Zone1 “If the universe had a beginning, then we cannot avoid the question of creation.”

[Chuz Life]

The universe is flat, expanding, and accelerating. This does not indicate a cyclical universe.
What actual evidence is there for a cyclical universe?

I was only sharing some of my theories and discussions with AI.

I'm not making an absolute claim about any of it.

 

[DonGlock26]

I was only sharing some of my theories and discussions with AI.

I'm not making an absolute claim about any of it.

Thanks.

 

[task0778]

I do not see why the Creator couldn't have used evolution as a tool to allow life to grow and flourish on this planet. It doesn't have to be either or.

 

[DonGlock26]

I do not see why the Creator couldn't have used evolution as a tool to allow life to grow and flourish on this planet. It doesn't have to be either or.

A very good point and one that I have pondered myself. Evolution doesn't really explain how life started and the complexity of DNA data and cellular machinery. The Cambrian explosion is also hard to explain.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A very good point and one that I have pondered myself. Evolution doesn't really explain how life started and the complexity of DNA data and cellular machinery. The Cambrian explosion is also hard to explain.

I think his point was that, even if/when we fully explain those things, it may all still just be a design by a god.

 

[DonGlock26]

I think his point was that, even if/when we fully explain those things, it may all still just be a design by a god.

I understood his point. Thank you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I understood his point. Thank you.

Your response indicated otherwise., though. But I am glad you did.

 

[zaangalewa]

“If the universe had a beginning, then we cannot avoid the question of creation.”​

I disagree.

It's entirely plausible that something else caused it that wouldn't have to be "God" or even "intelligent."

One of my theories is that the entire universe is cyclical. ...

This is not new. As far as I know this theory fails due to the second law of thermodynamics <=> Entropy remains unchanged without energetic activity – but increases with every energetic activity.

Mit anderen Worten: Du kannst deine Wohnung aufräumen, aber Du kannst das Universum nicht aufräumen. Gerade im Gegenteil: Wenn Du deine Wohnung aufräumst wächst die Entropie des Gesamtuniversums. Das gilt auch für eine Vase die runterfällt und die Du wieder zusammenklebst. Die Vase funktioniert wieder aber im Gesamtuniversum wächst die Entropie - verschwindend gering aber sie wächst. In einem seit Ewigkeiten existierenden Universum würde sie maximal anwachsen. Ich habe versucht mir das vorzustellen und musste also versuchen mir dabei Schlimmstc vorzustellen was es überhaupt unvorstellbarerweise geben könnte: Ein Universum ohne System, Form oder Mathematik.
Während jeder nicht-Nerd-Schüler nämlich glaubt Mathematik sei eine Strafe der Hölle ganz spezielle für ihn gemacht ist es in Wirklichkeit, dass ein Universum ohne inheränter Mathematik - ohne natürliche Regelhaftigkeit - tatsächlich eine Hölle wäre ibn der du gar nicht sagen könnest was Du sagst und ich gar nicht antworten könnte - noch könnte einer von uns beiden überhaupt über irgendetwas nachdenken - weil es uns gar nicht geben könnte.
=
In other words: you can tidy up your apartment, but you cannot tidy up the universe. Quite the contrary: when you tidy up your apartment, the entropy of the entire universe increases. The same applies to a vase that falls down and you glue back together. The vase works again, but the entropy of the universe as a whole increases—negligibly, but it increases nonetheless. In a universe that has existed for eternity, it would increase to its maximum. I tried to imagine this and had to try to imagine the worst thing that could possibly exist: a universe without system, form, or mathematics.
While every non-nerdy student believes that mathematics is a punishment from hell made especially for them, the reality is that a universe without inherent mathematics—without natural regularity—would actually be a hell in which you couldn't say what you're saying and I couldn't answer—nor could either of us think about anything at all because we couldn't even exist.
-----

So in this form to think - pulsing universe - maybe God is not the creator of this since ever existing universe - but he had to be something like the cleaning lady of the entropy (=allknowing and allmighty). Otherwise you would not able to be.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is not new. As far as I know this theory fails due to the second law of thermodynamics

Hawking solved that problem, mathematically.

 

[zaangalewa]

Hawking solved that problem, mathematically.

No.

You answered by the way before I finished what I said. I hate this US-American attitude very much. Specially now because I have to go and you force me now to answer. Try to repair something what is broken - then you will understand what I [try to] speak about. Nothing repairs itself on its own. Not even Merlin is able to do so.

 

[Chuz Life]

This is not new. As far as I know this theory fails due to the second law of thermodynamics <=> Entropy remains unchanged without energetic activity – but increases with every energetic activity.

Mit anderen Worten: Du kannst deine Wohnung aufräumen, aber Du kannst das Universum nicht aufräumen. Gerade im Gegenteil: Wenn Du deine Wohnung aufräumst wächst die Entropie des Gesamtuniversums. Das gilt auch für eine Vase die runterfällt und die Du wieder zusammenklebst. Die Vase funktioniert wieder aber im Gesamtuniversum wächst die Entropie - verschwindend gering aber sie wächst. In einem seit Ewigkeiten existierenden Universum würde sie maximal anwachsen. Ich habe versucht mir das vorzustellen und musste also versuchen mir dabei Schlimmstc vorzustellen was es überhaupt unvorstellbarerweise geben könnte: Ein Universum ohne System, Form oder Mathematik.
Während jeder nicht-Nerd-Schüler nämlich glaubt Mathematik sei eine Strafe der Hölle ganz spezielle für ihn gemacht ist es in Wirklichkeit, dass ein Universum ohne inheränter Mathematik - ohne natürliche Regelhaftigkeit - tatsächlich eine Hölle wäre ibn der du gar nicht sagen könnest was Du sagst und ich gar nicht antworten könnte - noch könnte einer von uns beiden überhaupt über irgendetwas nachdenken - weil es uns gar nicht geben könnte.
=
In other words: you can tidy up your apartment, but you cannot tidy up the universe. Quite the contrary: when you tidy up your apartment, the entropy of the entire universe increases. The same applies to a vase that falls down and you glue back together. The vase works again, but the entropy of the universe as a whole increases—negligibly, but it increases nonetheless. In a universe that has existed for eternity, it would increase to its maximum. I tried to imagine this and had to try to imagine the worst thing that could possibly exist: a universe without system, form, or mathematics.
While every non-nerdy student believes that mathematics is a punishment from hell made especially for them, the reality is that a universe without inherent mathematics—without natural regularity—would actually be a hell in which you couldn't say what you're saying and I couldn't answer—nor could either of us think about anything at all because we couldn't even exist.
-----

So in this form to think - pulsing universe - maybe God is not the creator of this since ever existing universe - but he had to be something like the cleaning lady of the entropy (=allknowing and allmighty). Otherwise you would not able to be.

I am a realist and decidedly not a theorist, for good reason. Thanks to you and to DonGlock26 and others for keeping things focused on the "reality" of what we can see, measure, etc.

For me, that is the best and fastest way to reach a proper conclusion. (Sticking to the facts we have and adding more facts as they are discovered.)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No.

You answered by the way before I finished what I said. I hate this US-American attitude very much. Specially now because I have to go and you force me now to answer. Try to repair something what is broken - then you will understand what I [try to] speak about. Nothing repairs itself on its own. Not even Merlin is able to do so.

I wasn't answering. Just adding.

And it doesnt even mean Hawking's solution is the correct one. Just that he solved it, mathematically.

 

[Chuz Life]

I do not see why the Creator couldn't have used evolution as a tool to allow life to grow and flourish on this planet. It doesn't have to be either or.

I said the same for years, even as I was becoming more and more agnostic.

Proving that our universe spontaneously created itself out of nothingness. . . would not in any way disprove that "God" or some other form of intelligence wasn't (isn't) the architect.

Of course, that would only beg the question. . . "so where did God (that intelligence) come from?"

 

[zaangalewa]

I am a realist

So am I.

and decidedly not a theorist, for good reason. Thanks to you and to DonGlock26 and others for keeping things focused on the "reality" of what we can see, measure, etc.

?

For me, that is the best and fastest way to reach a proper conclusion. (Sticking to the facts we have and adding more facts as they are discovered.)

?

What has it to do with "realism" what you said here?

 

[zaangalewa]

Zygotes have no more consciousness than trimmed fingernail clippings, regardless of where they came from.

But now you have, zygote ... or ¿fingernail?.

A zygote builds out by the way many forms of biological tissues - also fingernails. You're comparing apple stems with apple seeds.

 

[Chuz Life]

So am I.



?



?

What has it to do with "realism" what you said here?

I think DonGlock26 even more than you offered tangible facts/ evidence that disproves the "cyclic" theory that I offered for consideration.

I thought your comments were supporting his posts, and that's what I was responding to.

Tangible facts are what realism is all about.

 

[zaangalewa]

I think DonGlock26 even more than you offered tangible facts/ evidence that disproves the "cyclic" theory ...

So you think I am right but DonGlock26 is righter ¿so it is wrong what I said? What form of realism is this? I think for example natural laws are all over the universe the same - also in the regions of the universe we are not able to see. But this is not provable. And I wonder myselve why something exists at all: "Why is not only nothing?"

For this question is it totally unimportant whether the universe pulses or not. Existence per se is always a miracle. So the question "Who or what created existence and who or what made it that existence follows rules?" will always occur. "Creation" is always a theme - independent from any possible answer.

 

[citygator]

This claim is a weak point from which the entire argument folds: "He argues that the only rational explanation for a single point is for something outside the material world, an external being that could have started it — a creator God."

Beginnings and ends are a human construct. They dont exist in nature.

 

[ding]

Beginnings and ends are a human construct. They dont exist in nature.

And yet the evidence shows the universe did have a beginning.

 

[zaangalewa]

I said the same for years, even as I was becoming more and more agnostic. ...

Only to make this clear: To be an agnostics not means not to believe in god. Who not believes in god is an atheist. To be an agnostics means not to be able to know whether god exists or not exists. In general: Atheism is the spiritual belief that god not exists. Agnosticism per se is no spiritual belief - it's a philosophy.

One very serios problem in context of agnosticism: God is able to exist and not to exist the same time (god is allmighty) - BUT - and this is indeed a very big fat "but" - we are not able to think so. Our normal logic breaks down when we postulate A and not-A are both true the same time.