Bull Ring Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator. ding vs Soupnazi630

[ding]

We also do it to God. Impose our thinking on to His thinking.

I'd say our tendency is to do it to pretty much everyone. We all have our own movie playing in our heads where we are the writer, director, narrator and star. The trick to life is to figure out how to not do this.

 

[Mindful]

We also do it to God. Impose our thinking on to His thinking.

I'd say our tendency is to do it to pretty much everyone. We all have our own movie playing in our heads where we are the writer, director, narrator and star. The trick to life is to figure out how to not do this.

I suppose you could say do we create our own reality?

I don't want there to be a trick to life.

 

[ding]

If there is creation, there has to be a creator?

What did you mean when you said the middle paragraph sounded like you are anthropomorphising something?

I am also a very curious person and ask a lot of questions. I hope you don't mind.

It is usually used to ascribe human form or attributes to (an animal, plant, material object, etc.).

We also do it to God. Impose our thinking on to His thinking.

Ok, but that's not what I was doing. I was talking about the nature of evidence.

Or do you see that differently? And if so, can you explain why?

One has to do it when searching evidence. Because we only have our own limited context in which to do it.

Have you ever tried to get your head round the nature of the universe? I mean really round it? Something never ending?

I tried it once......Science didn't help.

Yes, but it is not never ending. It is finite. You just can't reach a boundary because space time is curved. But there is no doubt that space and time had a beginning.

If you want to explode your head, all the matter and energy that exists in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom.

And to further the mind blowing experience, the atoms in your body were present when space and time were created. They have merely changed form over the 14 billion year time frame.

 

[Mindful]

Why is there "no doubt"?

 

[ding]

We also do it to God. Impose our thinking on to His thinking.

I'd say our tendency is to do it to pretty much everyone. We all have our own movie playing in our heads where we are the writer, director, narrator and star. The trick to life is to figure out how to not do this.

I suppose you could say do we create our own reality?

I don't want there to be a trick to life.

It is a saying.

The method of being able to see objective truth or reality is to die to self. Or to put it another way, to have no preference for an outcome. No matter what the consequence of that outcome is.

 

[ding]

Why is there "no doubt"?

Cosmic background radiation shows that remnants of the so called "big bang". Red shift shows that every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in the universe and Friedman's solutions Einstein's General Theory of Relativity show that all matter and energy occupied a tiny space and then began to expand and cool.

Every single cosmological model honors these observations and calculations.

If you like I can provide a link where Alexander Vilenkin explains why the universe had a beginning.

But the short answer is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe because as time approaches infinity the universe reaches thermal equilibrium which we do not see. So we know the universe had a beginning. The reason why the SLoT predicts thermal equilibrium is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So eventually the universe will reach thermal equilibrium at some point in time.

 

[Mindful]

We also do it to God. Impose our thinking on to His thinking.

I'd say our tendency is to do it to pretty much everyone. We all have our own movie playing in our heads where we are the writer, director, narrator and star. The trick to life is to figure out how to not do this.

I suppose you could say do we create our own reality?

I don't want there to be a trick to life.

It is a saying.

The method of being able to see objective truth or reality is to die to self. Or to put it another way, to have no preference for an outcome. No matter what the consequence of that outcome is.

Now that would be nirvana. The outcome and a non preference for it.

As for the rest, how does one define what 'objective' is? 'Subjective' being our default setting, given our human condition.

 

[Mindful]

Why is there "no doubt"?

Cosmic background radiation shows that remnants of the so called "big bang". Red shift shows that every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in the universe and Friedman's solutions Einstein's General Theory of Relativity show that all matter and energy occupied a tiny space and then began to expand and cool.

Every single cosmological model honors these observations and calculations.

If you like I can provide a link where Alexander Vilenkin explains why the universe had a beginning.

But the short answer is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe because as time approaches infinity the universe reaches thermal equilibrium which we do not see. So we know the universe had a beginning. The reason why the SLoT predicts thermal equilibrium is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So eventually the universe will reach thermal equilibrium at some point in time.

Send it to me

 

[ding]

We also do it to God. Impose our thinking on to His thinking.

I'd say our tendency is to do it to pretty much everyone. We all have our own movie playing in our heads where we are the writer, director, narrator and star. The trick to life is to figure out how to not do this.

I suppose you could say do we create our own reality?

I don't want there to be a trick to life.

It is a saying.

The method of being able to see objective truth or reality is to die to self. Or to put it another way, to have no preference for an outcome. No matter what the consequence of that outcome is.

Now that would be nirvana. The outcome and a non preference for it.

As for the rest, how does one define what 'objective' is? 'Subjective' being our default setting, given our human condition.

The short answer to your question is that subjectivity is based upon bias, if one dies to self, he has no bias (i.e. preference) and he can see objective truth (i.e. reality).

I need to go offline for a bit but I'll be back in 3 or 4 hours.

Peace.

 

[ding]

Why is there "no doubt"?

Cosmic background radiation shows that remnants of the so called "big bang". Red shift shows that every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in the universe and Friedman's solutions Einstein's General Theory of Relativity show that all matter and energy occupied a tiny space and then began to expand and cool.

Every single cosmological model honors these observations and calculations.

If you like I can provide a link where Alexander Vilenkin explains why the universe had a beginning.

But the short answer is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe because as time approaches infinity the universe reaches thermal equilibrium which we do not see. So we know the universe had a beginning. The reason why the SLoT predicts thermal equilibrium is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So eventually the universe will reach thermal equilibrium at some point in time.

Send it to me

The first link is to "Closer to the Truth." Select the interview with Alexander Vilenkin. This is the short version of the answer; <8 minutes.

Did the Universe Begin? | Closer to Truth

The second link is longer (~40 minutes) but he explains why the universe must have a beginning in greater detail.

 

[Mindful]

Why is there "no doubt"?

Cosmic background radiation shows that remnants of the so called "big bang". Red shift shows that every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in the universe and Friedman's solutions Einstein's General Theory of Relativity show that all matter and energy occupied a tiny space and then began to expand and cool.

Every single cosmological model honors these observations and calculations.

If you like I can provide a link where Alexander Vilenkin explains why the universe had a beginning.

But the short answer is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe because as time approaches infinity the universe reaches thermal equilibrium which we do not see. So we know the universe had a beginning. The reason why the SLoT predicts thermal equilibrium is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So eventually the universe will reach thermal equilibrium at some point in time.

Send it to me

The first link is to "Closer to the Truth." Select the interview with Alexander Vilenkin. This is the short version of the answer; <8 minutes.

Did the Universe Begin? | Closer to Truth

The second link is longer (~40 minutes) but he explains why the universe must have a beginning in greater detail.

Thank you.

I'll peruse in detail, later in bed.

I'd still like to know what was going on before 'the moment'.

Did God have too much time on his hands?

 

[ding]

Why is there "no doubt"?

Cosmic background radiation shows that remnants of the so called "big bang". Red shift shows that every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in the universe and Friedman's solutions Einstein's General Theory of Relativity show that all matter and energy occupied a tiny space and then began to expand and cool.

Every single cosmological model honors these observations and calculations.

If you like I can provide a link where Alexander Vilenkin explains why the universe had a beginning.

But the short answer is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe because as time approaches infinity the universe reaches thermal equilibrium which we do not see. So we know the universe had a beginning. The reason why the SLoT predicts thermal equilibrium is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So eventually the universe will reach thermal equilibrium at some point in time.

Send it to me

The first link is to "Closer to the Truth." Select the interview with Alexander Vilenkin. This is the short version of the answer; <8 minutes.

Did the Universe Begin? | Closer to Truth

The second link is longer (~40 minutes) but he explains why the universe must have a beginning in greater detail.

Thank you.

I'll peruse in detail, later in bed.

I'd still like to know what was going on before 'the moment'.

Did God have too much time on his hands?

Outside of space and time (i.e. our universe) there is no time.

Some would argue that even inside our universe there is no such thing as time. But that is a discussion for another day.

 

[Mindful]

Why is there "no doubt"?

Cosmic background radiation shows that remnants of the so called "big bang". Red shift shows that every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in the universe and Friedman's solutions Einstein's General Theory of Relativity show that all matter and energy occupied a tiny space and then began to expand and cool.

Every single cosmological model honors these observations and calculations.

If you like I can provide a link where Alexander Vilenkin explains why the universe had a beginning.

But the short answer is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe because as time approaches infinity the universe reaches thermal equilibrium which we do not see. So we know the universe had a beginning. The reason why the SLoT predicts thermal equilibrium is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So eventually the universe will reach thermal equilibrium at some point in time.

Send it to me

The first link is to "Closer to the Truth." Select the interview with Alexander Vilenkin. This is the short version of the answer; <8 minutes.

Did the Universe Begin? | Closer to Truth

The second link is longer (~40 minutes) but he explains why the universe must have a beginning in greater detail.

Thank you.

I'll peruse in detail, later in bed.

I'd still like to know what was going on before 'the moment'.

Did God have too much time on his hands?

Outside of space and time (i.e. our universe) there is no time.

Some would argue that even inside our universe there is no such thing as time. But that is a discussion for another day.

A false construct, you mean?

Or a figure of speech?

 

[ding]

Cosmic background radiation shows that remnants of the so called "big bang". Red shift shows that every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in the universe and Friedman's solutions Einstein's General Theory of Relativity show that all matter and energy occupied a tiny space and then began to expand and cool.

Every single cosmological model honors these observations and calculations.

If you like I can provide a link where Alexander Vilenkin explains why the universe had a beginning.

But the short answer is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe because as time approaches infinity the universe reaches thermal equilibrium which we do not see. So we know the universe had a beginning. The reason why the SLoT predicts thermal equilibrium is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So eventually the universe will reach thermal equilibrium at some point in time.

Send it to me

The first link is to "Closer to the Truth." Select the interview with Alexander Vilenkin. This is the short version of the answer; <8 minutes.

Did the Universe Begin? | Closer to Truth

The second link is longer (~40 minutes) but he explains why the universe must have a beginning in greater detail.

Thank you.

I'll peruse in detail, later in bed.

I'd still like to know what was going on before 'the moment'.

Did God have too much time on his hands?

Outside of space and time (i.e. our universe) there is no time.

Some would argue that even inside our universe there is no such thing as time. But that is a discussion for another day.

A false construct, you mean?

Or a figure of speech?

Not a figure of speech.

I don't know if it is a false construct though.

They call it the problem with time.

Their models can run backwards in time perfectly fine but we have never experienced that before so it seems that time can only move in a forward direction.

Some say that time is the measure of the expansion of the universe.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?

No.
The existence of something does not indicate an intention to create it. By intention I mean data and record which suggests that anything created was the result of an idea.
Eiffel Tower--created with intention with evidence that supports a creator.
Ayer's Rock--created without any evidence to support a single creator.

A creator indicates an independence from the laws of the universe. The universe does not support the idea of an independent originator as all things show dependence upon another.
Therefore a thing such as Ayer's Rock is the result of a million...billion other dependent factors working upon one another to reach the creation you see presently. Additionally, the rock you see today is different than the same rock 1 million years ago and will be different in 1 million more, as these many millions of interlocking phenomena continue forward.

 

[ding]

Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?

No.
The existence of something does not indicate an intention to create it. By intention I mean data and record which suggests that anything created was the result of an idea.
Eiffel Tower--created with intention with evidence that supports a creator.
Ayer's Rock--created without any evidence to support a single creator.

A creator indicates an independence from the laws of the universe. The universe does not support the idea of an independent originator as all things show dependence upon another.
Therefore a thing such as Ayer's Rock is the result of a million...billion other dependent factors working upon one another to reach the creation you see presently. Additionally, the rock you see today is different than the same rock 1 million years ago and will be different in 1 million more, as these many millions of interlocking phenomena continue forward.

So then from your own experiences you create things you don't intend to create?

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?

No.
The existence of something does not indicate an intention to create it. By intention I mean data and record which suggests that anything created was the result of an idea.
Eiffel Tower--created with intention with evidence that supports a creator.
Ayer's Rock--created without any evidence to support a single creator.

A creator indicates an independence from the laws of the universe. The universe does not support the idea of an independent originator as all things show dependence upon another.
Therefore a thing such as Ayer's Rock is the result of a million...billion other dependent factors working upon one another to reach the creation you see presently. Additionally, the rock you see today is different than the same rock 1 million years ago and will be different in 1 million more, as these many millions of interlocking phenomena continue forward.

So then from your own experiences you create things you don't intend to create?

Yes...i just burned the crap out of some cookies the other day. I once smashed my car into a highway median during a rainstorm. I have cut myself at work. We create things all time unintentionally. Yet, there is evidence that there was a creator.

 

[ding]

Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?

No.
The existence of something does not indicate an intention to create it. By intention I mean data and record which suggests that anything created was the result of an idea.
Eiffel Tower--created with intention with evidence that supports a creator.
Ayer's Rock--created without any evidence to support a single creator.

A creator indicates an independence from the laws of the universe. The universe does not support the idea of an independent originator as all things show dependence upon another.
Therefore a thing such as Ayer's Rock is the result of a million...billion other dependent factors working upon one another to reach the creation you see presently. Additionally, the rock you see today is different than the same rock 1 million years ago and will be different in 1 million more, as these many millions of interlocking phenomena continue forward.

So then from your own experiences you create things you don't intend to create?

Yes...i just burned the crap out of some cookies the other day. I once smashed my car into a highway median during a rainstorm. I have cut myself at work. We create things all time unintentionally. Yet, there is evidence that there was a creator.

So are you arguing those exceptions are the rule?

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?

No.
The existence of something does not indicate an intention to create it. By intention I mean data and record which suggests that anything created was the result of an idea.
Eiffel Tower--created with intention with evidence that supports a creator.
Ayer's Rock--created without any evidence to support a single creator.

A creator indicates an independence from the laws of the universe. The universe does not support the idea of an independent originator as all things show dependence upon another.
Therefore a thing such as Ayer's Rock is the result of a million...billion other dependent factors working upon one another to reach the creation you see presently. Additionally, the rock you see today is different than the same rock 1 million years ago and will be different in 1 million more, as these many millions of interlocking phenomena continue forward.

So then from your own experiences you create things you don't intend to create?

Yes...i just burned the crap out of some cookies the other day. I once smashed my car into a highway median during a rainstorm. I have cut myself at work. We create things all time unintentionally. Yet, there is evidence that there was a creator.

So are you arguing those exceptions are the rule?

Which exceptions? That I have created something unintentionally? How are they the exception? They still have a creator which we can prove.
The same goes for a barn that is destroyed in a storm. The barn was created by men. We have drawings, permits and personal testimony attesting to it's construction.
You contend that it was a creator which made the storm and the wind which knocked down the barn. Why does there have to be a creator when we have data?
Even if we did not see the creation of the pile of wood (formerly a barn) we have evidence that shows that there was a storm in the area. We have evidence of the storm in rainfall and wind data. We have other empirical evidence of the event as trees are fallen and power lines knocked down adjacent to the former structure.
Where does a single creator fit into the matrix? Further, where is the evidence of such?

 

[ding]

Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?

No.
The existence of something does not indicate an intention to create it. By intention I mean data and record which suggests that anything created was the result of an idea.
Eiffel Tower--created with intention with evidence that supports a creator.
Ayer's Rock--created without any evidence to support a single creator.

A creator indicates an independence from the laws of the universe. The universe does not support the idea of an independent originator as all things show dependence upon another.
Therefore a thing such as Ayer's Rock is the result of a million...billion other dependent factors working upon one another to reach the creation you see presently. Additionally, the rock you see today is different than the same rock 1 million years ago and will be different in 1 million more, as these many millions of interlocking phenomena continue forward.

So then from your own experiences you create things you don't intend to create?

Yes...i just burned the crap out of some cookies the other day. I once smashed my car into a highway median during a rainstorm. I have cut myself at work. We create things all time unintentionally. Yet, there is evidence that there was a creator.

So are you arguing those exceptions are the rule?

Which exceptions? That I have created something unintentionally? How are they the exception? They still have a creator which we can prove.
The same goes for a barn that is destroyed in a storm. The barn was created by men. We have drawings, permits and personal testimony attesting to it's construction.
You contend that it was a creator which made the storm and the wind which knocked down the barn. Why does there have to be a creator when we have data?
Even if we did not see the creation of the pile of wood (formerly a barn) we have evidence that shows that there was a storm in the area. We have evidence of the storm in rainfall and wind data. We have other empirical evidence of the event as trees are fallen and power lines knocked down adjacent to the former structure.
Where does a single creator fit into the matrix? Further, where is the evidence of such?

As a rule which happens more; people create things unintentionally? or people create things on purpose?

I will take them one at a time and cover both. Fair enough.