Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre Neither is easier. Neither tell us what is actually going on. They're both just ideas. We should go and find out if they're right, or accept that they both could be wrong. |
They are not both just ideas. The concept of a multi-verse is just an idea thought up to try and refute the fact of fine-tuning. If you change one constant of nature a tiny fraction the universe would be radically different making it impossible for ANY life-form to come into being; a tiny deviation would determine whether stars could form or not. We have one unique universe.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre Really? God couldn't be a machine or physical object in a universe separate from ours? You know this? |
God by definition transcends the physical. If don't believe in any higher power you must concede that the idea is of a higher power as in transcendent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre But to be clear, I'm not saying dreams should be ignored because they're usually not consistent. They're just generally an inferior way of attempting to understand what we observe while awake. |
I agree dreams are an inferior way of understanding what we observe while awake and what we observe while awake is an inferior way of understanding our dreams. Me question was ontological. I was asking why we can't consider dreams "real", why don't we consider the dream world a real one all its own? That was crucial to Steve's point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre Right. But regardless it still requires explanation, or at the very least verification, which of course is impossible unless we can take ourselves outside of space-time to where that "first cause" exists, and do so in a way which is verifiable. |
We cannot verify that at this time if ever. My point isn't that god is empirically verifiable only that circumstantially it is a better assumption than random cosmic coincidence.
Also, when I say consciousness is not a mechanism or that god doesn't need an explanation (in the usual meaning of word at least) I mean the same thing. That is when I see the color blue I cannot explain what it is like to see the color blue. You can't explain sight to blind man. You cannot break down the sensation of the color blue to anything less than the color blue. The concept of god and conscious awareness go hand in hand. If god is a conscious force then such an entity doesn't require an explanation typical to a physical object because its like the sensation of music or the color blue ie you have to experience it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Universal Call Time and space always exists and always have. |
Cause and effect is product of linear time. If time is infinite then it is impossible to trace back any line of cause and effect. Lets say space was infinite, I could divide space infinitely so how could motion exist? You couldn't move through space because you could divide any distance an infinite number of times. Most if not all scientists agree that space-time is finite. If the big crunch happened infinitely it would not be the same universe being rolled out and in over and over, each would be its own finite universe even if they ended in cycles.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Universal Call How can a universe "expand", I mean, in relation to WHAT is it expanding?? People claim "nothingness", that which is between atoms as well, a "nothing". Well, if a "nothing" exist, and it arguably isn't the opposite of space, then shouldn't nothingness be able to be infinite, otherwise, what is beyond? And then we have the expanding universe in relation to the "other nothingness" outside? I guess that would make sense, otherwise we have the infamous "wall" that is the "stop" of the universe, and quite frankly that makes even less sense. |
I think what you are doing here is discovering by rational means that our finite space-time universe is an illusion of a much bigger picture. Contemporary physics already validates this to some degree. What is the bigger picture? Perhaps it is the astral plane?