#
YAYyummyYAYpeanutz
-
2011-06-24 04:41
YAYyummyYAYpeanutz
-
2011-06-24 04:41
It's all in the title, so let's get cracking
It's all in the title, so let's get cracking
Here's the thing: there are a couple of scientific 'rules' we should apply. First, that we are going to accept "cause and effect" as a rule, and in that order. Second, we accept that the hard work of science is not just made up, and that the majority of scientists will accept that they often miss things which are right in front of them.
OK, with that said, here goes.
Nothing doesn't exist, but Randomness does. We don't have to figure out where the first particle came from at this point, because science has shown us that the existence of particles is a statistical anomaly in the background of what is known as "spacetime". To try and figure out an equation where those particles come from empty space is the same as dividing by zero: it can't be done. Ergo, you must start with a universe that is not 'empty' before the big bang, but random.
Now, the questions become, "What makes things CONTINUE to exist after they pop up from randomness? Why don't they just disappear again?" For the most part, they do. However, some manage to pop up that have a self-sustaining pattern which, due possibly to velocity (traveling at light speed would theoretically stop time for them, so they would exist forever, subjectively).
Schroedinger wrote of Life as Anti-entropy, as someone else does in these comments. Life builds structure from the decay of other structures. Any species which continues to exist (or particle or planet) does so because it is useful to its own future. In the case of the mosquito, it is also useful to trout, harvesting our blood to feed the fish. That makes us useful to the trout and the mosquito. The key to sustainability is to be Net Useful: to be more useful to our future (and the future of our environment) than the resources we consume. Humans have so far (once we grew imaginations) managed to consume almost everything which we will need later (clean water, clean air, stable climate, soil for (nutritious!)food to grow. If there is to be any 'greater' meaning to our lives than to be useful to our children's future as contributing members of the universe, I don't know what it would be. In order to do so, we will either learn to give more than we take, or we will go extinct, just like the particles that don't move fast enough. "The opposite of consumption is not frugality. It is Generosity." - Raj Patel
God is a metaphor for generosity: He creates everything useful from nothing. We don't have to start with nothing, and we don't have to create everything. We just have to create more than we consume. Meaning is subservient to this universal process. Beliefs don't matter: actions do. "Do Be Do Be Do" - Frank Sinatra
Auntiegrav:
We already know that, on a quantum level, cause and effect are not necessarily following each other in this order, and that time itself is not a one-way straight line.
We can't say that "nothing" doesn't exist. The truth is that even if "nothing" exists, we can never observe nor measure it. So we will never know whether it exists or not.
You easily miss the point in the origin of the universe if you try to reduce the question to the birth of the first particle. You take space-time as an already existing something, but it's actually not like that. Space and time itself were created in the moment of the "creation" of the first particles. Space and time themselves came to existence as an effect of the particles themselves. So it's not that the universe was or wasn't empty; it didn't even exist before the big bang.
Particles that don't move fast enough do not cease to exist. They are just slower. Faster moving particles give the sensual experience of greater amount of heat. Slower particles give the sense of cold. When a particle stops moving, "its temperature" drops down to 0°Kelvin. This is called absolute zero, the coldest possible temperature in the universe.
If God exists, and he exists outside our space-time continuum, it's well possible that he simply created himself. In a continuum outside of a linearly experienced time-line everything you do affects your future and your past. Whatever you would do today would have existed ever before, and will exist ever after. Whatever you would destroy today would have never existed before, and will never exist after. This is hard to grasp because we're used to linearity in time, but it's theoretically possible.
We already know that, on a quantum level, cause and effect are not necessarily following each other in this order, and that time itself is not a one-way straight line.
We can't say that "nothing" doesn't exist. The truth is that even if "nothing" exists, we can never observe nor measure it. So we will never know whether it exists or not.
You easily miss the point in the origin of the universe if you try to reduce the question to the birth of the first particle. You take space-time as an already existing something, but it's actually not like that. Space and time itself were created in the moment of the "creation" of the first particles. Space and time themselves came to existence as an effect of the particles themselves. So it's not that the universe was or wasn't empty; it didn't even exist before the big bang.
Particles that don't move fast enough do not cease to exist. They are just slower. Faster moving particles give the sensual experience of greater amount of heat. Slower particles give the sense of cold. When a particle stops moving, "its temperature" drops down to 0°Kelvin. This is called absolute zero, the coldest possible temperature in the universe.
If God exists, and he exists outside our space-time continuum, it's well possible that he simply created himself. In a continuum outside of a linearly experienced time-line everything you do affects your future and your past. Whatever you would do today would have existed ever before, and will exist ever after. Whatever you would destroy today would have never existed before, and will never exist after. This is hard to grasp because we're used to linearity in time, but it's theoretically possible.
I would say that there is a beginning of the universe for various reasons including the notion that observation is in fact creation (in the Copenhagen interpretation) as seen through the analysis of the double slit experiment. So if we acknowledge that observation is creation and that there is a beginning to the physical universe and that a reaction needs a cause, then it is appropriate to assume that an observer created that universe by simply observing it. This means that the metaphysical or consciousness is the substance of the universe as opposed to physicality. So my conclusion is that consciousness is not bound by time or space because it creates such things and is therefore eternal or as previously stated not a reaction but the essence of everything. It is my belief that God is the first observer and perhaps the observer of observers. Thanks.
God is just plain old god. No offense. But god existed because he existed. People claim he is a entity, not a person. The bible claims he is an entity! So therefore, god was not made by anything else. He was just there. Amen.
White lamb...The answer that begs the question is an informal fallacy and therefore cannot be accepted as a logical argument.
And pathfinder... if 'GOD' created himself, did he do it in his own image?
And pathfinder... if 'GOD' created himself, did he do it in his own image?
And pathfinder... if 'GOD' created himself, did he do it in his own image?
Of course. Otherwise he'd look different :)
Great question btw :)
If God is truly a great being than he can create him self from thoughts and imagination. :)
