God is in semantics.

[Natachan]

To explain would be difficult. I only got enough into modern physics to say "nope, not for me." I passed the class and moved on.

Space and time are two manifestations of the same thing. As space gets compacted time slows down. This phenomena is evident around black holes, and indeed around any massive body. As such it makes sense to me that as you go further back towards the big bang that time would start to slow down. When you get to the point where the universe was infinitely dense and compact you would also have time running infinitely slowly. Think of an asymptote (sp?) from math. As you approach a limiting value the line will approach infinity. It will never reach that limiting value but it is clear that it is converging towards that value.

[Dooker]

Welcome matey.
You may as well argue that we are the only life in the universe because ..... Why not?

We have a sample of one of one to make an accurate judgement. Hence, we can't.
Same goes for our universe.

One can easily hypothesize that since this universe exists, why not others?
Either parallel or sequentially...

We can't know how the laws of the universe will manifest themselves in "other" universes.
All we know is under this particular universe, life has resulted.

Under this particular universe, life was mathematically certain to eventuate...
No need for consciousness as a prime mover.

I'm very comfortable not knowing, hence my inability to believe in something even more ridiculous.
It's just not logical....that and the fact that the concept of a god is extremely abstract with no bearing on our current reality.

I'm comfortable too, thats why I'm agnostic I guess, but I label general words to certain concepts. I simply don't know how we can acknowledge existence and not think that their is something to this. That if nothing created the universe that we would be here. "Something" had to create us or we wouldnt be here, no matter how disconnected from us or disinterested in us it is, there is still something going on. I suppose the best I can say is that it's the fish in a fish bowl type of description. or trying to explain the solar system to a bull frog. Well never be able to understand it. Even in and past death...wherever that my lead.

[Minimalist]

However I can revert to philosophical grounds that if there wasn't something to create it, it wouldn't be.

Philosophy is about as useful as their holy scribblings.

[Dooker]

To explain would be difficult. I only got enough into modern physics to say "nope, not for me." I passed the class and moved on.

Space and time are two manifestations of the same thing. As space gets compacted time slows down. This phenomena is evident around black holes, and indeed around any massive body. As such it makes sense to me that as you go further back towards the big bang that time would start to slow down. When you get to the point where the universe was infinitely dense and compact you would also have time running infinitely slowly. Think of an asymptote (sp?) from math. As you approach a limiting value the line will approach infinity. It will never reach that limiting value but it is clear that it is converging towards that value.

Right but thats too mathematical! More specifically, why math is true. I'm talking about why the rules of the black hole are true! why is gravity true? What, because it "just is"! No way, something made the rules. Something set it up, how gravity works, how space and time works, everything. It's not from anything remotely in this solar system, lest the galaxy, I don't know, but something, whatever "it" is made the rules and we'll never know what. That "it" gives me some solace, and I just don't see that as delusional like most of the earthly religions.

[Whateverist]

The Universe exits. It is here and was probably created by the big bang( even christians acknowledge this). If that is so, than something made that happen. That "something" is god. This comes to a semantic definition of "something". Suffice it to say, if "something" didn't cause the universe to be, none of us would be here. I don't know how you reconcile that "something" as being anything but a god. This is where I think Christians et al, are wrong in thinking that my statement here agrees with them. They don't have a monopoly on god. Just because I believe there was a prime mover of the universe doesn't mean I think it was Moses, Jesus, Mohammed or any other human derived deity.

Anyways, thoughts on the semantics of "something"?

I have no problem with limitless regress. Unless you've already decided to go with a first cause, it is the obvious alternative. The only reason we shrink from limitless regress is thermo dynamics. But that only applies to closed system and we're in no position to assume the universe is truly unitary and therefore closed. What we know as our universe may very well fit within a superstructure which we may never be able to verify.

For my money I am willing to grant prior necessary and sufficient causes but a first one seems more absurd to me than the idea of infinite priors.

That there would be some thing (my bolding on your quote by the way) is no problem. But that the idea that this thing would be a 'subject' has no appeal whatsoever apart from the way it ties into ancient folklore. I'm certainly not giving that any creedence. Are you?

[Reforged]

I would say the natural world can be considered God in this case. Why are the rules of the natural world as complex as they are? Just because? I suppose i need a better description now as you need a little more detail on how we both interpret the word god. Thats a big one though, that you think the universe is past infinite. I subscribe to the big bang, and that changes a  lot of this discussion. Do you mean to say that you believe in the bb but that it has been expanding and contracting for infinity?

Spinozas God. Einstein used the word in the same way which caused much misunderstanding. I feel theres a lesson to be learnt from that.
If you consider the natural world to be natural why use the word God at all? I don't think its adequate. It contains too much baggage and is clearly not fit for purpose. Its certainly not descriptive and it clears up nothing about the universe to call it that. The only purpose of it is to assign a spirtual collective consciousness to the universe that has not at all been demonstrated and even if it had; God is not an effective or correct word. 
This is really something we need to clear up if we are to communicate on the subject. Could you clearly define the entity you are picturing?

[Whateverist]

However I can revert to philosophical grounds that if there wasn't something to create it, it wouldn't be.

Philosophy is about as useful as their holy scribblings.

Of course there are those who would say the same of history.

[Natachan]

To explain would be difficult. I only got enough into modern physics to say "nope, not for me." I passed the class and moved on.

Space and time are two manifestations of the same thing. As space gets compacted time slows down. This phenomena is evident around black holes, and indeed around any massive body. As such it makes sense to me that as you go further back towards the big bang that time would start to slow down. When you get to the point where the universe was infinitely dense and compact you would also have time running infinitely slowly. Think of an asymptote (sp?) from math. As you approach a limiting value the line will approach infinity. It will never reach that limiting value but it is clear that it is converging towards that value.

Right but thats too mathematical! More specifically, why math is true. I'm talking about why the rules of the black hole are true! why is gravity true? What, because it "just is"! No way, something made the rules. Something set it up, how gravity works, how space and time works, everything. It's not from anything remotely in this solar system, lest the galaxy, I don't know, but something, whatever "it" is made the rules and we'll never know what. That "it" gives me some solace, and I just don't see that as delusional like most of the earthly religions.

If it gives you some solace, that's fine. I still don't buy a supernatural cause.

When I was in physics we were forced to derive most of the equations ourselves before we were given them. In this way I learned how interconnected the universe and the laws that govern it are. Most of our physical laws seem to be fixed, relying on something else. Each law or equation relies on others, and they all feed back into each other.

This is why I describe our current model of the universe as a puzzle with missing pieces. It seems likely that the things that "make the laws of physics what they are" will be some natural cause (or causes) that will interconnect with the others. We are so close that at times it seems we can almost make out the shapes of those missing pieces, but each time we get close we find still more to learn.

Edit: I just noticed the "why math is true" line. Math is true by definition. It is a set of axioms and rules. It is completely arbitrary. If you follow those rules then you are doing math. If not, not.

[ignoramus]

Hehe, you have a history of picking on poor old Min!
History is very accurate and predictable!

[Pizza]

However I can revert to philosophical grounds that if there wasn't something to create it, it wouldn't be.

Philosophy is about as useful as their holy scribblings.

I don't know about that. David Hume's writings persuaded me that philosophical theology is a failure. So philosophy is good for something after all.