This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
What existed before the universe?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No, here's my idea.
There's God, and then there is the Universe. This makes up everything.
God created the universe, and the universe exists in cause and affect.
Thus, everything but God is cause and affect. Thus, God would be the exception to
the rule that everything (not just our universe) is operated on cause and affect
. But if God can break this rule, then why don't we question why the universe can't?
Because the statement that 'everything operates according to cause and effect' is self-contradictory. There is a reason why I said '
the universe
operates according to cause and effect.'
What? You still haven't answered my question.
I'm not saying that everything operates on cause and affect
, but that if one thing does not, then how can you say for sure there are not others?
See the two underlined parts. You're contradicting yourself.
...But what if God didn't create the universe?
Then how do you explain causality without a starting point?
Post by
Adamsm
No, here's my idea.
There's God, and then there is the Universe. This makes up everything.
God created the universe, and the universe exists in cause and affect.
Thus, everything but God is cause and affect. Thus, God would be the exception to the rule that everything (not just our universe) is operated on cause and affect. But if God can break this rule, then why don't we question why the universe can't?
But if God can break this rule, then why don't we question why the universe can't?
Because God created it so that it couldn't.
Apply what you're saying to humans (it's nowhere near comparable, but can be used in a relative sense). Just because I created a block of wood doesn't mean that it's going to have properties that apply to me. I have the abilities needed for locomotion but these abilities don't pass onto the block of wood because I didn't allow them to. If I gave that block of wood a set of wheels or legs, then it would have that ability but I did not.
God created our universe with specific boundaries and laws.
I don't know if that came out clearly, but hopefully I got the point across.
...But what if God didn't create the universe?
Your contradicting yourself again.... your idea, which Gore expanded on, already had God creating the universe.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MeanMachine
Oh and to the whole " before" issue. There was no "before" the universe. There is nothing "before" the advent of time.
Yet that in itself is an assumption. How do we judge the passing of time? By repeating events. How do we judge the direction of time? By the shifting entropy from order to chaos. Einstein explained the relativity of time. But what is time? We have no grasp of it and we only see the slice of time that we call present. From observation, we can summarize with enough certainty that it is a dimension. Yet did the beginning of our universe spawn time? If we can only comprehend it by the shifting of matter, how do we know what state it was in before there was any matter?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I actually take issue with both words, unbounded and infinite. They are both meaningless without context. Infinite in what? Existence? We call that eternal. Power? We call that omnipotence. Etc. It's just like you wouldn't call something Five. Five-fingered, yes; but not just Five.
And unbounded is kind of misleading as well? God is bounded by his nature. Just like any being is. But guess what his nature is? To be. His nature is to exist necessarily. So, to answer the silly question that is often asked: no, God could not choose to stop being God.
Oh and to the whole " before" issue. There was no "before" the universe. There is nothing "before" the advent of time.
Yet that in itself is an assumption. How do we judge the passing of time? By repeating events. How do we judge the direction of time? By the shifting entropy from order to chaos. Einstein explained the relativity of time. But what is time? We have no grasp of it and we only see the slice of time that we call present. From observation, we can summarize with enough certainty that it is a dimension. Yet did the beginning of our universe spawn time? If we can only comprehend it by the shifting of matter, how do we know what state it was in before there was any matter?
If there is
nothing
, there is no time. Entropy and chaos are part of this universe. No universe, no entropy. No entropy, no shifting. No shifting, no time.
Post by
MeanMachine
The words seem fairly interchangeable.
Btw, last time I checked, infinity didn't have limits.
They should be. For some reason, though, I've seen many perceive it as a boundary. To say that something is infinite would imply that it has no limit, yet it speaks nothing of its quantity. Therefore it shouldn't be used to quantify anything.
Post by
Orranis
...But what if God didn't create the universe?
Then how do you explain causality without a starting point?
Why must the starting point be God?'
So I'm going to reintroduce my idea, for the sake of not being accused of being contradictory.
Let's say that God is outside the universe, but God and the universe together make up everything in existence.
If the universe is cause and affect based, then everything in existence but God is cause and affect based.
So if not everything needs to be based on cause and affect, how do we know that the universe is based on cause and affect?
But if the universe is not based on cause and affect, then it does not need a creator, thus removing the need for God in the first place.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
...But what if God didn't create the universe?
Then how do you explain causality without a starting point?
Why must the starting point be God?'
God is that name by which we refer to the first-cause. So your question really makes no sense.
...then everything in the universe but God is cause and affect based.
God isn't in the universe, so why is there a "but"?
Post by
Orranis
The words seem fairly interchangeable.
Btw, last time I checked, infinity didn't have limits.
They should be. For some reason, though, I've seen many perceive it as a boundary. To say that something is infinite would imply that it has no limit, yet it speaks nothing of its quantity. Therefore it shouldn't be used to quantify anything.
It's quantity is ever increasing, never stopping.
No, it's quantity is infinite. It's immeasurable, increasing implies that it's set but it's value grows over time, while infinite does not require the passage of time.
Post by
Orranis
...But what if God didn't create the universe?
Then how do you explain causality without a starting point?
Why must the starting point be God?'
God is that name by which we refer to the first-cause. So your question really makes no sense.
...then everything in the universe but God is cause and affect based.
God isn't in the universe, so why is there a "but"?
Oops, mistyped. I meant to say 'in existence.' Sorry about that.
Post by
Adamsm
The words seem fairly interchangeable.
Btw, last time I checked, infinity didn't have limits.
They should be. For some reason, though, I've seen many perceive it as a boundary. To say that something is infinite would imply that it has no limit, yet it speaks nothing of its quantity. Therefore it shouldn't be used to quantify anything.
It's quantity is ever increasing, never stopping.
Haven't they been hypothesizing that eventually the Universe is going to end up as a Big Crunch far into the future? That it will only expand so far, then start to contract?(Of course, I haven't heard anything new on this for a while, so I could be out of the loop.)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I gotta go, he's all yours Gore :P
Just gonna say: Orranis, why are you so adamant about making God and the universe the only things in existence?
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MeanMachine
If there is
nothing
, there is no time. Entropy and chaos are part of this universe. No universe, no entropy. No entropy, no shifting. No shifting, no time.
Yet my point is that without shifting, there would be no
perception
of time. Time is meaningless to us without any way to observe it, yet does that render it out of existence? If it is an observable quantity, yes. If it's a dimension that you can traverse back and forth, no. I would not venture a guess which is the true one. When God deposited all the energy needed into the universe, was that not an event of shifting?
Of course, if time is bound by the creation of the universe, the above argument is moot. So, no matter existed. No dimensions existed. God was there, though. Does his existence not leave a mark in that nothingness, though? The act of creation certainly does. And if we can't use entropy, points in a coordinate system, or whatever other measuring tools we have, does that imply that God is imperceivable, or simply that we lack the means and understanding?
Post by
Orranis
Ah but God could have created the big bang.
There is nothing in science which conflicts with God
God, or a god?
God, in the sense of Elohim, Yaweh, Adonoy, or whatnot, is very unscientific.
The possibility of a sentient creator could possibly not conflict with science, but it seems rather unscientific to put a rule on something, then assuming without evidence that there is something breaking that rule, then not question whether the original object (the universe in this case) was subject to the rule at all.
I fail to see how any of the major religions view on god is unscientific while a sentient creator who made the entire universe is?
Because Religions tend to 'myths,' such as miracle creating demigods and God who is the son of God, Frost Giants, Eden, state that all life was created in the same week, etc.
Just gonna say: Orranis, why are you so adamant about making God and the universe the only things in existence?
I'm not, but it wouldn't change my point. I was just using that in my model for simplicities sake.
Post by
Adamsm
Haven't they been hypothesizing that eventually the Universe is going to end up as a Big Crunch far into the future? That it will only expand so far, then start to contract?(Of course, I haven't heard anything new on this for a while, so I could be out of the loop.)
I heard that it's a never-ending cycle and haven't heard anything opposing this view from a scientific standpoint, so as far as I know, you're correct.
Heh right, I know it's a circle, that supposedly our own Big Bang was just the result of the last Crunch starting the reverse again. So for all we know, we're on anywhere from the second to second million time the crunch/expansion has happened.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.