How do you explain a ordered universe without a Creator?

[emilynghiem]

I also think there are infinite universes out there in the unseeable universe.

Well aside from being an absolute contradiction of terms.... you have no actual science to support this theory... it is a purely faith-based belief... one you seem to hold religiously.

Dear Boss We all realize, don't we, at some point all of what we conjecture about the universe is faith-based.
Because by its nature the universe and process or existence of creation EXCEEDS our finite perceptions and language.
We can reach "agreement" on how to represent this universe and its laws, but we cannot prove it any more
than we can prove the theory of gravity or prove what we dreamed last night. We can agree on what we mean and how to represent it
so we can communicate, and know we are talking about the same phenomena.

Thanks to you and BreezeWood for at least trying to explain the systems you use to
express relationships and laws in the world. Yes, these can be contradictory,
so you are right to try to correct conflicts. But a lot of these models are
limited and imperfect representations, as with anything, the Bible, or rounding numbers
and using estimates in math for convenience (instead of spelling out all the digits of pi to be exact).

If we can't agree on a system, let's stick to where we do agree and use that language.
Or else we can argue forever if two people use different symbolism and both are faith-based to some degree.
Thanks for an interesting discussion (even where it goes clear over my head, some of it)!

 

[there4eyeM]

It could be agreed that we don't know....
...what it means that before the beginning there was nothing (no thing).
...that cause has anything to do with what started the universe.
...what goes on in the mind of another.
...how to use our limited language to talk about these unknowns.

 

[emilynghiem]

It could be agreed that we don't know....
...what it means that before the beginning there was nothing (no thing).
...that cause has anything to do with what started the universe.
...what goes on in the mind of another.
...how to use our limited language to talk about these unknowns.

Yes there4eyeM that's why we share what we can figure out and express in words.
And try to map out where we can and do agree. With each person it will be different, depending
on their experiences, so yes, it's relative to each person and unique to each relationship between people, too.

 

[Boss]

Dear Boss We all realize, don't we, at some point all of what we conjecture about the universe is faith-based.
Because by its nature the universe and process or existence of creation EXCEEDS our finite perceptions and language.
We can reach "agreement" on how to represent this universe and its laws, but we cannot prove it any more
than we can prove the theory of gravity or prove what we dreamed last night. We can agree on what we mean and how to represent it
so we can communicate, and know we are talking about the same phenomena.

Well, going back to a point I made on the last page... even our perception of objective reality is faith-based. We assume that what we are perceiving as "present time" is actually what is happening. We don't "know" this because we are unable to observe the instant of present. Physics must occur, then we have a perception from that. Everything we perceive as "the present" has already happened. We have faith that our perception of the present is accurate.

As for your last point... We obviously have trouble agreeing on what we mean and how to represent it, as evidenced by these lengthy threads that seem to repeat the same arguments over and over again. If there is anything we can all agree on it's that opinions are like assholes, we all have one and they're all different.

 

[Dr Grump]

Who created God..

Never fails.

Why do non-believers constantly and consistently raise this rhetorical ignorant question and think they are being clever and smug? Is it because your mind simply can't wrap itself around the concept of something spiritual existing? When us mortal human beings use the word "created" ...which, btw, we created.... It generally means to bring into physical existence in an objective reality. BUT... By it's very nature... pardon the pun... Spiritual Nature is not physical or doesn't have physical existence in objective physical reality.

So what the hell do you mean by "create" when applied to a spiritual entity? How would you go about creating something spiritual? Better yet, how could you prove it or evaluate the evidence for it? You see.... we have a major breakdown of communication here because your brain can't comprehend spiritual existence. For you, the ONLY kind of existence is physical.

This is important because it is the root of why you are a disbeliever.

Since you can only comprehend physical existence, when people say that "God exists" you find no physical evidence of a God existing and conclude that it's ridiculous. I wholeheartedly agree... it is ridiculous to believe in an invisible physical being floating around everywhere all at the same time. Especially if the being is adorned with all sorts of humanistic attributes... love, hate, jealousy, anger, needs... those are human physical attributes that I don't think apply to spiritual omnipotent entities. Obviously, a lot of religious people disagree with me on that. But whatever.

The point is.... there is a Spiritual Nature just like there is a Physical Nature... they are both Natural. Neither are Supernatural. They are the Yin/Yang. Our objective reality is tied to the Physical and our souls and spirit are tied to the Spiritual. Most of our thoughts, emotions and principles are guided by our spirit and our spiritual connection. But you are trapped in your mind because you can only imagine the Physical.

Finally... Physics proves Spiritual Nature's existence. I know that comes as a real shocker but pay attention... According to laws of physics, there is not an explanation for how physical nature created itself. It is a paradoxical contradiction. Physical nature exists and therefore, something caused it to exist. It cannot cause itself to exist.... nothing physical can. Energy and Matter cannot be created, and yet... Energy and Matter WERE created. They HAD to have been because they exist in Physical Nature.

In other words you have nothing.

 

[zaangalewa]

Bet you never watched the Cosmos. And if you did, you didn't understand what you were watching. But feel free to continue calling me ignorant. I think it is funny because your little brain can't wrap your mind around what I'm telling you. You remind me of people who thought the universe all revolved around us because we were clearly in a fixed position and everything else was revolving around us. Must have all been made for us.

But continue to tell me how smart you are and then tell me how you believe in invisible gods that talk to you in the next breath.

You're wrong again. In fact, I watched both the Sagan version and the deGrasseTyson version. Feel free to insult away. I'm content to let others decide which of us is the bigger fucking moron.

I don't care what others decide. Do you?

What others decided and will decide is and will be your destiny. So: If your thoughts come back to you one day 'from the stars' - what will happen with you if you are confrontated with your own mensuration?

In fact, who the fuck are you? What do you believe? I don't even know who the hell I'm talking to. But I'm glad to have you join the conversation. Are you a christian? Do you believe in God? Do you think god is a fact?

Didn't our little argument start because I referred to the Cosmos when I was referring to the infinite universe beyond our seeable universe? Why did that bother you so bad? What is your problem? Are you angry we don't believe in your god? Please catch me up. I need to know what level of retard I'm dealing with.

Funny. Americans are funny. What a bad luck to be a German without any form of humor.

 

[Boss]

Who created God..

Never fails.

Why do non-believers constantly and consistently raise this rhetorical ignorant question and think they are being clever and smug? Is it because your mind simply can't wrap itself around the concept of something spiritual existing? When us mortal human beings use the word "created" ...which, btw, we created.... It generally means to bring into physical existence in an objective reality. BUT... By it's very nature... pardon the pun... Spiritual Nature is not physical or doesn't have physical existence in objective physical reality.

So what the hell do you mean by "create" when applied to a spiritual entity? How would you go about creating something spiritual? Better yet, how could you prove it or evaluate the evidence for it? You see.... we have a major breakdown of communication here because your brain can't comprehend spiritual existence. For you, the ONLY kind of existence is physical.

This is important because it is the root of why you are a disbeliever.

Since you can only comprehend physical existence, when people say that "God exists" you find no physical evidence of a God existing and conclude that it's ridiculous. I wholeheartedly agree... it is ridiculous to believe in an invisible physical being floating around everywhere all at the same time. Especially if the being is adorned with all sorts of humanistic attributes... love, hate, jealousy, anger, needs... those are human physical attributes that I don't think apply to spiritual omnipotent entities. Obviously, a lot of religious people disagree with me on that. But whatever.

The point is.... there is a Spiritual Nature just like there is a Physical Nature... they are both Natural. Neither are Supernatural. They are the Yin/Yang. Our objective reality is tied to the Physical and our souls and spirit are tied to the Spiritual. Most of our thoughts, emotions and principles are guided by our spirit and our spiritual connection. But you are trapped in your mind because you can only imagine the Physical.

Finally... Physics proves Spiritual Nature's existence. I know that comes as a real shocker but pay attention... According to laws of physics, there is not an explanation for how physical nature created itself. It is a paradoxical contradiction. Physical nature exists and therefore, something caused it to exist. It cannot cause itself to exist.... nothing physical can. Energy and Matter cannot be created, and yet... Energy and Matter WERE created. They HAD to have been because they exist in Physical Nature.

In other words you have nothing.

In other words you have nothing.

Yes.. in "other words" nothing... in my words, much more than nothing.... something.

Glad I could help!

 

[zaangalewa]

But don't worry because 5 universes are born every second in the infinite cosmos

Uh, dude, the "cosmos" is our Universe. I think you meant to say "5 galaxies are born every second" although I don't know where you pulled that number from.

Definition of COSMOS
the cosmos : the universe especially when it is understood as an ordered system

And actually, you are correct. The cosmos usually refers to what we see. I'm sorry. From now on I'll call what I'm talking about the unobservable universe.

Everything is understandable in this universe here. There's nothing what we are not able to find out if we use all of our capacities. "Observation" for example is an activity. If we take a look at very little things then the energy of our observations are changing something in the reality because we are ourselve also a part of the physical reality. So not everything is independent from our observations - what's a problem.

The "outside the universe" question gets tricky right off the bat, because first you have to define the universe.

Define? ... You are not able to define what you don't know. ... We are inside of the universe. The universe has no border. So it has no outside because we are not able to step over a border. That's what we know now in the moment. If you like to have another result then you have to find the holy gral who tells you where or what the border is. We are not our own holy gral. The question is: "What's outside of time and space"?

One common answer is called the observable universe, and it's defined by the speed of light.

No. The speed of light is not important as far as I understood this problem. We see a part of the universe and another part is behind the horizon. What we expect physically from the land behind the horizon is the same what we see all around.

Since we can only see things when the light they emit or reflect reaches us, we can never see farther than the farthest distance light can travel in the time the universe has existed.

Not really. The universe is about 13.8 billion years old but ( source: Grösse und Masse des Universums ) has an observable size of about 3 Gigaparsec (10 billion lightyears). The man who made this calculation thinks 30 Gigaparsec could be a good estimate for the size of the complete universe - but he says also it could be thousand times more - depending on different ways how to calculate and to see the problems as others did. If you should be irritated that 30 Gigaparsec are about 100 billion lightyears what gives a radius of 50 billion lightyears instead of 13.8 billion years (the age of the universe) then this seems to be an effect of the expansion of the universe. The oldest galaxy we are able to see is about 13.2 billion years old. The name of this Methusalix is UDFj-39546284.

That means the observable universe keeps getting bigger, but it is finite – the amount is sometimes referred to as the Hubble Volume, after the telescope that has given us our most distant views of the universe. We'll never be able to see beyond that boundary, so for all intents and purposes, it's the only universe we'll ever interact with.


Beyond the Hubble Volume. We know with some certainty that there's "more universe" out there beyond that boundary, though. Astronomers think space might be infinite, with "stuff"http://io9.gizmodo.com/5799335/five-weird-theories-of-what-lies-outside-the-universe

We are by the way a Methusalix on our own. Our galaxy seems to be 13.6 billion years old. ... Or 8.8 billion years. ... Depends how to ... no no - it depends not how we define it. Reality becomes not real only because we think something about. It is how god made it. It must be true what we think and we have to search for the truth. That's our "spirituality" in science as well as in religion. The [pseudo-]discussion "religion vs science" or "science vs religion" is an excluding discussion in an included reality.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Boss We all realize, don't we, at some point all of what we conjecture about the universe is faith-based.
Because by its nature the universe and process or existence of creation EXCEEDS our finite perceptions and language.
We can reach "agreement" on how to represent this universe and its laws, but we cannot prove it any more
than we can prove the theory of gravity or prove what we dreamed last night. We can agree on what we mean and how to represent it
so we can communicate, and know we are talking about the same phenomena.

Well, going back to a point I made on the last page... even our perception of objective reality is faith-based. We assume that what we are perceiving as "present time" is actually what is happening. We don't "know" this because we are unable to observe the instant of present. Physics must occur, then we have a perception from that. Everything we perceive as "the present" has already happened. We have faith that our perception of the present is accurate.

As for your last point... We obviously have trouble agreeing on what we mean and how to represent it, as evidenced by these lengthy threads that seem to repeat the same arguments over and over again. If there is anything we can all agree on it's that opinions are like assholes, we all have one and they're all different.

Dear Boss The difference is whether we compare people's opinions to
assholes or belly buttons, which we all have also. ;-)

 

[sealybobo]

Dear Boss We all realize, don't we, at some point all of what we conjecture about the universe is faith-based.
Because by its nature the universe and process or existence of creation EXCEEDS our finite perceptions and language.
We can reach "agreement" on how to represent this universe and its laws, but we cannot prove it any more
than we can prove the theory of gravity or prove what we dreamed last night. We can agree on what we mean and how to represent it
so we can communicate, and know we are talking about the same phenomena.

Well, going back to a point I made on the last page... even our perception of objective reality is faith-based. We assume that what we are perceiving as "present time" is actually what is happening. We don't "know" this because we are unable to observe the instant of present. Physics must occur, then we have a perception from that. Everything we perceive as "the present" has already happened. We have faith that our perception of the present is accurate.

As for your last point... We obviously have trouble agreeing on what we mean and how to represent it, as evidenced by these lengthy threads that seem to repeat the same arguments over and over again. If there is anything we can all agree on it's that opinions are like assholes, we all have one and they're all different.

Dear Boss The difference is whether we compare people's opinions to
assholes or belly buttons, which we all have also. ;-)

A god would have told him to say belly button. He claims to talk to god so maybe it's actually the devil that he's talking to. Just as long as we all agree saying my opinion stinks like a butt wasn't very godly, huh? LOL.

 

[there4eyeM]

Dear Boss We all realize, don't we, at some point all of what we conjecture about the universe is faith-based.
Because by its nature the universe and process or existence of creation EXCEEDS our finite perceptions and language.
We can reach "agreement" on how to represent this universe and its laws, but we cannot prove it any more
than we can prove the theory of gravity or prove what we dreamed last night. We can agree on what we mean and how to represent it
so we can communicate, and know we are talking about the same phenomena.

Well, going back to a point I made on the last page... even our perception of objective reality is faith-based. We assume that what we are perceiving as "present time" is actually what is happening. We don't "know" this because we are unable to observe the instant of present. Physics must occur, then we have a perception from that. Everything we perceive as "the present" has already happened. We have faith that our perception of the present is accurate.

As for your last point... We obviously have trouble agreeing on what we mean and how to represent it, as evidenced by these lengthy threads that seem to repeat the same arguments over and over again. If there is anything we can all agree on it's that opinions are like assholes, we all have one and they're all different.

Dear Boss The difference is whether we compare people's opinions to
assholes or belly buttons, which we all have also. ;-)

A god would have told him to say belly button. He claims to talk to god so maybe it's actually the devil that he's talking to. Just as long as we all agree saying my opinion stinks like a butt wasn't very godly, huh? LOL.

You can take solace in knowing it's only his faith that makes it so.

 

[Boss]

A god would have told him to say belly button.

I just love the way your stupid little ass presumes to know what a god would do.

Silly boob... you are such a silly little boob sometimes.

 

[Wuwei]

Why do people have this discussion anyway. If you want to say a god created this universe, fine. Be done with it. It sheds nothing of importance about the physics of the universe.

If you are really in awe of the universe, don't go to church. Get a degree in physics. I think a study of the physics of the universe is the ultimate "liturgy" if you want to call it that.

If the assumption "god exists" is supposed to mean you should pray to this creator thingy, that is totally unfounded.

God the universe-creator has no relation to God the micromanager of your life.

 

[Boss]

Why do people have this discussion anyway. If you want to say a god created this universe, fine. Be done with it. It sheds nothing of importance about the physics of the universe.

If you are really in awe of the universe, don't go to church. Get a degree in physics. I think a study of the physics of the universe is the ultimate "liturgy" if you want to call it that.

If the assumption "god exists" is supposed to mean you should pray to this creator thingy, that is totally unfounded.

God the universe-creator has no relation to God the micromanager of your life.

I think it is totally ridiculous to presume that if you are "religious" you can't possibly practice Science and if you are "scientific" you can't possibly be Religious. I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

I have never understood the "God Did It!" complaint because the proclaiming that God did something is not answering the question of how... which is what Science does. If you believe in God, of course God did it... goes without saying... HOW did God do it? That's the question.

I think you also make a valid point that an "Intelligent Designer" does not necessitate a Deity God. It is possible for Intelligent Design to be completely Atheistic. Just because something intelligent designed us doesn't mean we are obligated to worship or acknowledge it in some way... or that whatever it is would expect us to.

However, having said all that... I find there is a definite guiding force leading humanity away from darkness into the light... away from evil toward good. We are cognitively hard-wired to be aware of that as a species and always have been. It's the secret of our success, as it were.

 

[there4eyeM]

Why do people have this discussion anyway. If you want to say a god created this universe, fine. Be done with it. It sheds nothing of importance about the physics of the universe.

If you are really in awe of the universe, don't go to church. Get a degree in physics. I think a study of the physics of the universe is the ultimate "liturgy" if you want to call it that.

If the assumption "god exists" is supposed to mean you should pray to this creator thingy, that is totally unfounded.

God the universe-creator has no relation to God the micromanager of your life.

One could say that it is a non-issue issue.

 

[zaangalewa]

Why do people have this discussion anyway. If you want to say a god created this universe, fine. Be done with it. It sheds nothing of importance about the physics of the universe.

If you are really in awe of the universe, don't go to church. Get a degree in physics.

Could you explain me please why someone should not go to church and get instead of this a degree in physics? Do you think Christians should not be allowed to study on universities at all, because to believe in god is an indicator for a lack of intelligence - or whatelse is the reason why Jews, Christians and Muslims should not be allowed to study physics?

I think a study of the physics of the universe is the ultimate "liturgy" if you want to call it that.

If the assumption "god exists" is supposed to mean you should pray to this creator thingy, that is totally unfounded.

God the universe-creator has no relation to God the micromanager of your life.

I would say: Your belief in atheism is strong, not-dear not-son of not-god. I fear the english speaking world - and unfortunatelly we made the english language to a new lingua franka in science - confused the philosophical concept "agnosticism" in such a perverted way so a new form of atheistic gnosis including a new state religion atheism was born out of this.

 

[Wuwei]

I think it is totally ridiculous to presume that if you are "religious" you can't possibly practice Science and if you are "scientific" you can't possibly be Religious. I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

I agree. Not mutually exclusive. However I think not mutually necessary.

I have never understood the "God Did It!" complaint because the proclaiming that God did something is not answering the question of how... which is what Science does. If you believe in God, of course God did it... goes without saying... HOW did God do it? That's the question.

As There4eyeM said, it's a non-issue.

However, having said all that... I find there is a definite guiding force leading humanity away from darkness into the light... away from evil toward good. We are cognitively hard-wired to be aware of that as a species and always have been. It's the secret of our success, as it were.

I should hope so, but we still have the animal instincts in us that most humans cannot shake: to be loyal to our clan and fight anyone that encroaches on our territory, and above anything else, fight to survive. A guiding force into the light takes a back seat even if you are deeply religious.
.

 

[Wuwei]

Could you explain me please why someone should not go to church and get instead of this a degree in physics? Do you think Christians should not be allowed to study on universities at all, because to believe in god is an indicator for a lack of intelligence - or whatelse is the reason why Jews, Christians and Muslims should not be allowed to study physics?

I didn't mean to imply that. Not everyone can put in the time to understand the deepest aspects of the physical world. It's not easy.

If you want to look at the creation of the universe in both a religious and scientific sense, it's like walking into an art gallery where the artist, Rembrandt is present. Some people will worship the artist and ignore his art. Some will ignore the artist and study his work.

I'm just blowing off steam because I think the current balance is wrong. Many religious leaders are anti-evolution and think the earth is 10000 years old and are trying to push that in schools. It seems a large percent of our population are anti-science.

 

[Boss]

I should hope so, but we still have the animal instincts in us that most humans cannot shake: to be loyal to our clan and fight anyone that encroaches on our territory, and above anything else, fight to survive. A guiding force into the light takes a back seat even if you are deeply religious.

I said it's a guiding force... not necessarily a controlling force.

 

[Wuwei]

I should hope so, but we still have the animal instincts in us that most humans cannot shake: to be loyal to our clan and fight anyone that encroaches on our territory, and above anything else, fight to survive. A guiding force into the light takes a back seat even if you are deeply religious.

I said it's a guiding force... not necessarily a controlling force.

Yes, I understand. I'm saying the guiding force is not working all that well in the real world.