|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/17/2003 : 20:00:52 [Permalink]
|
Arcanix_X wrote:quote:
Dave, if I am going to admit to your logic of: he hasn't been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist, then you must agree to the existence of pink supersonic flying elephants and the boogy man. Think about it.
If you're going to misrepresent what I've been saying, there's not much point to this, now is there? One more try:
My logic is this - He cannot be proven not to exist (anymore than He can be proven to exist), therefore he might exist, and I do agree that it is possible (though highly unlikely) that similar hypothetical but ludicrous beings might also exist, by the same logic.
Where you came up with the idea that I think that God does exist, I couldn't say. As a militant agnostic, I think I've been quite clear that I believe the "God Hypothesis" to be "unnecessary and unsupportable and unverifiable." I really do not understand how my claims that multiple universes are also "unnecessary and unsupportable and unverifiable" gave you the impression that I was arguing for the existence of a diety.
My main argument here is that you cannot logically use speculation (infinite universes) to disprove speculation (God). To attempt to do so is foolish. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2003 : 22:41:38 [Permalink]
|
| I am sorry for the missinterpretation. Trully. But for the multiple universes, remember that they are not multiple dimensions but they are located in the same "plane", and just as we supose that there was no time and space before our big bang, we can just as well and without mistake suppose that there was time and space before big bang. Therefore, my theory is as credible the other. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2003 : 23:36:56 [Permalink]
|
Great. Neither hypothesis is more credible than the other. Just like the "God vs. no God" debate, it is undecidable, and therefore largely worthless in a message which purports to be based upon "facts."
As I said before: the idea that there are multiple universes (whether or not they share the same "plane" as one another) is completely speculative. Using the idea of "infinite" universes as a "disproof" of God is therefore folly, and should be given no more credence than all of the supposed "proofs" of God.
In other words, you've shot your own argument in the foot by agreeing that your hypothesis is as credible as another completely unprovable hypothesis.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 07:23:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arcanix_X
Therefore, my theory is as credible the other.
Since there is no evidence to support your claim, you should call it hypothesis, and not theory.
With the knowledge we possess today, there is no way for us to examine the properties of what existed before the Big Bang. In fact, we don't even know what happened immediately after the Big Bang. The only properties we can directly observe is the first light that was released (300000 years after the Big Bang), the rest of what we know before that point is derived from indirect evidence, and our knowledge of how matter, radiation, and energy interact with eachother.
The same goes for what is "outside" our universe, beyond the present 15 billion light-year border. We have no means to send a probe that far out, (and remember, the border is moving away from us at the speed of light) so we can not gather any information about it that can support any theories.
However, there is a theory regarding one of the properties of the universe, that says that even if we got a probe 15 Gly out, it wouldn't make any difference.
Deep-space astronomers seems to agree on this specific observation:
The distance to the most remote objects we can detect seems to be the same regardless of the direction we look. I can see two possible conclusions (feel free to volunteer any of your own, and we'll examine them to see if they stick):
1) We are located at the center of the universe. Since the Big Bang, the universe and distant galaxies have traveled away from us with the same speed in all directions. Of all places in the universe, it would be quite arrogant to presume that we are the center of the universe, don't you think?
2) Space is wrapped around itself. Like 2-dimensional patterns on a balloon that you are inflating. If you draw a straight line on the surface on the balloon, you will eventually return to the place of origin. If you had a 'laser' that would shoot a ray instantly across the universe you'd end up shooting yourself in the ass. The most remote object you could possible see might even be the light from our own Milkyway. If this is the case, then it will not be possible to step "outside" our universe.
There is a second observation that has bearing on this matter: Cosmic afterglow, the residual light from that first moment it was released (300000years after BB). It seems to be coming toward us from all directions. Now here's the interesting part: we can detect a red-shift in it. This tells us that either we are travelling through space, or that the radiation has not travelled the same distance to get here. This contradict point one above.
(This subject is rather complex, and I have problems deciding on what level to put it. If there is anything unclear, let me know, and I'll try to explain what I mean.)
Edited to clarify. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/20/2003 07:29:37 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
