|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing | |||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: yeah, it might be impossible to wrap a thought around the concept 'absence of something'... as for the universe being infinite, i think that doesn't depend at all on bb... unless make believe numbers are used (hawking et al), an actual infinite can't really exist in nature (as opposed to a potential infinite)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: hi mike... i'm a little confused by the above... if we grant the singularity, then at the moment of the BIG bang, do not laws of thermodynamics operate? not arguing with you, asking you... i guess i can't quite grasp how an explosion *can't* result in an epicenter... if all parts are moving away from one another, from whence are they moving? thx
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: ok thx, i understand that i think... here's where i lose it... let me use a different analogy, not cause i think the balloon one is faulty but cause my mind sees it differently take a stick of dynamite encased in a tube of some sort... now imagine you drop it from an airplane.. it drops, oh 30, 40 feet and explodes... if a little bitty teensy weensy person was on the outside of the tube, yes i see that he'd see everything moving away from him, relative to his position... same for any number of little bitty teensy weensy people... but does this (relative) movement common to each mean there wasn't an epicenter? my mind is having trouble understanding how the exact location of the explosion can't be considered the center *of* that explosion... hope that makes sense
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
^^^ whew... i doubt if this'll ever make sense to me, it seems so anti-intuitive... even if i think of the singularity occupying a non-point in non-time, containing all that is, i can't understand how once it explodes (or whatever) that non-point fails to become a *real* point of reference for all time
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
ok, i'm a little less fuzzy on it, but you gotta admit it still seems anti-intuitive... almost as if we have to deny what we know from our senses... here's a hypothetical, see if it makes sense
assume for the sake of argument that God exists... let's give him some of the attributes most christians (and even non-christians) think he has, such as omnipotence... given what you've all said about the singularity, it struck me that one thing it could be that i've never heard before is, a thought God had... the universe and all it contains at one time was a thought in the mind of God... this would fit in with joz's non-occupation of a non-point in non-time and also with mike's point of time (in an event horizon) pointing inward reference God, because of this incomprehensible power he possesses, can give "life" (as it were), can cause to be that which isn't, simply by willing it.. so could the singularity itself be the early stages of God's planning of the universe? inside this singularity, which has no boundary either (it can't else that very property would be transmitted to its culmination), what we know to be true now was made true thru the plans and workings of God... when and only when he was ready, he gave his thought freedom to express itself, and express itself it did that would mean that whatever was *inside* the singularity (this thought, or even thoughts) wasn't always the same, it may have changed as God rejected this plan, accepted that, rejected this final universe, accepted that one, etc... but there came a "time" (lack of better word) when he was ready, when he examined for the last time his thoughts and declared to himself "it is good"... and the universe sprang forth the physical aspects given impetus, given motion, by the very will of God oh well, it seems to fit, given the premise of an all powerful God... i can actually think of only one other theory i've ever read that can even come close to this, and that's the one that says there is an actual (not potential) infinity, and the singularity from which our universe came was itself a part of one etc etc ad infintum... i don't think that can stand up on philosophical or physical grounds
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
^^^ thx john... i'm reminded yet again how there's nothing new under the sun, even thoughts we might have that *seem* new or original heheheh... i like that particular thought tho, think i'll work on developing it... and i'll do a search now for 'kabbalists' and 'bishop berkeley'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
^^^^ buy a book? BUY a book? surely you jest... i found both of 'em... berkeley was no dummy... course none of the philosophers were... still, i like the thought.. let's develop it, eh?
we have this singularity that i'm calling the thought(s) of God... whew, this could get complicated... anyway, God planned the universe, all of creation... he foresaw all potentialities *and* all actualities of every possible universe he might create... that alone would show how awesome a SUPREME being would be, since he'd have to (using me as an example) know the destiny of me in any possible creation, no matter "when" or "where" he decided i should be born not only would he have to know that, he'd have to know how my intereaction with everyone else would end up should he foresee creating *them* in all possible universes.. oh, i'll say for the heck of it that a "possible" universe is one which doesn't conflict with God's attributes, his very nature... meaning, it'd be logical by definition, etc... no absence of the ole law of non-contradiction in his universe granting free will (a given if we're to accept being created in his image, since to me that entails all attributes he possesses, just on a vastly smaller scale), he'd want to create a universe in which all who could be "saved" (a term i'll define to mean, all who would inhabit eternity in his presence) would be saved... any who spend eternity apart from him (my definition of hell) would do so in any possible universe... (craig calls these people the "trans-worldly damned")... he would, being omnibenevolent, finally create a universe (explode the singularity, his thought, by willing it to be) in which those whose destiny is to be eternally apart from him are the fewest possible, given his goals... so his foreknowledge and our predestination don't negate free will, since nobody who has ever been born and who finally spends eternity apart from God would have chosen differently in any possible universe he *might* have created why create any of those trans-worldly damned at all? in order to maximize the ones who would be with him eternally (some of whom *may* have not chosen to believe him in all but one possible universe).. why not just create us with the knowledge that we'd all choose him? that takes away even the semblance of free will *and* it means we wouldn't be "in his image" (given free will as one of his attributes) the above isn't new (except for the singularity thingy, but even that isn't new as you pointed out), i believe it was first formulated by the spanish monk molina and championed by wm. lane craig... it's called "God's middle knowledge" and simply means he knew all that could be and all that would be... fascinating study there's more to it, but i'll admit the singularity as the thought of God is brand new to me... sigh, here i thought i had an original thought... alas, it's never been thus, never will be
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: oh well, mack... i guess i'll sit back and await your original thoughts... and yes, john and i seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot... this is more productive, for both i hope
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B] quote: i guess any idea or definition or concept of God has to start somewhere, has to ascribe certain attributes... we're all free, i guess, to choose what we know (or think we know) from the sources we choose to trust... it's all a matter of choice... so given that, i believe that all transcendental entities, all things that exist but are not suspended in space and time, do exist because they're a part of God's character or nature... we can point to logic as one of those things... yeah i know it can be argued that the law of non-contradiction isn't really a law, but i'd hate to argue that point myself... but if it *is* real, if it does exist, it doesn't exist in space and time... the *results* of the law do exist materially, usually, but not the law itself... same goes for most anything one can point to as existing yet which has no materiality... i guess love would be one of those things... metaphysical, transcendental, i think those words describe the entities i'm speaking of
quote: ok, let's examine that... it might be better if you do a google for 'william lane craig middle knowledge', i'm sure he's far more understandable than i am... but here's an attempt at a synopsis assuming the singularity as God's thoughts (my non-original thought doncha know), we can say that the universe was thought out, planned... not only that, all possible worlds in which i might live, at all possible times, was seen by God... all possible interactions with all possible people... God, knowing that he wanted to create us in his image, with all the attributes he himself has, would take that into account in his plans let's use a number for the sake of clarity.. let's say God saw 100 possible universes he *might* create me in, at 100 different locations and 100 different eras... remember, this has to be done for each and every person who both *might* exist and who finally *did* exist... imagine that God saw in 99 of those universes that i'd choose not to believe what he had to say, no matter when or where i was born and no matter who surrounded me... but in *one* universe, he foresaw that i'd freely choose to believe his words... he'd have to compare that universe to all others, inhabiting it with people for whom the very same thing had been done this is before he said 'let it be'... the universe is still in his thoughts only... now, the fact that he *knew*, before he actually created, the world in which i'd of my own free will choose to believe him in no way negates that free will... yes, he might have still chosen not to create that particular universe, and yes once he did create it all that he foresaw concerning it was destined to happen... so 'predestination' did occur at the moment God, by his will alone, allowed his thought to become material... foreknowledge has to be a given when we're talking about God, omniscience and omnipotence being two attributes most people are willing to grant as making up God's nature... even we have the ability, tho not perfectly, to "know" what another will do in certain situations... i might *know* what my child will do in a certain situation, given certain circumstances... but that knowledge doesn't mean my child wasn't free to choose differently... but we aren't God, so our knowledge of the choices a person will make aren't perfect.. then again, none of the attributes we possess which come because of being created in his image are perfect assuming things were as i wrote above, we might argue that God had no right to create a universe in which he chose to know what would happen... we might want to argue that it was wrong of him to create a universe in which he *knew* that some would freely choose to disbelieve him... but such arguments assume, for one thing, that God isn't really God... that he isn't all wise, all loving, that he isn't worthy of our trust... that's ultimately a choice we each have to make
quote: as i said, the "damned" are so because they chose to be so... to argue that such a person might, when speaking with God about it, say "well had i known that i'd have wanted you not even to create me" misses the point too... i believe that thruout history there are the very minimum number of trans-worldly damned necessary in order to maximize the ones who choose God... not one of them could *not* have been created without sacrificing many more who would choose God... arguing against his judgment is simply a sign of not trusting him...
quote: absolutely he can do that... i believe that was one of the possible universes he could have chosen, or that he thought about... but maybe no such universe is possible... maybe, given free will as a criteria, without creating exactly the number of trans-worldly damned needed *nobody* would be in eternity with God.. again we might argue that this was better, and again we set ourselves in a position of having the knowledge God has of all things
quote: he can't *not* know, john... but knowing and forcing us to choose aren't the same thing..
[quote]
quote: Well, maybe you at least had an original sentence. Isn't that the same thing? [/B][/QUOTE] i'm not sure if it is or not, but i'll hold onto that thought and pretend it's the same thing lol
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024