Looking Backward, into the Future

[rigney]

Looking Backward into the Future

 

I get totally exasperated at both Science and Theist’s alike for providing such a dichotomy between the two sides of this forum as to who is right or wrong in what the other believes? But as humans; we will likely be extinct long before we come up with a solution to the answer. However, regardless of which side of the plate you swing from, the universe didn’t just simply appear from nothingness. To exist as science theorizes, it still demands a supreme entity of some sort to kick off the show. But what would this absolute power be? Scientist are straight forward in their stance of providing and proving theories. Many use this rationale as the reason for there not being a God, while Religious people have nothing but their faith in which to believe there is one. Well, regardless of an individual’s thoughts, there must be a supreme entity of some sort. But what?

Science will continue to theorize the Big Bang, black holes, galactic formations, evolution, and many other aspects of nature ‘til hell freezes over because of the physical nature of things. Meaning? There will always be job openings in cosmology for the duration of mans stay here in the universe, while Religious folks will stubbornly hang onto to a God, regardless of having any proof. Meanwhile, preachers will keep them well misinformed. It's just a matter of who gets on base first?

Edited July 3, 2012 by rigney

[Greg H.]

Here's a question that will get your head churning: What if we find out there is a God - but that He's not responsible for Creation?

However, regardless of which side of the plate you swing from, the universe didn't just simply appear from nothingness. To exist as science theorizes, it still demands a supreme entity of some sort to kick off the show.

 

Why? Why does the answer to anything we don't yet understand have to be "'God' did it" (for some definition of the word God)?

[dimreepr]

Looking Backward into the Future

 

I get totally exasperated at both Science and Theist's alike for providing such a dichotomy between the two sides of this forum as to who is right or wrong in what the other believes? But as humans; we will likely be extinct long before we come up with a solution to the answer. However, regardless of which side of the plate you swing from, the universe didn't just simply appear from nothingness. To exist as science theorizes, it still demands a supreme entity of some sort to kick off the show. But what would this absolute power be? Scientist are straight forward in their stance of providing and proving theories. Many use this rationale as the reason for there not being a God, while Religious people have nothing but their faith in which to believe there is one. Well, regardless of an individual's thoughts, there must be a supreme entity of some sort. But what?

Science will continue to theorize the Big Bang, black holes, galactic formations, evolution, and many other aspects of nature 'til hell freezes over. Meaning? There will always be job openings in cosmology for the duration of mans stay here in the universe, while Religious folks will stubbornly hang onto a God, regardless of having proof. Who will get on base first?

 

I certainly don’t agree that “there must be a supreme entity of some sort.” Physics goes on shoring up the current theories and in doing so create ever smaller areas in which theist’s can point and say God must be there. At the same time psychologists describe the reasons, we humans, feel a need to have a deity of sorts to cling to. The pincers of science get ever closer to pinching out the flame of God.

 

 

[rigney]

I certainly don’t agree that “there must be a supreme entity of some sort.” Physics goes on shoring up the current theories and in doing so create ever smaller areas in which theist’s can point and say God must be there. At the same time psychologists describe the reasons, we humans, feel a need to have a deity of sorts to cling to. The pincers of science get ever closer to pinching out the flame of God.

 

And why not believe there is an entity that we have yet to understand? Even if you pinch out the flame of what some people think god might be, then what? Everything must still somehow be explained, whether it came from multi-verses, strings or just somehow stumbled in. Was there a beginning to our universe, a Genesis so to speak? How could it have began without a precursor of some sort?

 

Here's a question that will get your head churning: What if we find out there is a God - but that He's not responsible for Creation?

 

 

Why? Why does the answer to anything we don't yet understand have to be "'God' did it" (for some definition of the word God)?

 

Nowhere in this posting did I refer to a supreme God, or that god did it. I merely stated that for a universe to become viable, there had to be a reason behind its happening. Reread my initial post. Edited July 3, 2012 by rigney

[studiot]

there had to be a reason behind its happening

 

That is a proposition or hypothesis.

 

What proof do you offer?

[rigney]

That is a proposition or hypothesis.

 

What proof do you offer?

 

What proof do you have in refuting it?

[imatfaal]

What proof do you have in refuting it?

 

rigney - surely after 1300 odd posts here you must realise it doesn't work like that. you made a positive claim - it's your job and honour to prove it, not for others to disprove it.

[Joatmon]

I would say that, as an undeniable fact, the universe exists. Since it does exist there must be a full explanation of that existence. This will include exactly how it came into existence. Not what existed a few milliseconds after its creation - the whole explanation from the very moment it all started, how it started, what existed just before that start and the initiating impetus for that start.

As far as I can see at the present time it's a case of "You pays your money and you takes your choice". Until all the details are known nobody can claim they have the full answer.

 

 

 

 

[studiot]

What proof do you have in refuting it?

 

I don't need proof, I am testing your logic which declares that A is true (the universe became viable) therefore B is true (there was a reason).

 

There is no logical connection between the two since at least one alternative, C, is available.

[rigney]

rigney - surely after 1300 odd posts here you must realise it doesn't work like that. you made a positive claim - it's your job and honour to prove it, not for others to disprove it.

 

May I say that my post was only statements, whether in question or comment and you want to discard it for not being factual, in toto? C'mon! Edited July 3, 2012 by rigney

[Greg H.]

Nowhere in this posting did I refer to a supreme God, or that god did it. I merely stated that for a universe to become viable, there had to be a reason behind its happening. Reread my initial post.

 

Actually, what you said was:

 

To exist as science theorizes, it still demands a supreme entity of some sort to kick off the show. But what would this absolute power be? Scientist are straight forward in their stance of providing and proving theories. Many use this rationale as the reason for there not being a God, while Religious people have nothing but their faith in which to believe there is one. Well, regardless of an individual's thoughts, there must be a supreme entity of some sort. But what?

 

You mentioned a supreme entity specifically twice in the OP. That sounds a lot like God, not a reason. A supreme entity would certainly be a reason, but a reason is not necessarily a supreme entity.

[rigney]

I would say that, as an undeniable fact, the universe exists. Since it does exist there must be a full explanation of that existence. This will include exactly how it came into existence. Not what existed a few milliseconds after its creation - the whole explanation from the very moment it all started, how it started, what existed just before that start and the initiating impetus for that start.

As far as I can see at the present time it's a case of "You pays your money and you takes your choice". Until all the details are known nobody can claim they have the full answer.

 

Be very careful Joatmon, saying something is an undeniable fact requires unrefutable proof to some people.

 

Actually, what you said was:

 

You mentioned a supreme entity specifically twice in the OP. That sounds a lot like God, not a reason. A supreme entity would certainly be a reason, but a reason is not necessarily a supreme entity.

 

Personally, i believe in a supreme entity that has nothing to do with a god or gods, religion, or natural phenomena for that matter. As only a statement, the universe must surely have had a beginning, regardless of from what or how? Even if this is only a dream world we live in, everything must have came from another realm. But from where or what, I haven't the slightest idea and don't believe any human will ever know that answer. This is only thoughts and not a prognostication, or to be assumed as fact in any way. Edited July 3, 2012 by rigney

[Joatmon]

Be very careful Joatmon, saying something is an undeniable fact requires unrefutable proof to some people.

 

 

"Is this the real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide,

No escape from reality.

Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see,"

 

Surely either everything we can see, touch and feel is real or nothing is!

Edited July 3, 2012 by Joatmon

[rigney]

"Is this the real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide,

No escape from reality.

Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see,"

 

Surely either everything we can see, touch and feel is real or nothing is!

 

I'd have to call that a decent summation. Edited July 3, 2012 by rigney

[Greg H.]

"Is this the real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide,

No escape from reality.

Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see,"

 

Surely either everything we can see, touch and feel is real or nothing is!

 

“What is real? How do you define, ‘real’? If you’re talking about what you

can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply

electrical signals interpreted by your brain.” —Morpheus, in The Matrix, 1999

[rigney]

That is a proposition or hypothesis.

 

What proof do you offer?

 

None! My offer was only thoughts since I'm not capable of postulaing or predicating a theory without some fact, formula or theory. Had I done so, then you would have a point. But for me to say, "WOW", looks like it's gonna be a nice day, and my neighbor beats me over the head because it starts raining 20 minutes later doesn't seem quite fair.

 

 

Personally, I believe in a supreme entity that has nothing to do with a god or gods, religion, or natural phenomena for that matter. As only a statement, the universe must surely have had a beginning, regardless of from what or how? Even if this is only a dream world we live in, everything must have came from another realm. But from where or what, I haven't the slightest idea and don't believe any human will ever know that answer. This is only thoughts and not a prognostication, or to be assumed as fact in any way.

 

Actually, what you said was:

 

 

 

You mentioned a supreme entity specifically twice in the OP. That sounds a lot like God, not a reason. A supreme entity would certainly be a reason, but a reason is not necessarily a supreme entity.

 

If the universe came into being as science calculate, something, a humongus power of some sort surely must have been responsible for its happening. But what, I have no idea. In this case supreme entity was used to describe a situation similar to our supreme court, nothing more or less. The supreme court has full control over the yea and nay for the rest of our countries laws. Neither should be confused with how a deist might use the same words. Even if the Higgs Boson proves out, there is something far greater than the Higgs. What? Science will speculate until a theory is formulated for something different. Until then, it's only well calculated ideas. Look at this link, if nothing more than just the last 3 minutes or so.Thinkers only think, doers get it done.

Edited July 5, 2012 by rigney

[Abecedarian]

Why do we need to assume there had to be some, humongous some thing responsible for the existence of the Universe? By holding onto that precept, wouldn't we just be demonstrating our lack of comprehension of the no thing?

 

Listen, buckle up, Jesus, Mohammed, Deli Lama... I've just taken my tablet for the day!

 

Putting aside, for a moment, quantum fluctuations in a zero-point field - how much do you, I or any scientist alive, know about nothing? It's so illogical and so opposed to existence as we can perceive, that 'nothing' is almost inconceivable. I challenge you to sit and imagine nothing for an indeterminate amount of time. It manifests cancellations of all kinds on the most fundamental level of human thought. Even if your brain could genuinely think of nothing, it could only constitute a black, empty space, with silence - and that still equates to a something - merely by virtue of the occurrence of a contrast.

 

You can falsify a state of nothing, because there is no known region of space where nothing exists, otherwise (assuming space is a thing) there would be no space. Yet you can't falsify it because you can't ever experience it. Nothing must be the singularly most falsifiable and non-falsifiable thing(?) in... existence...? Oh no... Doh!

 

So given that we can't actually comprehend it - what is to say it couldn't have... existed... before everything else came into existence?

 

Yeah, so this leads me to think, that if there ever was anything, anywhere near approaching the power of God - it would be nothing. I don't find God that hard to imagine. I do find 'nothing' very hard to imagine.

 

The old adage: "Nothing comes of nothing" and the saying: "All this couldn't have come from nothing" I actually find harder to accept than that it did come from 'nothing'. To me, it makes perfect sense to say, if there was nothing to cause the Universe, then were no laws of physics to say it couldn't. Unless 'nothing' can be factored in to physics, in which case it suddenly becomes a something... if only a zero point field. A pseudo-nothing.

 

Forgive me, but I find that very powerful. Much more powerful than any picture of God I could imagine. In my mind, he pops up looking like Slartybartfarst doing mad things for no apparent reason. Like something from Monty Python or Hitchhiker's Guide. And while we're talking about 'reasons' - why does there have to be a reason for anything? It's humans who apply reason, as part of our mechanism for understanding. Reason isn't a law of nature... is it? Consequence is; cause and effect; but it's only through reason that we are able to apply meaning to our existence. Just as without sight there is no light, only photons and energy emissions; and without ears there is no sound, only waves of vibration - without human reason, there is no meaning. There is nothing 'wonderful' without a mind to wonder.

(Edit:) Then, since we ARE here, along with all our faculties, then reason, sight, sound and wonder must be included in the laws of nature...?

 

Now I think I need to have a lie down...

Edited July 5, 2012 by Abecedarian

[rigney]

I can't possibly find fault with your philosophical reasoning, simply because I haven't the intellectual ability to refute it. i have no idea what lies out beyond this universe, other than my thoughts? The experiments at CERN being conducted, are they worth their weigh as to the theory of the Higgs boson? I think so. Questions are only a quest for answers for those who search. Otherwise it's, "Oh well, that's just the way it is". If we should ever get to that point, who the hell will care?

[ydoaPs]

To exist as science theorizes, it still demands a supreme entity of some sort to kick off the show.

 

Silly humans and their obsession with an edge on a four dimensional manifold. There was never is not and will never be a time at which the universe did not exist. It's not like there was nothing and then the universe. The universe always was and always will be; it is eternal.

 

Science will continue to theorize the Big Bang, black holes, galactic formations, evolution, and many other aspects of nature ‘til hell freezes over because of the physical nature of things.

 

No, it's because of evidence. The alternatives have been disproven and every test adds greater probability via Bayes's Theorem.

 

And why not believe there is an entity that we have yet to understand?

 

Because there's no reason to think such an entity exists. Positing said entity is just adding assumptions, and, given two explanations with equal explanitory power, one ought to usually choose the one with fewer assumptions.

 

I merely stated that for a universe to become viable, there had to be a reason behind its happening.

 

And you're wrong.

 

Surely either everything we can see, touch and feel is real or nothing is!

 

That would be a false dichotomy. Consider for a moment The Matrix.

 

If the universe came into being as science calculate

 

It didn't "come into being".

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY_Ry8J_jdw

 

The only sense in which the universe "began to exist" is that there was no time prior to time epsilon at which the universe existed.

 

[rigney]

Quote:I merely stated that for a universe to become viable, there had to be a reason behind its happening

ydoaPs: And you're wrong

.

ydoaps That would be a false dichotomy. Consider for a moment The Matrix.

rigney, on 5 July 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:If the universe came into being as science calculate

ydoaPs: it didn't "come into being".

 

Those are your opinions, as mine are. Only opinions, not facts.

Edited July 5, 2012 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

Nope, I stated facts. You are wrong.

[zapatos]

Nope, I stated facts. You are wrong.

Please explain how 'the universe is eternal' is a 'fact'.

[Abecedarian]

That would be a false dichotomy. Consider for a moment The Matrix.

 

It is a false dichotomy, I'm just slightly disappointed you used science fiction to support your argument. I believe it's a philosophical question as hard to answer as whether God exists. Even if everything we're experiencing is an illusion, it's a pretty substantial one. Until we're presented with enough evidence of inconsistencies that are consistent with a super-computer hypothesis, then wouldn't that question be essentially meaningless?

Edited July 6, 2012 by Abecedarian

[Joatmon]

.

 

 

 

 

Those are your opinions, as mine are. Only opinions, not facts.

I'm basically in agreement with you. How can it be otherwise? Some people are VERY spiritual and others are VERY logical in their natures. Until someone actually proves or disproves the existence of God both sides surely have to agree that there must be some element of uncertainty. These questions have been aired for thousands of years and we are not going to wrap up the question in our lifetimes (IMO).

[rigney]

Nope, I stated facts. You are wrong.

 

You state that as a fact ydoaPs, and you are wrong. To be vialbe, a thing must only be capable of doing something worthwhile, not neccessarily created. The singularity, as scientist theorize the BB to have sprang from; would not have likely been a very good place to bring up kids or grow crops. And the matrix? Silly putty.

 

It is a false dichotomy, I'm just slightly disappointed you used science fiction to support your argument. I believe it's a philosophical question as hard to answer as whether God exists. Even if everything we're experiencing is an illusion, it's a pretty substantial one. Until we're presented with enough evidence of inconsistencies that are consistent with a super-computer hypothesis, then wouldn't that question be essentially meaningless?

Could you tell me why you consider it to be a false dichotomy without using a super computer hypothesis to explain it? And you chastise ydoaPs for using science fiction? Edited July 6, 2012 by rigney