An infinite universe does not require that any phenomenon or phenomena within it have infinite duration. Existence is an infinite sequence of cause and effect; all phenomena are impermanent.
Indeed G-D is infinite, but what does that have to do with the confines our universe?You have already conjured that up yourself, 'God'
Time would be infinate as well.![]()
Diddnt know that.
We live and learn.
what does that mean exactly?
in closure if I may? Why do you feel the need to pick up where your fellow Atheist left off? I am sure he can speak for himself?
It means exactly what it says, I'm not sure how I can put it any more simply. An infinite universe does not require that any individual thing within it be infinite.
Indeed and nothing wrong with that, but that particular post wasn't directed at you!--I was commenting, with what is very much a Buddhist perspective, on a particular point that had been raised by others during the course of the debate. Just as you do here every day (from a muslim perspective, obviously!) Why do you feel the need to ask such a silly question?
Will This Universe Ever End?
WILL this universe ever end? If so, how? There are two basic theories, neither pleasant. One is that the Big Crunch is coming: at some point, the universe, which had been expanding, will begin contracting, rushing inward, so that all matter and energy will eventually squash together into a singularity, where mass has no volume and space and time stop. The other is known as the Heat Death (i.e., heat dies): the universe, with its continued expansion, flies more and more apart, so that all matter and energy will dissipate and all will become the ultimate cold void. But startling new challenges throw it all up for grabs. A key question is the amount of matter in the universe. Are there enough stars, planets, gas, dark matter, and exotic particles of one sort or another for gravity to reverse the current expansion and in the end implode the universe in the Big Crunch? Another key question is whether or not the expansion is accelerating--and if so, how much and why? And if this universe does end, might another take its place? Are other universes already in existence, perhaps an infinite number of them, furiously expanding? There's a lot loaded into our titular question--from the geometry of the universe to the existence of multiple universes. There aren't many people who get paid to ponder the end of all things. Fortunately, we have gathered some of the best.
************************************
PARTICIPANTS
Dr. Wendy Freedman, an astronomer at the Carnegie Observatories, provides key data to determine the age of the universe. Wendy explains why the amount of matter in the universe is important in determining its ultimate fate.
Dr. Leon Lederman, author of The God Particle, was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1988 for his work on the Standard Model of particle physics. Leon's insight and humor illuminate and leaven these ultimate questions.
Dr. Andrei Linde, a professor of physics at Stanford, invented the concept of chaotic inflation, which has redefined the beginning of the universe. Andrei believes that there may well be myriad universes, each giving birth to new universes, and that this birthing process will go on forever.
Dr. Nancey Murphy is a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary; her book Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning won several awards. Nancey wonders that if this universe ends--by freezing or frying--what is God going to do for the rest of eternity?
Dr. Frank Tipler, a physicist and mathematician at Tulane, is the author of The Physics of Immortality, in which he speculates that the dead will be resurrected and live eternally (time being a subjective concept) just before the Big Crunch
PurestAmbrosia said:indeed.. that is why in Islam we are forbidden from cursing time, (La tasbbo azaman)
This is a very common posed by atheist to people carrying out dawah... which certainly requires a clever, logical and scientific answer... I will leave this question opened to you dear brothers and sister... "Who created God?"
This does not necessitate that the universe is not infinite though.Purest Ambrosia said:I guess you can simply observe things in this "infinite universe" dying up to and including stars... that can be your clue, with death one ceases to be infinite!
It does not fit in with the topic at all. It is equivalent to me going to an Islamic thread attempt to prove the existence of God and ranting on about my generalisations of Muslims.Purest Ambrosia said:I think it fits perfectly well, why would someone who doesn't believe in G-D want to be so preoccupied with something that to s/he obviously doesn't believe in?
Excuse my ignorance, but what point have I proven?Purest Ambrosia said:and thank you for proving my point =)
Perhaps I find this discussion interesting?Purest Ambrosia said:Great then, why do you then participate in this topic? clearly this is addressing those who pre-occupy themselves with proving the non-existence of G-D, you are free to walk away and disengage yourself.. or are you offended by proxy?
The universe is simply everything that exists. Confine the definition of everything that exists as you will to simply exclude what you consider God, but the point remains. We both agree on infinite existence.Purest Ambrosia said:Indeed G-D is infinite, but what does that have to do with the confines our universe?
PurestAmbrosia said:The universe isn't infinite.. just as it started, it shall end-- instead of an explosion and implosion, so it too shall come to and end!
The only way a universe would die is if it has been sucked up by a equally massive black hole. Other than that, it's reasonable to expect the universe to keep expanding. This idea was introduced by none other than Stephen Hawking.
Also, I think you need to use REAL scientific sources to back your claims. A peer-reviewed scientific journal would be ideal.
There is fact-- there is fiction-- then there is a state in between, where the fantastic forward minds come together and "theorize" to which am I to enroll your above said statement?This does not necessitate that the universe is not infinite though.
It does not fit in with the topic at all. It is equivalent to me going to an Islamic thread attempt to prove the existence of God and ranting on about my generalisations of Muslims.
Having an interest in a subject shows, not only from the topic of subject matter but the style of questions and answers.. surely you can distinguish the difference?!You also forget that perhaps some people have an interest in these subjects? It doesn't necessitate that they are preoccupied with it or don't want to discuss it more.
The angry clangorous atheist' comedic entrance...Excuse my ignorance, but what point have I proven?
Great!Perhaps I find this discussion interesting?
The universe is simply everything that exists. Confine the definition of everything that exists as you will to simply exclude what you consider God, but the point remains. We both agree on infinite existence
To successfully explain a phenomena a scientific theory has to be able to predict it. For example, for all the things Philosopher mentioned you can conduct experiments in the lab and the same conditions will invariably produce the same results. Some things you can't do in the lab, but you can still use scientific theories to predict them (with varying degrees of accuracy) and explain them - a good example would be severe natural phenomena such as earthquakes and hurricanes.
You cannot, by definition, predict what God will do (even if you accept there is one) not least because He could, by definition, change the rules completely if he saw fit. You therefore cannot incorporate God into any scientific theory simply because you have no way of predicting what His intervention will be, or even demonstrating any such intervention has taken place at all (the "we can't explain it otherwise so it must be God" argument doesn't cut it, I'm afraid).
As I said, to include God in science you must re-define science. There is a heavy price to pay for that.
You cannot, by definition, predict what God will do (even if you accept there is one) not least because He could, by definition, change the rules completely if he saw fit. You therefore cannot incorporate God into any scientific theory simply because you have no way of predicting what His intervention will be, or even demonstrating any such intervention has taken place at all (the "we can't explain it otherwise so it must be God" argument doesn't cut it, I'm afraid).
can anybody scientifically prove the existence of God? or the non-existence of God?
Has science progressed so far as to study the supernatural?
can anybody scientifically prove the existence of God? or the non-existence of God?
Has science progressed so far as to study the supernatural?
can you just clarify what do you want to exclude out of the scientific issue is it
* God existance
*or only his intervention
It's a contradiction in terms. If science could study it it would no longer be supernatural.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.