- Jul 28, 2021
- 701
- 103
- 56
- Country
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's not a hypothesis, it's a definitionThat's a fine hypothesis, but it won't be a scientific hypothesis until you can suggest some way of testing it empirically.
That's a definition. Your hypothesis was, that you expect the "universe" to at least have all the properties that all the components collectively own.It's not a hypothesis, it's a definition View attachment 356667
If the universe is the collection of all its components, than it will have the collective properties of all these components, that's not rocket scienceThat's a definition. Your hypothesis was, that you expect the "universe" to at least have all the properties that all the components collectively own.
No, it's not rocket science, but it is beginning to sound like Russell's Paradox. Can you prove that God is cause of the universe without simultaneously proving that the universe doesn't exist?If the universe is the collection of all its components, than it will have the collective properties of all these components, that's not rocket science
Yes, and things like time and causality don't appear to be universal... so applying that to the universe as a whole is completely illogical.If the universe is the collection of all its components, than it will have the collective properties of all these components, that's not rocket science
Can you give an example?time and causality don't appear to be universal
It's quite obvious that the universe does existNo, it's not rocket science, but it is beginning to sound like Russell's Paradox. Can you prove that God is cause of the universe without simultaneously proving that the universe doesn't exist?
Because when one of those properties is "exists inside the universe" it literally can't apply to the universe itself.Why wouldn't the properties that generally apply to all components of the universe also apply for the universe as a whole?
Can you demonstrate this?The "universe" isn't some kind of an envelope that contains the components of the universe, rather it is the collection of all these components.
How are you going to test your hypothesis?If the universe is the collection of all its components, than it will have the collective properties of all these components, that's not rocket science
Yeah unlogical or contradicting things are not the applicable, just like "the universe had no cause" is unlogical.Because when one of those properties is "exists inside the universe" it literally can't apply to the universe itself.
The universe can't be inside itself. I can't put an envelope inside itself. I can't put a car into it's own back seat. A thing can not be inside itself.
it's the definition...Can you demonstrate this?
You know very well that some things can't be tested emperically, but only can be derived by analyzing historical evidence or only by shere logic, you know, comon sense, for example how are you going to test what was before the universe?How are you going to test your hypothesis?
Relativity is a demonstrable effect that alters the relative flow of time depending on gravity wells or relative velocity,Can you give an example?
No, it wouldn't. Because everything essentially resets. The clock starts again. This statement does not apply to an oscillating universe: 'If the universe never began to exist, then the number of events will be infinite'.One may also argue against the expanding universe argument that the proposed singularity was merely the result of a previous universe that collapsed into itself and that the current universe will also collapse into itself in a distant future, this is called the Oscillating Model.
But this concept would only lead to an infinite loop of subsequent universes, which would again be confronted by the mathematical argument.
Yes, each oscillation is a finite universe. It's the process that is eternal.So although there is no conclusive proof of the universe not being eternal, there are very strong arguments that show it has to be finite.
None of this applies to an oscillating universe. The universe causes itself. If we go with just this universe and a Big Bang then you could suggest that something outside of the universe created it (the statement makes no sense to me, but we'll skip that). So as we have time and three dimensions and matter in the universe, you might argue that what was outside the universe wouldn't have those. But you're assuming that whatever it was that existed to start the universe still exists outside of the universe.This means the cause of the universe needs to be:
- Not limited by time, in other words it needs to be eternal.
- Not limited by three dimensional space, in other words it needs to be omnipresent.
- Not limited by matter, in other words it needs to be immaterial or spiritual.
Why just one?So the cause of the universe needs to be a self-existing, eternal, sovereign and individual entity.
I'll assume that you mean traits. But you have missed out a few others. All loving, good, just etc. There is no reason why your self existing, eternal entity isn't hateful, bad, unjust etc. And from certain sections of the OT I would suggest that it's not a difficult position to argue.These are exactly the trades that are attributed to the God of the Bible…
Two things that are not the same. I would caution in using the latter in matters like this. It often fails....only by shere logic, you know, comon sense...
It still doesn't work.Yeah unlogical or contradicting things are not the applicable, just like "the universe had no cause" is unlogical.
We're talking about the "collective of general properties of the physical universe", so properties that apply to all objects in the universe logically would also apply to the universe as a whole, simply because the universe is the collective of all, so also their properties.
it's the definition...
View attachment 356684
The current testable universe couldn't be understood accurately with simply logic and common sense... why would it apply to things beyond that scale?You know very well that some things can't be tested emperically, but only can be derived by analyzing historical evidence or only by shere logic, you know, comon sense, for example how are you going to test what was before the universe?
Because Sodium and Chlorine have properties that cancel each other out, I've been talking about properties that are applicable to all things in the universe equaly so these won't cancel each other out.It still doesn't work.
You are attempting to go from "All the things in the universe needed to come from somewhere" to "the universe itself had to come from somewhere," and you are confusing the box with the things inside the box.
This is the Fallacy of Composition, and it does not work.
For example, Sodium is a highly reactive metal that will explode on contact with water, and Chlorine is a toxic gas that was used as a weapon in World War 1. Both of these will do a great deal of harm if you ingest them.
Yet I ingested them both last night with my dinner, and it caused me no ill effects.
Because when combined, they form table salt.
If we take your argument that the properties of the components are also properties of the whole, then the fact that sodium and chlorine are both toxic and harmful to Human life, it would follow that salt is also harmful to Human life. Yet this is not the case.
So, you are committing a logical fallacy, and your argument does not work. Please learn not to make such mistakes, and try to do better next time.
Flat earth isn't really "common sense" I would say...The current testable universe couldn't be understood accurately with simply logic and common sense... why would it apply to things beyond that scale?
Take a look at the Flat Earth threads on this forum to see how poor a tool simple personal credulity and intuition is for finding the truth,
Oh but it exactly is common sense.Flat earth isn't really "common sense" I would say...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?