Question for Atheists...

[ratiocinator]

I'm not sure what would define space from not space.

There is no need for 'not space' - not even sure what you're trying to say.

 

[nPeace]

That is inconsistent with what I have read of atheists, and that includes myself.

Right. Your box.

More irony from the "I live in a religious box" crowd. I have read many testimonies from people who went from being indifferent to religion to devout due to a life crisis, whether it was drug use, trauma, loss of a loved one, etc. The trauma forces folks to seek coping, and religion is a prevalent framework that can be used immediately. The traumatized can find support from religion and religious folks when needed, and the comfort they find is very influential on their beliefs. None of this is a reasoned conversion to religion, but an emotional depenency.

Uh huh. Your box. Your world. That obviously is all life and existence. Nothing exists outside of it.

I'm referring to folks like you who aren't sciencetists and reject science. You do so for religious reasons, not due to superior understanding of the facts. You are misrepresenting what I say deliberately, as if you are trying to deflect from the fact you reject science that your religious belief conflicts with.

Oh. It's folks like me. Identify those folks. Give some specific details.

More snarky defensiveness. Beware of asking atheists questions that hurt.

Hurt. Where? Are you feeling something? Dude. That's your ego.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Is observable universe a (hollow?) sphere?

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is only evidence for things you cannot directly see. so why are you asking for proof.
You don't even do that with science, so there seems to be a catch. It looks like a strawman.

I do not believe in things that give no evidence of their presence, or cannot be seen or measured (Ghosts for example).

 

[ratiocinator]

s observable universe a (hollow?) sphere?

It's not hollow.

Observable universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[nPeace]

I do not believe in things that give no evidence of their presence, or cannot be seen or measured (Ghosts for example).

You do not believe in things that "cannot be seen"? Seriously?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You do not believe in things that "cannot be seen"? Seriously?

Kindly read the sentence as a whole (it is just one sentence). You want to pick and choose even within one sentence?

 

[Nakosis]

You do not believe in things that "cannot be seen"? Seriously?

One need not believe in things that can't be detected. If they can't be detected, they can't effect me.
They may exists but so what? If they can't affect me their existence doesn't matter.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's not hollow.

Observable universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then what fills it? The edge of the universe is like horizon. Does horizon have an edge?
Where do we fall from the edge?
Perhaps the universe is just a film, a balloon, there is no outside or inside of that, not even space.

 

[nPeace]

One need not believe in things that can't be detected. If they can't be detected, they can't effect me.
They may exists but so what? If they can't affect me their existence doesn't matter.

Do you see a difference between detect and see? I asked about seeing. The poster said he does not believe in things that cannot be seen.

 

[nPeace]

One need not believe in things that can't be detected. If they can't be detected, they can't effect me.
They may exists but so what? If they can't affect me their existence doesn't matter.

Because you cannot detect something does not mean it cannot harm you.
Many miners know that is a fact.

 

[Nakosis]

Do you see a difference between detect and see? I asked about seeing. The poster said he does not believe in things that cannot be seen.

That's not all they said. I assumed you were responding to what they posted.

 

[Nakosis]

Because you cannot detect something does not mean it cannot harm you.
Many miners know that is a fact.

So what can harm a miner which can't be detected?

 

[nPeace]

That's not all they said. I assumed you were responding to what they posted.

Yes. I know. I'm clarifying one thing. That's how conversations go. I try not to assume things.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes. I know. I'm clarifying one thing. That's how conversations go. I try not to assume things.

Fine, I'll give you that.
I would have probably phrased it differently for clarity.

 

[nPeace]

So what can harm a miner which can't be detected?

This is why it's good to ask.
One need not believe in things that can't be detected. If they can't be detected, they can't effect me.
They may exists but so what? If they can't affect me their existence doesn't matter.

When you say cannot be detected, do you mean at the time you have the personnel on hand, and equipment to do so?
That would be like saying, before scientist had the equipment to detect X, it could not harm anyone, and their existence didn't matter.
However, that not true. The Higgs mattered to scientists, and any other particle, or form of energy out there, like Dark energy.
Also, an asteroid hurtling toward earth at a time scientists could not detect it, doesn't render the asteroid harmless and non-existent.

The point.

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.​

Having an attitude that something doesn't exist on the basis that one presently cannot detect it, is to be closed minded.​

What can harm miners unless they have 'equipment' to detect it

 

[PureX]

So you reject empty vaccuum? What evidence is there that implies there is something rather than empty vaccuum? Cite experts.

And "empty vacuum" is "something".

Anthing that exists is nature.

How do you know? Do you know of everything that exists? Does an "empty vacuum" exist"

The problem is that your brain is being limited by your obsession with scientism, while you (and others here) are facing a philosophical question. So you simply are not capable of sensibly engaging in this discussion. All you can do is keep repeating scientism nonsense.

 

[nPeace]

Oh. I should have mentioned that one should believe if they can detect the unseen. If you haven't, that's fine, but if others have, that's fine too. Do you disagree?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One need not believe in things that can't be detected. If they can't be detected, they can't effect me.
They may exists but so what? If they can't affect me their existence doesn't matter.

If they can't affect me their existence doesn't matter to me.

 

[ratiocinator]

Then what fills it? The edge of the universe is like horizon. Does horizon have an edge?
Where do we fall from the edge?
Perhaps the universe is just a film, a balloon, there is no outside or inside of that, not even space.

Err, you could always have read the wiki page. It's full universe stuff, you know, stars, galaxies, clusters, that sort of thing.

The observable universe is a spherical region of the universe comprising all matter that can be observed from Earth or its space-based telescopes and exploratory probes at the present time, as the electromagnetic radiation from these objects has had time to reach the Solar System and Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion.​