What if God was a singularity?

[MineralMan]

A singularity that became a universe? Was.

Discuss...

[Angry Dragon]

1. OKAY

[MineralMan]

2. BOOM!

And there it is.

[sagesnow]

57. Your Brain Hallucinates Your Conscious Reality A TedTalk

You are you at your core? What is Consciousness anyway?

[California_Republic]

81. If there is something then there can be anything

[unc70]

3. There was nothing; then it exploded

[MineralMan]

5. See...You have it.

Explosive creation, with simultaneous annihilation. The singularity and the universe cannot exit at the same Tim. There is one or the other.

[dhol82]

4. We are all just trying to escape from the barrel.

[MineralMan]

7. Hmm...

I went out the bunghole long ago.

[dhol82]

16. Well not actually

This is just a portion. Don’t like where this ends. You need to watch the whole episode.

[The Blue Flower]

6. Why not?

My conception of God is that it is the unifying consciousness of the multiverse. The simple elegance of how H20 and NaCl interact chemically in the human cell convinces me of consciousness in the design.

[OhNo-Really]

53. A Verse

UNISON

We are each UniNotes
of the UniVerse

Here to rehearse

To realize the wisdom
To learn to perfectly
Harmonize

[Lordquinton]

71. You're assuming that reaction was created for us

When it is the other way around, we came about and evolved around those reactions.

[MineralMan]

78. That's a common enough thing.

We often think we're the center of everything, rather than being the result of a incredibly long chain of natural events.

We are capable of thought and reason, but don't necessarily use that capability very well, I think.

We are only a momentary phenomenon in the universe. We occupy an incredibly brief moment in an incredibly tiny little corner of the universe. That we think that is important is a flaw in our thinking.

We almost all think we are more important than we actually are. It comes with the territory.

[Snackshack]

8. Thats being...

Unduly harsh on Singularities.

Kidding aside. Given the extraordinary variations we observe on this planet as well as the extraordinary variations we observe in the Universe it is hard to imagine that only one set of laws exists.

[guillaumeb]

13. Is existence limited to your imagination?

Or to human imagination?

[MineralMan]

21. That's a different theory.

A new thread.

[guillaumeb]

27. So the singularity post is limited to a single theory?

[MineralMan]

31. Start your own.

Thanks.

[Snackshack]

35. I dont believe so.

I think Sir Eddington was right on target when he said.

“Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.”

Sir Arthur Eddington

There are several different versions of this by others but I like his the best. Everything we know is from some sort of observation made known to us over the course of centuries through technology. Everyday we are learning ways to see more but there is still an unimaginable amount we have not seen. But we are getting there. Just in the span of ~100 yrs we have come a long way. From one night and an observation showing us the universe was not just one galaxy (the Milky Way) but one of billions of galaxies to the LHC and the discovery of the Higgs particle to LIGO and the recent detection of gravity waves. If we don’t render ourselves extinct perhaps one day will know why we are here.

[guillaumeb]

36. Agreed on the point. eom

[SCantiGOP]

9. According to Stephen Hawking:

Once upon a time there was nothing. Suddenly it exploded into everything.

He said that’s about as close you can come to explaining it in non-mathematical language.

[MineralMan]

10. Yup.

Exactly, except there is a way to visualize it that doesn't require math, I think.

[Vilis Veritas]

42. Last time I had an original idea it came from nothing...

it was merely a thought...

Peace.

[guillaumeb]

29. Define the nothing that became everything. eom

[SCantiGOP]

41. That would require

A time machine, a college dorm room and LSD.

[rlegro]

49. It would be interesting...

... if any time machine could reach back to a point where the universe was on the verge of forming and TIME DIDN'T EXIST. An old Green Lantern comic book addressed this many years ago. A villain has a time viewer and wants to see what happened when the universe began. But there's a kind of cosmic censor that prevents him from going all the way back. Which makes a kind of sense, given current cosmological thinking. Or, as Virginia Wolfe put it, "There's no there, there." So you can't go there or be there because "there" is not there yet. My other favorite analogy in this matter is an unattributed quote, maybe from Marshall McLuhan: We don't know who discovered water, but we're pretty sure it wasn't the fish.

[SCantiGOP]

68. Hitchhikers Guide

had the “Restaurant at the End of the Universe.”
It wasn’t a place, it was a time travel device that took you to a restaurant where you could watch the last hours of the universe unfold.

[Lordquinton]

70. How about you first?

You have this lingering question still haunting you that you refuse to answer, and have the nerve to try and turn it on to others. The difference, of course, is that the big bang has lots of supporting evidence and it's only building. Your god on the other hand... Is pretty much reduced to putty that poorly fills gaps.

[guillaumeb]

79. I already did just that.

I stated that my belief is that the Creator ignited the spark, the metaphoric "let there be light" that was the Big Bang. And that spark is so far out of the realm of reasonable speculation by a Bronze Age people as to the origin of existence as to be evidence of inspiration by the Creator.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. 'It's so wrong, it must have been right'.

That's what that sounded like.

[Lordquinton]

89. That's a fine answer

But incomplete.

Can you define the creator?

The "nothing" you ask to be defined can be found readily, if you open a textbook.

[guillaumeb]

92. After your reply to #29.

[Lordquinton]

94. That is the correct ordering, yes

Now your answer to the question at hand?

[guillaumeb]

95. Read it again, and after you reply, remind me of your question again.

[Lordquinton]

96. You forgot already?

It's like two posts up. I know you're not trying to deflect by asking a question, so pony up, it's been a long time coming.

[guillaumeb]

97. Amazing how a choir can sing in harmony.

Agreed?

[Lordquinton]

98. More like a Greek chorus

Your deflections grow tiresome. However the choir line always comes out when you're cornered.

[guillaumeb]

99. Yet another verse of the choir's song.

Next comes the verse about humiliation, and tremendous victory and all of that. Perhaps the choir should learn a new song.

[Lordquinton]

114. Greek chorus

If this sounds repetitious to you, it's because you haven't responded to the same questions that have been asked for a long time.

This is a worn out attempt to reframe the argument,and you employ it every time you get called on something. It's funny how predictible this is.

[guillaumeb]

122. What is predictable is that, no matter how often I respond,

a very few of the questioners claim to misunderstand and need clarification. And those same few will never actually respond to questions back.

Almost as if a very few are using a common template.

[Lordquinton]

125. Yes, we're all reading from your posts

that intentionally either miss the point, reframe the debate in hilarious ways, or simply deflect. You also have never answered a straight question without twisting it with similarly hilarious results (like the time you claimed to misunderstand a very simple yes or no question, and ended up defending Nazis).

Now, about defining that creator you like to throw about. After you do that in concrete terms maybe people will be more likely to answer questions you may have. Well, if you didn't also shirk every other question you are asked.

[guillaumeb]

126. Your first paragraph contains utter nonsense.

And a repeat of the unproven silliness about defending Nazis. what does that willingness to repeat what is easily disproven by an actual reading of my comments say about your tactics?

And again, it is a tiny handful of posters who claim to be confused.

[Lordquinton]

144. This is too good

You did accidentally defend Nazis, and it was explicitly spelled out several times, with small simple words. It came about because you put on this "your post is so confusing" act to deflect and reframe whenever you feel you might be cornered.

You know what? This has all been spelled out many times. Everyone knows what's up here. I'll let it stand, and just fact check when you attempt to cover it up.

[guillaumeb]

149. Again, you either misread or misframed the issue.

Your choice. And your other attempt to misframe by using everyone is ridiculous. Unless by everyone you mean everyone in the Facebook group.

[Lordquinton]

157. I mean everyone who has read the threads

And multiple explainations, to which your responses haven't risen above playground "I know you are but what am I"

There's at least one frameshop you are singlehandedly keeping alive.

[guillaumeb]

163. Right, keep preaching to the converted.

[guillaumeb]

127. Another take on your reply:

In your first paragraph, you took my comment that it is legal to be a Nazi, what I actually said, and somehow arrived at the conclusion that I am defending Nazi philosophy.

What exactly confused you so much about my statement?

[Lordquinton]

145. What confused you so much about the question you refused to answer?

Your act brought this down on yourself.

[guillaumeb]

150. So you refuse to answer?

Is this an admission that your earlier claim is unsupported?

[Lordquinton]

158. Wrong again G-man

Try to keep up.

[guillaumeb]

164. As I thought. A wise decision on your part.

[Lordquinton]

168. That doesn't even make sense

Is that your new tactic? Non-sequitors?

[guillaumeb]

169. Simply following the lead of the choir.

Where mis-framing and meme production take precedence.

[trotsky]

85. Why?

You won't define your god.

[OhNo-Really]

54. Isn't "time" an illusion in the realm of Infinity

However, matter exploded from that which science has yet to capture but is acknowledging. The presently immeasurable Universal consciousness.

In the beginning was the word.....

which followed thought

emanating from who/where?

Btw just having a little fun 😇🎆

[Lordquinton]

72. Time is a flat circle

That's what is tell people when I'm "late"

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

152. The "Big Bang" was debunked years ago.

[Lordquinton]

160. Yea, it's a terrible show

And there's been pleanty of discussion on why that is going back many years.

[democratisphere]

11. The Great Spirit is here, there and everywhere throughout the Cosmos.

"Biggest Bang" may be more than theory.

[MineralMan]

12. This discussion has infinite potential, and none.

Simultaneously.

[democratisphere]

15. I believe infinite kinetic potential.

Static None. We're done.

[MineralMan]

18. Quick and simple..

[democratisphere]

23. Over and out.

Great thread. Enjoy your weekend MineralMan!

[MineralMan]

26. Will do.

You, too.

[guillaumeb]

14. Let there be light.

A metaphoric explanation tailored to a Bronze Age audience.

[MineralMan]

19. Hmm...No.

You've missed a step.

[guillaumeb]

25. Shine a light on it for me.

[MineralMan]

28. Hum a few bars.

I'll fake it.

[guillaumeb]

32. Ouch!!!!!

[EvilAL]

86. That's the best an almighty powerful

Being could come up with to explain the origin of the universe?
Why explain all the other things then?
Like making the sun on the 4th day. How the hell could 4 days pass with no sun?
It's all so dumb.

[guillaumeb]

87. Do you understand narrative, and literary devices? eom

[Act_of_Reparation]

91. Are you suggesting the authors of Genesis didn't actually believe in a six-day creation?

[guillaumeb]

93. I cannot answer for the authors.

I am old, but not that old.

[Act_of_Reparation]

100. You just did.

Unless you mean to imply the authors of Genesis employed literary devices by accident. Which would be pretty interesting.

[trotsky]

108. Nice catch.

The g-man hoisted by his own petard yet again. LOL.

[guillaumeb]

109. An interesting bit of illogic you displayed.

Where did you learn it?

[Act_of_Reparation]

110. Illogic? Please explain.

[guillaumeb]

113. No, I will leave it to you to read the thread and perhaps

you will understand the "leap of illogic" you made.

[Act_of_Reparation]

115. No, this one requires some explanation.

Because here are the order of events:

1. You claim Genesis narrative is metaphorical. (#14)

2. EvilAl is incredulous. (#86)

3. You ask if EvilAl has ever heard of narrative or literary device, with the implication being that the six-day creation story is narrative and literary device. (#87)

4. I'm incredulous. I ask if you really think the authors of Genesis had written metaphor rather than their actual beliefs concerning the origins of the universe. (#91)

5. You say you don't know, directly contracting #14 and #87, wherein you make it very clear you think the story is metaphorical.

Is the story metaphorical or is it not? If it is, I have to assume the authors intended it to be metaphorical, yes? Or is accidental metaphor a thing that actually happens?

So, yeah. An explanation would be nice... if you could manage to remember what you wrote five minutes ago.

[trotsky]

116. No explanation needed, AoR.

guillaumeb dug himself a lovely hole YET AGAIN and rather than simply admit it and walk away, it's everyone else who is wrong and poo poo on you and nana nana booboo. Pretty sure that's how it goes.

[guillaumeb]

123. Look at #1, where I offer a personal opinion.

Now, carefully look at #4, where you ask if, in my opinion, the authors of Genesis wrote it as metaphor or as literal history.

So, borrowing from your phraseology, if you can remember that in #1 you read my opinion, and that #4 asks a completely different question, your apparent confusion might be clarified.

You do understand the basic difference between #1 and #3, do you not?

[Act_of_Reparation]

129. Do I need to define "incredulity" for you?

This is a discussion forum. It is to opinions what orgies are to sex. I did not assume your original post was anything other than your personal opinion.

The problem is your personal opinion is superficially dubious. It neglects the accepted origins of the story, it assumes the intentions of the authors, and it contradicts more than two millennia of Judeo-Christian tradition. I asked a prodding question, on the off chance you might provide the reasoning by which you reached this opinion.

[guillaumeb]

130. Again, I cannot understand your leap of 'logic".

I gave my opinion. Plus there is another poster who appears confused and made a different leap of logic.

And if you can remember that I have identified as a non-literalist, why would it surprise you that I have a non-literal interpretation?

Part of this issue goes to the Creator, and what the intentions of the Creator are. And all of that is speculation.

Again, I am confused as to the source of your confusion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

131. Perhaps it is because you seem to believe opinions are justified by virtue of their own existence.

I'm not asking you for your opinion. We know what your opinion is. I'm asking you to explain how you reached that opinion.

[guillaumeb]

132. I have previously answered that one also.

I have written of Genesis, and the meaning of the names Adam and Eve, as well as other matters. I have written of symbolism and metaphor, and my own opinion as to what the Creator might have meant by what was written.

[sprinkleeninow]

103. Ahaha. 😉 You ain't 👴! eom

[sprinkleeninow]

102. There are those who do not. n/t

[guillaumeb]

111. Clearly true.

Or those who pretend.

[EvilAL]

107. Do you understand that

According to you, God wrote these things as simply as he could for primitive people.
Why would he have to make up obvious falsehoods like the sun on the 4th day when there was no sun to measure a day. Why would he tell them the moon is a light when it just reflects light. I'm pretty sure god could have explained how the solar system works to these people in easy to understand terms. He's god.
Thay whole "he dumbed it down" thing fails on every level.
There is dumbing something down and then there is making shit up. God wouldn't make shit up if he wanted us to believe him.. lying isn't a good way to gain trust.

[guillaumeb]

112. Do you understand that what I wrote is my opinion?

And do you understand that scientific knowledge was not quite at today's level in 5800 BCE?

[Act_of_Reparation]

117. So God inspired them to write a particular story....

...but not to write it correctly.

Because reasons.

[sprinkleeninow]

118. Figurative language and symbolism. Because. End of message.

[Act_of_Reparation]

121. Yeah, OK.

It was written as a figurative story, something people just straight up forgot for 2,500 years of Judeo-Christian history, and then, completely coincidentally, remembered right around the time science starting proving the narrative wrong.

#Seemslegit.

[sprinkleeninow]

136. Wottt?

Do you have thinking that all of 'us' ascribe to a going acceptance/teaching/preaching that the earth is only 6,000 years young? Is that what you're getting at? Or what.

[Voltaire2]

139. No. The point is that the biblical cosmology was accepted as accurate for about 1400

years or so in Europe. And then as science developed from the renaissance forward, and it became clear that the ancient cosmology in the bible was utter nonsense, suddenly that text become metaphorical rather than literal.

In the early 19th century as geology developed evidence for an earth that was millions, and then billions of years old, there were serious efforts to reconcile the evidence with the biblical narrative - for example Catastrophism - rather than admit that the bible was not literal.

[sprinkleeninow]

143. Please go read what (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity founded in 33 A.D. (or B.C.E.

as the more generic way of identifying this era).

You offer statements referencing Europe. I take it that you point to Western/Central Europe.

Look, I'm nowheres near being any type of 'scholar'.

I know of this tradition of Christian 'belief' and adherence that a solely literal interpreting of Scripture causes conflict.

Also, creation was not a done deal in six literal 'days' how we know as the day we experience presently. I remember it being said that the cosmos and all in it was created in a spanse of however long it took in a manner of 'evolution'.

[Voltaire2]

153. I have no idea what point you might think you are making.

there were alternative cosmologies less ludicrous than the biblical version, but they were associated with the pre Christian Greco-Roman philosophical tradition.

We don’t know much about Christian thought circa 33CE because there are no surviving relevant documents. The canonical gospels are at best written about 30 years after that and there are no surviving versions anywhere near that old.

[sprinkleeninow]

154. I understand all that regarding canonical gospel, and when they were

'written'.

We follow canonical gospel, in conjunction with patristic writing.

We also 'consider' the apocrypha although not included in canon. They are quite interesting, and are not banned from reading for interest only.

I am limited in my explaining.

[sprinkleeninow]

155. I should refrain from posting when nearly incoherent.

Last edited Thu Nov 16, 2017, 03:06 AM - Edit history (1)

My opening sentence made not enuff sense as intended.

I meant to say Ortho. Christianity early on does have some evidence of the 'look' and 'feel' of the practice.
The Didache paints a picture. Orthodox Christianity incorporates all of Scripture in every service.

Hymnography, etc. is not there bc of a whim or a nouveau thing someone contrived.

I've been in it for seven decades. I cannot see myself otherwise. Just 'sharing' what I think I 'know'. (That word 'sharing' bothers me. It's been run into the ground, IMO.)

I cannot apologize for this.

[sprinkleeninow]

137. I'd exclaim, "Oh for God's sake", but that utterance would rattle you.

Do you feel Ima wise acre? I really don't want to come off that way.

What are you legitimately inquiring about.

My head hurts presently and my eyes are crossed....

[trotsky]

141. I think most people are just trying to figure out your "aw, shucks" thing.

Is it an act? You switch rapidly between this over-the-top folksy thing "wise acre, etc." and speaking normally.

It's rather off-putting.

[sprinkleeninow]

146. Please show me exactly what you are meaning.

Ima human being last time I looked.
Attempting to incorporate some levity/lightheartedness into stuff how I express myself.

How do you prefer me to say (streetwise) smartass/wiseass? That more better?

Tell me what you want to know. Civility. You beautiful women and guys get contentious some and that's off-putting if some are attempting a reasonably charitable discussion.

[sprinkleeninow]

147. Plus, just bc I'm christyan doesn't mean

Ima stick in the muddd.

[EvilAL]

120. Mysterious ways.....

[EvilAL]

119. Of course I understand that.

Gods scientific knowledge would be absolute though, would it not? He made it all. He could have easily explained the earth was round, didn't have a dome, that it orbits the sun and stars can't fall from the sky.
He could have easily explained the continents and other parts of the world. . He didn't.
The PEOPLE that made up and passed on these stories didn't know that.
Funny how god is only as smart as the people that he supposedly talked to.

[guillaumeb]

124. If you were talking to Bronze Age human, after arriving in your time machine,

how would you explain relativity?

This example might help you to understand the point.

[EvilAL]

134. I could easily explain the solar system to them.

Maybe that will help you understand the point.

God felt he had to lie about creating the natural world and universe to them because... They are too dumb to understand.
God was unable, again, GOD, was unable to explain what I could have easily explained to them with a few illustrations and observations.

God was like.. OK, I'm gonna tell you this once..
The sun is a star and the earth and other planets revolve around the sun. The tiny lights in the sky are also suns like ours but very far away and different sizes.
Then the guy writing the stuff down asked a couple too many questions and God said "Well, just write whatever you want."

[guillaumeb]

142. You think you could easily do so.

What proof do you have, other than the fact that you believe it? None.

[EvilAL]

148. I have the proof that people back then

weren't as stupid as you are claiming them to be.
They had all kinds of things figured out. If my information didn't get me killed because of their religious beliefs it wouldn't take very long for them to understand it.
Maybe germ theory would be harder to explain because you can't show them the germs, but how the earth spins and orbits would be fairly easy for them to understand if they chose to believe it over their gods version.
So if God had said it, they'd believe it, yet, he says something completely opposite of what we know to be true.

[guillaumeb]

151. Keep believeing that.

Belief in the absence of proof. One definition of faith E.

[EvilAL]

159. Well I can prove people weren't

As stupid as you think they were back then.
I can prove that what they wrote was wrong about the world.
Where does the belief come in?

[guillaumeb]

165. Okay.

[EvilAL]

166. Glad you agree.

[Lordquinton]

161. Is good a time traveler now?

We should put a footnote in your god definition that while allegedly omnipotent, he can't explain simple scientific concepts that he allegedly created.

[Act_of_Reparation]

162. To be fair, this God we're talking about is completely incompetent.

Genesis is pastiche of four different texts, the earliest written in the 10th century BCE and the most recent in the 6th century BCE. Is there some reason he couldn't have inspired his story correctly the first time around? What kind of omnipotent being needs a fucking copy editor?

[Lordquinton]

167. So that's it a spelling mistake?

I mean, omnipotent and incompetent do sound simmilar...

[Eko]

17. One thing is for sure.

God hates humans.

[MineralMan]

20. Nah. God was and then was not.

[Eko]

22. And he "created"

A Universe where 99.9999999999999999999999999999 (I could keep going) of it will kill us if not instantaneously then within a few minutes.

[MineralMan]

24. We are where we can be.

And where we can be, we are.

[Eko]

30. We used to not be

in the Air, and now we are. We used to be,,,, ah you get it. No need to keep going lol.

[rlegro]

50. From Buckaroo Banzai:

Wherever you go...there you are.

[sprinkleeninow]

104. "We're not all here because we're not all there." 🤣 No text.

[OhZone]

33. My brother is a pantheist -

and he says God = the Universe.

He has me listening to Allan Watts a lot. Cool stuff.

[sprinkleeninow]

106. That's not half bad. (Not a wise acreage remark from me.) end of message

[quartz007]

34. Sorry, can't believe there is GOD because

I have never seen or heard from him.
For the same reason I do not believe in ghosts,
re-incarnation, curses, voodoo, etc.

We are 100% product of NATURE.
Any one who does not believe in evolution needs to
observe how dogs have evolved into distinctly different
forms from a common species only 15-25 thousand years back. Man is more intelligent than other mammals
because of evolution, adapating to survive with much more ferocious carnivores around, the brutal cold weather etc.

[guillaumeb]

37. If you have not heard, perhaps you are not listening. eom

[Orrex]

52. Those who claim to have heard have likely misunderstood.

[guillaumeb]

59. But if they actually misunderstood,

that presumes that they at least have heard.

[Orrex]

60. No, not at all

It asserts that they have misunderstood what they have heard, and in their misunderstanding they have credited it to God.

[guillaumeb]

61. From whom did they hear it? eom

[Orrex]

62. Honestly, that's a silly question with two obvious answers

From whom did they hear it?

Answer 1. Absent other evidence, almost certainly not God
Answer 2. From frankly anything else at all

[guillaumeb]

63. Obvious is your opinion. eom

[Orrex]

64. And "It's God" is your imagination

Provide evidence that what you're hearing is from God, otherwise I don't want to hear about it.

And spare us any nonsense along the lines of "it's all from God" or the like, because you know that that's simply dodging the question.


Metaphysical faith is of no value to me and is wholly uncompelling. I don't even see a particular need to respect other people's faith simply because it's sincere or profoundly felt. Where their faith has an impact upon me--and in this society, Christian faith impacts me daily in thousands of ways--it is up to them to prove it to my satisfaction. Otherwise, spare me.

[Lordquinton]

73. So you have heard voices?

And you attribute them to god? Let's set this as a start for your definition, God speaks to people on an individual level?

[guillaumeb]

80. Inspiration.

[Lordquinton]

90. So you had an idea

And made an illogical leap to divinity?

[sprinkleeninow]

105. G_D, my Main Man, desires to 'speak to' /communicate with His Creation

and He does do.

You're gonna say, she's hearing 'voices'.👻👀☺ {{{Whoo oooh oooh!}}}

I get help within my spirit, my intellect. Sometimes I deliberately or lazily ignore help. I yam a dummy then.

I attribute this occurring to the God I believe I have experience of. But, that's just me.

Hey, Ima fun chick. 🎉 Won't drag ya down like an anchor. ⚓

[TomSlick]

39. I've never seen or talked to a water buffalo. Nevertheless, I believe they exist.

I cannot wrap my very unscientific mind around the idea that as the universe continues to expand, it is not expanding "into" anything. Nevertheless, I accept what scientists who understand the matter say. I have seriously tried and failed to understand Einstein's conclusion that the speed of light is an unbreakable speed limit. However, I accept that he was probably right.

My experiences are not sufficiently broad for me to say that if I haven't seen something, it doesn't exist. I am not so impressed with my own intelligence that I am confident that if I don't understand something, it cannot be so.

[Mariana]

44. Quartz007 didn't say a god doesn't exist.

Quartz007 said, "I can't believe there is a god" and proceeded to explain why. It's not the same thing.

[Voltaire2]

45. There is plenty of evidence that water buffaloes exist.

Gods, none. There are better arguments, do more google.

[Mariana]

66. It is a pretty lousy attempt at an analogy.

It's not hard to see a water buffalo, dead or alive. There are some pretty amazing museums in the world, but I haven't heard of one that has a stuffed god on display. I don't think there are any gods in zoo exhibits, either.

[TomSlick]

135. Your certainty must be comforting.

My analogy may have been too cute but my point remains. We all believe things we cannot prove to be true. Somethings we just know to be true. I am not so arrogant as to tell others they should believe what I cannot prove. Neither I am so arrogant as to tell others they should not believe what I cannot disprove.

[Voltaire2]

138. Your analogy was full of fail

The fact that you still don't grasp why it was just wrong is amusing. There is a distinct difference between a faith-based belief in gods and an evidence based belief in the demonstrable existence of water buffaloes. There are better arguments, as I pointed out. For example mathematics is based on a small set of unprovable assumptions. You might go down that path, it is at least less comical.

[Mariana]

140. I'm only certain that there isn't any evidence of gods.

Maybe there's such things as gods, but I don't believe in them.

I certainly did not tell anyone what they should believe or disbelieve. I just criticized your false analogy.

[cornball 24]

133. Thank you for your wisdom.

[rlegro]

51. Not a proof

Most of the stuff making up the universe is invisible and even unmeasurable, except by inference. Dark matter, for instance. Inaccessibility also pertains to that portion of the universe beyond the so-called "light cone" (look it up). Not being able to sense an aspect of reality, like maybe God, is not proof that aspect is unreal. Indeed, as time goes on, puny humans increasingly are able to divine more of what and how the universe is. In so doing, we arguably evolve toward godhood. Maybe consciousness itself is God, in all its manifestations. Or as a cosmologist put it, we are the universe regarding itself. The biggest feedback loop imaginable.

[True Dough]

38. I think this gif

was created for this thread!

[MineralMan]

46. Nice!

[still_one]

40. It is turtles all the way down

the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. The question follows, what holds up that turtle?

Of
course

..........it

.............. is


............... Turtles


.................. all

.......................... the

..............................way


...............................down

[True Dough]

48. That evokes this image

But I'd prefer to think of this version, because I LOVE TURTLES!!!

[still_one]

55. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Nitram]

43. God's a black hole?

[MineralMan]

47. No. A singularity.

Last edited Sat Nov 11, 2017, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)

There is a difference. There are many black holes we can observe now. The original singularity is something else, entirely.

[Nitram]

56. The ORIGINAL singularity.

Are you equating God with the singularity before the Big Bang? That would make the universe equivalent to GOD, would it not? A sort of pantheism? Animism? Is God destined to continue flying outward in every direction at great speed until the density of the universe is as vacuous as a vacuum?

[MineralMan]

65. No. I'm asking a question. What if?

And what if that natural phenomenon were mistaken as something deific?

What if the universe simply is? There are many questions. I've seen the math for black holes and singularities. I've seen the myth for deities. I prefer math, frankly. But, if people want to look at the singularity that led to our universe as a deity, they're welcome to do so. They're also welcome to look at their deity as an old man in the sky somewhere.

I asked a question and invited commentary.

[Nitram]

67. You can look at my questions as commentary if you wish.

I'm just considering the logical consequences of your suggestion.

[Lordquinton]

74. Great example of explaining your meaning

And clarifying your post, instead of accusing everyone else of misunderstanding you and then refusing to even answer simple questions...

[MineralMan]

76. I try to use explanations when there is misunderstanding.

However, I confess to sometimes using other methods that are less helpful. Sometimes, the urge is just too strong not to poke at things.

[Lordquinton]

88. Pick at it

Like a sore on the roof of your mouth.

[sagesnow]

58. The Singularity in it all is Consciousness. n/t

[pokerfan]

69. Okay. That means that our whole solar system could be...

Larry: Okay. That means that our whole solar system could be, like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being. This is too much! That means one tiny atom in my fingernail could be--
Jennings: Could be one little tiny universe.
Larry: Could I buy some pot from you?

[MineralMan]

75. LOL!

Very good. That's a natural sort of thought, though. The old model of a typical atom that many of us oldsters saw in textbooks was bound to trigger that idea. It looked just like a mini solar system. Of course, that was an incorrect image, but the microcosm/macrocosm concept is still one way to look at cosmology, and a popular one, at that.

I was a freshman in high school in 1959. So, I saw all that old stuff, which slowly got more refined and better as a representation over the years.

And yet, we still can't look at individual atoms and see their structure. We can extrapolate data and try to visualize it, but we can't see it, still. We can see individual atoms now, but not like we can see, say, a bacterium.

[mia]

77. Mindwalk

Now that I've read to the bottom of what is, at the present moment, the last post in the thread, I'm reminded of this movie.

[Act_of_Reparation]

82. Then it wasn't God.

[MineralMan]

83. Exactly.

[Kablooie]

101. It would be stranger if God was a marriedtocracy.

But he's not in Christian theology.
He's a bachelor who had a fling and took advantage of Mary without her knowledge.
He'd lose his job for this today.

[Cary]

128. Psssst....

The Bible is a metaphor. The Bible was written by Bronze Age dudes who knew nothing about quantum physics and singularities or even elements or molecules or atoms. But they did have poetry and metaphors.

Granted, outside of the Song of Solomon, Biblical prose sucks. That right there proves it's not the direct word of God.

So they used "God" as a sort of undefined variable in their intuitive linear regression. Sure, you could put "singularity" into their variable but why?

Joseph Campbell said it best, I think. Religions are like word processing programs. Different keystrokes are used by each, but any of them will get you to the same place if you know how to use them. In my case God put a little bit of herself in every person's heart, and therefore serving people is serving God.

Who cares what God Is?

Oh and if the Bible were literally true, that God is a motherf*****. Fortunately it cannot be literally true.

[Jack-o-Lantern]

156. I am reminded of a pulp SF story I read some 60 years ago...

Unfathomable eons in the future all the evolved intelligences in the known universe were able to interconnect their combined knowledge (computers?) into one great bank of all the knowledge of all civilizations ever acquired.

The first great question asked of this marvel was: Is there a God?

The computer replied: THERE IS NOW!