what is the definition of the universe?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since the definition of God is a hurdle for many of the atheists on this forum such that they are happy that that it is the universe that just is, I think it is high time people defined what the universe is. Any suggestions?

[Udayana]

"The Universe" is defined as the "whole of space and time and their content". Now, "space", "time" , "matter" and so on are concepts defined within scientific models that are used to explain or simulate "objective" experiences and data - that is, information reliably shareable between what seem to be independent observers.

There is no underlying assumption that "The Universe" exists as an object in itself, or "just is". Although such an assumption is commonly made as a shortcut in communications between people trying discuss more mundane parts of the model.

[jeremyp]

Since the definition of God is a hurdle for many of the atheists on this forum such that they are happy that that it is the universe that just is, I think it is high time people defined what the universe is. Any suggestions?

Are you going to give us your definition of God? That's the main hurdle we have: religionists avoiding defining God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"The Universe" is defined as the "whole of space and time and their content". Now, "space", "time" , "matter" and so on are concepts defined within scientific models that are used to explain or simulate "objective" experiences and data - that is, information reliably shareable between what seem to be independent observers.

There is no underlying assumption that "The Universe" exists as an object in itself, or "just is". Although such an assumption is commonly made as a shortcut in communications between people trying discuss more mundane parts of the model.

The universe doesn't exist? That is a new angle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you going to give us your definition of God? That's the main hurdle we have: religionists avoiding defining God.

There is no real problem here since, you must already have defined the God you don't believe in. Not believing in any God sounds a bit of a put up job. Pious atheism if you will.

See the Nicene or any number of creeds.

Udayana has suggested the universe may not exist. What's your take on that.

[Nearly Sane]

The universe doesn't exist? That is a new angle.

I can't see where Udayana's post says that. Can you expand?

[jeremyp]

There is no real problem here since, you must already have defined the God you don't believe in.

I've got a definition of God. I was asking if you have got one.

See the Nicene or any number of creeds.

So you're going with the definition of God in the Nicene Creed. Nice of you to finally commit.

[Alan Burns]

Are you going to give us your definition of God? That's the main hurdle we have: religionists avoiding defining God.

God is the ultimate source of all that exists

[jeremyp]

God is the ultimate source of all that exists

Is God the ultimate source of God? That seems like an infinite regress.

[Udayana]

Is God the ultimate source of God? That seems like an infinite regress.

If God exists then, by Alan's definition, God is its own source and we just have to live with the regression.

If God does not exist, then Alan's statement is a vacuous truth (another term for the principle of explosion) and, essentially, useless - either as a definition or assertion.
 
 

[Alan Burns]

Is God the ultimate source of God? That seems like an infinite regress.

Our human minds are incapable of understanding what lies beyond our known universe - which is why God made Himself known to us by becoming one of us.

[Udayana]

Our human minds are incapable of understanding what lies beyond our known universe - which is why God made Himself known to us by becoming one of us.

Alternatively: The "known universe" contains all the stuff we think we have a reasonable or working understanding of. Outside of that we just make up silly questions or stories.

[ProfessorDavey]

Since the definition of God is a hurdle for many of the atheists on this forum such that they are happy that that it is the universe that just is, ...

Firstly I don't think I have ever claimed the universe just is.

But more importantly the whole notion of the universe that just is is predicated on an assumption that the universe exists within the framework of time viewed in a simplistic manner. In other words that time is constant than uni-linear (i.e goes in one direction only). Now there is no reason to conclude that time is like that, and, of course, if time is actually inextricably linked to the universe then the notion of what happened before the universe existed (implicit in the universe that just is) becomes completely moot.

But in one respect you are correct Vlad - we don't have anything like a full understanding of the universe which is why we are striving to find out more all the time through research and scientific endeavour. Contrast that with the religionists who refuse to define a god that they appear to have created and then ascribe this god to explain things they don't understand (in a god of the gaps sense) rather than try to actually add to their knowledge.

[jeremyp]

Our human minds are incapable of understanding what lies beyond our known universe

How do you know that?

which is why God made Himself known to us by becoming one of us.

What would be the point of that?

[Dicky Underpants]

Our human minds are incapable of understanding what lies beyond our known universe - which is why God made Himself known to us by becoming one of us.

Ah - you mean Krishna then.

[BeRational]

I thought universe applied to our local presentation of everything that expanded from the possible so called Big Bang.
In the beginning there was everything and then it expanded.

Then the Cosmos is everything else that may exist to cover potential things like multiverse etc.
The Cosmos would EVERTHING

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can't see where Udayana's post says that. Can you expand?

(As Udayana posted) ''There is no underlying assumption that "The Universe" exists as an object in itself, or "just is". Although such an assumption is commonly made as a shortcut in communications between people trying discuss more mundane parts of the model.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Alternatively: The "known universe" contains all the stuff we think we have a reasonable or working understanding of. Outside of that we just make up silly questions or stories.

You mean like the Multiverse?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is God the ultimate source of God? That seems like an infinite regress.

And yet I recall you once suggested that the universe ''Just is''.
When you say that god is an infinite regress don't you mean an infinity?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly I don't think I have ever claimed the universe just is.

But more importantly the whole notion of the universe that just is is predicated on an assumption that the universe exists within the framework of time viewed in a simplistic manner. In other words that time is constant than uni-linear (i.e goes in one direction only). Now there is no reason to conclude that time is like that, and, of course, if time is actually inextricably linked to the universe then the notion of what happened before the universe existed (implicit in the universe that just is) becomes completely moot.

So I think you may be making the case for a discussion of what time is and what it means in the universe, whether time flows, in what direction, what kind of ''time'' could stretch ''before the universe''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought universe applied to our local presentation of everything that expanded from the possible so called Big Bang.
In the beginning there was everything and then it expanded.

Then the Cosmos is everything else that may exist to cover potential things like multiverse etc.
The Cosmos would EVERTHING

Hmmmm You've never struck me as a ''potential things'' sort of guy. These are things which, I take it there is no evidence for. That seems like a departure for you.

The multiverse, really? Can that be demonstrated? Is that scientific?

[Dicky Underpants]

So what kind of ''time'' could stretch ''before the universe''

I thought he was saying that since 'time' is inextricably linked to the existence of the universe, any discussion of the concept relating to before the universe began is totally meaningless. Not a question of "what kind of time", perhaps not even a question of 'before', which would equally have no meaning, since it is also related to time. That there was a beginning seems clear. Anything else is wibble wibble wibble.
Or as Wittgenstein said:
"wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen"

[ProfessorDavey]

So I think you may be making the case for a discussion of what time is and what it means in the universe, whether time flows, in what direction, what kind of ''time'' could stretch ''before the universe''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

But again the phrasing of your points demonstrates an inability to get beyond the notion that time is unilinear and constant. Otherwise why would you talk about ''before the universe'' - if time isn't unilinear and constant, before the universe could just as well be after the universe, or even alongside the universe, or perhaps even outside the universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought he was saying that since 'time' is inextricably linked to the existence of the universe, any discussion of the concept relating to before the universe began is totally meaningless.

Well St Augustine I think proposed that the universe was create with time and not in time and indeed Genesis starts with the creation ''In the beginning'' not ''before the beginning''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

But again the phrasing of your points demonstrates an inability to get beyond the notion that time is unilinear and constant.

Whereas entropy only goes one way

Otherwise why would you talk about ''before the universe''

And yet most of us have talked about an infinitely old universe not needing a creator, That surely involves some kind of infinity in which the concept of a universal ''past'' and ''future'' holds.

- if time isn't unilinear and constant, before the universe could just as well be after the universe, or even alongside the universe, or perhaps even outside the universe.

Fair enough.

I suppose what I am saying is that there is more than one kind of time. The time argued by those who wish to eliminate the need for a universal beginning or a creator.

The kind of time which is a feature of the universe.

The notional more mathematical type of time, infinite time. That if we were to count back to zero there is nothing to stop us contemplating minus 1 etc.