Proof that God Exists... wait, what?

[Coyote*]

[raekuul]

Okay. I concede. It was a lousy explanation.

Moving a given mass within a given volume of "vacuum" is, within my mind, the same as moving a given mass within a given volume of a certain density, only without frictive resistance and without the ability to "push" off of whatever is occupying the volume. Here's a thought: If moving within a volume that has a medium with density, ala the atmosphere, does that create a mini-vacuum as the medium replaces the object's former position within that volume? By a mini vacuum, I mean one that can be undetectable. If this is true, then wouldn't it also be true to an extent in a vacuum that operates under the assumption that there is a minimum amount of volume that has to be filled with either mass or vacuum?

[worm]

maybe a silly question, but i'm actually curious about this...if the universe is expanding (which is the last i heard), what is it expanding into? is that space? or does it not become space until it's part of the universe? do the physics of our universe apply there?

maybe i'm assuming too much...i guess our universe might not be expanding into something, but displacing some other universe or whatever. i dunno, but that's why i'm asking.

[physics expert*]

Hell, I don't know. I just periodically spew fancy-sounding phrases out my ass like "the universe is expanding" so the government will keep sending me grant money. If I have to explain myself I usually just make up some more fancy phrases until they go away.

[HyToFry]

[sarcasm expert*]

I'd like to comment on this issue, but people keep using words and concepts that I have a hard time comprehending. Why can't they just say 'I don't know' and leave it at that??

I know it can't be my fault--willful ignorance doesn't earn any grant money, and thus must be sincere and reliable.

Besides, anything that requires extra effort to understand can't really be worth understanding. And since the nature of the universe is clearly worth understanding, any explanation of it that uses what I consider to be fancy words must be an attempt to dodge answering the question.

[Samadhi]

[Nsof]

Maybe we are all shrinking?
_________________
Will sell this place for beer

[Samadhi]

Hahaha!

Well, maybe. But how would we know?
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Nsof]

Well we wont, but is solves the need to explain where is everything expanding into
_________________
Will sell this place for beer

[extro...*]

I always thought that the theory is that spacetime itself - not just space, but time also, came into existence at the big bang. And that it is spacetime that is expanding (not sure what that means). Yet I often hear educated people ask questions about "before the big bang".

[raekuul]

Now that we have that on the table, how do we describe the triggers of the big bang?

[HyToFry]

God pulled back the hammer, and BOOM! (Big badda boom.)

[Jack_Ian]

The Big Bang is a bit of a misnomer.
It just describes a point in our past when all the observable (and some no longer observable) universe must have existed in approximately the same place. It is assumed, by many, that this was a single point, infinitesimally small, but it may also have been a small region within an already existing universe that began expanding (for some unknown reason).
So time and space might have existed before our "big bang", in fact there is some evidence that points to a "Big Crunch" before our "Big Bang" that started off the universe as we know it.
We may even be some insignificant oscillating blip in the vacuum of some other universe.
And no, I haven't been smoking any whacky-backy, I don't even smoke the legal stuff.

[Samadhi]

Watching the re-runs of Cosmos on the Science channel....
In one of the less dated segments, Sagan said
"The universe can be finite yet unbounded."

I don't understand that. I doubt Sagan would say something ludicrous so if anyone could explain it, I'd be grateful.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Antrax]

The natural numbers are unbounded - for every (real) bound you choose, there is a natural number higher than that bound. However, "infinity" is not a natural number.
Being unbounded means just that, that you can go as high as you like. It doesn't mean you actually reach inifinity, which is what it means to be infinite. There is an inifinite amount of natural numbers, but none of them is infinite.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[mith]

That's not a particularly good analogy, Ant. The universe is analogous to the set, not the number. There could be an infinite amount of universe, and we would call the universe infinite, despite none of the things in the universe being infinite.

It's possible Sagan was saying the universe could have a non-Euclidean geometry - like the surface of the Earth, but with more dimensions. Hard to say without more context, though.

[Antrax]

Oh, I was just trying to explain why "unbounded" and "infinite" are not the same thing
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[mith]

Ah. Nevermind then.

[L'lanmal]

[raekuul]

At any rate, the origional topic of this thread was to discuss amongst ourselves why the "Proof that God Exists" web page is illogical. I propose that we leave it to whether we believe he exists or not, just as we believe that Einstein knew what he was doing.

[Coyote]

But if we just leave it at that, there'll be no point in continuing the discussion--and that's no fun!

Also, I think the core idea in this thread, even though it was lost in the continual efforts to make canuckfish see that his argument was by no means a solid proof, was the validity of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God.

I hadn't been aware of this argument before this thread started, but now that I've been exposed to it I have to say that it is in fact a compelling argument, though of course nothing close to an actual proof. And naturally I don't agree with canuckfish's additional step, where he claims his God is the one the argument must inevitably lead to.

In the broader sense of supporting the existence of a God, I thought it made for an interesting discussion. I wonder if canuckfish will eventually come back to continue it.

[Jack_Ian]

Sorry to revive this thread, especially since it relates to a side-issue brought up, rather then the subject mater itself, but...

Regarding the issue of whether empty space is actually something, I thought the following might make things a little clearer.

It was argued that space is just a measurement between "somethings" and was a property of the "somethings" rather than a "something" itself.
However space is something in the same way that time is something and the following argument should clearly show that this is equally convoluted and likely to cause more confusion than clarity.

It was much easier explaining it to myself in the car.
Maybe, returning to theme, that's because I was preaching to the converted.

[extro...*]

Empty space is certainly "something" - it has qualities, most obvious being that it is 3-dimensional. Why not 2- or 4-dimensional? How did it come to be that way?

[raekuul]

which one of these icons means "My brain hurts?"
...
A God, certainly. Which god is up to the person. Anyone have a proof that A god and not God exists?

[*God*]

I think, therefore I am.

[extro...*]

me too. so how are we different?

[*God*]

I knew you were going to say that.

[Chuck]

Prove it by telling us what he'll say next.

[*God*]

Too late!
Random text: oweiurhlakdsjflaksdjfyqieurhkjsdf

[extro...*]

Too late!
Random text: oweiurhlakdsjflaksdjfyqieurhkjsdf

[*God*]

OMG

[extro...*]

OMG

[extro...*]

Hey! Cut that out!
Very funny guys.
Has somebody tinkered around to make me double-post in this thread!
You had me going there for a while.

[extro...*]

Hmmm
Seems to have stopped.

[extro…]

[raekuul]

Barring extro's argument with himself, I believe that the only way for any Deity to exist in this day and age (I said Deity, so don't smite me just yet), there must be at least one person who is willing to accept that Deity's existance with no proof whatsover. God (capitalized), or your religeous equivalent, is a specific, all-encompassing Deity that appears to have created all temporal things. Various theological systems name this particular Deity "Head of all Deities". The word "god" (not capitalized) means "Deity".
Waaaaaait a second!
(rereads)

Did anyone make any sense out of this?

[Coyote]

I'm sorry, raekuul, but if that post was intended to be a single connected group of statements that drove home a particular point, it sailed over my head. Are you arguing for a hierarchy of gods, with the one True God at its head? That's the closest I can come to some meaningful interpretation of what you said. Too be honest, at the moment it just seems like a bunch of disconnected statements, most of which I don't agree with to some degree. Could you either summarize, or pick out the one statement that you think best presents your viewpoint?

[raekuul]

If a god is believed in, it exists for those that believe in it.

[Coyote]

Well, yes, such gods exist in a certain ephemeral sense. And many of these gods have Creation of the World stories attached to them. If these gods depend upon belief to enable their existence, how did they retroactively create the beings whose belief they depend upon?