The nature of the universe, whether God(s) exist, and how we define them

[Mason Michaels]

Leading up to the Big Bang?

Where are these witnesses?

Of course, it was a reaction to a Spiritual attempt to over throw God that caused the Big Bang

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Of course, it was a reaction to a Spiritual attempt to over throw God that caused the Big Bang

And whence did you come up with this "hypothesis"? ie what evidence do you have of this spiritual attempt to overthrow God? (Last I heard the book of Enoch was apocryphal)

 

[Mason Michaels]

And whence did you come up with this "hypothesis"? ie what evidence do you have of this spiritual attempt to overthrow God? (Last I heard the book of Enoch was apocryphal)

Square one of a personal Revelation.
Could you prove to me wind exists!
I always hear about it, but have never seen it!

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Square one of a personal Revelation.
Could you prove to me wind exists!

Easily. It is measurable and experienced by all obsesrvers in much the same way. In addition there is a physical reason for it to exist and we know exactly how it works.

I always hear about it, but have never seen it!

Vision is not the only method of observation.

I am still curious what "observers" there were before the Big Bang and how you got communication from them. Did it happen inside your head? I once did shrooms and I was pretty sure my wife was no longer real. I doubt very highly that for 4 hours my wife ceased to exist just because I imagined it.

 

[Mason Michaels]

Easily. It is measurable and experienced by all obsesrvers in much the same way. In addition there is a physical reason for it to exist and we know exactly how it works.



Vision is not the only method of observation.

I am still curious what "observers" there were before the Big Bang and how you got communication from them. Did it happen inside your head? I once did shrooms and I was pretty sure my wife was no longer real. I doubt very highly that for 4 hours my wife ceased to exist just because I imagined it.

You weren't supposed to take the mushrooms as a suppository

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You weren't supposed to take the mushrooms as a suppository

Cool. Thanks for missing the point.

 

[Cypress]

Atheists see a birthday cake and I hope they can acknowledge it was the result of a baker's effort yet they look at the universe, which is exponentially more complicated than a birthday cake, but they don't believe its the result of a creators effort. It's seems though that the more educated people get the more stupid they become. Fascinating.

IMO, it's reasonable to believe there is an unknown higher organizing principle underlying the cosmos.

But the big bang, the origin of physics, the origin of the physical constants do not even remotely prove an Abrahamic God, a Brahman, a Waheguru, or a Li.

The best we can say is that the mystery of the infinite is unfathomable and beyond human cognition, and will likely remain that way forever.

 

[serenity]

I seldom get involved in discussions involving religion because people tend to believe that circular arguments are proof they are right all the time. However, there are a few people who are more open minded. As a Pantheist who believes that everything is God, no one I know would argue that God exists under this definition, but they -have- pointed out that this is not how they define God, so for -them- God doesn't exist because of how they define God. This subject of whether God exists and perhaps more importantly, how we define God, has been one I've found to be interesting but as it's significantly off the subject of this thread, I decided to make this new thread and put my response here.

Simple compounding results in series parallel time limited to occupying space evolving forward as specifically taking place as a constant new total sum delivered now. perpetual motion has a universal constant kinetics between details never combined the same again and results contracting into the new details maintained currently changing form as shaped inorganically and ancestrally separate events in series parallel time here now.

This includes everything from direct and alternating DC and AC current flows to 7 primary bandwidths of light to daylight. Lightwaves and electrical currents have same rate of speed. Look at it light energy is magnetism of same polarities pushing objects apart and electricity is the opposites attract and between each time of electrocal current and bandwidth of life is an insulation and isolation of objects balancing forward as inorganic universal positions and in rare places organic ancestral changes in the food chain never same reproductions twice.


All within periodic elements sustaining shape and forms maintaining universal changes going on in plain sight now. i.e. specific gravity of now has always been eternity and the universe is eternally changing the total sum present in cycles of combinations that erode or decompose back into original molecular characteristics since the universe is a closed system with no room for nothing at all saturated with subatomic matter lacking a nucleus of an atom that can combined into molecular characteristic constant changes happening everywhere as spontaneously present, never same total sum individually here.

Evolving without doubts added in assumed missing links of time relativity suggesting life exceeds mutually evolving forward now.

It is basically the human original sin, self deception practiced ancestrally by choices combined all 5 generation gaps living. I put my post between your two quotes as the same answer works for all ways this species as worked against itself since dawn of civilization.

There very well may be a higher organizing principle underlying the universe. But since we are basically
just souped-up chimpanzees, we might not have the cognitive capacity to fully comprehend it.

To me, the most important lingering unanswered questions are these:

Where did the physical laws of the universe come from? Prior to the big bang, nothing presumably existed, and nor did physics exist.

Why are there physical constants, and why do they take the values they do? Seemingly arbitrary numerical values which cannot be derived from first principles.

Why are the natural laws, the physical constants, and the geometry of the cosmos so finely-tuned in such a mathematically-improbable way to allow the development of complexity, life, and even conciousness?

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

I would be surprised if there is any direct quote from Einstein anywhere in which he calls himself a pantheist. A lot of people have always endeavored to put their own labels on Einstein, but I suspect the only thing he ever labelled himself was agnostic. Although the record was clear that he seemed to appreciate Baruch Spinoza's philosophy of a nature's god.

I would also be surprised if any quote from Einstein exists where he openly lends his support to psychological speculations like synchronicity. I have never heard that it achieved widespread traction in the physics community.

Though I might be wrong, and always willing to reconsider if presented with undisputed facts.

"God doesn't play the dice with the Universe" - Einstein

 

[BidenPresident]

"God doesn't play the dice with the Universe" - Einstein

And he was wrong.

 

[serenity]

I seldom get involved in discussions involving religion because people tend to believe that circular arguments are proof they are right all the time. However, there are a few people who are more open minded. As a Pantheist who believes that everything is God, no one I know would argue that God exists under this definition, but they -have- pointed out that this is not how they define God, so for -them- God doesn't exist because of how they define God. This subject of whether God exists and perhaps more importantly, how we define God, has been one I've found to be interesting but as it's significantly off the subject of this thread, I decided to make this new thread and put my response here.

There very well may be a higher organizing principle underlying the universe. But since we are basically
just souped-up chimpanzees, we might not have the cognitive capacity to fully comprehend it.

To me, the most important lingering unanswered questions are these:

Where did the physical laws of the universe come from? Prior to the big bang, nothing presumably existed, and nor did physics exist.

Why are there physical constants, and why do they take the values they do? Seemingly arbitrary numerical values which cannot be derived from first principles.

Why are the natural laws, the physical constants, and the geometry of the cosmos so finely-tuned in such a mathematically-improbable way to allow the development of complexity, life, and even conciousness?

And he was wrong.

As you have always been inaccurate about life evolving in plain sight. But you have reasonable doubt saving your character's wannabe intellectual soul is greater than your instinctive sole limited to naturally adapting to the moment here.

 

[Cypress]

"God doesn't play the dice with the Universe" - Einstein

It was a figure of speech. He wasn't referring to the Abrahamic God.
It's pretty well known that to the extent Einstein thought about the supernatural, he aligned himself with Spinoza's god of nature.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

"God doesn't play the dice with the Universe" - Einstein

If I am not mistaken that was as a critique of the stochastic nature of a lot of quantum mechanics, NOT as an affirmation of some personal "God". I believe it was quite clear that Einstein didn't ascribe to a personal god concept.

 

[BidenPresident]

If I am not mistaken that was as a critique of the stochastic nature of a lot of quantum mechanics, NOT as an affirmation of some personal "God". I believe it was quite clear that Einstein didn't ascribe to a personal god concept.

It was a criticism of the idea of randomness in quantum mechanics. I think a reply to Bohr or Heisenberg.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

It was a criticism of the idea of randomness in quantum mechanics. I think a reply to Bohr or Heisenberg.

That's essentially what I said. Thanks.

 

[BidenPresident]

If I am not mistaken that was as a critique of the stochastic nature of a lot of quantum mechanics, NOT as an affirmation of some personal "God". I believe it was quite clear that Einstein didn't ascribe to a personal god concept.

‘The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One,’ wrote Albert Einstein in December 1926. ‘I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice.’

Einstein was responding to a letter from the German physicist Max Born. The heart of the new theory of quantum mechanics, Born had argued, beats randomly and uncertainly, as though suffering from arrhythmia. Whereas physics before the quantum had always been about doing this and getting that, the new quantum mechanics appeared to say that when we do this, we get that only with a certain probability. And in some circumstances we might get the other.

https://bigthink.com/thinking/what-einstein-meant-by-god-does-not-play-dice-2624894657/