What created "existence"?

[Teg]

static76: But whose to say these laws are applicable to a plane of existence outside our universe. If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, how did it come to be in the first place?

That is an error in standard human logic. I can see how vocabulary like "end" and "beginning" can confuse you into thinking these concepts can be applied to reality.

Not really, one could say that God is an infinite being that started our plane of existence and our universe. Not saying it's true, however, the arguement can be made.

If I followed the logic from your previous statement: What created God?

Here is what the God theory sounds like to me: Everything must have a beginning, so a God must have created everything.

But then what created the God? Isn't that a part of the system? Why is the deity immune to this argument?

You mean, energy not matter. Remember annihilation, nuclear bombs, radioactive decay... Then again, matter synthesis from pure energy in accelerators...

You mean conversion. That is still conserving matter. Only in an alternate form. Matter and energy are the same anyways.

overdoze: Yeah, as static76 already noted, this applies to the known universe. But not necessarily to whatever generated it. If energy is arrangement of pieces on a chess board, something that creates the chessboard in the first place can define a new arrangement of pieces out of nowhere.

static's right, you cannot rule out an intelligent creator. Why anybody would want to postulate one in the first place, is the real question. Also of interest is how people arrive at such a nontrivial postulate in the first place. As a related curiosity, why this ultra-complex postulate seems the simplest to so many.

I never said I could rule out a creator. Remember that any theory of creation must explain the origin of the creator. I said, "Infinity is the only logical answer" for a reason. Either the Universe is infinite or an infinite number of creators exist. It all depends upon your grasp of reality.

"The known universe" is a copout. We can postulate any number of other universes where Christian Science is more apparent as the truth. When we talk, we talk by neccessity of matters pertaining to our universe, the only universe we can prove to exist.

Bebelina: Why do we have the ability to question our existance?

This is the great genetic accident of the higher brain. How many organisms can contemplate their cognizance? It is the side effect of adapting to harsh conditions through the use of problem solving. More importantly it is the drawback of success: doubt.

Yes, of course, but why are we designed that way? What is the particular function of questioning existance?

Many creatures have abilities and organs that seem to serve no purpose or worse hinder survival. We have the useless appendix.

This is not one of those cases though. Every drawback related to an overly abundant population is always a function of limiting that population. Disease, aggression, and apathy are all accompaniements to success. There is the inherent defficiency in treating every life as precious: sometimes it is better to let the diseased die. The more we correct the limits, the deeper we fall into the abyss of forgotten, extint masses.

Ekimklaw: It is clear to me that God created the heavens and the earth. If he did it in the form of a "Big Bang" then so be it. When I think of an "uncaused cause" I identify it as God.

Why? Cause is not apparnet to me. The Big Bang is looking more like just another blip in the infinite cycle.

 

[static76]

Originally posted by Teg

That is an error in standard human logic. I can see how vocabulary like "end" and "beginning" can confuse you into thinking these concepts can be applied to reality.

I not sure I see your point. I never said existence had a beginning or end. I was exploring whether the universe (which is seperate from existence) came to be.

You stated, "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". I explained that this law is known to apply to our universe as far as we know, but may not be applicable to other planes of existence. Your assumption was that our universe's laws apply to all of existence, while I think they may not.

If I followed the logic from your previous statement: What created God?

Here is what the God theory sounds like to me: Everything must have a beginning, so a God must have created everything.

But then what created the God? Isn't that a part of the system? Why is the deity immune to this argument?

As I stated before, a "God" or supreme being, could exist outside of our universe. The laws of our universe wouldn't neccesarily apply to him or any other plane of existence.

There is nothing I have seen in this universe, that can account for it's creation, and yes I think our "universe" was created, but not existence (which I expect has always been and always will be).

The problem with your logic, is that you assume that a God would have to yield to the laws of a universe he created, which he wouldn't.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Nice to meet you again Teg

If I followed the logic from your previous statement: What created God?

If God is eternal. That solves the problem

Here is what the God theory sounds like to me: Everything must have a beginning, so a God must have created everything.

To YOU

You mean conversion. That is still conserving matter. Only in an alternate form. Matter and energy are the same anyways.

I don't want to go through this again. According to quantum theory and general relativity, matter CAN BE DESTROYED.

Matter is a form of energy, meanwhile energy is *not* a form of matter.

I never said I could rule out a creator. Remember that any theory of creation must explain the origin of the creator. I said, "Infinity is the only logical answer" for a reason. Either the Universe is infinite or an infinite number of creators exist. It all depends upon your grasp of reality.

Or the universe is not infinite, but a creator that is eternal exists.

"The known universe" is a copout.

Why? What warrants such an excoriating statement?

any creatures have abilities and organs that seem to serve no purpose or worse hinder survival. We have the useless appendix.

Like what? List them. You do know that certain organs that we have thought to be useless in the last 100 years have been discovered to be useful?

Now, how much do we actually know? Hmmm...

The Big Bang is looking more like just another blip in the infinite cycle.

Infinite cycle? How is that possible? Say the life cycle of the earth, say that it is infinite...do you see the dilemma you are applying here?

The cycle of water, evaporating, condensation, etc. So...if that was infinite, how did the cycle FORM? Where is it derived from?

Thought-provoking

 

[Teg]

static76 : I never said existence had a beginning or end. I was exploring whether the universe (which is seperate from existence) came to be.

Your question said as much:

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, how did it come to be in the first place?

"Come to be" and "first place" are assumptions about a matrix that can only be seen as infinite. "Come to be" and "first place" have no meaning in the discussion of the universe.

As I stated before, a "God" or supreme being, could exist outside of our universe. The laws of our universe wouldn't neccesarily apply to him or any other plane of existence.

That is a big 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance sort of "if".

There is nothing I have seen in this universe, that can account for it's creation, and yes I think our "universe" was created, but not existence (which I expect has always been and always will be).

Based on what? More to the point there is nothing that I nor any have seen that would lead one to assume it was created. The act of creation runs counter to everything we know.

The problem with your logic, is that you assume that a God would have to yield to the laws of a universe he created, which he wouldn't.

I assume nothing. You assume a God. That is infinitely more pretentious. My question was this: Why is it okay for a God to have always existed and not okay for the universe to have always existed???

~The_Chosen~: If God is eternal. That solves the problem

This is what I'm talking about. Why assume a deity that is eternal and not a universe that is infinite? Have you ever come accross an eternal entity? No. Then what evidence do you have to assume that one exists?

To YOU

I haven't heard different. Noone has given me more than that.

I don't want to go through this again. According to quantum theory and general relativity, matter CAN BE DESTROYED.

Matter is a form of energy, meanwhile energy is *not* a form of matter.

Conversion, conversion, conversion. If you don't get it after that then I think you will have missed the bus. Matter is not destroyed. Matter is never destroyed. Matter is only a form of energy for the reason that everything is a form of energy.

Energy cannot be destroyed. Matter is a form of energy. You agreed to both and yet were unwilling to follow the next logical step of: Matter cannot be destroyed.

Or the universe is not infinite, but a creator that is eternal exists.

Occum's Razor.

Why? What warrants such an excoriating statement?

What do we know about the unknown universe? What grounds do we have to say it even exists? How should we proceed in describng something we only guess exists?

Like what? List them. You do know that certain organs that we have thought to be useless in the last 100 years have been discovered to be useful?

The appendix, like I said, is one. Hair is another superfluous device. Outmoded organisms abound, just look at the Panda. It has the digestive system of a dog and yet it has a diet of leaves. That is a fact of adaption: sometimes we cling to the wrong mutation. It is just an aspect of the gamble.

Infinite cycle? How is that possible? Say the life cycle of the earth, say that it is infinite...do you see the dilemma you are applying here?

The cycle of water, evaporating, condensation, etc. So...if that was infinite, how did the cycle FORM? Where is it derived from?

When did I say that the Earth cycle was infinite. The Earth is infinite, just not always in a form recognizable as Earth. I know your obdurate little mind will never be able to grasp this (as the last thread has proven) so I'm not going to continue this particular line of logic.

The second statement implies that infinity is finite. A cycle need not be so limited in form. I was talking about a more vague cycle of expansion and contraction. Pure osscillation really.

 

[static76]

Originally posted by Teg

"Come to be" and "first place" are assumptions about a matrix that can only be seen as infinite. "Come to be" and "first place" have no meaning in the discussion of the universe.

Why do you assume this? Why do you think the universe can only be seen as infinite? It is very possible, if not likely, that our universe "came to be" at some point. Once again, your confusing our infinite "existence", with the universe.

That is a big 0. 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000001% chance sort of "if".

Why? Our knowledge of the universe is minimal to say the least. Hell, our knowledge of our planet and our own species isn't concrete.

Why do you assume that our universe is the only one, or that no other plane of existence is possible.

You sound as arrogant as those who thought everything centered around the Earth in the past.

Based on what? More to the point there is nothing that I nor any have seen that would lead one to assume it was created. The act of creation runs counter to everything we know.

You say the act of creation runs against everyting we know, yet the most prominent theory used by scientists is the "Big Bang Theory". http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

"The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."

Hmmm..., NASA and mainstream science says the universe was created, yet you say everything we know conters it?

I assume nothing. You assume a God. That is infinitely more pretentious. My question was this: Why is it okay for a God to have always existed and not okay for the universe to have always existed???

Simply my friend, If God exists outside the plane of existence our universe is in, then he could easily create our universe or many universe we may have no knowledge of...

Our knowledge of science as humans is very minimal, why do you continuely assume our universe is the only one there could be. Is our planet the only one??? Is our Solar system the only one???

 

[Teg]

static76

Why do you assume this? Why do you think the universe can only be seen as infinite? It is very possible, if not likely, that our universe "came to be" at some point. Once again, your confusing our infinite "existence", with the universe.

A beginning neccessitates an end. Where is the end? It is actually impossible that our universe came to be. To believe that to be the case is to disregard everything we know about matter and energy. Space is infinite. Motion is infinite. Energy (and by extension matter) is infinite. The only thing that is finite is the quantity, not the existence. Life creates the misconception of starts and finishes. We assume too much about ourselves. We assume that we are greater than the components in us. In the end we are only a brief coallescence of matter and energy. That is what you are so affraid of. Our existence is not infinite.

Why? Our knowledge of the universe is minimal to say the least. Hell, our knowledge of our planet and our own species isn't concrete.

Why do you assume that our universe is the only one, or that no other plane of existence is possible.

You sound as arrogant as those who thought everything centered around the Earth in the past.

Show me another plane of existence and then we shall talk about this. Reason requires me to take the negative position on this matter.

The Geocentrically minded ignored a some very observable data that would easily lead to understanding. They created models of the universe that never worked mathematically. Our current models do not neccessitate other planes. I am willing to accept other possibilities. I never absolutely denied their existence. I only grant the opposite more validity. Ignorance is only the maintenance of a view despite alternate evidencethat is verifiable. Galileo and Copernicus provided this. Only the theists fought them. I am not a theist, and as such should not be lumped in with those nitwits. My argument against other universes/planes is simply your lack of evidence. The same goes for a deity.

You say the act of creation runs against everyting we know, yet the most prominent theory used by scientists is the "Big Bang Theory".

This is the result from an implosion or contraction. That is the popular theory amongst astronomers. No person in this field of any respectable ranking would state that the act of creation was probably the driving force behind the "Big Band Theory."

"The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."

This is a laymen's misunderstanding. "Created" should, for clarities sake, be edited in favor of "redefined into its new matrix." But then lay people often don't understand the implications of the word "create".

Simply my friend, If God exists outside the plane of existence our universe is in, then he could easily create our universe or many universe we may have no knowledge of...

You favor the idea that everything requires an act of creation. Would not your God need be created? Occum's Razor again.

Our knowledge of science as humans is very minimal, why do you continuely assume our universe is the only one there could be. Is our planet the only one??? Is our Solar system the only one???

Universe is defined as the total of what is. That is our language. I can see other solar systems, detect other planets, and define other galaxies. Do you have these cues for the existence of other universes. I am not the one making assumptions here. I only said the existence was highly unlikely and stated that the only possible basis would be a guess. Observation and data are the only reasonable ways to prove a thing. What you have now is conjecture. Conjecture of a God and conjecture of other universes. Show me proof and they will evolve to hypothesi.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Poor you Teg

Originally posted by Teg
Based on what? More to the point there is nothing that I nor any have seen that would lead one to assume it was created. The act of creation runs counter to everything we know.

Depends on your definition of "creation."

Conversion, conversion, conversion. If you don't get it after that then I think you will have missed the bus. Matter is not destroyed. Matter is never destroyed. Matter is only a form of energy for the reason that everything is a form of energy.

Matter is a simple identity of energy. Water is an identity of energy.

here is a simple identity process:

Chosen --> human body --> cells ---> water, carbons --> matter ---> energy

Anything after energy? I thought so.

Energy cannot be destroyed. Matter is a form of energy. You agreed to both and yet were unwilling to follow the next logical step of: Matter cannot be destroyed.

Let's tackle the terminology here, since you are so persistent in your little views:

destroy (dî-stroi´) verb
destroyed, destroying, destroys verb, transitive
1. To ruin completely; spoil: The ancient manuscripts were destroyed by fire.
2. To tear down or break up; demolish. See synonyms at ruin.
3. To do away with; put an end to: "In crowded populations, poverty destroys the possibility of cleanliness" (George Bernard Shaw).
4. To kill: destroy a rabid dog.
5. To subdue or defeat completely; crush: The rebel forces were destroyed in battle.
6. To render useless or ineffective: destroyed the testimony of the prosecution's chief witness.

Matter is gone!! Anti-matter and matter reaction, pure energy/light...where is the matter smart guy? It *is* converted, but in the conversion process, matter is destroyed, this form of energy no longer exists.

You have problems with seeing the logic. You are the contumacious fellow.

Occum's Razor.

And that Occum's Razor is based solely on human ignorance, on how much we don't know.

What do we know about the unknown universe? What grounds do we have to say it even exists? How should we proceed in describng something we only guess exists?

It's not a guess, it's theory. Talk with Stephen Hawking...it is no guess.

When did I say that the Earth cycle was infinite.

You didn't.

The Earth is infinite, just not always in a form recognizable as Earth.

First of all, you have an identifying problem. The "Earth" is an identification of a present form of energy, which is a planet. You cannot say this "formation of energy" is infinite. Do you understand? You cannot state an identity of a formation of energy is infinite.

I know your obdurate little mind will never be able to grasp this (as the last thread has proven) so I'm not going to continue this particular line of logic.

You are the one with the small, restricted, and close-minded brain.

You cannot grasp it poor fellow.

The second statement implies that infinity is finite. A cycle need not be so limited in form. I was talking about a more vague cycle of expansion and contraction. Pure osscillation really.

So are you stating that the "eternal state" of this infinite is a cycle of "pure osscillation of expansion and contraction"?

 

[Godless]

The question of existance.

The question of existence is one that never need to be answered, and can never be answered by anyone to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

In order to answer the question of existence one would have to explain it from a non-existence stance. Existence exists, and grasping that axiom is all that you need in order to understand and learn about our universe.

*The questions "Who creted existence" and "why of the universe" are ancient, mind-subverting gimmicks of positing invalid intellectualy untenable questions, that have no basis in reality. That false-question maneuver has been used by theologians and other mystics for centuries. The gimmick works by taking an invalid or meaningless idea and then cloaking the idea with specious but profound-sounding phraseology. That phraseology is then used as an "intelectual" prop to advance false, irrational concepts or doctrines. Consider, for example, the "who created existance" and the "why of the universe" questions so often used by poets and theologians to advance the god or higher power concept. On closer examination, one realizes that invalid questions such as "who made the universe" are meaningless and unprofound. For that type of infinite-regression question answers nothing and is anti-intellectual. Such question cannot or need not be answered once one realizes that existance exists.
On realizing that by nature existence simply exists, one then realizes that the "who created existance" and "why of the universe" questions cannot or need not be answered because no causal explanations are needed for existance or the universe.
Existance is axiomatic. It just exists; it always has and always will exist. Nothing created it and no causal explanation is needed or valid. For, what is the alternative? No alternative is possible or needed, unless one accepts the contradiction that existance does not exist!!.* Dr. Frank R. Wallace, (Neo-Tech Publishing)

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by static76
a) A higher power (or God) has always existed and created the universe.
b) The universe has always existed.

For point B, if the universe always existed...how did things "come to be."

Is there a derivable point of origin? Or is it an endless "infinite cycle" - do such "cycles" exist?

The formation of the universe is of deep question.

The universe could be inifinite in the sense that it is "conserved" to "preserve" existence in itself.

But how did such existence come to be, NOT in the sense of "what created existence" but how the perceptions of our known universe came to be, that is the question.

 

[Teg]

Godless

~The_Chosen~ is immune to logic. We tried this earlier.

It always goes like this:

Me: Infinity is the only reasonable model of existance.
~The_Chosen~: Yes but where did it begin?
Me: "Begin" has no meaning in infinity. Any point on a circle is arbitrary.

But now ~The_Chosen~ is serving up bait:

The universe could be inifinite in the sense that it is "conserved" to "preserve" existence in itself.

But how did such existence come to be, NOT in the sense of "what created existence" but how the perceptions of our known universe came to be, that is the question.

The perception has and always will reside in each individual organism. Need you track each and every being? We share for this reason. The common, verifiable observance is our yard stick for determination.

The problem with philosophy is that any position can be taken, put forth, and given validity. Without any burden of proof, any person can say anything. How would you who is right and who is wrong?

 

[~The_Chosen~]

You lack the logic to see my logic

Originally posted by Teg
~The_Chosen~ is immune to logic. We tried this earlier.

It always goes like this:

Me: Infinity is the only reasonable model of existance.
~The_Chosen~: Yes but where did it begin?
Me: "Begin" has no meaning in infinity. Any point on a circle is arbitrary.

Show me where I argued on the standpoint that "infinity must have a begin point." It's contradictory to state that, infinity by definition means without beginning or end. So don't twist by words, you do so with great ineptness.

BULLSHIT from you again Teg.

Can you show me or no? Will you hide again like the little sissy you are?

But now ~The_Chosen~ is serving up bait:

The perception has and always will reside in each individual organism. Need you track each and every being? We share for this reason. The common, verifiable observance is our yard stick for determination.

The problem with philosophy is that any position can be taken, put forth, and given validity. Without any burden of proof, any person can say anything. How would you who is right and who is wrong?

Sure energy is eternal. But from that point I argue about the derivable "shaping" of our known universe.

Figure out how a star formed, then figure out how what formed the star formed, and you can keep going.

I believe in an origin to that point. Not in the essence that energy itself has an origin.

You seriously need to re-evaluate your logic Teg, it's still pathetic.

 

[Teg]

~The_Chosen~

We went through this argument as well.

Stars, Universe, etc. are all easily explainable phenomena. These are the most natural states of matter due to the universal governing dynamics. Stars are predictable and similar in appearance and behavior except in which cases the composition would lead to a different set of patterns that also fall under observed phenomena that is also easily predicted. No deity, no beginning.

"Bullshit" and "sissy" are on par with your performance.

The matter that formed the star did not occur; it was already in existence. The beginning is only your lack of awareness of the entirety of the system.

To deny that we had this conversation before is not supported by this nor any other prolonged thread in which you have asserted a beginning.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Teg you are blind.

Originally posted by Teg
We went through this argument as well.

Yes we did and you still do NOT get my position.

Still pathetic.

Stars, Universe, etc. are all easily explainable phenomena.

Crap! Really?

These are the most natural states of matter due to the universal governing dynamics. Stars are predictable and similar in appearance and behavior except in which cases the composition would lead to a different set of patterns that also fall under observed phenomena that is also easily predicted. No deity, no beginning.

I'm arguing for the beginning of the formation of such matter.

Point 1: Matter always existed.

Point 2: The formation of this "eternal matter" could be finite.

Now, how HARD is it for your onerous pea-sized brain to not see that?

"Bullshit" and "sissy" are on par with your performance.

I have reasonable causes to say that. You have yet to prove where you mentioned an infinity and I asked you, "Yes but where did it begin?" pertaining to an infinity.

What the hell should I ask if infinity has a beginning?

The matter that formed the star did not occur; it was already in existence. The beginning is only your lack of awareness of the entirety of the system.

LOL, I guess you missed my entire argument then. How rueful.

Keyword here: formed

Surely the formation of that star was not already in existence, but the matter itself *is*

To deny that we had this conversation before is not supported by this nor any other prolonged thread in which you have asserted a beginning.

You missed the point entirely. Why don't you try to grasp it again?

 

[Godless]

Again... one more time

As mentioned before, the argument at present " who created the universe" or "why of the universe" Are gimmics, used by theologians, and mystics in order to promote thier agenda, the god concept.

If we are to go in the same lines of who created the universe, or the why of the universe, then logic begs us to ask "who created god?" and "why does a god need exist?

Theologians have not answered any questions, they've only posted another, if we are to use the same logic of "who created the universe". theologians say "god" so who or what created god?. infinite regression which is pointless.

Here is one, that makes sense to me, "Existance began the day I was born, I became aware of existance when the doctor slap my little buns and I awoke crying!!, existance will end the day I will die. For I will no longer exist here".

 

[static76]

Re: Again... one more time

Originally posted by Godless
As mentioned before, the argument at present " who created the universe" or "why of the universe" Are gimmics, used by theologians, and mystics in order to promote thier agenda, the god concept.

If we are to go in the same lines of who created the universe, or the why of the universe, then logic begs us to ask "who created god?" and "why does a god need exist?

Theologians have not answered any questions, they've only posted another, if we are to use the same logic of "who created the universe". theologians say "god" so who or what created god?. infinite regression which is pointless.

Here is one, that makes sense to me, "Existance began the day I was born, I became aware of existance when the doctor slap my little buns and I awoke crying!!, existance will end the day I will die. For I will no longer exist here".

The question isn't "who created the universe", but what created "existence". Obviously existence is more than likely infinite, however the question I posed is to explore how this is possible and the ramifications of this on the creation of our universe.

As I showed Teg earlier, "existence" is seperate from our universe. If "God" is infinite as theologians say, then creating our universe which I believe to be finite (see earlier posts for reasons), would be quite logical.

One last thought Godless..., perhaps you should remeber that the main goal of science is to seek answers, not to ASSume that you have have them all.

 

[Teg]

static76

The question isn't "who created the universe", but what created "existence". Obviously existence is more than likely infinite, however the question I posed is to explore how this is possible and the ramifications of this on the creation of our universe.

Existance is infinite. Now you have fallen in line with this one. But I think you still confuse what I mean by this. Existance encompass the mass/energy of the universe. The universe must also be infinite. It may change in form, but not in content.

As I showed Teg earlier, "existence" is seperate from our universe. If "God" is infinite as theologians say, then creating our universe which I believe to be finite (see earlier posts for reasons), would be quite logical.

That is quite illogical. Why would a God be infinite and the universe not? You postulate a God without the need.

One last thought Godless..., perhaps you should remeber that the main goal of science is to seek answers, not to ASSume that you have have them all.

We seek answers...through data. When a scientist says something it has a basis in observation. Who assumes we have all the answers? We can know enough to say something to a degree of certainty. In this way we know that matter and energy can never be destroyed, nor created. (Conversion does not count as either, ~The_Chosen~)

 

[static76]

Teg

Existance is infinite. Now you have fallen in line with this one. But I think you still confuse what I mean by this. Existance encompass the mass/energy of the universe. The universe must also be infinite. It may change in form, but not in content.

Fallen in line???? I have said throughout this thread that existence is likely infinite.

The problem I have with your arguement is that you think the laws of our universe encompasses ALL of existence.

Once again...According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.(Oh wait..., I guess that's just a "layman's" interpretation... )

Our universe is finite in it's formation, not infinte as you keep declaring. Re-read the previous posts for explaination, I don't feel like going over it again. The neccessary mass/energy of our universe could have been created by a "God", or come from a possible "God"...

That is quite illogical. Why would a God be infinite and the universe not? You postulate a God without the need.

Teg, Teg, Teg...

Why do you think the universe can only be seen as infinite? It is very possible, if not likely, that our universe "came to be" at some point. Once again, your confusing our infinite "existence", with the universe.

Many factors for the creation of our universe can be theorized, including the possibility of a "God".

We seek answers...through data. When a scientist says something it has a basis in observation. Who assumes we have all the answers? We can know enough to say something to a degree of certainty. In this way we know that matter and energy can never be destroyed, nor created. (Conversion does not count as either, ~The_Chosen~)

*earlier Static76 was overheard saying to Teg..*
I explained that this law is known to apply to our universe as far as we know, but may not be applicable to other planes of existence. Your assumption was that our universe's laws apply to all of existence, while I think they may not.

 

[fadingCaptain]

I think we are having this same argument in another thread...

I will try to get to the heart of the disagreement:

People like me and Teg see the universe as the entirety of its energy, regardless of its form. People like TheChosen and Static76 see the universe as this particular ongoing formation of energy.

For me, the 'big bang' is an adequate explaination of how this particular formation of energy 'came to be'. As for previous states, we can only postulate but I believe existance and energy is infinite. Yes, this leads to an endless cycle of energy transformations.

Therefore, I consider my idea of the universe to be infinite and always changing. The universe that The Chosen/Static76 speak of I consider finite and its cause is the big bang. See the difference?

In summary:
All energy in the universe - Infinite, no cause.
The current formation of energy - Caused by big bang.

There is no need to look further. It's all right there. If you wish to consider the big bang event 'God', then you have your maker.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Yep that's Teg

Originally posted by static76
Fallen in line???? I have said throughout this thread that existence is likely infinite.

The problem I have with your arguement is that you think the laws of our universe encompasses ALL of existence.

Yep yep. I would not say our "universe is infinite" - is it not more simply to state energy is infinite. Why create that loophole?

Once again...According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.(Oh wait..., I guess that's just a "layman's" interpretation... )

The problem is this, those that don't even consider the Big Bang have no explanation about the formation of the universe. Their "infinite" universe says formation is infinite, so why bother to try figure out how the starts, galaxies, etc. formed or "came to be"?

They need to see the limits of what they perceive.

Our universe is finite in it's formation, not infinte as you keep declaring. Re-read the previous posts for explaination, I don't feel like going over it again. The neccessary mass/energy of our universe could have been created by a "God", or come from a possible "God"...

That's TEG!!!!!

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
For me, the 'big bang' is an adequate explaination of how this particular formation of energy 'came to be'. As for previous states, we can only postulate but I believe existance and energy is infinite. Yes, this leads to an endless cycle of energy transformations.

"adequate" explanation? Who cares about the Big Bang if you consider formation to be infinite, an endless cycle.

This signifies NO SOLUTION. Are "endless" cycles even possible?

I'm glad you can grasp what I am trying to point out. Teg has problems though

 

[Godless]

Time...

Time had no beggining and will never ever have an end.

Time is infinite.

Existance, had no beggining and will never have an end.

Existance is infinite.

The only existance that you may be aware of is that one life you cling to, after you die, your existance will be no more, however others will exist, therefore no ending to existance.

Our universe of little that we know of still hold many secrets, of which we are yet to discover, and I ask you and really think about this " what difference does it make?"

How will it change your life, if we discover that no big-bang took place?, how will it change your life, if we have scientist prove that we are not spreading, but contrasting, and in millions of years will be nothing more than matter and energy again?.

Really to ponder all of this is just a waste of time!

Time is money, lol, time is very short in the skeems of things.

(I think therefore I am.)

I think that space & time have allways existed, and perhaps there have been other universes, other than this one, other big bangs, mass and energy contrasting, and spreading untill entropy runs out, then having the weakest force of the universe become the strongest "gravity" contrasting everything to an infinite point till it explodes again. However that's just one theory.

question 2: Which is the stronges force of the universe?.

Once you know that you will understand where I'm coming from.