• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Expansion Theory of Multiple Universes

Nilly said:
I don't need proof, I just want evidence before it is claimed to be real. Evidence is the crux of the scientific method. And I agree, the philosophical questions are most interesting, but they become even more interesting when the theory actually has something backing it rather than it just being feasible. My position on this may seem petty to some people, but I would feel hypocritical not wanting evidence for a scientific claim, particularly seeing as I usually demand evidence in relation to other claims (gods, spirits, unicorns etc).

As for skepticism being debilitating, I can assure you that the scientific consensus there is very much in disagreement with you.
Click to expand...
There really are lots of links giving "evidence" to the multiple universes, and if you have not looked any up or read through some credible source then you are just shutting your self OUT, because it is a hot topic going around.

I see that circumstance concerning God too in that there is so very much real evidence for God and then people claim that they can not believe it without any proof.

And I truly can not see why so many people just like your self find any value in "scientific consensus" as if you can not formulate your own beliefs or theories or do the work of making a decision for your self.

A scientific consensus is not going to make anything as accurate or true, as all scientist can be just as wrong as can any lone individual person can be accurate and right about anything.
 
JP Cusick said:
Actually I already said.

I called it as extra-curricular vision. :tink:

It is kind of the exact opposite of being spiritually blind.
Click to expand...

Given the total lack of evidence for such statements I will take them with a huge pinch of salt.
 
JP Cusick said:
There really are lots of links giving "evidence" to the multiple universes, and if you have not looked any up or read through some credible source then you are just shutting your self OUT, because it is a hot topic going around.
Click to expand...

Where? I have seen plenty of links arguing for the feasibility of multiverses. Not one has actual evidence though, unless you can show me otherwise.

Showing something is feasible =/= giving evidence. Bigfoot is physically feasible but you would still need to provide evidence for it. There is an important distinction.
 
JP Cusick said:
===================================



I am very close to that same conclusion myself.

A bit more complicated but still going in the same way.

God simply can not be a person, even though God has great personality.

.
Click to expand...
So tell us about it. I certainly am not one tohold back, If you haven't already viewed them I had several treads in this room earlier Title in Most, Let the force be with you.
 
The Multiverse is as good of a guess as any. The really cool thing about this "multiverse" theory is it can never be proven or disproved!

A sheer flight of fancy, this one.
 
Nilly said:
Where? I have seen plenty of links arguing for the feasibility of multiverses. Not one has actual evidence though, unless you can show me otherwise.

Showing something is feasible =/= giving evidence. Bigfoot is physically feasible but you would still need to provide evidence for it. There is an important distinction.
Click to expand...
That just means that you shut-out your self, or perhaps worse is that you shut your self in.

As such you can not really even talk about the subject because no one gives you the evidence and the evidence given is rejected by you.

For me I would be embarrassed or ashamed of myself if I saw myself as so limited as that.

If I really wanted evidence for big-foot (which I do not want) then I would go seek out the evidence for my self.

The only evidence that any person really needs is that which is accepted by our own conscience.


========================================


doniston said:
So tell us about it. I certainly am not one to hold back, If you haven't already viewed them I had several treads in this room earlier Title in Most, Let the force be with you.
Click to expand...
I do not understand the question, but I did look up your threads and I like this PREAMBLE - #1 =

You call your self as an "EVOLUTIONARY ATHIEST" (correct spelling Atheist) and yet I see you as closer to knowing God then are most people who profess Christianity, and it is unfortunate that other posters are so contrary and failing to get your message(s).

I do not keep up very well with this forum but maybe I will post in that thread in time.

If what you are asking is the view of God as "The Force" instead of a person then that appears to be very accurate but not completely, and I do not pretend to know the completeness of God.

As in the famous equation "E = mc2" then energy (the force) can take the form of matter, so God has other manifestations.


=========================================

Gringo allstar said:
The Multiverse is as good of a guess as any. The really cool thing about this "multiverse" theory is it can never be proven or disproved!

A sheer flight of fancy, this one.
Click to expand...
I honestly do not see any justifiable basis that any such thing needs to be proven or not proven.

In a Court of law to judge guilt or not guilty then yes we need proof, but for science and philosophy then very often the lack of proof is just a petty obstacle of little consequence.

You call it as a flight of fancy, and yet flights of fancy are a lot of fun.
 
JP Cusick said:
I do not understand the question, but I did look up your threads and I like this PREAMBLE - #1 =

I do not keep up very well with this forum but maybe I will post in that thread in time.
Click to expand...
I see no option for me to comment on that thread, or the other thread too, #2 =

I tried but no.

You need to open a door for everyone to walk through.
 
JP Cusick;10640061 ======================================== I do not understand the question said:
#1 = [/URL]

You call your self as an "EVOLUTIONARY ATHIEST" (correct spelling Atheist) and yet I see you as closer to knowing God then are most people who profess Christianity, and it is unfortunate that other posters are so contrary and failing to get your message(s).

I do not keep up very well with this forum but maybe I will post in that thread in time.

If what you are asking is the view of God as "The Force" instead of a person then that appears to be very accurate but not completely, and I do not pretend to know the completeness of God.

As in the famous equation "E = mc2" then energy (the force) can take the form of matter, so God has other manifestations.


=========================================


I honestly do not see any justifiable basis that any such thing needs to be proven or not proven.

.
Click to expand...
The question???? you said it was a bit more complicated. so I suggested you clarify.
 
doniston said:
The question???? you said it was a bit more complicated. so I suggested you clarify.
Click to expand...
I did say this:

If what you are asking is the view of God as "The Force" instead of a person then that appears to be very accurate but not completely, and I do not pretend to know the completeness of God.

As in the famous equation "E = mc2" then energy (the force) can take the form of matter, so God has other manifestations.
 
JP Cusick said:
I see no option for me to comment on that thread, or the other thread too, #2 =

I tried but no.

You need to open a door for everyone to walk through.
Click to expand...
what are you talking about, I need to open a door? It seems I opened many doors. and If you see no need to comment, then don't, others may. as for your previous post. I know E=mc2, but I have no idea what that has to do with god. of course energy turns into matter and vice versa
 
Last edited:
JP Cusick said:
I did say this:

If what you are asking is the view of God as "The Force" instead of a person then that appears to be very accurate but not completely, and I do not pretend to know the completeness of God.

As in the famous equation "E = mc2" then energy (the force) can take the form of matter, so God has other manifestations.
Click to expand...
so you are simply unsure. that I understand, but I don't know what Einstein's formula has to do with it. of course energy turns into matter, and vice versa this makes you believe more in a god????
 
I think it is important to note that these multiverses probably exploded differently than our universe in their creation. Singularities are highly unpredictable, and the result could be more or less energy, which would result in more or less matter. This would result in a different geometry of its space-time. If that fundamental property is different, there would be vastly different physics in those universes.

IF humanity finds out the properties of these universes, and determines their geometry is flat...

That is high evidence of a Creator. My two cents.
 
sookster said:
I think it is important to note that these multiverses probably exploded differently than our universe in their creation. Singularities are highly unpredictable, and the result could be more or less energy, which would result in more or less matter. This would result in a different geometry of its space-time. If that fundamental property is different, there would be vastly different physics in those universes.

IF humanity finds out the properties of these universes, and determines their geometry is flat...

That is high evidence of a Creator. My two cents.
Click to expand...

Why?? It could be that only 'flat' universes have the preterites that let them keep existing for any length of time.
 
RAMOSS said:
Why?? It could be that only 'flat' universes have the preterites that let them keep existing for any length of time.
Click to expand...

Because a singularity has no reality. There is no time. There is a seemingly infinite amount of ways for the singularity to explode. If ALL the universes were flat, think about the probability of that happening. Out of all the possible explosions, ALL of them exploded to have flat geometry. At that point, you can think that is coincidence, but I personally don't. And again, that is IF all of these universes have the same geometry. It is very possible that they don't.
 
sookster said:
Because a singularity has no reality. There is no time. There is a seemingly infinite amount of ways for the singularity to explode. If ALL the universes were flat, think about the probability of that happening. Out of all the possible explosions, ALL of them exploded to have flat geometry. At that point, you can think that is coincidence, but I personally don't. And again, that is IF all of these universes have the same geometry. It is very possible that they don't.
Click to expand...

And, how do you know this?? How do you know what that nature of the singularity is. Please show how you do, publish your work, and collect your nobel prize.
 
RAMOSS said:
sookster said:
Because a singularity has no reality. There is no time. There is a seemingly infinite amount of ways for the singularity to explode. If ALL the universes were flat, think about the probability of that happening. Out of all the possible explosions, ALL of them exploded to have flat geometry. At that point, you can think that is coincidence, but I personally don't. And again, that is IF all of these universes have the same geometry. It is very possible that they don't.
Click to expand...
And, how do you know this?? How do you know what that nature of the singularity is. Please show how you do, publish your work, and collect your nobel prize.
Click to expand...
Hi "sookster"

What you are doing is expressing independent thought and creative reasoning and extra-curricular vision, and it is refreshing to see.

So do not let that creep cut you down to his size.

This is a discussion forum where real people are to exchange our own beliefs and knowledge.

Nobody needs any Nobel Prize or any published work in order to be right or to be inspired or to be respected.

And even a "flat universe" would only mean "flat" in relation to the other universes because it is a reference to other dimensions or another different dimension.

A flat universe to me means "parallel universes" and that is what I believe to be true and real.
 
doniston said:
what are you talking about, I need to open a door? It seems I opened many doors. and If you see no need to comment, then don't, others may.
Click to expand...
It was just a suggestion, and intended as constructive criticism and not as negative, and of course you must do as you your self sees as fitting.

The door simply was not open to me.

doniston said:
as for your previous post. I know E=mc2, but I have no idea what that has to do with god. of course energy turns into matter and vice versa
Click to expand...
See below: :attn1:
doniston said:
I don't know what Einstein's formula has to do with it. of course energy turns into matter, and vice versa this makes you believe more in a god????
Click to expand...
In my view then FORCE as in "the force be with you" means energy, as in the force is energy, and therefore E=mc2 would apply that if God is indeed energy then that energy or force (God) can transform into matter.

As such - IMO - to define God as force or as energy is correct but it is still more complicated than just that.

There is a really cool quote translation from the controversial Gospel of Peter which goes like this:
In Matthew 27:46 Jesus speaks from the cross given as Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? which Matthew explains as meaning "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" but in the Gospel of Peter it is translated as "My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me". See fragment 1 verse V.15

We know that "Eli" is a reference to God as "Elohim" (or possible from "El" which is the singular form of Elohim which is plural) but the Gospel of Peter tells us that at least some of the early Church (dated before 190 CE) must have understood God as being "power" which is equivalent to "force" or to energy.

The point remains that God was not referenced as a person, and yet both Jesus called God as "Father" and the old original name of Yahweh also means Father (male Creator) but a power or force can still be a Father.
 
JP Cusick said:
It was just a suggestion, and intended as constructive criticism and not as negative, and of course you must do as you your self sees as fitting.
Click to expand...
Then it appears that You and I are a lot farther apart than I realized, Your belief is very far divorced from my meaning of " let the force be with you," even the force is different. I am talking in terms of rain drops and you are talking about oceans, Now I understand why the door is not open to you. We are talking about different doors, and in different languages and you appear very much like a full blown theist to me. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
JP Cusick said:
In my view then FORCE as in "the force be with you" means energy, as in the force is energy, and therefore E=mc2 would apply that if God is indeed energy then that energy or force (God) can transform into matter.
Click to expand...

That's a very big "if". First you have to show that the god of whom you speak actually exists. That will be a hard task, all you have is your faith.
 
doniston said:
Then it appears that You and I are a lot farther apart than I realized, Your belief is very far divorced from my meaning of " let the force be with you," even the force is different. I am talking in terms of rain drops and you are talking about oceans, Now I understand why the door is not open to you. We are talking about different doors, and in different languages and you appear very much like a full blown theist to me. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
First you are not capable to define your own position in a coherent way, and now you surrender your position because you are not capable of defending your self.

My guess now is that you are just stuck in movie land, which means you were expecting Darth Vader to be referred to as some kind of metaphor or that Luke Skywalker is a real person.

Your words demonstrate immaturity.


=======================================


zyzygy said:
That's a very big "if". First you have to show that the god of whom you speak actually exists. That will be a hard task, all you have is your faith.
Click to expand...
You and I have been over this before that there is lots of real evidence that God exist:

1) Scientific proof as like the "Big Bang" is proof of a Creation Day.
2) Evolution is proof of the ongoing Intelligent Design.
3) The reality of spirits and Ghost and Demons is a proof of a real spirit life and spirit world.
4) Plus the fantastic revelations given in the Bible is proof too, see US & B in Prophesy.

As such none of that proof has anything to do with faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom