reply to post by webpirate
I basically agree with you in that a "creator" could more than likely be possible in the realm of science.
Infinite regress, AKA, "What happened before that?" Is a question that would ultimately cripple science and faith. The only issue is that faith
willingly surrenders; while science would have to lay down its sword and shield and finally surrender that the universe just simply ... IS.
People also like to throw around the premise of "cyclonic existence", in which the ebb and flow of the universe is an affair of constant adjustments
and changes on its own. Possibly repeating itself.
----
However, a "cyclonic existence" poses the question of ... where did it all come from? Someone would say, "the materials where always there." Or
something to that extent. Essentially hinting, ultimately, that something came from nothing.
----
Some people believe that there was nothing prior to the initial expansion of space-time. I personally believe that is folly.
I believe time is a proponent of matter. Meaning that existing matter releases this process we perceive to be time. It's just rate of change which
can be altered by energy regulation, ultimately increasing rate of change or decreasing rate of change. Creating the effect of time speeding up, or
slowing down.
Space-time distortions like gravity wells and slopes, dramatic velocity; they merely give the perceiver the illusion that time is being altered.
----
Or so I believe. Anyway.
Science will eventually hit a wall and settle, in some way or another, that some things are too great to perceive.
Though, science will ultimately try and spin it more eloquently.
"We have concluded that without perceiving every infinite configuration, we cannot know the nature of the beginning."
And the scientific world will sigh a deep and heavy sigh of defeat. Don't don't worry, science will have taken us very far, proving a great many
things to be true.
