First cause of the universe.

[Kfox]

I think some confusion arises because when astronomers talk about the universe, they are referring to something specific, ie. all of space and time.

I think they are talking about everything except thought, and figments of imaginations.

When metaphysical considerations arise about what, if anything, might exist or have existed beyond space and time, we are straying outside the boundaries of the universe, and of science. Perhaps.

If something real is known to exist beyond space, time, or whatever; that something becomes a part of the Universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course it does. There are right definitions, and there are wrong definitions

That’s like asking is it a fact that all circles are round! (like you gonna find one with 4 sides or something)

Poor analogy. The definition of God changes from person to person; not everybody defines God as creator of everything, even though some do. The definition of the Universe is the same for everybody
Then provide a scenario where something could possibly exist outside of the Universe.

No, I don't have the same definition of the universe as you. And I don't have the same definition of exist. Stop claiming that you speak for all humans. I don't and I know that. But you are up there with some theists.

 

[Kfox]

That does not include other possible universes outside of our space and time. I am not a mathematician, but there are physicists that can support their arguments that the math of the Special Theory of Relativity tell us that there could be many universes. Now I personally do not know of any evidence for their existence outside of the math, but math in theoretical physics is an extremely powerful tool and has been right quite often. If I made such a claim on my own it would be worthless, but it is not my claim. I could pull up some peer reviewed articles on it, but I can guarantee that I would not be able to explain them.

At any rate now the term "Cosmos" is often used to include not only our universe but also any other possible universes. There may be only the one universe and the Big Bang may explain the very early history of it.

So suggest the possibility of more than one Universe is a contradiction in the definition of Universe. All of those, whatever it is you describe as Universe, are a part of the one Universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So suggest the possibility of more than one Universe is a contradiction in the definition of Universe. All of those, whatever it is you describe as Universe, are a part of the one Universe.

What is a word?

 

[Kfox]

And if that is the case, then we don't know if the universe 'had a start'. What we know is that the current expansion phase had a start about 13.8 billion years ago. But, we don't know if that is the whole universe according to that definition.

I agree!

 

[Polymath257]

So suggest the possibility of more than one Universe is a contradiction in the definition of Universe. All of those, whatever it is you describe as Universe, are a part of the one Universe.

Depending on who you talk to, this may well be what they call 'the multiverse'.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nobody is claiming energy doesn't exist. But you have no explanation for what started it. An energy source we haven't yet discovered is the most likely explanation. What would a source of endless energy have to be like?

The theist has no answers for anything unless one accepts guesses as answers. The theist's guess is God. That's what the interest of theists actually is in these discussions - not seeking answers or engaging in philosophical discussions, but to say over and over that he just doesn't see how any of this we see around us could be without a god. But what's the point saying that to people who DO see how the universe could be godless? What does the theist's incredulity say to such a person? That he has thought the issue through further and eliminated all non-divine possibilities with sound arguments, or that he just doesn't have the ability to see what others do?

Every thing I see that has moving parts and functions has a designer... my vehicle didn't create itself... but I'm supposed to believe that the dog sitting next to me and the sunlight coming in the window and my own DNA just happened by some bizarre accident. Please!

Your vehicle is not like most of nature, which does assemble and run itself according to the laws of physics, as shown by the scientists of the last several centuries. What's true about a car is not true about a snowflake or a river or a forest or a solar system, all of which form spontaneously without help from any intelligence.

Order doesn't spring from chaos.

This is incorrect.

• "A Dissipative Structure is a thermodynamically open system operating far from thermodynamic equilibrium, that exchanges energy, matter, and information with the external environment. In this kind of systems, organization can emerge through a spontaneous self-organization process"

That's a description of tornadoes, hurricanes, the red spot on Jupiter, the hexagonal formation at the north pole of Saturn, and life itself - all far from equilibrium structures that self-organize in heat sinks. The argument is that if one exposes organic materials to heat and light in the proper setting, that it will eventually organize into something like chlorophyll that dissipates that energy. Yes, I understand that you reject that as absurd, but no matter. It is not. In fact, it is probably correct.

spontaneous generation of life was disproved a long time ago.

This is also incorrect if you are including abiogenesis, which is a form of spontaneous generation, but over geological time in a prebiotic world.

Chemicals form from elements. Do elements just poof into existence? No they require the existence of matter.... You're using some sort of circular reasoning to say everything formed itself, but it doesn't work.

There's no circular reasoning. You can read about how the singularity underwent symmetry breaking leading to the formation of the fundamental forces and particles, and eventually, neutral matter arranged into galaxies of solar systems. No matter existed prior to that. Here's where I first learned about it in the eighties: "A Nobel Prize-winning physicist explains what happened at the very beginning of the universe, and how we know, in this popular science classic. Our universe has been growing for nearly 14 billion years. But almost everything about it, from the elements that forged stars, planets, and lifeforms, to the fundamental forces of physics, can be traced back to what happened in just the first three minutes of its existence." Before you call this idle speculation, you might want to look at the supporting evidence, which is reviewed in the book as well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To me, everything about the universe is miraculous; I'm slightly incredulous that some don't or won't see this.

If you are using a religious definition of miraculous, which I presume you are - the acts of a supernatural creator - then you are begging the question simply by calling the universe miraculous. You are assuming. It's always best to replace terms that imply agency terms with ones that don't carry that baggage. When one considers reality in terms such as mysterious and appearing unlikely, he can stop there before invoking gods. If he does, then he will hold the position you have trouble believing others can hold.

I don’t think I have to be a chemist to read about RNA, DNA, or the genetic code and ask a few questions.

You need a foundation in chemistry to understand the answers. In fact, with such a foundation, you wouldn't be asking the questions you do. You would be answering them for the theist, who aren't interested in the answers. No theist in these discussions is looking for an education. They're promoting theism using the arguments they've learned from creationist sources in a venue where outright proselytizing is prohibited, so, instead of saying that we need a god for reality to exist, they ask questions as if they seek answers. Would you like to put that to the test? You asked multiple questions and gotten several consistent answers to them. If it is the case that you now know not even one more fact about any of these topics than when you entered the thread, then you will realize that you weren't interested in the answers.

How did a chemical reaction occur which brought about a code necessary to direct each cell of all living organisms, without intelligence or a mind behind it?

Go to Google, read several pieces on the topic, and you ought to have a good idea of the general area if you are prepared to read and understand science. Or, take a look at these:

• Inorganic matter to amino acids (organic matter) - http://www.abenteuer-universum.de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf
• Amino acids to ribonucleotides - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/909793
• Ribonucleotides to RNA (self-replicating molecule)- http://wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Scriptures can lead to Wisdom

Disagree, and from experience. Wisdom for me had to wait until I left Christianity and started looking elsewhere. I define wisdom as knowing what it worth pursuing, intelligence being the ability to get those things by solving problems. I found no answers in scripture. Answers came from reflection on moral intuitions and evidence.

Wisdom is not about evidence.

Disagree again. Wisdom is acquired by trial and error (empirically). One discovers through experience what brings enduring happiness and what brings conflict, anxiety, shame, disappointment, etc.. You won't learn about what love is or how to love from scripture, which defines it in terms that include blood sacrifice. You learn by being in relationships and noticing what worked, what doesn't, cultivating the former, and culling the latter.

 

[Kfox]

It is not so black and white, you have been trying to use an outdated definition.

If that were true, you should have no problem providing the updated definition; right?

At one point it was believed that our universe was all that there was.

Our Universe is defined as all that there is.

Now we re not so sure. If one wants to talk about everything a more inclusive term is needed.

Universe IS that inclusive term.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Depending on who you talk to, this may well be what they call 'the multiverse'.

Further I generally don't accept some definitions of the universe, because they involve philosophical assumptions I don't share.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So suggest the possibility of more than one Universe is a contradiction in the definition of Universe. All of those, whatever it is you describe as Universe, are a part of the one Universe.

No, that is incorrect. You are not looking at what the the word defined. It is not all inclusive.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If that were true, you should have no problem providing the updated definition; right?

Our Universe is defined as all that there is.

Universe IS that inclusive term.

So what is "is"? We are doing ontology now. And how do you know all that "is". Do you know all that "is" or do you believe you know?

 

[Kfox]

But a definition just declares how we decide to use the language, nothing else.

And when we want to use a term to describe all real things that exist, we use the word “Universe”

Well, that will depend on what you mean by a 'side' and what you mean by 'round'. And, of course, what you mean by a 'circle.

The words side, round, and circle can be found in the dictionary. Those words are agreed upon

There *are* definitions in math that lead to 'circles' with 4 sides, by the way. The taxicab metric gives 'circles' that are squares.

This gets back to right definitions vs wrong definitions. This taxicab definition sounds like a wrong definition.

Unfortunately, the definition of 'the universe' does change from person to person as I explained above.

Then you should have no problem providing a definition of the term “all that exist”! Because you never get rid of such a word unless it is replaced by something else.

 

[Kfox]

No, I don't have the same definition of the universe as you. And I don't have the same definition of exist. Stop claiming that you speak for all humans. I don't and I know that. But you are up there with some theists.

Humans have to agree on language, if we don't communication becomes impossible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that were true, you should have no problem providing the updated definition; right?

Our Universe is defined as all that there is.

Universe IS that inclusive term.

Do you mean that I should be able to give the new term? I can . It is Cosmos.

 

[Kfox]

What is a word?

A word is an element of speech.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Humans have to agree on language, if we don't communication becomes impossible.

Correct, and definitions change over time. In this case for a good reason. You don't get to say that we have to follow old outdated definitions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And when we want to use a term to describe all real things that exist, we use the word “Universe”

The words side, round, and circle can be found in the dictionary. Those words are agreed upon

This gets back to right definitions vs wrong definitions. This taxicab definition sounds like a wrong definition.

Then you should have no problem providing a definition of the term “all that exist”! Because you never get rid of such a word unless it is replaced by something else.

Wau! You conflate different version of right/true and you still have learn to doubt words you take for granted. Including real, things and exist. Those words are old school and there are other ways to explain the human condition that doesn't require them or religion.

Learn to be skeptical of your own nature and nurture.

 

[Kfox]

Depending on who you talk to, this may well be what they call 'the multiverse'.

No, because then they imagine something outside the multiverse.

 

[Kfox]

No, that is incorrect. You are not looking at what the the word defined. It is not all inclusive.

Then answer my question; what is your definition of Universe?