Explain How and Why the Universe Exists

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

God creates His equal, humanity, for relationship, to love and care for an be loved and cared for. The universe was created for us to exist and learn and grow in so we can learn right from wrong

You do not worship or pray to your equals. Maybe you don't know what equal means?

The OP explicitly requested a science perspective, not creationist dogma. Feel free to revisit the original post.

Please do not give a creationist view - I'm not saying that is impossible - But we already know about creationist viewpoints. 

I would like to hear a scientific/philosophical perspective - even if it is weird or strange. 

So far this pissing contest has yielded nothing new...

Funny, then scientific belief on this subject is dogma, faith and assumption

There is no scientific perspective

As for worshiping, praying to our equals. We are not quite there yet, just in case you didn’t notice and just to add a little more, it’s only my opinion and I could be wrong

Everybody here keeps telling me They have a right to express my opinion but I don’t? Because it offends you?

Feel free to express your opinion in an arena made for dissecting and debunking it.

Also appears the OP has returned for the purpose of underlining the point I made earlier about the focus of this discussion. Less cult dogma and more scientific observation and theory.

He asked for a philosophical perspective
In English that means

I explained why the world was created not how

Calm down tc you are over reacting

a reply to: andy06shake
The one life is one - without a second..... so life doesn't belong to someone.

No one is talking.... life is appearing as talking/writing.

There is just what is happening.... the one.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

God creates His equal, humanity, for relationship, to love and care for an be loved and cared for. The universe was created for us to exist and learn and grow in so we can learn right from wrong

You do not worship or pray to your equals. Maybe you don't know what equal means?

The OP explicitly requested a science perspective, not creationist dogma. Feel free to revisit the original post.

Please do not give a creationist view - I'm not saying that is impossible - But we already know about creationist viewpoints. 

I would like to hear a scientific/philosophical perspective - even if it is weird or strange. 

So far this pissing contest has yielded nothing new...

Funny, then scientific belief on this subject is dogma, faith and assumption

There is no scientific perspective

As for worshiping, praying to our equals. We are not quite there yet, just in case you didn’t notice and just to add a little more, it’s only my opinion and I could be wrong

Everybody here keeps telling me They have a right to express my opinion but I don’t? Because it offends you?

Feel free to express your opinion in an arena made for dissecting and debunking it.

Also appears the OP has returned for the purpose of underlining the point I made earlier about the focus of this discussion. Less cult dogma and more scientific observation and theory.

He asked for a philosophical perspective
In English that means

I explained why the world was created not how

Calm down tc you are over reacting

You appear to be the only one who thinks so. Imagine that.

And philosophy is concerned with the relationship between facts and psychology. Ignoring facts is not philosophy.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

God creates His equal, humanity, for relationship, to love and care for an be loved and cared for. The universe was created for us to exist and learn and grow in so we can learn right from wrong

You do not worship or pray to your equals. Maybe you don't know what equal means?

The OP explicitly requested a science perspective, not creationist dogma. Feel free to revisit the original post.

Please do not give a creationist view - I'm not saying that is impossible - But we already know about creationist viewpoints. 

I would like to hear a scientific/philosophical perspective - even if it is weird or strange. 

So far this pissing contest has yielded nothing new...

Funny, then scientific belief on this subject is dogma, faith and assumption

There is no scientific perspective

As for worshiping, praying to our equals. We are not quite there yet, just in case you didn’t notice and just to add a little more, it’s only my opinion and I could be wrong

Everybody here keeps telling me They have a right to express my opinion but I don’t? Because it offends you?

Feel free to express your opinion in an arena made for dissecting and debunking it.

Also appears the OP has returned for the purpose of underlining the point I made earlier about the focus of this discussion. Less cult dogma and more scientific observation and theory.

He asked for a philosophical perspective
In English that means

I explained why the world was created not how

Calm down tc you are over reacting

You appear to be the only one who thinks so. Imagine that.

And philosophy is concerned with the relationship between facts and psychology. Ignoring facts is not philosophy.

Read the op tc, it’s in there, it’s asked, the opening poster stated philosophy, irrespective of your comprehension skills

What is philosophy, according to you, who knows or cares tc
According to wikipedia
Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom")[1][2][3][4] is the study of general and fundamental questions[5][6][7] about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Such questions are ...
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Just such a little sniper, without a gun

originally posted by: musicismagic
To answer your question, by the way, its a very good question. One must enlighten oneself to the understanding of "it exist because it exist". Then it is very easy for the brain to comprehend that, as one sees a dew worm at night crawling, it exist because it exist in its own little world. The universe exist because its there in harmony with its own existence .

Ever heard of circular reasoning?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Itisnowagain

And around, and around, and around, and round you go Itisnowagain.

Ile gives you this, your consistent.

Whos life, yours, mine, my dogs the hamsters or Darth fecking Vaders?

I mean you must see your predicament?

Who are you taking to if not other people that are separate from yourself?

Maybe we are all BOTS or have the voices in your head learned to type?

Maybe everyone and everything is made up in the head of God? Could this all be in the head of God? (tongue in cheek or reality?)

originally posted by: Archivalist
The Universe doesn't exist.

originally posted by: NorEaster
..
This link will detail the ridiculously simple emergence of physical reality, and how inevitable its occurrence was.

You have a convoluted way of presenting the well-used argument that it is that way because it had to be that way (summed up with the word "inevitable", others have used the expression: out of "necessity", or sometimes they use the phrase "chance and necessity" with which they are referring to a mindless process as opposed to the conclusion that it was by purposeful design, regarding the 'how' question*, the causal factors or factor). It's really not a new way of thinking about the subject. It's a worn-out cop-out that involves circular reasoning. *: depending on how you interpret the 'why'-question one can also use the (by) 'chance and necessity' argument as a response to the 'why'-question, but I don't really want to get into that (try changing "by" to "because of" in that sentence and you might notice it, you can also swap out the latter part of the argument with "a mindless process" or change it into "because it was inevitable"; then it's adressing the 'why'-question, still not much of an answer though, nor are there any indications from experiments and observations that it indeed was inevitable).

It may be prudent to inspect the forces of nature (and the laws that describe them) a little closer before using them as an explanation as to why something is supposedly inevitable because of them.

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? Awake!—2009

...
Fine-Tuning​—Evidence of Purposeful Design?

When they examine the laws of nature, many investigators balk at the notion of a cosmos without purpose. They are impressed, for example, by the fundamental forces that regulate the universe. The laws underlying these forces appear to have been fine-tuned in such a way as to produce a universe capable of supporting life. “Changing the existing laws by even a scintilla could have lethal consequences,” says cosmologist Paul Davies. For example, if protons were slightly heavier than neutrons, rather than slightly lighter as they are, all protons would have turned into neutrons. Would that have been so bad? “Without protons and their crucial electric charge,” explains Davies, “atoms could not exist.”

The electromagnetic force attracts electrons to protons, allowing molecules to form. If this force were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held in orbit around the nucleus of an atom, and no molecules could form. If, on the other hand, this force were much stronger, electrons would be stuck to the nucleus of an atom. In that case, chemical reactions and life would simply be impossible.

A slight difference in the electromagnetic force would affect the sun and the solar energy that reaches our earth. Such a difference could easily make photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. So the precise strength of the electromagnetic force determines whether life on earth is possible or not.*

The book Science & Christianity​—Four Views has an interesting way of illustrating the delicacy of the balance of forces and elements in the cosmos. The writer asked his readers to visualize an explorer’s visit to an imaginary “control room for the whole universe.” There, the explorer observes rows and rows of dials that can be set to any value, and he learns that each has to be calibrated to a precise setting in order for life to be possible. One dial sets the strength of the force of gravity, one the strength of electromagnetic attraction, another the ratio between the mass of the neutron and the proton, and so on. As the explorer examines these numerous dials, he sees that they could have been set to different values. It also becomes clear to him, after meticulous calculation, that even a small change in any one of the dial settings would modify the architecture of the cosmos in such a way that life in it would cease to exist. Yet, each dial is set to precisely the right value needed to keep the universe running and habitable. What should the visitor deduce about how the dials came to be set the way they are?

Astronomer George Greenstein states: “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency​—or, rather, Agency—​must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?”

What do you think? Which explanation best fits the fine-tuning observable in the cosmos? Purposeful design or mindless process?

‘We’re Just Here​—That’s All There Is to It’

Atheists, of course, have their counterarguments. Some shrug off the apparent fine-tuning in nature, saying: ‘Of course the observable universe is capable of supporting human life. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to worry about it. So there’s really nothing to explain. We’re just here, and that’s all there is to it.’ But do you find that a satisfying explanation for our existence? [whereislogic: similar to musicismagic's "it exists because it exists"]

Another argument is that it will someday be proved that only one possible set of numbers can work in the equations that express the fundamental laws of nature. That is, the dials mentioned above had to be turned to the right settings for the universe to exist at all. Some say, ‘It’s that way because it had to be that way!’ Even if this circular reasoning were true, it would still not provide an ultimate explanation for our existence. In short, is it just a coincidence that the universe exists and that it is life-supporting?
...

a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, ignoring facts is not wisdom or love of it. It is love of ignorance. Which we deny. Philo Sophia.

This sniper enjoys that no scope game.

In my perception the universe(s) are created for CREATOR Creations of various energy forms to develop and grow within "contained" parameters. The containment preventing the spread of under developed consciousness and behaviors attached to the various Created within it.

a reply to: AlienView

Before this region of the (inhabited) Abyss, perceived as the observable universe existed the Abyss was there.
The Abyss being the medium that pulled on the fabrics of the perceived bigbang causing the energy mass that made the bigbang in theory to expand into the various observable and non observable universal objects. Objects like this and many other "islands" or Planets within the Abyss of Creation...
There may also be Exterior Universal Inhabitants...that build these universe(s) like a game or software programer would build a game or simulation package.
In essence the aliens and ALL* Created within the universe(s) would be lower forms of energy.

Archon like beings would be the inhabitants of the Abyss of Creation that Existed before the bigbang.
They the Archons would still be susceptible to benevolent or malevolent exterior universal inhabitants influences...

a reply to: whereislogic

That is one argument. Another argument is that earth won a cosmic lottery. This argument is supported by the fact that we are only one "apex species" in a long line that all met their doom on this very world, not to mention dozens of cataclysmic events that were decidedly unfriendly to life in general. We are still alive because we are just waiting our turn in the dead pool. We aren't next to god, we are inside its belly being very slowly digested. Ask the trillions of corpses inside the earth.

When you were around three years old you became self-aware, and the universe was created. When you die, the universe will collapse. Just wait and see.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
When you were around three years old you became self-aware, and the universe was created. When you die, the universe will collapse. Just wait and see.

Some believe that when we blink, the universe does too. Are these the same people who believe our planet is the center of existence? Who knows...

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: NorEaster
..
This link will detail the ridiculously simple emergence of physical reality, and how inevitable its occurrence was.

You have a convoluted way of presenting the well-used argument that it is that way because it had to be that way (summed up with the word "inevitable", others have used the expression: out of "necessity", or sometimes they use the phrase "chance and necessity" with which they are referring to a mindless process as opposed to the conclusion that it was by purposeful design, regarding the 'how' question, the causal factors or factor). It's really not a new way of thinking about the subject. It's a worn-out cop-out that involves circular reasoning.

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? Awake!—2009

What I linked to was only the overview of the instant of existential genesis. The book that it is excerpted from explains in detail a lot more about the nature and structure of physical reality. Fundamental to that explanation is the surprisingly simple - yet universal - impetus that pulls all progressive development forward. Yes, it's "mindless", since conscious self-aware intellect cannot logically be a primordial physical substrate, but as to any claim of inevitability, I would be very cautious with the use of that term since its a loaded term that can be viewed as suggesting properties that I don't embrace as true or factual. The real bitch is that the English language provides any philosophical examination [and especially one centered on Natural Philosophy] an unstable and ever-shifting platform upon which to seek a communication foundation.

As I stated in that linked presentation, the number of logically plausible answers to the question "How and Why The Universe Exists?" is an extremely limited arrangement. And, it's not an arrangement that a responsible theorist is free to choose at will from a larger collective of established myths, allegories, or creative scientific elaborations. Whatever is the truth concerning how physical reality did emerge, any hypothesis must center on and be restricted to those fundamental requirements that all factual aspects of reality adhere to; strict logical consistency, universal system coherence, system emergence conforming to Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason, the logical ramifications of the Relative Being State, the unalterable relationship between Potentiality and Actuality, and the primacy of inimitable Identity when defining the property set that is physical existence. Perhaps I simply worked out a clever construct that satisfies those requirements, but then again, given the definite parameters that exist around any logically plausible secular genesis hypothesis, it can't be that far removed - theoretically - from what must have occurred.

What we do know is that the more mature a system becomes, the more "inevitable" its response to ongoing existence will prove to be. Consistent system progression/ramification is not a controversial notion, and that's important to keep in mind, even when examining changes/events that are much more primitive; as well as those that are completely novel. Reality is one macro-system, and all its natural laws must be based on one fundamental impetus [Prof. Lee Smolin calls this a "meta-law"]. And, whatever it is, that imperative certainly isn't number-based, since numbers [not quantities, of course] are no more than human conceptual abstractions, with mathematics' relationship to reality akin to chess' relationship with 19th century warfare.

Like I said in a prior post, I have no problem with being dismissed over the work I've done. I'm used to it. I'm also used to having my work be misrepresented. It's surprising what occurs to you when you've satisfied your own self as a result of completing a large effort. Maybe you gain something that no one can take from you? Not sure how to describe it, but the reality that you exist within changes. Or perhaps it's your relationship with that reality that changes. Interesting.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Blue Shift
When you were around three years old you became self-aware, and the universe was created. When you die, the universe will collapse. Just wait and see.

Some believe that when we blink, the universe does too. Are these the same people who believe our planet is the center of existence? Who knows...

If you took off in a rocket that could essentially travel at near-infinite speed, you would hit the edge of the universe in the same amount of time no matter which direction you went. And if you could walk the universe back in reverse time to the very beginning the theory is that everything will be jammed inside of a ball about 500 meters across. Then it all expanded from there. So where does that put Earth? Pretty much right in the center.

a reply to: TzarChasm

TzarChasm wrote::

"I wish you could post opinions without quoting other people like their words are a substitute for telling us what you think and why. I also wish you would actually respond to what I have posted so far because being ignored is very rude when you are supposed to be "hosting" this discussion.

AlienView responds:

1. I do not respond to you becuase I do not believe what you write is worth responding to.

2. If you do not like posts I start troll someone elses posts instead or start your own
- I will not respond to any post you start.

3. My quote as a response to your third insult in this thread.

“If people are hating on you it's often because they are: 1. Threathened by you, 2. Jealous of you or 3. Feeling like you're above them so they put you down to feel better about themselves. The greatest people have haters for a reason, so take it as a compliment. Haters gonna hate.”
― Jeanette Coron

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, ignoring facts is not wisdom or love of it. It is love of ignorance. Which we deny. Philo Sophia.

This sniper enjoys that no scope game.

If you want to be a sniper matey, Learn to shoot then learn to aim.
You have nothing

The op asked for phililosophy or the reason everything exists
Keep up

I can answer all your questions. Ok why does the universe exist well it exists because if it didnt we would not be here to ask the question.

As for the big bang you were very confused the big bang has nothing to do with how the Universe was created. It simply explains what we are seeing as we observe it. The background radiation tells us the early universe was incredibly hot and has been cooling ever since.

And finaly let me take care of another thing the universe is not in any way built to support life in fact quite the opposite. The universe in incredibly hostile towards life and constantly trying to kill us. In fact 99.99999999999999999 percent of the universe is in inhospitable to life. Look at our solar system wr have only 1 planet and its very small compared to the rest of the solar system. We might discover a moon also if were lucky but even than still over 99 percent of our solar system is lethal to us.

a reply to: AlienView

1. I do not respond to you becuase I do not believe what you write is worth responding to. 

That's hurtful. Is it because you can't match wits with me?

2. If you do not like posts I start troll someone elses posts instead or start your own 
- I will not respond to any post you start.

Just because you don't like what I think doesn't mean I'm trolling, you are insulting my perfectly honest and sensible response to an open thread you started with people like myself explicitly invited to answer. But sure, pretend that wasn't your goal.

As to your quote:

"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Mythbusters

Formulate your opinions in your own words and then come talk to me about how my carefully worded and thoughtfully crafted replies are not worth your time. I had hoped for better.