An infinite series of finite causes.

[shunyadragon]

No Tass, you constantly question the motives of Christians, which makes you a hypocrite. The fact is your worldview and your atheism demands eternal energy so you will believe any theory that may get you there even if there is no "substantive evidence" - to use your words. Not only isn't there evidence for an infinite universe or multiverse, there would be no way to go back in time and demonstrate that either did not have a beginning.

As always, you insist the evidence supports a finite, and cry 'attacking the straw man' argument and not acknowledging the facts that the physical existence cannot be falsified that it is finite nor temporal, nor whether our universe nor our physical existence is either finite, temporal, infinite nor eternal.

Name calling is only a self-reflection and does not change the fact that you are misrepresenting the arguments of Tassman and I.

[seer]

As always, you insist the evidence supports a finite, and cry 'attacking the straw man' argument and not acknowledging the facts that the physical existence cannot be falsified that it is finite nor temporal, nor whether our universe nor our physical existence is either finite, temporal, infinite nor eternal.

Name calling is only a self-reflection and does not change the fact that you are misrepresenting the arguments of Tassman and I.

But Tass was being a hypocrite, as you are. You are constantly accusing me of religious motives when you have your own religious motive for supporting eternal matter and energy because that is what your faith teaches. And this universe is finite, and there is no evidence for matter or energy existing anywhere but in this universe. No matter what your religion teaches.

[shunyadragon]

But Tass was being a hypocrite, as you are. You are constantly accusing me of religious motives when you have your own religious motive for supporting eternal matter and energy because that is what your faith teaches. And this universe is finite, and there is no evidence for matter or energy existing anywhere but in this universe. No matter what your religion teaches.

I am not arguing for the scientific evidence supporting, falsifying, demonstrating nor proving either a finite or temporal physical existence, nor an eternal or infinite physical existence, and I do not believe Tassman is either. You are the one that is arguing that the scientific evidence supports a finite or temporal physical existence and it does not.

[seer]

I am not arguing for the scientific evidence supporting, falsifying, demonstrating nor proving either a finite or temporal physical existence, nor an eternal or infinite physical existence, and I do not believe Tassman is either. You are the one that is arguing that the scientific evidence supports a finite or temporal physical existence and it does not.

Of course it does, this universe is dying reaching a heat death. It has not been expanding from eternity past, therefore it had a beginning point. And it will have an end when all usable energy is gone. No more suns or heat. That is our universe. There is no evidence for anything else, there is no evidence of energy existing outside of this universe.

[shunyadragon]

Of course it does, this universe is dying reaching a heat death. It has not been expanding from eternity past, therefore it had a beginning point. And it will have an end when all usable energy is gone. No more suns or heat. That is our universe. There is no evidence for anything else, there is no evidence of energy existing outside of this universe.

Again seer, this is a phony argument from ignorance and not even true. Contemporary physicists and cosmologists do not agree with this scenario. You need to cite scientists that support this as as any kind of absolute beginning or ending of our physical existences based on your scenario of the beginning and ending of our universe.

Own up to it, this is your phony scenario based on your personal religious agenda.

[seer]

Again seer, this is a phony argument from ignorance and not even true. Contemporary physicists and cosmologists do not agree with this scenario. You need to cite scientists that support this as as any kind of absolute beginning or ending of our physical existences based on your scenario of the beginning and ending of our universe.

Own up to it, this is your phony scenario based on your personal religious agenda.

What exactly are you denying? That all the suns will eventually burn out, that the universe won't reach maximum entropy? Are you suggesting that this universe has been expanding forever? Remember we are speaking of THIS universe.

[shunyadragon]

What exactly are you denying? That all the suns will eventually burn out, that the universe won't reach maximum entropy? Are you suggesting that this universe has been expanding forever? Remember we are speaking of THIS universe.

I am not denying anything. There are possible hypothesis for cyclic universes, black hole universes, and multiverses that give the possibility of our physical existence is eternal and/or infinite. This is the belief of physicists and cosmologists, for which you totally lack the qualifications nor the education to draw the conclusions you are asserting based on a religious agenda.

[Tassman]

But Tass was being a hypocrite, as you are. You are constantly accusing me of religious motives when you have your own religious motive for supporting eternal matter and energy because that is what your faith teaches. And this universe is finite, and there is no evidence for matter or energy existing anywhere but in this universe. No matter what your religion teaches.

Just be very clear, I (nor I believe shuny) is supporting any such thing. My sole argument is that the scientific concept of an infinite universe or multiverse remains an open question in science at this stage. Unlike you and your bid to shoehorn science to fit your religious presuppositions, I am not arguing for one thing or the other. I'm awaiting the scientific consensus based upon the evidence. It will come in due course just as it has for many other scientific achievements.

It took over thirty years to discover all of the Quarks, forty years to see the Cosmic Microwave Background, and almost fifty to see the predicted Higgs Boson. When these phenomena were first proposed there were no experiments on the drawing board to falsify them - we had to wait a long time.

[element771]

Firstly, your comment in #220 is a sly and unwarranted dig and cannot be construed any other way.

If this is an unwarranted dig, what do you call your posts? I guess that you can dish it but cannot take it.

Furthermore, it is simply wrong. Current theoretical physics regarding the possible infinite universe and multiverse is "cutting edge" science by any standard as compared to established science such as Evolution, which is uniformly accepted by the vast majority of scientists worldwide.

Wrong.

String theory was in the 1960s... this is the major theory that is the source of the multiverse concept. So science that began 60 years ago is cutting edge?!?

Also, there is no such thing as "cutting edge" science. This is an opinion that you are projecting onto an area of science that you don't want to accept. So anything being done here is "cutting edge"...whatever that means. Right now the Big Bang is the established science and new theories may show that this concept is obsolete. However, it is no more cutting edge than anything that is being done in the fields of evolution and climate change. Every field has its own
"cutting edge" research. Not to mention that most "cutting edge" science is proven to be wrong over time. Check the information on Science and Nature articles as far as how accurate they turn out to be or their reproducibility. I will give you a hint as to why since you don't actually do any science. To get into Nature / Science / Cell (the big 3)... You have to show something truly novel that anyone in any field will be interested in. They reject 80% of the submitted manuscripts (count me among the 80% but I am proud to even have something that we considered sending to Nature) without even the manuscript being sent out for review. But again, you really need to stretch the interpretation and discussion to encompass enough of a change in order to prove to be worthy. Because these papers are "cutting edge"...a considerable number of them are shown to be wrong or inaccurate. At least more than most other journals.

Secondly, your self-righteous assertion that I do the same to theists on a regular basis is nothing more than a childish: rebuttal usually found in schoolyards, not in adult forums.

I am being self-righteous for pointing out your hypocritical behavior?

You cannot be serious. When is the last time you heard a schoolyard kid call someone a hypocrite.

Question...am I wrong? Do you not do the same thing you accused me of on a regular basis? I noticed that you just fling crap at the wall instead of answering my question. Why is that I wonder?

I do not take attacks on my character as "trivia". You want to attack my character, then yours is fair game. How about answering my question?

[element771]

for which you totally lack the qualifications nor the education to draw the conclusions you are asserting based on a religious agenda.

[shunyadragon]

cute!

[element771]

cute!

Shuny...you don't have the proper education / expertise to draw the conclusions you are making.

You block post a quote from one power point presentation then say that this is what physicists / cosmologists believe. Then you have the audacity to tell someone that they don't have the "the qualifications nor the education to draw the conclusions" that they do. I can't believe that you have that little self-awareness.

[Tassman]

Shuny...you don't have the proper education / expertise to draw the conclusions you are making.

You block post a quote from one power point presentation then say that this is what physicists / cosmologists believe. Then you have the audacity to tell someone that they don't have the "the qualifications nor the education to draw the conclusions" that they do. I can't believe that you have that little self-awareness.

Just listen to yourself. A touch of "pot calling kettle black" I fear!

[Tassman]

If this is an unwarranted dig, what do you call your posts? I guess that you can dish it but cannot take it.

Wrong.

Right!

String theory was in the 1960s... this is the major theory that is the source of the multiverse concept. So science that began 60 years ago is cutting edge?!?

It is cutting edge in that, unlike established scientific theories such as the near universal scientific consensus regarding say, Evolution, there is no such scientific consensus re the multiverse...as I said previously.

Also, there is no such thing as "cutting edge" science. This is an opinion that you are projecting onto an area of science that you don't want to accept.

I deny this snide accusation.

And you are wrong. There is

I am being self-righteous for pointing out your hypocritical behavior?

There's no "hypocritical behaviour" on my part. This is merely an unwarranted snide opinion on your part.

You cannot be serious. When is the last time you heard a schoolyard kid call someone a hypocrite.

Question...am I wrong? Do you not do the same thing you accused me of on a regular basis? I noticed that you just fling crap at the wall instead of answering my question. Why is that I wonder?

No, I do not. See above.

I do not take attacks on my character as "trivia". You want to attack my character, then yours is fair game. How about answering my question?

[seer]

I am not denying anything. There are possible hypothesis for cyclic universes, black hole universes, and multiverses that give the possibility of our physical existence is eternal and/or infinite. This is the belief of physicists and cosmologists, for which you totally lack the qualifications nor the education to draw the conclusions you are asserting based on a religious agenda.

I'm speaking of this universe Shuny, which is finite, there is no actual evidence for anything else. And let's not forget your religious agenda - your faith requires eternal matter or energy.