J
jurekjurek
Guest
NO how do you explain something as complex as the human mind or the human eye god created the universe
- Status
R
Ryuji_Yamazaki
Guest
Creation is a nightmare, in fact we are in hell right now. I never spoke of literal fire. The second death consists in being devoured from the inside by the fire of conscience, the 144000 shall kindle it. This is Jacob devouring Esau.Well, no.
Threatening me with an eternal hellfire existence is hardly going to cut it when there is no convincing verifiable proof of the existence of either Heaven or Hell.
Have you ever looked at creation
I mean, really closely looked at it.
I agree it’s beautiful, but in the most savage, cold, detached, self interested manner imaginable.
I think looking very closely at ‘‘creation’’ is the best argument ever for the reality of the finality of our lives and the best antidote ever for any idea of life being created either directly by a supernatural loving, caring, Being or being guided by a supernatural loving, caring, Being.
Sarah x
What is beautiful in creation is formal, creation has time loops. Those who die the second death fall asleep in their nightmare only to dream that very same nightmare again. Verbatim equality, no way out whatsoever. Hence our déjà vus. We are in hell right now, some at the end of the 6th day, of the 1000 years, shall wake up in the out of time 7th day, the others no.
But even the brothers of Christ shall blink their eyes in heaven & dream again their dream except they have another dream that is lucid where they are the 7 angels pouring the wrath of God on this nightmare of creation.
I
inocente
Guest
Glossing over a couple of details, I think this is the idea:
- The universe is defined as “all the matter, energy and space that exists”.
- Energy begets matter, as we know from E = mc[sup]2[/sup], and space begets energy, as evidenced by the observed accelerating expansion of the universe.
- So in principle all you need to start the universe is some space. Your OP question then simplifies to “could space create itself?” and the answer is yes, as we know the universe is expanding and therefore space is creating more space all the time.
- And how much space is needed to start the universe? Monseigneur Lemaître, who proposed the big bang, says as little as possible, thanks all the same.
OK, seems a bit optimistic to me too, but it doesn’t say that the universe did create itself, just that in principle there are no show stoppers.
We used to think space was nothingness. Wrong again, just like when we thought we were at the center of a universe custom built for us. This is how God teaches us humility.
S
spina1953
Guest
It seems to me that if the universe created itself, how did the universe create itself? To create itself it seems that somewhere down the line, that it was already in existence, which of course means that it was always there. No one knows how the universe was created or how it actually came into existence All one has are theories as to how it might have happened. So,as I understand it we have only seen a very small part of the universe, and still we know very little about it and what it contains. Sometimes we forget just how ememse the universe is and how vast the distance btween the stars, planets etc. Then there are material or matter, if you will, that we can not see. It just seems to me that something so vast and emence as the universe must have its orgin in a Suprime being, a God who can create out of what is nothingness into something. We have not even scratched the surface of what is the universe, nor do we know how it happened and what was before the universe come into existence.
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
If space is not (physical) nothingness then what is it?
S
spina1953
Guest
To be quite frank I doubt that anyone knows. It is one of those things that one is not able to answer. Yes, one can have thoughts as to what one might think it is, but there is no certainty that what one thinks or believes what space is, is whatever someone says it is. I’m guessing that you are asking a general question.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
So you are saying that there exists something ( space ) that God did not create? Then He is not God, right? Just asking for clarification, not that I agree with you at all. How could any thing create itself? That is science??? That is the kind of fantasy that gives popular cosmologists a bad name.Glossing over a couple of details, I think this is the idea:
- The universe is defined as “all the matter, energy and space that exists”.
- Energy begets matter, as we know from E = mc[sup]2[/sup], and space begets energy, as evidenced by the observed accelerating expansion of the universe.
- So in principle all you need to start the universe is some space. Your OP question then simplifies to “could space create itself?” and the answer is yes, as we know the universe is expanding and therefore space is creating more space all the time.
- And how much space is needed to start the universe? Monseigneur Lemaître, who proposed the big bang, says as little as possible, thanks all the same.
OK, seems a bit optimistic to me too, but it doesn’t say that the universe did create itself, just that in principle there are no show stoppers.
We used to think space was nothingness. Wrong again, just like when we thought we were at the center of a universe custom built for us. This is how God teaches us humility.
When you say " We used to think space was nothingness. Wrong again, " I don’t know who you mean by " We, " it certainly doesn’t include me. And the " nothingness " from which God created the universe, was not anything, not even " space. " And when you say, " …just like we thought we were at the center of a universe custom built for us…" you are mixing complaints. Of course science has proven we are not at the center of the universe but that it was created for us has some support in Scripture, at least as far as our immediate solar system is concerned. Of course the entire universe was created to give honor to God, to glorify His Name.
And, " in principle " the universe didn’t just pop into existence without a creative cause.
Ditto for an eternally existing universe. even if it exists eternally, without the eternal causality of God, it has no explanation for its eternal existence. " Ite ad Thomam ".
Linus2nd
P
phil19034
Guest
even many scientists are starting to theorize that our universe did not start itself. There are scientific theories that our universe is the off-spring of another universe and is just part of the multi-verse.
To me, the more we learn about physics provides more proof that God is real.
To me, the more we learn about physics provides more proof that God is real.
S
spina1953
Guest
I agree But also some scientists believe that there are more universes and others who do not. Most scientists generally do not debate the God creating question or so Iv’e been told.
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
So you’re saying it’s impossible for us to know what space is, but you can know that I’m wrong about what it is?
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
You said, “Well I’m glad your O is H, because I can conceive of my own mind, which is subject to time but not matter or energy.”
When your mind is attached to your body, it is subject to time and matter, I would say.
The only time you mind is not attached to your body is after you die, and then it is neither subject to time nor matter.
Both these statements address your statement. I can’t see how you can conceive of your mind being subject to time but not matter, as you said, so it left me confused.
Peace.
P
polytropos
Guest
I sense an equivocation. Space creating more space is not the same as the stronger claim that space can create itself from nothing. How much space is needed? “As little as possible.” Which was, presumably, created by even less (or else it still lacks explanation) - though, by hypothesis, any less than “as little as possible,” is impossible.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
For anyone who rejects the existence of God, I think any fool explanation will suffice.
I used to think that a good argument was that the material universe always existed, that it was infinite, that it was constantly expanding and contracting, big bang after big bang, forever and ever. However, with this “infinite expansions and contractions” theory comes the necessary conclusion that there must be an infinite number of evolutions that contain human life, as well as, an infinite number of evolutions that do not contain human life, which is self-contradictory on the face of it. If “infinity” is to be attached to a thing, then it is illogical to attach it to anything but God. Only in God do we solve the dilemma of the equally illogical conclusions that the universe created itself, or that the universe always was, with no beginning or end. If the universe must have a beginning, since an infinite universe is self-contradictory, then an infinite God must exist to satisfy the condition of its beginning. The incomprehensible God necessarily exists whether we like it or not. It does not even require faith; it is irrational to think otherwise.
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
No, it’s not, it’s just causaly correlated to something that is. “Attached” isn’t really a good word.
S
spina1953
Guest
When we look at the space around us does it seem that it is expanding, that it is moving. if one takes out all the matter and energy etc. what is left? just a void, which I call nothingness. Now it seems to me that since there is matter and energy etc. , the universe, which is moving through space, there is nothing we see that stops it from moving through space except someother matter or energy. Its seems to me that space that is not expanding but the matter and energy that is contained in space that is expanding by movment through space as stars planets etc. are constantly being made and remade. Space itself is so large and vast our minds can not know just how vast it is. It is more than the mind can understand. So far we have seen only a very small part of the universe. it has only been in the last couple of centuries that we have begun to see more than ever before. We are still learning and gaining knowledge about what we see. The theory of the Big bang is a nice one to try and explain how the universe might hae begun but it is not fact. One builds on the theory trying to add more to our understanding of the universe. I also think that the universe is far, far older than we now think. But one does not know what banged, How it banged, and what was before it banged. All we think at this point is that was what we think has happened since the bang. From a religious point of view being a Catholic, it seems to me that one will never know how God created, we can either believe He did or not, but I rather doubt that it created itself as some scientists think.
I
inocente
Guest
Whoa, back up there partner. I quoted your OP, explained how I think those cosmologists came up with the idea, and what the evidence is.
I like it though. The writer of Genesis 1 is concerned to introduce us to God. The writer’s cosmology is less then impressive but no matter, that’s not his concern. To make us understand the sheer power of God, he has God just command and everything happens. None of that white-haired old guy in his workshop having to design and construct it all by hand. God just commands and it happens. That’s no mere tribal god.
A God so powerful He has the universe create itself is a nice idea.
A powerful God doesn’t need defending from ideas. Ye olde worn-oute theologies do, but as the Pope said recently, they’re decadent anyway. Ite ad Copernicus
P
polytropos
Guest
Which says nothing of whether it is coherent for a thing to create itself. How could God have the universe create itself if it did not exist? Can God make that which does not exist, act - or does he need to create first? If that is a logical impossibility, then it would seem that we need not speak of power but of coherence, which seems to be lacking in your “nice idea.”
Did he? Or did he say that certain Thomist commentaries from which he learned were decadent, while the Church should strive for brilliance and genius like that of St. Thomas?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It is interesting to note that with some aspects of the creation story, the language used by God is something like, “Let there be,” which is not so much dynamic action on his part as “allowing” the nature of whatever was created to “come forth from” what was created. Not exactly creating itself, strictly speaking, but rather “unfolding” itself or “evolving” itself, although neither of those are quite right.
I am glad you pointed this out. It is interesting how “interpreters” of the Pope’s words fall under the same category as “commentators” of Thomas and try to glean their own ideas from the original words.
S
spina1953
Guest
I have to agree with you as to what you say concerning Genesis I. I rather think that the writer or author of Genesis was trying to explain to the best of his understanding who and what God is and what He did to answer the age old queston How did we come to be. Also at some point God revealed Himself to man, but we do not really know how He did that. When did man first come to think that there was a God, someone greater than himself? We do not know, just as we do not know when man first started to bury the dead. Also why did man look at the stars; the sky, and think that somehow it gave him the idea as to when to migrate with the anamals he was hunting as well as the grains he was eating and gathering and when it would again appear for him to eat. Somehow the author of Geeisis I was trying to explain that it was God who created whether it be the universe or man and all that man lived in. The universe as we think in understanding it was not concieved by the orginal author of Genesis I or to those who he was addressing the story to.Whoa, back up there partner. I quoted your OP, explained how I think those cosmologists came up with the idea, and what the evidence is.
I like it though. The writer of Genesis 1 is concerned to introduce us to God. The writer’s cosmology is less then impressive but no matter, that’s not his concern. To make us understand the sheer power of God, he has God just command and everything happens. None of that white-haired old guy in his workshop having to design and construct it all by hand. God just commands and it happens. That’s no mere tribal god.
A God so powerful He has the universe create itself is a nice idea.
A powerful God doesn’t need defending from ideas. Ye olde worn-oute theologies do, but as the Pope said recently, they’re decadent anyway. Ite ad Copernicus
I
inocente
Guest
My “as little as possible” was an attempt at a joke about Lemaître’s hypothesized singularity, which being infinitely small wouldn’t be big enough to contain any space at all.
I’d have thought claiming that trillions of stars and everything that exists was once an infinite small dot is as huge a claim as can possibly be made. Surely by comparison it’s a mere detail to deliberate whether matter came out of the dot alongside the space, or just space came out which then produced matter? (And it sounds more likely to me that at that point (pun) everything was the same “stuff”, and we might as well call that stuff space as anything else).
- Status