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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not necessary, but I think if it's not a person, talking about creating is misleading. I personally think the universe, math and god have existed for an infinite amount of time.Now Jumi, quit yer quibblin'. You know better than that. I could just as easily have said "Who or What Created the Universe?", but I thought "who" was sufficient for people to get my meaning, and therefore "what" was unnecessary. Is it really necessary to explain this?
There must be sentience to create. If mathematics is the source of the universe, then it is NOT the ultimate source, for there would have to be a source for math. God BY DEFINITION is the uncreated creator, the unmoved mover, the first cause. This makes sense because he exists outside of space and time -- he is the creator of space and time and all of its rules, just as he is the creator of math.For the purposes of this thread, please cheerfully assume that there exists an ultimate layer of reality, "above" space and time, which is the first or primal cause of the universe.
Further assume that layer must either be god or mathematics, but cannot be both.
If so, are there any rational or reasonable grounds whereby we can determine that first cause is god, as opposed to the possibility it is mathematics --- or mathematics, as opposed to the possibility it is god?
I expect your answers to be on my desk by 5:00 PM Friday.
________________________
Please Note: Apart from defining "god" as sentient, and "mathematics" as non-sentient, it's up to you to define those terms in this thread. If necessary, please make clear either in context or by explicit definition how you are using those terms.
Math can describe the Universe, and wherein it results in a love-filled Universe, it becomes apparent that it is a God.For the purposes of this thread, please cheerfully assume that there exists an ultimate layer of reality, "above" space and time, which is the first or primal cause of the universe.
Further assume that layer must either be god or mathematics, but cannot be both.
If so, are there any rational or reasonable grounds whereby we can determine that first cause is god, as opposed to the possibility it is mathematics --- or mathematics, as opposed to the possibility it is god?
I expect your answers to be on my desk by 5:00 PM Friday.
________________________
Please Note: Apart from defining "god" as sentient, and "mathematics" as non-sentient, it's up to you to define those terms in this thread. If necessary, please make clear either in context or by explicit definition how you are using those terms.
I think math does more than describe the universe. I think math IS the universe.Math can describe the Universe, and wherein it results in a love-filled Universe, it becomes apparent that it is a God.
And in that it is love-filled, provides splendor, etc... it is Godly.I think math does more than describe the universe. I think math IS the universe.
Lol, I am sure that @Sunstone will allow you to begrudgingly assume, if you rather.
I have to go with math created God, who is a force creating in the universe. Logic implies reason, and thus humans are a natural result of logic. The universe is otherwise aimless baggage. Highly deterministic, and beyond ultimate prediction. The universe is a creator, eternal, and everflowing change. Infinitesmals come together to form new infinitesmals.
Science created the universe, really ?Mathematics. I don't see a reason to assume god would be in the question regardless how important this existence is to people. Why would it be a part of the questions, really.
But, god is more personal than mathematics. I'd like the word science better into choose words.
e terms.
That is a poor assumption, based upon cosmological discoveries. The universe began, it is rapidly expanding and separating , never to reconstitute itself, ultimately all itś energy from itś first cause will burn out and be goneSorry, waiting for proof that an uncaused cause is a thing.
Until then, I'm willing to assume the universe has always existed in some form or another.
Science created the universe, really ?
e terms.
I asked first. Please tell me how science created the universe.[/QUOTE]Yes.
Science isnt a god.
If its god, explain how and where we can see god outside of our religious affiliations, biases, and beliefs.
Please, share these many hypotheses about what created the universe. Since the solid state universe ( always existing) was the standard scientific model of the universe, creation of it was rarely spoken of till the 1920´ś. Then, based on the work of Hubble and others, and the resultant big bang theory, creation of the universe became the new norm. There are a few other ideas, that have absolutely no evidence.Without evidence of god one can only "assume" god magic as a cause
Maths is a method of describing something, in this case the universe, not the cause.
Who? Not likely... What more likely
There are many hypothesis of what created the universe, all have the benefit of being mathematically feasible or having some artifact or artifacts observed in this universe (or both). None of them rely on god magic.
So I'll opt for neither maths or god
Science created the universe, really ?
I asked first. Please tell me how science created the universe.
Are you familiar with the big bang theory ? That certainly postulates an ultimate beginning, sorta like the book of Genesis.The universe had no ultimate beginning. The universe creates all that is. And what a haphazard savage, violent universe it is.
Its a universe of mystery, and brute indifference. Math describes its workings.
Cold logic is how it operates. Intelligence emerges from infinite possibility and potential. The word God may describe the mental aspect of the universe. But i see no perfection in what the universe makes.
I haven´t a clue, He is God, I am not. No, I am not ignorant of the creative forces in the universe, we are speaking of the creation of the universe.
The big bang theory is currently held as describing how the universe was created. In many ways it is like the Genesis account of the Bible, it works for me.
We have faith it was God, as it was described for 1000ś of years. Science, until itś own methods proved it wrong in the 20th century, believed it had alway existed, and always would, the steady state theory.
No one in this life can prove what the ultimate first cause was, science says it hasn´t a clue, so why is one position considered so superior to another ?
But "cheerfully" is critical? Really?Not to make the assumptions politely requested in the OP is to effectively change the topic of the thread.
Let's see: Within the space of 27 posts I asked an innocuous question whose only value lies in its humor, and Curious George commented on it. And, although these two posts only amount to 7% of the 27, you feel this threatens your thread with hijacking. Gotta say, this almost borders on paranoia, Sunstone. And considering the obvious, wouldn't it have been prudent to have remained silent about it all instead of inviting an off-topic reply such as mine here, which only extends your feared hijacking? Just askin'.Would it not be more polite to start your own thread, rather than to try to hijack this one?