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.
Actually, I know a lot of people that use that definition. Maybe it’s a regional thing.I don't think there are too many people who define the universe as "everything that exists". The universe is the matter, energy and spacetime that formed out of the big bang, from whatever existed prior to the big bang. Whatever exists within our big bubble of spacetime, that's the universe. A multiverse would include any parallel universes that might exist. A lot of people like the term "omniverse", which would include just about everything that might exist, maybe.
Personally, I'm a skeptic. I can only be convinced of my own existence. How much of existence is contained within our universe, I couldn't begin to speculate.
I’m sure for some people, all statements are vague and ambiguous."Basic logic" sounds rather painfully vague and ambiguous.
Your feelings?
Dogmatic assumption? <-- Whether yours, or someone else's?
Belief in the myth of Conflict Thesis?
Something else?
Or, is the conclusion part of a larger step-by-step process that you can explain in clear detail without being painfully vague and ambiguous?
From there, confidence levels are commensurate with the evidence.
[1] I doubt it is illogical in even one way. How are these points you present supposed to make something creating itself be illogical ?Where'd the Big Bang come from? What caused it? After all, it is illogical at least two ways to say it caused itself.[1] 1 It would have to first exist to cause itself. 2 It was specific in its parts --not homogenous. It was not random, since through cause-and-effect it resulted in every particular thing we see nowadays. (There is no such thing as 'random' anyway, nor 'chance'. The terms only mean, "I don't know.")johnClay said:I think base reality had no intelligent creator... I think its creator could be a Big Bang.
Indeed. It is humans who decide the nature of God. God is an opinion.Mark Quayle 8 said:I cannot accept a 'god' who is merely super-human. God has to be omnipotent.
You are mistaken. You assumed that reality and atheist reality are the same.Wrong. I'm claiming an exclusively theistic reality. Yours is exclusively secular. And what's worse is that you presuppose it without evidence.HitchSlap said:Mine, yours, everyone's .... we're all in this together.
I have heard rumours of the existence of such proof and have witnessed attempts at presenting such proof, but I have yet to observe such proof.Paulomycin 19 said:Via proof and evidence. Deductive logic is bivalent algebra; therefore proof. It is in-fact so basic that you're literally without excuse.HitchSlap said:So tell me again how one ascertains whether your god/s exist in reality, or just in your head.
[1] I doubt it is illogical in even one way. How are these points you present supposed to make something creating itself be illogical ?
Indeed. It is humans who decide the nature of God. God is an opinion.
You are mistaken. You assumed that reality and atheist reality are the same.
It cannot spontaneously begin to exist. That is nonsense. (2) A thing that exists, is either first cause, or was caused.
You are describing infinite regression of cause. Difficult to imagine? Difficult to swallow. In fact, a bit indigestible. 'Repugnant', one might say.I think that what you mean is that we have no examples of something spontaneously begining to exist. And the universe could be eternal and cyclic and so woukdn't require a begining. Kinda difficult to imagine. But then, so are so many things in physics and cosmology.
You are describing infinite regression of cause. Difficult to imagine? Difficult to swallow. In fact, a bit indigestible. 'Repugnant', one might say.
One universe doesn't cause the next in the sense that it implies a linear regression. The conformal cyclic universe theory, by it's very nature, avoids an infinite regression. But is eternal nevertheless.
Imagine a balloon expanding to it's fullest extent and then reducing to it's original state. And then expanding again. It's initial state becomes the reason it expands again. Rinse and repeat. It's the same thing happening each time, not a sequence you could follow back in time because time starts anew.
The conformal cyclic universe is the other side of the same cosmology coin. Instead of expanding and then returning to it's original state, the universe keeps expanding. And ends up (please don't ask me to show the maths) in the original condition. Rinse and repeat.
Did it happen like this? Good grief, I wouldn't know. But please include it in your list of possible means.
Yes, I understand what is described here.
As soon as I heard it mentioned, I thought it made more sense than simply, "there was an infinitesimal speck". One reason it always made sense to me is the fact that the "big bang" was not homogeneous, but particular, in its results. I don't believe in 'chance' nor 'random'.
Yet you are still left with the same problem: if the cycle did not start at some point, if the force/matter/principle/whatever was always here, you are still into infinite regression.
I’m sure for some people, all statements are vague and ambiguous.
Have you asked cosmologists this/these question(s)? And if so, what was their answer(s)? And furthermore, was their answer(s) to your own personal satisfaction?
The reason I chimed in here, is that I'm fairly certain your interest is in the direct response from current non-believers of your claimed God, yes?
I'm fairly certain there's no need to read-into my OP any further than what I am certain I stated word-for-word.
You are mistaken. You assumed that reality and atheist reality are the same.
I have heard rumours of the existence of such proof and have witnessed attempts at presenting such proof, but I have yet to observe such proof.
It's a given.
That, "The universe alone is all that exists" is an assumed given?
I can't believe that you didn't understand my post. Honestly. I just can't.
Maybe it was all the double-negatives.
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?