Existence of God (split from old thread)

[Agent327]

I only need 1 example. and your 'counter examples' wouldn't qualify as such. Because we only have one (inflating) universe. But let's be somewhat practical and use the inflating balloon example. You may notice immediately why it's not actually a good example when talking about the universe.The balloon is a solid filled with a gaseous substance. It expands because the gaseous substance is forcibly expanded. The only connection with the universe would be 'forcible expansion'.That's where the comparison ends. There is nothing like the universe in the universe. We do not know if this expansion will go on indefinitely or that it, at some point, may contract again. We simply just do not know. That also is science. Theorising about other universes or extra dimensions will not expand our knowledge about the universe. Although it may give someone an idea by way of thought experiment. (Let's call it an Einstein moment.) But in the short term this direction is not likely to expand our knowledge of the universe. Possibly we might be better of going in the other direction: that of the infinitesimal small. Which, indeed, over the past decades, has advanced our knowledge of the universe.

 

[onejayhawk]

I only need 1 example. and your 'counter examples' wouldn't qualify as such. Because we only have one (inflating) universe. But let's be somewhat practical and use the inflating balloon example. You may notice immediately why it's not actually a good example when talking about the universe.The balloon is a solid filled with a gaseous substance. It expands because the gaseous substance is forcibly expanded. The only connection with the universe would be 'forcible expansion'.That's where the comparison ends. There is nothing like the universe in the universe. We do not know if this expansion will go on indefinitely or that it, at some point, may contract again. We simply just do not know. That also is science. Theorising about other universes or extra dimensions will not expand our knowledge about the universe. Although it may give someone an idea by way of thought experiment. (Let's call it an Einstein moment.) But in the short term this direction is not likely to expand our knowledge of the universe. Possibly we might be better of going in the other direction: that of the infinitesimal small. Which, indeed, over the past decades, has advanced our knowledge of the universe.

Still waiting for the example that qualifies.

J

 

[Berzerker]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/will-gene-...ign=rss-related&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news

the new eugenics is right around the corner

 

[timtofly]

I only need 1 example. and your 'counter examples' wouldn't qualify as such. Because we only have one (inflating) universe. But let's be somewhat practical and use the inflating balloon example. You may notice immediately why it's not actually a good example when talking about the universe.The balloon is a solid filled with a gaseous substance. It expands because the gaseous substance is forcibly expanded. The only connection with the universe would be 'forcible expansion'.That's where the comparison ends. There is nothing like the universe in the universe. We do not know if this expansion will go on indefinitely or that it, at some point, may contract again. We simply just do not know. That also is science. Theorising about other universes or extra dimensions will not expand our knowledge about the universe. Although it may give someone an idea by way of thought experiment. (Let's call it an Einstein moment.) But in the short term this direction is not likely to expand our knowledge of the universe. Possibly we might be better of going in the other direction: that of the infinitesimal small. Which, indeed, over the past decades, has advanced our knowledge of the universe.

The universe is not expanding any more than it is being stretched or forced "apart". That is theorized. I am suprise Berzerker did not jump in with his hammered bracelet perception. It is not being hammered either. There is no evidence of a gaseous substance although some humans are toying with the anti-matter theory. We call it inflation or expanding because that is what we see happening in hindsight. That is all you or any one can say; and that is, we look out and see the past. We see the effect, and choose to disregard the cause. Sure we may eventually settle on some theory or idea to that end, but humans will never know for certainty in this life, and a lot state it can never be known, but humans will keep trying to figure it out.

 

[warpus]

I only need 1 example.

And you don't have it. There is no real world example you could give of something that is expanding and infinite.

 

[Broken_Erika]

And you don't have it. There is no real world example you could give of something that is expanding and infinite.

Human Stupidity?

 

[warpus]

You can write out all the stupid things ever done by humans and the list would be finite in length, even if you include politicians.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

hammered bracelet

Shh. Don't encourage any more of that Babylonian nonsense. There's already a thread for that.

 

[timtofly]

You can write out all the stupid things ever done by humans and the list would be finite in length, even if you include politicians.

Human stupidity would be the cause, the data would be the finite, recycled material making up the universe of human stupidity. It had a definite start somewhere in the past and the condition is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. In fact it seems there is accelerated expansion.

 

[onejayhawk]

And you don't have it. There is no real world example you could give of something that is expanding and infinite.

Agent327 speechless. I never thought I'd see it. Such an easy refutation too.

J

 

[Berzerker]

The universe is not expanding any more than it is being stretched or forced "apart". That is theorized. I am suprise Berzerker did not jump in with his hammered bracelet perception. It is not being hammered either. There is no evidence of a gaseous substance although some humans are toying with the anti-matter theory. We call it inflation or expanding because that is what we see happening in hindsight. That is all you or any one can say; and that is, we look out and see the past. We see the effect, and choose to disregard the cause. Sure we may eventually settle on some theory or idea to that end, but humans will never know for certainty in this life, and a lot state it can never be known, but humans will keep trying to figure it out.

the hammered bracelet isn't the universe, its a metaphor for 'heaven' and is local to our solar system

I'll shh now

 

[Agent327]

Still waiting for the example that qualifies.

My suggestion would be to reread the entire post, which is exclusively on the 1 example you are 'waiting' for.

And you don't have it. There is no real world example you could give of something that is expanding and infinite.

See above.

The universe is not expanding any more than it is being stretched or forced "apart". That is theorized.

Eh, no. That is fact.

There is no evidence of a gaseous substance although some humans are toying with the anti-matter theory. We call it inflation or expanding because that is what we see happening in hindsight. That is all you or any one can say; and that is, we look out and see the past. We see the effect, and choose to disregard the cause.

That conclusion doesn't follow at all. (And there are plenty of gaseous substances in the universe, by the way.)

Reading is difficult. Sad!

 

[onejayhawk]

My suggestion would be to reread the entire post, which is exclusively on the 1 example you are 'waiting' for.

I specified an qualified example. You had not provided one and we are still waiting for an example that meets the discussion parameters.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

It's like arguing the definition of atheist. Colloquially, when we say 'Universe', we don't mean 'Observable Universe'. Or else we'd not wonder if the Universe was infinite or not. And we do

 

[timtofly]

Eh, no. That is fact.

What is?

That conclusion doesn't follow at all. (And there are plenty of gaseous substances in the universe, by the way.)

Reading is difficult. Sad!

Because the example is not about a balloon being filled with gas and expanding. It is about how star systems are being proportionally spread out in relation to one another.

 

[Agent327]

I specified an qualified example. You had not provided one and we are still waiting for an example that meets the discussion parameters.

A pity you didn't take my suggestion seriously. Since you obviously didn't read my post very attentively the first time, the subject of it is: the universe. Since discussing the universe, using the universe as an examplE seems quite qualified.

What is?

That the universe is expanding is not 'theorized' it is observed. Something which is observed is a fact, plain and simple:

Because the example is not about a balloon being filled with gas and expanding. It is about how star systems are being proportionally spread out in relation to one another.

We call this an expanding universe. Nothing theoretical about it.

 

[onejayhawk]

A pity you didn't take my suggestion seriously. Since you obviously didn't read my post very attentively the first time, the subject of it is: the universe. Since discussing the universe, using the universe as an examplE seems quite qualified.
That the universe is expanding is not 'theorized' it is observed. Something which is observed is a fact, plain and simple:
We call this an expanding universe. Nothing theoretical about it.

I took it as I take everything you post.

Consider how you trivialize the concepts in the rest of your statements. What we can see of the universe is expanding. It does not follow that the universe is expanding. Though that is a popular theory, it is not a fact. There are competing theories that say that the universe is closed. It is even possible that the expansion stopped long ago, but we have not seen it yet. After all, the furthest things we see are billions of years old.

J

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I took it as I take everything you post.

Consider how you trivialize the concepts in the rest of your statements. What we can see of the universe is expanding. It does not follow that the universe is expanding. Though that is a popular theory, it is not a fact. There are competing theories that say that the universe is closed. It is even possible that the expansion stopped long ago, but we have not seen it yet. After all, the furthest things we see are billions of years old.

J

How do you mean, what we can see of the universe expanding doesn't follow the universe is expanding? Every galaxy we can see is moving away from out vantage point and that of other galaxies. These are our only observations. There are no observations that tell us that the expansion stopped long ago (since we have not seen it yet as you pointed out). So my question is: how can you have a competing theory based on non-observations?

 

[timtofly]

A pity you didn't take my suggestion seriously. Since you obviously didn't read my post very attentively the first time, the subject of it is: the universe. Since discussing the universe, using the universe as an examplE seems quite qualified.



That the universe is expanding is not 'theorized' it is observed. Something which is observed is a fact, plain and simple:



We call this an expanding universe. Nothing theoretical about it.

Your theory involved gas being injected into an empty universe, and has nothing to do with the fact it is expanding. The topic is still about the cause.

 

[civver_764]

And you don't have it. There is no real world example you could give of something that is expanding and infinite.

You are infinite. The essence of your being is infinite. The nature of experience itself is infinite.