Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
|Re: 2 Quick Things
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Phil.o.Sofir on February 9, 1999 16:47:43 UTC
: : Let me ask you why is there the assumption of purpose? And then, why do you state that we don't really have a purpose?
: I didn't state we don't really have a purpose. I said we don't "necessarly" have a purpose. We might, we might not, I don't think we do. There is nothing to prove we do.
: : So if I understand what your saying, it is that you believe something "larger" has always existed, and that our universe didn't come from nothing. Okay, I certainly buy : : that.
: In other words, our universve (the bubble as I put it, the expanded result of a big bang) is not all that exists. It is merely part of something larger. You believe God made it, somebody else mentioned an infinite "nothingness". My point isn't what it is, because we have no way of knowing for sure. My point is, I do NOT think the bubble is all that exists.
: : My question would now be the following:
: : You stated, "For you its "God", for me its just something natural that we haven't, and may never I'll admit, discover"... It is this statement that seems : : paradoxical from your earlier assumptions which state that you believe that the universe didn't come from nothing, but rather there has always been something "larger" : : in existence. Is it not a presupposition to state that this "bigger entity" is natural and not supernatural?
: : This is the point I run into not just here, but in life with many people and on other web sites. Why is there the assumption that this "bigger" thing (if I can call it that), : : has to be natural. Is it not outside our space/time continuum? If it is within dimensional boundaries how could it thus create? How can the natural create that what is : : natural. Natural has boundaries. Natural is confined to law. Ex Nihilo is not natural.
: We simply don't know the physics outside our "bubble". This is like saying two people can't creat a child, because natural can not create natural.
: : God has always existed because he is outside of what we can comprehend in dimensional characteristics. It would be very presumptuous to assume that God has : : borders or limits. He has always existed because he is outside of what we observe as time and space. Time and space are tangible by the way. There is nothing more : : dynamic than space itself. So many people think space is void, or nothingness. There is nothing further from the truth. Space is influenced by gravity and velocity. It : : warps... It is a creation. Space is something. Time is reality because it can be measured in an objective manor as pure logic and first principals.
: : I firmly believe that logic actually goes the other way; against both; static existence and natural begetting natural.
: : -nåte
: I must be encountering different ideas. I have never seen any scientist say that our universe is nothingness. There is a definite fabric to our "bubble" with physical laws etc. However, there are things we know exist that we don't understand yet. Blackholes are documented, but we by no means understand the physics at the singularity. : I think I understand your world view. The universe, our "bubble", is all that exists and God created it. He is supernatural. This explains the universe. : At one point in Christian history, they only used god to explain what we kenw about. The earth, the moon, the sun, and the "fixed stars". If somebody suggested other galaxies, for example, to somebody of your thinking in that time period, they would be encountering these exact same argument. : My belief is this. Our universe, "the bubble", is part of something else. Natural, but perhaps not obiding by the same physics as this universe. How can I prove this, I can't. Why do I believe it? Because it makes the most since based on everything I have learned and observed in life. It simply follows the pattern that is evident. Just look at histroy, look at the facts. The scientific revolution was all about this struggle with the idea of Aristotilian Scholasticism. Its a dead school of thought. : Other planets? No way no chance. Wrong. : Other galaxies? No way no chance. Wrong again. : Other universes, expanding bubbles such as our own? We simply don't know. We may never know, but never say never, right? : God? It makes things easier, for sure, but I'm ready for more discoveries, advancements, and breakthroughs. No one will be able to point a finger at me and say I delayed progress as the relgious establishments have over the last thousand years.
***If you look at the expansion as simply the matter expanding within the nothingness, it seems more plausable to me than the bubble (Space included) idea, and this thing about warping Space, gravity affecting it... it does affect the matter and energy which seem to be affecting space itself, but it is only the matter/energy, well, I guess I've stated my opinon enough about this nothingness bit, I wish I had some other (seemingly unique) abstract thoughts, but I cannot come up with any more, so I'll just try to listen for awhile, but I feel certain that if anything new comes to me, it will only be an extention of these thoughts. I very much do enjoy the stimulating conversation!
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins