Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

[SpheresOfBalance]

Have you taken English in college. Well I don't know about yours, but my professor said that when referring to the same thing in various lines of text within a paragraph, one should mix it up with the synonyms, because otherwise it makes for both dull reading and potential misconception, as someone might be more familiar with a particular synonym, over another.

I do something similar when I write "realms/realities/containers", suggesting that in this context, these three words are supposed to mean the same thing, which they usually don't. This is a way of narrowing down, not expanding, and a way of checking if I understood you correctly, since you introduced the words "realm" and (indirectly) "container" to the discussion.

SOB is in red this message

There is no difference, they are one in the same, you got confused, I blame your English professor, if you had one. It's false because no one could possibly know, and you stated it as though it's the only way it can be. My assertion was only to counter yours, to show you your error by providing a contradictory error to yours, that is equally possible when one talks of an invisible god, or so mans box tells us.

Please don't blame my English professor (I had one, though English is not my primary language). And I think that it's you who "confuse" the realms/realities/containers here. Let's try to break it down and focus:

There is no difference, they are one in (and?) the same.

How can they be? The creator must exist before/outside and independently from that which is created. It's simple cause and effect. I say "must" here because I can't imagine it any other way. If you can, please explain how.
OK, you, Notvacka, build a clock on your work bench in your basement workshop. Did you create it within or outside of your reality?

It's false because no one could possibly know.

Do you realise that this is as infuriating to me as when you spouted "not knowledge" earlier?

We both agree that such knowledge regarding God is impossible to obtain. But does that mean that nothing can be said about God? I don't think so.
Not with any substance of truth so that one can effectively argue a position with it as you did. One cannot snatch a random possibility out of thin air and 'state it,' as if, 'with authority,' in an argument, and then expect the opposition to take them seriously.

What I'm talking about here is the concept of a creator (God) and the possible relations between such a creator and creation (reality).
It was not presented as a possibility! If so, point out the verbiage of the original text that indicates such.

The fact that knowledge is impossible to obtain, does not make such statements false, but unfalsifiable. (At least as far as any actual God, who might or might not exist, is concerned.) However, I believe that certain logical truths can be established regarding the conepts of God and creation.
We're talking about truth in rebuttal here. If you want to argue a point, fine, but one should pick their arguments carefully. It's foolish to form an argument out of thin air, and then present it as such an earth shattering truth, that the opposition has no other choice, but to concede. And while I'm slightly exaggerating, I'm sure you get the point!


Since Godfree is concerned about the universe having a beginning, the only aspect of God that need concern us here is the role of creator. If Godfree understood Einstein's theory of relativity and the concept of space-time,
You put this forth as if this 'theory' is of 'fact.' and in so doing your only conclusion is to believe that godfree does not understand it, (where you do), rather than assume he does, and that he merely disagrees with it. And that's what assumption gets you. Why not give him the same benefit of doubt that you do yourself, as to you're understanding of it. You do, 'believe' you understand it right, why not him, merely because he challenges it? This is purely an ego thing, clearly!!!???

he would realise that before the big bang equals outside the universe, and that an infinite universe is just as likely to have been created by God as a finite one. My point being that he could accept and appreciate modern physics and cosmology without fear of it being "tainted" by theist notions.
See what I highlighted in green above, yes, purely shortsighted ego!!!??? Or so it would seem.

...and you stated it as though it's the only way it can be.

Yes, I did. It's the only logical way. You might of course imagine a God who is beyond logic. I have nothing to say about such a God.
Then I see that your logic is uninformed! Much like you see his!!!???

My assertion was only to counter yours, to show you your error by providing a contradictory error to yours, that is equally possible.

Then I'd like you to explain how it's equally possible.
Since you started with the unfounded claims, first, you explain why yours is more probable! Because you know in effect it shall require a dissertation, and you've already indicated that you don't like being bothered with long winded retort that takes up too much of your time.

[Notvacka]

I'm not getting into the ego-discussion, because it's beside the point. But I will answer this:

The creator must exist before/outside and independently from that which is created. It's simple cause and effect. I say "must" here because I can't imagine it any other way. If you can, please explain how.

OK, you, Notvacka, build a clock on your work bench in your basement workshop. Did you create it within or outside of your reality?

I suppose I'm God in this analogy and the clock is the universe I create. First, I exist in my workshop, before the clock is created, outside the clock and independently from the clock. When the clock is finished, I do not exist within the clock. (Though I might tamper with its workings from the outside, and studying the workings of the clock from within might yield some hint of what kind of clockmaker I am.)

As you can see, placing our reality/realm within the reality/realm of God does not place God in our reality/realm or make them one and the same as you suggested earlier.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm not getting into the ego-discussion, because it's beside the point. But I will answer this:

The creator must exist before/outside and independently from that which is created. It's simple cause and effect. I say "must" here because I can't imagine it any other way. If you can, please explain how.

OK, you, Notvacka, build a clock on your work bench in your basement workshop. Did you create it within or outside of your reality?

I suppose I'm God in this analogy and the clock is the universe I create.
The only reason you'd go there, is because either you're stuck in one dimensional thinking or refuse to budge, so I shall clarify.

You and the constituents that you shall use are in this universe, correct? And when you create the clock, it's still in the same universe correct? You believe that there's only possibility that the universe is as it is, because it was created from something external due to the archaic box in which you have been placed, (this is your one dimensional thinking) Why couldn't the universe be infinite, but initially without anything but god, he is the universe, he is the container, until he created all else that is now found within it, such that god is in fact space & time, and his creation was all the matter, antimatter, dark matter, etc, that we believe makes up he universe today, or maybe dark matter is a part of him, or maybe everything is a part of him. And no, I do not believe in him. I absolutely hate this god that you speak of as contained within mankind's archaic box.

I thought for sure that you'd be intelligent enough to pick up on the implications of "what humans are capable of seeing" so as to understand my point. Either you failed to, or you new exactly, to what I was referring, which is why you failed to address it.

First, I exist in my workshop, before the clock is created, outside the clock and independently from the clock. When the clock is finished, I do not exist within the clock. (Though I might tamper with its workings from the outside, and studying the workings of the clock from within might yield some hint of what kind of clockmaker I am.)

As you can see, placing our reality/realm within the reality/realm of God does not place God in our reality/realm or make them one and the same as you suggested earlier.

As you can see, your summation is naught, as your "presumption" as to the specifics of the premise, was incorrect. You have to watch that presumption. The reason I see it as presumption is because it seems to be born of an archaic box.

[Notvacka]

Why couldn't the universe be infinite, but initially without anything but god, he is the universe, he is the container, until he created all else that is now found within it, such that god is in fact space & time, and his creation was all the matter, antimatter, dark matter, etc, that we believe makes up he universe today, or maybe dark matter is a part of him, or maybe everything is a part of him

Yes, why not? It makes sense, and we already agreed upon this in an earlier topic:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8786&start=30

But our reality existing within God is not the same as God existing within our reality. If you fail to appreciate the difference, I don't think I can explain it further.

[chaz wyman]

Why couldn't the universe be infinite, but initially without anything but god, he is the universe, he is the container, until he created all else that is now found within it, such that god is in fact space & time, and his creation was all the matter, antimatter, dark matter, etc, that we believe makes up he universe today, or maybe dark matter is a part of him, or maybe everything is a part of him

Yes, why not? It makes sense, and we already agreed upon this in an earlier topic:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8786&start=30

But our reality existing within God is not the same as God existing within our reality. If you fail to appreciate the difference, I don't think I can explain it further.

I think you problem is that you are struggling for a physical metaphor. You have to se 'reality' as a container. When in effect it has to be the container and everything else that is inside. Why should there be a division.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Why couldn't the universe be infinite, but initially without anything but god, he is the universe, he is the container, until he created all else that is now found within it, such that god is in fact space & time, and his creation was all the matter, antimatter, dark matter, etc, that we believe makes up he universe today, or maybe dark matter is a part of him, or maybe everything is a part of him

Yes, why not? It makes sense, and we already agreed upon this in an earlier topic:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8786&start=30
But in that one, as in this one you ignore my point of possibility, in favor of your age old box.


But our reality existing within God is not the same as God existing within our reality. If you fail to appreciate the difference, I don't think I can explain it further.

Definitively, you are incorrect, the most simple of simpletons knows that their are things 'within' our reality that we are incapable of sensing. This does not mean that they are outside our reality. Notice the word 'within.'

Please see definition below for your enlightenment. Pay particular attention to def 5 dealing with philosophy.

re·al·i·ty /riˈælɪti/ [ree-al-i-tee]
noun, plural re·al·i·ties for 3, 5–7.
1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.
3. a real thing or fact.
4. real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
5. Philosophy .
..a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
..b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.

AND

u·ni·verse /ˈyunəˌvɜrs/ [yoo-nuh-vurs]
noun
1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.

The point I'm trying to make, though it seems to elude you, is that despite what the absolute truth of the matter is, 'none' of us, including you, actually knows anything that pertains to the truth of a possible creator, so one can't effectively argue using one's unfounded theories, as it's the probable BS that it probably is.

[Arising_uk]

You can't read for crap, as when you do, you obviously project your own strange, untrue presumption into it. I suggest you reread above as your brain is still stuck back there, once you do and catch up, we'll continue. I expect you to reiterate your retort before I take you seriously!

Again reread!

ROTFLMAO!! As you're incapable of seeing the distinctions here. He was speaking for authorities, so I spoke for authorities, are you dense? I don't necessarily mindlessly believe in what they said and then parrot it, as a sense of my own achievement, as some do around here.

Wheres your link?

As so far I can only find your words and as such am questioning them.

You think re-parroting is better?

No, where is it, I must have missed it, this thread?.

Yup.

But just for you;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Notvacka]

I thought for sure that you'd be intelligent enough to pick up on the implications of "what humans are capable of seeing" so as to understand my point. Either you failed to, or you new exactly, to what I was referring, which is why you failed to address it.

It's of course possible that I failed to understand you. The way I understood it, I figured that it was beside the point and chose to ignore it.

Definitively, you are incorrect, the most simple of simpletons knows that their are things 'within' our reality that we are incapable of sensing. This does not mean that they are outside our reality. Notice the word 'within.'

Perhaps I'm denser than "the most simple of simpletons" but I can't think of even one such thing. Example please? (If you are talking about elementary particles and such, we do "sense" them, though indirectly, using equipment.)

The point I'm trying to make, though it seems to elude you, is that despite what the absolute truth of the matter is, 'none' of us, including you, actually knows anything that pertains to the truth of a possible creator, so one can't effectively argue using one's unfounded theories, as it's the probable BS that it probably is.

I get it. But we are not arguing about the same thing, which still seems to elude you. Everything being possible does not mean that everything is equally possible. Some things are only possible if you eschew logic.

[Notvacka]

I think you problem is that you are struggling for a physical metaphor. You have to se 'reality' as a container. When in effect it has to be the container and everything else that is inside. Why should there be a division.

Why a division? Of course, as an atheist, you have no use for such a division. But if you wish to believe in a creator, the division is a logical necessity. And of course, as an atheist you choose to view reality as the whole of existence; with this view, there is no room for God.

I find debating with SpheresOfBalance exhausting, because his arguments are all over the place. He seems to be championing a general "anything goes" open mindedness, but often resorts to quoting dictionaries himself, wile at the same time dismissing established ideas as "parroting" and "not thinking outside the box".

People are entitled to believe whatever they want. But for some reason it riles me when they don't make sense even from their own standpoint. Like Godfree, who claims to believe in science, but is so afraid of the big bang and our universe having a beginning, that he chooses crackpot websites and fringe theories over established physics; not to mention his hilarious conspiracy theories about modern science being guided by some secret theist agenda.

SpheresOfBalance offered a clockmaker metaphor, which actually illustrated my point rather than his. Then he offered an "anything goes" interpretation of that metaphor, rendering it useless as far as I can tell. (If you are to describe something with a metaphor, you should maintain what each element in the metaphor stands for throughout your interpretation if you wish for it to make sense.)

But I concede that anything is possible, if you are prepared to accept notions like a God beyond logic, which I'm not. And the notion of a creator God contained within (our) reality makes no logical sense.

You can of course resort to mysticism. Which I think SpheresOfBalance does, if only in order to maintain his cherished "outside the box" openmindedness. He doesn't believe in God, after all. But I resent the "God works in mysterious ways" escape route, just like I resent the "free will" escape route. I think that if you honestly wish to believe in God you should confront the concept head on and live with the consequences.

[Godfree]

People are entitled to believe whatever they want. But for some reason it riles me when they don't make sense even from their own standpoint. Like Godfree, who claims to believe in science, but is so afraid of the big bang and our universe having a beginning, that he chooses crackpot websites and fringe theories over established physics; not to mention his hilarious conspiracy theories about modern science being guided by some secret theist agenda.



Yes I believe science is what runs this world , this technology that we use ,
but that doesn't mean I accept it blindly , and believe whatever ,
science comes up with , I',m a free agent and can disagree with any ,
or all of sciences view on any matter , science isn't a belief system ,,!!!
I'm not afraid at all , the bbt , is just not the best fit for the recent ,
images coming off the likes of Hubble telescope ,
you have to remember they came up with this theory way back in the ,
early days of technology , the telescopes and computer power of today ,
gives us a much better view and insight as to how it all began,
theist agenda , anybody who lives in america can see the theist agenda at work every day , if not the politics , it's the church , and the influence or power of the numbers for even things like american idol ,
the theist agenda has control of almost every aspect of american life,
so yes that will extend to the church trying to have a say as to whats taught in schools , how many teach "intelligent design",
if you don't think the church is in control of america , your blind ,,!!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

I thought for sure that you'd be intelligent enough to pick up on the implications of "what humans are capable of seeing" so as to understand my point. Either you failed to, or you new exactly, to what I was referring, which is why you failed to address it.

It's of course possible that I failed to understand you. The way I understood it, I figured that it was beside the point and chose to ignore it.

Definitively, you are incorrect, the most simple of simpletons knows that their are things 'within' our reality that we are incapable of sensing. This does not mean that they are outside our reality. Notice the word 'within.'

Perhaps I'm denser than "the most simple of simpletons" but I can't think of even one such thing. Example please? (If you are talking about elementary particles and such, we do "sense" them, though indirectly, using equipment.)

The point I'm trying to make, though it seems to elude you, is that despite what the absolute truth of the matter is, 'none' of us, including you, actually knows anything that pertains to the truth of a possible creator, so one can't effectively argue using one's unfounded theories, as it's the probable BS that it probably is.

I get it. But we are not arguing about the same thing, which still seems to elude you. Everything being possible does not mean that everything is equally possible. Some things are only possible if you eschew logic.

Incorrect, what you mean to say, in order to be truthful, is that anything is possible, The only reason people say otherwise is because of their current limited knowledge, as logic is based upon the premises allowed by the knowledge of the day such that logic can be seen as eschewed from the absolute truth, what ever that may be. In other words your "equally," thus your version of possibility is based solely upon a perspective from the current amount of knowledge that you think you know, and thus doesn't necessarily reflect the truth. Which is the point I've been making all along.

Since we are incapable of seeing the extremities of the universe, let alone, beyond. It could be that it is merely a bead of water in another universe of relative size and again and again to infinity.

One is a fool to base an argument upon something that is unprovable, such is my argument, so as to point you to your failure, in effectively arguing against godfree's universe!

'I only know, that I know nothing.'
--Socrates--

Which does not mean that one should spout nothing as an argument against someones nothing. I believe it's much better to use something, if you care to be effective.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think you problem is that you are struggling for a physical metaphor. You have to se 'reality' as a container. When in effect it has to be the container and everything else that is inside. Why should there be a division.

Why a division? Of course, as an atheist, you have no use for such a division. But if you wish to believe in a creator, the division is a logical necessity. And of course, as an atheist you choose to view reality as the whole of existence; with this view, there is no room for God.

I find debating with SpheresOfBalance exhausting, because his arguments are all over the place. He seems to be championing a general "anything goes" open mindedness, but often resorts to quoting dictionaries himself, wile at the same time dismissing established ideas as "parroting" and "not thinking outside the box".

People are entitled to believe whatever they want. But for some reason it riles me when they don't make sense even from their own standpoint. Like Godfree, who claims to believe in science, but is so afraid of the big bang and our universe having a beginning, that he chooses crackpot websites and fringe theories over established physics; not to mention his hilarious conspiracy theories about modern science being guided by some secret theist agenda.

SpheresOfBalance offered a clockmaker metaphor, which actually illustrated my point rather than his. Then he offered an "anything goes" interpretation of that metaphor, rendering it useless as far as I can tell. (If you are to describe something with a metaphor, you should maintain what each element in the metaphor stands for throughout your interpretation if you wish for it to make sense.)

But I concede that anything is possible, if you are prepared to accept notions like a God beyond logic, which I'm not. And the notion of a creator God contained within (our) reality makes no logical sense.

You can of course resort to mysticism. Which I think SpheresOfBalance does, if only in order to maintain his cherished "outside the box" openmindedness. He doesn't believe in God, after all. But I resent the "God works in mysterious ways" escape route, just like I resent the "free will" escape route. I think that if you honestly wish to believe in God you should confront the concept head on and live with the consequences.

Or maybe you simply misunderstand me. I'm not saying that you have not created a line of thinking that makes your case such as I have, which as far as I'm concerned is what you're alluding to here. But what you fail to realize is that I've been going out on a limb, supplying alternatives to your thinking, not of that as fact, or that I necessarily believe any of it. I'm trying to provide a reflection of your assertions

It's a falsehood to speak of a god as if you know. PERIOD! And it makes for a shallow argument against godfree's universe, as it's pure supposition.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You can't read for crap, as when you do, you obviously project your own strange, untrue presumption into it. I suggest you reread above as your brain is still stuck back there, once you do and catch up, we'll continue. I expect you to reiterate your retort before I take you seriously!

Again reread!

ROTFLMAO!! As you're incapable of seeing the distinctions here. He was speaking for authorities, so I spoke for authorities, are you dense? I don't necessarily mindlessly believe in what they said and then parrot it, as a sense of my own achievement, as some do around here.

Wheres your link?
What link?

As so far I can only find your words and as such am questioning them.

You think re-parroting is better?

No, where is it, I must have missed it, this thread?.

Yup.

But just for you;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Thanks, I checked it out, but I stopped at the point where he starts taking questions. So? Why did you want me to see it?

And to be clear as to what I mean by parroting, it is that many people accept what others say verbatim, in a particular course of study, without question, or since they are learning, the don't know fully what questions to ask, such that if they buy into it without question, they've effectively been programmed, and you know what they say about old dogs and new tricks right? Then they go out into the world and base their arguments against others within the shelter of their programming, which is merely that of the one that got paid to think of only that one thing over and over and over again, of course they tend to think of many questions, thanks to their colleges, and tend to refine their belief system to cover all the common bases before they wrote their papers and gave their lectures.

These parrots feed their egos with their ability to mimic (simply repeat) what others have said, internally patting themselves on the back, as if in their effective argument, they have really done anything at all, except merely repeat what it is, that they heard in a lecture hall. If they truly knew all the questions to ask, of that so called knowledge, they'd been the ones giving the lecture in that hall. It's a shallow victory, actually no victory at all, to merely repeat what you've heard, and then take credit for it, without fully understanding what it was that you truly said or the implications, ramifications, the dynamics of it, if you will. While hopefully everyone does this from K-12, because it's clearly to be understood in a society that is based upon knowing this information, in order to 'fit in' and 'belong,' and thus 'survive,' because the natural way has been removed by selfish, greedy slave owners. It does not necessarily indicate any truth, it merely indicates that one thinks they know, what it is that the ones that told them what it is knows, as if they do, and could possibly, and that they themselves asked the correct ("all") the questions by which to formulate their hypotheses.

Just because the models seem to point to the observations, doesn't necessarily mean that both aren't tainted with human inabilities, and that it truthfully describes whats actually going on, it merely means that math has been constructed to confirm that which we think we see via our limited set of sensors.

[chaz wyman]

I think you problem is that you are struggling for a physical metaphor. You have to se 'reality' as a container. When in effect it has to be the container and everything else that is inside. Why should there be a division.

Why a division? Of course, as an atheist, you have no use for such a division. But if you wish to believe in a creator, the division is a logical necessity. And of course, as an atheist you choose to view reality as the whole of existence; with this view, there is no room for God.

"If you want" to believe says it all. That's your next problem. If you had no burning desire to make sense of it with your human pea-brain then you would not keep making these basic mistakes. You are forcing an issue and changing reality to suit your desire. But the world cannot conform to you wishes my friend.
But you are wrong there are people that would agree with my point and still have a god. Such are the ridiculous attempts of them and people like yourself to alter reality to make sense of it AND keep god - whatever that might be..

I find debating with SpheresOfBalance exhausting, because his arguments are all over the place. He seems to be championing a general "anything goes" open mindedness, but often resorts to quoting dictionaries himself, wile at the same time dismissing established ideas as "parroting" and "not thinking outside the box".

I don't like his method either - we don't get on at all.

People are entitled to believe whatever they want. But for some reason it riles me when they don't make sense even from their own standpoint. Like Godfree, who claims to believe in science, but is so afraid of the big bang and our universe having a beginning, that he chooses crackpot websites and fringe theories over established physics; not to mention his hilarious conspiracy theories about modern science being guided by some secret theist agenda.

That is true of Godfree as I have pointed out to him on several occasions. His atheism is just another faith based assumption. But you are forcing the issue too, just to make the universe fit.
The things is that there will always be a category outside of God, unless you make him truly omnipresent. Reality is one such category. If he is outside that then he is not real, by definition.


SpheresOfBalance offered a clockmaker metaphor, which actually illustrated my point rather than his. Then he offered an "anything goes" interpretation of that metaphor, rendering it useless as far as I can tell. (If you are to describe something with a metaphor, you should maintain what each element in the metaphor stands for throughout your interpretation if you wish for it to make sense.)

All words are metaphorical in nature. There is an endless regress of ideas and notions. None of them can establish god, just describe and idea.

But I concede that anything is possible, if you are prepared to accept notions like a God beyond logic, which I'm not. And the notion of a creator God contained within (our) reality makes no logical sense.

Rubbish impossible things are not possible. If you can accept god beyond reality then you have already accepted god beyond logic.
What is god anyway?


You can of course resort to mysticism. Which I think SpheresOfBalance does, if only in order to maintain his cherished "outside the box" openmindedness. He doesn't believe in God, after all. But I resent the "God works in mysterious ways" escape route, just like I resent the "free will" escape route. I think that if you honestly wish to believe in God you should confront the concept head on and live with the consequences.

All assertions about god are mystical. If you can't accept that then there is no hope.

[Notvacka]

Incorrect, what you mean to say, in order to be truthful, is that anything is possible, The only reason people say otherwise is because of their current limited knowledge, as logic is based upon the premises allowed by the knowledge of the day such that logic can be seen as eschewed from the absolute truth, what ever that may be. In other words your "equally," thus your version of possibility is based solely upon a perspective from the current amount of knowledge that you think you know, and thus doesn't necessarily reflect the truth. Which is the point I've been making all along.

I agree that anything is (at least remotely) possible, including invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters and square circles. We can either stop there or move on. Nothing is knowledge. Everything is assumption. You probably assume that other people exist, for instance. You assume that I am somebody else having a discussion with you, that I'm not just a figment of your imagination. That is not knowledge - solipsism is a distinct possibility.

Since absolute knowledge and absolute truth are unattainable, we have to settle for something less and move on.

Logical truths and truths about the world, about that which "is the case", are different kinds of truth.

1+1=2 is a mathematical truth. If you have one apple and get another apple, then you have two apples. (I'm sorry, but we need to get to the bottom of this.) The mathematical statement 1+1=2 remains true regardless of how many apples you have. It describes a relationship, and the relationship remains true regardles of what happens to be the case.

You might maintain that 1+1=3 is possible, because "anything is possible". But 1+1=3 doesn't make sense. You can't picture it. Just like the notion of a (two-dimensional) square circle doesn't make sense. You can't picture it.

When I say that the creator of reality must exist outside reality, I'm describing such a logical relationship, the relationship between creator and that which is created. The creator of reality existing within reality doesn't make sense. You can't picture it. (Not unless you redefine the words used to describe the relationship, but then we are talking about something else.)

One is a fool to base an argument upon something that is unprovable, such is my argument, so as to point you to your failure, in effectively arguing against godfree's universe!

If you put the bar high enough, nothing but your own existence is provable, and even that is only provable to yourself. We either lower our standards and move on, or shut up and remain put.

And I'm not arguing against Godfree's universe as such; I'm arguing against the notion that his arguments have anything to do wiht science, and against the notion that the universe having a beginning somehow implicates a creator.