What Contains God's Universe? Would Anyone like to make a hypothesis?


(Edward Miller) #21

I do not believe that hypothesis covers what I am saying. Since God is still creating, does that mean that He is still making more room for the universe, or are his laws still making more room
@beaglelady


(Stephen Matheson) #22

I don’t know what “hypothesis” you’re talking about, but you asked about what “contains” the universe and even what else it is “touching.” I don’t see how you can escape the Russian-doll problem I’m pointing to. Actually, I do see how: you simply designate something (the universe, the X, the Y, some “god”) as the final step and be finished.


#23

John 1 says “through Him all things were made.”


(Edward Miller) #24

That He was Jesus. Please read John 1: 10-12. God the Father is Spirit, but Jesus has a body. When Jesus came into the world, the world did not recognize Him as God. Who created the universe? God! The Triune God of which Jesus was one of the persons created everything whether it was YEC, PC, IDT, EC, or TE. Don’t tell me that you are a Unitarian. If one person of the Trinity created, then the other persons of the Trinity created too. I am not bragging, but I have studied in an orthodox Christian School of Divinity after I received my BA in German, History, and Philosophy of Religion. John 1 says clearly that the Word, Jesus, created the universe. Denis Lamoureux and Francis Collins would believe that. Have you ever spoken with Denis? I know you are educated; however, it sounds as if you have changed your Study of God (Theology in Greek Theos Logos). God bless you. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying. Forgive me if I am.


#25

Don’t accuse me of being a Unitarian. I was just quoting the Gospel of John.


(Edward Miller) #26

I believe in Intelligent Design Theory from a Christian perspective and accept microevolution. I also accept OEC from the Day Age perspective. I do not accept macroevolution since I do not believe one species cannot become another.


(George Brooks) #27

@beaglelady,

Perhaps he thinks everyone on the list has been converted to Unitarianism by me? Now THAT would be funny!


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #28

If one accepts the Big Bang theory, which I do, then Nothing contains the universe. With time the galaxies move away from each other causing space to expand. Nothing is outside the universe except God, Who is not a thing.


(Mark D.) #29

I agree. If we think of the sky as made up of the atmosphere then it is gravity which prevents it from dissipating evenly though all of space. So more a matter of being held in than held up.


(Edward Miller) #31

Great answer.


(Edward Miller) #35

I hope you have a good day


(Matthew Pevarnik) #42

Roger! Long time no see on the Big Bang Theory (BBT). And if eternal inflation (that is part of the BBT) is correct then it suggests at least some form of multiverse and the idea of our universe in nothing doesn’t make much sense.

What? No. Over time many galaxies collide- like we will with Andromeda some 3-4 billion years from now. Gravity, after all is an attractive force. Galaxies do not cause space to expand. Part of the BBT is the leading model called LCDM (or lambda cold dark matter) where Dark Energy is the main culprit behind expansion.

Maybe there’s a multiverse and He is the only thing outside of that :wink:


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #43

The model includes a single originating event, the “Big Bang”, which was not an explosion but the abrupt appearance of expanding space-time containing radiation at temperatures of around 1015 K. This was immediately (within 10−29 seconds) followed by an exponential expansion of space by a scale multiplier of 1027 or more, known as cosmic inflation. The early universe remained hot (above 10,000 K) for several hundred thousand years, a state that is detectable as a residual cosmic microwave background, or CMB, a very low energy radiation emanating from all parts of the sky. The “Big Bang” scenario, with cosmic inflation and standard particle physics, is the only current cosmological model consistent with the observed continuing expansion of space, the observed distribution of lighter elements in the universe (hydrogen, helium, and lithium), and the spatial texture of minute irregularities (anisotropies) in the CMB radiation. Cosmic inflation also addresses the “horizon problem” in the CMB; indeed, it seems likely that the universe is larger than the observable particle horizon.

From the Wikipedia article

Matthew, thank you for your response.

What I was discussing with George was whether the universe was created out of nothing. My argument was and is that the Big Bang theory says that the universe has a Beginning, or once t = 0, or as stated above ,“the abrupt appearance of space-rime.”

Now I read one presentation where someone tried to say that the beginning of something is when it first was an idea. That may be true in most cases, but when we are talking about the universe, I think the case is clear. The universe began with the appearance of mass, energy, time, and space. With that said, it follows that these things came out of nothing.

Now does this mean that God created mass, energy, time, and space out of nothing and thus the universe? I think so, but I understand that others may differ. All that I am saying is that as far as science knows, there was a Beginning when the universe emerged out of Nothing.

Now the way I* understand the Big Bang is that there was a huge release of energy. The energy caused heat and motion, which resulted in the expansion of the universe. Lamba Cold Dark Matter is the cause why the universe appears to be expanding faster than expected. It does not cause the expansion but contributes to it. Also we must say that this is the theory, which cannot really be tested at this time, so it is far from certain.

I see no reason why eternal inflation would indicate that there is something outside the universe, and not the opposite. The multiverse and many other things are theoretically possible, but for now it is better to stay with what is rational and probable rather than all those things which are possible.


(Mitchell W McKain) #45

Your question is mired in antiquated ideas of absolute space just as intelligent design is mired in archaic ideas of God as a watchmaker. Science has discovered that not only is there no justification for these ancient ideas of absolute space and time but the measurable evidence actually disproves them. Space and time are just a mathematical ordering and relationship between the things and events of the physical universe and that is all. There is no reason whatsoever to think these relationships extend beyond them to something else.

The universe is not “contained” in anything – not in the sense of a spatial relationship anyway. You could use the word “contained” in a different way, such as to say that the universe is contained in God plan, if you like, because that is not a spacial relationship. I might also say that it is contained in the sense of there being greater reality which the physical universe is a part of – that of the spiritual. In that greater reality, the physical universe is just one entity of many, existing according to its own form and nature. But this is not a spatial meaning for the word “contained” ether.

And now back to the “intelligent design” stuff. The problem with the watchmaker conception is that watches are not alive. They are machines. How about us? Are we machines? What is the difference between living things and machines? As we rapidly approach a mastery of the operation of DNA and biochemistry to design tools in such materials for medical applications, it is becoming abundantly obvious that the ONLY difference between living things and machines is that machines are designed and living things are not. Living organisms are the product of self-organization, growth, and learning rather than design. They are what they make themselves to be. And this is the only reason why they are not machines rather than living organisms.

So does this mean that God no longer has a role in the creation of living things? No it does not mean that. We have other examples for the creation of living things in farmers, shepherds, teachers, and parents. And interestingly enough, the Bible DOES describe God as a shepherd and DOES NOT describe God as a watchmaker. And does the Bible say that God designed living things? No it doesn’t.


(Shawn T Murphy) #46

The two-world hypothesis: We are citizens of two, coincidental worlds; a physical world, that is open to the eyes of its inhabitants and an ethereal world that is only visible to a very few gifted individuals. The physical world is finite, in that it is limited to the materials created in the Big Bang, whereas the ethereal world in infinite. Both worlds can act upon each other. (Ref: Torn Between Two Worlds)

Under this hypothesis, the physical universe is a subset of the ethereal universe of God. The Big Bang received its initial ethereal energy from God, and continues to receive a constant inflow of life-giving ethereal energy. Astrophysics has recognized this as a combination of DM and DE to explain the observed dynamics of the universe. Under my hypothesis, the need for DM and DE fall away because the physical universe is an open system, not closed as currently hypothesized, and not needed a huge, unseen store of reserve energy.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #47

Nice, so you have some kind of model that explains galaxy rotation curves, the dynamics of larger clusters of stars, specific gravitational lensing, the specific peaks of the cosmic microwave background and it’s anisotropies, the large scale structure of the universe, the measured expansion rate over the history of the universe, etc. When can we arrange for you to get your Nobel prize?


(Shawn T Murphy) #48

Dear Matthew,
Nobel, thanks but no thanks. I am an aeronautical engineer, not an astrophysicist with access to the data needed to prove my theory. I give it freely for anyone one to test.

I just know that current astrophysical theory is not correct, simply because it cannot demonstrate why the AU is increasing 15 cm per year, it is supposed to be a constant. Obviously their equations do not balance, and I suggest they do not balance because the celestial bodies, like our human bodies contain spiritual energy. This energy is currently not accepted by science, and only astrophysics has a plug variable that represents it, but they are not willing to look for the Power of God in the universe.


(Stephen Matheson) #49

Your theory fails because it weirdly does not consider the influence of Sulis, Belenos, and Étaín, whose combined power more than accounts for a few cm of annual drift between earth and the sun. Naturally I am ignoring Ra, Shamash, and Nanahuatzin, because I’m cherry-picking my spiritual influences based on my cultural preferences. Perhaps uniquely in this conversation, I am explicitly acknowledging this bias in my theory.

Oh and at least we can agree that Helios isn’t the right explanation, because he was replaced by Apollo, so the temporal aspects of the theory don’t quite work out. I am willing to share my calculations if anyone doubts me.


(Shawn T Murphy) #50

Well, at least my theory was meant seriously.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #51

Do you mean that we’re moving away from the sun at 15 cm per year when one considers our average distance from the sun? Or what do you mean?