God the middleman

[Paulomycin]

Yes, put up or shut up. Prove your claims.

Which one? You're failing to specify, as usual. And that just makes you look dodgy. This is a public forum; not a private chat.

I already did. And timestamps are included in the hyperlink that accompanies every quote.

That doesn't mean you posted a direct quote of me "complaining" about atheists refusing to prove a negative. You have zero evidence of such. And saying "I already did," isn't evidence either.

So you refuse for no reason. Got it.

Pay attention: You have no specific cases where I allegedly refused to support my claims, nor any specific claims in-particular, for that matter.

 

[gaara4158]

It has both traits of an effect.

You cannot demonstrate that.

 

[Moral Orel]

Which one? You're failing to specify, as usual. And that just makes you look dodgy. This is a public forum; not a private chat.

The one we've been talking about. Pay attention.

That doesn't mean you posted a direct quote of me "complaining" about atheists refusing to prove a negative. You have zero evidence of such. And saying "I already did," isn't evidence either.

I'm not going to re-prove the same thing over and over again.

Pay attention: You have no specific cases where I allegedly refused to support my claims, nor any specific claims in-particular, for that matter.

Yes, I already proved it. I'm not going to re-prove things over and over again.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What evidence do you have that the universe is finite?

Scientists tell us that our universe has no edge. There is no place where an observer could stand and see nothing but nothing in one direction, and nothing but universe in the other direction. Do you agree?

That basically leaves us with two options. 1) Either our universe is infinite, or 2) Our universe bends back on itself in a giant arc in all directions. If you had a telescope that could see far enough, and there were no obstructions, in whatever direction you looked through that telescope you would see the back of your head. It would be sorta like traveling around the equator, and ending up back where you started at.

As I understand it, the evidence for #2 is weak. First, there is not enough mass in the known universe to make light bend back on itself in a big arc. And second, all attempts to see the same galaxy when looking in opposite directions have failed.

It is possible that #2 is still true. There could be mass out there that we don't know about. It is possible that the arc of the universe is so big that our observations are not able to see the whole way around.

Or it is possible our universe it is infinite. We don't know.

If the arc of the universe is so big that there are galaxies out there that we cannot possibly see, then we have no idea how big that arc is, and how many galaxies might be in that unobservable reason. Even if the universe bends back on itself, the total universe out there may completely dwarf the minute portion we see.

So any attempt to argue anything based on the limited universe we see is incomplete. The universe that began with the Big Bang could be much bigger than what we can see.

All that deals only with the universe that began with the Big Bang. We have no way of telling if there were other Big Bangs, or other aspects of nature in a completely different spacetime from our nature.

We don't know.

Also, if you make a large enough triangle on the earth it's possible to have 270° (three right angles). We've constructed large triangles in space and the sum of the angles is apparently 180°, indicating either that the universe is flat and infinite or that it is finite but so large that our instruments cannot determine the curvature at the current levels of precision.

 

[Paulomycin]

The one we've been talking about. Pay attention.

^ Still (yet) more failure to specify.

I'm not going to re-prove the same thing over and over again.

That's because you didn't prove anything to begin with.

Yes, I already proved it. I'm not going to re-prove things over and over again.

Because atheist assertions are. . .

 

[Moral Orel]

^ Still (yet) more failure to specify.

If you paid attention you wouldn't be asking me to tell you the same things over and over again.

That's because you didn't prove anything to begin with.

Because apologist assertions are. . .

 

[Paulomycin]

If you paid attention you wouldn't be asking me to tell you the same things over and over again.

I'm making myself vulnerable and asking you to directly cite a past post that I may have overlooked. In other words, you can't do that.

Because apologist assertions are [magic]

I don't believe in magic. "Magic" is a mystical unknown energy or force. I oppose mysticism and I never appeal to the unknown.

"Omnipotence" however, is knowable.

Thus, both completely different and distinct claims.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm making myself vulnerable and asking you to directly cite a past post that I may have overlooked.

Pretending as though it hasn't already happened doesn't make it so. This whole exchange started because of me pointing out you refusing to defend your claims. Pay attention.

 

[Paulomycin]

Pretending as though it hasn't already happened doesn't make it so. This whole exchange started because of me pointing out you refusing to defend your claims. Pay attention.

Asserting "it happened" doesn't make it so without evidence. Without the exact post number and direct verbatum quote, I can safely conclude you're faking it.

Bare assertions to the contrary just make you look that much worse. That's why I'm entertaining them.

 

[Moral Orel]

Asserting "it happened" doesn't make it so without evidence

I'm not going to prove you wrong, and then prove that I proved you wrong, and then prove that I proved that I proved you wrong...

Bare assertions to the contrary just make you look that much worse. That's why I'm entertaining them.

No, you're pretending I didn't already show you the proof because you figure some folk won't look back through the thread to see it. You lost, get over it.

Do you have anything valuable to contribute to anything about anything or is this all you've got?

 

[Ed1wolf]

What evidence do you have that the universe is finite?

Dark matter will prevent the universe from existing infinitely, it will die a heat death. The remnants could potentially exist forever if there is no God.

dm: Scientists tell us that our universe has no edge. There is no place where an observer could stand and see nothing but nothing in one direction, and nothing but universe in the other direction. Do you agree?

Yes, but it does have a beginning. There was a point in time, t = 0 when it did not exist.

dm: That basically leaves us with two options. 1) Either our universe is infinite, or 2) Our universe bends back on itself in a giant arc in all directions. If you had a telescope that could see far enough, and there were no obstructions, in whatever direction you looked through that telescope you would see the back of your head. It would be sorta like traveling around the equator, and ending up back where you started at.

No, it is like a surface that is expanding like a stretching tent or balloon surface, just as the Bible teaches.

dm: As I understand it, the evidence for #2 is weak. First, there is not enough mass in the known universe to make light bend back on itself in a big arc. And second, all attempts to see the same galaxy when looking in opposite directions have failed.

It is possible that #2 is still true. There could be mass out there that we don't know about. It is possible that the arc of the universe is so big that our observations are not able to see the whole way around.

Or it is possible our universe it is infinite. We don't know.

Maybe but again with the discovery of dark matter, the evidence is that the universe as we know it will not last infinitely, it will die a heat death. And it definitely did not exist infinitely into the past for the reason I stated above and also we would have never reached the present.

dm: If the arc of the universe is so big that there are galaxies out there that we cannot possibly see, then we have no idea how big that arc is, and how many galaxies might be in that unobservable reason. Even if the universe bends back on itself, the total universe out there may completely dwarf the minute portion we see.

I am not claiming that we can see everything in the universe, it is much too large. But just because we cannot see everything in the universe does not mean that it is infinite in length of existence or size.

dm: So any attempt to argue anything based on the limited universe we see is incomplete. The universe that began with the Big Bang could be much bigger than what we can see.

All that deals only with the universe that began with the Big Bang. We have no way of telling if there were other Big Bangs, or other aspects of nature in a completely different spacetime from our nature.

We don't know.

Again I am not claiming we can see the entire universe, though remnants of the big bang is observable. And there is no real evidence that there were other big bangs.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'm not going to prove you wrong, and then prove that I proved you wrong, and then prove that I proved that I proved you wrong...

^ Still no post number and no direct verbatum quotes. You never proved anything.

No, you're pretending I didn't already show you the proof because you figure some folk won't look back through the thread to see it. You lost, get over it.

Vague. Which specific post number?

Do you have anything valuable to contribute to anything about anything or is this all you've got?

This is entirely your cheap diversion. You first.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You cannot demonstrate that.

The BB theory says it had a definite beginning and is expanding. Of Course you are free to reject the BB theory.

 

[Moral Orel]

Do you have anything valuable to contribute to anything about anything or is this all you've got?

This is entirely your cheap diversion. You first.

I'll take that as a "no" you don't have anything to contribute. Seeya!

 

[Paulomycin]

I'll take that as a "no" you don't have anything to contribute. Seeya!

No problem. Bye. Watching you abandon your own diversion is always welcome.

 

[Moral Orel]

No problem. Bye. Watching you abandon your own diversion is always welcome.

You're adorable! Don't ever change, okay?

 

[Paulomycin]

You're adorable! Don't ever change, okay?

I promise not to. Consistency fosters trust.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Assume "From nothing, nothing comes."

Is there nothing?



Yes → Then nothing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.

No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.

 

[gaara4158]

The BB theory says it had a definite beginning and is expanding. Of Course you are free to reject the BB theory.

Which has nothing to with Aristotle’s definition of effect, which you provided yourself just a page ago. I have already declared this conversation fruitless, and further replies afterward have proven it. You’re playing fast and loose with definitions so you can shove the universe into the set of things which are assumed to have causes, and you won’t be budged.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Dark matter will prevent the universe from existing infinitely, it will die a heat death. The remnants could potentially exist forever if there is no God.

Oh, you were talking about finite duration. Yes, the universe that began with the Big Bang is finite in duration.

I was talking about size. The universe could be infinite in size.

Yes, but it does have a beginning. There was a point in time, t = 0 when it did not exist.

We do not know that. We know that our universe came from a single spot, but we don't know how small that spot was. Possibly it reached zero cubic inches of infinite density (a singularity). If so, then time was equal to zero, and everything beyond the Big Bang is undefined.

But we don't know if it went all the way back to zero. It could have begun at some finite size, such as the size of Plank's length, or the size of a basketball. In that case, I understand our space time could have extended long before the Big Bang.

And no "beyond the Big Bang is undefined" does not mean whatever Ed1wolf says before that is the way it was.

And it definitely did not exist infinitely into the past for the reason I stated above and also we would have never reached the present.

Again, you just assume it reached a singularity. You have not proven it.

And you assume that "undefined" means "Ed1wolf is right when he says it did not exist infinitely"

"Undefined" does not mean "whatever Ed1wolf says is right".

I am not claiming that we can see everything in the universe, it is much too large. But just because we cannot see everything in the universe does not mean that it is infinite in length of existence or size.

In other words, you agree with what I said in my post.

there is no real evidence that there were other big bangs.

What we do know is that there seems to be an expansion of our universe at the very early stage, which we call inflation. And that there is something expanding our universe even now. (We call it dark energy). And we do know that quantum effects seem to be universal, even in what we call nothing. Put that all together and it seems to indicate that there is something out there expanding our universe and that quantum effects seem to be everywhere. So we do have evidence of something natural out there with creative powers.

And please don't argue that you know for certain that there was a singularity, and that therefore Ed1Wolf gets to define what was before that, and that therefore Ed1wolf gets to declare that there was no spacetime, and that therefore Ed1wolf gets to declare that quantum effects couldn't take place.