Evidence for God from Science

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote:Everything I stated regarding our universe extends to any other universe, it extends to all of them. In fact that's what my 2nd to last paragraph was all about. I specifically mentioned pretty much all the types of universes conceived of. I tell you what, for the sake of moving the discussion forward I will concede the point that there is a void and it is endless (even though science hasn't settled the issue but maybe you know something they don't). I know you keep insisting on that and it's not a point terribly important to my arguments so there you go, an infinite void it is, okay?

Science tells us that space-time and everything in it including matter is bound by the singularity, of this universe or any other. So space-time and matter cannot be infinite or eternal, one is bound by the other. So as you say, let us go back:

In the beginning there was an infinite void ... And?

First off, you're not conceding just to move the conversation forward, you're conceding because after being asked the same question over and over and over after pages of avoiding it, you still can't show or explain how it is possible to contain a void. Yes, the avoidance, it is rather tiring!

Give the guy an inch ...

Rev, the astrophysics community in its entirety has not come close to any consensus on the issue of infinite void. You can take it any which way you want but my point regarding a void from the beginning is to show an alternative and in fact there is as I discussed. Let's move on.

Revolutionary wrote:Second, can you please (without pages of avoidance) explain how something infinite is able to have a beginning, or can you also concede that an infinite model has no beginning, no end, no middle?

Oy vey!

There you go again, equivocating. The only thing I conceded is an endless void rev, a void that is devoid of anything (oops, we're back to the definition of 'nothing' aren't way). Now get your own dirt.

Revolutionary wrote:Finally, all mass has gravity, which basically explains how all the mass that exists in our immediate temporal physical universe IS actually a singularity (look, I'm using your favorite word). We don't just flip a switch and the brain shuts off when it comes to exploring all the possibilities beyond that immediate mass, that would be an ignorance similar to trying to contain the mind.... eh hem!

Already you're postulating the existence of mass and gravity. Great, but before you go any further please explain where this mass or singularity came from.

Revolutionary wrote:Now don't contain it, expand it.... Take the entire mass of our physical universe, that space-time as a temporal singularity has it's own immense gravity....

But where did it come from? We started off with a void.

Revolutionary wrote:The multiverse postulate that you are pointing too is actually rather brilliant... Each singularity (which their are infinite examples in a multiverse) are physically (gravity) pulling towards one another, and because of the structure of the multiverse concerning gravity alone, each singularity is being pulled simultaneously in all directions which actually causes the entire structure too expand when the limited sense of gravity would otherwise have you expecting that it would collapse.....

That's a very neat story rev, any evidence for it all? Where did the mutli-verse come from? Where did gravity come from? We're in a void, remember? (albeit infinite, whatever that could possibly mean).

Besides which, and as I've repeatedly explained, the scientific evidence in the current inflationary model necessitates even the multi-verse in your scenario above to have had a beginning. So where do we go, a multi-multi-verse, guess what, that too must have had a beginning. You will inevitably reach a point where we are in empty void (and again, I have no clue how one would even describe an 'empty' void since empty implies space and spaces is created independently by each singularity), so where did anything come from? What you are left with is a simple incoherent statement: something came from nothing.

Revolutionary wrote:Give it a fractal similar to say, a honeycomb structure, the important aspect is that it MUST be infinite... If it wasn't, it might have enough force in it's internal structure to expand, but the edges would be collapsing in upon itself; only a matter of time before inevitability takes it's course. an you imagine a multiverse bang? Could be part of a larger multiverse-verse.. Doesn't change the aspect of infinity, regardless!

You still have to explain where it all came from. It could not have existed eternally (oh with the exception of the void of course, ).

Revolutionary wrote:Beyond the brilliance of this model that would effortlessly support our expanding universe, we do have a 'problem' concerning the conservation of mass. Somewhat!
We have three possible scenarios within such a model..... Either each universe (the singularity, aren't I nice?) is going to 'expand' away leaving a void in it's place (doesn't quite work), each 'singularity' collapses upon itself over and over again (meh), or the 'honey comb' structure refocuses a radiant mass to the central gaps of the 'honey comb' structure as it expands (hmmmm).

But how did you get to the honeycomb structure to begin with? How did you make your own dirt?

Revolutionary wrote:Anyone ever heard of hawking radiation? Where oh where does it go? The part I like about this is that it is rather smooth, collecting radiant particles seems rather absurd, but not to gravity as it very well might relate to a space-time curvature type wedge between universes... If it has the power to cause expansion from an otherwise massive gravitational attraction (pull), not to mention that all the push pull force of said expansion would be exerted on to this very spot... Well?
The reason I don't like collapse, is that it is rather sloppy and violent; there is no balance where the collective gravity induced multiverse could otherwise focus radiant particles to begin forming an extremely dense (sound familiar? It ends in a bang) and balanced state relative to expansion.... The expansion is only immediate, it only expands to fill, this accounts for conservation.... It doesn't have to say 'poof' there it is!
If someone would like to indulge Higgs boson concerning conservation as it applies to the first scenario which leaves a 'void', I'd be happy to.

And have you heard of the BVG theorem? You know, the one that puts a black hole in any description of any-verse that is supposedly eternal?

Revolutionary wrote:I will add, this multiverse scenario is beautiful, it's composition is flawless (doesn't exist any other way) and awe inspiring.

If only it were supported by science.

Revolutionary wrote:Now, IF I were to indulge in a creator.... It would only make sense that it would be this magnificently intricate and simultaneously demonstrate such an effortless balance, it is in fact the effortlessness that would not actually point to a creator.... And yet?

There you go, tailor-make a god of your own creation.

Revolutionary wrote:The business going on here trying to contain such magnificence within a belief, it's almost a contradiction!

The only contradiction being put forth is by you. You go from an 'empty' void to a muli-verse faster than the speed of ligh... oh wait, please make your own light.

I wonder what humanity would look like if we began to emulate our intellectual observations of such a potential magnificence.... To become an intricate brilliance within an effortless balance... To celebrate and explore an infinite potential.... I wonder, could it be anything less than beautiful?

Or is it our purpose to be contained within a belief that tells us we are a sinful being that requires saving?

I suppose such a question is just me being prideful!

Revolutionary wrote:I wonder what humanity would look like if we began to emulate our intellectual observations of such a potential magnificence.... To become an intricate brilliance within an effortless balance... To celebrate and explore an infinite potential.... I wonder, could it be anything less than beautiful?

Or is it our purpose to be contained within a belief that tells us we are a sinful being that requires saving?

I suppose such a question is just me being prideful!

No, it is you being arrogant by implying first that by believing in God we're not 'emulating our intellectual observations' and second that religion has stymied human advancement when it is the exact opposite on both counts.

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote:Everything I stated regarding our universe extends to any other universe, it extends to all of them. In fact that's what my 2nd to last paragraph was all about. I specifically mentioned pretty much all the types of universes conceived of. I tell you what, for the sake of moving the discussion forward I will concede the point that there is a void and it is endless (even though science hasn't settled the issue but maybe you know something they don't). I know you keep insisting on that and it's not a point terribly important to my arguments so there you go, an infinite void it is, okay?

Science tells us that space-time and everything in it including matter is bound by the singularity, of this universe or any other. So space-time and matter cannot be infinite or eternal, one is bound by the other. So as you say, let us go back:

In the beginning there was an infinite void ... And?

First off, you're not conceding just to move the conversation forward, you're conceding because after being asked the same question over and over and over after pages of avoiding it, you still can't show or explain how it is possible to contain a void. Yes, the avoidance, it is rather tiring!

Give the guy an inch ...

Rev, the astrophysics community in its entirety has not come close to any consensus on the issue of infinite void. You can take it any which way you want but my point regarding a void from the beginning is to show an alternative and in fact there is as I discussed. Let's move on.

Give me an inch? I'm talking infinity here, and all you're talking is inches.... What are you talking consensus, the void is not the issue... Do you think I could possibly adhere to any concept of a void?..... Not even close!
The only reason I am using void is so that it is not confused with mass where the discussion of infinity is concerned.... I'm trying to help you out by making it as simple as possible.
It's insane, if you want to argue this any further..... Answer the question that has been asked of you well over dozen times already.....

If a void (which is only in place so as not to confuse) is finite, how is it contained? What is it contained by? And what is beyond that point of containment?

And if you still can't get it, try this one.... A universe filled with mass, how is it contained? What is it contained by? And what is beyond that point of containment?

It's been how many pages of you failing to answer this very basic group of questions?

Answer the questions, are you refusing because you can't? Prove me wrong!

Revolutionary wrote:I wonder what humanity would look like if we began to emulate our intellectual observations of such a potential magnificence.... To become an intricate brilliance within an effortless balance... To celebrate and explore an infinite potential.... I wonder, could it be anything less than beautiful?

Or is it our purpose to be contained within a belief that tells us we are a sinful being that requires saving?

I suppose such a question is just me being prideful!

I wonder what it would be like when some realize that it is NOT an either/or situation.

As a Christian I believe that limitless potential is our goal, something we will be capable of.
I just believe that trying to get there on "our own" cause more problems than it solves and history verifies it.

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:I wonder what humanity would look like if we began to emulate our intellectual observations of such a potential magnificence.... To become an intricate brilliance within an effortless balance... To celebrate and explore an infinite potential.... I wonder, could it be anything less than beautiful?

Or is it our purpose to be contained within a belief that tells us we are a sinful being that requires saving?

I suppose such a question is just me being prideful!

No, it is you being arrogant by implying first that by believing in God we're not 'emulating our intellectual observations' and second that religion has stymied human advancement when it is the exact opposite on both counts.

Your behavior is an exacting model.... You don't actually answer questions and draw it in a great big circular argument that eventually comes right back to the same questions that you still haven't answered.... Then you begin with excuses and avoidance tactics to draw it right back into that ridiculous circle..... But I suppose this is my arrogance/ego doing this?

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote:Everything I stated regarding our universe extends to any other universe, it extends to all of them. In fact that's what my 2nd to last paragraph was all about. I specifically mentioned pretty much all the types of universes conceived of. I tell you what, for the sake of moving the discussion forward I will concede the point that there is a void and it is endless (even though science hasn't settled the issue but maybe you know something they don't). I know you keep insisting on that and it's not a point terribly important to my arguments so there you go, an infinite void it is, okay?

Science tells us that space-time and everything in it including matter is bound by the singularity, of this universe or any other. So space-time and matter cannot be infinite or eternal, one is bound by the other. So as you say, let us go back:

In the beginning there was an infinite void ... And?

First off, you're not conceding just to move the conversation forward, you're conceding because after being asked the same question over and over and over after pages of avoiding it, you still can't show or explain how it is possible to contain a void. Yes, the avoidance, it is rather tiring!

Give the guy an inch ...

Rev, the astrophysics community in its entirety has not come close to any consensus on the issue of infinite void. You can take it any which way you want but my point regarding a void from the beginning is to show an alternative and in fact there is as I discussed. Let's move on.

Give me an inch? I'm talking infinity here, and all you're talking is inches.... What are you talking consensus, the void is not the issue... Do you think I could possibly adhere to any concept of a void?..... Not even close!
The only reason I am using void is so that it is not confused with mass where the discussion of infinity is concerned.... I'm trying to help you out by making it as simple as possible.
It's insane, if you want to argue this any further..... Answer the question that has been asked of you well over dozen times already.....

If a void (which is only in place so as not to confuse) is finite, how is it contained? What is it contained by? And what is beyond that point of containment?

And if you still can't get it, try this one.... A universe filled with mass, how is it contained? What is it contained by? And what is beyond that point of containment?

It's been how many pages of you failing to answer this very basic group of questions?

Answer the questions, are you refusing because you can't? Prove me wrong!

How many times do I have to answer the question? Science says WE DON'T KNOW and neither do I. But guess what, neither do you. There could very well be a boundary we will never reach. What is beyond this boundary? Science says WE DON'T KNOW, it could simply be nothing. But yet again, I have no issue whatsoever with an infinitely expanding universe into an endless void. None. The problem you have is where the universe (or multi-verse or any-verse) began, not where it's going. I've answered your questions. Care to answer mine now? You know, the ones you've completely ignored by shifting the discussion to something totally irrelevant to it?

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:I wonder what humanity would look like if we began to emulate our intellectual observations of such a potential magnificence.... To become an intricate brilliance within an effortless balance... To celebrate and explore an infinite potential.... I wonder, could it be anything less than beautiful?

Or is it our purpose to be contained within a belief that tells us we are a sinful being that requires saving?

I suppose such a question is just me being prideful!

No, it is you being arrogant by implying first that by believing in God we're not 'emulating our intellectual observations' and second that religion has stymied human advancement when it is the exact opposite on both counts.

Your behavior is an exacting model.... You don't actually answer questions and draw it in a great big circular argument that eventually comes right back to the same questions that you still haven't answered.... Then you begin with excuses and avoidance tactics to draw it right back into that ridiculous circle..... But I suppose this is my arrogance/ego doing this?

I think the reader can determine who's employing diversionary tactics.

I've answered your questions, now answer mine.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:I wonder what humanity would look like if we began to emulate our intellectual observations of such a potential magnificence.... To become an intricate brilliance within an effortless balance... To celebrate and explore an infinite potential.... I wonder, could it be anything less than beautiful?

Or is it our purpose to be contained within a belief that tells us we are a sinful being that requires saving?

I suppose such a question is just me being prideful!

I wonder what it would be like when some realize that it is NOT an either/or situation.

As a Christian I believe that limitless potential is our goal, something we will be capable of.
I just believe that trying to get there on "our own" cause more problems than it solves and history verifies it.

So then if it's not possible to get there on our own as an expression of humanity, then we are within an arena and design where we should expect gross failure... In fact, it's a necessity for such a belief to actually be true..... It's a self fulling prophecy of failure!

Is that the brilliant design of it all?

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:I wonder what humanity would look like if we began to emulate our intellectual observations of such a potential magnificence.... To become an intricate brilliance within an effortless balance... To celebrate and explore an infinite potential.... I wonder, could it be anything less than beautiful?

Or is it our purpose to be contained within a belief that tells us we are a sinful being that requires saving?

I suppose such a question is just me being prideful!

No, it is you being arrogant by implying first that by believing in God we're not 'emulating our intellectual observations' and second that religion has stymied human advancement when it is the exact opposite on both counts.

Your behavior is an exacting model.... You don't actually answer questions and draw it in a great big circular argument that eventually comes right back to the same questions that you still haven't answered.... Then you begin with excuses and avoidance tactics to draw it right back into that ridiculous circle..... But I suppose this is my arrogance/ego doing this?

I think the reader can determine who's employing diversionary tactics.

I've answered your questions, now answer mine.

If this is true, show me..... If not, it's just another excuse!

Revolutionary wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:I wonder what humanity would look like if we began to emulate our intellectual observations of such a potential magnificence.... To become an intricate brilliance within an effortless balance... To celebrate and explore an infinite potential.... I wonder, could it be anything less than beautiful?

Or is it our purpose to be contained within a belief that tells us we are a sinful being that requires saving?

I suppose such a question is just me being prideful!

I wonder what it would be like when some realize that it is NOT an either/or situation.

As a Christian I believe that limitless potential is our goal, something we will be capable of.
I just believe that trying to get there on "our own" cause more problems than it solves and history verifies it.

So then if it's not possible to get there on our own as an expression of humanity, then we are within an arena and design where we should expect gross failure... In fact, it's a necessity for such a belief to actually be true..... It's a self fulling prophecy of failure!

Is that the brilliant design of it all?

Who said it wasn't possible?

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:I wonder what humanity would look like if we began to emulate our intellectual observations of such a potential magnificence.... To become an intricate brilliance within an effortless balance... To celebrate and explore an infinite potential.... I wonder, could it be anything less than beautiful?

Or is it our purpose to be contained within a belief that tells us we are a sinful being that requires saving?

I suppose such a question is just me being prideful!

No, it is you being arrogant by implying first that by believing in God we're not 'emulating our intellectual observations' and second that religion has stymied human advancement when it is the exact opposite on both counts.

Your behavior is an exacting model.... You don't actually answer questions and draw it in a great big circular argument that eventually comes right back to the same questions that you still haven't answered.... Then you begin with excuses and avoidance tactics to draw it right back into that ridiculous circle..... But I suppose this is my arrogance/ego doing this?

I think the reader can determine who's employing diversionary tactics.

I've answered your questions, now answer mine.

If this is true, show me..... If not, it's just another excuse!

Unbelievable. Are you even keeping up with this thread or you're just spewing anything that comes to mind?

Did you even read this from a few posts up? And this would NOT be the first time I say that by the way:

Byblos wrote:How many times do I have to answer the question? Science says WE DON'T KNOW and neither do I. But guess what, neither do you. There could very well be a boundary we will never reach. What is beyond this boundary? Science says WE DON'T KNOW, it could simply be nothing. But yet again, I have no issue whatsoever with an infinitely expanding universe into an endless void. None. The problem you have is where the universe (or multi-verse or any-verse) began, not where it's going. I've answered your questions. Care to answer mine now? You know, the ones you've completely ignored by shifting the discussion to something totally irrelevant to it?

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote:Everything I stated regarding our universe extends to any other universe, it extends to all of them. In fact that's what my 2nd to last paragraph was all about. I specifically mentioned pretty much all the types of universes conceived of. I tell you what, for the sake of moving the discussion forward I will concede the point that there is a void and it is endless (even though science hasn't settled the issue but maybe you know something they don't). I know you keep insisting on that and it's not a point terribly important to my arguments so there you go, an infinite void it is, okay?

Science tells us that space-time and everything in it including matter is bound by the singularity, of this universe or any other. So space-time and matter cannot be infinite or eternal, one is bound by the other. So as you say, let us go back:

In the beginning there was an infinite void ... And?

First off, you're not conceding just to move the conversation forward, you're conceding because after being asked the same question over and over and over after pages of avoiding it, you still can't show or explain how it is possible to contain a void. Yes, the avoidance, it is rather tiring!

Give the guy an inch ...

Rev, the astrophysics community in its entirety has not come close to any consensus on the issue of infinite void. You can take it any which way you want but my point regarding a void from the beginning is to show an alternative and in fact there is as I discussed. Let's move on.

Give me an inch? I'm talking infinity here, and all you're talking is inches.... What are you talking consensus, the void is not the issue... Do you think I could possibly adhere to any concept of a void?..... Not even close!
The only reason I am using void is so that it is not confused with mass where the discussion of infinity is concerned.... I'm trying to help you out by making it as simple as possible.
It's insane, if you want to argue this any further..... Answer the question that has been asked of you well over dozen times already.....

If a void (which is only in place so as not to confuse) is finite, how is it contained? What is it contained by? And what is beyond that point of containment?

And if you still can't get it, try this one.... A universe filled with mass, how is it contained? What is it contained by? And what is beyond that point of containment?

It's been how many pages of you failing to answer this very basic group of questions?

Answer the questions, are you refusing because you can't? Prove me wrong!

How many times do I have to answer the question? Science says WE DON'T KNOW and neither do I. But guess what, neither do you. There could very well be a boundary we will never reach. What is beyond this boundary? Science says WE DON'T KNOW, it could simply be nothing. But yet again, I have no issue whatsoever with an infinitely expanding universe into an endless void. None. The problem you have is where the universe (or multi-verse or any-verse) began, not where it's going. I've answered your questions. Care to answer mine now? You know, the ones you've completely ignored by shifting the discussion to something totally irrelevant to it?

NOTHING? If it isn't nothing, then it's something.... If it isn't something then it's nothing.... Congratulations, it's either infinite something or infinite nothing....
Hence, why I have used void for said example.

Are you having difficulty with what nothing is?
Are we talking intellectual nothing, turn off the lights nobody is home?

There is a reason that neither of us should have any problem with an endless/infinite void.

I do find it hilarious how suddenly and miraculously you DON'T have an issue with this endless void.... Should I go back and reference the numerous times you did?

And I digress.... On to the next issue that should have started several pages ago.....

In an infinite endless void where mass is neither created nor destroyed concerning the conservation of mass.... Mass and all it's physical properties display that it's always been there in one form or another. That simply means that within an infinite void, it embodies a perpetual/eternal nature.... The only way of displaying that it didn't always exist (seeing as the conservation of mass tells us otherwise) is if the arena that contains it (whatever form it might be) is not infinite.
Until you can explain a finite arena, there is no proof or sound idea to convince us otherwise.

And here we are right back to the very thing I posted pages and pages ago.....

Revolutionary wrote:Let me explain something about the world of logic..... You don't define infinity, infinity does not contain the finite tangible points by which we give everything else definition.... When it lacks these defining points, that's when we know it's infinite.

All fields of science and logic do not place the burden on proving infinity for very obvious reasons, they place the burden on proving a finite point which shows that it is not.
This is how infinity operates in the world of science and logic!

So, where are these finite points?

I'm going to ignore your other snide remarks as we're finally getting to the point.

Revolutionary wrote:In an infinite endless void where mass is neither created nor destroyed concerning the conservation of mass.... Mass and all it's physical properties display that it's always been there in one form or another. That simply means that within an infinite void, it embodies a perpetual/eternal nature.... The only way of displaying that it didn't always exist (seeing as the conservation of mass tells us otherwise) is if the arena that contains it (whatever form it might be) is not infinite.

That's a very nice assertion. Now all you have to do is show some evidence of it.