I found this article fascinating as it helped me to understand the basics around Multiverse theory. I was initially curious about arguments against the "Prime Mover" idea. Now that we have a pretty good theory about the energy that existed/exists prior to the big bang, the question is no longer who/what set the big bang in motion but could there be an intelligent nature to the energy that has always existed from which hot big bangs occur and create universes?
Before the Big Bang
Moderator: Moderators
-
SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
Post #21
[Replying to post 19 by Divine Insight]
Ok, I watched the vid. It was short. Thank god! lol
Ok, well, I can assert then that I just don't know just as the scientists assert that they just don't know. I can accept that. But it is cool to, like I said, throw out ideas of possibilities just based on logically reasoning. However, Sagan in the vid did not address the fact that the energy has always been there before the big bang. His logic is, if God created the universe out of nothing than who created God out of nothing. But the article I initially posted says the energy has always been there.(There has never been a "nothing") Therefore to me, I can say, so has God. That's my reasoning. How is that not logical?
Ok, I watched the vid. It was short. Thank god! lol
Ok, well, I can assert then that I just don't know just as the scientists assert that they just don't know. I can accept that. But it is cool to, like I said, throw out ideas of possibilities just based on logically reasoning. However, Sagan in the vid did not address the fact that the energy has always been there before the big bang. His logic is, if God created the universe out of nothing than who created God out of nothing. But the article I initially posted says the energy has always been there.(There has never been a "nothing") Therefore to me, I can say, so has God. That's my reasoning. How is that not logical?
-
SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
Post #22
[Replying to post 19 by Divine Insight]
Toward the end of the video he says "If we say that God always existed, why not save a step and say that the Universe always existed. There is no need for a creation, it was always here. " Then he very quickly changes the subject by ending the discussion with "Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, and questions that were once only treated with religion and myth." He does not go to that next logical step! Because he knows its true, the energy was always there. He just didn't want anyone to run with that step like I have and allow it to form a perfectly logical idea that therefore, so has God. Boom. So, although it may not be scientifically proven, it's not an illogical step to take. It at LEAST blows his argument out of the water or again, if anyone wants to make the argument that if the universe was created by God then who created God, better be careful because we know now that the energy behind the creation of the universe always existed!!
Toward the end of the video he says "If we say that God always existed, why not save a step and say that the Universe always existed. There is no need for a creation, it was always here. " Then he very quickly changes the subject by ending the discussion with "Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, and questions that were once only treated with religion and myth." He does not go to that next logical step! Because he knows its true, the energy was always there. He just didn't want anyone to run with that step like I have and allow it to form a perfectly logical idea that therefore, so has God. Boom. So, although it may not be scientifically proven, it's not an illogical step to take. It at LEAST blows his argument out of the water or again, if anyone wants to make the argument that if the universe was created by God then who created God, better be careful because we know now that the energy behind the creation of the universe always existed!!
-
brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6642 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Post #23
[Replying to post 22 by SeaPriestess]
I think the real point being made is that if matter/energy always existed then a creator/god is unnecessary. We still don't know the answer.
I think the real point being made is that if matter/energy always existed then a creator/god is unnecessary. We still don't know the answer.
-
SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
-
SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
Post #25
[Replying to post 23 by brunumb]
But also, if the energy always existed then it's not an illogical idea to say that some sort of God or cosmic consciousness always existed and we developed out of that, just as the big bang occurred from the eternal energy.
But also, if the energy always existed then it's not an illogical idea to say that some sort of God or cosmic consciousness always existed and we developed out of that, just as the big bang occurred from the eternal energy.
-
brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6642 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Post #26
[Replying to post 25 by SeaPriestess]
Except that there is no good reason to suppose that is the case. The possibility of there being a god is not the same as the probability of there being a god.
Except that there is no good reason to suppose that is the case. The possibility of there being a god is not the same as the probability of there being a god.
-
SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
Post #27
[Replying to post 26 by brunumb]
Fair enough but that is when other good logical philosophical arguments can come into play as the next logical next step in understanding why you might believe in a God but really have no idea why.
P.s. I've already been down the road of I believe in God because its part of evolutionary science. It's natural and normal to believe in something that will preserve the existence of the ego/mind/body/being. Those answers don't satisfy me and maybe that's all part of evolutionary science as well. It's normal for there to be a struggle against the idea of "lights out". However, my next question to that would be, the very fact there is any mental struggle could be seen as suspect since if "lights out" was just a normal function of our existence then we would not even think of it. We'd still try to survive, just like animals do, but we would be unaware of any extinction of the ego or personality. I think the whole ego/personality thing right there is a good jump off point or perspective from which to ask "why?" The Hindus would tell us because we are all part of a cosmic consciousness from which we split into fragments, called matter and ego. We are trying to get back to that "whole" with the reincarnation/lifetimes idea. But point is, the ego is responsible for the fear of death. Animals may fear death when its imminent but we fear death just sitting here at out laptops, because we know it's coming eventually at some point.
Fair enough but that is when other good logical philosophical arguments can come into play as the next logical next step in understanding why you might believe in a God but really have no idea why.
P.s. I've already been down the road of I believe in God because its part of evolutionary science. It's natural and normal to believe in something that will preserve the existence of the ego/mind/body/being. Those answers don't satisfy me and maybe that's all part of evolutionary science as well. It's normal for there to be a struggle against the idea of "lights out". However, my next question to that would be, the very fact there is any mental struggle could be seen as suspect since if "lights out" was just a normal function of our existence then we would not even think of it. We'd still try to survive, just like animals do, but we would be unaware of any extinction of the ego or personality. I think the whole ego/personality thing right there is a good jump off point or perspective from which to ask "why?" The Hindus would tell us because we are all part of a cosmic consciousness from which we split into fragments, called matter and ego. We are trying to get back to that "whole" with the reincarnation/lifetimes idea. But point is, the ego is responsible for the fear of death. Animals may fear death when its imminent but we fear death just sitting here at out laptops, because we know it's coming eventually at some point.
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #28
But then all you are doing is renaming energy and calling it "God".SeaPriestess wrote: He just didn't want anyone to run with that step like I have and allow it to form a perfectly logical idea that therefore, so has God.
Now we need to ask you what you even mean by the term "God"?
Are you referring to any specific mythological, religious, or philosophical definitions or descriptions of "God"? If so, then we should look into those descriptions for potential self-contradictory claims, or claims that don't match up with other known facts about reality.
And if you aren't referring to any specific definitions or descriptions of "God", then what do you even mean by that term?
I mean, calling energy "God" doesn't really do much if you have no meaningful definition or description of what you even mean by that term.
As Carl Sagan would say, "Why not save a step and just call energy energy?"
What do you gain by calling it "God"?
And what is it that you intend to imply by using that term?
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
Post #29
[Replying to post 28 by Divine Insight]
Ok, I agree that we cannot call the energy, God itself. Although, the Hindu's could see it as "God" (a.k.a universal or cosmic consciousness) since they don't really believe in a supreme creator above all forms of matter. They just believe that we ARE God, fragmented into matter because of "chaos in the cosmos". So, ironically, if I want to make similarities between science and God, it seems that it would line up more with a Hindu belief system, this formless energy. "Chaos" being what lead up to the big bang. Although I would need to read up on Hindu beliefs more to see what they would make of the formless energy that is co-existing on another plane with this universe. Again, I'm just making these inferences. Just thoughts, ideas. I forget if the article said that the formless energy still exists, creating other hot big bangs which result in the multiverse or if energy somewhere in our universe is what creates more hot big bangs resulting in the multiverse?
On another note, I could argue though that a creator God IS in fact outside of time and always existed JUST LIKE the energy that has always existed outside of time. Just because we can't observe it like we do, in quantum theory, the energy, doesn't mean that it's an illogical thought to think of a creator God the same way, as a basic premise only. That's my only real argument on it at this point.
Ok, I agree that we cannot call the energy, God itself. Although, the Hindu's could see it as "God" (a.k.a universal or cosmic consciousness) since they don't really believe in a supreme creator above all forms of matter. They just believe that we ARE God, fragmented into matter because of "chaos in the cosmos". So, ironically, if I want to make similarities between science and God, it seems that it would line up more with a Hindu belief system, this formless energy. "Chaos" being what lead up to the big bang. Although I would need to read up on Hindu beliefs more to see what they would make of the formless energy that is co-existing on another plane with this universe. Again, I'm just making these inferences. Just thoughts, ideas. I forget if the article said that the formless energy still exists, creating other hot big bangs which result in the multiverse or if energy somewhere in our universe is what creates more hot big bangs resulting in the multiverse?
On another note, I could argue though that a creator God IS in fact outside of time and always existed JUST LIKE the energy that has always existed outside of time. Just because we can't observe it like we do, in quantum theory, the energy, doesn't mean that it's an illogical thought to think of a creator God the same way, as a basic premise only. That's my only real argument on it at this point.
-
brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6642 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Post #30
[Replying to post 29 by SeaPriestess]
"universal or cosmic consciousness"
What exactly does that mean? What is it that is conscious, what is it conscious of, and how is it conscious?
"universal or cosmic consciousness"
What exactly does that mean? What is it that is conscious, what is it conscious of, and how is it conscious?
