So why should I be an atheist? - Page 30

jimmyjet · 03-23-2014, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Michael wrote

It does depend on its ability to be measured, though. If it cannot be measured, it has no effect. If it has no effect, the end result is the same as it not existing at all.

we are not discussing end results. something can exist without being able to be measured.

it is a separate argument as to whether something has an effect on us or not.

jimmyjet · 03-23-2014, 11:06 PM

lets take a look at the multiverse. we can not measure it. therefore it has no effect on us today.

however, if it does exist, its original effect on us is the only reason why we are here today discussing it.

so once again, the issue of us measuring something is a completely separate issue from whether it exists, and needs to be taken as so.

Michael · 03-23-2014, 11:08 PM

Quote:

jimmyjet wrote

we are not discussing end results. something can exist without being able to be measured.

But if it cannot be measured it has the same qualities as not existing so it doesn't matter whether it exists or not.

If you're going to argue that it does matter - and i suspect you will - then I expect examples of how unknowable, unmeasurable things that have no effect on anything in the universe we can measure matter, beyond 'because it's the truth!'.

Quote:

it is a separate argument as to whether something has an effect on us or not.

I didn't say anything about directly having an effect on us. I said having an effect period. Any effect. Any effect at all.

mondrian · 03-23-2014, 11:10 PM

Quote:

jimmyjet wrote

this is the first time that you have resorted to absolute rubbish.

You do it all the time.

Michael · 03-23-2014, 11:19 PM

Quote:

jimmyjet wrote

lets take a look at the multiverse. we can not measure it. therefore it has no effect on us today.

however, if it does exist, its original effect on us is the only reason why we are here today discussing it.

so once again, the issue of us measuring something is a completely separate issue from whether it exists, and needs to be taken as so.

Okay. I think I see where the confusion is. You think I'm saying "the multiverse doesn't directly affect us therefore it doesn't matter".

That's not what I'm saying. When i talk about effects, i mean it has interacted with our material universe in a measurable way at any time. Because in doing so, it will have left behind measurable side-effects. If, let's say, something in the multiverse caused our big bang, then there will be measurable remnants for example.

However, if the multiverse just happens to be out there beyond our universe and in no way or at no time has ever interacted or could interact with our universe, then it is completely immeasurable, does not in any way interact or effect on our universe, and is identical to not existing.

However, since you seem to be claiming that it does interact with our universe and if I remember correctly was responsible for the big bang (forgive me if that wasn't your argument, i'm working off memory here), then it should leave behind measurable effects that we will be able to find.

In other words, our disagreement is at whether or not we will ever be able to measure the effects of a multiverse if it does indeed exist. You say nay, where I say yay.

jimmyjet · 03-23-2014, 11:35 PM

thank you for the nice post.

yes, i am stating that the multiverse is responsible for our creation. or at least assuming so. not just simply that it exists. pretty much our definition of the multiverse is that which started the universe.

i do not think that we can make the claim that there will be measurable effects from it, though. in fact, i doubt that this is true.

whatever was the process for the actual creation does not at all necessarily need to leave side effects in its creation.

but we can assume that there were side effects. there certainly is no proof that there are not side effects.

however, i am not sure we can make the claim that whatever we find are the side effects from the multiverse.

for example, even though i think it is highly unlikely, if we assume that the current universe has the ability to have an effect without a cause - then these "side effects" would not be part of a multiverse.

so we can not definitively prove the multiverse, only have various degrees of probability for its existence.

at this point, do we have anything else to discuss about proving the multiverse, or are we simply beating a dead horse ?

jimmyjet · 03-23-2014, 11:53 PM

i will add one thing here, before i go to bed. it is more of a question for you to ponder, as opposed to a statement to argue.

if we assume the big bang, then by its theory, our universe had a creation point. said point is that this is when time, space, matter and everything else was created.

so i have a hard time grasping the idea that our universe could have existed before its creation ?

by definition, the creation of it was such that it did not exist before such time.

so to talk about the universe existing before the big bang, such that it was responsible for the big bang - and at the same time defining the big bang as that which created the universe - seems contradictory to me.

Michael · 03-24-2014, 12:11 AM

Quote:

jimmyjet wrote

at this point, do we have anything else to discuss about proving the multiverse, or are we simply beating a dead horse ?

Given the state of things, it seems a bit redundant at this point.

Michael · 03-24-2014, 12:20 AM

Quote:

jimmyjet wrote

i will add one thing here, before i go to bed. it is more of a question for you to ponder, as opposed to a statement to argue.

if we assume the big bang, then by its theory, our universe had a creation point. said point is that this is when time, space, matter and everything else was created.

so i have a hard time grasping the idea that our universe could have existed before its creation ?

by definition, the creation of it was such that it did not exist before such time.

so to talk about the universe existing before the big bang, such that it was responsible for the big bang - and at the same time defining the big bang as that which created the universe - seems contradictory to me.

Unless the big bang was a change of state? It's possible that our universe was in a different state before the big bang.

We have to be careful saying 'before the big bang' as it implies time of time, which is a problem.

ILOVEJESUS · 03-24-2014, 04:31 AM

Your position seems to be that multiverses could cause big bangs, ( a reasonable idea), though that we may never know this? Also multiverses themselves are unknowable? You then "hint" at how this influences you to not want to "know" there is no god. This is what you seem to write over and over again for some peculiar reason. Now this is a raving atheist forum. Not a tie myself and panties in knots with quandaries of my own making forum.

Not wanting to "not believe" in god as you feel you could never "know" this is pointless. As has been pointed out, you can never know that there are no invisible massless monkey's dancing on the moon. I have no problem denying their existence though. Why? Because I would have to be making an invaluable philosophical statement to even bring them into a conversation. They would also never be able to be seen, and would rely solely on legend to survive in the consciousness of humanity.
What the fuck your obsession is with a multi verse is your own dilemma my silly little Jerry bean. They may well exist. As of yet we only have data from Cobe, (showing potential bruising to our universe from a possible collision with another universe, based on what we think theoretically about other universes), and a lot of hypotheticals and theories. Think superstrings etc. They may well be answered/analysed/observed. If they exist and we or another life form lives long enough, then they will be found out. Thanks for not listening.

mondrian · 03-24-2014, 05:33 AM

Quote:

ILOVEJESUS wrote

Your position seems to be that multiverses could cause big bangs, ( a reasonable idea), though that we may never know this? Also multiverses themselves are unknowable? You then "hint" at how this influences you to not want to "know" there is no god. This is what you seem to write over and over again for some peculiar reason. Now this is a raving atheist forum. Not a tie myself and panties in knots with quandaries of my own making forum.

Not wanting to "not believe" in god as you feel you could never "know" this is pointless. As has been pointed out, you can never know that there are no invisible massless monkey's dancing on the moon. I have no problem denying their existence though. Why? Because I would have to be making an invaluable philosophical statement to even bring them into a conversation. They would also never be able to be seen, and would rely solely on legend to survive in the consciousness of humanity.
What the fuck your obsession is with a multi verse is your own dilemma my silly little Jerry bean. They may well exist. As of yet we only have data from Cobe, (showing potential bruising to our universe from a possible collision with another universe, based on what we think theoretically about other universes), and a lot of hypotheticals and theories. Think superstrings etc. They may well be answered/analysed/observed. If they exist and we or another life form lives long enough, then they will be found out. Thanks for not listening.

I've read so much on the subject that I might be at the stage where I'm now a big girl's blouse in a small pair of panties. However, my understanding is that there was a big bang followed by 'inflation' followed by the expansion of the universe that we observe today.

Based on MIT's observations, it looks like a creator wasn't necessary to create the universe because, 'the nothing' that existed pre-big bang wasn't stable. That instability led to the creation of the universe at a random point in 'time' and that 'time' occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago.

During the period in which the young universe existed, 'inflation' took place. The conditions that existed, during the period of inflation, allowed for the creation of universes, other than our own.

If the above is correct, then our universe cannot have been created by a collision with another universe for two reasons:

1. Pre-our universe, our universe didn't exists. Therefore, a collision isn't possible.
2. Pre-our universe, other universes didn't exists either because the other universes came about as a result of the big bang that created our universe.

Now, just because it is theoretically possible that other universes can exist, it doesn't mean they do.

Also, if other universes were created during the period of inflation, then, it is possible that there was a colliding of universes. BUT, this couldn't have happened until after our universe was created. Therefore, our universe colliding with another couldn't have given rise to big bang'.

The only issue I have with MIT's observation is that our universe already exists. It didn't pre-big bang. So, MIT's observation may be invalid because the conditions are totally different.

Thank you for listening but shame on little jimmyjerryjet for being so childish as to ignore people's posts. Still, that's the katlicker way. Ignore the truth.

davros of skaro · 03-24-2014, 06:03 AM

We could be in a sea of universes, but it could take a billion to anywhere upwards to 500+ billion years for a closest neighbor universe's light to reach us in order for us to see it.

To answer the OP: There is no evidence for a God to believe in.People that believe in a God ignore many facts, and want to believe.

ILOVEJESUS · 03-24-2014, 06:20 AM

Quote:

mondrian wrote

I've read so much on the subject that I might be at the stage where I'm now a big girl's blouse in a small pair of panties. However, my understanding is that there was a big bang followed by 'inflation' followed by the expansion of the universe that we observe today.

Based on MIT's observations, it looks like a creator wasn't necessary to create the universe because, 'the nothing' that existed pre-big bang wasn't stable. That instability led to the creation of the universe at a random point in 'time' and that 'time' occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago.

During the period in which the young universe existed, 'inflation' took place. The conditions that existed, during the period of inflation, allowed for the creation of universes, other than our own.

If the above is correct, then our universe cannot have been created by a collision with another universe for two reasons:

1. Pre-our universe, our universe didn't exists. Therefore, a collision isn't possible.
2. Pre-our universe, other universes didn't exists either because the other universes came about as a result of the big bang that created our universe.

Now, just because it is theoretically possible that other universes can exist, it doesn't mean they do.

Also, if other universes were created during the period of inflation, then, it is possible that there was a colliding of universes. BUT, this couldn't have happened until after our universe was created. Therefore, our universe colliding with another couldn't have given rise to big bang'.

The only issue I have with MIT's observation is that our universe already exists. It didn't pre-big bang. So, MIT's observation may be invalid because the conditions are totally different.

Thank you for listening but shame on little jimmyjerryjet for being so childish as to ignore people's posts. Still, that's the katlicker way. Ignore the truth.

Colliding universes are a THEORY as to how big bangs, then hence inflation, occur, as far as I see it. not sure that is is plausable that this big bang caused all universes etc. Then again...i am not the multi verse god!

mondrian · 03-24-2014, 06:24 AM

Quote:

davros of skaro wrote

We could be in a sea of universes, but it could take a billion to anywhere upwards to 500+ billion years for a closest neighbor universe's light to reach us in order for us to see it.

If they are in a different time dimension or even in another dimension full stop, we may never observe the light from another universe.

mondrian · 03-24-2014, 06:39 AM

Quote:

ILOVEJESUS wrote

Colliding universes are a THEORY as to how big bangs, then hence inflation, occur, as far as I see it. not sure that is is plausable that this big bang caused all universes etc. Then again...i am not the multi verse god!

If our universe came into being as a result of two or more universes colliding, we would then need to explain how those other universes came into being. We would also have to explain why and how they collided and why and how that collision gave rise to another universe, no? When two snooker balls collide, their energies are redistributed between heat, sound and the two snooker balls rather than an additional new snooker ball being created. This, although providing much entertainment and confusion, doesn't happen so why should the collision of two universes create a third? Wouldn't the two colliding universes simply rebound or merge into one?

As I understand it, other universes can come into being during inflation due to the warping of gravitation waves. Then again...i am not the multi verse god! either, jimmyjerryjet is.