- #31
BoulderHead
God Everyone’s Daft
I am the living Universe (please discuss)
- Thread starter emanon
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Universe
Click For Summary
SUMMARY
The forum discussion revolves around a theory proposed by a user named emanon, claiming to have created the Universe using a source of infinite energy referred to as "Brian." This energy is described as existing outside of space-time, evolving into a higher life-form composed of all energy. Various participants engage with emanon's theory, questioning its validity and the implications of a creator existing outside of conventional dimensions, while also introducing humorous and satirical elements regarding the nature of existence and creation.
PREREQUISITES- Understanding of basic philosophical concepts regarding existence and creation.
- Familiarity with the concept of infinite energy and its implications in theoretical discussions.
- Knowledge of space-time theory and its relevance to discussions about existence.
- Awareness of humor and satire in philosophical discourse.
- Research the philosophical implications of infinite energy in cosmology.
- Explore theories of existence outside of space-time in modern physics.
- Investigate the concept of a creator in various philosophical and theological contexts.
- Examine the role of humor in philosophical debates and its impact on discourse.
This discussion is beneficial for philosophers, theorists, and anyone interested in the intersection of science, metaphysics, and humor in existential debates.
- #32
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
Not necessarily. It could mean that the Universe ITSELF has a "Spirit"... of which OURS is a part (if, indeed, "spirit" exists). (See PM)
Last edited:
- #33
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 8,213
- 2,657
The same problem exists with or without a creator. Since we are here, it would seem that one way or the other the problem is moot.
Physicists say twelve dimensional superduperhypersurface;
Theologians say God. What's in a name?
- #34
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The same problem exists with or without a creator. Since we are here, it would seem that one way or the other the problem is moot.
So why discuss anything ?
- #35
LogicalAtheist
Pass time 'till we die?
- #36
BoulderHead
Well, because I'd like to know, how 'bout that?
But, after finding out all about 'god', if it isn't of much utility then I think I'd just go read a book.
Sound agreeable?
- #37
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 8,213
- 2,657
now now
. I only meant that one way or the other, the problem appears to have a solution. The paradox of who created God, which by the definition of God is no one, is supported in kind by the problem of where everything came from; even without a God?- #38
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 8,213
- 2,657
That works also.
- #39
emanon
- 27
- 0
And who created the "Creator"?
This is a little difficult to explain but I will use a mathematical shape to help you get the idea.
Imagine an infinite mobiastrip.
This is effectively what moving outside space time looks like, mathematically.
You get to see all points on the strip, which itself is continuous. There is no start of 'creation'. Just infinite time.
I hope that helps.
This is a little difficult to explain but I will use a mathematical shape to help you get the idea.
Imagine an infinite mobiastrip.
This is effectively what moving outside space time looks like, mathematically.
You get to see all points on the strip, which itself is continuous. There is no start of 'creation'. Just infinite time.
I hope that helps.
- #40
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
Which is why I say that "God" as an external entity is EXTRANEOUS to the equation. If the Universe ITSELF is eternal then It doesn't need a "creator".
AND , if the Universe is actually "a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts"...then the EXTERNAL "God" would ALSO be "out of a job"!
Now, I'm NOT saying that the Universe is (or MAY be) "God"...the al-knowing, all-seeing "Creator". I am saying that the Universe MAY BE "an eternal Entity of energy" with NATURAL FORCES and INGREDIENTS in Its "closed" (tho expanding and contracting), cause and effect SYSTEM!
As to "why" we "should" be discussing such things: perhaps the Universe gives rise to sentient beings for this very purpose...to understand ITSELF.
Who knows?
- #41
emanon
- 27
- 0
Historically the energy, or life giver is given the position of God.
But I never mentioned any God(s) because I do not believe in them/it.
The Universe was born from Brian Brane, the infinite energy source. There maybe other things like Brian but it is unlikely that they will ever be detected, but there cannot be ruled out.
Natural forces? Well the forces that exist in this Universe allow it to expand indefinitely, IMO. Other Natural Forces would create a different environment.
My view of the Universe is that all the matter expands in all directions. Gravity is the effect of clumps of matter retarding space. See The Dilber Future by Scott Adams for a laymans view on this theory.
But I never mentioned any God(s) because I do not believe in them/it.
The Universe was born from Brian Brane, the infinite energy source. There maybe other things like Brian but it is unlikely that they will ever be detected, but there cannot be ruled out.
Natural forces? Well the forces that exist in this Universe allow it to expand indefinitely, IMO. Other Natural Forces would create a different environment.
My view of the Universe is that all the matter expands in all directions. Gravity is the effect of clumps of matter retarding space. See The Dilber Future by Scott Adams for a laymans view on this theory.
- #42
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
So what if God were the within of the without? Just as I am the within of my without?
- #43
Mentat
- 3,935
- 3
Who says someone had to?
- #44
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
If my premise is correct -- that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity -- AND, if "spirit" exists as well, then, yes, it would be "within" every part of the Entity...just as I say consciousness may be.
But if the Universe has a "spiritual" component (in addition to physical and mental), do we have to call the aggregate of the spiritual "substance" "God"?
"God" is a loaded word...with all sorts of suppositions and embellishments "weighing it down" (for me).
Why not just call the Universe a living, conscious and SPIRITUAL Being that EVOLVING with -- and through -- the rest of us (and everything else ). Instead of "praying"...why not just "communicate"? Instead of "worshipping"...why not just "appreciate"?
Why do we, as a species, overdo the "hero worship", becoming transfixed on personalities, stories and rituals that, IMO, distract from our "relationship" with our "Source"? Any clues?
- #45
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
But that was my point . If the Universe is "eternal" then It doesn't need a "creator"...and adding "God" doesn't solve the problem of "creation"... it (the concept) just adds another layer.
- #46
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
The within of the without is "the life," it is the spirit, it is the essence and, it is conscious(ness).
The reason why God might appear to be the "Great Outsider" is due to our "external perception," for which reason we fail to realize that God "resides within," the within of everything, even the within which is without (i.e., our range of external perception).
In other words, if we weren't so caught up in our "external existence," we would realize that God does not reside without, but within, in which case God becomes the "Great Insider."
As for this hero worship thing, I think it's due to a lack of maturity, or perhaps a sense of having no control (hence certainty) over one's life. Neither do I think we need to put people up on pedestals, even God Himself! ... as God is not looking for sycophants.
- #47
RSM1000
We know the origin of a child, we know the reasoning behind the formations of celestial bodies (some of them). Why propose that the universe exists in a finite time, and it has something created it which is infinite?
You're just adding more onto the equation because you can't yet solve it in it's simplistic form!
THIS UNIVERSE may or may not be finite. Remember the universe is not (any longer) considered to be everything...
A universe is now properly definied as the entirity of a closed system.
There can and most likely is more than one universe. There is no reasoning behind there being only one.
The term universe has been redefinied, and also the term infinite might need to be. One universe (a closed system) can be inifinite, yet we could still have more than one infinite if we need to change the term to work without multiverse concepts.
So saying (by itself) that the universe must have had a creator defies rationality. You've solved how the universe came, but now you need to solve why God came.
And furthermore, any answers you give to solve the God problem could just as likely solve the Universe problem and eliminate God.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #48
Duom02
God is merly a metaphore my friend not to be taken so seriously... Most refer to her these days but are more or less meaning the reason for creation... don't pick at peoples indvidual words so much...
- #49
RSM1000
God is merely a metaphor?
Would the world agree? I doubt it.
If one is going to use a word to mean something other than what's widely accepted, one needs to let others know.
Just like your new big bang theory, you didn't tell anyone it was your theory, and thus it looks to us as if it's wrong.
Unless defined, I'll assume God as being God!
Would the world agree? I doubt it.
If one is going to use a word to mean something other than what's widely accepted, one needs to let others know.
Just like your new big bang theory, you didn't tell anyone it was your theory, and thus it looks to us as if it's wrong.
Unless defined, I'll assume God as being God!
- #50
Duom02
*Cough* That theory was in the THEORY DEVELOPMENT forum if you look in the theorteical physics section and click the sticky for new posters you will see that you put your own theories in theory development now let that sink in for a minute.
Now as to the god being a metaphor most literary anylists agree that most religion including god isn't meant to be taken at face value. For example adam and eve eating the apple, Now was that about them eating an apple or having sex. if you ask most people around the world they say an apple but then you inquire more and they'll figure out what it really meant. Now if you were discussing this on any other form i wouldn't jump to god being a metaphor but this is meant to be a detailed discussion which you can't seem to handle. Most people around the world don't know much about algebra 1 but they do here as do many seem to think god is at least partially a metaphor.
Now as to the god being a metaphor most literary anylists agree that most religion including god isn't meant to be taken at face value. For example adam and eve eating the apple, Now was that about them eating an apple or having sex. if you ask most people around the world they say an apple but then you inquire more and they'll figure out what it really meant. Now if you were discussing this on any other form i wouldn't jump to god being a metaphor but this is meant to be a detailed discussion which you can't seem to handle. Most people around the world don't know much about algebra 1 but they do here as do many seem to think god is at least partially a metaphor.
- #51
RSM1000
Like I said, unless you're using the widely accepted definition of a term, it's a good idea to let everyone know your definition to avoide confusing.
And since this isn't your original post, I wouldn't accept your definition as fitting into someone elses claim.
Try not to be hostile as in your other post. If you're creating new definitions and new theories point it out. Otherwise it looks to us as though you're just making honest mistakes.
- #52
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
When someone claims that "God created the Universe", would not that "God" be, by definition, an "Outsider"?
What it "spirit" anyway? Any ideas? I "know" there's a PHYSICAL "plane". And I "know" there's a CONSCIOUS "plane". And I "prefer to think" that there's a SPIRITUAL "plane"...but I'm not exactly how to characterize it.
Do we need a new thread for this...or could you make a stab at a definition here?
Without waiting for your definition, let me say that if there IS a "spiritual" component to the Universe, then it "resides" -- like CONSCIOUSNESS -- in Everything That Is...great or small.
...IMO
- #53
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
An assumption? What makes it any more of an assumption than yours? Please understand that it's not my place to validate "your" existence. So which reality are you speaking about? The reality of our perception? Or, the reality which exists beyond our perception? Do you believe in a possible "alternative reality?"
Why start from scratch? Why forsake ten thousand years of human history? Just as everything has a beginning and an ending, why approach it from the standpoint of the middle, which is only "static" and takes us "nowhere?" How can we possibly evaluate something without first understanding what it does?
Because our outer skins cells are temporal and "dead," compared to that which is infinitesimally more "alive" and on the inside. The material reality is but "the form" (temporal and dead), of what the spiritual reality is "the essence" (alive and Eternal).
Who's saying I'm trying to solve anything? ... Other than the fact that I might be trying to find the best way to put it into words.
Since when?
Well we each live in our own little universes now don't we? And yet they're not entirely closed, because there's always something extending into them (as well their extending outwards).
There's at least more than one perception of it anyway. Doesn't mean there's more than one though.
Redefined by whom? And yet I'm quite content to work within the confines of only one Universe -- "the one that I know."
Does the sculpture question the hands of the sculptor in this regard? Maybe this is the reason why it's not that easy to answer ... because we are not the Creator (but its creation).
To whom? That's the whole beauty of it, it doesn't require Science for the answer (at least for oneself). Matter of fact it would be a long time in waiting to see when Science gets off its duff and actually does something about it. And, while it's one thing to dismiss something, it's entirely another to disprove it.
- #54
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
And yet one can build a house for oneself and live in it. Why do we call the church the house of God? And why do we call our bodies the living temple of the living God?
I think spirit is just another manifestation of consciousness. You know, what happens to our consciousness when we die? When almost instantaneously we're gone?
That might be a good idea. At least there will be two of us talking along the same lines. Wouldn't that be something! Got any ideas?
This is why I essentially equate one with the other, and why I say we have a soul (consciousness) which has a place to go when we die.
- #55
emanon
- 27
- 0
Just to clear up what 'the Universe' is in this case...
It is everything related to the infinite energy known as Brian Brane.
Possibly there are other Universes, in the traditional sense, that are related to Brian, but this Universe is the one we live in.
It is interesting to remember that this Universe might actually co-exist with other Universes, again in the traditional sense.
However, the more likely scenario is that there have been other Universes prior to this one, and that this one is a more stable or longer lasting Universe.
I am sure if the theorectical physicists thought about it makes sense to have this Universe pop-out from a series of Universes whose natural parameters never quite made them stable enough.
And as this Universe expanded, those parameters tuned themselves to the values we see today...
It is everything related to the infinite energy known as Brian Brane.
Possibly there are other Universes, in the traditional sense, that are related to Brian, but this Universe is the one we live in.
It is interesting to remember that this Universe might actually co-exist with other Universes, again in the traditional sense.
However, the more likely scenario is that there have been other Universes prior to this one, and that this one is a more stable or longer lasting Universe.
I am sure if the theorectical physicists thought about it makes sense to have this Universe pop-out from a series of Universes whose natural parameters never quite made them stable enough.
And as this Universe expanded, those parameters tuned themselves to the values we see today...
Last edited:
- #56
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
Because we're silly.
I say EVERYTING might be a manifestation of the CONSCIOUSNESS of the Universe.
Nothing but!
Yes, from the PHYSICAL "plane"...back to PURE ENERGY.
And NOW -- tah tahhh -- let us SEE if i ISOLATED your QUOTES! I am not optimistic.
...back via "Edit" to say: WHAT A MESS!
Last edited:
- #57
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Aside from the fact that it's borrowed from the "book of books" (have to kind of steer it away from religion a bit) it's a very good metaphor (or analogy).
And yet I would say this consciousness was none other than the "Host of Hosts."
I don't know about that, although I admit it was a bear of post I had to reply to before answering yours. Kind of threw me (took me out of stride) and I wasn't quite prepared to answer it. Looks like Brian McBrain would rather we didn't discuss this on his thread anyway. Maybe I'll start one up along the lines of "Is the Universe Conscious?" or "Consciousness and the Material Universe," or something like that? Keep your eyes peeled. Or, maybe I'll send you an e-mail.
I think it's less important how we define God than it is to define ourselves, i.e., know "who" we are. And yet how we define God still effects hwo we define ourselves ...
Not bad for a first try! ... And what is it that you don't like about it? Just pay attention to how many lines you want between replies (I usually maintain two) and whether you want everything to appear in bold or not. You also have the preview button in order to look it over before you submit it.
I do this a lot, and a good rule of thumb would be to do a "select all" (right-hand mouse click) and hit "copy," in case something something screws up and you need to "paste" everything into a new window. It's a good idea to do periodically especially when working with a long post.
- #58
BoulderHead
Ok, all fun and games aside;
I keep hearing about this ‘consciousness’ all the time. Why cannot consciousness simply cease to exist upon the death of the physical body?
Have you ever been under general anesthesia before and noticed how consciousness seems to just disappear? Even if consciousness is somehow outside the physical brain, it nevertheless certainly seems to be tied to it in a very real fashion. I am not at all ready to take for granted that consciousness is not dependent on our brains, however mysterious and wonderful it is.
Iacchus32,
I keep hearing about this ‘consciousness’ all the time. Why cannot consciousness simply cease to exist upon the death of the physical body?
Have you ever been under general anesthesia before and noticed how consciousness seems to just disappear? Even if consciousness is somehow outside the physical brain, it nevertheless certainly seems to be tied to it in a very real fashion. I am not at all ready to take for granted that consciousness is not dependent on our brains, however mysterious and wonderful it is.
- #59
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
And yet what is it about being human that doesn't involve consciousness?
Have you ever become awake in your dreams, and were fully conscious?
Ever feel like you have always been here, and were never meant to die?
From thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2518&perpage=15&pagenumber=2" ...
Have created a new post called, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2564", if you would care to go there?
Last edited by a moderator:
- #60
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
Iacchus:
I don't know why I logged on at this time, as I have ZERO TIME to reply to anything. HOWEVER, I will tell you that I started a thread a few weeks back entitled: Is the Universe Conscious" which I'm going to access now, do a post on it, then you'll see it appear on the PF menu again. This way, I don't have to repeat myself...IF you'll take the time to read what I -- and others -- have had to say.
Would love to continue the discussion anyway...
Similar threads
- · Replies 29 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
High School
The infinite and the infinitesimal
- · Replies 10 ·
- · Replies 25 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
High School
Questions About the Growth of the Universe
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 38 ·
- · Replies 80 ·
- · Replies 9 ·
- · Replies 2 ·