<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Most agree Nature is a part of Universe, which by definition (Unification) is all that exists. I sense that you want to imply something else, but making a confusing use of words. neverthless, you view, even if we interchange your concepts of Nature and Universe, seems to be religious.
However, I agree with your point that for an observer to understand the Universe must be able to cross its boundaries, which by definition is impossible, so there it goes the understanding of the Universe.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Well, it is a matter of definition, indeed.
We have somehow crossed some border. In our view of the universe it is this vast cosmos around us. We can see a part of it.
But if you state that the universe came into existence from a big bang, then you are stating infact, there is something outside of the universe that caused it. You could still call it the universe, but then you need a distinct definition for what previously was defined as the universe. You can not get rid of that confusion, it has already arisen.
My point was that in stating the Universe is all that exist, and at the same time saying that the Universe came out of a Big Bang, causes a huge problem, cause then you had no alternative other then stating the cause for that was not part of the universe. So, in my mind, that would imply a call for a deity.
The distinction I made is that Nature is the proces itself, which is endless, and everything in Nature is limited in extent and always in the process of becoming, transforming, changing, decaying, etc.
Nature to me is infinite and without begin or end.
Anything that exists, wether a neutrino, a microbe, a human, a star or an universe, is limited in extent and with a begin and end.
The distinction I make is that Nature is far more a broader definition then Universe. Nature is a process, that goed on indefinately. A Universe is a way of existence of matter in a certain form, having the potential for life forms to exist, but which is finite in extent (has a begin and an end).
Your statement about that if I define it in this way, Nature is then defined the same as a deity, makes me think. It might be the case, but I didn't introduce it as a religious concept. Nature exists, wether you believe in it or not. Nature was not introduced arbitrarily, it has been explored deeply and profoundly, and we explore it using science.
A deity has been introduced, for delivering an explenation for those things we didn't understand. So, my definition of Nature rules out the necessity for a deity. It doesn't say or state a deity does not exist. In my mind that is an irrelevant question as to wether or not a deity exists. We just need a broad perception on what Nature is and does, and need to explore it's behaviour.
To me the alternative would be is to say, we don't know what caused the Big Bang, we can go back no further then 10 to minus 43 seconds, and what was before is never to be known. That interpretation would involve in saying that it was an act of creation, some unique phenomena caused by a deity.
If you like that interpretation (the universe created by a deity) better as the concept of Nature, which is capable of forming and shaping universes also, and goed on indefinately, is up to you of course.
I see your argument, but it can't hold. When you want to exclude the deity at one point, you consequently introduce it elsewhere, and vice versa, so you can't get rid of that. To me it's irrelevant, cause you can neither proof nor disproof the existence of a deity, so that closes it as something to be assumed in science. We must just explore what Nature is and does, and only do that on basis of solid scientific theories, which can make predictions that can be tested.
