This question is for Atheists, religious people, and all those in between.

How did existence begin? Some people say that the so-called "Big Bang" created the universe, BUT what then created the "Big Bang"?:bugeye:

I do not think existance was ever created because the universe has always existed. Therefore, I think the question should be:

Why is there existance vs. non-existance?

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
the question should be:

Why is there existance vs. non-existance?


But any reason for existence must itself exist, right? So now you ask why the reason for existence exists vs. doesn't. Then we contemplate the reason for a reason. Then we go get drunk. Always a good solution for rhetorical questions. :D

I do not think existance was ever created because the universe has always existed. Therefore, I think the question should be:

Why is there existance vs. non-existance?

Interesting answer, But then how has the universe always existed? How can something exist without a starting point?

An even better question: how can a starting point exist?

But any reason for existence must itself exist, right? So now you ask why the reason for existence exists vs. doesn't. Then we contemplate the reason for a reason. Then we go get drunk. Always a good solution for rhetorical questions
Haha. Good point. Why would the reason exist? I never thought of that. It is Friday I agree let's have a drink.

Interesting answer, But then how has the universe always existed? How can something exist without a starting point?
Well, that's a good question. But at some point you have to assume that something has always existed. The way I see it there are only 2 options:
a) A higher power (or God) has always existed and created the universe.
b) The universe has always existed.

I think the simplest answer is #2. I also think that given the option, there is more evidence for #2. Now some might think #2 is purely #2 (Sorry couldn't resist :)). Since we have no proof I go with the simplest answer and say that the universe has always existed and did not have a starting point. It is therefore a potential infinite.

Well, that's a good question. But at some point you have to assume that something has always existed. The way I see it there are only 2 options:
a) A higher power (or God) has always existed and created the universe.
b) The universe has always existed.

I think the simplest answer is #2. I also think that given the option, there is more evidence for #2. Now some might think #2 is purely #2 (Sorry couldn't resist ). Since we have no proof I go with the simplest answer and say that the universe has always existed and did not have a starting point. It is therefore a potential infinite.

Exactly my point. How could the universe have always existed, wouldn't a intelligent being have to create it.

Wouldn't the existence of a supreme being (God) make more logical sense?

Originally posted by static76
Exactly my point. How could the universe have always existed, wouldn't a intelligent being have to create it.


An intelligent being who always existed?

And, why intelligent?

And, why a being?

And... why have to?

An intelligent being who always existed?

And, why intelligent?

And, why a being?

And... why have to?

My logical assumption would be that in order to create an entity like the universe, you would need an intelligent being or beings.

If the universe wasn't created, how has it always existed?

Hey man, I just want to learn the logic behind the assumption. Is there any? I gave you some questions that I think beg answering in light of the assumption.

And, why are you so hung up on the universe, per se? How can anything always exist? (yeah, by the way: my answer -- "behold, it does!")

Hey man, I just want to learn the logic behind the assumption. Is there any? I gave you some questions that I think beg answering in light of the assumption.

And, why are you so hung up on the universe, per se? How can anything always exist?

I wasn't trying to come off as I disagree with your statements. I was simply trying to understand how existence came to be.

I'm not sure why you think I'm hung up on the universe, I was responding to an earlier post that said...

a) A higher power (or God) has always existed and created the universe.
b) The universe has always existed.

Lastly, your question "How can anything always exist?", is the basis for this thread. That's what I trying to understand...

My logical assumption would be that in order to create an entity like the universe, you would need an intelligent being or beings.
How is this logical? How can we assume to know anything about something so far removed from our experience? Wouldn't it be something completely beyond 'intelligent'? At any rate, it is still unnecessary to insert a creator here. It only pushes the question to the creator instead of the universe.

If the universe wasn't created, how has it always existed?
I do not know how it has always existed. But do you not see that you are only complicating the solution by introducing "intelligent being or beings" into the equation? How would these beings always exist? If they didn't, what created them? The simplest answer is that it has always existed.

static,

No-no, disagree all you want. I beseech you! Ok, I encourage you.

Please, don't think you can offend my sensibilities; my skin is probably thicker than my skull :p And please don't take my somewhat kurt language as an attempt to insult.

Merely, your postulate for the "cause" of the universe is quite elaborate and non-arbitrary. My questions were designed to understand just how you arrive at such a postulate. And in case you haven't thought about it yet, make you think. ;)

Basically, my position is simple. If we are to assume causality (i.e. everything is caused by something else, implying the cause is itself caused by something else, etc.) then what we get is an infinite chain of causation, stretching forever into the past with no definite beginning or "first cause" because any such cause would defy causation itself (it would have had to be caused by something.) That's how one arrives at the conclusion that the universe has always existed. Not necessarily in the form we know and love, but the underlying reality that gave rise to the Big Bang, or the underlying reality of that underlying reality, or whatever the ultimate reality is if there even is one -- that reality has to have always existed. At least I don't see any other reasonable conclusion.

How is this logical? How can we assume to know anything about something so far removed from our experience? Wouldn't it be something completely beyond 'intelligent'? At any rate, it is still unnecessary to insert a creator here. It only pushes the question to the creator instead of the universe.

Why is it unnecessary? I never said that it the only assumption one can make. Just that it's the one that make the most sense to me. The reason I started this thread was to get other ideas from my own.

I do not know how it has always existed. But do you not see that you are only complicating the solution by introducing "intelligent being or beings" into the equation? How would these beings always exist? If they didn't, what created them? The simplest answer is that it has always existed.

I don't see this as "complicating the solution", I'm just stating that "existence", if it was created, would probably(in my opinion) be created by an intelligent being or beings. I'm not saying this is the only answer, just a possible one.

I'm pretty sure that Immanuel Kant answered this in his "Critique of Pure Reason". I'm also pretty sure I wasn't able to understand his answer.

Postoak,
I'm pretty sure you are right! I need to go back read some basic philosophy...perhaps without the beer induced haze of college this time around.

Basically, my position is simple. If we are to assume causality (i.e. everything is caused by something else, implying the cause is itself caused by something else, etc.) then what we get is an infinite chain of causation, stretching forever into the past with no definite beginning or "first cause" because any such cause would defy causation itself (it would have had to be caused by something.) That's how one arrives at the conclusion that the universe has always existed. Not necessarily in the form we know and love, but the underlying reality that gave rise to the Big Bang, or the underlying reality of that underlying reality, or whatever the ultimate reality is if there even is one -- that reality has to have always existed. At least I don't see any other reasonable conclusion.

Execellent points.

One is glad to be of service. :o

fadingCaptain, static76, and overdoze: where were you when we had this discussion last time?

Also remember that observation plays a role in this. Observe that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The same goes for energy. Infinity is the only logical answer.

How can something come from nothing? If a start must exist, then what started the starter? These are the holes in creation theory.

Also remember that observation plays a role in this. Observe that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The same goes for energy. Infinity is the only logical answer.

As far I we know in our universe this is true. But whose to say these laws are applicable to a plane of existence outside our universe. If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, how did it come to be in the first place?:confused:

How can something come from nothing? If a start must exist, then what started the starter? These are the holes in creation theory.

Not really, one could say that God is an infinite being that started our plane of existence and our universe. Not saying it's true, however, the arguement can be made.

Originally posted by Teg
fadingCaptain, static76, and overdoze: where were you when we had this discussion last time?


Probably doing something productive with my life. :p

Now I've had 3 days of nothing to do and I'm going bonkers.


Also remember that observation plays a role in this. Observe that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.


You mean, energy not matter. Remember annihilation, nuclear bombs, radioactive decay... Then again, matter synthesis from pure energy in accelerators...


The same goes for energy. Infinity is the only logical answer.


Yeah, as static76 already noted, this applies to the known universe. But not necessarily to whatever generated it. If energy is arrangement of pieces on a chess board, something that creates the chessboard in the first place can define a new arrangement of pieces out of nowhere.

static's right, you cannot rule out an intelligent creator. Why anybody would want to postulate one in the first place, is the real question. Also of interest is how people arrive at such a nontrivial postulate in the first place. As a related curiosity, why this ultra-complex postulate seems the simplest to so many.

Adding a question:
Why do we have the ability to question our existance?

Easy:

because we have ability to question anything and everything.

If you want to know why we have that in turn, it's also easy:

it's part of our cognitive architecture and an inherent attribute of the learning process

Yes, of course, but why are we designed that way? What is the particular function of questioning existance?

Originally posted by static76
This question is for Atheists, religious people, and all those in between.

How did existence begin? Some people say that the so-called "Big Bang" created the universe, BUT what then created the "Big Bang"?:bugeye:


It is clear to me that God created the heavens and the earth. If he did it in the form of a "Big Bang" then so be it. When I think of an "uncaused cause" I identify it as God.

-Mike

There is no function, evolutionarily speaking. Our species is an intelligent species. Intelligence in that sense means questioning how/why things work. That's what humans are, intelligent creatures that question. Along with our intelligence necessary for other things came the obvious questions of 'why are we here?' - 'who/what created us?' - 'how can there be infinite?' - 'how do I know I exist?' and such.

Bebelina

This doesn't directly answer your question, however the link below will certainly help:

http://www.nexus.edu.au/teachstud/gat/painter.htm

I'm sorry Q, I'm bad at reading long texts from the screen, can you sum it up for me?
I am however sure that it has an evolutionary function, everything has, so what do you think it is?
What could be the evolutionary result of questioning existance? It's like imagining something infinite, to try to reach the unreachable. Expanding the mind perhaps?

"I am however sure that it has an evolutionary function, everything has, so what do you think it is?"

What's the evolutionary function of mints?
None, it's just a byproduct of our intelligence.

Ok Tyler, that is your opinion.
In my opinion there is a function. To question existance is not a byproduct, it has been with humankind as long as it has existed. Intelligence is needed for this task, but intelligence is not a self serving purpose either. Why do we then have intelligence to question existence?

Erg.
- Why do we have the ability to question existence?
Tyler - It's a byproduct
- Okay then, why do we have the intelligence to question existence?

You just asked the exact same thing with a couple more words in the question.


"In my opinion there is a function"

Why? What proof do you have of this? Any evidence? And if you say everything in/on/of us serves a purpose you're completely wrong. So as far as I can see your opinion is completely groundless.

If you're asking what is the function of our intelligence - that is what our step in evolution is. That's like asking why does evolution happen.

Yes, that's also a good question, why DOES evolution happen?

And it was not the same question....

Tyler, it will not become any discussion if you just say that I'm wrong, it would also help if you stated why you think so. What proof do you have of your opinions?

We form opinions from our total life experience, so would you like me to write all that down to you as proof for my opinion? :eek:

Btw, I don't like to battle about who is right and who is wrong, because there will never be a winner of that. But what I do like is to have an intelligent, and perhaps pleasant, discussion about the issues.

I don't hold all the answers, that's why I'm asking. And if your replies are not enough to satisfy my curiosity, then I will continue to ask and wonder, regardless of your opinion. Perhaps someone else is interested to carry on a discussion too.

Me, I just enjoy the mindboggle. :)
I think thinking of the impossible makes it more possible. So questioning our existance should make it...what? More real? Or unreal?

Originally posted by fadingCaptain

The way I see it there are only 2 options:
a) A higher power (or God) has always existed and created the universe.
b) The universe has always existed.


How do you know that (a) and (b) aren't the same thing?

;)

Originally posted by Bebelina
What is the particular function of questioning existance?


Perhaps we are part of an experiment concerning a question the answer to which not even God knows...


:D

Could it be that when the big bang just where a ball of mass, it held such high speed (in some way) that time would actually stood still.... if so, there wouldn't exist any past or future at that moment... i know that it would mean that the mass would have been incredibly large (if not infinite) but hey look at black holes... they have incredibly large mass though some are as big as peas.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
But at some point you have to assume that something has always existed.

But that's just an assumption too. What's to prevent existence coming from non-existence? Maybe outside this time-space continuum stuff just pops in and out of existence at random.

Or maybe everything that's in existence in here because it wants to be. Each individual aspect of existence has the will and the power to come into being on its own.

;)

Just thought I'd confuse the issue further.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Bebelina
but why are we designed that way?

First of all, we are not designed. Just wanted to get that one out of the way...

As for questioning, it's again quite simple. If we were not able to question, we would not be able to learn. If we could not learn, we could not use our brains to adapt. If we did not have such an adaptive advantage, our species would have been long since extinct since on physical attributes alone we are quite inferior and ill-suited for survival.

Intelligence (and the big brain to go with it) is our species' special ability. It raises our fitness to somewhere above 0, and increased intelligence confers further adaptability, survivability and thus a selective advantage. Hence, evolution tends to select for higher intelligence (at least in lifeforms that possess any intelligence to begin with -- i.e. lifeforms with brains) -- when such an advantage happens to be conferred by chance mutations in the first place, that is.

Batm,
How do you know that (a) and (b) aren't the same thing?
You mean the universe and God? I used the term God in the deist sense there. If one were to use the terms 'God' and 'worship' in the loosest form possible I would be a Pantheist. However, I have found telling people I am a Pantheist only confusing things so now I just say I am an Atheist.

Jez,
You a swervie? ;)
Could it be that when the big bang just where a ball of mass, it held such high speed (in some way) that time would actually stood still
I have thought this is a possibility, but what would cause the big bang to happen? Was there ever any state of the universe before the initial state of the big bang?

Raithere,
But that's just an assumption too. What's to prevent existence coming from non-existence? Maybe outside this time-space continuum stuff just pops in and out of existence at random.
I know we are dealing with abstract, heavy stuff...but once it goes to stuff 'outside this time-space continuum' popping in and out and multiverses and such...I just have to throw my hands up and say too much. Sure these are possiblities but until we see more evidence of such there are simpler possiblities.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Batm,

You mean the universe and God? I used the term God in the deist sense there. If one were to use the terms 'God' and 'worship' in the loosest form possible I would be a Pantheist. However, I have found telling people I am a Pantheist only confusing things so now I just say I am an Atheist.


Ah, so that's what a Pantheist is.

From a TV show long ago (called "UFO"), I remember a point about infinite and how, if you were to look at a picture, you might see the craters on the surface of the moon, but, if you pulled back, you'd realize it was the leg of a pretty lady. :D

As they put it (paraphrasing), "when you kick the sand on the beach, remember that we might be part of a grain of sand on an even larger beach in some other Universe and there might be another person on a still smaller beach inside that grain of sand you kicked". When looked at this way, asking the question "what could encompass all this?" leads to only one answer -- God.

Originally posted by static76


Interesting answer, But then how has the universe always existed? How can something exist without a starting point? Hi there stat,

It's all a matter of scale.

If you only travel at slow speeds (less than 10,000km per hour, say) you would say that distance is constant, and time is constant. Only if you can up your speed to 180,000 per second, can you begin to see that time and distance are both relative.

At the small scales that we can effectively observe, we come to the conclusion that a "starting point" is necessary. If we were able to observe 15 billion years, and billions of light years distance, then we start to see that our earlier conclusion was faulty.

People from 400 years ago used to ask the same question of "starting points". They also used to ask another question - "What does the earth rest on?" (turtles? atlas?)

From their everyday observation, they saw that everything rests on something else. Even the lightest feather eventually comes to rest on something else. So naturally, they assumed that the earth would also rest on something! They could not visualise that the earth just "floats" there unsupported. (Like you cannot visualise the universe has no "starting point". :) )

You are suffering from a similar assumption right now - and the roots of your mistake are the same. You are trying to scale up your observations from a individual's scale to a cosmic one.


PS: excuse the terrible login in name. :( Haven't got around to getting a proper one yet.

static76: But whose to say these laws are applicable to a plane of existence outside our universe. If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, how did it come to be in the first place?
That is an error in standard human logic. I can see how vocabulary like "end" and "beginning" can confuse you into thinking these concepts can be applied to reality.

Not really, one could say that God is an infinite being that started our plane of existence and our universe. Not saying it's true, however, the arguement can be made.
If I followed the logic from your previous statement: What created God?

Here is what the God theory sounds like to me: Everything must have a beginning, so a God must have created everything.

But then what created the God? Isn't that a part of the system? Why is the deity immune to this argument?
You mean, energy not matter. Remember annihilation, nuclear bombs, radioactive decay... Then again, matter synthesis from pure energy in accelerators...
You mean conversion. That is still conserving matter. Only in an alternate form. Matter and energy are the same anyways.
overdoze: Yeah, as static76 already noted, this applies to the known universe. But not necessarily to whatever generated it. If energy is arrangement of pieces on a chess board, something that creates the chessboard in the first place can define a new arrangement of pieces out of nowhere.

static's right, you cannot rule out an intelligent creator. Why anybody would want to postulate one in the first place, is the real question. Also of interest is how people arrive at such a nontrivial postulate in the first place. As a related curiosity, why this ultra-complex postulate seems the simplest to so many.
I never said I could rule out a creator. Remember that any theory of creation must explain the origin of the creator. I said, "Infinity is the only logical answer" for a reason. Either the Universe is infinite or an infinite number of creators exist. It all depends upon your grasp of reality.

"The known universe" is a copout. We can postulate any number of other universes where Christian Science is more apparent as the truth. When we talk, we talk by neccessity of matters pertaining to our universe, the only universe we can prove to exist.
Bebelina: Why do we have the ability to question our existance?
This is the great genetic accident of the higher brain. How many organisms can contemplate their cognizance? It is the side effect of adapting to harsh conditions through the use of problem solving. More importantly it is the drawback of success: doubt.
Yes, of course, but why are we designed that way? What is the particular function of questioning existance?
Many creatures have abilities and organs that seem to serve no purpose or worse hinder survival. We have the useless appendix.

This is not one of those cases though. Every drawback related to an overly abundant population is always a function of limiting that population. Disease, aggression, and apathy are all accompaniements to success. There is the inherent defficiency in treating every life as precious: sometimes it is better to let the diseased die. The more we correct the limits, the deeper we fall into the abyss of forgotten, extint masses.
Ekimklaw: It is clear to me that God created the heavens and the earth. If he did it in the form of a "Big Bang" then so be it. When I think of an "uncaused cause" I identify it as God.
Why? Cause is not apparnet to me. The Big Bang is looking more like just another blip in the infinite cycle.

Originally posted by Teg

That is an error in standard human logic. I can see how vocabulary like "end" and "beginning" can confuse you into thinking these concepts can be applied to reality.


I not sure I see your point. I never said existence had a beginning or end. I was exploring whether the universe (which is seperate from existence) came to be.

You stated, "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". I explained that this law is known to apply to our universe as far as we know, but may not be applicable to other planes of existence. Your assumption was that our universe's laws apply to all of existence, while I think they may not.

If I followed the logic from your previous statement: What created God?

Here is what the God theory sounds like to me: Everything must have a beginning, so a God must have created everything.

But then what created the God? Isn't that a part of the system? Why is the deity immune to this argument?


As I stated before, a "God" or supreme being, could exist outside of our universe. The laws of our universe wouldn't neccesarily apply to him or any other plane of existence.

There is nothing I have seen in this universe, that can account for it's creation, and yes I think our "universe" was created, but not existence (which I expect has always been and always will be).

The problem with your logic, is that you assume that a God would have to yield to the laws of a universe he created, which he wouldn't.;)

If I followed the logic from your previous statement: What created God?

If God is eternal. That solves the problem :)

Here is what the God theory sounds like to me: Everything must have a beginning, so a God must have created everything.

To YOU :)

You mean conversion. That is still conserving matter. Only in an alternate form. Matter and energy are the same anyways.

I don't want to go through this again. According to quantum theory and general relativity, matter CAN BE DESTROYED.

Matter is a form of energy, meanwhile energy is *not* a form of matter.

I never said I could rule out a creator. Remember that any theory of creation must explain the origin of the creator. I said, "Infinity is the only logical answer" for a reason. Either the Universe is infinite or an infinite number of creators exist. It all depends upon your grasp of reality.

Or the universe is not infinite, but a creator that is eternal exists.

"The known universe" is a copout.

Why? What warrants such an excoriating statement?

any creatures have abilities and organs that seem to serve no purpose or worse hinder survival. We have the useless appendix.

Like what? List them. You do know that certain organs that we have thought to be useless in the last 100 years have been discovered to be useful?

Now, how much do we actually know? Hmmm...

The Big Bang is looking more like just another blip in the infinite cycle.

Infinite cycle? How is that possible? Say the life cycle of the earth, say that it is infinite...do you see the dilemma you are applying here?

The cycle of water, evaporating, condensation, etc. So...if that was infinite, how did the cycle FORM? Where is it derived from?

Thought-provoking :cool:

static76 : I never said existence had a beginning or end. I was exploring whether the universe (which is seperate from existence) came to be.
Your question said as much:
If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, how did it come to be in the first place?
"Come to be" and "first place" are assumptions about a matrix that can only be seen as infinite. "Come to be" and "first place" have no meaning in the discussion of the universe.
As I stated before, a "God" or supreme being, could exist outside of our universe. The laws of our universe wouldn't neccesarily apply to him or any other plane of existence.
That is a big 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000001% chance sort of "if".

There is nothing I have seen in this universe, that can account for it's creation, and yes I think our "universe" was created, but not existence (which I expect has always been and always will be).
Based on what? More to the point there is nothing that I nor any have seen that would lead one to assume it was created. The act of creation runs counter to everything we know.
The problem with your logic, is that you assume that a God would have to yield to the laws of a universe he created, which he wouldn't.
I assume nothing. You assume a God. That is infinitely more pretentious. My question was this: Why is it okay for a God to have always existed and not okay for the universe to have always existed???
~The_Chosen~: If God is eternal. That solves the problem
This is what I'm talking about. Why assume a deity that is eternal and not a universe that is infinite? Have you ever come accross an eternal entity? No. Then what evidence do you have to assume that one exists?
To YOU
I haven't heard different. Noone has given me more than that.
I don't want to go through this again. According to quantum theory and general relativity, matter CAN BE DESTROYED.

Matter is a form of energy, meanwhile energy is *not* a form of matter.
Conversion, conversion, conversion. If you don't get it after that then I think you will have missed the bus. Matter is not destroyed. Matter is never destroyed. Matter is only a form of energy for the reason that everything is a form of energy.

Energy cannot be destroyed. Matter is a form of energy. You agreed to both and yet were unwilling to follow the next logical step of: Matter cannot be destroyed.
Or the universe is not infinite, but a creator that is eternal exists.
Occum's Razor.
Why? What warrants such an excoriating statement?
What do we know about the unknown universe? What grounds do we have to say it even exists? How should we proceed in describng something we only guess exists?
Like what? List them. You do know that certain organs that we have thought to be useless in the last 100 years have been discovered to be useful?
The appendix, like I said, is one. Hair is another superfluous device. Outmoded organisms abound, just look at the Panda. It has the digestive system of a dog and yet it has a diet of leaves. That is a fact of adaption: sometimes we cling to the wrong mutation. It is just an aspect of the gamble.
Infinite cycle? How is that possible? Say the life cycle of the earth, say that it is infinite...do you see the dilemma you are applying here?

The cycle of water, evaporating, condensation, etc. So...if that was infinite, how did the cycle FORM? Where is it derived from?
When did I say that the Earth cycle was infinite. The Earth is infinite, just not always in a form recognizable as Earth. I know your obdurate little mind will never be able to grasp this (as the last thread has proven) so I'm not going to continue this particular line of logic.

The second statement implies that infinity is finite. A cycle need not be so limited in form. I was talking about a more vague cycle of expansion and contraction. Pure osscillation really.

Originally posted by Teg

"Come to be" and "first place" are assumptions about a matrix that can only be seen as infinite. "Come to be" and "first place" have no meaning in the discussion of the universe.


Why do you assume this? Why do you think the universe can only be seen as infinite? It is very possible, if not likely, that our universe "came to be" at some point. Once again, your confusing our infinite "existence", with the universe.

That is a big 0. 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000001% chance sort of "if".


Why? Our knowledge of the universe is minimal to say the least. Hell, our knowledge of our planet and our own species isn't concrete.

Why do you assume that our universe is the only one, or that no other plane of existence is possible.

You sound as arrogant as those who thought everything centered around the Earth in the past.:rolleyes:

Based on what? More to the point there is nothing that I nor any have seen that would lead one to assume it was created. The act of creation runs counter to everything we know.

You say the act of creation runs against everyting we know, yet the most prominent theory used by scientists is the "Big Bang Theory". http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

"The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."

Hmmm..., NASA and mainstream science says the universe was created, yet you say everything we know conters it?:confused:

I assume nothing. You assume a God. That is infinitely more pretentious. My question was this: Why is it okay for a God to have always existed and not okay for the universe to have always existed???

Simply my friend, If God exists outside the plane of existence our universe is in, then he could easily create our universe or many universe we may have no knowledge of...

Our knowledge of science as humans is very minimal, why do you continuely assume our universe is the only one there could be. Is our planet the only one??? Is our Solar system the only one???

Why do you assume this? Why do you think the universe can only be seen as infinite? It is very possible, if not likely, that our universe "came to be" at some point. Once again, your confusing our infinite "existence", with the universe.
A beginning neccessitates an end. Where is the end? It is actually impossible that our universe came to be. To believe that to be the case is to disregard everything we know about matter and energy. Space is infinite. Motion is infinite. Energy (and by extension matter) is infinite. The only thing that is finite is the quantity, not the existence. Life creates the misconception of starts and finishes. We assume too much about ourselves. We assume that we are greater than the components in us. In the end we are only a brief coallescence of matter and energy. That is what you are so affraid of. Our existence is not infinite.
Why? Our knowledge of the universe is minimal to say the least. Hell, our knowledge of our planet and our own species isn't concrete.

Why do you assume that our universe is the only one, or that no other plane of existence is possible.

You sound as arrogant as those who thought everything centered around the Earth in the past.
Show me another plane of existence and then we shall talk about this. Reason requires me to take the negative position on this matter.

The Geocentrically minded ignored a some very observable data that would easily lead to understanding. They created models of the universe that never worked mathematically. Our current models do not neccessitate other planes. I am willing to accept other possibilities. I never absolutely denied their existence. I only grant the opposite more validity. Ignorance is only the maintenance of a view despite alternate evidencethat is verifiable. Galileo and Copernicus provided this. Only the theists fought them. I am not a theist, and as such should not be lumped in with those nitwits. My argument against other universes/planes is simply your lack of evidence. The same goes for a deity.
You say the act of creation runs against everyting we know, yet the most prominent theory used by scientists is the "Big Bang Theory".
This is the result from an implosion or contraction. That is the popular theory amongst astronomers. No person in this field of any respectable ranking would state that the act of creation was probably the driving force behind the "Big Band Theory.""The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."
This is a laymen's misunderstanding. "Created" should, for clarities sake, be edited in favor of "redefined into its new matrix." But then lay people often don't understand the implications of the word "create".
Simply my friend, If God exists outside the plane of existence our universe is in, then he could easily create our universe or many universe we may have no knowledge of...
You favor the idea that everything requires an act of creation. Would not your God need be created? Occum's Razor again.
Our knowledge of science as humans is very minimal, why do you continuely assume our universe is the only one there could be. Is our planet the only one??? Is our Solar system the only one???
Universe is defined as the total of what is. That is our language. I can see other solar systems, detect other planets, and define other galaxies. Do you have these cues for the existence of other universes. I am not the one making assumptions here. I only said the existence was highly unlikely and stated that the only possible basis would be a guess. Observation and data are the only reasonable ways to prove a thing. What you have now is conjecture. Conjecture of a God and conjecture of other universes. Show me proof and they will evolve to hypothesi.

Originally posted by Teg
Based on what? More to the point there is nothing that I nor any have seen that would lead one to assume it was created. The act of creation runs counter to everything we know.

Depends on your definition of "creation."

Conversion, conversion, conversion. If you don't get it after that then I think you will have missed the bus. Matter is not destroyed. Matter is never destroyed. Matter is only a form of energy for the reason that everything is a form of energy.

Matter is a simple identity of energy. Water is an identity of energy.

here is a simple identity process:

Chosen --> human body --> cells ---> water, carbons --> matter ---> energy

Anything after energy? I thought so.

Energy cannot be destroyed. Matter is a form of energy. You agreed to both and yet were unwilling to follow the next logical step of: Matter cannot be destroyed.

Let's tackle the terminology here, since you are so persistent in your little views:

destroy (dî-stroi´) verb
destroyed, destroying, destroys verb, transitive
1. To ruin completely; spoil: The ancient manuscripts were destroyed by fire.
2. To tear down or break up; demolish. See synonyms at ruin.
3. To do away with; put an end to: "In crowded populations, poverty destroys the possibility of cleanliness" (George Bernard Shaw).
4. To kill: destroy a rabid dog.
5. To subdue or defeat completely; crush: The rebel forces were destroyed in battle.
6. To render useless or ineffective: destroyed the testimony of the prosecution's chief witness.

Matter is gone!! Anti-matter and matter reaction, pure energy/light...where is the matter smart guy? It *is* converted, but in the conversion process, matter is destroyed, this form of energy no longer exists.

You have problems with seeing the logic. You are the contumacious fellow.

Occum's Razor.

And that Occum's Razor is based solely on human ignorance, on how much we don't know.

What do we know about the unknown universe? What grounds do we have to say it even exists? How should we proceed in describng something we only guess exists?

It's not a guess, it's theory. Talk with Stephen Hawking...it is no guess.

When did I say that the Earth cycle was infinite.

You didn't. :)

The Earth is infinite, just not always in a form recognizable as Earth.

First of all, you have an identifying problem. The "Earth" is an identification of a present form of energy, which is a planet. You cannot say this "formation of energy" is infinite. Do you understand? You cannot state an identity of a formation of energy is infinite.

I know your obdurate little mind will never be able to grasp this (as the last thread has proven) so I'm not going to continue this particular line of logic.

You are the one with the small, restricted, and close-minded brain. :)

You cannot grasp it poor fellow.

The second statement implies that infinity is finite. A cycle need not be so limited in form. I was talking about a more vague cycle of expansion and contraction. Pure osscillation really.

So are you stating that the "eternal state" of this infinite is a cycle of "pure osscillation of expansion and contraction"?

The question of existence is one that never need to be answered, and can never be answered by anyone to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

In order to answer the question of existence one would have to explain it from a non-existence stance. Existence exists, and grasping that axiom is all that you need in order to understand and learn about our universe.

*The questions "Who creted existence" and "why of the universe" are ancient, mind-subverting gimmicks of positing invalid intellectualy untenable questions, that have no basis in reality. That false-question maneuver has been used by theologians and other mystics for centuries. The gimmick works by taking an invalid or meaningless idea and then cloaking the idea with specious but profound-sounding phraseology. That phraseology is then used as an "intelectual" prop to advance false, irrational concepts or doctrines. Consider, for example, the "who created existance" and the "why of the universe" questions so often used by poets and theologians to advance the god or higher power concept. On closer examination, one realizes that invalid questions such as "who made the universe" are meaningless and unprofound. For that type of infinite-regression question answers nothing and is anti-intellectual. Such question cannot or need not be answered once one realizes that existance exists.
On realizing that by nature existence simply exists, one then realizes that the "who created existance" and "why of the universe" questions cannot or need not be answered because no causal explanations are needed for existance or the universe.
Existance is axiomatic. It just exists; it always has and always will exist. Nothing created it and no causal explanation is needed or valid. For, what is the alternative? No alternative is possible or needed, unless one accepts the contradiction that existance does not exist!!.* Dr. Frank R. Wallace, (Neo-Tech Publishing)

Originally posted by static76
a) A higher power (or God) has always existed and created the universe.
b) The universe has always existed.


For point B, if the universe always existed...how did things "come to be."

Is there a derivable point of origin? Or is it an endless "infinite cycle" - do such "cycles" exist?

The formation of the universe is of deep question.

The universe could be inifinite in the sense that it is "conserved" to "preserve" existence in itself.

But how did such existence come to be, NOT in the sense of "what created existence" but how the perceptions of our known universe came to be, that is the question.

~The_Chosen~ is immune to logic. We tried this earlier.

It always goes like this:

Me: Infinity is the only reasonable model of existance.
~The_Chosen~: Yes but where did it begin?
Me: "Begin" has no meaning in infinity. Any point on a circle is arbitrary.

But now ~The_Chosen~ is serving up bait:

The universe could be inifinite in the sense that it is "conserved" to "preserve" existence in itself.

But how did such existence come to be, NOT in the sense of "what created existence" but how the perceptions of our known universe came to be, that is the question.
The perception has and always will reside in each individual organism. Need you track each and every being? We share for this reason. The common, verifiable observance is our yard stick for determination.

The problem with philosophy is that any position can be taken, put forth, and given validity. Without any burden of proof, any person can say anything. How would you who is right and who is wrong?

Originally posted by Teg
~The_Chosen~ is immune to logic. We tried this earlier.

It always goes like this:

Me: Infinity is the only reasonable model of existance.
~The_Chosen~: Yes but where did it begin?
Me: "Begin" has no meaning in infinity. Any point on a circle is arbitrary.

Show me where I argued on the standpoint that "infinity must have a begin point." It's contradictory to state that, infinity by definition means without beginning or end. So don't twist by words, you do so with great ineptness.

BULLSHIT from you again Teg.

Can you show me or no? Will you hide again like the little sissy you are?

But now ~The_Chosen~ is serving up bait:

The perception has and always will reside in each individual organism. Need you track each and every being? We share for this reason. The common, verifiable observance is our yard stick for determination.

The problem with philosophy is that any position can be taken, put forth, and given validity. Without any burden of proof, any person can say anything. How would you who is right and who is wrong?

Sure energy is eternal. But from that point I argue about the derivable "shaping" of our known universe.

Figure out how a star formed, then figure out how what formed the star formed, and you can keep going.

I believe in an origin to that point. Not in the essence that energy itself has an origin.

You seriously need to re-evaluate your logic Teg, it's still pathetic.

We went through this argument as well.

Stars, Universe, etc. are all easily explainable phenomena. These are the most natural states of matter due to the universal governing dynamics. Stars are predictable and similar in appearance and behavior except in which cases the composition would lead to a different set of patterns that also fall under observed phenomena that is also easily predicted. No deity, no beginning.

"Bullshit" and "sissy" are on par with your performance.

The matter that formed the star did not occur; it was already in existence. The beginning is only your lack of awareness of the entirety of the system.

To deny that we had this conversation before is not supported by this nor any other prolonged thread in which you have asserted a beginning.

Originally posted by Teg
We went through this argument as well.

Yes we did and you still do NOT get my position.

Still pathetic.

Stars, Universe, etc. are all easily explainable phenomena.

Crap! Really? :rolleyes:

These are the most natural states of matter due to the universal governing dynamics. Stars are predictable and similar in appearance and behavior except in which cases the composition would lead to a different set of patterns that also fall under observed phenomena that is also easily predicted. No deity, no beginning.

I'm arguing for the beginning of the formation of such matter.

Point 1: Matter always existed.

Point 2: The formation of this "eternal matter" could be finite.

Now, how HARD is it for your onerous pea-sized brain to not see that?

"Bullshit" and "sissy" are on par with your performance.

I have reasonable causes to say that. You have yet to prove where you mentioned an infinity and I asked you, "Yes but where did it begin?" pertaining to an infinity.

What the hell should I ask if infinity has a beginning?

The matter that formed the star did not occur; it was already in existence. The beginning is only your lack of awareness of the entirety of the system.

LOL, I guess you missed my entire argument then. How rueful.

Keyword here: formed

Surely the formation of that star was not already in existence, but the matter itself *is*

To deny that we had this conversation before is not supported by this nor any other prolonged thread in which you have asserted a beginning.

You missed the point entirely. Why don't you try to grasp it again?

As mentioned before, the argument at present " who created the universe" or "why of the universe" Are gimmics, used by theologians, and mystics in order to promote thier agenda, the god concept.

If we are to go in the same lines of who created the universe, or the why of the universe, then logic begs us to ask "who created god?" and "why does a god need exist?

Theologians have not answered any questions, they've only posted another, if we are to use the same logic of "who created the universe". theologians say "god" so who or what created god?. infinite regression which is pointless.

Here is one, that makes sense to me, "Existance began the day I was born, I became aware of existance when the doctor slap my little buns and I awoke crying!!, existance will end the day I will die. For I will no longer exist here".

Originally posted by Godless
As mentioned before, the argument at present " who created the universe" or "why of the universe" Are gimmics, used by theologians, and mystics in order to promote thier agenda, the god concept.

If we are to go in the same lines of who created the universe, or the why of the universe, then logic begs us to ask "who created god?" and "why does a god need exist?

Theologians have not answered any questions, they've only posted another, if we are to use the same logic of "who created the universe". theologians say "god" so who or what created god?. infinite regression which is pointless.

Here is one, that makes sense to me, "Existance began the day I was born, I became aware of existance when the doctor slap my little buns and I awoke crying!!, existance will end the day I will die. For I will no longer exist here".

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The question isn't "who created the universe", but what created "existence". Obviously existence is more than likely infinite, however the question I posed is to explore how this is possible and the ramifications of this on the creation of our universe.

As I showed Teg earlier, "existence" is seperate from our universe. If "God" is infinite as theologians say, then creating our universe which I believe to be finite (see earlier posts for reasons), would be quite logical.

One last thought Godless..., perhaps you should remeber that the main goal of science is to seek answers, not to ASSume that you have have them all. ;)

The question isn't "who created the universe", but what created "existence". Obviously existence is more than likely infinite, however the question I posed is to explore how this is possible and the ramifications of this on the creation of our universe.
Existance is infinite. Now you have fallen in line with this one. But I think you still confuse what I mean by this. Existance encompass the mass/energy of the universe. The universe must also be infinite. It may change in form, but not in content.
As I showed Teg earlier, "existence" is seperate from our universe. If "God" is infinite as theologians say, then creating our universe which I believe to be finite (see earlier posts for reasons), would be quite logical.
That is quite illogical. Why would a God be infinite and the universe not? You postulate a God without the need.
One last thought Godless..., perhaps you should remeber that the main goal of science is to seek answers, not to ASSume that you have have them all.
We seek answers...through data. When a scientist says something it has a basis in observation. Who assumes we have all the answers? We can know enough to say something to a degree of certainty. In this way we know that matter and energy can never be destroyed, nor created. (Conversion does not count as either, ~The_Chosen~)

Existance is infinite. Now you have fallen in line with this one. But I think you still confuse what I mean by this. Existance encompass the mass/energy of the universe. The universe must also be infinite. It may change in form, but not in content.

Fallen in line????:rolleyes: I have said throughout this thread that existence is likely infinite.

The problem I have with your arguement is that you think the laws of our universe encompasses ALL of existence.

Once again...According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.(Oh wait..., I guess that's just a "layman's" interpretation...:rolleyes: )

Our universe is finite in it's formation, not infinte as you keep declaring. Re-read the previous posts for explaination, I don't feel like going over it again. The neccessary mass/energy of our universe could have been created by a "God", or come from a possible "God"... :)
That is quite illogical. Why would a God be infinite and the universe not? You postulate a God without the need.

Teg, Teg, Teg...:D

Why do you think the universe can only be seen as infinite? It is very possible, if not likely, that our universe "came to be" at some point. Once again, your confusing our infinite "existence", with the universe.

Many factors for the creation of our universe can be theorized, including the possibility of a "God".

We seek answers...through data. When a scientist says something it has a basis in observation. Who assumes we have all the answers? We can know enough to say something to a degree of certainty. In this way we know that matter and energy can never be destroyed, nor created. (Conversion does not count as either, ~The_Chosen~)

*earlier Static76 was overheard saying to Teg..*
I explained that this law is known to apply to our universe as far as we know, but may not be applicable to other planes of existence. Your assumption was that our universe's laws apply to all of existence, while I think they may not.

I think we are having this same argument in another thread...

I will try to get to the heart of the disagreement:

People like me and Teg see the universe as the entirety of its energy, regardless of its form. People like TheChosen and Static76 see the universe as this particular ongoing formation of energy.

For me, the 'big bang' is an adequate explaination of how this particular formation of energy 'came to be'. As for previous states, we can only postulate but I believe existance and energy is infinite. Yes, this leads to an endless cycle of energy transformations.

Therefore, I consider my idea of the universe to be infinite and always changing. The universe that The Chosen/Static76 speak of I consider finite and its cause is the big bang. See the difference?

In summary:
All energy in the universe - Infinite, no cause.
The current formation of energy - Caused by big bang.

There is no need to look further. It's all right there. If you wish to consider the big bang event 'God', then you have your maker. :)

Originally posted by static76
Fallen in line????:rolleyes: I have said throughout this thread that existence is likely infinite.

The problem I have with your arguement is that you think the laws of our universe encompasses ALL of existence.

Yep yep. I would not say our "universe is infinite" - is it not more simply to state energy is infinite. Why create that loophole?

Once again...According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.(Oh wait..., I guess that's just a "layman's" interpretation...:rolleyes: )

The problem is this, those that don't even consider the Big Bang have no explanation about the formation of the universe. Their "infinite" universe says formation is infinite, so why bother to try figure out how the starts, galaxies, etc. formed or "came to be"?

They need to see the limits of what they perceive.

Our universe is finite in it's formation, not infinte as you keep declaring. Re-read the previous posts for explaination, I don't feel like going over it again. The neccessary mass/energy of our universe could have been created by a "God", or come from a possible "God"... :)

That's TEG!!!!! :D :D

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
For me, the 'big bang' is an adequate explaination of how this particular formation of energy 'came to be'. As for previous states, we can only postulate but I believe existance and energy is infinite. Yes, this leads to an endless cycle of energy transformations.

"adequate" explanation? Who cares about the Big Bang if you consider formation to be infinite, an endless cycle.

This signifies NO SOLUTION. Are "endless" cycles even possible?

I'm glad you can grasp what I am trying to point out. Teg has problems though :rolleyes:

Time had no beggining and will never ever have an end.

Time is infinite.

Existance, had no beggining and will never have an end.

Existance is infinite.

The only existance that you may be aware of is that one life you cling to, after you die, your existance will be no more, however others will exist, therefore no ending to existance.

Our universe of little that we know of still hold many secrets, of which we are yet to discover, and I ask you and really think about this " what difference does it make?"

How will it change your life, if we discover that no big-bang took place?, how will it change your life, if we have scientist prove that we are not spreading, but contrasting, and in millions of years will be nothing more than matter and energy again?.

Really to ponder all of this is just a waste of time!

Time is money, lol, time is very short in the skeems of things.

(I think therefore I am.)

I think that space & time have allways existed, and perhaps there have been other universes, other than this one, other big bangs, mass and energy contrasting, and spreading untill entropy runs out, then having the weakest force of the universe become the strongest "gravity" contrasting everything to an infinite point till it explodes again. However that's just one theory.

question 2: Which is the stronges force of the universe?.

Once you know that you will understand where I'm coming from.

Originally posted by Godless
Time had no beggining and will never ever have an end.

Time is infinite.



The only answer to infinite is infinite, I mean why bother to search for an origin? :D

The only existance that you may be aware of is that one life you cling to, after you die, your existance will be no more, however others will exist, therefore no ending to existance.

True. Why don't you explain that to Teg?

ESPECIALLY THE LINE...

after you die, your existance will be no more

Teg would state some crap like: No, your matter is converted, therefore you still exist. Just like the dinosaurs. :rolleyes:

Our universe of little that we know of still hold many secrets, of which we are yet to discover, and I ask you and really think about this " what difference does it make?"

To you it might mean little since your infinite universe provides you with endless solutions which consequently result in no actual solution.

I look for that actual solution.

How will it change your life, if we discover that no big-bang took place?,

Alot of things actually. Equations and the predictions the Big Bang Theory is possible in making.

how will it change your life, if we have scientist prove that we are not spreading, but contrasting, and in millions of years will be nothing more than matter and energy again?.

It will change our understanding and knowledge, that is the important thing.

Quit being so pessimistic atheist! :D

Really to ponder all of this is just a waste of time!

Intellectualism is a waste of time? Why don't you turn into a religious bigot and support anti-intellectualism?!

Time is money, lol, time is very short in the skeems of things.

(I think therefore I am.)

Yep :cool:

I think that space & time have allways existed, and perhaps there have been other universes, other than this one, other big bangs, mass and energy contrasting, and spreading untill entropy runs out, then having the weakest force of the universe become the strongest "gravity" contrasting everything to an infinite point till it explodes again. However that's just one theory.

I don't think time always existed. There is much we do not know about the universe. Things can be derived through metric path integrals or whatever may see fit.

If you can derive many things in our world, why can't we derive our universe's formation and reach a possible conclusiion and solution?

There must be a solution to everything.

Also if you say the Big Bang is an infinite cycle, what is this "infinite state"?

Energy's infinite state is "being just there"

What's the Big Bang's?

The problem I have with your arguement is that you think the laws of our universe encompasses ALL of existence.
"ALL"?!?!!?!! Yes, technically a universal principle applies to all that lies within that universe. If it were any other case we would not call it a universal law.

Once again...According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.(Oh wait..., I guess that's just a "layman's" interpretation...
Reformed into its current matrix. Created is only applied by people who do not understand the mechanics of the word infinity. Look at the laws of physics and any detailed theorem concerning the "big bang." You will find that the majority of scientists will side with the reformation of collapsing and expanding cyclical model.
Our universe is finite in it's formation, not infinte as you keep declaring. Re-read the previous posts for explaination, I don't feel like going over it again. The neccessary mass/energy of our universe could have been created by a "God", or come from a possible "God"...
The content is very finite. I never said anything to the contrary. I said specifically that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. That is a finite system. I only said that time (or existence, you choose) is infinite.
Why do you think the universe can only be seen as infinite? It is very possible, if not likely, that our universe "came to be" at some point. Once again, your confusing our infinite "existence", with the universe.
Only in theology. No respectable scientist would regard that postulation with any merit. The universe is infinite. This is more an observation of the system as a whole than any pure guess. Try as I might I cannot destroy matter/energy. More importantly I have never seen it created. Why should a substance with such properties need be created? In fact if everything that persists need be created, then why not your deity?
Many factors for the creation of our universe can be theorized, including the possibility of a "God".
By incompetents and the insane, a "God" might find its momentum. I don't see any logical reason for a level headed being to form a positive theory regarding such an entity through any thorough synthesis of the details at hand.

As a positive hypothesis, the "God" idea has nota basis in observation. It predates logic and the scientific method. In as much it can be easily discarded as the ramblings of a drugged/crazy primitive person. No learned person would come to the same conclusion without contact with the idea. The only reason people "believe" is the loyalty/scared sense of self- induced ignorance.
I explained that this law is known to apply to our universe as far as we know, but may not be applicable to other planes of existence. Your assumption was that our universe's laws apply to all of existence, while I think they may not.
Yours is a weaker, positive assertion. It requires unattainable evidence. My assertion requires only that what is observed to be true is in fact what is. My scenario is the neutral scenario. To assume any more would be folly.


Seriously, ~The_Chosen~, you knew what I meant by an infinite universe. If you knew not from that particular statement you might have also noticed my reference to the conservation of energy/matter.

Originally posted by Teg
Seriously, ~The_Chosen~, you knew what I meant by an infinite universe. If you knew not from that particular statement you might have also noticed my reference to the conservation of energy/matter.

It's conservation of energy/mass

I perfectly knew what you meant. We are on the same par except in the sense that the universe's formation is finite/infinite.

I argue it is finite, it is derivable, just as anything else in this universe is.

To reverberate, technically, if our universe is finite in formation, in it's "essence to come into being" then I deem it "finite" in that sense.

Energy is eternal, on the other hand.

The term "universe" is a conventional understanding of "everything," all the formations of energy that we perceive.

Hence there is not a desideratum that we state the universe is infinite.

It is more meticulous to state that the universe was formed from already existed energy, thus, we conclude that since it was formed from such eternal energy the universe is finite.

Since you state: universe = everything = is energy

You made an unneccesary link that energy is the "universe" itself.

But that doesn't flow, water is not made of the universe. You see the problem here is just a case of semantics. How I see it as, the universe is a identification of all present forms of energy, thus everything.

Anything other, would fall under the category of linguistics, to you the word "create" totally means something else to what I conceive of it.

Quote the chosen: "The only answer to infinite is infinite, I mean why bother to search for an origin?"

Correct, true, so why bother discussing any futher?, any futher discussion would certainly be "anti-intelectual"


Quoted earlier: " For that type of infinite-regression question answers nothing and is anti-intellectual. Such question cannot or need not be answered once one realizes that existance exists.* Dr Frank R. Wallace, Neo-Tech Publishing.

And furthermore, you've failed me (The Chosen) you negleted to answer question #2.

Once you know this, you will know were I'm comming from.

Originally posted by Godless
Quote the chosen: "The only answer to infinite is infinite, I mean why bother to search for an origin?"

Correct, true, so why bother discussing any futher?, any futher discussion would certainly be "anti-intelectual"

Do you know what and where I am getting at?

Quoted earlier: " For that type of infinite-regression question answers nothing and is anti-intellectual. Such question cannot or need not be answered once one realizes that existance exists.* Dr Frank R. Wallace, Neo-Tech Publishing.

And furthermore, you've failed me (The Chosen) you negleted to answer question #2.

Once you know this, you will know were I'm comming from.

That's great, I was over the "existence" thing a long time ago.

Is Teg influencing you in anyway? :D He's very intelligent..but he sometimes misses some points...;)

I know perfectly where you are coming from. BUt the question is, do you know where I am coming from?

I argue it is finite, it is derivable, just as anything else in this universe is.
Time does not fall into this category. Any derivations made of it are bound to be followed by an earlier period. Point to a begginning, definitivly. You can't. You can say the Big Bang, but you are ignoring the latest theories that state that the source of its energy was a result of collossal contraction. Besides, all of that resultant coallescing can be easily explained by the affinity of matter to extract other matter.

There is no compelling data that proves a grand design. All that we know of time, matter, and energy points towards infinity of existence.

No scientist would say that the big bang started from nothing. Even those who sup[port a Big Bang as the beggininng admit that some structure predated the Big Bang guessing that predating the universe were multi-dimensional planes of fields in quantum fluctuation. How would you know that nothing even predated that form?

And what if the Big Bang is wrong? How is a singularity possible? Could the observable red shift be due to the compton effect rather than the Doppler effect? Too many questions to know absolutely.

How can there be any concrete method to know that even if the Big Bang did occur, what predates it? Mainstream scientists do have prior states though. The Universe is decidedly not finite.

Accepting your(Chosen's) definition of a universe I can still argue an infinite universe. The Big Bang was not a beginning, merely a point of interest on an infinite line. When all energy in the universe contracts to a very small area this is certainly an interesting point since it destroys all previous forms that energy held. The current path of formation can be drawn back to the Big Bang and this is a very useful point to look at to help us understand the current state of the universe, since the area of energy at that time is more within the constraints of our understanding. But that in no way makes the Big Bang a beginnning. The term "create" is only ever used because it is useful to help those of lesser understanding grasp an idea they would otherwise need years of training to get a grip on. Energy and formation are infinite. Cycles can exist, do exist, and are in progress. Energy is concerved, destroyed is a tricky word to deal with and conversion is better suited to the current situation. Time is, has been, and always will be. A beginning is only neccesary for those who cannot grasp the infinite.

Originally posted by Teg
Time does not fall into this category. Any derivations made of it are bound to be followed by an earlier period. Point to a begginning, definitivly. You can't.

You can't point to an infinite definitivly either.

You can say the Big Bang, but you are ignoring the latest theories that state that the source of its energy was a result of collossal contraction. Besides, all of that resultant coallescing can be easily explained by the affinity of matter to extract other matter.

That does not mean formation is infinite.

There is no compelling data that proves a grand design. All that we know of time, matter, and energy points towards infinity of existence.

I never talked about a "grand design" - so why did you bring it in? I am not a creationist.

No scientist would say that the big bang started from nothing. Even those who sup[port a Big Bang as the beggininng admit that some structure predated the Big Bang guessing that predating the universe were multi-dimensional planes of fields in quantum fluctuation. How would you know that nothing even predated that form?

I already stated I don't believe something can come from nothing.

And what if the Big Bang is wrong? How is a singularity possible? Could the observable red shift be due to the compton effect rather than the Doppler effect? Too many questions to know absolutely.

It's the best theory we have now. Yes, too many questions to know absolutely.

How can there be any concrete method to know that even if the Big Bang did occur, what predates it? Mainstream scientists do have prior states though. The Universe is decidedly not finite.

Finite in formation, yes.

Finite in its energy? No.

Originally posted by Angelus
Accepting your(Chosen's) definition of a universe I can still argue an infinite universe.

Of course. :)

The Big Bang was not a beginning, merely a point of interest on an infinite line. When all energy in the universe contracts to a very small area this is certainly an interesting point since it destroys all previous forms that energy held. The current path of formation can be drawn back to the Big Bang and this is a very useful point to look at to help us understand the current state of the universe, since the area of energy at that time is more within the constraints of our understanding. But that in no way makes the Big Bang a beginnning.

In no way stating what you said just make the Big Bang not a beginning.

The term "create" is only ever used because it is useful to help those of lesser understanding grasp an idea they would otherwise need years of training to get a grip on.

Create, means to come into being. I have come into being through the earth and my parents. They technically created me.

You just have a very biased perspective on the terminology.

Energy and formation are infinite. Cycles can exist, do exist, and are in progress. Energy is concerved, destroyed is a tricky word to deal with and conversion is better suited to the current situation.

I never said energy could be destoryed. Energy is a state present in everything.

Matter is not, it is an identity of energy. Matter is not present in light. Therefore the term "destroy" perfectly can be suited to be used on the term "matter."

Time is, has been, and always will be. A beginning is only neccesary for those who cannot grasp the infinite.

That is held within your own perspective. I believe in an eternal source (energy), thus I can grasp an infinite, otherwise things cannot come to be (created) to form the universe we now know of.

Nothing begets nothing.

Your formation is part of a continuing chain of formation, that formation did not begin at the Big Bang, it has existed always. The Big Bang is merely one point in this chain. I am extremely prejudiced against the term create because of a very good reason, at least from my perspective. Wherever you find the term create there is always a better term that can be used in it's place. Create is a generalization of many different proccesses and is superfluos(sp?). We have other terms available to us that fit better in the context. You were not created, you were formed from DNA that was passed on to you from your mother and father, this DNA was not created in any way, it multiplied through cellular processes. Can you see how I can become biased against the term create. Where is one example where the term create cannot be replaced by a more fitting and descriptive word that is not open to such presumptions as create is?

...and it was Angelus .

This has been a very drawn out debate between, ~The_Chosen~, and I. It has traversed multiple threads. Every time it comes down to this disagreement: I cannot see any discernable evidence of an origin to anything. ~The_Chosen~ chooses to believe in the act of creation. To ~The_Chosen~ matter can be destroyed and created. To me this merely conversion between matter and energy. ~The_Chosen~'s Big Bang is the ultimate creation of the universe because some dolt layman used the term create too cassually. These are the battle lines.

You can't point to an infinite definitivly either.
That is the point. Infinity is indefinite by the very meaning of the word. Points in infinity are irrellevant. When is the present? How can you quantify time in infinity?
That does not mean formation is infinite.
What formation? Like all things in the natural universe a divine presence is not required to explain this phenomena. That was my point.
I never talked about a "grand design" - so why did you bring it in? I am not a creationist.
If you believe that an act created the universe and that this universe is not infinite, you are a follower of creation theory. You may not be in the Judeo-Christian camp, but none-the-less you adhere to the creation model. You are an admitted theist. That alone is endorsement of "grand design."
Finite in formation, yes.

Finite in its energy? No.
Energy and matter are very finite. Timeas the principle measurement of the existence of a universe and prior states is not however.
Create, means to come into being. I have come into being through the earth and my parents. They technically created me.

You just have a very biased perspective on the terminology.
You were composed of existing molecules. This has not the implications of creation.
I never said energy could be destoryed. Energy is a state present in everything.

Matter is not, it is an identity of energy. Matter is not present in light. Therefore the term "destroy" perfectly can be suited to be used on the term "matter."
Perhaps in some loose street jargon or pseudoscience the term "destroy" can be applied. This is not the case with the highly precise and accurate nature of science. Destroy means to end the existence of something. The caterpillar is not destroyed when it becomes a butterfly, just as matter is not destroyed after being turned into energy.
That is held within your own perspective. I believe in an eternal source (energy), thus I can grasp an infinite, otherwise things cannot come to be (created) to form the universe we now know of.

Nothing begets nothing.
But what was the creator of your creator. The only possible explanation contains the word always pertaining to all that is. Nothing was begun.

Originally posted by Angelus
Your formation is part of a continuing chain of formation, that formation did not begin at the Big Bang, it has existed always.

Define formation for me. Show me a form of energy (not the energy itself) that has always existed.

The Big Bang is merely one point in this chain. I am extremely prejudiced against the term create because of a very good reason, at least from my perspective.

Hater of religion again? Like Cris?

Wherever you find the term create there is always a better term that can be used in it's place. Create is a generalization of many different proccesses and is superfluos(sp?).

Yes, maybe I should alleviate some problems since there is so much prejudice against terms that religion has scarred.

I'll use the term: make from now on.

Just so people like you can "feel better and more comfortable." :)

We have other terms available to us that fit better in the context. You were not created, you were formed from DNA that was passed on to you from your mother and father, this DNA was not created in any way, it multiplied through cellular processes. Can you see how I can become biased against the term create. Where is one example where the term create cannot be replaced by a more fitting and descriptive word that is not open to such presumptions as create is?

That is strictly your viewpoint. The Big Bang created/formed/made the stars and galaxies all mean the same to me.

To you it's different. I have never considered the term "create" in a magical sense where you get something out of nothing, or in other words, spontaneous creation.

That is why the context is spontaneous creation.

The Council of Europe has just agreed a protocol to its Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine which says "Any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to another human being, whether living or dead, is prohibited". The usual word for such a created being is a clone.

Ok smart guy, would the word "form" fit there? It is not superfluous, you need to widen that tunnel vision of yours. I suggest religion has influenced your perspective greatly.

Need I argue semantics here with you atheists? Especially Teg. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Teg
...and it was Angelus.

LMAO!!! :rolleyes:

This has been a very drawn out debate between, ~The_Chosen~, and I. It has traversed multiple threads. Every time it comes down to this disagreement: I cannot see any discernable evidence of an origin to anything. ~The_Chosen~ chooses to believe in the act of creation. To ~The_Chosen~ matter can be destroyed and created. To me this merely conversion between matter and energy. ~The_Chosen~'s Big Bang is the ultimate creation of the universe because some dolt layman used the term create too cassually. These are the battle lines.

You all need to understand when I refer to spontaneous creation I will say...SPONTANEOUS CREATION.

Simple logic right?

That is the point. Infinity is indefinite by the very meaning of the word. Points in infinity are irrellevant. When is the present? How can you quantify time in infinity?

Agreed. But we need a finite model to actually seek an absolute solution. And I believe in that solution.

What formation? Like all things in the natural universe a divine presence is not required to explain this phenomena. That was my point.

Ok, a divine being isn't needed to explain the phenomena, we are capable of that ourselves.

If you believe that an act created the universe and that this universe is not infinite, you are a follower of creation theory.

First, elaborate on this "creation theory"

You may not be in the Judeo-Christian camp, but none-the-less you adhere to the creation model. You are an admitted theist. That alone is endorsement of "grand design."

Design is strictly a subjective idea.

Energy and matter are very finite. Timeas the principle measurement of the existence of a universe and prior states is not however.

You knew what I meant. I agree with you.

You were composed of existing molecules. This has not the implications of creation.

I "came to be" from existing molecules, I was made from existing molecules. That sound better for your narrow ears?

Perhaps in some loose street jargon or pseudoscience the term "destroy" can be applied. This is not the case with the highly precise and accurate nature of science. Destroy means to end the existence of something. The caterpillar is not destroyed when it becomes a butterfly, just as matter is not destroyed after being turned into energy.

LOL, YOU STILL TRY TO DO THIS CRAP TEG! I believe you are better and more intelligent than that....here I'll elaborate...

You want to run through that "everything is relative" test again and I can watch you err?

Well, to a few NASA and university researchers, antimatter may just be the future of human space travel. When it comes to packing a punch, antimatter/matter reactions can't be beat. When a particle and its antiparticle meet, they annihilate each other and their entire mass is converted into pure energy.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast29may_1m.htm

We don't usually find antimatter in nature - although a few radioactive atoms decay to produce short-lived positrons. Most of what we know about it has come from making it in particle accelerators - the massive atom-smashers which collide particles together at high speeds and look at what comes out of the explosion! One important thing we do know about antimatter is that whenever a particle and its antiparticle come into contact with each other, they annihilate - destroying each other completely, and producing a burst of energy. This is the basis for antimatter drives on spaceships such as the USS Enterprise in Star Trek. The makers of this show have actually got their science fairly correct - the antimatter is held in magnetic containment fields, out of contact with any real matter until it is injected into the engines - and real antimatter can be trapped in an electromagnetic field in the same way.

http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/Physics/Cosmology/p00718c.html

"when matter and anti-matter get together, they annihilate in a flash of energy we call gamma rays."

http://www.open2.net/nextbigthing/antimatter/hear_the_arguments/argument3.htm

You want some more links to prove to you?

Define ANNIHILATE for me. :rolleyes:

I'm sick of trying to prove all this to you. Other atheists are prone to this type of behavior...get rid of it.

You and Angelus with your religious prejudice. It clouds your thoughts and gives you tunnel vision. :)

But what was the creator of your creator. The only possible explanation contains the word always pertaining to all that is. Nothing was begun.

My creator is eternal, that is the solution.

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
My creator is eternal, that is the solution.


Only if you define your "creator" as being somehow separate from the universe. On the other hand, most of us (especially atheists) tend to define the universe as 'everything that exists'. Thus, if existence is infinite as you agreed then the universe is infinite, being the set of all existence. Thus, any "creator" is inseparable from the universe, and your points are moot and this whole debate between you and Teg is meaningless.

Now, if you wish to define a discrete "creator", then this creator is but a subset of the universe. Hence, it exists within the universe, and the universe is primary while the "creator" is a secondary phenomenon arising within and existing within the universe. Thus atheists (like myself) tend to ask,

<ol>
<li>how an intelligent "creator" (as claimed by religions) came to exist within the universe in the first place,</li>
<li>how does postulating an intelligent "creator" (as is the case with religions) contribute anything to explaining the universe in its entirety</li>
<li>how does postulating an intelligent "creator" (as is the case with religions) contribute anything to explaining the observable subset of the universe</li>
</ol>

Of course, you seem eager to limit the term "universe" to include only the observable universe we can see with our telescopes and whose physics we can explore. But then you might be more precise by actually stating specifically the word "observable" or "known" right next to your usage of the word "universe". Thus, the observable universe was created via the Big Bang by something that might be described as "creator". But attributing intelligence or any sort of intent to such a motive force is not only extraneous but utterly redundant and useless as it answers no questions but creates plenty of new ones.

We've tried, We've not failed, we are only trying to explain theories of space, time continum to someone who does not grasp the anxiom of existence.

I've tried and asked one simple question of which theChosen never gave an answer. The question: "Which is the strongest force in the universe?"

Few people can guess this one right!.

I will reveal the answer to this question after one simple explanation.

Human evolution, and brain evolution alone did not create what we today call consciousness. Thousands of years ago, humans had a primitive mind, the bicameral mind.

*As identified by Julian Jaynes of Princenton University, the conscious mind was discovered within nature's bicameral mind about 3000 years ago.
The bicameral mind was man's intellegent, nature-evolved mind before he discovered consciousness. ( a conceptual/ introspective mind) the conscious mind is not a part of nature's evolutionary process. But rather consciousness is a discovery by man that lies beyond the dynamics of nature.* Dr. Frank Wallace Neo-Tech Publishing*

Therefore to answer the question, the strongest force of the universe is "human like consciousness"

Human like consciousness in the universe will learn and manipulate nature of the universe as humans have been able to do here on earth.

Originally posted by overdoze
Only if you define your "creator" as being somehow separate from the universe. On the other hand, most of us (especially atheists) tend to define the universe as 'everything that exists'. Thus, if existence is infinite as you agreed then the universe is infinite, being the set of all existence. Thus, any "creator" is inseparable from the universe, and your points are moot and this whole debate between you and Teg is meaningless.

Let's tackle the definition itself.

WEBSTER - universe
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : COSMOS: as a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power b : the world of human experience

The American Heritage
All matter and energy, including Earth, the galaxies and all therein, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

Or unless you can give me a new definition, a purely scientific one, then I'll consider changing my perspective in this matter.

Now, if you wish to define a discrete "creator", then this creator is but a subset of the universe. Hence, it exists within the universe, and the universe is primary while the "creator" is a secondary phenomenon arising within and existing within the universe. Thus atheists (like myself) tend to ask,

Thing is, I will admit to my ignorance unlike certain theists. I have never seen my creator nor do I know what it is. I cannot define it in any terms. Expect to deductively conclude that in order for such a creator to exist, it must be eternal.

I believe that my creator "started" our universe. Hawking's "instanton theory" of something from nothing is interesting but highly questionable. Reactions do not occur spontaneously, something must have caused it, then the cycle continues.

I believe in an absolute solution to how things came to be. Not in the infinite model in which there is not a real actual solution.

<ol>
<li>how an intelligent "creator" (as claimed by religions) came to exist within the universe in the first place,</li>

For our universe to be possible, something must have always existed.

<li>how does postulating an intelligent "creator" (as is the case with religions) contribute anything to explaining the universe in its entirety</li>

Science is fully capable of explaining some of the universe.

<li>how does postulating an intelligent "creator" (as is the case with religions) contribute anything to explaining the observable subset of the universe</li>
</ol>

Postulating a creator doesn't solve anything. It's a possible solution to origins. But there is no proof.

Of course, you seem eager to limit the term "universe" to include only the observable universe we can see with our telescopes and whose physics we can explore. But then you might be more precise by actually stating specifically the word "observable" or "known" right next to your usage of the word "universe". Thus, the observable universe was created via the Big Bang by something that might be described as "creator". But attributing intelligence or any sort of intent to such a motive force is not only extraneous but utterly redundant and useless as it answers no questions but creates plenty of new ones.

You could be right. But the issue is, something can't come from nothing.

Hawking proposed the "Baby Universes" theory to eliminate any questioning of a possible creator. Who cares about the beginning of our universe if it is just part of a series of quantum fluctuations?

Energy does not spontaneously form itself, reactions are caused and do not "just happen"

If we were to trace back "how all things came to be" what can you picture? If you do not accept the instanton theory of creation ex nihilo, then how did the energy "get itself going"?

Our logic will have great difficultly answering such questions. But when we are capable, and there is proof that no creator was ever necessary in the forming of our universe, I will throw away my very "weak-theism."

Originally posted by Godless
Therefore to answer the question, the strongest force of the universe is "human like consciousness"


That is purely subjective, you do not know if we can further evolve and perchance something "stronger" than "human like consciousness"

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
Let's tackle the definition itself.

WEBSTER - universe
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated


This is perhaps the closest to how I (and others) are using the term. Note the inclusion of "postulated" in the definition, which automatically covers any creators or anything that anyone would dream up as being part of existence.


: COSMOS: as a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power


Clearly a religionist's definition; one would hardly expect an atheist to use it. Moreover it presupposes a creator, which in the context of this thread would form a circular argument.


b : the world of human experience


Archaic and too limited. For example, not too long ago such a "universe" would have consisted of a fraction of Earth's surface, plus or minus a couple hundred meters in altitude.


The American Heritage
All matter and energy, including Earth, the galaxies and all therein, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.


This is what I would call the "known" universe. It is a reasonably broad notion, but nevertheless confined to that which is currently known to humans. Hence it is unsuitable when discussing existence in general, as it stands to reason that much exists of which we are still not aware. A slightly broader notion than that of known universe is that of observable universe (or alternatively, knowable universe), as it would include anything that is observable at least in principle (even if not yet specifically known to exist.) However, even this falls short of the general notion of "universe" which encompasses all existence, whether observable or not.

Note that we cannot exclude the possibility of existance for something that cannot in principle be observed; yet that something (should it in fact exist) would nevertheless be a subset of the universe. For a physically relevant example, consider the post-Big Bang universe that lies beyond the lightcone of an observer and is destined to forever remain beyond that lightcone due to cosmic expansion. Those parts of "our" universe are in principle unobservable according to modern physics, but that does not mean they do not or cannot exist.

The notion of "our" universe might be defined to be broader even than the observable universe, to include everything that formed as a result of the Big Bang whether beyond the horizon of observability or not. This however is still but a narrow subset of the universe at large, which includes everything that exists including that which gave rise to the Big Bang in the first place. However, "our" is commonly used in discourse and as a word is a bit ambiguous so I don't like it very much. Perhaps a more precise word would be something like "human" or "anthropic". Still, these are too anthropocentric so I'm open to suggestions. A nice and succinct term to borrow from Relativity is "spacetime" (though depending on validity of various multiverse theories, it might unintentionally extend beyond the post-Big Bang structure to all the parent and child universes.) Then our universe would be idempotent with spacetime. The unqualified term "universe", however, ought to be reserved for that which encompasses all existence, including but not limited to spacetime.


I believe that my creator "started" our universe.


Perhaps you can see that in the broad meaning of the term, the universe cannot have a cause. Any such cause would be encompassed by the universe as per definition, and hence could not precede the universe's existence.


Hawking's "instanton theory" of something from nothing is interesting but highly questionable.


It is not a theory of something from nothing; it's a theory of something from something that is very poorly defined and generally unknown. Plus, unless it's testable we shouldn't call it a theory.


Reactions do not occur spontaneously, something must have caused it, then the cycle continues.


This is the notion of causality, which IMHO is inherent in the notion of existence. Causality is idempotent with order; in absense of causality there is chaos. Existence (or anything) cannot be defined in the context of chaos because any meaning would imply a degree of order, which is incompatible with the notion of chaos. In fact, if "chaos" can be defined in any way, then the definition would have to be of the form "condition under which no definitions whatsoever can be made" (since any definition involves an implicative or causal relationship between fixed concepts, and neither fixedness of a description nor causality of descriptions is possible when there is no causality of the underlying medium that the descriptions are supposed to model.) This is paradoxical in and of itself, as it would seem to state that should chaos exist then by definition it has no definition and therefore does not exist. As we observe existence and order, the only possible conclusion is that order has always been present and that existence is eternal. If not, you have order arising from chaos in which it is not inherent in any direct or indirect way; it would indeed be something from nothing.


I believe in an absolute solution to how things came to be. Not in the infinite model in which there is not a real actual solution.


Such an "absolute" solution can only be possible when applied to an incomplete subset of the universe. For example, you might be able to trace the origins (and perhaps the cause) of the "anthropic" universe. However, as previously discussed the general universe could not have "come to be" as such a notion contradicts with the notion of universe as per definition.


For our universe to be possible, something must have always existed.


If by "our" you mean "known" or "observable" or "anthropic" then the "something" you mention is the universe itself. Naturally, for a subset to have definition the encompassing set must exist first.


Science is fully capable of explaining some of the universe.


Namely, the observable subset.


You could be right. But the issue is, something can't come from nothing.


Under this assumption, the universe is eternal.


Hawking proposed the "Baby Universes" theory to eliminate any questioning of a possible creator.


That was not Hawking. One well-known author of this type of idea is <a href="http://physics.stanford.edu/linde/">Andrei Linde</a>. He (and others) rely on <a href="http://www.discover.com/apr_02/featguth.html">Alan Guth's</a> inflation theory.

Moreover it's hardly the goal of these theories to "eliminate any questioning of a possible creator." This assumes that the notion of a "possible creator" is somehow important or takes precedence. True, chronologically it was first to appear but in fact this does not bode well for it (as historically, the earliest theories have always turned out to be incorrect.) But at any rate creationism is but one of the infinitely many hypotheses that can be proposed for the origin of Big Bang. Until experimental evidence can come in, and barring any other criterion for judgement, all such hypotheses are equally worthless as far as knowledge is concerned. But we might note that the hypotheses advanced by physicists are quite a bit more constructive than the "creator" hypothesis in the sense that they at least have a potential of being testable, not to mention that they work within the confines of known laws of physics and hence are apriori more plausible.


Who cares about the beginning of our universe if it is just part of a series of quantum fluctuations?


Any such fluctuations would occur in the context of the encompassing universe (as compared to "our" universe), which you fail to capture with your statement. Naturally, the universe cannot have a beginning.


Energy does not spontaneously form itself, reactions are caused and do not "just happen"


Actually, energy is a narrow empirical concept and as such might just as well be capable of forming itself (out of something else, presumably) outside the confines of "our" universe. IOW just because it seems fundamental to the observable universe, does not mean that it is fundamental in an absolute sense. Generally speaking, any concepts derived through observation (like "energy") are likely too limited and superficial for our discussion.

We are concerned with the general notions of existence and causality, and debating universal applicability of particular empirical concepts is an inconsequential tangent.

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
Let's tackle the definition itself.

WEBSTER - universe
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated


To summarize what overdoze said(at some rather great length, i read it all but just in case someone chooses not to). Any God you postulate would then be a part of the universe and could therefore not be it's creator.

Originally posted by overdoze
This is perhaps the closest to how I (and others) are using the term. Note the inclusion of "postulated" in the definition, which automatically covers any creators or anything that anyone would dream up as being part of existence.

I see my error.

Perhaps you can see that in the broad meaning of the term, the universe cannot have a cause. Any such cause would be encompassed by the universe as per definition, and hence could not precede the universe's existence.

Interesting and true enough.

This is the notion of causality, which IMHO is inherent in the notion of existence. Causality is idempotent with order; in absense of causality there is chaos. Existence (or anything) cannot be defined in the context of chaos because any meaning would imply a degree of order, which is incompatible with the notion of chaos. In fact, if "chaos" can be defined in any way, then the definition would have to be of the form "condition under which no definitions whatsoever can be made" (since any definition involves an implicative or causal relationship between fixed concepts, and neither fixedness of a description nor causality of descriptions is possible when there is no causality of the underlying medium that the descriptions are supposed to model.) This is paradoxical in and of itself, as it would seem to state that should chaos exist then by definition it has no definition and therefore does not exist. As we observe existence and order, the only possible conclusion is that order has always been present and that existence is eternal. If not, you have order arising from chaos in which it is not inherent in any direct or indirect way; it would indeed be something from nothing.

This is one's perception and noted you defined chaos as "condition under which no definitions whatsoever can be made."

I don't necessarily believe that is true.

Why doesn't the world decay into chaos? A while back Boltzmann proved his theorem, disorder always increases, only by presupposing a high degree of disorder, the random movement of atoms and molecules. In 1967 Prigogine contended that only in such random conditions, already very close to quilibrium, does this law actually hold. Any slight deviation from equilibrium is immediately disrupted by random molecular motion.
Point is, if the system were already far from equilibrium, if there were significant flows of energy through it, it would not tend to return toward equilibrium. It would move away from it, creating order and structure in the process. Order of out of chaos is possible, and the key here is growth of fluctuations through instability.
An example would be to picture a pot of water that is being heated. If the heat is on low, the energy flows are small and the movement of the water molecules remains random. Heat disperses through the water by conduction, but as the heat on the stove is turned up, at a certain cr