- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Back in the 1990's I read several articles on GUT and string theory. Later on I read Stephen Hawking's Universe. in his chapter The Anthropic Principle he speculated that perhaps there were an infinite number of unsuccessful universes out there somewhere in which was no life due to the fact that electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force were not properly tuned for life as we know it. It seems obvious to me that another possibility is that the first intelligent life form might be composed of energy. Probably a fundamental energy such as SuperForce or Super Energetic Matter which may be the common denominator for all four forces active in our fourth space time dimensional continuum.
13.72 billion years is roughly equal to ZERO time when compared with eternity. If fundamental energy would always have existed, as I assume Dr. Hawking seems to believe due to his suspicion of their having been an infinite number of unsuccessful universes and probably Big Bang + Grand Collapses, then if evolutionary theory could be expanded to have occurred within infinite time as opposed to limiting abiogenesis and evolution to abouit 4.5 billion years than you increase the probability of evolution being possible by essentially an infinite factor! I do believe in evolution occurring, but I suspect that perhaps 99% of evolution probably occurred before our Big Bang which was probably planned and choreographed by the Life Form/life forms that would probably be composed of fundamental energy.
Is evolution more probable to have occurred within 13 billion years or within eternity?
I must admit that these ideas about invisible higher space time dimensions sure does remind me of what many people who have a brush with death report.
http://www.near-death.com/ritch.html
Jesus gives him a tour of four different dimensions in the
afterlife. They both fly toward a large city on Earth where they notice
a group of assembly-line workers at work. He witnesses the spirit of a woman trying desperately to obtain a cigarette from the workers who are oblivious to her presence. This woman died severely addicted to cigarettes.In a house, Jesus shows him the spirit of a boy following a living teenage
girl and begging for forgiveness while the girl is completely unaware of the boy's presence. Jesus tells George that the boy committed suicide and is “chained to every consequence of his act.”Jesus shows George a bar filled with sailors who are heavily drinking.
Spirits try desperately and in vain to get a drink or to control the sailors' alcoholic behavior. These spirits are from humans who die severely alcoholic.He is horrified as he observes a drunken sailor pass out and an alcoholic spirit jump into the body of the sailor. Jesus takes him to a new dimension away from Earth and shows him a kind of “receiving station” where spirits would arrive in a deep hypnotic sleep because of their beliefs. These are spirits who believe they must sleep after death until Jesus returns.
(George Ritchie)
For the record I wrote this to bother my buddies who are atheists and I was hoping that you might have some similar success with this line of thought.
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2011,22:12) You wouldn't be a drunken sailor yourself, would you? Stuart
You wouldn't be a drunken sailor yourself, would you?Stuart
Hey Stuart: I thank God that I was in the part of my family who had bleeding ulsers since I was a kid so that the probability of my being one of the alcoholics was greatly decreased!
I believe that the implications of God perhaps evolving, learning and becoming better and better at creating and inventing various life forms over infinite time previous to the Big Bang may tell us a lot about the nature of God.
Rick Joyner was shown that one human life had more value than a galaxy of stars that were without life:
//As I approached the Judgment Seat of Christ, those in the highest ranks were also sitting on thrones that were all a part of His throne. Even the least of these thrones was more glorious than any earthly throne many times over. Some of these were rulers over cities on earth who would soon take their place. Others were rulers over the affairs of heaven, and others over the affairs of the physical creation, such as star systems and galaxies. However, it was apparent that those who were given authority over cities were esteemed above those who had even been given authority over galaxies. The value of a single child was more than a galaxy of stars, because the Holy Spirit dwelt in men, and the Lord had chosen men as His eternal dwelling place. In the presence of His glory the whole earth seemed as insignificant as a speck of dust, and yet was so infinitely esteemed that the attention of the whole host of heaven was upon it.// (Rick Joyner, The Hordes of Hell Are Marching)
http://www.heaven.net.nz/visions/the-hordes-of-hell-are-marching.htmIf you had spent essentially eternity working and striving to invent angelic life forms and then later material life forms you would certainly tend to profoundly value what you had formed after having worked for eternity on the project.
I wrote up a blog on this idea last February. If you are interested there are some intriguing quotations there on invisible dimensions and why they should exist from articles on theoretical physics.
http://www.carbonbias.blogspot.com/“I believe that the implications of God perhaps evolving, learning and becoming better and better at creating and inventing various life forms over infinite time previous to the Big Bang may tell us a lot about the nature of God.”
A source could never be considered as “evolving” only “Involving”
OK, so God evolved. Who wrote the program called Evolution/crafted the logic by which he was subjected too?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 17 2011,03:39) “I believe that the implications of God perhaps evolving, learning and becoming better and better at creating and inventing various life forms over infinite time previous to the Big Bang may tell us a lot about the nature of God.” A source could never be considered as “evolving” only “Involving”
Nice Bod.
Also increasing would mean that one is decreased, or in other words a beginning of this decreased state of being.Take Three?…
Dennis Tate
Quote Hey Stuart: I thank God that I was in the part of my family who had bleeding ulsers since I was a kid so that the probability of my being one of the alcoholics was greatly decreased!
I hope you are in good health, in that case!Quote I believe that the implications of God perhaps evolving, learning and becoming better and better at creating and inventing various life forms over infinite time previous to the Big Bang may tell us a lot about the nature of God.
Well even knowing one thing about any god would be a start. Good luck with that.Quote Rick Joyner was shown that one human life had more value than a galaxy of stars that were without life: As I approached the Judgment Seat of Christ, those in the highest ranks were also sitting on thrones that were all a part of His throne. Even the least of these thrones was more glorious than any earthly throne many times over. Some of these were rulers over cities on earth who would soon take their place. Others were rulers over the affairs of heaven, and others over the affairs of the physical creation, such as star systems and galaxies. However, it was apparent that those who were given authority over cities were esteemed above those who had even been given authority over galaxies. The value of a single child was more than a galaxy of stars, because the Holy Spirit dwelt in men, and the Lord had chosen men as His eternal dwelling place. In the presence of His glory the whole earth seemed as insignificant as a speck of dust, and yet was so infinitely esteemed that the attention of the whole host of heaven was upon it. (Rick Joyner, The Hordes of Hell Are Marching)
http://www.heaven.net.nz/visions/the-hordes-of-hell-are-marching.htm
In what way does it have any meaning to say that there is a way of measuring value that can compare human life with stars?Quote If you had spent essentially eternity working and striving to invent angelic life forms and then later material life forms you would certainly tend to profoundly value what you had formed after having worked for eternity on the project.
It is humans that have invented gods and “angelic life forms”, and humans evolved, so you could figuratively say that gods and angels evolved.Quote I wrote up a blog on this idea last February. If you are interested there are some intriguing quotations there on invisible dimensions and why they should exist from articles on theoretical physics.
]http://www.carbonbias.blogspot.com/
It doesn’t take long to spot the problem. It’s there in the first paragraph:“ I actually do believe in evolution but I think that anybody who would dogmatically limit evolution to our four dimensional space time continuum lacks basic mathematical aptitude.“
Evolution is a fact explained by the theory of natural selection. The fact is based on the overwhelming empirical evidence for it, and the theory of natural selection is similarly dependent only on observations to be made in the space-time that we are able to observe. So actually “evolution” says nothing about anything beyond four dimensions. Far from limiting it, it is as far as it can go with any honesty. It would be a mistake to think there would be any validity in extrapolating a scientific theory mathematically into further dimensions. It is difficult enough to establish confidence in scientific theories within the dimensions we think we can observe. Further, what would be the point? How would we know there was speciation going on beyond the scope of our observation that required explanation?
Stuart
Quote (DennisTate @ Jan. 16 2011,12:28) Later on I read Stephen Hawking's Universe. in his chapter The Anthropic Principle he speculated that perhaps there were an infinite number of unsuccessful universes out there somewhere in which was no life due to the fact that electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force were not properly tuned for life as we know it.
Of course he thought that because he was intelligent enough to know that it was extremely unlikely that this universe came about the way it did without a God (which he appears to believe anyway). Hence, go for the next best thing, i.e., invent a greater construct and explain it away by saying that is was the quadtrillionth trillionth billion attempt in a metaverse of universes. In other words ours is a lucky universe but luck when tried again and again might eventually happen.If he was wiser he would see that the universe testifies to a creator and that even a metaverse of trillions of universes still requires a cause and intelligence. But belief of any kind can be very blind. It is just a pity that he has many followers who don't even think as deep about such things as he appears to have and are ready to follow his beliefs as if his words were the words of a prophet.
Prophet Hawking needs to imagine such stuff in the absence of a God, he has no choice. Most of his followers of course haven't thought much about his thought processes on such statements and think it is all maths and science, when in fact such a statement is purely imagined in order to delete God from the picture and bolster his belief system.
Thanks for fixing the coding and extra posts t8. I think Mr. Tate's posts are possessed by a poltergeist which infects replies too.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 17 2011,19:55) Quote (DennisTate @ Jan. 16 2011,12:28) Later on I read Stephen Hawking's Universe. in his chapter The Anthropic Principle he speculated that perhaps there were an infinite number of unsuccessful universes out there somewhere in which was no life due to the fact that electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force were not properly tuned for life as we know it.
Of course he thought that because he was intelligent enough to know that it was extremely unlikely that this universe came about the way it did without a God (which he appears to believe anyway). Hence, go for the next best thing, i.e., invent a greater construct and explain it away by saying that is was the quadtrillionth trillionth billion attempt in a metaverse of universes. In other words ours is a lucky universe but luck when tried again and again might eventually happen.If he was wiser he would see that the universe testifies to a creator and that even a metaverse of trillions of universes still requires a cause and intelligence. But belief of any kind can be very blind. It is just a pity that he has many followers who don't even think as deep about such things as he appears to have and are ready to follow his beliefs as if his words were the words of a prophet.
Prophet Hawking needs to imagine such stuff in the absence of a God, he has no choice. Most of his followers of course haven't thought much about his thought processes on such statements and think it is all maths and science, when in fact such a statement is purely imagined in order to delete God from the picture and bolster his belief system.
Are you not even slightly concerned that the “god created” universe is indistinguishable from a universe that is the umpteengazillionth spontaneous universe, the one which managed to produce matter?The same goes for Hawking. If we add the god you advocate it makes absolutely no difference to explaining the origins of this universe. It just adds a name.
Stuart
Not concerned because you can argue that the universe is encased in a greater construct and then when you say where did that come from, you are just asking the same question and not getting a final answer.
The only satisfactory answer is that the very beginning of all has to be:
- eterrnal/infinite
- intelligent/aware
- has a personality that is conducive with wanting to create.
All other theories about this or that are only short-term interim excuses for avoiding the inevitable question. What was first. What is the cause of all?
If the first was not aware, then there would be no awareness now. If the first was not eternal, then nothing is the first and we all know deep down that if there was nothing then, there would be nothing now.
Try to think a bit deeper on this subject Stu. It seems Prophet Hawking has at least due to his multiple universes idea. Although it has to be stated that even that idea is not originally his, and he needs to dig even deeper to explain where the construct of a possible system that spawns multiple Big-Bangs came from..
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2011,20:01) Thanks for fixing the coding and extra posts t8. I think Mr. Tate's posts are possessed by a poltergeist which infects replies too. Stuart
No problem. I just performed an exorcism, and it came right after that.t8
Quote Not concerned because you can argue that the universe is encased in a greater construct and then when you say where did that come from, you are just asking the same question and not getting a final answer.
Equally, that greater construct could be enclosed within an even larger Russian doll of a construct, and it turns out your god is just a byproduct of the work of a greater creator. That way lies infinite regression.Quote The only satisfactory answer is that the very beginning of all has to be: # eterrnal/infinite
Not satisfactory because they are just names for concepts that have no concrete meaning, and little abstract meaning either.Quote # intelligent/aware
Humans and other animals have awareness. What evidence do you have that there is any outside that?Quote # has a personality that is conducive with wanting to create.
…and apparently to smite 200,000 Midianites.Quote All other theories about this or that are only short-term interim excuses for avoiding the inevitable question. What was first. What is the cause of all?
There is no avoiding involved. Before leaping forth to all this speculation (theory it is not, in the scientific sense) you first have to establish that the word “cause” has meaning. You haven’t, you have just asserted it without evidence and against reason.Quote If the first was not aware, then there would be no awareness now. If the first was not eternal, then nothing is the first and we all know deep down that if there was nothing then, there would be nothing now.
Awareness is a product of natural selection. It is not a supernatural quality but has arisen by slow, cumulative change brought on by environmental selection pressure. If you have a bias against that fact then I guess you probably will waste a great deal of effort avoiding the obvious in an attempt to save face.Quote Try to think a bit deeper on this subject Stu. It seems Prophet Hawking has at least due to his multiple universes idea. Although it has to be stated that even that idea is not originally his, and he needs to dig even deeper to explain where the construct of a possible system that spawns multiple Big-Bangs came from..
Why does he need to do any such thing? Why does there need to be a cause? Why can the appearance of universes not be an “eternal” phenomenon, to use your platitude?Stuart
Stu Wtote:
Quote you first have to establish that the word “cause” has meaning. You haven’t, you have just asserted it without evidence and against reason. If the word Cause doesn't have any meaning why did you question it's meaning?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 20 2011,10:49) Stu Wtote: Quote you first have to establish that the word “cause” has meaning. You haven’t, you have just asserted it without evidence and against reason. If the word Cause doesn't have any meaning why did you question it's meaning?
It's not that it does not have meaning, it's just that its meaning needs to be established in the context of the topic.Stuart
Stu think of it like this. If the universe is first, then it had no cause because if it did, then it came from something and that something precedes the universe and therefore the universe came from it meaning the universe is not first. Whatever is first had no cause because by its very definition as being the first.
Once we understand that, then there are some interesting requirements that the original or first must have, such as it must be eternal or infinite. Otherwise again, it is not the first.
The more you look into it, the more you can see the parallels with this and God. Call it a coincidence if you want of course, or feel free to ignore the logic if it infringes on your belief system.
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 20 2011,17:18) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 20 2011,10:49) Stu Wtote: Quote you first have to establish that the word “cause” has meaning. You haven’t, you have just asserted it without evidence and against reason. If the word Cause doesn't have any meaning why did you question it's meaning?
It's not that it does not have meaning, it's just that its meaning needs to be established in the context of the topic.Stuart
Why?Quote (t8 @ Jan. 21 2011,18:15) Stu think of it like this. If the universe is first, then it had no cause because if it did, then it came from something and that something precedes the universe and therefore the universe came from it meaning the universe is not first. Whatever is first had no cause because by its very definition as being the first. Once we understand that, then there are some interesting requirements that the original or first must have, such as it must be eternal or infinite. Otherwise again, it is not the first.
The more you look into it, the more you can see the parallels with this and God. Call it a coincidence if you want of course, or feel free to ignore the logic if it infringes on your belief system.
Why can the beginning of the universe not be the uncaused cause of everything we see?Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
