Beliefs About What Caused the Universe (page 10)

prologos

Terry: "--The 1st contains absolutely NOTHING at all. Never and always nothing.--" sounds almost like the mathematical "de Sitter Universe"

Anders Andersen

Pulling a cosmic rabbit out of a non-existing hat is pure magic.

Whoever can do this has a regular show in Vegas for eternity :-D

Terry

What is a Universe but a set or category inclusive of "ALL"?

(ALL of something vs. ALL of nothing.)

Perry tells us that God exists OUTSIDE of the universe and the spacetime continuum.
If a Universe is ALL there is, how can anybody or anything exist outside

Interesting that in German, , the Universe is actually called "das ALL", the word you used. The argument is however not only about the Universe, the ALL now, but the conditions prior to its existence. The ALL had clearly a different form before the beginning of space and matter, that we experience as we move through time. If you read the works of Krauss, Penrose, you will discover they do not define the void, the "nothing" before our concrete universe as truly empty. By extension, the condition "outside" our expanding universe might not be truly empty, an absolute void either. We might not be the only universe in the cosmos either, get used to the idea.It is within the realm of currentthought that what we consider "all" is within a greater cosmos. Perry's idea is a simple one by comparison,- just us and a creator, he/she, having used some of his energy and time to cook up our world?

Island Man

A. Imagining things coming into existence without a cause
B. Imagining a first cause existing beyond our cause and effect (space/time) universe

It is actually more plausible to consider that the universe in some state, always existed. The expansion of space does not necessarily point to an origin of the existence of the universe. It only proves that the universe in its current state is expanding. It is possible that the singularity from which the universe expanded is eternal. Maybe the universe oscillates between expanding and contracting back to its singularity only to expand again.

It is far more plausible that the eternal source of the universe is a very natural and very simple entity than the complex, super-intelligent being that you are putting forward. So saying that there must be an eternally pre-existing first cause does not naturally and logically lead to the idea that that first cause is a complex, super-intelligent person. A very simple non-intelligent, non-conscious, inanimate entity is far more plausible. Have you heard of Occam's Razor?

Island Man

Doesn't imply a Causer? What kind of a beginning doesn't have a cause?

Perry, the only beginnings you have experience with are beginnings within time and space. You have no experience with beginnings outside of time and space. So I'm not sure that it's logical to assume that beginnings outside of time and space require a cause the same as beginnings within time and space.

prologos

I M: "--not naturally and logically lead to the idea that that first cause is a complex, super-intelligent person. A very simple non-intelligent, non-conscious, inanimate entity is far more plausible. Have you heard of Occam's Razor?

Yes we have, and the desire for simple answers is not only for the mentally lazy, but, is it not true that ongoing research shows that nature is ever more complex at the macro and micro level? so: there might be very simple beauty in the creation process, but it must have many deep-rooted complexities, and yes, the creator might not have an overly complex psychiatrist's -goldmine-personality.

Flag Dislike Like

Perry

Perry, the only beginnings you have experience with are beginnings within time and space. You have no experience with beginnings outside of time and space. So I'm not sure that it's logical to assume that beginnings outside of time and space require a cause the same as beginnings within time and space.

Island Man,

I am not suggesting that the Cause of the universe had a beginning of any kind. It would by necessity, be an uncaused Cause. Why? Just connect the dots.

We can clearly ascertain that the universe had a beginning. Everything in our universe had a cause. The cause of the universe must be uncaused, otherwise its own cause would preceed it, placing it back in the space time universe which is impossible, if it caused it in the first place. See what I mean? Pretty simple logic.

Some of the folks here are just having a hard time imagining an existence of any kind without time. I suspect because it is a direct negation of Materialism which has been adopted by some who leave the watchtower. The human mind abhors a vacuum.

This argument (not to mention the science behind it) demonstrates the failure of Materialism to explain our existence.

Cornbread

So now complete your argument about how "the universe had a cause" 14 billion years ago equals jealous voyeur sky father of the Hebrews.

Marvin Shilmer

What Caused the Universe to exist?

Something beyond our comprehension.

In the grand scheme of things humans are less than guttural bacteria inside the intestinal tract of an entity. We try and deduce/imagine what caused our "universe" (dark intestinal matter!) without realizing we are but a speck in time the result of someone/thing sipping wine versus corn, or something else.

Perry

I don't believe the billions of years characterization of the universe. 17 times God says that he manipulated space and time to "stretch" out the heavens.

This action is consistent with someone with the power and intelligence to create space and time in the first place.

If the master inventor of space and time says he did it in 6 days; I believe him.

I do find it interesting that only since Einstein have we been thinking of space and time as a woven fabric, with waves, ripples and indentations. The bible likened it to a fabric back in the "bronze age":

Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain - Ps. 104:2

Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

Share this