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

a reply to: spy66

You feel you have been able to counter argue. Yet I've yet to see you actually be able to post a scientifically verifiable thing. In the end you think you are arguing science, when in reality you are not getting you are missing that you are screwing up the basis of science. You can not say something does not exist (or happen, or is made etc) due to lack of evidence. Especially when its not been looked for very hard.

I work in a lab every single day, using my degrees. So no you don't understand science better than I.

a reply to: Noinden

You feel you have been able to counter argue. Yet I've yet to see you actually be able to post a scientifically verifiable thing.

This will probably be the forth time i say this:

-There are no scientific evidence that multiverses exist. A claim you brought into the topic. It is you that brought this topic up without any verifiable evidence to support Your own argument against me. When i reply and say that there are no observable Scientific information that support Your claim,... am i then wrong?

Why do i have to prove my argument With verifiable evidence when Your claim is not supported by any? Why do you demand more from me then you do of Your self?

Since you claime to know science now, how can you argue that i am wrong? What verifiable Scientific facts do you have?

I know that you dont have any. And i have explained why. But still you go on and on about Your case. Since Our sceintific Field of view reaches only outwards to about 13.799 billion years. How does science find claimes that support mulitverses?
Do i really have to state any more information then that?

In the end you think you are arguing science, when in reality you are not getting you are missing that you are screwing up the basis of science.

Am i really?? Am i the one who is doing that.........

originally posted by: jimmyx
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".....

I have to agree to this. But its hard to observe the basis for existance within a system of existing Things. We can observe motions and how Things are being pushed.

Our problem is that we can not observe a timeline prior to Planck time or byond Our Field of view outwards which is about 13.799 billion years. Our information is Limited to the speed of light. Basically we are Limited to a Field of obervation on a timeline.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Idreamofme

the egg, a chicken is a cross breed. my family use to raise chickens for egg production. most smart people agree that they came from cross breeding.
a wiki cause it's fast, and from

The domestic chicken is descended primarily from the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and is scientifically classified as the same species.[21] As such it can and does freely interbreed with populations of red jungle fowl.[21] Recent genetic analysis has revealed that at least the gene for yellow skin was incorporated into domestic birds through hybridization with the grey junglefowl (G. sonneratii).[22] The traditional poultry farming view is that chickens were first domesticated for cockfighting in Asia, Africa, and Europe, rather than for egg or meat production. In the last decade there have been a number of genetic studies to clarify the origins. According to one study, a single domestication event occurring in the region of modern Thailand created the modern chicken with minor transitions separating the modern breeds.[23] However, that study was later found to be based on incomplete data, and recent studies point to multiple maternal origins, with the clade found in the Americas, Europe, Middle East, and Africa, originating from the Indian subcontinent, where a large number of unique haplotypes occur.[24][25] It is postulated that the jungle fowl, known as the bamboo fowl in many Southeast Asian languages, is a special pheasant well adapted to take advantage of the large amounts of fruits that are produced during the end of the 50-year bamboo seeding cycle to boost its own reproduction.[26] In domesticating the chicken, humans took advantage of this prolific reproduction of the jungle fowl when exposed to large amounts of food.[27] It has been claimed (based on paleoclimatic assumptions) that chickens were domesticated in Southern China in 6000 BC.[28] However, according to a recent study,[29] it is unclear whether those birds were the ancestors of chickens today. Instead, the origin could be the Harappan culture of the Indus Valley. Eventually, the chicken moved to the Tarim basin of central Asia. The chicken reached Europe (Romania, Turkey, Greece, Ukraine) about 3000 BC.[30] Introduction into Western Europe came far later, about the 1st millennium BC. Phoenicians spread chickens along the Mediterranean coasts, to Iberia. Breeding increased under the Roman Empire, and was reduced in the Middle Ages.[30] Middle East traces of chicken go back to a little earlier than 2000 BC, in Syria; chicken went southward only in the 1st millennium BC. The chicken reached Egypt for purposes of cock fighting about 1400 BC, and became widely bred only in Ptolemaic Egypt (about 300 BC).[30] Little is known about the chicken's introduction into Africa. Three possible routes of introduction in about the early first millennium AD could have been through the Egyptian Nile Valley, the East Africa Roman-Greek or Indian trade, or from Carthage and the Berbers, across the Sahara. The earliest known remains are from Mali, Nubia, East Coast, and South Africa and date back to the middle of the first millennium AD.[30] Domestic chicken in the Americas before Western conquest is still an ongoing discussion, but blue-egged chickens, found only in the Americas and Asia, suggest an Asian origin for early American chickens.[30]

here's my question, which ones taste the best and don't say the ones from kentucky!!

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Noinden

You feel you have been able to counter argue. Yet I've yet to see you actually be able to post a scientifically verifiable thing.

This will probably be the forth time i say this:

There are no scientific evidence that multiverses exist.

Correct...There is no known evidence. But that does not mean there is NOT a multiverse. Maybe the evidence just has not yet been found.

Similarly, there is no known hard eveidence that the universe is infinite. But that does not mean it is NOT infinite. Maybe the evidence just has not been found.

originally posted by: spy66
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.

That has nothing to do with your theoretical void. Just because finite things exist doesn't mean that infinite things exist. Your logic is warped. Just because it's the opposite doesn't mean it's required. Eternal things can be finite in size.

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?

I don't. You are guessing 100% here. You don't even know that space outside of our universe exists, let alone that it's infinite. Why are you so against the idea of something finite causing the universe, that is part of a long sequence of cause and effect leading to something that can't be created or destroyed (ie energy / spacetime or something we can't fully comprehend yet).

Opposites aren't required to exist. Just because you have finite things doesn't mean you have to have infinite things. You aren't using logic at all.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
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.

What does "part of the infinite" mean? Eternal is not the same thing as infinite. You could theoretically say "infinite time" because it exists outside of spacetime and hence is not part of time itself, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't necessarily experience their own calculation of time which is outside of our spacetime. Infinite means that what you are talking about has no limits to its size, so you could have something that is eternal or timeless that is not infinite in its dimensions. For example, a proton particle. It MIGHT exist eternally, but nobody would ever call it infinite because it can be measured and is certainly limited.

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?

Why must we assume there are no limits? In our universe, things are limited by the laws of physics.

I find that when people say things like "the infinite" they very rarely even grasp what that can mean and are just appealing to woowoo definitions like Deepak Chopra. "Are you in tune with the infinite?" That essentially means nothing.

There is no known evidence. But that does not mean there is NOT a multiverse. Maybe the evidence just has not yet been found.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Correct: I also agreed to that and stated so. But i did add With that reply that there are no observable evidence. Since there are noe evidence we only have Our opinions. I also state my opinion.


- Science dont have any evidence or facts about what is byond Our observable universe.

Similarly, there is no known hard eveidence that the universe is infinite. But that does not mean it is NOT infinite. Maybe the evidence just has not been found.

Our universe and its Space there of is not infinite. And Our observable universe is all we know of. We know its not infinite because of the expansion. That is the only solid evidence we have to know that Our universe is finite and not infinite.

To this i have stated that when it comes to the infinite absolute empty void of space we can only reason us to the correct reasoning. It is not hard to reason what the infinite must be when it also must be absolute. It must take up absolute all Space there is. It must be absolute empty, It must be a absolute constant. It must be absolute neutral. Its timeline must be a absolute constant. The infnite can not be anything else and be infinite.

a reply to: Barcs

Eternal things can be finite in size.

Like what? Do we actually know of Things that are eternal?

I don't. You are guessing 100% here. You don't even know that space outside of our universe exists,

So you are implying that there might not be a Space outside Our observable universe.... how odd is that?

Just by knowing that Our universe is expanding and taking up more Space should tell you that. It should also tell you something about that Space outside Our expanding universe as well. Since Our univcerse is not a absolute vaccum Space...The Space surrounding Our exspanding universe probable is a absolute vaccum. The other indication is how even Our universe is expanding inn all directions.

originally posted by: spy66

...Our universe and its Space there of is not infinite. And Our observable universe is all we know of. We know its not infinite because of the expansion. That is the only solid evidence we have to know that Our universe is finite and not infinite.

To this i have stated that when it comes to the infinite absolute empty void of space we can only reason us to the correct reasoning. It is not hard to reason what the infinite must be when it also must be absolute. It must take up absolute all Space there is. It must be absolute empty, It must be a absolute constant. It must be absolute neutral. Its timeline must be a absolute constant. The infnite can not be anything else and be infinite.

Are you assuming that the Universe is expanding within a void that has the same "fabric" as the rest of the universe? What I'm saying is that if there is an expanding universe, and that expansion has an edge, there may actually be no fabric of space beyond that edge -- at least nothing we would call "space" (not even empty space).

That's because the big bang itself (as the theory goes) was not a bunch of stuff that expanded within an empty universe, but rather that thing that expanded actually created the fabric of the universe as it expanded. If this void you mention exists, it may not simply be "just like our space, but empty of stars, galaxies, etc".


Obviously, the big bang did have to take place inside of "something" -- such as this void you mention. However, that void may be something that is built from different dimensions than our universe, and " infinite" might not have the same meaning.

Therefore, as our universe expanded after the big bang, and continues to expand today, it is believed to be creating the fabric of space-time (as we know it) as it expands. The very fabric of space-time might not even exist (or exist as we know it) outside of that expanding edge.

a reply to: spy66

This will be the fourth time that I say this.

There are at least 4 hypotheses about the existence of Multiverses. These all have some scientific theory put into them (other wise they would not be hypotheses). So just as the Higgs Boson, and Gravitational waves "had no evidence for their existence", their were theories supporting them. Just as we had never seen dark matter, we mat have now.

So you can't discount them, or the idea of multiverses. You don't have to accept them as fact.

You miss the point that "if you make a claim, the burden of proof is upon you", thus you made a claim. Back it up

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Are you assuming that the Universe is expanding within a void that has the same "fabric" as the rest of the universe?

I am actually describing a infinite void of Space that is nothing like the void of Space Our universe i made up of.

- Our universe is not absolute. It does not take up all Space there is.
- Our universe is not absolute empty. It is made up of fintie particles, finite matter and different finite energies.
- Our universe is not a absolute constant.
- Our universe did not always exist. And it will not always exist. because it is not infinite.

The infinite is a single void of empty Space that is absolute. To be absolute it must have specifics. These specific are:

- It must be absolute. This means a single void that is absolute infinite and empty of any other Things.
- It must take up all Space there is.
- It always existed. It always existed do to the fact that it takes up all Space there is.
- It must be a absolut constant.
- It must be absolut neutral.

It is thee clock that always ran With a abolute constant beat. It is thee timeline that always existed until Our finite timeline started.

The timeline can be displaied With 4 different images that explaine my point.

Image 1: Infinite timeline. In this image you see absolute nothing but darkness.


Image 2: Infinite With infinite timelines.


But how do we bring a finite timeline into these images?
Image 3:


Where would finite comefrom if it did not come from the infinite void of absolute empty Space?

This is how the 4th timeline bar would look like.
Image 4.


When you look at the timeline bar on image bar it just illustrate when finite time started. But it does not illustrate or give you the fact that finite must be formed within a void of Space (Finite occupy Space). Finite would be surrounded by the absolute infinite empty Space in all directions.


NB. When i talk about Our universe i mean this:



I mean everything that makes up Space,stars and planets and so on.

a reply to: spy66

If this void exists outside of "space-time" as we define it, then we don't know if our concept of infinity has any meaning there.

What does "infinitely large and eternal in time" even mean in a place where the concepts of "large" and "time" may not exist?


For me, the bottom line is that if our universe has an edge as you suggest, then it is not infinite.
What lies beyond? I have no idea, but whatever it is, it's not what I would call "our universe".

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well infinity sort of implies that we are talking about something we can access. But it goes on and on, sans end. A void, we can't really measure, that is not really space? Thats not what infinity implies. Its the same as a Sky God battling a cathonic deity (God vs Satan), a concept, that is not science, its a belief. The moment you can measure it, quantify it? Yeah sure.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

What does "infinitely large and eternal in time" even mean in a place where the concepts of "large" and "time" may not exist?

It means it just is...... But it must have something that we dont bother to take very seriously.
Since such a void of Space is and exists. It wont just form finite existance (Things) by random. It cant since it is a absolute constant. No changes can take Place there randomly. Just because of this we have People who Counter argue because it implies the existance of a awareness/God. It is why we have hundreds of topics like this that never go eny where.

What lies beyond? I have no idea, but whatever it is, it's not what I would call "our universe".

Correct it is not. This is Our observable universe....

a reply to: Noinden

Yes, that's a good way to put it -- "A place we could access".


My tiny primate brain cannot wrap itself around the concept of an existence outside of our familiar 3-dimansions of space universe, nor can it wrap itself around the concept of an existence where there is no time. However, from the little that I can imagine about such a place, I would say that I don't think the concept of being "infinite in size" or "has eternally existed for all time" has meaning.


Spy66 can ask Where would finite come from if it did not come from the infinite void of absolute empty Space?, but that begs the question What do you mean by 'absolute empty space'?

The subatomic physical properties of our particular universe is what defines what we call space -- and it makes up thge fabric of what we call space-time within our universe. Therfore, if we are then supposed to consider an absolotue empty space (an existence outside our space-time fabric), and what that space would be, that absolute empty space cannot be defined by using the same properties of our universe.

Like you said, it's not a place we can access, neither literally nor probably through our minds.

a reply to: spy66


You might also be assuming that our universe is expanding outwards towards infinity in the shape of a 3-Dimensional bubble. That might not be the case.

The universe itself might be expanding along a shape that is not bubble-like, but rather an extradimensional shape that may appear to be infinite, but wraps back upon itself through this extradimensional space. In that case, the "void" in which our universe exists need not be infinite.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

nor can it wrap itself around the concept of an existence where there is no time.

That is why you have to think about the clock/timeline also. The infinite does have time and a timeline, but it is different from a finite clock and its timeline.

The infinite is a clock that is a absolute constant.... it always was. And its timeline was a absolute constant until finite time was formed. But we still have two clocks; One that is infinite and one that is finite. One is a sbolute constant and the other is not.

Spy66 can ask: Where would finite come from if it did not come from the infinite void of absolute empty Space?, but that begs the question What do you mean by 'absolute empty space'?

It means that the infinite void is absolute empty of what ever you can think of. There is nothing in the void Accept the void it self. That is why it is absolute. It cannot be absolute if there are other Things within.

The subatomic physical properties of our particular universe is what defines what we call space -- and it makes up thge fabric of what we call space-time within our universe. Therfore, if we are then supposed to consider an absolotue empty space (an existence outside our space-time fabric), and what that space would be, that absolute empty space cannot be defined by using the same properties of our universe.

That is correct. You can not do that in a absolute empty void of infnite Space. The fabric of the infinite void is absolut neutral, a absolute constant and it takes up all Space there is....
If you think about that,... nothing is actually more powerfull. There is nothing within Our universe that can be absolute neutral....nothing.

Like you said, it's not a place we can access, neither literally nor probably through our minds.

Well it takes some work to think about it.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: spy66


You might also be assuming that our universe is expanding outwards towards infinity in the shape of a 3-Dimensional bubble. That might not be the case.

The universe itself might be expanding along a shape that is not bubble-like, but rather an extradimensional shape that may appear to be infinite, but wraps back upon itself through this extradimensional space. In that case, the "void" in which our universe exists need not be infinite.

Yes i use the image i posted (WMAP). It makes it easier to grasp the Whole Picture. It gets way more complicated if we would go into the actuall shape of the expansion, because then we have to get into the order and clasifications of emitted energies. But then again it dosent change much because if you revind time we end up at a single point.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well some cosmologists think that reality might be the result of a 4D star collapsing to a black hole, and what we perceive is in the acreation disk (in that 4th dimension) ... that hurts my brain a lot to consider. But hey it works for them right?