A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

This reminds me of the saying " I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you"

originally posted by: moonrunner
This reminds me of the saying " I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you"

Very well said

originally posted by: edmc^2
I knew you will say the "human mind". But the concept itself is what I'm referring to. In other words - when someone says infinity - what does it mean - number wise or space wise (inner/outer)?

Dude, it is a CONCEPT related to counting, not a real thing. It's based on our numerical system that WE CREATED so that numbers can keep increasing as high as we need them to. It doesn't mean that anything infinite anywhere exists.

a reply to: edmc^2

Enter dark matter,
questions that deserve no answer.

It's a question someone thought to ask, then realized the futility.

originally posted by: spy66
No it is not. No void of Space can be timeless, not even if it is infinite. It is just that it's timeline is a absolut constant.

There is only one void of Space that can be infinite and that is the void of Space that is a absolut constant.

How do you know that without evidence? Timeless is not the same as infinite. Space isn't a void, it's a tangible physical thing.

Well.... if it is not infinite it must be a finite. So the singularity can not have always existed. It must have been formed like all finites have.

The singularity is not a absolut constant. It does not have the properties of being infinite.

What are you talking about? I said it could be timeless, not infinite. I never said the singularity was infinite, but eternal is another story. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

a reply to: Barcs

I think at this point, our position is the equivalent of trying to convince a schizophrenic who has gone off of their meds that the hallucinations they see aren't actually real because the only evidence of their reality lies within the mind of the person hallucinating.

Nothing that anybody says will convince them of anything other than the reality their impairments are creating within their own relative corner of space/time, devoid of any subjective or measurable data. It's futile at best.

a reply to: Barcs

How do you know that without evidence? Timeless is not the same as infinite.

How do i know.....? WHat is odd to me is,,, why don't you know?

I stated before that the infinite is not timeless. It's timeline is a absolut constant,.. that is a big difference.

When a void of Space is a absolut constant, it is absolut neutral. That is the strongest force ever. And nothing, i mean nothing can be more neutral than what is absolut....... ever. And only what is absolut can be infinite. Nothing else can be....... That should be common sense.

No one needs to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

You are dead wrong and equivocating different meanings of infinite. Something can be timeless without being infinite. Stop being so stubborn.

I have answered this abowe.

What are you talking about? I said it could be timeless, not infinite. I never said the singularity was infinite, but eternal is another story. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

The singularity can't be eternal...... because it is not infinite.

Our universe (the singularity) is a finite and will have a finite timeline. There is no questions about it.

In the end Our universe will become the void of Space that formed it.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Barcs

I think at this point, our position is the equivalent of trying to convince a schizophrenic who has gone off of their meds that the hallucinations they see aren't actually real because the only evidence of their reality lies within the mind of the person hallucinating.

Nothing that anybody says will convince them of anything other than the reality their impairments are creating within their own relative corner of space/time, devoid of any subjective or measurable data. It's futile at best.

Does this apply to me or you?

Because i dont see the differance in Your opinion here.

knowledge is a funny thing..... is it not?

Do you have it or do i?

a reply to: spy66

knowledge is a funny thing..... is it not?

Knowledge can be true or false. In science, knowledge is defined by evidence. False knowledge is like a false prophet - you can spin the truth any way you want. But in the end, only evidenced-based knowledge counts. Proof of concept isn't difficult - in classical mechanics physical laws govern the movement of bodies under force. This is evident when you turn the ignition in your car. You have proposed nothing that contradicts the physical laws that we use every day of our lives. If you knew anything about physics you would know that your original question is easily answered in physics 101 (which I assume you never studied).

Everything that has a beginning has a cause. So, what's the answer to this simple question: If something has no cause, does it have a beginning? What say you?

As I answered previously, the only possible answer is infinity because infinity has no "cause".

And once again, your knowledge of scientific language and definitions is deficient. I suggest you get yourself a high school physics book that includes the laboratory experiments. The most important part of the exercise is to understand and actually DO the experiments. People like you have never been in a functional lab where you actually learn how these concepts fall out under real time conditions. It's not rocket science (at least for anyone with an open mind and a reasonable IQ) to figure out that classical mechanics works.

So before you ask a question that has an obvious answer, why not spend some time at your local high school and learn something worthwhile. Then come back and ask the same question. Here's the kicker: when you understand basic physics, you won't have to ask the question. You'll be able to answer it yourself.

Of course, I'm not holding my breath....................................

a reply to: Phantom423

Knowledge can be true or false. In science, knowledge is defined by evidence.

Today science don't speak a thred of truth, they also bring up theories that are not even based on any facts or observations.

Today we have People going around thinking black holes formed Our universe, that Our universe will implode in on its self one day. That time travel is possible. People think that Our military Technology is 50 years a head of what is published. We have People going arround thinking that Our universe is all there is. Non of these Things are based on facts or any kind of true observations. Dont tell me that science is all about facts..... science have become a religion that a lot of People fall for. Damn.... many of ATS topics is evidence enought of that dont you think?

There is a reason why Our generation is called the the wiki generation. Its like wikipedia is the New bible for Our New generation. Our generations dont know the truth unless it is fact checked With Google. How damn scarry is not that? Puting Your faith in science is like puting Your faith in that Your government is always telling you the truth. How follish is that?

I have already mentioned that science can't go good for what i have stated. I have also stated the reason why. I also dont exspect any of you to agree With me. But what is odd is that non of you actually understand what i am saying. Its like you are all non independent thinkers. Its like you fallow Your religion as good loyal sheep.

I know i am telling you the truth,... but all i am met With is stupidity. Non of you can Counter me With a damn Scientific explanation at all. Why is that? Are you not smart enough or dont you understand Your religion good enough? Or is it that you can't Google the answere? Which is it? Its like you People dont have anything to disprove what i have staded. Dont you have any facts to go With Your replies?

I feel that all i am doing is repeating myself all the time.

If you want to get to the bottom of this why dont you Counter me With some facts?

But.... i know you cant. And i have already explained why. You can't Google the answer to what i have stated. I Guess that is the feeling Newton got when he brought up the same question as i have to the Scientific community. He got brushed of by the Scientific community then, just like i am by all of you now.

a reply to: spy66

You've repeatedly shown you do not understand Science neighbor. Beyond that "truth" is a subjective, moral based idea. Evidence is evidence is evidence.

You are also not very informed on what the most favored end of the universe scenario is. The big crunch (your so called implosion I guess) is not it. Just a hint.

So again, you don't understand science, so s top pretending you do

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: spy66

You've repeatedly shown you do not understand Science neighbor. Beyond that "truth" is a subjective, moral based idea. Evidence is evidence is evidence.

You are also not very informed on what the most favored end of the universe scenario is. The big crunch (your so called implosion I guess) is not it. Just a hint.

So again, you don't understand science, so s top pretending you do

Again we have someone preaching Words without anything to show for.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: spy66

You've repeatedly shown you do not understand Science neighbor. Beyond that "truth" is a subjective, moral based idea. Evidence is evidence is evidence.

You are also not very informed on what the most favored end of the universe scenario is. The big crunch (your so called implosion I guess) is not it. Just a hint.

So again, you don't understand science, so s top pretending you do

Again we have someone preaching Words without anything to show for.

Yep. You've been very consistent with that spy66.

All words and no evidence.

a reply to: spy66

I feel that all i am doing is repeating myself all the time.

You must be getting tired of the loop!

a reply to: spy66

Neighbour, I've proven my credentials on ATS for years. In this thread, and beyond. I'm not about to reiterate points already made. Given you've shown an inability to understand science AND a willful ignorance when things are explained to you.

So come now, start actually trying to keep up.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Science is just a method by which a person can search for answers. It doesn't inherently create or attract atheists. Many scientists are very active in using good objective science to see if there actually is some logical, hard evidence out there for what could be defined as "God."

Issac Newton, maybe the smartest mathematician who ever lived, spent most of his life combing through the Bible and observing natural phenomena to pin down the existence and nature of God.

He failed. But he tried.

Actually, science is Satan's white rose (or so It's called...). His other two is one red for the sorrows and one, what, golden? The third rose is supposed to be/stand for, um, treating ourselves as GOD (for example;"GOD doesn't exist because I don't know how he would").

I respect you and your opinion. I wanted an excuse to talk about Satan's roses.

a reply to: Wedni

Speaking as a Polytheist and a Scientist.... care to prove what you just wrote? Or is this a UPG? Because you've just implied that only atheists are scientists, which has been disproven in this thread.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
I knew you will say the "human mind". But the concept itself is what I'm referring to. In other words - when someone says infinity - what does it mean - number wise or space wise (inner/outer)?

Dude, it is a CONCEPT related to counting, not a real thing. It's based on our numerical system that WE CREATED so that numbers can keep increasing as high as we need them to. It doesn't mean that anything infinite anywhere exists.

Just because you say so doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The concept of infinity exists because it's part of our understanding that when something has no beginning nor end - it's INFINITE.

My goodness.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Wedni

Speaking as a Polytheist and a Scientist.... care to prove what you just wrote? Or is this a UPG? Because you've just implied that only atheists are scientists, which has been disproven in this thread.

40 pages for this; NO I do NOT care to prove the theology behind Satans three roses. Don't be extra thick, gee.

a reply to: Wedni

I am not being thick neighbor, but you pulled that one from your rear, and you can't back it up. Thus recant or prove.

I'm not Abrahamic, thus I don't agree with your unproven "Satan's White Rose" nonsense.