How did the universe come into existence?

[Perrie Juran]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

You are right, it's been a cool thread Phil. I think only a couple of people are following it now though looking at our Reply / View ratio.

I guess I was hoping for more traditional religious contributors to debate against when I started the thread, but they seem to be hiding which is fair enough and understandable.

---

What is there to debate?  Either you believe or you don't. 

One of the papers I did for my degree was entitled "The Theodicy Of The Gnostics Regarding The Emanation Of The Demiurge."  That was their big bang theory.

To me if there is any proof that there are no atheists it's when people have sex:

"oh my god, oh my god, oh my god, oh my god......................"

[Porky Gorky]

Indeed.

If you look upon life as a game, then for religious poeple with faith, the game is already in play, the rules are clearly defined, play by the rules and you win i.e. heaven, reincarnation or whatever

For the rest of us we don't even know what game we are playing half the time. We start playing a game based on a certain set of rules, then the rules change and the game becomes unplayable so we need to find a new game with new rules.

That's my game analogy :matte-motes-big-grin:

[Charolotte Caxton]

One of the disappointing aspects of religion, is that you are taught the rules, play by them, and then find out that the rules were made not by the official, but by other players just like you.

Not only that, but there are many other playbooks out there for the same game. Then the question becomes, what makes our rules more correct then the hundreds of others? What if the way we are playing is the wrong way? Then the answer is our faith is not strong enough. Ok, but what about all the others who believe in their way, is their faith so strong that they can all be so wrong?

If it were a matter of either you believe in god or you don't, it would be easy. The problem is which god and which of the many right ways are we supposed to believe?

[ROB34466IIIa]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

You are right, it's been a cool thread Phil. I think only a couple of people are following it now though looking at our Reply / View ratio.

I guess I was hoping for more traditional religious contributors to debate against when I started the thread, but they seem to be hiding which is fair enough and understandable.

---

What is there to debate?  Either you believe or you don't. 

One of the papers I did for my degree was entitled "The Theodicy Of The Gnostics Regarding The Emanation Of The Demiurge."  That was their big bang theory.

---

" For I am the one who alone exists,

and I have no one who will judge me."

Thunder : Perfect Mind   - Nag Hammadi Library

 

[161488303349]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

I can't speak for them, but my feeling is that for some of the religious persons the question has already been answered so there is nothing to discuss. 

---

yes pretty much. if we can assign a nil property to God then we can also assign a non-nil property. it's a matter of belief either way. we believe this to be the case. when we do believe that God is non-nil then we can construct heaven and hell, creationism, etc on top of this. can even write a whole book about it and then interpret the universe and everything in it according to this view 

[161488303349]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

One of the disappointing aspects of religion, is that you are taught the rules, play by them, and then find out that the rules were made not by the official, but by other players just like you.

Not only that, but there are many other playbooks out there for the same game. Then the question becomes, what makes our rules more correct then the hundreds of others? What if the way we are playing is the wrong way? Then the answer is our faith is not strong enough. Ok, but what about all the others who believe in their way, is their faith so strong that they can all be so wrong?

If it were a matter of either you believe in god or you don't, it would be easy. The problem is which god and which of the many right ways are we supposed to believe?

---

is some good thoughts in here. can't answer then all. can say though that people who have strong faith tend toward wanting, needing even, certainty in their lives. humility can also play a part in this. i human, am humbled by the thought that i may not actually be the pinnacle of conciousness

[161488303349]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

---

16 wrote:

yes true. as the created universe would be inside this/our one. so does this mean that it could be considered a model of a universe?

---

I don't think it would be a very good idea to create a universe inside our own universe. I think it will need to be attached to ours in some way but it would need to exist within it's own dimension and not within ours. I don't know what my opinion is based on but seems the logical thing to do, When I think about the multi-verse, I see the universes existing independently of each other, but attached in some ways through strings or black holes or whatever. I've never really thought about universes within other universe. That could go on forever like an infinite Russian Doll. I'll have to think about that concept more, it's interesting.

---

if your friend can pull off creating a universe outside of our one then that would be pretty awesome

like others, thanks for this thread Porky. has been way cool. i love thinking about these kinds of things and chatting about them. it helps me to learn stuff even when it does make my brain hurt sometimes. so cheers (:

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

One of the disappointing aspects of religion, is that you are taught the rules, play by them, and then find out that the rules were made not by the official, but by other players just like you.

Not only that, but there are many other playbooks out there for the same game. Then the question becomes, what makes our rules more correct then the hundreds of others? What if the way we are playing is the wrong way? Then the answer is our faith is not strong enough. Ok, but what about all the others who believe in their way, is their faith so strong that they can all be so wrong?

If it were a matter of either you believe in god or you don't, it would be easy. The problem is which god and which of the many right ways are we supposed to believe?

---

This has vexed me since I was a child. I remember sitting in Catechism class at the tender age of eight or so and being baffled by the nonsense I was hearing. I was apparently to be made privy to special beliefs that would elevate me above non-believers (who would not get into heaven). I already had some idea that heaven wasn't all it was cracked up to be, as Dad often quoted Twain ("Go to Heaven for the weather, Hell for the company.")

I heard wild stories about "miracles", which seemed like pure silliness to me. Every time I heard about parting seas or burning bushes, I thought about the old movies I'd seen of indians bowing in homage to the white man carrying the "fire stick" (rifle). Long before I'd heard Clarke's third law, I was aware that, in the absense of knowledge, a lot of stuff seems like magic.

I am generally fairly quick to spot logical inconsistencies. This was true even when I was young. When my highly religious girlfriend told me, in no uncertain terms, that the Earth was 4500 years old, I asked her why there were dozens of sedimentary layers visible in the Grand Canyon which, accounting for sedimentation rates, revealed at least a billion or two years of formation. Why were there Greenland glacier ice cores showing hundreds of thousands of annual snowfalls? How could "Prometheus", a bristlecone pine cut down in Nevada in 1964, have over 4800 annular rings? Her answer? "God works in mysterious ways, Maddy." My response was "didn't you tell me deception was the work of the devil?" Her response? "You're going to hell!!"

For the last five years, I have enlisted occasional help from a retired electronics technician. He's bright, capable, conscientious, and a firm believer that the Earth is 6500 years old. More than once he has gazed through my telescope at things that emitted their light millions of years ago. I asked him what he thinks about that. His answer? "God works in mysterious ways, Maddy." We smile at each other and say good night. The next day, we get back to work.

While I haven't discovered a way to change the mind of a literal fundamentalist who believes in pearly gates or 72 virgins, I find myself being damned by them less frequently as I get older.

[161488303349]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

16 wrote:

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

I was talking to a friend on Skype last night, He is a Theoretical Physicist at UCL. We were discussing the origin or the universe and he made a good point that I shall mention here. 

Many scientists have trouble believing in intelligent design or a creator because of the lack of visible evidence to support such claims. However he believes that will change within the next few hundred years because human beings will have developed the ability to create our own physical universes, He believes we will be able to replicate the big bang and create replica universes on a much smaller scale. We will be able to demonstrate our control over the universes by manipulating time, gravity, expansion rates, matter dispersal etc etc. By creating our own universe we effectively scientifically prove that intelligent design is both possible and likely.

---

 

that would be way cool. would prove the multi-universe thingy once and for all as well. and i need not bother about specks ever again either

if i could upload myself into it then i be quite happy to call him God or whatever title he wants. even a plug in the back of my head will do. just hope that when it happens i don't have to have a hyphen in my name and that i dont walk like a duck (:

---

that's actually what fermi lab had been trying to do for some time..and now they have this bigger ring out in france or some other country ..

colliding sub atomic particles to try to create matter..

a lot of doors are gonna open up if they ever can do that..

 

---

yes, have been following what they are doing. its all very exciting

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

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. 

---

Most means the majority, although the majority is not necessarily more than a tiny smidgeon over half.

If you say "many, if not most" you are defining "many" to mean less than "most" and so you are suggesting an amount that is perhaps less than half, but perhaps more than half.  It's definately a very long way from suggesting "all" so you were right in that case at least.

 

 

As for whether or not I ever stop, it's more than two tango-ing over this issue, I'm only one of those, and you are there at each and every step.

Do you ever stop? 

Why do you feel you have the right to dictate what words used by others means, while also having a right to not have your words interpreted as what they mean, and also have the right to tell others to stop while you keep carrying on?  Do you think you are just more special than everyone else?

Every accusation you have made about me in this thread, I have given you ample opportunity to substantiate by directly pointing out how the accusation is justified by anything I've posted, and instead you come back demanding I stop and essentially give you the last words.  You're not even happy having the last words as you still carried on even after I devoted one of my posts to giving you the last words.

You can stop any time you know.  I don't demand or even request it.  It's your decision.  But I'm not trying to bully someone into silence just because I cannot cope with admitting to myself that I made a boo-boo so your mileage may vary.

As to what I have said, I told you that your use of the word created assumes a creator, and it does.  Whether or not you assume a creator is a separate manner.  The meaning of the words you chose to use assumes one and I'm not the only poster who has told you this in this thread.

Meanwhile, you've not yet explained why it's ok for you to tell me that my use of the word creator must mean "intelligent" creator, much less why if my use must mean this, your's does not necessarily mean this.  The whole issue you seem sick of yet unable to stop yourself from carrying on started because you tried to insist my use of the word creator meant intelligent because you interpret the word that way.  It's beyond obnoxious and argumentative to insist my use of words was intended to convey your definition while expecting everyone to accept your use of the same word does not mean what you define the word as meaning.

The phrase "get a grip" along with "grow up" comes to mind.

I'll stop when I feel like stopping, and I welcome you to stop or to carry on as your own preferences indicate.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Sounds cool, but weren't we supposed to have flying cars by now, and will the little people we create in our tiny universes be content to know we created them, or will they wonder who created us? 

---

Yes It won't help much in identifying the intelligence that created our universe, but It will add validity to the question, "were we created by an intelligence?"

If we can create a universe then the chances are it's a common place occurance within the multi-verse.

However, I agree with what you said, the lack of flying cars doesn't give me much hope that we'll be creating our own universes anytime soon. :smileysad:

---

I'm not fussed on the possiblity element.  I already think it's possible.  I tend to doubt we could detect it though (perhaps there is a signature on a random planet or astoroid somewhere, or a trade mark at least), and more importantly, that if we detected or confirmed a creator,  that the question would then still not be answered at that point.

If a creator created the universe then this is only a step in the pathway to the the universe coming into being, and we still need to answer questions about how the creator came into existence to get the full answer to how our universe came to exist.  Starting at that creator is like starting a book at chapter 7 instead of chapter 1.  You've still not read the book when you get to the end but rather have only partially read it.

The question is already legitimate, if unanswerable, but if the answer were confirmed as "yes" it's still not a full answer to how our universe came to exist.

 

I'm not sure why in your later post you claim that if we create a universe this is proof that a creator or other omnipotent entity could actually exist.  We're not omnipotent, so while the potential for a universe to be created through intentional design would be confirmed, the possibility of omnipotence would not be.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

I was talking to a friend on Skype last night, He is a Theoretical Physicist at UCL. We were discussing the origin or the universe and he made a good point that I shall mention here. 

Many scientists have trouble believing in intelligent design or a creator because of the lack of visible evidence to support such claims. However he believes that will change within the next few hundred years because human beings will have developed the ability to create our own physical universes, He believes we will be able to replicate the big bang and create replica universes on a much smaller scale. We will be able to demonstrate our control over the universes by manipulating time, gravity, expansion rates, matter dispersal etc etc. By creating our own universe we effectively scientifically prove that intelligent design is both possible and likely.

---

I've heard this speculation as well, both from people hoping it happens and people who don't. Those who don't were banging the table pretty hard at the christening of the LHC, fearing we'd create a black hole that would ravel our universe and unravel another one. That had me amused over the thought that each new universe springs from the demise of its creator.

The other theory I've hard, from folks who hope to do it, is that energetic enough collisions could ultimately poke into one of those tightly wound little extra dimensions, sparking the transfer of information into a new "singularity" from which another big bang arises. Of course we'd not be able to peek into this and watch it, nor answer prayers from the faithful we might imagine eventually evolve there.

In either case, although the "creator" would be intellgent, that intelligence would neither pass into nor be aware of the creation. I kinda like that, the idea that a creator would not only be able to create it all, but also know how it was gonna turn out is just a big yawn to me. I want to think that any intelligent creator would be curious, and that any creation would be the result of trying things out to see what happens. And in that sense, I could imagine that creators are really just agents, facilitating the transfer of stuff from one metaverse to another.

Is it just a matter of time until we not only wonder about our "creator", but also our "creations"?

 

[Porky Gorky]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

I'm not sure why in your later post you claim that if we create a universe this is proof that a creator or other omnipotent entity could actually exist.  We're not omnipotent, so while the potential for a universe to be created through intentional design would be confirmed, the possibility of omnipotence would not be.

---

We are not omnipotent in our own universe, however if we manage to create an artificial universe along with the ability to control it, we could have unlimited and universal power and authority over that universe, thus rendering us omnipotent  within our artificial universe. We would be the creators after all. The universe could be specifically design to facilitate our omnipitance. Any intelligent life forms that exists within it may look upon us the same way we look upon our own omnipotent gods and creators found through-out our religions. If we could pull it off we could effectively become Gods.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

I'm not sure why in your later post you claim that if we create a universe this is proof that a creator or other omnipotent entity could actually exist.  We're not omnipotent, so while the potential for a universe to be created through intentional design would be confirmed, the possibility of omnipotence would not be.

---

We are not omnipotent in our own universe, however if we manage to create an artificial universe along with the ability to control it, we could have unlimited and universal power and authority over that universe, thus rendering us omnipotent  within our artificial universe. We would be the creators after all. The universe could be specifically design to facilitate our omnipitance. Any intelligent life forms that exists within it may look upon us the same way we look upon our own omnipotent gods and creators found through-out our religions. If we could pull it off we could effectively become Gods.

---

If we were able to create a universe, that in itself would not make us all powerful. We would be the creators of that particular universe and could possibly affect it by applying outside forces and pressures, but that would be the extent of it. Until we could control every single occurrence that happens in that universe, we could not be called omnipotent. If we could not control every action, thought, or decision of our mini peeps, then how could we call ourselves gods? A true omnipotent god would by definition be able to control everything, not most things or a large number of things, but everything.   

[Charolotte Caxton]

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Purrfect.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

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 -

---

For sure.... : )

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 - 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.

---

Phil, we here at The One True Church....are delighted to know that you're enlightened.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

I'm not sure why in your later post you claim that if we create a universe this is proof that a creator or other omnipotent entity could actually exist.  We're not omnipotent, so while the potential for a universe to be created through intentional design would be confirmed, the possibility of omnipotence would not be.

---

We are not omnipotent in our own universe, however if we manage to create an artificial universe along with the ability to control it, we could have unlimited and universal power and authority over that universe, thus rendering us omnipotent  within our artificial universe. We would be the creators after all. The universe could be specifically design to facilitate our omnipitance. Any intelligent life forms that exists within it may look upon us the same way we look upon our own omnipotent gods and creators found through-out our religions. If we could pull it off we could effectively become Gods.

---

Ok, that makes more sense, however, it's a huge leap.  If we create a universe there's no certainty that this will simultaneously grant us limitless control over everything within its bounds. 

It's not necessarily the case that if we can create a universe that we can design it to facilitate omnipotence within it.  Omnipotence is not necessarily possible, and if it is possible that does not mean it is or ever will be attainable to just any old body who happens to be able to create universes. Just because I can create a cake, does not mean I can create a cake designed to turn into a unicorn at midnight or to hold elf-attended discos inside itself.

In fact it may be the case that we not only would be unable to exert omnipotence within the universe created, but that we might be unable to exert any influence of any kind, or even observe what occurs within that universe.  It may be completely bounded so that we are entirely shut out from transferring information to it or extracting any from it.

Ask any parent whether or not creating something grants one limitless control over it. 

[Charolotte Caxton]

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Most means the majority, although the majority is not necessarily more than a tiny smidgeon over half.

If you say "many, if not most" you are defining "many" to mean less than "most" and so you are suggesting an amount that is perhaps less than half, but perhaps more than half.  It's definately a very long way from suggesting "all" so you were right in that case at least.

---

Thankyou. I was right about it all those years ago, but they chose to abandon their native language because they wanted it to have meant the majority.

 

In response to the rest of your post...

I haven't tried to dictate how people use words. It's all been about you trying to dictate something that I assume, regardless of me repeatedly telling you that I don't don't assume it. I don't even assume a creator, let alone an intelligent one. I lean strongly in that direction because I find the "always there" scenario to be incomprehensible, but that doesn't mean that I assume it.. As I said before, the word "creator" is generally used to mean an intelligence behind it. E.g. "the creator of the universe" is generally used to mean an intelligent creator, such as God.

You said, "As to what I have said, I told you that your use of the word created assumes a creator, and it does. Whether or not you assume a creator is a separate matter". Whether or not I assume a creator is exactly what this side-issue has all been about. You stated more than once that I have that assumption, and I told you more than once that I don't, but you refused to accept it. Instead, you tried to prove that I have an assumption that I said I don't have. If you'd accepted it, instead of trying to prove the opposite, which was never going to be anything but a futile effort, this side-issue wouldn't have happened. I'm sorry, but it's the way you dealt with it that has dragged it on for so long. All you need do is accept what I've said all along - that I don't assume a creator - and that's the end of it.

ETA: Have a read of your post #337, which followed the one that I quoted from in this post. You use the word "creator" quite a lot but not the phrase "intelligent creator". Anyone reading what you wrote about a creator in that post would understand that you were talking about an intelligent creator. There's nothing wrong with the post and your use of "creator" in it. The point is that you repeatedly used the word in the way it is generally used when talking about the universe - intelligent creator.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

Phil, we here at The One True Church....are delighted to know that you're enlightened.

---

I'm very pleased about that, Celestiall. It took a lot of effort to succeed (I gave up sugar and went onto sweeteners to lose the weight and become enlighted) and your delight is all the reward that I could possibly need.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

 

---

Brilliant! There's something to be said for all the years of experience it take to become old and wise

[Charolotte Caxton]

What do they eat, the turtles and the elephants?

[Phil Deakins]

They don't actually eat as they move through space. All the giant turtles that carry the worlds on their backs are heading for a particular point in space - an unusual nebula. The nebula consists of space plankton. When they get there, they get it together (the Big Bang) to give birth to the next generation of giant turtles, which feeds on the space plankton, and grows big and strong. Then they pass their worlds on to the new generation, which goes off through space. The old generation stays in the nebula and decomposes to become the space plankton for the new generation's return, eons in the future. It's a self-sustaining system.

[Porky Gorky]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

If we were able to create a universe, that in itself would not make us all powerful. We would be the creators of that particular universe and could possibly affect it by applying outside forces and pressures, but that would be the extent of it. Until we could control every single occurrence that happens in that universe, we could not be called omnipotent. If we could not control every action, thought, or decision of our mini peeps, then how could we call ourselves gods? A true omnipotent god would by definition be able to control everything, not most things or a large number of things, but everything.   

---

Granted, the first few dozen or hundred or even thousand universes that we create, would almost definitely have uncontrollable elements. But there is no reason to assume that we will not be able to master every element of a universe one day. It may take tens of thousands of years and involve a lot of trial and error. But given enough time it should be theoretically possible for us to create a universe that is 100% within our control.  That includes having control over any life forms that exists within. It's hard to fathom based on our current understanding of the electrochemical process in the brain that results in thought, but it is just a chemical process after all. Through better understanding and technology, it should be possible to manipulate and control any life forms by design.

 

If you limit your imagination to the boundaries that currently exists in science today it's hard to contemplate such theories as you are constantly confronted by the limitations of our current  understanding. You need to assume that we will one day understand everything about our own universe and with that knowledge we will be able to create an artificial universe that is fully within our control thus rendering us omnipotent.

 

In my mind there are only 2 factors that could stop us achieving this

First is the Human Race’s long term survival and development, We need to  avoid being wiped out and we need to maintain the comfortable conditions required to support our on-going learning and development

Secondly, if our universe was created by intelligent design, it’s possible that there are rules in place that will prevent us from leaving this universe, creating a new universe, or obtaining omnipotence.