god outside the universe

Author: janesix

Posts

Total: 31
Topic's author
#1
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
In wikipedia loops, most topics end in the philosophy loop. The only other loops I have found are god and logic, both very tiny loops (the god loop has only two topics, god and monotheism, and the logic loop only contains logic and rule of reason)

does this reflect that god and logic are outside of the normal universe? it makes sense to me.

also interesting, both creator and creation are single pages, with no loops or links.
#2
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
I'm not completely sure what you are asking here but reason and logic exist within the universe in as much as they exist at all. As for things outside the corporeal universe I'm not sure how we could confirm or deny them so I'm afraid any statements made about them will by necessity be arguments from ignorance. 
#3
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
All that is, was and will be
Universe much too big to see
Time and space never ending
Disturbing thoughts, questions pending
Limitations of human understanding
Too quick to criticize
Obligation to survive
We hunger to be alive, yeah
Twisting, turning through the never
All that is, ever, ever was
Will be ever twisting, turning
Through the never
In the dark, see past our eyes
Pursuit of truth, no matter where it lies
Gazing up to the breeze of the heavens
On a quest, meaning, reason
Came to be, how it begun
All alone in the family of the sun
Curiosity teasing everyone
On our home, third stone from the sun, yeah
Twisting, turning through the never
All that is, ever, ever was
Will be ever twisting, turning
Through the never
On through the never
We must go
On through the never
Out to the
Edge of forever
We must go
On through the never
Then ever comes
Twisting, turning through the never
All that is, ever, ever was
Will be ever twisting, turning
Who we are, ask forever
Twisting, turning
Through the never
Never

#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@janesix
Wikipedia is as Wikipedia does.

And god outside the universe is a valid but wholly unproven hypothesis.

Makes sense to me. 
Topic's author
#5
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
God outside the universe doesn't really surprize me. I've never really believed all that "oneness" crap. God is god, and then there's everything else. Logic did surprize me though. Until I thought about it a little. This universe really isn't logical. All the weird synchronicities, quantum mechanics.. 

All my arguments are from ignorance. As are everyone else's. I've come to realize I will NEVER have enough information to really understand what is going on.

I have come to a few (tentative) conclusions lately. I will never have enough information. I will never be smart enough, my human brain isn't capable of understanding. And there is NO SUCH THING as security or safety. I realize I just have to live with these things and accept them. Another possible realization, and the worst- that the universe is deterministic. 
Topic's author
#6
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think anything can ever be proven.
Topic's author
#7
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
metallica?
#8
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
The universe would appear to be deterministic. At the very least it is partially deterministic and we cannot prove that it is anything more. Not a promising prognosis. 
#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@janesix
If the universe has a beginning, a span and an end and perhaps a re-initiation, then the very nature of the sequence is deterministic....Factor in a corresponding sequence of material/universal evolution, and determinism seems to be a very logical assumption...Call it a GOD principle if you will, but logically that's probably not going to be some guy floating around on a cloud somewhere else.

But as you say... How can we know?
Topic's author
#10
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I think it might be both deterministic, and in a way, not. For example, evolution. There seems to be a pattern for "dogs". So dogs evolve, although there are many different types (foxes, wolves, marsupials) Maybe the universe tends towards certain things. I once read we live on the knifes edge between chaos and order. Maybe if there is too much structure, then there is stagnation and no growth. If too much free will, then chaos. 




Topic's author
#11
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Maybe certain things have to happen, but different roads can be taken to get there.
#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@janesix
Not really, if things are preordained.

Though perhaps you only dwell on humanity rather than a bigger picture.

Or.... Do you think that we will make it to the end of the universe?
#13
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
The universe would appear to be deterministic. At the very least it is partially deterministic and we cannot prove that it is anything more. Not a promising prognosis. 
If the universe is deterministic - does that not imply a determiner? 
#14
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
It is not unreasonable to assume that an evolving species would evolve to fit its environment. It is in fact exactly what leads us to believe that evolution through a process of natural selection is the best explanation for the diversity we find in the fossil record and existent life on earth.
#15
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
If the universe is deterministic - does that not imply a determiner? 
Cause and effect does not require any conciousness, plan or purpose. If you mean something other than that please clarify. 
#16
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
If the universe is deterministic - does that not imply a determiner? 
Cause and effect does not require any conciousness, plan or purpose. If you mean something other than that please clarify. 
Says you? And even if I agree that cause and effect as a general principle does not require consciousness, plan or purpose, this does not mean that a first cause and first effect did not require so. 

And there is significant reason to separate the first cause and effect from all others.  


#17
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
even if I agree that cause and effect as a general principle does not require consciousness,
Do rocks need intelligence to roll down hill or only gravity? Are snowflakes designed or do ice crystals merely form regular repeating patterns as water freezes?
plan or purpose, this does not mean that a first cause and first effect did not require so. 
I do not need to disprove your claim in order to dismiss it you need to demonstrate it before I accept it. That is how the burden of proof works.
And there is significant reason to separate the first cause and effect from all others.  
What reason assuming a first cause even exists?
Topic's author
#18
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think there will be an end to the universe.
Topic's author
#19
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Who is "us"? Not me.
#20
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
By us I mean those who recognize the efficacy of the scientific method of separating fact from fiction and are aware of the scientific findings, peer review and consensus on the subject.
Topic's author
#21
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I am sorry you believe that.

Unfortunately, it isn't how science works in the real world.
#22
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
I'm not sure what you mean. Science is only a method. It  works by eliminating untruths more than discovering truths. This is a messy buisness and progress can be choppy but it is the most reliable method humans have so far discovered. If you have an alternative methodology to present I'd love to hear it. 
Topic's author
#23
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I should have said, that isn't the way scientists work in the real world. Science is not the problem.
#24
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
Then what is the problem with any given demonstrable and well documented scientific hypothesis especially those which have graduated to scientific theory?
Topic's author
#25
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
You actually think our primitive theories are correct? You forget we are barely out of monkey stage.
#26
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
I think our theories are as correct as we can make them given our current understanding. I have confidence in the germ theory of medicine for example. If new information comes to light, even paradigm shifting information, I will have no choice but to adjust my beliefs in response. I cannot imagine what new information would completely invalidate the germ theory of medicine however given the derth of evidence supporting it.
#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@janesix
It's a thought, but physicists might disagree with you.

On what evidence do you base your thoughts.


Nonetheless, do you also think that humanity will go on for ever?


My current thoughts are, that this sequence of events that we find ourselves a part of, have happened before and will probably happen again.
Topic's author
#28
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
It's a thought, but physicists might disagree with you.

>> I'm sure most of them do. But not all.

On what evidence do you base your thoughts.

>>Halton Arp's work.


Nonetheless, do you also think that humanity will go on for ever?

>> I hope not, but I think our souls go on forever.


My current thoughts are, that this sequence of events that we find ourselves a part of, have happened before and will probably happen again.

>>Why?



Topic's author
#29
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
 think our theories are as correct as we can make them given our current understanding. I have confidence in the germ theory of medicine for example. If new information comes to light, even paradigm shifting information, I will have no choice but to adjust my beliefs in response. I cannot imagine what new information would completely invalidate the germ theory of medicine however given the derth of evidence supporting it.
I have a feeling our capability of ever getting enough information is incredibly small. If we evolve eventually into something else that is smarter, has a larger range of senses etc, then we would no longer be human anymore.


#30
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
I have a feeling our capability of ever getting enough information is incredibly small.
Although enough is kind of a subjective term I can't really say I disagree with the sentiment.