JESUS CHRIST!! what a wall o'text!!Follow

No, I think you initially misunderstood me. What you're saying now is a correct characterization-- there is one universe that operates in the way you just described. It's not multiverse theory. It is more akin to thinking of the two universes (or any number of "universes") as separate galaxies-- distanced by space, but existing on the same plane of spacetime. Time remains relative within each system, but in a more absolute sense is anchored by other systems. i.e., our known universe exists in the same space time but with its own temporal relativity as a system; but could be compared and or experimentally treated as a control to a separate system. It's more a postulation of scale and hierarchy, I guess you could say, that supposes that what we conceive of as the universe is not necessarily a depiction of the highest class or scale of phenomenon.

i.e., different, let's say "densities" of spacetime within a single plane of spacetime, rather than a single and seemingly uniform spacetime. A much more chaotic depiction of spacetime than convention believes.

I'm totally receptive to criticism of the idea, though. I'm well aware that there's no observation that necessarily supports the notion, but I think it's a more logical conception, and given that our observations are extremely limited in scope I'm not generally bothered by the lack of observation.

The only thing truly infinite is that which created the finite.
Otherwise you do realize that you are saying that the finite is infinite.. which doesn't make any send. We can get closer to the infinite than we are now but our existence in time/space dictates that we are finite, does it not?



Are you kidding me? How does something that must exist in space in time or a time in space not have a beginning? What just because you can't remember the formula for it you are just going ignore that fact that it is you who are now twisting this; as you know what I mean in the concepts of time/space in relation to being finite, you rave on about how your magic laws of heat/energy transfer state that energy is finite and yet in the statements before you speak about concepts of infinity as if they were tangible variables into your equation.
Your so called "basic facts" hold no weight to even the mathematical anomalies in the most basic of quantum mechanical systems.

You seem like you've read a physics book or two.. you never realized that all we can do is observe what is happening and that there is nothing even solid enough to tell us why it happens.. All we can do is record it, and then people like you prefer to worship the recordings rather than the Truth.



Your beliefs don't really come any closer to explaining why or how anything exists at all any more than mine.
Even by so and so;s Law the simplest explanation IS that we were created by a Sentient Infinite System rather than... well physics really has nothing tangible do they? The big bang does not cut it.. and the notion that we are a series of infinite branes slapping together just goes overboard because once infinity comes out in your equation you have gone beyond the scope of what is trying to be measured. (YES INfinity meaning Outside of Space/Time.. such as the origins of the dimensions of the crashing branes/planes)




If you would curse him for being a **** then what you SHOULD do is try to understand that any notion of God that is not God being all fair and righteous is flawed and that your view in flesh is always going to be flawed. It you are only picking a part of the picture to look at and compare it only to the parts that you choose to compare it to then you either are having too much fun playing games with your own existence for the sake of your pride or else very confused. God has one purpose for us and we achieve that purpose from believing in the Resurrection. You reject it because you want it to conform to your puny standards.. all or nothing; right?


Are you really so thick? Should I type this slow?
The INFINITE is where everything comes from.... the FINITE is what came from the INFINITE... There is a Limit to that which is Finite..
From that FINITE limit to the INFINITE limit there are things in between.. like Stuff..like universes and dimensions and consciousnesses.. not to mention nooks and crannies...
Are you really so hostile to anything that threatens your viewpoint to argue this?

Okay, that's what I misunderstood--I thought we were considering multiverse theory. I suppose what I'm taking issue then is your definition of universe. It seems to me that you are just considering them to be really, really, REALLY big galaxies.

But ignoring the phrasing issues, I still don't see how it would work, particularly with reference to spacetime's formation. Because it's a key element of Big Bang theory and the formation of the universe. To suppose that it wasn't created in the Big Bang is to completely dismantle our theories of the Universe's creation (which are quite probably, mathematically, assuming we are correct about the existence of Dark Matter).

So then I thought, "Well, maybe the Big Bangs happened apart and spread into each other, linking different systems of spacetime." But then I remembered that, for them to be apart in the first place, they'd need to exist within a greater spectrum of spacetime, so we face the same issue.

It might be rectifiable--I dunno. I'm just not quite sure how it's possible to explain both the formation of spacetime as well as the formation of universes.

[EDIT]

@ Omega, it isn't even minutes after the big bang. We're talking fractions of seconds, lol.

Edited, May 13th 2011 9:57am by idiggory

A poem:

God's laughter is math
an infinity that defines universal laws

and time is a product of
small minds trapped in three dimensions

nothing is not
it never was

*

This convo is interesting, I would actually like to be a useful contributor, but I am at work and need to write some newsletter bits.

I would have to say my beliefs seem to be a mix of Kelv's, Diggory's and Kachi's. Each of you brings up points I can agree with but each of you has aspects to your beliefs I don't agree with.

I agree on some level with Kelv about the existence of spirit and purpose in the universe, though I disagree with the largely christian lens they are putting on it.

I agree with Diggory about a lot the logical/scientific arguments he is putting forward and such but disagree with his views on God (especially the whole "God is a ****" thing, because it is a refutation of a very specific conceptualization of god which I vehemently disagree with - ie. God as a personality who is responsible for shaking the earth and wiping people out etc).

I need to see more about where Kachi is going with his views on infinite regression and the unity of spacetime, but I get the sense he is trying to express something which I would be inclined to agree with

Yeah, I clearly perceive the idea of god (and "evil" for that matter) differently than you do.

I wouldn't necessarily ascribe benevolence to god either, but that is because I don't conceive of god as having a personality.

I am more inclined to see god as a force of nature. Like an earthquake. I don't think earthquakes or the planet is evil because people die and suffer etc.

crap happens. Malevolence requires intent, as does benevolence. I don't see god as having an intent - or at least not one that extends to our personal lives.

I would only ascribe benevolence to god insofar as existence is a gift, therefore the power that is responsible for existence is benevolent insofar as we have received this gift.

To put it in human terms, if you uncle gives you a bicycle for your birthday because you want it - that is pretty benevolent.

If you take that bicycle and go riding and get hit by a car and are horribly maimed - that doesn't change the benevolence of the original gift. Bad stuff happens, but it is not necessarily evil.

As for evil itself - evil is only possible with intent. A person torturing someone is evil. A tsunami is not. Evil does exist, but only because we choose to express it. A world without evil is possible, but we don't choose to create that world (or from my limited vision of the totality of existence and the universe, we haven't yet)

I am sort of a determinist myself - but that is because I believe in a unified, unchanging universe where motion is an illusion of consciousness. AKA everything that has ever happened or will happen is existent in this moment, but we are only capable of seeing as an unfolding as opposed to as a totality-in-the-moment.

Does your conception of God include consciousness?



1. It would be a different story if your uncle KNEW you were going to get hit by a car.

2. I disagree completely. Evil cannot be fully linked to intent, or else you end up with a massive moral problem. Consider these examples:

-A child brings a gun to school and kills another child, without understanding what guns are, what they do, or understanding death.

This, to me, is evil. The child is blameless as far as I'm concerned--the evil doesn't have a focus. But it's evil, nonetheless. Note that I'm using evil as a noun here, not an adjective. That's important. The act isn't evil, the child isn't evil, but evil exists in this scenario. There is needless suffering of innocent people.

-A fawn is running from a forest fire, but ends up suffering from serious burns. It slowly dies an extremely painful death, alone. It is unable to comprehend death, but it feels great fear.

This also seems to be a scenario that contains evil. That fawn could have died quickly and relatively painlessly, but instead had to suffer and die slowly.

-A doctor attempts to cure a patient's illness and must choose between two drugs to do so. He picks the one more likely to cure the disease, but the patient suffers an allergic reaction and dies.

3. Assuming you do believe in a conception of god that includes consciousness, the fact remains that he chose to let these events happen. Even if he is not trying to maliciously hurt us, it doesn't change the fact that he didn't bother trying to stop them either. We blame those who do the same thing (for instance, not saving a child that is drowning in a nearby fountain). It doesn't matter that you didn't intend for these things to happen, or that you weren't acting maliciously--you still chose to ignore the moral course of action.

And remember that god, as a creator, could have made the world such as these things never happened.

If a god like the one you are describing exists, then I will take pleasure in not worshiping him. He doesn't deserve it.

[EDIT]

Also, I'm really confused by your conception of god. Are you just equating him to... the universe? I really don't get it.

Edited, May 13th 2011 4:25pm by idiggory

This thread is evil.

Don't worry, I take issue with the definition of universe, too :P The problem is that when we talk about the universe, there is always the assumption that everything we consider the universe is all that there is. e.g., this universe is thought to be a flat one, but maybe there are similar systems of galaxies out there that aren't flat at all. There is so much about our own universe that is imperceptible to us it's at least fallacious to assume that what we think of as the universe is truly everything there is.

As for the logistics, I understand how this is a challenging concept to integrate into the contemporary understanding of spacetime and Big Bang theories of physics, and unfortunately I may not be able to articulate a good case for it (and it's certainly possible that there's not a good case TO make). Obviously the first possibility is that our understanding of the relationship between the Big Bang and spacetime is fundamentally flawed-- that spacetime exists separate from the energies involved in the Big Bang. My personal suspicion is, as I alluded to earlier, spacetime always exists, but in different densities. During a Big Crunch, spacetime is spread extremely thin around the crunch, perhaps even existing in pockets (via something more reminiscent of multiverse theory, perhaps).

A lot of this is conjecture around the idea that the fatality of the universe is some type of Big Rip, which last I checked is generally considered the more plausible scenario. But I may be mis-weighing evidence to suit the hypothesis; I don't know.

You have stated that infinity has an opposite. I assume you would simply say that the opposite of infinity is NON-infinity. I would not expect you to think that finite can really be the opposite in this context as finite is being used to describe the created time/space existence and everything in it rather than as you describe later "a relation regarding how far you travel along each axis of the universe"
Anyway; this is why I also majored in Philosophy and also why I hated it and learned to hate all philosophy. I don't mean hate it on an intellectual level; on an intellectual level there is nothing I love more... but on a spiritual level philosophy is nothing more than a bunch of people digging holes to nowhere.. sometimes people share holes and keep on digging.. but they go nowhere.. ever..
It's fun to read about what people think and it's even fun to do it.. go figure.. But there always comes a point where you realize you will never fully know the full truth as you are and that you may be stuck as you are until you die; never knowing that thing that you were trying to figure out but couldn't even figure out what it was that you were trying to figure out. After this you either keep banging your head against the wall and pretending like it doesn't matter because we ARE just matter.. or take the leap of faith. (I'm sure you've studied the existentialists)



I agree that God would be the infinite aspect but the time/space universe is a step(or 11?) removed from God because it has mass and it takes time for that mass to go through space as either matter or energy in whatever pattern that it DOES; it's still In space/time and hence still not infinite as a unit and as such it is separate from God but ONLY in the most elementary way.. as yes God's omnipotence etc has complete control over all of the mass and space in time... and as YOU say WE are subordinate to this and then you say that because of this it is all meaningless except to experience the beauty of existence and smile and just wait til the end and here we are and there we go..
My suggestion that that most of the universe IS as you say.. including our minds and bodies.. these things are Finite in their space/time form.. still with me? However, that which makes us different from animals, vegetables, and minerals is really just our ability to judge what is Positive and what is Negative..( positive and negative to what? ) Well who cares.. I'm sure you would not argue against one of the most elemental phenomena put into play; positive and negative.. and even if we tried to stretch and skew it over to the particle physics side or meta-physical psycho ranting I actually think that it all still applies.
I expect you also preach that we are the same as animals and unique in no way.



I'm sure you're not too interested in why I believe what I believe and simply just go with "He's a just ****** who can't think for himself".
You say you mourned the loss of God once; I don't surely know what that means and obviously I'm not going to pretend that I can ever talk anyone into believing in God.. but I have found that most of the disbelief comes from a standard of preconceived notions coupled with various emotional blockages... People have an idea of how things should be.. of what a God should or should not do based on their own limited perspectives and take the great plunge of materialism.

I argued AGAINST Abrahamic religions actually all organized religion most of my life; and MUCH of it on this forum. I did however argue for the existence of a sentient range of entities that existed in all of the various dimensions of energies that existed and that our thoughts were intertwined with it..etc etc So I guess you would say I was already crazy anyway..
I would never have believed in a MANmade writing or give any credence at all to something that I didn't experience with my own consciousness.. But even now I still don't... No that is why I said that IF, that's an IF that which created us actually wanted to communicate it to us for a purpose then HOW would this happen? 1) Program it into us.. which would make us cease to be "us" or 2) Put it into something external that would be preserved all throughout known history.
I realized that if I could believe that a God created the heavens and earth then I could really believe that He could sustain a story through time.
I guess I'm digressing.. But told me a year and a half ago I would be praising Jesus.. I'd have laughed in your face..



I think I added "why" just to **** you off.. but the How is the more substantial. You see particles doing a certain thing and have no idea how it's actually happening.. BUT you slap a label on it and throw it in a textbook and science becomes something more akin to legalism.. Just look at the Fundamental Forces... all they are are descriptions nothing more... You may say "well what the @#%^ else are they supposed to be?" but one thing they are not going to ever be are giving up the mystery of how they exist..
Gluons? really? LOL
Don't get me wrong; I do not doubt physics as much as it may seem..after all we did make atomic bomb.. a proud moment indeed; but science is by its very nature cannot answer the ultimate questions.. by its very nature science must always ask questions.. so the concept of God-Creator in a scientific viewpoint is never going to work. If God is the Sentient Prime Mover of Time/Space then God would be the ultimate answer.. but science is not a tool for ultimate answers is it? We can keep building it up higher and higher to see farther and farther away but we can never get there that way.



I also understand that he kind of infinite you are talking about is an anomaly in a mathematical calculation and not referring to something with no beginning or no end.



Of course I'm getting at a soul.. sure I get that you can't accept it because it's one of those things you can't have proven to you.
Body is obvious, Mind is your conscious thoughts within standard time/space, Soul is everything else as close to the infinite as possible that is still You as an entity, beyond This Particular Space/Time.



Actually..

-The Suffering is the nature of who we are
-To prevent us from suffering would remove who we are an negate the purpose
-If this weren't happening then we wouldn't exist.. so if you don't want to exist.. well, sorry
-IN THE CONTEXT of people being created with the plan in mind of those people dwelling amidst a perfected universe

People are being given the way to this AS Themselves (separate from God) and yet separate from their old time/space-as-we-know-it(fleshly) nature which is wholly evil. Evil doesn't mean you rape puppies.. evil means turned away from the Light of Creation that desires you to turn to it of you own volition.
The things that are happening on this world are the result of our existence; it is the nature of our existence.
We dwell in entropy.
But you said you think you had God and then lost it and then tried to find beauty. My suggestion would have been to look at all of the beauty of the universe and find God there and don't get upset because you can't visualize an abstract.


I'm actually kind of shocked you're even responding to me at this point; but I am not professing any "religion". I hate religions, and if I were trying to shove what I am trying to discuss down anyones throats I would be spamming it and lamely trying to quote scriptures to people who don't believe them.. I know this subject has been thrown here time and time again; but now that I feel that I know what I know I would be a fool to not present it here. Here is a place where I know people like you will speak their mind to the utmost degree and here we are. For years I have respected the viewpoints and debate dynamics here; so if you're whining because my making someone look stupid is troubling to you then you must be new here.

And I WROTE the fuckin' arguments you are presenting ;P


Edited, May 14th 2011 8:44pm by Kelvyquayo

Idiggory & Kachi, re: Time

You guys should watch Wonders of the Universe. A BBC edudoccumentary(I think I made that word up) by Professor Brain Cox.

Here's a few videos discussing the relationship between time and entropy: Arrow of time & Thermodynamics.

When you understand what time actually is, you will see why the question "What happened before the 'Big Bang'" is nonsensical.

It took them 359 to admit Galileo was right, so I wouldn't hold my breath about them agreeing to any modern science.

Sorry for butting into this discussion here :D



I wouldn't necessarily ascribe benevolence to god either, but that is because I don't conceive of god as having a personality.
question: if you and I and even my cat have a personality then why wouldn't god have one? Personality, a lot like personification I suppose can be pretty relative. You might disagree that the way I decorate my house has personality.. But if you mean sentience.. and sentience pretty much seem to be the highest state that a substance can have.. than what do you think about god having a personality or just being a series of accidents?


crap happens. Malevolence requires intent, as does benevolence. I don't see god as having an intent - or at least not one that extends to our personal lives.

It seems that the intent of god in matters of the universe would be beyond us; In looking at all of that harm that happens in the world.. If this world did not have such horrible things in it.. then the eternal harmony that awaits those who Love God could never exist. Of course this sounds awful like doom and gloom to you perhaps.. but then ask yourself why a person would not Love God.. As I've said.. evil is not a thing that is done to people by other people or even by God to people.. evil is a state which exist separate from God but it is not the opposite of God.

I would only ascribe benevolence to god insofar as existence is a gift, therefore the power that is responsible for existence is benevolent insofar as we have received this gift.
This is very true. Of course then one may wonder if that which gave you this great gift is simply finished with you or has somehow put His relationship with you on hold while you are living on earth. Enlightenment is different than salvation; neither is required for the other.

If you take that bicycle and go riding and get hit by a car and are horribly maimed - that doesn't change the benevolence of the original gift. Bad stuff happens, but it is not necessarily evil.

The conflict that which idiggory has pointed out is that if God gave you this gift but already knew that you were going to die from it (because God knows everything) then it is essentially wrong to let that happen.. I guess I would shift it to:
He give you a bicycle and tells you not to go play in the street.. he says you can play anywhere but play in the street... but you can't help BUT to play in the street every time... but you HAD to be able to make a choice so that when the time came to actually choose the gift-giver over death FOREVER you had to understand the choice that you were making... this is of course on a macrocosmic scale I'm talking LOL

I am sort of a determinist myself - but that is because I believe in a unified, unchanging universe where motion is an illusion of consciousness. AKA everything that has ever happened or will happen is existent in this moment, but we are only capable of seeing as an unfolding as opposed to as a totality-in-the-moment.

I would have totally agreed with you (maybe) a short time ago..
I would simply add to this that the only thing truly unchanging is God. and God makes the finite universe change to help us finite creatures that he created to reach closer to the infinite place where God is. That all any of this is and all any of this has ever been and ever will be.

obviously nothing can be compared to God.. but there is also usually a problem with:
- God is still to blame for the death because He set the rules in place, created and road and created the situation
- If God was truly loving He still should would not allow the accident to occur
- God designed us to make the choice that we would make to reject Him so God is to blame for our sin

The crux is the fact that we were made separate from God (hence evil) is the very thing that gives us our will to reject God for time/space.. but without that state of being we would not be capable of attaining the potential for which we were created and still be free sentient agents.. we would be instead like God's sock-puppets.