Before There Was Everything

[trdsf]

Space expands and there is a red shift assuming that light is like sound when it is a different kind of wave. Next, it is assumed that gravity has no effect on the frequency of light waves. Also, there are galaxies that are blue shifted. And finally, it is assumed that there has to be a creation and Einstein was originally wrong. What about gravitational lensing that could make it appear that space is expanding. And what about the great attractor that we are moving towards and not away from?  Solitary

It's the expansion of space that causes the redshift.  Since the speed of light in vacuum is constant, since it can't slow down, something else hast to give, and that's the frequency.  So it's wrong to state that gravity has no effect on light's frequency -- it has a definite effect, and it has been measured.

The Great Attractor is thought to be a local (on the scale of the universe) feature.  Gravity can overwhelm the expansive tendencies of space (whether space is innately expansive, or whether it's movement left over from the Big Bang) on local scales.  And recent observations suggest that it might not be as massive as thought, and the gravitational source is the Shapley Supercluster, which lies beyond the Great Attractor and is thought to be even more massive.

In any case, it's an active area of astronomical and cosmological research and in no way contradicts theories about the expansion of the universe.

[undercoverbrother]

I

How do you know nothing existed before everything existed?

I don't. The question is premised with "if."

[Unbeliever]

I've got a call in to Stephen Hawking.  He's kind of "iffy" about returning my calls, but we can always hope.  Sometimes I ask him a simple question, and I get the most complicated darned answer.

Try asking him a more complicated question - maybe he'll give you a more simple answer.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I
I don't. The question is premised with "if."

Which way are you betting?

[undercoverbrother]

Which way are you betting?

I'm betting on everything always existing in either seed-form or in actuality. I know that doesn't say anything more than the obvious.

The question may then become one of how much seed-form or actuality. To me, it seems that the closer one agrees with the universe always existing in seed-form would seem to be more likely to be theistic in their viewâ€"a god being the ultimate seed-form. Likewise, those agreeing more extremely with the universe always existing might be more non-theistic or maybe even pantheistic.

It is just a thought experiment. Anyway, the thought experiment, I think, shows that nothing is able to conceive of anything and that everything cannot likewise be conceived by unreality. Therefore, is the universe the first and last, ultimate seed, or is a God the ultimate source for all things? Either way one looks at it, there is single cause for all things. If Carl Sagan was correct; the universe is all that there ever was, then the universe is God. However, I can understand why others may not appreciate such a way of describing this.

[Draconic Aiur]

BEFORE THERE WAS ANYTHING THERE WAS OLD GUY RIDING A WEENIEOBEEL INTO A RED GIANT AND FROM THAT THE BIG BANG WAS CREATED

[Gawdzilla Sama]

BEFORE THERE WAS ANYTHING THERE WAS OLD GUY RIDING A WEENIEOBEEL INTO A RED GIANT AND FROM THAT THE BIG BANG WAS CREATED

Got video of that?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm betting on everything always existing in either seed-form or in actuality. I know that doesn't say anything more than the obvious.

Fair enough.

The question may then become one of how much seed-form or actuality. To me, it seems that the closer one agrees with the universe always existing in seed-form would seem to be more likely to be theistic in their viewâ€"a god being the ultimate seed-form. Likewise, those agreeing more extremely with the universe always existing might be more non-theistic or maybe even pantheistic.

It is just a thought experiment. Anyway, the thought experiment, I think, shows that nothing is able to conceive of anything and that everything cannot likewise be conceived by unreality. Therefore, is the universe the first and last, ultimate seed, or is a God the ultimate source for all things? Either way one looks at it, there is single cause for all things. If Carl Sagan was correct; the universe is all that there ever was, then the universe is God. However, I can understand why others may not appreciate such a way of describing this.

My question to believers: If God is the cause of the Universe, because everything has a cause, what caused God?

I usually get a special pleading in return.

[undercoverbrother]

Fair enough. My question to believers: If God is the cause of the Universe, because everything has a cause, what caused God?

I usually get a special pleading in return.

The question itself seems like Special Pleading to me. And no! I'm not a Christian or a theist.

The question pleads a special instance of faith to believe God must be included in "everything" as no justification is shown for why the Christian is not allowed to do the same thing when they ask you to take their message by faith.

If that is not Special Pleading, it's still intellectually dishonest.

What do you think? Am I correct in what I am saying?

[Solomon Zorn]

I'm just an uneducated hick. but it seems to me that if God isn't included in everything, then God is, by definition, nothing.

[SGOS]

The question itself seems like Special Pleading to me. And no! I'm not a Christian or a theist.

The question pleads a special instance of faith to believe God must be included in "everything" as no justification is shown for why the Christian is not allowed to do the same thing when they ask you to take their message by faith.

If that is not Special Pleading, it's still intellectually dishonest.

What do you think? Am I correct in what I am saying?

Much depends on context, so you need to know what the theist or the atheist is saying.

"Goddidit" is special pleading if follows a claim that everything must come from something.  If he is contradicting an atheist, who said, "The universe has always been there," it is special pleading because he's saying "Everything comes from something except God."  He's saying God is a special case, but the universe is not.  It's also a double standard.

"The universe has always been there" is not special pleading unless it's been established that everything must come from something.  It's more of an unsubstantiated claim.  The problem is that most of the time, the atheist will say, "I don't know where the universe came from," and the theist tries to get him to say maybe it was always there, at which time the theist launches the argument from cause, but ends the debate at his convenience convenience when he plays the God card.

As it turns out, evidence is now emerging that the universe might indeed come from nothing, even without the God magic.  Although the jury is still out.

Actually, the entire argument is fucked up, no matter which side you want to take, because no one knows where anything came from.  At least at this time.  Indeed, it might be that the makin's of the universe have always existed in some simple form, or that God has always been there in some simple form.  We can agree that there is a universe, but we can't agree on a god.  And the God issue is the real debate.  Where the universe comes from is a red herring manufactured by the theist to support a belief in God.

[undercoverbrother]

...

It sounds like you may be for an intrinsic cause. Which is it? Intrinsic or extrinsic?

[Solomon Zorn]

Did I say, "uneducated hick?" I meant "poet!" Here's one that was inspired by this thread. I've been working on it for about an hour and a half:

“Prime Mystery”
Solomon Zorn


Unrecorded antiquity

Long before the stars cohered
Ever-changing form was here

Unmeasured activity

Differentiating spheres
Moving with the cosmic gears

Unguided trajectory

Through the veil of yesteryear
Human eyes but vaguely peer

Unobserved history

How the universe appeared
Will forever be unclear

Unsolvable mystery

[Brian37]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs

An hour and four minutes, or you can buy the book of the same name. Krauss does about as good a job as anyone of putting the "nothing" concept in perspective.

I am getting into fights over what QM implies. Some have taken the "hologram" word and I think are jumping the gun thinking that makes us a cognition caused universe. I'd say if Lawrence is saying we came from nothing, which QM does not rule out, then why would anyone even need this "hologram" to make us a bunch of 1s and 0s. Add to that Sagan rightfully saying we should not be so narcissistic to think we are important to "all this". I am seeing some who love science to simply replace the old mythological desert god cognition with a si fi watchmaker.

I think "all this" is simply a giant weather pattern, something before, or nothing before, or even a "hologram". I still don't think anything we find out will require a cognition, be it a god or cosmic Bill Gates. If he is willing to say this came from nothing, which I would be fine with too, then we still are not a program in any human like sense. I think some fans of science or si fi are doing the same anthropomorphic projection we know humans can do like when they thought volcanos were gods. No matter what we find out we are not special in all this.

[Brian37]

I like that "we are all fucked". SOOOOOOO TRUE.