Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 286 of 687 (522236)
09-02-2009 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Perdition
09-01-2009 10:48 AM


Re: Information please
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes:
That's the length of time we have decided to call a "year" but even if the earth and sun exploded in a grand fashion, time would plod on with nary a blink.
Existence would continue.
Time:
Who/what would count time?
But more importantly what would determine how long a second would be, a day, week, month, year?
There would only exist now.
Perdition writes:
Sort of, the universe has existed for all of time, re forever...but ofrever is only 13.7 billion years long so far.
So are you are saying the universe began to exist 13.7 BYA?
If so:
Do you have any idea how it began to exist? Remember the BBT starts after the universe exists.
Perdition writes:
Not necessarily. Unless you can constrain "eternal" to mean 13.7 billion years and counting. In normal usage, this is not what it means, so I guess I have to disagree with you here.
You are not disagreeing with me. You are just answering the question I asked. Just in a round about way.
I think You have already said the universe began to exist.
Here you say the universe is not eternal.
Perdition writes:
That's the current projection for what will happen to this universe a long time in the future. We're just not to that point yet.
But if the universe was infinite in all directions it would have already reached that condition somewhere back in infinity, if expansion is correct. Wouldn't it?
Perdition writes:
Only if "direction" you are including time.
Time is not necessary. Only existence is necessary.
Perdition writes:
Tehn you're wrong. The inches, meters, liters, and gallons we use are arbitrary units we have devised, and could be considered human concepts,
Here you agree that these measurments have been devised by man.
Perdition writes:
but length, volume, et al are intrinsic properties of something being physical.
Then you give this as a definition of length and volume.
You got some source that gives that definition?
The only definitions I find are like the ones found in Wikipeda.
Length - Wikipedia
Length is the long dimension of any object.
Or
In the physical sciences and engineering, the word "length" is typically used synonymously with "distance"
quote:
What Is Time?
ScienceDaily (Apr. 15, 2005) The concept of time is self-evident. An hour consists of a certain number of minutes, a day of hours and a year of days. But we rarely think about the fundamental nature of time.
Time - Wikipedia Says this of time.
quote:
Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.
Perdition writes:
They are not made of particles or waves.
So time and length are not physical things.
Perdition writes:
They are properties of being physical, they are not physical themselves.
Are you trying to say they are a physical property?
It is said that length, and volume are a physical property. It is not said that time is a physical property.
This because of preception as we can preceve something to have length or contain volume.
Perdition writes:
Likewise, the matter a box is made of is physical, but the length of that material is a property of the physical thing.
If I put your box in a chipper the length, width, and height along with the volume can not be preceived. But the box still exists only in a different form.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Perdition, posted 09-01-2009 10:48 AM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Perdition, posted 09-02-2009 12:32 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 287 of 687 (522238)
09-02-2009 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Straggler
09-01-2009 6:33 AM


Re: Information please
Hi Straggler,
Where was this lifted from?
Straggler for the sake of argument writes:
The universe can not be infinite and eternal as something can not exist without beginning to exist.
So is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist?
I can't find what you are referencing.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2009 6:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2009 7:29 AM ICANT has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 288 of 687 (522261)
09-02-2009 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by ICANT
09-02-2009 1:23 AM


Re: Information please
It wasn't "lifted" from anywhere. I wrote it in response to your claim:
ICANT writes:
The universe can not have an uncaused begining to exist as something can not come from nothing.
So is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist?
And to make my point I wrote :
Straggler for the sake of argument writes:
The universe can not be infinite and eternal as something can not exist without beginning to exist.
So is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist?
So by the terms and definitions you have supplied (terms and definitions that have litttle to do with modern physics) can you tell me why you accept your statement as true based on observation but my statement as false based on observation?
How many eternal infinite things with no "beginning" have you observed such that you find this answer to be so much more evidenced than the one you have been repeatedly and relentlessly railing against for the past couple of years?
Or is your preference simply one of philosophical bias?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by ICANT, posted 09-02-2009 1:23 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 09-02-2009 2:48 PM Straggler has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 289 of 687 (522307)
09-02-2009 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by ICANT
09-02-2009 12:54 AM


Re: Information please
Who/what would count time?
Depends on how you mean "count." WOuld there necessarily be anyone to tick of seconds and minutes? No. Would atoms still vibrate, would things still move in repeated patterns, would things still decay/change at standard rates? Yes. Why would anyone need to measure time for time to exist. Length exists whether we're here to measure it or not.
But more importantly what would determine how long a second would be, a day, week, month, year?
No one. The terms we use to describe/count time are concepts of the human mind, but do not equal time, they are merely the units we have devised to measure time. If you equate minutes and seconds to time, then you're missing the entire point.
There would only exist now.
You assert this, but have not given any reason to think of time like this. There is an infinite series of nows. But some nows have past and some nows are yet to come, this transition from now to now' to now'' is what we call time.
Do you have any idea how it began to exist? Remember the BBT starts after the universe exists.
Nope. I can conjecturize with the best of them, but since I can't detect, observe, or measure it, I can't do much more. Perhaps in the future, technology will advance such that we can do those things, but as yet, the answer is "I don't know." And rather than saying, "I don't like that answer so I'll make up some other answer and then, irrationally decide that must be true because I like it better," I just leave "I don't know" alone until we discover more.
But if the universe was infinite in all directions it would have already reached that condition somewhere back in infinity, if expansion is correct. Wouldn't it?
Yes, if expansion is correct, for a universe to be infinite, it must be eternal. I was merely pointing out that infinite must not always equal eternal, if we take expansion out of the equation. There is, perhaps, the possibility of a universe existing which is infinite in size and finite in time, it's just not, apparantly, the universe we live in.
Here you agree that these measurments have been devised by man.
The measurements have been devised by man, but the things they are measuring have not been, otherwiase there would be no need to measure them. Cheetahs exist independant of us, even though without us, the word "cheetah" would not exist. You're conflating the word, or the measurement, with the actual property.
Are you trying to say they are a physical property?
No, they are properties of things that are physical. The universe has more in it than just physical things, it also has fields and properties which are themselves not physiucal but are necessary for other things to be physical.
This because of preception as we can preceve something to have length or contain volume.
And everyone, but apparantly you, can perceive time. If something exists, it has duration. Something cannot exist for no span of time. Time measures duration, rate of change or motion, etc.
If I put your box in a chipper the length, width, and height along with the volume can not be preceived. But the box still exists only in a different form.
I would disagree with you here, very vehemently, and this is probably where we are talking past each other. "Box" has very specific criteria that must be met to qualify. Being chipped up in a chipper and scattered to the four winds quite liaterally obliterates the very basic criteria. The components of the box still exist, but the box itself is now no loonger in existence. It's span of time, it's duration, has come to a close.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by ICANT, posted 09-02-2009 12:54 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by ICANT, posted 09-02-2009 3:16 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 295 by cavediver, posted 09-02-2009 4:47 PM Perdition has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 290 of 687 (522330)
09-02-2009 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Straggler
09-02-2009 7:29 AM


Re: Who Supports an uncaused beginning of the universe?
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
It wasn't "lifted" from anywhere. I wrote it in response to your claim:
I was just making sure.
My statement:
"The universe can not have an uncaused beginning to exist as something can not come from nothing."
Is based upon:
Plato's cosmological argument in his book the Laws. Where he concluded that matter could not move itself. Therefore needed a mover.
Aristotle's statement "The series must start with something, for nothing can come from nothing"
My personal observation's over my lifetime. I have never seen anything produced out of nothing.
I have seen a lot of things produced from something. A tree from a seed. Plants from seed's. Houses from trees.
So now you introduce your assertion.
Straggler writes:
And to make my point I wrote :
Straggler for the sake of argument writes:
The universe can not be infinite and eternal as something can not exist without beginning to exist.
So is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist?
Upon what do you base this statement.
It is not upon anything I have said as you claim.
I have never said: "something can not exist without beginning to exist".
I have said and will continue to say: "Something can not BEGIN to exist without having a cause for it's existence.
Otherwise something must begin to exist from nothing.
You claim the universe "just is".
And then turn around and deny the universe "just is" by saying it began to exist 13.7 BYA.
Why can't you make up your mind.
The universe either "just is".
OR
The universe began to exist.
Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
In other words you can't have your uncaused universe beginning to exist 13.7 BYA.
Two branes colliding has been suggested for the cause.
An Instanton has been proposed as the cause.
Straggler writes:
How many eternal infinite things with no "beginning" have you observed such that you find this answer to be so much more evidenced than the one you have been repeatedly and relentlessly railing against for the past couple of years?
How could a finite being observe anything with no beginning unless it is the universe.
But I can know that nothing has ever produced something in my lifetime. Nor is there any record of nothing producing something.
There are people who have spent their lifetime trying to produce life from non-life. That is something from nothing.
If you have any evidence that nothing can produce something provide it.
So far as I can tell you are the only person that has put forth that the universe had an uncaused beginning.
Do any of you other posters support an uncaused beginning of the universe?
Now we are back to my OP where I stated.
"Science has no evidence concerning how the universe began to exist."
That statement stands true as no scientific evidence has been produced yet, and we are at 289 posts.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2009 7:29 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2009 3:46 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 291 of 687 (522333)
09-02-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Perdition
09-02-2009 12:32 PM


Re: Information please
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes:
No one. The terms we use to describe/count time are concepts of the human mind, but do not equal time, they are merely the units we have devised to measure time. If you equate minutes and seconds to time, then you're missing the entire point.
How could the units we have devised measure time?
Time is the measurement of duration which the units we have devised declare. Time only exists as that which describes a period of duration to us.
So time as you and I know it would not exist.
Would existence as my pet rock perceives existence still exist?
Perdition writes:
You assert this, but have not given any reason to think of time like this. There is an infinite series of nows. But some nows have past and some nows are yet to come, this transition from now to now' to now'' is what we call time.
Now has no past tense nor does it have a future tense.
Now is what my pet rock perceives.
Perdition writes:
You're conflating the word, or the measurement, with the actual property.
Actually I think you are confusing the size of the object with the object.
Perdition writes:
If something exists, it has duration.
Agreed.
PerditionSomething cannot exist for no span of time.
Why not?
PerditionTime measures duration, rate of change or motion, etc.
So why can't duration exist without the numbers we have come up with to designate how long that duration was?
Duration is simply existence.
PerditionI would disagree with you here, very vehemently,
I guess different form just flew right by you.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Perdition, posted 09-02-2009 12:32 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Perdition, posted 09-02-2009 4:25 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 294 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2009 4:33 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 299 by mark24, posted 09-03-2009 4:34 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 292 of 687 (522338)
09-02-2009 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by ICANT
09-02-2009 2:48 PM


You May Come To Realise......
How could a finite being observe anything with no beginning unless it is the universe.
You cannot. How can anyone witness something come from nothing given that even the vacuum of space is "something"? We cannot. Thus both concepts as defined by you are equally unevidenced and equally unable to be evidenced.
So far as I can tell you are the only person that has put forth that the universe had an uncaused beginning.
Er no. In this thread I am not putting forward anything with regard to cosmological models. I am simply exploring the internal logic of your long standing position using your definitions and your terminology.
We seem to have established pretty comprehensively that your preference for "eternal infinity" over "something from nothing" is the result of philosophical bias alone. Your preference has nothing to do with any evidential basis for or against either conclusion.
Now if you can get past your philosophical bias and look at the actual physical evidence you may come to realise that neither "infinite eternity" nor "something from nothing" as you have simplistically defined these terms are sufficiant answers to the problem at hand. You may come to realise that terminology like "beginning", "cause", "eternity" and "infinity" cannot apply in the way that you relentlessly, stubbornly and erroneously insist on applying them.
You may come to realise that people like Cavediver, Son Goku, Onifre, Lyx2no and numerous others have genuinely tried to educate you about possible answers to counter-intuitive, common-sense-defying problems. You may come to realise that evidence rather than philosophical bias is the driving force behind such arguments.
"Science has no evidence concerning how the universe began to exist."
That statement stands true as no scientific evidence has been produced yet, and we are at 289 posts.
Or I may come to realise that I am a desperate optimist and that you are a lost cause.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 09-02-2009 2:48 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 293 of 687 (522344)
09-02-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by ICANT
09-02-2009 3:16 PM


Re: Information please
How could the units we have devised measure time?
The same way inches measure distance. If we had never conceived of inches, or if we all died out and no one was around anymore to measure distance, you can't possibly believe that everything would collapse and exist in dimensionless space because length no longer exists.
Time is exactly the same. Time exists. It exists independent of us and our thoughts. A long time ago, people wanted to be able to measure time. They first came up with a name for the phenomenon, they called it "time." This name was not the phenomenon itself, merely a label for it. Now they had a name for it, but they needed a way to quantify it. They took the most basic divisions that we can all see, namely the pattern of light and darkness we call "day" and "night." These divisions were the first division of time into human units. Again the division is not time, it is merely a way to quantify, or measure, this phenomenon which we call time.
These light and dark divisions were then seen in larger patterns, based on the movement of the sun through a long series of days that we called a year. This year, we found out, was equivalent, and indirectly based on, the movement of the Earth around the sun. We also realized we needed shorter periods of time than half a day, if we are to use it effectively in a society where there is a difference between "before the sun reaches the zenith" and "after the sun reaches the zenith" and, perhaps, a way to predict exactly when the sun would reach the zenith. To that end, we divided the day into things we call hours, we divided these hours into minutes, and the minutes into seconds. Again, these divisions are not time, they are merely the units we have devised, based on easy observations and necessary divisions, to quantify and measure this phenomenon called time. Later, it was discovered that the division we had called a second was equal to "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.' You'll notice, even the definition of a second relies on duration being an external phenomenon, otherwise the definition would be circular. Duration is a phenomenon of physicality. Duration is time. Duration and time are measured in units we have devised.
DO NOT CONFUSE THE UNITS AND THE PHENOMENON!
Time only exists as that which describes a period of duration to us.
No, no, no. The units only exist as that which describes a period of duration to us. Time exists whether we are there to measure it or not. A sun on the far side of the universe that we have never seen before, and will never see because of the expansion of the universe is still enduring for a period of time. If there are aliens in the area, they may measure it's duration in "Quigglats," a quigglat being defined as the amount of time it takes a 2.4 pound rock to drop 10 meters to the surface of their home planet at 500 meters above sealevel under a 50 knot breeze blowing to the east. The unit is arbitrary, the phenomenon is not.
So time as you and I know it would not exist.
Yes it would. The term "second" and "hour" would not exist, and if they did, somehow, they would not equate to the same duration that we equate them to, but time, as we perceive it, would still exist.
Now has no past tense nor does it have a future tense.
Now is what my pet rock perceives.
But this now is different from the now that just preceded it, so we can say that the previous now changed to this new now and no longer exists as itself. These nows changing from one to another is the flow of time. If we all existed in one eternal now, nothing would change because a now is an instant in time, and an instant has no change, no movement and no duration, thus an eternal now would have to be unchanging. The fact that this now is different than the previous now means that there is no eternal now, merely a series of nows that flash into existance for but an instant before being replaced with the next one in line.
Actually I think you are confusing the size of the object with the object.
You're the one conflating the measurement of time with the phenomenon. An object has length, otherwise it is not an object. If the length is taken away, the object no longer exists. Likewise, if the object is taken away, the length of that object no longer exists. They exist simulataneously and symbiotically, each needs the other.
Why not?
Because if it exists, it would have to exist at a place and a time. If the time dimension is reduced to zero, it doesn't have any duration, and duration is necessary for existanece, it has to be above zero, but can possibly extend infinitely along the the other direction. Duration cannot be zero or less for anything that actually exists. This is basic definition stuff here.
So why can't duration exist without the numbers we have come up with to designate how long that duration was?
Duration is simply existence.
Exactly. And duration is time. Duration exists whether we have seconds or minutes or hours or not. The labels have no bearing on the actual duration, they're just terms we have arbitrarily made up to help communicate and measure this phenomenon of duration (time). We don't need to designate anything for it to exist.
I guess different form just flew right by you.
No, it's just nonsensical. The word "box" has, as part of its definition, the form it must take. If the form changes, the "box" no longer exists. Its constituent parts still exist, but the parts must be arranged in a particular way for them to be a box. In any other configuration and the label "box" no longer applies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by ICANT, posted 09-02-2009 3:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by ICANT, posted 09-03-2009 4:06 PM Perdition has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 294 of 687 (522346)
09-02-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by ICANT
09-02-2009 3:16 PM


Time - Half Life
Time is the measurement of duration which the units we have devised declare. Time only exists as that which describes a period of duration to us.
So time as you and I know it would not exist.
Would existence as my pet rock perceives existence still exist?
The elements of your rock would still decay at the same half life rate whether humans are there to measure that or not. So yes your pet rock would "experience" time.
But what bearing does the nature of time have on your flawed and logically inconsistent position with regard to "creation"?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by ICANT, posted 09-02-2009 3:16 PM ICANT has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 295 of 687 (522348)
09-02-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Perdition
09-02-2009 12:32 PM


Re: Information please
Yes, if expansion is correct, for a universe to be infinite, it must be eternal.
Nope, there's a good chance the Universe is infinite, and is still only 13.7 billion years old
There is, perhaps, the possibility of a universe existing which is infinite in size and finite in time, it's just not, apparantly, the universe we live in.
Actually, there's a fair bit of evidence that points to precisely this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Perdition, posted 09-02-2009 12:32 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by rueh, posted 09-02-2009 5:05 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 297 by Perdition, posted 09-02-2009 5:12 PM cavediver has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 296 of 687 (522351)
09-02-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by cavediver
09-02-2009 4:47 PM


Re: Information please
Hello Cavediver,
Since the edge of our Universe appears to be expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. Wouldn't that make our universe for all practical purposes infinite? Since you are unable to ever reach the areas that have disapperred over the cosmic horizon (faster than light speed not withstanding). While at the same time, having a time that we can equate as a beginning of our universe(12-14Bya). Or, is the concept non-sensical in an unbounded universe?
Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by cavediver, posted 09-02-2009 4:47 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2009 4:50 AM rueh has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 297 of 687 (522352)
09-02-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by cavediver
09-02-2009 4:47 PM


Re: Information please
Nope, there's a good chance the Universe is infinite, and is still only 13.7 billion years old
Really? This is not something I have heard. As far as I've ever heard, the current thinking is that the universe is finite but unbounded. So, you could travel in any direction forever and never see and edge, but the universe would still have a finite...volume, I guess is the word.
Is this now, not the considered opinion? If so, then my entire meager understanding of the universe has been blown away and must be rebuilt from scratch. A long laborious process, but one I enjoy every time I have to do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by cavediver, posted 09-02-2009 4:47 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 09-02-2009 8:08 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 301 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2009 5:17 AM Perdition has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4887 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 298 of 687 (522363)
09-02-2009 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Perdition
09-02-2009 5:12 PM


Re: Information please
Hi Perdition
Really? This is not something I have heard. As far as I've ever heard, the current thinking is that the universe is finite but unbounded. So, you could travel in any direction forever and never see and edge, but the universe would still have a finite...volume, I guess is the word.
You are right in that the universe is finite but unbounded (unbounded in that it can expand forever unless acted on by gravity or "ripped"). However, the assumption that the universe is infinite in your context is that it is infinite in the sense that we could never reach reach the end. However, this argument relies on the assumption that nothing can move faster than the speed of life, which is true... to a point. If you have heard of "warp drives" from Star Trek, then you should know that they are actually looked as a possible technology today (though obviously not immediately). I won't go into total idea here, but the ulterior idea is that such a drive would warp the space around it such as light does, moving space relative to us rather than the other way around.
And earlier in the thread I read about the beginning of the universe. ICANT (and everyone else), if you want, you could take a look at a thread I just made called When Branes Collide which addresses this point.
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Perdition, posted 09-02-2009 5:12 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Perdition, posted 09-03-2009 1:19 PM Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 299 of 687 (522375)
09-03-2009 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by ICANT
09-02-2009 3:16 PM


Re: Information please
.
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by ICANT, posted 09-02-2009 3:16 PM ICANT has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 300 of 687 (522379)
09-03-2009 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by rueh
09-02-2009 5:05 PM


Re: Information please
Since the edge of our Universe appears to be expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. Wouldn't that make our universe for all practical purposes infinite?
Yes it does, whether the Universe is finite or infinite. Even in the classic closed Univere (before we knew of the accelerating expansion) which collapses into the Big Crunch, you do not have time circumnavigate the Universe before the Big Crunch occurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by rueh, posted 09-02-2009 5:05 PM rueh has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024