Concept of Infinity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
242

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.

The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.

I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[/quote]

The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.

You assume to universe is caused, you don’t know this for sure. That you find it more plausible to believe in an unseen, unproven and untestable god instead of an eternal universe, i just don’t get that.

The universe isn’t caused by a creator. It has existed in different shapes and sizes forever.

Our window of life is only a passing instance. Soon, in the eons to come, the universe will change and become inhabitable to life as we know it now.
[/quote]
A singularity existing in absolute nothingness with zero volume is equivalent to nothingness. A universe that experiences time isn’t eternal because nothing can possibly come to pass in a such an “eternal universe”.[/quote]

How can something exist and be equivalent to nothingness?
[/quote]
Sorry slip of my fingers, what I mean to say is that the big bang singularity is a placeholder for nothingness.

243

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The eternal universe ends the question.

There is no question.
[/quote]

So, something has no cause?[/quote]

It never began but simply has always existed.
[/quote]

Doesn’t an infinite universe require an infinite regression? Since the big bang would have to go to smaller and smaller size as you go back in time? Or were you saying that before the big bang, there was a singularity that was always there. I don’t think there’s any science suggesting that.[/quote]

But the universe is not infinite. I mean, from our perspective the universe is as good as infinite, but it still has a definite size.

I’m saying, and i’m sure i’m talking out of my arse here, is that the universe, in whatever shape or form, has always existed.

244

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
A singularity existing in absolute nothingness with zero volume is equivalent to nothingness. A universe that experiences time isn’t eternal because nothing can possibly come to pass in a such an “eternal universe”.[/quote]

How can something exist and be equivalent to nothingness?
[/quote]
Sorry slip of my fingers, what I mean to say is that the big bang singularity is a placeholder for nothingness.[/quote]

I don’t understand what you mean by that?

245

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The eternal universe ends the question.

There is no question.
[/quote]

So, something has no cause?[/quote]

It never began but simply has always existed.
[/quote]

Always existed means no cause.

But why do you constrain the question of the origin of the universe to a perspective based in time, when time itself is a component of the universe?

A circle has no beginning or end, but one still has a cause and an origin. It only doesn’t have an end within the confines of the circle itself. Constraining yourself to internal concepts is to ignore the possibility of a cause external to the circle.

You are just tracing around and around the circle and then concluding that it can’t have a cause because it has no beginning. Things infinite in terms of the universe can still have a cause.

246

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The eternal universe ends the question.

There is no question.
[/quote]

So, something has no cause?[/quote]

It never began but simply has always existed.
[/quote]

Doesn’t an infinite universe require an infinite regression? Since the big bang would have to go to smaller and smaller size as you go back in time? Or were you saying that before the big bang, there was a singularity that was always there. I don’t think there’s any science suggesting that.[/quote]

But the universe is not infinite. I mean, from our perspective the universe is as good as infinite, but it still has a definite size.

I’m saying, and i’m sure i’m talking out of my arse here, is that the universe, in whatever shape or form, has always existed.
[/quote]

There is a limit to space-time?

247

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The eternal universe ends the question.

There is no question.
[/quote]

So, something has no cause?[/quote]

It never began but simply has always existed.
[/quote]

Doesn’t an infinite universe require an infinite regression? Since the big bang would have to go to smaller and smaller size as you go back in time? Or were you saying that before the big bang, there was a singularity that was always there. I don’t think there’s any science suggesting that.[/quote]

But the universe is not infinite. I mean, from our perspective the universe is as good as infinite, but it still has a definite size.

I’m saying, and i’m sure i’m talking out of my arse here, is that the universe, in whatever shape or form, has always existed.
[/quote]

There is a limit to space-time?[/quote]

I don’t know.

248

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The eternal universe ends the question.

There is no question.
[/quote]

So, something has no cause?[/quote]

It never began but simply has always existed.
[/quote]

Doesn’t an infinite universe require an infinite regression? Since the big bang would have to go to smaller and smaller size as you go back in time? Or were you saying that before the big bang, there was a singularity that was always there. I don’t think there’s any science suggesting that.[/quote]

But the universe is not infinite. I mean, from our perspective the universe is as good as infinite, but it still has a definite size.

I’m saying, and i’m sure i’m talking out of my arse here, is that the universe, in whatever shape or form, has always existed.
[/quote]

There is a limit to space-time?[/quote]

I don’t know.
[/quote]

So it could be infinite?

I’ve never heard of a reason to think it is limited.

249

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The eternal universe ends the question.

There is no question.
[/quote]

So, something has no cause?[/quote]

It never began but simply has always existed.
[/quote]

Always existed means no cause.

But why do you constrain the question of the origin of the universe to a perspective based in time, when time itself is a component of the universe?

A circle has no beginning or end, but one still has a cause and an origin. It only doesn’t have an end within the confines of the circle itself. Constraining yourself to internal concepts is to ignore the possibility of a cause external to the circle.

You are just tracing around and around the circle and then concluding that it can’t have a cause because it has no beginning. Things infinite in terms of the universe can still have a cause.[/quote]

I attacked pat’s assumption of god’s existence. The only perspective i have is that of space/time, but without a cause there’s no need for a god.

Inflation and deflation of the universe as an eternal breath is just one perspective.

250

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I attacked pat’s assumption of god’s existence. The only perspective i have is that of space/time, but without a cause there’s no need for a god.

Inflation and deflation of the universe as an eternal breath is just one perspective.
[/quote]

But you can’t rule out a cause because you are constraining your perspective to space-time.

251

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The eternal universe ends the question.

There is no question.
[/quote]

So, something has no cause?[/quote]

It never began but simply has always existed.
[/quote]

Doesn’t an infinite universe require an infinite regression? Since the big bang would have to go to smaller and smaller size as you go back in time? Or were you saying that before the big bang, there was a singularity that was always there. I don’t think there’s any science suggesting that.[/quote]

But the universe is not infinite. I mean, from our perspective the universe is as good as infinite, but it still has a definite size.

I’m saying, and i’m sure i’m talking out of my arse here, is that the universe, in whatever shape or form, has always existed.
[/quote]

There is a limit to space-time?[/quote]

I don’t know.
[/quote]

So it could be infinite?

I’ve never heard of a reason to think it is limited.[/quote]

The visible universe is roughly 14 billion lightyears across. What lies beyond the visible universe is beyond scientific determination.

252

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I attacked pat’s assumption of god’s existence. The only perspective i have is that of space/time, but without a cause there’s no need for a god.

Inflation and deflation of the universe as an eternal breath is just one perspective.
[/quote]

But you can’t rule out a cause because you are constraining your perspective to space-time.[/quote]

Both are unprovable assumptions, and equally valid.

253

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I attacked pat’s assumption of god’s existence. The only perspective i have is that of space/time, but without a cause there’s no need for a god.

Inflation and deflation of the universe as an eternal breath is just one perspective.
[/quote]

But you can’t rule out a cause because you are constraining your perspective to space-time.[/quote]

Both are unprovable assumptions, and equally valid.[/quote]

I’m just saying that the physical nature of the universe is of necessity distinct from initial cause/creation. Thinking the universe is infinite in time doesn’t preclude creation. I personally believe both.

254

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I attacked pat’s assumption of god’s existence. The only perspective i have is that of space/time, but without a cause there’s no need for a god.

Inflation and deflation of the universe as an eternal breath is just one perspective.
[/quote]

But you can’t rule out a cause because you are constraining your perspective to space-time.[/quote]

Both are unprovable assumptions, and equally valid.[/quote]

I’m just saying that the physical nature of the universe is of necessity distinct from initial cause/creation. Thinking the universe is infinite in time doesn’t preclude creation. I personally believe both.[/quote]

Why?

255

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I attacked pat’s assumption of god’s existence. The only perspective i have is that of space/time, but without a cause there’s no need for a god.

Inflation and deflation of the universe as an eternal breath is just one perspective.
[/quote]

But you can’t rule out a cause because you are constraining your perspective to space-time.[/quote]

Both are unprovable assumptions, and equally valid.[/quote]

I’m just saying that the physical nature of the universe is of necessity distinct from initial cause/creation. Thinking the universe is infinite in time doesn’t preclude creation. I personally believe both.[/quote]

Why?
[/quote]

Because I think things inherently have a cause, but I see nothing that suggests a physical beginning in time to the universe. But a cause outside of the confines of time is still possible. To me, it’s the most reasonable.

256

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I attacked pat’s assumption of god’s existence. The only perspective i have is that of space/time, but without a cause there’s no need for a god.

Inflation and deflation of the universe as an eternal breath is just one perspective.
[/quote]

But you can’t rule out a cause because you are constraining your perspective to space-time.[/quote]

Both are unprovable assumptions, and equally valid.[/quote]

I’m just saying that the physical nature of the universe is of necessity distinct from initial cause/creation. Thinking the universe is infinite in time doesn’t preclude creation. I personally believe both.[/quote]

Why?
[/quote]

Because I think things inherently have a cause, but I see nothing that suggests a physical beginning in time to the universe. But a cause outside of the confines of time is still possible. To me, it’s the most reasonable.[/quote]

Because cause = purpose = goal?

[off to bed]

257

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I attacked pat’s assumption of god’s existence. The only perspective i have is that of space/time, but without a cause there’s no need for a god.

Inflation and deflation of the universe as an eternal breath is just one perspective.
[/quote]

But you can’t rule out a cause because you are constraining your perspective to space-time.[/quote]

Both are unprovable assumptions, and equally valid.[/quote]

I’m just saying that the physical nature of the universe is of necessity distinct from initial cause/creation. Thinking the universe is infinite in time doesn’t preclude creation. I personally believe both.[/quote]

Why?
[/quote]

Because I think things inherently have a cause, but I see nothing that suggests a physical beginning in time to the universe. But a cause outside of the confines of time is still possible. To me, it’s the most reasonable.[/quote]

Because cause = purpose = goal?

[off to bed]
[/quote]

I don’t know that it denotes purpose. God could be the slow kid that sits in that back of the class and picked the universe out of his nose.

258

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.

The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.

I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[/quote]

The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.

You assume to universe is caused, you don’t know this for sure. That you find it more plausible to believe in an unseen, unproven and untestable god instead of an eternal universe, i just don’t get that.

The universe isn’t caused by a creator. It has existed in different shapes and sizes forever.

Our window of life is only a passing instance. Soon, in the eons to come, the universe will change and become inhabitable to life as we know it now.
[/quote]

Let’s just hang with this statement:

“The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.” So define this sigulariry and what properties it posses. It must, by what you said have all the stuff in it that make up this universe, right? How did it get that way? Where did it come from? “Is” is not an acceptable answer.

Until you prove one thing that isn’t caused there must necessary be one. An uncaused universe is more far fetched than a caused one especially since there isn’t a scintilla of evidence to support it. I understand it’s a theory, but one with no evidence, just a possibility. It just happens to be the theory you hang you hat on.

If all the premises are correct then the uncaused-cause is proven with the cosmological form. Now the burden of proof is on your, you argued an uncaused sigulatiry is the universe. This is not the same as a causer who “sits” outside the universe, completely outside the causal chain. Why? Becuase it has to or it’s not the said Uncaused-cause.

Prove the sigularity exists, further prove it is uncaused.

I have given my arguments to the point of nausea many times. You cannot refute it, so now prove your points.

259

[quote]forlife wrote:
You don’t run out of things to regress into if you go back forever.

If your god has no beginning, it is equally (and in my opinion far more) plausible that energy and matter have no beginning.[/quote]

You have an onion, if you keep peeling back layers, then do you continue forever or do eventually run out of onion layers? Regression strips things away, this process cannot go one forever. It’s impossible. Infinite regress is not the same as infinite. Regresses end. If you went backwards in life, once the sperm separates from the egg, you are no more.

The idea of infinite regress is a silly as ‘soft determinism’, both are impossible and neither exist.

260

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.

The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.

I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[/quote]

The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.

You assume to universe is caused, you don’t know this for sure. That you find it more plausible to believe in an unseen, unproven and untestable god instead of an eternal universe, i just don’t get that.

The universe isn’t caused by a creator. It has existed in different shapes and sizes forever.

Our window of life is only a passing instance. Soon, in the eons to come, the universe will change and become inhabitable to life as we know it now.
[/quote]

an eternal universe isn’t an answer to the question.

What came first?

Well, before the chicken was an egg, before the egg was a chicken. Repeat.

A repetitive loop of occurrences doesn’t answer the question. At least not when I ask myself what caused existence and where all this came from.

You have to have an answer to the question before it can be the more reasonable one.[/quote]

Precisely, it’s circular reasoning. It answers the question with the question…

261

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I attacked pat’s assumption of god’s existence. The only perspective i have is that of space/time, but without a cause there’s no need for a god.

Inflation and deflation of the universe as an eternal breath is just one perspective.
[/quote]

But you can’t rule out a cause because you are constraining your perspective to space-time.[/quote]

Both are unprovable assumptions, and equally valid.[/quote]

I can deductively prove cosmology. Pick a flavor an run with it, it works with an apple it works with an atom, it works with theories, it works with facts, it works with all things, it is simple and linear.

Again I can prove God better than you can prove you yourself exist. I make a better argument for God than you can about any material object.
Actually, we should stick with Prime Mover or Uncaused-cause. Terminology is important and an Uncaused-cause isn’t necessarily God. I can make an argument for that, but it requires somebody to accept the premises and conclusion of cosmology and it is not what we are arguing here.
You call it divine, I see it as just perfectly natural and logical.
One thing though, the Uncaused-Cause is not the same thing as the universe itself. That’s not what I am arguing at all.