Is the universe infinite or finite?

[Dropship]

..we have actual evidence for the current theories in cosmology and your storytelling doesn't fit with it.

Theories are just theories, not proven fact..

PS- I see this thread's current vote for infinite or finite is about 50-50, so like you said earlier, nobody knows.

 

[ratiocinator]

Theories are just theories, not proven fact..

Oh no, not this again!

'Theory', in the context of science, doesn't mean the same as it does in colloquial English.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.​

-- Scientific theory​

Theories are as good as explanations get in science. They never become facts. Facts are just raw observations or experimental results.

 

[ratiocinator]

PS- I see this thread's current vote for infinite or finite is about 50-50, so like you said earlier, nobody knows.

While it is true that nobody knows, it doesn't get decided by a poll on some religious forum. I didn't vote, because I don't know, and neither does anybody else. There isn't even a count of people who would (correctly) state that they don't know.

 

[Dropship]

While it is true that nobody knows, it doesn't get decided by a poll on some religious forum. I didn't vote, because I don't know, and neither does anybody else. There isn't even a count of people who would (correctly) state that they don't know.

Yes but like I said earlier, it's FUN to speculate, theorise and make guesses and hunches, for example I could speculate that the woman in the chip shop fancies me..

 

[gnostic]

Theories are just theories, not proven fact..

Do not confuse everyday usage of the word “theory” by non-science people with “scientific theory”.

A scientific theory is an explanation (plus predictions) of the observations of "fact".

Facts are the physical phenomena or natural phenomena, in which scientists are trying to explain (A) WHAT they are and (B) HOW they work.

These facts are evidence.

The evidence are being “observed”, and the observations provide data (raw information) required to test if the theory (explanations plus predictions) is -

(A) correct and PROBABLE, or
(B) incorrect and IMPROBABLE.​

Did you notice that I used words and highlighted “probable” and “improbable”, instead of possible and impossible?

That’s because science relied on the numbers of independent observations of independent evidence as possible. It is all the evidence gathered (observations or tests carried out) that determine if the theory is correct or incorrect, not proofs.

Proofs are logical models or logical statements that you usual see as expressed as mathematical equations, or formulas, that contain numbers, variables, constants or metrics. These equations are used in the explanation part and prediction part of hypothesis or scientific theory.

As part of the explanations/predictions, the equations (proofs) needed to be tested too. Like the explanations or predictions, the mathematical equations (proofs) could be potentially be wrong.

When scientists and mathematicians use the word “prove” or “proven”, they are referring to the equations (proofs), not the physical evidence.

When mathematicians use the word, “prove”, they are actually trying to “solve” the equations.

Most people who never studied science or who were good with science, often confuse “proofs” with “evidence”, but for both mathematicians and scientists, they have completely different meanings, and they are not synonymous terms.

Science don’t rely on “proofs”, science don’t try to “prove” anything!

Lastly, do you remember when I use the word “data” as “raw information”.

What I mean by data, is that when scientists observe the evidence, or perform experiments, the evidence will and should provide information about the evidence, and the observations should contain the following information -

• should provide measurements,
• should have properties that can be observed,
• you should be to compare and test the one evidence against the others,
• and you should be able to quantify the numbers of evidence.

The data is part of the evidence. And data are used in hypothesis or theory, to determine if the explanations/predictions/equations are true/probable or false/improbable.

A scientific theory is tested explanations/predictions, that have satisfied the three essential requirements of “being science”:

1. Falsifiability,
2. Scientific Method &
3. Peer Review.

A hypothesis is like a draft explanation, that either haven’t been tested yet, or undergoing tests. A hypothesis has the potential of becoming a scientific theory, but only if passed all three requirements.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Topic title- Is the universe infinite or finite?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Well if it began as the Big Bang and started expanding like explosions do, its furthest edge (which is still expanding) must be finite, and everything beyond that edge must be a totally empty "void"
We could therefore regarding the universe as an "expanding bubble" in a void of nothingness.

There is no evidence that there is nothing anywhere, only in the imagination.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While it is true that nobody knows, it doesn't get decided by a poll on some religious forum. I didn't vote, because I don't know, and neither does anybody else. There isn't even a count of people who would (correctly) state that they don't know.

Well I know, but I ain't telling

 

[Dropship]

..A scientific theory is an explanation (plus predictions) of the observations of "fact"..

Thanks, so why isn't the 'Theory of Evolution' called the 'Fact of Evolution?
I thought Dawkins had got it all neatly tied up in pink ribbons?

 

[Dropship]

There is no evidence that there is nothing anywhere, only in the imagination.

That may be..
Perhaps the universe doesn't even exist and is just an illusion or dream.
Wait, I feel a speculation coming on !-
Perhaps Jesus was a 'Master of the Art of Dream Manipulation', able to bend this dream we call "reality" to produce what looked like "miracles" to people.
And here's the kicker- he said we could do that too if we had the knack.
Perhaps prayer is "thought pressure" that can influence the reality/dream?
Oops sorry was I rambling?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks, so why isn't the 'Theory of Evolution' called the 'Fact of Evolution?
I thought Dawkins had got it all neatly tied up in pink ribbons?

It is called that too. Is gravity a fact? So is evolution. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.

 

[Dropship]

It is called that too. Is gravity a fact? So is evolution. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.

I bought Dawkins 'Climbing Mount Improbable' some years ago expecting to see the theory of evolution neatly presented in watertight fashion, but was surprised to find it was full of holes, wild guesses and missing links.
I wrote to Dawkins to express my disappointment and he replied "Of course its full of missing links".
We exchanged a couple more letters and I like to think I won our little debate when I said "God created everything including evolution". He had no reply to that..

 

[gnostic]

Thanks, so why isn't the 'Theory of Evolution' called the 'Fact of Evolution?
I thought Dawkins had got it all neatly tied up in pink ribbons?

Theory is “tested” knowledge...

”...knowledge” as in explanatory information. In another word, theory is explanations of observed facts (eg evidence, or test results from experiments).

Tested as in evidence discovered or experiments performed...all of them (all forms of observations, eg evidence, experiments), observations of natural or physical phenomena.

The theory itself, isn’t fact, but theory does “explain” WHAT this fact is and “explain” HOW does this fact work.

The theory isn’t fact, but it contained factual knowledge.

Do you get it now?

A scientific theory is the the accepted explanation or accepted knowledge, because it pass all three requirements that I have already mentioned (eg Falsifiability, Scientific Method & Peer Review).

A scientific theory is more than just assumptions, conjectures or speculation, because the explanations have been tested and verified as being probable.

I don’t like repeating myself. But I probably gave you too much information in my previous reply.

Dawkins?

Dawkins is only one among thousands of biologists.

Dawkins is a great biologist, when he explaining what Evolution is, but only when he isn’t talking about atheism vs theism.

Evolution have nothing to do with atheism or with theism. Evolution isn’t a religion.

Beside that, I don’t rely on Dawkins for my information on Evolution.

Evolution is a tested theory that explained biodiversity of life over time, eg adaption, speciation, etc, as the results one of known evolutionary mechanisms (eg Mutations, Genetic Drift or Natural Selection, etc).

Newton’s theory on motion, gravity and forces, Einstein’s theory on Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Maxwell’s theory on electromagnetism, Germ Theory, Nuclear Physics, are all accepted scientific theories that have nothing to do with religion, theism or atheism, AND YET creationists like yourself, have tried to equate Evolution as a religion.

Why do creationists make such a bloody fuss about Evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I bought Dawkins 'Climbing Mount Improbable' some years ago expecting to see the theory of evolution neatly presented in watertight fashion, but was surprised to find it was full of holes, wild guesses and missing links.
I wrote to Dawkins to express my disappointment and he replied "Of course its full of missing links".
We exchanged a couple more letters and I like to think I won our little debate when I said "God created everything including evolution". He had no reply to that..

What supposed "holes". Now there may be holes in your understanding, That does not mean that there are holes in the theory..

So I assume that by your standards you have decided that gravity is not real either. I would not want to falsely accuse you of being inconsistent.

 

[Dropship]

What supposed "holes". Now there may be holes in your understanding, That does not mean that there are holes in the theory..
So I assume that by your standards you have decided that gravity is not real either. I would not want to falsely accuse you of being inconsistent.

For example in Dawkins 'Climbing Mount improbable', I was hoping for a detailed step-by-step explanation of the evolution of birds, but all I got on page 126 was "Perhaps birds began flying by leaping off the ground"..

 

[ratiocinator]

For example in Dawkins 'Climbing Mount improbable', I was hoping for a detailed step-by-step explanation of the evolution of birds, but all I got on page 126 was "Perhaps birds began flying by leaping off the ground"..

There's an entire chapter titled "Getting Off the Ground", and reducing it to this is a gross misrepresentation.

 

[Dropship]

There's hope for Dawkins yet..-

 

[ratiocinator]

There's hope for Dawkins yet..-

I don't believe he's ever said anything else. It applies to most atheists (in my experience).

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:

1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a "6", though when interviewed by Bill Maher and later by Anthony Kenny, he suggested "6.9" to be more accurate.​

-- Spectrum of theistic probability
​

 

[Dropship]

I think Dawkins (like all scientists) has the God-given gift of curiosity about life and the universe, wanting to get everything neatly explained.
That's great because it advances human knowledge and long may they continue.
But the downside for them is that because they can't scientifically explain religion, they feel uncomfortable with it and many of them attack it, e.g.-

Personally i suppose I could call myself a scientist because at school I got College of Preceptors exam passes in General Science and Advanced Science and went on to work in labs.
However far from dismissing religion, I became fascinated with it, notably Jesus's 37 miracles which I regard as a "Superscience" that we know nothing about..

He said- "I am not of this world ...though you do not believe me, believe the miracles...." (John 8:23,John 10:38)

 

[Subduction Zone]

For example in Dawkins 'Climbing Mount improbable', I was hoping for a detailed step-by-step explanation of the evolution of birds, but all I got on page 126 was "Perhaps birds began flying by leaping off the ground"..

An unexplained problem is not a hole. Recognizing unexplained problems is the first step in solving them. You might want to check the latest literature on this problem. And it is a rather minor one. Whether they started in trees and glided and the flew or started on the ground and ran and hopped we are very sure that birds are dinosaurs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's hope for Dawkins yet..-

View attachment 56110

Unlike most Christians he is merely honest. Can you say that Jesus may never have existed, or that if he did he may have been just a man and the stories of him appear to be legend?