Is the universe finite?

[IamJoseph]

I don't think that Genesis states that the universe is 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.

If it does, then it is in contradiction to the most modern scientific evidence, which suggests that the universe is infinite.

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.

 

[IamJoseph]

There has to be an outer limit, and then, what is on the other side of this outer limit?

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.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

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.

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.

 

[James R]

Science says the universe is finite - affirming Genesis.

Wait! Do you mean finite in time, or in space?

Certainly, science says the universe had a beginning, so it's not infinitely old. But science also says the universe is (most likely) infinite in spatial extent.

We don't need a rocket scientist to identify a finite realm cannot emerge of itself - the onus is not on Genesis but on its antithesis to make their counter proof.

Are you asking what caused the big bang?

we know the universe is expanding - which means it was not infinite 10 seconds ago...

You mean infinite in space now, right? The fact that it is expanding doesn't mean it can't be spatially infinite.

 

[IamJoseph]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[IamJoseph]

Wait! Do you mean finite in time, or in space?

Certainly, science says the universe had a beginning, so it's not infinitely old. But science also says the universe is (most likely) infinite in spatial extent.

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.

Are you asking what caused the big bang?

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

You mean infinite in space now, right? The fact that it is expanding doesn't mean it can't be spatially infinite.

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.

 

[Tiassa]

(chortle!)

The analogy you made did not apply!

To what?

Science says the universe is finite - affirming Genesis. We don't need a rocket scientist to identify a finite realm cannot emerge of itself - the onus is not on Genesis but on its antithesis to make their counter proof.

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

 

[IamJoseph]

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!?

 

[Tiassa]

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

Science, medicine, evolution, democracy, and alphabetical books were introduced in the Hebrew bible.

Please cite and demonstrate the validity of this assertion.

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?

Please explain how to test these Biblical hypotheses.

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.

Please cite and demonstrate the validity of this assertion.

The only counter to Darwin is also in Genesis: the seed factor.

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

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

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

 

[Skeptical]

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.

 

[Tiassa]

Well, yeah, maybe ....

You will get nowhere discussing this with Joseph.

Perhaps. Meanwhile, call it my sense of obligation.

 

[IamJoseph]

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.

 

[arfa brane]

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

 

[IamJoseph]

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'.

Name one myth please?

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.

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?

 

[Skeptical]

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.

 

[IamJoseph]

Please cite and demonstrate the validity of this assertion.

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:

Lev. 13/ 2 When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it become in the skin of his flesh the plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests. 3 And the priest shall look upon the plague in the skin of the flesh; and if the hair in the plague be turned white, and the appearance of the plague be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is the plague of leprosy; and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean. 4 And if the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white, then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days. 5 And the priest shall look on him the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague stay in its appearance, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall shut him up seven days more. 6 And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague be dim, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is a scab; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. 7 But if the scab spread abroad in the skin, after that he hath shown himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall show himself to the priest again. 8 And the priest shall look, and, behold, if the scab be spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is leprosy. {P}

9 When the plague of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought unto the priest. 10 And the priest shall look, and, behold, if there be a white rising in the skin, and it have turned the hair white, and there be quick raw flesh in the rising, 11 it is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; he shall not shut him up; for he is unclean. 12 And if the leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague from his head even to his feet, as far as appeareth to the priest; 13 then the priest shall look; and, behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague; it is all turned white: he is clean. 14 But whensoever raw flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean. 15 And the priest shall look on the raw flesh, and pronounce him unclean; the raw flesh is unclean: it is leprosy. 16 But if the raw flesh again be turned into white, then he shall come unto the priest; 17 and the priest shall look on him; and, behold, if the plague be turned into white, then the priest shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: he is clean. {P}

18 And when the flesh hath in the skin thereof a boil, and it is healed, 19 and in the place of the boil there is a white rising, or a bright spot, reddish-white, then it shall be shown to the priest. 20 And the priest shall look; and, behold, if the appearance thereof be lower than the skin, and the hair thereof be turned white, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy, it hath broken out in the boil. 21 But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hairs therein, and it be not lower than the skin, but be dim, then the priest shall shut him up seven days. 22 And if it spread abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a plague. 23 But if the bright spot stay in its place, and be not spread, it is the scar of the boil; and the priest shall pronounce him clean. {S} 24 Or when the flesh hath in the skin thereof a burning by fire, and the quick flesh of the burning become a bright spot, reddish-white, or white; 25 then the priest shall look upon it; and, behold, if the hair in the bright spot be turned white, and the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin, it is leprosy, it hath broken out in the burning; and the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy. 26 But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hair in the bright spot, and it be no lower than the skin, but be dim; then the priest shall shut him up seven days. 27 And the priest shall look upon him the seventh day; if it spread abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy. 28 And if the bright spot stay in its place, and be not spread in the skin, but be dim, it is the rising of the burning, and the priest shall pronounce him clean; for it is the scar of the burning. {P}

29 And when a man or woman hath a plague upon the head or upon the beard, 30 then the priest shall look on the plague; and, behold, if the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin, and there be in it yellow thin hair, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a scall, it is leprosy of the head or of the beard. 31 And if the priest look on the plague of the scall, and, behold, the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and there be no black hair in it, then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague of the scall seven days. 32 And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the plague; and, behold, if the scall be not spread, and there be in it no yellow hair, and the appearance of the scall be not deeper than the skin, 33 then he shall be shaven, but the scall shall he not shave; and the priest shall shut up him that hath the scall seven days more. 34 And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the scall; and, behold, if the scall be not spread in the skin, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. 35 But if the scall spread abroad in the skin after his cleansing, 36 then the priest shall look on him; and, behold, if the scall be spread in the skin, the priest shall not seek for the yellow hair: he is unclean. 37 But if the scall stay in its appearance, and black hair be grown up therein; the scall is healed, he is clean; and the priest shall pronounce him clean. {S}

38 And if a man or a woman have in the skin of their flesh bright spots, even white bright spots; 39 then the priest shall look; and, behold, if the bright spots in the skin of their flesh be of a dull white, it is a tetter, it hath broken out in the skin: he is clean. {S} 40 And if a man's hair be fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean. 41 And if his hair be fallen off from the front part of his head, he is forehead-bald; yet is he clean. 42 But if there be in the bald head, or the bald forehead, a reddish-white plague, it is leprosy breaking out in his bald head, or his bald forehead. 43 Then the priest shall look upon him; and, behold, if the rising of the plague be reddish-white in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh, 44 he is a leprous man, he is unclean; the priest shall surely pronounce him unclean: his plague is in his head. 45 And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose, and he shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry: 'Unclean, unclean.' 46 All the days wherein the plague is in him he shall be unclean; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his dwelling be. {S} 47 And when the plague of leprosy is in a garment, whether it be a woolen garment, or a linen garment; 48 or in the warp, or in the woof, whether they be of linen, or of wool; or in a skin, or in any thing made of skin. 49 If the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, it is the plague of leprosy, and shall be shown unto the priest. 50 And the priest shall look upon the plague, and shut up that which hath the plague seven days. 51 And he shall look on the plague on the seventh day: if the plague be spread in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in the skin, whatever service skin is used for, the plague is a malignant leprosy: it is unclean. 52 And he shall burn the garment, or the warp, or the woof, whether it be of wool or of linen, or any thing of skin, wherein the plague is; for it is a malignant leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire. 53 And if the priest shall look, and, behold, the plague be not spread in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; 54 then the priest shall command that they wash the thing wherein the plague is, and he shall shut it up seven days more.

55 And the priest shall look, after that the plague is washed; and, behold, if the plague have not changed its colour, and the plague be not spread, it is unclean; thou shalt burn it in the fire; it is a fret, whether the bareness be within or without. 56 And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague be dim after the washing thereof, then he shall rend it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof. 57 And if it appear still in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, it is breaking out, thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire. 58 And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or whatsoever thing of skin it be, which thou shalt wash, if the plague be departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and shall be clean. 59 This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of wool or linen, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean. {P}

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.

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

 

[arfa brane]

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...

 

[IamJoseph]

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.

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

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

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.

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!

 

[IamJoseph]

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...

Is that a scientific response?

 

[Parmenides]

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.