VirtuallyVB

[Gen-X]

I thought this deserved its own thread. I shall also endevour (much to my infinate travail) not to become sarcastic ;)

Q: What is the ONE single most influencial factor that leads you to believe that God exists? That makes you think "It is impossible that he could NOT exist as a result of this Factor"?

But you don't like that answer because you believe in a cyclical existence of the universe which conveniently defies the theory of black holes and that somehow (through a type of faith, I might add) space itself contracts (although any sane person should understand that space is space and only substance can expand or contract).

[Gen-X]

So your belief in the existance of a God is based simply on the fact that we are here?

To be honest I never would have guessed that...


I am however concerned with your other statements as they appear to not have enough knowledge to back them up.

1. Space does not "contract" its "bends". This is known as gravity.

2. The Theory of Black holes are NOT defied by a cyclical universe, in fact a black hole is a miniature model of a cyclical universe, we just haven't been around long enough to see what happens when a black hole reaches critical mass

3. Any "sane" person would understand that just as a plane can be wrapped around a sphere, so can a 3-dimensional space be wrapped around a universe through the gravitational effect.

4. If space is NOT contracting or even bent... then what exists BEYOND the edge of our universe?

1) Space cannot bend. A substance (particle or otherwise) will travel a curve under the influence of gravity. Einstein, who may be smarter than me on some issues by several orders of magnitude--which I have not forgotten you said, has met his Maker and is learning alot about LAW and is greatly saddened by how serious we took his THEORIES.

2) I told you that you'd respond that way. Should I say (as you did) that the fact that your answer was based on what you already believe is disappointing. How foolish for you to have said that. Of course it will be unless you immediately derive a new conclusion that you have never contemplated.

3) Again, space itself cannot bend. A trajectory can be locally flat as you describe as the plane; while being globally a cylinder or sphere, but these are mathematical tools to navigate potential trajectories. Another observer will say that this space is representable in his "strangely deformed frame", but it may be more convenient to mathematically use a certain coordinate system for ease of calculation for matters of substance following such tragectories. Also, such "spaces" as you may have seen models of, are substance, Not space. It is a tool of man used to help visualize nature, subject to human limitations.
Now I suppose I'll have to hear Sam Finch on the matter of math (which by the way is a tool). Then I will be perceived as "losing" by majority opinions. Then you say that religious folks are brain-washed.

4) Please. If space IS contracting or even bent... then what exists BEYOND the edge of our universe?

Another thing: Man does not understand Gravity. Separate Theory from Law.

[Gen-X]

VVB

I just realised something....


You "need" these things to be true don't you?

That is why you stated them and then deny the answers. Without these things being true all your theories about God, about our universe and everything else come collapsing down.

You have spent your life trying to find the most plausible reasons as to why everyone else who talks about an infinate universe is WRONG just so you can continue to function.


1) Prove it. If a substance (ourselves included) will travel a curve under the influence of gravity and space actually has no "substance"... then how do you know it is moving in a curve????

To move in a curve means you have a point of reference which does NOT move and your position in relation to this changes. The fact EVERYTHING is made of substance and EVERYTHING therefor must curve under the influence, why does that mean it is curving???

2) Prove it. I simply asked for you to explain to me how it invalidates the Theory of Black Holes. Seeing as you are unwilling to listen to anything I say I thought it appropriate to have you explain yourself so I can see where you are coming from. YOU made the statement.. now back it up

3) You wont be perceived as losing by majority opinion but by the fact your statements are not only flimsy but unsupported and basically something most people realised was wrong a few hundred years ago.

Again I ask you that if it appears flat locally it means we are capable of taking a perspective that is NOT local. As we are talking about the universe here how can you state "Space itself cannot bend" when you have never been to any point of reference OTHER than what we have here?

What is your proof? What is your theory? Where is your evidence?

At the very least I can state for you a theory that is without flaw while you cannot even STATE something.

4) What kind of an answer is that?

WHAT LIES BEYOND THE EDGE OF OUR UNIVERSE IF SPACE ITSELF CANNOT BEND

Do you want it any clearer or are you just going to ignore it again and go running off into the bushes screaming like a mad man "Man does not understand!!! Separate Theory from Law!! Seperate Theory from Law!!!"

Yes Einstein did meet his maker and he was quoted as saying he was wrong to attribute the factors he did on a sentient being because in all honesty there was none. He was MORE saddened at how religious followers constantly denied everything he said right up to the point they believed him and then they suddenly jumped on the band wagon when he said something they agreed with.

But then again... that is very, VERY typical of people like that. If it supports claim "God is showing us", if it denies the claim "The Devil is trying to deceive us".