Gud, finns han?
Aidee
34 år
Citat från Orks
>the universe is infinite
wat. i don't even
P.S. Ingen kan behärska en oändlighet. Diskussionen ovan har jag endast sneglat över, men den känns jävligt derp faktiskt.
Referera vetenskaplig källa som säger att universum är oändligt.
Det vi båda menade var i princip att själva vacuum of space var oändligt, inte big bang-resultatet.
"The Big Bang-model of the universe is obviously not infinite, but I personally believe the big bang universe is just an event in an infinite universe/vacuum of space."
Uppdaterad:
EnslaveTheEmos:
i'm not on either side. but ask the science side to explain the creation of the universe and all in existence. matter and energy being created without a source. when it comes to that question, any god is a good a guess as science.
MuffinJin: No serious atheist or evolutionist has ever said that the universe was formed from nothing. And applying God to phenomenons because we don't understand the real reason behind something is the same as applying an invisible pink teapot to be in orbit around Jupiter... we can never know for sure, now can we?
EnslaveTheEmos:
it doesnt matter if they say it or not, the beginning of time and matter had to have a point at which it did not exist, and then it began to exist. it is un fathomable how, and can never be replicated.
god is a very broad term that you confuse to co inside with a magic man in the sky. but this phenomenon is beyond us, as it can never be replicated, and saying a higher power beyond our rules of logic exists is as good a ques as thinking science will know the answer some day
MuffinJin:
It had to have a point at which it didn't exist? Why? Do you know anything of astrophysics? Ever heard of The Big Bounce? Or the multiverse-theory? These theories are more believable than an over natural force controlling a natural universe. I guess you're talking about pantheism. Even if you aren't, applying "God" in order to explain anything in regards to the natural order is completely unnecessary. I'm not saying our rules of logic is infallible but proposing a higher power isn't needed.
It's not really that hard to understand that the universe wasn't created, but it was FORMED. The energy had to come from somewhere, whether it was by the death of a giant star collapsing into a black hole and somehow releasing the energy into another dimension in our space time, or by the collapse of the universe itself and re-expansion. We may never know for sure, but we sure as hell know that Mickey Mouse can't turn your milk into chickens, just as we know an "over natural" force didn't do it.
UPDATE : 2011 25/12 - 11:14
EnslaveTheEmos:
i wanst talking about our fucking universe, i was talking about existence. notice how all the theories you mentioned have energy and matter coming from a source. as you said, all these are FORMED. the issue is, that is just energy being transferred. you didnt explain how the energy was created. if you go all the way back to the beginning, at some point energy was created from nothing, at one point, it was not formed with a source, but was the first and source to the rest.
MuffinJin:
In case you haven't noticed, it's the same fucking thing! The universe IS all in existance and with the universe being infinite, how can it have a beginning? I'm not claiming to have the answers to how the universe (or existance) started, but I can tell you that everything in our universe is natural and there is no point in invite over natural forces or beings into the equation, especially when we every day learn something more about the natural laws that governs the universe.
UPDATE : 2011 26/12 - 20:34
EnslaveTheEmos:
think of it like this.
no matter how many different sources, different universes, stars, black holes, anything you say our universe came from, all i need to say is "where did that one come from?"
we can continue that cycle and you could have all the right answers back until the very first from of energy to ever exist at the first point it existed, and then there would be no answer to that question. no multiverse theory, no big bounce, those do not explain this moment.
MuffinJin:
I'm saying that there is no beginning, since no one in the whole world understand how something infinite CAN have a beginning. And with the universe being infinite (at least that's the genuine belief about the universe among scientists as we know it) it can't have an ending, just as it can't have a beginning.
EnslaveTheEmos:
it doesnt matter if it is infinite or not. it doesnt make much sense to say it is infinite considering its still expanding, and there is an end to it. scientists can estimate its size and rate of growth. but even is we call it infinite, the concept of no beginning and no end is also beyond human comprehension. i never said i support magic man theories, but science will never answer these questions, because humans cant comprehend these concepts. we can just marvel at them.
MuffinJin:
No end to it? How the hell can you know that if we can't comprehend it? Your whole comment just proves you HAVEN'T heard about The Big Bounce, which I asked you earlier and explained in a very small amount of words, which was the neverending cycle of expanding and collapsing. Also, just as we as humans couldn't comprehend the idea of the earth being flat until someone used scientific calculations to prove otherwise, doesn't mean we can't comprehend the idea of an infinite universe in the future.
EnslaveTheEmos:
by end i mean border. we can estimate the size of our universe, and we can estimate its rate of growth. this is common knowledge.
and humans can comprehend fucking shapes, we can look at the earth, and see it. the concept of infinity we can not comprehend. learn what the fuck comprehend means. the fact that this "infinite" universe just happens to exist without a any form of source for all its energy and matter we can not comprehend. its different than saying we dont know.
MuffinJin:
comprehend
vb
1. to perceive or understand
Don't lecture me about english. I sure as fuck can comprehend infinity, I just need to understand how it can neither have a beginning or an end. Scientists have established that the universe is infinite. And what border are you talking about? You seem to have no idea how the discovery about how quick the universe is expanding was perceived. We found out through measuring the distance between universal satellites, such as planets and stars.
And the "size of the universe" you're talking about is nothing but the diameter between one galaxy furthest away we know, to another on the other sida of the known universe. Not from one border to another. There is no fucking border. The universe isn't a huge dome or globe, it's the existance of everything.
u·ni·verse[yoo-nuh-vurs] Show IPA
noun
the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
EnslaveTheEmos:
there is a perceivable border, and it is in theory a sphere. as the energy from the theory of the big bang moves outward, the light from the bang also moves outward. light however has a set speed, and light is information. to an observer moving faster than light who moves past the radius that sphere of light has reached in its expansion, he could look back and see nothing, until the border of light reached him.
it seems you are the one who knows nothing of this subject
MuffinJin:
Finally, we're on the same page. By "border of the universe" you mean the point of which the very furthest photon lies. Correct me if I'm wrong. However, this would STILL mean that there is plenty of space untouched by that single photon, and it would go on forever and ever. The vaccum of space is what I'm talking about and it has - no - physical - border! At least not as far as we know.
EnslaveTheEmos:
there is a perceivable border, and it is in theory a sphere. as the energy from the theory of the big bang moves outward, the light from the bang also moves outward. light however has a set speed, and light is information. to an observer moving faster than light who moves past the radius that sphere of light has reached in its expansion, he could look back and see nothing, until the border of light reached him.
it seems you are the one who knows nothing of this subject
MuffinJin:
Finally, we're on the same page. By "border of the universe" you mean the point of which the very furthest photon lies. Correct me if I'm wrong. However, this would STILL mean that there is plenty of space untouched by that single photon, and it would go on forever and ever. The vaccum of space is what I'm talking about and it has - no - physical - border! At least not as far as we know.
EnslaveTheEmos:
thats the long way to come to an agreement. were both trying to ram different aspects of the same argument down each others throats. vacuum vs detectable energy. now the infinite argument is in perspective that i approach it thinking of the vacuum. originally i was trying to get at the point of the existence of energy and matter within that vacuum. the vacuum is eternal, the energy has a point in which it is created, and at some point the first energy came without a source
MuffinJin:
LOL I guess that's what one would get by discussing over the internet xD It's like talking to a wall, thinking oneself is right... and here we both was talking about the same thing.
Well, technically speaking is energy eternal as well, since energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transform and that's the first law of thermodynamics. Therefore, my thoughts upon this lies with the belief that energy, just as the rest of the space time domain never has an ending, just as it has no beginning.
EnslaveTheEmos:
even if it is infinite, science can never replicate it. how can man or science be able to ever replicate or create something that has no beginning? that law is one we just need to accept and work around, since we can not change it. somehow, natural forces are able to overcome that law though, as the universe does indeed exist. i guess thats what i was trying to get at by "higher force". its nothing man or science could ever replicate. morgan freeman should narrate this.
and if we ever were somehow able to create our own realm of infinite existence, it would still have a source, which would be us creating it. even if we could create the matter out of thin air, the source is still us willing it into existence.
but of course we cant create something infinite, as it would not be infinite, but would have a time and point of creation.
MuffinJin:
So correct me if I may have gotten this wrong. You believe that the universe is infinite, but it must've taken a higher power to make it so?
Also, the energy we would use to create our own "infinite" realm, even if it was astronomically possibles, would be the use of our same eternal energy from our universe since it can't be created out of nothing, and therefore have no problem with the infinity-principle.
UPDATE : 2011 28/12 - 06:09
EnslaveTheEmos:
considering the infinite approach, is that infinity not in itself a natural higher power. it is un replicable, un changeable, and un bound by all the rules and laws that binds all other aspects of existence. we have no choice but to accept its existence. the existence of something truly infinite is beyond our logic. thats why it cant be explained, you just keep saying it works because its infinite. its a natural force, far beyond humanity, and is the backbone of existence
MuffinJin:
This has been quite entertaining. The Big Bang-model of the universe is obviously not infinite, but I personally believe the big bang universe is just an event in an infinite universe/vacuum of space. We'll likely never know the real answer. And we may not be able to fantasize about something truly infinite, be we can still understand what it means, you know?
I'm not sure we're gonna get much further than we've come as of this moment xD
EnslaveTheEmos:
it makes my brain hurt, but its good shit to ponder.
And everybody lived happily ever after.
THE END
THE END
w0mbat
Kille, 30 år
Satan finns så då måste väl gud också finnas ;D
Skvettis
Kille, 31 år
Citat från iShotTheSheriff
Satan finns så då måste väl gud också finnas ;D
... Satan finns inte?
Aidee
34 år
Citat från iShotTheSheriff
Satan finns så då måste väl gud också finnas ;D
Hur tänkte du nu?
Sharon
Tjej, 34 år
Citat från iShotTheSheriff
Satan finns så då måste väl gud också finnas ;D
Kan likaväl vara ett och samma väsen. Skulle Gud nu existera, så tror jag att hen är lite av yin&yang.
Aidee
34 år
Sista uppdateringen nu ^
KSMB
Tjej, 30 år
nej gud finns inte. och om gud fanns, varför kunde det inte lika gärna vara en "hon"? höh?!
AdolfHipster
Tjej, 29 år
Nej, jag tror inte det, har aldrig trott det; och kommer antagligen aldrig få en bra anledning till att ändra uppfattning.
Orks
37 år
MuffinJin: Nej, tid och rum/vakum/rymd skapades med big bang och expanderar.
jonathansvanberg
Kille, 31 år
Citat från horskaft
Citat från lovejsa
nej gud finns inte. och om gud fanns, varför kunde det inte lika gärna vara en "hon"? höh?!
Jag vet inte om bibeln men enligt koranen är väl gud könslös?
Samma med bibeln, kristendomens Gud är könlös.
Orks
37 år
Citat från MuffinJin
Citat från Orks
MuffinJin: Nej, tid och rum/vakum/rymd skapades med big bang och expanderar.
Källa på det?
"Big Bang (eller Stora smällen), är standardteorin om universums uppkomst och utveckling. Universums utveckling startade för ca 13,7 miljarder år sedan, då rymden började expandera - wikipedia
Du behöver bara läsa mer om Big Bang i vilket sammanhang som helst, så kommer du att inse det. Jag trodde att alla var med på detta vid det här laget.
Mitt tips: Gå till valfri text om Big Bang, och läs.
Sharon
Tjej, 34 år
Fast Big Bang-teorin är lite knasig faktiskt.
Orks
37 år
Kom med en bättre teori.
Dessutom kräver inte universum att du förstår det för att fungera.
Sharon
Tjej, 34 år
Att någonting skulle expandera i ingenting (så vitt vi vet) är totalknasigt. Om du blåser upp en ballong i ett utrymme som är för litet för att ballongen ska bli så stor den kan bli, hur kan du då få den i sin största storlek?
Nu är ju visserligen en ballong och universum inte samma sak.
Du måste vara inloggad för att skriva i forumet