So why doesnt God appear every now and again?

[Alfurinn]

To those who do not believe in a higher being of some sort:

1) Is the Universe infinite?

2) Where did all the energy of the Universe originate from?

1) Why is the infinity of the universe relevant to the conversation?

2) We still don't know exactly. Let science discover as technology advances.

But if everything had to be designed/created by a higher being, who created god?
I will assume we are talking about the god of the bible.

[avxo]

To those who do not believe in a higher being of some sort:

1) Is the Universe infinite?

It doesn't appear to be.

2) Where did all the energy of the Universe originate from?

Do you know the sum total energy of the Universe?

[Necrosis]

I am glad you think everything is designed. Everything is not designed. The Creator cannot be observed or measured.

As an Atheist you also have an opinion. Your opinion is there is no Creator.

Yet I have asked in this thread: "How did the Universe Self Start?" I have not received an answer from an Atheist about this.
I have asked Atheists: "Do you agree that the Universe has a beginning?" I have not received an answer.

Only a lame attempt to dodge the question by saying: "This is outside the realm of science". So then the Atheists only have an opinion, not grounded in facts. Just a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You don't have the intellect to debate on this level Necrosphiliacs

so he didn't design everything? you said there was a designer for the atoms etc it's all a design. If all is a design how can you tell something that is designed from something that is not?

Perhaps it didn't self start, expansion occurred from a singularity, perhaps the singularity always has been, in state of expansion and contraction.

you are asking a philosophical question then insulting others for pointing out it's not observable, testable aka not scientific, and they are lacking intellect?

I just obliterated your design argument because you can't think, you just regurgitate, nothing novel or interesting comes from your mind. Polarity is needed for experience, if all is designed, how could you tell, if not all is designed how the fuck did it get there? god let one slip past I guess.

[avxo]

so he didn't design everything? you said there was a designer for the atoms etc it's all a design. If all is a design how can you tell something that is designed from something that is not?

Perhaps it didn't self start, expansion occurred from a singularity, perhaps the singularity always has been, in state of expansion and contraction.

you are asking a philosophical question then insulting others for pointing out it's not observable, testable aka not scientific, and they are lacking intellect?

I just obliterated your design argument because you can't think, you just regurgitate, nothing novel or interesting comes from your mind. Polarity is needed for experience, if all is designed, how could you tell, if not all is designed how the fuck did it get there? god let one slip past I guess.

But... but... it's fine tuned! Look at those Stephen Hawking quotes! And Roger Penrose! And that Anro guy with the Nobel prize!

[Raymondo]

so he didn't design everything? you said there was a designer for the atoms etc it's all a design. If all is a design how can you tell something that is designed from something that is not?

Perhaps it didn't self start, expansion occurred from a singularity, perhaps the singularity always has been, in state of expansion and contraction.

you are asking a philosophical question then insulting others for pointing out it's not observable, testable aka not scientific, and they are lacking intellect?

I just obliterated your design argument because you can't think, you just regurgitate, nothing novel or interesting comes from your mind. Polarity is needed for experience, if all is designed, how could you tell, if not all is designed how the fuck did it get there? god let one slip past I guess.

This is pellius-style debating, if I was acting in bad faith I'd say obsidian is a gimmick.

[TheGrinch]

You fail to grasp something....


If the Universe isn't infinite.... what's on the other side? I mean if indeed it does "end" whats there? A wall...lol


It HAS to be infinite, there is no other option.


It wasn't created - just always existed infinite in both time and space.

[Man of Steel]

I'd like to understand individual explanations for the beginning of the universe from Necrosis, Raymondo, Captain Freedom and avxo.

I'm not suggesting that you supply all your own research LOL, but something that might be presented in a high school science class at a summary level of what is it you understand to have occurred.

This is not a trick either.....genuine request.  This isn't about religion either.  This is about the science you understand summarized for the average teenager....a brief paragraph (or two).

Why at such a remedial level?  One, so I have a chance of understanding it LOL.  Two, so I don't have to look at a wall of advanced math LOL.

[Man of Steel]

I would not attempt to claim that i have an individual explanation for the beginning of the universe, and i certainly wouldn't be qualified to present a high-school level presentation on the subject, as most of it would be plagiarised. I have a great respect for the scientific method of enquiry, and i love reading about various scientific discoveries - but i am not a scientist.
I approach the topic of organised religion, and argue against the alleged benefits of it, generally from a rationalist perspective. I can point out the times when religion makes claims that are incompatible with scientific evidence, and when theists attempt to fabricate their own pseudo-scientific arguments in defence of a claim, but generally, i will attempt to argue my case based upon what i believe we can say to be true regarding the concept of human rights and what is generally believed to be good for the well-being of intelligent life. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality, it does not defend human rights, and it does not have evidence on its side.

I criticise organised religion because i believe that at its most benign, it is a delusion; a means of coping with the difficulties of being "all too human". You comfort yourself by adopting a Panglossian optimism which allows you to view every depraved, irrational and immoral act committed by God in the bible, as somehow "all for the best", and i view this nonsensical.

Organised Religion at it’s worst - and most frequent, is an absurd, divisive and nefarious method of exerting control over people. It’s totalitarian, harmful to society, and i look forward to the day when it dies out. How the universe may or may not have come to exist is not important to me in this regard, as even if it were true that the Abrahamic God had created the universe - i still wouldn't worship him. I’ll leave it to the real scientists to put forward an explanation on the origins of the universe, if they have one.

Like I said, respectfully, I'm not interested in anything related to religion and I don't expect a formal presentation LOL.

I have years of replies from folks concerning why religion and science are incompatible and why theists simply don't understand the science they argue about.    

So, I'd like y'all to help me understand the science at a remedial level...public high school level.  I understand some of y'all aren't scientists and teachers....I'm not a theological scholar.

If you google something you agree with and summarize it that would be fine.   I'm not necessarily looking for a link to scientific journal with lengthy articles.   Just a synopsis of the science you agree with.

Again, I'm not looking for anything related to religion or God.

[Man of Steel]

I fail to see why it is that you would want this if you're not interested in relating it to religion, but like i said - the origin of the universe is not something which i have a real knowledge in, so all you would be getting is a regurgitation of something which is probably beyond my comprehension in scientifically evaluating. Still, i may have a search for something later and revisit some articles written by Laurence Krauss or another prominent scientist. But seeing as you've requested this of us, it's only right that you present your own thoughts regarding the topic, too.

I'd like to learn more about the science of the origin of the universe that you support.  That's it.

[Necrosis]

Like I said, respectfully, I'm not interested in anything related to religion and I don't expect a formal presentation LOL.

I have years of replies from folks concerning why religion and science are incompatible and why theists simply don't understand the science they argue about.    

So, I'd like y'all to help me understand the science at a remedial level...public high school level.  I understand some of y'all aren't scientists and teachers....I'm not a theological scholar.

If you google something you agree with and summarize it that would be fine.   I'm not necessarily looking for a link to scientific journal with lengthy articles.   Just a synopsis of the science you agree with.

Again, I'm not looking for anything related to religion or God.

The beginning of the universe is unknown, this is due to lack of understanding. The way they know the big bang occurred (are we agreeable on this) is from things like redshift, inputting speed of expansion, gravity etc they can go backwards in time as things get closer and closer (currently all galaxies are moving away from each other at the speed of light. The math works, insofar as it predicts the current speed, where certain clusters should be etc, this is the proof (math) and observation.

The problem is that as we go back we eventually hit a singularity, which is a point of infinite mass and density, our math fails to describe it as the time scales are incomprehensibly short. I believe (I am just riffing off my head) the planck epoch is the shortest time scale we can quantify during the big bang.

So the universe never really came into existence per se, it simply expanded from the singularity (expansion is not causal in special relativity, the expansion creates time-space), which may have always been. I am not against a god, just a personal one as I can't justify that experience, it makes no sense. I can dig that something is primal, if it is "god" it's all that exists and I would agree with Alan Watts, that it is itself hiding from itself.


What was before the big bang? the question is illogical, as time was absent, in this state action is impossible, expansion side steps this.

[avxo]

I agree with almost everything in Necrosis's post.

[Man of Steel]

The beginning of the universe is unknown, this is due to lack of understanding. The way they know the big bang occurred (are we agreeable on this) is from things like redshift, inputting speed of expansion, gravity etc they can go backwards in time as things get closer and closer (currently all galaxies are moving away from each other at the speed of light. The math works, insofar as it predicts the current speed, where certain clusters should be etc, this is the proof (math) and observation.

The problem is that as we go back we eventually hit a singularity, which is a point of infinite mass and density, our math fails to describe it as the time scales are incomprehensibly short. I believe (I am just riffing off my head) the planck epoch is the shortest time scale we can quantify during the big bang.

So the universe never really came into existence per se, it simply expanded from the singularity (expansion is not causal in special relativity, the expansion creates time-space), which may have always been. I am not against a god, just a personal one as I can't justify that experience, it makes no sense. I can dig that something is primal, if it is "god" it's all that exists and I would agree with Alan Watts, that it is itself hiding from itself.


What was before the big bang? the question is illogical, as time was absent, in this state action is impossible, expansion side steps this.

Thank you, good synopsis!

Do you believe that the speed of light is constant or different in different places?

[Man of Steel]

Others can continue to answer if they prefer.

Another question for Raymondo, Captain Freedom, Necrosis and avxo:

What are your scientific positions on the beginning of life on earth and the beginnings of a conscious mind?

[Man of Steel]

I agree with almost everything in Necrosis's post.

Thank you!!

Any noteworthy differences?

[avxo]

Thank you, good synopsis!

Do you believe that the speed of light is constant or different in different places?

First, consider that the speed of light depends on the medium through which the light is travelling - it's why a pen appears to be disjoint if it's dunked in water. Also keep in mind that if you were travelling at 99.99% of the speed of light and you could shine a flashlight to see what's coming up then, from your frame, the photons from the flashlight would be moving away from you at the same speed that they would as if you were standing still.

Without going deep into the theory of relativity, one of the key takeaways is that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. It's hard to describe this in "simple" non-mathematical terms, since it involves a bit of complex math, but if you're really interested, I can try to write a post that gives just the very basics.

[Man of Steel]

First, consider that the speed of light depends on the medium through which the light is travelling - it's why a pen appears to be disjoint if it's dunked in water. Also keep in mind that if you were travelling at 99.99% of the speed of light and you could shine a flashlight to see what's coming up then, from your frame, the photons from the flashlight would be moving away from you at the same speed that they would as if you were standing still.

Without going deep into the theory of relativity, one of the key takeaways is that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. It's hard to describe this in "simple" non-mathematical terms, since it involves a bit of complex math, but if you're really interested, I can try to write a post that gives just the very basics.

Absolutely!   I'd be very interested to learn more.

[Alfurinn]

The god of the gaps.

[Man of Steel]

The god of the gaps.

Not at all what is happening here.  At least not from me.

I would like to note that just because an argument has been given a title doesn't mean it's invalid.

Regardless, "god of the gaps" not applicable right now.

[BigRo]

The subject of consciousness is something i find really interesting, and i've mentioned it earlier in this thread, which i will quote and then elaborate on.

"I don't believe that consciousness can exist after the brain dies, but I'm uneducated on the subject and it's fascinating to hear from Doctors and other highly educated individuals in this field who have tried DMT and then entertained the idea of consciousness as a "non-local phenomenon".

Again, my position is not one that could be said to be a scientific one, but my personal opinion at this point, is that consciousness is a product of the brain, and when the brain is destroyed, consciousness ends. As i mentioned previously, i'm uneducated on the subject but i've recently been reading about the possibility of consciousness being a separate phenomenon that exists independently of the brain. It's an idea that i would love to be true and It seems plausible to me that the brain might simply be the mechanism which gives rise to consciousness as we know it. How it begins - i have no idea, but i would imagine that when it ends it's probably like being under anaesthetic; one minute you're conscious, then...nothing. I hope this isn't the case, however.

Education has nothing to do with a proper understanding of consciousness. Direct insight does.

[obsidian]

It's unclear what "beginning" or "start" means in this context. You may think this is me avoiding the question, but it's not. I just want to understand what you mean, because temporal and causal relationships exist within the Universe. If you wish to extend them beyond that, then you need to clearly define what they mean.

For example, what does "time" mean outside the space-time continuum? What does it mean for A to happen before B or for A to cause B when there is no temporal partial or total order?

Once we have a common vocabulary, I can try to answer your questions.

I am referring to the Big Bang Model, where it is reasoned that the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. What was the cause for this sudden expansion?

Only a fool is not open to ideas, provided that the ideas are rational. The problem here is that I don't think that we have proof that the Universe exhibits design and doubt that a proof is possible.

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't think that it's based in logic, but if you feel it is then that's good enough - you shouldn't trust my judgement over yours.

As for providing evidence that the Universe began on its own, allow me to show you why it would be pointless. Let's pretend that I have such evidence and I present it here. Everyone is stunned and I get fame, women, money and a fancy gold Nobel prize medal to use as a drink coaster.

You'll simply respond with "ahh, but even this is evidence of design, for you see there is still this deeper layer, full of fine-tuned variables that would make life impossible if they had any other values, but they don't and we are here! What you are observing is merely the Designer's plan in motion!"

At which point the Nobel committee would confiscate my drink coaster, my money, my women and my prized collection of 17th century beef jerky, while you were created Space Pope.

P.S.: I would have been much more willing to discuss the possibility that the Universe is a massive computer simulation and we are just elements in that simulation.

The evidence would have to be such that it is not possible to fall back on an argument  that a designer was involved. That is the tricky part. Otherwise it could not be seen as proof that a Creator was not required.

I will admit I have also contemplated that the Universe could be a computer simulation. And in the not so distant future humans will be able to create convincing Virtual Universes. But it will be a while before it would be on the level of the Matrix. Today's VR is very crude in comparison with a 2k small screen hovering in front of you eyes - lol!

I am also aware that some scientists are contemplating that the Universe had no beginning.

Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

[Man of Steel]

The subject of consciousness is something i find really interesting, and i've mentioned it earlier in this thread, which i will quote and then elaborate on.

"I don't believe that consciousness can exist after the brain dies, but I'm uneducated on the subject and it's fascinating to hear from Doctors and other highly educated individuals in this field who have tried DMT and then entertained the idea of consciousness as a "non-local phenomenon".

Again, my position is not one that could be said to be a scientific one, but my personal opinion at this point, is that consciousness is a product of the brain, and when the brain is destroyed, consciousness ends. As i mentioned previously, i'm uneducated on the subject but i've recently been reading about the possibility of consciousness being a separate phenomenon that exists independently of the brain. It's an idea that i would love to be true and It seems plausible to me that the brain might simply be the mechanism which gives rise to consciousness as we know it. How it begins - i have no idea, but i would imagine that when it ends it's probably like being under anaesthetic; one minute you're conscious, then...nothing. I hope this isn't the case, however.

Yes, from a perspective of science this is a topic I don't know much about at all.

Thanks for the summary!

[obsidian]

so he didn't design everything? you said there was a designer for the atoms etc it's all a design. If all is a design how can you tell something that is designed from something that is not?

Perhaps it didn't self start, expansion occurred from a singularity, perhaps the singularity always has been, in state of expansion and contraction.

you are asking a philosophical question then insulting others for pointing out it's not observable, testable aka not scientific, and they are lacking intellect?

I just obliterated your design argument because you can't think, you just regurgitate, nothing novel or interesting comes from your mind. Polarity is needed for experience, if all is designed, how could you tell, if not all is designed how the fuck did it get there? god let one slip past I guess.

We can observe or measure the physical Universe.

My position is everything in the Universe is part of the design. But from a Theist Model standpoint the Creator is outside of the Universe and predates it. So the argument cannot be made that the Creator is designed because the Theist Model claims everything in the Universe is designed.

An analogy: A car was designed by humans for transportation. When viewed from a distance it appears as one object. Look closer and you realize it's made up of parts: An Engine, transmission, drive train, exhaust system, fuel system etc. Each of these components themselves can be broken down. The fuel system could consist of a fuel tank, fuel pumps, fuel filter, fuel lines, etc. You could break it all down into smaller parts until you arrive at little bolts, washers, computer boards / circuits etc.

The same with the Universe. There are bigger parts - galaxies, black holes, solar systems, stars, planets, moons - and smaller parts - continents, oceans, rocks, sand, all the way down to atoms and smaller building blocks.

That to me is a clear case of a design.

[BigRo]

When i speak about myself being uneducated, i'm meaning in the sense that i don't have a full understanding of consciousness, and haven't put in enough time to trying to gain insight on the subject. And the highly-educated individuals i was referring to, would be doctors/neuroscientists with a formal education and understanding of the brains functions. I'm not sure if drinking a mushroom brew would give you the same insight that they have, Ro  

thats all they can do, study the brain functions, but the subject of consciousness (and god too) is an interior phenomenon only solved via each individuals awareness looking back apon itself, training its capacity in that way to such a high pitched degree that insight and understanding dawns, which usually takes more than some shroom brew (which can help) more like a total dedication spanning many years of protracted effort. For me the genuine yogis of the east are exemplars of this undertaking, the real scientists of consciousness. As an intellectual I think you may enjoy the writing of Sri Aurobindo.

[obsidian]

The beginning of the universe is unknown, this is due to lack of understanding.

Then how can you claim for sure there is no Creator? We lack the understanding to even grasp how it all came to be. Seems pretty arrogant / haste to say without a doubt that the Universe was not designed.

Given what we know today it is more likely that there is a Designer / Creator.

I'll be the first to accept that a Creator does not exist - if I can be convinced scientifically.

[obsidian]

The beginning of the universe is unknown, this is due to lack of understanding. The way they know the big bang occurred (are we agreeable on this) is from things like redshift, inputting speed of expansion, gravity etc they can go backwards in time as things get closer and closer (currently all galaxies are moving away from each other at the speed of light. The math works, insofar as it predicts the current speed, where certain clusters should be etc, this is the proof (math) and observation.

The problem is that as we go back we eventually hit a singularity, which is a point of infinite mass and density, our math fails to describe it as the time scales are incomprehensibly short. I believe (I am just riffing off my head) the planck epoch is the shortest time scale we can quantify during the big bang.

So the universe never really came into existence per se, it simply expanded from the singularity (expansion is not causal in special relativity, the expansion creates time-space), which may have always been. I am not against a god, just a personal one as I can't justify that experience, it makes no sense. I can dig that something is primal, if it is "god" it's all that exists and I would agree with Alan Watts, that it is itself hiding from itself.

What was before the big bang? the question is illogical, as time was absent, in this state action is impossible, expansion side steps this.

What caused it to simply start to expand from the singularity?