Any suggestions to refute atheism

[reggieM]

Each and every possiblility exists including a fake universe.

I think the only possibility for a fake universe would be if someone created an illusion of a universe – like a reflection in a mirror or shadows of light or maybe like an animated film. It looks real but it’s just an illusion. Or it could possibly be accidentally fake like a mirage in the desert.

Of course, if every possiblity of universes existed, then one with a Creator God would exist. This would prove the existence of God.

There are many more problems with multiverse though, beyond that.

1.-- it doesn’t explain how the sum total of multiverses came into existence.
2. We’re back to the same problem of infinite number of universes. No new events could be added to an infinite collection because it would already be fully complete.
3. All perfections and possiblities would already be fulfilled – like all “evolution” of “fitter” beings would already be completed and only the “fittest possible” beings would exist because there would be an infinite amount of time already passed by to “get fitter”.

 

[Sideline]

Of course, if every possiblity of universes existed, then one with a Creator God would exist. This would prove the existence of God.

If you believe that a god is an entity that arises out the universe, then yes it would. But that would mean that the universe created God and not vice versa. Aren’t you the person that though that Catholics*** shouldn’t*** adopt heresies to defend their position?

It is always a good idea to understand your argument before making it. It’s advice more people on this forum should take.

1.-- it doesn’t explain how the sum total of multiverses came into existence.

Have you read any of the theories? It’s really seeming like you haven’t. Maybe you should learn if what you are saying about them is true. I mean, you should do that if you care more about the truth than trying to prove a point. Some people clearly don’t.

If you are just trying to persuade people to adopt your preference, then go ahead and carry on like you are. If they aren’t curious about the facts, they’ll be yours.

1. We’re back to the same problem of infinite number of universes. No new events could be added to an infinite collection because it would already be fully complete.

By definition, an infinity can’t be full. If it possible for it to be full, then it would be finite. That’s was the word means. That’s like asking what colour an invisible unicorn is.

---

1. All perfections and possiblities would already be fulfilled – like all “evolution” of “fitter” beings would already be completed and only the “fittest possible” beings would exist because there would be an infinite amount of time already passed by to “get fitter”.***

You really haven’t thought about this at all. “Fittest” is a property of an ecosystem. If the ecosystem changes, so does the fittest. It doesn’t matter how long life evolved on other planets, in other galaxies, or in other universes, it would have nothing do with how life evolved on our planet. Different ecosystems, different adaptations.

There is no such thing as “fittest possible” creature, and thinking that there is shows, once again, that you lack even the most basic understanding of evolution.

 

[reggieM]

If you believe that a god is an entity that arises out the universe, then yes it would. But that would mean that the universe created God and not vice versa.

No, you’re limiting the possibilities. One possiblity is that a universe was created by God, the supreme being that is outside of nature and outside the universe. This is one of the possiblities that all possible universes would provide. Thus, that possiblity would be true. It has nothing to do with the universe creating God. It has to do with a universe created by God – that is a possiblity, thus it would exist, and God would exist.

Aren’t you the person that though that Catholics*** shouldn’t*** adopt heresies to defend their position?

You’ve clearly misunderstood the point, so the above is meaningless.

It is always a good idea to understand your argument before making it. It’s advice more people on this forum should take.

Again, you made a false judgement in limiting the possibilities and claiming that God would have to emerge from a universe.

Your point is easily refuted.

 

[reggieM]

Have you read any of the theories? It’s really seeming like you haven’t. Maybe you should learn if what you are saying about them is true. I mean, you should do that if you care more about the truth than trying to prove a point. Some people clearly don’t.

You seem to be attacking me personally here, or at least agitated about something.
You claim that there are “theories” regarding multiverses. What evidence do you have to show that multiverses exist? Do you base your scientific “theories” on matters where there is zero evidence? How have the multiverse “theories” been tested?

If you are just trying to persuade people to adopt your preference, then go ahead and carry on like you are. If they aren’t curious about the facts, they’ll be yours.

I’m curious about your facts on multiverses. What evidence for them have you evaluated?

 

[Sideline]

No, you’re limiting the possibilities. One possiblity is that a universe was created by God, the supreme being that is outside of nature and outside the universe. This is one of the possiblities that all possible universes would provide. Thus, that possiblity would be true. It has nothing to do with the universe creating God. It has to do with a universe created by God – that is a possiblity, thus it would exist, and God would exist.

Reggie, if you use a theory to try and prove your point, you need to stay within the parameters of the argument. That’s just the way it works. If you don’t do so, it is called making stuff up. It is not “limiting possibilities” it is called “not introducing unsupported conjectures” into an established argument.

I’ll run through the theory, and you see if you can spot where you made the mistake.

The state of the multiverse is such that universes are constantly being created and destroyed. It has always been, and will always be this way. You are postulating that this means that there this means there has to be a universe that was caused by a creator God. So this God must exist, and must be the cause of everything.

Did you see it that time? You are trying to suggest that if all universes exist, then one exists which had a unique cause.

You clearly don’t understand how infinities work. It doesn’t mean that you can introduce anything that pops into your head. There are an infinite number of numbers. You could count, literally, forever and never run out. That doesn’t mean that there has to be a number that is both prime and has factors. By definition, that can not occur.

If the theory of the multiverse is true, then all universes would have the same cause. You are suggesting that it proves a different cause. See how that doesn’t work?

 

[reggieM]

Reggie, if you use a theory to try and prove your point, you need to stay within the parameters of the argument.

It seems like you’re saying that there is just one multiverse “theory” when just previously you said “theories”. You’re now proposing just one of many multiverse conjectures that are speculated upon.

If the theory of the multiverse is true, then all universes would have the same cause. You are suggesting that it proves a different cause. See how that doesn’t work?

Ok, this is one of the multiverse “notions” (they are not theories) that is out there. There’s no evidence for any of them, but yes, if this notion you present is true – then all the universes would have the same cause.

But when one proposes an infinite number of “possible” universes, that is different. There is zero evidence for that, but when one looks at possibilities, that opens up entirely new dimensions that go beyond single causes.

In your case, the problem of the origin of “our” universe is not solved by multi-universes because they would have the same cause which has to be something outside of the collection of universes.

The original point about an infinite succession of events stands. Logically it does not work because new events cannot be added to a string of events that had no beginning. An infinite amount of time would have to elapse for a new event to occur.

The fact that we have today and tomorrow means that an infinite duration of time could not have passed. So, the time between the origin of the entire collection of universes and today must be finite.

 

[Sideline]

You seem to be attacking me personally here, or at least agitated about something.
You claim that there are “theories” regarding multiverses. What evidence do you have to show that multiverses exist? Do you base your scientific “theories” on matters where there is zero evidence? How have the multiverse “theories” been tested?

Reggie, you brought up problems with a multiverse. In your argument, you demonstrate that you don’t understand the basics of what you are attacking. For instance, the mere fact that you don’t know that there are currently many theories about how a multiverse would work. I’m merely suggesting that your arguments would have more weight if you learn what it is that you are attacking.

I don’t claim that there is a multiverse. I claim that there are theories of a multiverse, and that you have demonstrated a lack of understanding on how they would work. I demonstrate your errors in the post before this one… I can prove that there are theories if you like. Is that what you would like me to do? I’m not sure how that would help your cause.

I am not attacking you personally. I am saying, and demonstrating, that you don’t understand what an infinite number of universes would mean. I don’t claim that there are an infinite number of universes. I don’t know if there are or not. I just know that you have demonstrated that you don’t understand what that would even mean. I don’t need to be an expert in optics to understand that when a person says “an invisible shade of pink” they don’t understand how colour works.

Prove me wrong if you would like. Please, demonstrate from whose work you derived your position. You claim to be able to refute the idea. You should be the one demonstrating a knowledge of it.

 

[Sideline]

Ok, this is one of the multiverse “notions” (they are not theories) that is out there. There’s no evidence for any of them, but yes, if this notion you present is true – then all the universes would have the same cause.

But when one proposes an infinite number of “possible” universes, that is different. There is zero evidence for that, but when one looks at possibilities, that opens up entirely new dimensions that go beyond single causes.

In your case, the problem of the origin of “our” universe is not solved by multi-universes because they would have the same cause which has to be something outside of the collection of universes.

The original point about an infinite succession of events stands. Logically it does not work because new events cannot be added to a string of events that had no beginning. An infinite amount of time would have to elapse for a new event to occur.

The fact that we have today and tomorrow means that an infinite duration of time could not have passed. So, the time between the origin of the entire collection of universes and today must be finite.

Learn what infinity means, then we’ll talk.

 

[reggieM]

For instance, the mere fact that you don’t know that there are currently many theories about how a multiverse would work.

I just pointed out your contradiction in proposing one multiverse hypothesis when there are actually several.

I don’t claim that there is a multiverse. I claim that there are theories of a multiverse, and that you have demonstrated a lack of understanding on how they would work.

That’s fine. You already said that. Apparently, you call this a “theory” (I’ll suppose a “scientific theory”) that has zero evidence and is not and cannot be tested.

I can prove that there are theories if you like. Is that what you would like me to do? I’m not sure how that would help your cause.

Yes, I would like you to show the evidence that multiverses exist and that there are theories build around this evidence. A scientific theory must be built on some quantifiable evidence – otherwise it is a hypothesis, at best.

I don’t claim that there are an infinite number of universes. I don’t know if there are or not.

I’m not asking if you know, I’m just asking for the evidence that you’ve evaluated in order to draw a conclusion.

I just know that you have demonstrated that you don’t understand what that would even mean.

Again, you continue to make personal comments about me – my lack of ability, understanding, knowledge, etc. I can’t see any reason for that. Just explain your views without making it personal, ok? I can’t see where it helps by trying to insult me.

Prove me wrong if you would like.

If you provide no evidence for your “theory”, then it is refuted. There is more evidence for Intelligent Design theory than there is for the multiverse.

Please, demonstrate from whose work you derived your position.

Here’s a definition that can help:

“A theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted.”

What **observations **do you have of multiverses? What hypotheses have been **tested **with regard to them? What **facts **support the multiverse theory (as you call it)?

You claim to be able to refute the idea.

Again, you’re contradicting yourself by claiming that there is “an idea” to refute. But there are many speculations about multiverse notions – some completely at odds with others.

I think you’re claiming that the multiverse speculation is a “theory” and/or that it is true.

God could have created millions of universes, but not an infinite number of them. Any collection or string of universe events had to have a beginning since a finite amount of time has passed prior to today.

 

[Sideline]

I just pointed out your contradiction in proposing one multiverse hypothesis when there are actually several.

Edit: Ah this makes sense now. My original answer was based on a mistake.

You suggested that the multiverse proved that God would have to exist. However, the only formulation of a multiverse that works the way you suggest it would, is yours.

There, happy? You’ve invented an idea and refuted it. Well done.

That’s fine. You already said that. Apparently, you call this a “theory” (I’ll suppose a “scientific theory”) that has zero evidence and is not and cannot be tested.

I never said it had any evidence, nor that it could be tested. I was merely showing that you didn’t understand how any of… would it make you feel better if I said hypotheses?.. work. If you are going to state that it can’t work, you’d do well to understand what it is that you don’t think would work.

Yes, I would like you to show the evidence that multiverses exist and that there are theories build around this evidence. A scientific theory must be built on some quantifiable evidence – otherwise it is a hypothesis, at best.

Do you even read my posts? I never said that it works. I said that you should learn what it is that you are criticizing. It’s good advice, really.

I’m not asking if you know, I’m just asking for the evidence that you’ve evaluated in order to draw a conclusion.

I’ve demonstrated several times now my point. You don’t seem to understand what point it is that I’m making.

Again, you continue to make personal comments about me – my lack of ability, understanding, knowledge, etc. I can’t see any reason for that. Just explain your views without making it personal, ok? I can’t see where it helps by trying to insult me. But perhaps you think that’s an important part of the discussion – I don’t know.

You talk about an infinite system having an origin, and an infinite set being full. If you understood how infinity worked you wouldn’t be making such obvious errors.

It is not an insult to point out that you haven’t understood something. It is merely a fact. Is it insulting for me to point out that a person claiming that “bonjour” means “cow” in French, doesn’t know French? I don’t think so.

You have demonstrated time an again that you don’t have a clear concept of what it is that you are criticizing. You tried to use evolution to criticize a multiverse. If you understood either concept well, then you would not have tried to do so. I explained why in a previous post. You ignored it. We can discuss it further if you like.

If you provide no evidence for your “theory”, then it is refuted. There is more evidence for Intelligent Design theory than there is for the multiverse.

And now you have demonstrated a lack of understanding about what theory means. That’s not an insult, it is just a fact.

Haven’t you ever heard of an untested theory?

Here’s a definition that can help:

“A theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted.”

And we have many observations of the universe that have led people to speculate about how it came about.

What **observations **do you have of multiverses? What hypotheses have been **tested **with regard to them? What **facts **support the multiverse theory (as you call it)?

Where did you get the idea that I was arguing for a multiverse?

Here let me try explaining this to you as simply as I can.

Let’s say that you want to argue that aliens would have to have red blood. All intelligent life on Earth has red blood, you say, so aliens would have to have red blood as well.

I don’t need to provide proof of aliens to argue that they don’t need to have red blood. The mere fact that other circulatory systems could also sustain an intelligent organism is enough to show that your argument is wrong.

Saying that aliens don’t need to be red blooded does not mean that I have to provide proof of alien life.

Again, you’re contradicting yourself by claiming that there is “an idea” to refute. But there are many speculations about multiverse notions – some completely at odds with others.

Yes, and yet you think you’ve disproved them all by not addressing any of the points they raise. That’s called a strawman argument.

I think you’re claiming that the multiverse speculation is a “theory” and/or that it is true.

Then you are making things up. How surprising. Here’s an idea. Try providing some evidence to back up that claim. Find a post where I say it is true. Or that I think it is true.

I did call it a theory. It is an explanatory framework derived to account for observations in our universe in a logically consistent way. If could be completely untrue, I don’t know. But I wouldn’t claim it is wrong without at least understanding what it is first.

God could have created millions of universes, but not an infinite number of them. Any collection or string of universe events had to have a beginning since a finite amount of time has passed prior to today.

You really need to learn what an infinity is. If there is an infinite past, then there is no beginning to time. Your argument rests on the idea that there is a beginning point, and the time between that beginning and now had to be traversed. If there is no beginning to a multiverse, then there is no beginning point.

You should look into how the concept of infinity works. It’s really quite interesting. You’d probably enjoy learning about it.

 

[Sideline]

I’m leaving this conversation now. I can’t see the point in arguing with someone who won’t even admit what it is that I am arguing.

You can argue about what I’m not saying without any need for my (name removed by moderator)ut.

My advice for anyone who wants to argue about science is that they should learn what it is that they are arguing about. It’s interesting and fun.

 

[reggieM]

Edit: Ah this makes sense now. My original answer was based on a mistake.

That’s perfectly understandable. You chose one multiverse speculation of many. I conceded that you’d be correct if that was the only multiverse idea out there.

You suggested that the multiverse proved that God would have to exist. However, the only formulation of a multiverse that works the way you suggest it would, is yours.

Ok, that is true. There is no “multiverse theory” and we can agree on that. There are several speculations, none of which are based on evidence that many universes actually exist.

I never said it had any evidence, nor that it could be tested. I was merely showing that you didn’t understand how any of… would it make you feel better if I said hypotheses?.. work. If you are going to state that it can’t work, you’d do well to understand what it is that you don’t think would work.

I said that you should learn what it is that you are criticizing. It’s good advice, really.

Again with the personal insults. I can’t see a good reason for that.

You talk about an infinite system having an origin, and an infinite set being full.

No, I didn’t say that an infinite system had a beginning. That was the basis of my point. Without a beginning, then there is no way to transverse time to arrive at today’s present.

An infinite set has completed all possibilities – you can call that “full” or “complete”, either one works. A possibility or probability is calculated or understood as one chance in a series.

The mere fact that other circulatory systems could also sustain an intelligent organism is enough to show that your argument is wrong.

Saying that aliens don’t need to be red blooded does not mean that I have to provide proof of alien life.

Could you explain that more fully?

You really need to learn what an infinity is. If there is an infinite past, then there is no beginning to time. Your argument rests on the idea that there is a beginning point, and the time between that beginning and now had to be traversed. If there is no beginning to a multiverse, then there is no beginning point.

You’re on the right track here. This is very much what I said, with an exception.
If there is an infinite past, then there is no beginning in time. Check – right. I agree.
But where I disagree is about the amount of time that had to be traversed until we arrived at today and until tomorrow evening comes.

If the universe had no beginning then it cannot have any events that occured “after the beginning”. This would mean that there could not be a succession of events reaching to today because we would never have a beginning to the string of events. In order to measure distance, there has to be a beginning. We can measure distance in time from yesterday to today – therefore the universe had a beginning.

The same is true with probability or progress. If something required time to progress to fulfillment, then in an infinite amount of time, it would reach the end of that progress and the fulfillment of that potential.

 

[Sideline]

That’s perfectly understandable. You chose one multiverse speculation of many. I conceded that you’d be correct if that was the only multiverse idea out there.

Once again, you’ve made a mistake. The mistake I am referring here was when you said I contracted myself. I answered that the sentence you wrote didn’t make sense. You corrected the error, and I changed my answer. To reflect your changed answer.

I was trying to be courteous to you.

Ok, that is true. There is no “multiverse theory” and we can agree on that. There are several speculations, none of which are based on evidence that many universes actually exist.

See… I don’t need to be a part of this conversation. If you are going to make things up can claim it is my position, you can do that on your own

Again with the personal insults. I can’t see a good reason for that.

I haven’t insulted you. You’ve taken offence. It’s different.

No, I didn’t say that an infinite system had a beginning. That was the basis of my point. Without a beginning, then there is no way to transverse time to arrive at today’s present.

You did say origin. Origin and beginning are perfectly acceptable synonyms. You need to understand how infinities work if you will ever see the error of your argument. You refuse to do that. I’m not sure why.

It’s clear that you are unwilling to learn anything from me. I suggest you learn it somewhere else.

An infinite set has completed all possibilities – you can call that “full” or “complete”, either one works. A possibility or probability is calculated or understood as one chance in a series.

Again, all I can say is that you clearly don’t understand that infinity means “not finite”, ergo saying that it is full or complete demonstrates a lack of understanding of the word.

You’re on the right track here. This is very much what I said, with an exception.
If there is an infinite past, then there is no beginning in time. Check – right. I agree.
But where I disagree is about the amount of time that had to be traversed until we arrived at today and until tomorrow evening comes.

By suggesting that you have to traverse an infinite amount of time still shows that you don’t understand how it works. One doesn’t need to traverse an infinite amount of time, because there is no point from which this time starts. An infinite universe means that saying “time before” is meaningless.

If the universe had no beginning then it cannot have any events that occured “after the beginning”. This would mean that there could not be a succession of events reaching to today because we would never have a beginning to the string of events. In order to measure distance, there has to be a beginning. We can measure distance in time from yesterday to today – therefore the universe had a beginning.

You keep repeating the same error over and over, and claim that I am insulting you because I keep explaining that you don’t understand it. I suggest you learn it from someone you don’t think is insulting.

 

[Sideline]

For anyone who would like to understand the error being repeated over and over on this thread, and who doesn’t have the time or inclination to find out why it’s wrong, let me explain briefly… and poorly… why it doesn’t work.

Consider this circle: ¤

Now, this is in no way a perfect representation, but it will do. Now imagine that what you are looking at is a perfect circle with rays proceeding from it. I’m sure we all remember that rays have a beginning, but no end. We probably remember also that a circle is an infinite series of points.

So, given what we know about circles and rays, we should all realize that such a shape should be impossible. Each ray has to start at a specific point. But there are an infinite number of points on the circle, so all of those rays should be an infinite number of points apart. If you travelled from one ray to another, point by point, you would never reach the next ray no matter how fast you travelled, or how long you travelled for.

Doesn’t that seem kind of… wrong… to you? Like something important is being left out?

The missing link here is that you aren’t travelling point by point. Points have no dimensions. Any amount of distance will have an infinite number of points. The period at the end of this sentence contains and infinite number of points, as does the whole world. As a person travels through a circle, the distance they have travelled can be divided into an infinite number of points, as can the distance they have yet to travel.

You are probably wondering what this has to do with time, and the multiverse. I’m no expert on this subject, but consider this shape again: ¤ and once again think of the line segments as rays proceeding out from a point on the circle. Those rays represent expanding universes. Space and time inflating out from the point that the universe began. At the point that they intersect with the circle, the concept of “before” becomes meaningless. Imagine showing this picture to someone, and having them exclaim, “That’s impossible! If the circle doesn’t have a beginning, how could you ever reach one of the rays?”

 

[wasmit]

(2) if there are multiple universes, how can one or more be “fake” ? They all exist.

what is a fake universe?

 

[reggieM]

You are probably wondering what this has to do with time, and the multiverse. I’m no expert on this subject, but consider this shape again: ¤ and once again think of the line segments as rays proceeding out from a point on the circle. Those rays represent expanding universes. Space and time inflating out from the point that the universe began. At the point that they intersect with the circle, the concept of “before” becomes meaningless. Imagine showing this picture to someone, and having them exclaim, “That’s impossible! If the circle doesn’t have a beginning, how could you ever reach one of the rays?”

I appreciate the explanation.

The idea that a circle has an infinite number of points means that points can be infinitely small. In this case, the term “points” is virtually meaningless because the size of a point cannot be measured, nor can the distance between two points be measured.
There could be an infinite distance between two points depending on what size they were chosen to be.
Therefore, rays proceeding from various “points” on a circle would have an infinite number of points between them so that a ray could never attach to another point. If the points were a fixed size, then there would be a finite number of those fixed size points (and the circle would not be infinite).

In fact, to find “one single point” on the circle at the reduction of it’s smallest possible size would be an endless task. The magnification would have to continue infinitely and the points would never reach a size which could not get smaller. You couldn’t decide when to start measuring the distance between points because the size of points is not fixed.

So, rays could never be attached to points that way. If there was a fixed size for points, then there wouldn’t be an infinite number of points on the circle. There would be a finite number of points at a certain size.

There is only an infinite number of points on the circle when the size of points is considered to be infinitely small. As such, you could never count the number of points on the circle.

This is a good example about how infinity doesn’t have a beginning and therefore cannot generate a continuum of events.

In this case, rays could not attach to points because you could never truly begin with a point which is reduced to its core, fundamental dimensions. It can always be reduced to a smaller size – thus, rays could never begin to be attached.

It could be said that the rays are attached to points of a fixed size, but there are an infinite number of non-fixed points between them. That is mixing up the concepts because the rays would be attached to points that have a fixed size and thus are a finite number.

It would be impossibe to count the number of non-defined-size points on a circle, thus, it would be impossible to measure a distance in terms of those points.

The same is very true of time. We’re talking about distance, but when we talk about the impossibility of an infinite string of time that is more accurately the problem.

In this case, if you had to count, by hand, some very small points on that circle – even a finite number – this would prove the impossiblility of the task. If there were 300 million points between two fixed size points on the circle and you had to count them all and you could count 10 points per second – it would take you 100 years to count them all (doing nothing but counting those points). You could never accomplish the task.

But that’s a finite number of points. But that illustrates the distance, in time, between points.

In your example, it depends on how the rays have attached to the points, the size of the points and how the rays are generated and what relationship they have to the points.

If there are finite sizes and distances, then the circle is not infinite.

 

[reggieM]

By suggesting that you have to traverse an infinite amount of time still shows that you don’t understand how it works. One doesn’t need to traverse an infinite amount of time, because there is no point from which this time starts. An infinite universe means that saying “time before” is meaningless.

If the time doesn’t start, then it cannot generate a succesion. The fact that we can see a succession means that the time had to start. If time didn’t start then there is no way to measure time. But since we can see a succession of events and can measure one day and the next, then we know time must have started.

As I said before, without a beginning there cannot be events called "after’ because “after” could never occur. It would take an infinite amount of time for anything to begin or generate or succeeed. Actually nothing could begin because the infinite string itself never began to exist.

 

[mich2]

For anyone who would like to understand the error being repeated over and over on this thread, and who doesn’t have the time or inclination to find out why it’s wrong, let me explain briefly… and poorly… why it doesn’t work.

Consider this circle: ¤

Now, this is in no way a perfect representation, but it will do. Now imagine that what you are looking at is a perfect circle with rays proceeding from it. I’m sure we all remember that rays have a beginning, but no end. We probably remember also that a circle is an infinite series of points.

So, given what we know about circles and rays, we should all realize that such a shape should be impossible. Each ray has to start at a specific point. But there are an infinite number of points on the circle, so all of those rays should be an infinite number of points apart. If you travelled from one ray to another, point by point, you would never reach the next ray no matter how fast you travelled, or how long you travelled for.

Doesn’t that seem kind of… wrong… to you? Like something important is being left out?

The missing link here is that you aren’t travelling point by point. Points have no dimensions. Any amount of distance will have an infinite number of points. The period at the end of this sentence contains and infinite number of points, as does the whole world. As a person travels through a circle, the distance they have travelled can be divided into an infinite number of points, as can the distance they have yet to travel.

You are probably wondering what this has to do with time, and the multiverse. I’m no expert on this subject, but consider this shape again: ¤ and once again think of the line segments as rays proceeding out from a point on the circle. Those rays represent expanding universes. Space and time inflating out from the point that the universe began. At the point that they intersect with the circle, the concept of “before” becomes meaningless. Imagine showing this picture to someone, and having them exclaim, “That’s impossible! If the circle doesn’t have a beginning, how could you ever reach one of the rays?”

I personally perceive an eternal expanding universe, which could be wrong of course, by implementing an increasing time dilation factor as the universe becomes more and more closer to the point of singularity, and actually never reaches this point. I beleive the point of singularity would exist, but still outside of time.

Andre

 

[Marcus_Red]

Hi reggieM,

You claimed that theology was “creative fiction” that makes up stories about gods. So, I was asking more about your definition.

OK, well you have it, the study of God, or gods. If a text asserts something about a god then it must have the information from somewhere, just like books about anything else. That’s what books of theolgy do, they say “God this …” and “God that …” and expect us to believe them on the basis, it seems to me, of the authors say-so, or reputation amongst other people who believe the same thing.

If the information was made up by the author then it is fiction. Sometimes fiction mentions real events and places. It’s still fiction. Sometimes history is fiction, and sometimes it isn’t. How do you tell?

You asked for evidence, but there’s no sense in providing evidence that you will dismiss as “fiction”.

If there is reason to believe that a theological statement is not fiction then I would assume that you would tell me the reason.

You do not accept corroborating, eye-witness accounts as evidence?

Yes I do, do you have some?

Your calling the New Testament “creative fiction” is a very bold statement. It’s not supported even by critics who do not accept the divine revelation of the NT.

I am a critic who does not accept the divine revelation of the NT. Perhaps others would not put it so stongly. There was certainly, it seems, reliance on earlier works when the Gospels were composed, so maybe some authors were more creative than others. I would not call Matthew so creative as Mark, for example. The author of the early part of Acts seems to have been pretty creative though.

So, I was wondering how you arrived at the conclusion that the NT is fiction. What evidence did you weigh to arrive at that conclusion? What proofs did you find?

Not all the NT is fiction, things are rarely that simple, Some of the letters of Paul were actually written by Paul, for example, and some of the things he described are also recorded elsewhere. The really fictional aspect is the total absence of any mention by Paul of the stories and characters in the Gospels. It is not plausible that Paul should take no notice at all of the earthly Jesus. The absence of any mention of these things anywhere else in the literate world at the relevant time is also strong evidence that they never happened.

Where was the town of Nazareth at the relevant time btw? A town is not something that is easily missed, particularly bearing in mind the small scale of the actual country these events are supposed to have taken place in.

I don’t know your background which is a disadvantage in a discussion. As a Catholic, I cannot conceal my beliefs, but since you haven’t defined yours I have no idea about how you view the world.

I am not going to assume anything about you because you declare yourself a “catholic”, there are lots of different flavours of “catholics” and each claim to be the true ones, so really it tells me nothing. My only assumption in engaging with you is that you are a reasonable person, if you are not then that will soon become apparent.

You might think that science is the only method for attaining knowledge or of evaluating data. Therefore, I want to know how you arrived at that conclusion – it would have to be through a scientific means of some kind

It is not clear what you are asking for here. Why are you so keen to define what “science” is? I would say that “knowledge” which is not verifiable is not knowledge. What use is it to think that God will grant your prayers if you can’t rely on it?

Regards,

Marcus

 

[reggieM]

I personally perceive an eternal expanding universe, which could be wrong of course, by implementing an increasing time dilation factor as the universe becomes more and more closer to the point of singularity, and actually never reaches this point. I beleive the point of singularity would exist, but still outside of time.

Andre

Interesing point. I was going to explain to Sideline also that his example conflates the two factors of time and distance.
In his case, there is an infinite number of points. That was used as a distance marker. But we could see the circle was small so thus the contradiction and it seemed to make sense that several universes could emerge from an “infinite” circle.
But it’s the question of time that is important. How much time does it take to traverse two points on the circle? It’s either a finite amount of time or infinite. If infinite, then the “next point” would never be reached.

In your example above, the universe would never get closer to the point of singularity. There would be no way to measure how close or far it was. Because the unit of measurement (point in time) is not fixed – it is “dilating” or slowing down.

So, this doesn’t solve the problem. If the unit of time is fixed, then you can measure how much time has passed and how close to the singularity you are. If the unit of time is like the “infinite points on the circle”, then it is not a fixed quality and cannot measure something consistently.