Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

This is related to a couple pages back:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080923104410.htm

There is a force independent of our universe...
Oh dear, there is something outside of the bounds of our universe... Something that has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
Multiple universes are pro.

Please, read the article you link to. There are effects that can be explained by matter that is beyond the observable universe. That simply means that it's more light-years away than the age of the universe, not that it's beyond the universe. They also clearly state that the force has everything to do with the big bang. Multiple universes have as of yet never been detected, and I'd say by linguistical definition, never can be detected. As soon as, say, a new dimension, has been detected, it is part of our "universe".

The Universe is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.

In other news, Yanlin is a doodoo head, but he doesn't read this thread so he'll never know! 

[Yanlin]

In other news, Yanlin is a doodoo head, but he doesn't read this thread so he'll never know! 

Oh yeah? Well you're a duuduu head!

[Chutney]

This is related to a couple pages back:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080923104410.htm

There is a force independent of our universe...
Oh dear, there is something outside of the bounds of our universe... Something that has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
Multiple universes are pro.

Please, read the article you link to. There are effects that can be explained by matter that is beyond the observable universe. That simply means that it's more light-years away than the age of the universe, not that it's beyond the universe. They also clearly state that the force has everything to do with the big bang. Multiple universes have as of yet never been detected, and I'd say by linguistical definition, never can be detected. As soon as, say, a new dimension, has been detected, it is part of our "universe".

Haha, I hadn't read that article in a few months and was just going by what I remembered and what I quickly skimmed over in the first few paragraphs. I could've swore somewhere in the first few paragraphs it mentioned the 'flow' was independent of the big bang... I guess I'm a dumbhole 

[Andir]

None of that still declares that the big bang was the start of everything, just a catastrophic event in our space of the universe.

[Siquo]

True. Although I would not call it catastrophic, since that implies something final and destructive, and I tend to view teh BB as a creation and a beginning. I do owe my existence to it

[Armok]

Gödel Escher Bach.

That sound interesting, hopefully I'll remember it if I ever see it at some library.

I just never understood how people to think a supreme being would give two craps about an idea as small as "Morality".

That depends on how you define morality, really. It probably would have some kind of rulset it would follow voluntarily for reasons approximately similar to those that make humans follow moral ones, but the actual rules would most likely be very different.

[Labs]

I am honestly surprised that a massive flamewar never broke out on this thread.

[Armok]

There was a flame or two I think, but people forgot to feed it so it never became massive.

[Jude]

I didn't bother reading what looked like a trainwreck of an OP, but I'm pretty sure I didn't miss anything. Amirite?

[Muz]

Nah, it was an interesting enough OP. Though Yanlin seems to be insistent on trolling this thread.

[ChairmanPoo]

There's this idea spinning around that somehow attacking rationality, or saying that you cannot argue against A because A is unknowable (nevermind this means that you have no idea either), somehow makes your point stronger

[Pleeb]

I came to report my testing results and killed time flipping through some pages on these here forums... I'm impressed. And impressed that I would be impressed. This is a very tidy and well kept corner of the internet (and well hidden).

I always believed that there are beings just below the quota required to qualify as a god in the classical sense but far enough up there anyway to be worthy of the title. The absolute omnipotence I do think has a number of paradoxes.

Ah, Epicurus. I've always thought it funny the people that say "Well if there IS a god or something of the sort, he can't be perfect, so I refuse to accept him out of..." What is it anyway? Disappointment?

Then there's the question of whether or not a being worthy of the title of "God" has even come about yet, or even will. But I think it's perfectly possible. If we prove that whole other universes thing, then I'll believe for certain there already is.

[Siquo]

There's this idea spinning around that somehow attacking rationality, or saying that you cannot argue against A because A is unknowable (nevermind this means that you have no idea either), somehow makes your point stronger

It makes the point clear. The point cannot be understood without understanding it. Rephrase: You don't know what you're missing until you actually have it. Assuming you referred to my arguments, I'm trying to explain that there exists a 'beyond', something that is more than rationality.

Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"


Edit: and yes, the civility of this thread is... amazing. Perhaps the whole row with The Holy Toad and VN has calmed everyone down a bit?

[ChairmanPoo]

problem is that there's not even a proper definition

[Siquo]

Why is that a problem?