If your view of the universe is that it is infinite, an unsolvable conundrum in itself due to the inevitable fact that anything that is observable or describable is finite, then yes, my "universe" is different from yours.nick c wrote:If an ID exists or existed then the ID would have to be a part of the Universe and could therefore not have created it. Are you using a different definition of "Universe?"
But perhaps the crux of our difference may be the way I [and Brigit Bara -- chime in BB if you disagree] use the word "exist". Which is to say, we acknowledge the existence and operation of intangibles in the universe as possibly fitting the category of "immaterial", by the usual definitions. When it comes to physics there are many such "intangibles", things that are accepted as givens without any clear [or at least uncontroversial or absolute] definition. Here is a list:
2. Gravitation [and magnetism]
4. Light [any various other manifestations of so-called "electromagnetism]
5. Intrinsic Mass [vs. matter]
We see stuff moving, and we see stuff sticking together... everything else is an attempt [ofttimes feeble] to wrap the myriad of observations into a simple mathematic model. We seem to always come up short. I [and Brigit Bara -- chime in BB if you disagree] think that we know why that "shortness" is so persistent.
If the universe is finite, as I presume, then what is "beyond" it. I find the ID to be a [more than] satisfactory answer, no disrespect intended toward the ID .