A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Space might be infinite or maybe it isn't. We don't have good evidence one way or the other.

Correct we dont have evidence that Space is infinite. But by logic reasoning we know that Space must be infinite. But that is not really the problem either. The problem is the void that this Space would have. But that is not really a proble either. Not if you reason what Properties a infinite void of a infinite Space would have. And we have been through this on many different topics on ATS.

The problem is not to reason the correct reasoning. The problem is Our bases to Accept this reasoning. Since there are no Scientific facts to base Our reasoning on, we have a issue when it come to this problem.

So Our bases for this topic is actually mute from the the beginning. Nothing will be resolved among us.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Space might be infinite or maybe it isn't. We don't have good evidence one way or the other.

Correct we dont have evidence that Space is infinite. But by logic reasoning we know that Space must be infinite....

Well no, logic doesn’t say that.

As I said before, it’s possible that our universe may be a finite thing, but also may be part of a larger — and maybe infinite and eternal — “multiverse”, or some other larger stage in which our finite universe exists.

I suppose your definition of “space” matters here when you say “space is infinite”, but my definition of space is limited to our universe, and I think our universe could certainly be finite.

If our finite universe is contained in some sort of multiverse or other extra-dimensional place, a place that may even be infinite and eternal, I would not call that place “space” — so I wouldn’t say space was infinite even if the multiverse was infinite.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People



There are no multiverses. We would have been able to see it by studying the exspansion of Our universe and by the WMAP. There are no scientific facts that support the existance of any multiverses. There are no observations of any kind that indications that this is a fact. So why is this supported? What makes People fall for this idea? Is it because it has been fronted by Our Scientific community? But how can they front such a thing when science is all about facts?

Is it done just to misinform People so that it keeps us from accepting real Logic?

a reply to: spy66
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: spy66
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack

So then i Guess we can agree that God exists?

a reply to: spy66
Why just one? As a polytheist and a scientist I have no qualms.

However we had no evidence of gravitational waves till recently....so one can not dismiss multi verses. The problem with Gods is not their existence so much as their quantitaion.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: spy66
Why just one? As a polytheist and a scientist I have no qualms.

However we had no evidence of gravitational waves till recently....so one can not dismiss multi verses. The problem with Gods is not their existence so much as their quantitaion.

What you state is nothing but bull#......sorry for the Language....

You speak of Things that are only present within Our timeline...... Moste of Your minions would not know what that means.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: spy66
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack

That's just something people say when they have no evidence.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: spy66
Why just one? As a polytheist and a scientist I have no qualms.

However we had no evidence of gravitational waves till recently....so one can not dismiss multi verses. The problem with Gods is not their existence so much as their quantitaion.

You mean measuring gods with repeatable methods to provide reliable specs? That kind of quantification? The definitions have changed so much over the relative 30 seconds or so humans have been in the picture. And the most concrete of those definitions proved to be inaccurate. Still waiting for an unsinkable one.

originally posted by: spy66
There are no multiverses. We would have been able to see it by studying the exspansion of Our universe and by the WMAP. There are no scientific facts that support the existance of any multiverses. There are no observations of any kind that indications that this is a fact

That's pure double standards! Funny, how you say that about multiverses, yet when it comes to infinity there is no evidence or anything close to it, yet you claim you know it's there. And no, there is no guarantee we would be able to see other universes from within our own. There is a limit to how far we can see based on how long it takes light to reach us, and outside of spacetime itself, who knows the properties of light and laws of physics. It could be totally different. Assuming we'd be able to see to them is completely illogical.

a reply to: Barcs


Even you know that Infinite exists and that it is real. You dont need prof for that Logic.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Barcs
Even you know that Infinite exists and that it is real. You dont need prof for that Logic.

Nobody actually knows that. I get that you believe, but how is that not just as speculative as acknowledging the possibility that our universe is not the only one out there? How can you poopoo one away but take the other as absolute fact, when neither has supporting evidence? That's why I said you used double standards.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Barcs
Even you know that Infinite exists and that it is real. You dont need prof for that Logic.

Nobody actually knows that. I get that you believe, but how is that not just as speculative as acknowledging the possibility that our universe is not the only one out there? How can you poopoo one away but take the other as absolute fact, when neither has supporting evidence? That's why I said you used double standards.

You have heard about the expansion of Our universe right. And you know where the problems come up when we look back in time right?

Our observable universe is 13.799 billion years old. 13.799 billion years ago Our observable universe was much much more compressed. That is the Logic and the Scientific idea right?

Past this, you have no Clue. But still you argue my statment? Why.......

There can not be any physical evidence ever that support what i state. Because science cant see past a specific timeline. Science can only observe finite to a restricted degree. Because what science can observe is Limited to Our progress With Technology and Resources.

I have made a Logic statment based on reasoning.... I have made no claime that i have physical Scientific facts because non of that exists. Nor will such facts ever exist since Our science is Limited to the speed of light.

The thing With you Barc is that you cant even reason Logic. You are Limited to scientific progress and findings. That is why you dont really belong in topics like this. Because you cant be reasoned With. It is mute to argue With People who have limits. It limits the progress of reasoning Logic.

You dont see the problem With Our universe being infinite. But should we suffer from Your lack of knowledge?

You can only argue and support what is Limited to our observable universe. But when we go byond that...... Your knowledge is no longer needed. Reaoning Logic is not Your Field.

a reply to: spy66

I'm not saying that infinite is wrong, just that it's something we can not prove and will most likely never know. Despite that, you said multiple times that you KNOW infinity exists. Then, when you were confronted with an alternate possibility that may or may not even conflict with the idea of infinity or the infinite, you outright rejected it. Both multiverses and infinity are untestable possibilities (with our current level of technological development). I'm not saying infinte is impossible, I'm saying it's impossible for us to know that.

Are you just stating personal beliefs here, because if so I apologize, it sounded like you were making statements of fact. Logic and reason is directly applied in science. It is illogical to believe anything without evidence. That doesn't mean you can't acknowledge the possibilities. There are hundreds, probably thousands of them when it comes to the origin of the universe or the bigger picture. It sounds like we are in agreement almost. Strange.

originally posted by: spy66


The thing With you Barc is that you cant even reason Logic. You are Limited to scientific progress and findings. That is why you dont really belong in topics like this. Because you cant be reasoned With. It is mute to argue With People who have limits. It limits the progress of reasoning Logic.

You dont see the problem With Our universe being infinite. But should we suffer from Your lack of knowledge?

You can only argue and support what is Limited to our observable universe. But when we go byond that...... Your knowledge is no longer needed. Reaoning Logic is not Your Field.

I'm not Barcs, but I'd like to answer. I have no real problem entertaining the notion that our universe might be infinite. I also don't have a problem entertaining the notion that it is finite.

I also think (as I said before) that our particular universe (the one in which the matter and energy that makes us "us" can exist because of the subatomic physical parameters of the universe) might also be finite, but exist in an extra-dimensional existence that is infinite and/or eternal.

The thing is I really don't know. Unlike you (as it seems by your posts), I am open to entertaining many different notions about the reality of existence, rather than having made up my mind that the only possible answer is that our particular universe is infinite.

Granted, I'm leaning toward the universe NOT being infinite (at least not the particular universe that we inhabit), because I think universe in the form it exists today -- our particular universe, with its physical parameters -- had a finite beginning, so there hasn't been an infinite amount of time for our particular universe to become infinite. Maybe the hypothetical larger existence in which our universe inhabits is eternal (maybe), and other universes have existed before ours, and maybe existing now with ours, but I don't think our universe is eternal.

...But then again, That's just the way I lean. Because I have no real evidence one way or the other, I also think that our particular universe may very well be infinite, or be of some unseen dimensional nature that it may somehow seem infinite while taking up a finite space (however the hell that could work -- but who knows?).

a reply to: TzarChasm

No its actually important. Until recently we did not have evidence (but had theory) for gravitational waves. I make theoretical chemical compounds every day. Lack of evidence, is not evidence when you don't know what you are looking for, is not lack. Thust the multiversal model might be a thing. Or it might not. To dismiss it, when there is some scientific hypotheses that suggest it, is arrogant.


Now quantating gods. I'm not trying to prove them. I'm trying to point out, that to use science as evidence for them (as creationists DO) one has to define them. Otherwise we are stuck with gnoses (spiritual knowledge) which is faith based. I am ok with that, as I don't try to use my science to validate my faith.

a reply to: spy66

My minions? Who would they be?

Again, prove me wrong. Go ahead. You can't disprove the multiversasl model. You can assign a probability to it, but you can not 100% say it can't happen. Just like one can not say "God (or the Gods) did it" with out, defining them (quantitative measuring of them)

When multiverse is mentioned, does that mean other universes similar to this one or copies of this one like on tv shows?
I think there are probably other universes besides this, but not ones that have the same people living another life.
And simple math shows us infinity exists, numbers never stop. Space outside the universe goes on forever. There will always be another side to a barrier.

a reply to: SeekAnswers

Simple answer. We don't know. We don't have proof yet they exist, though some physicists think they have hints.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: spy66

My minions? Who would they be?

Again, prove me wrong. Go ahead. You can't disprove the multiversasl model. You can assign a probability to it, but you can not 100% say it can't happen. Just like one can not say "God (or the Gods) did it" with out, defining them (quantitative measuring of them)

There are no evidence that multiverses exist. The Scientific community have no grounds to state such a claim if what they claim is always based on facts. There are no facts that multiverses exist so i dont have to prove that they dont exist. It's already common sense if you understand Your own baseline for facts.

Jesus,... you People are always asking for facts...... but not when it comes to this case about multiverses..... why is that. I gues it is because you can pick and choose what you want to beleive........... Why didnt you ask for facts when the claim about multiverse was put ut there?

I gues the team you support dont have to come up With evidence and facts for their fictional claimes. You leave that up to us.... you want us to do all the work for you...... I gues its a way to play the game

originally posted by: spy66
There are no evidence that multiverses exist. The Scientific community have no grounds to state such a claim if what they claim is always based on facts. There are no facts that multiverses exist so i dont have to prove that they dont exist. It's already common sense if you understand Your own baseline for facts.

Again, there is no evidence that anything is infinite either. You just guess that it is and you are once against showing double standards in your logic.

Jesus,... you People are always asking for facts...... but not when it comes to this case about multiverses..... why is that. I gues it is because you can pick and choose what you want to beleive........... Why didnt you ask for facts when the claim about multiverse was put ut there?

Yes, we ask for facts when you claim to KNOW something exists. It's not that complicated. To say something is possible, is much different than saying you KNOW it's true. Nobody actually knows if the universe is infinite or if there are multiple universes. When people mention multiverse, they are talking about a POSSIBILITY, not a fact, just like when you say the universe or some aspect of it is infinite, you say it as a possibility not a fact. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

You don't know the universe or any aspect of it is infinite.
I don't know that there are multiple universes.
We both don't know, so stop claiming your guess is TRUTH while mine is false for no reason whatsoever. You can't ignore logic and then accuse others of not following it by acknowledging multiple possibilities.