If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 97

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

There was a program on Science channel once where there were these scientists talking about brane theory and parallel universes and claiming to have solved the long standing problem of the first cause for big bang when they were riding together in a train and "brainstorming". I immediately switched the channel.

Birdie should have brought in brane cosmology instead of time travel to paint the ridiculousness of speculations of some scientists.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I agree. That's what I thought you were saying too.

Although isn't it a bit silly and frivolous trying to smack down a belief. It is obvious that a belief is not "truth". After all it is "belief" in God, not a "knowledge" of God. There is a huge difference between "I believe in God" and "I know there is a God". A "belief" is a an unfounded supposition of a premise to be true. It is based on inner conviction and faith rather than knowledge. Whether one believes or does not believe in God, it is obvious that God cannot be proven. You either believe, or you don't. Trying to prove that something so glaringly and obviously not a truth, as not a truth just appears to be a petty endeavor to me.

But I do like the Epicurean Paradox and similar paradoxes and inconsistencies in the belief of God. Philosophically any premise we hold to be true, should be at least consistent with other things we hold to be true or know to be true. If we do have a notion of God, it should be consistent with how we perceive the reality of the world. If our definition of God conflicts with other things we hold true then we are being illogical and irrational. However, if our definition of God is consistent with everything else we hold true, then even though it may not be true it is still a logical and rational belief.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I agree. That's what I thought you were saying too.

@K=> any ideas that could possibly explain "spooky action at a distance"? Just to motivate some discussion, I've seen some "physicists" argue that there is no space and all there is is an ordered collection of objects. It solves the spooky action problem and it solves the mystery of what lies beyond space. We dont then have to wonder about space being finite or infinite. Of course, it sounds alien to everything we experience, but then we've come up with other theories that dont quite square with our view of the classical world. Any thoughts?

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Actually, it was just an analogy. It meant that it is possible for a finite space without boundary to exist. But, since we haven't observed the whole Universe, we can't actually say how it is.

And it is possible for a 3D space to exist without being contained in a higher dimensional space. So, it is possible that there is no "beyond".

Free 😛

I believe its about time we first decide if the Universe if Finite or otherwise...Frankly speaking ...both Infinity and Nothing Beyond Finite Universe equally baffle me ..😆 ..Its easier said than imagined ...Unless one is adequately drunk ... 😆

@ Bold: Yeah but then that ll rule out the newer Finite model of the universe ..If universe is not confined to a higher dimensional space it has to be infinite and no parallel universes should exist ... 🤪

Vintu 😛

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

@K=> any ideas that could possibly explain "spooky action at a distance"? Just to motivate some discussion, I've seen some "physicists" argue that there is no space and all there is is an ordered collection of objects. It solves the spooky action problem and it solves the mystery of what lies beyond space. We dont then have to wonder about space being finite or infinite. Of course, it sounds alien to everything we experience, but then we've come up with other theories that dont quite square with our view of the classical world. Any thoughts?

now let me throw in the caveat that i am not expecting to find scientific proof for any space/ non-space theory, just something that makes "sense". But if someone insists on scientific proof, i'd be happy to suggest we start a new thread.

Once we start going down the "elimination" path, it won't be long before we end up under the Bodhi tree. I am all for that. Reductionism at its best.

Come to think of it, to get to nothing, we have to give up everything.

But in "reality" it seems giving up "everything" is not possible and we will be left with something however infinitesimal it is. This is what we call singularity. There is no way we could get rid of that infinitesimal thingy. In other words, there can't be nothing. Any attempts to go to nothing will fail at singularity.

Singularity could be the place where things get crazy (read chaotic) because you are still not at nothing, only awfully close. So, you do the opposite and expand like there's no tomorrow, expand towards infinity.

In reality. you will never hit infinity because there's no upper limit to infinity.

So, you go back to singularity again. And then expand again.

Big crunch, big bang. Ad nauseam.

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

Free 😛

I believe its about time we first decide if the Universe if Finite or otherwise...

I thought it's obvious that Free decided to go with what "they" decide...

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

There was a program on Science channel once where there were these scientists talking about brane theory and parallel universes and claiming to have solved the long standing problem of the first cause for big bang when they were riding together in a train and "brainstorming". I immediately switched the channel.

Birdie should have brought in brane cosmology instead of time travel to paint the ridiculousness of speculations of some scientists.

K .. 😆

@ Bold: Nice move ...😆 That new model is sure to drive all audience barmy ..I mean WTH ..😆 They must first decide what Universe exactly is ...Why can't they accommodate even the bulk in that?

Also if a universe has to end some day, the Time dimension of it shouldn't be flat. Now in that ( 3 + N ) + T model ..as the wiki says the particles are confined in a narrow geometry along the N dimensions..Which leaves us with only the regular 3 and the time dimension for their expansion ...So they can't expand along the other dimensions of the bulk that are supposedly infinite...Now considering that the bulk has only a few dimensions that are infinite and the regular 3 are not the part of that ..the universe expanding along those 3 dimension should rip the bulk at some point in time and hatch outta that 😆 ..and if it is not expanding ( As against the earlier beliefs 😆 ) it should only keep drifting along the bulk's infinite dimensions ..Which should engender many more questions like A. What fosters such a shift ? B. What forces are active and guiding ? C. What makes the branes not collide / escape the edges of the bulk? ( Considering the expansion of the universe ) .. D. Is such escape possible?

Vintu 😆

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I thought it's obvious that Free decided to go with what "they" decide...

Of course ...But free was previously limiting his view and rooting for infinity ...But that has changed now ..Not Free's fault I would say ..Cause their decision itself isn't final as it seems on many counts .. 😆 ...

Vintu 😛

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Once we start going down the "elimination" path, it won't be long before we end up under the Bodhi tree. I am all for that. Reductionism at its best.

Come to think of it, to get to nothing, we have to give up everything.

But in "reality" it seems giving up "everything" is not possible and we will be left with something however infinitesimal it is. This is what we call singularity. There is no way we could get rid of that infinitesimal thingy. In other words, there can't be nothing. Any attempts to go to nothing will fail at singularity.

Singularity could be the place where things get crazy (read chaotic) because you are still not at nothing, only awfully close. So, you do the opposite and expand like there's no tomorrow, expand towards infinity.

In reality. you will never hit infinity because there's no upper limit to infinity.

So, you go back to singularity again. And then expand again.

Big crunch, big bang. Ad nauseam.