Gravity is leaking out of our universe.

[EinzingerIsGod]

In the most recent article of "Popular Science", there is an article on young scientists that are on the verge of big breakthroughs in science. I've tried to find the article online but can't find it, so if anyone knows where I can find it I'd appreciate it.

There was an article on one scientist (I forget his name) who is supposedly on the verge of discovering gravitons, essentially particles of gravity that scientists believe are particles that can travel between universes (this all stems from the string theory). This would explain why gravity is the force that governs our universe, but at the same time is very weak in comparison to other natural forces such as electromagnatism.

Should the graviton be discovered, this will be one of the most significant steps forward to really understanding our existence. The article said that should this be truth, we may be looking at some 10^500 more universes, rendering our universe in the grand scheme of things about as important as one atom in our current universe.

I don't know about you guys, but I find that pretty staggering.

[Jude]

I still don't understand how there can be more than one universe.

If it exists, isn't it, by definition, part of THE universe?

[spitfirejunky]

*Graviton

This has been in the works of a number of years now. The problem is that a lot of string theory is not empirical, so it's not easy to pass it off as a solid scientific theory and use it to analyze situations in experiments. However, if these new accelerators do end up uncovering something that behaves exactly as a graviton would, then that would give string theory another shot at becoming a solid theory.

[EinzingerIsGod]

The problem is that a lot of string theory is not empirical, so it's not easy to pass it off as a solid scientific theory and use it to analyze situations in experiments. However, if these new accelerators do end up uncovering something that behaves exactly as a graviton would, then that would give string theory another shot at becoming a solid theory.

Exactly. Thanks for the correction by the way.

To Jude:

The idea behind string theory is that different universes exist on different planes, or strings if you will. These strings are separated by as little as a fraction of an inch potentially, but they remain separate because they are vibrating at different frequencies. This is all still theoretical, but as spitfirejunky said, the experiments done assuming this to be fact are showing signs that this may in fact be true.

[Reaganista]

rendering our universe in the grand scheme of things about as important as one atom in our current universe.

not really

[EinzingerIsGod]

not really

In terms of significance I'd say so.

[Reaganista]

in order for that comparison to make any sense at all there would need to be sextillions of sextillions of universes completely identical to ours

[Volumnius Flush]

In the most recent article of "Popular Science", there is an article on young scientists that are on the verge of big breakthroughs in science. I've tried to find the article online but can't find it, so if anyone knows where I can find it I'd appreciate it.

There was an article on one scientist (I forget his name) who is supposedly on the verge of discovering gravitons, essentially particles of gravity that scientists believe are particles that can travel between universes (this all stems from the string theory). This would explain why gravity is the force that governs our universe, but at the same time is very weak in comparison to other natural forces such as electromagnatism.

Should the graviton be discovered, this will be one of the most significant steps forward to really understanding our existence. The article said that should this be truth, we may be looking at some 10^500 more universes, rendering our universe in the grand scheme of things about as important as one atom in our current universe.

I don't know about you guys, but I find that pretty staggering.

Even more evidence that such a tremendous world couldn't be created, much less understood, by science.

There must be a god! There has to be!

This scientist dude who is trying to discover the graviton must make Hawking look like a child on an intellectual level.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Even more evidence that such a tremendous world couldn't be created, much less understood, by science.

There must be a god! There has to be!

I call bulls'hit

all in favour say "ugh, non-scientists"

anyway, the fact that god would have to be one level more complex than the most complex thing we could ever find is evidence that something so extreme and tremoendous as god could never simply exist on its own

This scientist dude who is trying to discover the graviton must make Hawking look like a child on an intellectual level.

whatever gives you that idea?

for all the information we've been given he might even have done his work experimentally

Hawking sussed out black holes doing all the sums in his head

in order for that comparison to make any sense at all there would need to be sextillions or sextillions of universes completely identical to ours

or maybe that's the case if there are infinite universes

[AmericanWeiner]

Even more evidence that such a tremendous world couldn't be created, much less understood, by science.

There must be a god! There has to be!


Good sir, your being unable to fathom something doesn't imply that a strategy based on empirical evidence can not, logicaly.

You're begging the question, to be frank, and that, sir, is a logical fallacy.

If you do not appreciate logic, don't bother responding to me, because you are ignoring traits of your character that have been reached by logical decisions (whether they were made with false or true logic), and therefore are using a double standard of decision, which is invalid.

PS. Science based on mathmatical evidence is only as valid as we allow it to be. Until we can demonstrate empirical evidence for multiple universes and "Gravitons," I won't consider it any more than a theory.

[Reaganista]

or maybe that's the case if there are infinite universes

no then the comparison would be even worse
seeing as there's a finite number of atoms in our universe

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

I still don't understand how there can be more than one universe.

If it exists, isn't it, by definition, part of THE universe?


They like to use the term "Multiverse" to describe all of the universes

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

no then the comparison would be even worse
seeing as there's a finite number of atoms in our universe

conceded


replace atoms with photons, maybe?

[Sunny Afternoon]

I still don't understand how there can be more than one universe.

If it exists, isn't it, by definition, part of THE universe?

If you assume the current definition of universe is the right one.

[RockAndRoll]

Your debate is silly, we decide what words mean.

[Iskandar]

Even more evidence that such a tremendous world couldn't be created, much less understood, by science
And this "tremendous world" was created solely for human beings, because we are so incredibly important to the universe at large.

[Reaganista]

the universe can't value things
it's ridiculous to expect anything to be important to it

[Amit]

I still don't understand how there can be more than one universe.

If it exists, isn't it, by definition, part of THE universe?

no our universe is part of the multiverse

[Iskandar]

the universe can't value things
it's ridiculous to expect anything to be important to it
"Our actions are not meaningful in terms of affecting the workings of the universe." Does that satisfy the pedantic-semantic monster?

[A Spoonful Supreme]

its like the internet of universes!

[Jaded]

anyway, the fact that god would have to be one level more complex than the most complex thing we could ever find is evidence that something so extreme and tremoendous as god could never simply exist on its own
:rolleyes:
Yes of course, God simply can't be more complex than anything we can imagine. You've convinced me with your staggering theological discovery.

[Futue te Ipsum]

the disc world theory of the origins of our universe is much better, imo.

[AmericanWeiner]

"Our actions are not meaningful in terms of affecting the workings of the universe." Does that satisfy the pedantic-semantic monster?

uh how can our actions not be meaningful- we are the workings of the universe just as much as any other collection of atoms.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

duz that mean when we run out i cant pour my cokes n e more?

[LittlePound]

In the most recent article of "Popular Science", there is an article on young scientists that are on the verge of big breakthroughs in science. I've tried to find the article online but can't find it, so if anyone knows where I can find it I'd appreciate it.

There was an article on one scientist (I forget his name) who is supposedly on the verge of discovering gravitons, essentially particles of gravity that scientists believe are particles that can travel between universes (this all stems from the string theory). This would explain why gravity is the force that governs our universe, but at the same time is very weak in comparison to other natural forces such as electromagnatism.

Should the graviton be discovered, this will be one of the most significant steps forward to really understanding our existence. The article said that should this be truth, we may be looking at some 10^500 more universes, rendering our universe in the grand scheme of things about as important as one atom in our current universe.

I don't know about you guys, but I find that pretty staggering.
Please do explain to me, how the graviton can help me understand my existence

[Amit]

not your existence littlepound since it doesn't matter

[LittlePound]

If there is no God, nobody's existence matters becuase after you die, you are gone and forgotten forever. There is nothin to work for.

[RockAndRoll]

If there is no God, nobody's existence matters becuase after you die, you are gone and forgotten forever. There is nothin to work for.
Meh, I enjoy life.

As for gravitons they would help explain the workings of the universe.

[LittlePound]

Meh, I enjoy life.
Just becuz you enjoy it doesn't mean it has meaning. What does it matter if you enjoyed it once you died?

As for gravitons they would help explain the workings of the universe.
though they would do that, that has nothing to do with understanding my existance, that is all i was trying to point out. He was making it sound like it was this big break through in "why does man exist", or atleast, that is how the sentence sounded to me.

[RockAndRoll]

Just becuz you enjoy it doesn't mean it has meaning. What does it matter if you enjoyed it once you died?
it matters because enjoying stuff is better than not enjoying stuff. I couldn't care less if my life has 'meaning' or not.

though they would do that, that has nothing to do with understanding my existance, that is all i was trying to point out. He was making it sound like it was this big break through in "why does man exist", or atleast, that is how the sentence sounded to me.
Gravitons (if they exist) have a huge effect on your existance.

[LittlePound]

though they would have a huge effect on understanding how the universe works...it still has nothing to do with understanding MY existence.

[RockAndRoll]

though they would have a huge effect on understanding how the universe works...it still has nothing to do with understanding MY existence.
You exist as part of the universe, the laws of physics apply to you and the world around you.

[Reaganista]

"Our actions are not meaningful in terms of affecting the workings of the universe."
um we don't exist apart from the universe

[LittlePound]

but the graviton would bring no further understanding to MY EXISTENCE. It would bring further understanding to why i do the things i do, or how i do the things i do, etc...but not my existence in and of itself. It was just a poor choice of words on his part.

[RockAndRoll]

but the graviton would bring no further understanding to MY EXISTENCE. It would bring further understanding to why i do the things i do, or how i do the things i do, etc...but not my existence in and of itself. It was just a poor choice of words on his part.
No, his choice of words was fine.

What constitutes your existence if not what you do?

[LittlePound]

My understanding of my existence has nothing to do with what i do. I can't say, i understand my existence becuase i understand why the football moves when i throw it. They are completely difffernt issues.

[RockAndRoll]

My understanding of my existence has nothing to do with what i do. I can't say, i understand my existence becuase i understand why the football moves when i throw it. They are completely difffernt issues.
What you do has everything to do with your existance. Understanding what you do therefore helps you understand your existance. Maybe it's not the understanding you were looking for, maybe it's not an answer to the specific question you were asking, but it is understanding of your existance.

[LittlePound]

i guess i understand my existence then becuase i know the physics at work behind throwing a football.

[RockAndRoll]

i guess i understand my existence then becuase i know the physics at work behind throwing a football.
I don't believe I ever stated that the only question pertaining to our existance is the mechanics of throwing a football.

[Sync0pation]

How small are these gravitons predicted to be? Around the size of strings?

[RockAndRoll]

On that level, ya.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

If there is no God, nobody's existence matters becuase after you die, you are gone and forgotten forever. There is nothin to work for.
how do you know that

[LittlePound]

how do you know that
becuase if there is no God, what is the point in an afterlife. If there is an afterlife, but then no God, why wouldn't we just live eternally here on earth? Why would we have to die?

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

becuase if there is no God, what is the point in an afterlife.i dunno
maybe theres a place of eternal joy outside of this life who knows

[_R2D2_]

all of a sudden i feel very very small. like a little fish in a huge tank.

[Erik6387]

God = LAWLZ.

-Erik

[Amit]

If there is no God, nobody's existence matters becuase after you die, you are gone and forgotten forever. There is nothin to work for.

becuase if there is no God, what is the point in an afterlife. If there is an afterlife, but then no God, why wouldn't we just live eternally here on earth? Why would we have to die?

horrible circular logic in these posts (even worse than usual for you!):

we don't live eternally because there is an afterlife and thus god exists and so there is an afterlife and because of that we don't live eternally

attn littlepound please prove to me that there is an afterlife

[Erik6387]

attn littlepound please prove to me that there is an afterlife
I'll tell you ****in' why!!! God and all his mutha' ****in' divinity told him. Got it? :smoke:

-Erik

[StreetlightRock]

If there is no God, nobody's existence matters becuase after you die, you are gone and forgotten forever. There is nothin to work for.

Pound, Ill bring this up with you in the Christianity thread.

[666Ozzfan]

They like to use the term "Multiverse" to describe all of the universes

Oh, I love the multiverse theory. But so complicated and infinite that is very hard to even imagine

[Amit]

not really that complicated

[LittlePound]

horrible circular logic in these posts (even worse than usual for you!):

we don't live eternally because there is an afterlife and thus god exists and so there is an afterlife and because of that we don't live eternally

attn littlepound please prove to me that there is an afterlife
I can't prove it to you. But i know it exists. You guys don't accept personal experiences as proof, so anything that i "hear" (for lack of a better word) while i read hte bible would be meaningless to you. Seeing as such, i can't prove it to you, but you'll find out sooner or later.

[Samuel]

You guys don't accept personal experiences as proof, so anything that i "hear" (for lack of a better word) while i read hte bible would be meaningless to you.
Hearing things that aren't there is called schizophrenia. ;)

[PerpetualBurn]

I can't prove it to you. But i know it exists. You guys don't accept personal experiences as proof, so anything that i "hear" (for lack of a better word) while i read hte bible would be meaningless to you. Seeing as such, i can't prove it to you, but you'll find out sooner or later.

I had a personal experience with a God that doesn't match the description of yours.

In fact, I had a personal experience with 10 different Gods.

Are you calling me a liar?

[Erik6387]

The Greeks were the correct ones when it came to religion. There's a God for everything. Even shaving your pubes.

-Erik

[PerpetualBurn]

The Greeks had it right. When Socrates made everything too awkward, they had him drink hemlock.

[Erik6387]

The Greeks had it right. When Socrates made everything too awkward, they had him drink hemlock.
Yea, Damn Socrates for questioning the way things were! Never question authority! Just have 100% faith. :smash:

-Erik

[Amit]

I can't prove it to you. But i know it exists. You guys don't accept personal experiences as proof, so anything that i "hear" (for lack of a better word) while i read hte bible would be meaningless to you. Seeing as such, i can't prove it to you, but you'll find out sooner or later.

i can't prove it to you but i know it doesn't exist

who is right

[AmericanWeiner]

Neither is right

God is a moot point because being omnipresent is the same as not existing period.

besides gravity I guess lol

[PerpetualBurn]

Err...one of them has to be right.

There's no middle ground.

[Amit]

lol

[PerpetualBurn]

Is it coincidence or is it something else?

Or is it NEITHER!?

[AmericanWeiner]

Err...one of them has to be right.

There's no middle ground.

uh no there, isn't necessarily an answer to the god question.

As I said..if God is omnipresent (and placed evenly throughout the cosmos), there is no way to know whether or not he exists because we have nothing to compare him to.

[PerpetualBurn]

Hey, you aren't quite understanding this.

If one person says God exists.
And one person says that God does not exist.

Then, and here's the magic part, two mutually exclusive statements can't both be right!

*Theatrical gasp*

[AmericanWeiner]

I'm saying they're not mutually exclusive if there's no difference between god existing and god not existing, which is the case if he is evenly distributed and omnipresent.

[PerpetualBurn]

Existing

and

non-existing

are opposites

and mutually exclusive

I tried to space that out so that it would sink in easily.

[AmericanWeiner]

There's no need to take your insulting tone.

Consider this-
We only know opposites because of the lack of the counterpart. We know air exists because we know that vacuums exist. We can demonstrate the presence air. Underwater, we can also demonstrate the lack of air.

The same goes for all things. We only know what motion is because we can witness (relative) rigidity.

It applies to God, too- if God exists in an omnipresent state and is evenly distributed (that means no Heaven, because Heaven is a concentration of God, and no Hell, because Hell is a total lack of God).

We only know opposites because there is a difference between them. If there is no difference (that doesn't mean that what I'm saying is true; I'm just supposing one possible case) in God existing and God not existing, then unless we find some "God Particles," then it's possible that the God debate doesn't matter at all (whether for the negative or the positive).

If you want to take points out of my argument and debate them, go ahead, but I'm demonstrating how those cases aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

:rolleyes:
Yes of course, God simply can't be more complex than anything we can imagine. You've convinced me with your staggering theological discovery.

I was simply showing the flaw in VF's logic, not trying to seriously prove that god odens't exist.


If there is no God, nobody's existence matters becuase after you die, you are gone and forgotten forever. There is nothin to work for.

So why do so many scientists dedicate their lives to finding out more about the world around us, search for cures to ease human suffering, etc? You're telling me all these people believe in god? because they don't.

Athiesm simply means you have to accept that there is no get out clause and that if you want things to be better, you have to make them better. God's not coming to save you tomorrow, not next century, not ever. The species best suited to survive will survive, and for that to happen you have to want to survive. and so humans go on and on.

[PerpetualBurn]

We know there's water because there's water there. Whether there's not water anywhere else is irrelevant.

[AmericanWeiner]

If the entire universe was water, I can assure you that you would not know the difference between water and not-water because there would be no you at all.

[PerpetualBurn]

My inability to observe this scenario does not have any effect on the hypothetical logic.

If there was water everywhere then, assuming some being like me existed to observe it, water would be observable everywhere.

It's a stupid argument. God can either exist or not exist. Saying he might not exist in Mexico but he might exist in France is still stupid because he either exists or does not exist.

[AmericanWeiner]

My inability to observe this scenario does not have any effect on the hypothetical logic.

If there was water everywhere then, assuming some being like me existed to observe it, water would be observable everywhere.


If water exists everywhere (and unless water is sentient), there can be no being to observe it, because that implies some other form of matter. If that is the case, water is not omnipresent.


It's a stupid argument. God can either exist or not exist. Saying he might not exist in Mexico but he might exist in France is still stupid because he either exists or does not exist.

What?

[PerpetualBurn]

Whether God exists everywhere or in select places has no bearing on the statement as to whether or not he exists.

[AmericanWeiner]

Oh, well I would disagree with that.

If you couldn't tell.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yes, well you're being completely stupid.

If you couldn't tell.

[Smokey D]

How is it a difficult concept to grasp? If something exists, it will exist whether I say so in New Zealand or in Greenland. If something doesn't exist, it won't suddenly come into being if I change my position.

If water were present throughout the Universe, it is highly unlikely it would be beyond the capabilities of scientists (assuming sentient life and all that jazz emerged) to detect the universal presence of H20 molocules.

[AmericanWeiner]

There's no difficulty in grasping what you're saying. I understand your position and am putting forth my own.

I'm not supposing that God changes forms between existence and non-existence at random. I'm also not suggesting that it happens based on the perception or point of perception of his existence.

Within the Christian faith, there are location in the cosmos where God is not present. This is called Hell. There are areas where he is more present, but not fully present. This is called everywhere-but-hell-and-heaven. There are places where God is fully present. This is called Heaven.

That difference is what makes God apparent. How do we know that? Because , to them, it is a matter of faith until we cross into the afterlife.

I'm arguing that God is a moot point and that you are free to believe or not believe, because considering God is like looking at the equation x = |-1|, where there is a duality that must be taken into account. I firmly believe that belief in God makes no difference because he exists in such a state as to make his existence a non-point (that is, whether or not he exists makes absolutely no difference at all- not in considering the cosmos, not in ramifications for good/bad deeds, not in the formation of the universe, because God exists as what we know as reality.)

And this isn't a new idea that I've concocted out of my own insanity. It's been in philosophy (mostly of the eastern variety).

It's personal belief. All I'm doing is suggesting alternatives to the stale western logic that seems to permiate these discussions.

[PerpetualBurn]

There's no difficulty in grasping what you're saying. I understand your position and am putting forth my own.

I'm right and your wrong, so don't try and spin it like this is something you can just have a unique and valid perspective on.

I'm not supposing that God changes forms between existence and non-existence at random. I'm also not suggesting that it happens based on the perception or point of perception of his existence.

This is tantamount to admission that I'm right.

Within the Christian faith, there are location in the cosmos where God is not present. This is called Hell. There are areas where he is more present, but not fully present. This is called everywhere-but-hell-and-heaven. There are places where God is fully present. This is called Heaven.

That difference is what makes God apparent. How do we know that? Because , to them, it is a matter of faith until we cross into the afterlife.

This doesn't affect anything.

I'm arguing that God is a moot point and that you are free to believe or not believe, because considering God is like looking at the equation x = |-1|, where there is a duality that must be taken into account. I firmly believe that belief in God makes no difference because he exists in such a state as to make his existence a non-point (that is, whether or not he exists makes absolutely no difference at all- not in considering the cosmos, not in ramifications for good/bad deeds, not in the formation of the universe, because God exists as what we know as reality.)

But what you said is that neither belief was right. This is patently false as one must be right and the other false. This is irrespective of whether we know which one is right.

And this isn't a new idea that I've concocted out of my own insanity. It's been in philosophy (mostly of the eastern variety).

It's personal belief. All I'm doing is suggesting alternatives to the stale western logic that seems to permiate these discussions.

I don't care if it's in Eastern philosophy and the fact that you would even try and use the term "personal belief" makes me think your IQ is 20 points lower than my last estimate.

I don't care if you want to accuse me of using stale Western logic. I'm still right.

[AmericanWeiner]

I'm right and your wrong, so don't try and spin it like this is something you can just have a unique and valid perspective on.


Well, this is an interesting debate. I wasn't aware the "I'm right, your wrong" (sic) arguement was still valid.

[QUOTE=PerpetualBurn]
This is tantamount to admission that I'm right.


That you're right that God either exists or doesn't exist?

I think that it is beyond out comprehension to acknowledge his existence because can not comprehend the form he takes, if he does exist. Both points are equally valid because his existence is of no consequence within our reality. Therefore, if you base your arguements on the rules of reality, you will find that no determinant solution can be found. Sound familiar? That's because these arguments never end with a determinant solution, because they're based in the rules of what we know to be logical and real.


This doesn't affect anything.


It is an example situation of your arguement, with my arguement applied to demonstrate the concept.



But what you said is that neither belief was right. This is patently false as one must be right and the other false. This is irrespective of whether we know which one is right.


I said the exact opposite. I believe that neither is false, essentially because there is no "right."



I don't care if it's in Eastern philosophy and the fact that you would even try and use the term "personal belief" makes me think your IQ is 20 points lower than my last estimate.

I don't care if you want to accuse me of using stale Western logic. I'm still right.


I'm not accusing you of anything. And please, leave your ad hominem drivel at home.

[Smokey D]

There's no difficulty in grasping what you're saying. I understand your position and am putting forth my own.

Good.

I'm not supposing that God changes forms between existence and non-existence at random. I'm also not suggesting that it happens based on the perception or point of perception of his existence.

Good.

Within the Christian faith, there are location in the cosmos where God is not present. This is called Hell. There are areas where he is more present, but not fully present. This is called everywhere-but-hell-and-heaven. There are places where God is fully present. This is called Heaven.

Christianity as it is traditionally understood holds that God exists independently of Creation, and that Jesus Christ represents as point of reconciliation between the infinity of God and the finitude of His Creation.

It also holds that the belief that God is present in all things is a heresy.



God makes Himself apparent.

[quote]I'm arguing that God is a moot point and that you are free to believe or not believe, because considering God is like looking at the equation x = |-1|, where there is a duality that must be taken into account. I firmly believe that belief in God makes no difference because he exists in such a state as to make his existence a non-point (that is, whether or not he exists makes absolutely no difference at all- not in considering the cosmos, not in ramifications for good/bad deeds, not in the formation of the universe, because God exists as what we know as reality.)

You can't argue from a Christian point of view one moment, then completely disregard it the next.

And this isn't a new idea that I've concocted out of my own insanity. It's been in philosophy (mostly of the eastern variety).

Except it's a vastly more complex theology than you've outlined and you've cheapned it to suggest you have adequately explained 5000 years of intense and rigorous philosophical thought in the space of a few lines.

It's personal belief. All I'm doing is suggesting alternatives to the stale western logic that seems to permiate these discussions.

It's a good idea. But you haven't gone nearly far enough.

[AmericanWeiner]

Christianity as it is traditionally understood holds that God exists independently of Creation, and that Jesus Christ represents as point of reconciliation between the infinity of God and the finitude of His Creation.


Explain the relevancy, please.


[Christianity] also holds that the belief that God is present in all things is a heresy.


I agree with this statement.


God makes Himself apparent.


According to the Bible- in practice, it is still a matter of faith until the afterlife (within the Christian faith).


You can't argue from a Christian point of view one moment, then completely disregard it the next.



Except it's a vastly more complex theology than you've outlined and you've cheapned it to suggest you have adequately explained 5000 years of intense and rigorous philosophical thought in the space of a few lines.


I don't claim to summarize- I'm citing sources, if anything.


It's a good idea. But you haven't gone nearly far enough.
That's the nature of trying to apply my philosophies to discussions of God. Things get lost in the translation. However, I'm not going to claim that I understand any of this 100%.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well, this is an interesting debate. I wasn't aware the "I'm right, your wrong" (sic) arguement was still valid.

It is when followed by a comprehensive argument that demonstrate me to be right.

That you're right that God either exists or doesn't exist?

Yes. Unless you'd like to introduce a third option.

I think that it is beyond out comprehension to acknowledge his existence because can not comprehend the form he takes, if he does exist. Both points are equally valid because his existence is of no consequence within our reality. Therefore, if you base your arguements on the rules of reality, you will find that no determinant solution can be found. Sound familiar? That's because these arguments never end with a determinant solution, because they're based in the rules of what we know to be logical and real.

It's contradictory to claim that his existence is of no consequence when your previous post mentioned Heaven and Hell. Retarded, I'd say.

And this argument does have a determinant solution: two mutually exclusive things cannot both exist.

I said the exact opposite. I believe that neither is false, essentially because there is no "right."

If neither is false, and both can't be right, then that's the same thing, muppet.


I'm not accusing you of anything. And please, leave your ad hominem drivel at home.

Ad hominem fallacy would be saying you're wrong because you're an idiot. I'm saying that you're wrong and an idiot.

[Smokey D]

Explain the relevancy, please.

God was never thought to be omnipresent.


According to the Bible- in practice, it is still a matter of faith until the afterlife (within the Christian faith).

Within the Christian faith, God makes Himself apparent in our mortal lives.


I don't claim to summarize- I'm citing sources, if anything.


If by citing sources you mean vaguely alluding to something you read sometime.

That's the nature of trying to apply my philosophies to discussions of God. Things get lost in the translation. However, I'm not going to claim that I understand any of this 100%.

You haven't really explained anything.

All I see is a contradiction on the role of God, and some stuff about His omnipresence which doesn't actually produce a conclusion with which to grapple.

[AmericanWeiner]

It is when followed by a comprehensive argument that demonstrate me to be right.

You may have percieved my arguements to be in your favor, but I assure that they are not.


Yes. Unless you'd like to introduce a third option.


I have. C) All of the Above


It's contradictory to claim that his existence is of no consequence when your previous post mentioned Heaven and Hell. Retarded, I'd say.


The Heaven and Hell reference is a self-contained example of your arguement that God must exist or not exist, with the implication that a place where God doesn't exist may be found, and used to determine whether or not God does exist.


two mutually exclusive things cannot both exist.


Given, however, that isn't a determinant solution, because it is impossible to prove that God follows the same logic of existence that we understand to be true.


If neither is false, and both can't be right, then that's the same thing, muppet.


No. Refer to the last statement.


Ad hominem fallacy would be saying you're wrong because you're an idiot. I'm saying that you're wrong and an idiot.

I'm saying that you're trying to prove your point by stating it repeatedly with a variety of insults.

[PerpetualBurn]

What the hell are you talking about?

It doesn't matter whether we can determine if God actually exists or not. It matters that he can't be both.

Bringing in that he isn't present in Hell doesn't refute the fact that he would still exist.

C) All of the Above

And, if you're saying that two mutually exclusive things can occur, you're a complete cretin. That's impossible.

[AmericanWeiner]

I'm not saying that he isn't present in Hell.

I do not believe in Hell, because that would imply that God did exist and does not permiate every point of reality.

I said that he isn't present in Hell in the Christian faith.

As Smokey D said, God makes himself apparent, but I still feel like that requires a judgement of faith by the viewer. Even the most blatant examples of God's presense may be reasoned away by a skeptic.

Therefore, within the Christian faith (if it is the true religion), we must move into the afterlife and percieve God in greater presence (Heaven) or in absence (Hell) to know beyond faith that he exists.


I'm saying that just because you add the negative to a statement doesn't mean it is mutually exclusive.

The ball is blue.
The ball is red.
Gasp, the ball is actually purple. Or maybe the ball is half blue and half red. If you did not understand blue, the ball might appear red. The vice versa is true.

To take the analogy farther-
The ball is red.
The ball is green [opposite of red].
The ball is black.

If you can percieve red and green, the ball appears black- if you can percieve only blue and yellow, the ball appears green. If you can percieve only red, the ball appears red.

God is black. Humans can only see one color.
Existence is a filter that allows you to see God in green.
Non-existence is a filter that allows you to see God in red.
He is neither green nor red. He is both green and red.

His non-existence is a different way of percieving the same thing as those who percieve that God exists. Since the statements are relative, they must both be considered when approaching the God situation.

IMHO

[PerpetualBurn]

The ball is blue.
The ball is red.

This, my slow-witted friend, would be a "false dichotomy".

However, there is no third option when it comes to existence. It's not relative, it's absolute.

[AmericanWeiner]

This, my slow-witted friend, would be a "false dichotomy".

However, there is no third option when it comes to existence. It's not relative, it's absolute.

It's not false dichotomy at all, you pompous jackass.

It is an example of two mutually exclusive statements that are not mutually exclusive.

Well, hell, I can change the metaphor to be a perfectly in line with what you suggest-

The ball is blue.
The ball is not blue.

Solution- half of the ball is blue. The proponent of the first statement only sees the blue half, while the second proponent only sees the not-blue half.

Applied to the situation at hand-
Existence is only absolute if you understand and can define the rules of existence. Many string-theory proponents claim that offshoot universes can have different rules- do impossible beings (as defined by our rules of logic) in those universes exist?

It's relative, because the answer is "They exist in those universes." They do not exist according to our laws of reality.

[PerpetualBurn]

The ball is blue.
The ball is not blue.

This, my slow-witted friend, would be a false dichotomy.

God exists.
God does not exist.

God cannot half-exist.

[AmericanWeiner]

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also known as falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false dichotomy, false correlative, either/or dilemma or bifurcation), involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered.

The statements are possible opposing perspectives.

The term "God" isn't absolute, so how can God's existence be absolute? It's entirely possible that the same being could exist as God in one part of the cosmos and exist as nothing more than an ant in another part. That being is therefore both God and not-God. To [for] the percievers of the ant-God who are not within the sphere of influence, God does not exist. To the percievers of the prime-God, God exists as contemporarily described, though this is logically impossible in the ant-God part of the cosmos.

Once again, this applies to demonstrate how existence of a being can be relative.

In anticipation of your arguement-
While the same being may exist in one part of the cosmos, it does not exist as God. Suppose that we can see only the ant- does God exist?

Further anticipation-
If God is omnipresent and exists, he permiates every point in (at least) our universe. Do you agree with this?

edit: I'm done with this debate. We're spinning in circles, and I assume you'll make some crack about how I'm denying logic. I'm fine with that. Just keep it in the thread.

[Amit]

hey just to take one point out really quickly impossible beings may exist in other universes but cannot ever exist in or enter ours

[PerpetualBurn]

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also known as falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false dichotomy, false correlative, either/or dilemma or bifurcation), involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered.

That agrees entirely with me.

The statements are possible opposing perspectives.

The term "God" isn't absolute, so how can God's existence be absolute? It's entirely possible that the same being could exist as God in one part of the cosmos and exist as nothing more than an ant in another part. That being is therefore both God and not-God. To [for] the percievers of the ant-God who are not within the sphere of influence, God does not exist. To the percievers of the prime-God, God exists as contemporarily described, though this is logically impossible in the ant-God part of the cosmos.

The ant-God part of the cosmos is quite irrelevant since God still exists, doesn't he? People's perception is also irrelevant.

Once again, this applies to demonstrate how existence of a being can be relative.

No. You just said that he exists one place and not another.

I exist in England. Right now there is none of me in Australia. I still exist.

In anticipation of your arguement-
While the same being may exist in one part of the cosmos, it does not exist as God. Suppose that we can see only the ant- does God exist?

Ignoring the illogical and contradictory nature of this idea, yes. Yes God would exist. As long as God exists in one part of the cosmos he exists. If he doesn't exist in another part then the statement "God doesn't exist" is wrong.

Further anticipation-
If God is omnipresent and exists, he permiates every point in (at least) our universe. Do you agree with this?

That would be the definition of omnipresent.

edit: I'm done with this debate. We're spinning in circles, and I assume you'll make some crack about how I'm denying logic. I'm fine with that. Just keep it in the thread.

It's always good when someone stonewalls debate in anticipation to me tearing down their stupidity.

This really isn't the place to type your thoughts if you aren't willing to defend them, tosser.

[Aus_rock_god]

no then the comparison would be even worse
seeing as there's a finite number of atoms in our universe

Dunno. There is a theory that the universe is forever expanding, then collapseing back opon itself (explaining what could have been around before the big bang), creating a similar but slightly different universe each time.

The way I understand it, the 'theory of relitivity', and what exists of the 'theory of everything', states that the flow of time is dictated by the speed of light.

Hawkings also stated that extreme gravity affects the speed of light, and can indeed, bring it to a halt.

If the universe was to collapce on itself, that would be very very extreme gravity.

Therefore, each time the universe collapces, then expands again, time doesn't continue to move forward, it, instead, goes back on itself.

But, that would mean that each universe would have to exist in exactly the same space.

In order for all the universes to exist in the same space, they have to be vibrating at different frequencies, in exactly the same way as you can have many radio waves in the same space, but you're still able to tune into different stations.

The more theories you bring into play, the more each individual theory starts to make sence.

But, like anything in science: If it stinks, it's biology. If it boils, it's chemistry. If it doesn't work, it's physics.

[Reaganista]

Dunno. There is a theory that the universe is forever expanding, then collapseing back opon itself (explaining what could have been around before the big bang), creating a similar but slightly different universe each time.

um that doesn't create any new atoms

[RockAndRoll]

If water exists everywhere (and unless water is sentient), there can be no being to observe it, because that implies some other form of matter. If that is the case, water is not omnipresent.


Space is everywhere, we know about it.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

um that doesn't create any new atoms

it wipes out the old atoms and makes new

[Aus_rock_god]

um that doesn't create any new atoms

Of course it doesn't.

What I'm saying is that the atoms in each universe would have to be the same atoms, since atomic particles cannot be created, nor destroyed.

Therefore, in order for each universe to exist in the same space, at the same time, each atomic particle would have to vibrate on a different frequency.

Atoms are made up of protons, electrons and neutrons right? In the end, this is just electromagnetic energy.

Who isn't to say that the rules that apply to electromagnetic waves don't apply to the electromagnetic energy that atoms are made up of?

In the end, that could explain why gravity is the weakest force in physics, because the gravity is dispersed evenly along different frequencies of existence.

[Anxious]

If you assume the current definition of universe is the right one.

I will delete this post when I get an answer. Who is that in your avatar!? It look so much like me with a soul patch that I'm beggining to get ****ing scared looking at it.

Sorry for the anoyance gice.

[Hep Kat]

So I'm an even smaller grain of sand than I thought.




Well, that's always nice to know.

[Street_Fighting_Man]

God is black.

Woah easy there.

[AmericanWeiner]

It's true, why do you think black people are cooler?

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

im in ur universe


stealing ur gravityz

[RockAndRoll]

Of course it doesn't.

What I'm saying is that the atoms in each universe would have to be the same atoms, since atomic particles cannot be created, nor destroyed.

Except they can.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Of course it doesn't.

What I'm saying is that the atoms in each universe would have to be the same atoms, since atomic particles cannot be created, nor destroyed.

Therefore, in order for each universe to exist in the same space, at the same time, each atomic particle would have to vibrate on a different frequency.

Atoms are made up of protons, electrons and neutrons right? In the end, this is just electromagnetic energy.

Who isn't to say that the rules that apply to electromagnetic waves don't apply to the electromagnetic energy that atoms are made up of?

In the end, that could explain why gravity is the weakest force in physics, because the gravity is dispersed evenly along different frequencies of existence.

This is fundamentally incorrect and once when one of my chemically incclined friends said this in a ebate, all the physicists in the room laughed solidly for several minutes whislt everyone else sat around looking puzzled.

At the big bang there were no particles. and then there were.

[RockAndRoll]

I'm surprised that a chemist, or chemistry student or whatever would say that.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I'm surprised that a chemist, or chemistry student or whatever would say that.

well, not really; in all their experience of science, they start and end with the same atoms on either side.

[RockAndRoll]

well, not really; in all their experience of science, they start and end with the same atoms on either side.
Ya, but it's still something I'd expect them to know.

[Futue te Ipsum]

hahaha science discussion here

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

hahaha science discussion here

I know i mean wtf is with that lulz

[Aus_rock_god]

This is fundamentally incorrect and once when one of my chemically incclined friends said this in a ebate, all the physicists in the room laughed solidly for several minutes whislt everyone else sat around looking puzzled.

At the big bang there were no particles. and then there were.

Okay, create an electron then :thumb:

[RockAndRoll]

Okay, create an electron then :thumb:
Just because he doesn't have the capability to do it at the moment doesn't mean it's not possible. Matter can be created and destroyed, the fact that some guy you met on an internet forum doesn't have the means to do it right now doesn't change that fact.

[Aus_rock_god]

*holds head in hands*

Dude.

What I was saying is that, to my knowledge, no-one has been able to do it, or seen any evidence of it happening.

The problem I have with the current Big Bang Theory, is that everything seemingly popped out of a nothingness in a vast area of nothingness, from a space a nothingth by a nothingth, with a set amount of energy and matter that can't be changed, with laws of physics that also cannot be changed, for no apparent reason whatsoever.

[RockAndRoll]

*holds head in hands*

Dude.

What I was saying is that, to my knowledge, no-one has been able to do it, or seen any evidence of it happening.
Well in that case you're still wrong.


The problem I have with the current Big Bang Theory, is that everything seemingly popped out of a nothingness in a vast area of nothingness, from a space a nothingth by a nothingth, with a set amount of energy and matter that can't be changed, with laws of physics that also cannot be changed, for no apparent reason whatsoever.

You do know that energy can be converted into matter and vice versa right?

[PerpetualBurn]

Well other than your ignorance as to the nature of a singularity, I don't see a problem beyond your own stubbornness.

[AmericanWeiner]

The problem I have with the current Big Bang Theory, is that everything seemingly popped out of a nothingness in a vast area of nothingness, from a space a nothingth by a nothingth, with a set amount of energy and matter that can't be changed, with laws of physics that also cannot be changed, for no apparent reason whatsoever.

Welcome to the WTF? moment of science.

Since our knowledge of reality is governed by what we can percieve (either sensually or intellectually), we are limited to theories that exapand on that knowledge and (even more limiting) empirical evidence.

Until we find a way to go beyond that set of rules, we can't know if there are other sets of rules or if there is a set of rules that govern OUR set of rules.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Okay, create an electron then :thumb:

ok

meet me at the synchotron

bring some MEv of energy

and some lunch

cuz it's gonna be a long day

[Volumnius Flush]

no our universe is part of the multiverse

How do you know it isn't an interverse?

[Knifeboy]

in order for that comparison to make any sense at all there would need to be sextillions of sextillions of universes completely identical to ours

10^500 universes is far far more universes than there are atoms in this universe

ps. my universe is bigger than yours

[EinzingerIsGod]

in order for that comparison to make any sense at all there would need to be sextillions of sextillions of universes completely identical to ours

This is simply an estimate. And I think they were trying to make a point as to the significance of our universe in the grand scheme of things, more than make an accurate prediction. And I realize that number far exceeds the number of atoms in our universe, but that just makes the potential for this discovery to be that much more impressive.

[LittlePound]

10^500 universes is far far more universes than there are atoms in this universe

ps. my universe is bigger than yours
I really would doubt that statement, though i'm completely sure of how many atoms are in this universe. But there are hundred of millions of miles to cover before we reached the end of this universe and....that's a lot of atoms.

[Reaganista]

This is simply an estimate. And I think they were trying to make a point as to the significance of our universe in the grand scheme of things
If there are no other universes identical to ours, then ours is far more significant than an atom

[Knifeboy]

I really would doubt that statement, though i'm completely sure of how many atoms are in this universe. But there are hundred of millions of miles to cover before we reached the end of this universe and....that's a lot of atoms.


What a stupid post... No, that isn't alot of atoms, the universe could be infinitely big (wich it, sort of, is) and only contain one atom

[RockAndRoll]

Closest guess to the number of atoms in the known universe gets the whole thing. I say 7.9801x10^95.

[Knifeboy]

I've always been told it was around 10^70

[RockAndRoll]

I've always been told it was around 10^70

Hmm Id say it's more, I don't actually know, but I mean the way I figure is...

the number of hydrogen atoms in a kilogram is about 10^27
The number of kilos that our sun weighs is about 10^30
The stars in the known universe are about 10^23

Then I added on another power of 15 for good measure, I mean I didn't want to take all the fun out of guessing games.

[AmericanWeiner]

Hmm Id say it's more, I don't actually know, but I mean the way I figure is...

the number of hydrogen atoms in a kilogram is about 10^27
The number of kilos that our sun weighs is about 10^30
The stars in the known universe are about 10^23

Then I added on another power of 15 for good measure, I mean I didn't want to take all the fun out of guessing games.

Only fault I see with this is that every not-hydrogen atom is AT LEAST twice as heavy (mass mass mass, I know) as a hydrogen atom, and there is more than hydrogen in the sun (I think.)

Either way, your count was probably the closest to what I'd guess.

[RockAndRoll]

Only fault I see with this is that every not-hydrogen atom is AT LEAST twice as heavy (mass mass mass, I know) as a hydrogen atom, and there is more than hydrogen in the sun (I think.)

Either way, your count was probably the closest to what I'd guess.

Ya, I know that but even if the universe were composed by the heaviest atoms that should only throw it off by about 10^2 seeing as no known element has an atomic mass of more than a couple hundred.

There's also the fact that not all stars are the same mass or contain the same number of atoms as the sun, plus not all the matter in the universe is from the stars. But I was hardly being exact... hell I won't even get in to dark matter! :p

[Knifeboy]

.. I'll change my guess to a googol.. Just because that'd be awesome if it was true

[RockAndRoll]

googolplex > googol every time

[666Ozzfan]

There's also the fact that not all stars are the same mass or contain the same number of atoms as the sun, plus not all the matter in the universe is from the stars. But I was hardly being exact... hell I won't even get in to dark matter! :p

Isn't our sun one of the smallest ones? and most solar systems have around 4-5 Jovian planets (Our jupiter, again, is one of the smaller ones)

[RockAndRoll]

Isn't our sun one of the smallest ones? and most solar systems have around 4-5 Jovian planets (Our jupiter, again, is one of the smaller ones)

Our sun is fairly average-sized I do believe.

As for jupiter and stuff, besides the fact that it's only about one one thousandth the sun's mass even if there were 4 or 5 other bodies orbiting each star as massive as the star itself that would hardly effect the predicted number of atoms on the scale were using.

Look at it this way, if each star were 5 times as heavy as my calculations estimate them to be then we would only need to multiply my answer by 5 to get the correct one, and although this may seem like a huge difference when we're dealing with powers of ten it's really pretty miniscule. If I multiply 10^80 by 5 the answer I get isn't 10^400, it's 5.0x10^80, which, sure, is a hell of a lot of atoms, but it doesn't even change our answer by a power of one, and these calculations definitely aren't accurate enough to deal with anything other than orders.

Just as it was pointed out that not all atoms are hydrogen, it's true that not all atoms are hydrogen (though most by both mass and number are Hydrogen atoms) but even were the universe made mostly of Iron or Uranium dealing with our scale and level of accuracy it hardly makes a difference.

[666Ozzfan]

Yeah, thats true. It's not like I thought it'd make a huge difference, but maybe a little one :D But yes, the overall difference is miniscule

[Aus_rock_god]

You do know that energy can be converted into matter and vice versa right?

I stand corrected.

I got "energy cannot be created nor destroyed" muddled up.

I was also under the impression that the synchotron is a device that smashes atoms together in order to seperate them into atomic particles.

*goes back to the drawing board and starts re-writing the Aus_rock_god "theory of everything for dummies"*

[Reaganista]

googolplex > googol every time
moongol<ghengisplex

[Volumnius Flush]

moongol<ghengisplex

kublaiplex > mxplex

[RockAndRoll]

I stand corrected.

I got "energy cannot be created nor destroyed" muddled up.

I was also under the impression that the synchotron is a device that smashes atoms together in order to seperate them into atomic particles.

*goes back to the drawing board and starts re-writing the Aus_rock_god "theory of everything for dummies"*

Fair enough, give me a shout if you ever manage to finish that one.