If there was nothing before God created the universe then how do you explain this?

[Dr. Zaus]

Oh, so your god-concept does not include the attribute of inerrant foreknowledge?

As does mine.

My god-concept hasn't got unlimited power, but rather is a being of pure will. We are the imagination of God as it unfolds. The end of everything will be judged after it is imagined, and some part of it kept.

However, one wonders, given how large all of eternity must be: isn't it infinitely unlikely that we should exist in this moment as non-eternal beings?

I'm thinking Bozman's Brain but in terms of the eternal spiritual world one might find a consciousness.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

As does mine.

My god-concept hasn't got unlimited power, but rather is a being of pure will. We are the imagination of God as it unfolds.

I think it's fair to say that the energy of All That Is is unlimited. To the extent that one might consider us Its imagination, I think one should rather regard It as a gestalt of the collective imaginations of every individual. In fact, I would substitute "consciousness" for "imagination," but basically there is no difference.

The end of everything will be judged after it is imagined, and some part of it kept.

Ends, like beginnings, are silly ideas.

However, one wonders, given how large all of eternity must be: isn't it infinitely unlikely that we should exist in this moment as non-eternal beings?

Just mathematically speaking, probabilities on infinite sets are undefined.

I'm thinking Bozman's Brain but in terms of the eternal spiritual world one might find a consciousness.

In my opinion, the idea suffers from the same failing as all empirical theories of consciousness: poor definition of its subject.

 

[disappoint]

I forget in the bible where it says but it is new testament John I think said:
In the beginning darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters.
I can't remember the rest of it but it implies that there was something there before God said"Fiat Lux"("Let there be light").
I think that there just might be something to the the big crunch.

In the beginning God said "Fiat 500 Abarth" and there was a Fiat 500 Abarth.

Somewhere around the beginning of language man said "Let there be a way to control people's behaviors that we don't like..." and there was religion.

 

[Ventanni]

Oh, so your god-concept does not include the attribute of inerrant foreknowledge?

Did you demand the intellectual and factual existence of your wife before you met her?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Did you demand the intellectual and factual existence of your wife before you met her?

I'm not married.

Now, where's the answer to my question?

 

[SlitheryDee]

If you're arguing from a Christian perspective, it seems pretty easy. If there was something, it was there because God made it. The creation of the universe was a multi-step process, and he only told us about the steps he though we should be concerned about.

From an atheistic standpoint, it's still pretty easy. The people who wrote the bible didn't really know anything about the beginning of the universe. Anything they said that seems to parallel current knowledge does so purely by happenstance, and you should draw no conclusions about the universe from them.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

If you're arguing from a Christian perspective, it seems pretty easy. If there was something, it was there because God made it. The creation of the universe was a multi-step process, and he only told us about the steps he though we should be concerned about.

From an atheistic standpoint, it's still pretty easy. The people who wrote the bible didn't really know anything about the beginning of the universe. Anything they said that seems to parallel current knowledge does so purely by happenstance, and you should draw no conclusions about the universe from them.

What about from a wack job perspective, where atheists are right but ALIENS!


Sorry for the joke: but I think what you say was clear to everyone from the beginning of the thread... it seems instead we're all just trying to validate some part of our world view, because for un-related reasons we find this world view preferable: and if we can just justify our preferences logically, then we don't have to worry about running on the assumptions they entail.

Assumptions, without which, we would be lost at sea: seeking some way to make sense of the world.


... i'm lost at sea by the way; that's why I come here... to test out the next bit of drift-wood that floated by.

 

[darkswordsman17]

What about from a wack job perspective, where atheists are right but ALIENS!


Sorry for the joke: but I think what you say was clear to everyone from the beginning of the thread... it seems instead we're all just trying to validate some part of our world view, because for un-related reasons we find this world view preferable: and if we can just justify our preferences logically, then we don't have to worry about running on the assumptions they entail.

Assumptions, without which, we would be lost at sea: seeking some way to make sense of the world.


... i'm lost at sea by the way; that's why I come here... to test out the next bit of drift-wood that floated by.

Yes, and you're effectively making this entire subforum moot by approaching things in this way as you're explicitly not seeking actual discussion, but rather seeking a suitable validation of what you want to be true. The religious people (and by that I mean the people that their religious identity is something they go out of their way to make sure is something other people know is their identity above all else) that I've encountered that post on here (that exhibit at least some ability to use logic), inevitably show they are at best just seeking the missing link that allows their inherently irrational belief system to not be contradicted almost constantly by a multitude of scientific disciplines.

The reality is they know they're not going to find that, so they're just seeking someone that can give a pseudo scientific explanation that somehow isn't pseudo enough that any sustained rational examination of it can be considered plausible (with eventually that turning into "likely to be true" as this is very simply wishful thinking), but also still non-scientific enough that it would jive with their spiritual beliefs, such that appeasement (or rather conversion) of the self proclaimed rationalists (that allegedly pray at the altar of science) happens along with it simultaneously also perfectly fitting specific (and yet also seemingly ever changing, or at least interpretation of what is supposed to be the absolute word of God) beliefs, such that both sides would find harmony and the truth of reality.

The problem is, that is fundamentally flawed on so many levels that the mental gymnastics that you must go through to even start any discussion nullifies everything thereafter, and thus the discussions will always fall back to how basic logic overrides your attempt at trying to discuss things at such a level. Or to use a simpler analogy, you're trying to forcefully make 2+2=whatever you want, and then wanting to try to discuss higher level math and think that you're absolutely capable of it because if "imaginary numbers" are a thing, then that means you can just decide to change any and all math logic you want. And instead of trying to learn the logic that dictates the math, you just want to keep delving into circular arguments hoping that at some point you'll either achieve the previous paragraphs, or just by simple repetition that you will win people over and also suck in those that similarly settled for not furthering their actual understanding but wanting all the benefits that comes with having such divine knowledge.

 

[darkswordsman17]

If you're arguing from a Christian perspective, it seems pretty easy. If there was something, it was there because God made it. The creation of the universe was a multi-step process, and he only told us about the steps he though we should be concerned about.

From an atheistic standpoint, it's still pretty easy. The people who wrote the bible didn't really know anything about the beginning of the universe. Anything they said that seems to parallel current knowledge does so purely by happenstance, and you should draw no conclusions about the universe from them.

But then we wouldn't get this redundant circular arguments that never settle anything, as they inherently will devolve back to the basic logic (or lack thereof) state and just perfectly show what you're saying, only it lets people believe they've had earnest intellectual discussion.

 

[agent00f]

Yes, and you're effectively making this entire subforum moot by approaching things in this way as you're explicitly not seeking actual discussion, but rather seeking a suitable validation of what you want to be true. The religious people (and by that I mean the people that their religious identity is something they go out of their way to make sure is something other people know is their identity above all else) that I've encountered that post on here (that exhibit at least some ability to use logic), inevitably show they are at best just seeking the missing link that allows their inherently irrational belief system to not be contradicted almost constantly by a multitude of scientific disciplines.

The reality is they know they're not going to find that, so they're just seeking someone that can give a pseudo scientific explanation that somehow isn't pseudo enough that any sustained rational examination of it can be considered plausible (with eventually that turning into "likely to be true" as this is very simply wishful thinking), but also still non-scientific enough that it would jive with their spiritual beliefs, such that appeasement (or rather conversion) of the self proclaimed rationalists (that allegedly pray at the altar of science) happens along with it simultaneously also perfectly fitting specific (and yet also seemingly ever changing, or at least interpretation of what is supposed to be the absolute word of God) beliefs, such that both sides would find harmony and the truth of reality.

The problem is, that is fundamentally flawed on so many levels that the mental gymnastics that you must go through to even start any discussion nullifies everything thereafter, and thus the discussions will always fall back to how basic logic overrides your attempt at trying to discuss things at such a level. Or to use a simpler analogy, you're trying to forcefully make 2+2=whatever you want, and then wanting to try to discuss higher level math and think that you're absolutely capable of it because if "imaginary numbers" are a thing, then that means you can just decide to change any and all math logic you want. And instead of trying to learn the logic that dictates the math, you just want to keep delving into circular arguments hoping that at some point you'll either achieve the previous paragraphs, or just by simple repetition that you will win people over and also suck in those that similarly settled for not furthering their actual understanding but wanting all the benefits that comes with having such divine knowledge.

Basically all this comes down to whether nature is objective. For example, german idealists (philosophers) argued things/objects were just how we perceived them to be instead of qualities inherent to themselves, but they were demonstrated to be increasingly incorrect as science advanced and proved assuming an objective reality led to results.

The rest of the world is in substantial part still coming to terms with this, and for understandable reason because humans didn't evolve to naturally think of the world that way.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Basically all this comes down to whether nature is objective. For example, german idealists (philosophers) argued things/objects were just how we perceived them to be instead of qualities inherent to themselves, but they were demonstrated to be increasingly incorrect as science advanced and proved assuming an objective reality led to results.

The rest of the world is in substantial part still coming to terms with this, and for understandable reason because humans didn't evolve to naturally think of the world that way.

Actually physics has shown us that reality is not objective but a matter of perception - is only the instruments of eyes and ears and skin that make a rock seem as though the radiation coming off of it is limited to color, for example.

 

[Cozarkian]

If you're arguing from a Christian perspective, it seems pretty easy. If there was something, it was there because God made it.

What about God itself? God is something, so if God exists, then there was never a time that nothing existed. But then if it is possible that something (God) has always existed, then why couldn't something other than God have always existed?

 

[Ventanni]

I'm not married.

Now, where's the answer to my question?

Inerrant foreknowledge... sweet heavens, Cerpin.

The Genesis creation story has absolutely nothing to do with the physical creation process or time frame of the universe. Nothing. Nadda. Because the number 7 symbolized wholeness according to ancient Hebrew culture, the whole point of stating that God created the universe in a 7 day (6+1 day rest) time frame was to show that he did it wholly by himself. Additionally, creation stories were extremely common during the time that Genesis was written (hello bronze age), and Moses used it because it would have been recognized by the audience that the book was written to.

You are too smart to be arguing against creationists, Cerpin. It's not even a Biblically accurate interpretation of Genesis. And that begs the question, what are we even debating about?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Inerrant foreknowledge... sweet heavens, Cerpin.

The Genesis creation story has absolutely nothing to do with the physical creation process or time frame of the universe. Nothing. Nadda. Because the number 7 symbolized wholeness according to ancient Hebrew culture, the whole point of stating that God created the universe in a 7 day (6+1 day rest) time frame was to show that he did it wholly by himself. Additionally, creation stories were extremely common during the time that Genesis was written (hello bronze age), and Moses used it because it would have been recognized by the audience that the book was written to.

You are too smart to be arguing against creationists, Cerpin. It's not even a Biblically accurate interpretation of Genesis. And that begs the question, what are we even debating about?

What on Earth are you blathering about? My question remains unanswered. Why is that?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I'm always amused by the science worshipers who think that a being capable of creating the universe would be constrained by the rules he put in place and further use that as "proof" he doesn't exist.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm always amused by the science worshipers who think that a being capable of creating the universe would be constrained by the rules he put in place and further use that as "proof" he doesn't exist.

Who do you think has perpetrated this heinous intellectual crime in this thread? Anyone?

 

[sandorski]

I'm always amused by the science worshipers who think that a being capable of creating the universe would be constrained by the rules he put in place and further use that as "proof" he doesn't exist.

What?

 

[agent00f]

Actually physics has shown us that reality is not objective but a matter of perception - is only the instruments of eyes and ears and skin that make a rock seem as though the radiation coming off of it is limited to color, for example.

No, it's a fundamental axiom of physics that "things in themselves" are not only objective but universally so in a very consistent way. What the science of human perception has shown us is our senses measure phenomena rather subjectively, compared to more reliable instruments we've come to invent.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Before there was nothing means there was no universe. There was just GOD. he created Adam and let him live in heavens. Then comes Eve and they both were living happily. After the entry of saitan, who forced them to eat the forbidden fruit and that's how the world came in to being.
World is a jail for the believers and eden for non believers.

that doesn't hold up to even the smallest bit of actually reading the book.

No, it's a fundamental axiom of physics that "things in themselves" are not only objective but universally so in a very consistent way. What the science of human perception has shown us is our senses measure phenomena rather subjectively, compared to more reliable instruments we've come to invent.

and those mechanisms themselves based on translating something that is 'out there' into our weak subjective senses.

 

[agent00f]

and those mechanisms themselves based on translating something that is 'out there' into our weak subjective senses.

A voltmeter/etc is unarguably valuable precisely because it allows us to be far more objective, because it can provide consistently useful info about the nature of some thing in itself.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

A voltmeter/etc is unarguably valuable precisely because it allows us to be far more objective, because it can provide consistently useful info about the nature of some thing in itself.

Right: and in making those observations, the whole system suffers cuts. There are losses to entropy: A question of epistemic state as nothing is actually lost only transformed into a form we did not measure.

 

[agent00f]

Right: and in making those observations, the whole system suffers cuts. There are losses to entropy: A question of epistemic state as nothing is actually lost only transformed into a form we did not measure.

Frankly I have no idea what this means.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Frankly I have no idea what this means.

When we measure something accurately it also mean's not understanding it in a lot of alternative ways, ways that could be just as accurate, accuracy itself based on reliable replication, itself an unstable approximation we use by agreement.

Just look at the variance in the official kilograms:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SmSJXC6_qQ8

 

[agent00f]

When we measure something accurately it also mean's not understanding it in a lot of alternative ways, ways that could be just as accurate, accuracy itself based on reliable replication, itself an unstable approximation we use by agreement.

Just look at the variance in the official kilograms:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SmSJXC6_qQ8

Weight is one of the only remaining measures that's not defined using objectively immutable (within our part of the universe) fundamental physics, mostly due to practical concerns. Time for example is defined by atomic transitions, and length defined by distance light travels in said time.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Weight is one of the only remaining measures that's not defined using objectively immutable (within our part of the universe) fundamental physics, mostly due to practical concerns. Time for example is defined by atomic transitions, and length defined by distance light travels in said time.

Sure, but there is variance in time-space across velocity and gravity. Though it is admittedly stable as far as we experience it here on earth.