Hebrew Bible-based cosmology

[needimprovement]

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.

[needimprovement]

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.

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.

 

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.

[Klaynos]

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.

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

I'd suggest you do some reading on what universal expansion actually is and the observable evidence for it.

[Mr Skeptic]

Necro alert!

 

Things can be infinite and yet have different density. For example, there are as many whole numbers as there are even whole numbers, but the even whole numbers are less densely packed.

[needimprovement]

Necro alert!

 

Things can be infinite and yet have different density. For example, there are as many whole numbers as there are even whole numbers, but the even whole numbers are less densely packed.

Its an established rule - one cannot prove something based only on mathematically derived theoretical premises. While we may one day elevate ourselves with new math and new knowledge, today's mind must agree the universe is finite - which is a very scary thought for anti-creational science. Speech is the most scary thing for ToE

[Mr Skeptic]

Its an established rule - one cannot prove something based only on mathematically derived theoretical premises.

 

Well, it's too bad you think that, because you are wrong. Density is a mathematical concept, and mathematical concepts can be proven using just math. I disproved you by example.

 

today's mind must agree the universe is finite

 

Nope, today's mind must agree that we don't know whether the universe is finite or infinite, which is a scary thought for creationists who feel a need to be absolutely sure of things that are not true. There is no evidence that the universe is finite.

[needimprovement]

Well, it's too bad you think that, because you are wrong. Density is a mathematical concept, and mathematical concepts can be proven using just math. I disproved you by example.

Ok I will agreed that density is a mathematical premise, but it seems you misundstood my meaning. The more particles in the same space, the more solidified - the difference between wood and iron, and empty space and physicality.

 

Nope, today's mind must agree that we don't know whether the universe is finite or infinite, which is a scary thought for creationists who feel a need to be absolutely sure of things that are not true. There is no evidence that the universe is finite.

We don't know anything because the origins of everything is unknown. But all indicators and evidences [as opposed actual proof] say the universe is finite and cannot in any wise be infinite: the universe is expanding - it was not infinite 10 seconds ago; an infinite cannot fit into a finite realm.

 

I agree with Genesis there was a BEGINNING; I also agree with Genesis that maths and sciences ['laws'] occured in its second verse - or what must happen next to beget science and math - namely the formless had to change to form. I also agree that light per se had to predate the stars, and that pre-life anticipatory actions [critical seperations of this planet's elements] had to be performed before life could emerge.

 

I agree that all things in the universe are the result of a duality, and that each part had to be embedded with pre-determined directive programs to conclude in pre-determined results from that interaction. I agree that humans are a species on their own, varied from all other life forms by a ratio of 1: all other life forms - while still retaining the commonality of all life forms. I agree that the first emergence of the human species had to be a dual-gendered entity, then split asunder. I agree a unverse must have a universe maker, but not necessarilly according to any theological doctrines.

 

If someone does not agree - it does not mean Genesis is not dsplaying scientific and logical premises.

[7th]

Isn't most evidence gained in science dependent on laws that are not proven to be 100% correct, only ~to the best of our knowledge~, used because they work, and therefore arbitrary? Aren't scientists under the influence of everyone being "a human" rather than just "human" and part of humanity? I'm completely sure that the bible explains quite well that we are in Gods image; and when it says "we" it means: humanity. I think you may have mistaken what exactly the bible explains; for scientists you seem to interpret it pretty unscientifically. I for one, being a Christian Scientist know exactly what the message is, and a few of my collegues can read hebrew fluently. I'm not too sure whether you realize that the hebrew bible is nothing but computer code (I don't think you do, do you?). If things in the bible can be interpreted into real life, then the chances of an ~element~ in life being God is extremely high. As humanity we live between heaven and earth, and we create our own hell through the means of atheism, destroying nature, ignorance, etc etc.

 

We have the choice of eternal life for humanity, through the means of ~nurturing nature~; or we can simply (sinfully) use up humanity's time now for ourselves, by simply being athiests and believing individually we are more important than the bigger picture -- this is simple stuff people... In years to come due to our own selfishness the earth will be unhabitable, and humanity will cease to exist, or live in hell-like surroundings. For those of you believing in terraforming another planet, it will never happen; the earth has less than 100 years to go at this rate, and that is the honest truth. There are so many ways for it to end it's unbelievable, you just got to look at the cards we've been dealt and estimate the chances.

 

some science/scriptures

 

What if you were using the incorrect mathematics? Examples being: base 4 or base 7. Although every base is base 10, or 1, 0. We may have got it all wrong. It could literally be: 1,2,3,10,11,12,13,20, etc. If that was the case you would be using a flawed system and your measurement/theory would be fasified. So it's not proven, it's accepted as truth.

 

Well, it's too bad you think that, because you are wrong. Density is a mathematical concept, and mathematical concepts can be proven using just math. I disproved you by example.

Edited September 4, 2010 by 7th

[Mr Skeptic]

Ok I will agreed that density is a mathematical premise, but it seems you misundstood my meaning. The more particles in the same space, the more solidified - the difference between wood and iron, and empty space and physicality.

 

My point still stands.

 

We don't know anything because the origins of everything is unknown. But all indicators and evidences [as opposed actual proof] say the universe is finite and cannot in any wise be infinite:

 

Care to give an example of these so-called evidences and indicators?

 

the universe is expanding - it was not infinite 10 seconds ago; an infinite cannot fit into a finite realm.

 

Well I can fit an infinite into a finite size. I guess that makes me more powerful than your god then.

 

Also, the expansion of the universe says nothing of its size -- expansion works just as well in a finite and infinite universe, even if you have trouble understanding it both ways. Also, there is no evidence that the current universe is finite, so that's yet another way you are wrong.

 

I agree with Genesis there was a BEGINNING; I also agree with Genesis that maths and sciences ['laws'] occured in its second verse - or what must happen next to beget science and math - namely the formless had to change to form. I also agree that light per se had to predate the stars, and that pre-life anticipatory actions [critical seperations of this planet's elements] had to be performed before life could emerge.

 

I agree that all things in the universe are the result of a duality, and that each part had to be embedded with pre-determined directive programs to conclude in pre-determined results from that interaction. I agree that humans are a species on their own, varied from all other life forms by a ratio of 1: all other life forms - while still retaining the commonality of all life forms. I agree that the first emergence of the human species had to be a dual-gendered entity, then split asunder. I agree a unverse must have a universe maker, but not necessarilly according to any theological doctrines.

 

If someone does not agree - it does not mean Genesis is not dsplaying scientific and logical premises.

 

Right, I disagree with all of this. Genesis is just a parable, and trying to find scientific truth form it cannot be done unless you already know the scientific truth you wish to find in it.

 

However, this may amuse you:

but only if you understand physics.

[needimprovement]

But did he also say (see link)

Edited September 6, 2010 by needimprovement

[needimprovement]

I tried doing the math the way the world wanted me to. It didn't quite work. God stuck His finger in everything, and calculating became quite useless. He/She surprised me everywhere and tickled me in my seriosity. Then She took me, wildly, and in public. I was never the same, and could only smile wherever I went, grinning like an idiot.

[mississippichem]

What if you were using the incorrect mathematics? Examples being: base 4 or base 7. Although every base is base 10, or 1, 0. We may have got it all wrong. It could literally be: 1,2,3,10,11,12,13,20, etc. If that was the case you would be using a flawed system and your measurement/theory would be fasified. So it's not proven, it's accepted as truth.

 

Whatever base system we use doesn't matter. "3" represented in binary is "10" but that symbol still represents this amount of dots (...). All mathematical operations can be carried out in binary, hexadecimal or whatever, the end result is always the same and can be converted back to base 10. You can do addition and subtraction with your fingers and toes even, try it. Notice that some calculators have buttons to convert between bases.

 

P.S. Your going to have to try harder than this man.

 

EDIT: typo

Edited September 6, 2010 by mississippichem