What Brahma Kumaris don’t want you to know..

Perry, your posts always ruffle feathers. Just so you know, I do respect your views as much as anyone else's. I'm not here to delve into the creator/non-creator discussion. Just wanted to state that the universe is expanding, and it is no small discovery. I really enjoyed a recent episode of NOVA that documented the two teams of scientists who discovered this fact and won the Nobel. I think it's the episode about Hubble for those curious. The great thing about science is that there is always more to discover.

MAS*H

@Perry. Just out of interest how have you jumped to the god conclusion when considering the so called 'first cause'? Could the 'first cause' be materialistic? The big bang could just be part of an perfectly natural process?

prologos

Perry: "-- there is no such thing as before and after, just the eternal now.--" Well, the now might be moving along eternally, but by itself it is not eternal, just the opposite it has zero length. and if the movement of the now stops, like at the speed of light or with a black hole, time has not gone poof: " I am gone", it is alive and well in the surroundings, the observers. and the universe is not only expanding, it had an inflationary period, and is still accelerating with an excess,- or added energy. so, perhaps what you call "no time" is actually more time, but not at our disposal. time as an eternal now, but not at our disposal?

WhatshallIcallmyself

"So, if the mathematics (not to mention logic) shows our universe had a beginning, then someone or some thing, from the static state of timelessness had to have acted upon our space time universe in order for it to exist" - Perry

For sure, some THING must have caused our universe to begin if indeed it does have a beginning (The thing to consider with regards to any mathematical model is the Gigo effect) but it is not mathematical or logical to suggest a someONE. It is not logical because we have not observed a someone to cause a universe to burst into life and, more importantly, we know a someone can't do that...

Why is the non sequitur be so prevalent in religious people's thinking?

Fisherman

Logically , something had to always exist. Either that something is God or something else

Logically the then, either that Something changed and evolved into our universe and everything in it out of pure luck or the Something has a dynamics that drives it except life and intelligence -and the more I think about it the more impossible it seems,or, that substance that always existed is God, the source and cause of the universe which is the only logical conclusion that makes sense to me.

Jehalapeno

Perry: I suggest perusing the Armored Skeptic YouTube channel. All your points have been refuted over and over on there.

Also: it's okay to say I don't know when confronted with a question. What's not okay is to assume the answer is something there's no evidence for.

OnTheWayOut

The Causer that caused the Space-Time Universe to exist must by necessity exist apart from space-time. Otherwise if he was part of the space-time system, then he would have had a beginning and would also have need of a cause.
Existing outside of the space-time universe solves the problem of needing a first-cause for our observable existence, while at the same time providing insight into the uniqueness of this first cause.

Believers make arbitrary rules that seem to make sense on the surface, then expand to say why God doesn't need to be part of the rules. I am sorry. If there are some universally accepted rules about this, they apply to a creator as well.

Because here's what I can do with your rules. The Matter Energy that became the stuff of this Space-Time Universe must by necessity exist apart from space-time. Otherwise if it (not "he" for it was not living in any way) was part of the space-time system, then it would have had a beginning and would also have need of a cause.

Existing outside of the space-time universe solves the problem of needing a first-cause for our observable existence, while at the same time providing insight into the uniqueness of this first cause. The stuff that created the universe came through a black hole. It existed outside of our space-time universe and none of our laws applied to it before it came through.

You see- I don't really believe what I just wrote above. But it can be made to sound equally as sound as "God existed outside of [whatever I need him to exist outside of to apply my rules.] Instead of God, we use matter/energy. Or we can go the opposite and keep finding a need for a creator of each creator.

OR we can start again. We are here, we don't know why. Let's explore as many options as we can to theorize how our universe began. But we won't get anywhere if we just insist that the book from the ancient goat herders, the one that justifies slavery and treating women as secondary citizens and has stories that clearly are wrong by the evidence, is the end-all of our exploration into the science.

Science doesn't care what Perry believes and facts don't line up for Perry's fairytale. I know, it's hard to accept. But I know you want us to keep telling you this. That's why you keep coming here for us to talk you down from that "leap of faith."

HowTheBibleWasCreated

Perry: Lawrence Krauss wrote a book on this very subject.

OneGenTwoGroups

Yo Perry,

I don't know where the singularity came from, I don't know what caused it to expand. It would be awesome to find out. You got anything better than magic? Obviously not.

Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

cofty