Does God exist?

[Ned]

So let me try to understand. The universe collapses, and as it does, all its energy is converted to mass and the existing mass and the converted energy mass collapses to a relatively small volume. There, something triggers a reverse process to convert matter back into energy, and we have a "second?" big bang.

But this is the opposite of the theory that before the big bang there was nothing but energy.

Could it be that in the beginning there was energy, then the big bang, to be followed by a period of expansion, then a period of collapse which ends with a collapse of everything into a lump of mass never to explode again? Because if the universe is constantly collapsing and re-exploding, it is indeed infinite.

[Ben Kenobi]

The universe collapses, and as it does, all its energy is converted to mass and the existing mass and the converted energy mass collapses to a relatively small volume. There, something triggers a reverse process to convert matter back into energy, and we have a "second?" big bang.

No, what happens is everything collapses into a singularity.

The oscillating universe model doesn't work with entropy, unless entropy suddenly reverses.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, what happens is everything collapses into a singularity.

The oscillating universe model doesn't work with entropy, unless entropy suddenly reverses.

OK, Ben. What is a singularity? Something with mass but no time and space?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned
So let me try to understand. The universe collapses, and as it does, all its energy is converted to mass and the existing mass and the converted energy mass collapses to a relatively small volume. There, something triggers a reverse process to convert matter back into energy, and we have a "second?" big bang.

But this is the opposite of the theory that before the big bang there was nothing but energy.

Could it be that in the beginning there was energy, then the big bang, to be followed by a period of expansion, then a period of collapse which ends with a collapse of everything into a lump of mass never to explode again? Because if the universe is constantly collapsing and re-exploding, it is indeed infinite.

Every model of the big bang that I have seen would have the entire universe composed of energy for the first moments of time as matter breaks down in such a high energy environment.

[Ned]

Then the final collapse into a singularity is the end. Fini. There is no tomorrow and no further big bang.

But others here apparently disagree, saying that the Big Bang could have come from a black hole, or a singularity.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned
Then the final collapse into a singularity is the end. Fini. There is no tomorrow and no further big bang.

But others here apparently disagree, saying that the Big Bang could have come from a black hole, or a singularity.

I'm sure whaleboy would be better qualified to address this, but IIRC a big bang could arise from a singularity in large measure because it would be a 'naked' singularity. A black hole has an event horizon dividing the universe inside with it's impossible singularity from the rest of the universe. In the absence of such an event horizon the singularity is free to do all sorts of mischevious things. Furthermore, not only would all matter be confined into the big bang singularity but also all space as well. There is nothing 'outside' the Big Bang singularity. Those two big differences probably at least begin to explain why we can't automatically equate a black hole with the big bang singularity.

If a 'big crunch' collapse were to occur we would return to exactly the same situation.

[Flip McWho]

I'd just like to thank you all for this very interesting thread. :hugs: (do we have a hug smiley, cause we need one if we don't).

I see your point BK about polytheistic Gods just being aspects of the one God. It's a good and valid point too from my perspective.

Beauty of being agnostic is that I can see both sides, just can't make my bloody mind up.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I'm sure whaleboy would be better qualified to address this, but IIRC a big bang could arise from a singularity in large measure because it would be a 'naked' singularity. A black hole has an event horizon dividing the universe inside with it's impossible singularity from the rest of the universe. In the absence of such an event horizon the singularity is free to do all sorts of mischevious things. Furthermore, not only would all matter be confined into the big bang singularity but also all space as well. There is nothing 'outside' the Big Bang singularity. Those two big differences probably at least begin to explain why we can't automatically equate a black hole with the big bang singularity.

If a 'big crunch' collapse were to occur we would return to exactly the same situation.

Event horizon: It divides universes. It could be that a black hole having all the mass and energy of this universe exploded within an event horizon and even though the event horizon is not changing when viewed from without, when viewed from within, it might be just like this universe with galaxies, stars and planets.

If this is the case, this universe itself could be the result of the formation of an enormous black hole. The boundaries of our universe just happen to be this black hole's event horizon.

Is this even theorectically possible? Or would such an explosion simply erase the event horizon?

[Ben Kenobi]

What is a singularity? Something with mass but no time and space?

It's what you find in a black hole, but all black holes we see have an event horizon.

There is no reason to suppose that this singularity lacks an event horizon, even if formed through the collapse of the universe.

It's also questionable whether this will in fact be what happens. An open universe is still possible, and most likely, given what we know of the mass of the universe.

[Geronimo]

I don't understand how a big bang or big crunch singularity could have an event horizon (ie: not be a 'naked' singularity) when there is no space outside of such a singularity. An event horizon requires that the singularity lie within a region of normally curved space. The universe cannot have an edge. There may be certain 'shapes' of the universe which would render it a finite region but even then there would be no edge, just a radius beyond which you find that rather than getting further away from your popint of origin you are now approaching it. In a finite universe the universe is finite but you can't sail off the edge instead you find yourself eventually 'circumnavigating' it. Of course any open universe (infinite in volume) would likewise lack an edge.

It is this edgeless boundary-less aspect of the universe which means that a singularity resulting from collapse or initiating an expansion phase will not have an event horizon and will instead involve a true 'naked' singularity.

[Ben Kenobi]

As their cultures develop and they are able to control their environment to a greater extent the character of the gods begins to reflect the nature of the social environment of the community.

Which is only natural. As one gains greater understanding of the abilities of God, you are going to acknowledge his powers in larger matters.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is this edgeless boundary-less aspect of the universe which means that a singularity resulting from collapse or initiating an expansion phase will not have an event horizon and will instead involve a true 'naked' singularity.

I see.

Like the Earth, as a spheriod cannot have an edge yet is finite.

However, the event horizon is more of a construct than a physical reality, it is the point at which the gravitational attraction of the singularity outstrips that of the escape velocity of light.

It is not clear that space is required at all for the propagation of an event horizon, as even without space, you would still not be able to get any information out of the singularity.

[Ben Kenobi]

joining the sabbath keepers Ben?

No, I went to a long conference that started Friday, and carried on all day Saturday. It's on spiritual gifts, and trying to discern where your gifts lie. I scored very high on 4 parts, writing, helps, knowledge, and faith.

I have another interview on Tuesday, where they help to sift out whether it is due to natural ability, or through training that I seem to do well in these things.

I'm pretty sure helps will come out in the end, and maybe knowledge, but it's harder for someone who has spent most of his life studying to distinguish between the two.

It's a charismatic Catholic group that sponsored me to go to the conference, which is really interesting given my own background. Much of what they are doing has already been laid out by various Evangelical protestant denominations, but this is still rather new for the Catholics.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I see.

Like the Earth, as a spheriod cannot have an edge yet is finite.

However, the event horizon is more of a construct than a physical reality, it is the point at which the gravitational attraction of the singularity outstrips that of the escape velocity of light.

It is not clear that space is required at all for the propagation of an event horizon, as even without space, you would still not be able to get any information out of the singularity.

It's certainly true that singularities in a black hole are not permitted to release any information and IIRC nothing within an event horizon can ever increase it's distance from the singularity. This doesnt mean that anything including space would exist 'outside' of the event horizon (if that is even possible to discuss) for big bang/crunch singularity. apparently this is part of the trouble, a singularity under such circumstances is free to expell any and all sorts of information or any particle in any configuration. Naked singularities are weird as all hell. I hope one of our astronomy majors or physics majors shows up to help discuss this because I wouldn't mind some clarification about how the lack of an event horizon (ie it's 'nakedness') can allow a singularity to behave so weirdly but you can find plenty of allusions to this fact by googling naked singularity.

[Ben Kenobi]

As you’re so insistent upon addressing the point, fine.
Existential subjectivism solves the problem nicely, whereby determinism holds in an “objective” context, i.e. as far as science or ones view of other humans and retrospect is concerned, but as far as the individual consciousness is concerned, free will applies. Thereby, in the context of society, one can be held responsible for ones actions in retrospect, but as the individual (you’ll recall the distinction between life-form, being and person), you are responsible for them as you take them.

Why should we make a distinction between 'life-form, being and person?'

That construct to me seems artificial.

What's the justification for splitting these up?

And I still think you have a problem showing how one can retain identity over time. What you have said before makes no sense to me, cloistered in the usual jargon.

If you assign to God properties such as infinite, omnipotent and omniscient among others, you must be prepared to examine and define those properties in a consistent way, and not take them in the familial sense which I have shown to be absurd.

You have not shown these to be absurd. All you have said is that beings of a higher dimension have difficulty in interacting with the world in lesser dimensions, in such a way as to prevent the disruption of that world. I agree with you, and this is one of the reasons that we cannot see the face of God, and why he would want to come down to earth as Christ. Also, in his dealings with men, he often appeared in another form, one more familiar to us than his true form. This also makes sense, given your prepositions earlier, and poses no threat to what I have said about the omnipotence, eternal existence and omniscience of God.

Also, the notions of cause and consequence are pretty distinct, in your mind you can think of something’s existence without the idea of something that caused it,

This I rejected earlier, and is obviously critical to your position.

It is impossible to separate consideration of consequence from that of cause. To understand the consequences of the action, I need to understand the cause of the action, and to understand the cause, I need to understand the consequences.

For different causes have drastic effects on their consequences, such as the scope of things which can be effected, or affected.

If you separate the two, you don't really come to an understanding the the consequence, because all you see is the action. You do not see how that action is connected to the preceding action, and therefore, how the action is the consequence of anything.

something can exist without a cause.

I rejected this earlier. It is impossible for something to exist without a cause, and to contemplate existence requires understanding of the causes that brought the current situation about.

Russell and Hume, among others, are generally considered to have defeated Aquinas’s defence,

Considered by whom? I don't consider their arguments having successfully conquered Aquinas, for the reasons above.

Do you not understand how that also illustrates the vertical and horizontal casual series and thus causes that argument to contradict itself?

Assumes causality to occur in a straight line.

If causality is like a bubble, like radio waves extend outwards, your analogy totally falls apart.

you can introduce infinity to it that is only solvable if you take our temporal dimension as spatial, thus going into 5D.

We can't provoke changes like that though. You are right that causality in this manner would allow for the infinite regress of causation.

It provides for us the mechanism, in which God can interact with our world, in such a way, as to hear the prayers of everyone, at the same time, because he is outside of time.

The problem is that the changes here in our world are confined to such causality within time, and subject to limitations. You cannot have an infinite number of events happening at the same time, and in fact, Einstein hints at this by the limitations in the transfer of information.

If you cannot transmit information any faster than the speed of light, then this is a fundamental limitation of causality, in that one event may not affect another at a speed greater than this.

Unlike some I don’t have a kind of testicular (read biblical) attachment to my arguments.

Nor do I hold your opinions and their justification in contempt.

I suggest you show me the same consideration.

If we are talking about the existence of God, I fail to see how the consequences of the sociological implications of one argument are to have any bearing upon the original course of the debate.

This is not a sociological argument. You assume this to be, without cause.

I will address that statement because it’s quite interesting. It also answers itself. Retained over time. You’ll remember earlier how I paraphrased Husserl by saying that consciousness itself has similar properties to time. Do you find that wholly incompatible with notions of identity, if so, please explain those notions (in a new thread if you wish to pursue this). I cannot proceed unless you have established your manner of definition for personal identity.

Yes, because if consciousness is also subject to time, then it also means that it is subject to other physical realities.

Yet, we cannot detect a consciousness, and it does not seem to affect things in this world. So the question is do things like time affect consciousness? I would say no, because consciousness does not seem to exist in space.

Now, as for property of identity, and how this can be retained over physical changes, it is only by having it as a fundamental property for people, and that this fundamental property stems only partially from the physical realm, that identity can be retained over time.

Consciousness, I do not think is a function of identity, but is an emergent property of a being with certain physical characteristics. Our conscience forms, as a result of these physical developments, but is not solely determined by these developments. It may be a necessary condition, but there are other things happening as well that help to form a conscience.

I think that a being can form without an active conscience, but that this conscience is still present, even though the conscience is dormant, until the physical development occurs to activate the conscience. Yet, while the conscience is active, it does not operate in our familiar realm of space and time.

This is the same with our identity. Our identity is bound up with our conscience, yet is not contingent on it's activity. As the conscience is dormant, our identity exists, though we have no way to distinguish an identity.