Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[ThamiorTheThinker]

I would say the "big bang" occurred from the mind/consciousness of the CREATOR. Ever read the history? A really eye opening account the beginning of this universe.

http://www.bibleplus.org/creation/creation.htm

I don't think immediately and wholly believing one Christian-written article about the beginning of our universe would bode well with.... Well, with almost every single modern philosopher. That's why we have these debates, because a singular mind or entity isn't a satisfactory explanation for most of us. If we can think of and imagine other possible answers to our questions of what I label "the universe's indivisible origins", then I want to ask of God why it hasn't corrected us. There are so many possibilities out there, it would seem, that defaulting to "God" is merely too boring of an answer to take at face value. Now, I won't tell you to doubt whatever faith you may/may not have, I would only request that you question it from time to time, as I have.

[UniversalAlien]

I started this post in the science not religion seciton - but taking an agnostic view I suppose there can be some overlapping
- at least to some minds.

Theology is not my specialty and I usually avoid it as is you end up with unprovable speculative concepts at best - concepts
best left to science fiction.

Still Atreyu you have made some statements that do not follow a reasonable paradigm for a God:

Atreyu wrote:

............My thesis here is that what applies to a lessor Mind also applies to the Highest Mind, the Primordial Mind. Non-absolute memory might be simply a universal property of all Minds, great and small. After all, how can a growing Mind have memory from its very beginning? Memory is not a property of any Mind until it crosses a certain threshold in its development. So God Himself could not say when or even how He began, simply because His memory is limited. Not even He Himself could know. But He could certainly be able to cognize that He must have indeed began, in spite of the fact that he can't remember it, for the same reasons that we do ourselves --- it's logical! Surely God would be smart enough to draw the same conclusions as we do. He would know he must have begun somehow, but He also knows that at the time of His beginning He was not "there" yet, i.e. he was not awake yet, i.e. he hadn't become aware yet, i.e. awareness (Himself, as a Mind) was not yet a property of the Universe.

And perhaps God, if pressed to name this "Beginning Place", might call it "the Void", or "the Nothing", which would appear to be very good terms, for they denote a place which could not be known, a place where awareness cannot be, a place no One will ever see or be present in, and, of course, it's the same "Place" the Universe will arrive at when it Ends, for when it Ends there also could be no awareness present, so the "Beginning Place" is the same as the "Ending Place" --- No-Where (meaning No awareness can be there)...........

"My thesis here is that what applies to a lessor Mind also applies to the Highest Mind"
- Pure assumptions, no god I can imagine would be nearly as dumb as a Human - to be positive about this maybe he is still trying to teach his wayward creation - Possibly Man is still capable of learning.

"So God Himself could not say when or even how He began, simply because His memory is limited. Not even He Himself could know. But He could certainly be able to cognize that He must have indeed began, in spite of the fact that he can't remember it, for the same reasons that we do ourselves --- it's logical! Surely God would be smart enough to draw the same conclusions as we do. He would know he must have begun somehow, but He also knows that at the time of His beginning He was not "there" yet, i.e. he was not awake yet, i.e. he hadn't become aware yet, i.e. awareness (Himself, as a Mind) was not yet a property of the Universe.," - Nonsense, by definition God is all knowing , all knowledge,
all time, and has no beginning or end - To believe in God is to believe in an absolute sense in eternal existence. God is
by definition an eternal mind state that precedes all mind states, all time, all space - He is forever.

"And perhaps God, if pressed to name this "Beginning Place", might call it "the Void", or "the Nothing", which would appear to be very good terms, for they denote a place which could not be known, a place where awareness cannot be, a place no One will ever see or be present in, and, of course, it's the same "Place" the Universe will arrive at when it Ends, for when it Ends there also could be no awareness present, so the "Beginning Place" is the same as the "Ending Place" --- No-Where (meaning No awareness can be there)." Again nonsense - You can not press God the almighty. And no
such almighty deity could have a beginning point or ending point - again by definition God is eternal and forever, an
awareness that always was and always will be - the essence of eternal existence - that which blows the void out of the
void and always proves the void does not exist - as God is always there - always and forever

"This gives us a very strange Universe. A Universe with a Beginning and an Ending, a Universe that really did Begin and End,..... - You might sell that one to Atheists, but even an agnostic such as the UniversalAlien won't buy it.

For elaboration of my concepts please contact God - If he answers let me know, I never give up on the search for
meaning in a universe and an existent state I've yet to understand

-- Updated January 12th, 2016, 2:43 pm to add the following --

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details."(The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

"It is very difficult to elucidate this [cosmic religious] feeling to anyone who is entirely without it. . . The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it ... In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it." (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 207)

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." - (Albert Einstein)

[Atreyu]

"My thesis here is that what applies to a lessor Mind also applies to the Highest Mind"
- Pure assumptions, no god I can imagine would be nearly as dumb as a Human - to be positive about this maybe he is still trying to teach his wayward creation - Possibly Man is still capable of learning.

Well, you can write it off by just saying "pure" assumptions, but I think I backed up my position using a lot more than idle assumption. Of course God would be much smarter than humans, but that does not imply that He knows all. The idea of an "all-knowing God" is rather simplistic, and in fact that is what is "pure assumption". The idea of a "highest Mind" which encompasses all other minds in no way implies that it would know everything that it is possible to know, and in fact we can easily imagine it not knowing everything (such as how it began, or even if it did).

"So God Himself could not say when or even how He began, simply because His memory is limited. Not even He Himself could know. But He could certainly be able to cognize that He must have indeed began, in spite of the fact that he can't remember it, for the same reasons that we do ourselves --- it's logical! Surely God would be smart enough to draw the same conclusions as we do. He would know he must have begun somehow, but He also knows that at the time of His beginning He was not "there" yet, i.e. he was not awake yet, i.e. he hadn't become aware yet, i.e. awareness (Himself, as a Mind) was not yet a property of the Universe.,"
- Nonsense, by definition God is all knowing , all knowledge,
all time, and has no beginning or end - To believe in God is to believe in an absolute sense in eternal existence. God is
by definition an eternal mind state that precedes all mind states, all time, all space - He is forever.

Well, that's interesting. First, you declare your agnosticism, as I do, then your argument against my thesis is to assert that a Primordial Consciousness should be that which the simple minded religious folk say it is.

Sure, by the definition of the modern christian simpleton God is "all knowing" and has "all knowledge", and is Everywhere and will never die. But I don't subscribe to that suspect definition, and I suspect neither do you. Why are you using simplistic religious doctrine to refute my point?

My rebuttal would be that the modern christian idea of God is not compatible with the Primordial Consciousness that I elucidated in my last post, and that, in fact, such a "God" does not really exist.

"And perhaps God, if pressed to name this "Beginning Place", might call it "the Void", or "the Nothing", which would appear to be very good terms, for they denote a place which could not be known, a place where awareness cannot be, a place no One will ever see or be present in, and, of course, it's the same "Place" the Universe will arrive at when it Ends, for when it Ends there also could be no awareness present, so the "Beginning Place" is the same as the "Ending Place" --- No-Where (meaning No awareness can be there)." Again nonsense - You can not press God the almighty. And no
such almighty deity could have a beginning point or ending point - again by definition God is eternal and forever, an
awareness that always was and always will be - the essence of eternal existence - that which blows the void out of the
void and always proves the void does not exist - as God is always there - always and forever

"This gives us a very strange Universe. A Universe with a Beginning and an Ending, a Universe that really did Begin and End,.....
- You might sell that one to Atheists, but even an agnostic such as the UniversalAlien won't buy it.

I don't care if you buy it, my hope was just that you would understand it. And then, if you did, I'd suspect you'd agree. My position right now is that you didn't get it, because, after all, it was a very difficult concept to convey.

You may not get it, but my infinite line segment diagrams the Universe, in terms of time, showing how the Universe could be both finite and infinite at the same time, thus resolving many paradoxes in philosophy and science. It allows us to take two disparate views, seemingly irreconcilable, and synthesize them into a model that takes both into account. It allows us to give credence to both views, allows us to discard neither, and shows us how both views are partly true and false --- two different views of the same phenomena. Much like we might show two people, each of which is seeing a coin from a different side, and arguing about whether a penny is the face of Abe Lincoln or an image of the Capitol Building, that actually both are sort of "right" and "wrong" -- each is merely seeing it from a different side. Quite a task if we assume that we cannot turn the penny around and show each man each side.

And that is exactly what I did here. I showed that the idea of a beginning/ending and the idea of no beginning/ending are both merely two different perspectives of the same thing, and I even showed how to reconcile them with my "infinite line segment". The line segment can be both infinite or finite depending on the scale of measurement. Similarly, the Universe can be both infinite or finite depending on how one cognizes it. And the new cognition I elucidated and diagrammed with my "infinite line segment" is the way to make it both....

[Logicus]

Well, the multiverse view I certainly endorse, but this really does not resolve our problem in the least. Unfortunately, this is a straw man. Ultimately, your question still applies regardless of whether or not we imagine "many universes" (like our own) or just one. In the multiverse model (and taking big bang theory into account as well), we still have plural "universes" arising from a geometric point, and perhaps even from the exact same point, hence no change in our conundrum

The Multi-Verse is a fiction and there is zero evidence for it. It is a pipe dream invented by those who feel that there can be no true determinism because of uncertainty at quantum levels. it is the result of the failure of their own theories to accurately portray reality.

What is in red is a contradiction. Yes, of course it seems possible to retrace the expansion to a singular point in the past. But that implies that it could not be related to any specific point in the space which we now occupy. By becoming all the points of our current space, the original point is untraceable to any specific point of our 3-D space.

It may have become all points in the present, but it seems there should be a source for all the current expansion - like running a movie backwards to see where an explosion began. You may not be able to determine any exact point, but it should be possible to trace it to an area we might call the Center of the Universe. If the Universe is roughly spherical, where is the center of the sphere? I think that is what the OP is asking

[Misty]

Well, the multiverse view I certainly endorse, but this really does not resolve our problem in the least. Unfortunately, this is a straw man. Ultimately, your question still applies regardless of whether or not we imagine "many universes" (like our own) or just one. In the multiverse model (and taking big bang theory into account as well), we still have plural "universes" arising from a geometric point, and perhaps even from the exact same point, hence no change in our conundrum

The Multi-Verse is a fiction and there is zero evidence for it. It is a pipe dream invented by those who feel that there can be no true determinism because of uncertainty at quantum levels. it is the result of the failure of their own theories to accurately portray reality.

What is in red is a contradiction. Yes, of course it seems possible to retrace the expansion to a singular point in the past. But that implies that it could not be related to any specific point in the space which we now occupy. By becoming all the points of our current space, the original point is untraceable to any specific point of our 3-D space.

It may have become all points in the present, but it seems there should be a source for all the current expansion - like running a movie backwards to see where an explosion began. You may not be able to determine any exact point, but it should be possible to trace it to an area we might call the Center of the Universe. If the Universe is roughly spherical, where is the center of the sphere? I think that is what the OP is asking.

Even IF humans could physically trace back to the so called big bang, it would not be the beginning, because the cause of the big bang still could not be explained in terms of

what brought the explosion into being in the first place. That random explosion would have had to have within itself the makings of what became the universe, sustains the

universe, caused the universe, like an embryo has within itself all the makings to become its adult species, as long as it is nourished from its cause, and that same embryo/adult

species dies from the very makings within itself and nourishment will no longer sustain it. Humans want to think of creator God as being like them, with a beginning and an end,

but creator God is not our species, not of this universe, does not exist for the same reasons, creator God is not sustained the same way the created universe is sustained. While

creator God IS the life giving force that sustains this universe, God has only revealed that Gods thoughts are not human thoughts, Gods ways are not human ways, God IS the

Great I AM. Creator God of the heavens and the earth which we call the universe does not depend on creation to sustain I AM but is the sustainer. I think creator God is beyond

human understanding, that what is life to us is not the same thing as creator Gods being. The cause of life as we know it, comes from life, not by accident but by the design of

one who IS life. (I think one God created our universe, this does not mean God is alone in infinity)


p.s. I do not know why my posts break into pieces, when I submit it is correct.

-- Updated Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:06 am to add the following --

I would say the "big bang" occurred from the mind/consciousness of the CREATOR. Ever read the history? A really eye opening account the beginning of this universe.

http://www.bibleplus.org/creation/creation.htm[/quote
I don't think immediately and wholly believing one Christian-written article about the beginning of our universe would bode well with.... Well, with almost every single modern philosopher. That's why we have these debates, because a singular mind or entity isn't a satisfactory explanation for most of us. If we can think of and imagine other possible answers to our questions of what I label "the universe's indivisible origins", then I want to ask of God why it hasn't corrected us. There are so many possibilities out there, it would seem, that defaulting to "God" is merely too boring of an answer to take at face value. Now, I won't tell you to doubt whatever faith you may/may not have, I would only request that you question it from time to time, as I have.

The link I offered is just one of many articles from ancient to the present day thinkers and writers. I certainly don't depend on one source for my thoughts about life's mysteries.
I have been questioning everything for most of my life, sharing my thoughts is no different than you sharing your thoughts.

[Rr6]

Macro-infinite,on-occupied space. exists eternally. This is top cosmic hierarchy involving space. Ok?

Within the non-occupied space we have an eternally existent, finite, occupied space. Ok?

We call this eternally existent, finite occupied space Universe. Ok?

If we can accept these givens above, the when also say with confidence, that, the finite occupied space Universe, has no other occupied space's to reference or itself too as being here or there etc.

As to the scenario identified as Big Bang, we only need to consider some initial set of circumstances of the finite, occupied space Universe, that, began at some time to some present or other time.

As to where, we can consider where, if the Big Bang is a local phenomena i.e. local universe, taking place within the greater, finite occupied space Universe, then we may consider a where as refereneced of three or more local universe's.

We can not get a fix or location on something without triangulation ergo three local universe's are needed to get a fix, or location of any one of them, as referenced to those other two, or even more local universes, if they exist.

As to considerations time, then we may say, that, we relate time only to those set of events we can observe directly or indirectly with occupied space existence.

1} gravity we do not detect or observe directly ergo we may consider as quasi-physical space or quasi-energy and we do not relate to as a time aspect of occupied space.

2} time we consider as those aspects of occupied space, that, we do directly detect or observe,

3} dark energy we do not detect or observed directly ergo we may consider as quasi-physical space or as quasi-energy and wed do not related to as time aspect of occupied space.

ebuc

[Logicus]

p.s. I do not know why my posts break into pieces, when I submit it is correct.

Are you hitting the Enter key at the end of lines?

I have been questioning everything for most of my life, sharing my thoughts is no different than you sharing your thoughts.

I think what the others are trying to say is that you are preaching rather than using pure reason - and in the Science forum. It is forbidden even in the Religion forum. If you had started it with something like, "of course the Christian view is such and such, and this would seem to indicate the following" Then it would have been perfectly acceptable. Instead you presented it as historical fact, and that is preaching.

[Keiran]

The Big Bang did not occur to a specific place.
Mathematics/logic do not prevent an infinite space to inflate like a balloon in every point of its points at the same time.

The big bang occurs from two basic logical causes:
- Living beings like us need time to exist. Due to the anthropic principle, our presence forces our universe to possess a form of time.
- Living beings like us need an appropriate matter density to exist. Since the universe has time and changes, it needs to inflate or deflate up to the point we can exist. It could as well be static but that would cause some serious problems like gravity making everything collapse into a singularity.

Therefore, the Big Bang is purely anthropic. It is there because of us. And is it just an infinite or pseudo-infinite space starting to inflate / reduce its matter density.

[Logicus]

Therefore, the Big Bang is purely anthropic. It is there because of us

This is a rather sweeping statement. It essentially states the universe exists for us. That it is, in fact, made specifically for us. A "Creation", in other words. Isn't that what Misty has been saying? Isn't that a religious view? My statement is that Conscious beings are a phase in the evolution of the Universe, that we serve its purposes, not that it serves us.

The Anthropic view is actually that any universe with a stable configuration, flat geometry, and that exists long enough for the elements necessary for life to develop, is the same kind of universe we live in. That, in fact, such a universe WILL produce life and consciousness. A living universe is a stable universe, and vice versa. It doesn't exist because of us, we exist because of it. The question is Why? What can we (conscious beings) provide that the Universe needs? It would seem we are a natural result of the evolution of the Universe, so what purpose do we serve? Carl Sagan called us, "the eyes of the Universe" - this implies that the Universe needs to perceive itself through us and other conscious beings all of whom are creations of this very same Universe. What is it all for? Are we just a stage on the way to something greater we can't imagine? Or is there a real purpose to our current existence?

The Big Bang is just a story of How it might have happened, not WHY. Since it "smells of Creation", Scientific sorts have been trying for decades to get around it with "quantum fluctuations" , hidden dimensions, super symmetry and the multiVerse, Brane theory (which is a conjecture, not a theory), and other mathematical fantasies. They are running from the facts because they don't like where the facts lead them. That isn't science, it is scientism. It is science for its own sake without regard for the truth. It is changing science from a simple search for truth into a belief system. And if you don't believe them, then you "can't handle the math", you are naïve, you live in the dark ages. Science needs to clean its own house.

[UniversalAlien]

Therefore, the Big Bang is purely anthropic. It is there because of us

This is a rather sweeping statement. It essentially states the universe exists for us. That it is, in fact, made specifically for us. A "Creation", in other words. Isn't that what Misty has been saying? Isn't that a religious view? My statement is that Conscious beings are a phase in the evolution of the Universe, that we serve its purposes, not that it serves us.

The Anthropic view is actually that any universe with a stable configuration, flat geometry, and that exists long enough for the elements necessary for life to develop, is the same kind of universe we live in. That, in fact, such a universe WILL produce life and consciousness. A living universe is a stable universe, and vice versa. It doesn't exist because of us, we exist because of it. The question is Why? What can we (conscious beings) provide that the Universe needs? It would seem we are a natural result of the evolution of the Universe, so what purpose do we serve? Carl Sagan called us, "the eyes of the Universe" - this implies that the Universe needs to perceive itself through us and other conscious beings all of whom are creations of this very same Universe. What is it all for? Are we just a stage on the way to something greater we can't imagine? Or is there a real purpose to our current existence?

The Big Bang is just a story of How it might have happened, not WHY. Since it "smells of Creation", Scientific sorts have been trying for decades to get around it with "quantum fluctuations" , hidden dimensions, super symmetry and the multiVerse, Brane theory (which is a conjecture, not a theory), and other mathematical fantasies. They are running from the facts because they don't like where the facts lead them. That isn't science, it is scientism. It is science for its own sake without regard for the truth. It is changing science from a simple search for truth into a belief system. And if you don't believe them, then you "can't handle the math", you are naïve, you live in the dark ages. Science needs to clean its own house.

Perfectly reasonable and logical Logicus - But I still have a problem. Your explanation and reasoning required a 'mind' formulate - And all the science and observation in the world requires a conscious mind to reach its conclusions based
upon its observations - true? So again I ask you to show me how the universe looks outside of the minds{s| that are
observing and calculating its existence? Show me the non-existent state of the univeerse before mind - I don't think
you can. Therefor mind always had to exist - And to decide whether or not we are a product of the universe or the
universe is a product of our observation will not be provable either way.

Outside of mind there is only non-existence, a state that does not and never could have existed.

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

REHOVOT, Israel, February 26, 1998--One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.

In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place........

See whole article here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 055013.htm

[Paradigmer]

Assuming you believe in the 'Big Bang' as the starting point of the Universe - the question might be asked as to where this
happened? Since supposedly the Universe begins with the Big Bang and all time and space also would so begin, where is the
place where it happened? - But if there was no time or space there also wan no place - no place where such an event could
occur. The conclusion one might reach is that the Big Bang could not have occurred unless there was a place for it to occur.
Hence, the Big Bang could not represent the beginning of the Universe. Therefor the next conclusion to be drawn is the
Universe could not have had a beginning since there was no place for the beginning to occur - Existence and the Universe
always existed for if there was ever a point of non-existence existence could never have occurred.

You had critically pointed out a valid contradiction in the Big Bang ontology of the Universe.

[Rr6]

Putting aside exactly what the big bang may have been, the question of where is irrelevant, because, our finite, occupied space Universe has no other universe as relative reference much less any triangulation potentials.

"U"niverse-1: The Cosmic Hierarchy
....1a} metaphysical-1, spirit-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space etc.....
-----line---of---demarcation---------------------------
...1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space,
....1c} finite, occupied space Universe

2) Universe aka God, Cosmos etc....
....2a} fermions and bosons aka spirit{ 2 }
......2b} gravity aka spirit{ 3 }
......2c} dark energy aka spirit{ 4 }.

r6 aka

[quote="Rr6"]Macro-infinite,on-occupied space. exists eternally. This is top cosmic hierarchy involving space.
Within the non-occupied space we have an eternally existent, finite, occupied space.
We call this eternally existent, finite occupied space Universe.
If we can accept these givens above, the when also say with confidence, that, the finite occupied space Universe, has no other occupied space's to reference or itself too as being here or there etc.
As to the scenario identified as Big Bang, we only need to consider some initial set of circumstances of the finite, occupied space Universe, that, began at some time to some present or other time.
As to where, we can consider where, if the Big Bang is a local phenomena i.e. local universe, taking place within the greater, finite occupied space Universe, then we may consider a where as refereneced of three or more local universe's.
We can not get a fix or location on something without triangulation ergo three local universe's are needed to get a fix, or location of any one of them, as referenced to those other two, or even more local universes, if they exist.
As to considerations time, then we may say, that, we relate time only to those set of events we can observe directly or indirectly with occupied space existence.
1} gravity we do not detect or observe directly ergo we may consider as quasi-physical space or quasi-energy and we do not relate to as a time aspect of occupied space.
2} time we consider as those aspects of occupied space, that, we do directly detect or observe,
3} dark energy we do not detect or observed directly ergo we may consider as quasi-physical space or as quasi-energy and wed do not related to as time aspect of occupied space.

ebuc[/quote]

[UniversalAlien]

Rr16 wrote:

Within the non-occupied space we have an eternally existent, finite, occupied space.
We call this eternally existent, finite occupied space Universe.

"Eternally existent, finite occupied space" That is a statement that is self-contradictory - If something is 'eternally existent' how can it be finite Unless you are implying that the universe is finite - In which case what are its dimensions,
how long has it been here, and how long will it last








"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"
http://universalspacealienpeoplesassoci ... uture.html

[Burning ghost]

For starters it waasn't big and there was no bang.

There is no "before" time any more than there is a "slippery rabbit thought of blind mice running a factory that produces boxes of space beside a sideways glance".

The same goes for the question of "where" space is.

Just because we can string words together that appear to make sense it doesn't mean they do.

[Rr6]

[quote="UniversalAlien"]Rr16 wrote:
[quote]Within the non-occupied space we have an eternally existent, finite, occupied space.
We call this eternally existent, finite occupied space Universe. [/quote]

"Eternally existent, finite occupied space" That is a statement that is self-contradictory - If something is 'eternally existent' how can it be finite Unless you are implying that the universe is finite - In which case what are its dimensions,
how long has it been here, and how long will it last

You appear to confuse spatial finite of occupied space with eternal{ beyond time } existence of our finite, occupied space Universe.

Eternal is to time as infinite is to space. Perhaps, the one exception to that is the concept of numerical infinity. That is whole different category as seen in 1a.

Please reread the cosmic hierarchy as stated ie. 1c} finite, occupied space Universe i.e we live in a spatially finite occupied space Universe, that exists beyond any limited/finite time existence.

We do not state eternal distance. We state, a finite distance, or, beyond a finite distance is infinity. That is spatial related.

We state period of time or we may state a finite amount of time, but beyond a finite time is eternity. Time exists eternally and occupied space Universe exist eternally.

Yes we observe only a finite, occupied space Universe. That distance we observe has changed over the years. You could do an internet search for size of Universe to find out what the latest distances measured are. I believe that distance is what speed-of-radiation travels over 13.7 billion years or so.

Hope that helps you to understand where my statements are coming from. No hokey pokey being invoked on my end that I'm aware of. I tried hard to avoid irrational, illogical and lacking common sense, hokey pokey.

r6










"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"
http://universalspacealienpeoplesassoci ... uture.html[/quote]