Before the Big Bang?

[Bloom.]

This is the best argument for why there may be a god, although with that said I doubt that we have a clue as to what that really means.

There is a difference between a creator and a god, at least by how we typically view the two. For all we know this was a happy accident, and if we're not careful, the Hadron Collider or future such device could do the same someday.

This notion of an omniscient or omnipotent being is out the door as far as I'm concern, unless we're in the Matrix. That means for me, religion is a non-starter. This is more likely a very bad lab experiment gone wrong or Khan's Genesis weapon that also destroyed the world it previously existed in.

 

[iuwclurker]

Duhhh . . .

. . . it strikes me that the expansion of the universe may have a collapse at its end . . . as super black holes grow and grow, it seems to me that their gravity will overcome all expansion forces and we'll end up in a single, tiny, superlatively massive black hole, which will be this aeon's end and the next aeon's beginning . . .

. . . I would note, BTW, that nothing about this notion of mine - and that's all it is, a notion, as there is no science to support it as a theory - denies the existence of a creator god. The actor providing a spark for the next Big Bang fits within the notion of a creator god, plus we don't know whether the rules - mathematical and physics - that apply in this universe will also apply in the next. If a creator god determines those rules, similarly to the notion that a creator god created the mathematical and physics rules for this universe, then the religion/science dichotomy is a joke that's on us.

So you’re saying Trump’s the black hole?

 

[iuwclurker]

Marvin, you and I have discussed this very theory a couple of times previously. I haven't seen any new evidence to support it, but I still find it very compelling. I'm not sure how it fares with unsolved problems in physics, but it certainly offers an elegant solution to a number of unsolved problems in philosophy.

Like actually defining space?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

This notion of an omniscient or omnipotent being is out the door

Electricity determines the structure of atoms and is the operating mechanism of the human mind. While I am not fully on board with some aspects of the Electric Universe Theory, I nevertheless believe that electricity is fundamental, necessary, dominant and is omnipresent. Whether that presence has the attributes of a "being" is an open question for me.

 

[Bill4411]

There is a difference between a creator and a god, at least by how we typically view the two. For all we know this was a happy accident, and if we're not careful, the Hadron Collider or future such device could do the same someday.

This notion of an omniscient or omnipotent being is out the door as far as I'm concern, unless we're in the Matrix. That means for me, religion is a non-starter. This is more likely a very bad lab experiment gone wrong or Khan's Genesis weapon that also destroyed the world it previously existed in.

Yes it could just be a creator not a god thanks for the clarification. Possibly the universe is the afterbirth of something that was even greater and that’s all we see.

 

[SoccerSammy]

There is a difference between a creator and a god, at least by how we typically view the two. For all we know this was a happy accident, and if we're not careful, the Hadron Collider or future such device could do the same someday.

This notion of an omniscient or omnipotent being is out the door as far as I'm concern, unless we're in the Matrix. That means for me, religion is a non-starter. This is more likely a very bad lab experiment gone wrong or Khan's Genesis weapon that also destroyed the world it previously existed in.

Pretty sure you’re wrong. But I guess none of us will know for sure until the last brain cell fires

 

[IUINSB]

Everything in the universe, including the universe, has three parts to it: A beginning, a middle and an end...

An end? What about Trump's li...misinterpreted statements?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That wouldn't negate the concept of serial universes, unless the perspective is time as we know it might not exist in the same way in previous or future versions. My point is there is still a linear path life goes through, including stars, galaxies and universes. At least as far as know up to this point.



For the longest time, without reading much on it, scientifically or fictionally, I've viewed the universe as expanding into an ever bigger, limitless space, or at least limitless beyond anything proven up to this point.

Moving through time as opposed to having time pass by implies a level of control over time we don't have yet. Conceptually, it's easy to understand as a dimension or part of a coordinate system, but it's unattainable right now beyond just knowing you can only be somewhere now or later.

I do get that as you move through space more quickly, you move through time more slowly, but the where you are is controllable, while the when you are really isn't. As it stands now, I can never be in my desk chair on Thursday, October 8, and 3:40pm again. So right now, time is just separate and linear measurement.

Right, when you earn a living by billing for time, you quickly learn that an hour that passes without charging somebody for it is time and money lost forever. You can’t make it up with night or weekend work. That hour is just gone.

 

[StelioKontos]

An end? What about Trump's li...misinterpreted statements?

The end to Covid-45's li...misinterpreted statements is not a question of if