Question for Atheists...

[PureX]

"That which happens" defines "nature."

I would not assert that.

But it seems like you're arguing that nothing in the universe is supernatural. Is that your intent?

So far as we know, "nature" only exists within the universe. "Supra-nature" may exist within it, beyond it, and/or apart from it.

By your definition. Not by any universal or common definition... or even by any definition shared by anyone other than you, apparently.

You're trying too hard to find a semantic flaw when no one will care but you when you've found it,

 

[Audie]

We can know that such a condition exists without knowing how or why. The simple fact that the universe is finite implies that something exists beyond it and apart from it. And since the universe defines "nature", whatever exists beyond or apart from it is by definition "supernatural". Thus the cosmological "singularity" is by definition supernatural. Even though we have no idea how or why.

It may or may not be that the universe is
finite.
"Outside the universe" is not a concept
you will hear from physicists

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would not assert that.

That's right - I did.

So far as we know, "nature" only exists within the universe. "Supra-nature" may exist within it, beyond it, and/or apart from it. You're trying too hard to find a semantic flaw when no one will care but you when you've found it,

If that's your way of telling me that you're wrong but nobody cares, I'm inclined to agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It may or may not be that the universe is
finite.
"Outside the universe" is not a concept
you will hear from physicists

Yeah, but there are still different takes if it makes sense or not. We are entering philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's right - I did.



If that's your way of telling me that you're wrong but nobody cares, I'm inclined to agree.

What does the bold mean?

 

[PureX]

It may or may not be that the universe is
finite.
"Outside the universe" is not a concept
you will hear from physicists

Nevertheless, the "edges" of it have been defined.

 

[ratiocinator]

The simple fact that the universe is finite implies that something exists beyond it and apart from it.

It is not a fact at all. In fact, there seems to be more reason to think it might be infinite (flat geometry). Even if it is finite, it doesn't follow at all that there is anything 'beyond' it. If it's finite then it's space-time itself that is finite and applying the word 'beyond' is nonsensical because it requires space to have a meaning.

Nevertheless, the "edges" of it have been defined.

Nonsense. Only the observable universe has anything like an edge.

 

[Audie]

Nevertheless, the "edges" of it have been defined.

Nevertheless your therefore is invalid, based on false
premises.

 

[Audie]

It is not a fact at all. In fact, there seems to be more reason to think it might be infinite (flat geometry). Even if it is finite, it doesn't follow at all that there is anything 'beyond' it. If it's finite then it's space-time itself that is finite and applying the word 'beyond' is nonsensical because it requires space to have a meaning.


Nonsense. Only the observable universe has anything like an edge.

As in false premises.

 

[Audie]

That's right - I did.



If that's your way of telling me that you're wrong but nobody cares, I'm inclined to agree.

Winner frub

 

[PureX]

It is not a fact at all. In fact, there seems to be more reason to think it might be infinite (flat geometry).

That the universe began as an explosion of energy from an unknown state into an unknown state defines it as a finite phenomenon. Geometry is not going to negate nor resolve that.

Even if it is finite, it doesn't follow at all that there is anything 'beyond' it.

In this instance, "nothing" is something beyond and apart from it. In the same way that "there" is "not here".

If it's finite then it's space-time itself that is finite and applying the word 'beyond' is nonsensical because it requires space to have a meaning.

Space-time has nothing to do with what is beyond and apart from space time.

Nonsense. Only the observable universe has anything like an edge.

We can't observe an "edge" that does not exist. In this instance, the "edge" is between what we know to exist, and what we don't.

 

[Audie]

That the universe began as an explosion of energy from an unknown state into an unknown state defines it as a finite phenomenon. Geometry is not going to negate nor resolve that.

In this instance, "nothing" is something beyond and apart from it. In the same way that "there" is "not here".

Space-time has nothing to do with what is beyond and apart from space time.

We can't observe an "edge" that does not exist. In this instance, the "edge" is between what we know to exist, and what we don't.

You won't have any luck trying to
convince an astrophysicist you
are an expert, or doing anything but
plating a facile semantic game.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You won't have any luck trying to
convince an astrophysicist you
are an expert, or doing anything but
plating a facile semantic game.

Well, facile is a sematic game itself as it has no objective physical referent. So are you a real jerk now? Or is that also playing with words?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nonsense. Only the observable universe has anything like an edge.

Nice post but even the observable universe has no edge, finite or infinite.
Allah has rounded the edges.

 

[PureX]

Astrophysics has nothing to say on the question of a supernatural realm of existence. It's basically a philosophical quandary. That you refuse to see this is a symptom of ego protecting a bias. In this case a bias for atheism, which you think means that nothing supernatiural can be acknowkedged to exist because it might imply that "God" can exist.

 

[Audie]

Astrophysics has nothing to say on the question of a supernatural realm of existence. It's basically a philosophical quandary. That you refuse to see this is a symptom of ego protecting a bias. In this case a bias for atheism, which you think means that nothing supernatiural can be acknowkedged to exist because it might imply that "God" can exist.

STILL unable grasp that kalam cosmo type
contorted " reasoning" will never suggest
more than that it's futile to try to prove God.

AND, that nothing whatever is needed to
show that a " god" CAN exist. The right
or wrong of that is outside human knowledge.
Those who claim to know. pro or con, are lying.

That you choose to yet again make baseless and scurrilous remarks about the intellectual integrity of
atheists, as if that shores up your argumen, just serves
to underline that it's all invalid premis and vacuous reasoning.

 

[Audie]

Astrophysics has nothing to say on the question of a supernatural realm of existence. It's basically a philosophical quandary. That you refuse to see this is a symptom of ego protecting a bias. In this case a bias for atheism, which you think means that nothing supernatiural can be acknowkedged to exist because it might imply that "God" can exist.

Then why try to use it to "prove"
there is "supernatural"!

 

[ratiocinator]

That the universe began as an explosion of energy from an unknown state into an unknown state defines it as a finite phenomenon.

How did you manage to pack so much wrongness into so few words? The universe didn't begin with any sort of explosion. It couldn't have been 'of energy' even if it did. Energy isn't a thing itself, it is a property or other things. The island of sense is that the earliest moments after what would be the singularity if we ignore everything else and just use GR, are indeed unknown. Then back to the nonsense - it didn't need to expand into anything at all (except the future), so there is no second unknown state.

ETA: Oh, I missed out the last bit of wrongness: there is absolutely no reason to think that it is necessarily finite.

Geometry is not going to negate nor resolve that.

Geometry is the only clue we have as to whether space is finite or infinite. It appears to be flat, and the simplest topology associated with flat geometry is infinite.

In this instance, "nothing" is something beyond and apart from it. In the same way that "there" is "not here".

Gibberish. "Here" and "there" both require space. You can't have anything 'beyond' space, it literally makes no sense.

Space-time has nothing to do with what is beyond and apart from space time.

There is no evidence and no scientific or logical reason to suppose that there is anything apart from the space-time.

We can't observe an "edge" that does not exist. In this instance, the "edge" is between what we know to exist, and what we don't.

The only 'edge' we have any evidence for is the limit of our observations.

 

[ratiocinator]

Nice post but even the observable universe has no edge, finite or infinite.

It has an 'edge' in the sense that the observable universe (from Earth) is a sphere of known size, beyond which we can't, even in principle, observe. It's just an artefact of our point of view, however.

 

[ratiocinator]

Astrophysics has nothing to say on the question of a supernatural realm of existence.

Neither do your misunderstandings about big bang cosmology. I've never seen any reasoning or evidence to suggest that such a realm even exists. It appears to be an entirely human fantasy.