Thread Rating:

FrGamble
FrGamble
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
November 13th, 2011 at 6:16:25 AM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

I recognized this as something that had been worked out in some discipline without quite understanding it myself. So I looked it up and offer it here as a link; this is wikipedia but looks reliable. I'll have to ponder this, there is something about it that I don't quite grasp.




Here is a popular article that is easy to read and does a good job explaining things:
Who's deluded?

Here is an awesome website with tons of information about this topic and many, many, many more:
Reasonable Faith
Garnabby
Garnabby
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 197
November 13th, 2011 at 6:52:47 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

The big bang is the result of God exploding. (with great power, comes great explosions)



Are you speculating that God blew Itself up, committed suicide? Or merely that "bigger bangs" aren't forthcoming?
Why bet at all, if you can be sure? Anyway, what constitutes a "good bet"? - The best slots-game in town; a sucker's edge; or some gray-area blackjack-stunts? (P.S. God doesn't even have to exist to be God.)
NowTheSerpent
NowTheSerpent
Joined: Sep 30, 2011
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 417
November 13th, 2011 at 7:49:09 AM permalink
Quote: Garnabby

Are you speculating that God blew Itself up, committed suicide?



Close. I think (and this not being offered as a strictly scientific hypothesis) that before matter, God existed as pure Mind - absolute abstraction. The Big Bang represented Mind completely surrendering abstract Form and (as is necessary) becoming entirely concrete Matter, and through the apparently ubiquitous process of Evolution (which pertains to all animate and inanimate things, from nebulae to amoebas to primates) found its way to full incarnation as us. This is the simplest (if you will) religious or mystical speculation, I think, which explains all the physical and psychological data, from the evidence for our self-created universe (read Dr. Lawrence Krauss' astronomical research and presentation of this), to Egyptian legends of Amun-Ra coming into being from nothing, to "innate ideas" (Our seemingly instinctive awareness of a "supernatural" God, if that's what it is, might be our collective memorial to our former "Self"?). This view properly asserts that the natural world is all there is, but does not assert that there is no such thing as mind, nor that matter must be all that everhas been.

This speculation is not all that original - Aleister Crowley had a similar view.
NowTheSerpent
NowTheSerpent
Joined: Sep 30, 2011
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 417
November 13th, 2011 at 8:05:25 AM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

Actually it sounds more like a pantheistic take on the universe and I do not hold it at all.



Is the supremacy of causality considered pantheism? If God suspends causality, does he not thereby suspend Justice, also?
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
November 13th, 2011 at 8:38:37 AM permalink
Quote: Garnabby

More to the point, what has such matter to explicitly do with the temporal? (Start and end per se.)


Not sure I understand the question. If at some point the Universe exists, and at some later point it does not, that means that it has ended in between.


Quote:

That's why i wrote, "loosely" re-stating that argument (for the purpose at-hand). Though i'm not at all sure what you're getting at here.


I am getting at the fact that Hawking, and the rest of contemporary physicists do not hold the view that the Universe did not have the beginning.

Quote:


And in which further process(es) of time might all of that lay? Up to the [first cause/final effect], by definition.



Not sure again what you are asking. What is "further processes of time"?

Quote:

That there was, or not, a "big bang" doesn't mean that that was even the "beginning" of something.



No, not by itself. But it does in the context of the modern cosmology.

Quote:

What's the beginning of infinity in which sense?


Depends on what kind of infinity you are talking about. There is an infinite number of numbers between zero and one, however, the interval does start and 0 and end at 1.
In any event, by the current scientific view, the Universe is not "inifinite" in any classical sense. It contains finite amount of matter and energy, has finite spatial extent, and finite age.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Garnabby
Garnabby
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 197
November 13th, 2011 at 6:04:42 PM permalink
Quote: NowTheSerpent

Close. I think (and this not being offered as a strictly scientific hypothesis) that before matter, God existed as pure Mind - absolute abstraction.


Well, i guess i should've writed "blew" up, as mentally. But then the question, why the physical explosion? Wouldn't you expect a smooth conversion from such a supposedly-ordered mind?

In my estimation, the primary bothersome element to that idea is that matter can be viewed fundamentally as both physical and mental in nature. Therefore, neither can precede the other.


P.S. weaselman, thanks for your good reply. As my time permits, i will try to better explain myself on the outstanding points which remain within the scope of this thread.
Why bet at all, if you can be sure? Anyway, what constitutes a "good bet"? - The best slots-game in town; a sucker's edge; or some gray-area blackjack-stunts? (P.S. God doesn't even have to exist to be God.)
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 432
  • Posts: 25065
November 13th, 2011 at 8:13:47 PM permalink
Quote: NowTheSerpent

The Big Bang represented Mind completely surrendering abstract Form and (as is necessary) becoming entirely concrete Matter, and through the apparently ubiquitous process of Evolution (which pertains to all animate and inanimate things, from nebulae to amoebas to primates) found its way to full incarnation as us.



This is probably very close to the truth. Like all mysteries,
once its solved, its really not that interesting anymore.
If time is infinite, or doesn't even exist at all, the process
will go on forever. We're in eternity right now.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
NowTheSerpent
NowTheSerpent
Joined: Sep 30, 2011
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 417
November 14th, 2011 at 2:55:31 AM permalink
Quote: Garnabby

But then the question, why the physical explosion? Wouldn't you expect a smooth conversion from such a supposedly-ordered mind?



Expectations are themselves reflections of Causality, and there's no reason to expect one kind of transition form instead of another, but incidentally, the Big Bang has been characterized as more of a non-cataclysmic expansion and less as an explosion. In either case, it may be helpful to conceive of it as being like the metemorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly, only more pronounced. LOL. :)
Garnabby
Garnabby
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 197
November 14th, 2011 at 10:20:47 AM permalink
Well, i guess i'd say that that word (explosion) doesn't further connote of space-time, itself; or of something within that. It's a falling out in any event.

And expectations being inherently of the mind, then such a god such have known better!
Why bet at all, if you can be sure? Anyway, what constitutes a "good bet"? - The best slots-game in town; a sucker's edge; or some gray-area blackjack-stunts? (P.S. God doesn't even have to exist to be God.)
Garnabby
Garnabby
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 197
November 14th, 2011 at 2:52:47 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

If at some point the Universe exists, and at some later point it does not, that means that it has ended in between.

Were the universe completely separable from time, for that time to carry on in name only; and from space, as you noted earlier. To a less-extreme sense, the spatial start and end of matter (in the forms of the some mentioned) don't directly relate to the notion of a first cause of the universe... that sort of creation.
Quote: weaselman

I am getting at the fact that Hawking, and the rest of contemporary physicists do not hold the view that the Universe did not have the beginning.

Yet when they attempt to further approach and explain it, i hear something like, "The laws of physics then should be radically-different... all hell would break loose with those." So that even the concept of time, itself, would be in question? Possibly to the extent it couldn't be termed even a beginning any longer.
Quote: weaselman

Not sure again what you are asking. What is "further processes of time"?

Those of the new discoveries of which some claim would be endless. Though i prefer one which could cover all of those while leaving that door open enough to keep things interesting. Fits in with the approach that science has already moved beyond it. I mean, how do you hide (how) a universe (works)?
Quote: weaselman

... the interval does start at 0 and end at 1.

Yes, all intervals do, by definition, start (and end). But can an interval really start, and be an interval, within another such interval? Nor can i imagine real physical ,or mental, continuity existing in spurts.
Quote: weaselman

In any event, by the current scientific view, the Universe is not "inifinite" in any classical sense. It contains finite amount of matter and energy, has finite spatial extent, and finite age.

Were the mind and matter, and brain and body, so conveniently-disconnected; and that Universe so-neatly unraveled from its first and only "bang".
Why bet at all, if you can be sure? Anyway, what constitutes a "good bet"? - The best slots-game in town; a sucker's edge; or some gray-area blackjack-stunts? (P.S. God doesn't even have to exist to be God.)

  • Jump to: