But, see, to me, the parallel is: is there at least a human’s lifetime worth of interesting questions in other areas when it comes to the mysteries of the universe? And, if so, would you therefore avoid disappointment if the answer to the one Where Did All This Come From question turns out to be — well, not that a god has always existed, but — that it has always existed? That the universe is like unto the genie that could yield up other answers but not that one, or a creator that could yield up other answers but not that one?
At the very least this finding would, AFAICT, invalidate all of the laws of nature as I understand them. As far as we know (again based on my admittedly limited study) nature abhors infinities. There are no known infinities - large or small, whether that be temperature, size, mass, velocity, time, charge, linear and angular momentum, etc. Finding something of infinite age would invalidate all of our scientific knowledge, at least in physics, forcing us to start over. And yes, I think that would be more than enough for one human lifetime.
Has amybody ever answered the title question without having to write a long essay, or continuing debate, with someone? Say, one or at most two sentences?
Maybe some time someone tried, but it was useless because it’s a complex question.
I know people who grew up being told that there’s a god, and who now say they have no reason to doubt it. Would that suffice?
Presumptively, if God created a universe, God exists outside the universe and is not subject to the laws of the universe. Just like if you created a universe on a computer, you do not live in that universe. Even if beings in that universe became sentient and tried to communicate with you, you still do not live in that universe.
I’ve never heard of this aversion to infinities. Don’t most astronomers think that our universe is infinite? And mathematics operate with infinities all the time, without infinities there’d be no calculus and thus no modern science and engineering.
That’s in the context of the novel, where there’s no a priori reason to suppose a limit on the number of alternate universes. In one of his essays, “I’m Looking Over a Four-Leaf Clover”*, Asimov speculates that the asymmetries in our universe (matter over antimatter, etc.) would be explained if there was one counterpart universe to ours for every asymmetry.
*not to be confused with a short story of his, “The Four-Leaf Clover”.
ETA: There of course is always the philosophical question of whether some sort of God however you define the term exists, versus whether the Judeo-Christian Bible is a reliable account of the interaction of humanity with God. I presume that the OP is referring to the latter.
ETA2:
This has shown up in science fiction in a number of places, including the Eldraeverse with its ontotechnology, and the Doctor Who stories “Logopolis” and “Castrovalva” which featured block transfer computation.
But I think that’s taking “two” too literally. Conceptually, that’s one pair. The point is more that with one universe, there may be some constraint that we just haven’t found yet that makes any other universe impossible. But if we discover two universes that seem to be in two different apparently arbitrary states, the existence of an unknown constraint becomes less likely, and it becomes more likely that every possibility exists.
There’s some that think it could be infinite in size (but none AFAIK that theorize it has to be infinitely large), but as far as I know none that think it’s infinite in age. And with all the other stuff that we think we know has limits such as there being a smallest possible size (even if it turns out to be number different than the Planck length), smallest amount of time (even if it turns out to be a number different than the Planck time), fastest speed (even if it turns out to be a different number than the speed of light in a vacuum) and so on, it seem to me odd to say that the only infinity is in the overall size of the universe.
ETA: Not to mention the impossible for me to wrap my head around idea that if something is already infinitely large, how can it get any bigger?
ETA2: That’s just one more aspect of why in my view I’ve come to see math and physics as the place to seek answers for The Big Questions. I’ll leave it up to others to decide whether or not that means I’ve redefined them into a religion of sorts.
Yes, as long as those who do believe are given credit for their leanings.
I’ve never found that hard to get, just by observing the different kinds of numbers. It’s easy to grasp that the set of natural numbers is infinite. Now it’s also easy to get that the set of fractional numbers is also infinite, but bigger than the set of natural numbers, and the union set of both (the rational numbers) is bigger than its parts.
Of course I give them credit, in other words I believe them when they say they have faith in deity X, but I will challenge them by asking if they believed in deity Y instead if they had been raised in another faith.
I have my own opinion but I care orders of magnitude more about whether an afterlife is real than whether God is real. Cessation of existence is my deepest fear even though I won’t be around to experience it.
Do you obsess about where you were before you were born?
At my age cessation of existence is a feature, not a bug. Toodling around forever and watching the world go to hell without being able to do anything about it is my idea of hell.
If you are outside space and time you aren’t necessarily going to be observing time elapse in any earthly sense.
I don’t know why anyone else believes in God but I do because God exists and I wish to honor God for the good that I have experienced. And yes, there is no way to prove God is out there but I believe anyway.
Do you believe blindly, or do you think there is evidence of your god’s existence?
Depends on what you mean by blindly. I was raised in a certain Chirstian denomination, and I suppose as a kid my belief was blind. As I came to adulthood and started thinking more on my own I switched denomination, but still believe. My “evidence” is not something a court would accept, and that’s okay by me. But people I deeply loved and admired were believers, and not all were born to it, like, say, my maternal grandmother.
People that look down on people for being religious believers are folks I have pity for. But I can still be friends and respect non believers when they do the same for me. I try not to hate anybody, even if they tick me off.