... or both idea's god and absolute proof that idea's god does not exist. Either one has just as much claim to be included under the umbrella term "everything".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Infinite universe = everything exists.
- Thread starter idea
- Start date
skydivephil
Active Member
YYou are simply wrong that science is sure the universe had an abolsute begining. People come to that conclusion when they use general relativity to describe the large scale sructure of the universe. But as any comsologist will tell you, relativity breaks down at the quantum level. To describe the universe when it was in a quantum state when need a quantum theory of gravity. At the moment we dont have a well verified theory of quantum of graivty. The two theories of quantum gravity that most physicsts believe are the most promising are Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory. Both of these theories say the big bang was not the absolute begining you claim.
Read here :
Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth: Scientific American
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_cosmology
You claim there always was a time when there was something, how do you know this? Its just your claim, we need evidence to believe claims. This etenral something: you assume it exists and you go on to describe its properties, for example that it has no needs and it will always be superior to anything it produces. yet you give no evidence to its existence and no evidence to its qualities. Why for example does it need to be superior to the things it creates? We can create things that are better at some tasks than ourselves, you simply assume that the same is not true for this imaginary eternal something. Thats all your argument is, a buch of unsupported assumptions. Oh coupled with a misunderstanding of cosmology.
Last edited:
skydivephil
Active Member
Of course accepting infinites gives us a paradox. But denying them also gives us a paradox. If the universe is not infinite then we have the paradox of what is outside it. If time is not infinite what is after it? and so on. To simply highlight one side of the paradox when it suits you is intellectually dishonest. I dont know the answer to the paradoxes of infinity, no one does. That is the whole point. That is why cosmsology doesnt say whether the universe is finite or infinite. If you think you have a solution to the answer professional cosmologists cant asnwer, I suggest you try and publish a paper in a professional physics journal. I think they' will laugh at you , but Im happy to be proved wrong.
One should also note that at one point you deny infinity can exist, but then you assume that god is eternal. Why dont you make you mind up? It seems to me infinity , for you, can exist when it suits you.
I don't think so. God can be eternal, without problem. The universe cannot.
wcg.org/lit/booklets/science/debate1a.htm]The Great Debate #1: Recent Discoveries in Science
Nothing that is confined to time could have created the cosmos. The Creator must have existed "before" the beginning of time, and from His perspective, He exists in our past, present, and future simultaneously. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58). Three times in the New Testament, the Bible speaks of what God purposed to do "before the beginning of time" (1 Cor. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2). The Bible tells us that time is a relative thing to God: "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night" (Psalm 90:4). "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:.
The Biblical Gods years are not just infinitely long; He is outside of time altogether. In the verses above, time itself is said to have a beginning. The kind of everlastingness attributed to God in the Bible is not the kind that treats God as someone who lasts as long as time lasts; its the kind that treats time as a thing created by God. As Augustine interpreted the Bible (long before he could have been influenced by modern cosmologists), God made the world "with time and not in time."
Comparing this message with all others coming to us from ancient times, its reasonable to think that, if ever God revealed himself to our ancestors, it was through this inexplicably unique revelation to the Hebrews.
skydivephil
Active Member
God can be infintie but the universe cant?
Nothing that is confined to time could have created the cosmos?
How do you know this ? perhaps the laws of physcis in a pre big bang scenario were differnt anyway/ all we have from you is yet another unproved assumption.
The Creator must have existed "before" the beginning of time?
If time began at the big bang, then its meaingless to talk of before it. Your being silly .
As to those passages in the bibile.
Thats your interpretation of them. Ive sat through boring films that were two hours long and I said they seemed like they went on for days. People often use such metaphors, doesn't mean they are describing time dilation.
What unique revelation? The fact they used some poetic language to describe a day with god, thats the best you got?
Last edited:
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
Care to explain me that one here ?
I just realized something: if everything exists, then so does my dinner. I guess I don't have to cook tonight. 
Malleus_de_Philosophia
Member
idea said:
Suppose we deem the universe to be infinite, meaning it's so large we cannot conceptualize a finite value for it. However, this does not deny that something that is infinite can be constrained by something else infinite. Take for example a balloon being filled with air. We know that there are individual particles in the air going into the balloon but the exact number we can deem as being infinite. Likewise, the amount of individual particles composing the balloon we can deem as infinite. As we continue to blow air into the balloon, that infinite amount increases, however, the infinite amount of particles composing the balloon remains stable (but is still an infinite amount nonetheless).
As we can see in the above example, there is an infinite amount of particles, however, there is also a boundary (the balloon's maximum ability to expand without popping). Thus, saying no boundaries = infinite universe is incorrect. But you asserted that no boundaries = infinite universe = everything exists, so presumably no boundaries = everything exists. Referring to the balloon example, what amount is "everything"? Unfortunately, there are two infinities, the amount of air particles and the amount of particles composing the balloon. In a sense, both infinities can be defined as "everything". So this means that no boundaries = everything AND boundaries = everything.
Returning to the entire equation, if no boundaries = infinite universe is false, yet no boundaries = everything exists may be true, then where are we left? Furthermore, if boundaries (i.e. opposition of the initial assertion of no boundaries) = everything exists may be true, then where are we left? We answer this question in a very simple way: defining "everything". In my reasoning, I defined it as being infinity, however, this may not be true for the universe.
In the case of the universe, unlike the balloon example, there are numerous components. There are millions of planets, galaxies, etc... . So if we contribute only particles, and if these are all air (let's assume they're all the same), then if everything existing implies there is an infinite diversity of things, then it's false in both cases, and so regardless of the presence of boundaries, everything does not exist.
Conclusion of this babble:
No boundaries = infinite universe = everything exists is false.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
So let me get this straight.
You don't know how the universe came into existence so you are just going say it was magic.
Kind of like a dark ages mentality if you ask me.
-Q
Last edited:
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
There, I just proved God exists
PFFFFF all youve proven is that god could exist. This so called proof is just as stupid as the "your disbelief proves god exists because to disbelieve in something there has to be something to believe in.
FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Malleus_de_Philosophia
Member
Who are you referring to?
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
Infinite is an interesting intellectual concept,
a bit like PI = 3.14159............... has anyone found the end yet?
Next Universe, what definition should we use? That which is all?
Or that which was generated by the agreed Big Bang, this may imply some sort of void beyond. IE that which is there but is beyond our current universe.
I would ask the question if this void does not contain matter or electromagnetic radiation, it is therefore pretty much nothing, empty, zilch, barren. Is this a case where nothing = something?
3. Prior to the big bang there was a previous collapsing universe.
Its nice to look at google lots but occasionally it is interesting to do some independent thinking as well.
Therefore I propose this third option.
The universe is made of matter and electromagnetic radiation (Energy), they are interconvertable via E=mc^2 and in some sort of equilibrium dependent on gravitational constraints.
We all seem to agree with the current theory of the Big Bang being the start of OUR universe. Reverse engineer the red shift and everything ends up at a single point 13.7 billion years ago.
Now science can only postulate mechanisms by observing, analysing, interpreting and reporting that which can be through experimental observation. Hence most cosmologists stop at the big bang, or rather a few nanoseconds after it, because evidence is not there to say more about the topic. Hence few scientists will say anything about pre big bang stuff.
However I would like to throw a small spanner in the works and suggest there is some evidence available.
Several studies are being undertaken currently to determine the rotational velocity of the universe.So far they have all indicated a positive velocity although the values determined are not all the same depending on the computational model used. Now lets switch on a few of those neurons we all have tucked under our skull.
Rotational velocity of a mass implies angular momentum, remember the spinning ice skater in high school physics. Angular Momentum is always conserved it is a basic law of physics. now lets shrink the universe, as we travel back in time 13.7 biullion years. What happens as the universe shrinks? It spins faster and faster. There is a recognised limit ie c the speed of light. So the big bang was spinning and pretty fast at that, but at or less than the speed of light. Given we have the total mass/energy of the universe with all its inertia in a very small space spinning pretty fast so we have one large heap of angular momentum.
OK.. seething white hot blob explodes gives us universe lovely ... must be a god
Yeah sure, well he would have had to give it one hell of a kick to get that much inertia to spin like that.
Isn't the more logical answer that the angular momentum of the universe is the legacy (read possible evidence) of a preexisting object such as a previous Universe that has immediately prior, completed its Big Crunch, reached some sort of critical mass, exploded giving us our current big bang and universe, but most importantly maintaining its angular momentum completely obeying the laws of natural physics.
So we could well live in an oscillating universe, expanding, contracting, expanding, contracting .... forever. Therefore there maybe no beginning or end. It has always existed and will always exist for ever.
This then begs the philosophical question is there a need for a super creator dude?
Is the universe capable of collapsing?
Recent evidence suggests the universe's expansion is accelerating. This would appear to contradict my theory, indicating our ultimate destiny is a space that is a cold, dead, continually expanding universe. In order to contract the gravitation must be sufficient to pull it all back again, yet calculations indicate we are missing 90% of the matter required (read dark matter). Intellectually that some how just does not make sense.
I have thought about this also, what is surrounding us that could apply enough force to cause an acceleration of the expanding matter we observe?
Consider our big bang again for a second. If we assume the seething white hot ball of "what ever" exploding we first get quarks, the quarks bind in cooler outer areas of the expanding explosion. various particles form and break apart until they are cool enough to remain stable, Hadrons form.
During this stage vast quantities of energy in the form of Gamma radiation(from nuclear transitions rather than normal light far weaker electronic transitions) forming a "Gamma-photosphere" expanding at the speed of light, away from the big bang. Further since all particles as they form, and after the matter-antimatter anhilation phase, have similar massive force, read impulse, applied to them, thus being thrown outward from the Big Bang. Given equal impulse, the velocity the particle moves away is inversely proportional to its mass. Thus we would expect to see successive shells of slower heavier particles. We would have a lepton shell electrons, then a lot further in because of there far greater mass shells of hadrons protons, neutron atoms and last of all chunkier lumps such as rocks stars planets dust etc. Bit like the layers of an onion where we reside in the inner most layers.
It is possible given the vaste amount of energy released as gamma radiation during the big bang, now residing in the gamma-photosphere could this be our "dark matter" where m=E/(c^2)
Next if we have an outer electron shell (negative charge) and an inner proton shell (Positive Charge) is there sufficient induced electric attraction to account for the acceleration we appear to observe locally.
Food for thought and you can't Google it because its my theory. I cant prove it unless you accept my angular momentum arguement as evidence of a previous pre Big Bang universe. But my hypothesis seems to match the physics far better than the complex metaphor of a God, who seems to ignore and abuse the natural laws of physics.I therefore claim it to be more valid than any "creator" theory.
Cheers
a bit like PI = 3.14159............... has anyone found the end yet?
Next Universe, what definition should we use? That which is all?
Or that which was generated by the agreed Big Bang, this may imply some sort of void beyond. IE that which is there but is beyond our current universe.
I would ask the question if this void does not contain matter or electromagnetic radiation, it is therefore pretty much nothing, empty, zilch, barren. Is this a case where nothing = something?
After spending several years looking at these questions I have a third possibility that seems to fit the evidence.
3. Prior to the big bang there was a previous collapsing universe.
Its nice to look at google lots but occasionally it is interesting to do some independent thinking as well.
Therefore I propose this third option.
The universe is made of matter and electromagnetic radiation (Energy), they are interconvertable via E=mc^2 and in some sort of equilibrium dependent on gravitational constraints.
We all seem to agree with the current theory of the Big Bang being the start of OUR universe. Reverse engineer the red shift and everything ends up at a single point 13.7 billion years ago.
Now science can only postulate mechanisms by observing, analysing, interpreting and reporting that which can be through experimental observation. Hence most cosmologists stop at the big bang, or rather a few nanoseconds after it, because evidence is not there to say more about the topic. Hence few scientists will say anything about pre big bang stuff.
However I would like to throw a small spanner in the works and suggest there is some evidence available.
Several studies are being undertaken currently to determine the rotational velocity of the universe.So far they have all indicated a positive velocity although the values determined are not all the same depending on the computational model used. Now lets switch on a few of those neurons we all have tucked under our skull.
Rotational velocity of a mass implies angular momentum, remember the spinning ice skater in high school physics. Angular Momentum is always conserved it is a basic law of physics. now lets shrink the universe, as we travel back in time 13.7 biullion years. What happens as the universe shrinks? It spins faster and faster. There is a recognised limit ie c the speed of light. So the big bang was spinning and pretty fast at that, but at or less than the speed of light. Given we have the total mass/energy of the universe with all its inertia in a very small space spinning pretty fast so we have one large heap of angular momentum.
OK.. seething white hot blob explodes gives us universe lovely ... must be a god
Yeah sure, well he would have had to give it one hell of a kick to get that much inertia to spin like that.
Isn't the more logical answer that the angular momentum of the universe is the legacy (read possible evidence) of a preexisting object such as a previous Universe that has immediately prior, completed its Big Crunch, reached some sort of critical mass, exploded giving us our current big bang and universe, but most importantly maintaining its angular momentum completely obeying the laws of natural physics.
So we could well live in an oscillating universe, expanding, contracting, expanding, contracting .... forever. Therefore there maybe no beginning or end. It has always existed and will always exist for ever.
This then begs the philosophical question is there a need for a super creator dude?
Is the universe capable of collapsing?
Recent evidence suggests the universe's expansion is accelerating. This would appear to contradict my theory, indicating our ultimate destiny is a space that is a cold, dead, continually expanding universe. In order to contract the gravitation must be sufficient to pull it all back again, yet calculations indicate we are missing 90% of the matter required (read dark matter). Intellectually that some how just does not make sense.
I have thought about this also, what is surrounding us that could apply enough force to cause an acceleration of the expanding matter we observe?
Consider our big bang again for a second. If we assume the seething white hot ball of "what ever" exploding we first get quarks, the quarks bind in cooler outer areas of the expanding explosion. various particles form and break apart until they are cool enough to remain stable, Hadrons form.
During this stage vast quantities of energy in the form of Gamma radiation(from nuclear transitions rather than normal light far weaker electronic transitions) forming a "Gamma-photosphere" expanding at the speed of light, away from the big bang. Further since all particles as they form, and after the matter-antimatter anhilation phase, have similar massive force, read impulse, applied to them, thus being thrown outward from the Big Bang. Given equal impulse, the velocity the particle moves away is inversely proportional to its mass. Thus we would expect to see successive shells of slower heavier particles. We would have a lepton shell electrons, then a lot further in because of there far greater mass shells of hadrons protons, neutron atoms and last of all chunkier lumps such as rocks stars planets dust etc. Bit like the layers of an onion where we reside in the inner most layers.
It is possible given the vaste amount of energy released as gamma radiation during the big bang, now residing in the gamma-photosphere could this be our "dark matter" where m=E/(c^2)
Next if we have an outer electron shell (negative charge) and an inner proton shell (Positive Charge) is there sufficient induced electric attraction to account for the acceleration we appear to observe locally.
Food for thought and you can't Google it because its my theory. I cant prove it unless you accept my angular momentum arguement as evidence of a previous pre Big Bang universe. But my hypothesis seems to match the physics far better than the complex metaphor of a God, who seems to ignore and abuse the natural laws of physics.I therefore claim it to be more valid than any "creator" theory.
Cheers
Last edited:
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
Hmm i probably should have quoted the post i was responding to. Basically the post said, because science can't explain how the universe came into being then it must be a god.
I can't seem to find the post, and i'm getting ready for work so i'll have a look when i get home tonight.
-Q
Edit: I found the post and have put it in my original post.
Last edited:
Zadok
Zadok
PI is finite not infinite. It is the finite ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference. It only seems infinite to you because you are basing your ratio on whole numbers.
Concerning the universe: Although I am a big proponent of the Big Bang theory I also realize that there are vast inconsistencies. Even though there are inconsistencies with Newtons Laws, they are sufficient in many useful calculations. Since we have no explanation as to what contained the Big Bang until the event horizon was met I see no reason to doubt that G-d was involved. I am well aware that such thinking does not prove G-d but at the same time we must admit there is little reason to exclude G-d as at least one possibility.
Because most scientists that I know agree that the universe is best modeled with the 4 dimensional sphere concept (a solution based on Einsteins Special Relativity or curvature of space); I would therefore propose that as our universe paradigm. This then allows us to realize that each point defined within our universe paradigm of dimensional space is both a center of the Universe as well as a boundary point. This also solves the problem of expansion of dimensional space that defines our universe.
However, I see nothing in any acceptable theory that excludes the possibility of G-d. Therefore, until proven otherwise I challenge any logic that without conclusive proof demands that there is no G-d and in turn offer the possibility that not only is there a G-d but if you or I understood all the parameters associated with the creation that there is a possibility that we, or someone like us could have been involved as at least an initialization parameter
Zadok
Concerning the universe: Although I am a big proponent of the Big Bang theory I also realize that there are vast inconsistencies. Even though there are inconsistencies with Newtons Laws, they are sufficient in many useful calculations. Since we have no explanation as to what contained the Big Bang until the event horizon was met I see no reason to doubt that G-d was involved. I am well aware that such thinking does not prove G-d but at the same time we must admit there is little reason to exclude G-d as at least one possibility.
Because most scientists that I know agree that the universe is best modeled with the 4 dimensional sphere concept (a solution based on Einsteins Special Relativity or curvature of space); I would therefore propose that as our universe paradigm. This then allows us to realize that each point defined within our universe paradigm of dimensional space is both a center of the Universe as well as a boundary point. This also solves the problem of expansion of dimensional space that defines our universe.
However, I see nothing in any acceptable theory that excludes the possibility of G-d. Therefore, until proven otherwise I challenge any logic that without conclusive proof demands that there is no G-d and in turn offer the possibility that not only is there a G-d but if you or I understood all the parameters associated with the creation that there is a possibility that we, or someone like us could have been involved as at least an initialization parameter
Zadok
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
Yes, but the series of decimal numbers it represents may be infinite.
So you do not accept my argument regarding angular momentum, could you tell me why? True, I agree god or a pink elephant farting may have made the universe. Do you have any evidence of either along the lines of the angular momentum and natural physics I have used to back my argument?
So this paradigm is spherical, filled homogeneously with matter and energy, such that any point can be a relative center or could it be a series of shells as I have suggested, where different points are not equal? Is there another space beyond the universe? Was there anything before the "Big Bang"?
Until proven otherwise I challenge any logic that without conclusive proof demands that there is a G-d and in turn offer the possibility that not only is there not a G-d but there is a strong possibility he/she/it was never required in the first place.
While that is a nice thought to be equated with a demigod, I must confess I would fall well short. Even though we have vaste amounts of knowledge yet to be discovered, I do feel as far as basics on universal mechanisms eg newtonian and relativistic physics I believe we probably know in excess of 90% already, that last 10% can take for ever just like any other project.
One thing in my favor is I have proposed mechanisms that could eventually be measured in real terms giving a method of validation which seems deliberately missing from the theocratic hypothesis's, besides I know a lot more physics than Moses ever did.
Cheers
Last edited:
Zadok
Zadok
I find your thinking rather shallow and childish thinking pink elephants farting could cause a Big Bang - please allow me to explain something in debt biased on one of the major problems with the Big Bang. The universe is far too large to have been contained in singularity prior to the Big Bang. In fact since the concept of the Big Bang was first offered we have since discovered a number of "supper clusters" that are larger by themselves than what the universe was believed to be when the Big Bang was first suggested.
I am open to suggestions that the Big Bang could have other genesis other than G-d. And I will promise that if you do not insult my intelligence – I will not insult yours. To begin I suggest two things be considered:
One is that there is possible intelligence (but not intelligent design theory) involved in the Big Bang.
And two: that you or I could direct a Big Bang if we understood all the parameters with means to manipulate them.
In essence I believe that it is quite possible that there is intelligence that exists superior to yours as well as the collective intelligence of humans on earth. And if we are going to pursue understanding of genesis why exclude the possible of higher intelligence? What can possibly be gained by that?
Zadok
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
Fair enough elephants aside (of course its not pink its gray), my point is that we may live in a natural universe with no need for an intelligent influence. That does not rule an intelligent influencer out of course, but the probability of it occurring to my small mind is that god or intelligent equivalent and elephants have about equal probability of existing at the time we are talking of. But I concede we cannot rule any possible scenario. I wasn't there so I don't know.
Could you give the reference for this?
So if these super clusters exist in our universe, ie not outside it, ie the Universe is all (homocentric) definition. perhaps the big bang concept needs modification. Perhaps some of these massive super clusters collided to form a critical mass, a normal physical phenomena, then gave us an asymmetrical Big bang. Perhaps they are not other parts of our universe at all, instead we may be seeing sister universes, if you define a universe as that resulting from a particular big bang. Was ours the only such occurrence of this phenomena or is it common throughout this vast void we exist in.
The tricky bit is the manipulation methodology. It may be some time before I can just go down the corner store and grab a couple of blackholes to play galactic tennis, slingshoting a couple of planets at a target star.
Perhaps you are right, just that to my thinking the probability is rather low.
It is not hard to find intelligence well beyond mine, but my small mind still asks the question what about the angular momentum, where did it come from?
Cheers
Last edited:
Zadok
Zadok
Angular momentum is Newtonian physics and was explained several hundred years ago it is the result of orthogonal resistance to rotation that must exist in order to create rotation from forces that intend to travel in a straight line.
I did write a paper many years ago in college that forces act within volumes and not plains as calculated in Newtonian physics but the delta is miniscule for objects not near the speed of light. The interesting by product of the math is that there is another dimension to our universe but since you are obviously smarter than me I will not pursue such thinking.
Zadok