Four Possibilities For Our Universes' Existence

[Jeff V]

Then why even discuss it? So I don't know how ,but I DO KNOW that it just could'nt have been created. That makes alot of sense.

The forgone conclusion that creation is a fairy tale but alternate dimensions, chickens dropping turds, smurfs-anyting but creation, says so much about our current state of affairs.

However I can definately understand it. It just seems so irrational.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5. The Universe was created by something finite, not eternal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this how you feel. If so can you explain why?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible. I don't believe this is any more reasonable than the other causes, but then again I don't think it is any less reasonable either. Your goal was to come up with a list of all possibilities, and certainly a finite creator should be included.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course you miss the option that makes the most sense: In a higher dimensional space, the universe is a chicken turd and was created when a finite and non eternal but higher dimesional chicken had to defecate. Any one that has tried to clean up bird crap will verify that something that is not eternal can create long lasting things.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree that the universe was created by an outside being? That was the point of the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You miss my point. I believe that the universes creation is only interesting to us because it is our universe. I am simply suggesting that its creation is a perfectly mundane occurence. How about making it a rock slipping and falling in a higher dimensional space so that no other being is involved? My examply was also supposed to be a bit of a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, the point of the argument in the original post was that the universe was created. You ridiculed that argument here:
[ QUOTE ]
I love it when someone makes one of these posts. I am now convinced that there must be a pro-God site somewhere showing people how to make this moronic arguement. It just shows up too often and is so stupid that I would lose my faith in humanity if I believed so many people came up with it independently. This argument is begging the question and totally worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, it seems you agree here:
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the universes creation is only interesting to us because it is our universe. I am simply suggesting that its creation is a perfectly mundane occurence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bottom line: The universe was created by some outside being. Agree?

[Girchuck]

The scientists in cosmology can build their theories on the available observations. The sum of available observations suggests that that portion of the Universe which we are able to observe is not eternal.
However, no further inferences can be made, until our ability to make observations is improved. No evidence points to an infinite timeless Universe creator.
So, option 5 proposed by several people in this thread, namely that it is too early for definite conclusions, seems like the most rational choice at this time.
What makes you jump to your conclusion ahead of the evidence?

[hurlyburly]

Well, you brought it up...

Every one of the explanations has an equal amount of validity while we exist in a state of ignorance. As a species we've existed for less than a few thousandths of a percent of known time. We've got an incomplete snapshot of a snapshot of a snapshot of a blurry snapshot. It may be fun to conjecture, but we can't possibly KNOW anything.

I can never hope to master the math to even begin to comprehend the theories, but that doesn't lead me to accept a creator theory.

Maybe it's just me, but if irrefutable proof came that we are just a bunch of mice in a really big cage, I'd be sorely disappointed. I'm just as entitled to believe that as you are to your beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course you miss the option that makes the most sense: In a higher dimensional space, the universe is a chicken turd and was created when a finite and non eternal but higher dimesional chicken had to defecate. Any one that has tried to clean up bird crap will verify that something that is not eternal can create long lasting things.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree that the universe was created by an outside being? That was the point of the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, his point was that the poster, when defining all "possibilities" conveniently ignored some possibilities. Do you really fail to see that? You think the OP is really an "argument" for an outside creator? It is a collection of incomplete and unfounded assertions and nothing more.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about making it a rock slipping and falling in a higher dimensional space so that no other being is involved?

[/ QUOTE ]
And the IDEA that there MAY BE an intelligent designer is too far out for people that think this way? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

His point nis simply that the universe may have been created as a physical outcome of an event that occurred merely by chance in a larger multiverse. He isn't saying that this is certain, just possible. But just ignore this possibility in your "possibilities for our universe' existence" and continue to delude yourself into believing that you have logically "proven" the creator.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's just me, but if irrefutable proof came that we are just a bunch of mice in a really big cage, I'd be sorely disappointed. I'm just as entitled to believe that as you are to your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we totally agree. I happen to believe in God, but in no way am I discounting your right to believe what you choose.

Just observing how easy "open-minded" people is to totally discount something then later stae well we don't have all the facts so I don't know.

[Jeff V]

I didn't know I proved creation. I should spread the news. Don't I get a prize or something?

[chezlaw]

Hi Jeff

Its hard to believe you've discussed this much (as I think you claim) and cannot recognise the problem people have with this type of justification of god.

You dismiss 2. and 3. and 5(something else) but are arguing against people who don't dismiss them but simply don't understand how they could be. The lack of understanding is nor resolved by the addition of something else they don't understand.

They are certainly not going to be persuaded that lack of understanding implies impossible (or irrational). So whats the point?

chez