From: bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com
On 2/14/26 08:36, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 17:21:19 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>> Paul S Person writes:
>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 12:28:31 -0800, Bobbie Sellers
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/12/26 09:27, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>>> Ignatios Souvatzis wrote or quoted:
>>>>>> At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an =
>>> all-knowing,
>>>>>> all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Well, once one starts to assume something for which there are
>>>>> no observations ("god"), one then can as well assume that he
>>>>> is all-knowing by some kind of magic that does not need light.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>
>>>> Well part of God is in this Universe and part in the place/time/region
>>> >from which the materials for the Big Bang emerged. God is everywhere in
>>>> this universe and in everything to keep it in existence. If you want to=
>>> =20
>>>> believe
>>>> in a God which is sort of not needed in most science aside from =
>>> Theology.
>>>
>>> That is probably the most cogent statement of transendent and
>>> imminanent I have seen in a long time. Also the Ground of Being
>>> concept. But the usual doctrine is creation /ex nihilo/, "out of
>>> nothing", so no materials required.
>>
>> It does, however, raise the question of where and how that
>> 'place/time/region' itself was created und so weiter ad infinitum.
>
> What I said doesn't; there is no "place/time/region from which the
> materials for the Big Bang emerged" when creation is from -- nothing.
>
> Don't need a place to store nothing.
>
> But don't let me interrupt your ranting.
>
Why do you assume that "nothing" ever existed?
When the Universe expanded it followed vectors.
Where did those lines of matter collection come from?
I really have no idea but if there were multiple
Universes maybe their intrustion of gravitic or other forces
created those vectors. But that is merest speculation.
I doubt though that "nothing" ever existed except
possibly in the unimaginably distant past. Even then
the forces outside our 3 or 4 dimensional space may
have been filled with something that in our space
could differentiate into positive and negative matter/energy
to provide the explosive situation for the Big Bang
assuming it happened as envisioned by competent
cosmologists.
Now the assumption is that there was a slight
amount of positive matter left over from the mutual
destruction but suppose there was also some negative
matter which survived but by the force of the
blast it went off in another dimension where it under
went the same sort of material evolution as we see
in the positive matter universe.
Suppose....
bliss
bliss
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
