lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: The Universe: Accidental or Deliberate?
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 05-05-2008, 05:17 PM   #1
Marius Fett
Frigged if I know!
 
Marius Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wales
Posts: 3,379
The Universe: Accidental or Deliberate?

Where do you think the Uninverse came from?

Was its creation an accident? Or is it part of some grand plan?

Why is there life? What is the meaning of it?

In other words, why does the Universe exist?

It doesn't matter if your opinion is Religious or Scientifically based, post it here.





Visit the new JediKnight.net!
Marius Fett is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2008, 05:32 PM   #2
mur'phon
Whale eating vegetarian
 
mur'phon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southier than thou
Posts: 1,537
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Where do you think the Uninverse came from?
I don't know where it came from, and neither does anyone else. Of course, there are theories/hypothesises, but I don't know which one(es) to believe in, or care that much what is corect as it dosen't seem to affect me much.

Quote:
Was its creation an accident?
An accident seems to asume that someone (a creator) made a mistake, I don't believe in a creator, and therefore don't think it was an accident.

Quote:
Why is there life?
Because conditions on earth made it possible.

Quote:
What is the meaning of it?
Like with every other creature, I guess you could say the maning is to spread our genes far an wide, though if you don't feel like doing that you could of course find a meaning yourself. For instance the meaning of life for me is to cause more good than harm to the rest of the world.

Quote:
In other words, why does the Universe exist?
I don't know, pherhaps because conditions where such that it could happen?


Checking out seems not to do much.
mur'phon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2008, 06:28 PM   #3
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
Where do you think the Universe came from?
Where could it come from?

Quote:
Was its creation an accident?
Created as opposed to...? Created by what? An accident differentiated from...? What would a created universe look like? What would an accidental universe look like?

Quote:
Or is it part of some grand plan?
What kind of plan involves the whole universe?

Quote:
Why is there life?
What kind of answer are you looking for?

Quote:
What is the meaning of it?
What kind of meaning could there be?

Quote:
In other words, why does the Universe exist?
The universe doesn't exist, per se. It is the background by which other things exist and do not exist. You might think that you can imagine the universe not existing-- as a sort of empty space. But how is "empty space" defined? ---By reference to its opposite, solid objects. But if there were no objects than there would be no distinction possible. Our words only work, only have meaning in this context: that of our universe and everything in it (but don't take that to mean that there is or could be something actually outside of the universe; it's just a form of speech). Some combinations of words are therefore meaningless when taken out of context, like this one has been. Its grammatical form is that of a question, but the meaning - the use of the sentence - has more in common with an expression.

You're out in your backyard at night looking at the stars and you remark to a friend: "Isn't it amazing that the universe exists?"

It is indeed.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2008, 07:13 PM   #4
Arcesious
Trolololololololololololo
 
Arcesious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NE
Posts: 1,876
Current Game: Mass Effect
Deliberate as a logic-based answer, accidental by an 'infinium theory' based answer.

What I think happened, but I cannot be sure of, is this:

In the beginning, there was nothing. No laws of physics or anything to control whether or not something did or did not exist, or happened.
Due to this, everything possible that could happen happened. Infinite possibilities.
(Or it could just as easily be that the universe always existed, and that paradoxes of that are void, becuase it could 'just be like that no matter what, because it already is')

After this, the physics of the universe were formed, and became permanent standards. By this, everything infinitly possible to happen and exist would happen, all at the same time, and then continue to keep on happening infinitly, ever-expanding the universe. Ultimately, there would have to be an end point in which all things come to order, and in which the current second law of thermodynamics would stop happening (The tendancy for all things to come to disorder), because infinite things would eventually be unable to repeat themselves.

(However, I could be wrong- As I don't have a degree in physics- I'm only theorizing things by what I know right now.)

They would then come to order, which could be called a sort of 'New law of uniformity'. What I am saying is that infinity breeds infinite equations, and eventually, when every infinite equation (or factor of something that happened, was happening, or going to happen, or existing) possible was acheived, the universe would stop expanding, It would reach a paradoxial point in it's existence, in which infinity had finally stopped, and in which everything would all form together to form the ultimate equation.

After that, there woudl be no other nature to the universe, because all equatiosn had existed/happened, and it's only remaining purpose was to exist as a mass of all things, or, a kind of 'black hole'.

IMO, the mathematics behind a black hole seems to be something that the second law of thermodynamics cannto accoutn for, as, using that law, you are forgetting one of the most important laws in physics- the law of gravitation, and Newton's 3 laws. The tendency of all things to come together. However, Quantum physics presents an unsolved paradox in that area also...

However, the universe may also cease to exist after this, and alllaws of physics would cease to exist, and it would happen all over again. It is possible, that, a sperpowerful being not bound by the laws of physics could be formed by this infinite process, as the universe's way to preserve it's existence and end it's infinite expansion. However, going into that is a whole other logical paradox...

IE, I don't deny that 'God' could exist as a factor of the universe whose purpose would be to accertain all knowledge and power infinitly possible in order to preserve the universe and decide it's ultimate purpose.

However, again, this is also another possibility:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
The universe doesn't exist, per se. It is the background by which other things exist and do not exist. You might think that you can imagine the universe not existing-- as a sort of empty space. But how is "empty space" defined? ---By reference to its opposite, solid objects. But if there were no objects than there would be no distinction possible. Our words only work, only have meaning in this context: that of our universe and everything in it (but don't take that to mean that there is or could be something actually outside of the universe; it's just a form of speech). Some combinations of words are therefore meaningless when taken out of context, like this one has been. Its grammatical form is that of a question, but the meaning - the use of the sentence - has more in common with an expression.

Life's purpose, to me, is to preserve it's own existence, and to advance to a higher level.

Ultimately, the purpose and existence of the universe, to me, seems to only be possible to be truly answered if all paradoxes of existence and logic/purpose are answered...

(Sorry if I have made some spelling mistakes. I have typed this up rather quickly. )


Please feed the trolls. XD
Arcesious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2008, 07:47 PM   #5
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
Where do you think the Uninverse came from?
The Ekpyrotic Universe hypothesis is kinda fun. I particularly enjoy the zero-energy universe hypothesis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
Was its creation an accident? Or is it part of some grand plan?
I prefer to think of it "the result of naturally occuring events". "Accident" implies that intent is somehow inherent.

Do trees fall down "on accident"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
Why is there life?
Because conditions that allow life to exist are present.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
What is the meaning of it?
Whatever you decide it is

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
In other words, why does the Universe exist?
Because it does. Seems pretty simple, eh?
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2008, 08:05 PM   #6
Ravnas
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In ur oilfieldz drinking ur mi
Posts: 190
1. Mostly reiterating what Sammy said, where could it come from, a God? Is there a swirling vortex that randomly creates a universe? Who knows.

2. Neither, they both imply that something is still at work at this universe, and I being a half agnostic, half deist would disagree with that.

3.The question isn't worded correctly, the question should be what do you think is the meaning of life. I'm not a fan of subjectivist beliefs and I desire to be as individualist as possible, which I suppose is my meaning of life. Which is just live this life.

4.We are not an all-knowing species, so I refuse to answer this question on a count of stupidity


Regrets are for horseshoes and handbags.
Ravnas is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2008, 09:59 PM   #7
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I prefer to think of it "the result of naturally occuring events". "Accident" implies that intent is somehow inherent.

Because it does. Seems pretty simple, eh?
Seems like a cop out to me...

You're saying "Because it exists" in response to the question "Why does it exist." It's not actually an answer.

The fact that the universe is does not present a reason as to why or even how it came about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Because conditions that allow life to exist are present.
And those conditions are.... what? Just lucky? I mean, how is it that the specific conditions just so happened to be here on this planet that's just the right distance from the sun?


I personally like to believe that a being of greater magnitude created the universe using scientific means.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2008, 10:31 PM   #8
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin
Seems like a cop out to me...
Not at all. There is nothing stating that the existence of the universe requires a purpose. It's like asking why that rock is there and not somewhere else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin
You're saying "Because it exists" in response to the question "Why does it exist." It's not actually an answer.
I suppose that might be true if you believe that the question requires an answer. I do not

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin
The fact that the universe is does not present a reason as to why or even how it came about.
"How" is one thing. "Why" is another. "How" definitely has an answer (somewhere). There is no reason to assume that this is also true for "why".

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin
And those conditions are.... what?
Well, for life as we know it, carbon, liquid-water, heat, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin
Just lucky? I mean, how is it that the specific conditions just so happened to be here on this planet that's just the right distance from the sun?
I imagine that if water was sentient, it would marvel at how perfectly it conformed to the glass it was in

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin
I personally like to believe that a being of greater magnitude created the universe using scientific means.
I personally like to believe that I will someday acquire the gift of flight and the ability to shoot spaghetti out of my fingertips. Doesn't mean there is any evidence to support the thought that it will actually happen
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2008, 11:57 PM   #9
Corinthian
Banned
 
Corinthian's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,165
Okay, let me put the question in perspective, since none of you seem to get it.

He's asking "Do you believe the universe is a product of intervention, or by random chance?"

Geez, you don't need to beat the same horse over the head six times because he used the wrong term.
Corinthian is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 10:49 AM   #10
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
My opinion....
All the current science knowledge indicates that a Big Bang happened. I don't buy the idea that the singularity formed out of nothing. Anyone know anything else that's formed from nothing? Believing that would take more faith than believing in a creator of some sort. I think God created the universe, devised the exquisitely intricate principles we call 'science', and guided the development of the universe along those principles.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 11:47 AM   #11
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Anyone know anything else that's formed from nothing?
Besides god?

If he/she/it/they doesn't require a creator, then neither does the singularity. We don't get to suspend the rules of logic for some hypothesis but not others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Believing that would take more faith than believing in a creator of some sort.
Why is that?
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 11:59 AM   #12
Ghost Down
Senior Member
 
Ghost Down's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,028
Jae, you said God created the universe, science and everything else. But, who created God? And who created the ''creator of God''? And so forth.


Ghost Down is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 12:30 PM   #13
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
My opinion....
Created things need a creator. God, being omnipotent/omniscient/eternal and not created, does not need a creator. This is a being that exists beyond space, time, and matter (in order to be able to create such things).

Do I have proof? No. Do people have proof that the universe just beamed in out of nothing? No. At some point, we all have to acknowledge that something outside of this natural universe and thus supernatural, caused this natural universe to come into being. Even agnostic scientists acknowledge this.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 12:30 PM   #14
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,782
Current Game: KotOR II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost Down
Jae, you said God created the universe, science and everything else. But, who created God? And who created the ''creator of God''? And so forth.
This argument only works if God were defined as:

a) Material
b) Affected by time.

Christian definitions of God usually define Him as being Spirit, and existing in one eternal 'moment'. Linear causality is not a useful concept to apply to omnipresent deity, in short.



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 01:01 PM   #15
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
Where do you think the Uninverse came from?
Three little words: quantum foam.

Quote:
Was its creation an accident?
No. And yes. Then again, it wasn't exactly created. More like -- it got sucked into space-time, like when a doughnut fills itself. The accidental/non-accidental part is of the same nature as if you would try to hold your wee like forever: no question what is going to happen, but when, where, and to what extend is impossible to tell.

Quote:
Or is it part of some grand plan?
Yes. Evolution of the universes. There are plenty of them. Some of them, like ours, even have life in them. Astonishing.

Quote:
Why is there life?
Because it fits nicely.

Quote:
What is the meaning of it?
To go where it's possible.

Quote:
In other words, why does the Universe exist?
God created it as part of a big overhead creation just to make a small place called Earth for us humans to live on.

But then again, maybe it exists due to the fact that no one can hold his wee forever.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 01:08 PM   #16
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Created things need a creator.
Fair enough. However if we suspend the assumption that the singularity was "created", then the problem is solved, correct? You don't appear to have any problem suspending that assumption for god, so it's not as though we don't know how to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
At some point, we all have to acknowledge that something outside of this natural universe and thus supernatural, caused this natural universe to come into being. Even agnostic scientists acknowledge this.
Why is this? If the singularity occurred naturally then I don't see why we should consider it supernatural.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Christian definitions of God usually define Him as being Spirit, and existing in one eternal 'moment'.
What evidence do we have that would allow us to conclude that this definition is correct?
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 01:15 PM   #17
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Apparently the same evidence that your position is equally valid. Chance are that we'll never know, barring God and an afterlife, where any of this actually came from in the first place. Both sides, theist and atheist, have little more than beliefs when it comes to answering this question.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 01:17 PM   #18
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
You don't appear to have any problem suspending that assumption for god, so it's not as though we don't know how to do it.
Sigh.

I know you enjoy making biting comments. Apparently this creates part of the fun for you to be here.

I don't want to argue religion with you anymore--all it does is lead to hurt feelings because I can't separate your arguments from the way you sometimes couch them so unpleasantly. I'll ignore your posts in religion threads so I don't contribute further to the tension that already exists. Feel free to skip over mine.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 01:19 PM   #19
jonathan7
Exiled Jedi...
 
jonathan7's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 3,676
Contest winner - Modding LFN Staff Member Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Three little words: quantum foam.
Isn't that two words?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DDD
Where do you think the Uninverse came from?
The big bang started by God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DDD
Was its creation an accident? Or is it part of some grand plan?
A grand scheme.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DDD
Why is there life? What is the meaning of it?
To love God and love your neighbour.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DDD
In other words, why does the Universe exist?
The universe exsists because God decided to make it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Fair enough. However if we suspend the assumption that the singularity was "created", then the problem is solved, correct? You don't appear to have any problem suspending that assumption for god, so it's not as though we don't know how to do it.
Do you not a) have science breaking its own rules to have the big bang be true? b) Do you really have any expanation of why nothing would suddenly explode? At least in my limmited expierance when you combine absolutely nothing, with nothing; nothing happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Why is this? If the singularity occurred naturally then I don't see why we should consider it supernatural.
How can the singularity have possibly occured naturally? See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
What evidence do we have that would allow us to conclude that this definition is correct?
The fact we're here? The big problem at least to me is, why is there somethign when there should be nothing?



"Love is the only reality and it is not a mere sentiment. It is the ultimate truth that lies at the heart of creation." - Rabindranath Tagore

"Many a doctrine is like a window pane. We see truth through it but it divides us from truth." - Kahlil Gibran
jonathan7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 01:46 PM   #20
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I know you enjoy making biting comments.
Nothing biting there. I was simply observing that you already know how to make the argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
Do you not a) have science breaking its own rules to have the big bang be true?
Do I not have the systematic process of aquiring knowledge breaking its own rules? Not sure I follow.

What "rules" of physics do you think need to be violated to support the argument for the big bang?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
b) Do you really have any expanation of why nothing would suddenly explode?
First, it wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion

Second, I provided links to two popular hypothesis in my very first post in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
At least in my limmited expierance when you combine absolutely nothing, with nothing; nothing happens.
Right. Except that the singularity would be "something" rather than "nothing".

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
How can the singularity have possibly occured naturally? See above.
See aforementioned links (Post #5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
The fact we're here?
This doesn't answer the question. Our being here is only evidence for us being here, not for the existence of the judeo-christian god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
The big problem at least to me is, why is there somethign when there should be nothing?
If the universe occured naturally, then you have to accept that there is no answer to this question. There is no over-arching agenda or master plan. Things happen because they happen. We are here because this planet has/had the conditions necessary for life (as we know it). There is nothing stating that there has to be a "why".
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 04:40 PM   #21
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
Isn't that two words?
Five, actually.


Quote:
Do you really have any expanation of why nothing would suddenly explode? At least in my limmited expierance when you combine absolutely nothing, with nothing; nothing happens.
Which leads kind of inevitably to the conclusion that there might have been something and not nothing.


Quote:
How can the singularity have possibly occured naturally?
Oh, that is easy. Take a mass and compress it. When you reach a critical point of compression it will collapse into a singularity on its own. It happens all the time, on the big scale, when stars are collapsing, or in the micro cosmos when particles collide.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 05:41 PM   #22
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Five, actually.

Last time I saw this kind of math was on Midnight Run.

Quote:
Quote:
Do you really have any expanation of why nothing would suddenly explode? At least in my limmited expierance when you combine absolutely nothing, with nothing; nothing happens.
Which leads kind of inevitably to the conclusion that there might have been something and not nothing.
Which brings us back to the question of where did it all come from. Neat little circle.



Quote:
Quote:
How can the singularity have possibly occured naturally?
Oh, that is easy. Take a mass and compress it. When you reach a critical point of compression it will collapse into a singularity on its own. It happens all the time, on the big scale, when stars are collapsing, or in the micro cosmos when particles collide.
Right, so the singularity didn't simply just exist. It resulted from the compression of mysteriously present matter. Still leaving the question of where it all came from. Circle completed again.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 06:02 PM   #23
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Last time I saw this kind of math was on Midnight Run.
The last time I took three away from five, it gave two.


Quote:
Which brings us back to the question of where did it all come from.
But the question was "Where did the big bang singularity came from?" ^^


Quote:
Right, so the singularity didn't simply just exist. It resulted from the compression of mysteriously present matter. Still leaving the question of where it all came from.
For instance it could come from another universe that collapsed earlier. Anyway, basically it existed in that kind of "space" where all universes have their roots.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 06:42 PM   #24
Corinthian
Banned
 
Corinthian's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,165
According to your rigid, almost slavish adherence to the laws of physics working exactly how they appear to work by human eyes, everything has a beginning and presumably an end. So, let's chuck all this crap out the window about strings and planes and all this other good stuff, and home in on the crux of the issue.

What's the start point? I think we can all agree that the 'Banger' didn't form out of nothingness, unless we've gone from scientific discussion to a Soft-Science Nightmare.
Corinthian is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 07:07 PM   #25
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic...m_fluctuations


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 08:11 PM   #26
Corinthian
Banned
 
Corinthian's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,165
I don't see anything about the origin of, well, existence. I'd say Universe, but then people trot out the Multiverse theory.
Corinthian is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 09:02 PM   #27
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Great link, Mr. Jones. While it will be some time before we can test any of these hypothesis, I like to think that quantum fluctuation/zero-energy research is the most promising, as it seems to point toward the simplest explanation. My 2 cents.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2008, 09:22 PM   #28
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
The last time I took three away from five, it gave two.


But the question was "Where did the big bang singularity came from?" ^^


For instance it could come from another universe that collapsed earlier. Anyway, basically it existed in that kind of "space" where all universes have their roots.
If you've seen Midnight Run (Bob Deniro, Charles Grodin), then you should have gotten the reference.

As to the other, some people say everything came from the Big Bang (ie singularity). But if it needed matter and energy to exist (no matter which "universe/multiverse/yada yada yada), then that material had to preexist and come before the singularity. Seems pretty circular. The singularity comes from preexisting matter which apparently was created by that singularity. Seems pretty chicken and egg.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-07-2008, 12:44 AM   #29
Arcesious
Trolololololololololololo
 
Arcesious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NE
Posts: 1,876
Current Game: Mass Effect
Although this doesn't prove anything, this is my reply to the argument over how something could form from nothing, which I consider as the best possible explanation at this time. (However, who am I to rate what theories are the most likely, when everything is 'possible' since we don't really know for sure?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
In the beginning, there was nothing. No laws of physics or anything to control whether or not something did or did not exist, or happened.
Due to this, everything possible that could happen happened. Infinite possibilities.

(Or it could just as easily be that the universe always existed, and that paradoxes of that are void, becuase it could 'just be like that no matter what, because it already is')
To revise and make it clearer:
In the beginning, there was nothing. No laws of physics or anything to control whether or not something did or did not exist, or happened.
Due to this, IE, nothing stopping anything from happening or existing, it was all able to happen becuase nothing was holding it back from happening, so everything possible that could happen happened. Infinite possibilities. Before this, I theorize, there were no physics, but once things happened and existed, the laws of physics immediately became standard laws of the universe. Thereby, theoretically, the laws of physics would not exist if no forms of matter or anything else of a 'material form' existed, becuase they woudl have nothing to 'govern by their laws'. The laws of physics, by my theorizing, wouldn't be able to work and happen without matter, so they couldn't exist until matter formed. And so, again, since the laws of physics theoretically by my theory didn't exist at this 'time', so, therefore matter formed because it was not bound by the law stating 'matter cannot be created or destroyed'.

-------------------------

This, IMO, is the 'most logical' conclusion I've been able to reach after reading about all kinds of various theories, so that is why I hold this conclusion as what I think is the most-likely-to-be-true theory. However, If soemone would be able to enlighten me in a much more logical conclusion/theory, I'd appreciate it.


Please feed the trolls. XD

Last edited by Arcesious; 05-07-2008 at 01:08 AM.
Arcesious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-07-2008, 06:37 AM   #30
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
If you've seen Midnight Run (Bob Deniro, Charles Grodin), then you should have gotten the reference.
Gee, now that you mention it, I actually saw that movie, like 15 years ago and the German version too. I'm pretty sure your reference got lost in translation or whatever somehow.

Quote:
As to the other, some people say everything came from the Big Bang (ie singularity). But if it needed matter and energy to exist (no matter which "universe/multiverse/yada yada yada), then that material had to preexist and come before the singularity. Seems pretty circular. The singularity comes from preexisting matter which apparently was created by that singularity. Seems pretty chicken and egg.
The point is, there is not nothing and one singularity or two, there is something and in this something it happens that a bubble of spacetime is pressed into existence. A process analogue to those bubbles in sparkling water that randomly seem to come out of nowhere. Small ones, big ones, colliding, separating, long lasting, short living ones, fast moving, slow moving. There are active areas with tons of them and areas without any activities. One big difference is that the bubbles in the water "go surface" and release its contents into the air, but that is just because of our planet's gravitational field and because it's in an open glass. So if you put the sparkling water into a closed tank out into zero gravity, the bubbles theoretically would "pop up" just to dissolve in the water again a uncertain time later.

Circular? Yes. Like pretty much all things. Chicken/Egg? Egg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corinthian
I don't see anything about the origin of, well, existence. I'd say Universe, but then people trot out the Multiverse theory.
The point is, there is not really a "starting point". The "begin" of our universe is not the begin of existence. There is no thing that is there just one time. There is one Sun but countless stars. There is one Earth but countless planets - you get the point.

It's like a fractal. There is no smallest thing, nor a biggest thing, there is only the way you look at it, but it just keeps on repeating itself in absolute precise yet not determinable patterns anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
While it will be some time before we can test any of these hypothesis, I like to think that quantum fluctuation/zero-energy research is the most promising, as it seems to point toward the simplest explanation.
The problem about any of those theories is to find out where the hell all this quantum crap, floating around, creating universes and whatnot, is coming from, and whether it runs on hybrid technology. ^^




--
However, to keep the *fantasy* going (also tangents theistic aspects):

Life and the fate of the Universe
the Omega Point
why the Universe may be "fine-tuned"



Last edited by Ray Jones; 05-07-2008 at 07:02 AM.
Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-07-2008, 10:02 AM   #31
Arcesious
Trolololololololololololo
 
Arcesious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NE
Posts: 1,876
Current Game: Mass Effect
Well that's interesting.... If only I was alive before those scientists came up with those kinds of theories I'd be able to be famous for theories like that...
(IE, I've already reached the conclusion of what this 'Fractal Cosmology' Theory is... )
The 'Omega Point' theory, however, seems soemwhat farfetched though, IMO...


Please feed the trolls. XD
Arcesious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-07-2008, 11:05 AM   #32
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,782
Current Game: KotOR II
Achilles, I'm not sure what you're asking by requesting 'proof' - are you asking where my proof is that it is a mainstream Christian belief that God is nontemporal/atemporal/transtemporal/time is applied inadvisably to deity, then I believe it crops up in the Summa Theologica - after the arguments for God's immobility, there comes an argument for His eternity - at least in the Shorter. I'm sure there's other examples of the argument, though I'm afraid I can't point you to them.

If you're asking where my proof is that God is eternal/exists beyond the bounds of linear time, I could reverse the question back at you and ask where your evidence that God exists within the bounds of linear time is.

Of course, I'm sure you could respond that you find no evidence for God anywhere, but this line of discourse leads us somewhat off the topic at hand, I think.

If I were to answer, I would probably say that it is a matter of reason, rather than evidence per se, and that it is, for me, a necessity of God as creator.

In any case, I was not in this case endorsing or condemning that idea - only raising it to highlight a possible reason why Jae might not be worried by that particular question.



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-07-2008, 01:36 PM   #33
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Achilles, I'm not sure what you're asking by requesting 'proof' - are you asking where my proof is that it is a mainstream Christian belief that God is nontemporal/atemporal/transtemporal/time is applied inadvisably to deity, then I believe it crops up in the Summa Theologica - after the arguments for God's immobility, there comes an argument for His eternity - at least in the Shorter. I'm sure there's other examples of the argument, though I'm afraid I can't point you to them.
No, sir, the question was "what evidence do we have that would allow us to conclude that the definition is correct". I have no doubt that there is sufficient evidence to show that the definition exists, however that is not the same thing.

For example, some people argue that it was the flying spaghetti monster and not the judeo-christian god that created the universe. If you were to ask me for evidence for the claim, I could simply direct you to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, if you were to ask me what proof I had that He actually did it, then I would probably need (because you would probably require) something a little more substantiative.

I hope that helps to clarify.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
If you're asking where my proof is that God is eternal/exists beyond the bounds of linear time, I could reverse the question back at you and ask where your evidence that God exists within the bounds of linear time is.
You could, but then you'd be guilty of using the burden of proof logical fallacy to avoid answering the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Of course, I'm sure you could respond that you find no evidence for God anywhere, but this line of discourse leads us somewhat off the topic at hand, I think.
Perhaps it would. I don't think you answering the original question would though, as it would be directly related to the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
If I were to answer, I would probably say that it is a matter of reason, rather than evidence per se, and that it is, for me, a necessity of God as creator.
I don't know that we could say it was a matter of reason, but I think it being something personal is understanable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
In any case, I was not in this case endorsing or condemning that idea - only raising it to highlight a possible reason why Jae might not be worried by that particular question.
Fair enough. I do think that we should all be careful to apply our standards of evidence consistently. All too often is seems that scientific explanations are held to a very high standard while theological explanations are not. If the bar is going to be set low, then the bar should be set low for everyone, but we also need to be cautious that this route won't actually provide us any answers.

Thanks for your response.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-07-2008, 01:43 PM   #34
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,782
Current Game: KotOR II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
No, sir, the question was "what evidence do we have that would allow us to conclude that the definition is correct". I have no doubt that there is sufficient evidence to show that the definition exists, however that is not the same thing.

For example, some people argue that it was the flying spaghetti monster and not the judeo-christian god that created the universe. If you were to ask me for evidence for the claim, I could simply direct you to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, if you were to ask me what proof I had that He actually did it, then I would probably need (because you would probably require) something a little more substantiative.

I hope that helps to clarify.
Yes, that's clearer, thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
You could, but then you'd be guilty of using the burden of proof logical fallacy to avoid answering the question.
Indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Perhaps it would. I don't think you answering the original question would though, as it would be directly related to the topic.
True, but arguing along such lines does seem to cause something of a drift away from the original point in many cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I don't know that we could say it was a matter of reason, but I think it being something personal is understanable.
I meant only that it can be arrived at through reason.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Fair enough. I do think that we should all be careful to apply our standards of evidence consistently. All too often is seems that scientific explanations are held to a very high standard while theological explanations are not.
Oh, indeed, indeed. I think this is perhaps partly down to the wide publication of high-quality scientific literature in a manner comprehensible to the public, while theology still rather tends towards a firm division between specialism and populism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
If the bar is going to be set low, then the bar should be set low for everyone, but we also need to be cautious that this route won't actually provide us any answers.
Indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Thanks for your response.
And thank you for yours.



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-07-2008, 01:56 PM   #35
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
I meant only that it can be arrived at through reason.
Again, I don't think that it can. That line of reasoning will also support any deity (imagined or historical) that we care to dream up. However, if we are going to allow that the flying spaghetti monster hypothesis deserves the same level of consideration afforded the judeo-christian god hypothesis, then there really isn't a problem. But then again, we still aren't answering the OP's question either
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-07-2008, 02:27 PM   #36
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,782
Current Game: KotOR II
Well, that depends on the nature of the FSM. If it is a material being, I don't think it works...if, however, the FSM is defined as Spirit/nonmaterial, I think it could apply.

On its own, the logic can be applied elsewhere, yes. You could in theory apply it to Atum, Ahura-Mazda, or any other creator-deity. I don't think this necessarily means that the argument is invalid however. You could argue (although I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in the argument) that these are all reflections of the same concept, in any case. But given the lack of philosophical literature addressing this sort of thing from the time, such questions are rather up-in-the-air...

Anyway, as you say - this doesn't answer the OPs question.



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-07-2008, 04:16 PM   #37
Corinthian
Banned
 
Corinthian's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,165
Frankly, attempting to logically argue the existence of a Deity is impossible. That's just how it is. If it were possible for the human mind to break God down into a set of equations and factors that we could understand, he wouldn't really be God. They call upon this little thing called Faith for a reason.
Corinthian is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-07-2008, 05:24 PM   #38
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Hey, but it's part of the free will deal that we can ignore that and try anyway, isn't it.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-07-2008, 07:50 PM   #39
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Well, that depends on the nature of the FSM. If it is a material being, I don't think it works...if, however, the FSM is defined as Spirit/nonmaterial, I think it could apply.
I don't think it would be too difficult to create a claim to that effect

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
On its own, the logic can be applied elsewhere, yes. You could in theory apply it to Atum, Ahura-Mazda, or any other creator-deity. I don't think this necessarily means that the argument is invalid however. You could argue (although I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in the argument) that these are all reflections of the same concept, in any case.
Indeed, but what evidence would we have for that?

And even if we were to put that problem aside, how do we know that any of the currently available "concepts" are actually correct? We could assume that one of them is, but then how do we argue for one over the other without any objective criteria?

It all seems a bit messy to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Anyway, as you say - this doesn't answer the OPs question.
Perhaps the best move then is for everyone to acknowledge that we don't know the answer. Unfortunately, I see this as being a sticking point for those that presume to know the answer already though
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2008, 11:20 PM   #40
Rev7
I'm a Mage
 
Rev7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,208
Current Game: CoD 5 WaW; Skate 2
Helpful! 
I believe that we have a creator. I believe that He formed and shaped us, and the universe that we live in. That is just what I think.

Rev7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > The Universe: Accidental or Deliberate?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:22 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.