50/50
Offline This topic intents to measure the possibility for God's existence or at least to discuss that possibility.
Although it questions the science and scientific theories, the topic might not be accepted in the "Science" section of this forum.
I'll leave it to the moderators to find the right place for it.
The Universe
There were two theories about the nature of the Universe:
1) 1 There is no moment of creation and the Universe is ever existent
2) 2 There is moment of creation, therefore the Universe has beginning
The evidences do not support the first theory, because it is obvious that the Universe expands, which leads the science to the conclusion that there is a moment in which the expansion started.
That moment is considered to be the birth moment of the Universe.
That is how the Big Bang theory took place in the modern science.
However there is a weak point in the Big Bang theory.
Due to the quick cooling matter in the Universe we should not observe such equally distributed matter in the observed Universe.
There is also problem with the mass of the Universe and its gravitational force related to the speed of expansion and its eventual end.
Alan Guth came with new theory called Inflationary Universe which corrects three major points in the Big Bang theory one of which is: there wasn’t “explosion process” but the Universe inflated in “a fraction of a second”. According to the theory the inflation was possible thanks to the “repulsive gravitation”.
In both theories the Universe got its “birth” from a stage called Singularity.
Singularity is scientific taboo and the laws of physics are helpless for its explanation.
We can only say that Singularity is the Universal stage where is no time, space and matter.
Knowing that the matter is motion we can say that Singularity is Absolute Rest or… NOTHING.
Mind the NOTHING word!
We use that word to express lack of presence but in an absolute meaning NOTHING is unexplainable notion, because it is not only lack of presence but also lack of space for any presence.
Now, as we all can see a scientific theory is making us to believe that the observed Universe appeared from NOTHING.
Actually we don’t really believe it, because we don’t think about it.
We have the evidence of an existence and we are happy with it.
We don’t notice the lack of evidence for the assumption of “repulsive gravitation”, because it makes sense in explaining evidence – equally distributed matter in expanding Universe.
We don’t also notice something very illogical:
Obviously the “repulsive gravitation” must be greater than the one we know; otherwise the expansion wouldn’t take place. If so, why the “repulsive gravitation” is not evidently present and working IN the Universe?
It can only be explained if it is placed outside (!) the Universe or to avoid the stupid “outside” word we can use the less stupid expression “the repulsive gravitation only applies to the Universal borders” (correct my English if wrong).
We know that the science uses highly sophisticated abstractions to fit the theory to our understanding; such as “the Universe expands in itself” which is suppose to explain the question “in what space the Universe expands?”
The above abstraction does not explain the NOTHING notion due to the fact that in NOTHING there are no borders.
What do I mean?
Imagine that the Universe did not start from NOTHING but from the possibly smallest particle or even fireball if you prefer so. I’m quite sure that this is much easier to imagine than the birth from NOTHING.
A material particle has properties one of which is “end” which end we call “border”.
If we have border we have space and time to travel in direction opposite of the border.
We need very abstract explanation to accept that a border is possible only from inside but never from outside of material volume (the Universe in this particular case)
We can only make sense in explaining all this if we assume that a border is possible only through observation or conscious understanding about it. That would mean that since there is no consciousness out of the Universe, no outside border exists even if the Universe has the size of a fireball or the size of the smallest known particle.
Now we can correct the theory by saying that the Universe needs consciousness in order to exist in itself even when it is as small as the smallest imaginable particle.
Let’s talk about this before we move forward.
[Update by Truden] This entry is part of a concept which is to be found in the first four pages of the topic.
I'll limit what I'll say on the topic since I'm not well read on it.
But this seems to devoit the possibility of a multi-verse.
I don't see why there needs to be something that the universe is contained, it could just be empty space.
I think your leap to conciousness is dramatic and that's the part I want to hit on particularly. There is much ignorance on the topic, that does not justify applying conciousness or anything supernatural. I hope that you'll avoid continuing down the path of "because we don't know god is just as likely".
This would solve nothing. In fact, it would add a new problem -- from whence did this intelligence come? How can intelligence, which relies on matter, exist without it? How, in a pre-expansion universe, can life exist, and how can such a being wield so much power?
I could go on for hours asking questions about this being, but of course I would not receive an answer. You would reply that you've already established that nothing can be known about pre-big-bang, so you don't have to explain it.
But that's exactly the problem. You've just made up a non-answer. Goddidit is not an answer to anything, for it is just inserting a word, not a quantifiable thing -- something with ontological identity.
However, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that by some stroke of luck, you're right and that there was an intelligent being who existed before the big bang. Since you know absolutely nothing of this entity -- you said so yourself -- there is no way to know that the creation of the universe wasn't the death of this being!
In fact, if there was such a being, and even if we concede this for the sake of argument, you are still under the obligation to prove that this being still exists, and if he does, that he interacts with the universe. You silly theists think that by inserting goddidit into the argument that you can win some great victory. The reality is that it's all in vain. Such a being existing pre-big bang has absolutely no bearing on whether it exists now, and the burden of proof is still on you to demonstrate the post-big-bang existence of any such entity.
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
Tarpan, I'd like to clarify that the "God" word in my postings does not imply any personality or any known meaning of this word.
Well, obviously it is not empty space. There is matter in the Universe.
By the way, "space" is word which implies conscious observation or understanding.
But if it is really really empty even from a cosciousness, then there is nothing to come out of it.
The empty space I meant outside of the universe.
I took issue with "conciousness" specifically, I did not mention God.
So, you know something about ontology, right? You know that a word that points to something without identity is meaningless.
So, you recognize that you have proposed as the answer.
Also, do you have a reply to my observation that even granting a pre-bang entity, you are still obligated to demonstrate its existence post-bang?
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
You are coming from the assumption that the brain (matter) produces though.
That is only a theory based on the evidence that the brain is responsible for the thinking.
I must remind you that "responsible" does not mean "producing" and that is why it is still theory.
The aerial is also responsible for the broadcasting but does not produces the signal.
May be my theory will solve the problem with the brain-thought theory.
And why do you assume that this consciousness would be intelligence, entity or being?
It could also be pure consciousness without personality.
No. I'm observing that the very definitions of intelligence and thought are entirely dependent on matter. If you are to propose something else, you must define it.
Pardon me. I mean to make no assumptions.
Now, will you please answer my question? What difference does it make whether there was a pre-bang entity? You are still under the obligation to prove such an entity's current existence.
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
I know that a word is needed to explain a meaning.
I did not say that I put no meaning in the "God" word, but only that it defers to all knowing meanings. Think it as pure consciousness without personality.
I did not say that in the Singularity there was an entity.
I simply stated that consciousness is needed in order to define borders.
In my previous comment I said that this consciousness could also be pure consciousness without personality.
As for demonstration of the consciousness I think that our conversation is proof for existence of consciousness
You are right. But that does not make the matter producer of the consciousness. It only means that intelligence and matter are dependent on each other.
Note that there is difference between consciousness and intelligence. Intelligence comes in place when the consciousness starts to separate and define subjects and events in the material world, thus creating knowledge.
I did never mentioned the "entity" word. If you apply this word to consciousness, then it is evident in this very discussion.
Could you please try to express yourself more clearly?
I hardly know how to discuss what you've written because it's very difficult to understand what you are trying to say.
You seem to have disagreed with my statement that matter and intelligence are dependent by saying that matter and intelligence are dependent. I'm having a hard time figuring out how to refute that. I never said anything about matter causing intelligence.
You are correct on one thing, though. I am perhaps reading too much into your proposition. Will you please express your proposition in full, and fully define any words that are not used in their currently understood sense?
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
Religious faith is noncontingent.
In its broadest philosophical usage a state of affairs is said to be contingent if it may and also may not be.
Not yet.
Lets talk on what I posted.
"I think your leap to conciousness is dramatic and that's the part I want to hit on particularly. There is much ignorance on the topic, that does not justify applying conciousness or anything supernatural"
This is the main issue I take as well. Are you proposing that this consiciousness MUST be right, or is simply a POSSIBILITY?
From what I understand, you are contending that it is only a possibility?
This would ultimately mean that all you are doing is concocting a possibility with no reference to it's validity. Correct?
It all comes to your question:
and form there it started.
Did you say the above with the assumption that matter produces thought?
If yes, you could be wrong, because it is only theory that the brain produces though.
I separated the meanings "consciousness" and "intelligence" because they are two different things.
Intelligence depends on matter, because it is conscious separation of material subjects and events.
Consciousness does not depends on matter (at least such dependency is not proven), since consciousness is needed to observe the matter.
Quantum physics already has a theory about superposition of states where conscious observation is needed for the system to take a position.
Someone said that you have scientists in your forums.
Please, if someone knows more on Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (superposition of states) let explain it.
If you haven't noticed, people here aren't all that fond of wild goose chases.
So many arguments are used over and over again that we're skeptical that you are going to say something new. You're going to have a hard time 'leading' us into something.
If you aren't willing to define "god" or define "conciousness" then you're not going to receive a very receptive audience.
Please be clear and concise with the point you are trying to make / concept you are trying to propose.
I'm still not drawing any conclusions.
I simply offered you to comment on scientific theory and on my notes on it.
I'm interested in your vision of the theory for our Universe and on your understanding about the nature of the Universe.
The very fact that the Universe started from no matter, space and time is disturbing and leads to major questions about the belief we have for the material world.
I've not read enough of it, but isn't this leading up to Schrodinger's Cat?
Religious faith is noncontingent.
In its broadest philosophical usage a state of affairs is said to be contingent if it may and also may not be.
Tarpan, from my experience in forum discussions I know that people are biting on the easiest for them part of the topic and chewing it to the end.
I know that it is easy to confront me on definition of God, but it might not be that easy if you firstly understand the position from which the definition is pulled.
Let's not go backwards.
What would be consciousness?
If you heard of "pure consciousness" it would explain it.
Or the possibility to observe without being dependent on biological matter.
Or Spirit.
I did not say that it is a fact.
But if it is not a theory then Google is wrong about Big Bang
1) That isn't the Copenhagen interputation
2) That is the Consciousness Causes Collapse (CCC) interputation
3) The Copenhagen interputation seems to be the most widely accepted
4) Any information interaction of the state will collapse the wave function.
I reject your reality and substitute my own
Yes, Schrodinger confronted the theory with his cat in the box.
Apparently his mind experiment could not prove the theory wrong.
There are answers to it.
Stop trying to turn the burden of proof around. You posited intelligence as extant before the big bang. If you mean something other than intelligence as we know it, you are obliged to define it.
All I have done is point out to you that you are using words imprecisely. I am not making any claim. You're the one saying you have something to show us.
Um.... what?
You seem very confused. You don't just get to say something offhanded and then challenge us to disprove it. If you're suggesting that consciousness can exist without matter, you must demonstrate how this is possible.
Deludedgod might be the one to do that.
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
Can conciousness exist without intelligence, can intelligence exist without conciousness? Or are they both the same, one cannot exist without the other, why cannot the universe exist without conciousness as the universe does not show any form of intelligences per se, or conciousness per se either. The natural world and universe shows no need for either to exist. So far the idea of conciousness required for the universe to exist....well you haven't show it. The singularity, which is not really nothing, energy of this universe compressed into an infinitly dense singularity, now why it expanded is the question, but so far you haven't show a need for a "god" to have caused this, a natural imblance in the singularity, a quantum flux or any other natural cause may have done this without the need of a concious.
Religious faith is noncontingent.
In its broadest philosophical usage a state of affairs is said to be contingent if it may and also may not be.
Actuallay, could you clarify your position on consciousness and wave functions?
After re-reading it, I see how I could have mistaken it with CCC.
I reject your reality and substitute my own
The defintion of god is critical to the approach that we take.
Just lay it all down.
If you're claiming a Deist god, you'll get a different reaction than a stricit christian god, which will get an even different reaction than if you claimed a pantheist god.
At this point it feels like you're playing games with words rather than getting to the point.