That's like saying the Galaxy can't be finite. The universe can only be as big as the matter and energy that makes it up. It is finite in both size and time (at some time energy will dissipate and the photon will reach it's radiological 1/2 life) and will cease to exist for all practical purposes long before it 'dies' having stretched itself thin to the point of not existing in any physical sense.
Your scientific illiteracy is showing, this is middle school physics.
The universe is all that is, was, or ever will be, galaxy is not a synonym I don't know where you came up with that.
there can't be other universes, because there is only one totality. So beyond photon life span what are the other limits
Your scientific illiteracy is showing, this is middle school physics.
Why do you see the need for this childish behavior? It only illustrates your ignorance.
unicorns have to exist on our planet, God does not. A unicorn would require a living specimine. The fact that the universes exists is evidence that it was created, but it's existence could be incadental as well.
There is proof that unicorns do not exist, on earth at least.
No such proof of or against God exists.
But what's the fundamental difference in trying to prove one or the other?
That's the point. There is no proof for God, so it doesn't make sense to pretend God exists. At least if you are coming from a position of science.
What do you mean as the only thing that exists? That is not what David said. He just said the size of the universe is finite and given the Big Bang theory, it makes sense.
I don't seek to prove gods existence, that isn't possible. I see it as reasonable to believe in God, because everything works so perfectly, it is hard for me to accept complete randomness.
Coming from a position of science, I would absolutely agree, a person's belief in anything is in no way a variable in any science aside from psychology.
I just don't understand why some people ridicule people in science fields for such beliefs. Again personal beliefs don't have a place in science.
A universe is a single finite entity. Multiple universes taken as a whole are not universes (an oxymoron as you noted) but the multiverse. The multiverse may be infinite, we can't know for certain until we actually 'see' it (something we might accomplish is the next few decades).
You might want to read an astrophysics book and maybe something on S- and M-Theory, you seem to be grossly uneducated on this subject.
A universe isn't an entity. I find the word multiverse to be unnecessary. There are no "other totalitys" that notion is absurd.
I never claimed to be educated on it, nor do I need to read any astrophysics books. I am simply fascinated by theory. The limits you put on things based on extremely limited knowledge and assumption is your flaw, I never said I know everything about the universe, in fact I am arguing that I don't know anything. To assume that you know anything, is to deny any furthering of knowledge.
Live in that box David, but don't expect me to get inside of it with you
Clax, I don't think you understand the definition of universe. It does not inherently include "everything" as you suggest. It does not mean totality. It is the cosmos, but other things can exist or not exist outside the cosmos- we might be a very rare "bloop" that caused something from nothingness, but in this case nothingness is not the colloquial definition, but instead something else. (Lawrence Krauss has a good talk on it- see Youtube if you are interested in that)
What do you mean perfectly? The laws of the universe did not form to make what you see, but instead what you see formed because of the laws of the universe. And we know this considering what we know about the formation of the universe, stars, the planets, etc.
My point is that in a true position of science- if you are to apply the scientific method you cannot really believe in God. At best you can be agnostic and believe God might exist, but even then claiming yourself as Christian or Hindu or whatever doesn't make much sense. At least I don't understand how it does.
That is not a relevant point. There are outliers in everything. Also, Da Vinci was alive before the scientific method was mainstream (although even then he was not a devote follower of the church and some say he was an atheist- he had political concerns too though because denying god in his time was not a wise decision) and Einstein did not believe in your typical God, that is a myth. He believed in Spinoza's God which you will find is not actually a God by the popular colloquial definition. I don't know enough about Galileo's personal views to make a comment, but I know he too ran into political issues with the God thing and he had no problem believing that the Bible was wrong (i.e. on the Earth-centric view of the universe).
A couple of quick sources on Einstein in case you don't take my word for it:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”
Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 95.
much more on that here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html
What does that even mean? I'm pretty sure all three scientists you just named didn't believe in a personal God despite what you might have heard and I just backed that up. But either way, there are outliers in everything.
Similar threads
