The Great Mysteries: Same As They Ever Were

[scherado]

When Big Bang, The Theory took hold and, then, took strangle-hold of Cosmology (is that a word?), I tuned out as the theory did not address the essential mystery of existence (The Universe): Was it always here?

If the answer is yes, then we remain unsatisfied; if the answer is no, then we become agitated as we can’t posit a creator which existed prior to existence.

To me, this mystery is no different, in the end, than the reason we can’t divide by zero in Mathematics: as the denominator grows ever smaller, approaching zero, the quotient becomes ever larger; the denominator grows infinitly small (forever) and the quotient grows infinitely large (forever). It is said that division by zero is “meaningless”.

Perhaps this second mystery is less mysterious than the first. The two are not different, to me, because they are the same mystery: infinity.

Are there other mysteries? (soul…)

[Hobbes_Choice]

@scherado

When Big Bang, The Theory took hold and, then, took strangle-hold of Cosmology (is that a word?), I tuned out as the theory did not address the essential mystery of existence (The Universe): Was it always here?

If the answer is yes, then we remain unsatisfied; if the answer is no, then we become agitated as we can’t posit a creator which existed prior to existence.
Existence prior to existence is an impossibility by definition.

To me, this mystery is no different, in the end, than the reason we can’t divide by zero in Mathematics: as the denominator grows ever smaller, approaching zero, the quotient becomes ever larger; the denominator grows infinitly small (forever) and the quotient grows infinitely large (forever). It is said that division by zero is “meaningless”.
Actually its worse than that.
A creator has to have some qualities greater than his creation. This would mean that the Universe started with the most evolved, most intelligent, brilliant thing. This is completely counter intuitive, as the evidence points to intelligence as appearing rather late in the universe.

Perhaps this second mystery is less mysterious than the first. The two are not different, to me, because they are the same mystery: infinity.

Are there other mysteries? (soul…)

[scherado]

(I’ve preserved this intact below, but corrected the errant blue-less string beginning with ‘Actually’ later. It’s precious nonetheless.)

@Hobbes Choice

@scherado

When Big Bang, The Theory took hold and, then, took strangle-hold of Cosmology (is that a word?), I tuned out as the theory did not address the essential mystery of existence (The Universe): Was it always here?

If the answer is yes, then we remain unsatisfied; if the answer is no, then we become agitated as we can’t posit a creator which existed prior to existence.
Existence prior to existence is an impossibility by definition.

To me, this mystery is no different, in the end, than the reason we can’t divide by zero in Mathematics: as the denominator grows ever smaller, approaching zero, the quotient becomes ever larger; the denominator grows infinitely small (forever) and the quotient grows infinitely large (forever). It is said that division by zero is “meaningless”.
Actually its worse than that.
A creator has to have some qualities greater than his creation. This would mean that the Universe started with the most evolved, most intelligent, brilliant thing. This is completely counter intuitive, as the evidence points to intelligence as appearing rather late in the universe.

Perhaps this second mystery is less mysterious than the first. The two are not different, to me, because they are the same mystery: infinity.

Are there other mysteries? (soul…)

@Hobbes Choice

@scherado

… existence (The Universe): Was it always here?

If the answer is yes, then we remain unsatisfied; if the answer is no, then we become agitated as we can’t posit a creator which existed prior to existence.
Existence prior to existence is an impossibility by definition.

That’s almost a little funny. (You’ve captured the source of the agitation. It’s cute.)

@Hobbes Choice

…Actually its worse than that. A creator has to have some qualities greater than his creation. This would mean that the Universe started with the most evolved, most intelligent, brilliant thing. This is completely counter intuitive, …
…

Quite, but not for any reason you can intuit: The very moment a ‘creator’ enters the scenario, the Universe that is created is not infinite.

Perhaps that is the answer? The Universe is finite. The Universe is finite. The Universe is finite.

Write it, say it, play it,…forever. (lol)

[Hobbes_Choice]

@scherado

(I’ve preserved this intact below, but corrected the errant blue-less string beginning with ‘Actually’ later. It’s precious nonetheless.)

@Hobbes Choice

@scherado

When Big Bang, The Theory took hold and, then, took strangle-hold of Cosmology (is that a word?), I tuned out as the theory did not address the essential mystery of existence (The Universe): Was it always here?

If the answer is yes, then we remain unsatisfied; if the answer is no, then we become agitated as we can’t posit a creator which existed prior to existence.
Existence prior to existence is an impossibility by definition.

To me, this mystery is no different, in the end, than the reason we can’t divide by zero in Mathematics: as the denominator grows ever smaller, approaching zero, the quotient becomes ever larger; the denominator grows infinitely small (forever) and the quotient grows infinitely large (forever). It is said that division by zero is “meaningless”.
Actually its worse than that.
A creator has to have some qualities greater than his creation. This would mean that the Universe started with the most evolved, most intelligent, brilliant thing. This is completely counter intuitive, as the evidence points to intelligence as appearing rather late in the universe.

Perhaps this second mystery is less mysterious than the first. The two are not different, to me, because they are the same mystery: infinity.

Are there other mysteries? (soul…)

@Hobbes Choice

@scherado

… existence (The Universe): Was it always here?

If the answer is yes, then we remain unsatisfied; if the answer is no, then we become agitated as we can’t posit a creator which existed prior to existence.
Existence prior to existence is an impossibility by definition.

That’s almost a little funny. (You’ve captured the source of the agitation. It’s cute.)

@Hobbes Choice

…Actually its worse than that. A creator has to have some qualities greater than his creation. This would mean that the Universe started with the most evolved, most intelligent, brilliant thing. This is completely counter intuitive, …
…

Quite, but not for any reason you can intuit: The very moment a ‘creator’ enters the scenario, the Universe that is created is not infinite.

Perhaps that is the answer? The Universe is finite. The Universe is finite. The Universe is finite.

Write it, say it, play it,…forever. (lol)

I don’t think you can conclude that from the foregoing.

I think the evidence currently points to finitude. But there is temporal as well as physical finitude, and we will never be able to know if the universe is temporally finite, as we would have to wait until the end of time and be around to make sure it did not carry on!!
We think we can see the edge of the universe, we we cannot know if there is more beyond the limits of the light years we can see within.

[scherado]

@Hobbes Choice

I don’t think you can conclude that from the foregoing.

I think the evidence currently points to finitude. But there is temporal as well as physical finitude, and we will never be able to know if the universe is temporally finite, as we would have to wait until the end of time and be around to make sure it did not carry on!!
We think we can see the edge of the universe, we we cannot know if there is more beyond the limits of the light years we can see within.

Hobbes Choice, does your first sentence have anything to do with the paragraph that follows?

What is the “that” in your first sentence? What it the “foregoing”?

Thanks in advance.

[James_S_Saint]

@scherado

When Big Bang, The Theory took hold and, then, took strangle-hold of Cosmology (is that a word?), I tuned out as the theory did not address the essential mystery of existence (The Universe): Was it always here?

If the answer is yes, then we remain unsatisfied; if the answer is no, then we become agitated as we can’t posit a creator which existed prior to existence.

And once again, you express how being “satisfied” is more important to you than truth.
Exactly why would you be “unsatisfied”?

[Hobbes_Choice]

@scherado

@Hobbes Choice

I don’t think you can conclude that from the foregoing.

I think the evidence currently points to finitude. But there is temporal as well as physical finitude, and we will never be able to know if the universe is temporally finite, as we would have to wait until the end of time and be around to make sure it did not carry on!!
We think we can see the edge of the universe, we we cannot know if there is more beyond the limits of the light years we can see within.

Hobbes Choice, does your first sentence have anything to do with the paragraph that follows?

What is the “that” in your first sentence? What it the “foregoing”?

Thanks in advance.

I was reflecting on what you said. The “that” is what you said. In other words you said something which did not justify your conclusion. Given what you presented (the foregoing) your conclusion was not warranted.
Maybe you think foregoing is the opposite of what it means?
{Noun; The things just mentioned or stated.}
So sentence is not supposed to follow on. It is a separate paragraph.

I hope that clears that up.

[scherado]

@James S Saint

@scherado

When Big Bang, The Theory took hold and, then, took strangle-hold of Cosmology (is that a word?), I tuned out as the theory did not address the essential mystery of existence (The Universe): Was it always here?

If the answer is yes, then we remain unsatisfied; if the answer is no, then we become agitated as we can’t posit a creator which existed prior to existence.

And once again, you express how being “satisfied” is more important to you than truth.
Exactly why would you be “unsatisfied”?

James S Saint,

Thanks for alerting me to my oversight. The ‘If Then’ should read:

If the answer is yes, then some remain unsatisfied;

Your first sentence with, “once again” and “more important to you” should get you one of those “unofficial” warnings for it is very far removed from what I’ve written here.

As to the reason these ‘some’ people are unsatisfied, you know the reason as it is the subject of this thread. I’m not responsible for the level of another person’s comprehension that may result from reading. (Euphemistic Content Score: 9.35)

[James_S_Saint]

@scherado

@Hobbes Choice

…Actually its worse than that. A creator has to have some qualities greater than his creation. This would mean that the Universe started with the most evolved, most intelligent, brilliant thing. This is completely counter intuitive, …
…

Quite, but not for any reason you can intuit: The very moment a ‘creator’ enters the scenario, the Universe that is created is not infinite.

Perhaps that is the answer? The Universe is finite. The Universe is finite. The Universe is finite.

Write it, say it, play it,…forever. (lol)

All of that reasoning is completely bogus.
…as well as incorrect conclusion.

[turtle]

sch----------what other great mysteries were you referring to…

also— what is wrong with the big bang theory…i really dont like it

also— i never understood about there not being a center of the universe…

[Hobbes_Choice]

@turtle

sch----------what other great mysteries were you referring to…

also— what is wrong with the big bang theory…i really dont like it

also— i never understood about there not being a center of the universe…

Everywhere is the centre of the UNiverse. It is expanding from all points simultaneously.

[scherado]

@Hobbes Choice

@scherado

@Hobbes Choice

…Actually its worse than that. A creator has to have some qualities greater than his creation. This would mean that the Universe started with the most evolved, most intelligent, brilliant thing. This is completely counter intuitive, …

Quite, but not for any reason you can intuit: The very moment a ‘creator’ enters the scenario, the Universe that is created is not infinite.

Perhaps that is the answer? The Universe is finite. The Universe is finite. The Universe is finite.

Write it, say it, play it,…forever. (lol)

I don’t think you can conclude that from the foregoing.

I think the evidence currently points to finitude. But there is temporal as well as physical finitude, and we will never be able to know if the universe is temporally finite, as we would have to wait until the end of time and be around to make sure it did not carry on!!
We think we can see the edge of the universe, we we cannot know if there is more beyond the limits of the light years we can see within.

You–and not only you–have become confused by your own doing or by malicious intent (feigned). Let’s go back a bit.

Your statement about “finitude”, which is a response to what I wrote (you quote it). is no different from what I wrote. I thought that to be hilarious, but not in a good way.

This sentence, with joyful add-on: “Write it, say it, play it,…forever. (lol)” is a brilliant allusion to the temporal question that plagues us all in addition to the physical one. It is placed after and juxtaposed with the “conclusion” that our Universe is finite.

[Hobbes_Choice]

@scherado

@Hobbes Choice

I don’t think you can conclude that from the foregoing.

I think the evidence currently points to finitude. But there is temporal as well as physical finitude, and we will never be able to know if the universe is temporally finite, as we would have to wait until the end of time and be around to make sure it did not carry on!!
We think we can see the edge of the universe, but we cannot know if there is more beyond the limits of the light years we can see within.

You–and not only you–have become confused by your own doing or by malicious intent (feigned). Let’s go back a bit.

Your statement about “finitude”, which is a response to what I wrote (you quote it). is no different from what I wrote. I thought that to be hilarious, but not in a good way.

This sort of language creates anger and resentment. I’ve been on Forums that have no moderation at all. It’s just no fun.

This sentence, with joyful add-on: “Write it, say it, play it,…forever. (lol)” is a brilliant allusion to the temporal question that plagues us all in addition to the physical one. It is placed after and juxtaposed with the “conclusion” that our Universe is finite.

I think you have your wires crossed.

PS. On the subject of confusion: have you looked up “Foregoing” yet?