So I want to begin by saying that these are entirely preliminary thoughts, and due to that, they may come out kind of vague and nonsensical at times. However, to my knowledge, I have not read any theists who use the argument I am about to present. Most people know I usually lean towards the atheists' direction, but when it comes to questions of origin, I become much more cautious in what I claim to know. Here are my preliminary thoughts. We can all agree that the universe exists. For something to exist, it requires that it exists INSIDE of something. For example, I exist inside the earth. The earth exists in the milky way galaxy. And the milky way galaxy exists inside of the universe. Now, does it not stand to reason that the universe would also need to exist "inside" of something? It seems nonsensical to me to claim that somehow the universe exists inside of "nothing", because nothing is NOTHING, so there would be nothing inside of it, outside of it, or anywhere near it. There would just be nothing! Therefore, the conclusion would be that the universe must exist inside of something else. And since an infinite regress is impossible, eventually we would have to turn to God as the ultimate stopping point, where we could ultimately say that, since under traditional theism God sustains all things in existence, the universe, or whatever it exists inside of, exists in the mind of God. Since I still lean towards atheism/agnosticism, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this train of thought. I'd like to hear what others, theists and atheists alike, think about my argument. I like to think about both sides.
It reminds me of a song... He's got the whole world, in his hand..... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXMtK3awAPI&feature=related"]He's got the whole world in his hands - YouTube[/ame]
Hmm ... hmhmhm ... hmhm ... if the positrive and negative energies of the universe totally summized are zero - how could it be that something is existing without energy? Is the expression "existance" a senselful expression in case of the universe? Maybe "existance" is only a word with sense here - but not 'there' - wherever 'there' could be. (Indeed we are in the momen only able to know 10% of 4% of thei universe here) I see three components: Inside, outside and the skin between inside and outside. We are for example "inside" "only" some electrochemical processes on membranes of cells simulating the world outside. We don't see a tree - we see some electrochemical impulses what gives us the illusison that there is a tree outside. If we go to this tree then we can feel the tree - adn we see this via electrochemical impulses. Even the most simple questions are often not easy to answer. If our world is inside nothing then there is no outside but only an inside. The best description until today is for me indeed still this "point in the nowhere" where all was inside; the whole universe. The problem is maybe not the point in the nowhere - but the entity who draw this point. The strange thing: this point in the nowhere is causeless (for us). And it's by the way really difficult to think about without loosing balance. It sounds so idiotic that I'm myselve astonished about myselve why I see it in this way. But this is for me the most plausible way. Our universe for example is (accelerated) expanding. This means (in big distances) that from every point in all directions the universe is expanding. So everything within this universe is alway in the middle because everywhere it's expanding. So there is no outside - what means also: Outside of the universe could be nothing. We are meeting us in this point now. Nice. And we are meeting us not in this point. Fortunatelly not. It looks like we have to love something what we don't know only because of the inside of the universe. The paradox situation: Phycicists are speaking sometimes from parallel universes. But we are fitting only in a part of this universe here if we take the (real scientific) theory of (biological) evolution serios. Somehow we shoud not be able to think about such forms of existances. If we are able to do so then maybe the world of the ideas - how Platon said - is indeed a reality and not only an idea Perhaps we are meeting god in the best possible way in his word (=creation). I'm an agnostics - but a christian. That's what motivates me now to tell you some of my thoughts. It are thoughts only. If this thoughts are wrong I can live with and if it is right then I'm sure god knows exactly what he is doing on what reasons. He's got the whole world in his hands - and more. http://de.gloria.tv/?media=43693
Something of a side point but isn't this really just perception? At a fundamental level, everything in the universe in contiguous - the fact we individualise and categorise ourselves, planets, solar systems etc. only exists in our minds. As far as the universe in concerned, it's all just matter and energy. I'm not sure this changes the point you're making but it might change how you approach it. Impossible is a dangerous word in science. One day someone could come along and prove your wrong. I don't see an infinite universe (or something "outside" it being infinite) is any less likely than the existence of some kind of god (itself often defined as infinite). Why do we "have to" turn to God? What do you even mean by the term? You've hypothesised that there must be some kind of "stopping point" with some logical arguments. Where is the logic in introducing the word God all of a sudden? If nothing else, you're just introducing a whole load of baggage, confusion and argument in to an area that it doesn't really have anything to do with.
The universe does not need to exist within anything, it is everything. It is probabaly not a bubble floating in a sea, but a space that folds upon itself. I would suggesting reading The Fabric of the Cosmos.
It does. Both theists and atheists agree on that. Atheists say it is a larger void of some kind. Theists say it is inside God (God encompasses everything). Both theist and atheist ideologies operate within infinite systems. .
Why? How are you able to say so? Everythgin what you are able to say is always part of everything. So such a sentence is a senseless sentence. On the other side: Probably the universe is a gigantic fried chicken. Nice way to say "I don't know". http://youtu.be/Dx3a0u0C9IA
I don't know what an a-atheist (=theist) in the eyes of an atheist could be. I'm not defining myselve as a theist following an ideology someone could call theism. Your view on the world is strange to me. I'm a christian - and I don't know any Christians who had said personally to me that the universe is existing within god or something like this as if it would be a a theory of physics he's speaking about. The christian religion is not an ideology. And I doubt that all atheisms are able to be subsumized under a common ideology. http://youtu.be/S5Uu1pT1UJc
Why would the universe need to exist within something? The universe is time and space, it likely folds in on itself, there is probably not a "other side" to be had. Joy's of science. "I don't know" is so much better than making up a lie.
I would say if god would forget something in this universe then it never had existed nor will it ever be existing and I would say if god decides the sky is not blue any longer but red then you will see outside a very red sky - but I'm not sure wether you will see this red sky with your left or your right tentacle. And much more important: I will not go to him in the end of time to tell him any crazy story how we idiots from the third planet solar system had destroyed the living conditions of all his living creation on planet earth - except maybe I'm able to present him everyone who is responsible for this desaster in a transportable hell. http://youtu.be/7DgL8MDHfus
Then you agree with me after all. Because the universe is only limited as much as God wants it to be, right? He can make it any size, or make it limitless. He is not limited in any way, and therefore the universe (and it's size) is not limited in any way. That is an infinite system.
Space has always space around - otherwise one of the directions left-right, high -down, forward-backward would be blocked. I don't have a big respect of your knowldege - also not if you are callling it "no-knowledge" - and specially not if you are calling all people who don't agree with you in sophisticated ways "liars". Science is not a religion - so science is not able to replace religion. From my christian point of view science is holy - that's all. http://youtu.be/-zoDVujlK0k
..... and? That does not contradict what I just said. What I am saying is that the universe probably folds on itself, meaning there is not an "outside" to the universe. If religion says that birds existed before fish (Genesis) and through demonstrable process we discover otherwise, then science replaces religion as a means of discovering truth.
Science is not able to replace anything what the bible says. Bye bye. I don't like to continue this senseless discussion dominated from arrogance, ignorance and agressions. I like to fly like one of the singing birds of the Holy Francis to Bethlehem to meet my ixthys (fish) there. http://youtu.be/AzD2b0UNRqs
Genesis 1:20 mentions creatures of the sea before birds. Besides, the creation account was never meant to be taken absolutely literally.
I see it more as a synopsis or outline of the sequence of creation over a long period of time and merely condensed as being given to Moses by God thru inspiration.
I don't agree with you. God could do everything - but he is not doing everything. That's a big diffference. Even if all human beings in the whole world agree with anything what is not actually true - it will also not become true because of this in any future - even if everyone says so and thinks so. There's a very big difference between the creating words of god and the understanding and describing words of human being. Two examples: Jesus was able to heal directly with the might of his words - but we need hospitals. God was able to create energy - but we are not able to destroy or to create energy - we are only able to transform energy and so on ... http://youtu.be/3tQb8pcj-aw
Sure it does. One example is that we know light existed before the earth. Genesis has it a bit opposite. Dry land exist before water, Genesis says otherwise. Days existed before plant life, Genesis says otherwise. Stars existed before the earth, Genesis says otherwise. Land animals existed before flying animals, Genesis says otherwise. So yes, science replaces a good portion of the Bible. I am sorry.
One could say that "science has detailed and amplified any knowledge of the origin of the earth with more specifics." Is there an earlier attempt in explaining creation in history anywhere that you know of? Is the one in Genesis even close to multiple stages of development, and groups of animals as separate comings, assuming they were written by a mortal man (attributed to Moses) who was 'under the inspiration' but was in fact not God Himself? It all depends on 'which creation' one is talking about. The earth has had at least 3, possibly more (fiery surface, ice surface (the snowball stage), etc, with life forms coming and going. Just as 'the Mighty men of old' were talked about as being on the earth in those days whose origin was not specified.
Genesis was written by man. A desert nomad. There is little reason to give the text much weight in explaining how everything came to be.
You just bolstered my case! An ignorant, superstitious 'nomad' wrote a fairly close explanation of the creation of the earth...what are the 'odds' huh?! ..thx, Wolfie
Dry land exist before water, Genesis says otherwise. Days existed before plant life, Genesis says otherwise. Stars existed before the earth, Genesis says otherwise. Land animals existed before flying animals, Genesis says otherwise. Women from a mans rib? Laughable. Fairy close? Amusing.
