What view of Origins is more profound?

[Ryft]

Either Frodo didn't vote, or he voted God off the island, since I'm the only person who voted B.

[Retorth]

Ah yea 7 - 1 now.

[Ryft]

You've got one or two theists on this site. The results can't be unanimous. Besides, when everyone thinks the same it's fucking BORING!

[leo-rcc]

I havent seen much of an argument for any of these positions so i haven't voted yet.

[fr0d0]

I registered my B vote

[Amphora]

Looks like everyone (who voted) unanimously agrees on A

Exactly so Retorth! Thats my vote and I am sticking to it!

If anyone wants to prove me other wise, nows the time to act!!

[Violet]

The original universe is cyclic... so even if b and c are true later down the line: A is the 'origin' of it all... though a circle has no beginning.

What evidence do you have to support that proposition? Because the evidence i have shows that the universe is expanding exponentially(taken from measuring the red-shift on supernovae; the Doppler effect) due to the universal constant(lambda; the energy density per square meter of the universe) remaining constant(due to the influx of 'Dark Energy') despite the expansion of spacetime and may already have expanded beyond the point where a collapse(big crunch) and re-expansion(big bounce) are possible.

There is no evidence to suggest a cyclic universe, in fact the idea seems to be disproved by said expansion.

Also, B and C are supernatural and thus are not part of a naturalistic view of origins.

Ours is not the original universe then The original universe must be cyclic, because if 1 ≠ 1 in that universe: this universe and however many others could not have ever existed. The proof? If 1≠1, then the universe degrades into nothingness, righting the inequality... or the universe expands into a singularity by which 1=1 is reestablished. The evidence to suggest it: The equality (therefore the identity), the difference, and the change as a result. Energy neither is created, nor destroyed: only changed in form can it be. This is the simplicity of existence, which cycles because things are themselves, therefore the continued difference, which results in change of the identity, which leads to further difference, which leads to further change, continued. I'll explain this further sometime if it isn't clear

B and C are indeed supernatural. Say that I control just about everything of a simulated populace in ways I have programed.. I am not bound by the rules of their universe though. So while from my POV: I am doing natural things... from their POV: the supernatural is being committed. In essence, gods could be just normal people, on a different plane of existence (we could be a video game after all ). Therefore we could be measuring simply our 'existence'... and not the physics responsible for all universes.

Also, I still see this universe cyclicly despite others observations to the 'contrary'. I do not hold any faith that it is possible to expand beyond a 'big crunch'... and the exponential speed at which we appear to be expanding has not been well enough explained for me to consider more than theory. Simply: we do not fully understand our plane of existence (if it can be called a plane?)... and all theories as to the state of it are not certain. However, if you evidence holds true: it is to state that energy is being generated from nothingness (therefore 1≠1) and we will be sucked together by a 'big crunch' all the faster because of exponential creation of energy. In this case: we are riding out on the effects of being pushed away from universal center by an exponentially growing mass of energy (therefore exponential increase in speed). A number of things change in our universe if 1≠1... few of them good.

[theVOID]

Check out these lectures for some convincing explanations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAxwmiKrj...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnuxCZrtx...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoJmpaQPEsU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40OQdPbeM...re=related

[Meatball]

The question isn't very clear. Literal creation is very profound to a lot of people, obviously.

What do you mean by profound?

[Tiberius]

It seems to me that Saerules is trying to explain away physics with mathematics (which is a human invention after all...not a "science" strictly). The problems I foresee in this are:

1) Mathematics is abstract. The number "1" doesn't actually exist anywhere in the universe...we invented it in our minds.
2) Saerules has shown a complete lack of mathematical skill in other threads, so I wouldn't trust anything she had to say on mathematical proofs of the universe being cyclic...