The Origin of the Universe

[ProHypster]

We have evidence that something started them or rather the whole theory (supposing it's true)

 

Because we are here. We are alive and this universe exists, something started them...

Unless it started itself. But is it capable of doing that?

 

Too bad it's too hard to grasp what that could be.

 

If this theory is correct, then I call whatever started that, god.

[danielsangeo]

Why call it "god"? What if the universe is just undergoing "Big Bounces" and the last "Big Crunch" made this universe?

 

Are you suggesting a pantheistic deity?

[Dan-95]

Just scanning through the comments, i'd also like to mention an entropic view of the universe. Something to think about...

[ProHypster]

Why call it "god"? What if the universe is just undergoing "Big Bounces" and the last "Big Crunch" made this universe?

 

Are you suggesting a pantheistic deity?

Why not call it god, after all god is the driving force behind the world (At least to me), hence I'm a monotheist (now), I believe that there is a driving force behind the universe.

To each their god.

To atheism, no god whatsoever.

Pantheism. Pandeism, Panentheism, Panendeism and I will have to check out Dan's view.

The mystery to me right now is explaining what god is not whether he exists.

And what you explain is basically a form of pantheism not atheism.

 

Dan: Yeah, entropic force.... it seems like just one type of force, I believe the universe was made by an entirely different force. I think I'm going to call it the universe force, the force that made the universe and keeps it going aka God.

[danielsangeo]

"Why not" is, to me, not an answer to "Why".

 

The word "God" has many different connotations to so many people from a bearded man in the sky to someone who tells you that you should eat your vegetables or what kind of clothes to wear...or whom you're allowed to marry.

 

Wars have been fought over this deity.

 

And most monotheists will tell you that God is not nature... that God is "beyond nature".

[ProHypster]

"Why not" is, to me, not an answer to "Why".

 

The word "God" has many different connotations to so many people from a bearded man in the sky to someone who tells you that you should eat your vegetables or what kind of clothes to wear...or whom you're allowed to marry.

 

Wars have been fought over this deity.

 

And most monotheists will tell you that God is not nature... that God is "beyond nature".

 

Wars are never fought over a deity. Wars are fought over arguments.

 

No philosopher believes in a bearded man.

 

Most monotheists are not philosophers while most philosophers are monotheists.

 

To define god, first define nature.

If you think nature is everything we know for a scientific fact, then of course god is beyond nature.

if you think nature is everything in the world but not everything that we know of for a scientific fact, including all kinds like metaphysical nature, energetic nature, then god may be nature or beyond nature.

If you think nature is everything that exists, then god is either in nature or nature.

Otherwise you just don't believe in god/the force/the reason

 

Just remember that pantheism is not atheism.

[danielsangeo]

But, really, at this point, calling my computer chair "god" doesn't mean I believe in "god" simply because I believe in my computer chair.

[ProHypster]

Remember God is only called so in the christian bible because the god in the christian bible doesn't reveal his name.

 

So ultimately, I think you just don't understand that god isn't a bearded man.

 

Simply said an atheist doesn't only not believe there is a bearded man but also has to not believe:

 

Choose official definition of God:

1. as a powerful, human-like, supernatural being, or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical category;

 

2. the Ultimate, the summum bonum, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, or Existence or Being itself;

 

3. the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand, etc.

[danielsangeo]

Some Christians would beg to differ with you.

 

Once again, you're positing an "intelligence" when you refer to God...a sentient "being" as it were. Christians state that "God made man in His own image". Therefore, God is necessarily human-shaped.

 

I posit that the "driving force" is completely "unintelligent"....or, rather, LACKS intelligence. It isn't sentient and didn't create this universe for us.

 

Monotheists (and polytheists) believe that there is a sentient "being" that created this universe for us, directing its creation for us.

[ProHypster]

Some Christians would beg to differ with you.

 

Once again, you're positing an "intelligence" when you refer to God...a sentient "being" as it were. Christians state that "God made man in His own image". Therefore, God is necessarily human-shaped.

 

I posit that the "driving force" is completely "unintelligent"....or, rather, LACKS intelligence. It isn't sentient and didn't create this universe for us.

 

Monotheists (and polytheists) believe that there is a sentient "being" that created this universe for us, directing its creation for us.

It's not necessarily so,

 

take this very popular philosophical monotheist consideration:

 

Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is one, that all reality (including God) is subsumed under the most fundamental category of being or existence.

Monism is to be distinguished from dualism, which holds that ultimately there are two kinds of substance, and from pluralism, which holds that ultimately there are many kinds of substance.

Monism characterizes pantheism, panentheism, and some non-Christian concepts of an immanent God. The concepts of absolutism, the monad, and the "Universal substrate" are closely related.

 

Monism is further defined according to three kinds:

 

Idealism, phenomenalism, or mentalistic monism which holds that only mind is real.

Neutral monism, which holds that both the mental and the physical can be reduced to some sort of third substance, or energy.

Physicalism or materialism, which holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental can be reduced to the physical.....

 

....see also Christian anthropology Christianity strongly maintains the Creator-creature distinction, and so firmly rejects metaphysical monism. Christianity maintains that God created the universe ex nihilo and not from Himself, nor within Himself, so that the Creator is not to be confused with creation, but rather transcends it (metaphysical dualism). God is both transcendent, and immanent. Immanence is possible due to the Christian doctrines of God's omnipotentence, omnipresence and omniscience, and due to God's desire for intimate contact with his own creation. Another use of the term "monism" is in Christian anthropology to refer to the innate nature of mankind as being holistic, as opposed to bipartite and tripartite views.

http://monistic.askdefine.com/

 

Check out that site, you may find yourself to be a monotheist after all

I'm guessing a henotheist maybe?

 

That's enough for today.

 

As I said earlier, I believe a lot of atheists just don't know the true position of atheism very well.

By the way my agnostic-atheist friend is considered an actual atheist, he doesn't apply to any monotheistic doctrines or philosophies.

[danielsangeo]

I don't believe in deities. The very existence of everything from panentheism to pantheism to monotheism to polytheism to monism to deism to....whatever... just shows that we humans like to make shit up when we don't know something.

 

Me, I say "I don't know". I'm not going to ascribe it to a deity though.

 

I am an atheist. I do not believe in deities. I don't believe that the "driving force" of the universe is a deity. I do not believe that nature is a deity. I do NOT believe in deities!

 

Good night!

[WonSul]

The starting state of the universe is not stable. It's under a lot of pressure, at very high temperature and is compressed to a small volume. There is no need for a spark or anything of that nature, as the conditions themselves are a cause. The universe cannot stay under those conditions and since the pressure and temperature cannot decrease, the volume must increase.

But in the theory there is no time, nor general relation in the compressed universe.

And if the universe can't stay under those conditions then why did it?

 

I sometimes wonder if your actually reading what I write before you respond to it.

The universe did not stay under those conditions. That was the point, it was conditions it could not stay at and so it expanded.

That was the start of time. 1.Unstable condition. 2. expansion in order to reach a more stable condition.

 

Unless it started itself. But is it capable of doing that?

 

I think it is, that was the point of an unstable initial condition. Like how Liquid Nitrogen cannot stay liquid under STP conditions. It's past it's boiling point.

[Song]

I once read about an very interesting theory.

It was called something like 'The real mistake in the unreal nothingness',

and 'The exception in the vacuum'.

I don't know if there is a english version of it, trying to explain it

would take to long since it was several pages long.

 

The paper used a symbolic example which I will just roughly translate:

You dig a hole in a snowfield and with that snow you create a snowman.

The snowman is happy about his faultless snowfield. But then he sees

the hole and to create a perfect field again he tries to repair the hole.

Since the snowman himself is the material he needs to correct the

error in the snowfield, he begins to destroy himself.

The moral of the story: With the urge for perfection came suffering to

the world.

 

Well, something like that.

It probably sounds like gibberish without the whole story but well...

If someone can read german, here is the link:

http://www.physik.as/

 

 

I myself believe in something between an ever repeating 'big bang'

(I wouldn't call it big bang though, I just don't have a better word now)

and god who is more or less the universe itself. Yeah, something like that.

 

Interestingly, this might sound kinda crazy now, but everytime I think

about such 'huge questions' I've got the feeling that the answer is

very close but hidden behind a wall which will push you away whenever

you get to close.

It's a very strange feeling, makes me believe that we humans are far

more capable then what we have shown in the last several millennia...

Well, maybe someday far into the future someone will find it all out.

[ProHypster]

Good to see a german here,

herzlich wilkommen zu dem forum !

 

Your theory is very close to mine at the current moment

 

To WonSul, you are saying that our universe came from unstable conditions.

But unstable conditions are just a condition of something, not the "something" and unstable conditions aren't able to make something themselves, there needs to be an ingridient of everything in our daily world, including movement, gravity, progression, time...

If you don't believe there is a cause in the universe or have no reason to belive there is a cause behind the universe, then I understand, you can be atheist.

 

To all folks who do have a theory and acknowledge a cause, a reason and movement somewhere of the world, I did my research, guess what, you are a theist even if you think you are atheist because a real atheist doesn't believe in any causes. It's a motto of "shit happens" (Not to mock, just a joke phrase)

[WonSul]

To WonSul, you are saying that our universe came from unstable conditions.

But unstable conditions are just a condition of something, not the "something" and unstable conditions aren't able to make something themselves, there needs to be an ingridient of everything in our daily world, including movement, gravity, progression, time...

If you don't believe there is a cause in the universe or have no reason to belive there is a cause behind the universe, then I understand, you can be atheist.

 

The thing that was under unstable conditions is the universe. I thought that was a given since I was talking about the Universe currently expanding and the Universe having a uniform background microwave radiation that is dissipating.

 

Also, I'm not an Atheist.

[danielsangeo]

Well, you could be a flavor of deist (one who believes in an intelligent being that created everything but is now totally "hands off").

 

Me, I don't know what 'created' the 'unstable ''thing'' that was the universe', but I do not believe that it was an intelligent force nor that it was necessarily 'created' at all.

[ProHypster]

Alright, so that's cool, since we discussed our own theories and the big bang a lot now, let's stick to putting new theories here, if anyone has any. Like the entropic ( ) force theory.

 

Anyone else have suggestions, feel free to post, explain the view.

We all just want to know the truth, progress our own philosophy or me personally, just thinking about it is enough.

 

Sorry for acting like the guy who made the topic Dan

Edited May 29, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

etrocentric

 

I can't find this word at all. Might want to check the spelling.

[WonSul]

Well, you could be a flavor of deist (one who believes in an intelligent being that created everything but is now totally "hands off").

 

I'm not a deist, not by the definition you gave.

 

Anyway, what I am or am not is off topic.

[Doom Shepherd]

Screaming Orange Leaper, my omniscient and omnipotent pet cat created the universe, complete with the illusion of age, a week ago Tuesday. Everything you think happened in your "PAST" is just part of the illusion.

 

He speaks to me, and has directed me to write the "Gospel According to Leaper, a True and Acurate Account of How the Universe Is and How to Properly Obey your Cat Master, and why Photons are carried on the backs of Infinitely Tiny Invisible Unicorns, and the Way in which Teapots Orbit the Sun." which should be out sometime in 2012, assuming I can gather up enough gold to emboss the pages.

 

YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT, SO IT MUST BE TRUE.

 

OBEY THE CAT GOD.