So we have 3 proposed starts to the universe
a) GOD created it
b) Bing bang created it
c) We are a computer simulation
Wouldn't you necessarily need to define what the Universe is before assuming origin? Has science come to a static conclusion and a position that what they know will not evolve or expand at this point?
I thought it was cute that you intimate the God scenario as an option for science when you made the statement
WE have three options.
But seriously. Really? This is where science stands on the universe? Are you sure you are just coming from your own thoughts and beliefs? Do you take the position that you speak for the scientific human collective? You are the authority?
The paradox is they are actually not starts because we have problems which we can list as such
a) Where did GOD come from?
b) What came before the big bang?
c) Who wrote the simulation?
Oh good, the question was rhetorical.
At this point since God and the universe as a
definition is not final, we're really looking at the way man looks at things from any belief system. This is more a question of psychic politics.
There is only one way to resolve the paradox and it's the only choice really because the paradox is born from this thing and it is that thing I am trying to get you to identify.
Hint 2.) Ask a scientist what came before the big bang.
Obviously that would be what still exists, unless we suppose the current universe or what is perceived as the current universe has replaced something.
Bonus hint) Ask Rev K or any religious person what came before GOD.
That's not really a hint. It only covers the perspective of something man has defined, or assumed exists without definition. If you assume science has separated the inquiry of origin into spiritual terms as non-scientific, and include your previous claims
science is not tolerant at all about what is called science
Then this statement is clearly suspect to scientific definition
science doesn't care about GOD or religion
Any perspective linked to human awareness, inside or outside of beliefs or historic perceptions that assume man can or can't see, feel or know something, limits science.
I should point out I have no intention of solving the start of the universe or offering a view on it ... I just want you to see it stripped down to it's bare bones because it is interesting
So its not a question per se, and there is no point or paradox. This is instead a philosophical discussion about science and religion as a human foundation in thought that may either enhance or limit perceptibility.
In relationship to perceptibility and mathematical constructs.
What percentage is assumed as far as theoretical success and or absolute success of human perceptibility in defining the universe, (as in stating
what it is) based on where you look
in time? Or outside of time for that matter, and from
where you are looking?
A paradox is an argument that produces an inconsistency, typically within logic or common sense.
an argument that produces or results in inconsistency.
Hmmm. Could it be that some things or some ideas, cannot be narrowed or shrunk to fit into a container that is too small?
Common sense: That sounds like something that is and if its self a paradox.
