Is the universe infinite or finite?

[Subduction Zone]

If anybody deliberately distorts stuff (whether theyre creationists or atheists or anybody else) it means they're certainly not christians, and when they arrive at the pearlies Jesus will bust their asses..

Jesus said:-"Not all who call me "Lord,Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven. Then I'll tell them plainly, I never knew you, get away from me" (Matt 7:21-23)

Atheists have no need to distort the Bible. It fails badly enough with an honest discussion of it.

 

[KWED]

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?

Because it describes an explanation, not an observation.
"Scientific theory" and "fact" are not the same thing, so you wouldn't call them the same thing.

 

[KWED]

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..

I am always relieved when layperson religionists are able to spot the many flaws in the millions of person-hours of research and experimentation that has gone into current scientific knowledge.
Thank god for randoms on the internet. Without them we would have no medicine, transport, communication, engineering, etc, etc, because scientists are idiots.

 

[KWED]

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

I am sure that the gods of religion do not exist.
I am not sure that there is no kind of supernatural power at work in the universe (although I consider it unlikely).

 

[KWED]

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,

But we can explain religion. It is pretty straightforward (but with considerable variation).
Fear of the unknown and lack of understanding of the world led to inventing supernatural agents who were responsible for everything.
As societies became more complex, so did their religions.
Promises and threats are an effective means of controlling people.
Childhood indoctrination is effective and hard to break.
Wishful thinking can make up for lack of actual achievement.

 

[Dropship]

But we can explain religion. It is pretty straightforward (but with considerable variation).
Fear of the unknown and lack of understanding of the world led to inventing supernatural agents who were responsible for everything.
As societies became more complex, so did their religions.
Promises and threats are an effective means of controlling people.
Childhood indoctrination is effective and hard to break.
Wishful thinking can make up for lack of actual achievement.

Sure, there were a lot of oddball religions and cults around in ancient times (there still are), so God had to send Jesus to tell them to cut the krap..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is no limit to the space of existence, no void questions arise, no container questions arise.

There was no beginning to existence, no beginning of time questions arise. no where did it come from questions arise.

It could not be any other way.

 

[gnostic]

Sure, there were a lot of oddball religions and cults around in ancient times (there still are), so God had to send Jesus to tell them to cut the krap..

Except that the gospels and epistles bring a whole new load of superstitious “krap”.

All the miracles are just faith-based belief, hence the “god did it” or “Jesus did it” superstitions. That’s not cutting the “crap”.

And. Have you even bother to read the Revelation? You think that book isn’t an “oddball” or “crap”...or “crap oddball”?

You say some things about other religions and other cults being oddballs, but you refused to look in your own backyard - the gospels say lot of things that are not possible, let alone probable.

 

[Dropship]

..You say some things about other religions and other cults being oddballs, but you refused to look in your own backyard..

Wait a minute, I regularly say there are plenty of oddball "christian" cults around (including big organised ones) and point out that they can't get under JC's radar..
Jesus said-"Not all who call me "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven. Then I'll tell them plainly, I never knew you, get away from me" (Matt 7:21-23)

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

This question comes out of curiosity to find the arguments of those who make both sides of the word "or". If this is a false dichotomy I would like to hear the other options to this as well.

A few atheists have been making a similar argument to "the universe is infinite" in this very forum when discussing the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is the reason for this thought experiment if I may put it that way. Now before anyone derails the thread saying "this is a strawman" let me make it clear that this is not an atheists position in general, but a few do make this positive claim, thus what are the philosophical or/and scientific reasonings for this?

In what sense…?
In size… in time… in energy… in significance…?

 

[firedragon]

In what sense…?
In size… in time… in energy… in significance…?

Time. Expansion factor. Radius.

 

[ratiocinator]

Wait a minute, I regularly say there are plenty of oddball "christian" cults around (including big organised ones) and point out that they can't get under JC's radar..

You seem to have missed the point that was being made: take a look in the mirror.

 

[Dropship]

Is the universe infinite or finite?

Nobody knows because we're only seeing the universe with our eyes, and the eyes are easily fooled, just google "optical illusions"..

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Time. Expansion factor. Radius.

Thank you firedragon.

As the universe is physical, it is governed and limited by the laws of physics, of which Man knows much but not all, for if he did, the cause of everything would already be understood and we’d have no further questions.

What I think can be said is just that; that as physical, the universe is limited to what is possible within the laws (of physics) that govern it. And, as we think we know that there are things that are not possible within the laws of physics, the universe does have limits and cannot be said to be infinite - in that sense.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[firedragon]

Nobody knows because we're only seeing the universe with our eyes, and the eyes are easily fooled, just google "optical illusions"..

Thats okay. Thanks for the advice.

 

[firedragon]

Thank you firedragon.

As the universe is physical, it is governed and limited by the laws of physics, of which Man knows much but not all, for if he did, the cause of everything would already be understood and we’d have no further questions.

What I think can be said is just that; that as physical, the universe is limited to what is possible within the laws (of physics) that govern it. And, as we think we know that there are things that are not possible within the laws of physics, the universe does have limits and cannot be said to be infinite - in that sense.


Humbly
Hermit

Yes I understand your point. Thanks for that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you firedragon.

As the universe is physical, it is governed and limited by the laws of physics, of which Man knows much but not all, for if he did, the cause of everything would already be understood and we’d have no further questions.

What I think can be said is just that; that as physical, the universe is limited to what is possible within the laws (of physics) that govern it. And, as we think we know that there are things that are not possible within the laws of physics, the universe does have limits and cannot be said to be infinite - in that sense.


Humbly
Hermit

So 5% of the mass of the universe is detectable by science. The other 95%, being undetectable is scientifically unknown as to what it is, so how can you say that science can say what is possible and not possible within the laws of physics about 95% of the universe?

 

[firedragon]

So 5% of the mass of the universe is detectable by science. The other 95%, being undetectable is scientifically unknown as to what it is, so how can you say that science can say what is possible and not possible within the laws of physics about 95% of the universe?

I doubt that is what he said.

But what do you mean by "detectable by science"?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I doubt that is what he said.

But what do you mean by "detectable by science"?

He said " And, as we think we know that there are things that are not possible within the laws of physics, the universe does have limits and cannot be said to be infinite - in that sense."

Detectable by science means those aspects of the universe that humans have the technology to detect. Think Hubble, Optical and Radio Telescopes, etc..

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

…so how can you say that science can say what is possible and not possible within the laws of physics…

See it this way if you wish: if the universe is physical, it will not be limitless, but governed and limited by laws of physics. In that sense at least, it will not be infinite.

However, there is no reason to assume that the universe is all there is, nor that potential non-physicals be governed by laws of physics.


Humbly
Hermit