God exists

Not really, provided the meta universe has time and contains the beginning of this one. Otherwise "before the big bang" makes no sense.

For most purposes a black hole is a universe and this is the meta universe for all the black holes inside it. This has no obvious relation to the purpose of this thread.

J

I think the rational is that black holes may be physical examples that multi-verses do exist, if they do. No one has "seen" past the current universe, nor have they been through a black hole and let us know the experiences in the universe past the "edge" of a black hole. Our universe may be what is on the "edge" of a black hole in another universe.
 
This discussion reeks of god of the gaps. Both from the original perspective and the logical fallacy perspective.
 
I think this essay contains some interesting insights and arguments on the topic:
God is beyond good and evil; man moving Godwards must become of one nature with him. He must transcend good and evil. God is beyond good and evil, not below them, not existing and limited by them, not even above them, but in a more absolute sense excedent and transcendent of the ideas of good and evil. He exceeds them in his universality; they exist in him, but the values of good and evil which we give to things is not their divine or universal value, they are only their practical value created by us in our psychological and dynamic dealings with life. God recognises them and seems to deal with us on the basis of this valuation of life, but only to such an extent as may serve his purpose in Nature. In his universal action he is not limited by them. But into his transcendent being of which his highest universal is the image, they do not at all enter; there in the highest universal which is to us transcendent is only the absolute good of which both our good and evil have in them certain differentiated elements. Neither our good nor our evil are or can of themselves give the absolute good; both have to be transformed, evil into good, good into pure and self-existent good, before they can be taken up into it.
This explains the nature of the universe which would other-wise be inexplicable, inconsistent with the being of God, a forcefully inconscient and violently active enigma. God must be beyond limitation by our ideas of good, otherwise the universe such as it is could not exist whether as the partly manifested being of a divine Existence or a thing created or permitted by a divine Will. He cannot, either, be evil, otherwise in man, his highest terrestrial creature or his highest terrestrial manifestation, there could not be this dominant idea of good and this stream of tendency towards righteousness. He cannot be a mixture of good and evil, whether a self-perplexed and struggling or a mysteriously ordered double principle, Ormuzd and Ahriman, or at least he cannot be limited by this duality, for there is much in the universe which is neither good nor evil. Perhaps the greatest part of the totality is either supramoral or inframoral or simply amoral. Good and evil come in with the development of mental consciousness; they exist in their rudimentary elements in the animal and primitive human mind, they develop with the human development. Good and evil are things which arrive in the process of the evolution; there is then the possibility that they will disappear in the process of the evolution. If indeed they are essential to its highest possible point of culmination, then they will remain; or if one of them be essential and the other non-essential, then that one will remain and its opposite will disappear.
 
That's God by definition. The cause of all causes.

Edit: God is the all knowing, seeing, eternal, uncreated, one, infinite, justice itself, and the truth, among many other things.

How do you know God is all those things?
 
The Big Bang is prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe with plenty of observation evidence. Go on and read a book about it.

If true (which more than likely it is), it debunks any nonsense like "the universe is uncreated", I do not even think the person who stated this flawed notion knows what it means.

Since the universe had a beginning, therefore, it had a source. That source is what we call God.

Read more books.

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Notice that Hawking doesn't say that there was no time before the Big Bang. Only that we can't say anything useful about it. We simply do not know whether there was any time before the Big Bang or not.

It really doesn't help to pretend to knowledge we don't have. Not if you have any interest in the truth, that is. But I'm guessing you really don't.

What I personally don't understand about Hawking's cosmology is why the Universe isn't entirely uniform. But that's another matter entirely.
 
What I personally don't understand about Hawking's cosmology is why the Universe isn't entirely uniform. But that's another matter entirely.

Wait, you actually understand something? :crazyeye:

I'm shocked. "uncreated universe" :lol: Of all the ridiculous things I heard that one takes the cake.
 
It's not actually an unusual idea. Have you never encountered it before, then?

You have me rather at a disadvantage, Mr Corny. You seem to be a total newcomer to metaphysical debate.

And your "Wait, you actually understand something?" seems to be a total non-sequitur. It's almost like you're trying not to make sense. Again.
 
Back
Top Bottom