Existence of god

[Baldeee]

...so I'm not sure (if you're correct) why spidergoat would challenge me on something we agree upon.

That I can not say.

I don't know how the universe began, and unless someone was there, nobody does. But there are ideas/theories, the most popular one being ''the big bang theory''. This means all energy, time, and space came into being at the same time. Now if these are all there is, it begs a couple of questions. What was the cause of this explosion? What was before the BB?

I find the last question meaningless.
Did time exist to enable a "before"?

Can you imagine ''nothing''? No time, no space, no energy, no mind, complete nothingness.

Yes, but probably not to your satisfaction (I don't mean that disparagingly).
It would be in the same way that someone imagines any abstract notion.
Whether the imagining is close to reality, however, is a different matter entirely.
My imagining of nothing is the content of an empty set which is itself part of the contents.

Personally I can't do that. I always imagine it to be a blank space, which of course doesn't count because that is something.
If we can't even imagine nothing (i'll assume you can't), then how can we postulate that something can come from ''nothing''?

Postulations do not need to come from accurate imaginings.
It is sufficient to conceptualise.
Mathematically, logically, pictorially.
However works.

My question is: How can anything build itself, and happen to have some real purpose in the universe, without some kind of plan?

Aren't you presupposing that anything has "real purpose" other than what it might assign to itself (if capable)?
Are you not merely begging the question?
Concluding that there must be because you assume there is?

Welcome to Sciforums!

Thankeee
Have lurked for long time.
Still don't post much.
But some things draw the eye.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Baldeee,

I find the last question meaningless.

But it is not a meaningless question.

Did time exist to enable a "before"?

So what did the explosion explode into if there was no time, or space?

Yes, but probably not to your satisfaction (I don't mean that disparagingly).
It would be in the same way that someone imagines any abstract notion.
Whether the imagining is close to reality, however, is a different matter entirely.
My imagining of nothing is the content of an empty set which is itself part of the contents.

I take it that anything you can imagine is linked to what you would call ''reality''. But if reality doesn't exist how can you say you can imagine nothing.

Postulations do not need to come from accurate imaginings.
It is sufficient to conceptualise.
Mathematically, logically, pictorially.
However works.

Enter ''transcendance''.

Aren't you presupposing that anything has "real purpose" other than what it might assign to itself (if capable)?
Are you not merely begging the question?
Concluding that there must be because you assume there is?

''Might assign itself''?
Which one is more likely, given our experience, design or self organisation?

Thankeee
Have lurked for long time.
Still don't post much.
But some things draw the eye.

Good.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

But it is not a meaningless question.

It is as meaningful as asking what is north of north.
Or asking for a square circle.
If you find those meaningful questions.
I.e. you are asking a question regarding the passage of time in an environment (for want of a better word) that may not have time as a dimension.

So what did the explosion explode into if there was no time, or space?

I don't know.
Noone knows.
So why guess.

I take it that anything you can imagine is linked to what you would call ''reality''. But if reality doesn't exist how can you say you can imagine nothing.

Why should what I imagine conform to anything other than what I imagine.
Where is the reality in "the contents of an empty set which is itself part of the contents"?
You seem to require "imagining" being in some pictoral sense?

Enter ''transcendance''.

I don't follow?

''Might assign itself''?
Which one is more likely, given our experience, design or self organisation?

More likely of what?
We can not speak for the creation of our universe.
We can only come up with logically consistent ideas (e.g M-Brane theory).
But once the universe exists then self-organisation is apparent.
i.e. everything follows mundane laws and complexity appears to result from them.
Whether you want to consider that self-organisation to be "designed" by the universe would appear to beg the question.

 

[spidergoat]

...Can you imagine ''nothing''? No time, no space, no energy, no mind, complete nothingness.

You don't have to imagine, you are living in it! The universe is equivalent to nothing, since all it's energy is canceled out by gravitational potential energy, meaning things look exactly as they should if they came from nothing.

My question is: How can anything build itself, and happen to have some real purpose in the universe, without some kind of plan?.

I already told you, evolution. It's a cascading chemical reaction, like a fire. And it has no purpose, like a fire. It just happens when conditions come together in a certain way. The universe is full of various conditions and quantities of matter that interacts with other matter in complex ways, due to it's structure. This is the fundamental difference between western and eastern thinking. In Taoism, it is proposed that things come about passively, through their own nature. In the western mind, it's all entities with plans assembling things from otherwise inactive parts.

 

[rr6]

Spirit - Soul = Finite Integrity = System and Structure Divinity = Integral Duality

3D + time Spirit( physical/energy ) exists eternally as finite occupied space we call Universe

The Universe( occupied space ) cannot be created nor destroyed however, it may expand and contract within the macro-infinite non-occupied space.

At minimum if our observed 3D + time spirit/physical/energy went out of existence, its total quantity is still encoded in a finite, seemingly 2D surface of a seeming set of only two gravitational sphericals and a finite, seemingly 2D plane that exists as a common plane between the two gravitation sphericals.

O!O

This poor textual graphic gives an static approximation of the phase/stated our finite Universe will exist as in the entropic heat death scenarios. This phases/state is both and ending and a beginning.

O = gravitational spherical

! = matter maximally dispersed as one very large and very flat photon.

The two sphericals are really 8 and when the finite, seemingly 2D flat plane unfolds, we see it expand outward to eventually reach another turn-around phase/state of exact equilibrium aka Vector Equilibrium aka cubo-octahedron.

The cubo-octahedron has 8 triangles and there will be one gravitational spherical face bonded to each of the I triangles.

4 axi and 8 parallel planes are the cosmic set that is common to all three of the only three, regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe

icosa(20)hedron--12 phi-related pentagons and 15 phi-related golden rectangles

octa(8)hedron--intermedieary between more complex above-^ and less complex-below-v

tetra(4)hedron---see also birds-eye view as the 2D subdivided triangle set----

r6

Spirit( 2) = physical/energy I.e fermions, bosons and any combination thereof. imho
Spirit( 1 ) = metaphysical intention via mind'inteligence ergo mental constructs and abstract concepts.
Soul( 2 ) = biological
Soul( 1 ) = pattern/shape if not integrity as pattern/shape.
r6

 

[Rav]

3D + time Spirit( physical/energy ) exists eternally as finite occupied space we call Universe

The Universe( occupied space ) cannot be created nor destroyed however, it may expand and contract within the macro-infinite non-occupied space.

At minimum if our observed 3D + time spirit/physical/energy went out of existence, its total quantity is still encoded in a finite, seemingly 2D surface of a seeming set of only two gravitational sphericals and a finite, seemingly 2D plane that exists as a common plane between the two gravitation sphericals.

O!O

This poor textual graphic gives an static approximation of the phase/stated our finite Universe will exist as in the entropic heat death scenarios. This phases/state is both and ending and a beginning.

O = gravitational spherical

! = matter maximally dispersed as one very large and very flat photon.

The two sphericals are really 8 and when the finite, seemingly 2D flat plane unfolds, we see it expand outward to eventually reach another turn-around phase/state of exact equilibrium aka Vector Equilibrium aka cubo-octahedron.

The cubo-octahedron has 8 triangles and there will be one gravitational spherical face bonded to each of the I triangles.

4 axi and 8 parallel planes are the cosmic set that is common to all three of the only three, regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe

icosa(20)hedron--12 phi-related pentagons and 15 phi-related golden rectangles

octa(8)hedron--intermedieary between more complex above-^ and less complex-below-v

tetra(4)hedron---see also birds-eye view as the 2D subdivided triangle set----

r6

Even if I wanted to follow your reasoning, I couldn't. No-one could. It only makes sense in your own head. In fact I suspect that it might not even make sense there, either. With at least the first point in mind, then, the question is why do you even bother posting? Seriously. Without the effective communication of ideas (or at least a good initial attempt at such, which can be refined and expanded upon as discussion progresses) it's kinda pointless isn't it?

Think about it.

 

[rr6]

Spirit( 2 ) and Spirit( 1 ) = oen duality subcatorization of Universe

rav,start with first word. If you do not understand it I can help you. A an English dictionary is also helpful.

Since your offering generalization of my overall post and do not address any specifics, is just one part of the evidence that your behavior is troll-like. Very common trait of trolls. imho

You offer little to no valid commentary in my regards and that is why you offer no specfics. Typical troll behavior. It is lot like what was said in the 50's science movies, what they don't understand scares them so they lash irrationally at what they do not understand, and in a trolls case, has desire to know.

Trolls hang out under the bridge of life and the cosmos dribbling drivel onto their on reflection and the reflection of those who live their lives on the bridge and the reflection of the cosmos above.

r6

Even if I wanted to follow your reasoning, I couldn't. No-one could. It only makes sense in your own head. In fact I suspect that it might not even make sense there, either. With at least the first point in mind, then, the question is why do you even bother posting? Seriously. Without the effective communication of ideas (or at least a good initial attempt at such, which can be refined and expanded upon as discussion progresses) it's kinda pointless isn't it?

Think about it.

 

[AlexG]

rav,start with first word. If you do not understand it I can help you. A an English dictionary is also helpful.

While all of the words you use have individual meanings, when you put them together in the order you've chosen, they're meaningless nonsense.

 

[Rav]

Trolls hang out under the bridge of life and the cosmos dribbling drivel onto their on reflection and the reflection of those who live their lives on the bridge and the reflection of the cosmos above.

You need to realize that there is sometimes a big difference between the degree of explanation required to record an idea such that it makes sense to you, and that required to accurately communicate it to someone else. If your comments are to make any sort of sense at all, there has to be additional information and/or context and/or perspective that you're failing to provide. If you wish to be understood, then you need to provide it.

 

[Fork]

View attachment 6269

Syntax and state are one.

 

[rr6]

Trolls Are To Start at the Beginning As Do Most Humans

Rav, when you want to drop your troll-like behavior and address specific set of two words you cannot grasp the association too each then please state as such. Get yourself a dictionary and start with the first two. Always start at the beginning. I assume that even a troll understand what it means to start at the beginning. I dunno, and you apparently don't either.

When you have sincerity of heart to understand anything I've stated I can attempt to help you as I have offered you. I don't believe you have any sincerity in your heart to even attempt to associate the first two words. Typical troll behavior. imho

so lets see now how many wasted posts have we had to deal with in regards to addressing r6's comments. This is wasted space because of troll-like behaviour generalizing-- nothing specific address and certainly nothing with any validity ----.

r6

You need to realize that there is sometimes a big difference between the degree of explanation required to record an idea such that it makes sense to you, and that required to accurately communicate it to someone else. If your comments are to make any sort of sense at all, there has to be additional information and/or context and/or perspective that you're failing to provide. If you wish to be understood, then you need to provide it.

 

[Rav]

Gotta love the internet.

 

[rcscwc]

I want a answer which is scientific.

Nyaya School had advanced a set of 9 proofs for existence of God. But they could not stand in the face of criticism by other schools, and were abandoned.

Now the position is is this. There IS Brahma, but no proof is possible.

 

[Write4U]

rr6 ,

Thumbs up Spirit - Soul = Finite Integrity = System and Structure Divinity = Integral Duality

3D + time Spirit( physical/energy ) exists eternally as finite occupied space we call Universe

Then why do you insist calling it something else?..

 

[rr6]

What is "it"?

rr6 ,
Then why do you insist calling it something else?..

Huh? What is this "it" your referring to WU4?

There are words that are called synonyms and that means that two different words, mean two similar things. This is very common phenomena. Many times people can use a few of not many different words to convey a concept or a meaning.

If you concerned about my use of the words spirit and soul be used to represent something else, well just take a look in few different dictionarys WU4 and you find there may exist more definitions for the words "spirit and soul than any other words in dictionary. I dunno exactly.

So please elaborate on what exactly your concerns are cause i'm no tgetting "it" or it.

R6

 

[xavierlizard]

If we are talking about an all powerfull being then, No. Anything in the Universe is part of it and subject to it's rules down to and including subatomic laws. And being there is nothing outside/there is no outside of our universe that eliminates that option. Now if you are talking about a mostly powerfull being but not all powerfull, then it is possible, but there is no true scientific proof... "God" is as elusive to science as "Bigfoot". No proof, no goof.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Do god exists? Can you prove it?

*************
M*W: No and no.

 

[Robittybob1]

*************
M*W: No and no.

Don't be so silly God can prove his own existence. Easy!

 

[Mazulu]

*************
M*W: No and no.

Your avatar looks so Christian. I am amazed.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Omni Schwomni

"God is a spirit that resides in those that believe."

*************
M*W: That would depend on which concept of god, goddess or (fill in the blank) one understands and accepts as a divine creator, spiritual guide and personal savior. Let's assume for now that you are referring to the christian god. The christian god is said to be "omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient." If the god resides only in "those that believe," said god is not omni-anything except a liar.