Big Think

kruse scott on September 25, 2009, 6:10 PM

that is true its complicated but easy at the same time. our creator is earth itself 

tim hall on September 25, 2009, 10:59 PM

It is still just trying to explain the ignorant early man’s ideas about gods. Why does there have to be a creator? Events happen all the time without fairytale creators. Just because science proves that there has to be a cause, it does not automaticly make some ancient ignorant myths true.

To me, refering to a creator is just as ignorant as the ancient people’s gods. The fact is, we do not know where the very first matter came from. Why keep making shit up? Either show proof of a god or you have know answer.

If you are going to say “this is the cause of everything” I am going to ask why? how? when? where?

Matt Pidlysny on September 26, 2009, 1:27 AM

This theory is flawless if it had a basis for explaining Timespace (It does not supply adequate definition of the object at hand). 

Timespace is the dark matter.  When you incorporate the theory that dark matter is a fluid like substance containing atoms of matter from moving freely (And hence, providing the illusion of gravity) it becomes clear that the parent action that created this universe could not possibly have come from this universe.  It would have had to be a random reaction to something, an anomaly that cannot be explained within the working parameters of that anti-matter. 

Thus, anti-matter is a carrier for kinetic energy.  I believe that there are 2 “universes” (For lack of a better word) that operate in unison.  The first is a world full of light, pulled in by the gravity generated by the anti-matter.  If the universe is infinite, then these have always been working in unison constantly.  As the universe collapses upon itself, it pulls in the light with it.  There is a delay between the collapse of that ball and contact with the light, and I believe it irradiates the clump of anti-matter, forming it from the outside.  When the clump is de-stabilized, i.e. blown apart by contact with the light, the universe is created.  I think that’s how stars got enough heat to combust for this long, and how the planets were designed to form.

Therefore, everything that happens within creation cannot be explained fully unless this reaction is measured.  From that point, I believe anything can.

sciencesaves on September 26, 2009, 7:47 AM

Anders, “There is no creator, is proven false” ???

Assuming that cause = “creator” is not supported by anything other than a wishful-thinking based conclusion jump by those who apparently don’t require any evidence to believe that assumptions = fact.

Once again, religion cannot spin it’s way out of the obvious truth that there has never been any proof of their wild claims regarding “divine” knowledge, or the existence of omniscient entities as “cause”, or origin of life.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and it’s irresponsible to think that belief = truth, just because that’s the way you want, or need to understand things.

Theistic “conclusions” are not valid answers, plain and simple.

tim hall on September 26, 2009, 10:07 AM

If one tries to theorise that there can be multi-universes within a space (universe) it is possible, but you cannot give that space definition. It is unknown space. In this short article: http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=727&goto=prev  the author claims empty space but then tries to measure it, saying that if one could stand outside and measure, all measurements would be equal and therefore it could posses a universe. But if one concentrates on infinite nothingness he will see that it can never be measured. To measure something, you have to possess points. Nothing possesses nothing (no points.)

I read anotrher article on the famed “Black Hole.” The latest theory is that black holes are not empty and can contain a small measurable force of gravity. Their theory is that black holes can contain dark matter. They theorise that a black hole can have no vacume, have vacume or have limited vacume, depening on the content of dark matter that we cannot see.

Matt, what is this world full of light.= Descibe world? desribe light?

illuminance |iˈloōmənəns|noun Physicsthe amount of luminous flux per unit area.

HerbieP on September 27, 2009, 5:17 AM

The argument is flawed from the start. To say time has a beginning is nonsensical. ‘beginning’ is a time related concept, one needs time for anything to have a beginning. A beginning is a point on a time axis and assumes that the time axis is linear. We know that the time axis (if it exists at all) is not cartesian.

Assumptions are also made about causality which are not verified by quantum mechanics. Just because on a macroscopic scale events appear to have causes this does not mean that the same is true about singularities or cosmic and quantum scales. Many quantum events do not have ‘causes’ and we can make no assumptions about singularities. We cannot say anything definite about the nature of time and nothingness as yet.

There is also no simple dichotomy of ‘creator’ or ‘not creator’ there may be a prime cause that has since ceased to exist for example or there may be several kinds of space time loop much like an ouroboros, a universe that is circular in space time not to mention many options that play games with the very notion of time and the definition of creator.

There is no reason to assume that a creation must mirror its creator in its qualities. A flawed creator might create by accident for example. What evidence is there that the universe is ‘perfect’? And what does that even mean? The universe appears to be stable on a time scale that we can observe and that is all that can be said.

Our very notion of ‘creation’ and ‘design’ is based on what we ourselves do which is merely re-cycle elements of a pre-existing universe that we find around us. The very idea of an all powerful creator creating a universe out of nothing has nothing to do with our notions of creation and design, it is merely proposing a further mystery. The very idea that an ‘intelligence’ can exist without matter is odd. How does this intelligence ‘model’ its intended creation and chose between various design options? Presumably if we are well designed the possibility exists that we could have been badly designed. If that is the case the ‘creator’ must have had to choose between various options. The very idea becomes ludicrous. The very notion of a creator has not been thought through and is modelled on some ill thought out notion of human design. What is actually being proposed is ‘something we don’t understand did it’ which is hardly an advance on ‘we don’t know’.

Matt Pidlysny on September 27, 2009, 3:01 PM

Herbie, you have to work with these things sometimes, Herbie.  Nobody got anywhere by complaining about their problems ;)

In any case, what is the current model for the big bang?  How did it happen?  What lies unexplained with it?  I’d like to fill in the gaps for you, maybe I can do that better (Explaining creation) your way?

tim hall on September 27, 2009, 3:50 PM

Herbie, If we don’t know then why can’t we make up something to satisfy our interests for the time being? Or we don’t even have to do that. We can just use what some ignorant people used 2000 years ago. We really don’t even need to teach science. We can just stay with old ignorant ideas. Let’s just give up trying to figure out the whole truth of the begining and believe in what a small cult wrote in a book many years ago.

What came first matter or space? How can you have one without the other?

If there was a time of just space = nothing and God were thought and if thought can be turned into matter we could have a god like begining. But then we would have to describe thought. As we know it, it is a function of the human brain. Ok, so we throw up a new none matter called soul. A soul as we know it is a human emotion or sense of identity. So if a super super duper emotion/soul was out in a space it could blow up or something, from being to emotional? There, now we have a human conection.

God blew into bits and his bits are our soul, of coarse. So all we are doing is trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together agian. Praise the Lord, bring me another of what ever that last one was.

Matt Pidlysny on September 27, 2009, 11:27 PM

I like it when you create Tim.  You create the truth.  But you send questions to everyone else when you should just create the truth.  If there’s anything to add, people will add it :)

If I wanted to know about the origins of truth, I’d write “JJ Bops:  A story of Jesus and Judas and their merry bebop”.  If I wanted to hear the voice of God, I’d pretend I was God and create something he would say with any given thing in mind.  You write the truth because God is in your head, the undeniable asset to creating truth out of fiction.  Because God is Truth, and Truth is Information, and that is only available to Mind.  Therefore, with Truth in Mind, the possibilities are limitless.

You will see this, should you try again.  You may not see it, take no expectation of it.  God will come through you as you are one with God.  Like a Tim-God! 

Can Tim-God slay Satan?  YOU BET!  Can Tim-God create the truth from his own mind?  YOU BET!  But can Tim-God be Tim without God? 

Hmm…..

Musycks on September 27, 2009, 11:48 PM

                                                  Anders…. nice try. That sort of non logic went out with St Augustine. Simply put… who created the creator? As Herbie points out, your ‘solution’ is no solution at all, and merely posits a greater question. You make the same mistake all believers do, and extrapolate an anthropomorphic model for no reason other than to make your unsupportable ideas fit. As Tim and Herbie rightly point out, the observable natural universe will give us the clues and we may eventually unlock the answers… why do you continually look outside of that for yours? Why conjur the very human idea of a very big wizard to trump all sensible answers? garbage in, garbage out.

Richard Oakes on September 28, 2009, 9:18 AM

Well done Andres! It’s good to see the old fashioned apologists out there swinging.

That said, I have two small problems….

“No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.” There is no rule that says a cause has to be deliberate. (You made that one up.) Just because an event has a cause, doesn’t mean that it was intended.

The second problem is the general absence of any empirical evidence to support the existence of a creator. Your evidence is circumstantial, and a tenuous at best. It certainly wouldn’t stand up as evidence in a court of law.

Back to the drawing board Anders. You have to do better than that.

RO

tim hall on September 28, 2009, 11:59 AM

http://www.bluethread.com/whowrotetorah.htm

Anders, What you say about the Torah being written as “lifes instruction manual” for Abraham and Moses is true. Moses could not have written it because he is referred to in third person in the Torah.

The Torah was written by 4 sources: Jahweh, Elonim, Oriesly, and Deuteronimist. When you claim that the Torah was not written to govern, you need to read Deuteronimist. Deuteronimist is all about worship and governing.

Another Note: The Torah was written for a chosen people by a chosen group of leaders. This was only a small cult of people who believed that this all mighty creator revealed these instructions to them. This was in no way written for all of mankind and the people of that cult understood that and even praised that.

I think folks get confused about early literature being more substantial information than a tribes passed on word. It is confusing because we use phrases like “it is documented” or “it is in writing.” It is actually just the opposite. Before tribes people had access to writing tools, they had to be more careful about passing on beliefs, laws, medicine (all important things) for fear that they may become distorted or lost. When writing tools evolved, they could carefully record their message or have more freedom to distort for one’s personal or collective agenda.

Last note: There is no proof that some sort of god did not reveal to these priestly governers while instructing their scribes in writting the Torah. There is only proof that these few priest believed that a god spoke to them. And yet today, there is only proof that people believe in this “written word” of the Torah. There is no proof of a god or creator. The Tora’s validity was blown completely out of proportion by early ignorant man.

Musycks on September 28, 2009, 6:43 PM

                                                      Anders… as with jesus, Peter and Paul there is no actual eveidence of the existance of Moses or Abraham. Jewish literature and history has no mention of Mosaic law until aome 600 years after it was alledgedly delivered to Moses on Sinai. Myth is not history.

Verisoph sapiens on September 29, 2009, 5:09 AM

What, actually was God’s “modus operandi” in creating the universe? How did he do it? Can we be any more explicit here than the Book of Genesis when it says that “God said … and it was?”

This “explanations” theists use, only seem to serve the purpose of hiding our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf.

So, you theists, you have given us no reason for thinking that the universe must have been caused by God, or that the original and most basic features of the universe cannot be an uncaused reality that explains everything else but is itself unexplained.

The choice of God is not intellectually compelling, it is entirely rational and reasonable to see the universe as needing no cause and capable of existing with no metaphysical support. The universe, insofar as it is explicable, is explicable in naturalistic terms. No logical or metaphysical principle,  requires that the world have a creator.

Matt Pidlysny on September 29, 2009, 12:29 PM

Nay, Mr. Verisoph, I have.  You just didn’t listen when I did.

There is no man up there.  But there is a consciousness all around you.  You choose not to personify the existence of the universe as the birth of God, I do.  The universe IS god.  And there is a balance of good and evil kept within it. 

There’s ALWAYS something to fix.  ALWAYS one step ahead of the last.  There is no end to this universe in sight unless someone ends it.  It’s not like dark matter is stretchy, it’s just gonna break apart and tear up the universe.  Once the Orobouros (I think I got that word right) expands to it’s maximum, it’s just gonna tear apart.

You KNOW the universe doesn’t get created.  The only way it would be created is if there was absolutely nothing.  I believe an anomaly would eventually occur, and from the Anti-matter, a form would appear, and then (As it’s written in the Secret Book of John), “It would detect something greater than itself, and become jealous, and from it would come earth and what is called the waters”.  Which actually contradicts my previous theory if I don’t add in the separate universe made of energy.  I think a buildup of that thermal energy generated by the previous collapse formed the anti-matter into what became the beginning of our universe.

…See the connection yet?  It means that, now in a space to work with, the imperfection that caused the big bang is interpreted as jealousy.  The clump of anti-matter simply wanted to expand because it was created with an imperfection. 

This implies to me that the universe is actually a Female.  Weird as that sounds, it comes with reason.  But the underlying thing here is that people try TOO DAMN HARD to personify something that should not be personified.  If the universe had a belief, like a mind would, it’s because the people and the motions that would naturally operate inside the universe dictate the belief.  So if God is jealous, and God is the universe, it means the universe is naturally expansionist.  It capitalizes on emptiness by using it’s assets as leverage.

But lets say that some kind of magic were to happen.  Something outside the universe was controlling what was happening inside, giving mind to things that should normally not have a mind.  Like the universe, for example.  If this magician gave the metaphysical concepts brought about by the beginning explosion a mind to think and judge with, then that would increase the validity of giving the universe mind.

I don’t know why I believe in this so much, but something tells me I’m on the truest path.  Maybe it’s the magician, who knows.

tim hall on September 29, 2009, 7:41 PM

Matt,

You said:“There is no end to this universe in sight unless someone ends it.” What do you mean by someone. Does a human posses the power to end the universe?

You said:“The only way it would be created is if there was absolutely nothing.” Physically, you cannot create nothing from nothing. But then you go on to say an anomaly could accure. Explain this anomaly from nothing? It would be different, then it is no longer nothing. What the heck is it? Anti matter? Is not anti matter nothing? "A form appears out of nothing from an anomaly described as anti matter (no matter)?

Theoretically, I could imagine nothingness over expanding to cause an anomaly but it would have to be in the form of anti matter. It could only be an emotion. But you have to relieve the concept of emotion from the human psychological emotion. When you start trying to compare the two, you create personalized ignorant man-god connections like the Gnostics did.(personalized it) However, if you leave it be, the emotion should at some point overreact or underreact, causing an explosion or implosion, however great or gradual, to create kinetic energy. Then we could build from there. But that emotion theory is still just a lot of guessing and pissing in the solar wind.

To imagine the emotion theory, you have to discard human psychological emotion and think of everything having some sort of emotion, like thought, a window, a wheel before and after an applied force, weather, facism. So it is nothing like human emotions. It is more like a waiting for force to be applied or force released. A rock would have emotion. The very thought of “Big Think” has emotion. But that emotion theory is still just a lot of guessing and pissing in the solar wind. That is one heck of a leap from emotion to DNA!

Matt, when you theorize a second universe made of energy, why not many universes made of energy or anti energy, unknown energy, unknown matter, anti matter, all held apart by dark matter and or dark energy?

Matt, when you speak of it becoming jealous, what are the opposing forces? Where did hate or evil come from? An emotional split (bang)?

The mind to think thing. Well, I don’t fall for the humans ignorant past trying to personify the phenomena by saying humans are created in the likeness of the magician. Humans have a mind, but that does not mean that other great forces should automatically have a mind.

You said: “God is the universe, it means the universe is naturally expansionist.  It capitalizes on emptiness by using it’s assets as leverage.” Is not everything naturally expansionist given the perfect condition? The same as evrything possesing emotion?

I don’t think your truest path looks so bad if you drop the old human personalization via Gnostorian early star gazing and maybe drop the jealous act. For it is just another human invention to try and personify things. Are you really willing to believe that humans are created in the likeness of the universe? Where dose the universe even vaguly resemble having DNA? The universe has more in common with the news media than humans.(hurling stones back and forth at it’self.)

Musycks on September 29, 2009, 8:28 PM

                                                            I see Matt is still here and unable to absorb the simple, direct logic Verisoph put forward. And quoting ‘The secret book of John’… wow… there’s a reputable source for understanding the causal universe.

Verisoph sapiens on September 30, 2009, 5:57 AM

Rather than referring to the Pentateuch or NT when it comes to the universe why not look to Hinduism and the Vedas, here we find more answers.

After all, Hinduism is the only one of the world’s religion dedicated to the idea that the cosmos itself undergoes an immense, infinite number of deaths and rebirths.

And the idea that men may not be the dreams of the gods but rather that the gods are the dreams of men, is very appealing indeed.

And, – there is nothing “secret” about it at all….

sciencesaves on September 30, 2009, 8:33 AM

Sign me up?

Nice last two entries, verisoph!  The first one is great, couldn’t agree more.

Interesting stuff.  Hello…Anders, what say you?

Secret book of the Church of the Minor Ninth reveals all…

Matt Pidlysny on October 4, 2009, 9:15 PM

And the idea that men may not be the dreams of the gods but rather that the gods are the dreams of men, is very appealing indeed.

How can a universe sustain itself in an intelligent manner if there is no intelligence within it to create consciousness?  Merely living conduits of thought within the grand consciousness is all we are.  I personally like the analogy. 

So IS god a man on the clouds?  Well, I would suppose without any scientific bias that yes, he most definitely is.  But as my metaphor of the “grand consciousness” is true, so is the man on the clouds, and so in fact is the root of all nature as described from a scientific view (Bringing the bias back in).  You see, it’s a matter of perspective.  Choosing to personify versus not personify a natural process is no more ridiculous than personifying me or you as a human being.

But perhaps a rudimentiary understanding of God can branch off into a more unified, less substantiated claim of such “justified” personification.  By substantiated I mean by the basis of substance, as in (At the time of their respective origins) Christianity believes God resides in Heaven with Jesus and all the angels, whereas Science believes there is only matter.  I’m an amateur, I suppose I’m allowed to claim what I want :P

Is Science more than simple truths?  Is Christianity more than a following?  Are they much more than aspects of creative truth being called names/name calling?

I see Matt is still here and unable to absorb the simple, direct logic Verisoph put forward. And quoting 'The secret book of John'... wow... there's a reputable source for understanding the causal universe.

If there were concrete proof that my beliefs were illogical, I would love to hear it.  But like I’ve said, you haven’t.  You can’t.  You don’t even try.

Do you have the will to try?

What do you mean by someone. Does a human posses the power to end the universe?

Well, perhaps an undesired chemical imbalance might do the trick (Read above on combined intelligence).  Like the mind, it takes only the right causes for it to disappear.

Physically, you cannot create nothing from nothing. But then you go on to say an anomaly could accure. Explain this anomaly from nothing? It would be different, then it is no longer nothing. What the heck is it? Anti matter? Is not anti matter nothing? "A form appears out of nothing from an anomaly described as anti matter (no matter)?

Imagine a cesspool of antimatter.  Like a sea, awaiting to react with something.  Swirling around it is a vortex of energy, evidence of all that has been during countless creations.  Let’s say this energy divides up into channels, like rivers of energy flowing to the truth, the sound of the combined energy.  Like our universe, these channels will degrade over time, and “split” like a V.  So if one of these channels degraded and split, it would essentially be 2 channels of energy.

So let’s say one of these channels decided it had interacted with enough of the energy up there to be heavier than the rest.  It splits again, 2 copies of an accumulated “wisdom”.  As it is so heavy, running along the bottom, the split causes it to simply pass through the border and into the antimatter, creating the illusion of a seed wanting to expand.  It simply had no choice.  Or maybe that was the choice, we ARE talking about gods here.  Do the observed principles of Science have to be correct all the time?  Or are they observations of God’s decision?

From here, the Secret Book of John should describe the rest.  Further discussion shall be made ready upon request.

“Secret book of the Church of the Minor Ninth reveals all”

I want that book.

Denys Artasevych on October 8, 2009, 1:46 PM

Im basically on the same page as herbie and RO, First you apply the laws of physics and say there must be a beginning and a cause. But both beginning and cause are concepts within the realm of physics and you are applying them to a being that is suppose to exist outside of and in fact suppose to have created these very laws.

Second as Ro said if there is a prime cause why does it have to be sentient. And as herbie said how can there be a consciousness with motivations without matter. Consciousness is a pattern, if there is no matter or energy (essentially same thing) upon which to imprint the pattern the pattern cant exist.

Matt Pidlysny on October 8, 2009, 7:25 PM

You are blind if you do not see a pattern.  If I was the universe, then you are a part of my pattern.  What you decide (Like a molecule in my human body) affects what my will becomes.

Nobody said God created these laws.  Laws are a manner of Gods behaviour.  What he decides is what occurs.  If I magically get zapped by an electric shock for some reason, there had to be a way for that to come into existence.  This is where the laws come in.  But the mix-up is that God exists outside these laws. 

Nay, the laws of physics are simply decisions, in truth.  When law is applied, a decision is made.  If I may quote George W in the name of God, “I’m the decider”.

tim hall on October 8, 2009, 7:58 PM

If you cannot describe being, it is just another place holder.

There has to be cause, with our degree of understanding.

What is consciousness when not related to the human mind? alive? awake? What is alive?

We have to create energy or matter out of nothing or we are forever trying to find cause of the prime cause.

Physics proves that there must be an answer (causation) But physics breaks down before finding the cause.

We could give up and break the laws “POOF”

For me consciousness is an emotion instead of a pattern. Alive/awake is a state of being. What is the state applied to? Emotion on the other hand is not a state even though it is defined that way in psychology.  Emotion is an agitation. When we think of the act of agitation in the third dimension, we think of creating energy.

Am I being truthful when I claim that “a rock has the emotion of a force waiting to be applied?” Is there a law of physics there? Could emotion vibrate in a different dimension to create energy? Can we bag that energy in emty space? I am trained at thinking outside of the box but I do not know as much as my periodic tables. Help!

I am trying to blow nothing up from possessing to much emotion of the state of nothingness and at least get it to spark. Has anybody been down this road before? Is it more wishful crap?

tim hall on October 8, 2009, 8:10 PM

Matt, What created the decider? How? Why?  What caused God? “Poof”?

Denys Artasevych on October 9, 2009, 4:31 PM

tim, yes essentially the concept of a prime cause is a paradox in itself, there can never be a prime. We will always ask what caused the cause, caused that cause and so on. A while back i asserted that there can be no solution to this (or any other question for that matter) that does not end in either infity of subsequent questions, or a circular paradox. Because even the 3 dimensional space time being a result of activity in the higher dimensions theory that i proposed will lead to the same kind of questions with a similar lack of conclusiveness.

But i have shifted my thinking on the matter slightlly.

It isnt necessarily that something appeared out of nothing, but simply anything that may exist outside of our space time can not be labeled or conceived, the concepts of cause matter energy would likely not be applicable. So it is something we know nothing about, likely can never know, and cant even name due our limited perception in this universe.

Im a bit vague on your definition of emotion, clarification would be nice. Emotion withing humans, whichever emotion it may be, is simply a particular pattern of firing neurons, which in turn is a particular pattern of molecular action and so on.

Matt, im confused. Are you saying is that the universe is gods brain and the various activity is can be labeled as his whimsy. Yes the universe is a pattern, in which all the patterns we can see and conceive are present, but there is no reason to assume that this pattern is sentient, or that it can make decisions. It is a more likely conclusion that we being the local sentient pattern within the larger universal pattern are as someone on this site said, the universe considering itself. But there is an argument to be had of about what we mean by sentient. Because though incredibly complex we are a pattern no different from a stone, a tree, a moon.

tim hall on October 9, 2009, 9:40 PM

Thanks Denys,

That makes perfect sense “simply anything that may exist outside of our space time can not be labeled or conceived, the concepts of cause matter energy would likely not be applicable.”

Emotion: I was recalling some theory I read a while back that all objects had emotion. I believe they started out theorizing that a tree growing, is growing against an applied force (gravity). If there was not a force on the tree, it’s actions of growth would be different. So the claim is that the tree’s growth cells taking one action oppose to another is an emotion. That is how they first derived at it. Then they went on to claim that all objects most have emotion. Either a force being applied or waiting for a force to be applied. They could have well been theorizing alluding to a higher dimension and the term emotion was their best description? But it sort of makes sense. It is hard to grasp. It may have a relation to the “world according to ants theory” where humans as a collective society is a living organism.  That all of our running around and interconnecting has reason as a collective whole. That we actually are working together under some unconscious premise.

But I am not to good with theories that I cannot physically see. I just wondered if anyone else had come accross this therory. If we could get this emotion thing to vibrate we could have some energy that we can’t detect in the third dimention. Therefore we have cause that we can’t see. This is under the theory that we have limited brain function and sensory glands that do not allow us to detect all forces. This hurts my little brain. Somebody call Jimmy Carter. Look at the head on that thing!

Denys Artasevych on October 9, 2009, 11:05 PM

Well i have not come across this emotion theory, and im unclear how this is suppose to effect the higher dimensions. However the tree example you drew is fairly clear cut, it reads to me as if they simply labeled a pattern (in this case a tree) responding to an external stimulus of any kind (in this case sunlight) as an emotion.

But basically yes all emotions, cognition and other complex processes of the brain can be in theory reduced to a simple pattern (human) response to stimuli. In which case yes in an abstract sense the tree is responding emotively, as is the rock falling down a hill is responding emotively to gravity.

tim hall on October 10, 2009, 1:52 AM

The crazy idea was to realise this emotion exists, then do as they do in quantum mechanics and say there is the complete opposite that must exist. And that would be an emotion of force waiting to be applied. Under the most profound condition (infinite empty space) that emotion becomes too much and explodes. Or becomes too small and implodes.Following the big bang theory it would first implode on itself then explode.

Emotion does not have mass, therfore nothing to explode. But if it is thought of as an agitation, why wouldn’t it vibrate? All we have to do is get a vibration in empty space and we have energy.

Emotion does not have mass, therefore nothing to vibrate. Damit!

Alexander Don i.e. Grilli on November 12, 2009, 2:10 AM

Don’t Assume our creator is Earth Itself. One simple step further in my mind takes me to the next question in the thought circle. . . Who/What Created Earth? Matter…Yes. Yes. etc… But, I’m not looking for human definition of scientific terminology in my current quest for knowledge. I theorize based on creation; my minds eye as my window pane. I check it potential wise with science and math law, based on my limited, but sensible and capable knowledge of Science and Universal Law, or [whatever keeps us spinning as we know it]. Leave the calculations to the computers and or mathematicians, I will be running the numbers. Alike analogy, I invent the theoretical insight: So if their is a God with a purpose, he would have to be a philosopher first; and a scientist second. Don’t judge the creator. For he surely would not judge those who do his paperwork: implement intuition for their fingers to punch up codes and numerical equations to serve as the manual for his one thought creation. You do the math. Truth is in mind waiting to find language for explanation.