It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 75
25
<< 72  73  74    76  77 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs





Ok, yes, we understand that those 2 words have opposite meanings. Yes, it's a fact that they are different concepts. That doesn't make one more plausible than another when talking about a theoretical void,


Okay.




nor does it mean that finite things can't exist within something that is infinite.


Finite Things must exist within a void of Space that is infinite. All finite Things occupy its own volume of Space no matter how small or large they are,... finite occupy Space.




Maybe nothing is infinite, it's all just humongous (or we are just very small).


I think i understant what you are thinking. But it dosent matter how small we are: finite can not be (infinite large) or (infinite small). All Finites have specific finite Properties and non of them are infinite. As i mentioned before (all finites occupy its own portion of Space).

The concept you peobably are thinking of is from a observers position in timespace compared to what the observer is observing. Within Our universe this line of though wont work because all of Our observable universe and everything it is made up of are finites. And Our position as observers are also within Our finite observable universe, we observe from Our location and outwards. We observe from Our location within Our universe only 13.799 billion years outwards. So therefor infinite becomes a issue.




posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden





You sure can. However you are doing so from the point of ignorance.


Okay, i rest my case With you.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Barcs





Ok, yes, we understand that those 2 words have opposite meanings. Yes, it's a fact that they are different concepts. That doesn't make one more plausible than another when talking about a theoretical void,


Okay.




nor does it mean that finite things can't exist within something that is infinite.


Finite Things must exist within a void of Space that is infinite. All finite Things occupy its own volume of Space no matter how small or large they are,... finite occupy Space.




Maybe nothing is infinite, it's all just humongous (or we are just very small).


I think i understant what you are thinking. But it dosent matter how small we are: finite can not be (infinite large) or (infinite small). All Finites have specific finite Properties and non of them are infinite. As i mentioned before (all finites occupy its own portion of Space).

The concept you peobably are thinking of is from a observers position in timespace compared to what the observer is observing. Within Our universe this line of though wont work because all of Our observable universe and everything it is made up of are finites. And Our position as observers are also within Our finite observable universe, we observe from Our location and outwards. We observe from Our location within Our universe only 13.799 billion years outwards. So therefor infinite becomes a issue.









none of this explains how the clock requires a clockmaker but the clockmaker doesnt require a parentage of their own. the clockmaker defies the very rule that defines its existence. it is the necessary maker for which no maker is necessary.






posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm



Yeah, People dont know what came before the Hen and the egg either. Even if the Hen laied the egg...... That is the Level you People are at. You People have no common sense.......


If there are two clocks one is finite and one is infinite...... Which clock was the first to tick?


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Again who are "you people"? Come now be honest. You creationists are not very brave



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Oh come on Noinden, by you people could it be that he’s just referring to those who he is debating? He knows by now your not an atheist at least, and I find it rather ironic how you mock creationists when you yourself believe in multiple gods.

I can fully understand why you have a problem with evolution deniers and fundamentalist religious nuts, but his logic is sound as far as the infinite goes. By calling him a creationist it seems like you are delivering a slight to him or creationists in general. How is your idea of multiple gods any better?

The infinite can’t be measured by its very nature and neither can the finite be boundless. So whatever was the cause of the Big Bang or multiverse/multigods is infinite. It can’t be otherwise.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul

Yeah but he is refering to a non religious person as "you people" so if he can't say what he means by that he should not use the phrase.

The problem with "infinite" is it is really an abstract. Creationist is a descriptor. I've admitted here before, that a deity creating everything is a possibility. Its not the ONLY one.
This thread is not about the infinite.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: surfer_soul

Yeah but he is refering to a non religious person as "you people" so if he can't say what he means by that he should not use the phrase.

The problem with "infinite" is it is really an abstract. Creationist is a descriptor. I've admitted here before, that a deity creating everything is a possibility. Its not the ONLY one.
This thread is not about the infinite.



I am refering to you People that dont get it. It dosent matter what background you have.

There is only one way finite can exist and that is if the infinite void formes it. There are no other ways or options.

Only one void of Space can be infinite and take up all Space there is. There can not be any other voids that are infinite....there is only one. It is common sense. How can there be more then one void of Space that is infinite and that takes up all Space there is? How do you add that up?


That is like saying everying you see in this image is infinite.... But it is not.



WMAP image. Do you know what is very obious With this image... ? What do you notice about this image that shows you that this is not observed from within Our universe? Does it not look like the image is depicting how Our universe looks like from a distance..... like it was observed from outside Our universe?


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

You are thinking only in 3 dimensions (3 dimensions of space).

What if our universe were a finite 3-dimensional piece of space contained within something that is multi-dimensional? Or if not "multi-dimensional", then being a place where the fabric of that region is of different dimensions than our universe?

Being built from different dimensions, the definition of infinite may not have the same meaning within that region as it does in our 3-dimensional universe. the idea of size (as we understand the concept) might be meaningless in that multidimensional/different dimensional place. Even the word "place" might have no meaning there.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
The infinite can’t be measured by its very nature and neither can the finite be boundless. So whatever was the cause of the Big Bang or multiverse/multigods is infinite. It can’t be otherwise.


I don't follow. Something could be eternal without being infinite in size. Time only exists in our big bang bubble, so IF anything exists outside of it, it would be considered eternal by our standard of time, but not necessarily infinite.


edit on 3 7 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
There is only one way finite can exist and that is if the infinite void formes it. There are no other ways or options.


Again, that's pure speculation. Please explain precisely how something finite REQUIRES something infinite? Why is that the only option? Why can't the "void" just be really huge?


Only one void of Space can be infinite and take up all Space there is. There can not be any other voids that are infinite....there is only one. It is common sense. How can there be more then one void of Space that is infinite and that takes up all Space there is? How do you add that up?


If something is infinite, it literally can't take up all space there is. It never begins or ends, so there is no "all" space that exists. If there was in fact an infinite void, there could very well be numerous universes within that same "void". It's still complete guesswork that an infinite void exists, however.


WMAP image. Do you know what is very obious With this image... ? What do you notice about this image that shows you that this is not observed from within Our universe? Does it not look like the image is depicting how Our universe looks like from a distance..... like it was observed from outside Our universe?


Come on, bro. They show it like that on purpose, to give perspective. Your arguments are not logical in the least. They are just personal opinions, but you are talking down to people that disagree with you over it. Tons of work was putting into the creation of that universal model.


edit on 3 7 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain




You are thinking only in 3 dimensions (3 dimensions of space).

What if our universe were a finite 3-dimensional piece of space contained within something that is multi-dimensional?

That is correct, i am actually only thinking about 3 Dimensions of Space. Because it is the absolute minimum of dimensions Space can be to be absolute infinite and take up all Space possible. Any other Dimension can not be infinite, they would be finite Dimensions With specific observable coordinets. In other Words if you can observe them and point them out they are finite Dimensions.

Image of a 3 dimesional absolute empty infinite void of Space.






Being built from different dimensions, the definition of infinite may not have the same meaning within that region as it does in our 3-dimensional universe. the idea of size (as we understand the concept) might be meaningless in that multidimensional/different dimensional place. Even the word "place" might have no meaning there.


I understand; That is the concept we have because we observe Our universe from the inside and outwords. We have no concept of the infinite Space. Because all we observe is finites.

THe other parts you are trying to explain would to my undertsanding be a Thought/vision or a Dream that we humans have. I am i correct?








edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs





Again, that's pure speculation.


It is based on logical reasoning. We have no facts,... but we do know the difference between finite and Infinite. We know that they are the opposit of eachother. That means finite is not infnite, and we know that infinite is not finite. They have nothing in commom. You accepted that earlier.




Please explain precisely how something finite REQUIRES something infinite?


Infinite always was and always is and take up all Space there is. Finites had a beginning and dont take up all Space there is. Since finite is the opposit of infinite, finite dident always exist nor does it take up all Space there is.

This means for finite things to exist you first have to have a absolute infinite empty void of Space to have finite Things in. Since finites occupy Space... The infinite is all Space there is..... Do you see the difference?

If you have a infinite clock and a finite clock. The infinite clock would be a absolute constant clock. The finite clock would be the obsolute opposit of a absolute infinite constant timeline. The finite timeline had a beginning since it is the opposit of a infinite timeline.




If something is infinite, it literally can't take up all space there is. It never begins or ends, so there is no "all" space that exists.


Are you sure you got this right?

If something is infinite it literally would take up all Space possible. It would not be infinite if it dident. When you are talking about infinite, you are talking about something that is absolute.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: surfer_soul
The infinite can’t be measured by its very nature and neither can the finite be boundless. So whatever was the cause of the Big Bang or multiverse/multigods is infinite. It can’t be otherwise.


I don't follow. Something could be eternal without being infinite in size. Time only exists in our big bang bubble, so IF anything exists outside of it, it would be considered eternal by our standard of time, but not necessarily infinite.



Because if something is eternal it is part of the infinite and not finite.
You mention the void being just really huge. But no matter how big, if it ends somewhere we can ask what then is beyond it and so on.

That’s why it must be infinite because as soon as we have limits we can question what is beyond those limits. Sure we can say we don’t know, and we can’t know scientifically. But logically we must assume there are no limits otherwise what is it limited by?



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Go on demonstrate what I "don't get";. Also show your PoV is "the only way". I am pretty sure you can not. But go ahead, prove me wrong, there is a first time for everything with "you people"



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

You made a mistake right there. Claiming "that we have no facts" thus it is "based on logical reasoning". One needs a point of reference (a fact) for such things to apply to anything physical. Your point of reference is what again?



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: spy66

You made a mistake right there. Claiming "that we have no facts" thus it is "based on logical reasoning". One needs a point of reference (a fact) for such things to apply to anything physical. Your point of reference is what again?


Well i am telling you the truth. We dont have physical facts. I have never said that i have physical facts.

When we deal With these type of issues (finite and infinite) there are no facts. We only have logical reasoning. There is no way you can Counter argue my claim With any facts or evidence. You can try and reason my claimes With sound Logic. But there is no way in hell you can prove With evidence and facts that infinite dont exist.


You asked me to Counter argue Your claime With facts when it cam to multiverses.... A claime that you presented that was not supported by any evidence or facts it self. Do you see Your problem? How can you ask for evidence and facts when Your claime is not even backed up by any? You made a fictional claime that was not backed up by any evidence.... I answered you With a Counter argument based on Logic and common sense.....
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

You are arguing against science, but have no physical (verifiable) facts. That is the other mistake you are making. You are arguing from a point of "gut" vs a point of "vision".

No where have I said "I believe in the multiversial theory". What I have said is you can't discount it. Which you can not. Certain aspects of Quantum theory point to it. I'm honest, I don't discount that the universe may be created, but at the same time it may not have. As a skeptic, as a religious individual (and read this part): I do not know, thus I can't discount it, based on lack of evidence.

The problem with assuming you are right, based on lack of evidence, is you are making a logical fallacy. One can only verify somethings existence, not disprove it with no evidence. No matter how low the percentage chance (probability), its still a possibility.

That is how it works.

You did not use logic, not once. You argued based on a preconceived notion, which is in essence conformation bias, which is inherently with out logic.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden





You are arguing against science,


I dont think so. I actually think i understand science a lot better than you do when it comes to this issue...
I have been able to Counter argue you every time. You have not been able to Counter argue my arguments at any time. You are not even a Challenge at this point. You have not brought anything to this issue. You are just attacking me.





No where have I said "I believe in the multiversial theory". What I have said is you can't discount it.


And i have not.

I said i dident know. But from Our observable science there are actually no evidence that multiverses exist. The theory is a fiction until evidence show something else.

If you think Quantum theory will cover Your ass you have no idea what Quantum theory covers. But i will tell you.... It only covers the media within Our god damn finite universe. But you cant grasp that can you? You dont know what that means when it comes to these issues..... ?



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 04:38 PM
link   
we as humans are limited to our 5 senses to observe anything, so "everything" may not be recognized, nor even known.....example:...the existence of dark matter and dark energy, can only be observed by its effects on "other things"...dimensional shifts, brought about by flexed space time, or, stable matter, at different frequencies unobservable to humans, leaves us with unanswerable questions of existence of "everything".....



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 72  73  74    76  77 >>

log in

join