How did the universe come into existence?

[Phil Deakins]

I was adding to my post as you replied to it. I think it should answer you - not that it's any of your business, of course

[ROB34466IIIa]

Note to self : Never correct Maddy and NEVER EVER accept an invitation to her room.

[ROB34466IIIa]

Of course .. but still .. thank you for answering.

[Phil Deakins]

---

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

Note to self : Never correct Maddy and NEVER EVER accept an invitation to her room.

---

I don't argue about suits and suitcases and, judging by Maddy's posts in this thread, I'd be more than happy to accept an invitation to her room :smileyvery-happy:

[ROB34466IIIa]

Oh , I' d wine and dine her alright if she' d allow me .. but certainly frisk her after inviting her to MY room ... :robottongue:

I better hope Snugs is not getting any this .. :robotindifferent:

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

Oh , I' d wine and dine her alright if she' d allow me .. but certainly frisk her after inviting her to MY room ... :robottongue:

I better hope Snugs is not getting any this .. :robotindifferent:

---

/me climbs into the attic to retrieve two suitcases.

[ROB34466IIIa]

Hah ! :robotlol:

 

I' m still gonna frisk yer .. :robottongue:

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

16 wrote:

in the context of this thread "How did the universe come into existence?" the supposition is that there was a Beginning. if so then that is a reference to a point in time. If we discount time then there was no beginning

---

Can time be discounted? Can a 3-dimensional anything, including a universe, exist at all where there is no time for it to exist in? It seems highly unlikely, but it's very hard for us to conceive of things that are totally foreign to our experience. I'm reminded of a photon of light...

In "The Fabric Of The Cosmos", the author, Brian Greene, states that everything is in motion at the speed of light. Some of the motion is through space and the rest is through time. The two types of motion add up to the speed of light. Hence, the faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. It was like finding a beautiful diamonds when I read that.

So I thought about a photon of light. It moves through space at the speed of light, which means that it doesn't move through time at all and, from its point of view, it is simultaneously everywhere it will ever be, from its point of view. At the point in time when a photon leaves the Sun, for instance, it is instantaneously everywhere it will ever be, from its point of view. From the point of view of the photon, there is no time, and yet, also from its point of view, it does exist.

That's a weird thing for us with our experience to get our heads around. Just as 3D existance without time is a weird thing to get our heads around. But I can't suggest that the universe can't exist without the time dimension for it to exist in, because that's how the photon exists from its point of view, and the photon is just a particle, after all.

[Anaiya Arnold]

Creator means intelligent creator to you but merely creator to me. 

This naturally means that if you say creator you absolutely definately do not mean intelligent creator, but when I say creator it can only mean intelligent creator, and this is true no matter if I state clearly and plainly that I do not assign intelligence as a necessary characteristic of "creator".

Also, if you say "the answer to your question is that an intelligent designer created it" this absolutely does not mean "the answer to your quesiton is that an intelligent designer created it" and I am misinterpreting, grabbing the wrong end of the stick and just being argumentative if I do not know that.  It's absolutely not the case that you miscommunicated whatever you meant when you plainly and unambiguously stated "the answer to your question is that an intelligent designer created it", but at worst may have been less than clear in a way that would make my misunderstanding somewhat understandable.

 

Aha.....tell us another cool story Phil.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

The start of that was different to the start of this side issue, because the english only had one meaning, which they chose to ignore. In the case of this side issue here, my first post was worded in a way that caused something to be understood that isn't true. But it reminded me of the old RA thread because, it doesn't matter how many times I write that I don't hold a particular assumption, it isn't believed, because someone thinks they know better than me about what I think and assume - based on a poorly worded post. It really is a very stupid thing to keep on about.

---

 

---

---

Tell us another cool story Phil,

Since you'd very obviously like (or perhaps desperately need) to have the last words though.....here's some of your's you prepared earlier.

"I'd already told her that the way she is using the word "creator" means an intelligent one, such as God, and she keeps on saying that I assume that to be the case. I don't. She really is just being argumentative for the sake of it - and getting nowhere."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Creator means intelligent creator to you but merely creator to me. 

This naturally means that if you say creator you absolutely definately do not mean intelligent creator, but when I say creator it can only mean intelligent creator, and this is true no matter if I state clearly and plainly that I do not assign intelligence as a necessary characteristic of "creator".

Also, if you say "the answer to your question is that an intelligent designer created it" this absolutely does not mean "the answer to your quesiton is that an intelligent designer created it" and I am misinterpreting, grabbing the wrong end of the stick and just being argumentative if I do not know that.  It's absolutely not the case that you miscommunicated whatever you meant when you plainly and unambiguously stated "the answer to your question is that an intelligent designer created it", but at worst may have been less than clear in a way that would make my misunderstanding somewhat understandable.

 

Aha.....tell us another cool story Phil.

---

The only cool story I have is one that I've told you a number of times. I don't have the assumption that you insist I do have. There aren't many people who would argue against that - because there aren't many people who are so clever that they believe they know better than me what I actually think and assume. But you're different, of course

[Perrie Juran]

 

In the beginning was the Watermelon. 

And the Watermelon saw darkness on the face of cyberspace.

And gave us a Torley.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Creator means intelligent creator to you but merely creator to me. 

This naturally means that if you say creator you absolutely definately do not mean intelligent creator, but when I say creator it can only mean intelligent creator, and this is true no matter if I state clearly and plainly that I do not assign intelligence as a necessary characteristic of "creator".

Also, if you say "the answer to your question is that an intelligent designer created it" this absolutely does not mean "the answer to your quesiton is that an intelligent designer created it" and I am misinterpreting, grabbing the wrong end of the stick and just being argumentative if I do not know that.  It's absolutely not the case that you miscommunicated whatever you meant when you plainly and unambiguously stated "the answer to your question is that an intelligent designer created it", but at worst may have been less than clear in a way that would make my misunderstanding somewhat understandable.

 

Aha.....tell us another cool story Phil.

---

The only cool story I have is one that I've told you a number of times. I don't have the assumption that you insist I do have. There aren't many people who would argue against that - because there aren't many people who are so clever that they believe they know better than me what I actually think and assume. But you're different, of course

---

Specify this assumption you claim I think you have in this cool story of your's Phil.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Y'know, this silly side debate reminds me of a thread years ago - in RA. Probably most users of this forum won't remember it's RA ancestor. What happened there was that I posted on topic in a thread. What I wrote was that "

many, perhaps most, SL females think that the guys want to have sex with them

". That might not be the exact wording, but the "

many, perhaps most

" part is exact.

One or two of the female users took offense, presumably because it was true of them, or it didn't include them and they didn't want to be thought of in that way (not that it would matter anyway). Then loads of others joined in and they all came down on me like a ton of bricks. The only thing they thought they could come at me about was the "

many, perhaps most

" bit. Most of them were native english speakers but they abandoned their own language and insisted that "many, perhaps most" actually means "the majority" or "most" and nothing else. I pointed out that it actually means "a large number, maybe more than half" , and I told them that that was exactly what I meant. But it didn't matter how many times I told them that, they still insisted that it meant something that it didn't actually mean in their own native language. Their desire to stick the knife in made them stupid. It was a bandwagon effect. A few apologised in private afterwards.

The start of that was different to the start of this side issue, because the english only had one meaning, which they chose to ignore. In the case of this side issue here, my first post was worded in a way that caused something to be understood that isn't true. But it reminded me of the old RA thread because, it doesn't matter how many times I write that I don't hold a particular assumption, it isn't believed, because someone thinks they know better than me about what I think and assume - based on a poorly worded post. It really is a very stupid thing to keep on about.

---

First, thank you for the compliment a few pages back, means a lot to me.

Second, that phrase how come is driving me crazy! lol 

Thirdly, 'many, perhaps most' sounds exactly like 'the majority or almost all' to me.

Some classic humor:

[Perrie Juran]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Y'know, this silly side debate reminds me of a thread years ago - in RA. Probably most users of this forum won't remember it's RA ancestor. What happened there was that I posted on topic in a thread. What I wrote was that "

many, perhaps most, SL females think that the guys want to have sex with them

". That might not be the exact wording, but the "

many, perhaps most

" part is exact.

One or two of the female users took offense, presumably because it was true of them, or it didn't include them and they didn't want to be thought of in that way (not that it would matter anyway). Then loads of others joined in and they all came down on me like a ton of bricks. The only thing they thought they could come at me about was the "

many, perhaps most

" bit. Most of them were native english speakers but they abandoned their own language and insisted that "many, perhaps most" actually means "the majority" or "most" and nothing else. I pointed out that it actually means "a large number, maybe more than half" , and I told them that that was exactly what I meant. But it didn't matter how many times I told them that, they still insisted that it meant something that it didn't actually mean in their own native language. Their desire to stick the knife in made them stupid. It was a bandwagon effect. A few apologised in private afterwards.

The start of that was different to the start of this side issue, because the english only had one meaning, which they chose to ignore. In the case of this side issue here, my first post was worded in a way that caused something to be understood that isn't true. But it reminded me of the old RA thread because, it doesn't matter how many times I write that I don't hold a particular assumption, it isn't believed, because someone thinks they know better than me about what I think and assume - based on a poorly worded post. It really is a very stupid thing to keep on about.

---

First, thank you for the compliment a few pages back, means a lot to me.

Second, that phrase how come is driving me crazy! lol 

Thirdly, 'many, perhaps most' sounds exactly like 'the majority or almost all' to me.

Some classic humor:

 

---

In many of my posts I have taken to using the word 'some' because many times I have found that some people will ignore the many who some times have the same problem.  Some times I find this to be disconcerting because many times I know that it is more than just some people but most of the time it isn't worth arguing about.  Some times I think I should just go get a life and many of those who some times question the use of the word many times say the same.

Some times trying to be politically correct can be such a pain in the arse.

And I know most of the time my attempts at humor fail.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Y'know, this silly side debate reminds me of a thread years ago - in RA. Probably most users of this forum won't remember it's RA ancestor. What happened there was that I posted on topic in a thread. What I wrote was that "

many, perhaps most, SL females think that the guys want to have sex with them

". That might not be the exact wording, but the "

many, perhaps most

" part is exact.

One or two of the female users took offense, presumably because it was true of them, or it didn't include them and they didn't want to be thought of in that way (not that it would matter anyway). Then loads of others joined in and they all came down on me like a ton of bricks. The only thing they thought they could come at me about was the "

many, perhaps most

" bit. Most of them were native english speakers but they abandoned their own language and insisted that "many, perhaps most" actually means "the majority" or "most" and nothing else. I pointed out that it actually means "a large number, maybe more than half" , and I told them that that was exactly what I meant. But it didn't matter how many times I told them that, they still insisted that it meant something that it didn't actually mean in their own native language. Their desire to stick the knife in made them stupid. It was a bandwagon effect. A few apologised in private afterwards.

The start of that was different to the start of this side issue, because the english only had one meaning, which they chose to ignore. In the case of this side issue here, my first post was worded in a way that caused something to be understood that isn't true. But it reminded me of the old RA thread because, it doesn't matter how many times I write that I don't hold a particular assumption, it isn't believed, because someone thinks they know better than me about what I think and assume - based on a poorly worded post. It really is a very stupid thing to keep on about.

---

First, thank you for the compliment a few pages back, means a lot to me.

Second, that phrase how come is driving me crazy! lol 

Thirdly, 'many, perhaps most' sounds exactly like 'the majority or almost all' to me.

Some classic humor:

 

---

In many of my posts I have taken to using the word 'some' because many times I have found that some people will ignore the many who some times have the same problem.  Some times I find this to be disconcerting because many times I know that it is more than just some people but most of the time it isn't worth arguing about.  Some times I think I should just go get a life and many of those who some times question the use of the word many times say the same.

Some times trying to be politically correct can be such a pain in the arse.

And I know most of the time my attempts at humor fail.

---

You are always pretty funny to me. Then again, I don't read many of your posts, just some. 

[161488303349]

---

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

none ... :robotfrustrated:

PS Usually I' m unable to with people arguing like : " I have a suit. I have a suitcase. The suit fits in the suitcase.I fit in my suit, so I must fit in my suitcase.

---

there is sufficient information in your example to prove your conclusion either way. that you do have a suit is uncontestable by the simple statement: "I have a suit.", similarly that you do actually have a suitcase. The proof is obtained by hopping into the suitcase. when the suitcase is sufficiently large then the conclusion "so I must fit in my suitcase" is provably true. when the suitcase is too small then the conclusion is provably false. as far as that suitcase goes anyways

to make it similar to my examples then rephrase: "do i have a suit when i have a suitcase?" we can't answer this question just be observing the suitcase. we need more information

+

when we enter into the field of philosophy, which we often do when we are confronted by an absence of information, then yes it does get murky. it gets even more murky when we enter into theological debate. the Time thingy thought exercise is actual a counter-example to the Creationist Conjecture: ""well No because of the speck",  even if there was somehow a Conciousness in the Beginning as the creationists presume

when discussing the "speck" a creationist will simply state that God created it. that is disputable by the rules governing this/our material universe as we curently understand them

 

 

 

[161488303349]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

none ... :robotfrustrated:

PS Usually I' m unable to with people arguing like : " I have a suit. I have a suitcase. The suit fits in the suitcase.I fit in my suit, so I must fit in my suitcase.

---

Rob, given enough time and a good serrated bread knife, I believe I could make that chain of reasoning work.

---

jejejjejeje (:

yes that method can work good as well sometimes

[161488303349]

ps. i add this here

consider another theological reference: "God is knowable by his works and his wonders to behold"

context: works/wonders = suitcase. God = suit

[161488303349]

the interesting thing in this argumentation is the speed of light. we can actual measure this and we use this quite often as a base when constructing proofs in our efforts to understand our universe. we consider our Time relative to this

something moving at the speed of light would, as you say, reference Time in a different way to us. consider a reference to Time from the photon's pov. does the photon die? if not then its infinitely eternal. if it does die then we, and the photon, would have a point in Time for the photon

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

In the beginning was the Watermelon. 

And the Watermelon saw darkness on the face of cyberspace.

And gave us a Torley.

---

The Torley brought joy to those in the dark and dreary places.

And was much loved...

 

@Perrie, incidentally, this past Saturday, while at the MICA thermonuclear supernovae lecture, an astrophysicist friend of mine and I, continued a conversation we had from an earlier time...about creation, how the universe came into existence, and all manner of related subjects.   

Ultimately, we decided to start our own church to more fully explain the nature of the universe to those seeking enlightenment.    Creation will be explained....and more... (psst, it involves turtles all the way down... ; )

See my inworld profile if you're interested in joining...

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

First, thank you for the compliment a few pages back, means a lot to me.

Second, that phrase how come is driving me crazy! lol 

Thirdly, 'many, perhaps most' sounds exactly like 'the majority or almost all' to me.

---

yw. (it was meant)

"How come?" is the best way I can think of of wondering how come it was always there. Asking how did it get to be always there? Implies a time when it wasn't there (the 'get to be' bit), so it's not a good way of asking.

I don't know why it should sound like that to you. "Many" means a lot, either a majority or a minority, but a lot. "Perhaps most" means maybe the majority but not necessarily so. There's no way in the english language that "many, perhaps most" can mean the majority and only the majority. The fact of adding "perhaps most" to the word "many" is an absolute indication that the word "many" isn't being used to mean the majority. If it was, that addition would be unnecessary - even reptition. I can understand it if a person gets the impression of "majority" when quickly reading it within a sentence, but no native english speaker can argue against its actual meaning, especially after it's been pointed out.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Specify this assumption you claim I think you have in this cool story of your's Phil.

---

Don't you ever stop?

You said that I assume a creator. I told you that I didn't. Soon afterwards you said that I assume a creator. I may be mistaken but I think you stated that I assume a creator 3 times, though it may only have been twice.

That's how all this silliness of yours began.

Will you stop now?

[Phil Deakins]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: 

@Perrie, incidentally, this past Saturday, while at the MICA thermonuclear supernovae lecture, an astrophysicist friend of mine and I, continued a conversation we had from an earlier time...about creation, how the universe came into existence, and all manner of related subjects.   

Ultimately, we decided to start our own church to more fully explain the nature of the universe to those seeking enlightenment.    Creation will be explained....and more... (psst, it involves turtles all the way down... ; )

See my inworld profile if you're interested in joining... 

---

As I was reading that, I decided that you were a bunch of cranks - right up until you mentioned the turtles. It's self-evident that the world is carried through space on the back of a giant turtle, and any church the recognises that fact is ok with me.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

First, thank you for the compliment a few pages back, means a lot to me.

Second, that phrase how come is driving me crazy! lol 

Thirdly, 'many, perhaps most' sounds exactly like 'the majority or almost all' to me.

---

yw. (it was meant)

"How come?" is the best way I can think of of wondering how come it was always there. Asking how did it get to be always there? Implies a time when it wasn't there (the 'get to be' bit), so it's not a good way of asking.

I don't know why it should sound like that to you. "Many" means a lot, either a majority or a minority, but a lot. "Perhaps most" means maybe the majority but not necessarily so. There's no way in the english language that "many, perhaps most" can mean the majority and

only

 the majority. The fact of adding "perhaps most" to the word "many" is an absolute indication that the word "many" isn't being used to mean the majority. If it was, that addition would be unnecessary - even reptition. I can understand it if a person gets the impression of "majority" when quickly reading it within a sentence, but no native english speaker can argue against its actual meaning, especially after it's been pointed out.



---

Putting the two together, in fact, makes it sound even more like the the majority or almost all. I am not one to argue word definitions, as I believe if you say orange and I think of a fruit but really you meant the color doesn't mean my understanding is incorrect, only that what you said was not what you meant but you meant what you said and I understood what I understood.

I will use the first definitions for the two words, many and most, that I found when I typed them into Google:

Many 2. The majority of the people http://www.thefreedictionary.com/many

Most 1. a.  a great majority of; nearly all http://www.thefreedictionary.com/most

Now, the only reason I am showing you those definitions is to prove this point, that 'many, perhaps most' can and did sound like 'the majority or almost all' to me and it is not because I do not have a grasp of the English language.

So, I cannot argue against its meaning, but I can argue that the way you meant it is not the way it was perceived by myself and all those other ladies that got onto you about it and I hope I have sufficiently shown you how that could have been the case.