big mystery

How did something come to exist? That's probably the biggest mystery ever. If we say that universe was created by collision of some two objects, then how were those two objects created? Anyway, at the absolute beginning, there had to be absolute void, because if anything existed, then it wasn't absolute beginning. But then if nothing existed, then what caused something to come to existence, when there was nothing? As there was absolute void, so there was also no reason for anything to happen.

>>1
Bekenstein-Hawking radiation.
BHR dictates that at any given point, in any given spatial region, an energy fluctuation can cause a particle and its anti-particle to briefly wink into existence and then they cancel each other out.  The standard definition of BHR applies to the event horizon of black holes at the moment, where one particle escape the gravitational pull of the event horizon and the other falls into the black hole maintaining equilibrium between the black hole and the rest of the universe (basic calorimetry).  Current understanding of this effect is only observable on the event horizon of black holes, but the basic premise can be adaptive for anywhere there is energy fluctuations and only logic and expectations about causality dictate that the two particles must cancel each other out.  It's not much, but it's a start.

Personally, I'm not convinced by my own argument.  Since my human definition of things "existing" and "not existing" is specious, I am incline to have to take the position that substance at that level was never created or will ever be destroyed.  The amount of matter in the universe is immeasurably fixed - even a vacuum is filled with some kind of particles - but it changes configuration and form based on conditions at a given location - at some point, a finite amount of vacuum can turn into a planet and a planet can turn into a finite amount of vacuum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

>>1
You're not thinking simplistically. Even if there were a void, a void would be something to state as existence. If I had to make a guess at what existed I would have to state that the elimination of contrast should signify an oblivion of which there would be no way of knowing it was oblivion; Oblivious of oblivion. At this absolute beginning the contradistinction is what draws anything into existence, but the only way to come to contradistinction is through awareness of present moment source.
It means, first there was obliviousness of oblivion, then there was awareness of oblivion, then there was creation as the contradistinction to oblivion. So where does that put us now? We are living the paradox of obliviousness of creation(awareness of oblivion) and awareness of creation(obliviousness of oblivion). Those that believe in the awareness of creation are those that complete the cycle of creation. That is how life is perpetuated. The contradistinction is how life ceases to be. This is all about belief. Whatever is in the mind commands the body into motion.

Hope that helps.

once again check out the dynamic theory of gravity... everything is energy put in motion. said energy reaches the speed of light in "swirls" and forms matter/anti-matter. the splitting of an atom is a great example, said energy that created matter is released in a split second like a capacitor that has been waiting years to fire off

God.

Your god is a false Idol... Jehova erm Yahweh w/e you wanna call him was part of the Sumerian pantheon... True god is completely unknown to man, but I'm sure if we did know him he would want our "faith" because faith is blindly following something... He wants science :p

True god is completely unknown to man
Isn't that a Gnostic concept?

Uh... honestly never heard of it, but I look at the wiki and it too has multiple gods or a godhead. Although there seems to be multiple forms :/

When someone dies they lose a lil weight, like a 50 cent piece,supposedly proving souls exist... well if souls exist then they would be made of energy of some kind, which leads me to believe there could be a being of energy out there (lol kinda like on futurama) that can pick up brain signals from beings all across the universe, hence all knowing and all seeing.

In WWII America went island hopping. On one island there was tribe that had never seen white people or planes before. The Americans landed and set up shop, and in the process was feeding the natives. After the war they all left, and the tribe started a religion, they built life size plane idols out of wood and started praying for their "Gods"  Whats to say we werent all tribals an some aliens landed here, and people started worshiping them as gods and angels... or even giants. All religion is pretty much stems from the sumarians which originally believed their gods descended from the sky one day and changed their life. There are numerous more things that point to this than a old bearded dude creatin and smotin people... the fact they had the first written language, horology, and an advanced solar model with all our planets, excluding Pluto, but with a mysterious extra planet.

Call it what you will, but the sumarians bult Babylon, Babylon created the free masons and the free masons created America in mirror reflection to Babylon, and now America is excavating Babylon... Conspiracy or are they trying to find the truth in lifes biggest questions like the one above... kinda funny they found and killed Saddam right after he said he was going to excavate it.

Hope that wasn't to far off the topic

>>8
omg, are you serious?
God as a construct is all we know, God the true Almighty will always be unknown though we seek Him using the constructs we are given. (using axioms to form experience the unknown)

Jesus, it's so simple, just take a good philosophy course and you'll find all this stuff out for yourself.

:/

>>9
Who created the aliens?.....God.

>>10
I hate arguing with you, but I will restate my point.  "True god is completely unknown to man" has two interpretation that I am thinking of.

Your argument is that regardless of our perceptions and expectations creating a pigeonholed opinion of the Almighty, there is but one "Almighty" (no one above that being and all acts wrought were done by its will).  Any interaction not managed indirectly by a helper being - angel, if you will - is a direct representation of our perception of that supreme being acting.  No matter what our pigeonholed perspective, however, that is our God one and only.

Gnosticism has both an unintended-consequence world creator god (the imperfect Ialdabaoth) and what is often describable as an unknowable godhead (no one knows anything other than that such a thing exists and that it is somehow greater than all other things).  The latter is not always understood as an active existence, though its existence begat other existences, while the former intentionally performed actions and is thought, by Gnostic sects, to be our YHWH.  These two interpretations can be connected by sephirotic concepts - a little of the unknowable god is still represented by the imperfect creator god - a little of the Almighty is present in all of his creation - but my question to >>8 is no different.

"Do you mean we are looking at the wrong deity?"

>>12
Judging what God is or is not is no different than judging what another person is or is not. What I can say is that whatever construct a human makes of God is only a construct in representation of God and not the Almighty Himself. A map of a mountain is not the mountain. I would even argue the point of how anyone can absolutely know God with in-depth detail. Surely if a material map was made to represent a material mountain, an immaterial map should thus represent an immaterial God. I would even argue the point that the books that tell the story of God aren't God, but just a book with words in it. People are what give those words meaning, ergo, God is derived from self-perception and not from any scientific investigation.

And because we don't have intimate details about God, would we know Him if we saw Him?

>>13
I've always said that I would not recognize anything as big-G God unless, in encountering it, there would be no faculty in my consciousness that was incapable of identifying or capable of questioning its identity.
Even if I were wrong, under those conditions, resistance would be impossible anyway.

>>14
That's just it, by what characteristics would you identify God? If you don't know now, how do you know if you are missing out right now or not?

>>15
The Koran, duh.

>>15
I don't care about such questions as "what am I missing out on;" not in this regard.  I've never met Him.  I've read conflicting accounts about Him.  People say He's done everything since the beginning of the world; some say He did everything at the beginning of the world; some say He deserves none of that credit.  More importantly, even if I were to list possibilities, that would be me setting up a selfish cardboard cut-out to look at and either affirm or defy.  A straw man.  All or any characteristics I could list would be tempered by my impressions here in this world, sensory and imaginary, and have no basis on the existence of God.

That is why I can not trust my senses or perceptions in this case.  An encounter with God would have to be unambiguous; my earthly senses or mundane logic would have be irrelevant in my identification.

>>>I don't care about such questions as "what am I missing out on;

c'mon, rly?

:/

>>>I've never met Him.  I've read conflicting accounts about Him.  People say He's done everything since the beginning of the world; some say He did everything at the beginning of the world; some say He deserves none of that credit.  More importantly, even if I were to list possibilities, that would be me setting up a selfish cardboard cut-out to look at and either affirm or defy.  A straw man.  All or any characteristics I could list would be tempered by my impressions here in this world, sensory and imaginary, and have no basis on the existence of God.

Which begs the question, "Is the God we ARE looking at subjective or objective? How would you distinguish the difference?"

:/

you should look into the biocentric theory. consciousness came first, and then perceived  a world in which it could live in. bang. the consciousness was always there, but not until it became aware of itself did create a world.

>>19
It's funny you should mention this theory. It's quite interesting since my hypotheses are based upon a living system instead of a machine-type system for our universe.

You see, in psychological themes, it is necessary not to mix what God is and what a human is; the two should always remain distinctly separate. God is all-knowing, humans can know from at least their own point of view. God is omnipresent, humans are locally present, etc. So likewise, when you mention a living system, I find it funny because in cosmology the new theories of Dark Matter which accounts for 5 times the amount of matter is what brings all matter together while Dark Energy accounting for the remainder of the universe (thus far) is what pulls all matter apart. I just want to point out the basic similarities so you can distinguish these yourself. One force is a weaker force, the other is the stronger force. Between these two forces is the state of eternal enmity or opposition. It is because of this that all things are able to move at all. Take away either and the whole system becomes non-cohesive or static. The simple state of enmity is the greater force of instability and the weaker force of stability.

Ergo, God, like Dark Energy, is a state of greatest [instability] which provides the greatest opportunity for the growth of [stability] in Dark Matter (by what it does, keeping matter together) as well as the greatest means of destruction when greater force disrupts weaker force from what it is doing (binding matter).

Eternal enmity (opposition) and the stability/instability hypothesis account for everything within the living universe. I've yet to find anything that doesn't have it's contradistinction. Now, with Dark Energy and Dark Matter...seems kind of moot to try to use any material objects as examples for what might or might not have a contradistinction for enmity.

So, moving back onto the psychology of enmity, stability/instability. The nature of psychology is to know yourself just as philosophy is to know that you can never really know anything. So what does this have to do with anything. Simple, our human condition is about making choices and trying like hell to make them work for us. Taking into account the aforementioned enmity and stability/instability factors now gives us a clue not only to the nature of the universe, but us whom exist within this universe are subject to influence. So if the greatest force is not us as humans, surely we are the force of stability trying to keep things together while the greater force is trying to pull everything we try to keep together apart. So the choice to keep in mind is what will keep the "project" together as opposed to possibly pulling it apart. The problems always arise in making choices when it comes to self-interest. The second you do it because you might gain from it is when you disregard a part of the choice that is essential to longevity for what you are trying to keep together (stability). It happens every time we rely on what we know from personal experience. We are relying on the weaker force to be the greater authority in choice when the greater force will always have the greatest authority. So we have to make the choice that seems to be self-deprecating in such a way that the weaker force uses the greater force to accomplish the task of stability using instability. From what I can understand from this, sanity is not a current state of being; that's insanity. Sanity is what we strive to make stable which is not yet the current state of being ergo, to make a stable choice or something that is already known will only repeat the process of instability which is the current state of being. Now, this accounts for human choice, dark matter and dark energy are what keep us as humans together and pulls us apart. Make no assumption that human choice, God and the human condition are the same as Dark Energy and Dark Matter, no, they are distinctly different systems operating in the same capacities at different wavelengths to accomplish their ends.

Ergo, the object of psychology is not to be God, but to ask oneself what would God do, me as a human not knowing what God would do, and then doing it.

In laymens terms, it means having to admit and accept you are wrong until something objective proves you right; guilty (insane) until proven innocent (sane).

Of course, I've been studying this from intuitive points of view and analytical points of view and this is the slightest form of analytical thinking that leads to intuitive thinking that I could come up with logically. I figure, using all forms of thought is better than only using a few that we think are right.

It also means that God is insane, but we as humans; who are we to judge? That is what drives us towards innocence...I kinda figure the point of view that God is that He would want us to do things this way, hence the adversity he places before us and within us; our ego (also synonymous as the devil which projects itself onto others as the devil)

It's because it's hard to do and understand that I know it has a greater chance of being right. Remember, if using the weaker force (what is known) is used, which should be easy, then the greater force (what is not known) will perform its nature of instability tearing apart what we want to remain stable.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--. A man's enemies will be the members of his own household." Matthew 10:34-36

The greatest thing we want to keep together is the most important thing to try and push apart. It will be the combined force of stability in others (geometric accumulation) that will overtake the greatest force of instability using the force of instability through a weaker force (us) as an oppositional double-agent of stability.

Another example is how destroying cities and blaming it on one enemy will unite nations is a great example from the movie, Watchmen.

"Know evil; do Good."

Now, on with the scoffing and belligerent rantings saying how I must be wrong.

:/

>>12
☣ Please try to ignore troll posts! ☣

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/77139

If we say that universe was created by collision of some two objects

STOPPED READING RIGHT THERE

>>22
M-Theory states two membrane universes collided which created two universes out of the collision. One we live in and one we don't.

Stopped reading? If only you could take your your degree of doubt and turn it into an equal degree of inquisition.