Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[A Troubled Man]

Thats fine, on the Standard Model when it is said that the singularity was "infinitely" dense, that is a figure of speech for saying that all matter was packed into a single point to where that was zero distance between any two points.

Actually, it was a result of Kurt Schwarzschilds use of Einsteins General Relativity field equations.

 

[jasonwill2]

I've physically seen a spirit before...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

because any excuse will do.

I wonder if he has ever wondered why all things in our universe break down over time, yet the laws of physics do not. What keeps them so stable?

Pixie magic.

Now... if you feel that your god is a better explanation than that, please feel free to explainwhy you think this.

 

[McBell]

*Deleted Post*

Wow.
You went straight to ad hominem.

What I find most comical is that based upon the posts in this thread, it is clear to see whose thinking capacity this topic is beyond.

Perhaps if you were to put your fragile ego away long enough, you might actually learn something.....

 

[lunakilo]

If 0 is the number just before 1 then there isn't an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, as you originally suggested.



But didnt you say there is an infinite amount of numbers between any two numbers?? That would mean that no matter how small of a step I take or how big of a step I take, I would still traverse infinity.



I define it as 0.

So I guess 0.5 is not a number in your universe then.
I it was, then 0.5 would be closer to 1 than 0 is.

No, stop and read the post you answered before you tell me I am stating the obvious.

I think the distance from any two numbers is a finite distance.




Because of absurdities.



Luna, time travels forward, right? If time had to travel past an infinite amount of points to get to this present point, how could it ever arrive? It would have to travel an infinite amount of points to get to any point, and that would make time travel impossible. But, if time had a beginning, there are two points to distinguish, which is the beginning point and the present point, and we can count the points in-between because we have two distinguishing points of intervals. But if time had no beginning, how could it ever reach the present point if for ever point it reached it would have to travel past infinity, which would in fact be infinity for every point?? This is clearly absurd.



Yeah, the time between 0 and 1 is finite, if 0 is the starting point. Now of course, time is potentially infinite going towards the future, but it is only finite in the past. And there is a clear and distinct difference between the two.



Then time had a beginning.



What??? If time behaves like we are used to then the fact still remain, how could time reach the present moment if it had to cross an infinite amount of past moments to get here???



I dont think it would matter to much. When dealing with infinity, it doesnt matter how slow or how fast time will travel, there is still an infinite amount of points between events. So whether you slow time down or speed time up, the fact still remains. Now yes, according to the Standard Model, the universe began hot and dense, but the GR breaks down at that point anyway so there is no scientific reasoning that we can gather from this event.

If the universe was in a different form, and it has a eternal existence, then why did it our universe change form only 13.7 billion years ago?? Why not sooner? Why not later?? In fact, with infinity, at any point we can always ask "why not sooner" or "why not later"

:help:

Ok, I give up on you.

I wish you would read the post you are answering.
And I wish you would remember what you wrote in your own posts (or go back and read your own posts)

 

[lunakilo]

Thats fine, on the Standard Model when it is said that the singularity was "infinitely" dense, that is a figure of speech for saying that all matter was packed into a single point to where that was zero distance between any two points.

density=mass/volume

mass= a very large number
volume = 0

mass/volume=?

Just wondering what you would call that result Call_of_the_Wild.
What do you get when you devide a very large number with zero?

 

[jasonwill2]

density=mass/volume

mass= a very large number
volume = 0

mass/volume=?

Just wondering what you would call that result Call_of_the_Wild.
What do you get when you devide a very large number with zero?

It's mathmatically impossible to divide by zero from what teachers told me even when I said "infinity"

 

[lunakilo]

Oh dear lord my "I dont believe in infinity" topic has spilled-over and now some people take my point of view.

But a question, is God finite then? I believe so but few people will agree with me.

God must be finite. Either that or absurd it seems. :bow:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So I guess 0.5 is not a number in your universe then.
I it was, then 0.5 would be closer to 1 than 0 is.

No, stop and read the post you answered before you tell me I am stating the obvious.

If our present moment can be identified as a point, and time has reached the present moment, how could it have reached the present moment if it had to travel past an infinite amount of points to reach it?? The question has gone noticeably unanswered. BTW, the only time 0.5 means anything if it is between the sum total of whatever the subject matter is, for example, half of one mile is 0.5, that is only because there is distinguishable points in between 0 and one mile. If there is distinguishable points in between two points, you can cut it in half. But, if time never began to exist, there is no half way point, so there is no 0.5 or any other distinguishable point.

:help:

Ok, I give up on you.

I wish you would read the post you are answering.
And I wish you would remember what you wrote in your own posts (or go back and read your own posts)

Judging by the fact that you are not answering my questions, I can tell the real reason you dont want to discuss this anymore lol.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

IOW, that the energy was infinitely dense? (And what do you mean? Figures of speech don't exist in physics.)

I already answered this....it means that everything was so tightly packed within the singularity.....dense means tightly packed...things were so tightly packed that there was no space at all. Space was shrunk to 0. Infinity is not used as an amount, but for describing the state..the quality.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

density=mass/volume

mass= a very large number
volume = 0

mass/volume=?

Just wondering what you would call that result Call_of_the_Wild.
What do you get when you devide a very large number with zero?

I wasn't aware that I was dividing anything. I was describing the Standard Model, plain and simple.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Oh dear lord my "I dont believe in infinity" topic has spilled-over and now some people take my point of view.

But a question, is God finite then? I believe so but few people will agree with me.

God is infinite in the sense he will never cease to exist. But no one is arguing that God traversed infinity, or he has endured for infinite time. God was timeless before the universe, and temporal after the universe.

 

[A Troubled Man]

...nor can you have an actual infinite amount of something. ... it cant exist in reality as something that can be used or experimented on.

God is infinite in the sense he will never cease to exist.

Contradict much?

 

[jasonwill2]

God must be finite. Either that or absurd it seems. :bow:

given: pantheism is true

1 pantheism = god is the universe

2 the universe is finite

3 therefore god is finite as he is the sum of all the pieces and not greater than it.

4 God is finite.

That is my logical proof (not actual "proof" in the common usage but basically means the conclusion based on my axiom) based on the assumption of pantheism.

 

[PolyHedral]

2 the universe is finite

This idea is still being discussed in the literature, AFAIK.

 

[jasonwill2]

This idea is still being discussed in the literature, AFAIK.

nonsense. The universe is 93 billion LY across, as for other universes, last i heard it was a very large but finite number (if they even exist which is hard to find out within itself). infinite mass as would be needed for infinite universes makes no sense. then their could never be no true heath death as other universes could supply it forever.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Contradict much?

Not at all. I said you can never have an infinite AMOUNT of something. God is not described as "an amount". He is not infinite in terms of quantity, but he is infinite in terms of "quality", meaning he is the greatest conceivable being, by power, nature, and morality.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Not at all. I said you can never have an infinite AMOUNT of something. God is not described as "an amount". He is not infinite in terms of quantity, but he is infinite in terms of "quality", meaning he is the greatest conceivable being, by power, nature, and morality.

LOL! You contradict yourself again.

 

[lunakilo]

Thats fine, on the Standard Model when it is said that the singularity was "infinitely" dense, that is a figure of speech for saying that all matter was packed into a single point to where that was zero distance between any two points.

density=mass/volume

mass= a very large number
volume = 0

mass/volume=?

Just wondering what you would call that result Call_of_the_Wild.
What do you get when you devide a very large number with zero?

I wasn't aware that I was dividing anything. I was describing the Standard Model, plain and simple.

See there you go again. Do you ever actually read the post I am answering?

I will try again:

Thats fine, on the Standard Model when it is said that the singularity was "infinitely" dense, that is a figure of speech for saying that all matter was packed into a single point to where that was zero distance between any two points.

If all matter was packed into a single point, then the density was:
(mass of all matter)/(volume of a point) = (large number)/0

So yes, you were dividing by zero.
And that would give an infinite density in the singularity.

 

[lunakilo]

If our present moment can be identified as a point, and time has reached the present moment, how could it have reached the present moment if it had to travel past an infinite amount of points to reach it?? The question has gone noticeably unanswered. BTW, the only time 0.5 means anything if it is between the sum total of whatever the subject matter is, for example, half of one mile is 0.5, that is only because there is distinguishable points in between 0 and one mile. If there is distinguishable points in between two points, you can cut it in half. But, if time never began to exist, there is no half way point, so there is no 0.5 or any other distinguishable point.

<sigh!>
I aswered you long ago, you just chose to ignore my posts.
Here it is again:

If we look at the distanct 1 meter, you can step from the point 0 to the point 1 in one step. You could argue that in this case 0 is the number just before 1.
If you half the length of your step, you would go from 0 to 0.5 to 1. In this case 0.5 could be argued to be the number just before 1.
If you half the length of your step once again you would go from 0 to 0.25 to 0.5 to 0.75 to 1. In this case 0.75 could be argued to be the number just before 1.

No matter how many times you half the length of your step you would still step on a number just before you get to 1, but the number will depend on the length of your step.

So how would you define the number just before one?


I understand that you find the idea of infinite time in an expanding universe absurd.
But your arguments don't make me see it as a problem.

The distance from 0 to 1 is a finite distance. I don't think it translates well to an infinite 'distance' in time.

If you look at a time line and look at the time between point 0 and point 1, then there would be an infinite amount of points in time between 0 and 1, just like in the distance example.
But the time it takes to travel from time 0 to time 1 is still finite because passing a point in time takes an infinitisimal amount of time. The time between time 0 and time 1 is finite.

Now if you talk about traveling from 'the infinite past' to now, the time we are talking about is not finite.
And I agree that if time behaves like we are used to, then that would take an infinite amount of time.
But we know the universe was very hot and dense when it was younger, and we know that time behaves strangly in such an environment (again: Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), so I don't think you can rightly assume that time flows in a straight line the way we are used to, when talking about the early, dense universe. So it is possible that there is no time dilemma if one delves deeply enought into how time works.

It is also possible that you are correct that there is a dilemma.
That time goes on forever but the universe (as we know it) had a beginning.
I see 2 ways to deal with that:

1. You can solve that dilemma by adding God as you propose.
2. You can also solve it by postulating that the universe itself is eternal and what we see as the creation of the universe is just a change in the universe from what it was before to what it is now.

I would argue that both 1 and 2 are the same solution just using different words.
If you add an eternal God before the beginning of the current, finite universe, then together (God + universe) is eternal and what we see as the creation of the universe is just a change in the universe from what it was before to what it is now.

Judging by the fact that you are not answering my questions, I can tell the real reason you dont want to discuss this anymore lol.

This stopped being a discussion long ago.
You tend to ignore half the answeres in peoples posts, and you tend to contradict yourself.

Which questions do you feel I have not tried to answer?