Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
nicely said...There was no time when the universe did not exist, as time is an inseparable part of the univere. Losing the universe, means losing time.
So, it doesn't make sense to posit that at one time there was no universe and at another time there was "poof" or "Be!" and at yet another time there was a universe.
The universe as a whole isn't subject to a part of itself. Logical, huh?
Okay, thank you...I realize what foiwer is...
I believe that we as humans can make some determination on the characteristics of this "foiwer"
This only works however if we can all agree that time, space, and matter had a beginning. But, as it seems, the general avoidance of this assumption of beginnings will be that there is no reason to believe that the "most recent singularity" (quoted from another member) is actually "nothing". Okay, well, if that's the general consensus...
Where did the singularity come from?
You don't know...of course...well, that just about does it then.
In the event that it is impossible to know, we must revert to theories. My theory is this.
The universe did have a beginning. This beginning is whatever you want to call it, Big Bang or whatever. For the purposes of this discussion I am not trying to put a timetable on the cosmic events. My theory simply says there was a beginning to the universe as we know it, and my theory also says that there must have been a point somehwere in the past when matter, space, and time first began to exist. If matter, space, and time all began to exist, then what caused them to exist?
I believe that "foiwer" caused them to exist. And what exactly is "foiwer"? Well, if "foiwer" caused matter to exist, then "foiwer" must not be bound by matter. If "foiwer" also caused space to exist, then "foiwer" must not be bound by space. If "foiwer" caused time to exist, then "foiwer" must not be bound by time. In this sense, "foiwer" is not bound by matter, space, or time; and yet can create and shape all three of these. Thus, my definition (albeit it is a theory) of "foiwer" is very similar to the definition of the Christian God's attributes.
Therefore, although this is simply a theory and has not "proven" God, it is better than any other theory I have heard. If someone has another theory, then please post it, or at least post a link to which I can read it.
That is my entire point, as has been requested. Sorry for the delay or for attempthing to "shepherd" the discussion, but a response to "is 1 plus 1 really 2?" of "It doesn't matter because red is green" is completely off topic and doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile is a simple distraction tactic commonly used in order to avoid the issue at hand.
And why not? If you imagine spacetime and the universe not as something moving through time with a beginning and an end but as a 4-(or more)dimensional geometrical object whose sections along certain "planes" represent the state of the universe at particular "times" you don't need time (the intuitively perceived one-directional thingy) at all, and beginnings and befores become similarly meaningless. The history of any point in the universe becomes a permanent trace rather than a process.According to you, time is part of the universe, so you believe that we are eternally existing particles, right?
I'd recommend taking some physics before jumping into somewhat deep discussions about it (and I don't mean this in a snide way)nicely said...
so, how does that explain matter and space?
I don't believe it does, unless you are not telling me the whole story. Besides, your notion of time may not be correct. If the universe doesn't exist, then how can time exist? According to you, time is part of the universe, so you believe that we are eternally existing particles, right?
This only works however if we can all agree that time, space, and matter had a beginning.
But, as it seems, the general avoidance of this assumption of beginnings
nicely said...
so, how does that explain matter and space?
I don't believe it does, unless you are not telling me the whole story. Besides, your notion of time may not be correct. If the universe doesn't exist, then how can time exist?
According to you, time is part of the universe, so you believe that we are eternally existing particles, right?
Prove God exists...sure, no problem.
My first question is this...
If there is no God, and all we have to go by are the laws of physics, then where did all the matter in the universe come from?
Second question...
If there is no God, where did energy come from?
Third question...
If there is no God, is there any way for something to come from nothing?
And you can prove your point?My point is that the universe never did not exist. And hence did not come from anywhere. It just exists in all its states ranging from singularity, "banging," current, and future.
Depends on your POV. From inside, no. From outside, yes.
Well, if I have proved that a god exists, then I have accomplished all that I tried to accomplish.Congratulations, you have proven that a god exists. Now prove that your God exists.
So, the how's of the universe's "beginnings" are unknowable...so why do people have a problem with the fact that I say there's a God?You are so going to regret this. Remember, pride comes before a fall...
The answer is: I don't know. However, giving my ignorance a name and praying to it seems premature.
Your hypothesis - God - doesn't win just because there are no alternative hypotheses. You have to prove God exists first.
Sorry.
Oh, and I suppose you use Beckham's Razor to eliminate God as a viable hypothesis, right?You are so going to regret this. Remember, pride comes before a fall...
The answer is: I don't know. However, giving my ignorance a name and praying to it seems premature.
Your hypothesis - God - doesn't win just because there are no alternative hypotheses. You have to prove God exists first.
Sorry.
Oh, and I suppose you use Beckham's Razor to eliminate God as a viable hypothesis, right?
The problem is that the god that you have proven is so vague as to be anything. That's the problem that I've always had with the First Cause argument. The First Cause does not have to be omnipotent or even intelligent. It doesn't even have to be around anymore. It could have created the universe and then poofed itself out of existence. I don't see any compelling reason to worship this First Cause.Well, if I have proved that a god exists, then I have accomplished all that I tried to accomplish.
So, the how's of the universe's "beginnings" are unknowable...so why do people have a problem with the fact that I say there's a God?
I don't get all upset by the fact that atheists say there's no God, I just know they're excercising their God-given free will. (please, I'm not trying to debate free will, start another thread if you wish to do that) I just get upset when atheists say I'm stupid or ignorant because I believe that God created the world I live in.
However, I don't think you've proved even that, because, as pointed out by numerous posts in this thread, (1) some of your premises are questionable and (2) even if the universe (or energy, time, whatever) did have to come from somewhere, you did not give a satisfactory reason why it had to come from a god, or why the same argument would not apply to a god.Well, if I have proved that a god exists, then I have accomplished all that I tried to accomplish.
And you can prove your point?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?