thats not conclusive of anything. the universe is still young and blackholes too few. if blackholes become numerous enough it would reverse the acceleration. and instead accelerate into the opposite direction. and like i said we know nothing of dark matters. anything is possible.
sigh. black holes have nothing to do with it…
thats why i keep reminding everyone that we know very little of dark matter to make conclusions. anything is possible.
assuming that it would (big crunch), it follows that the universe undergoes an infinite cycle of on & off. birth, death & rebirth. if everything in the universe is like that (birth, death & rebirth), why not the universe itself?
(A) it’s dark energy that is relevant to the expansion of the universe, not dark matter;
it simply does not follow that a big crunch is followed by a subsequent big bang. it doesn’t follow logically or physically.
why not? the big bang started as a singularity. it cant just have exploded by itself. something preceded it. if the big crunch is true, that has got to be it. like a wave. everything here is speculative, do you have a better idea?
Different sources say this. Life undergoes this cycle. so do stars. and atoms. correct me if i’m wrong.
Have you ever heard the term, “there is a reason for everything”, if you agree with such a term, you cannot honestly think that an infinite universe actually exists.Different sources say this. Life undergoes this cycle. so do stars. and atoms. correct me if i’m wrong.
why?
the same applies to god. what if the universe itself is god?
not yet.
I went over that in a previous post.
…i’m not sure if you’re being serious here. i mean, if i were to answer “why not?” to the question, “is there a god?”, what would you think?
don’t look now, but you’ve just made a theistic argument: since the big bang must have been caused by something, and our best science (and philosophy) says it couldn’t have been caused by a prior state of physical affairs, then it must have been caused by…god.
no, it really doesn’t have to be “it”: there can be one initial singularity, bing bang, expansion, contraction, and big crunch. period. if you think that eternal oscillation is logically or physically required by a big bang, then please explain whay.
yes: god created the universe, and when it has run the course he has designed for it, the universe as we know it will end.
i don’t understand your point: different sources say that one god created the heavens and the earth…Different sources say this. Life undergoes this cycle. so do stars. and atoms. correct me if i’m wrong.
i don’t think “logically impossible” means what you think it means.
Let me rephrase. Infinity defies logic and cannot be defined or understood by applying logic to the concept.
freesoulhope;3024752:
A timeless being is incomprehesible, but not illogical, since such a being transends time and space…
God exists outside of time and therefore is not subject to the same flaws and parodox’s that an infinite universe would have. The universe is potentialy infinite, in respect of going on into the future, but it cannot have an infinte past.
Our universe moves from one moment to the next. It is a chain of being which is dependent on previous links in the chain for its continued existence; if you remove the past links in the chain, then the chain loses its justification and foundation for existing. If we go on forever down the chain of cause and effect, then the chain fails to logically exist, because it has no ultimate root, no suffcient reason for being a chain of cause effect in the first place. So although i cannot prove emprically that our universe isn’t ultimately iirational, it is quite self evident that there is no “logical” reason to believe in an infinite chain of events, which lead endlessly into the past. As far as my best freind “logic” is concerned, the universe began to exist, and that is why empirical science( another buddy of mine) has shown that to be the case.
Gods nature of incomprehesibility, does not show a logical flaw in the God premiss, but rather shows our inability to comprehend beyond our finite boundries. What we can know however, from existing in a universe such as this, is that the universe cannot ultimatley explain itself in a way that confoms to logic, and any “cause” would quite literally, according to the laws of necessity, have to transend the space-time continuim; since time began, and has to have a begining if it is to be logically accounted for. Your inability to comprehend what it is to be a timless cause does nothing to change the necessity of such a cause, if the universe is to reasonably exist. This is one reason why God cannot exist in time, but rather must be the foundation of time itself.
Our finite universe, through the necessity of a sufficient cause, defines the true nature of its ultimate foundation; If the universe began to exist, along with time, then based on this premiss alone, it inescapably follows that such a cause is necessarily timeless and transcendent to the finite nature of our universe. Logic shows me that this is the case, and empirical science points in the very same direction that logic has prepared for my eyes.
An unrealistic belief system which doesn’t reflect*** true reality*** and unjustly provokes a sense of doubt where there is good cause for belief. There is good reason to think that an infinite universe is illogical; and absolutly no good reason to take an infinite universe seriously. Those that do, have no real justified reason for considering an infinite universe, other then the fact that they have a Naturalistic belief system. In any case, i believe that there are “Omega Points” in nature, which need a trancendent timeless explanation, regardless of whether or not the universe is infinite. Aquiness could see that, and i agree with him.
Our understanding of God requires us to apply artificial boundries to the Divine. To seperate ourselves from God so that we can concepualize God. Ultimately, monotheisim itself is a fictional structure that we use in order to apprehend what we cannot comprehend. This is the conclusion that mysticism tends to move toward and it is why most faiths approach it with great caution. Because while the structure of faith may be somewhat aritificially imposed in order to apprehend the Divine, we need such boundaries. It is true that God is One. That everything that is, was or will be is within God and that God is more than everything that is, was or will be. But how could one exercise free will if they were constantly “within God” without distancing ourselves with self imposed boundaries?
Very true, Valke. Very true. My only concern is, if people can believe that God is infinite, then why are those same folks having problem with the idea that the universe is infinite? such double standards are …entertaining.
Your “only concern” is misplaced.Very true, Valke. Very true. My only concern is, if people can believe that God is infinite, then why are those same folks having problem with the idea that the universe is infinite? such double standards are …entertaining.
not as a whole it doesnt. Only the quality of ‘infinity’.
Because the physical universe is not an attribute of God. To believe that it is a divine attribute is to embrace the heresy of Pantheism. God and the universe are not equivalent. God is infinite and everything he has created is finite. The universe comes from God, but it is not an eternal and infinite extension of God. According to your view, a portrait on an easel is an attribute of the artist who painted it. But it would be more accurate to say that the portrait is the product or result of the artist’s internal attribute of creativity with the help of physiological attributes of perception,dexterity, and balance. In a sense, the created work is an extension of the creator or artist, but insofar that the work is a distinct visible expression of an original idea. The artist and the portrait are not substantially equivalent. If either the artist dies or the portrait is destroyed in a fire, the other would not necessarily cease to co-exist. God created the universe. The universe is not God nor an attribute of God, so it cannot be infinite as a part of God himself. There is no question of a double standard with orthodox Jews and Christians who will not compromise or reject their fundamental beliefs in the nature of God.Very true, Valke. Very true. My only concern is, if people can believe that God is infinite, then why are those same folks having problem with the idea that the universe is infinite? such double standards are …entertaining.
