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.
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 [B]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". [/B]
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 ChaosCosmological agnosticism?
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.
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 modelswhat 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 dadudemonIndeed. I just didn't think the multiverse idea was entirely, empirically 'baseless'.
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.
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)
I meant to respond to this before, but I was at work and it was time to go home:
Originally posted by dadudemonI can't believe you're not a meditator (ie, I don't recall you ever mentioning it).
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".