Is there a reason for the existence of the universe?

@Amperage,

Amperage;148699 wrote:

depends on what you mean by "something".....if you define something as a material thing then no, God is not something(at least in the traditional understanding of God by most religions).

Like i said say again. The universe means everything. material, or otherwise.

@TuringEquivalent,

Is there a reason for the existence of the universe?
I hope so, if not
It is up to us to give it one.

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;148698 wrote:

which do you reject?

1. God is something.
2. something is part of everything( universe).
----------------------------------------------
God is part of everything( universe).

You are committing the fallacy of equivocation. You mean different things by, "universe": a. the material universe without God. b. the universe, including God.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;148732 wrote:

You are committing the fallacy of equivocation. You mean different things by, "universe": a. the material universe without God. b. the universe, including God.

The universe means everything that exist. It is in fact the standard definition after all. Here, i use universe in a "similar, but not identical" way to the universal set.

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;148736 wrote:

The universe means everything that exist. It is in fact the standard definition after all. Here, i use universe in a "similar, but not identical" way to the universal set.

That is one meaning of "the universe". Clearly, those who believe God created the universe (with the exception of pantheists like Spinoza) are not using that meaning of, "the universe". So, what is the point of insisting on that meaning of "universe"? Are you seriously intending to prove that there is no God by insisting that only your meaning of, "the universe" is the correct meaning?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;148738 wrote:

That is one meaning of "the universe". Clearly, those who believe God created the universe (with the exception of pantheists like Spinoza) are not using that meaning of, "the universe". So, what is the point of insisting on that meaning of "universe"? Are you seriously intending to prove that there is no God by insisting that only your meaning of, "the universe" is the correct meaning?

No. I think if God exist, then it is something. Whatever this something is, it is part of "everything". I just called this "everything", the "universe".

I think the philosophers that disagree with me are wrong. You ought to agree with me if you want to be right.

Those that disagree with me are out the prove the existence of God. They are biases, and they are also wrong. To even entertain that God is outside of everything is absurd.

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;148742 wrote:

You ought to agree with me if you want to be right.

Noted.

/unsubscribe

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;148742 wrote:

No. I think if God exist, then it is something. Whatever this something is, it is part of "everything". I just called this "everything", the "universe".

I think the philosophers that disagree with me are wrong. You ought to agree with me if you want to be right.

Those that disagree with me are out the prove the existence of God. They are biases, and they are also wrong. To even entertain that God is outside of everything is absurd.

If you insist on making God part of the universe, then (by definition) God is a part of everything. On the other hand, if you think that God is not part of the universe then, of course, God is not a part of everything. I guess that you think that by calling an opposing view, "absurd" you a giving an argument against it. You are mistaken.

@TuringEquivalent,

When I think about these things I usually get this feeling :brickwall:...
However, It would stand to reason that the universe is a fractal of infinite proportions. Infinitely big to infinitely small. It would be the shape somewhat like a doughnut. wrapping in then out of itself...
if you guys haven't looked at Nassim Haramein's work yet i suggest you do..
look it up on google. 2, 4hr clips on just what you are speaking of :sarcastic:

I guess my point is that if the universe is fractal and each point encompasses every other point. We are all in all the same, "one thing". That means that You, Me, God, Flowers, Trees, all of it wrapped into one. To me the only explanation, is a fractal universe b/c of that question: If God exist, what world does he live in? Does he have a God also? So you see just that line of thinking is fractal in nature...

As far as reason, well lol, if there was nothing it would be very boring..:shifty:

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;148765 wrote:

If you insist on making God part of the universe, then (by definition) God is a part of everything. On the other hand, if you think that God is not part of the universe then, of course, God is not a part of everything. I guess that you think that by calling an opposing view, "absurd" you a giving an argument against it. You are mistaken.

It is obvious to me that "all red things are colored". Of course, it makes sense to define "red things are red, but not colored", but does it not sound stupid?

Similarly, if god exist, then it is prima facie to be something, but it is also prima facie that anything something is part of everything. Of course, you can defined this special something to be not part of everything, but i think it is stupid.

Similarly, it is also stupid to say that the universal contains everything, but at the same time, it does not contain something. It is in my view stupid to make such a move.

@TuringEquivalent,

Interesting thread.

It seems there is no consensus as to what is meant by the universe and what is meant by everything. Neither as to whether there is more than the universe or whether the universe is everything.

I would ask where in the universe will you find a circle? Circles do not occur in nature. There are some things that occur in nature that are pretty darn close to a circle, but none are actual circles, they all have some sort of flaw.

So if circles do not exist in the universe, do they exist at all?

The universe only contains thoughts and things. Circle is neither a thought nor a thing, it is an idea and an object. Ideas and objects do not exist within the universe but when certain aspects of ideas and objects combine they form both thoughts and things.

The universe is entirely made up of differing combination of ideas and objects.

These Ideas and objects are what has historically been referred to as Creation, not the universe. The universe comes later.

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;148892 wrote:

It is obvious to me that "all red things are colored". Of course, it makes sense to define "red things are red, but not colored", but does it not sound stupid?

Similarly, if god exist, then it is prima facie to be something, but it is also prima facie that anything something is part of everything. Of course, you can defined this special something to be not part of everything, but i think it is stupid.

Similarly, it is also stupid to say that the universal contains everything, but at the same time, it does not contain something. It is in my view stupid to make such a move.

The trouble is that what sounds stupid is not always stupid. It sounds stupid to say that when one twin returns from a long trip at the speed of light, he will return younger than his twin. But it is true, nevertheless. It is not stupid to say that the universe contains everything that is not divine, but that it does not contain the divine. In fact, it is an obvious truth.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;148911 wrote:

The trouble is that what sounds stupid is not always stupid. It sounds stupid to say that when one twin returns from a long trip at the speed of light, he will return younger than his twin. But it is true, nevertheless. It is not stupid to say that the universe contains everything that is not divine, but that it does not contain the divine. In fact, it is an obvious truth.

The result from relativity is not counterintuitive at all given that you know all the reasoning that is involved. The same is not true for what seems to be a complete logical contradiction like "Cats are not animals". It is counterintuitive, or "stupid", because it is surely wrong no matter how you look at it. God is surely part of the universe, if god exist. Could you really doubt that something is not part of everything? I think not. It is an analytically false statement.

@TuringEquivalent,

trismegisto;148903 wrote:

These Ideas and objects are what has historically been referred to as Creation, not the universe. The universe comes later.

By whom? Who believes that?

TuringEquivalent;149019 wrote:

God is surely part of the universe, if god exist.

"Exists". I would be interested if you could find a reference for it. The Bible certainly does not say that God is 'part of the Universe'. I don't think Thomas Aquinas would say that he is, either. You might assume that it is obvious or proven, but it may not be so at all.

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;149019 wrote:

The result from relativity is not counterintuitive at all given that you know all the reasoning that is involved. The same is not true for what seems to be a complete logical contradiction like "Cats are not animals". It is counterintuitive, or "stupid", because it is surely wrong no matter how you look at it. God is surely part of the universe, if god exist. Could you really doubt that something is not part of everything? I think not. It is an analytically false statement.

As I have already pointed out, ad nauseum, if the universe includes both the divine and the profane, then God is part of the universe; but if the universe does not include the divine, then God is not a part of the universe.

You cannot prove anything about the world simply from definition. All you can show are the consequences of how you elect to used certain terms, like "universe" (or "everything"). That is just fundamental.

You are mistaken about what "counter-intuitive" means. It means what runs counter to your intuitions. What runs counter to your intuitions might be false, or it might be true. It was counter-intuitive that the Sun went around the Earth. But it was, nevertheless, true.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;149193 wrote:

As I have already pointed out, ad nauseum, if the universe includes both the divine and the profane, then God is part of the universe; but if the universe does not include the divine, then God is not a part of the universe.

You cannot prove anything about the world simply from definition. All you can show are the consequences of how you elect to used certain terms, like "universe" (or "everything"). That is just fundamental.

You are mistaken about what "counter-intuitive" means. It means what runs counter to your intuitions. What runs counter to your intuitions might be false, or it might be true. It was counter-intuitive that the Sun went around the Earth. But it was, nevertheless, true.

It's funny that, when it suits you, you have no problem believing counter-intuitive things. Yet, other times, you say stuff like "every educated person knows this" or some other bit of silliness that something is "obviously false".

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;149169 wrote:

I would be interested if you could find a reference for it. The Bible certainly does not say that God is 'part of the Universe'. I don't think Thomas Aquinas would say that he is, either. You might assume that it is obvious or proven, but it may not be so at all.

why is "something part of everything" needs a reference? I don` t give a **** about what the ancients think about the matter. I am right, and if you disagree, then you are wrong.

---------- Post added 04-07-2010 at 09:42 AM ----------

kennethamy;149193 wrote:

As I have already pointed out, ad nauseum, if the universe includes both the divine and the profane, then God is part of the universe; but if the universe does not include the divine, then God is not a part of the universe.

You cannot prove anything about the world simply from definition. All you can show are the consequences of how you elect to used certain terms, like "universe" (or "everything"). That is just fundamental.

You are mistaken about what "counter-intuitive" means. It means what runs counter to your intuitions. What runs counter to your intuitions might be false, or it might be true. It was counter-intuitive that the Sun went around the Earth. But it was, nevertheless, true.

The meaning of "the universe" means "everything" in the unrestricted sense.

e.g: If there are abstract objects, spirits, ghosts, divine, ideas etc..., then they would all be part of the same everything, or universe.

To say that "the universe does not contain god" is a logical contradiction, because if god is something, then it is surely part of the extension for "everything"

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;149200 wrote:

It's funny that, when it suits you, you have no problem believing counter-intuitive things. Yet, other times, you say stuff like "every educated person knows this" or some other bit of silliness that something is "obviously false".

Well, sure. I can believe counterintuitions when there is good reason to believe them. And sometimes it is true that every educated person knows, for instance, that the Copernican theory is true, although it is counterintuitive if you just look up at the sky. And some things are obviously false, for instance that cats and elephants are the same animal. So, I am not sure what you are complaining about.

But, getting back to the main point, you seem to be trying to prove something about whether God exists by the meanings of words. But it is impossible to prove that something exists in that way. Nothing exists by definition.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;149169 wrote:

By whom? Who believes that?

Well, you can start with the Egpytians, move on to all the children of abraham, then the greeks, Hindu's, Buddhists, well pretty much any creation myth you care to read will tell you the same thing. Just pick one, it doesn't matter from which culture.

They are all the same.

@trismegisto,

trismegisto;149289 wrote:

Well, you can start with the Egpytians, move on to all the children of abraham, then the greeks, Hindu's, Buddhists, well pretty much any creation myth you care to read will tell you the same thing. Just pick one, it doesn't matter from which culture.

They are all the same.

Buddhist? They don't have a creation myth. So I wonder if you even checked to verify that before saying it.

Philosophy Forum

Is there a reason for the existence of the universe?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know