observer effect (and measurement problem).

I didn't say it did.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It certainly does not remove consciousness from the observation even a little.

The non-conscious observer disrupts the results before a conscious observer ever gets involved.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I will concede this: a superposed system experiences a wavefunction collapse when it reaches a specific size and/or complexity independent of any observer. So the "consciousness affects the outcome" does't hold true once you pass a certain point...cause...we live in a "collapsed waveform" macroscopic world.

Hmm? You can calculate de Broglie wavelengths for macroscopic objects. Doesn't that suggest waveforms for large objects?

What does "affect the outcome" mean? I assume you mean just causing a collapse rather than quantum mysticism stuff where you get to decide the outcome if you want it enough.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The non-conscious observer disrupts the results before a conscious observer ever gets involved.

Incorrect: a conscious "observer" had to set it up to begin with. They measuring tools didn't randomly create themselves and land in a certain spot to create the experiment. That's the point. That's why it still doesn't remove the "problem".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Really? I find it more prosaic.
Copenhagen says we have one fundamentally bizarre world.
MW says we have lots of simple worlds.

Leaving aside the math and science (which is 99% incomprehensible to me for both interpretations) I still don't see any special appeals to MW. The idea of other universes isn't special, we've had it since people looked up and saw the moon or wondered where they went when they dreamed. I've read where MW is described as 'unwieldy,' what with universes sprouting wildly. But what gets me: the idea that an atom zigging instead of zagging, or a person saying Hello instead of Bite me, compounded by all other possible events, that all this 'bifurcates' the universe again and again...this is about as close as I can get to groking a physical infinity, especially one defined by such simplicity of process yet fullness of effect. Imho, it's insanely eloquent.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Incorrect: a conscious "observer" had to set it up to begin with. They measuring tools didn't randomly create themselves and land in a certain spot to create the experiment. That's the point. That's why it still doesn't remove the "problem".

You can't possibly be saying that if things did get in position randomly then they wouldn't alter the outcome of the experiment...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can't possibly be saying that if things did get in position randomly then they wouldn't alter the outcome of the experiment...

Don't make it vague when we are talking about something quite specific.

If we take it the way you're implying, sure, what I'm saying is wrong.


Since I'm referring specifically to waveform collapse, your attempt at making fun of me through a question fails.


As fact, we don't know, beyond consciousness affecting the outcome, what the real "problem" is. Theories have been put forth that explain it without consciousness being involved. Einstein was one of those.

But if you're going to continue to say "consciousness means jack in this, bla bla bla", you really lack an understanding of the entire debate...which has been raging decades.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
big bang theory came from a catholic priest called lemaitre

it should be called the big bullshit theory

just because it is accepted by scientists does not mean it is law, it is THEORY not LAW

remember when the world thought the earth was flat and at centre of the universe

well now they gone back to believing the earth is centre of universe and some scientists talk about how the universe is FLAT

such a joke scientists of today, same ones who talk Bullshit about dangers of CO2 on future of mankind, yet the solution is not to stop the problem, but instead charge people for the use

****in idiot planet

Yes, I'm aware that there was a time when we thought the world was flat. It's true that science evolves as we discover more.

It isn't logical to say that we should just dismiss the current scientific findings just because there is a possibility they are wrong or will be changed in the future. By that rational, we can't believe ANY discovery we have ever made. As there is always the chance that it will one day be proven wrong.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, I'm aware that there was a time when we thought the world was flat. It's true that science evolves as we discover more.

It isn't logical to say that we should just dismiss the current scientific findings just because there is a possibility they are wrong or will be changed in the future. By that rational, we can't believe ANY discovery we have ever made. As there is always the chance that it will one day be proven wrong.

I think we should use caution on discoveries that are uncertain in explanation, of course.

FTL neutrinos, for one.


That's just too crazy to say it's 100% proven, at the moment.

Yes of course.
I am a little bit religious.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think we should use caution on discoveries that are uncertain in explanation, of course.

FTL neutrinos, for one.


That's just too crazy to say it's 100% proven, at the moment.

Heh. I heard about that. It would be pretty incredible if it were true.

One step closer to starships... Jumpy

yes off course without any hesitation my answer is yes GREAT GOD has created this universe and just made for human and give him powers to use this universe.
_______________
RV Cover |
RV Parts

This universe has been created with properly planning and management, it can't be all coincidence, this beautiful universe is being controlled by one GOD.....who is the Allah.....we must accept his oneness.

Online Backup