yep
Well-Known Member
Interesting "doublethink" that the universe does not need a source or cause of its own being but God (the source of his own being) does?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Brief History of the Universe
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
Interesting "doublethink" that the universe does not need a source or cause of its own being but God (the source of his own being) does?
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,720
It's not doublethink in the slightest.Interesting "doublethink" that the universe does not need a source or cause of its own being but God (the source of his own being) does?
Particles pop into existence all the time
yep
Well-Known Member
I know about the particles so why do you ask the above?Unless you can explain who created your God thingy.
I was just saying the fact of the day is sometimes subject to change i.e Pluto, Earth being flat, Earth being the center of the universe etc. If everybody was satisfied with what the scientist's of their era stated as fact or scientific hypothesis then we would never of progressed.
True but not really a fair assumption. You're comparing times where the scientific method was barely used to modern day where we have millions of people all around the world collecting and collating data. The Big Bang model will definitely be improved upon as time progresses but it's never going to be abandoned now, it can't, there's far, far, far too much corroborating evidence and it has made far too many predictions which have exactly matched observations. Science in this area is quite obviously not done but the "true" answer whatever that means will look very similar to the Big Bang model.
I see it like this what are the odds of a single atom exploding and creating this universe 13.8 billion years ago, can you imagine how many catastrophes that must of happened in our favor for our own little solar system to exist, not only that but for our planet to orbit the sun at just the right distance to have liquid water.
Well a single atom didn't explode and create this Universe so I imagine the chances of that are extremely low. And in terms of the "Earth is special" argument it's a complete truism. Mammalian based life can only occur on the conditions that our planet has, so then suggesting that the conditions that our planet has is made for us is backwards.
Add to that the evolution of life and then the extinction of life (Dinosaurs) that gave us the chance to evolve in to human beings, then fast forward 13.8 billion years to the present where we in this forum are discussing the beginning of the universe. Are we no more than just energy created after the explosion being consciously aware of itself and witnessing its own being and journey from the outside looking in ? Born out of chaos and chance.
All the evidence points to this, though I'm not super happy with the idea of "energy created". And at the end of the day that's all we have. If we want to believe things that comfort us, make us feel special or give us easy answers then I'd suggest that most religions need to rethink their plan. But, and I appreciate that this isn't everybody on the planet, if people are not happy with this and are curious and ruthless in their approach in attainment of knowledge about reality than you ignore what you want to happen and instead go where the evidence takes you.
Then you have the possibility of a great architect/creator who made everything happen for a reason where everything comes down to design rather than chance ? I also wonder what the odds of this are.
The same odds as the Universe being created by a Unicorn, Minotaur or Long John Silver. A creator figure is a hark back to myth and legend which is why it infests the minds of some. Our entire civilization is based on a pyramid power structure and it's how we have grown as cultures, the idea that there is nobody at the top of the pyramid in the Universe is frightening to some and incomprehensible to others and if you really sit and read many posts then this seems to be the issue. People cannot accept the strange duality of the being the top of the pyramid yet still universally inconsequential due to scale.
I know about the particles so why do you ask the above?
Are you suggesting that God is actually not a creator being but instead is an expression of an excitation in quantum foam of the collapse of a wave function? Because I can get behind that idea.
yep
Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting that God is actually not a creator being but instead is an expression of an excitation in quantum foam of the collapse of a wave function? Because I can get behind that idea.
I was just wondering why SWP believes that some things can be the source of their own being , unlike you and me, thanks Mam and Dad, but does not ,in theory, think that God could have this attribute. Purely wanting consistentency.
On a theolgical note, the Old testament God describes himself as "I am" - no developing or changing but complete. As to what God is, do an experiment and ask him. As it is an experiment in dialogue, please report on the answer!
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,720
Because a creator would, by its very definition, be the most complex thing imaginable.I was just wondering why SWP believes that some things can be the source of their own being , unlike you and me, thanks Mam and Dad, but does not ,in theory, think that God could have this attribute. Purely wanting consistentency.
On a theolgical note, the Old testament God describes himself as "I am" - no developing or changing but complete. As to what God is, do an experiment and ask him. As it is an experiment in dialogue, please report on the answer!
I was just wondering why SWP believes that some things can be the source of their own being , unlike you and me, thanks Mam and Dad, but does not ,in theory, think that God could have this attribute. Purely wanting consistentency.
But consistency of opinion doesn't apply here because the subjects are different things.
On a theolgical note, the Old testament God describes himself as "I am" - no developing or changing but complete. As to what God is, do an experiment and ask him. As it is an experiment in dialogue, please report on the answer!
Ok, I setup a scientific experiment to determine the existence of God by "asking him" and it turns out that he doesn't exist.
yep
Well-Known Member
An experiment is not over till its over. Too short for an outcome, surely?Ok, I setup a scientific experiment to determine the existence of God by "asking him" and it turns out that he doesn't exist.