The idea of God always existing

[Phil]

And I don't understand how the idea that matter has always existed is such a hard thing to wrap ones head around. Surely that's easier to accept that accept that than to accept that "nothing" once existed. Existence being a characteristic that would immediately define it as not nothing.

Want a fun thought? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 1095 years there will be no matter in the universe. There will be no light. There will be nothing except quantum fields. Pretty much the "nothing" people claim was before the big bang.

There's something beautifully symmetrical to that...

The bouncing cosmology was written about in 2003 by Aguirre and Gratton. They were writing from the perspective of the bounce being on the other side of the big bang with time and entropy running "away" from the singularity. I'm just looking at the possibility of eternal bouncing in the future as well as the past.

Head swimming yet?

[picto90]

The bouncing cosmology was written about in 2003 by Aguirre and Gratton. They were writing from the perspective of the bounce being on the other side of the big bang with time and entropy running "away" from the singularity. I'm just looking at the possibility of eternal bouncing in the future as well as the past.
Head swimming yet?

The big bounce, theorizing that we're living in one of an infinite possibility of universes existing in the midst of an ever expanding and contacting universe.

Don't know very much the topic, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Will have to look into it further

[Phil]

The bouncing cosmology was written about in 2003 by Aguirre and Gratton. They were writing from the perspective of the bounce being on the other side of the big bang with time and entropy running "away" from the singularity. I'm just looking at the possibility of eternal bouncing in the future as well as the past.
Head swimming yet?

The big bounce, theorizing that we're living in one of an infinite possibility of universes existing in the midst of an ever expanding and contacting universe.

Don't know very much the topic, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Will have to look into it further

Multiple possible universes is the multiverse theory. That is another topic for headswimming but it it's most generic form, it is an inevitability and there have actually been some theoretical calculations made as to the minimum distance between them.

edit: Here is the PDF of their paper (Aguirre and Gratton) if anyone is interested.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0301042v2.pdf

[Faith No More]

1) Morality points to Ultimate High Authority by virtue of commanding to ultimate high authority
2) Morality nature manifests as being eternal
3) There needs to be an absolute correct morality which we either are correct with reference to or are wrong with reference to.

All unproven assumptions.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ah so your deism/agnosticism, if that is how you classify yourself, is based more on a explanation for what you see as non-physical phenomenon?

Yes, I feel materialism fails to address the most significant part of human life, i.e. the subjective experience of being alive. The idea that the fullness of life can be reduced to a massively complex electro-chemical reaction seem counter-intuitive and incomplete to me. The physical universe is somehow intimately entangled to other parts of reality that do not follow algorithms or reduce to equations. [/quote]

[NoMoreFaith]

Yes, I feel materialism fails to address the most significant part of human life, i.e. the subjective experience of being alive. The idea that the fullness of life can be reduced to a massively complex electro-chemical reaction seem counter-intuitive and incomplete to me. The physical universe is somehow intimately entangled to other parts of reality that do not follow algorithms or reduce to equations.

This isn't a criticism as much, but I see people voice this opinion of "counter-intuitive and incomplete" yet fail to adequately explain an intuitive and complete answer that isn't just additional "Woo" to the explanation.

No shame in "I Don't Know", but it doesn't mean unexplainable.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, I feel materialism fails to address the most significant part of human life, i.e. the subjective experience of being alive. The idea that the fullness of life can be reduced to a massively complex electro-chemical reaction seem counter-intuitive and incomplete to me. The physical universe is somehow intimately entangled to other parts of reality that do not follow algorithms or reduce to equations.

Except that it doesn't, and has in fact had the most to say about our subjective experience of any idea ever put forward (and has been able to demonstrate the most of what it has said). What you mean to say is that these explanations are not satisfying to you. Well, what satisfies and what is....

[Voltair]

By all means I do not look down on people for holding deistic beliefs but... so far in this thread I have seen mostly the idea that it is a choice based on what you feel must be true. It doesn't seem to be based on any provable fact and those three moral assumptions were not backed up but just stated as if they were already true.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes, I feel materialism fails to address the most significant part of human life, i.e. the subjective experience of being alive. The idea that the fullness of life can be reduced to a massively complex electro-chemical reaction seem counter-intuitive and incomplete to me. The physical universe is somehow intimately entangled to other parts of reality that do not follow algorithms or reduce to equations.

This isn't a criticism as much, but I see people voice this opinion of "counter-intuitive and incomplete" yet fail to adequately explain an intuitive and complete answer that isn't just additional "Woo" to the explanation.

No shame in "I Don't Know", but it doesn't mean unexplainable.

I have plenty to present by way of explanation, but the continuous demand for proof of material and effective causes excludes inquiries based on formal or final cause. If I have to leave half the tools in the toolbox, I can't contribute anything more. That's not a complaint, just my understand of the culture of this forum and the way it constrains what may and may not be discussed.

[The Grand Nudger]

What, precisely, can you explain without demonstrating? What sort of explanations are we talking about, just-so stories? "Somebody said this once", "I believe this", well, somebody said alot of things, people believe alot of things. How are we to cull an explanation out of that? "I keep trying to explain things, but these assholes keep asking for evidence, what's their deal anyway?"