Staredit Network

Ya, I noticed that when I was 11, and I've been trying to get an answer to it since.


What do you define to be a "seperate" Universe?
I see the Universe as all that is; any seperate universe would merely be a part of this one, and as I would believe it, something cannot be the creator of the universe in which it exists; if it existed outside of this universe, then it goes back to the "but because it exists at all, it's aprt of this universe".


Doesn't scare me. If I don't exist, I don't know what I'm missing. 100% complete ignorance, which means that there is no such thing as displeasure, wants, or other things that I dislike.

Anyways, I'm agnostic. Until I see evidence for God, I won't consider him to be impossible. And of course, it's impossible to disprove him.
Something that exists can be proved to exist.
Something that doesn't exist cannot be proved to exist.
Something that exists cannot be disproved.
Something that doesn't exist cannot be disproved.

Though, I find atheists to be annoying.
Who says God has to be created?
Sure, the "rules don't apply to him" is a kind of empty and meaningless answer, but think of it this way:
If we took a computer and a power source back 2000 years, no one would have any idea how it would work. To them, it would seem like somthing impossible to explain as other then "just existing". They don't know about electricity, motors(disc drive), how sound works, etc.
And it is entirely possible that there are quintillions of other forces and, well, things that we don't know of now that can do things we find hard to imagine doing in 10,000 years, that we'll discover tomorrow and suddenly have technology sky-rocket.

Well, the Universe is always expanding in a uniform, spherical way (say scientists). If the Universe is contantly expanding - then what is it expanding into? There must be some kind of space, and if this space is something that exists then it must be part of the Universe by your definition. But the Universe can't expand into itself...

Darn scientsits are wrong again, eh? You said yourself, a "universe" can't expand into nothing, nor can it expand into itself. This is a basic "scientists are wrong" thing. The universe ISN'T "expanding".

How do you know a universe can't expand into nothing? You can't prove it, it's just that your intuition and past experiences make you want to believe that.

Again, "burden of proof" is upon you the believer. Prove you CAN expand into nothing. If you can't it isn't happening.

Well I'm no scientist, but if they are going to say the universe is expanding, then they must have some kind of evidence that we regular people know nothing about. I certainly don't study these kinds of theories. Such as what came before the big bang. If scientists are saying there is a big bang, then they should have some kind of explanation as to what happened before.

Also, how do you prove god exists? Not counting the bible.

Btw what kind of god are we talking about? A religious type of god, or just some kind of creator that started everything.

Well, the Red Shift is evidence for the expansion of the Universe (although I'd never go as far as to say 'proof'), so your opinion is not based on fact, indecisiveman. Have you been studying the change in wavelength of infrared light frequencies from distant galaxies in order to make informed opinions about whether or not the Universe is expanding? These scientists have.

Also, I'm pursuing a philosophical argument rather than a scientific one on the subject of 'how could it be expanding?'.

Surely you can't expand something into nothing? It defies all logic. If the Universe is expanding, then what the hell is it expanding into? This helps to give arguments for a creator some credence, because surely if there is something beyond the Universe, then something from that 'other place' created the Universe. Right?

Why does it matter if it defies logic?

Good point. As the space is outside the Universe, it is not bound by the Universe's rules or human processes of thought such as logic, so it could exist in some way that we can't comprehend.

Thats what I believe about what came before the universe, it's something I can't comprehend, because it probably doesn't follow the rules of the world we know, and so that is what I like to think of as "god"

I don't see why we need to put a "square object" (topic such as god) into a "round hole" (our understanding of the world)

Perhaps you can show me these so called "facts" these BRILLIANT scientsits(who think they created a heat 300 MILLION times the sun...) have so easily coime up with. A url or link perhaps would suffice. So again I don't think it IS expanding. Which then obviously quenches your question on WHAT it is expanding into.

As I said, we don't know anything, and there can be soemthing that can do things that we don't know about.

Also, I never heard of the universe being defined as a perimeter area around all matter that exists.
Meaning, it's the distance between bodies of matter that's expanding, not the universe.
IMO, the best answer as to the expansion.


Where have you heard this...?

Ok, I see what you mean. Where did all this space come from, or was it all packaged up in the Big Bang?

Gah, this fundamental stuff is so complicated.

EDIT: Noticed indecisiveman's post.



Sure - this site puts it in layman's terms:
http://www.arachnoid.com/sky/redshift.html

And lol @ 'quenched.' How very Biblical.

As I said before, I'm no scientist, I don't spend my life studying every detail and thinking about it. I'm sure you don't either. All of us don't have the materials or knowledge necessary to observer everything and make theories and explanations about things around us. That is why I think that scientists at least would have some kind of information about these theories and beliefs that we don't know about. We just use information and "logic" and our beliefs that we already know.

You don't find the more you study it, the more you find flaws in your own reasoning?

It happens to me and it makes it all more complicated.

I think all the flaws come from language and the things we make up.

You think that humans are limited by their language then?

Have you been studying the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis by any chance?

No I don't think we are limited by language, its just that we can't put into words some of the things we think. Such as when you just can't explain something, such as a feeling you get. Thats how some words are made up I guess.

Also we can't be limited by language, because we created it, and can always make new words to describe anything.

I just did a search on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and from the very little I've read, I think it's very interesting.

I think Im a little late on the space universe thing, but I heard that they are trying to see the universe as an on going forever plane. And our 'universe' would just be on that plane. sort of like a drop of water on a table. The drop of water is our universe. Which also means our universe is capable of expanding.... (but note that the plane is 3D) Even though I believe in god, I have heard these things before.

I also don't think language determines all thought. I think that language just helps us sort out our thoughts. And since we use language all the time, I get like a little voice inside my head that "says" everything. You can think without thinking about language but its kind of hard.

A thread.Click Here. This is obviously incorrect, proving that most things scientists claim are outrageous and most of the time wrong.

Nice link, I like the Page Not Found 404 thing I get.

Sigh, if the things scientists say are incorrect, it still doesn't help us any. They are the ones with all the tools and information to actually support some things. We don't have that. If they can't use their tools effectively and claim outrageous things that are wrong, we can't really do any better.

Ignorant people tend to make generalisations. (I love the irony of that statement)

Seriously though, you just gave me a link to some site about what's hot in London. I don't see anything about 300 bajillion degrees on that page. Then you use it to back up your assertion that scientists generally make outrageously wrong claims.

Science is a great thing. If the world was still ruled by people like you then it would be burning heretics at the stake for breakfast, public beheadings for lunch and dung for dinner.

If science is so outrageously wrong, then you might as well just throw your computer out of the window, unless you're typing on some kind of JesusMachine.

Science is great, so is religion to me. But i dont think they conflict in any important or critical ways.

That statement implied that you believed I was angry at you.
Which was wrong, proving that most things you claim are outrageous and most of the time wrong.