Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Vulcan on August 22, 2005, 05:34:36 AM
-
If a god existed, and created the universe, how/where/when did god exist before the universe existed?
ie can a god exist in non-existance?
-
Some believe that time actually began - that there was a "start" to all this. I would challenge them to write down the number of the year relative to our AD system when time began, and then I would write down the number of the year before that. Funnily enough, I never had any takers.
-
Same place a stopwatch starts
0000
It may have been billions of years before earth or our solarsystem itself appeared.
The natural tendancy is to try to put it in terms of BC/AD terms as is typical of human arrogence
Actually its a question that cant be accuratly answered cept in general terms.
But if a year could be put on it it would have to be 0000.00
Just like a stopwatch
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Same place a stopwatch starts
0000
Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Go back to school ;)
Reread beetles question, then smack yourself around the head a bit.
-
Infinity, as a mathematical concept never reaches zero. Time can't begin or end in the grand scheme of things, because time is a man made concept. Time probably doesn't exist where man isn't. Kinda like the definition of sound. Sound is defined in physics books as the human ear receiving sound vibrations from an outside source.
The physics definition of sound implicitly requires the human ear to hear it. Probably the same with time. We know of it for as long as we are on Earth, because here it is an integral part of our being.
Les
-
Sound does exist as it's a waveform in a substance. Therefore it is real even outside human perception.
If humans could hear like bats we'd have 'sonar' and many other perceptions too. :D
Nobody really understands time so far. It's something we're bound to in our lives and which controls us. Yet it doesn't have to be constant.
We're stuck in the 4th dimension pretty much the same way that a person who sits in a train is stuck to it. It moves along and the passenger really can't have a proper perception of it untill he steps outside the train. Which we obviously cannot do.
So whether the train travels straightforward or in circles, the passenger can only observe the scenery as it happens. The effect is multiplied if each passenger only lives a fraction of the distance between stations. Which we obviously do.
Some curious passengers can then observe the candy wrappers and seat wear the previous generations have left after them. They can make observations such as jumping inside the train and jumping on the roof of the train in order to see the difference.
But that's pretty far off from surviving a jump off the train or taking control of it, forcing it to go backwards let alone find out where the train was built.
-
God wasn't there first; "the word" was:
In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God"......
-
Word!
:aok
-
Originally posted by Seeker
God wasn't there first; "the word" was:
In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God"......
So the Word "God" was just floating around in a sea of nothingness? Like a film title?
-
Maybe we're just in beta testing before the actual release?
-
Eternity is the absence of time. Without time there is only nothing. Time is the fourth dimension, without that axis there is no molecular activity. That means no matter and no energy, without matter there can be no negative matter. Because of time, nothing does not exist. Nothing and time cannot coexist.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
If a god existed, and created the universe, how/where/when did god exist before the universe existed?
ie can a god exist in non-existance?
Do you mean before GoD was trapped on the planet in the middle of the universe behind the great barrier?
-
beta testers again will it never stop. whens the first patch.
-
The patch is otw. Its called Asteroid 2.0
-
actually, the asteroid has a name.
Christ 2.0
-
And he's coming....
in two weeks.
-
God has always been and will always be.
As humans, everything we have seen and know about has a beginning and an end. But just because as humans we can't comprehend a God who has always existed does not make it untrue.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Eternity is the absence of time. Without time there is only nothing. Time is the fourth dimension, without that axis there is no molecular activity. That means no matter and no energy, without matter there can be no negative matter. Because of time, nothing does not exist. Nothing and time cannot coexist.
The spacetime metric does have a size, in that things which are larger than spacetime (i.e. have spacetime imbedded within them) will follow the laws of spacetime, and things which are smaller will not. Fermions and Bosons are larger than spacetime, so the space-like component gives them positional values, and the time-like component gives them momentum values. Time also gives us entropy and causality.
The quantum vacuum exists at the plank scale, thus spacetime has no effect on it at all. It can exist with this universe, or without it. The laws which govern it’s behavior are the laws of quantum mechanics. Virtual particles blink in and out of existence. They depart and arrive, sometimes arriving before they ever departed. Their world is a world of Born probabilities and Heisenberg uncertainties. There is no spacetime.
The existence of this quantum vacuum, and the energies of the virtual particles, were experimentally verified (by the Casimir effect) in the nineteen-fifties. So, it would seem that long before we were, and long after we are not, the quantum vacuum was, is, and will be!
Rotax447
-
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
-
Physics can take us back only to 10 E-43 seconds ‘after’ creation, where relativity and quantum collide. No theory exists to explain this 10 E-43 seconds so we cannot honestly say what happened, we can only conjecture.
But in case you are interested, the big bang shows that spacetime itself was created out of the initial expansion, and hypothesizes that since the bang created time and space, there was no ‘before’ the initial instant of creation. No time, no vacuum of empty space, no nothing. If you think astronomical numbers are hard to comprehend, try to contemplate nothing at all.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Physics can take us back only to 10 E-43 seconds �after� creation, where relativity and quantum collide. No theory exists to explain this 10 E-43 seconds so we cannot honestly say what happened, we can only conjecture.
True, because there is no theory of quantum gravity.
But in case you are interested, the big bang shows that spacetime itself was created out of the initial expansion, and hypothesizes that since the bang created time and space, there was no �before� the initial instant of creation.
Good point, and one always worth remembering. Big Bang is the creation of spacetime. From spacetime comes Fermions and Bosons, obeying both the laws of the quantum vacuum (quantum mechanics) and the laws of spacetime (general relativity)
No time, no vacuum of empty space, no nothing. If you think astronomical numbers are hard to comprehend, try to contemplate nothing at all.
The quantum vacuum did not come from Big Bang, rather Big Bang came from the quantum vacuum. So, before spacetime, or in spite of spacetime, there is still a quantum vacuum.
Rotax447
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
Maybe we're just in beta testing before the actual release?
Here's what I said in another, earlier post: "The views expressed in here cover such a range of opinions, and many of them are well thought out and reasoned."
Waffle, you helped support my point. you may be onto something here.;)
-
If spacetime is created at the Bang, then the idea of before the Bang is undefined, and no space in which any thing could exist.
In Quantum Vacuum there is no time and no space. I have a problem with expressing 'existance' of Quantum Vacuum when the concept of location within space time has no meaning.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If spacetime is created at the Bang, then the idea of before the Bang is undefined, and no space in which any thing could exist.
In Quantum Vacuum there is no time and no space. I have a problem with expressing 'existance' of Quantum Vacuum when the concept of location within space time has no meaning.
I understand exactly what you are saying. This is not something that I can visualize within the normal four dimensional spacetime metric that I exist in.
The only way to describe the quantum vacuum is to place it in Hilbert space. We use complex numbers to describe orthogonal position vectors, momentum vectors, and their associated eigenvectors. These vectors are ’real’ only within this Hilbert space, since without a spacetime metric, there are no yardsticks, or stopwatches.
Theoretically and mathematically, these virtual particles should have existed in the quantum vacuum. This has been empirically verified by experimental physics, so this is now part of our objective reality. So, we have particles which are not real (virtual particles) existing in a mathematically constructed (Hilbert) space, and yet the effects of these particles can be accurately measured in our objective reality. The Universe is a strange place!
The energies within this quantum vacuum are enormous. Enough to create this Universe, and many more if need be. In fact, like Einstein’s cosmological constant, they are thrown out of equations, since nobody likes dealing with really large numbers:)
Rotax447
-
Why am I so dumb? Dad had no business being drunk that night.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Why am I so dumb? Dad had no business being drunk that night.
Hell, don’t feel bad FiLtH. I’m just a janitor at the University … but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night:D
Rotax447
-
Even beyond the question of what existed before existance is who created God? I mean, such a perfect being could not just come into exisitance randomly...an accident. There must have been some intelligent design to have made such an intricate being...one that can know everything and made every last molecule in the universe, placing each one in the exact spot where it currently resides.
There must be Supergod! But wait...who created Supergod? Damn...any being that can make such a perfect being as God must have a creator too...s/he couldn't have just accidently popped into existance! Must have been...ULTRAgod!!
But wait!!! Oh forget it...I'm getting a headache and I can't think of a prefix greater than ultra anyway. ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Go back to school ;)
Reread beetles question, then smack yourself around the head a bit.
Hey woke up about 2 min before my initial reasonce and was only barely starting my first cup of coffee when I edited.
what the hell do you expect? LOL
I absolve myself from all responsability of anything I say or do untill I've had at least 2 cups of coffee. 3 if its a store brand coffee
-
I wonder how many other now extinct worlds have pondered the same questions. Assuming there have been which doesnt at all seem unreasonable.
Hell for that matter we could just be some teenage kids from another worlds petre dish experiment.
Though sometimes I think maybe the greeks and romans had the right idea. Be it one god or many. We are here for their amusement & entertainment putting us in various situations just for the fun of seeing how we respond.
How many times have you found yourself in an otherwise astounding situation and found yourself shaking your head and looking up at the heavens and saying "Why?"
LOL
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
But just because as humans we can't comprehend a God who has always existed does not make it untrue.
Not believing it is not the same as being unable to comprehend Him.
-
It's turtles all the way down
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
The only way to describe the quantum vacuum is to place it in Hilbert space. We use complex numbers to describe... the Universe is a strange place!
I've manipulated quantum equations and I know the math proves out and precise predictions are made but I do not think outside our 4 dimensions. I have spent many hours trying to grasp 'curled up' dimensions but I still come around to 'what are they curled up in?' and I find myself falling back into our familiar four ST dimensions. Understanding may be out there someday, but like the flatlander trying to see the third spatial dimension, it may be impossible for anyone of us to truely understand.
My one comforting thought:
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." --- Richard Feynman
He included himself in his statement.
-
That's because he was smart enough to know he didn't have a clue about anything.
-
Cosmic Riddle for the Naturalist
Science involves the empirical observance of surroundings. So in that spirit, let's consider the inverse of Vulcan's question from a naturalist's point of view.
Premise:
The Natural Universe is all that there is. There never was, is or will be God. Natural processes are all that there are, leading to all that there is in existence, including the appearance of sentient human beings.
Scientific Observation:
Millions of sentient human beings past and present conclude the Universe was produced by an Almighty Creator.
Question:
Why did the Natural Universe produce, by entirely natural processes, vast numbers of sentient beings who conclude an Almighty Creator produced the universe?
How could an entirely Natural Universe ever give rise to the idea of an Almighty Creator?
-
Sometimes people can't explain things, so rather than say "I don't know why" they fill in the blanks.
-
Fear of the unknown. Some of us just can't cope with the fact that they can't control thier lives nor predict the future with any logical sense.
-
Why did the Natural Universe produce, by entirely natural processes, vast numbers of sentient beings who conclude an Almighty Creator produced the universe?
In addition to Siaf and Vulcan, because the concept of true individual death, the end of existince, nothingness can be a daunting thing for sentient beings. A higher, afterlife structure is comforting. FWIW, I can't really logically see the need for a higher creator, should one exist, to particularly add this feature. What purpose does an afterlife serve "the creator." A waste of effort and resources, IMO.
Charon
-
Ditto to what Charon said.
"A higher, afterlife structure is comforting"
"Religion is the opium of the masses." :)
It's one thing I agree with Marx on.
And as Nietzche sais, "Faith is not wanting to know what is true."
-
Its a circle. No beginning, no end. God is a circle.
-
"a circle."
Roundabout!
-
So if you made them and they made you, who picked up the bill and who made who?
Terror
-
Sorry folks, you are really not getting it.
To reiterate, naturalists say all that there is in the universe is solely the result of natural processes. For them, only natural processes in the universe are responsible for the generation of human awareness, consciousness, and sentience.
What capricious capacity of the entirely natural universe would ever generate the ability of sentient beings to promote an Almighty Creator?
Sorry, your answers are not even dealing with the question. Why am I not surprised. The following statement of the opening post is a fine example of a self-contradictory proposition, which is a strawman to boot. The question strikes me as ridicule, but perhaps not.
ie can a god exist in non-existance?
A Theistic view of reality says God is a self-existent Being, just as the name "I AM" would indicate. This name also presupposes an eternal-everlasting Being. No beginning, no end. Revealed also is that "in Him we live and move and have our being." This means the finite Universe, no matter how large, is a tiny event relative to the eternal, almighty Being that brought it forth, and who sustains at all times.
If the universe were solely the product of purely natural processes there is no logical reason why sentient beings who are solely natural products should ever even come up with the idea of an Almighty Creator, much less base their entire life on the understanding that the Creator sustains the universe at all times.
Don't believe? No proof? Sorry, there's no good reason to believe a solely natural universe should ever be capable of supporting the idea of an Almighty Creator. But low and behold, the real universe that we live in does. So although I was once an atheist, I will never be returning to that belief system. Beyond that, anyone who knows the Creator must say that the invitation is open and free for anyone who wants to contact Him. Just remember though, demands won't get you anywhere.
Best regards,
Cement
-
Question:
Why did the Natural Universe produced by entirely natural processes, produce vast numbers of sentient beings who concluded the sun was pulled across the sky by a giant chariot?
-
Much the same reason why the earth was a pancake, covered with a punctured solid dome. And remember the church executed those who wanted to suggest otherwise.
Today, unless the space program is one big hoax, we have undisputed proof that the religious approach was and is dead wrong in all imaginable (pun intended) aspects.
-
Originally posted by myelo
Question:
Why did the Natural Universe produced by entirely natural processes, produce vast numbers of sentient beings who concluded the sun was pulled across the sky by a giant chariot?
I think the difference is that the chariot thing was a passing fad while the belief in one Creator has always been there throughout history.
-
If the universe were solely the product of purely natural processes there is no logical reason why sentient beings who are solely natural products should ever even come up with the idea of an Almighty Creator, much less base their entire life on the understanding that the Creator sustains the universe at all times.
Seriously, why not? Our forefathers’ (all the way back to pre-humans) slightly superior intellectual edge, and the fingers and opposable thumbs to magnify that edge, further develop through natural selection. Eventually, a few million years later, we reached an ability through that superior and growing brainpower to have the luxury of free time not devoted strictly to survival, and the ability to devote time to "big picture" issues and develop models on how it all began. Passing off the unknowns on a "catch-all" creator was a convenient answer to those initial ponderings.
Paleolithic cultures developed religions based on nature and animals. That was part of their daily life, and the core to daily survival. Bronze-age religions (Judeo/Christian/Islamic etc.) seem to have developed models based largely on the early civilization structures. Look at the Old Testament. The vengeful god is an awful lot like they typical king of the day - Obey or pay the consequences. Strict rules and requirements, subservience. There are eastern religions that are quite different. There is no single "creator" model.
It took key developments like language, writing, agriculture, stable civilizations, extended travel (exposure to new cultures, technologies and ideas) to allow the growth of science. To take one small known fact, record it, distribute it and allow someone else to explore that fact and build on it creating new facts and sometimes turning old facts into falsehoods. The writing was on the wall by the end of the Bronze Age. The “obvious” hand of the creator in everyday “miracles” began to disappear. Why hasn’t god parted a Red Sea anytime lately? She sure the heck was busy for a few thousand years, then -- poof! (Of course, many events where the creator made her presence known, even in antiquity, happened in a 1 on 1 private encounter with the prophet of the day… hmmm) Where is the creator in modern times?
Charon
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
I think the difference is that the chariot thing was a passing fad ....
...until science came up with a better explaination.
-
...the belief in one Creator has always been there throughout history
Nope.
Charon
-
Hello Charon,
You ask,
Seriously, why not?
And recount typical naturalist views of human development.
The problem for the naturalist is that if the universe is solely the product of natural processes, then those processes produced a universe full of delusion. And because this universe is "all there is" there is no external standard by which to measure or establish truth. How then can any naturalist believe they see more truth than anyone else when they themselves are just as subject to the pervasive natural delusion factor of the universe as anyone else. Observational Acuity? Right! A few decades ago dinosaurs were tail dragging, cold-blooded lizards. My how they've evolved in 40 years. Again, why should anyone trust the pronouncements of naturalists more than anyone else, since all are hopelessly trapped in a universe that promotes delusion, if, according to the naturalist, this universe is a result of natural processes and is all there is.
For the Theist there is an Almighty, Immutable Source external to the universe and superior to it. Nor is the universe solely a result of natural processes, but includes an inherent ability to recognize the Source, the Creator, should creatures have a desire. The Source uses the process of Revelation to reestablish contact with creatures in the universe and to establish a standard for observing the universe. Creatures who dismiss the possibility of contact with the Creator are left to devise a world-view that has no external standard for truth.
That is the difference, and that is why the naturalist, even with curious stories of primitive development into more complex, can never claim a hold on truth. The universe the naturalist postulates locks them in a delusionary world from which there is no escape. And in effect, the naturalist today unwittingly rides the back of a Theistic world-view based on an immutable external standard of truth, even though he ridicules and denies it.
Best Regards,
Cement
-
And because this universe is "all there is" there is no external standard by which to measure or establish truth. How then can any naturalist believe they see more truth than anyone else when they themselves are just as subject to the pervasive natural delusion factor of the universe as anyone else. Observational Acuity? Right! A few decades ago dinosaurs were tail dragging, cold-blooded lizards. My how they've evolved in 40 years.
That view morphed as science and study evolved on the subject, and 40 years from now the view on Dinosaurs will likely evolve some more. But, rigid theists, who follow a more literal interpretation of their specific deity, book, myths and legends will not evolve. Dinosaurs will never be added to the Old Testament, for example. Some will try to rationalize an explanation, and some will say demons put those fossils in the ground to test the faith of man (without bothering to prove that demons exist).
Nor is the universe solely a result of natural processes, but includes an inherent ability to recognize the Source, the Creator, should creatures have a desire. The Source uses the process of Revelation to reestablish contact with creatures in the universe and to establish a standard for observing the universe. Creatures who dismiss the possibility of contact with the Creator are left to devise a world-view that has no external standard for truth.
I don't recall god actually, personally visiting any external truth on the people. Moses has his 10 Commandments, but I guess we have to take his word that he didn't just write them up himself. I don't recall too many mass revelations, witnessed by hundreds or thousands of people. Sure, there were natural events claimed as acts of god, but no real personal contact beyond individual holy men. So it's really hard to say that those are actually external truths, and not just a replay of human views on truth dating from the Bronze Age that people try to make relevant today to suit their own agendas.
That is the difference, and that is why the naturalist, even with curious stories of primitive development into more complex, can never claim a hold on truth. The universe the naturalist postulates locks them in a delusionary world from which there is no escape. And in effect, the naturalist today unwittingly rides the back of a Theistic world-view based on an immutable external standard of truth, even though he ridicules and denies it.
Those "curious stories" can be touched, examined and analyzed. We don't have to accept on faith that they existed, like we have to accept on faith that Jesus was the Son of God and not just a carpenter with a wonderful life view. We have to accept on faith the human transcriptions of the prophet’s private talks with god, in many cases written tens or hundreds of years after the events were claimed to take place. We have to ignore obvious literal falsehoods, like Noah’s ark. It would make a lot more sense, frankly, if it was claimed god made it for Noah than having Noah make it himself, and that it housed large populations of animals that would actually survive to repopulate the species. Walking down the plank on Mount Ararat, oops, a lion just ate the female zebra. And boy, those polar bears sure look warm, I hope they make it to the Arctic circle in good shape... Scientific Method or blind faith -- which has the greater potential for delusion? You can prove delusion using science, and you can easily cover up delusion with faith.
Personally, I don't dismiss the ultimate possibility of a creator. It’s hard to grasp how the secular, scientific universe first started out of “nothing” just like it’s hard to grasp how god was created out of nothing, what he was doing before he created Earth, and where she has been ever since. I think the we are a long way from answering these questions, and may never answer them with our current brain power. But, the current organized religions do nothing to convince me that their creator models are likely, and not just popular mythology that has survived the ages better than some competing mythologies..
Charon
-
Vulcan must have gotten kicked from another evolution/creation thread.
-
Originally posted by hacksaw1
That is the difference, and that is why the naturalist, even with curious stories of primitive development into more complex, can never claim a hold on truth. The universe the naturalist postulates locks them in a delusionary world from which there is no escape. And in effect, the naturalist today unwittingly rides the back of a Theistic world-view based on an immutable external standard of truth, even though he ridicules and denies it.
Best Regards,
Cement
Dear Cement,
Human beings are no more important in the big scheme of things than are rats. All Live, all die, all decompose and that's it. When you are dead you are dead. End of story. I certainly don't mind if you would like to think that you are so important that an invisbile being in the sky loves you if that's what you want.
Mac