Infinite universe = everything exists.

[Eljah702]

We dont know whether the universe is finite or infinite or not , to accept either is to give us a a paradox. You correctly identify th paradox that leads when we consider the universe is infinite, but you ingore the one that gives us a finite universe. Even if you accept the universe is finite, why would that let you imply its cause is a personal being? your just assuming that.

origins.org/articles/craig_existencegodbeginning.html]The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe


In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

 

[camanintx]

In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator.

I think a much better argument can be made that if the universe is not eternal then it must be self-caused.

A Cosmological Argument for a Self-Caused Universe (The Great Debate)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Tell me, if you fly your spaceship out far enough, where will you end up?

Some say you will end up back where you srated based on the curvature of space.

There, I just proved God exists . :angel2:

You aren't being serious are you. As logical proofs go you failed here

Took the kids to the planetarium awhile back, had a show on deep field... They looked around until they found the darkest part of the sky, and then focused their telescope on it. We have all seen the picts of what they found - we have seen them, but do we realize the full magnitude of what we are looking at?
YouTube - Hubble Deep Field
Those specks of light aren't stars - they're galaxies.

Do you ever feel dizzy when you look up into the night sky?

I've often looked up at the night sky and realized how unimportant other people are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No boundaries = infinite universe = everything exists.

There, I just proved God exists . :angel2:?

The big problem I see here is that you also "proved" the existence of everything that's incompatible with the existence of your God in equal measure.

 

[skydivephil]

origins.org/articles/craig_existencegodbeginning.html]The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe


In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

Who says there an eternal cause? Thats just you supposition, if the cause is eternal then youve just contradicted your argument against infinity. The cause of the universe need not be existing from eternity, yet again a groundless supposition. You like to quote Hakiwng, but yet I notice you do so selectivley, only when it suits you. perhaps you should look at the Hawking Hartley model of the origin of the unvierse. They postulate the universe came from a fluctuation in a quantum vacuum state. They dont mention any personal creator, there is absolutle zero need to. In fact I challenge you to find a single paper in a physics journal that says we require a personal creator. Your arguments are nothing but supposition without the slightest shred of evidence.

 

[idea]

This thread is still going?

There is no beginning, and there will never be an end.
There was never a time when nothing existed.
Everything that now is always was and always will be. (including you and me)

Conservation laws - conservation of mass/energy. Laws of thermodynamics. You don't form something from nothing. You can't eradicate something into nothing. Everything has always existed. Things change form, but they never cease to exist.

The origins debate is pointless - there is no origin.
First cause? there is no first cause.
There is no "first" anything.
There is no beginning.

We were not "created".
The word "create" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew.
God transforms what eternally exists - He does not "create".
Evil exists becuase God did not "create" anything.
God is cleaning up a mess He did not create - for what wants to be cleaned up.

Everything exists - eternity exists, infinity exists, everything exists.

 

[idea]

Some say you will end up back where you srated based on the curvature of space.[/font][/size]

Iknow - I was talking about traveling in a perfectly straight line

I've often looked up at the night sky and realized how unimportant other people are.

Do you think that our size relative to everything else makes us unimportant?
What makes something important to you?

 

[skydivephil]

This thread is still going?

There is no beginning, and there will never be an end.
There was never a time when nothing existed.
Everything that now is always was and always will be. (including you and me)

Conservation laws - conservation of mass/energy. Laws of thermodynamics. You don't form something from nothing. You can't eradicate something into nothing. Everything has always existed. Things change form, but they never cease to exist.

The origins debate is pointless - there is no origin.
First cause? there is no first cause.
There is no "first" anything.
There is no beginning.

We were not "created".
The word "create" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew.
God transforms what eternally exists - He does not "create".
Evil exists becuase God did not "create" anything.
God is cleaning up a mess He did not create - for what wants to be cleaned up.

Everything exists - eternity exists, infinity exists, everything exists.

More assumption to things we dont know.
What do you mean everything exists? Do living dinosaurs exist? I think you'll find they did exist, now we only have a few remains, same it''l be for us.
Your understanding of thermodynamics needs to b up to date in the light of quantum mechanics. Particles can pop out of nothing and create entire universes. If this really happneed then there is only one net energy of the universe possible : 0. That appears to be the case with the postiive mass energy of the universe being balanced by the negative gravitational energy.
ASP: A Universe from Nothing

 

[zenzero]

Friend skydivephil,

Particles can pop out of nothing and create entire universes. If this really happneed then there is only one net energy of the universe possible : 0. That appears to be the case with the postiive mass energy of the universe being balanced by the negative gravitational energy.

Yes, it appears you are on to something there.
The STILLNESS as have been speaking of to you through so many posts.

Love & rgds

 

[Eljah702]

This thread is still going?

There is no beginning, and there will never be an end.
There was never a time when nothing existed.
Everything that now is always was and always will be. (including you and me)

Conservation laws - conservation of mass/energy. Laws of thermodynamics. You don't form something from nothing. You can't eradicate something into nothing. Everything has always existed. Things change form, but they never cease to exist.

The origins debate is pointless - there is no origin.
First cause? there is no first cause.
There is no "first" anything.
There is no beginning.

We were not "created".
The word "create" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew.
God transforms what eternally exists - He does not "create".
Evil exists becuase God did not "create" anything.
God is cleaning up a mess He did not create - for what wants to be cleaned up.

Everything exists - eternity exists, infinity exists, everything exists.

thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm]Can anything 'real' be infinite?

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite. Stephen Hawking in 'A Brief History of Time' (1989 page 44) describes the universe as being "finite but unbounded". The simplest answer is that as the universe is known to be expanding, it cannot possibly be infinite. To be precise, the dictionary definition of the word universe is "all that is. The whole system of things." In this sense the universe is not expanding into anything other than itself, for whatever it is expanding into is part of the universe, there being nothing else but the universe.

 

[Eljah702]

They postulate the universe came from a fluctuation in a quantum vacuum state. .

from : a case of a creator , page 67

scribd.com/doc/13018991/Science-the-Case-for-a-Creator]Science_ the Case for a Creator

Quantum theory ... holds that a vacuum ... is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly... . Theoretically, anything-a dog, a house, a planet-can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles ... are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly.... The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely. Nevertheless, in 1973 an assistant professor at Columbia University named Edward Tryon suggested that the entire universe might have come into existence this way.... The whole universe may be, to use [MIT physicist Alan] Guth's phrase, "a free lunch."20

"These subatomic particles the article talks about are called `virtual particles.' They are theoretical entities, and it's not even clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs.
"However, there's a much more important point to be made about this. You see, these particles, if they are real, do not come out of nothing. The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws. These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum.
"So it's not an example of something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from?"
He let that question linger before continuing. "You've simply pushed back the issue of creation. Now you've got to account for how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being. Do you see what I'm saying? If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can't legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself. You need something transcendent that's beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being.

 

[skydivephil]

from : a case of a creator , page 67

scribd.com/doc/13018991/Science-the-Case-for-a-Creator]Science_ the Case for a Creator

Quantum theory ... holds that a vacuum ... is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly... . Theoretically, anything-a dog, a house, a planet-can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles ... are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly.... The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely. Nevertheless, in 1973 an assistant professor at Columbia University named Edward Tryon suggested that the entire universe might have come into existence this way.... The whole universe may be, to use [MIT physicist Alan] Guth's phrase, "a free lunch."20

"These subatomic particles the article talks about are called `virtual particles.' They are theoretical entities, and it's not even clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs.
"However, there's a much more important point to be made about this. You see, these particles, if they are real, do not come out of nothing. The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws. These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum.
"So it's not an example of something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from?"
He let that question linger before continuing. "You've simply pushed back the issue of creation. Now you've got to account for how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being. Do you see what I'm saying? If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can't legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself. You need something transcendent that's beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being.

Te idea that vacuum fluctuation are "just theoretical" is complete nonsense. It implies "theory" is something we are uncertain of, whereas facts are something we are certain of. That may be true of everyday language , but in science thats not the case. Quantum thoery is extremley well verified. Moreover we know vaccuum fluctuations exist , one quick examples off the top of my head is the Casimir effect:
Casimir effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its not just Ed Tyryon thats suggested the universe came from a vacuum fluctuation. Hawking/Hartle model deos the same as does chaotic inflation. In fact I thnk most cosmological models have this now. As I said before there is only possible value for th net energy of the universe with these models, so they make a falsifiable prediction which can be measured. Can you say the same for god?c I dont think so.

To say that the vacuum is not nothing, may be a fair point but then the consequence of that is that "nothing" doesnt exist anywhere in the universe. What caused the rules of quantum mechanics to arise in the first place? that we dont know yet. But to try and fill that gap in our knowledge with god is no different to saying that lightning came from god when we didnt know its cause. Its a cheap trick theists use to try and put god into those answers we dont know. Just like in disease, we need to look for evdience based answers not rely on "the magic man did it".
of course using a vacuum fluctuaion to explain to the origin of the universe only pushes the boundary of knowledge back a stage, but thats all any aswer can do. Its the same with god, we could also aks where did od come from? the big difference is we have evidence that quantum fields exist, we dont have evidence for god.

 

[skydivephil]

thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm]Can anything 'real' be infinite?

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite. Stephen Hawking in 'A Brief History of Time' (1989 page 44) describes the universe as being "finite but unbounded". The simplest answer is that as the universe is known to be expanding, it cannot possibly be infinite. To be precise, the dictionary definition of the word universe is "all that is. The whole system of things." In this sense the universe is not expanding into anything other than itself, for whatever it is expanding into is part of the universe, there being nothing else but the universe.

What you say about infinity in a singularity is nto right. The mass is not infinite but the curvature of space time is infinite. However most physicisst now accept that relativity should not be aplied in these cases and we needa quantum theory of gravity for these scales. the main contenders for quantum graivty do not have singularities anyway. The fact that the universe is expanding does not imply its finite, right now we dont know if it is or not. If you claim the opposite please point to some data,
ttp://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_people_0_iv.html

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Iknow - I was talking about traveling in a perfectly straight line

So was I.

 

[Eljah702]

To say that the vacuum is not nothing, may be a fair point but then the consequence of that is that "nothing" doesnt exist anywhere in the universe.

the quest is not, what was IN the universe, but BEFORE the universe came into existing through the Big Bang.

What caused the rules of quantum mechanics to arise in the first place? that we dont know yet. But to try and fill that gap in our knowledge with god is no different to saying that lightning came from god when we didnt know its cause. Its a cheap trick theists use to try and put god into those answers we dont know. Just like in disease, we need to look for evdience based answers not rely on "the magic man did it".

there were no quantum fluctuations, if there was nothing physical before the Big Bang. My argument is also not a gap filler. We can say with absolute certainty, if the universe had a absolute beginning, and science is quit sure about this, then there remain two possibilities as origin of the universe :

1. God
2. absolute nothing ( while absolute nothing means exactly that : any thing at all )

the big difference is we have evidence that quantum fields exist, we dont have evidence for god.

we have evidence these exist IN the universe, not BEFORE the universe came into being.

everystudent.com/journeys/who2.html

(1) Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You, for example.

(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces.

(3) The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programmed by any force outside Itself. And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since It has no needs. Therefore, if It produces Something Else, It must decide to do so. That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus, It is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones).

 

[Eljah702]

What you say about infinity in a singularity is nto right. The mass is not infinite but the curvature of space time is infinite. However most physicisst now accept that relativity should not be aplied in these cases and we needa quantum theory of gravity for these scales. the main contenders for quantum graivty do not have singularities anyway. The fact that the universe is expanding does not imply its finite, right now we dont know if it is or not. If you claim the opposite please point to some data,
esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_people_0_iv.html

thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm

Can anything 'real' be infinite?

An infinite universe for example would exist in every direction forever, there could be nothing else, ONLY the universe. It is then very easy to understand why our universe cannot be infinite, it is because it is expanding. It cannot be both infinite and expanding. It could be infinite OR expanding, but CANNOT possibly be both, that is a contradiction in terms, and we do know it is expanding. For an explanation of the Big Bang and why we know the universe is expanding.

 

[McBell]

(1) Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You, for example.

(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces.

(3) The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programmed by any force outside Itself. And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since It has no needs. Therefore, if It produces Something Else, It must decide to do so. That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus, It is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones).

The number of assumptions is staggering.

 

[Tiberius]

Awhile ago, many who lived on the earth thought that if they rowed their boat out far enough, they would eventually fall off an edge of sorts….

Tell me, if you fly your spaceship out far enough, where will you end up? Does the universe have a boundary? If you think it does, what lies beyond that boundary? Something lies beyond whatever boundaries we might construct, which means there are no ultimate boundaries.

No boundaries = infinite universe = everything exists.

There, I just proved God exists . :angel2:

And you just proved that square circles exist too.

Even though they are impossible.

So either the idea that square circles are impossible is false, or your idea that an infinite universe contains everything is false.

How about we say that in an infinite universe, everything that can exist does exist. Things that can't exist still won't be in an infinite universe.

Although, you'd have to show that the universe is infinite....

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Additionally, even if the universe were infinite, it wouldn't logically follow that everything would exist. The universe could go on forever, and contain an infinite number of a finite sets of things.

 

[Baydwin]

Additionally, even if the universe were infinite, it wouldn't logically follow that everything would exist. The universe could go on forever, and contain an infinite number of a finite sets of things.

I agree with that, the universe is bound by certain laws so only certain things can exist. Other universe might have different laws and so different things, but within a single universe contradictory things can't exist. You can't have a round square for example.