Is the universe finite?

Yes it does. That it opens in the context of the status of the heavens [galaxies] and the earth having a BEGINNING allows no other reading. Genesis second verse is equally powerful: that before any science kicks in - the premise of the formless has to be given form applies.

Genesis must be judged on the premise of its stated position the universe is absolutely finite - and it prevails when this is done. A finite uni is not in contradiction of state of art science. Hawkin's BHT even agrees time itself had a beginning. It means everything contained in a finite universe is also finite and never existed at one time: a finite realm cannot contain an infinite.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There can be no OUTER, OTHER SIDE or LIMIT here - these are post-universe factors. Just as we could not fathom radar a 100 years ago, we equally cannot fathom anything which is not like anything contained in this universe - our mind's wiring cannot perform this feat. If there is anything outside or pre this universe, it cannot be anything which is already contained in this universe - else the finite factor becomes violated.

This says not even a non-physical [spiritual?] material can exist outside this universe. It is not a question which must align with science, itself a post-uni faculty and solely reliant on pre-existing stuff in this universe. E.g. 2 + 2 cannot equal 4 when there is no 2.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Possibilities...

One thing at a time!

First, there does not have to be an "outer limit," even if it is finite. It could do something like "fold back" on itself, such that travelling in one direction eventually brings you back to where you started.

Second, it CAN be infinite, and also be expanding. It just means that everything is getting farther away from everything else, getting "less crowded." Or, to put it another way, the universe has infinite volume, but finite density, which can increase or decrease.

Third, it wouldn't stop expanding because it reached some "limit." It would stop expanding because the forces causing it to expand, whatever those might be, become weaker than the forces pulling things together, like gravity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure, its possible. Although I don't think that the expanding space is old, having done the same journey before. I see the fundamental quarks of nano-matter as appearing to be new stuff, same as each new life has not been here before. But this is conjecture. The infinite factor remains.

I whole heartedly negate this premise, its grasping at straws. Infinite volume and oppositte of density [rarer] increase is a contradiction: the universe is getting denser, not rarer. For me, the only definition of infinite is also seen in the Hebrew, namely it is not subject to change. Understand what a change really means - its a replacement [negation] of what is less transcendent.

The universe has not stopped expanding or growing. The expansion is not from a pushing out factor because there was no 'where' to push out to when the BB occured, or is alledged to have occured.

Understand that what is outside a finite universe cannot be understood - because it comes under a premise which is not physical or resembling anything in physicality. We can safely conclude that pphysicality is new stuff or only limited to this universe - because whatever is seen in this universe cannot also be seen outside this universe - it violates the finite factor.

The bottom line of your arguement is that the universe IS finite, al beit you have presented novel surmising how this would be. I fail to understand the auto mode of rejecting anything if it comes from the Hebrew bible, even when science and logic is the given premise. This even when the age of the universe is accepted - as if that says anything other than a finite universe! Humanity does not possess a document of greater veracity than the Hebrew bible all things considered. Christianity and Islam's greatest act was to acknowledge this and covet what they saw - that which KO'd the Hellenist philosophy hands down. And it is for the same reason I see a great light in the Hebrew writings - nothing whatsoever to do with belief and religion.

 

Many have reiterated and contradicted themselves, opting for a partial pregnancy scenario. Because they realized the implications of a finite universe and saw red! There is no science which can rationalize an 'ABSOLUTELY' finite realm emerging - and that has only ONE conclusion. This is the reason I agree with Creationism - no scientific alternative! And its rediculous for you guys shouting religion at me all the time.

Sure, if your talking science, there apears no way a finite realm can emerge - definitely not from a scientific reasoning!

So which is more conducive of an expanding realm - that there was a BEGINNING [Genesis] - or that it is infinite in some places?!

FYI, a finite realm cannot contain an infinite intity. You can't fit a 3 metter into a 2 meter.

 

(chortle!)

To what?

Genesis is not a scientific theory. It's a myth, and one that disagrees with itself if you try to take it literally.

 

Science, medicine, evolution, democracy, and alphabetical books were introduced in the Hebrew bible. I would add world accepted laws here as well. Clearly, we have polar variant outlooks here.

Genesis opens with the first and primal scientific premise - of a finite universe, then follows this verse with the appropriate second primal science premise: the emergence of form from the formless. Can we have science without those two premesis?

The only counter to the BB is in Genesis - that there is no singular entity and all things began as duality - there is no alternative to this. The only counter to Darwin is also in Genesis: the seed factor. Try proving Darwin's evolution without the seed factor!

But you can chant the introduction of the DAY & WEEK are also myth. Please stop using those myths anymore!?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you wish for myth to be science ....

Please cite and demonstrate the validity of this assertion.

Please explain how to test these Biblical hypotheses.

Please cite and demonstrate the validity of this assertion.

Please cite this assertion, so that people can know what it is you're referring to.

Why? Unlike the contradictory creation myths of Genesis, they have functional (e.g., organizational) utility.

 

Tiassa

You will get nowhere discussing this with Joseph.
I have already been down this road. He has carved in granite certain myths and fictions, which now reside permanently in his cranium, and cannot be budged. Simple logic and solid data cannot move these granite 'certainties'.

These precepts are hedged in slogan words such as "seed factor". These slogans have specific meanings known only to Joseph. Like the rest, they are immovable. Good science cannot dislodge lies that are strongly enough believed.

 

Well, yeah, maybe ....

Perhaps. Meanwhile, call it my sense of obligation.

 

Why be so confidently condescending: no one has admitted being wrong in all points thus far with my debates - more or less they have displayed only religious mode defences by jumping to other defenses when pivotal factors are offered as counters, with no acknowledgement they can be incorrect or that my provisions are plausable. Understand this is a form of belief, as opposed a view of science: a belief does not change when proven wrong!

When the finite factor of the universe was shown as more plausable than the infinite - one poster even suggested that an infinite can be contained in a finite, claiming 'many dimensions' [woof!] - as if the poster knows those dimensions are infinite - and as if an empty can is not empty because of many dimensions! That's the desperation they have reached. So hot is not hot, energy is not energy - because of the relevant 'many dimensions' - which of course is exclusive to their own wish list conclusions!

Here is an example which better belongs in the thread you shut down, but shows how scientifically plausable Genesis can be:

Genesis is correct vegetation can precede the sun's luminosity focusing on earth. How so!? A careful reading of the text says something remarkable yet unrecognised adequately. Genesis says the first and original constructs of life forms were completed but they were not alive. The life became 'alive' [living; animated] when they were ignited - by cycles of rain, water levels, sunlight, etc. Here, Genesis also says life is a result of critical pre-requisite and anticipatory facts - totally disregarded by ToE, and toally in contradiction with science.

Analogy: a completed car does not move till ignited [with the car key] - and ignition is not possible unless the car is first completed. Align this with life forms and Genesis comes out the winner by a country mile.

Genesis: Rainfall does not begin till a mist rises and is ignited by other factors - and this only 'after' the components and proponents of the construct is complete. 100% manifest science - totally disregarded in ToE.

Genesis: The sun does not give off light till it reaches a certain matured phase and it becomes activated; many stars do not reach this phase. And this is only possible when the essence of light is first at hand. 100% science - totally disregarded in Genesis - with its lousy excuse Genesis is not talking about origins - but this is not about origins as much as a factor in the process. Hello?!

Here, Genesis aligns with the workings of all things manifest and observable - when we do not shut our eyes and minds subsequent only to factors insisted on by ToE [a belief syndrome!]. Here, Genesis also says the variance of life form species emerged as singular ancestors of groupings and then spread in diverse sub-groups, subsequent to a directive program embedded in the seed factor - as opposed lions and tigers are one group/branch impacted by the environment and nothing to do with the seed data. Seen from this view, without pre-conceptions of ToE, Genesis is logical, aligns with what is manifest and plausable from a scientific POV - with no alternative means possible or ever witnessed.

In fact I see no alternative it could not happen the way described by genesis. The number of varied life styles, if accounted comprehensively, does not allow a time factor which allows all life to stem from one - even via diverse branchings. Consider all the known and unknown life forms in the oceans, whereby we are discovering new life in deeper sea beds all around the globe as we seak - now, not millions of years ago. Here, the plausability that octupuses and sharks emerged via two seperate heirachy heads is far greater than the ToE version. The axe falls in total dismisal of ToE when we consider that the time factor has no impact on an 'on-going' process of evolution!

QED.

 

I made up a new word today: "excitababbly".

 

Name one myth please?

FYI, the seed factor is not a slogan but appears in the text, and in the exact context afforded it. Yes, the seed factor is immovable. Consider your own emergence if in doubt: are you a result of the seed factor or the environement? Are you a result of magic - or a universe derived from a universe maker? Which is more scientifically plausable - given we all have no proof equally?

 

To Joseph

I will bite (against my better judgement).

For example, I have told you several times that Genesis states that seed bearing plants were made before stars. This is utterly ridiculous, but you have chosen not to explain.

When you say :" the seed factor is immovable" - you reveal your own immovability. In other words, you are not interested in scientific data. Just in being right. And you will not shift your fallaceous ideas one millimetre regardless of the good scientific information we provide.

The scientific model of origins (universe, solar system, and life) is backed up by vast amounts of empirical data.

The Genesis (whole bible, really) model of origins is backed up by nothing except myth, legend, and ancient fictions.

 

Please say why you are unaware of this - yet casting dismissive assertions?

Genesis 1/1: SCIENCE. The universe is finite. Humanity's first sceinitific equation.

Medicine's first seperation of the occult, listing the introduction of incurable deseases, their ID, treatment, quarantine of infectious deseases [note the burning criteria] and contagious deseases [note the isolation criteria]. Let not a deceptively simple text confuse - this was advanced, state f art science delivered more than 3000 years ago - for all generation's understanding.

I find most ToE advocates make the silly error of deeming all religious writings in one green bag - with no coherence whatsoever. So which part of this writing is myth and not applicable to medicine today, medicine being a primal faculty of science - or where else do we see such detail of prognosis any place:

When exactly did a universe maker become a myth concerning a universe?

 

Note: the noun, "excitababble", is what you hear when a crowd of people are excited. Someone speaking "excitababbly" is more your affectation, as it were...

 

Bite harder. Genesis only speaks of the seed of life forms! Genesis is not the ridiculous one here.

The seed factor is immovable by the scientific premise. There is no alternative to it. Bite the bullet - or put up.

Sure. The first alphabetical book is total legend. The first concencus of humanity - in the millions - and all the judiciary laws the world follows - is also legend. Well said!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Is that a scientific response?

 

Speaking from a scientific viewpoint, you can describe the universe using Einstein's equations of general relativity. The equations themselves are highly complex and don't lend themselves to easy solutions, so mathematicians who worked with them from early on made a number of assumptions (including Einstein himself) to derive solutions.

The solutions to the equations for a model of the universe give a range of possible solutions. While I lack the mathematical competence myself to demonstrate them, the derived equations can be easily understood by any person with a good degree in physics, maths or astronomy. Basically the solutions allow for the universe to be 'open' (infinite) or 'closed' (finite). A fairly good summary the layman could understand is given here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe and also Joseph Silk's books on the Big Bang should be consulted (they are an excellent introduction to these questions the intelligent layperson can understand with little maths and an appendix with the basic equations). This page also has a good explanation: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm.

I would go with observation, which seems to indicate the universe has a 'flat' or 'open' geometry and is therefore infinite: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html. Even so, the observable universe is finite, so if it is infinite we can't see beyond the 'edge' of the universe (which is the same for all observers because of the cosmological principles of homogenity and isotropy) which is about 46-7 billion light years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe.