Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Pogo]

The question is, what or who caused the BB, if there even was one, and why?

Yes, so far as I understand it, the universe is eternal, it was never created, but everything in it is a creation, such as galaxies, stars, planets, people, atoms, electron, etc.. All these creations have beginnings and endings, eternally.

This is entirely your subjective opinion, come back when you can do any more than assert according to your personal definitions.
I.E. demonstrate something.

 

[Pogo]

The question is, what or who caused the BB, if there even was one, and why?

Yes, so far as I understand it, the universe is eternal, it was never created, but everything in it is a creation, such as galaxies, stars, planets, people, atoms, electron, etc.. All these creations have beginnings and endings, eternally.

That's nice, we know that is what you think, so?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When asked if I can define a god, I generally imagine it as the snarky kid in the back of the god HS who likes playing with the idea of creating universes like ours just to see what these silly creations will believe.
It fulfills all of the criteria of a god but beyond that, I see no reason to believe it exists.
Can you actually do better?

oh, it probably has a mullet.

Well we are on the same page then, I also don't believe a snarky kid is God.

However I must add that you have the bar set quite low for your understanding of the reality represented by the concept 'God'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We don't know yet. It could have been a god but there is no evidence either way on it. There does not appear to be any need for a god.

That's reasonable.

Fwiw, I am inclined to the pantheist position, that the universe itself, ie., all that exists, is a living entity which the concept 'God' is meant to represent.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's nice, we know that is what you think, so?

Well compared to your concept of a snarky kid, would you not like to revisit your view of the reality the concept 'God' could represent?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is entirely your subjective opinion, come back when you can do any more than assert according to your personal definitions.
I.E. demonstrate something.

There is nothing more to the reality represented by the concept God than subjective, objective reality leads to separation, ie. dualism. Once you go objective, you separate yourself from the underlying unity of all that is. Me and the Universe as opposed to, the Universe is my source, I am an expression of the Universe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Fine I commend you, and when you can demonstrate your philosophy to me beyond your subjective understanding I will consider it in a scientific sense.

??? Makes no sense.
Why does everything have to be about science? Talk about narrow-minded..

It's a fact that time can be investigated in a physical context.
..but to insist that's the complete story and anybody who thinks otherwise is wrong,
and scientific evidence proves it??

 

[Pogo]

??? Makes no sense.
Why does everything have to be about science? Talk about narrow-minded..

It's a fact that time can be investigated in a physical context.
..but to insist that's the complete story and anybody who thinks otherwise is wrong,
and scientific evidence proves it??

It is not that you might be wrong, but that what you are proposing is only based in your subjective desires, Preface it with some variation of this is what I believe rather than insisting that there is more than can be demonstrated.

 

[Pogo]

Well compared to your concept of a snarky kid, would you not like to revisit your view of the reality the concept 'God' could represent?

No, why?"

 

[Pogo]

There is nothing more to the reality represented by the concept God than subjective, objective reality leads to separation, ie. dualism. Once you go objective, you separate yourself from the underlying unity of all that is. Me and the Universe as opposed to, the Universe is my source, I am an expression of the Universe.

Roquefort today.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, why?"

Sheep and goats, wheat and tares.

 

[Pogo]

Sheep and goats, wheat and tares.

Oh boy, Pascal's wager.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh boy, Pascal's wager.

But Pascal was ignorant of the reality of reincarnation, evolutionary progress is inevitable, eternity is all there is, karma is a *****!

But seriously, karma is anything but a *****, we only learn when we make mistakes, every soul makes it sooner or later, thanks to karma,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When asked if I can define a god, I generally imagine it as the snarky kid in the back of the god HS who likes playing with the idea of creating universes like ours just to see what these silly creations will believe.
It fulfills all of the criteria of a god but beyond that, I see no reason to believe it exists.
Can you actually do better?

I get it, you self-identify as a snarky kid!

God is source of who you are, you are the expression of God. When you are asked to define God, you imagine yourself as the source, the father and I are one as Jesus would say, a snarky kid.

 

[Pogo]

I get it, you self-identify as a snarky kid!

God is source of who you are, you are the expression of God. When you are asked to define God, you imagine yourself as the source, the father and I are one as Jesus would say, a snarky kid.

make up your mind, god changes with every post you make, the only consistent thing is that no-one has ever been able to demonstrate it as anything more than a function of the human mind.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

make up your mind, god changes with every post you make, the only consistent thing is that no-one has ever been able to demonstrate it as anything more than a function of the human mind.

Nonsense, God is a concept to represent existence itself, all the exists!

You do not deny that existence exists surely? The snarky kid's father/source is all that is!

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't know yet. It could have been a god but there is no evidence either way on it. There does not appear to be any need for a god.

Glad you got that far. You can say certain things like "there does not appear to be any need for a god," but how would you know? and what "evidence" would you like?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok. I will rephrase it. What or who caused the BB, and why?

Well, what did cause the BB if anything or is that not a relevant question?

 

[ratiocinator]

Semantics .. you assume that your ancestors "did not question things" .. same thing.

Our brains are pretty much the same as they were when we were painting animals on cave walls. Something has clearly changed to bring about the rapid scientific progress we are now experiencing. What do you think it was?

No, I do not.
If I was plotting the course of a rocket, I wouldn't use the philosophical definition of
time, it makes no sense.
Similarly, when thinking about the concept of eternity, I wouldn't use the scientific definition of time,
as that makes no sense.

Why not? Science is perfectly capable of dealing with eternity. There is no "philosophical definition of time". There were several different philosophical ideas about time and they have been replaced by testable scientific enquiry. When we have no scientific tools to investigate a subject, then philosophy is the only subject that can really consider it. That can, and does, change. We now have the technology a theoretical basis to test different ideas about time.

This is not unique to time. For example, the idea of vitalism was common before modern biology.

What you are trying to do, is insist that one definition is right, and the other wrong .. when
it is more about context.
The fact that we can observe the relationship between time and space in this universe, means we can
determine how they behave IN THIS PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

There is zero reason to believe that space and time have any meaning at all beyond this universe, or even that 'beyond the universe' is an at all meaningful concept.

The philosophy of time is not "dead" .. even modern scientists have philosophical
ideas about it:-
There is also something called imaginary time, this was from Stephen Hawking, who said that space and imaginary time are finite but have no boundaries. Imaginary time is not real or unreal, it is something that is hard to visualize. Philosophers can agree that physical time exists outside of the human mind and is objective, and psychological time is mind-dependent and subjective.
- Wikipedia -

That's scientific conjecture. 'Imaginary' is being used in the mathematical sense.

 

[ratiocinator]

No .. I have a methodical approach to both science and philosophy.
I question all .. not blindly follow.

Try questioning your unargued and unevidenced belief that there are two sorts of time (scientific and philosophical)....