What are your beliefs on religion, god?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I only read the last 2 posts, but as I've posted before, after my 3-4 acid trips 40 years ago, I wrote 2000 pages about higher dimensions, answering every conundrum in physics and philosophy.

The answer to your question: Existence is relative to something else. The 3-D universe did not exist, in that, there was nothing physical (3-D) yet. Time (the 4th dimension) didn't exist. But the highest dimension (you want to call it God?) did. Something from the higher dimensions lost its symmetry spin and exploded into lower dimensions, creating them. That explains how time might not have always existed in the physical universe. Give me a cupcake now.
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
The universe (matter/time/space) began to exist according to modern scientific theories, correct? No more static, steady-state theory since it has been proven that the universe had a finite beginning. So what could bring that into existence without the deliberate action of a personal, eternal and intelligent being? Dead, brainless eternal constants do not change forms and create independent realms on their own. I mean, why didn't the Big Bang happen infinitely ago, not a finite point in time (IE, 13.7 billion years)? I mean, give me one example in the known universe where chaos brings forth order, complexity, information and interworking systems? You can't, because it doesn't happen. And that doesn't even answer the question of how it came into being!
Click to expand...

I'm going to ignore the problems in your use of the words "proven" and "finite" and stress once again this simple point: if time didn't exist before the universe, there never was a time at which the universe did not exist. Thus, there would be no point at which "nothing" turned into "something". Asking why the Big Bang didn't happen earlier is just another meaningless question. What does "earlier" mean in timelessness? Statements about change, conservation, and time only make sense once a clock is ticking.
 
TripTango said:
I'm going to ignore the problems in your use of the words "proven" and "finite" and stress once again this simple point: if time didn't exist before the universe, there never was a time at which the universe did not exist. Thus, there would be no point at which "nothing" turned into "something". Asking why the Big Bang didn't happen earlier is just another meaningless question. What does "earlier" mean in timelessness? Statements about change, conservation, and time only make sense once a clock is ticking.
Click to expand...

You're still left with space/time/matter coming into existence from previous non-existence. Someone wound the clock, no?
 
TripTango said:
You're still doing it. Previous? What previous?
Click to expand...

Ok, since these sort of words are apparently not powerful enough to convey this sort of topic, what shift took place 13.7 billion years ago? What brought that into being?
 
jlprk said:
I only read the last 2 posts, but as I've posted before, after my 3-4 acid trips 40 years ago, I wrote 2000 pages about higher dimensions, answering every conundrum in physics and philosophy.

The answer to your question: Existence is relative to something else. The 3-D universe did not exist, in that, there was nothing physical (3-D) yet. Time (the 4th dimension) didn't exist. But the highest dimension (you want to call it God?) did. Something from the higher dimensions lost its symmetry spin and exploded into lower dimensions, creating them. That explains how time might not have always existed in the physical universe. Give me a cupcake now.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. Bon apetit!

vWCGy0q.jpg
 
Also give me one example where mindless chaos brings forth order, complexity, information and interworking systems anywhere in the known universe. Obviously without presupposing the universe in the process. Is it observed anywhere?
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
Ok, since these sort of words are apparently not powerful enough to convey this sort of topic, what shift took place 13.7 billion years ago? What brought that into being?
Click to expand...

"Shift" and "brought into being" both imply change. Change requires time. Without time neither of these are meaningful. You are throwing around words like "timeless" without seeming to understand the consequences of that statement.
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
Also give me one example where mindless chaos brings forth order, complexity, information and interworking systems anywhere in the known universe. Obviously without presupposing the universe in the process. Is it observed anywhere?
Click to expand...

Sooooo... You want an example of the universe, other than the universe?
 
Trying to think of an analogy, it's like a electrocardiogram heart monitor flat-lining from eternity to eternity, but somehow there is a heartbeat inbetween. It makes no sense to me.
 
TripTango said:
"Shift" and "brought into being" both imply change. Change requires time. Without time neither of these are meaningful. You are throwing around words like "timeless" without seeming to understand the consequences of that statement.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this is helping your cause, you just keep pushing the question back a step. So did nothing of significance happen roughly 14 billion years ago according to most modern science?
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
I don't see how this is helping your cause, you just keep pushing the question back a step. So did nothing of significance happen roughly 14 billion years ago according to most modern science?
Click to expand...

I don't have a cause, aside from explaining why your argument isn't compelling to me.

Obviously something has to be "eternal" (meaning that it has existed for all of time), right? You've chosen an invisible, sentient being. I choose the universe itself. The only difference between your mystery and mine, at the moment, is that you believe you can have a conversation with yours.
 
TripTango said:
I don't have a cause, aside from explaining why your argument isn't compelling to me.

Obviously something has to be "eternal" (meaning that it has existed for all of time), right? You've chosen an invisible, sentient being. I choose the universe itself. The only difference between your mystery and mine, at the moment, is that you believe you can have a conversation with yours.
Click to expand...

So the universe created itself from nothing? Apparently we are just on polar opposites here. I don't see a scenario where than can be possible, but apparently you do. You've given me no reason to accept your argument as compelling. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree :cheers:
 
Last edited:
speeds said:
Nothing is something.

UmpOi.gif
Click to expand...

Trip, odenroylma2, this video looks to explain exactly what the two of you are discussing. How the universe can come from nothing. It's an hour long, but the time flies by, it only felt like 59 minutes. Really is interesting, take some time to watch.




the video
 
Last edited:
I love how we're arguing over what the definition of "nothing" is. You've given me no reason to accept your position and all the reason to oppose it. You are in a blind faith with nothing. I just have to choose what I think is more compelling historically, logically, scientifically, philosophically etc. and I see the biblical story as fitting this world like a glove when read and understood properly, but again agree to disagree.

:cheers:
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
I love how we're arguing over what the definition of "nothing" is. You've given me no reason to accept your position and all the reason to oppose it. You are in a blind faith with nothing. I just have to choose what I think is more compelling historically, logically, scientifically, philosophically etc. and I see the biblical story as fitting this world like a glove when read and understood properly, but again agree to disagree.

:cheers:
Click to expand...

You and I both know that there is nothing (rimshot!) I could say that would cause you to rethink your views, and I'm fine with that. If you want to call an adherence to logic and observation "blind faith", that's up to you, man. Biblical stories fit you like a glove because you are their target audience. And, in all honesty, I wish you and your stories a lifetime of happiness together.

:cheers:
 
Denny Crane said:
What if the speed of light isn't a constant? Like really far away from us it goes at 1/2 the speed it does when we can measure it. Or if it went 2x the speed it does now much earlier in time?

My thinking on this sort of question is that we BELIEVE it is constant because we prove it over and over again, but only within our frame of reference.

There's an assumption in there, that physics works (mostly) the same everywhere. It sure seems like it does, but I bet you can perform experiments that prove they are and experiments that prove they aren't.
Click to expand...

I have read several times that all basic physics constants, upon which the secondary constants rely, have been proven to be the same throughout this universe (to some extreme accuracy, like .01 to the 20th power or something). The elementary particles, their charges, the 4 forces, etc. are the same everywhere.

But they may differ slightly in parallel 4-dimensional universes, if the multiverse theory is true.
 
We can slow light to a near halt, then let it resume its original speed. In the most recent radio lab podcast the final story is about exactly that. I was listening while doing other stuff, so can't recall well enough to fully explain, but its worth checking out.
 
The same is true at the other end of the universe. Scientists there get the same results near absolute zero as here. The constants are the same.
 
Agnostic

There might be a god, might not, but no way to know for sure in this world.

Funny though, the first time I was going to the hospital and made it to my vehicle and couldn't breath I sure prayed to god! When you have nothing else,,,,
 
TripTango said:
Right. And just because you can't see, touch, or hear God with your physical senses doesn't mean he isn't there, right? ;)

Science is not in the business of addressing nonempirical questions. Period. I honestly don't understand how someone can disagree with this.
Click to expand...

i don't see how someone versed in science can disagree that an overall picture has been painted by observation of the natural world that superstitious religious tenets such as the christian narrative concerning the soul are improbable. do you really believe evolution or the findings of neurobiology are not evidence indicating the christian soul narrative is improbable just because there is no direct way to test a 'soul'? that would be an unneccesarily narrow constricting view of what constitutes scientific knowledge that is not shared by most working scientists i have read.
 
Something survives death,,,,maybe

Nothing survives death,,,,maybe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

VanillaGorilla
  • Poll Poll
What's your religion?
3 4 5
Replies
145
Views
10K
TradeNurkicNow
TradeNurkicNow
Further
What central doctrine of yours do you doubt most?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Spud147
Spud147
Stephen Curry
Religion? Forced on you, You want it, You dont care
3 4 5
Replies
129
Views
4K
Further
Further
MarAzul
Secular Morality
2 3 4
Replies
101
Views
5K
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
BALLAHOLLIC
How have you come to your beliefs?
Replies
22
Views
2K
Devlin
Devlin

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top