5 ms·

(I apologize for the long post. I hope it is thought provoking nonetheless.) I think it is useful to consider the difference between "Who made this?" and "How

(I apologize for the long post. I hope it is thought provoking nonetheless.) I think it is useful to consider the difference between "Who made this?" and "How was this made?" As a coder, when I see a program that achieves something I didn't know was possible, it makes me very interested in how it was accomplished. I say, "Great job, that is awesome. How did you do that? Where is the source code?" In the same way, I see the complexity of life: the required components and all the intricate processes (Search for ""Inner Life of a Cell" on Youtube, it's really amazing). I try to comprehend the level of complexity and I quickly realize that even Scientific Notation cannot express it appropriately. So, when I appreciate the Creator and say, "Well done, that is insanely awesome!" I also say, "How did you do that?" "How was that made?" "How does this work?" "What can I do with it?" "Can I hack it to do something else?" --- As far as complexity of faith, the difference is a matter of simple set theory: Define 2 Sets: - All things that are made (the Universe) (U) - All things that are not made (the Eternal) (E) You have stated that it requires more faith to believe that there are 2 sets (U,E). However, it could be argued that absolutely denying the possibility of the existence of one set (E) requires a stronger choice of faith. Also, the 2 sets (U,E) makes sense to me, but I see a contradiction in the single set (U only). It's simple logic: If (U only) is the set of all things that are made, then the question begs to be answered: "Where did it come from?" If (U,E), then the answer is obvious: The set of all things that was made (U), came from the set of things that were never made (E). I often hear: "Ok, where did E come from then?" Well, by definition E was not made. E is not U. Also, beyond basic logic, if we consider the theory of the big bang which fits with out measurements of an infinitely accelerating expanding universe: The big bang itself points to a specific point in time where the Universe began (or at least was transformed from a singleton to an accelerating expansion). So if you limit the choice to only (U), again you are faced with a question, "What prompted the initial bang?" One possibility is that (U=E). Another words, the universe itself must be eternal. In that case, we would expect an eternal cycle to be observed (something like the Bang-Bang Theory). However, our best measurements indicate an expanding universe that will never collapse and bang again. There is no support for a Bang-Bang theory which would indicate an eternally cyclic universe. Everything we can measure indicates the universe had a beginning and that it will continue to accelerate it's expansion infinitely. So the most logical explanation I see is (U,E): that the universe was created (by something that was not created i.e. The Eternal One - aka God). And that makes me even more curious: I want to explore all the beauty inside the box because now I have someone to direct my appreciation to say, "Well done! That's amazing!".

crusso 9y ago
What are elements in this Eternal set? I would posit that the Eternal set is composed of things we don't yet understand or are unnecessary entities. If you're wanting to look at this as a set problem, let's take the set U as the Universe of everything that we see evidence for and the Occam's razor understanding of things required to precede U. Now take G as the set that is God - capable of not only creating U, but loving us each individually through some telephathic means, and creating an everlasting existence for each believer in some sort of eternal afterlife. Belief in U + G requires much more accommodation than just belief in U.
- ricksharp 9y ago
  Well, I didn't say anything about the quality of set (E), only that it makes sense to consider the possibility of it, especially when there is an apparent contradiction in the (U only) set. I agree that specific beliefs about the Eternal=God would require much faith since (E) is by definition outside the box (U), and therefore beyond our reach of scientific experimentation. There might be avenues where (E) could communicate with members of (U), but that is a different discussion. I would recommend as much evidence as possible should be pursued in verifying any specific claims about (E). --- Going back to your first point, I understand that you are saying that there could exist a set (U+O) = all things that are made and all things that preceded it (Occam's Razor). So that would make it equivalent to the (U=E) set which I mentioned. Another words, if something exists in the set of things that are made, it was also made, which was made, recursively. However, when we consider the Big Bang, then something spontaneously prompted the singleton to transform into an infinite expansion. From this observation, the only possibilities I see are that either the universe was affected by an external actor (E) or the universe itself is eternal and cyclical and the singleton was a temporary state (Bang-Bang theory). Logically, I don't see a contradiction in either possibility. However, I do see an extreme difference in quality: If (E): Things in (U) have the possibility of eternal significance and stuff actually matters: - Love - Relationships - Death - Work - Exploration - Joy - Suffering - Eternal Life is a Possibility If no (E): On the other hand, if we are simply existing in a cyclically eternal universe, then absolutely nothing matters. We are simply a dot on an infinite timeline. Our atoms will be scattered across empty dark space in an infinitely expanding universe. All is entropy and darkness. Meaning is an illusion. If the second is true, we don't act like it and we lock away the people who do.

crusso 9y ago

What are elements in this Eternal set? I would posit that the Eternal set is composed of things we don't yet understand or are unnecessary entities. If you're wanting to look at this as a set problem, let's take the set U as the Universe of everything that we see evidence for and the Occam's razor understanding of things required to precede U. Now take G as the set that is God - capable of not only creating U, but loving us each individually through some telephathic means, and creating an everlasting existence for each believer in some sort of eternal afterlife. Belief in U + G requires much more accommodation than just belief in U.

ricksharp 9y ago
Well, I didn't say anything about the quality of set (E), only that it makes sense to consider the possibility of it, especially when there is an apparent contradiction in the (U only) set. I agree that specific beliefs about the Eternal=God would require much faith since (E) is by definition outside the box (U), and therefore beyond our reach of scientific experimentation. There might be avenues where (E) could communicate with members of (U), but that is a different discussion. I would recommend as much evidence as possible should be pursued in verifying any specific claims about (E). --- Going back to your first point, I understand that you are saying that there could exist a set (U+O) = all things that are made and all things that preceded it (Occam's Razor). So that would make it equivalent to the (U=E) set which I mentioned. Another words, if something exists in the set of things that are made, it was also made, which was made, recursively. However, when we consider the Big Bang, then something spontaneously prompted the singleton to transform into an infinite expansion. From this observation, the only possibilities I see are that either the universe was affected by an external actor (E) or the universe itself is eternal and cyclical and the singleton was a temporary state (Bang-Bang theory). Logically, I don't see a contradiction in either possibility. However, I do see an extreme difference in quality: If (E): Things in (U) have the possibility of eternal significance and stuff actually matters: - Love - Relationships - Death - Work - Exploration - Joy - Suffering - Eternal Life is a Possibility If no (E): On the other hand, if we are simply existing in a cyclically eternal universe, then absolutely nothing matters. We are simply a dot on an infinite timeline. Our atoms will be scattered across empty dark space in an infinitely expanding universe. All is entropy and darkness. Meaning is an illusion. If the second is true, we don't act like it and we lock away the people who do.