Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: UpTheDosage on December 01, 2006, 06:37:31 PM
-
I am not a religous person by any means, but I do know there has to be a higher power. If that higher power is indeed God, who or what created Him?
-
(http://www.langleycom.com/g1/albums/album27/error.jpg)
-
God is!
-
(http://www.langleycom.com/g1/albums/album27/error.jpg)
lol quite whitty for a Swede!
-
you make a mistake that many make. matter create time, linear time or cause and effect is a causal product of this universe. however, matter cannot be eternal(thermodynamics) and is not infinite(redshift). to say that nothing created something you are still left with the idea of first cause, which is problamatic. therefore there has to be some uncaused cause. the universe could not pop out of nothing, which there is nothing to pop out of.
however, you are also using normal logic in the realm of cosmology which is unacceptable. something outside this universe had to create the universe(nothing cannot create something. check out my thread on avant and some peoples responses http://www.avantlabs.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23897 ). some may like to beleive that nothing can create something but this is ignorance or plain stupidity. anyway, if you come to the conclusion that something has always been (eternal)people often say what created god? time exists because of matter(einstein) therefore anything outside of the universe does not have to be bound by this dimension(time). therefore if time does not exist there is no beginnning-end-middle therefore no need for cause. time creates the need for cause. something eternal just "is" and is always by virtue of being eternal. asking what created god is a question that your trying to frame in our dualistic reality when "this" reality is not applicable to "outside"the universe.
hope this helps.
-
Does matter = energy? (e = mc2)
-
yes matter is "frozen energy" in einstein terms. we are all made or a infinite, non-tangilble,non visual substance which has no form. we are all condensed light beams for simplicity at the most fundamental level, we essentially are light beings, as new-agey as it sounds. during the grand unification epoch electromagnetic radiation was converted to matter.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_timeline#The_Grand_Unification_Epoch:_10-33_second
some stuff on the big bang, and creation of matter.
-
I am not a religous person by any means, but I do know there has to be a higher power. If that higher power is indeed God, who or what created Him?
This is how you defeat any argument about the proof of god, they all come back to "everything needs a creater" and you simply say "who created the creater" and watch their little world fall apart :)
-
Right but in relation to this:
however, matter cannot be eternal(thermodynamics)
Do you mean matter's existance as the STATE of matter cannot be eternal?
-
yes, matter and energy exist as two entities that are in direct opposite of each other but are one in the same. they have totally different properties, similar to the wave/partilce duality of photons. also, the universe to my knowledge is a closed system, so no energy is being inputed, thus energy can neither be created or destroyed, however, in a closed system energy is not inputed. see the contradiction. dont get it twisted i dont have all the answers, no man does, it will take a leap of faith for atheism, theism. monism, pantheism etc. something outside the laws, operating seperately from time, matter and energy would have to create all that is. it doesnt make sense any other way. to say matter is all there is and abide by physics all along, expect during creation is bad science. so go with science, matter can not be created, thus we shouldnt be here unless something operates above this principle. matter is not eternal, hence had a singularity were it did not exist. but NOTHING could not have existed, something has always existed and too me, the radical creation, complexity, purposive structures such as reproduction and even dna, laws, and many anthropomorphic arguments point to a god. there are alot more reasons.
so your left with two possiblities really, the universe is eternal
or something else is, this would be my choice based on my current knowledge. i was once an atheist. i think intuition is the best evidence of god.
-
This is how you defeat any argument about the proof of god, they all come back to "everything needs a creater" and you simply say "who created the creater" and watch their little world fall apart :)
try to understand what i wrote
hope this helps.
-
My responce rendered yours obsolete jagoff :)
-
for one the proper spelling of responce is response. and point number two, creation of eternal is not valid. :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( pick one
hope this helps
-
creation of eternal is not valid.
Which is another way of saying you cannot create eternal
Which is another way of saying eternal does not exist
Was that responce any better :)
-
cause is a function of time, eternal does not operate in time, therefore cause is not prevalent to eternal. i have already showed why eteranl exists. your argument is so stupid you sound like clubber lang, but then again you clearly are clubber lang. why do you meltdown and start new accounts every month, your a patsy son. cause is relevant to eteranl, stop using dualistic terminology to describe it, your not working with the right language or mindset(ie intelligence).
-
Which is another way of saying you cannot create eternal
Which is another way of saying eternal does not exist
Was that responce any better :)
meltdown
and no the responce wasn't any better, if eternal does not exist then nothing created something. how come your the only person i have to baby with knowledge. your allergic to information.
-
your mother is an aids patient :-[
-
your a patsy son.
That should be you're, asshole :)
3 posts in a row is a classic meltdown, and so is using big words you clearly do not understand when confronted with a simple argument that crushes yours ;)
-
hehe meltdown, clubber lang is a chronic name changing patsy who cant handle it when someone calls him out. what big words did i use hahah, your dumber then a sack or smacked assholes. ive owned you only several occasions and you change your name and keep coming back.
fuck i would have edited my post to make it one then three but i dont give a fuck,you on the other hand change your handle, after a meltdown haha the roof of your mouth has a mushroom bruise.
-
yes, matter and energy exist as two entities that are in direct opposite of each other but are one in the same. they have totally different properties, similar to the wave/partilce duality of photons. also, the universe to my knowledge is a closed system, so no energy is being inputed, thus energy can neither be created or destroyed, however, in a closed system energy is not inputed. see the contradiction. dont get it twisted i dont have all the answers, no man does, it will take a leap of faith for atheism, theism. monism, pantheism etc. something outside the laws, operating seperately from time, matter and energy would have to create all that is. it doesnt make sense any other way. to say matter is all there is and abide by physics all along, expect during creation is bad science. so go with science, matter can not be created, thus we shouldnt be here unless something operates above this principle. matter is not eternal, hence had a singularity were it did not exist. but NOTHING could not have existed, something has always existed and too me, the radical creation, complexity, purposive structures such as reproduction and even dna, laws, and many anthropomorphic arguments point to a god. there are alot more reasons.
so your left with two possiblities really, the universe is eternal
or something else is, this would be my choice based on my current knowledge. i was once an atheist. i think intuition is the best evidence of god.
What kind of degree do you have?
-
who or what created Him?
-
psychology/neuroscience i have no education in any of the stuff i talk about on this forum.
-
i have no education in any of the stuff i talk about on this forum.
It shows :)
-
It shows :)
;D
-
psychology/neuroscience i have no education in any of the stuff i talk about on this forum.
You do not need education from a professor as long as you have the course material. Buy the books they base the curriculum on, solve all the assignments in teh book, and get help if you are stuck. This is just as useful as sleeping through lectures.
-
i agree, to be honest i havent been to class in any subject in three years(after i found this out). however, if i dont go to school i cant get the degree and go to med school, its a fucking money racket. they make you pay for the accredation nothing more
-
i agree, to be honest i havent been to class in any subject in three years(after i found this out). however, if i dont go to school i cant get the degree and go to med school, its a fucking money racket. they make you pay for the accredation nothing more
There are places where you can pay just to take the exam, and nothing else.
-
cool did not know that. its too late for me im going away next sept to become a neurosergeon ;D. actually im going away to be a ND. so my focus is clinical biochemistry, accupuncture, herb, homeopathy, chiropractic care, and metabolic typing. i find quantum mechanics and philosophy interesting so im self studied in those areas.
-
cool did not know that. its too late for me im going away next sept to become a neurosergeon ;D. actually im going away to be a ND. so my focus is clinical biochemistry, accupuncture, herb, homeopathy, chiropractic care, and metabolic typing. i find quantum mechanics and philosophy interesting so im self studied in those areas.
You have done good for yourself. May Gary Busey be with you ;)
-
watch all 3 parts of the elegant universe
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=elegant+universe
quantum mechanix explains he creation of the universe without it needing a god quite sufficiently...
-
I am not a religous person by any means, but I do know there has to be a higher power. If that higher power is indeed God, who or what created Him?
man (I'm surprised nobody has said this yet)
-
watch all 3 parts of the elegant universe
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=elegant+universe
quantum mechanix explains he creation of the universe without it needing a god quite sufficiently...
no it doesn't. i read the book, but were does it explain the creation of the universe, we dont know anything before the big bang so i not sure what your saying. 10-43 is as far as we know, quantum entanglement, and many other experiments have given some physicists room to evoke god. paraphrase were it shows that god is not need for me would ya?
bringing up who created god is an age old question, not sure whats so surprising about it. if something isnt eternal you still have to deal with first cause, then what caused it etc ad infinitum, i beleive my explanation to be correct, just dont see how logically anything else is.
-
ever hear of kurt godels therom.
-
the master vibration could be god, we dont know, and string theory is one of multiple theories, then you still have to explain how the multi-verse arrived etc. something has to exist for which is purpose is existence.
-
no it doesn't. i read the book, but were does it explain the creation of the universe, we dont know anything before the big bang so i not sure what your saying. 10-43 is as far as we know, quantum entanglement, and many other experiments have given some physicists room to evoke god. paraphrase were it shows that god is not need for me would ya?
bringing up who created god is an age old question, not sure whats so surprising about it. if something isnt eternal you still have to deal with first cause, then what caused it etc ad infinitum, i beleive my explanation to be correct, just dont see how logically anything else is.
ok look up brane theory...
look up uncertanity principle...
look up "hawkings radiation"
look up virtual particles and paulis exclusion principle...
put it together....it out there in some article..good place to look these things up www.space.com
-
The LHC and Atlas will be the death of religion!!!!
:)
-
what would be the point of looking that stuff up, i know of all of it and it explains the world well but that doesnt rule out god. you still have to deal with the questions of why change, why something rather then nothing, what happened before the big bang, and multiple other questions. look up quantum eraser experiments, quantum entanglement and the observer effect and look at some of the conclusions. quanta communicate across distances instantaneously, faster then light (gasp)conscouisnes has no explanation, and thoughts are a different reality. there are multiple other things that i could drag though this but to say quantum mechnics rules out god is ridiculous, perhaps it is the way god works, i dont understand how it rules him out. we dont know why quanta choose particular locations (polkingholme) perhaps it is god who does the choosing, everything is one(non-locality).
-
There's no higher power. Never has been, never will be. People believe there is so they can feel better about life, as if someone is watching over them. You know, making sure nothing bad happens to them. Hahaha if only.
-
you make a mistake that many make. matter create time, linear time or cause and effect is a causal product of this universe. however, matter cannot be eternal(thermodynamics) and is not infinite(redshift). to say that nothing created something you are still left with the idea of first cause, which is problamatic. therefore there has to be some uncaused cause. the universe could not pop out of nothing, which there is nothing to pop out of.
however, you are also using normal logic in the realm of cosmology which is unacceptable. something outside this universe had to create the universe(nothing cannot create something. check out my thread on avant and some peoples responses http://www.avantlabs.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23897 ). some may like to beleive that nothing can create something but this is ignorance or plain stupidity. anyway, if you come to the conclusion that something has always been (eternal)people often say what created god? time exists because of matter(einstein) therefore anything outside of the universe does not have to be bound by this dimension(time). therefore if time does not exist there is no beginnning-end-middle therefore no need for cause. time creates the need for cause. something eternal just "is" and is always by virtue of being eternal. asking what created god is a question that your trying to frame in our dualistic reality when "this" reality is not applicable to "outside"the universe.
hope this helps.
this makes perfect sense. thank you. you're the man! (assuming you're a man).
-
yes i in fact have footlong in my pants.
-
yes i in fact have footlong in my pants.
you're no man, you're a horse!!! :o
-
i also have equine aids, so your probably right.
-
you make a mistake that many make. matter create time, linear time or cause and effect is a causal product of this universe. however, matter cannot be eternal(thermodynamics) and is not infinite(redshift). to say that nothing created something you are still left with the idea of first cause, which is problamatic. therefore there has to be some uncaused cause. the universe could not pop out of nothing, which there is nothing to pop out of.
however, you are also using normal logic in the realm of cosmology which is unacceptable. something outside this universe had to create the universe(nothing cannot create something. check out my thread on avant and some peoples responses http://www.avantlabs.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23897 ). some may like to beleive that nothing can create something but this is ignorance or plain stupidity. anyway, if you come to the conclusion that something has always been (eternal)people often say what created god? time exists because of matter(einstein) therefore anything outside of the universe does not have to be bound by this dimension(time). therefore if time does not exist there is no beginnning-end-middle therefore no need for cause. time creates the need for cause. something eternal just "is" and is always by virtue of being eternal. asking what created god is a question that your trying to frame in our dualistic reality when "this" reality is not applicable to "outside"the universe.
hope this helps.
Matter did not create time, or vice versa. The two have their origin at the same point, and are inextricably caught up within each other.
I don't have to say that nothing craeted something to hold that the universe exists in a non-creationist light. Further, can you present an argument why nothing cannot create something? You talk about logic. Yet, perhaps nothing could create something outside of this universe, where our current laws don't hold.
Time exists because matter exists, and matter exists because time exists.
-
Perhaps time is circular and the universe has always existed and gone through expansions and contractions eternally ::)
Any way you slice it you cannot hold the argument that everything needs a creator but the creator, which is exactly what dipshits like mymomsmokespole are trying to do
-
what is your point? i said that time is a construct of or dimensions, big bang was the beginning of space time, there is a finite amount of past time. no laws control nothing so your point doesnt make sense, nothing doesnt exist sorry, any law conceivable would no effect nothing. i have already thought of logical reasons why nothing cannot create something go to the avant link and read for others input if you like.
something that is not eternal needs a creator this universe is not eternal, so something else was the first cause per se, but eternal doesnt need a cause. i have to argue the same points because you guys dont grasp them.
-
Any way you slice it you cannot hold the argument that everything needs a creator but the creator, which is exactly what dipshits like mymomsmokespole are trying to do
:)
-
sandy, go read my posts and sit down and absorb them, it will hit you. if you say that everything needs a creator you are left with a first cause still, then nothing into something or nothing then all of a sudden first cause. it doesnt make logical sense. what is the first cause then, if there was a first cause what came before it, the first cause must of had a cause, this is what you and the athiests are arguing, it is circular logic and cant possibly be true, anyone with a brain can see through it.
hope this helps
-
i would never say anything so stupid as "everything needs a creator", because it is self defeating (hint hint)
-
then what is funny about it is your saying everythign needs a creator which leads us down a path of stupidity were logically nothing should be here and at the heart of your argument your saying that the creator needs a creator. so your arguing that the universe is eternal yet you reject my definition of eternal, and science says the universe is not eternal.
-
i would never say anything so stupid as "everything needs a creator", because it is self defeating (hint hint)
hahahah, i never said everything needs a creator but entropy, redshift, singularity electormagnetism, the torus all say this universe is finite and had a beginning(big bang). your arguing for eternal and so am i, but im using facts and your using fiction, the universe isnt eternal some non-thing is, could be god could not be, but i have reason to beleive it is him.ever creation, that is not eternal or infinite needs a creator yes.
-
hahahah, i never said everything needs a creator but entropy, redshift, singularity electormagnetism, the torus all say this universe is finite and had a beginning(big bang). your arguing for eternal and so am i, but im using facts and your using fiction, the universe isnt eternal some non-thing is, could be god could not be, but i have reason to beleive it is him.ever creation, that is not eternal or infinite needs a creator yes.
you need to stop making assumptions dumbass, i am not arguing for eternal
"ever creation, that is not eternal or infinite needs a creator yes."
which is another way of saying everything that exists has a creator
which is another way of saying the creator doesnt exist because it has no creator
if you were smarter you would see that all the arguments you make go back to this point and it is self defeating, alas youre(and thats different from your btw) too dumb :)
-
the point is that i keep having these arguments with you and it is clear to anyone(if anyone would like to jump in do so) that you have downs syndrome.
pay attention like you had to in the nothing into something thread.
imagine eternal as a sheet of paper with to planes, that is the arrow of time can go in any direction infinitely(through the dimensions of width and length) our arrow is one way, one dimension. eternal would show that it does not need creation, because by definition it superceeds it. so listen this universe is not eternal nor infinite, so it could be part of a universe that is eternal(probably) or god could have did it, not sure but i beleive it to be god.
so if your not arguing for eternal, your saying there was a first cause, then what was the cause of the first cause using your logic. atheist argue that the universe is eternal, you are bringing shame to them by your ridiculous circular logic.
you are my bottom bitch. my arguments are not self defeating. eternal=no cause. infinite=no end. so look up the definitions if you want.
what was the cause of the first cause then, if there is no uncaused cause or eternal? answer this question riddler.
-
so if your not arguing for eternal, your saying there was a first cause, then what was the cause of the first cause using your logic. atheist argue that the universe is eternal, you are bringing shame to them by your ridiculous circular logic.
you only see eternal and first cause, yet as i said before the universe could be cyclical with time resetting itself, or any number of alternate realities beyond the grasp our (and especially your) minds
you use words like eternal and infinite as some sort of proof, when they are nothing more than reiterations of the same self defeating argument you keep trying to make.
another time:
"Any way you slice it you cannot hold the argument that everything needs a creator but the creator, which is exactly what dipshits like mymomsmokespole are trying to do
:)"
open your mind and close your mouth
-
haha, you say your not arguing for eternal yet evoke cyclical universes and multiverses to avoid first cause ahah. something that doesnt last forever needs a cause, eternal does not. get it through your head , you are applying concepts of time to something outside of time. cause is a function of matter with regards to its implicit and explicit interdependence. time and matter are reliant on themselves, something non-materia does not operate in time. so when you keep saying that god needs to be created you are applying dualistic concept of time to him, which is either ignorance for science and what i have been saying or you are plain dumb.
time had a beginning, called the singularity.
it is not self-defeating because you are using time constraints when i am not. its like trying to use eucledian concepts to describe non0eucledian concepts. cause is a result of time, no time=no cause, universe has time=cause called a singularity.
-
your asking the question "what does red smell like"? you cant answer it because your using two contradictory terms. much like you are asking "if this universe obeys time and cause is a product then god must obey this constraint" not so. outside of time cause is not a valid question. by the way the question you keep asking has been delt with and it is ridiculous that you cant see that saying this universe needs a cause therefore god needs a cause is convaluted. you sound like carl sagan who's argument you are using which has been defeated.
-
http://www.carm.org/questions/God_created.htm
here this should put your mind at ease.
-
again you only see eternal and first cause, yet as i said before the universe could be cyclical with time resetting itself, or any number of alternate realities beyond the grasp our (and especially your) minds
you are trying (and failing) to blend philosophy and physics.
if everything needs a first cause, that would include the first cause, therefore the argument is self defeating ... you are too small minded to appraoch the situation from any mindset other than assuming there is a cause, and thats why you will get owned every time and never understand the situation(which is to say you will never understand that you can never understand the situation)
hope this helps dumbass
-
again you only see eternal and first cause, yet as i said before the universe could be cyclical with time resetting itself, or any number of alternate realities beyond the grasp our (and especially your) minds
you are trying (and failing) to blend philosophy and physics.
if everything needs a first cause, that would include the first cause, therefore the argument is self defeating ... you are too small minded to appraoch the situation from any mindset other than assuming there is a cause, and thats why you will get owned every time and never understand the situation(which is to say you will never understand that you can never understand the situation)
hope this helps dumbass
for one your premise of a cyclical universe is simply stating that it is eternal if it is not, it had a first cause. nothing cannot create something. a oscillating universe would have to be eternal, if not created, matter and time were created so before the singularity time and cause are not applicable.
your second point is the point im making dumbass ahahah. if there is no uncaused cause you have infinite regression of causes which would mean we are not here, which to the contraire we are, so there would have to be something eternal. stop being so dumb time creates cause, it is merely a dimension one that does not operate apart from matter. if everything needs to be created nothing would be here, follow, infinite regression of causes, so eternity is fact. your arguements are funny especially when your arguments prove my points. hahah.
ahah i perfer to go along with science today and say this universe is the only one, plus based on general relativity universe A could not coerce with universe B so your alternate realities or universes is plain dumb and is a straw man fallacy. also, lets use your logic, what if one of those realities is god-you probably wont accept it- so i dont accept your faith in other realities.
-
what is your point? i said that time is a construct of or dimensions, big bang was the beginning of space time, there is a finite amount of past time. no laws control nothing so your point doesnt make sense, nothing doesnt exist sorry, any law conceivable would no effect nothing. i have already thought of logical reasons why nothing cannot create something go to the avant link and read for others input if you like.
something that is not eternal needs a creator this universe is not eternal, so something else was the first cause per se, but eternal doesnt need a cause. i have to argue the same points because you guys dont grasp them.
Try thinking outside the box...
Nothing doesn't exist in this universe, obviously. Yet, why not outside it? And why not before it?
-
Try thinking outside the box...
Nothing doesn't exist in this universe, obviously. Yet, why not outside it? And why not before it?
1)why not outside it, thats possible although this universe is not finite, nor eternal entropy rules that out and if it was inifinite there would be no night sky, because each point would be equidistant from that other hence everywere in this universe would be equally illuminated. so if nothing exists outside the universe, the creation of the universe or the singularity called the big bang came from nothing(not possible).the big bang has a starting point, so it is infinite since infinite cannot expand it is already there.if nothing does exist outside the universe, the universe would have to be eternal, with no starting point. my thinking is as outside of the box as you can get. im not being standoffish im just saying your left with two logical conclusions
- the universe is eternal
-or some non-thing is eternal
2)i have already went over why nothing could not create something. something cannot come from nothing, something has characteristics that have to be derived from another form of something. a parent(something) say A has to contain B for the child(say the universe) to contain B. if A does not contain C the child cannot contain C. nothing contains nothing so the something A cannot be derived from nothing. for a multy person argument go to www.avantlabs.com and go to metaphysics and the thread entitled why is there somthing insted of nothing. this should answer all your questions on why nothing never existed since something(us)does exist.
-
- Not trying to be a prick here, brother, but can you punctuate 1) so I can understand it? Sorry dude, but I can't reply if I don't understand what you're writing. :-[
- You've completely missed my point, usmokepole. That's why I said try thinking outside the box...
You're thinking that something can only come from something, which I generally agree with. However this is a concept which pervades our universe, our system. Why must it be the same outside our universe? There might be another universe where something can come from nothing.
After all, you seem to be able to extend different rules and laws to God pretty easily- he's not of this world, so he doesn't obey the same laws as us etc.
So try extending it to other things...
It's your argument dude, not mine....
-
this is why his argument is self defeating ; he sets up constructs and then says they apply to everything but god
-
i answered both of your questions in the other thread, stick to one thread, i dont want to answer the same ridiculous questions over and over.
-
The questions are rediculous? Is that because you have difficulty thinking of a coherent reply?
Seriously. I'm glad we agree- my questions are rediculous and your answers are rediculous.
-
we dont agree im basing my answers on something called logic and reasoning, you are making up hypothetical situations which dont exist and which dont apply to the situation, because they change the goalposts.
-
you are making up hypothetical situations which dont exist
Oh, you mean like 'God exists'? ::)
-
i suppose it is hypothetical since i have no concrete proof ;D :-X.
-
Like 'if I was having steak for dinner, I would be happy' ;D
Bloody fish! >:(
-
If that higher power is indeed God, who or what created Him?
"Man."
-
"Man."
already beat you to it.
man (I'm surprised nobody has said this yet)
-
already beat you to it.
Oops - my bad. Great work! :)
-
already beat you to it.
whats your idea on how the universe came into existence?
you really only have two logical choices. the universe is eternal
or something came from nothing. what is your atheistic position?
-
multiverse theories just push back the question, you still have to explain how those universes would avoid death, and how some unknow physical law allows new universes to dis-obey entropy. based on what we know, as fact and reason those are the only two logical options. if you have some others id love to hear them.
-
multiverse theories just push back the question, you still have to explain how those universes would avoid death, and how some unknow physical law allows new universes to dis-obey entropy. based on what we know, as fact and reason those are the only two logical options. if you have some others id love to hear them.
Why does the universe have to avoid death? Death is essentially a product of time. what would remain if the structural constraints defining the real universe were regressively suspended? First, time would gradually disappear, eliminating the "when" question entirely. And once time disappears completely, what remains is the answer to the "what" question: a realm of boundless potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint.
In other words, the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and time simply do not apply.
-
.why does the universe, that is the physical universe in which we live have to avoid death, this would seem like a straight forward propostion(not worth ruminating over again). what is the universe expanding into? if the universe is a torus then some cosmologists say nothing. being cannot come from non-being, sentience-from non sentience and something from nothing. death is a product of time, not essential, matter and time are contradependent. your lending credance to theism with your argument.
how does this potential interact to become actuality? what are you basing your thoughts on that without physicality, unlimited potentia would remain. i have already went over the eternal question and i agree, it answers the uncaused cause question. i really dont see the point of your argument, what are the axioms? sound very helgian, but it is an assumption. timeless, immaterial, personal, all powerful and infinite fit the mold better.
-
if you are a materialist, then concepts such as outside, before, and creation arent helping the matter. what is this unlimited potentia, and why does it "create"?
-
why change?
-
.why does the universe, that is the physical universe in which we live have to avoid death, this would seem like a straight forward propostion(not worth ruminating over again). what is the universe expanding into? if the universe is a torus then some cosmologists say nothing. being cannot come from non-being, sentience-from non sentience and something from nothing. death is a product of time, not essential, matter and time are contradependent. your lending credance to theism with your argument.
how does this potential interact to become actuality? what are you basing your thoughts on that without physicality, unlimited potentia would remain. i have already went over the eternal question and i agree, it answers the uncaused cause question. i really dont see the point of your argument, what are the axioms? sound very helgian, but it is an assumption. timeless, immaterial, personal, all powerful and infinite fit the mold better.
death, and also effectively expansion, is dependant on time. You can believe they are contradependant, but this is not the case. once time disappears completely, what remains is a realm of boundless potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint.
In other words, the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and time simply do not apply.
-
yes i agree with you, however, what you are saying is flism with no axioms and is merely assumption. yes after "death" or heat death as seen in science nothing would exist, however, i know from all the other arguments that nothing does not exist, there would have to be something. this something would not operate nor participate in matters of cause and effect since it is matter that creates this linear arrow, this non-thing would be able to move in any plane of time or timelessness(eternity). i agree with what your saying, but i can answer questions of contingency, why change, and how. im asking as i agree with your proposal, however you havent attempted to answer my questions. such as why change?
what produces the actuality, this universe, from the boundless pontentia. observation collapses the wave function of photons to "make" reality, why does the collapsing of the potentiality into actuality. and why does this occur, why does this emergence occur?. otherwise your whole idea is flism, with no axioms.
what lack of real constraint, potentia have many limits, such as need for sentience.
care to answer any of the questions. ive heard this same argument dozens of times, would definitely like to hear you reasoning, besides ones of outlined for days on end.
-
however, i know from all the other arguments that nothing does not exist, there would have to be something.
care to answer any of the questions. ive heard this same argument dozens of times, would definitely like to hear you reasoning, besides ones of outlined for days on end.
I don't agree with your first statement. "something" is a word we've made up. There are only 250,000 english words. Language is vastly underdeveloped for use in describing something as complex as what happens when the universe dies.
"something" is based on our relality, which is entirely individual, and not necessarily truth.
-
I don't agree with your first statement. "something" is a word we've made up. There are only 250,000 english words. Language is vastly underdeveloped for use in describing something as complex as what happens when the universe dies.
"something" is based on our relality, which is entirely individual, and not necessarily truth.
You are correct, but we should not dismiss the fact that everyone's reality is different, so given that, even truth becomes relative and not absolute.
-
you've totally lost me, every word is made up. dna is a word describing the thing we have labeled dna, same thing with the amygdala, sematics, information are all human, intelligent endevours. so your saying the most complex language ever developed somehow misses the poing on universal death. words have nothing to do with it, they describe processes, and definitions are all we have to go on. saying that something is a made of word for things that exist is like saying black is word we use to describe a color, it adds no information and is pointless(A tautology), and makes further speculation impossible. NO YOU ARE NOT RIGHT. every word is made up, you've basically outlined that further speculation based on logic is pointless. please show me how something is made up, and the word love, black, mice, mathematics, abstract are not, and if you follow your own logic then our language can never determine truth(which is totally false). One that exists independently is the defintion of something(from wiki), nothing cannot exist independently, for characteristics would have to be assigned to explain its "independence" making it something. nothing has no relation nor can produce something. a rock cannot produce intelligence, being from non being. if you can provide examples of this again be my guest. not taking a shot at you, i just dont agree with you.
yes there are two realities, object and subject, but what happens out there is independent of the observer. clarify your point. knowledge or reality is totally independent of the person, are you saying that the laws of physics arent reality because some meatbag says they are not.
truth is absolute. in life there are either differences between things or there is not things cannot be both. provide me some examples if you are able, perhaps you could illustrate how truth can be relative, in objective matters. perhaps you are taking about subjective truth, which again has no bearing on matters of physics, cosmology, or science AT ALL. you could say i could see the color black differently then someone else. just because you dont know the others perception doesnt mean it isnt the same. and saying nothing is absolute would require me to ask "are you absolutely sure". this is merely circular logic and play on words if you ask me.
-
I beleive in god because i have to its in my contract
-
im absolutely sure im a different person then you.
-
You are correct, but we should not dismiss the fact that everyone's reality is different, so given that, even truth becomes relative and not absolute.
I disagree, Tre.
Relative and absolute aren't mutually exclusive concepts- but there is an element of absolute in truth. Pretty much, 'if something's not true, then it's not true.' The truth of an assertion or statement is dependent upon the conditions it refers to- whether it's actually so- not dependent upon the perceptory conditions of the perceiver.
And, reality is reality. Outisde of our own heads, there is an external world which we all perceive. However, to say that reality is different for each person and not perceived reality means things like the bottle on the desk might be there for you, but not for me.
-
And, reality is reality. Outisde of our own heads, there is an external world which we all perceive. However, to say that reality is different for each person and not perceived reality means things like the bottle on the desk might be there for you, but not for me.
By definition, there is nothing outside of reality that is real enough to contain reality. So reality is self-contained. A self-contained medium must provide that which is necessary to its own existence. So if energy is necessary for the existence of reality, reality must find that energy within itself. Because matter consists of energy according to Einstein’s famous equation e=mc2, this applies to matter as well.
So, in proof of god, you can conclude that the universe, using its own energy, made its own matter. How could it do this? By configuring itself in such a way that the matter it made would be “recognized” as such by other matter.
-
By definition, there is nothing outside of reality that is real enough to contain reality. So reality is self-contained. A self-contained medium must provide that which is necessary to its own existence. So if energy is necessary for the existence of reality, reality must find that energy within itself. Because matter consists of energy according to Einstein’s famous equation e=mc2, this applies to matter as well.
So, in proof of god, you can conclude that the universe, using its own energy, made its own matter. How could it do this? By configuring itself in such a way that the matter it made would be “recognized” as such by other matter.
This might be too advanced for me, so apologies in advance if I mis-interpret what you're saying and argue against something you didn't say.
I agree with everything up until, ' A self-contained medium must provide that which is necessary to its own existence.'
I think I agree with this, and I can certainly see what you mean, but are you sure that there can be no counter-example? Can you have a previous reality, r1, that is such that in its destruction it leads to the creation of another reality, r2- the current reality? I guess by what you're saying you'd say that r1 and r2 are basically umbrella-ed by reality itself- they're all part of the same reality and it's just merely changing form. Is this the case though, if it destructs at the same time as the creation of a new reality, r2? I don't know, I'm just trying to think of a counter-example.
The second paragraph, if your assumption that I quoted is true , I would agree with, until 'By configuring itself in such a way that the matter it made would be “recognized” as such by other matter. ' because I don't think this is logically implied. Recognised seems to imply some sense of consciousness and self-awareness which I don't think is necessary for the first paragraph. It could be- as they say- all down to chance.
-
One person's view of the origin of the universe, which would, in essence, describe who created god.
New Theory: Universe Was Born in a Black Hole
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 09:45 am ET
17 September 2003
If black holes and the Big Bang befuddle you, try wrapping your brain around this one: The entire universe may have been created in an explosion inside a black hole.
"It's a mathematically plausible model which refines the standard model of the Big Bang," said Blake Temple, a mathematician at the University of California, Davis.
The standard model holds that the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang is described not as an explosion so much as a rapid outflow of material from a point of nearly infinite density. It is a theory, one among several attempting to describe the observed expansion of the universe today. It has not been proved.
The Big Bang has been compared to black holes before, because the tremendous crush of matter that defines a black hole is much like the unfathomable density that preceded the Big Bang. Both phenomena are termed singularities.
In the proposed modification to the standard model, the Big Bang is an actual explosion, Temple explained today in a statement, and it occurs within a black hole in an existing space. The shock wave of the explosion is expanding into an infinite space.
Temple also describes the whole scenario as a white hole, the theoretical opposite of a black hole because it tosses matter outward instead of pulling it in.
White holes have been talked about before, mostly as mathematical curiosities. There is no evidence these "anti-black holes" exist, whereas scientists have solid evidence for the presence of black holes.
Eventually, Temple says, the universe will emerge from all this as something like an exploded star, called a supernova, but on an enormously large scale. He said the new theory satisfies Einstein's equations in the General Theory of Relativity, which gave rise to the Big Bang theory.
Temple can't say where the matter we see today originally came from. What existed before the Big Bang? This, in fact, is a thorn in the side of all cosmologists, and it may never be answered because we can't see time and space as it existed prior to time as we know it.
But Temple and colleague Joel Smoller, from the University of Michigan, wrote recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
"It is natural to wonder if there is a connection between the mass that disappears into black hole singularities and the mass that emerges from white hole singularities."
And it remains to be seen, or more likely not, whether any of this is true.
-
How does this describe who created god?
You didn't reply to my post ???
-
How does this describe who created god?
You didn't reply to my post ???
Reply to this?
"A self-contained medium must provide that which is necessary to its own existence.''
The universe had to create what was necessary for its existence, it is what it says.
To be honest, beyond that, I'm lost. There are very few people on earth who can create new thought. Unless you're a part of the Mega Society, your IQ is below that level. lol
The rest of us (for the most part ALL of us, as there are but a handful of people on earth who can grasp those concepts) are just using knowldege and thought that has been around forever.
Ever read any of Chris Langan's stuff?
Check out his CMTU (Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe).....he claims it "explains everything."
-
Reply to this?
"A self-contained medium must provide that which is necessary to its own existence.''
The universe had to create what was necessary for its existence, it is what it says.
To be honest, beyond that, I'm lost. There are very few people on earth who can create new thought. Unless you're a part of the Mega Society, your IQ is below that level. lol
The rest of us (for the most part ALL of us, as there are but a handful of people on earth who can grasp those concepts) are just using knowldege and thought that has been around forever.
Ever read any of Chris Langan's stuff?
Check out his CMTU (Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe).....he claims it "explains everything."
Yeah, I'm trying to get my head around that. Bloody complicated :-\
The body of knowledge we have now hasn't been around forever- it's constantly evolving and developing. Two thousand years ago formal logic was just a glimmer in a Greek's eye.
-
what hes saying is the basis for bootstapping and self organizing auto-catalytic sets. that god organized itself. that essence of existence creates the necessary complexity. similar to fractal sets like the mandlebrot set, just apply it to creation.
any other links you have on this stuff post them. i like your thinking, its similar to mine in a sense. and you have read on the subject.
-
what hes saying is the basis for bootstapping and self organizing auto-catalytic sets. that god organized itself. that essence of existence creates the necessary complexity. similar to fractal sets like the mandlebrot set, just apply it to creation.
any other links you have on this stuff post them. i like your thinking, its similar to mine in a sense. and you have read on the subject.
If this is what he's saying, then he's not postulating a position parallel to yours. His concept of God is completely different to yours as an infinitely pre-existing first cause or some other rubbish.
-
Yeah, I'm trying to get my head around that. Bloody complicated :-\
The body of knowledge we have now hasn't been around forever- it's constantly evolving and developing. Two thousand years ago formal logic was just a glimmer in a Greek's eye.
Yeah, the CTMU is really quite interesting. I wish I could grasp the concepts better, but the truth is, Chris is just holding a bigger gun than the rest of us.
I meant to imply thought. Obviously knowledge is ever changing, but thought, and intelligence is most likely the same now as it has always been.
In fact, evidence suggests that ancient Greece produced a higher percentage of "geniuses" per population than any other place or time in history.
Thanks to those minds, and other brilliant minds over time, we have a better backbone to base our thoughts on. But, the number of people who can "create new thought," (IE: people with IQ's over 165 sd15) is so few, our backbone of knowledge changes so slowly.