Is the universe finite?

IamJoseph:

Can't you answer a simple question? Stop waffling and answer.

It doesn't matter what is "more conducive". Obviously, since the universe is infinite and expanding, we need to deal with the facts, not your wishful thinking about what you think is "conducive".

No problem, since the universe is not finite.

No it isn't. That's just factually wrong.

Well, you're the expert. Where did you do your astrophysics degree?

We've been through this before. Failing memory again?

 

(Insert title here)

There are certain things, sir, that I don't like to say directly. But, for your sake—since ... I don't know; you don't get the hint? you're not aware?—I'll go ahead and say it.

My sense of obligation arises from the fact that I am the moderator of this subforum. Thus, I feel some obligation to afford you the opportunity to start making sense before I pull out my green hat and close this thread as a superstitious, nonsensical waste of the Science & Society subforum.

I am asking you to explain what you mean, and demonstrate the validity of the assertions in a reasonably academic context:

I would suggest that defiling God's sanctity is hardly scientific. Even your citation from Leviticus 13 is concerned with cleanliness in the eyes of God. To wit: Whence comes the diagnosis of leprosy that Leviticus acknowledges?

The term tsara`ath (צרעת) in the old testament refers to "leprosy" in people, and "a mildew or mold" in buildings. That is, Lv. 13 considers leprosy—a bacterial disease—a mold; that is, it considers leprosy an entirely separate taxonomical kingdom from what it really is. This is reflective of a very basic observation: It looks kind of moldy; it must be a mold. (A mold is of kingdom fungi; leprosy is of kingdom bacteria.)

A brief story to illusrate my point: I once knew a family that, despite being Lutheran believed in witchcraft. Why? Because they saw it work. I can't tell you where Nanny Heider learned to use a banana peel; it's not a part of the Germanic witchcraft tradition. But one day Ginny burned her arm trying to catch the fucking iron. And Nanny Heider wrapped the burn, including a banana peel. In something like three days, there was no evidence of the burn. To the one, that suggests to me the burn wasn't as bad as initially assessed. To the other, I have no idea under the sun why the banana peel worked. That is, there should have been some evidence of the burn, but there was not.

It's not medicine in any sense that we presently recognize. It certainly isn't science. But it is a remembrance of coinciding factors and outcomes.

Religion—and especially the Abramic tradition—includes what I call "pre-science". I have, somewhere in my library, a photostat reproduction of a nineteenth-century compendium of folk remedies. It's actually pretty good. For instance, it has a remedy for sinus congestion that includes a heavy dose of cayenne. Now, it doesn't cure a cold, but I know damn well from experience that a strong shot of Scofield heat will do wonders for the sinuses. Tradition recognizes the correlation. Science seeks the mechanism by which a certain cause brings about a certain, predictable effect.

(I adore such remedies because, in most cases in my life, that is sufficient. Antihistamines, for instance, suppress the body's natural response to a pathogen, and thus have some negative effects. If I can treat my symptoms while allowing my body its natural responses, I will. That's why I use Celestial Seasonings Lemon Zinger tea with honey for a sore throat instead of Robotussin—my childhood medication, which works like the goddamn Devil—and straight peppermint-leaf tea for sinus issues. And, to be certain, peppermint tea beats the hell out of smearing Vaporub all over my chest.)

What you're referring to in Leviticus is the equivalent of witchcraft and shamanism. It's not science, and it's not proper medicine.

When it is believed without testable validation—and despite an inability to pursue such confirmation—it falls into the realm of the subjective. It is theological, spiritual, and explanatory; it falls squarely within the realm of myth.

And this particular myth contradicts itself, to boot.

So coming back to the beginning, I would urge you to please support your assertions with something scientific and useful. At the very least, I can recognize your motive for posting this in S&S instead of AE&C, but its presence here does not excuse you from the obligations of scientific consideration.
____________________

Notes:

Heartlight's Search God's Word. "Tsara`ath". (n.d.) SearchGodsWord.org. September 2, 2010. http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=06883

Wikipedia. "Leprosy". September 3, 2010. Wikipedia.org. September 2, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy

 

IamJoseph thinks he is saying something profound when he talks about the "seed factor", which is really just his way of talking about sperm and ova.

It's like he believes that science doesn't know about sexual reproduction.

 

No. The universe started with infinite volume, then expanded.

No. It's (probably) infinite right now.

 

I don't believe the word "factor" is found anywhere in Genesis. Therefore...

And, like I said, science knows about sexual reproduction.

Apparently not, according to the available scientific evidence. Like I said.

No problem, since there is no finite realm. Like I said.

 

No. Because that's exactly what the big bang theory says: anything that exists in this universe did not exist at one time.

So, we agree at last!

Are we done?

What's a skud? That seems like a severe oversight by the writers of Genesis, don't you think? It sounds really important. Why didn't they include skuds?

I think you should get out there and protest that Genesis should be re-written to include the all-important skuds - whatever they are.

Yeah. That's sex education 101. When a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...

No. Neither did Genesis. Like I said.

 

Ah... no. That's wrong too.

 

Demiurge

In truth, I disagree. I think he's trying to sound original for reiterating the idea of the demiurge. But since he's using a vocabulary that only he understands, I'm not certain.

 

Don't expect everyone else to speak your language

No, sir. You simply presume that whenever you say something, people know what you're referring to. To wit:

"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."​

What, exactly, are you referring to, and how do you draw such conclusions according to Genesis?