Go to God as The Universe as an Organism
- Add a comment
- Go to INTELLIGENT DESIGN? -- NO -- GOD ITSELF EVOLVED!!!
Time is...
Well, time is part of this universe, but it makes no scientific sense to speak of what happened b e f o r e, at least not exactly.... You might be able to make more sense of this by reading my article, Time Waits for no Man.
posted by
arGee
on July 17, 2006 at 8:57 PM
| link to this | reply
posted by
Amanda__
on July 13, 2006 at 6:38 PM
| link to this | reply
mechmorph, dennison_mann
not even the most astute and informed scientist knows exactly what happened 16 billion years ago -- there are intimations of the "Big Bang". and no nowledge, of course, of what preceded it -- the univers, ebing infinite, is also infinite in age -- we live for 70 years and that's that -- a five year cycle seems a long time to us -- so 16 billion . . . ? unimaginable!!!!
so it really is useless to discuss as if it is reality totally the past of the universe -- only that this is what is assumed from what is observed -- and more discoveries are being made very day (the froth of bubbles, dark matter, etc.)
and as far as time is concerned? -- outside of human reckoning, there is no time.
maybe that's the "thousand years as a day, a day as a thousand years" statement.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 10, 2006 at 6:35 AM
| link to this | reply
Another response
<<in that "
the universe is subject to time, which means it had a beginning"really isn't true since time is a man made concept and the universe does not conform to humanity's limited perception (which
always includes beginning-middle-ending because that's our frame of reference.)>>
So, time did not exist until a man came along to recognize it? Come on. ... If that's so, how did anything happen before then? Obviously, time is not a concept, but a fundamental truth of the universe. You can see it in action everywhere. There could not even be motion without time. (Motion is velocity over a distance; distance = velocity x time; if time = zero, no distance is covered, there is no motion.)
<< On the contrary. Humanity must accept the universe for what it is and what it was before the Big Bang. Unfortunately for those who think that the universe had a beginning, they cannot say where the universe ends. In other words, when asked what's beyond the edge of the universe, they have no answer? Maybe there's more universe?>>
If you're talking about the sheer physicality (atoms and such) of what's beyond the universe, the most likely answer is nothing. Not that nothing is beyond the universe, but what is beyond the universe IS nothing. Another possible answer is that the universe may be such that we could never physically pass its boundaries (not necessarily infinite, but possibly an infinite loop), in which case physically there is no "beyond the universe" for all intents and purposes. Theologically, what's beyond the universe is still God. Either way, it's the ultimate frame of reference. (How do you know something is there? By the surrounding places it is not.) It's like the question, how many sounds constitute the syllable "om"? The answer is three: the "o," the "m," and the silence which surrounds them. It's fun to speculate, but any physical end of the universe is a moot point, as the beginning of the universe refers to an event in time, not a place, as science tells us the big bang occurred at all points in space simultaneously, marking the beginning of time.
<< Likewise, they can't tell us what was here before the Big Bang, yet they cite the Big Bang as the beginning of time without offering any proof of that beginning.>>
Scientists would point to the shift in light wavelengths, the development of the elements and the life cycle of stars and galaxies as proof of the big bang. Personally, I regard the big bang as a possibility but not proven. Still, any rational person can see that all things decay and eventually are destroyed, therefore it is logical that they all had beginnings. Since everything known in the universe decays and by inference must have begun, the most obvious conclusion is that the universe, being merely the set of all beginning/decaying things, must itself have begun.
<<What was here before the Big Bang? Nothing? >>
The Creator.
<<Well, the science behind the Big Bang theory tells us that something had to be here to cause the Big Bang.>>
Exactly my point. There is no logical reason to think the universe created itself.
<< And lastly, if everything needs a creator then what/who created the creator?>>
No one, by definition. The Creator is not a "thing," as all "things" are creations, but a different category altogether and alone. The Creator always was, is and will be. It's a logical necessity in any causal chain of events. The "unmoved mover" I think is how Aquinas put it. If it's hard to conceive of, try picturing a perfect circle. Where is the beginning, where is the end? (I'm speaking geometrically now.) There is none. Yet the circle exists, in at least two dimensions, and it encompasses a certain area. The Creator is like that, but in the fourth dimension, time. No beginning and no end. Alpha and Omega encompassing all of creation, which is subject to time.
But if people would rather worship some super golden calf from planet Krypton or whatever, who am I to argue?
posted by
mechmorph
on June 10, 2006 at 1:52 AM
| link to this | reply
God (no pun intended) I'm glad I'm dumb.... if I understood this it really
might do more damage to me....lol
posted by
Kiddo75
on June 9, 2006 at 5:38 PM
| link to this | reply
I Think We Have A Problem Here...
in that "the universe is subject to time, which means it had a beginning"really isn't true since time is a man made concept and the universe does not conform to humanity's limited perception (which always includes beginning-middle-ending because that's our frame of reference.) On the contrary. Humanity must accept the universe for what it is and what it was before the Big Bang. Unfortunately for those who think that the universe had a beginning, they cannot say where the universe ends. In other words, when asked what's beyond the edge of the universe, they have no answer? Maybe there's more universe? Likewise, they can't tell us what was here before the Big Bang, yet they cite the Big Bang as the beginning of time without offering any proof of that beginning. What was here before the Big Bang? Nothing? Well, the science behind the Big Bang theory tells us that something had to be here to cause the Big Bang. And lastly, if everything needs a creator then what/who created the creator?
Xeno, great post.
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on June 9, 2006 at 5:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Answers for Xeno
Shape: Any he likes, or none at all.
Male: No. He existed before the creation of male and female, but I defer to grammatically correct English as well as tradition and generally refer to God as a "he." When speaking of God in the form of Jesus, then "he" is also biologically correct.
posted by
mechmorph
on June 9, 2006 at 5:03 PM
| link to this | reply
so your god is a male, mechorph?
a male what?
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 9, 2006 at 12:45 PM
| link to this | reply
mechmorph
what shape does your god take?
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 9, 2006 at 12:44 PM
| link to this | reply
My God
My God existed before there was a universe. Can't conceive of a Creator? That's your shortcoming, not God's. The universe is incapable of creating itself. The very concept is irrational. The universe is subject to time, which means it had a beginning. Nothing which had a beginning is capable of self-creation as it would have to exist before it existed.
The only rational answer is that the universe -- your god, not mine, thank you -- was created by something that is capable of existing without time, that had no beginning, ie. eternal.
Also, you insist the universe answers prayers but you don't know how. So you make another irrational assertion. My God answers prayers through his relationship with believers.
posted by
mechmorph
on June 9, 2006 at 12:10 PM
| link to this | reply
mechmorph
i am arguing against a creator.
sorry.
still, a god separate from the universe? -- sorry -- cannot conceive of such.
to me that is an idol, a grven image.
and yes the universe does answer prayers.
in what way, i don't know.
but your god is part of the universe and, as such, is empowered.
people want everything defined in a neat little package, and that cannot happen.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 9, 2006 at 5:29 AM
| link to this | reply
One problem
A "god" that evolved would be part of creation, not the Creator, by definition. Thus, it wouldn't be God. The universe doesn't answer prayers.
posted by
mechmorph
on June 9, 2006 at 1:44 AM
| link to this | reply
xeno-x Thanks
posted by
redwood
on June 8, 2006 at 8:17 PM
| link to this | reply
left out the "d" in your name, Redwood.
sorry
I have read your writing and I see a person seeking.
and some very good thoughts.
Jesus said, "SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND."
we each find what we are looking for.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 8, 2006 at 12:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno -
Great post and great last line!
posted by
sannhet
on June 8, 2006 at 9:07 AM
| link to this | reply
you are not missing the point, Redwoo
you are very close.
i cannot conceive of a god separte fromnature and the rest of the universe
we have to contemplate strongly what all this implies.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 8, 2006 at 6:31 AM
| link to this | reply
xeno-x I may be missing the point, but
This all sounds a little bit like the "God is nature" concept that Native Americans had before European Christians came and started building things like streets with traffic signals. Sometimes I think that the Indians had the right idea. I get tired of sitting around waiting for the light to turn green.
posted by
redwood
on June 8, 2006 at 6:25 AM
| link to this | reply