Do you believe in God? - Page 9

Alex · 09-07-2006, 03:35 PM

There are theories for that, that so far we haven't the technology to devise observable experiments.

And if no matter how far you go back it requires an answer to the question "how did that get there" I don't see how it ultimately requires a creator because that just moves the question to "how did the creator get there?" So far, every time we've moved "creation" farther back it has been through evidence of another new physical process. I don't see where continuing that chain eventually requires a sentient process of creation.

It took millenia for mankind to realize that time is not a constant and the mathematical basis on which it is relative to perspective. Perhaps it will take another 15 millennia for someone to figure out the process by which the initial conditions of the universe came into existence. I still see no reason to simply assume a non-physical process.

Ghoulish Delight · 09-07-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

And if no matter how far you go back it requires an answer to the question "how did that get there" I don't see how it ultimately requires a creator because that just moves the question to "how did the creator get there?" So far, every time we've moved "creation" farther back it has been through evidence of another new physical process. I don't see where continuing that chain eventually requires a sentient process of creation.

I never claimed any sort of sentience. Like I said, all I believe is that there must be something outside of our universe that originated our universe, the nature of which is unknowable to us.

Alex · 09-07-2006, 04:00 PM

Ok, but your post above (#14) seems to suggest you do think it was sentient in some way.

But yes, I have no problem agreeing that if there was a state of things in which our universe did not exist then something outside of our universe caused it to exist.

That said, even if purely physical that does not mean it will necessarily be possible to determine the process that happened. Just as if I told you to think of an integer and then tell me the square of it, when you told me your result was 16, I would have no way to objectively determine whether the integer you thought of was 4 or -4. Initial conditions are not always apparent in the resulting condition.

Ghoulish Delight · 09-07-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Ok, but your post above (#14) seems to suggest you do think it was sentient in some way.

I also said it was mostly a mental exercise. A working theory more than a belief.

Frogberto · 09-07-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I also said it was mostly a mental exercise. A working theory more than a belief.

Which puts it probably more towards "faith", than being anything related to "science". And that's fine by me.

Ghoulish Delight · 09-07-2006, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogberto

Which puts it probably more towards "faith", than being anything related to "science". And that's fine by me.

I'm glad I have your approval.

Frogberto · 09-07-2006, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I'm glad I have your approval.

Hey, you don't need my approval for anything! I try to be friendly, though. But I don't know Jack. Look for my new movie "what the @#%^ do I know?"

RStar · 09-07-2006, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogberto

.

That's like asking "where does it go?" In an infinite universe, it's always been there, period. There's no "creation" moment with infinity.

To have "creation" you must have a begining (and an end as well), so yes, there is no "creation moment" in infinity because infinity has no begining and no end.

But doesn't saying "it's just always been there" take the same faith as saying "God made it"? (Of course the faith can be placed on various deities, nature, extra terestrial, ect). Just a thought, because if matter was not created then it's exestance makes no since.

This is a very stimulating thread. Wish I could have joined more, but my computer had more connectivity problems which I just resolved (I hope).

CoasterMatt · 09-07-2006, 05:48 PM

Do you think the same universe that brings us nipples on men, unidentifiable belly button lint and Strawberry Quik is gonna make ANY sense in the grand scheme of things?

Frogberto · 09-07-2006, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RStar

To have "creation" you must have a begining (and an end as well), so yes, there is no "creation moment" in infinity because infinity has no begining and no end.

But doesn't saying "it's just always been there" take the same faith as saying "God made it"? (Of course the faith can be placed on various deities, nature, extra terestrial, ect). Just a thought, because if matter was not created then it's exestance makes no since.

This is a very stimulating thread. Wish I could have joined more, but my computer had more connectivity problems which I just resolved (I hope).

Absolutely. I think the current status of data shows that our universe is not an infinite one, but any questions of what's outside of our universe, whether other universes exist, or have different laws than ours, what came before the big bang, or whether our universe always existed requires data outside of space and time (or our universe), and thus can only be pure speculation, without supporting data, almost by definition.

But it sure is fun to think about.

09-07-2006, 03:35 PM	#81
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	There are theories for that, that so far we haven't the technology to devise observable experiments. And if no matter how far you go back it requires an answer to the question "how did that get there" I don't see how it ultimately requires a creator because that just moves the question to "how did the creator get there?" So far, every time we've moved "creation" farther back it has been through evidence of another new physical process. I don't see where continuing that chain eventually requires a sentient process of creation. It took millenia for mankind to realize that time is not a constant and the mathematical basis on which it is relative to perspective. Perhaps it will take another 15 millennia for someone to figure out the process by which the initial conditions of the universe came into existence. I still see no reason to simply assume a non-physical process. Last edited by Alex : 09-07-2006 at 03:49 PM.
	Submit to Quotes

09-07-2006, 04:00 PM	#83
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Ok, but your post above (#14) seems to suggest you do think it was sentient in some way. But yes, I have no problem agreeing that if there was a state of things in which our universe did not exist then something outside of our universe caused it to exist. That said, even if purely physical that does not mean it will necessarily be possible to determine the process that happened. Just as if I told you to think of an integer and then tell me the square of it, when you told me your result was 16, I would have no way to objectively determine whether the integer you thought of was 4 or -4. Initial conditions are not always apparent in the resulting condition.
	Submit to Quotes

09-07-2006, 05:48 PM	#89
CoasterMatt BRAAAAAAAINS! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: One Step Beyond... Posts: 8,802	Do you think the same universe that brings us nipples on men, unidentifiable belly button lint and Strawberry Quik is gonna make ANY sense in the grand scheme of things? __________________ Do you like my photography? Visit photosbymatt.tumblr.com to purchase prints!
	Submit to Quotes