|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted January 19, 2008 10:05 PM |
|
|
Why aren't they?
If the universe is infinite, and you have two objects - one on one side, and the other on the other side... The distance is infinite 
Infinity is a double edged argument 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 19, 2008 10:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why aren't they?
If the universe is infinite, and you have two objects - one on one side, and the other on the other side... The distance is infinite
Infinity is a double edged argument
But the objects aren't an infinite distance from each other. After the big bang, the objects moved from the center in the shape of a circle. They continue to move apart this day. But they haven't (and can't) move an infinite distance from each other. What I mean about infinite space is that beyond the furthest places where matter has reached, there is just an infinite quantity of empty space. If you travelled beyond there, it would be absolutely empty. That's what I mean by infinity of space.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 19, 2008 11:18 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 23:19, 19 Jan 2008.
|
But how do you know there was only one big bang?
If the universe is infinite, that means there could've been infinite big bangs in different parts of it... And therefore infinite amounts of matter created by them. ^^
But if you claim that the Big Bang created space, and space is infinite, that means that the objects could've moved infinite distances one from another after the Bang itself.
Sorry if I'm being mean  I just don't like it when people think they've got infinity and the universe all clear and figured out.
EDIT
Not to mention that the Big Bang is just a theory Which basically can't be proven any more than God.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 19, 2008 11:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But how do you know there was only one big bang?
If the universe is infinite, that means there could've been infinite big bangs in different parts of it... And therefore infinite amounts of matter created by them. ^^
The Big Bang didn't create matter. The Big Bang spread matter outwards.
Quote:
But if you claim that the Big Bang created space, and space is infinite, that means that the objects could've moved infinite distances one from another after the Bang itself.
The Big Bang didn't create space.
Quote:
Not to mention that the Big Bang is just a theory Which basically can't be proven any more than God.
Definition of theory: A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena. Therefore, a theory is an explanation.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 19, 2008 11:51 PM |
|
Edited by SirDunco at 23:51, 19 Jan 2008.
|
Quote:
Not to mention that the Big Bang is just a theory Which basically can't be proven any more than God.
Definition of theory: A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena. Therefore, a theory is an explanation.
Correction, a theory is an attempt to explain something. It is a theory since it has definite no proof. A theory is something theoretical, one of other possible explanations. As to metaphysical questions all we have is theories, that may or may not be true as there is now possible way to prove them. And this is a metaphysical question and eventually all statements can be narrowed down to the base of beliefs. The belief in God or Gods, the belief in infinity of matter and so on and so on...
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 12:06 AM |
|
|
Basically Sir Dunco said what I was going to say.
Great minds think alike 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 01:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It is a theory since it has definite no proof.
Actually, you've got it backwards. We have evidence, and devise a theory to explain it.
Quote:
A theory is something theoretical
O RLY?
Quote:
As to metaphysical questions all we have is theories, that may or may not be true as there is now possible way to prove them.
Let's see here... we have all the matter in the universe expanding from a central point. Hmm... I wonder what happened at that point... Maybe all the matter was there at one point!
The difference between theories and a belief in God is that theories explain evidence. God lies outside of evidence.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 02:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually, you've got it backwards. We have evidence, and devise a theory to explain it.
So you have evidence for something, but you're not really sure for what.
Then you think up a remotely possible theory and claim it's a fact, cause it seems like a rational possibility and you can't think of anything else that could've happened.
Anyone with a different opinion is largely considered ignorant.
***
On the other hand, there's medieval Church.
They had evidence of the laws of physics, of matter, of creation, but weren't quite sure what they point at.
So they thought up a remotely possible theory (that all of that was created by God) and claimed it's a fact. Cause it seemed like the only rational possibility at the time.
Anyone with a different opinion was largely considered ignorant and an infidel.
***
In ancient Greece, the situation was the same, except that science was more advanced than in the middle ages.
But still, they thought up a remotely possible theory (about the pantheon of gods like Zeus, Hades, Poseidon etcetera) and claimed it's a fact. Again, it seemed like a rational possibility at the time.
Of course, anyone with a different opinion was largely considered ignorant.
That sort of thinking is in human nature, I guess. We're just lucky that people burn each other on stakes less these days.
What everyone has to accept is at least the smallest possibility that they are wrong. Until that happens, we'll be bathing in arguments like "O RLY" and "my dad has a larger penis than yours".
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 03:26 AM |
|
|
You know what? You're right. And you're wrong. What you say is right, what you imply is wrong.
Quote:
So you have evidence for something, but you're not really sure for what.
Then you think up a remotely possible theory and claim it's a fact, cause it seems like a rational possibility and you can't think of anything else that could've happened.
Anyone with a different opinion is largely considered ignorant.
The first part of what you said is the way science works. Well, what do you expect? We don't actually know anything 100%, but with experiments (gathered using the senses and tools) and reason, most of the time we can get to 99.99999999999999999%, where the remaining bit is shared by all other explanations. If new evidence is discovered, there needs to be a new theory, one that explains both the old and the new evidence. But there isn't any evidence of any higher power. It is as likely as this being a simulation run by aliens. It is as likely as all of the other unobservable phenomena. If God descended upon Earth tomorrow, and started doing all of the things that omnipotent beings can do, then all of our theories will, needless to say, have to be revised. But wiith the best of our data, observations, knowledge, and reasoning, science is correct.
And there is a vital difference between now and the medieval times. We have the scientific method.
And, as we find out more, our theories will be revised. Science does not stay in one place. It moves forward. Meanwhile we should practice tolerance to all who are willing to practice it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 11:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You know what? You're right. And you're wrong.
No my friend, I'm neither. About most things at least. Until proven I'm either right or wrong, I'm just stating possibilities and my opinion. And I accept they don't necessarily have to be true, but I don't accept that they aren't, either.
That's the problem with us agnostics...
Quote:
The first part of what you said is the way science works. Well, what do you expect? We don't actually know anything 100%
Yes we do. A lot of things. Which are in our closer surroundings.
But that is a bit different than guessing what happened a billion eons ago, a billion light years away from here. Don't you agree?
Quote:
but with experiments (gathered using the senses and tools) and reason, most of the time we can get to 99.99999999999999999%, where the remaining bit is shared by all other explanations.
"Reason" changes through the ages, and humans are rather limited in "senses", especially on the cosmic level And how do we exactly experiment on things that are light years away from us and a gazillion times larger than us? We can just observe (and we can't even do that properly since most of the cosmic processes are far too slow or too far away for us to actually see or notice), and guess.
Religion was also created by observing our surroundings and guessing what their cause may be. By, of course, using reason and senses
And finally, this sums it up:
Quote:
But there isn't any evidence of any higher power. (...) It is as likely as all of the other unobservable phenomena.
The Big Bang is a good example of an unobservable phenomenon.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 01:10 PM |
|
Edited by SirDunco at 13:10, 20 Jan 2008.
|
Good job Baklava, I see that we are filling in for each other
Exactly, the Big Bang is an unobservable phenomenon, for which we have no conclusive evidence. It is one of other possible explanations, which may or may not be right.
Still narrowed down to the core, all metaphysical questions end in belief as they cannot be answer using any scientific method or theory as there are things that escape the human mind.
____________
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 01:17 PM |
|
|
Watch out. Before long somebody will come along telling you you missed the point . You argue its a theory, somebody gets upset. You suggest that we might not understand, and it is taken as an insult.
Understanding things around us is great, and I fully support continuing to do so. It is important to keep an open mind while doing so, however. Just because something can not be quantified, or explained, or rationalized should not mean it is outright dismissed. That is just my opinon however, and should only be taken as such.
____________
Message received.
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 02:03 PM |
|
|
I do not dismiss, I'm just a skeptic. What I do not like is when someone states that "This is how it was." and tries to state it as conclusive and ultimate. Most conflicts come when two ultimate theories meet each other. I try to look at all sides, but apart from finding things that I can agree with, I try to point out the weakness so that others can look at theory/belief ect. from a different point of view.
One should consider all aspects before making a conclusive statement.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 05:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The first part of what you said is the way science works. Well, what do you expect? We don't actually know anything 100%
Yes we do. A lot of things. Which are in our closer surroundings.
But that is a bit different than guessing what happened a billion eons ago, a billion light years away from here. Don't you agree?
We know, yes. But what if something completely unexpected happened? We'd have to come up with something different. And if all the matter of the universe is expanding from a central point, maybe it was there in the beginning. Certainly it's more likely than creationism.
Quote:
Quote:
but with experiments (gathered using the senses and tools) and reason, most of the time we can get to 99.99999999999999999%, where the remaining bit is shared by all other explanations.
"Reason" changes through the ages, and humans are rather limited in "senses", especially on the cosmic level And how do we exactly experiment on things that are light years away from us and a gazillion times larger than us? We can just observe (and we can't even do that properly since most of the cosmic processes are far too slow or too far away for us to actually see or notice), and guess.
We don't guess. We theorize. We see what's happening, and combine it with our knowledge of things that are close to us. That's the best we can do. And it's a lot better than what theists can do.
Quote:
Quote:
But there isn't any evidence of any higher power. (...) It is as likely as all of the other unobservable phenomena.
The Big Bang is a good example of an unobservable phenomenon.
There is evidence of something like the Big Bang having taken place.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 06:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We know, yes. But what if something completely unexpected happened? We'd have to come up with something different. And if all the matter of the universe is expanding from a central point, maybe it was there in the beginning. Certainly it's more likely than creationism.
Well, how do you define it's "more likely than creationism"? Isn't this a bit subjective? (because for me, creationism is more likely).
Quote:
That's the best we can do. And it's a lot better than what theists can do.
Nope, that's what you (and most atheists) think it's the best we can do, and the last phrase is completely subjective.
How do you define it's "a lot better than what theists can do". Just because you find it more logical, or what? Not everyone has the same logic.
unless these "percentages" (i.e more likely, aka higher chances) are written down as a math formula, I don't see the point. Why do you think the Big Bang is more likely than God? Show me the formula to calculate this chance.
Quote:
There is evidence of something like the Big Bang having taken place.
Sure, much the same as evidence for God. You see all this world, all those stars? Maybe they were created randomly in an explosion, aka Big Bang. Maybe they were created by God. Same evidence for both, if you take it like that.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 06:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
We know, yes. But what if something completely unexpected happened? We'd have to come up with something different. And if all the matter of the universe is expanding from a central point, maybe it was there in the beginning. Certainly it's more likely than creationism.
Well, how do you define it's "more likely than creationism"? Isn't this a bit subjective? (because for me, creationism is more likely).
That it is logical to say that matter was once all at one point if it's spreading out from it.
Quote:
How do you define it's "a lot better than what theists can do". Just because you find it more logical, or what? Not everyone has the same logic.
Didn't you and TA already discuss logic?
Quote:
Why do you think the Big Bang is more likely than God?
Evidence for Big Bang = Matter expanding from central point.
Evidence for Creation = ????
Quote:
Quote:
There is evidence of something like the Big Bang having taken place.
Sure, much the same as evidence for God.
What evidence is there for God?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 06:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Evidence for Big Bang = Matter expanding from central point.
Assuming that matter DOES expand from a central point (though we can't know even that for sure):
Perhaps God touched the universe at that point. Perhaps that point was where God said the Word. Perhaps that point is the entrance to Heaven. Perhaps that point is where God is.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 08:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps God touched the universe at that point. Perhaps that point was where God said the Word. Perhaps that point is the entrance to Heaven. Perhaps that point is where God is.
Or maybe it's where the aliens inserted their simulation projector. The thing is, there is no evidence of anything beyond the physical universe in any other case, so there's no need to assume the intervention of one here.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 08:30 PM |
|
|
But then there's no need to assume the Big Bang either.
and btw, what's with that Occam's Razor anyway? Is it some sort of "atheist" Bible that you need to follow without questioning it? Since it's pretty much the same in your view (i.e follow a guy's words called Occam (who was a theist btw, so you should come with something to back up your "exclusion") without questioning it.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 20, 2008 08:38 PM |
|
|
By the way, here's a good example that we still haven't figured out some things about physics in other parts of space... 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
