DOOR 17

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not accept that the universe has been proved to have a beginning or that its beginning is of the nature you describe it to be. At no point have I claimed that it does not have a begging.
I also deny that it is a 'basic scientific finding' that the universe began at the big bang. There are many scientific hypothesis suggesting otherwise and no solid ...[text shortened]... s no future. If you don't take the existence of the future seriously then you must be insane.

If you don't take the existence of the future seriously then you must be insane. WHITEY

If the universe stopped tonight or ceased to exist then there would be no future so how can one say that the future reliably exists at all until it happens? For example , if we could travel in time to a point in time 1 second before the end of the universe , would we be able to say that the future definitely exists?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not accept that the universe has been proved to have a beginning or that its beginning is of the nature you describe it to be. At no point have I claimed that it does not have a begging.
I also deny that it is a 'basic scientific finding' that the universe began at the big bang. There are many scientific hypothesis suggesting otherwise and no solid ...[text shortened]... s no future. If you don't take the existence of the future seriously then you must be insane.

I do not accept that the universe has been proved to have a beginning or that its beginning is of the nature you describe it to be. At no point have I claimed that it does not have a begging.
I also deny that it is a 'basic scientific finding' that the universe began at the big bang. There are many scientific hypothesis suggesting otherwise and no solid theories supporting a biginning at the big bang. WHITEY

...maybe the universe is without beginning and eternal then? Are you seriously saying that if you put the average scientist in the dock they would not say that the Big Bang was where it all began?????
🙄

Originally posted by knightmeister
...maybe the universe is without beginning and eternal then? Are you seriously saying that if you put the average scientist in the dock they would not say that the Big Bang was where it all began?????
🙄

Yes I am seriously saying that. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Originally posted by knightmeister
If the universe stopped tonight or ceased to exist then there would be no future so how can one say that the future reliably exists at all until it happens? For example , if we could travel in time to a point in time 1 second before the end of the universe , would we be able to say that the future definitely exists?

But you were claiming that it does not exist not that it might not exist. You said that if you measured the time from the beginning of the universe until now then you had measured the universe.

And we haven't even begun to take relativity into account.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you were claiming that it does not exist not that it might not exist. You said that if you measured the time from the beginning of the universe until now then you had measured the universe.

And we haven't even begun to take relativity into account.

I was claiming that we cannot know if the future exists or not. Are you claiming that we have no idea how big or how old the universe is?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I am seriously saying that. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I must have been reading the wrong copies of the New Scientist , the wrong editions of Horizon , talking to the wrong scientists and generally been astronomically unlucky in my interactions with the scientific media. I feel so appalled that I have been so drastically misled. Help ! Where did I go wrong? Maybe you could re-educate me.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I was claiming that we cannot know if the future exists or not. Are you claiming that we have no idea how big or how old the universe is?

I am claiming that how old the universe currently is, is not equivalent to how big it is in the time dimension. Its like saying you have measured from the north pole to New York and then claiming that you have measured the world because you don't know whether there is anything South of New York.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I must have been reading the wrong copies of the New Scientist , the wrong editions of Horizon , talking to the wrong scientists and generally been astronomically unlucky in my interactions with the scientific media. I feel so appalled that I have been so drastically misled. Help ! Where did I go wrong? Maybe you could re-educate me.

Or you have been reading them wrong.

Try looking up Big Bang on Wikkipedia and scroll down to "Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang"

Start your research from there and you might learn something.

Whether or not the observable Universe is part of something bigger is at most speculation at present.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Or you have been reading them wrong.

Try looking up Big Bang on Wikkipedia and scroll down to "Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang"

Start your research from there and you might learn something.

Whether or not the observable Universe is part of something bigger is at most speculation at present.

This is true. We have no way of knowing whether our current universe is a tiny part of endless dimensions and other existences or whether it is all that there is. However , you and I both know that what we were talking about was the beginning of our known universe , and on that most scientists will say that the big bang is the beginning of the known universe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am claiming that how old the universe currently is, is not equivalent to how big it is in the time dimension. Its like saying you have measured from the north pole to New York and then claiming that you have measured the world because you don't know whether there is anything South of New York.

This is not a good analogy because we know that there is stuff south of New York. If the universe ends tonight then most of the future will not exist . The future is conjecture and not measurable or observable , the past is real and measurable. Your analogy does not make this distinction in any way.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Or you have been reading them wrong.

Try looking up Big Bang on Wikkipedia and scroll down to "Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang"

Start your research from there and you might learn something.

Whether or not the observable Universe is part of something bigger is at most speculation at present.

Start your research from there and you might learn something.

Whether or not the observable Universe is part of something bigger is at most speculation at present. WHITEY

What silly patronising guff this is. If anyone on this thread thinks that the known universe is most definitely part of something bigger then it's me!! To any Christian the Universe (however big) is just a temporary side show.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is not a good analogy because we know that there is stuff south of New York. If the universe ends tonight then most of the future will not exist . The future is conjecture and not measurable or observable , the past is real and measurable. Your analogy does not make this distinction in any way.

Read my analogy again and use your head for a change. You know that if there is a future then you have not measured the universe. So at best your measurement may be accurate in the unlikely event that the universe ends at the point when you take the measurement (or at least within whatever error range you allow). But for you to claim you have measured it even though you have no idea whether the universe is going to end soon is simply a lie.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Read my analogy again and use your head for a change. You know that if there is a future then you have not measured the universe. So at best your measurement may be accurate in the unlikely event that the universe ends at the point when you take the measurement (or at least within whatever error range you allow). But for you to claim you have measured it even though you have no idea whether the universe is going to end soon is simply a lie.

So this leads us to the question - Does the universe go on forever or does it (will it) have an end? If we project an ending to it then we have a beginning and an ending point that will end up being measurable in some way. My feeling is that you like to either chop the universe up into minutely small pieces or turn it round into a circle etc etc. All this is fine but it seems you are trying to squeeze out of the universe some quality that wil make it infinite or eternal in some way. Bend it , chop it , stretch it ...whatever....anything to avoid thinking about the universe as finite and limited because that would lead you to have to consider nothingness and questions like "what is beyond the universe". I find such questions just as paradoxical as you , but I dismiss nothingness by claiming that there never ever was nothing (ie eternal permanent continuity) . However , despite scientific observation tending to lean towards the universe having a beginning and being of finite dimension (however huge it is) you want to try and squeeze 20 ounces of ketchup out of a 10 oz bottle.

(BTW - I claimed the past universe up to now was measurable - you should learn to read)

Originally posted by knightmeister
So this leads us to the question - Does the universe go on forever or does it (will it) have an end? If we project an ending to it then we have a beginning and an ending point that will end up being measurable in some way. My feeling is that you like to either chop the universe up into minutely small pieces or turn it round into a circle etc etc. All t ...[text shortened]... le.

(BTW - I claimed the past universe up to now was measurable - you should learn to read)

Your mind reading is way off the mark.
I at no point try to prove my hypothesis and do not make them in order to 'dismiss nothingness'.
I am trying to show that the first cause claims are based on assumptions that have not been proven. In other words, unless you can disprove my hypotheses, the first cause claims are not proven.
Another thing I am trying to point out is that not all bounded things have a definite edge, so many of your ideas about the beginning of the universe are invalid if the beginning is bounded but not edged (closed in mathematical language).
Also many ideas such as toppling domino's are also not valid if time is infinitely divisible.

Over all, I am trying to show that you are generally making unfounded assumptions about how the universe works based on your limited knowledge and drawing far reaching conclusions and claiming that you have proved them or they are the only 'logical outcome' when the truth is that you haven't proved your assumptions, your logic is flawed, and you don't even have the necessary education to even understand the concepts involved.

As for 'nothingness concepts' I have repeatedly stated and still maintain that even if the universe is finite, closed etc there is absolutely no reason to think that there is anything 'outside' it or that 'outside' exists or even holds meaning. At the same time there is no reason to believe that if an 'outside' does exist that it is not filled with matter/energy, other universes etc, there is no reason to assume that it is 'nothing' or that it is God.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your mind reading is way off the mark.
I at no point try to prove my hypothesis and do not make them in order to 'dismiss nothingness'.
I am trying to show that the first cause claims are based on assumptions that have not been proven. In other words, unless you can disprove my hypotheses, the first cause claims are not proven.
Another thing I am tryin ...[text shortened]... erses etc, there is no reason to assume that it is 'nothing' or that it is God.

Another thing I am trying to point out is that not all bounded things have a definite edge, WHITEY

Name one , I'm curious , honest.