Is There A God?

[ding]

It's is currently impossible to predict the future, let alone the very distant future. Maybe the universe starts to slow down in 100 billion years?

I'm not an astrophysicist, but odds are they know more about this than you or me.

OTOH, math is math and physics is physics. Newton's laws of motion apply. Mass doesn't suddenly slow down and reverse direction without a reason. The science, as the links noted, indicates matter is accelerating as the Universe expands. Why is unknown, but there is no reason to think it would suddenly stop and reverse direction.

You don't know if the universe is finite or not.

Don't be silly. Of course we do. We know the universe is expanding. If the universe was infinite, then it would necessarily by definition be eternal. The 2nd Law states that the entropy of closed system will always increase over time. Entropy is the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. This does not prove chaos or randomness in the way many imply. It only conveys a loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. Loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work does not mean the matter within the closed system cannot be orderly. What it really means is that there is a cost for every exchange between matter and energy. Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning because if the universe were eternal (i.e. expanding and infinite) there would be no usable energy left within the closed system.

 

[Mudda]

It's is currently impossible to predict the future, let alone the very distant future. Maybe the universe starts to slow down in 100 billion years?

I'm not an astrophysicist, but odds are they know more about this than you or me.

OTOH, math is math and physics is physics. Newton's laws of motion apply. Mass doesn't suddenly slow down and reverse direction without a reason. The science, as the links noted, indicates matter is accelerating as the Universe expands. Why is unknown, but there is no reason to think it would suddenly stop and reverse direction.

You don't know if the universe is finite or not.

Don't be silly. Of course we do. We know the universe is expanding. If the universe was infinite, then it would necessarily by definition be eternal. The 2nd Law states that the entropy of closed system will always increase over time. Entropy is the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. This does not prove chaos or randomness in the way many imply. It only conveys a loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. Loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work does not mean the matter within the closed system cannot be orderly. What it really means is that there is a cost for every exchange between matter and energy. Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning because if the universe were eternal (i.e. expanding and infinite) there would be no usable energy left within the closed system.

Until we have a unifying theory of everything, all we have are separate laws and equations that may or may not be part of the final unifying equation. Making it impossible to predict the future of the universe. And real scientists freely admit that there are several scenarios as to the end of the universe, including a chilling of the universe and what they call a Big Crunch.

 

[Divine Wind]

You don't know if the universe is finite or not.

Interesting to learn you are a science denier.

 

[Mudda]

You don't know if the universe is finite or not.

Interesting to learn you are a science denier.

Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory

I'm just following the science...

 

[Divine Wind]

You don't know if the universe is finite or not.

Interesting to learn you are a science denier.

Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory

I'm just following the science...

Conspiracy theory websites are fun:
It’s no different than the times when people went against the idea the Earth was round. It’s not about what is true. It’s about what the educational and governing authorities say they want you to believe and say is true. As a result almost all professors and scientists are too afraid of being ostracized from their communities and face losing their jobs to speak out against the prevailing notions.

This is why false ideas unsupported by science like the Big Bang theory and evolution are so pervasive. Most people believe what they are told without even bothering to research it for themselves; and the ones who are informed enough and think for themselves enough to question it are too afraid to say anything.

If you want to believe in the Big Bang theory, you must believe it one of three ways: by faith, by ignorance, or by indoctrination. By faith, because you can’t believe something which does not have adequate scientific evidence except as a philosophical viewpoint

 

[Mudda]

You don't know if the universe is finite or not.

Interesting to learn you are a science denier.

Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory

I'm just following the science...

Conspiracy theory websites are fun:
It’s no different than the times when people went against the idea the Earth was round. It’s not about what is true. It’s about what the educational and governing authorities say they want you to believe and say is true. As a result almost all professors and scientists are too afraid of being ostracized from their communities and face losing their jobs to speak out against the prevailing notions.

This is why false ideas unsupported by science like the Big Bang theory and evolution are so pervasive. Most people believe what they are told without even bothering to research it for themselves; and the ones who are informed enough and think for themselves enough to question it are too afraid to say anything.

If you want to believe in the Big Bang theory, you must believe it one of three ways: by faith, by ignorance, or by indoctrination. By faith, because you can’t believe something which does not have adequate scientific evidence except as a philosophical viewpoint

"As a result almost all professors and scientists are too afraid of being ostracized from their communities and face losing their jobs to speak out against the prevailing notions." History proves this to be true, regardless of what side of the fence either one of us is on.

"This is why false ideas unsupported by science like the Big Bang theory and evolution are so pervasive" Science has yet to definitively figure this out. That's not my opinion, that's a fact. It may very well be as theorized today, but I'm not locking myself into that until it's for sure for sure.

"If you want to believe in the Big Bang theory, you must believe it one of three ways: by faith, by ignorance, or by indoctrination." If you want to believe in the Big Bang theory, you must believe it one of three ways: by faith, by ignorance, or by indoctrination." Big Bang THEORY. Maybe try googling the word "theory".

 

[ding]

It's is currently impossible to predict the future, let alone the very distant future. Maybe the universe starts to slow down in 100 billion years?

I'm not an astrophysicist, but odds are they know more about this than you or me.

OTOH, math is math and physics is physics. Newton's laws of motion apply. Mass doesn't suddenly slow down and reverse direction without a reason. The science, as the links noted, indicates matter is accelerating as the Universe expands. Why is unknown, but there is no reason to think it would suddenly stop and reverse direction.

You don't know if the universe is finite or not.

Don't be silly. Of course we do. We know the universe is expanding. If the universe was infinite, then it would necessarily by definition be eternal. The 2nd Law states that the entropy of closed system will always increase over time. Entropy is the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. This does not prove chaos or randomness in the way many imply. It only conveys a loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. Loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work does not mean the matter within the closed system cannot be orderly. What it really means is that there is a cost for every exchange between matter and energy. Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning because if the universe were eternal (i.e. expanding and infinite) there would be no usable energy left within the closed system.

Until we have a unifying theory of everything, all we have are separate laws and equations that may or may not be part of the final unifying equation. Making it impossible to predict the future of the universe. And real scientists freely admit that there are several scenarios as to the end of the universe, including a chilling of the universe and what they call a Big Crunch.

Again I will say... Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al. Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either. So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al... or... That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven. So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. In this regard the widely accepted theory is that the universe had a beginning and that the big bang theory is the most likely explanation. As such we should work with this as our starting point until it is proven wrong.

 

[ding]

You don't know if the universe is finite or not.

Interesting to learn you are a science denier.

Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory

I'm just following the science...

Thank you for proving my point.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it when it does not suit their position.

 

[Mudda]

In this regard the widely accepted theory is that the universe had a beginning and that the big bang theory is the most likely explanation. As such we should work with this as our starting point until it is proven wrong.

You freely admit that the BB is a theory. Meaning that it is not yet a fact. I agree.

Go with it if that helps you make sense of your cockamamy beliefs, I'll wait for the science to conclusively make it a fact.

 

[ding]

You freely admit that the BB is a theory. Meaning that it is not yet a fact. I agree.

Egads... you believe that there are scientific facts? What part of this did you not understand?

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al. Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either. So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al... or... That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven. So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

Go with it if that helps you make sense of your cockamamy beliefs, I'll wait for the science to conclusively make it a fact.

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

 

[Mudda]

You freely admit that the BB is a theory. Meaning that it is not yet a fact. I agree.

Egads... you believe that there are scientific facts? What part of this did you not understand?

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al. Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either. So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al... or... That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven. So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

Go with it if that helps you make sense of your cockamamy beliefs, I'll wait for the science to conclusively make it a fact.

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Science can conclusively prove that the chair that I'm sitting on is real.
Anyways, just because you say something doesn't mean that it's a fact, even you should know this by now.

 

[ding]

You freely admit that the BB is a theory. Meaning that it is not yet a fact. I agree.

Egads... you believe that there are scientific facts? What part of this did you not understand?

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al. Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either. So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al... or... That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven. So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

Go with it if that helps you make sense of your cockamamy beliefs, I'll wait for the science to conclusively make it a fact.

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Science can conclusively prove that the chair that I'm sitting on is real.
Anyways, just because you say something doesn't mean that it's a fact, even you should know this by now.

Actually, no science can't prove that. Have you never heard of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics? Can you please show me actual peer reviewed scientific research proving that the chair you are sitting on is real?

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

 

[Divine Wind]

Maybe try googling the word "theory".

Like the Theory of Flight? The Theory of Gravity? The Theory of Relativity? Awesome.

You've already made clear to the forum your Theory of God.

 

[Mudda]

You freely admit that the BB is a theory. Meaning that it is not yet a fact. I agree.

Egads... you believe that there are scientific facts? What part of this did you not understand?

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al. Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either. So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al... or... That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven. So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

Go with it if that helps you make sense of your cockamamy beliefs, I'll wait for the science to conclusively make it a fact.

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Science can conclusively prove that the chair that I'm sitting on is real.
Anyways, just because you say something doesn't mean that it's a fact, even you should know this by now.

Actually, no science can't prove that. Have you never heard of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics? Can you please show me actual peer reviewed scientific research proving that the chair you are sitting on is real?

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

1+1=2, It's a fact. Move on.

 

[ding]

You freely admit that the BB is a theory. Meaning that it is not yet a fact. I agree.

Egads... you believe that there are scientific facts? What part of this did you not understand?

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al. Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either. So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al... or... That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven. So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

Go with it if that helps you make sense of your cockamamy beliefs, I'll wait for the science to conclusively make it a fact.

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Science can conclusively prove that the chair that I'm sitting on is real.
Anyways, just because you say something doesn't mean that it's a fact, even you should know this by now.

Actually, no science can't prove that. Have you never heard of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics? Can you please show me actual peer reviewed scientific research proving that the chair you are sitting on is real?

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

1+1=2, It's a fact. Move on.

Prove it. Do you have a peer reviewed scientific paper on that?

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

 

[BreezeWood]

the Bang is cyclical, all matter is traveling, not expanding at a finite (angle) trajectory derived from the propulsion caused by the singularity eventually returning in unison to their origin recreating the compaction that will again ignite a "new" singularity. and is the composite for life and death's renewal without the necessity of a creator.

.

So you correct and all leading science on the matter is wrong. Interesting.

.

So you correct and all leading science on the matter is wrong. Interesting.

There is no consensus as you imply - wrong is your application to an unsolved mystery ...

Mass doesn't suddenly slow down and reverse direction without a reason.

the composite matter does not change course, slow down or reverse - each fragment of the composite is traveling at a finite angle that will return them all to their origin at the same time in collision, recompressing to create a new moment of Singularity and a new universe.

Boomerang theory of Trajectory explains the recreation of the universe as a cyclical event. it does not explain the Cosmos.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

It's is currently impossible to predict the future, let alone the very distant future. Maybe the universe starts to slow down in 100 billion years?

I'm not an astrophysicist, but odds are they know more about this than you or me.

OTOH, math is math and physics is physics. Newton's laws of motion apply. Mass doesn't suddenly slow down and reverse direction without a reason. The science, as the links noted, indicates matter is accelerating as the Universe expands. Why is unknown, but there is no reason to think it would suddenly stop and reverse direction.

You don't know if the universe is finite or not.

Don't be silly. Of course we do. We know the universe is expanding. If the universe was infinite, then it would necessarily by definition be eternal. The 2nd Law states that the entropy of closed system will always increase over time. Entropy is the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. This does not prove chaos or randomness in the way many imply. It only conveys a loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. Loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work does not mean the matter within the closed system cannot be orderly. What it really means is that there is a cost for every exchange between matter and energy. Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning because if the universe were eternal (i.e. expanding and infinite) there would be no usable energy left within the closed system.

.

We know the universe is expanding. If the universe was infinite, then it would necessarily by definition be eternal.

not the universe, the Cosmos.

.

 

[ding]

It's is currently impossible to predict the future, let alone the very distant future. Maybe the universe starts to slow down in 100 billion years?

I'm not an astrophysicist, but odds are they know more about this than you or me.

OTOH, math is math and physics is physics. Newton's laws of motion apply. Mass doesn't suddenly slow down and reverse direction without a reason. The science, as the links noted, indicates matter is accelerating as the Universe expands. Why is unknown, but there is no reason to think it would suddenly stop and reverse direction.

You don't know if the universe is finite or not.

Don't be silly. Of course we do. We know the universe is expanding. If the universe was infinite, then it would necessarily by definition be eternal. The 2nd Law states that the entropy of closed system will always increase over time. Entropy is the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. This does not prove chaos or randomness in the way many imply. It only conveys a loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. Loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work does not mean the matter within the closed system cannot be orderly. What it really means is that there is a cost for every exchange between matter and energy. Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning because if the universe were eternal (i.e. expanding and infinite) there would be no usable energy left within the closed system.

.

We know the universe is expanding. If the universe was infinite, then it would necessarily by definition be eternal.

not the universe, the Cosmos.

.

No. The universe.

Chris Langan:
You have to prove that the universe is a self-referential system. Then you have to examine the attributes of this system, analyze the system to determine how it behaves. It turns out that in certain ways it behaves mentally like a mind. The natural question to ask then is: whose mind are we talking about? The answer to that question is the mind of God.

Chris Langan:
I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.

 

[Mudda]

It's is currently impossible to predict the future, let alone the very distant future. Maybe the universe starts to slow down in 100 billion years?

I'm not an astrophysicist, but odds are they know more about this than you or me.

OTOH, math is math and physics is physics. Newton's laws of motion apply. Mass doesn't suddenly slow down and reverse direction without a reason. The science, as the links noted, indicates matter is accelerating as the Universe expands. Why is unknown, but there is no reason to think it would suddenly stop and reverse direction.

You don't know if the universe is finite or not.

Don't be silly. Of course we do. We know the universe is expanding. If the universe was infinite, then it would necessarily by definition be eternal. The 2nd Law states that the entropy of closed system will always increase over time. Entropy is the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. This does not prove chaos or randomness in the way many imply. It only conveys a loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. Loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work does not mean the matter within the closed system cannot be orderly. What it really means is that there is a cost for every exchange between matter and energy. Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning because if the universe were eternal (i.e. expanding and infinite) there would be no usable energy left within the closed system.

.

We know the universe is expanding. If the universe was infinite, then it would necessarily by definition be eternal.

not the universe, the Cosmos.

.

No. The universe.

Chris Langan:
You have to prove that the universe is a self-referential system. Then you have to examine the attributes of this system, analyze the system to determine how it behaves. It turns out that in certain ways it behaves mentally like a mind. The natural question to ask then is: whose mind are we talking about? The answer to that question is the mind of God.

Chris Langan:
I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.

You freely admit that the BB is a theory. Meaning that it is not yet a fact. I agree.

Egads... you believe that there are scientific facts? What part of this did you not understand?

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al. Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either. So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al... or... That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven. So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

Go with it if that helps you make sense of your cockamamy beliefs, I'll wait for the science to conclusively make it a fact.

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Science can conclusively prove that the chair that I'm sitting on is real.
Anyways, just because you say something doesn't mean that it's a fact, even you should know this by now.

Actually, no science can't prove that. Have you never heard of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics? Can you please show me actual peer reviewed scientific research proving that the chair you are sitting on is real?

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

1+1=2, It's a fact. Move on.

Prove it. Do you have a peer reviewed scientific paper on that?

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Science is conclusive until proven otherwise. Gee, that little sticky thing called "proof" sure gets in your way.

 

[ding]

I'm not an astrophysicist, but odds are they know more about this than you or me.

OTOH, math is math and physics is physics. Newton's laws of motion apply. Mass doesn't suddenly slow down and reverse direction without a reason. The science, as the links noted, indicates matter is accelerating as the Universe expands. Why is unknown, but there is no reason to think it would suddenly stop and reverse direction.

You don't know if the universe is finite or not.

Don't be silly. Of course we do. We know the universe is expanding. If the universe was infinite, then it would necessarily by definition be eternal. The 2nd Law states that the entropy of closed system will always increase over time. Entropy is the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. This does not prove chaos or randomness in the way many imply. It only conveys a loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. Loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work does not mean the matter within the closed system cannot be orderly. What it really means is that there is a cost for every exchange between matter and energy. Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning because if the universe were eternal (i.e. expanding and infinite) there would be no usable energy left within the closed system.

.

We know the universe is expanding. If the universe was infinite, then it would necessarily by definition be eternal.

not the universe, the Cosmos.

.

No. The universe.

Chris Langan:
You have to prove that the universe is a self-referential system. Then you have to examine the attributes of this system, analyze the system to determine how it behaves. It turns out that in certain ways it behaves mentally like a mind. The natural question to ask then is: whose mind are we talking about? The answer to that question is the mind of God.

Chris Langan:
I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.

Egads... you believe that there are scientific facts? What part of this did you not understand?

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al. Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either. So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al... or... That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven. So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Science can conclusively prove that the chair that I'm sitting on is real.
Anyways, just because you say something doesn't mean that it's a fact, even you should know this by now.

Actually, no science can't prove that. Have you never heard of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics? Can you please show me actual peer reviewed scientific research proving that the chair you are sitting on is real?

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

1+1=2, It's a fact. Move on.

Prove it. Do you have a peer reviewed scientific paper on that?

Please tell me which scientific facts you accept? Because I still don't believe you understand the concept that... Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Science is conclusive until proven otherwise. Gee, that little sticky thing called "proof" sure gets in your way.

Conclusive: incontrovertible, undeniable, indisputable, irrefutable, unquestionable, unassailable, convincing, certain, decisive, definitive, definite, positive, categorical, unequivocal;