Author Topic: God vs Universe  (Read 433 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Airyaman

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4161
  • Darwins +17/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Alignment: True Neutral
    • Moving Beyond Faith
God vs Universe
« on: July 16, 2014, 07:36:23 AM »
Help me understand the logic of the universe being evidence of a god. The universe is obviously created because it is complex and material (or some variance). So therefore a god made it all.

So the universe cannot exist without a creator for what reason? Why does this complex super god get to just exist while the universe must have a creator? How is it not the other way around, that super god is created by the universe? That is, one day there arose a species on a planet called earth who become intelligent enough to imagine a deity or deities was behind all there is? Because it all seems to be nothing more than that as far as I can tell.

I guess I struggle with the idea of this because I really do not care about the origins of the universe. I was not there to validate the hypotheses and theories and neither was anyone else so I chalk it up to "don't know, probably won't in my lifetime". I can appreciate others who have more of an interest, but just not on my list of important things to know.

So tell me theists, why does your god(s) get to exist, while the universe must be created?
If you are following God why can I still see you?

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2014, 01:45:49 PM »
Help me understand the logic of the universe being evidence of a god. The universe is obviously created because it is complex and material (or some variance). So therefore a god made it all.

So the universe cannot exist without a creator for what reason? Why does this complex super god get to just exist while the universe must have a creator? How is it not the other way around, that super god is created by the universe? That is, one day there arose a species on a planet called earth who become intelligent enough to imagine a deity or deities was behind all there is? Because it all seems to be nothing more than that as far as I can tell.

I guess I struggle with the idea of this because I really do not care about the origins of the universe. I was not there to validate the hypotheses and theories and neither was anyone else so I chalk it up to "don't know, probably won't in my lifetime". I can appreciate others who have more of an interest, but just not on my list of important things to know.

So tell me theists, why does your god(s) get to exist, while the universe must be created?

I am not a theist but two reasons as far as I am concerned.  God is has always been and always will be there.  There was no beginning of god.  Absolute nothing can not do anything so it requires something to kick it off. 

I don't claim to understand the beginning of the universe.   I doubt it is physically within in humans ability to know such a thing.  I am inclined to believe the universe has a natural origin but I leave a little room for god to exist in there because creating something from absolute nothing seems beyond the realm of nature.  As such it has some potential of supernatural origins.

I am 100% sure I do not believe the bible, torah, koran... But I am only 99% sure that there is no intelligent being behind the universe.   Of course I have absolutely no proof of this intelligent being nor his wants and desires.  So at this moment even if there is a creator god I don't know what to do with that information. 

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2014, 02:16:26 PM »
Help me understand the logic of the universe being evidence of a god. The universe is obviously created because it is complex and material (or some variance). So therefore a god made it all.

So the universe cannot exist without a creator for what reason? Why does this complex super god get to just exist while the universe must have a creator? How is it not the other way around, that super god is created by the universe? That is, one day there arose a species on a planet called earth who become intelligent enough to imagine a deity or deities was behind all there is? Because it all seems to be nothing more than that as far as I can tell.

I guess I struggle with the idea of this because I really do not care about the origins of the universe. I was not there to validate the hypotheses and theories and neither was anyone else so I chalk it up to "don't know, probably won't in my lifetime". I can appreciate others who have more of an interest, but just not on my list of important things to know.

So tell me theists, why does your god(s) get to exist, while the universe must be created?

The idea that the universe was created is based on the false assumption that cause and effect is valid back to the beginning of the universe.

There is also the problem of where a hypothetical god lived "before" the beginning of the universe, as time and space are not independent properties.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2014, 03:10:38 PM »
The idea that the universe was created is based on the false assumption that cause and effect is valid back to the beginning of the universe.

There is also the problem of where a hypothetical god lived "before" the beginning of the universe, as time and space are not independent properties.

Isn't it just an assumption that cause and effect do no apply back to the beginning of the universe.

What does the universe, time and space live within?  Couldn't it be the same place god lived in?

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1958
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2014, 03:19:43 PM »
Should 'universe' and 'reality' be considered synonymous in this thread?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2014, 05:03:44 PM »
Isn't it just an assumption that cause and effect do no apply back to the beginning of the universe.

What does the universe, time and space live within?  Couldn't it be the same place god lived in?

No. As you approach the high energies of the early universe the laws of physics are not the same as in daily life.

The universe does not live within anything. The universe is itself time and space but without an edge, like the surface on a sphere.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 05:10:09 PM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1958
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2014, 07:18:20 PM »
No. As you approach the high energies of the early universe the laws of physics are not the same as in daily life.
That goes a bit too far into speculation as far as I can tell...or at least the wording implies such.  I think the best you can say is that our understanding of the laws of physics breakdown into an incomprehensible and contradictory mess.  How reality behaves at the levels of energy involved is indeterminate given our current understanding of how reality, in the general case, behaves.

Now, to your point, I think what you're essentially driving at is correct - that our pragmatic understanding of how reality behaves are treated as different depending on actual context - the levels of energy involved, spacial-temporal relationships and magnitudes, various scales of frequency, etc.  But I don't think one can leap to saying that the laws of physics would have been different in the early universe.  I don't discount that possibility, but thus far have no reason to accept it.  General relativity gave us a better understanding - a different understanding - of the nature of gravity.  But it would be incorrect to say that general relativity "does not apply" or is a "different physical law" simply because we are talking about the interaction of a baseball and a planet.

Quote
The universe does not live within anything. The universe is itself time and space but without an edge, like the surface on a sphere.
See, to me, this is assuming that 'the universe' and 'reality' are the same thing.  Now, by and large, I'm more than happy to share that assumption.  I can think of no situation where my outlook on reality (consequently have no effect on my decisions, responses, actions, beliefs, thoughts, etc.) is modified based on the distinction between 'reality = universe' and 'reality = universe + <insert thingie that contains universe>'.  It's largely semantics for my day to day life, and unless the topic of conversation is specifically regarding the relationship between 'universe' and 'reality', I'll take the 'meh' approach.

That is, in essence, my responseVerbose Edition to the question "What does the universe, time and space live within?" question:
I dunno.  It may not live in anything at all.  Wonder what data we'd need to answer that question...
...oh hey cartoons!
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2014, 07:32:25 AM »
Isn't it just an assumption that cause and effect do no apply back to the beginning of the universe.

What does the universe, time and space live within?  Couldn't it be the same place god lived in?

No. As you approach the high energies of the early universe the laws of physics are not the same as in daily life.

The universe does not live within anything. The universe is itself time and space but without an edge, like the surface on a sphere.

Foxy Freedom,

I have to ask the fundamental question What high energies?  Can you have energy without space and time? Where did the energy reside, where did it come from?  I know it is far beyond my ability to even venture a guess.  I am unable to imagine nowhere.  Let alone no time, shouldn't a massive energy in the absense of time just sit there?  I have heard the argument that god simply is impossible because he can not live outside of time because with out time he could not have done anything?

Jdawg70 great post.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2014, 08:13:16 AM »
So tell me theists, why does your god(s) get to exist, while the universe must be created?

I often find that the same theists who dismiss evolution as just a theory, who dismiss huge swathes of science as delusions or conspiracy, who have major issues with the science involved in dating the age of the earth, stars, universe, etc......

......seem to take as gospel (pun most definitely intended) that science is absolutely right when it comes to the universe having a Big Bang Beginning - because ONLY such a B.B.B. allows for it having a defined start, that they can then shoehorn in a "so it MUST have been created!" argument. 

To deny THAT part of science, along with all the other parts they want to deny, would mean that the universe absolutely COULD always have existed, just like a god could, and pop goes their entire "argument".
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2014, 01:44:16 PM »
  I have heard the argument that god simply is impossible because he can not live outside of time because with out time he could not have done anything?


Your scientific questions contain assumptions which need to be unravelled and I am having a lazy day today, so just the last and easiest question now.

The situation is worse than just no time. Space and time are linked so there would be no space either. No structure, no consciousness, no energy, no existence. Claiming a god exists outside a universe defines him out of existence. It was so much easier when people were ignorant and Yahweh was a storm god who lived on a mountain and had to visit people to see them.

If you want a god you have to put him in another universe, but as soon as you put him in a universe he can no longer have the properties of a god. Too bad. I don't know why any atheist would even consider the possibility that an unknown god might exist or might have had something to do with the creation of our universe.

PS energy really does create the chaotic flow which from which you abstract the laws of physics.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2014, 08:28:09 AM »
If you want a god you have to put him in another universe, but as soon as you put him in a universe he can no longer have the properties of a god. Too bad. I don't know why any atheist would even consider the possibility that an unknown god might exist or might have had something to do with the creation of our universe.

PS energy really does create the chaotic flow which from which you abstract the laws of physics.

Here is where we go all circular reference.  in the impossible illogical situationof nothing including no time you claim that there is nowhere for god/consciousness to exist.  To this I agree.  However in that impossible illogical situation there is no place for energy to exist, no time in which things can act on eachother, even if the energy did exist it could not explode into a universe because there was no time for it to begin.

God is impossible and the universe is impossible.

With both of these thing seemingly impossible and the knowledge that we are here I find both plausible, both god existing in nothing and energy existing in nothing spawned the universe.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2014, 08:36:27 AM »
Here is where we go all circular reference.  in the impossible illogical situationof nothing including no time you claim that there is nowhere for god/consciousness to exist.  To this I agree.  However in that impossible illogical situation there is no place for energy to exist, no time in which things can act on eachother, even if the energy did exist it could not explode into a universe because there was no time for it to begin.

God is impossible and the universe is impossible.

With both of these thing seemingly impossible and the knowledge that we are here I find both plausible, both god existing in nothing and energy existing in nothing spawned the universe.

Your assumptions are wrong. The condition that god lives in that state and that the universe originates from that state are different.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2014, 08:44:53 AM »
Here is where we go all circular reference.  in the impossible illogical situationof nothing including no time you claim that there is nowhere for god/consciousness to exist.  To this I agree.  However in that impossible illogical situation there is no place for energy to exist, no time in which things can act on eachother, even if the energy did exist it could not explode into a universe because there was no time for it to begin.

God is impossible and the universe is impossible.

With both of these thing seemingly impossible and the knowledge that we are here I find both plausible, both god existing in nothing and energy existing in nothing spawned the universe.


Your assumptions are wrong. The condition that god lives in that state and that the universe originates from that state are different.

I see little difference.  Energy living in that state or god living in that state in the absence of space and time able to act or react.  You are making the assumption that energy can change state in the absence of time and god can not is not grounded in reason.  Partly because reason breaks down.

Your assumption is not any more solid than mine AFAIAC.

if one quark, or electron or un-named particle can move from one state to another in the absence of time or space then could not thouth have taken place?

Or perhaps when space and time began god began.  The big bang was his thought.

I don't know,   the beginning of time and space to me is beyond reason.  I suspect it is beyond human ability to reason.  It may well be the last question to go unanswered.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2014, 08:48:56 AM by epidemic »

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2014, 08:51:17 AM »
I see little difference.  Energy living in that state or god living in that state in the absence of space and time able to act or react.  You are making the assumption that energy can change state in the absence of time and god can not is not grounded in reason.  Partly because reason breaks down.

I'm just gonna drop this here...
We have no idea what happened past a certain point in time. Our math and physics cannot describe what happened back then. We don't know what happened. However, to assume, or even consider, that something supernatural happened is idiotic. We may not know what happened, but we know it had to be natural, because all things we have ever observed since the beginning of time had perfectly natural explanations. In addition, the Universe itself is natural.

I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again, regardless: I don't believe you are an atheist.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2014, 11:34:26 AM »
I am unable to imagine nowhere.

The universe does not care what you can imagine. Chimps can't imagine relativity. If you try to imagine what the universe is like from daily life you will always be wrong. The things which happen in daily life are only a very small, ant-like tiny minuscule, part of what the universe can do.

I see little difference.

That is a big problem. Let's put it like this, in one scenario, the natural one, you begin from no structure and nothingness, in the supernatural scenario you begin from structure and nothingness. They are complete opposites.

A great deal is known about the early universe, the only part not proved is less than the first billionth of a second. Even the conditions and nature of the universe which we already know and some of the constraints on the creation definitely rule out any god.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2014, 11:44:18 AM »
I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again, regardless: I don't believe you are an atheist.

Good then you have proven you can read.  Sometimes for convenience sake I will say I am an atheist but more often than not I describe myself as agnostic who leans towards atheism.  I simply do not know but I tend to think there is no god or gods, in that small remaining space where I leave room for god I have a near 100% belief that any god that might exist is not described in any of the religous texts I have skimmed through.

So through your great detective work you have determined that I am not an atheist.  I really have never claimed to be.   

I also believe I have clarified this several times to you.  So it is beginning to sink in I guess.  You have made progress because I believe your former claim was that I was a theist.  To this I vigorously disagreed.


Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2014, 11:51:39 AM »
I am unable to imagine nowhere.

The universe does not care what you can imagine. Chimps can't imagine relativity. If you try to imagine what the universe is like from daily life you will always be wrong. The things which happen in daily life are only a very small, ant-like tiny minuscule, part of what the universe can do.

True but you and I are in the same boat regarding that first billionth of a trillionth of a micro second.


Quote
I see little difference.

That is a big problem. Let's put it like this, in one scenario, the natural one, you begin from no structure and nothingness, in the supernatural scenario you begin from structure and nothingness. They are complete opposites.

A great deal is known about the early universe, the only part not proved is less than the first billionth of a second. Even the conditions and nature of the universe which we already know and some of the constraints on the creation definitely rule out any god.

Doesn't the energy (which is something) have structure and rules even at time 0.  In some form the nothingness had all the information to create the universe.

I still see it as circular logic.  Nothing true nothing naturally spawning anything is almost magical. 

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2014, 12:33:29 PM »
I am unable to imagine nowhere.

The universe does not care what you can imagine. Chimps can't imagine relativity. If you try to imagine what the universe is like from daily life you will always be wrong. The things which happen in daily life are only a very small, ant-like tiny minuscule, part of what the universe can do.

True but you and I are in the same boat regarding that first billionth of a trillionth of a micro second.


Quote
I see little difference.

That is a big problem. Let's put it like this, in one scenario, the natural one, you begin from no structure and nothingness, in the supernatural scenario you begin from structure and nothingness. They are complete opposites.

A great deal is known about the early universe, the only part not proved is less than the first billionth of a second. Even the conditions and nature of the universe which we already know and some of the constraints on the creation definitely rule out any god.

Doesn't the energy (which is something) have structure and rules even at time 0.  In some form the nothingness had all the information to create the universe.

I still see it as circular logic.  Nothing true nothing naturally spawning anything is almost magical.

We are not in the same boat at all. I know something about how the universe works and what can be inferred about the creation of the universe and what is impossible. Science works usually by ruling out the bad ideas and impossibilities.

To answer your question, at time zero there is no structure, and the energy is also zero, there are no rules, no laws of physics or anything. There are no instructions in that nothingness to create a universe.

Our early universe did not come into existence suddenly. It took time. We know about some of that time. Coming into existence is a complex process, not all of it understood yet. The flow of energy has to approach to some regularity which you call the laws of physics. Existence has to be stabilised so that finally something can appear from nothing and stay in existence. Yes, something from nothing did happen well after the Big Bang. So you see, the process is nothing like you imagine from daily life.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2014, 12:51:27 PM »
Well Foxy Freedom,

I am going to have to stick with my temporal view of the universe.  Something from absolute nothing defies logic. god from nothing defies logic.  I can not get beyond that.  At this point I feel the best scientists are not much closer than I am to understanding the events that lead to Time 0 becoming time .00000000000000000000000001. :)  I also understand the error in my statement regarding the events that lead to time 0. 

Thanks for your efforts but I guess I am temporal, cause and effects guy and I am stuck there for the forseable future.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2014, 12:56:18 PM »
I also believe I have clarified this several times to you.  So it is beginning to sink in I guess.  You have made progress because I believe your former claim was that I was a theist.  To this I vigorously disagreed.

That's actually what I'm claiming, since it's the only alternative. What you claim to be is not in any way related to what I said. If you want to be intellectually honest, say what you believe/don't believe in; not how sure you are of that belief/non-belief.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2014, 01:18:00 PM »
Well Foxy Freedom,

I am going to have to stick with my temporal view of the universe.  Something from absolute nothing defies logic. god from nothing defies logic.  I can not get beyond that.  At this point I feel the best scientists are not much closer than I am to understanding the events that lead to Time 0 becoming time .00000000000000000000000001. :)  I also understand the error in my statement regarding the events that lead to time 0. 

Thanks for your efforts but I guess I am temporal, cause and effects guy and I am stuck there for the forseable future.

Have I not shown that creation was a slow process and that the development of cause and effect was part of that process?

Here is how time can begin. The universe does not like to be cornered and forced to do things. Even when it was nothing, it was the same. So nature really does not like to be nothing and what it does to rebel is that it becomes nothing "on average". In fact "nothing" is so unstable that it must produce universes, lots and lots of universes, an infinite multiverse of universes.

This might all sound like fantasy but we have observed nothing trying to become something even in our universe. It happens all over our universe. Usually it does not succeed in becoming something permanently inside our universe but around the edge of a black hole, it does.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2014, 01:46:55 PM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2014, 01:41:43 PM »
Well Foxy Freedom,

I am going to have to stick with my temporal view of the universe.  Something from absolute nothing defies logic. god from nothing defies logic.  I can not get beyond that.  At this point I feel the best scientists are not much closer than I am to understanding the events that lead to Time 0 becoming time .00000000000000000000000001. :)  I also understand the error in my statement regarding the events that lead to time 0. 

Thanks for your efforts but I guess I am temporal, cause and effects guy and I am stuck there for the forseable future.

Have I not shown that creation was a slow process and that the development of cause and effect was part of that process?

Here is how time can begin. The universe does not like to be cornered and forced to do things. Even when it was nothing, it was the same. So nature really does not like to be nothing and what it does to rebel is that it becomes nothing "on average". In fact "nothing" is so unstable that it must produce universes, lots and lots of universes, an infinite multiverse of universes.

This might all sound like fantasy but we have observed nothing trying to become something even in our universe. It happens all over our universe. Usually it does not succeed in becoming something permanently inside our universe but around the edge of a black hole, it does.


We have never observed a black hole,  we do not know about things popping into existence as far as I know.  What we have are theories and theorums.

But your statement that nature does not like "Nothing"  This is completely unfounded isn't it?  Nothing would not seem to favor a state of existence over non existence especially considering the absence of time.  Even if nature would hate nothingness there would be no time in which it would react to such potential hatred???

I am not saying that the universe did not spawn from nothing but we are light years away from understanding how nothing spawns a universe.

0 energy would be a perfectly balanced state, Imbalanced energy with no time does not seem to be able to do anything but remain no energy and no time. 

I admit that I do not know what happened and I don't claim to but it certainly defies my logic to think that the universe could have spawned from absolute nothing.  I was kinda ok with energy having always existed in a rebounding/oscillating universe.  But the expanding universe seems to have put the kabash on that one.


Question, If you drove your modified Yugo to the edge of the universe through a wormhole at near the speed of light and you reached the edge of space and time, what would happen if you continued on in that direction faster than the universe was expanding?

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2014, 02:01:00 PM »
Well Foxy Freedom,

I am going to have to stick with my temporal view of the universe.  Something from absolute nothing defies logic. god from nothing defies logic.  I can not get beyond that.  At this point I feel the best scientists are not much closer than I am to understanding the events that lead to Time 0 becoming time .00000000000000000000000001. :)  I also understand the error in my statement regarding the events that lead to time 0. 

Thanks for your efforts but I guess I am temporal, cause and effects guy and I am stuck there for the forseable future.

Have I not shown that creation was a slow process and that the development of cause and effect was part of that process?

Here is how time can begin. The universe does not like to be cornered and forced to do things. Even when it was nothing, it was the same. So nature really does not like to be nothing and what it does to rebel is that it becomes nothing "on average". In fact "nothing" is so unstable that it must produce universes, lots and lots of universes, an infinite multiverse of universes.

This might all sound like fantasy but we have observed nothing trying to become something even in our universe. It happens all over our universe. Usually it does not succeed in becoming something permanently inside our universe but around the edge of a black hole, it does.


We have never observed a black hole,  we do not know about things popping into existence as far as I know.  What we have are theories and theorums.

But your statement that nature does not like "Nothing"  This is completely unfounded isn't it?  Nothing would not seem to favor a state of existence over non existence especially considering the absence of time.  Even if nature would hate nothingness there would be no time in which it would react to such potential hatred???

I am not saying that the universe did not spawn from nothing but we are light years away from understanding how nothing spawns a universe.

0 energy would be a perfectly balanced state, Imbalanced energy with no time does not seem to be able to do anything but remain no energy and no time. 

I admit that I do not know what happened and I don't claim to but it certainly defies my logic to think that the universe could have spawned from absolute nothing.  I was kinda ok with energy having always existed in a rebounding/oscillating universe.  But the expanding universe seems to have put the kabash on that one.


Question, If you drove your modified Yugo to the edge of the universe through a wormhole at near the speed of light and you reached the edge of space and time, what would happen if you continued on in that direction faster than the universe was expanding?

The universe does not care about your logic. You are thinking about the universe in terms of daily life. The universe you see in daily life is only a small part of what the universe does.

Black holes are the brightest objects in the universe, so we can see them.

To answer your question, there is no edge to drive to. The universe is like the surface of a sphere, there is no edge but the boundary is everywhere. It is irrelevant if you enter a wormhole near the speed of light. It has nothing to do with the expansion of our universe, which can expand faster than light. You would not survive anyway.

You underestimate what is known. This video explains how universes can form from nothing.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0
« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 02:54:36 PM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline dloubet

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1342
  • Darwins +63/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • Denisloubet.com
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2014, 04:04:04 AM »
Ah yes, the old Every Painting Needs a Painter Therefore Every Created Thing Needs a Creator ploy.

The problem with this ploy is that creation is completely different from painting. Painting takes already existing stuff and pushes it around. Creation supposedly makes things out of nothing. We have innumerable examples of a "creator" being necessary to move existing stuff around into paintings, furniture, buildings, sculpture, etc. We have exactly zero examples of a creator being necessary for a thing to pop into existence out of nothing. And when you're talking the universe as a creation of a god, you're talking it appearing out of nothing, not made from spare parts like everything we're familiar with.

Since we have no examples of a creator being necessary for ex nihilo creation, there's no reason to posit one.
Denis Loubet

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2014, 06:59:28 AM »
Ah yes, the old Every Painting Needs a Painter Therefore Every Created Thing Needs a Creator ploy.

The problem with this ploy is that creation is completely different from painting. Painting takes already existing stuff and pushes it around. Creation supposedly makes things out of nothing. We have innumerable examples of a "creator" being necessary to move existing stuff around into paintings, furniture, buildings, sculpture, etc. We have exactly zero examples of a creator being necessary for a thing to pop into existence out of nothing. And when you're talking the universe as a creation of a god, you're talking it appearing out of nothing, not made from spare parts like everything we're familiar with.

Since we have no examples of a creator being necessary for ex nihilo creation, there's no reason to posit one.

I thought I would escape.  Ex nihilo creation/ex materia both methods I can not understand nor can our best physicists.  To date there is some pretty interesting theories but alas they are just theories and I suspect they will remain so till long after I am dead

Once again I don't claim god, only the apparent absurdity of nothing becoming everything.  Perhaps nature abhores a vaccum and somehow spits out a universe.  I only made it part way through your link last night.  I tried to find where the meat an potatos was so I could skip the clever amusing quips of the scientists.  I did not want to invest an hour in jokes and long winded explanations of stuff I already knew.  I just wanted to get to the everything from nothing section.  But poking around the video I was not able to find it.  I will invest an hour in it sometime in the near future.



I also believe I have clarified this several times to you.  So it is beginning to sink in I guess.  You have made progress because I believe your former claim was that I was a theist.  To this I vigorously disagreed.

That's actually what I'm claiming, since it's the only alternative. What you claim to be is not in any way related to what I said. If you want to be intellectually honest, say what you believe/don't believe in; not how sure you are of that belief/non-belief.
.



You appear to be well read, but incapable of hearing things that disagree with your opinion.  I don't know how I could be more clear. 

I do not believe in god or gods!!!

I do not believe in god or gods!!!

I do not believe in god or gods!!!

I believe in the possibility of god in the gaps of my knowledge I believe in the possibility of god like I believe in the possibility of alien abductions, well perhaps I believe in alien abductions a little more because they are more plausible.

I believe in the possibility of god in the gaps of my knowledge I believe in the possibility of god like I believe in the possibility of alien abductions, well perhaps I believe in alien abductions a little more because they are more plausible.

I believe in the possibility of god in the gaps of my knowledge I believe in the possibility of god like I believe in the possibility of alien abductions, well perhaps I believe in alien abductions a little more because they are more plausible.

Even if god exists, I believe that the christian bible (the religious text I am most familiar with) certainly does not describe any reasonable facimile to any words I could see coming out of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent  god were it to exist.

Even if god exists, I believe that the christian bible (the religious text I am most familiar with) certainly does not describe any reasonable facimile to any words I could see coming out of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent  god were it to exist.

Even if god exists, I believe that the christian bible (the religious text I am most familiar with) certainly does not describe any reasonable facimile to any words I could see coming out of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent  god were it to exist.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2014, 07:03:38 AM by epidemic »

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2014, 01:29:51 PM »
I do not believe in god or gods
<snipped spam>
I believe in the possibility of god in the gaps of my knowledge I believe in the possibility of god like I believe in the possibility of alien abductions, well perhaps I believe in alien abductions a little more because they are more plausible.

Agnostic atheist. Gotcha.
Two words. That's all you had to say. Is that so hard?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #26 on: July 22, 2014, 03:10:59 PM »
I do not believe in god or gods
<snipped spam>
I believe in the possibility of god in the gaps of my knowledge I believe in the possibility of god like I believe in the possibility of alien abductions, well perhaps I believe in alien abductions a little more because they are more plausible.

Agnostic atheist. Gotcha.
Two words. That's all you had to say. Is that so hard?

I have said that dozens of times.   Sorry I didn't realize you missed them so I was trying alternate explanations since Agnostic leaning toward Atheist was not working for you.

I am not a fence sitter but there is a fence on the property and I know where it is way up yonder on the farm.  It might take me a while to get up to the north forty to check the fence.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2014, 03:13:57 PM by epidemic »

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #27 on: July 22, 2014, 03:15:56 PM »
I have said that dozens of times.   Sorry I didn't realize you missed them so I was trying alternate explanations since Agnostic leaning toward Atheist was not working for you.

Bold mine.
Two things:
1 - "Agnostic" and "atheist" are not capitalized in the middle of a sentence.
2 - That is not what "agnostic atheist" means. You are an atheist. You just also happen not to be 100% sure about the position (agnostic), though you are leaning toward being 100% certain of it (gnostic). Gnosticism has nothing to do with what I asked. You are an atheist. Say it with me now: atheist. Seriously, was that so hard?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: God vs Universe
« Reply #28 on: July 22, 2014, 03:19:07 PM »
I have said that dozens of times.   Sorry I didn't realize you missed them so I was trying alternate explanations since Agnostic leaning toward Atheist was not working for you.

Bold mine.
Two things:
1 - "Agnostic" and "atheist" are not capitalized in the middle of a sentence.
2 - That is not what "agnostic atheist" means. You are an atheist. You just also happen not to be 100% sure about the position (agnostic), though you are leaning toward being 100% certain of it (gnostic). Gnosticism has nothing to do with what I asked. You are an atheist. Say it with me now: atheist. Seriously, was that so hard?

after watching the video today I tend to agree with you .   I tend to want to emphasize the I don't know part but you are right.  I am not a theist.  BTW which is what you accuse me of being frequently,  well 3 times I can think of.