Lets see if you can get out of this paradox

[MindOverMatter2]

1. It is said that the universe began to exist from an infinitely dense point, and thus the universe is finite in size.
2. The universe contains all space.
3. Size is only meaningful in respect to space. If something has a size, then its size exists in reference to the amount of space it takes up.
4. Width, length, or size, is something that can only exist in space. There is absolutely nothing (no space or physics) outside space.
5. Space, as a whole, is located everywhere and no-where, since there is nothing outside of space. Thus size is relative and subjective. What might be huge in one respect, might be very small, perhaps microscopic in another. You can only get a true objective size by comparing an object to that which has the greatest possible size.
6. Thus you cannot determine the true objective size of the universe as a whole, as this would involve a comparison between the universe and another object - which must have an absolute size - existing outside of space.
7. Therefore space is an actual infinite, and thus the universe is infinite. This is only to say that it doesn’t have a definite measurable size which can be determined objectively. It has no size. You will never reach the edge of space.
8. Therefore the universe cannot begin to exist as this would suggest a finite size in reference to an object that both exists outside of space and has an absolute objective size.

**Conclusion: **Therefore the Big-bang didn’t happen.

 

[dskysmine]

First of all, you are forgetting time.
And, you are also forgetting that space is not an absolute, we measure space in relation to a standard. Usually size is measured in meters in Europe, for example, in America size is usually measured in inches. Meters are not absolute, and neither are inches. We could measure things in relationship with our height: The universe measured 9xDanielx10^24 for example…
You also forget that the Universe is not flat, it is curved.

5 has 2 errors too. Space is not located “no-where”. It only exists everywhere. And we tend to use the smallest objects (not our greatest) for our “scientific” sizes like Carbon atoms for the “meter” size.

After 5 the conclusions can’t follow.

And so, Big Bang did happen

 

[BornAgain2010]

people are all mixed up in the big science v. religion debate.

me personally, I think its a bit of both.

I give science credit, when its due. but I also remain loyal to my faith.
Big Bang is a good example. Sure, the universe created itself. but who do you think GAVE the universe the ability to create itself? God.

In the begining, God created the universe, as well as the laws that govern them - first few chapters of Genesis right there.

science happens, but it is also GUIDED by the divine, by God.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

people are all mixed up in the big science v. religion debate.

me personally, I think its a bit of both.

I give science credit, when its due. but I also remain loyal to my faith.
Big Bang is a good example. Sure, the universe created itself. but who do you think GAVE the universe the ability to create itself? God.

In the begining, God created the universe, as well as the laws that govern them - first few chapters of Genesis right there.

science happens, but it is also GUIDED by the divine, by God.

What has that got to do with solving the argument? You are aware that this is a philosophy forum right?

If you make an argument you have to explain each premise in detail and show the logical connection as to why they refute the OP. Otherwise, philosophically speaking, your refutation is of no use or value to me, as it is either just assertions or dogma. No assertions allowed, and that goes for the other poster before you too.

 

[losh14]

Not what I was expecting, and indeed interesting.

I can address this in a few ways, I’ll start with this one:
You’re conflating mass and volume (or “space”). In other words, the amount of “stuff” that something has is only one function of the amount of space the “stuff” takes up.

For example, if you fill a balloon with air at 78 degrees, it fills up to a certain size. If you put the balloon in a freezer for 10 minutes, the air inside the balloon cools to 60 degrees, and it is less full. In practice, we can cool air to the point that it becomes liquid, and in theory we could compress air to the point that it becomes solid. In each physical transition, the mass remains the same but the volume decreases. Thus there is an inverse relationship between volume and temperature.

There is also direct relationship between pressure and volume, given by Boyle’s Law. As pressure increases, volume decreases. This is why your blood doesn’t boil at body temperature on earth - there is sufficient pressure (exerted partially by air, at about 14 psi, and partially by your skin) to keep it liquid. If, however, you place someone in a vacuum, the capillaries on their skin will break as their blood boils. A less gruesome, but more exotic demonstration, is on Jupiter. The planet is gaseous, but the pressure is so intense that its core is thought be made of hydrogen metal - a gas condensed to the point that it is solid.

Returning to your argument:

1. It is said that the universe began to exist from an infinitely dense point, and thus the universe is finite in size.

“An infinitely dense point” describes the combination of pressure and volume such that pressure is exceedingly large while volume is exceedingly small (indeed, they must be, given Boyle’s Law). At this point, the universe was “finite in size” relative to the universe at any other point in time, because:

1. Thus you cannot determine the true objective size of the universe as a whole, as this would involve a comparison between the universe and another object - which must have an absolute size - existing outside of space.

However, because at the time of the Big Bang we could not measure the size of the universe, at the time of the Big Bang the universe was also infinite in size. But this is relativistic and entirely theoretical because as you point out:

1. Width, length, or size, is something that can only exist in space. There is absolutely nothing (no space or physics) outside space.

But you only show three of the four measurable dimensions. The other is time. If two objects do not exist at the same time, you cannot compare them. For lack of a better term, the boundaries of the universe at two different points in time cannot be compared.

I would make one further adjustment to your argument:

1. The universe contains all space.

The universe comprises all mass and volume with respect to time.

 

[Warrenton]

I would make one further adjustment.

The universe contains all of the space that we presently know about.

It is possible that the universe expanded into something else. Because we presently cannot see out it, we can’t measure the universe in relation to that something, or somewhere, else.

An interesting thread, and very interesting replies.