The War on Religion

My understanding of multiverse theory is that you would have to move in a different dimension to experience another universe. A line extends forever in one dimension (two directions), but there are things beyond a line. A plane extends in two dimensions (three directions), but there are things that are beyond the plane. A universe expands in 3 dimensions. That doesn't mean there isn't something beyond the universe.

Right, I'll try to find an awesome, brief, video on the theory of an 11 dimensions multiverse that describes exactly what you're saying. It was about ten minutes long, and mostly mindblowing. It seemed, to me, to be the best way to grasp the idea of "infinity." It included all possible sets of outcomes for all possible initial conditions.
 
It's very clear who is doing the bashing and personal attacks to anyone with any reason that is reading this thread. Why would I want to stay in a discussion where I'm going to be personally attacked? Both by you and kingnothing. Just thought I'd point that out before I leave.

Sorry, I'm not going to do it.

Your the one who started by calling me out to other people and saying I don't understand anything.

Granted my comment was an insult, but it did bring up a good point. I don't think you were ever athiest. You are just using that as a ploy to try to win an argument. No rational person would switch to religion based on the arguments you made.
 
Your the one who started by calling me out to other people and saying I don't understand anything.

Granted my comment was an insult, but it did bring up a good point. I don't think you were ever athiest. You are just using that as a ploy to try to win an argument. No rational person would switch to religion based on the arguments you made.

Stupid circular reasoning is stupid and circular.
 
I realize that my explanation hasn't been entirely adequate now. Here is a video that explains it much better. It's 6 minutes long, but it sums it up very cogently.



If the universe is infinitly old, how come we haven't run out of energy? Because energy is infinite too. That's what makes it infinity. This guy obviously doesn't understand infinity. Additionally he's trying to justify his argument by acting like the known rules of the universe are absolute, which they are not.

He's also granting God the same exemptions you are. God is not required to use our laws, but we are. Has he ever considered that maybe we are NOT bound to the apparent rules we see?
 
Leave bias behind? Holy moses, I've said repeatedly that I won't rule anything out -- even God. You're the one with the bias, speaking definitively about things in which no definitive words should be spoken because an infinite universe would imply that everything could, or would or will, happen. Even things that can't happen, given the initial conditions that our universe presupposes, could (would, necessarily) happen. I have no dog in this fight, and no bias. All I am saying is that your refusal to stop making assumptions based on a set of conditions that don't necessarily have to exist is silly.

That's just it. You saying you won't rule anything out is just rhetoric. It's possible I haven't read enough or something, but until you can offer a reason why I shouldn't believe it, I'm going with the laws of logic. No infinite regression of causes and such. You still haven't responded to that, you are just accusing me of being biased when I am telling you things that are logically true regardless of what my biases are.

I am not saying there have to be certain conditions. I am saying that, logically, the universe simply cannot have existed forever because that would mean it has existed for an infinite amount of time before this point in time, which would mean this point in time has never happened. If you are saying that the universe exists outside of time, like I say God does, then tell me a way in which the universe, devoid of intelligence, can spontaneously decide to act. There cannot be an infinite regression of causes. We have established that. So that means there must have been an original action. How does an unintelligent universe decide to act?
 
I think he's saying the opposite. I've heard many times from religious people that we can't explain everything, therefore God exists.

That's not what I'm saying, and that's not what he's saying. He's saying that we can't understand the universe, therefore we should not introduce ideas of God. Why not? Aren't the existence and non-existence of God equally viable beliefs if we cannot understand where the universe came from?
 
That's not what I'm saying, and that's not what he's saying. He's saying that we can't understand the universe, therefore we should not introduce ideas of God. Why not? Aren't the existence and non-existence of God equally viable beliefs if we cannot understand where the universe came from?

Maybe I misread what he meant, but the example of the rational from many religious people I gave is still valid. At least you have not used that argument.
 
I have already stated the reason the universe exists without a cause is because zero equals infinity. That's the only rational explanation I've ever seen for why stuff exists.

As I have already stated, the laws of the universe are only appartent. They are not required for something to exist. Additionally, that's a poor explanation for why God doesn't have the same constraints. You are basically because I said so.

If you're not going to tell me what zero equals infinity means, then I can't accept your argument. It is not at all clear what zero equals infinity means because I have never heard that argument before, by anyone.

I am saying it is possible for God to exist beyond the laws of the universe and for us to exist within them at the same time. It was in response to someone who asked who created God. He doesn't need to be created if He is outside of the laws of the universe and we are not. We do need to be created because we did not used to exist, and anything that begins to exist had to have been caused to exist.

I am not saying that God does exist because He is outside of the laws of the universe. I am saying that I do not need to explain who created God because it is possible for Him to exist without such an explanation.
 
Last edited:
If the universe is infinitly old, how come we haven't run out of energy? Because energy is infinite too. That's what makes it infinity. This guy obviously doesn't understand infinity. Additionally he's trying to justify his argument by acting like the known rules of the universe are absolute, which they are not.

He's also granting God the same exemptions you are. God is not required to use our laws, but we are. Has he ever considered that maybe we are NOT bound to the apparent rules we see?

And you do understand infinity? Is that what you're honestly saying?

He is not saying the rules of the universe are absolute. He is saying the laws of logic are absolute because they exist independently of the physical universe and independently of our ability to conceive of them. Are you saying the laws of logic don't apply? They must apply 100 percent of the time in order to be true.

Regardless, though, I think I've exposed your intellectual dishonesty. You are either saying he does not understand infinity and you do, or you are saying that nobody understands infinity, including you. If you do not understand infinity, then how can hold it against someone for not understanding infinity? By what you said before that, however, it looks like you do think you understand infinity.
 
Last edited:
And you do understand infinity? Is that what you're honestly saying?

He is not saying the rules of the universe are absolute. He is saying the laws of logic are absolute because they exist independently of the physical universe and independently of our ability to conceive of them. Are you saying the laws of logic don't apply? They must apply 100 percent of the time in order to be true.

Regardless, though, I think I've exposed your intellectual dishonesty. You are either saying he does not understand infinity and you do, or you are saying that nobody understands infinity, including you. If you do not understand infinity, then how can hold it against someone for not understanding infinity? By what you said before that, however, it looks like you do think you understand infinity.

I don't understand every last detail about infinity, but I do understand it very well...better than most people. This guy is making basic errors when explaining infinity. In infinity, everything is infinite, not just time like he assumes. Additionally, he rules out any other possibilties besides the popular atheist beliefs and religious beliefs. My beliefs are not the same as either of those, yet he rules out all other possibilities. If you want to use that video to convince some athiests you are correct, go for it, howver its not going to work on me.

I think I was very clear that he doesn't understand infinity and I do. Or its possible he does understand infinity but is just making up an argument that supports his position.
 
If you're not going to tell me what zero equals infinity means, then I can't accept your argument. It is not at all clear what zero equals infinity means because I have never heard that argument before, by anyone.

I am saying it is possible for God to exist beyond the laws of the universe and for us to exist within them at the same time. It was in response to someone who asked who created God. He doesn't need to be created if He is outside of the laws of the universe and we are not. We do need to be created because we did not used to exist, and anything that begins to exist had to have been caused to exist.

I am not saying that God does exist because He is outside of the laws of the universe. I am saying that I do not need to explain who created God because it is possible for Him to exist without such an explanation.

I have already explained zero equals infinity to you several times and yet you are acting like you never even heard it before let alone having any understanding of it. I'm not going to waste my time writing it up on this cell phone just so you'll ignore it like you have been doing. If someone else wants more of an explanation, Ill explain it.

You are still making special exemptions for God and not us. As I have stated, the accepted laws of the universe are not absolute, so we are on level playing field with God. Whatever conditions you have for us being infinite, you also have to make for God.
 
e^(pi * i) + 1 = 0 therefore, God.

In all seriousness, Euler's identity and things like it do add a sort of mysticism to the Universe and the study of it. Guys like Carl Sagan and neil degrasse tyson have shown us that the splendor of the universe, whatever it is, is enough to bring about the same response in an individual as God, whatever it is. There is a humbling beauty and awe-inspiring nature to each. Call the inspiration for that whatever you want, the effect is the same.
 
Last edited:
A simple thought exercise. Otherwise I'm staying out of this.

http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/nothing.htm

Nothing

The existence of Nothing requires no justification. It is the only phenomenon commonly considered to be essentially natural and intrinsically logical.

But just what IS Nothing?

The "void" of space isn't Nothing as in non-existent. Space may be non-material - i.e. it does not have the property of mass - but it occupies volume and anything which has a physical presence in the Universe exists. An infinite expanse of space devoid of matter requires no less logical justification than an infinite expanse of matter devoid of space.

Semantically, Nothing has two connotations :
Nothing(L) (in logical terms) is the null set - represented by the symbol 'Ø'.
Nothing(A) (in the abstract) is 'that which does not exist'.

But, 'that which does not exist' doesn't exist. It isn't the empty set. It's not a set at all. It is the absence of a set.

To consider Nothing(A) would be not to consider.
To perceive Nothing(A) would be not to perceive.
To understand Nothing(A) would be not to understand.

(Authors Note: If you think you understand the preceding paragraph, please go back and re-read it until you are absolutely certain that you don't.)

Imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same point NOT in space. Better yet, try to describe for me something that neither has nor lacks quality, quantity or location. Logic and perception require definition and Nothing(A) is undefined.

In quantitative analysis the set of null value - represented by the symbol 'Ø' - isn't positive or negative, it's neutral. Nothing(L) is the neutrality of ALL values - qualitative, quantitative and spatial. It represents the equilibrium that pervades the structure of the Universe.


Nothing vs Infinity

Reality is usually measured and described in qualitative, quantitative and spatial parameters - three basic criteria. Quantitatively there is a negative equivalent for every positive value and dimensionally there is an opposite for every vector. If each of the fundamental elements of the Universe is composed of reciprocally balanced sets of qualities and anti-qualities, then within the finite world the equivalent of Nothing exists. But in the very real and not so 'relative' domain of infinity, absolute Nothing exists.

(3) Consider the fractions 1/2 and 1/999999,999,999,999,999 . As the denominator of a fraction increases, its value decreases. Though infinity is unquantifiable and can't be represented by a value, it is obvious that if the numerator of a fraction is finite, then regardless how large that numerator may be, the ratio of any finite quantity compared to infinity is Ø.

(2) Using any given point in space as the point of origin for an X,Y,Z axis, one may theoretically extend equidistant lines to infinity throughout the spectrum of three-dimensional coordinates. The procedure inscribes a sphere which theoretically encompasses the Universe. By definition, the selected point is the center of that sphere - and the center of the Universe. Since the same can be done for all points in the Universe, every point in the cosmos is its center.

(1) If every quality has a reciprocal, then the sum of the qualities in the Universe has a 'null' value. The equivalent of nothing exists, just not all in the same place...unless you look at it from the point of view above (infinity).

From the perspective of infinity, nothing exists (1), has no size (3) and no relative location (2). It is the only perspective from which quantitative, qualitative and dimensional values all vanish.
 
That's not what I'm saying, and that's not what he's saying. He's saying that we can't understand the universe, therefore we should not introduce ideas of God. Why not? Aren't the existence and non-existence of God equally viable beliefs if we cannot understand where the universe came from?

You can believe in God if you want but God would just be a hypothesis at this point. There is not enough evidence to prove his existence.

What I was saying is we just don't know and may never know.
 
There have been very little research in technology based off the idea the universe is infinite. The vast majority of research is in pointless technologies that only advance us a little bit. If infinity was truly mainstream, most investment would go to technolgies that could make a huge difference in our lives. Right now most people think a car that gets 40 miles to the gallon is impressive. Are these the people you are talking about that believe in infinity?

By the way, when I was in high school, the big bang theory was still be taught as geenerally accepted fact. Most of the science programs I have seen still teach the big bang theory. So they are either teaching the universe is finite, or they don't understand infinity.


Do yourself a favor. Go read A Brief History of The Universe. And just about every other book my Hawking. Every one of them addresses the idea of infinity. Brief History expressly explains how all things could exist because they are. Also understand these are the most popular layman's books out there for since, with hundreds of millions having read them.

And of course school is watered down. Everything taught in school is. That is what happens when you have to cripple the system to pass the most students to make stats look pretty.
 
I think every single one of you have no idea of what "time" is. The proofs for the Theory of Relativity have shown that "time" only exists within a gravity well, below the speed of light. If you were to find yourself in a place in space where there is nothing to exert gravity upon you then time would simply cease to exist. This may not be completely achievable in our Universe because there might be "background" gravity that holds the Universe together. But theoretically it is possible. I would think it is completely true in between galaxies. And if we could penetrate the limits of the Universe we could quite possibly find ourselves in an "eternal now" beyond time itself. So time is not this great "infinite" that people on here seem to think it is. The idea of infinity on this plane of existence is purely philosophical. In reality we have shown that time absolutely planets, stars, asteroids, et al. just STUFF to exist because it is entirely dependent on gravity for its existence. Go beyond gravity go beyond time.

Also this idea that the Universe is "infinite" is also dumb. It is not. Scientists already have a decent estimate of how large it is, and roughly how far beyond the speed of light it is expanding. That means it is REALLY REALLY REALLY big. But a big number is NOT an infinite set.
 
Back
Top