Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😕 I am simply saying "look at this model, it has no creation"Most science today, admits that the big bang is a creation of some sort. I believe that the universe has no creation. It is irrelevant if the model reflects reality. At this point no one knows. Take it at face value and tell me how can it be created.
As far as what has been posted: I am not going to get into an argument over rather what someone has said has upset me or not. That is off topic. I will help explain the model, but I can't tell you if it is true or not, but it doesn't have a beginning. If I can create a model that does not have a beginning, then it is possible to have a universe without a creation or beginning.
I am not presenting a theory or anything scientific, but I have to use the words I know to explain the model.
Fair enough. Problem being, as I alluded to, a lot of people think certain scientific ideas explain all sorts of things that, in reality, they don't. It's seductive
So again, it's a creative talking point, but not a model with any validity unless it were tested empirically or mathematically in some way. If you can find some tested theories out there that work toward your model, cool. If not, well, then we're just discussing science-fiction right now.
Red was on to something. There's always the problem of "where did those rules come from?" A timeless system can exist as a singular instant of no depth, height, or breadth to someone, but as a singular point. Of course, you would have to be nigh omniscient to understand and comprehend such an infinitely small system in a singular instant. So your creationless model (ignore the fact that I used "model", inimalist uhuh ) could still have a Creator with a capital "c". Trying to come up with a system that removes God is sure to fail because people consistently have found ways to throw God back into the system and it is consistently been considered a "truism".
For instance, here is a potential conversation between a theist and an atheist:
T: Where did the rules come from and why are they set that way?
A: There are no actual rules and they are arbitrary to this universe. There are an infinite number of configurations of those rules and we get our 10-11 dimensional reality from this set. Therefore, no creator or this universe is required.
T: Wait, where did the rules that culminate the 10-11 dimensional reality come from?
A: No creator is necessary since there are an infinite number of configurations and all are realized.
T: But why? Why are all infinite configurations realized? Where did the rules come from that created those rules for each universe/system?
A: Just because. There is no explanation beyond there being an infinite combination. Randomness isn't a rule. It is the result of 'unrule'.
T: Why? Isn't that an arbitrary claim that randomness isn't a rule? Seems randomness is difficult to come by as everything is organized. Randomness seems to have to specifically be programmed. DESIGNER!
A: NAY DESIGNER!
Originally posted by inimalist
shaky, please stop using the term model, please
Well..you did say the word "please", twice. Not sure how you could ask any nicer without sounding sarcastic. 😄
Originally posted by inimalist
[b]but if you are appealing to general relativity, the science behind what you are saying becomes instantly relevantyou can't be like "Oh look, science, therefore, whatever I believe" and also "Gee, this is just philosophy, don't hold me to rigorous scientific standards". Science isn't just about reinforcing what you already believe, you can't pick and choose how you apply facts. [/B]
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😕 I am simply saying "look at this model, it has no creation"
But why should anyone care?
You pick an assumption (there was no creation) and worked backward to come up with a set of axioms that have little to no relation to reality. Anyone can do that. It doesn't even rise to the level of interesting philosophy.
Re: There is no creation!
I think the problem is that he described what is at it's essence a nonscientific idea using scientific terms, which people are getting hung up on. Would this work as an acceptable alternative?:
Matter falls into a black-hole. The matter then falls into a magic portal at the center. The matter is compressed and some of it is annihilated (by the magic) at the mouth of the portal. The other end of this magic portal, which we can call the whitehole, opens up spewing into the universe the compressed matter mixed with pure energy (probably in the form of em radiation). What we call the big bang was the whitehole opening up and dumping all this compressed matter and energy in the then infinitesimally small universe, all at once. For the rest of the life of the universe, as matter falls into black holes, it is compressed and sent back in time, but because of the magic, it all arrives at the other end (the whitehole) at the same time, that's why black holes don't appear to lose the mass over normal time frames. Given an infinite amount of time, all the matter in the universe eventually falls into one of these portals.
This is one way that the universe could exist without ever being created. That would mean that the universe is a closed loop.
Originally posted by Digi
Fair enough. Problem being, as I alluded to, a lot of people think certain scientific ideas explain all sorts of things that, in reality, they don't. It's seductiveSo again, it's a creative talking point, but not a model with any validity unless it were tested empirically or mathematically in some way. If you can find some tested theories out there that work toward your model, cool. If not, well, then we're just discussing science-fiction right now.
Please close the thread.
Originally posted by Robtard
But I'm not done sexually harassing Lil B.
She'll say yes every time.