Infinity and god - why wait to create the universe?

by Simon 108 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  FlyingHighNow

  I'd rather have someone be trying to figure out what the answer are than the answer be "it's a mystery and STOP ASKING QUESTIONS!"

  Trying to figure out the answers is a good thing. Asking questions, what is life if we stop asking questions? I just know that there are many things we don't have the answers for now. We can wonder about the answers to those questions. People can try to answer the questions. Before I was a JW, I had this burning passion to know the truth about our existence. I wanted to know all the answers. Someone came along and said, "Hey, we can answer your questions. Read this little blue book." I've accepted that man doesn't know all of the answers. I've come to be content with the fact that even among scientists, there are still many, many mysteries about our existence. It doesn't mean I don't read and wonder. I am reading a book I chanced across at the local library called: The After Death Experience: The Physics of the Non-Physical by Ian Wilson. I have no idea what I will think of the book.
• 

  Ultimate Axiom

  If the universe is infinite, with an infinite number of galaxies, starts, planets etc, then the consequences don’t bear thinking about. Since there are a finite number of fundamental particles that can be arrange in a finite number of ways, then it follows that objects repeat themselves in an infinite universe. So there is another planet exactly like this one out there somewhere, and there is another you, with all your thoughts, life, history, doing everything you do, everything identical. Not only that, there are in infinite number of them. Which means an infinite number of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Oh man, I’m going back to bed.
• 

  Seraphim23

  If the universe is infinite you don’t have to panic with an unlimited amount of JWs because quantum laws would not allow the people to be the same people repeated time after time. Monozygotic twins are genetically identical but are still different people with different consciousness’s. I like the star trek transporter thought experiment to illustrate this. Imagine beaming up from somewhere into the transporter room on the enterprise but an accident occurs. Two of you get materialised which means one is a copy. Only one can be the real you but which one? One could say both are now you but that would mean both would always have to be linked, so that what one knew the other did also like some turbo psychic using quantum entanglement. If not then there must be something different about the two standing on the transporter pad but if it is not body or genetics and so on, it must be something to do with the quantum world that is different, meaning no two quantum events can be separate and the same. Of course it also implies that consciousness has a unique quantum signature which would mean no two people can have the same consciousness. On top of that it also means that consciousness cannot be reduced to a mere process because if that is all it was it could be replicated meaning that both standing on the transporter pad would be you yet not connected, an impossible situation.

  Sorry not had my coffee yet this morning.
• 

  Oubliette

  Simon: I'd rather have someone be trying to figure out what the answer are than the answer be "it's a mystery and STOP ASKING QUESTIONS!"

  Agreed, but that's not what you said and not what I responded to. You said, " Here is where science rocks - you may not like the answer but at least it has one. "

  Science does NOT always have the answers.

  Simon: Science is always being refined and corrected where necessary.

  That's the theory.

  Simon: Religion seems to always be about vagueness and not being pinned down (except for the loony young-earth creationists who don't care how crazy they appear).

  Actually, that was one of the things that always really bothered me about JWs, the need to have an answer for everything!
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “An actual "infinity" before the universe started may not be applicable at all.”

  OnTheWayOut,

  I’ll have to take a look at the book you cite.

  From a philosophical perspective it occurs to me that infinity would be a logical depiction of “before time,” which would mean anything existing “before time” has existed since infinity. Yet this perspective would not suggest the thing existing "before time" had no beginning.

  Intriguing thought, that.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  prologos

  When we say TIME we really mean

  MOVING through time. time is a misnomer because

  we dont say DISTANCE when we mean

  MOVING into the distance, do we? so:

  Time, eternal Time is not MOVING, just like distance is not moving.

  WE are ever MOVING through time, ever since the beginning big bang.
• 

  QC

  Yes, since blackholes exist, and the quantum and relativity worlds do too. Then, a sense of the framing of reality is obvious and proceeding correctly.

  We simply don't have robust mathematics YET to explain it.

  Monstrous infinity fits this circumatance. It tells us something outside of the physics, time and space is the answer to how all this began.

  A subtle way to say there is a GOD GOD GOD , and it's a very BIG DEAL!
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  When we say TIME we really mean

  Sorry, you don't get to tell people what they mean because you say a bunch of wrong and made up stuff.

  Monstrous infinity fits this circumatance

  No it doesn't. Because the current answer is "we don't know", that is no way means that "this other thing fits". Of course, you also claimed that scientists knew what happened before the big bang and believe in ID. Science is definitely NOT your strong point.
• 

  prologos

  E P , sorry, Idid not want to imply bt using "We say TIME" that I can Define theit mental image of TIME. but somehow there is

  the sommon perception that

  time FLOWS by us,

  time MOVES but we are stionary, very similar to the pre-copernican "center earth, non - moving Earth theory."

  It could just be that we are not that importanf and that it is

  TIME that stands still and like th earth,

  We are moving. and

  I am not telling people to move, I just point out a possibility.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  I am not telling people to move, I just point out a possibility.

  What possibility is that? Why is is a possibility? Why does what you call a possibility contradict all known observation and experimentation? How is your possibility falsifiable? Testable? Observable?