What created God?

[Necrosis]

.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.

[Necrosis]

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"?

[Necrosis]

why change?

[doison]

.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. 

[Necrosis]

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.

[doison]

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.

[Tre]

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. 

[Necrosis]

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.

[slacker]

I beleive in god because i have to its in my contract

[Necrosis]

im absolutely sure im a different person then you.

[logical?]

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.

[doison]

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. 

[logical?]

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.

[doison]

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.

[logical?]

How does this describe who created god?

You didn't reply to my post

[doison]

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."

[logical?]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[logical?]

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.

[doison]

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.