Is the universe finite?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by IamJoseph, Aug 27, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,287
    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?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    I still have a problem with the concept of an infinite universe. Since the universe has a clear cut point in time when it began, and expands at a finite, though rapid rate, then it must be finite in volume.

    Is this 'infinity' a concept that includes time?
    That is : the universe is finite in volume right now, but will expand for eternity, hence is infinite in space and time together?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,860
    (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
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,287
    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.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,287
    No. The universe started with infinite volume, then expanded.

    No. It's (probably) infinite right now.
     
  9. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    As I said before, the seed factor is not my invention - it happens to be the pivotal factor mentioneed in the texts. Non-profound is the omission syndrome.
     
  10. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    That's not emperically based: 'started' and "infinite volume" are self contradictory terms. An infinite cannot be contained in a finite realm, which also says at one time there was no volume, space or expansion.
     
  11. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    How does it all wrk 'IF' the universe is 'absolutely' finite - have you ever considered this side of the coin or is this a blasphemous and heritical question?
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,287
    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.
     
  13. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    I believe Genesis is talking about an 'ABSOLUTELY' finite universe, and must be scientifically examined with that preamble. Basically, this says anything which exists in this universe did not exist at one time. No exceptions. It is the most feared premise for neo science today.
     
  14. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    Skuds are also not found in genesis. There is no sexual repro without the seed - I have not used the strange term 'factor' for your benefit.

    Be very afraid - run fast.
     
  15. M00se1989 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    508
    blah blah blah...

    the answer is no...

    even if we are in some kind of finite bubble... it has to be surrounded by something.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,287
    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.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,287
    Ah... no. That's wrong too.
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,860
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2010
  19. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Not only that, but Joseph ignores embarrassing questions. Like why did Genesis say seed plants existed before stars?
     
  20. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    You have the buttons.


    Your comprehension is unreasonable to the extreme. Impure/unclean in ancientspeak means corrupted. One must speak in the language of the people. FYI, your assessment about understanding the used term cleanliness is attrocious: we derive at this conclusion being disfunctional by the remedy given as quarantine and burning of all possessions. Do some clear thinking before casting me as your scapegoat: witchcrafts don't administer such prescriptions!

    Leprosy is a recently coined term, which translated the Hebrew word as such. Basically, the text I posted introduced the premise of a malignancy [more than a chronic condition] in a manner any confusion is not possible. You have totally disregarded the amazing texts and reduced it to your own version of gibberish. But you cannot show another text of equal validity.


    Your story is not about witchraft or a Lutheran but of yourself in your equating what is clearly the antithesis of witchcraft. Do witches examine under your skin, test it after 7 days, then decide if you must be under quarantine - or do medical professionals perform such processes? Is there a doctor in the house!

    It is only the introduction of medicine as a science.

    FYI, the Abraham thread occupies the majority of the science Nobels - by a margin which is not possible to catch up with. There is no science without first noting if the universe is finite and that laws come before the action. Science is based on laws. That the universe had a beginning - is the primodial law - even if the word FACTOR is not included!

    Why did you even ask me to prove my assertions - to enlighten me that the first pointer of contagious deseases is witchcraft? First you boldly said the term seed does not appear in the text - then you enlightened me how the term FACTOR does not appear. :bugeye:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    What I posted is science per se. What you have said is gibberish.
     
  21. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289

    LOL! I did respond to this question before - and it just went over the cookoo's head. No response:


     
  22. M00se1989 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    508
    alright it takes billions and billions of light-years to encompass the universe. and im sure from the point of any star in a far galaxy. it looks similar to what we see. probably different constellations.

    I mean unless you think we are in the center of the universe.

    with that much unreachable potential you might as well say infinite..
     
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,860
    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?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page