How do you explain a ordered universe without a Creator?

[sealybobo]

The same amino acids that landed on earth are the same that land on every other planet and Moon. If the place is all water they won't have mammals. If it's all lava hot they may have life that floats. And every planets top apex predator thinks God made them in his image and built the place just for them. If they are really "intelligent" they'll even believe he has a heaven waiting

 

[Boss]

Whatever becomes of this rock might end up again cooking inside another sun and one day become part of another planet. The thing that amazes me is that the building blocks for life come from inside a star. And when that star explodes into cold space amino acids are in comits and those comits impregnate planets and moons with life and all life is related you fucking moon bat. Lol

Silly boob.... You do not KNOW ANY OF THIS! It is mere speculation on your part and on your prophet Tyson's part.

I don't even think you have the capacity to understand what amino acids are, much less how they are formed. They certainly don't come from exploding stars. You want to know what is really amazing... whenever a star explodes, 40-something precision tuned cosmological constants cause the creation of carbon atoms which are the basis for all life as we know it. If ANY of those constants varied by the slightest amount... no carbon and no life.

There is no mathematics or physics explanation for why a random universe ends up with 40-something precisely-set constants. It's the equivalent to going to Vegas, playing black jack and hitting 21 in every hand 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times in a row. Yet that is exactly the amazing feat our "random" universe has accomplished... and you don't think there MIGHT be something to that?

 

[Boss]

The same amino acids that landed on earth are the same that land on every other planet and Moon.

Then we should see life everywhere and we don't.

You do realize, amino acids are totally useless unless they happen to find compatible DNA? The reason they call them amino acids (with an s) is because there are many kinds. They are not all the same. The amino acid that is required for human DNA is nothing at all like the amino acid required for a horse or fish. Completely different structures working with completely different enzymes and proteins for a specific DNA.

So this insane notion that stars are exploding and spreading amino acids around and that's what causes life, is just plain ignorant of science and amino acids. It's just mind-numbingly stupid. But then... look who it's coming from?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
all matter's trajectory from the recent singularity, big bang is traveling at a finite angle that will eventually without contraction return it to its origin - and recause through compaction the same combinations that ignited the original event.

an infinite trajectory is a straight line.

.

 

[Mudda]

According to Bossy, no one else.

According to physics and science.

Infinities are impossible to define with mathematics or physics. Hence, they are "spiritual" concepts.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

 

[Boss]

all matter's trajectory from the recent singularity, big bang is traveling at a finite angle that will eventually without contraction return it to its origin - and recause through compaction the same combinations that ignited the original event.

an infinite trajectory is a straight line.

That doesn't make any more sense than silly boob's argument. First of all, there is no proof there was ever a Singularity. The very concept and theory of Singularities is problematic because it defies known physics principles. This has prompted physicists such as Stephen Hawking to believe there may have never been a Big Bang.

This "cyclical universe" theory you are espousing is rather short-lived as theories of the universe go. It was first speculated about 70 years ago and with the discoveries from the Hubble telescope, it has been effectively rendered obsolete. The universe is not traveling in an ellipse and this would be required if it were to somehow return to it's origin. And how is it going to do that when you have Uncertainty Principle?

You see... like silly boob, you are simply repeating something you heard or read somewhere a long time ago. Back in the 80s, this was a popular theory.. the Big Bang/ Big Crunch... but there can't be a "big crunch" if the universe is accelerating in expansion. That means every atom in the universe is growing further apart every single day and doing it faster today than yesterday. We didn't know this in 1980. We only discovered it recently and it pretty much ends any serious consideration of your theory.

 

[Boss]

According to Bossy, no one else.

According to physics and science.

Infinities are impossible to define with mathematics or physics. Hence, they are "spiritual" concepts.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Do you have a mathematical or physics formula to calculate the value of infinity? If not... shut the fuck up and move along.

 

[BreezeWood]

all matter's trajectory from the recent singularity, big bang is traveling at a finite angle that will eventually without contraction return it to its origin - and recause through compaction the same combinations that ignited the original event.

an infinite trajectory is a straight line.

That doesn't make any more sense than silly boob's argument. First of all, there is no proof there was ever a Singularity. The very concept and theory of Singularities is problematic because it defies known physics principles. This has prompted physicists such as Stephen Hawking to believe there may have never been a Big Bang.

This "cyclical universe" theory you are espousing is rather short-lived as theories of the universe go. It was first speculated about 70 years ago and with the discoveries from the Hubble telescope, it has been effectively rendered obsolete. The universe is not traveling in an ellipse and this would be required if it were to somehow return to it's origin. And how is it going to do that when you have Uncertainty Principle?

You see... like silly boob, you are simply repeating something you heard or read somewhere a long time ago. Back in the 80s, this was a popular theory.. the Big Bang/ Big Crunch... but there can't be a "big crunch" if the universe is accelerating in expansion. That means every atom in the universe is growing further apart every single day and doing it faster today than yesterday. We didn't know this in 1980. We only discovered it recently and it pretty much ends any serious consideration of your theory.

.

but there can't be a "big crunch" if the universe is accelerating in expansion.

there is no crunch, the acceleration is along a finite angle that eventually returns the matter to is origin while always moving forward, only an infinite trajectory would travel forever as a straight line ...

show me any theory from the 80's based on an accelerating finite trajectory returning all matter to its origin in much the same order as when it left but as a mirror image - the Boomerang theory, you will not be able to find it.

.

 

[zaangalewa]

Good grief Mudda - why do you always like to speak with me? Why can you not let it be?

Not really. In every point all around you could be an infinite number of universes if the sum of all positive and negative energies of this universes would be "0". Our universe has by the way no outside.

Hey, look who's back, enjoy your little holiday away from the board? You're welcome.
How do you know that there's nothing outside our universe? Your invisible friend tell you?

It has no border. No border - no outside.

PS: And don't forget to go to a doctor and to ask him what you can do against your deinhibition of agressions. I don't like to see in you the next idiot who is doing what the idiot in Orlando did.

How do you know the universe has no border? Got anything at all?

Tell me where you see a border.

PS: Let it be to delete parts of my mails only because you are not able to understand my way to live.

 

[zaangalewa]

Uh, dude, the "cosmos" is our Universe. I think you meant to say "5 galaxies are born every second" although I don't know where you pulled that number from.

Definition of COSMOS
the cosmos : the universe especially when it is understood as an ordered system

What do you call the universes outside of our universe?

Universes. A cosmos is the Universe. You can't have a universe inside a universe.

If there are other universes what would you call them? I call everything the cosmos because you confuse our universe with everything.

In order for you to understand there could be more you first have to realize there might be more. This is what people didn't do back when they came up with the God hypothesis

God is not a hypothese but a prophetic revelation - and science is not able to be a religion without destroying science. And for the most people in the world is it completly unimportant wether they live in a universe or in a krxtsrstmpfgtrrrl. If someone believes to live in a krxtsrstmpfgtrrrl this makes not anyone to a good or bad Christian nor makes such a discussion the christian religion to a good or bad thing. But nevertheless modern science found lots of things what we believe. The universe has indeed a beginning for example. And nothing what is not in interaction with anything else is in this universe here existing. You could for example stay in the middle of the sun - if the sun interacts not with you, then she would not exist for you and you not for her. So universe, ordered universe and cosmos is the same. The ancient Greeks thought before the cosmos was created the chaos was created. This "ancient" chaos is not the modern chaos of selfreflexive nonlinear mathematical structures, we are speaking today about in this context. The "ancient" chaos was for example hot and cold the same time so no one was able to say wether it was hot or cold. The ancient Greeks said about their chaos that even the eye of the most blessed wisest seer was not able to take a look through this chaos - but what they saw and reported was this: One day started to draw through the chaos a glowing glimmer and a shining shimmer - this came from Eros - the god of heavenly love - the first of all gods.

God is a hypothesis.

a supposition (an uncertain belief) or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

So I can clearly see God is a hypothesis.

And I can clearly see in your words here ... nothing what makes sense for me ... although you seem to be fascinated from the idea god could be a hypothese.

What the hell is a prophetic revelation?

The burning thorn bush is for example a prophetic revelation. God and Moses spoke with each other in this way. If you like you can see in the burning thorn bush a "hypothese" about the communication with god and burn as many bushes as you like to burn and to try to speak with them as often as you like to do so. If god should really speak with you, while you are doing so, because you like to show that everyone is an idiot who believes in god, then I would be a little astonished. On the other side: Why not? No one would believe you and god is humorful. ... Damn - this means he is not a German. ... Or he could be a German full of humor and we would be totally confused, what a strange German he would be. ... How to test this hypothese? ...

 

[zaangalewa]

...I call everything the cosmos because you confuse our universe with everything....

LOL You are free to misuse terms and feel like you are smart. Just don't expect anyone to respect your ignorance.

Dark Flow. In 2008, astronomers discovered something very strange and unexpected – galactic clusters were all streaming in the same direction at immense speed, over two million miles per hour. New observations in 2010 confirmed this phenomenon, known as Dark Flow. The movement defies all predictions about the distribution of mass throughout the universe after the Big Bang. One possible cause: massive structures outside the Hubble Volume exerting gravitational influence. This would mean that the structure of the infinite universe beyond our view is not uniform.

Perhaps we should send Columbus with three ships to find out what's going on there behind the horizon?

Infinite Bubbles.

Talking about things outside the Hubble Volume might be a bit of a cheat, since it's still really the same universe, just a part of it we can't see. It would have all the same physical laws and constants. In another version of the story, the post-Big Bang expansion of the universe caused "bubbles" to form in the structure of space. Each bubble is an area that stopped stretching along with the rest of space and formed its own universe, with its own laws. In this scenario, space is infinite, and each bubble is also infinite (because you can store an infinite number of infinities inside a single infinity). Even if you could somehow breach the boundary of our bubble, the space in between the bubbles is still expanding, so you'd never get to the next bubble no matter how fast you went.

Except you are faster than a bubble. Thoughts are damned fast for example. Are we able to construct a spaceship with thought-energy?

View attachment 77961

Black Hole Spawning.

A theory known as the fecund universes theory, suggests that every black hole in our universe causes the formation of a new universe.

Makes not any sense this theory. Never a black hole left our universe - it's exactly in the opposit: The Hawking-radiation "vaporizes" black holes and retransforms their energy. Nothing is able to create or to destroy energy in this universe. Also not a black hole.

Many Parallel Universes.

There are tons of theories about parallel universes, but the most accepted one these days involves an evolution of the ideas of string theory to involve membranes that vibrate in other dimensions. One of the weirdest elements of the theory is the idea that all the gravity we experience in our universe is actually leaking into it from another universe in another dimension (which explains why gravity here seems so weak compared to the other fundamental forces).

And what kind of experiment is someone able to do with this ideas? How to falsify this "theories" - or should we call it "plausible mathematical constructions"? The string theory seems to be fascinating for some people - but never said anyone anything with this theory, what could produce an experiment where someone was able to falsify this theory. Scientific theories about nature which are not able to be wrong are worthless.

They aren't worthless. They provide other possible explanations where in the past all anyone could ever think was "must be god".

You don't knwo what you are speaking about. That's a basic problem. You don't like to be religious and you are not a scientist. As far as I know was the only plausible alternative theory about another form of creation a brane-cosmology. A wonderful theory - saw something about in TV - but the existance of gravitons had falsified this theroy as far as I heard about. So still nothinf hurts our belief in the creation god made - and this brane-theory made me also not nervous in this context. No one is a Christian because he is able to say something about cosmology, although the three wise kiings followed a star and found in this way what they were looking for.

Of course these are just speculations

Only speculations with falsifyable arguments are good speculations in case of natural science.

from some of the brightest minds on the planet.

Lots of brillant people in the past were convinced from the perpetuum mobile, while idiots desillusioned often with the words: "Will not work! Needs more energy!"

No one is saying black holes create universes.

A black hole is 100% part of this world here. Information in physics needs a carrier and this carrier is a always a form of energy. So what could give us here in our cosmos any information about any parallel-universe?

But it did sound like you were saying they don't. Really? You know that?

Sure I know that. Energy is not able to be created or destroyed. This is a natural law here in our universe. If energy would go in another universe then this would be a destruction of energy here in our universe. That's not possible. Nothing here is able to create universes. The only "unplaubsible" argument in this context: Our own universe exists. Something or someone made it. I made it not - I guess you made it not too - and the universe was not able to go outside of itselve and to make itselve, because there is no outside. ... What to say about how it was made? ... I would say god made it the most easy way - so we are able to find a solution for this problem.

 

[Boss]

there is no crunch, the acceleration is along a finite angle that eventually returns the matter to is origin while always moving forward, only an infinite trajectory would travel forever as a straight line ...

show me any theory from the 80's based on an accelerating finite trajectory returning all matter to its origin in much the same order as when it left but as a mirror image - the Boomerang theory, you will not be able to find it.

Nothing you're saying makes any sense with regard to physics. The only thing I've ever found that is close to what you seem to be trying to articulate (and badly) is the Big Crunch. That theory didn't emerge in the 1980s, I said it was a popular theory back in the 1980s. It started as a theory shortly after theories of a Big Bang, which goes back nearly 100 years. Ironically, it was an astronomer named Hubble who first postulated a "Big Crunch" scenario... it would later be the space telescope bearing his name that would observe the microwave background radiation patterns and completely destroy the Big Crunch theory.

If you are standing on Earth and you begin to travel west.... eventually, you will go all the way around the world traveling in the same direction and end up back where you started, your point of origin. The "trajectory" you experienced is called an "ellipse" because you ostensibly traveled in a circle. Now, first of all... the universe is not traveling in an ellipse. In fact, every model you can find for the expansion of the universe is a shotgun effect.

Now... Let's say you have a handful of confetti... the confetti represents all the matter in the universe. You toss the handful of confetti into the air. This represents the Big Bang. Theoretically, the idea of a Singularity and Big Crunch, postulates that the confetti will eventually be worked upon by gravity and will return back to your hand in the same ball you began with. As problematic as that theory is with regard to the impossible odds... we find that every piece of confetti you tossed up is growing further apart and instead of gravity acting upon it, dark energy is accelerating it's expansion further apart. So not only is the confetti never going to return to the ball of confetti originally in your hand, it isn't even coming back down.

Now let's go back to the analogy of you traveling west around the world... let's add what physics knows with regard to matter in the universe... the molecules and atoms in your body are constantly traveling apart from each other and accelerating in the velocity with every single day. So how can you ever possibly return to your point of origin if by the time you've traveled around the earth your molecules are miles apart?

And to top it all off... even IF you manage to get around these basics, there is still Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. We can never know the location of every atom. A singularity is impossible. So now, we're talking about a theory that simply defies the laws of physics.

If we're going to adopt such theories, I think the God theory is better than the rest.

 

[HUGGY]

...I call everything the cosmos because you confuse our universe with everything....

LOL You are free to misuse terms and feel like you are smart. Just don't expect anyone to respect your ignorance.

Dark Flow. In 2008, astronomers discovered something very strange and unexpected – galactic clusters were all streaming in the same direction at immense speed, over two million miles per hour. New observations in 2010 confirmed this phenomenon, known as Dark Flow. The movement defies all predictions about the distribution of mass throughout the universe after the Big Bang. One possible cause: massive structures outside the Hubble Volume exerting gravitational influence. This would mean that the structure of the infinite universe beyond our view is not uniform.

Perhaps we should send Columbus with three ships to find out what's going on there behind the horizon?

Infinite Bubbles.

Talking about things outside the Hubble Volume might be a bit of a cheat, since it's still really the same universe, just a part of it we can't see. It would have all the same physical laws and constants. In another version of the story, the post-Big Bang expansion of the universe caused "bubbles" to form in the structure of space. Each bubble is an area that stopped stretching along with the rest of space and formed its own universe, with its own laws. In this scenario, space is infinite, and each bubble is also infinite (because you can store an infinite number of infinities inside a single infinity). Even if you could somehow breach the boundary of our bubble, the space in between the bubbles is still expanding, so you'd never get to the next bubble no matter how fast you went.

Except you are faster than a bubble. Thoughts are damned fast for example. Are we able to construct a spaceship with thought-energy?

View attachment 77961

Black Hole Spawning.

A theory known as the fecund universes theory, suggests that every black hole in our universe causes the formation of a new universe.

Makes not any sense this theory. Never a black hole left our universe - it's exactly in the opposit: The Hawking-radiation "vaporizes" black holes and retransforms their energy. Nothing is able to create or to destroy energy in this universe. Also not a black hole.

Many Parallel Universes.

There are tons of theories about parallel universes, but the most accepted one these days involves an evolution of the ideas of string theory to involve membranes that vibrate in other dimensions. One of the weirdest elements of the theory is the idea that all the gravity we experience in our universe is actually leaking into it from another universe in another dimension (which explains why gravity here seems so weak compared to the other fundamental forces).

And what kind of experiment is someone able to do with this ideas? How to falsify this "theories" - or should we call it "plausible mathematical constructions"? The string theory seems to be fascinating for some people - but never said anyone anything with this theory, what could produce an experiment where someone was able to falsify this theory. Scientific theories about nature which are not able to be wrong are worthless.

They aren't worthless. They provide other possible explanations where in the past all anyone could ever think was "must be god".

You don't knwo what you are speaking about. That's a basic problem. You don't like to be religious and you are not a scientist. As far as I know was the only plausible alternative theory about another form of creation a brane-cosmology. A wonderful theory - saw something about in TV - but the existance of gravitons had falsified this theroy as far as I heard about. But no one is a Christian because he is able to say something about cosmology, although the three wise kiings followed a star and found in this way what they were looking for.

Of course these are just speculations

Only speculations with falsifyable arguments are good speculations in case of natural science.

from some of the brightest minds on the planet.

Lots of brillant people in the past were convinced from the perpetuum mobile, while idiots desillusioned often with the words: "Will not work! Needs more energy!"

No one is saying black holes create universes.

A black hole is 100% part of this world here. If information needs a carrier then this carrier is a always a form of energy. If the energy of a black hole leaves our universe then this si the dsame liek destroyed enrgy. So what could give us here in our cosmos any information about any parallel-universe?

But it did sound like you were saying they don't. Really? You know that?

Sure I know that. Energy is not able to be created or destroyed. This is a natural law here in our universe. If energy would go in another universe then this would be a destruction of energy here in our universe.

Just to your last point. If there are other universes and matter "leaks" from one to another THAT is not destruction.. Nothing has been "destroyed". Absence from one reality but popping up in another is just a transfer.

 

[there4eyeM]

Language can be turned almost any number of ways. It could be stated, for example, that the universe exists because it can. Yet, even that statement posits a 'because'. But, because we do not know, whatever we say can only express a personal intuition of whatever 'absolute truth' may be. And, that personal concept cannot be expected to apply to others.
This leaves each perceiver as the center of a personal, perceptual universe. So far, that is all that can be proved.

All the name-calling between folks here when it's all either known individually or unknown collectively!

As far as humans and their capacity to know is concerned, 'God' can only be a metaphor.

 

[zaangalewa]

LOL You are free to misuse terms and feel like you are smart. Just don't expect anyone to respect your ignorance.

Dark Flow. In 2008, astronomers discovered something very strange and unexpected – galactic clusters were all streaming in the same direction at immense speed, over two million miles per hour. New observations in 2010 confirmed this phenomenon, known as Dark Flow. The movement defies all predictions about the distribution of mass throughout the universe after the Big Bang. One possible cause: massive structures outside the Hubble Volume exerting gravitational influence. This would mean that the structure of the infinite universe beyond our view is not uniform.

Perhaps we should send Columbus with three ships to find out what's going on there behind the horizon?

Infinite Bubbles.

Talking about things outside the Hubble Volume might be a bit of a cheat, since it's still really the same universe, just a part of it we can't see. It would have all the same physical laws and constants. In another version of the story, the post-Big Bang expansion of the universe caused "bubbles" to form in the structure of space. Each bubble is an area that stopped stretching along with the rest of space and formed its own universe, with its own laws. In this scenario, space is infinite, and each bubble is also infinite (because you can store an infinite number of infinities inside a single infinity). Even if you could somehow breach the boundary of our bubble, the space in between the bubbles is still expanding, so you'd never get to the next bubble no matter how fast you went.

Except you are faster than a bubble. Thoughts are damned fast for example. Are we able to construct a spaceship with thought-energy?

View attachment 77961

Black Hole Spawning.

A theory known as the fecund universes theory, suggests that every black hole in our universe causes the formation of a new universe.

Makes not any sense this theory. Never a black hole left our universe - it's exactly in the opposit: The Hawking-radiation "vaporizes" black holes and retransforms their energy. Nothing is able to create or to destroy energy in this universe. Also not a black hole.

Many Parallel Universes.

There are tons of theories about parallel universes, but the most accepted one these days involves an evolution of the ideas of string theory to involve membranes that vibrate in other dimensions. One of the weirdest elements of the theory is the idea that all the gravity we experience in our universe is actually leaking into it from another universe in another dimension (which explains why gravity here seems so weak compared to the other fundamental forces).

And what kind of experiment is someone able to do with this ideas? How to falsify this "theories" - or should we call it "plausible mathematical constructions"? The string theory seems to be fascinating for some people - but never said anyone anything with this theory, what could produce an experiment where someone was able to falsify this theory. Scientific theories about nature which are not able to be wrong are worthless.

They aren't worthless. They provide other possible explanations where in the past all anyone could ever think was "must be god".

You don't knwo what you are speaking about. That's a basic problem. You don't like to be religious and you are not a scientist. As far as I know was the only plausible alternative theory about another form of creation a brane-cosmology. A wonderful theory - saw something about in TV - but the existance of gravitons had falsified this theroy as far as I heard about. But no one is a Christian because he is able to say something about cosmology, although the three wise kiings followed a star and found in this way what they were looking for.

Of course these are just speculations

Only speculations with falsifyable arguments are good speculations in case of natural science.

from some of the brightest minds on the planet.

Lots of brillant people in the past were convinced from the perpetuum mobile, while idiots desillusioned often with the words: "Will not work! Needs more energy!"

No one is saying black holes create universes.

A black hole is 100% part of this world here. If information needs a carrier then this carrier is a always a form of energy. If the energy of a black hole leaves our universe then this si the dsame liek destroyed enrgy. So what could give us here in our cosmos any information about any parallel-universe?

But it did sound like you were saying they don't. Really? You know that?

Sure I know that. Energy is not able to be created or destroyed. This is a natural law here in our universe. If energy would go in another universe then this would be a destruction of energy here in our universe.

Just to your last point.

...

If there are other universes and matter "leaks" from one to another THAT is not destruction.

That is destruction of energy. If it is not destruction then you are inside our universe. Our natural laws are natural laws for this universe here.

. Nothing has been "destroyed". Absence from one reality but popping up in another is just a transfer.

I could imagine for example that a human being is able to go in another universe if the energy exchanges. If you see a stone disappear, which has the mass of a human being, then maybe someone from another universe came into the universe here. Never anyone saw something like this. I have by the way absolutelly no problem with the idea of parallel universes.

 

[Boss]

As far as humans and their capacity to know is concerned, 'God' can only be a metaphor.

Humans cannot know.

We can THINK we know.
We can CLAIM we know.
We can ASSUME we know.
Have FAITH we know.

We can never KNOW.

Even our perception of reality is an illusion of time that has already passed. We are trapped by physics as physical beings. We can't observe the present in the present. We have a perception of the present because we had to wait for physics to happen in order to experience it. What we call (and assume) is present, is our perception of it, as it happened ...in the past. Think on that for a few minutes.

Now... God, as a metaphor? Sure... I'll go with that. I think it's a good way to put it. Cognitively intelligent creatures like us overwhelmingly believe in something greater than self or beyond the physical. In a small portion, maybe 5% (or less), some of our species believe in nothing. (Nihilist) So "God" can certainly be metaphorical for whatever it is we believe that is greater than self or physical nature.

I personally believe in Spiritual Nature.... I say "believe" but I really experience this, so it's like saying you believe you're reading a post on a message board right now. If it's something I am experiencing, it's hard for me to disbelieve it. This seems to be a real problem for some people. Sometimes, just to agitate them a bit, I will call my belief in Spiritual Nature a belief in God. Even though, I don't believe in a Supreme Deity that is sitting in judgment of humanity. I believe we are all free to do whatever we want to do and Spiritual Nature is there to guide us toward purpose.

 

[zaangalewa]

Language can be turned almost any number of ways. It could be stated, for example, that the universe exists because it can. Yet, even that statement posits a 'because'. But, because we do not know, whatever we say can only express a personal intuition of whatever 'absolute truth' may be. And, that personal concept cannot be expected to apply to others.
This leaves each perceiver as the center of a personal, perceptual universe. So far, that is all that can be proved.

All the name-calling between folks here when it's all either known individually or unknown collectively!

As far as humans and their capacity to know is concerned, 'God' can only be a metaphor.

... or god.

 

[Mudda]

Good grief Mudda - why do you always like to speak with me? Why can you not let it be?

Not really. In every point all around you could be an infinite number of universes if the sum of all positive and negative energies of this universes would be "0". Our universe has by the way no outside.

Hey, look who's back, enjoy your little holiday away from the board? You're welcome.
How do you know that there's nothing outside our universe? Your invisible friend tell you?

It has no border. No border - no outside.

PS: And don't forget to go to a doctor and to ask him what you can do against your deinhibition of agressions. I don't like to see in you the next idiot who is doing what the idiot in Orlando did.

How do you know the universe has no border? Got anything at all?

Tell me where you see a border.

Just because you can't see a border doesn't mean there isn't one. So you have nothing, got it.

 

[Mudda]

According to Bossy, no one else.

According to physics and science.

Infinities are impossible to define with mathematics or physics. Hence, they are "spiritual" concepts.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Do you have a mathematical or physics formula to calculate the value of infinity? If not... shut the fuck up and move along.

Infinity is used a lot in scientific equations, it is represented by the sideways figure eight symbol. Now you know. Fool.

 

[zaangalewa]

Good grief Mudda - why do you always like to speak with me? Why can you not let it be?

Not really. In every point all around you could be an infinite number of universes if the sum of all positive and negative energies of this universes would be "0". Our universe has by the way no outside.

Hey, look who's back, enjoy your little holiday away from the board? You're welcome.
How do you know that there's nothing outside our universe? Your invisible friend tell you?

It has no border. No border - no outside.

PS: And don't forget to go to a doctor and to ask him what you can do against your deinhibition of agressions. I don't like to see in you the next idiot who is doing what the idiot in Orlando did.

How do you know the universe has no border? Got anything at all?

Tell me where you see a border.

Just because you can't see a border doesn't mean there isn't one. So you have nothing, got it.