Wakanyugi wrote:D32 wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:D32 wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:masukuma wrote:mimi nangoja answers.... watu nikuchapa domo tu wanachapa hapa!
Masukuma, let me try.
Some questions are not properly 'ask-able' because the language or the premises used simply limit the kind of answer you can ever get.
The question about the origin of the Universe is one such. The premise behind this question is that the Universe exists within a space-time framework, and therefore would have an origin and an end.
The reality is different, however. Time and space are 'effects' generated by the observer (us) perhaps in an attempt to understand the Universe.
The Universe does not exist within time and space and is not subject to them, in fact just the reverse.The proof?: 'if the Universe contained only one object, there would be no time or space.' We, the observers, are the ones who interpret the relationships between different objects (and locations) as space and the one between different change events (dominated by entropy) as time.
They do NOT really exist.
The Universe therefore can not have an origin or an end. It simply 'is.'
Hi there,
I think that your "proof" cannot proof your point, (that there is no time and space),
as all physical objects (even if the universe had one object) exists in a volume of space, at a particular moment. Not so...it is not the Universe that exists within time and space. It is time and space that exist within the Universe, to the point where we insist that these effects are real. And the 'proof' I cited is just a tip of the iceberg as it were.
But lets pursue your argument. If the Universe contained only one object (as we are told it did before the big bang) how could there be space and time?
Secondly if there was no observer, how could there be time and space, seeing as these are effects directly tied to our ability, through our senses and consciousness, to perceive and interpret relationships between 'things'?
I think that I understand what is causing us to differ. We hold two opposing world views. My world view is that the universe had a beginning, while yours is that the universe does not have a beginning, that it has always been in existence.
The point of contention was in regards to time and space. In order for each of our world views to be supported, the nature of time and space has to adopt one world view or the other, not both.
In my world view, time and space encapsulates the universe, while with your world view, the universe encapsulates the "perceived" time and space.
The reason that your world view requires the universe to encapsulate time and space, is that in order for the universe to NOT have a beginning, there has to be NO time, it's existence has to be at a place where there is no time, hence your explanation of time and space being our perceptions, in our attempt to interpret what we are seeing and experiencing.
Quoting you: "The Universe does not exist within time and space and is not subject to them, in fact just the reverse."
For my world view, in order for the universe to begin, time has to exist to mark the beginning of the universe's existence, as the universe cannot "begin", if not in time.
Until our world views are in sync, our perceptions of time and space will differ.
The deeper or next question then will be "Which of the two world views is true?" After all, both cannot be true.
Then another question that follows the just asked question is "Will we ever know the answer to the question of which world view is true?"
The answer to the last question is "Yes", if my world view is true, or "No" if your world view is true.
The reason for "No" if your world view is true, is that once we die, that's it. The universe will just continue, we were but a mere moment, in contrary, the reason for "Yes" if my world view is true, is that even if we die, our maker will resurrect us all in one of two resurrections.
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:29
How one chooses to live relative to the moral law, will be what will determine the eternal fate of an individual. In essence, we choose our eternal destiny by our everyday decisions.
The encounter with the creator during the resurrection will be proof that God is real, that the universe has it's creator, that the universe has rules to live by, that the universe had a beginning, but it will be too late if one resurrected in the resurrection of damnation.
In explaining my world view, speaking about the Creator was inevitable.
Thank you for the detailed response. Quite impressive, although I must admit you lost me a bit at John 5:29. No matter.
I'll not try to argue my World view as I believe the evidence for a 'no space-time' Universe is fairly persuasive.
As to the point that one of us has to be right, am sorry but you are arguing an absolute position here. As I have maintained before (and no one has proved me wrong yet) our Universe, as it is set up, does not seem to permit absolutes. In other words, we seem to exist in a Universe where everything is possible and relative, subject only to our capacity as observers to perceive and interpret. Therefore, as long as the possibility exists that one or both of us could be wrong, you can not argue an absolute position (that one of us has to be right and the other wrong).
I know of know idea or principle or law etc, that has been proven beyond the point of possible falsifiability. Not even in mathematics. Of course this position is not new or unique (see for instance, the Schrodinger wave equation)
Finally back to your world view (Universe view actually). If the Universe has a beginning, what was there before it started?
How big is the Universe then? Is it as big as the 'edges' we can perceive with our instrument aided senses or bigger?
Alright then, in this dialogue, we shall use "universe or universal view", just bear in mind that "world view" is the general term used for ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view
Both of us can easily misunderstand each other here. The question was which universal view is true? One that says that the universe was created, or one that says that the universe always had existed? Since both cannot exist at the same time, at least from my world view, as God cannot exist and not exist at the same time.
Then you responded with "Therefore, as long as the possibility exists that one or both of us could be wrong, you can not argue an absolute position (that one of us has to be right and the other wrong). "
Your statement is perfectly correct.
I stated that both views cannot be true at the same time, since the universe cannot have a beginning and not have a beginning at the same time, and because both cannot be right at the same time (you also added something interesting, that both can be wrong). I then went on to state what would be proof that my universal view is true beyond doubt.
"The encounter with the creator during the resurrection will be proof that God is real, that the universe has it's creator..."
As long as what is contained in the statement that I just mentioned above does NOT take place, the possibilities for your universal view or any others are open, but, should that which is contained in the statement take place, that would be proof that my universal view is true. Fair enough?
Side note: The reason why I am convinced that the universe has a creator, is because of the evidences that I've encountered. Some of the evidences include the knowledge that has been revealed regarding astronomy, some of which have been mentioned in this thread.
The resurrection should not be the point an which anyone should discover God, more specifically, the second resurrection. There will be two resurrections, all humans will resurrect in one of the two, the first resurrection will be the resurrection of life, while the second resurrection will be the resurrection of damnation - No one should resurrect in the second resurrection. More on this later.
If the Universe has a beginning, what was there before it started?
One of the best questions ever. I've also entertained this question. Imagine everything that we know, trees, rivers, sights & sounds, the Earth, our galaxy, all the known universe, all NOT being there. Deafening silence? Darkness? Well in my universal view, the only thing that exists, that did not have a beginning, that will always exist, is God. He is what existed before the universe was created.
You may then wonder, why then did God create the universe?
Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Revelations 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Psalms 104:31 The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works.
Besides many other reasons for the creation of the universe, the verses above show that the universe was created for God, for His pleasure, for His enjoyment.
The same enjoyment that God gets from the universe is the same enjoyment the created inhabitants were to have while experiencing creation and communion with their creator, but we find that our world has been marred by sin.
There are still lots of questions that need to be answered, in explaining my universal view, e.g. How do all world religions reconcile with there being one God? Are there other worlds or beings in other planets?
In a new thread, will answer questions, as this thread is there for us to exchange ideas between our different universal views.
How big is the Universe then? Is it as big as the 'edges' we can perceive with our instrument aided senses or bigger?
So far, we can all agree that is as big as we are capable of comprehending, because it just gets bigger, relative to our gained capacity to comprehend it. What we don't know is if it is infinite, or if it has an edge.
They tried to bury us, they didn't know we were seeds.