Singularity as God

[idav]

I'm trying to figure the synapsis here:
Was the Jewish/Christian/Muslum god the creator of all that exists ?
If so.....was he inside the singularity or outside of it ?
Was he the total void of nothingness, or the everything of fullness ?
And I still want to know.....what formed the container of the singularity ?
~
'mud

Was the singularity, is the space it occupies now.

With the singularity there is not inside or outside, there is no space, but not nothing.

I think it is it's own container. So the singularity was no space, needed no container, space expands as matter and energy necessitates. There is still a singular space, space isn't expanding into anything but into itself which is why we can always reach the center of the universe from any point. That is the nature of the fourth dimension, spacetime, in relation to our three dimension world. So we don't need containers we have higher dimensions.

 

[`mud]

hey Idav,
I'm trying to understand that post but it doesn't really answer my question.
The prime question was "where was 'God' when the BB started.
Maybe I didn't phrase it right, but I tried to make it describe 'God's' presence when the crap hit the fan, so to speak. I guess He had to be outside to have the omnipotency to control what was inside the singularity.
Or whatever, it's obvious that I don't know, and the testaments don't seem to.
Any added input ?
~
'mud

 

[idav]

hey Idav,
I'm trying to understand that post but it doesn't really answer my question.
The prime question was "where was 'God' when the BB started.
Maybe I didn't phrase it right, but I tried to make it describe 'God's' presence when the crap hit the fan, so to speak. I guess He had to be outside to have the omnipotency to control what was inside the singularity.
Or whatever, it's obvious that I don't know, and the testaments don't seem to.
Any added input ?
~
'mud

It sounds like your describing mind vs body, what I am attempting to describe is something that is its container yet transcscends it, it doesn't have edges so container is a bad reference.

 

[`mud]

Ahhhhhhh...the edges....If the singularity had edges, what were the edges made from ??
What held the singularity in place for those trillions and trillions of eons !
What separated the nothingness from the singularity ?
And of course.....where was "God", inside or outside ?
~
'mud

 

[idav]

Ahhhhhhh...the edges....If the singularity had edges, what were the edges made from ??
What held the singularity in place for those trillions and trillions of eons !
What separated the nothingness from the singularity ?
And of course.....where was "God", inside or outside ?
~
'mud

Everything was god at that single point in time and space. Still is, now god is everywhere, the expansion happened, is happening, at every point space is.

 

[`mud]

And your talking about after the inflation, after creation.
If everything was "God", and the void of nothingness was nothing, what held back the void around the singularity that kept "God" inside. You aren't answering the question, your just going around and around the cosmic bush, making another word salad.
Where is the 'expansion' going now, into what 'space' that isn't nothingness, where does this expansion end ?
Before the 'void' was outside the singularity, where was "God" ?
Same question again, slice it any you want, it's still a pie.
I'll have to quit now, but I'll be back later, think about it !
~
'mud

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

The obvious question is that if you think the universe is god - why not just call it 'the universe', and avoid all of the unecessary inferences?

What difference does it make to call the universe 'god'?

Precisely. Further, I would ask what need there is to put forth that the oneness is a god? Why not Material Monism- an acknowledgement of the fact that all things consist of stardust and various particles?

 

[idav]

Precisely. Further, I would ask what need there is to put forth that the oneness is a god? Why not Material Monism- an acknowledgement of the fact that all things consist of stardust and various particles?

The OP gets into why it isn't just material monism. Because reality is supposed to be eternal, all powerful and omnipresent, which sounds like god.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

The OP gets into why it isn't just material monism. Because reality is supposed to be eternal, all powerful and omnipresent, which sounds like god.

Reality is all-powerful and omnipresent? Mind elaborating?

 

[idav]

Reality is all-powerful and omnipresent? Mind elaborating?

Ramifications of special relativity show time dilation which goes to timeless at the speed of light. That also implies spaceless which is how our time and space are not real except for our perception in our dimension. Enough mass or energy is timeless omnipresent and knowing because of being present in an effect at the same time as its cause.

"Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified,[2] including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass,mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit, and relativity of simultaneity. It has replaced the conventional notion of an absolute universal time with the notion of a time that is dependent on reference frame and spatial position.
Special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"

 

[`mud]

hey Idav,
Really good show !
~
'mud

 

[gnostic]

I think we may discover more powerful elements of space in the future. By the way people also conceive God as something that controls our lives and fates. I highly doubt that singularity falls into that category.

I agree. Very good points, in particular the last sentence.

By all the theistic religions that I know of, god or gods are sentient beings - able to "perceive", "think", "reason" or "feel".

It is highly doubtful that the singularity is sentient.

The singularity is just "is"...whatever that "is" is?

There is too much religious baggage, when one start inaccurately labelling the singularity as "god".

I have to ask idav, why label it "god", when it doesn't make sense to so?

 

[idav]

hey Idav,
Really good show !
~
'mud

Thanks, see more interesting links below.

I have to ask idav, why label it "god", when it doesn't make sense to so?

Because it does make sense, given existence its attributes of having awesome power, being all present and timeless. The universe had a beginning it is timeless at the same time.

Planck units are sometimes called "God's units",[1][2] since Planck units are free of anthropocentric arbitrariness. Some physicists argue that communication with extraterrestrial intelligence would have to employ such a system of units in order to be understood.[3] Unlike the metre and second, which exist as fundamental units in the SI system for historical reasons, the Planck length and Planck time are conceptually linked at a fundamental physical level.

Planck units - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The universe can be said to be eternal universe (even though it "began") which goes with the idea of spacetime having no edges.

The black hole/white hole appears "eternal" from the perspective of an outside observer, in the sense that particles traveling outward from the white hole interior region can pass the observer at any time, and particles traveling inward which will eventually reach the black hole interior region can also pass the observer at any time.
White hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Despite it's objection I take such an idea seriously, no scientists can say where all the stuff comes from so I don't see the issue. Leads back to science needing to insert god lol.

Despite the fact that such objects are permitted theoretically, they are not taken as seriously as black holes by physicists, since there would be no processes that would naturally lead to their formation, they could only exist if they were built into the initial conditions of the Big Bang.

 

[`mud]

hey Idav,
I said that post was a good show, I didn't really agree with it entirely.
Gnosis makes a good a point by challenging the "God" part. I think that was a challenge of sorts.
Why do we need a 'god' of any sort to complete the idea of what the Cosmos consists.
Why do you want to set "edges" to it, why can't it be endless without any limits.
Why does it have to begin with a beginning, why the big bang ?
Other than that, and insisting on a 'god', everything seems to be pretty good.
~
'mud

 

[Nada]

There are no telescopes power enough to see into the next Cosmotic replication of this Cosmos,
OUR COSMOS ! The mirrors are out there, we just can't see them yet.
In regards to the "ripples" that supposodly we sense now....how do these "ripples" pass through the "void" that contains the expanding Cosmos, or "universe" as some call it,
what entity supports these "ripples" that supposedly stop at the frontier that connects the "universe" with the surrounding "void".
Nothing is there to move, what is the support mechanics involved, I guess we can't see far enough just yet.
~
I have to go again....but I'll be back.....
~
'mud

 

[idav]

hey Idav,
I said that post was a good show, I didn't really agree with it entirely.
Gnosis makes a good a point by challenging the "God" part. I think that was a challenge of sorts.
Why do we need a 'god' of any sort to complete the idea of what the Cosmos consists.
Why do you want to set "edges" to it, why can't it be endless without any limits.
Why does it have to begin with a beginning, why the big bang ?
Other than that, and insisting on a 'god', everything seems to be pretty good.
~
'mud

We don't need a god, reality just fits the definition far as i can tell. I feel like people have been looking for god and science just keeps stumbling all over it, they of course hesitate such a label. I am saying if it quacks like a duck..... well you know.

 

[`mud]

hey Bible,
In another cluster beyond the shadow of this cluster, right besides the circling twin of the vanishing vortex into which the reflection of our image is focused back to us, shines the other side of another cluster that's in sight of another cluster, far beyond the sight of any other image.
And then another, when does Buzz find his home planet, or cluster, or cosmos ?
Fly away with me, I'm on my way to a star!
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

hey Idav,
I got it, but we'll have to keep looking, won't we.
~
'mud

 

[idav]

hey Idav,
I got it, but we'll have to keep looking, won't we.
~
'mud

We will keep going till the maths are right, curious suckers that we are. I know this singularity thing had a ton of power. How much it really knew is anyones guess but the physics allows us to see how much knowledge is possible. Which is when people come up with computer simulation theories for origins and things like that.

 

[gnostic]

Because it does make sense, given existence its attributes of having awesome power, being all present and timeless. The universe had a beginning it is timeless at the same time.

No, what you're suggesting is a contradiction to what timeless mean.

That the expansion of the universe occur at all, ie. the Big Bang, then the singularity is not timeless. The singularity ceased to be when space-time expanded and all the energies in the singularity cool down enough for subatomic particles to form atomic particles (protons, neutrons, nuclei), which eventually combined with electrons to form the first matter - the hydrogen atoms.

Hydrogen then coalesced from gravity to eventually igniting, to produce the first stars. Other heavier elements are formed from early stars, and earliest stars died out providing materials for formations of more new stars, as well as planets and other celestial objects.

No, idav, the singularity is not timeless. Time is only relative to our measurement of how far we can estimate in the universe, but time didn't begin with the BB; it existed before the BB or expansion. We just don't have the technology yet, to look beyond the BB.