DescentBB

flip wrote:No no no. We just had this discussion not long ago and I made it very clear I do not believe that creation was done in 6 literal days and nowhere in this thread do I say that.

Sorry, you are absolutely correct. I misunderstood. My apologies.

flip wrote:the way this thread has simply become another in the ongoing debates into the interpretation of scripture.

Duper wrote:does it all really matter? I mean REALLY???

I think it's an interesting topic, but as I said before, not important at all. And hijacking Foil's thread. That's why I'm not going to answer flip's points unless someone is interested enough to open a new thread. It's fun, but it just doesn't matter and it's not on topic.

flip wrote:It is pointless because no one here is gonna agree on anything. Not even the simplest of things.

Here I will have to disagree. I LEARN things in these discussions, and I have changed my mind on issued because of things I learned here.

SilverFJ wrote:Addressing Kil, and anyone else using the Bible to justify their platform on this issue--it's not going to get the point across to someone who doesn't believe in it.

The diverged thread had become specifically whether the Bible makes any statement on the existence of life on other planets. Kinda hard to address that without referring to scripture.

The "Life on other planets" was way off topic, but even ON topic, the discussion is about how the bigness of the universe affects our view of God, and that is going to involve scripture.

But I agree with you in principle. When the discussion is "What does the Bible say about X", scripture is appropriate no matter who your audience is. But there are many discussions where throwing Bible texts at people who don't believe in the authority of scripture is not productive.

SilverFJ wrote:It would be like if I started quoting Origin of the Species to try and make a point to you.

Which would actually work just fine.

Bettina wrote:but right now the basic laws of physics for our universe states that an infinite amount of energy is needed to accelerate to the speed of light.

Absolutely true!

Bettina wrote:With the estimated 78 billion-trillion stars in the observable universe and the sheer number of planets that have a high probability for life to evolve, makes this uncomprehendable vastness of the universe highly incompatible with the bible that I read.

Aha! Back on topic!!!! (Thank you Bettina!)

Allow me to quote from C. S. Lewis book, Miracles. The context is dealing with the idea that they could believe in Miracles in the "olden days" because they thought the Universe was small.

C. S. Lewis wrote:The immensity of the universe is not a recent discovery. More than seventeen hundred years ago Ptolemy taught that in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, the whole Earth must be regarded as a point with no magnitude. His astronomical system was universally accepted in the Dark and Middle Ages. The insignificance of Earth was as much a commonplace to Boethius, King Alfred, Dante, and Chaucer as it is to Mr. H. G. Wells or Professor Haldane. Statements to the contrary in modern books are due to ignorance.
The real question is why the spatial insignificance of Earth, after being asserted by Christian Philosophers, sung by Christian poets, and commented on by Christian moralists for some fifteen centuries, without the slightest suspicion that it conflicted with
their theology, should suddenly in quite modern times have been set up as a stock argument against Christianity and enjoyed, in that capacity, a brilliant career.
...
If from the vastness of the universe and the smallness of Earth we diagnose that Christianity is false we ought to have a clear idea of the sort of universe we should have expected if it were true. But have we?

He goes on to point out that we should EXPECT a large universe from the very nature of space. And this if that large universe had been empty, we would have used THAT as an argument against God. "Miracles" is well worth the read.

The point is that even the Hebrews understood that the universe was big compared to us. When the psalmist wrote "What is man that thou art mindful of him", he KNEW that we were small. This is not a point in conflict with religion.

Bettina wrote:The bible script makes clear...at least to me... that the authors perspective of the universe was strictly two dimensional so when they used words like "stars", and "the heavens", it was simply their view of the night sky. It's really sad when so many people try to read more into the bible than they should and giving it unending interpretations to try to keep up with reality just cheapens it.

Clearly they did not understand the nature of the universe as well as we do. The Hebrews believed the sky was water. Knowledge grows, and I don't see that as a problem.

Bet51987 wrote:It's very easy to say that current science changes as new methods develop and I believe that too but right now the basic laws of physics for our universe...

Exactly!

Sure, people can argue that science may one day allow us to break the currently-known laws of physics. However, I think Bet is right here; we should be working from what we know, not speculating on things we don't.

Bet51987 wrote:...this uncomprehendable vastness of the universe highly incompatible with the bible that I read.

I'm still not sure I understand where you're seeing the incompatibility.

It's true the scriptures were written in a cultural perspective that didn't understand what we now do about the physical nature of stars. Yes, their knowledge had limits (as does ours)... but that doesn't affect God, or his ability to make the universe as vast as He wants. So, can you clarify, where is the incompatibility you're seeing?

One “incompatability” that I see is…God as portrayed in the bible has way too many human characteristics, to have created this universe.

What you are doing is advancing God, and that is just fine, but then he is no longer the God of the bible.

Spidey wrote:One “incompatability” that I see is…God as portrayed in the bible has way too many human characteristics, to have created this universe.

HUH?!?!?!?!? how many god's have you met to make that determination?
The bible doesnt state that God was made in Man's image. it states the opposite.

Duh, same thing either way.

Which \"human characteristics\" make it impossible for God to have created the universe?

Never said “impossible”. It’s quite “possible” God created this universe, I just don’t believe that the jealous, angry, spiteful, vengeful, and needing to be worshiped, God portrayed in the Bible did it. That’s all.

And the list goes on…the need for rest…choosing one people over another…etc.

I really don’t want to belabor the issue, it’s just going to lead to bad feelings, I just believe that if a God created the universe, that it would exist at a different level.

So let me make sure I'm understanding you. in your \"OPINION\" since the God of the Bible doesnt reach \"YOUR\" standards, then he couldn't possibly have created the universe. am I right??

Those are your words, I would not put it in those terms.

Kilarin wrote:....If from the vastness of the universe and the smallness of Earth we diagnose that Christianity is false we ought to have a clear idea of the sort of universe we should have expected if it were true. But have we?

...He goes on to point out that we should EXPECT a large universe from the very nature of space. And this if that large universe had been empty, we would have used THAT as an argument against God. "Miracles" is well worth the read. The point is that even the Hebrews understood that the universe was big compared to us. When the psalmist wrote "What is man that thou art mindful of him", he KNEW that we were small. This is not a point in conflict with religion.

Clearly they did not understand the nature of the universe as well as we do. The Hebrews believed the sky was water. Knowledge grows, and I don't see that as a problem.

(Note: This is just my opinion to ward off any dumb "hail bettina's)

The radius of our observable universe is aproximately 78 billion miles using Earth as it's center. That's all we've been able to see with our best instruments. The total universe is estimated to be around 93 billion LIGHT YEARS. Those are astronomical numbers compared to the 79 million miles Ptolemy calculated as the distance from the Earth to what he called the fixed stars. What he considered "big" wouldn't get you to the Sun because he had no idea as to the vastness of the universe. I think it would have surprised him. If the bible God created the Earth, Adam and Eve, I would have expected the universe to be much smaller and static. There would be no reason for a continued expansion, continued creation, and beautiful planets in a universe this vast that no one can ever visit. On the other hand, our universe is evolving exactly as it should if there was no bible God. I have no idea if there is some entity from an outside void who is banging branes together creating a bunch of universes but I just can't tie the bible God and the universe together.

Foil wrote:I'm still not sure I understand where you're seeing the incompatibility.

Because science knows that Earth is nothing special. Just one grain of sand in a universe that has billions of grains but the bible's focal point has
always been central to what happens on Earth. Jesus was born, lived, and was crucified on Earth. The old testament of God's actions, and on and on...all
localized. Someday our sun will swell and make this Earth unsupportive of human life... but what is the purpose of the Earth continuing on for another few million years before the sun finally burns out leaving the planet where Jesus Christ was born cold and dark. I see no bible reasoning. With that said, what is the purpose of the billions of suns that will continue being born and giving life to new planets devoid of humans.

I understand by watching some of the seniors in my church why God is neccessary and my depression sometimes wishes it were all true but it's not.

Bee

....wow ... that was obtuse.

Duper wrote:....wow ... that was obtuse.

Reality hurts...

Bee

Just wanted to interject here:

On the nothing travesl faster than light theory, certain radio waves travel faster than light.

Also, concerning the Bible, think of it as a guide for life, kind of like a reference book. But its not the whole story. There were several books left out of the Bible, much in the same way that if you have a book on basic math, you won't read about calculus in it.

Capm wrote:Just wanted to interject here:

On the nothing travesl faster than light theory, certain radio waves travel faster than light.

um... light and radio waves are kind of the same thing, just different frequencies/wavelengths (aka same velocity)


unless youre speaking about tachyons maybe?

On The Universe the other day they did say that space can expand faster than the speed of light.

well, for example

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Health ... than_light

Bet, this is what I don't understand:

Bet51987 wrote:If the bible God created the Earth, Adam and Eve, I would have expected the universe to be much smaller and static.

Why do you see creation so pragmatically? What is it that makes you assume God would stop at what's needed, rather than continuing to create a dynamic universe?

If you were creator, would you just put the sun and earth in place, conclude "that's all they need", and quit?

Bet51987 wrote:...science knows that Earth is nothing special. Just one grain of sand in a universe that has billions of grains but the bible's focal point has
always been central to what happens on Earth.

Of course the bible focuses on God's relationship to humanity, no argument there. However, why should that limit God's creativity?

Now, I know there are some who have tried to use the bible to say "all of God's creation is solely for humanity", but frankly, they're reading their own meanings into the scriptures. There are references to things on earth and in our sky being placed there for us, but creation as a whole is seen as an expression of God himself. Putting limits on that isn't biblical at all.

Capm wrote:Just wanted to interject here:

On the nothing travesl faster than light theory, certain radio waves travel faster than light.

The speed of light is a physical constant that states that anything having mass can't exceed 186,000mps in a vacuum. It actually goes slower in a non vacuum environment. As an object approaches 'c' it's mass increases (not physically, just it's inertia) so more energy is needed to overcome it until finally at 'c' mass and energy become infinite. That's solid and has been tested and is what I meant by humans being prisoners of their own local environment. However, although mass can't exceed 'c', massless particles can like the quantum stuff that I'm not too familiar with, and the dark energy pushing the expansion of the universe.

Also, concerning the Bible, think of it as a guide for life, kind of like a reference book. But its not the whole story. There were several books left out of the Bible, much in the same way that if you have a book on basic math, you won't read about calculus in it.

Thanks. That's what I see too. If you throw out about 95% of the bible, the remainder is a good guide to live by..which I do.

Bee

Capm wrote:well, for example

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Health ... than_light

Capm, if I had a dollar for every article out there about someone claiming to have broken the laws of physics, I'd be pretty rich.

Besides, radio waves are EM waves, which always travel at c, period. Quotes like the following don't give this author much credibility, either:

The article wrote:...a gadget that abuses radio waves so severely that they finally give in and travel faster than light...

Bet51987 wrote: The speed of light is a physical constant that states that anything having mass can't exceed 186,000mps in a vacuum. It actually goes slower in a non vacuum environment. As an object approaches 'c' it's mass increases (not physically, just it's inertia) so more energy is needed to overcome it until finally at 'c' mass and energy become infinite. That's solid and has been tested and is what I meant by humans being prisoners of their own local environment. However, although mass can't exceed 'c', massless particles can like the quantum stuff that I'm not too familiar with, and the dark energy pushing the expansion of the universe.

Scientists break speed of light

AlphaDoG wrote:Scientists break speed of light

AD, quantum tunneling is not a phenomenon where something with mass can travel faster than c. Bet already mentioned this exception, and the fact that it doesn't affect the relativistic limitation for things with mass (e.g. people).

Believe it or not but Photons do possess a mass. If they didn't things like solar sails couldn't perform the function they are designed for.

Foil wrote:Bet, this is what I don't understand:

Bet51987 wrote:If the bible God created the Earth, Adam and Eve, I would have expected the universe to be much smaller and static.

Why do you see creation so pragmatically? What is it that makes you assume God would stop at what's needed, rather than continuing to create a dynamic universe?

If you were creator, would you just put the sun and earth in place, conclude "that's all they need", and quit?

Yes. When my friends and I were building a class project my dad looked at it and said. "It has too many moving parts and that we should make it simpler". Although we didn't feel like changing it and it worked anyway, I always remembered what he said. So, if the bible God is the greatest designer of all time why would he add things we can't use. I say "we" because it's obvious the bible is centered around life on earth. I know you're a mathemetition so I'll put it this way. Why would I bother constructing a scientific graphing calculator if it's only purpose was to add up my grocery list.

Foil wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:...science knows that Earth is nothing special. Just one grain of sand in a universe that has billions of grains but the bible's focal point has
always been central to what happens on Earth.

Of course the bible focuses on God's relationship to humanity, no argument there. However, why should that limit God's creativity?

Now, I know there are some who have tried to use the bible to say "all of God's creation is solely for humanity", but frankly, they're reading their own meanings into the scriptures. There are references to things on earth and in our sky being placed there for us, but creation as a whole is seen as an expression of God himself. Putting limits on that isn't biblical at all.

Everyone reads their own meanings into the bible because the words are open for any interpretation one want's to give so no one has the precise answers. Just because God didn't tell humans what the purpose for those other grains of sand were isn't evidence that He did.

Bee

@AlphaDog... I don't know much about solar cells but the Photon has no mass which is why it can travel at 'c'.

AlphaDog wrote:Photons do possess a mass

Photons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic! (sorry, couldn't resist)

Bettina wrote:the Photon has no mass which is why it can travel at 'c'

Photons have relativistic mass. Which isn't EXACTLY mass, so I think you are both correct!

much more indepth reply required, no time, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to use the mass joke.

Bettina wrote:Because science knows that Earth is nothing special.

Does it? My argument would be that the notion comes more from philosophy than science. And it's my experience that most people don't know to separate the two.

What does science know that makes the earth nothing special? Answer that, and I'll be content. It's not an easy question.

The mathematics of the universe made into a probability equation mean nothing unless the mathematics of everything we know to be unique on Earth are counted. And remember, you're on the defensive. No Earth-like planet has ever been discovered, so if you're going to say that "science" proves that it's nothing special without even having proof of anything remotely similar, then "science" has better have something pretty compelling.

I'll tell you one of the things that science does know. Liquid water can exist only in a limited temperature range (and pressure, I believe). If the temperature is too high the water vaporizes. If the temperature is too low it freezes. Now air pressure plays a role in there as well. Did you know that at high altitude locations, such as mountain peaks, boiling is not a feasible method of cooking meat? With the decrease in air pressure the water vaporizes (boils) before it can reach an adequate cooking temperature!

To have liquid water you need:
-The right distance from a star for heat,
-Rotation in order to regulate that heat,
-The right orbit (if it's elliptical your temperature is thrown out of whack),
-The right amount of atmosphere,
(and I believe the planets size must be right in order for the atmosphere to be right. Gravity enough to hold enough atmosphere for the right pressure, but not enough to make the pressure too great with too little atmosphere... am I right?),
-The right planet size,
Anything else? Just for liquid water?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:To have liquid water you need:
-The right distance from a star for heat,
-Rotation in order to regulate that heat,
-The right orbit (if it's elliptical your temperature is thrown out of whack),
-The right amount of atmosphere,
(and I believe the planets size must be right in order for the atmosphere to be right. Gravity enough to hold enough atmosphere for the right pressure, but not enough to make the pressure too great with too little atmosphere... am I right?),
-The right planet size,
Anything else? Just for liquid water?

yes your right it cannot be smaller than 10% of Earths size or larger than 10X earths size
and add to that
it must be with-in a certain distance from the sun, to prevent freezing or boiling
it must have a jupiter type planet to protect the inner planets from asteroids

It is true that science has not proven that the Earth is nothing special, that’s based on speculation and mathematical odds.

But what science “has” proven is…the universe is very very old.

Could glorified bodies travel outside this atmosphere? The bible promises that those who believe will have eternal life and glorified bodies. So whether that sounds outlandish or not, it makes since to a believer that one day, in this glorified body, he would be able to visit these places. Some of these so-called scientific theory's I hear in this thread sound just as ridiculous. Again I don't see where the Bible doesn't complete itself entirely in it's cause.

Bet51987 wrote:

Foil wrote:If you were creator, would you just put the sun and earth in place, conclude "that's all they need", and quit?

Yes. ...if the bible God is the greatest designer of all time why would he add things we can't use. I say "we" because it's obvious the bible is centered around life on earth. I know you're a mathemetition so I'll put it this way. Why would I bother constructing a scientific graphing calculator if it's only purpose was to add up my grocery list.

Because even if it's not useful or visible to others, there is value in creating something good, artistically, creatively, and otherwise.

You're a scientist at heart, so I can appreciate your value of things designed to meet exact specifications. I also fully understand keeping things simple, as over-complexity can hurt a design (e.g. your Dad's suggestion).

However, it's a mistake to take those principles and infer that minimum simplicity should always be the ideal.

For example, you mentioned my background in math, but I wonder if you were aware that for non-applied mathematicians like myself, the topics we enjoy the most are the most rigorous and beautifully abstract structures, not the most strictly useful. (Of course, as it turns out, study in those 'useless but beautiful' topics has sometimes led to later valuable breakthroughs!)

Be51987 wrote:Everyone reads their own meanings into the bible because the words are open for any interpretation...

...yet you have made it clear that you subscribe to one particular interpretation; specifically, the one that says the bible claims humanity is the only reason for the universe.

If it's so subjective, why insist on that interpretation over mine?

(Mine being that the universe was not made solely for humanity, but rather it's an expression of God's creativity, not something dependent on us).

-------------

To make a similar analogy to yours:

Q: If you were designing a home for your family, is the 'best' design the one which only meets the requirements for shelter, without any décor or expression of who you are?

A: Of course not, because the value of a family home is not tied solely to its ability to shelter.

In the same way, the 'best' design for the universe isn't one which meets minimum requirements for human existence, because humanity does not solely define its value!

---------

Back to my earlier question about what you would do if you were creator, what about music? Would you create a universe without music, simply because it's not among the requirements for human existence?

---------

Bet51987 wrote:...the Photon has no mass which is why it can travel at 'c'.

She's right, AD. When scientists talk about a photon having mass and/or momentum, they're talking about relativistic mass. (D'oh, Kilarin beat me to it. )

Lol, science hasn’t even figured out whether the photon is a particle or a wave…


(in one form it has to have mass, in the other it doesn’t)

That's incorrect, Spidey. In both models, the physical mass is zero. A photon's momentum in the particle model is carried by it's relativistic mass.

All particles have mass, as a matter of fact, there is a line of thinking in the physics community that “all” energy is just mass with inerta.

And please, try to remember that all particle physics are still theoretical. So pooh pooh on “that’s incorrect”

You're talking to someone with a Physics degree, Spidey. It may have been a while since my last course (Quantum II), but I know whereof I speak.

Spidey wrote:All particles have mass...

...more accurately, all have relativistic mass. In the case of photons, which always move at c, their physical mass (or "rest mass") is always zero.

I just looked it up…you are correct it’s relativistic mass, because a photon is in motion, and since a photon cannot be at rest it has no rest mass.

But no matter how you spin it mass is mass.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:To have liquid water you need:
-The right distance from a star for heat,
-Rotation in order to regulate that heat,
-The right orbit (if it's elliptical your temperature is thrown out of whack),
-The right amount of atmosphere,
(and I believe the planets size must be right in order for the atmosphere to be right. Gravity enough to hold enough atmosphere for the right pressure, but not enough to make the pressure too great with too little atmosphere... am I right?),
-The right planet size,
Anything else? Just for liquid water?

You're listing these all as separate things, but they aren't independent. Planets of the right size and orbital distance will help with having the right atmosphere, since what gasses are retained in a planet's atmosphere during its evolution is a function of the planet's atmospheric temperature and gravitational force. Planets with the right orbital distance (close enough to a star for heat) will also tend to form more circular orbits during their evolution.

Besides, the list lacks creativity, and there are possible counterexamples even in our system. For example, astronomers believe that Titan, a moon of Saturn, has liquid water, despite not meeting any of your requirements. Titan has frozen lakes of H20. However, astronomers believe that the tidal forces from Saturn create enough tidal friction inside Titan from Titan's constant warping that the bottom of these lakes are heated to become liquid water.

Foil wrote:You're talking to someone with a Physics degree, Spidey. It may have been a while since my last course (Quantum II), but I know whereof I speak.

Spidey wrote:All particles have mass...

...more accurately, all have relativistic mass. In the case of photons, which always move at c, their physical mass (or "rest mass") is always zero.

Would that explain why photons appear as waves as well as particles? Energy = Mass * speed of light (squared)

Actually I'm confuzzled by that whole equation. Did Albert mean that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, or did he mean nothing can go beyond the speed of light squared?

Speed of light squared would make more sense in that no matter how fast YOU travel, the light leaving you STILL travels at 186,000mps.

EX. You are traveling at 176,000mps with a flashlight pointed straight forward. You could still measure that the light is moving away from you at 186,000mps, relative to you. Notice it is NOT moving away from you at 10,000mps but is INDEED moving away from you at (still) 186,000mps.

Now, would not the light beam be traveling beyond the "speed of light?"


A SIDE NOTE: Looking at the entirety of this thread, I wondered if everything we were discussing here could span several topics, but I once again looked at the thread title and see that it all fits.

Foil wrote:

Be51987 wrote:Everyone reads their own meanings into the bible because the words are open for any interpretation...

...yet you have made it clear that you subscribe to one particular interpretation; specifically, the one that says the bible claims humanity is the only reason for the universe.

If it's so subjective, why insist on that interpretation over mine?

(Mine being that the universe was not made solely for humanity, but rather it's an expression of God's creativity, not something dependent on us).

No, I said that the bible is centered around the earth and that God, Jesus, Adam, Eve, humanity, every story in the bible, all pertains to earth which, to me, makes the remaining universe pointless in the biblical sense. So, it really isn't that subjective to me.


-------------

Foil wrote: To make a similar analogy to yours:

Q: If you were designing a home for your family, is the 'best' design the one which only meets the requirements for shelter, without any décor or expression of who you are?

A: Of course not, because the value of a family home is not tied solely to its ability to shelter.

In the same way, the 'best' design for the universe isn't one which meets minimum requirements for human existence, because humanity does not solely define its value!


---------

Back to my earlier question about what you would do if you were creator, what about music? Would you create a universe without music, simply because it's not among the requirements for human existence?

My home not only serves as shelter but it has music, televisions, computers, books, air conditioning, a pool, etc, and I couldn't have designed it better than the builder did. But, if the builder told me he built a beautiful park with waterfalls on the opposite side of the world that I can never get to, it would have no value to me. So when God created earth for humankind what was the point of all those parks that I can never get to...

Bee


AlphaDog....Foil will explain your question much better than I can but a hint is that you're no longer going as fast as you think you are...

Bet51987 wrote: (Note: This is just my opinion to ward off any dumb "hail bettina's)

Agreed. Your philosophical waxings are just your opinion.

Foil wrote:I'm still not sure I understand where you're seeing the incompatibility.

Bee wrote:Because science knows that Earth is nothing special.

A ridiculous assertion. An intellectual hangover from Carl Sagan, perhaps(several of whose books I have enjoyed, btw). Please tell me what precept of science defines "small" and/or "common" as "insignificant".

Bee wrote:Just one grain of sand in a universe that has billions of grains but the bible's focal point has always been central to what happens on Earth. Jesus was born, lived, and was crucified on Earth. The old testament of God's actions, and on and on...all localized. Someday our sun will swell and make this Earth unsupportive of human life... but what is the purpose of the Earth continuing on for another few million years before the sun finally burns out leaving the planet where Jesus Christ was born cold and dark. I see no bible reasoning. With that said, what is the purpose of the billions of suns that will continue being born and giving life to new planets devoid of humans.

So your argument basically boils down to "I just don't understand how it could be so, therefore God cannot exist." You're in plentiful company there. Sagan , Dawkins and many others make pretty much the same case.

A tiny bit arrogant, don't you think? Of the several attributes given to God are included omniscience and omnipresence. What must it be like to have any of these attributes? Can a human mind comprehend it? Christian writers (and those of other religious traditions) often fall back from this and simply call it "mystery". Materialists assert that matter is all that there is; what may seem mysterious to us now will eventually be "explained". Certainly science has permitted us to explain many things that were previously thought to be mysteries. But that doesn't prove that science (or materialism) will ever explain all mysteries.

A friend of mine and I once theorized on a scientific explaination for the existance of God, being that he's all knowing and all seeing and everywhere at once..

We all know the basic dimensions of the universe, height width depth make your 3 dimensions, then 4th is time, then a couple others and 10th or so and up you start an infinite cascade of unique quantum realities, but before all that, we theorized that God would be a life form who exists in a place we dubbed the 0th dimension, which would be a null point at the center of the universe, and would both exist and not exist, in all the dimensions simultaniously, everywhere...

There was a bit more to the theory than that, but it was years ago and we never wrote it down.

We surmised that this phenomenons event horizon, should it have a physical or metaphysical presence would explain why humans cannot look at the face of God without going blind, since you would be looking at everything and nothing in the universe at once.

Another part of the theory is that God is as much a result of the creation of the universe as the creation of the universe was a result of God.

Which leads to the conclusion that God IS the universe... you gotta think about that one a while.

anyway, it was a thought with no real imperical evidence, it just made sense one night.