science help: I believe that the universe is finite try to prove me wrong you - Help.com

Explain why you think that and there may be an argument….

What is your evidence for this way of thought?

what would be the definition of your claim.

Okay…..you haven’t proven anything. You just stated what you BELIEVE to be true. Until it is scientifically proven, it’s just a belief…and no one is right or wrong. It’s just opinions being thrown around.

Try to prove yourself right oh Mr. Scientist….

The amount of matter in the universe isn’t going to decide the size of the universe one way or the other. Either the matter in the universe will continue to expand until each atom is stopped by by the gravitational force of the next atom (all though they will still be far apart), or every bit of matter is going to come crashing back in on itself for a big crunch.

There isn’t anything outside the universe. Don’t confuse the term physicists use “expanding” with its true intended use. When they say expanding, they mean that things are moving away from each other; from a focal point believed to be the origin of the big bang. They don’t mean that the universe itself is actually expanding, which would require something to expand into.

Physics fail.

Oh. And grammar fail.

Anonymous wrote:
Oh. And grammar fail.

You know its improper English to begin a sentence with the letter A.

Shepherd wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh. And grammar fail.

You know its improper English to begin a sentence with the letter A.

If you want to get technical, I didn’t even write in complete sentences. However, I did convey an idea and I did clearly delimit it into portions.

there doesn’t seem to be any real reason for this post; are you attempting to educate us? or learn something new yourself? or just flatter your ego and flaunt your arguing skills?

If the first is the case then perhaps you should consider the possibility that there are people around who know more than you, as well as people who know less. If this is the case, then what about varying definitions of ‘universe’, ‘expanding’ and the concept of space as we know it? Maybe it would be worth looking in to Möbius strips, or the Klein Bottle, shape and form and space isn’t strictly what we believe it to be.

I doubt the second is true because of the abrasive nature of your posts, in which case the third is the only remaining option (unless I’ve missed something obvious).

If this is the case then I’m sorry to say that your arguing skills are poor at best; bombarding someone with technical terms, badly constructed sentences and unrelated facts does not constitute arguing skills.

I guess it makes since that the physical universe is finite, if its defined by how much matter there is

Then the correct form of the question is, “Is vacuum space infinite?”

I think what we can know and answer about the universe is finite!

I agree, or even at a more fundamental level; is there something other than finite and infinate? Humans can’t understand infinate, we live in a finite world and so can’t comprehend it, but we know enough to know that finite is a logical impossibility because at the beginning or end of something there must be something else. Which is why I brought the Klein bottle into it, could something be finite and infinate at the same time? Could the universe be the source of itself? The Big Bounce theory seems to think so, but that’s just another theory.

also the univers has many layers of reality, differant dimensions. it may be finite on one level and infinate on another

the only universe we can truly know about, is the universe within

Anonymous wrote:
Then the correct form of the question is, “Is vacuum space infinite?”

Vacuum space is an area devoid of the presence of matter. That very observation strongly suggests that vacuum space is infinite.

can robots breath in space?

…really….

Anonymous wrote:
If you want to get technical, I didn’t even write in complete sentences. However, I did convey an idea and I did clearly delimit it into portions.

I was pointing out the irony of your petty comment on grammar, which itself violated grammar rules.

Back to the topic at hand. The universe, by definition is the totality of all phenomena in existence, physical or otherwise. Even if what we consider to be the extent of the universe is an extremely vast area of space containing galaxies and cosmic matter - whatever contains that gigantic vacuum also constitutes the universe.

And there is no naturally occurring vacuum space that we’re aware of. Space isn’t a true vacuum.

only an infinate mind can comprehend a infinate universe, thus God!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Then the correct form of the question is, “Is vacuum space infinite?”

Vacuum space is an area devoid of the presence of matter. That very observation strongly suggests that vacuum space is infinite.

The premise is according to the following. Assume that matter does indeed continue to move apart. (It may not continue to move apart. It may crash in on itself, but if that happens then it won’t be applicable to the size of space.) Eventually that movement apart will decelerate, and eventually stop. Can the amount of space the matter is distributed over represent the size of vacuum space? No. There is no matter outside of the area that the atoms cover. Therefore, by the very definition of vacuum space, that external area is indeed vacuum space, and it is infinite.

time was made by clocks and clocks are made in circles. and circles are infinate lines. thus, time is infinate!

nice to see your actually reading all of the posts matthew, not just the last two, cause that really would be stupid…

anyway, infinity as a concept is difficult to grasp, but given that you say we can’t understand time or infinity, why are you putting such strict rules on it? If something is infinate it can move forward in time, just without a beginning or an end.

Your arguments do not stand up to any sort of logical scrutiny, and I’m not even good that that stuff.

As far as I’m concerned, I’ve logically proven that vacuum space is infinite. That’s all the original post was concerned with.

There is no god.

Anonymous wrote:
As far as I’m concerned, I’ve logically proven that vacuum space is infinite. That’s all the original post was concerned with.

You haven’t proven anything, you’ve theorised.

I also think there’s a problem with your theory, since all artificial vacuums require a pressurised container. Is it not then plausible that something could be containing vacuum space?

Shepherd wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As far as I’m concerned, I’ve logically proven that vacuum space is infinite. That’s all the original post was concerned with.

You haven’t proven anything, you’ve theorised. I also think there’s a problem with your theory, since all artificial vacuums require a pressurised container. Is it not then plausible that something could be containing vacuum space?

He hasn’t even theorised; he’s merely hypothesised. There is no experimental evidence.

A thousand apologies.

Shepherd wrote:
You haven’t proven anything, you’ve theorised. I also think there’s a problem with your theory, since all artificial vacuums require a pressurised container. Is it not then plausible that something could be containing vacuum space?

The only reason that artificial vacuums require pressurization is due to the atmosphere surrounding them. You aren’t suggesting that the universe is surrounded by an atmosphere, are you, because if that were the case, we’d be able to breath in space.

And there is technically no such thing as vacuo.

I didn’t say I empirically proved that vacuum space is infinite. I said that I logically proved vacuum space was infinite. If my premises are flawed, point them out.

If space were surrounded by an atmosphere it would still be a vacuum. If I locked you in a depressurisation chamber and sucked out the atmosphere, I’d still be able to breathe, you wouldn’t.

I pointed that out earlier Fractal. :P

But what logical or empirical reason is there to conclude that space is indeed surrounded by a depressurization chamber?

They’ve been debating whether the universe has an edge since the beginning of astrophysics I believe. Nobody can prove anything until someone actually finds this edge. Then the question will be, whats beyond it?

Quantum field thoery does not allow for true vacuo to exist. At no place in the Universe is there a true vacuum.

How does quantum field theory prove that a true vacuum cannot exist?

It doesn’t prove, it theorises. Very few things in science are absolutely proven, if you’re serious about perusing scientific study, you have to get the idea of “proof” out of your head.

Anonymous wrote:
How does quantum field theory prove that a true vacuum cannot exist?

It results from Heisenberg Uncertainty at the Planck scale of the Universe, there is always a ‘background’ energy as a result of the production and anihillation of pairs of virtual particles. A field of energy thus exists and from quantum field theory (and hence special relativity), there is equaivalently a mass in the field. As a result a field must always exists; and a true vacuum is the absence of a field.

But why do we define true vacuum as the absence of a quantum field?

The only reason why I use the term “proof” is because religious idiots refuse to think in terms other than that.

Anonymous wrote:
But why do we define true vacuum as the absence of a quantum field?

That’s its defintion. Vacuum refers to no mass/energy, but you can never have a null field.

Religions are theory. ^^

Shepherd wrote:
Religions are theory. ^^

A refuted theory.

fractal.scatter wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But why do we define true vacuum as the absence of a quantum field?

That’s its defintion. Vacuum refers to no mass/energy, but you can never have a null field.

Vacuum refers to mass and energy? I always thought vacuum referred to just a space devoid of matter. But surely there is a qualitative difference between a space devoid of just matter and a space devoid of matter and energy that is relevant to this discussion.

In fact, that brings up my next point. If space is indeed finite, and space is full of energy going back and forth, then why aren’t we detecting bounce back energy? Meaning energy that isn’t coming directly from a star, but instead has gone out, and “bounced back” from the universe boundary?

I don’t understand what you mean by ‘this discussion’. A space cannot be devoid of anything because you need something present to define space. The quantum field permeates the whole of space. You cannot ‘isolate’ some space and call it a vacuum.

Well then the discussion of whether or not space is infinite.

Anonymous wrote:
In fact, that brings up my next point. If space is indeed finite, and space is full of energy going back and forth, then why aren’t we detecting bounce back energy? Meaning energy that isn’t coming directly from a star, but instead has gone out, and “bounced back” from the universe boundary?

And space is finite; but larger than its light radius. Meaning insufficient ‘time’ has elapsed since the big bang for the light from the actual edge of the Universe to cross into our visible horizon. And due to the accelerating expansion of the Universe we will never be able to observe beyond our visible horizon.

In a sense we can actually detect the ‘bounce back’ signal from when the Unverse was small and therefore opaque. This is the cosmic microwave background radiation.

How is space finite?

Anonymous wrote:
How is space finite?

The Universe was created in the Big Bang 13.7Gyr ago. The spacetime was created in this event. The spacetime is our Universe. Time and space cannot be seprated; they are a continuum. Time is finite because it was created at some definite point. Space must also be finite. The spacetime may be larger than we can ever observe, and in any real meaningful sense I spose it could be thought of as infinite; but it is nevertheless finite.

Okay religious beliefs aside… what matt is saying though he makes a valid point…because eventually the universe will quit expanding because if the big bang theory were right the explotion would be powerful but not powerful enough to keep going and going eventually an explotion will stop and it that force wouldn’t be strong enough to keep the universe expanding…

i just used some horrible english too much jitteryness i am wired on caffine =)

LocoLamigra31 wrote:
Okay religious beliefs aside… what matt is saying though he makes a valid point…because eventually the universe will quit expanding because if the big bang theory were right the explotion would be powerful but not powerful enough to keep going and going eventually an explotion will stop and it that force wouldn’t be strong enough to keep the universe expanding…

We observe an accelerating expansion for the Universe. We have known about this for the last fifteen years or so. We theorise the existence of dark enery to explain the accelerated expansion.

“And yes, any belief can be justified. But that is why we call it belief, it isn’t bound to proof.” — Frederik Kerling source:http://twitter.com/wisdomwords

You missinterpret the order of science. You need to give argumentation why it is finite, and how your theory is based from differen axioms.

matthewgt wrote:
For one most people think that outside … of something that sooner or later goes away.

Wrong reasoning; if the universe is indeed finite and its size determinded but the FRW-metric. Then so what? There is not ‘nothing’ ‘outside’ spacetime. It just doesn’t exist. Space-time is all we can ever observe. And even if the mass-containing universe were to expand into a void. It doesn’t imply that it would need infinite matter. It would simply just expand forever, until eventually all interaction fails. nature’s forces as we know it today, can justify a universe in both ways.

matthewgt wrote:
would the universe need energy not surround matter matter can only abide in space.

Again not entirely true, as was prove quite recently with the quarks, the binding gluons in between quarks, constitute out of binding energy. And so mass itself i this universe consist for over 80 percent of binding forces and their potentials!
The universe won’t just cruch or expand rapidly. we have been a the critical cutoff for decades. As we see it, we are currently not going to expand or crunch, but reach a finite size over time. (see expantion of space)

matthewgt wrote:
You can’t start subtley argue …because in the ultimate and utter beginnig time energy and matter had to be created by something “infintley” powerful (God) for anything in this limited reality to exist.

Again strange argumentation. Time evolves because energy is imminent to degrade (2nd law of thermodynamics) As energy degrades, so does binding energy etc. Mass isn’t conserved in the universe at all. Again, it is not knowable for us how things began. For the simple reason that before things began (as beginning itself is a time related concept that didn’t exist without it) there were no things or concepts whatsoever. You can argue that it was someone special but looking at coindcides, and seeing the ‘creation’ as a coincidence. Then it is very plausible, sure the chance is seriously minute for things to work out like this. But if they didn’t we wouldn’t have ever been here, nor any other form of intelligent life would have had suffecient time to evolve. The universe would be have gone much, much faster!

Anonymous wrote:

fractal.scatter wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But why do we define true vacuum as the absence of a quantum field?

That’s its defintion. Vacuum refers to no mass/energy, but you can never have a null field.

Vacuum refers to mass and energy? I always thought vacuum referred to just a space devoid of matter. But surely there is a qualitative difference between a space devoid of just matter and a space devoid of matter and energy that is relevant to this discussion.

Think of a massless space with a strong attracting magnetic field in it, on a ferromagnetic container. It isn’t an energyless field. And even holds some mass due to the energy lay-out. And still it is a massless container.

LocoLamigra31 wrote:
Okay religious beliefs aside… to keep the universe expanding…

Again we are currently at a point, as we have been for the last 14 billion years. Where we will not whiff out or crush into eachother. We are ’safe’ as so to speak. And that is only due to nature.

fractal.scatter wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How is space finite?

The Universe was created in the Big Bang 13.7Gyr ago. The spacetime was created in this event. The spacetime is our Universe. Time and space cannot be seprated; they are a continuum. Time is finite because it was created at some definite point. Space must also be finite. The spacetime may be larger than we can ever observe, and in any real meaningful sense I spose it could be thought of as infinite; but it is nevertheless finite.

Time is finite? That means that time has an end?

matthewgt wrote:
fractal.scatter something like you said can’t expand into no space the vaccum that we both said doesn’t exist because it has no field.

That doesn’t make sense. Space doesn’t need anything to expand into.

Anonymous wrote:

fractal.scatter wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How is space finite?

The Universe was created in the Big Bang 13.7Gyr ago. The spacetime was created in this event. The spacetime is our Universe. Time and space cannot be seprated; they are a continuum. Time is finite because it was created at some definite point. Space must also be finite. The spacetime may be larger than we can ever observe, and in any real meaningful sense I spose it could be thought of as infinite; but it is nevertheless finite.

Time is finite? That means that time has an end?

Time has only one end; it also happens to be the beginning as the only ‘end’ has already happened.

A finite set has to be limited at both ends. Therefore, time is not a finite set.

Anonymous wrote:

fractal.scatter wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How is space finite?

The Universe was created in the Big Bang 13.7Gyr ago. The spacetime was created in this event. The …..but it is nevertheless finite.

Time is finite? That means that time has an end?

perhaps, but if it does, it is asymptotic. And we will never notice or be able to measure. :P

matthewgt wrote:
I already proved everything I argued did I not, not in just my perspective but in everyone’s perspective that thinks with the aid of sense.I just wacth every else argue over points iIalready proved and I still need help with my work.

You haven’t gave any scientific proof or any reference at all. Sorry.

***Time evolves because energy is imminent to degrade (2nd law of thermodynamics) As energy degrades, so does binding energy etc. Mass isn’t conserved in the universe at all.***

Just to correct; energy does not degrade as a consequence of the 2nd law. The abilty of the Universe to extract work from the energy degrades.

Anonymous wrote:
A finite set has to be limited at both ends. Therefore, time is not a finite set.

I’m afraid that incorrect.

matthewgt wrote:
Matter can’t occupy nothing just beacause you think it makes sense.

as far as I know I didn’t claim that either. Nothing as I use it means; non-existent.

fractal.scatter wrote:
***Time evolves because energy is imminent to degrade (2nd law of thermodynamics) As energy degrades, so does binding energy etc. Mass isn’t conserved in the universe at all.***Just to correct; energy does not degrade as a consequence of the 2nd law. The abilty of the Universe to extract work from the energy degrades.

True, I personally see that as a degradation of energy. for the simple reason that to make change, we need to do work. If the amound of work we can substract from energy, then the resulting forms of energy are degraded. it dissipates into universe.

fractal.scatter wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A finite set has to be limited at both ends. Therefore, time is not a finite set.

I’m afraid that incorrect.

How so?

matthewgt wrote:
Matter can’t occupy nothing just beacause you think it makes sense.

Matter is the Universe. It is its own occupation. It doesn’t need a background to exist. Spacetime is not embedded into something into which it then expands.

fractal.scatter wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A finite set has to be limited at both ends. Therefore, time is not a finite set.

I’m afraid that incorrect.

in mathematics, we can for instance define the natural numbers, then yes that is true. However in different sets of numbers this needn’t be the case, and we can fit infinite amount of numbers in finite space. In physics however quanta make a infinite scale impossible. And it is safe to state such. It however doesn’t imply at all that something infinite has infinte beginnings and endings at all.!

fractal.scatter wrote:

matthewgt wrote:
Matter can’t occupy nothing just beacause you think it makes sense.

Matter is the Universe. It is its own occupation. It doesn’t need a background to exist. Spacetime is not embedded into something into which it then expands.

true!

New American Atheist wrote:

fractal.scatter wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A finite set has to be limited at both ends. Therefore, time is not a finite set.

I’m afraid that incorrect.

How so?

The set
lim{n>infinity} (0,n]
Is bounded in the lower by 0. It is not open both ends and is still mathematically infinite.

fractal.scatter wrote:

New American Atheist wrote:

fractal.scatter wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A finite set has to be limited at both ends. Therefore, time is not a finite set.

I’m afraid that incorrect.

How so?

The set lim{n>infinity} (0,n]Is bounded in the lower by 0. It is not open both ends and is still mathematically infinite.

I was JUST writing that.

fractal.scatter wrote:

New American Atheist wrote:

fractal.scatter wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A finite set has to be limited at both ends. Therefore, time is not a finite set.

I’m afraid that incorrect.

How so?

The set lim{n>infinity} (0,n]Is bounded in the lower by 0. It is not open both ends and is still mathematically infinite.

True again, problem is, the physical world isn’t as pretty as mathematics imply. Why do you think true mathematician’s despise physics? :P

lucif wrote:
True again, problem is, the physical world isn’t as pretty as mathematics imply. Why do you think true mathematician’s despise physics? :P

Very true. And physicists hate infinities in there theories. Those that exist are explained away as a sepcial result in physical phonemena.

“However, the results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as the “dark energy”. If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever.”

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni…

matthewgt wrote:
doesn’t there have to be a limit on something to move forward other wise we would be stuck in this ultimate present and we can’t observe the infinte besides God the only opinos we can count on, on how this stuff works and is,is areselves and i’m to smart to have to prove myself with science yall didn’t actually read al my post because if yal did yal would agree with me.

No, we didn’t misread. But you use terms with God, that actually are said to be ‘untrue’ by the vatican. You can have a religious monopoly on the truth if you so please. But you will always fail in your argumentations if the very basis of your argumentation is wronged.
As the matter of fact, I even think that in spinoza’s proof of god, there actually is an infinite axiom. Making your god and finiteness inreconcidable.
And if you are so smart, how come you can’t proof your statements?

matthewgt wrote:
fractal.scatter is contraditing herself you said that a true vaccum can’t exist with a field a filed requires space what do you think is the definition of space definitley not matter God created space and matter and matter is not its own space becuase space was created and was here before matter existed.

In Physics they don’t assume God created the universe I’m afraid. The point is to find more rational reasons.

matthewgt wrote:
fractal.scatter is contraditing herself you said that a true vaccum can’t exist with a field a filed requires space what do you think is the definition of space definitley not matter God created space and matter and matter is not its own space becuase space was created and was here before matter existed.

fractal.scatter is an himself and there has been contradiction. And you now seem to be invoking God into the creation of the Universe.

matthewgt wrote:
fractal.scatter is contraditing herself you said that a true vaccum can’t exist with a field a filed requires space what do you think is the definition of space definitley not matter God created space and matter and matter is not its own space becuase space was created and was here before matter existed.

Fractal.scatter isn’t contradicting himself. Binding forces, constituting for 80 percent of mass, only have their size due to their distance. technically at least 80 percent of mass has space. Whether you like it or nor. for the rest, I can’t read out clearly what you want.

Turning around and saying “God did it” without any evidence, observational or otherwise is not science.

I think he’s saying he’s right without scientific proof.

matthewgt wrote:
fractal.scatter is contraditing herself you said that a true vaccum can’t exist with a field a filed requires space what do you think is the definition of space definitley not matter God created space and matter and matter is not its own space becuase space was created and was here before matter existed.

And I was reasonable impressed with some of your knowledge on the subject; but I’m afraid you seem very unaware of the fundamental nature of the Universe. Some of your comments make you seem like you have completely misinterpreted the fundamental phsyics. And yet you’re rather arrogant that your ‘theories’ have ‘proof’. You have not yet offered any prove; mathematical or experimental.

Further to this, you’re now contradicting the whole of science by saying ‘God did it’.

matthewgt wrote:
If dark energy existed then the universe could not exist God didn’t create dark energy and explain this dark energy, everything everyone on this post I started has stated I’ve heard and read about years ago and have prove what I believe true and the stuff that defied are laws of finite time and space false without scientific proof.

If it has proof, give it to us.
problem is, you don’t. That is the entire problem. There are proofing theorems about god. And all of the sort. And I know these thoroughly. You can look them up. Like spinoza’s proof. Should be fun to pun some bad scientists. But as a theoretical physcist, your poorly reasoned claims will always be refuted. For, it is my job to do so. (and to think of new ones, so fractal, sorry if I on occasion contradict some books) And I am glad it is, because it pays nicely!

Anyways, I have to go. If you have any quations left, give me a shout. I’ll reply soon. btw, ironically speaking, I need to continue my work in general physics. Ciao!

lucif wrote:
…and to think of new ones, so fractal, sorry if I on occasion contradict some books…

I’ll remember that, it could be very useful :)

matthewgt wrote:
I don’t seem to be I am and without him nothing could ever exist and if you don’t exist logically prove how every thing was created seeming hard to believe it is infinite and stuck in a ultimate reality with no past or future because something with a past would have a beginning and something finite can’t be deemed space time because space never increases and time moves forward regardless of its pace it can never be reversed.

What??

matthewgt wrote:
Nonsensical theistic mumbojumbo

lulz

I’ll try to talk to you again sometime.

The shape of the universe is determined by a struggle between the momentum of expansion and the pull of gravity. The rate of expansion is expressed by the Hubble Constant, Ho, while the strength of gravity depends on the density and pressure of the matter in the universe. If the pressure of the matter is low, as is the case with most forms of matter we know of, then the fate of the universe is governed by the density. If the density of the universe is less than the “critical density” which is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant, then the universe will expand forever. If the density of the universe is greater than the “critical density”, then gravity will eventually win and the universe will collapse back on itself, the so called “Big Crunch”. However, the results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as the “dark energy”. If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever.

You know, truth is that there is an edge to the universe where all the blackness may end out there somewhere. But since everything that’s here that exist in this realm of reality is considered apart of the universe then it may mean that what’s beyond that edge is technically apart of the universe and there may be another boarder where that ends. Different levels of the universe may be out there but in away you can say that it’s infinite, as the type of universe that we see is just another layer of an unimaginal whole.

Stop it all of you,
I do not know the answer to this but have wanted to know since I was a kid.
No human being has the answer however educated they are.
In my humble opinion we will be extinct before anyone has the correct answer.
Everything must have an end as us humans know it.
Maybe in 2ooooooo years time someone will have an answer but will it be correct?
Comments please

I skipped most of the replies, I read the first few, but then realized how many there were…
Anyway, IF the universe is finite, please explain what is outside of it?

~CaitherrA~ wrote:
I skipped most of the replies, I read the first few, but then realized how many there were…
Anyway, IF the universe is finite, please explain what is outside of it?

That’s what I just said

Fusion ZX wrote:

~CaitherrA~ wrote:
I skipped most of the replies, I read the first few, but then realized how many there were… Anyway, IF the universe is finite, please explain what is outside of it?

That’s what I just said

:P Like I said, I read the first few, then skipped down to the bottom. Sorry. :D

There is a difference between emptiness and nothingness. Also, we don’t have to prove anything to you. You proposed the idea, so you bear the burden of proof.

Does anyone remember that scene at the end of Men in Black where it turns out the universe is a marble belonging to an alien child?

Shepherd wrote:
Does anyone remember that scene at the end of Men in Black where it turns out the universe is a marble belonging to an alien child?

That was just a galaxy… I think. But it is a plausible idea. I say break out this marble. haha

I thought the Galaxy was that jewel in the necklace? Doesn’t really matter, point is, for all we know, it could be the case. ^^

It is actually proven the galaxy is still growing so guess u are wrong lol

God is infinite =)

God is also theoretical.

Watch Discovery and see them telling the universe is still growing. That there are still new planets and stars being born!

Stars are born and die all the time, just like people. In fact, many of the stars you see in the sky at night died a long time ago; their light is still traveling through our field of vision.

You are theoretical then.

There is physical, observational, experimental and mathematical proof of my existence. The theory of whether or not Shepherd exists is thus proven true. God on the other hand only has the support of faith.

~*Bleeding_Heart*~ wrote:
Watch Discovery and see them telling the universe is still growing. That there are still new planets and stars being born!

There is a difference between growing and expanding. What was once near us is getting farther and farther away. That doesn’t mean it is creating more universe to exist in…

Shepherd wrote:
There is physical, observational, experimental and mathematical proof of my existence. The theory of whether or not Shepherd exists is thus proven true. God on the other hand only has the support of faith.

and so w/ God :p

I don’t understand what you mean in that last sentence?

Oh? So has God posted anything up here? No? Okay, no physical proof then…
Can you touch him? No?
Alright, fine… Can you at least see him? … No again? Oh sorry, then you have no proof whatsoever.

Shepherd wrote:
There is physical, observational, experimental and mathematical proof of my existence. The theory of whether or not Shepherd exists is thus proven true.

and so w/ God :p

~CaitherrA~ wrote:
Oh? So has God posted anything up here? No? Okay, no physical proof then…Can you touch him? No?Alright, fine… Can you at least see him? … No again? Oh sorry, then you have no proof whatsoever.

Yah. I can see God in my parents, brothers, sisters, friends, even strangers!
I can do more than touch - I can hug, kiss, smile to him! ;p

And when we die, we will see him face to face!

But then God is everybody, so you might as well say that he is a spirit.
Still though, you cannot touch him, you can touch and see what you believe he represents.

Well by that logic every human being is God. If that were true, by definition, we would all be omniscient and omnipotent. Observation and experimentation discredit that assumption - so its a flawed theory.

okei! wrote:
And when we die, we will see him face to face!

Do you have proof of that?

~CaitherrA~ wrote:
But then God is everybody, so you might as well say that he is a spirit.Still though, you cannot touch him, you can touch and see what you believe he represents.

God represents himself through others.

Shepherd wrote:
Well by that logic every human being is God. If that were true, by definition, we would all be omniscient and omnipotent. Observation and experimentation discredit that assumption - so its a flawed theory.

Every human being is made by God, according to His own image and likeness. Because God loves us sooooooooo much. We created no less than in His own image and likeness.

~CaitherrA~ wrote:

okei! wrote:
And when we die, we will see him face to face!

Do you have proof of that?

Read the bible. Faith is my basis.

God by definition is a perfect being. Human beings are imperfect beings. If humanity was created in God’s image, God is an imperfect being.

Faith is not proof nor evidence.

~CaitherrA~ wrote:
Faith is not proof nor evidence.

Faith is MY basis. Read your bible, everything’s there.
It is self-explanatory too!

Shepherd wrote:
God by definition is a perfect being. Human beings are imperfect beings. If humanity was created in God’s image, God is an imperfect being.

We are imperfect because we are sinners! Like you!
And me :p

If I wrote a book that said people were born from chocolate milk, would people hundreds of years from now believe it? The way you are talking makes it seem so… The Bible is simply a book. Nothing more.

okei! wrote:
We are imperfect because we are sinners! Like you!And me :p

If we were born from God, and we are images of him, that means that he is a sinner too.

… Especially since he ‘creates’ something that sins over and over again and he never learns from his mistakes…

The bible is a testament of what has happened.
You can write a book and prove it too.
But the holy bible is not written by one person alone!

God created us. Man from the very beginning had sinned.
We are imperfect of course, cause God will perfect us.
God will fill our personal void, emptiness and our very own imperfectness!

Since this isn’t a religious discussion I’m not continuing. My point is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support God. So the concept remains a hypothesis. When God in his limitless might descends from heaven and proves his own existence - there will be proof and it will become a valid argument. Faith has no place in a scientific discussion.

Oh! You wrote you love challenges, I thought you mean that :p
God is God. You need not anything to prove nor support that.
Haven’t you felt Him, not even once, in your entire life?!
I seriously doubt on that! The Holy Bible is complete and self-explanatory.
The basis you are looking at are all there. My basis is the Holy Bible
and MY Faith!

This is not a religious discussion. I just tried to answer back your answers! :p
In my own humble opinion, If all else fails, try God.
Maybe He can have what you have been looking for.

looking *for* are all there

I didn’t say I love a challenge, the original poster did.

Your argument of “God did it” is exactly the line of thinking that sets our science back. 100 years ago people believed electricity was an act of God, now we know otherwise. The same amounts for the original explanation for fire, birds ability to fly, what stars are and why we have day and night. Eventually we discovered the reality of the situation, that God wasn’t magically causing these phenomena but nature and science.

The bible contradicts itself on almost every account. The two testaments completely disagree with each other. The old testament features Samuel L Jackson casted as God, with smiting, fire, brimstone and general bad assery for all. The New testament turns around and portrays him as nanny figure. If things were at least consistent, I’d give it some consideration.

LOL I thought you were the poster, sorry on that!
For me, it easier to love and believe and live that there is God.
It is easier to survive, to hope, to breathe.
My relationship w/ God is a personal journey.
I feel him. I see him. I hear him. I touch him.
From dreams coming true, hugs and kisses of parents,
smiles of children, hope of the poor and homeless.
I feel, see, hear and touch him! :p

That’s all well and good, but your belief has no place in science until it has evidence.

Science and Religion are really two different subjects.
Otherwise, schools would not care to separate the two subjects.
I took both separately in Elementary.

Hahaha!!! Kool-aid is already phased out in the Philippines.
We only have Tang and Eight O’ Clock.

Yah! God love the Philippines! :p

i believe that the universe is finite also. but not in the way most people think. think of it this way. the universe expands in the 3rd dimension until you return right back to where you started.

compare it to the sphere. if you only see one small part of it, you’d think it’s a flat 2 dimensional plane. in fact, it consists of an infinite number of 2 dimensional planes that make a finite area of space. it seems logical to me then that the universe works in the same way. it is an infinite 3rd dimensional spaces that also occupy a finite area.

although this might be difficult to see or understand because this would only be visible to a person who could see the fourth dimension. since the sphere can only be viewed correctly by a person looking from the third dimension, the universe as a finite object can likewise only be visible by a person looking from the fourth dimension.

I’m not going to try and challenge you because neither I nor you can be sure whether it is or not so it’s baseless to be so sure in the first place.

true, but i was just getting the thread back on track. and since when has the lack of evidence ever prevented people from arguing beliefs on here? ;)

oh, I was replying directly in response to the post. “Proving” someone wrong who can’t be sure that he’s right just seemed silly.

iamozy wrote:
true, but i was just getting the thread back on track. and since when has the lack of evidence ever prevented people from arguing beliefs on here? ;)

Expressing your beliefs is paramount to obtaining a better understanding. I agree wholeheartedly. But no proof can be given unfortunately. Perhaps rephrasing the question not to demand the impossible would have gotten a different answer from me today.

In my experience, you have 2 kinds of religious people. That ones that think and the ones that don’t. Now honestly, not many people think in general. But you have several. One of my fellow physicists is religious. It is very intruiging talking to them. they are not as absolute as religious people on this forum. But they do think of everything are not dogmatic. And simply attain a different way of life. I respect these people a lot. For they dare to go against dogmatic mainstream, and let their lives become filled with thought over beliefs.
Cheer cheer!

It’s wonderful to speak to scientists and thinkers who are also Christian. I’ve had the honour. But at the end of the day some aspects of Christianity remains non-negotiable.

Some secular people on here may look at “good” Christian comments and shake their heads and think to themselves; “These people are hopelessly misguided and don’t see reason”

The Christians on the other hand will also think to themselves when looking at secular comments: “If only these people could see what’s most important at the end of the day. You’re relationship with your Maker.”

Science is fascinating, but as a Christian you approach science to uncover the miracles, rather than discover the truth. The truth already lives in your heart.

well, from my experience, true, educated Christians scientists who are secure in their faith explore science to discover truth just like anyone else. the only difference is that for them, the truth is a testimony to the greatness of God. that’s all.

you couldn’t have said it better.. truth for me meant knowing the source instead of wondering where the source is, or if there is one at all

Then I guess I have chosen the wrong specialisation :P (quantum-physics) so many things elementarily defy all forms of determinism…

well, fortunately determinism is actually a philosophical notion that really has little to do with the christian belief in God.

I beg to differ. It might not be the basis, but belief is highly deterministic.