Thoughts on the Existence of the Universe

[Solomon Zorn]

What you are saying is basically true. I have actually know these things for a long time now. Yes, the universe must be created in real time-space, since energy generated in creation cannot exist in the abstract beginning. But God the first being has existed forever, and was brought forth in the infinite beginning of the law system itself. So God has been creating universes forever, and the beginning of them can't be found. When one universe has atrophied enough, God draws the elements back in and creates a new one. Yes, in reality there has always been form, just as there have always been created beings. God is the fullness of the law system of existence called the "concept-reality progression." He began in infinity because nothing "is not," and switched immediately to real time because negative time cannot continue.(Time is an unchangeable law called "continuance." It is not dependent on form.) The universe must be initiated by choice, because the natural laws of reality don't stipulate form at all, nor do they know anything individually. Form itself is calculation by an intellect, but the first forms created by the deity are particles and consist of concept energy, because God doesn't exist in any one location. Being the first entity, he doesn't consist of form, but generates all form. The primary particles created are quark-like particles that pass through other particles because they are consecutive in creation; that is, they have no particle in between to define a separation, so they are considered to be in unity. The first particles created are negative form particles, because particles are generated from the concept-realty progression," that is, a system of "law intervals"  having no end. But negative proceeds to positive, and so there are positive quarks also. I believe the total of primary quarks is a range from -8 to +8, and these join in threes to make the known particles like protons and neutrons. I know this is too much for you right now. Can you follow this? I was inspired by God in a moment of time to begin knowing these things. I have a third book out on it. I'll have to write more later.

Textbook rationalizing. I may be schizophrenic, but you, sir, are delusional.

[josephpalazzo]

What you are saying is basically true. I have actually know these things for a long time now. Yes, the universe must be created in real time-space, since energy generated in creation cannot exist in the abstract beginning. But God the first being has existed forever, and was brought forth in the infinite beginning of the law system itself. So God has been creating universes forever, and the beginning of them can't be found. When one universe has atrophied enough, God draws the elements back in and creates a new one. Yes, in reality there has always been form, just as there have always been created beings. God is the fullness of the law system of existence called the "concept-reality progression." He began in infinity because nothing "is not," and switched immediately to real time because negative time cannot continue.(Time is an unchangeable law called "continuance." It is not dependent on form.) The universe must be initiated by choice, because the natural laws of reality don't stipulate form at all, nor do they know anything individually. Form itself is calculation by an intellect, but the first forms created by the deity are particles and consist of concept energy, because God doesn't exist in any one location. Being the first entity, he doesn't consist of form, but generates all form. The primary particles created are quark-like particles that pass through other particles because they are consecutive in creation; that is, they have no particle in between to define a separation, so they are considered to be in unity. The first particles created are negative form particles, because particles are generated from the concept-realty progression," that is, a system of "law intervals"  having no end. But negative proceeds to positive, and so there are positive quarks also. I believe the total of primary quarks is a range from -8 to +8, and these join in threes to make the known particles like protons and neutrons. I know this is too much for you right now. Can you follow this? I was inspired by God in a moment of time to begin knowing these things. I have a third book out on it. I'll have to write more later.

This from the guy who posted "According to my knowledge, atheism didn't exist as a philosophy until the 1700s... blah, blah, blah..."

Time to go back to your meds...

[aitm]

But God the first being has existed forever, and was brought forth in the infinite beginning of the law system itself.

And what did the two of you talk about when this happened?

I was inspired by God in a moment of time to begin knowing these things.

Well, there we have it. That certainly shuts us all up. Who can argue with god inspiring one eh? You've collected quite the cast of cult members right there in your own head.

[Solomon Zorn]

And what did the two of you talk about when this happened?

Well, there we have it. That certainly shuts us all up. Who can argue with god inspiring one eh? You've collected quite the cast of cult members right there in your own head.

He has three books out, so he must be an authority. One with divine knowledge. Plus - look how scientific he is! He's even got some quarks in there, so who could argue! A true neo-prophet.

The scary thing, for me, is that I used to delude myself in a similar fashion, with pseudo-scientific mental masturbation. I think maybe I still do on occasion.

[Unbeliever]

The (misnamed) big bang theory is not the final word in cosmology. For existence, there are cyclic models that propose a repeating cycle of universes, rather than a one-off shot at existence. The Kalam cosmological argument is old, and has been debunked already. See if you can find some arguments that haven't already been thrust at us time and again.

[Baruch]

The (misnamed) big bang theory is not the final word in cosmology. For existence, there are cyclic models that propose a repeating cycle of universes, rather than a one-off shot at existence. The Kalam cosmological argument is old, and has been debunked already. See if you can find some arguments that haven't already been thrust at us time and again.

There can be no final word in cosmology, for the simple reason that it requires an LHC with infinite energy (which is probably what it takes to create a universe in the first place).  The LHC fills in as the Early Universe experiment.  The Planck limit is impossibly beyond present technology, and you have to go way beyond the Planck limit (it is a logarithmic scale, so there is no end to it) to get much further in physics.  Some scales have a bottom, like the Kelvin temperature scale ... but you can never get to absolute zero temp ... you can get very close, but you can't literally stop even one singe atom from moving, let alone a bunch of them ... it would violate Heisenberg.  So even with a scale that has an end to it ... science omnipotence are ... fantasy.

[drunkenshoe]

There can be no final word in cosmology, for the simple reason that it requires an LHC with infinite energy (which is probably what it takes to create a universe in the first place).  The LHC fills in as the Early Universe experiment.  The Planck limit is impossibly beyond present technology, and you have to go way beyond the Planck limit (it is a logarithmic scale, so there is no end to it) to get much further in physics.  Some scales have a bottom, like the Kelvin temperature scale ... but you can never get to absolute zero temp ... you can get very close, but you can't literally stop even one singe atom from moving, let alone a bunch of them ... it would violate Heisenberg.  So even with a scale that has an end to it ... science omnipotence are ... fantasy.

It's vegetables and fruits all over again.

[doorknob]

Well I do get tired of the same exact boring nonsensical claims. Some people just don't even bother to do any real research or real questioning do they?

[Baruch]

In science fiction, you can violate any and all physics laws you like to ... this is why it is preferred by most humans to real science.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if takes 125 Gev (Billion electron volts, a unit of energy) to create a Higgs boson ... and since in scientific notation you can always choose a larger exponent ... that to be empirical (rather than bullshitting) ... you need ever higher energy to know more and more about less and less ... about stuff I frankly gave up caring about just a few years ago (until the turned on the LHC for the first time).  Even the high energy physicists admit this ... but the funders usually don't call them on this.  We are still doing technology based on physics from the 1950s.  They were called back in 1992, and the SSC in the US, a competitor to the LHC, got cancelled.  This was bad for a friend of mine who had just moved to Texas to work on it.

[aitm]

In science fiction, you can violate any and all physics laws you like to .

When I a little kid and full of Asimov, I knew very little science, (okay..okay…I know…still know very little) anyway I started writing a story where a spaceships cook ( I purposely choose cook so his ignorance was my excuse for mine…clever eh…..oh come on it was) and his family escaped a destroyed ship by freezing themselves in a "space refrigerator" they eventually were rescued by a species that turns out produced their own space pirate many a millennia ago whose name was Moses, he and his gang escaped into the universe and were never found, but some of his previous stories of "gods and other crazy ass stuff" were legendary laughter against his mental capacities.

Anyway, I invented a space ship incapable of slow speeds, I called it the " high wind grid thruster", it was a type or electro magnetic generator/motor that was extremely heavy and dense. So heavy that it had the ship had to be tied down during the start of the motor. The motor could not start itself, it was started by another very large motor that would spin the grid thruster into an extremely high speed and then it only required a little electricity to keep it spinning. The ships were very fast but incapable of slow travel as one would have to slow the thrusters and the ships would gradually loose speed. They were incapable of flying in a gravity atmosphere because they traveled too fast. I spent a great deal of time inventing the incredible machinations of these ships and obviously of their faults, but in the end…..the story slowly died..like my high wind grid thruster……gotta love science fiction

[Mike Cl]

Well I do get tired of the same exact boring nonsensical claims. Some people just don't even bother to do any real research or real questioning do they?

Yeah, this.  Many seem to just like to drive-by and stir up the hornets nest.  They have no intention of engaging in a real discussion.  And they sure don't put in any effort to dig up old threads that deal with the same issues.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Did the universe begin to exist at some point? Or has it always existed?

See, this is a trap all theists fall into when they try to answer this question. Because unless you carefully specify what you mean by "begin to exist", the answer could be "either." Even with a singularity, the question remains, because the universe obviously has existed for all time â€" there was no "before" for the universe not to exist in. When we fail in such basic ways to describe what's even happening, any further discussion is just mental masturbation.

So, given that the universe exists, we know that it had a cause which transcends both space and time.

And this transcendent cause is what we call "God".

(chews tobacco) That St. Thomas Aquinas shit doesn't fly here, boahy! <- (This is supp'sed t' be a suth'rn drawl!)

[Hijiri Byakuren]

(chews tobacco) That St. Thomas Aquinas shit doesn't fly here, boahy! <- (This is supp'sed t' be a suth'rn drawl!)

I have this mental image of your namesake saying this, and it is glorious.


Fair and balanced (like Fox News).

[Randy Carson]

No more is really needed. We really don't know what was "before the universe" or "what's outside of space-time."  Putting a god in there is the classic "god of the gaps" fallacy.

Why isn't "I don't know" sufficient? An admitted gap of knowledge is better than claiming a hypothesis as a fact. An intellectually honest person would put their ideas into terms such as "may have" or "may be" until it can be proven. What you have presented is a logical argument with some major assumptions. I cannot disprove your hypothesis of a god outside of space-time. But, I don't see enough to accept it either.

You then go on to apply to special pleading where your god idea does not need a cause, but the universe does. If we were to accept that there was something, some non-thing, or some god that did not need a cause, there is no reason to think it couldn't have been just another form of the universe that did not need a cause. But then again, I don't know. You post is more pondering the unknown with your religion inserted. Perhaps you're right. But, my observations of natural processes that do not require an intelligence to function lead me to hypothesize that the start of the universe as we know it did not require an intelligent creator.

If and when we discover an intelligence creator of the universe, we can examine and consider what it is. At this point, it's mere fantasy.

Either the universe has always existed or it hasn't. Scientists and creationist seem to agree that it has not. If not, then why does it exist at all?

Perhaps you can expand upon your theory of how everything that exists came into being from nothing without the action of an intelligent creator.

And if you were to "discover" a creator, how will you "examine" a non-material being who does not occupy space or exist in time with your scientific instruments?

[josephpalazzo]

Either the universe has always existed or it hasn't. Scientists Some scientists and creationist seem to agree that it has not. If not, then why does it exist at all?

FIFY