5
   

Is God the Universe?

 
 
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 07:53 am
NOTE: This may jump a lot, as it is a lot of info to share (and take in) all at once, and I apologize if you get lost. I'm relying on others to review what I've provided and clarify my shoddy explanations; however, I'm confident that this is where science and religion will find a comfortable meeting ground. As my understanding increased, so too did my frustration and disappointment with my peers, both in the scientific and religious communities; where I saw a perfectly blended unison of science and creation, many saw black and white. I hope to break that barrier.

--

This is the cumulative sum of my understanding of the life, the universe, and all things; it is based in evidential fact where possible, but I'm not an expert in any particular field nor well-read into all necessary subjects and it is therefore subject to abstract thought. I leave it up to you to judge the potential validity of this hypothesis -- these are merely my views.

Let's start at the most logical place possible: the beginning. I've long believed in a synchronicity between the Big Bang and Creationism, and therefore I've come to refer to the Big Bang as the Creation Event (CE). Regardless of what it's called, however, the concept remains the same: an immense explosion occurred at the "center" of the universe, and this tremendous bang scattered all matter and energy into the void of space.

The obvious and burning question is: why? To answer that question, we can begin by inferring that it must have happened for a reason; that, however, then begs the question of whether or not the reason was an action or a reaction -- was the universe, and consequently existence, the product of one or more entities reacting, or the decay of a single entity into many?

I'm confident that this question is virtually unanswerable at this point in time, but this topic would be pointless without attempting to do so. My argument/hypothesis/answer is thus: God is the single entity that, by choice, decayed into many; and as such, matter and energy (existence) is the product of his "children" -- or the series of what we might consider an infinite number of reactions that occurred after His original.

It sounds ridiculous, but let's consider a few things before we jump to "mystic conclusions."

First, consider the atom. It is not actually an atomic nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons and protons -- these energies are actually stored WITHIN the atomic nucleus, much like a living cell and its components within a membrane, and are "superimposed" over each other in three-dimensional space. In this way, you can compare atoms to stars: like hydrogen and helium reacting in a star's core, protons, electrons, neutrons (and the other fun particles) collaborate within the nucleus of the atom to define the its identity.

Second, consider the black hole. I think our knowledge of black holes is sufficient, but our understanding of them is lacking; I've inferred a function for these cosmic beasts based on their characteristics, and it is strikingly similar to nuclear fusion.

Essentially, I consider them the opposite of stars. Whereas stars are balls of burning gas that radiate energy, black holes are literally singularities. When a star of sufficient mass collapses, I believe it holds the potential to create a point of density so great that existence itself "collapses." In other words, it is so densely packed that energy cannot permeate it; rather, all reactions stop and solid matter is violently separated from energy, which is then ejected back into the cosmos while the matter is recombined into a single entity -- its goal.

Therefore, you can think of it as the literal inverse of a star; rather than circulating energy and matter and allowing it to interact and react, it "sorts" and "organizes" it -- solid matter in, energy out. Why?

This is where things get interesting... and relevant. Let's take a step back and observe the atom again; this time, consider quantum mechanics. From what I can gather about quantum mechanics, they turned traditional scientific understanding on its head. If I'm not mistaken, one of the strangest things is that quantum mechanics suggest the impossible: that at any one time, any single particle of matter or energy may exist everywhere at the same time, and that they constantly phase in and out of existence. And this actually makes perfect sense.

Uhh.... how, right?

Let's go back to the Creation Event, but this time let's take black holes, stars, atoms, and quantum mechanics into consideration. So, a big explosion occurs and boom, the universe exists. But what happened, exactly? Here's how I see it.

In the beginning, there was God. He existed perhaps only as a potential in the Void; like a thought that has yet to be thought. He exists, and yet does not exist. He is the God Element -- the accumulative whole of all things. All the potential matter and energy that composes the universe is contained within Him... a singularity. A point of infinite density that technically does not exist, and yet at any one time, exists infinitely across the whole of the Void.

To be clear, the Void is not space. The Void is non-existence. The Void is the complete and utter absence of energy. In absolute zero, there is no movement; particles cannot exist because energy does not move nor exist. There are no laws. There is nothing. It is unfathomable. In fact, by nature, it is simply not there. It cannot be visualized nor conceptualized for it cannot be measured or observed. It takes up no space, and it takes up all space. It is everything not known. It is infinite potential.

And in this infinite potential, there is only God... until He decided otherwise. And when He made this choice, He existed. And when He came into existence, Existence came into Existence -- within the Void of infinite potential, a single particle of existence became charged with energy... and thus the universe was born from the reaction between Existence and Non-Existence.

This seems insane at first, but think about it for a moment. Scientists are trying to observe the Higgs-Boson, the "God Particle," which is supposed to fill in the gap regarding our understanding of gravity and the Theory of Relativity. If quantum mechanics are valid, the Higgs-Boson may never be discovered because the Higgs-Boson may very well be... well... all things. Every last particle in existence may merely be a part of the whole, and the whole is the singularity that spontaneously came into existence so many billions of years ago and spread throughout the observable universe.

Not seeing the big picture yet? Allow me to introduce you to our cosmic ancestors.

If the Creation Event/Big Bang scattered all matter and energy into the universe -- something like a super-massive hypernova -- and the elementary particles and forces were introduced almost immediately... it only makes sense. Existence spread as a ripple through non-existence as energy permeated it and made it real; meanwhile, matter (non-existence charged with energy) interacted with energy (raw energy/radiation) to produce everything as we know it, from the bosons and mesons and protons and electrons and atoms and elements. It's nigh impossible to tell (absolutely) which elementary particles existed first, but it's reasonable to imply that if, at the time of Creation, none of them existed, they only came to be due to a series of reactions that occurred.

This series of reactions is what we study, but interestingly, this series of reactions is so incredibly simple in concept that I can't believe I've never heard discussion about this:

BOOM, God creates the universe (simply by creating a condition that defies nature, which causes a violent reaction to balance the "equation"), and then... in my mind, millions of nuclear reactions occur as superheated plasma clouds expand and cool as the volume of the universe increases; thus, I visualize the first moments to be a single, tremendous explosion followed by a moment of "uniform" expansion, which is then followed by a series of weaker but still substantial nuclear reactions between the newly formed and highly unstable hydrogen atoms.

Why do I postulate this? Because I believe the universe to be shaped something like a cell contained within a membrane; Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is merely energy stretched thin across a large distance (evidence that energy is "uniform") and acts, if you're to believe it, as an activating agent for solid matter -- that is, non-existence. In English, what I'm getting at is that truly, existence is merely energy flowing through non-existence, giving it definable form and function. You could say elementary particles are a sort of universal protein coding sequence which interact in certain ways to then create new phenomena, such as atoms, which then comprise all matter as we know it.

Now let's put it all together for a moment...

1. God creates existence, which first takes form as energy expanding into the Void.
2. As this energy permeates non-existence and makes it “real” (in a sense, “shines light into darkness”, making is observable and measurable), the first elementary particles come into existence.
3. These particles then begin to interact and develop relationships, all of which occur consistently and logically according to the “Laws of Nature” (which technically didn't exist yet), and one of the first major yields of this interaction is the atom.
4. Hydrogen and helium are early children, which then react, and from their reactions the first stars are born.
5. These stars grow quickly in the unstable and relatively small universe, and in short order an almost infinite number of cosmic relationships and interactions begin occurring. Virtually all cosmic phenomena begin during this time.
6. Fast forward to Earth and the origins of life. Like the stars before them, and the atoms before the stars, generations of atoms and compounds interacting to combine and decay into new and different (typically more stable) entities have produced single-cell bacteria and other organisms. These organisms rely on the relationship and interaction between acids and bases – the children of chemical element reactions, and therefore atomic reactions – instead of hydrogen and helium, but the idea of “children” remains: one generation of an organism is succeeded by the next based on the successes and failures of the prior.
7. These single-cell organisms then interact to grow into multicellular units, which then grow into eukaryotic organisms, which then continue to evolve with each successive generation.
8. Finally, fast forward several more billion years and you have complex life like human beings... who continue to mate and produce children, like the cells before them, and the atoms before the cells, and the particles before the atoms.

And yet, at the lowest end of the food chain, a constant remains: we are merely products of the original, single reaction or action that occurred during the Creation Event. Therefore, we – as well as all things – contain a single common denominator within our lineage... and that holds true for particles, atoms, elements, stars, planets, and right down to human beings.

Guess what? We're not done yet; I've covered the beginning, but what about the end? We can only surmise that, through entropy, the universe will eventually “end.” Nothing is safe from entropy. However, I don't believe the universe will simply “drift apart;” in fact, I believe CMBR provides evidence against it. If nothing else, cosmic radiation proves that energy permeates all of observable space; where it does not reach, then, is where the universe ends. In this way, you could consider this radiation like a cosmic cytoplasm and the “edges” of the universe as a membrane – like an atomic nucleus containing protons and electrons and all the good stuff that makes it tick.

This means that the universe is also a single entity. Why? It is bound by at least one shared characteristic across all observable things. That is, “existence.” How does that make it a single entity? Well, consider this: what makes you an individual? Are you truly an individual, or are you a collection of millions of cells harmoniously working together to create “life”? Are those same cells not a collection of proteins? Are those proteins not a collection of acids and bases? Are those acids and bases not a collection of elements? Are those elements not atoms? Are those atoms not a collection of elementary particles?

Is the Universe not, then, potentially... alive? Stars are not alive. Planets are not alive. Asteroids are not alive. But nor are elements alive. Nor are proteins alive. Nor are cells alive. Yet humans and animals are so deemed to be “living.” Is it such a stretch?

And given this, would the universe not then also be susceptible to death, stemming from a natural impossibility in the first place? In the void of non-existence, where nothing occurs because there is both a 100% and 0% probability of something, or nothing, happening (in other words, nothing is possible and yet everything is possible) at any one time, SOMETHING cannot NATURALLY happen. It is an IMPOSSIBILITY. And therefore, the natural course of events is as follows: the Universe must end, as the equation must be balanced.

This is where black holes come in; far from functioning as mere galactic centers, I believe black holes are collapsing and compacting the universe. While stars produce and radiate energy to facilitate new reactions, black holes are points within the “Cosmic Cytoplasm” that gather solid matter while recycling energy. Think of them as an inverse Big Bang – whereas the Big Bang tore a hole in the Void, black holes are tearing many holes in Space.

They ensure that eventually, the Universe will stop expanding and begin collapsing as the energy produced by stars is rivaled by the energy collected by black holes. As equilibrium is reached and the threshold is crossed, the volume of the Universe will begin decreasing. Inevitably, the Universe will collapse back into a singularity. What happens next is anyone's guess.

Anyway, I'm very tired. My brain is fried, as typing this up took roughly the past 2 hours straight and I'm not sure what I've communicated well or what is just gonna seem like crazy talk. I'd love to clarify and discuss anything you disagree or are confused by, though!



One last thing: angels as modern humans depicts did not exist within the Bible. Rather, “real” angels such as the Seraphim are described as brilliant, seven-winged beings who are too bright to look upon. Please compare:

Man's depiction: http://iconstudio.jordanville.org/images/Icons%20of%20the%20Angels/Seraphim-1.jpg
The real deal: http://www.bccdc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E2AF0877-6926-46E4-A409-2FBB13079F05/0/solar_storm.jpg


I know this is a lot to take it and is lacking in specific scientific examples; I'm not claiming to have the answers. I merely believe I have a view of the “big picture” and I want to contribute that. My hope is that some of you, hopefully much smarter than I, may be able to verify some of my claims (or back them up and/or refine/clarify them) with research or evidential fact, BUT I also recognize the possibility that I'm simply a stark, raving lunatic.

I'll leave you with one thing that I wholeheartedly believe: whether God truly exists or not is a moot point, as I believe humanity will be destroyed before and or precisely when the truth is revealed. Essentially, I believe the end of times will occur when Faith is no longer necessary and the bridge between Knowledge and the Enigma is met.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 8,847 • Replies: 38
No top replies

 
lieunacy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:05 am
@lieunacy,
One last thing I wanted to include: suppose for a moment that there is an insanely large black hole -- larger than any other -- at the center of the known universe.

Now consider the Event Horizon, and how time is stretched infinitely as an object approaches it.

If there is a black hole of sufficient size at the center of the universe, there may be a large pocket of "distorted time" reaching further and further into space from the point of origin.

Sure, observation of cosmic radiation has led us to believe the universe is expanding thanks to the Doppler effect; HOWEVER, if the above is true then we might plausibly surmise that by the time we know when we're about to be swallowed by a black hole, we will have passed "the point of no return."

In other words... by the time we're able to perceive the universe as collapsing, we may very well be consumed by it.

Imagine, though, if the expansion were to reach equilibrium and if, for several seemingly endless moments, time stopped before the hourglass is flipped and the clock starts running back... that might be a curious thing to behold. I don't know if that's possible (as in, the brief moment of suspension before the collapse begins), but I do think it's curious.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy this, if anything, and I hope it possibly broadened your horizon.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:22 am
@lieunacy,
lieunacy wrote:
Is God the Universe?

That makes as much sense as any other "God" concept (and more sense than a lot of concepts).
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:30 am
@lieunacy,
lieunacy wrote:
One last thing I wanted to include: suppose for a moment that there is an insanely large black hole -- larger than any other -- at the center of the known universe.

Technically speaking, there is no center to the Universe (within the Big Bang model).

However, theoretically, if a black hole were large enough it's true that something could be caught within its event horizon and be unaware of it. Indeed many astrophysicists have speculated that we may actually be inside of an enormous black hole and be unable to detect it.

Small black holes have an event horizon which is associated with a sharp gravity gradient whereby objects would feel a stronger gravitational pull at one point than they do at a different point. But very large black holes have a dull gradient which can be almost imperceptible. And a super monster black hole could theoretically have an event horizon that was so far from the singularity and with such a dull gradient that it would be impossible to tell when you crossed or that you were inside of it.
lieunacy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:38 am
@rosborne979,
When I say "center", I merely refer to the "epicenter" of the explosion; the origin of the Big Bang. When I compared the Universe to a cell and its borders as a cell membrane, I was implying that it could take on virtually any shape. Reason being is that stars are one of the primary "generators" of energy, and that light (and therefore the universe itself) can only reach so far as the light and radiation from the furthest stars in the universe.

Because the orbits and movement of these stars is so chaotic, I imagine many "fringe" stars arc out further in some areas than others, creating an organic (as opposed to rigid) shape.

As for black holes -- well, that info is golden. Thanks for the clarification! Ultimately, it's almost exactly as I suspected but as I stated several times, I'm no expert and lack specific citations/studies.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:42 am
@lieunacy,
lieunacy wrote:
Regardless of what it's called, however, the concept remains the same: an immense explosion occurred at the "center" of the universe, and this tremendous bang scattered all matter and energy into the void of space.

A more accurate vision of the model would be that matter and energy are not expanding "into" a void, but are the void themselves (along with "time").

You need to move your visual thought-model away from the idea of an explosion expanding into something and to one which recognizes the four dimensional expansion. Remember that every point within our Universe is the center of the expansion, including points within your own body. If it weren't for atomic forces holding your atoms together, the atomic structure of all matter (including us) would be expanding too.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:49 am
@lieunacy,
lieunacy wrote:
Essentially, I consider them the opposite of stars. Whereas stars are balls of burning gas that radiate energy, black holes are literally singularities. When a star of sufficient mass collapses, I believe it holds the potential to create a point of density so great that existence itself "collapses." In other words, it is so densely packed that energy cannot permeate it; rather, all reactions stop and solid matter is violently separated from energy, which is then ejected back into the cosmos while the matter is recombined into a single entity -- its goal.

Actually, energy is not ejected back into space. We know this because black holes continue to have Mass.

During the collapse of a star much of the material is energized by the collapse and escapes before the event horizon forms (and remains outside of the event horizon). But once the event horizon forms, nothing escapes it. "Jets" around black holes are actually the result of matter falling in toward the black hole which is being accelerated by the fall and increased in energy sufficiently to escape along magnetic field lines (but BEFORE it passes the event horizon).
lieunacy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:55 am
@rosborne979,
Interestingly, that lends greater credence towards my own view of God as being Omnipresent in all matter and energy (in my opinion); or, if not God, at least something consistent and ever-present in all things that "exist."

I still don't believe in four dimensions, as I believe time and space are one and the same; time is merely the movement of matter and energy across space. Of course, I also disagree with gravity; gravity is not a force in and of itself, it is a resultant force. The graviton has not been observed because it simply does not exist.

In any case, I agree now that the Big Bang did not scatter all matter; rather, it scattered energy, which permeated space and charged otherwise dormant particles, sparking them to action. Or something. Yes?

It's a work in progress. Haha. I'm an artist, not a scientist.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:56 am
@lieunacy,
lieunacy wrote:
Anyway, I'm very tired. My brain is fried, as typing this up took roughly the past 2 hours straight and I'm not sure what I've communicated well or what is just gonna seem like crazy talk. I'd love to clarify and discuss anything you disagree or are confused by, though!

Did you know that the Universe is not only expanding but accelerating in its expansion? Why do you think that is?
lieunacy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:58 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Actually, energy is not ejected back into space. We know this because black holes continue to have Mass.

During the collapse of a star much of the material is energized by the collapse and escapes before the event horizon forms (and remains outside of the event horizon). But once the event horizon forms, nothing escapes it. "Jets" around black holes are actually the result of matter falling in toward the black hole which is being accelerated by the fall and increased in energy sufficiently to escape along magnetic field lines (but BEFORE it passes the event horizon).


Honestly, I always struggled with that (being that quasars do indeed appear to be expelling energy), but as I was writing the post I realized there is no real point for energy to be shed -- not to mention the correction you just provided.

This is why I wanted to post my views. I knew I was onto something, but I knew it required greater knowledge and research. You've been a huge help!
0 Replies
 
lieunacy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 09:02 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Did you know that the Universe is not only expanding but accelerating in its expansion? Why do you think that is?


My best guess is that there is simply nothing to impede its expansion, and therefore it continues to accelerate faster (like an object sliding across a frictionless surface). I'd say there are other principles at work, but I can't identify 'em.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 09:07 am
@lieunacy,
lieunacy wrote:
My best guess is that there is simply nothing to impede its expansion, and therefore it continues to accelerate faster (like an object sliding across a frictionless surface). I'd say there are other principles at work, but I can't identify 'em.

An object sliding across a frictionless surface would never accelerate, it would only continue to coast along at a continuous speed, exactly as we expected to see when we looked at the expansion of the Universe. But that's not what we observed.

Normally, acceleration is associated with a force; something pushing or pulling to cause the acceleration. But in the Universe, we know of no ongoing "force" to cause the acceleration. It's a mystery. So an element called "Dark Energy" has been added to the model to account for the acceleration, but it just gives the mystery a name. It doesn't really answer the question of what is Dark Energy?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 09:07 am
@lieunacy,
lieunacy wrote:
I'd say there are other principles at work, but I can't identify 'em.

Don't worry. It was a trick question Smile Nobody knows the answer yet.
lieunacy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 09:27 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Don't worry. It was a trick question Smile Nobody knows the answer yet.


Perfect, exactly the kind of questions I'm trying to answer. Wink

And who knows, maybe I'm on the right path to discovering it; perspective is everything, and my greatest advantage is that I am NOT a scientist. I observe fact but work in the abstract; I believe that everything truly and most certainly is, beyond any doubt, POSSIBLE... without arbitrarily declaring it so.

If you wanna know an interesting bit... most of my interest in the real life universe stems from my desire to create a compelling and coherent fictional universe -- y'know, like Star Wars with more fact. That's another reason I've begun to believe in Intelligent Design; evolution seeks to disprove intelligent design, while intelligent design only strengthens the argument of evolution.

This article is what did it for me: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-origin.asp

Perhaps I'm merely led astray by cleverly worded arguments and if so, I plead my ignorance, but it was an interesting read, no less.

For me, evolution is undeniable in the same way that Creation is undeniable and the reason for that is simple: science itself has begun to assemble the "code" of life, the universe, and everything... and EVERYTHING, we've come to find, "makes sense." I mean, it has to -- in the end, everything is explainable. Right? If it happened, it happened for a reason.

And that's my point. "Chance" does not exist in nature. Random does not exist in nature. Spontaneity does not exist in nature. NOTHING came about for no reason. NOTHING just "popped" into existence. It followed a logical and traceable series of events -- and ultimately, can be traced back to an original... what? Random chance, or calculated decision?

If we've learned anything in several thousand years of learning... it's that "random" is synonymous with "lack of understanding." Even a randomly generated seed within a computer program follows an algorithm that can ultimately be discovered and broken; once you uncover the means, the end is never random.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 09:43 am
@lieunacy,
The only sense to be made from such a conjecture is for deists, and that "sense" is about the personal implications for them of whether they consider themselves to be "part of pantheistic God", or whether they have an interpersonal relationship with an independent entity (as in the Abrahamic religions). All arguments about "existences""causes", "creations" and "origins" are merely psychological rationalizations of our anthropocentric pre-occupation with our ability to perceive pattern and order and thereby attempt to "control" our lives, or delegate such control to a deity.
lieunacy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 09:44 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
A more accurate vision of the model would be that matter and energy are not expanding "into" a void, but are the void themselves (along with "time").

You need to move your visual thought-model away from the idea of an explosion expanding into something and to one which recognizes the four dimensional expansion. Remember that every point within our Universe is the center of the expansion, including points within your own body. If it weren't for atomic forces holding your atoms together, the atomic structure of all matter (including us) would be expanding too.


As I stepped out for a cigarette, the following occurred to me and it fits almost perfectly with what you said:

Space is kind of like an array of infinite potential configurations, kind of like the uncharged gas in an LCD monitor; however, once energy is provided, the components become charged, begin to interact (come to "life"), and an image is displayed on the monitor.

In this way, space is like a three-dimensional array of pixels waiting for a charge to be provided to "activate" them.

Is this somewhat more accurate (conceptually)?
0 Replies
 
lieunacy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 09:46 am
@fresco,
Quote:
The only sense to be made from such a conjecture is for deists, and that "sense" is about the personal implications for them of whether they consider themselves to be "part of pantheistic God", or whether they have an interpersonal relationship with an independent entity (as in the Abrahamic religions). All arguments about "existences""causes", "creations" and "origins" are merely psychological rationalizations of our anthropocentric pre-occupation with our ability to perceive pattern and order and thereby attempt to "control" our lives, or delegate such control to a deity.


That's assuming our psychological rationalizations are accidental... Wink

Your refute is as philosophical as my original argument. We are but characters in a book, my friend, merely one part of the ongoing story of existence.

Let me ask you this: when you look at a painting, what do you observe? Do you observe the work of art as a whole, or do you analyze each individual element?

Truly, the painting is merely a calculated collection of colors, shades, and shapes that suggests the concept being portrayed, whether it be a portrait or a panorama. It can be further broken down by examining the paints used, the materials, the composition of the paint, the texture and quality of the canvas, and virtually any number of verifiable elements.

But does that bring one any closer to understanding and appreciating the picture as a whole? Not at all; in fact, it obfuscates it completely. There is no meaning to be derived from the chemical composition of the paint used to create a work of art -- only from the whole of its parts.

It's the same with humans. And stars. We might be able to infer what something is by observing its individual parts -- but we don't see that a human is a human until we observe all of its individual parts working in unison. If we were sentient microbes, would we be aware that we were part of a great organism such as a human being? Would we merely be rationalizing our existence?

Why is it so difficult to accept that we are an element of a whole, and why is it so difficult to accept that the whole itself is "conscious"?

Refer to the double-slit experiment: particles themselves seem to be able to choose a certain path based on whether or not they'd been observed.

I believe the true rationalization process you speak of is the outright denial of intelligent design. Man did not invent science; he discovered it.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 09:48 am
@lieunacy,
The world is full of ideas, but I think you'll find that in order to make yours stand out, they will need more meat on their bones.

You seem to have bags of creativity rattling around in your mind, so even though speculative reading might be fun, you might find more detailed information ultimately more rewarding for giving your ideas some grounding. Try "The Elegant Universe" or something from Steven Hawking and see if that gives you more to think about.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 09:53 am
@lieunacy,
No, that's assuming that such rationalizations are an extension of the cognitive abilities of all "life" (Maturana) in our case coupled with a socially aquired human language through which we functionally segment "the universe" into "things" like "rocks" "electrons" and "black holes".
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 09:54 am
@lieunacy,
Quote:
Is God the Universe?

but then
Quote:
BOOM, God creates the universe. . .

Are you asking if God created himself?

Now that would be a feat only a god could perform!
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is God the Universe?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/16/2021 at 06:37:47