Near perfect existence

[Ana the Ist]

http://www.universetoday.com/1455/podcast-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/

Try reading this...it might help you out.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Now I know those will be some rather new and scary concepts for you...but it essentially leaves you two possible conclusions.

The universe is infinite and there's no "outside" the universe.

The universe is finite...and there's no "outside" the universe.

It seems a little difficult to grasp...I'll admit. Why though, wouldn't you look into this stuff before coming to a forum like this and deigning to lecture everyone?

 

[anonymous person]

Now I know those will be some rather new and scary concepts for you...but it essentially leaves you two possible conclusions.

The universe is infinite and there's no "outside" the universe.

The universe is finite...and there's no "outside" the universe.

It seems a little difficult to grasp...I'll admit. Why though, wouldn't you look into this stuff before coming to a forum like this and deigning to lecture everyone?

False dichotomy.

The third possibility would be:

3. The universe is finite and there is a transcendent cause for it coming into existence.

 

[anonymous person]

http://www.universetoday.com/1455/podcast-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/

Try reading this...it might help you out.

Yes. That is what I have been telling you all along. The universe is not expanding into empty space. Space itself is expanding. I said this earlier.

 

[anonymous person]

Because it could be infinite...all we know is the tiny bit that we can see of the tiny bit we're in.

Our big bang, our singularity event, could just be one of an infinite number of such events (because ultimately there's no reason to think it's special) all stretching out and intersecting each other. We can't even see all of our universe because light hasn't caught up with its expansion.

So it's rather silly to sit there and claim that it isn't expanding into more universe. It could just be an infinite stretch of space time and matter. That's one possible scenario.

Literally no one in science thinks it just ends and you get to....nothing. That's completely unfounded and frankly...a little silly. It makes it sound like if we could put you on a ship fast enough...you'd reach the edge and then what? Is there some velvet rope and a sign that says "only gods beyond this point."?

Possibilities come cheap.

When assessing the merit of competing hypotheses, one must do more than offer possibilities if they object to a particular hypothesis. They must give reasons and arguments in support of advocating one over another. You have given no reason whatsoever to think the universe is eternal or infinite in the past, while I have provided evidence and arguments for its finitude. In fact, saying that it is possible that the universe is infinite is not even a hypothesis.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Would not the coming into being of the universe be evidence that there is a cause of the universe?

No, not necessarily.

So the evidence that the universe came into being is evidence that something brought it into being.

You haven't established that the universe even "came into being" in the manner in which you describe.

My Chevy Silverado is evidence of an efficient cause that designed and made it.

You conveniently forgot to the mention the material cause of your Chevy Silverado. Or does it lack one?

Of course the question of the origin of the universe is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Science has no say when it comes to things beyond its reach.

Rubbish. This question trespasses overtly on the territory of cosmology.

 

[Ana the Ist]

False dichotomy.

The third possibility would be:

3. The universe is finite and there is a transcendent cause for it coming into existence.

Lol and where would this "transcendent cause" be?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Possibilities come cheap.

When assessing the merit of competing hypotheses, one must do more than offer possibilities if they object to a particular hypothesis. They must give reasons and arguments in support of advocating one over another. You have given no reason whatsoever to think the universe is eternal or infinite in the past, while I have provided evidence and arguments for its finitude. In fact, saying that it is possible that the universe is infinite is not even a hypothesis.

Did you read the link? Why should I believe your amateur opinion over that of an expert in the field?

 

[anonymous person]

No, not necessarily.

You haven't established that the universe even "came into being" in the manner in which you describe.

You conveniently forgot to the mention the material cause of your Chevy Silverado. Or does it lack one?

Rubbish. This question trespasses overtly on the territory of cosmology.

Ok.

Like I said earlier, I view the data as clues if you will, pointing to a reality beyond the reach of science because I am not a naturalist. Naturalists will arrive at different conclusions than mine.

 

[anonymous person]

Lol and where would this "transcendent cause" be?

Everywhere

 

[anonymous person]

Did you read the link? Why should I believe your amateur opinion over that of an expert in the field?

The question is a loaded one. It assumes I am not also an expert in the field.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Everywhere

That would imply it's a part of this universe and...according to you...came into being.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The question is a loaded one. It assumes I am not also an expert in the field.

Given your responses I'd say that's a fair assumption. Do you have a degree in advanced physics?

 

[anonymous person]

Given your responses I'd say that's a fair assumption. Do you have a degree in advanced physics?

Thanks for asking for my credentials after dismissing me as an amateur.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thanks for asking for my credentials after dismissing me as an amateur.

I used empirical evidence and observational data to come to that conclusion. It's generally when someone starts speaking about "outside" the universe I gather they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thanks for asking for my credentials after dismissing me as an amateur.

Alright anonymous physics person...since you hold a view that most of physics disagrees with for obvious reasons...please answer this question.

Since you believe in an "outside" of the universe...there must logically be a point where the universe "ends" and outside "begins".

How does matter and energy interact with this supposed edge of the universe? Physics has basically shown it can't just bounce off and it certainly can't go through or we wouldn't have rules like the conservation of matter/energy.

So how did you reconcile this problem?

 

[anonymous person]

I used empirical evidence and observational data to come to that conclusion. It's generally when someone starts speaking about "outside" the universe I gather they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

I guess you will have to dispense with the entire discipline of metaphysics, among others.

Have at it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I guess you will have to dispense with the entire discipline of metaphysics, among others.

Have at it.

I don't have to dispense with much at all to poke holes in your idea. Can you answer the question or not?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I guess you will have to dispense with the entire discipline of metaphysics, among others.

Have at it.

Also...Hume already dispensed with metaphysics.

"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

 

[anonymous person]

Also...Hume already dispensed with metaphysics.

"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

Yea.

Well sorry to inform you bud, but what you just quoted from Hume will also have to be consigned to the flames, for it neither contains abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number, nor does it contain experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence.

Way to go champ.