Existence of God (split from old thread)

[Agent327]

Universe to some people means "Everything that exists". So if it turns out that our universe is a part of a larger multi-verse, to those people "universe" would then mean "potentially infinite multiverse"

Having said that, how do you know the universe is not infinite?

The universe basically means the observable universe. That is by definition not infinite. Everything that exists is not the same as the universe, as the latter is a physical thing. Thoughts exist, but I wouldn't consider them 'part of the universe'. People may understand all kinds of things as 'the universe', but that's not very helpful in a discussion, unless to clarify what different people understand to mean 'the universe'...

I said its possible and I was asked for a link by somebody else which I provided. That really is the issue.

A lot of things are possible, theoretically.. That doesn't make them probable though. It's possible that God exists, and that I am firmly convinced of it as well. That's not something quantifiable or testable though, God. So while it's entirely possible, it's of no use in science.

Too bad becouse I am fairly sure this universe is part of an infinite multiverse.

Well, that would be a personal opinion then. It's possible, but there's no indication that it's correct. So that would qualify as pure speculation - even if it's done by cosmologists. Maybe at some point in the future it will be possible to test this theory; and then it may either be or not be scientific theory.

 

[warpus]

The universe basically means the observable universe.

Not at all, that's why scientists distinguish between "observable universe" (reality as we can observe it) and "universe" (everything that exists). Why would they feel the need to specify "Observable universe" if these 2 things were the same in their eyes?

 

[onejayhawk]

The universe basically means the observable universe.

I would take you to task, warpus already slapped you down pretty hard.

If history is any guide, there is more that cannot be seen than is seen. Consider that at the end of the 19th century there was a saying, erroneously attributed to Lord Kelvin: There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.

J

​

 

[Berzerker]

A lot of things are possible, theoretically.. That doesn't make them probable though. It's possible that God exists, and that I am firmly convinced of it as well. That's not something quantifiable or testable though, God. So while it's entirely possible, it's of no use in science.

I was asked for a link to the theory Eden is under the Gulf

 

[Agent327]

Yes. I think we're pretty much done with that.

Not at all, that's why scientists distinguish between "observable universe" (reality as we can observe it) and "universe" (everything that exists). Why would they feel the need to specify "Observable universe" if these 2 things were the same in their eyes?

Simple: they don't. And for the simple reason that beyond the observable universe there's not really anything to discuss, since we don't know anything beyond it. Very elementarily, there's nothing to observe, only to speculate.

I would take you to task, warpus already slapped you down pretty hard.

Well, he tried.

If history is any guide, there is more that cannot be seen than is seen. Consider that at the end of the 19th century Lord Kelvin supposedly stated: There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement. While Kelvin almost certainly never said it, the sentiment was common enough that the misquote was believed.

That actually says less about science than about late 19th century scientific optimism. Which is somewhat off, considering that the eugenics movement dates from the same time period - and that turned out to be utter bogus. Perhaps futurology isn't really a scientific discipline - it certainly isn't the most trustworthy. If history is any guide, it says that science progresses - just not always as expected. After all, it's a human effort.

 

[Berzerker]

evolution is eugenics

 

[Valka D'Ur]

evolution is eugenics

Oh, I can't wait to see how you're going to explain this, since it makes no sense at all.

Eugenics is a human endeavor, and the intention is to control human reproduction - who can and cannot have children, or an attempt to control what traits the offspring have.

Evolution has nothing to do with eugenics, other than if you mean artificial selection.

 

[timtofly]

Well science is a human endeavor, but I guess we get to pick and choose our perceptions of life. Eugenics is about as fun as climate change.. It all seems to come from the same thought that humans are the masters of their own existence.

 

[warpus]

Simple: they don't. And for the simple reason that beyond the observable universe there's not really anything to discuss, since we don't know anything beyond it. Very elementarily, there's nothing to observe, only to speculate.

You can't deny the fact that cosmologists make a distinction between "Observable universe" and "Universe". They are not the same thing.

 

[onejayhawk]

Well, he tried.

And succeeded with points for style. Try Shakespeare:

Horatio:
O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167​

Or founding sociologist Georg Simmel

There is more to life than life.
​

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Personally, I'm waiting for them to figure out where the lost single socks go when they disappear. They don't all disappear into the laundry.

I have a Doctor Who comic in which the Fourth Doctor finds the Lost Single-Sock Dimension.

 

[onejayhawk]

Personally, I'm waiting for them to figure out where the lost single socks go when they disappear. They don't all disappear into the laundry.

I have a Doctor Who comic in which the Fourth Doctor finds the Lost Single-Sock Dimension.

I thought that was Arthur Dent looking for his towel.

J

 

[Broken_Erika]

Personally, I'm waiting for them to figure out where the lost single socks go when they disappear. They don't all disappear into the laundry.

They're in Narnia.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I thought that was Arthur Dent looking for his towel.

J

Was that in the movie? I've only seen the TV series, and I don't remember that he lost his towel.

 

[Hygro]

Personally, I'm waiting for them to figure out where the lost single socks go when they disappear. They don't all disappear into the laundry.

I have a Doctor Who comic in which the Fourth Doctor finds the Lost Single-Sock Dimension.

Found a single sock in my car a couple days ago. No idea which passenger it came from or how.

 

[onejayhawk]

Was that in the movie? I've only seen the TV series, and I don't remember that he lost his towel.

It's the sort of thing that might happen to Arthur Dent, but was never part of the drama.

J

 

[Agent327]

You can't deny the fact that cosmologists make a distinction between "Observable universe" and "Universe". They are not the same thing.

Don't really need cosmologists for that. But to science the observable universe is basically all that matters. In that sense the observable universe is the universe. You may claim that there's more between heaven and Earth, but then you've left the field of science and entered the Divine. Or the multiverse.

And succeeded with points for style. Try Shakespeare:

Horatio:
O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167​

Or founding sociologist Georg Simmel

There is more to life than life.
​

J

I don't quite see how you quoting the old bard makes warpus win with style, but I guess that's J-logic.

 

[timtofly]

Don't really need cosmologists for that. But to science the observable universe is basically all that matters. In that sense the observable universe is the universe. You may claim that there's more between heaven and Earth, but then you've left the field of science and entered the Divine. Or the multiverse.

You do have a knack for stating that science has the final answer in what has been observed and what has not yet been observed. When one claims that what matters is limited to human perception, even if masked by only the observable, it tends to leave out any of the rest of the universe that has not been observed. Not to mention that humans tend to be blind to that which does not make sense to them.

 

[Akka]

Don't really need cosmologists for that. But to science the observable universe is basically all that matters.

What is this complete idiocy ?
The observable universe is the only thing science can work on, it doesn't mean it's all that matters. There is tons of ideas and theories about the part of the universe which can't be observed, and a big part of science is pushing the boundaries of what can be observed.

 

[warpus]

Don't really need cosmologists for that. But to science the observable universe is basically all that matters. In that sense the observable universe is the universe. You may claim that there's more between heaven and Earth, but then you've left the field of science and entered the Divine. Or the multiverse.

The observable is universe not the universe. We have no idea how big the universe is, that's the whole point in specifying when you say "observable universe" vs "universe"

It's highly unlikely that the universe ends where the observable universe ends. I mean, it could, but we can't really confirm either way.