God = The Universe - Page 2

There is a very big difference between science and religion. Faith (religion) is belief in spite of evidence. This is the definition even set forth by scripture.

Science is based upon empirical evidence. The moment a theory does not agree with empirical evidence it must be discarded.

Do not believe E=MC^2? Then do not worry about nuclear weapons -- they will not detonate.

Doubt quantum mechanics? Then don't bother subscribing to AT&T or Verizon -- the cell phone won't work.

Which is why I hold science as the probable explanation for what is. It works. Any experiment can be replicated by anyone, anywhere.

Even if Newton was wrong, we would not have had a successful landing on the moon.

Something is not wrong because we do not want to accept it, or because it is difficult to understand.

Admittedly, string theory will be difficult to demonstrate with empirical evidence. However, there is a wealth of evidence to support the Big Bang. The expansion of the universe and the background radiation resulting from the Big Bang are observable and measurable.

I am not sure how you are tying in the Russian doll analogy; but, if it is an infinite series, there is no 'innermost' or 'outermost.' Again, there is no 'outside.'

The book is better than the video at arriving at the conclusion. Not that the video is wrong, but the simplicity of the video medium is not lent to the details of Hawking's book.

God is definitely the Universe and everything that makes up the universe essentially make up God. I think there's a fallacy in how we try to understand God, though. We try to understand God using the logic that man created and back up that logic with emperical evidence who's results can only be understood withint he scope of human understanding. Basically, we're trying to understand something that we didn't create by concepts we created. That's probably why religions give God human characteristics like love and anger or even a brain that makes plans. It's human to see something as intricate as the universe and think that it must've been planned because in order for humans to make intricate things, we have to plan. But when we apply that logic to non-human entities like God, or rather the Universe Itself, we can only make assumptions at best. Every question surrounding existence leads only to infinite questions because our human mind wants to find the source of it all. I guess it's too simple to accept that the source of existence is existence itself.

What I'd like to understand is how there can be more than one universe or multiverses? Where does one universe stop and another one start?

The math shows that the universe was inevitable. As Stephen Hawking has received so much flack for, he has stated that the physics shows this, and therefore, though it does not disprove God in the classical sense, renders a Creator superfluous.

Additionally, the concept of one starting and one ending is nonsensical. Just like the infinite series, no one point is closer to the end than another.

Certain languages are better in describing certain things than others. By far the best language to discuss physics is the Calculus. Unfortunately, Capitan Cynic lacks an equation writer. (I could cut and paste equations having written them elsewhere, but that previously has been met with scorn for some reason.) Also it demands that the reader understands the language. Still allow me to demonstrate as best I can.

Take the x/0 problem. Why is this so? If 3 * 5 = 15 and 15/3 = 5; and 0*3 = 0 why does not 3/0 = 0? Why is it undefined? This question is pondered by every aspiring young mathematician. The answer is easily demonstrated with a simple equation only demanding a knowledge of first year Calculus. Take lim 1/x; x->0 or as read: “the limit of 1 over x as x approaches 0.” Now, graph this on Cartesian coordinates. As the line approaches x=0 it suddenly curves up approaching, but never touching x=0, as y increases to infinity. As x becomes smaller and smaller, y becomes larger and larger, neither ever reaching end. And this is true whatever the numerator (provided the numerator >0, if the numerator is < 0, the graph is inverted.)

Now how much sense does it make to express the infinity of f lim 1/x as x -> 0 and f lim 2/x as x-> 0 asking where one begins and one ends? They are independent functions. The set of one is not the set of the other, but both are there.

If Captain Cynic had an equation writer, I could express my points more clearly.

When I was very young, my forth grade teacher taught us that there was the Galaxy. That was it. Later, we accepted that there were multiple galaxies. Our knowledge expanded. Now, no one questions the concept of multiple galaxies. When I was young, it was thought that the Universe was steady state. Now we know it is expanding. Our knowledge is still expanding. As science becomes more accurate in its understanding, a better comprehension of the tools of science, such as mathematics is demanded, and this slows the dissemination of science to the public, because fewer are exposed to the tools. This is why an increased knowledge of mathematics is so critical for our youth. I fear that the gap between those that have understanding and those who do not is becoming so wide as to cause a parting of the populace into those that have comprehension and those who do not.

New theories in mathematics have even crept into such things as business. Now, no one who does not understand probability or chaos theory stands a chance in the market where mathematical equations rule Wall Street. (Unfortunately this has drained our best mathematical minds from the classroom into Wall Street -- for why teach math for 25K (starting) a year when you can make 250K (starting) or better in business?)

The USA ranks 34th in nations as per mathematics.

Support education.

OR....

To save any confusion about attributing any false intentionality or personality...
Just drop the word "God".
and then you have
The Universe = The Universe.

To ReBerg:
you said"God = The Universe
God and The Universe are one and same .
Think about all the attributes assigned to God – omnipresent, omnipotent, infinite, eternal, glorious, wondrous. All of these apply to The Universe, surrounding us, supporting us, stretching beyond our vision and comprehension.
Is it that much of a leap of faith to see The Universe as a sentient being? "

answer, er. bloody well yes.
A ridiculous leap. A leap for which no warrant exists.

If nothing is not possible, into what is the Universe expanding?
The answer is nothing. But you misunderstand nothing because when you ask that question you are assuming that nothing is something.
The point is that the Universe is not expanding into anything, is the same as saying expanding into nothing. Thus nothing is impossible as it is not a thing, not anything.

I think that Hobbes is trying to explain the difference between 0 (nothing) and null (void). If so, he is correct.

Yes, these are not the same. You can have less than zero. You can not have less than null. Null is not.

Zero is the center of the Cartesian plane. Null is no graph.

My bad. I am sorry that I set Hobbes up for this semantic problem. Never-the-less he is correct in his explanation.

I have tried to mentally envision void to no avail. I can conceive of void academically, and can express it mathematically, but I cannot envision it. My mind is not capable of this. Nothing, however, is a no-brainier.

What is more disconcerting is that in the programing language 'C,' my computer 'knows' the difference between zero and void. What does that mean?

[For non-programmers: zero in a computer = 00 @ address XXXX. Null (or void) = no address.]

Hobbes Choice rules! Thanks. I think we might be reaching gray matter by now.

Do not misunderstand me. I AM NOT implying anyone is stupid. Ignorance (not knowing) is not the same as stupid (can't know). Unlike stupidity, ignorance has a cure (knowledge).

I am ignorant in an unlimited amount of things. We are all in this together.

Still, I am upset that the USA ranks 34th amongst nations in mathematics. And 29th in science. We could do better.

(How is the ranking for science higher than mathematics? Microbiology, which is less dependent on mathematics. That said, I personally found organic chemistry to be a real bitch.)

Additionally, Hobbes Choice has correctly utilized Occam's razor.

quote:

---

The Universe = The Universe

---

In that, it is an accepted philosophical principle that if two explanations exist for a single principle, the simpler one is correct.

Wow, I never would have guessed that posting my little equation, which was really more of a thread title abbreviation than an equation, on a “social awareness/religion” forum would be the equivalent of whacking a scientific hornets nest with a religion stick.

I didn't intend to insult the Universe by nicknaming it God. My intent was to provide a different perspective for those who already accept the existence of a supreme being. To me, it's an avenue to bypass all the worship, prayers, dogma and other trappings of established religions, step outside on a starry night and take a direct look at (oops, pardon me in advance) God. I've never been a church-going guy, and I never will be.

I don't see the Universe as having any type of direct contact with its living inhabitants. As to the Universe's purpose in animating some of its components, I can only speculate -- as can any religious group, no matter how strongly it asserts that it has the truth.

I appear to have chosen the wrong sub-forum. My apologies to anyone who rancor I raised.

No rancor. No worries. It's all in good fun.

Welcome to Captian Cynic.