The universe is under no obligation to be simple to understand. But we have very good approximations for how gravity works.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
God (the universe) was the first to say:
"It's for Me to know and you to find out!"
LOL. LOL
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Well, you know, that's interesting because -- if no concrete explanation with certainty can be thought of or conjectured, other possibilities might be considered by some. (Not all, of course.)
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
How it works perhaps, because evidently the earth for instance has a very strong pull to it so things stay on the ground like grass, but does anyone know how the power or force really came about?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I realize about gravity that there is an attraction between certain objects, such as a person falling from a tree, or better yet, an apple falling from a tree. And when humans leave the realm of gravitational pull surrounding the earth and they go in a spaceship they start floating around.
What is time? An astronomer explains and other sources agree that time is emergent and that it does not exist outside the universe. It's interesting to me that the statement that God is eternal implies that if you believe God exists then God is outside the universe.
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
Or the universe(s) and more. . . .
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
It is a conceptual error, G-d is everywhere, inside the Universe/s and outside of them, He is an attributive Being, not a physical person, please, right?
Regards
The multiverse. So far we have no idea what other universes might be like.
The problem is that God is far beyond our minds so all we can do mentally is take one dot on a sphere to discuss. I do agree with you as well as agreeing with advaita vedanta.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Not all teachings or beliefs are reasonable to all people, right? Let's see if we can settle on that thought for a moment or two, ok? (right please, or please right, whichever is your preference.)
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
If God is far beyond your mind how would you know anything about him? also how would you know what he likes or does not like.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
"The Universe had a beginning." - We actually don't know this.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
The polar analogy works because it describes a point on the two dimensional boundary of a three dimensional object. The electro-magnetic field generated by the poles mostly exists beyond this boundary. And while there is no South of the South Pole on the two dimensional surface of the globe, space “below” the South Pole exists once we recognise an additional spatial dimension; so it may only be within the limitations of the four dimensional manifold we currently conceive of, that space and time don’t extend beyond the limits of the universe (should we ever confirm what it’s temporal limits are).
As for accident vs intent, we know that the effect of a limb falling from the tree has a cause (or web of causation). So ‘intent’ in the context of the origin of the universe, is a question of first causes. An ‘accidental’ Big Bang is one in which the low entropy specialness of the early universe would have to have occurred randomly, and while only “back of the envelope” efforts - by Penrose for example - can be undertaken to calculate the probability of that happening, it still seems an utterly insignificant probability. That’s one reason, I think, that some astronomers entertain various multi-verse hypotheses; because in the context of an infinity of universes, statistical near-impossibilities become not impossible but inevitable.
But really I accept that there are no strong arguments for God from physics. We are far more likely to apprehend God through poetry than through science; He communicates with us using the language of the heart, not the head. That said, there is a poetic beauty in what we can glimpse of the narrative of the universe; stellar nurseries, galaxies, black holes, supernovas - what a work of art they constitute. And where there is a work of art, there has to be an artist.
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'm curious -- On what basis do you know that we actually don't know that the universe had a beginning?
The "artist" to borrow a very loaded term in my view can simply be natural processes though.
For example the grand canyon is a work of art formed by the "artist" of erosion. The universe may well turn out to be every bit as natural as the grand canyon. Thus assuming there is some intelligent artist at work as opposed to a blind process of things unfolding according to their properties would simply be a case of assuming the conclusion in my view.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, are you using methodlogical naturalism or something for else for natural?
To be honest I don't even understand the question lol.
I grew up in a somewhat conservative religious household so wasn't indoctrinated with methodological Naturalism.
Instead I was indoctrinated to believe that the universe was brought into being by the will of an All-knowing All-Powerful All Merciful God.
With the benefit of hindsight I would describe that as supernatural because the way it was alleged it didn't occur by things unfolding according to their properties.
Does that make me a "methodological naturalist" because I believe that everything I've experienced occurred due to the unfolding of nature taking it's course? You are probably better educated than me to know.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Never mind. It is in the philosophy of science and philsophy in general and that can be even worse than religion.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
On basis what scientists have published so far. Here is an example that sums up what we know:
Did The Universe Have A Beginning?
Yes, the Big Bang is real, but what about what came before?
www.forbes.com
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
From that article, the conclusion:On basis what scientists have published so far. Here is an example that sums up what we know:
Did The Universe Have A Beginning?
Yes, the Big Bang is real, but what about what came before?
"The Big Bang wasn’t the beginning of time and space, and cosmic inflation, which preceded it, cannot be the beginning either, unless it went on for an eternity. After a century of cosmic revolutions, we’re right back where we started: unable to answer the most fundamental question we can ask, “how did it all begin?” "