If the universe eventually 'dies' - how can it stay dead forever?

[mbewane]

i suppose if we were higher dimensional beings, we could access all the different chronologies and even parallels of the universe at will, which would make this line of questioning obsolete. maybe we arent meant to answer these questions with our way of perceiving things linearly

I've always believed this. As humans we have developped our intellectual and scientific knowledge in an extremely specific setting : Earth. And it took thousands and thousands of years to get to our current knowledge, which we know is flawed and incomplete. So at some point we just have to accept that we may not have the necessary mindframe to understand everything about the universe.

As a sidenote that's why I really liked that movie Arrival, because it gave a whole other dimension to how the Aliens communicate and perceive time.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

Compression -> Crunch -> Bang -> Compression -> Crunch -> Bang

And so on and so forth....

 

[Skeptic]

What is there to say?

The imaginations of scientists for centuries are quick to shoot down intelligent design yet has yet to be able to explain how a universe worth of compressed matter just decided to explode into being one day.

Just because we don't know how it happened, doesn't mean we get to inject our own stories as to how it happened (e.g. presumably, the christian god).

Unaided, not created, with a fantastically low mathematical probability of the universe, especially our place in it, arranging in such a delicate manner to sustain life.

You're thinking of it backwards.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it! - Douglas Adams

The “puddle analogy” exists to suggest that, rather than an environment being designed to meet the needs of life, life evolves to exist within the environment around it. Yes, life AS IT IS IN THIS UNIVERSE would not exist if an aspect of this universe was changed, but that's because it adapted to live in this universe.

I consider it centuries worth of juelzing from athiests too proud to accept the truth

I can't speak for all atheists, but, as a skeptic, my goal is to believe as many true things as possible, and not believe as many false things as possible. It has nothing to do with pride. Rather, I strive to understand the world around me as accurate as I can.

 

[Kenny West]

Just because we don't know how it happened, doesn't mean we get to inject our own stories as to how it happened (e.g. presumably, the christian god).

You're thinking of it backwards.



I can't speak for all atheists, but, as a skeptic, my goal is to believe as many true things as possible, and not believe as many false things as possible. It has nothing to do with pride. Rather, I strive to understand the world around me as accurate as I can.

Basically you're still articulating an argument against how you feel about this the kind of deduction, yet did not refute.

You feel a deduction of "God" is [arrogant, humanly self serving etc] but what makes the authority of modern scientific "deductions " and "theories " beyond that scientist's ability to prove them any less arrogant?

Human evolution, the origin of species, the creation of the universe, all got built off as near universal truths yet hasnt been proven to this day. This thread you're posting in is still challenging assumptions from a theory we were taught as fact in elementary school. And this isnt something new to the science. The teachings of Sigmund Freud, racial evolution theory etc. All were taught as scientific facts (despite similar lack of proof) and refuted in our lifetime.

In other words this is you, rather consciously or unconciously

Your interpretation of my post is ass backward as evident by the puddle analogy. How is this applicable when discussing the design of the universe at large, that isnt made for humans? Its a cheap cop out to avoid arguing intelligent design. I was a philosophy major so im used to the classic scholary deflections

I wonder how you atheists feel when the puddle theory is presented alongside "God works in mysterious ways" you guys are just hypocrites

 

[Skeptic]

Basically you're still articulating an argument against how you feel about this the kind of deduction, yet did not refute.

I didn't say anything about how I feel (it's irrelevant). I don't need to refute your deduction since I'm not making a positive claim.

You feel a deduction of "God" is [arrogant, humanly self serving etc]

I didn't say any of that.

but what makes the authority of modern scientific "deductions " and "theories " beyond that scientist's ability to prove them any less arrogant?

Human evolution, the origin of species, the creation of the universe, all got built off as near universal truths yet hasnt been proven to this day. This thread you're posting in is still challenging assumptions from a theory we were taught as fact in elementary school. And this isnt something new to the science. The teachings of Sigmund Freud, racial evolution theory etc. All were taught as scientific facts (despite similar lack of proof) and refuted in our lifetime.

It is fortunate that the scientific method allows for changes when more information becomes available. Imagine if it had to stay unchanged throughout all time!

In other words this is you, rather consciously or unconciously

That's a stretch.

Your interpretation of my post is ass backward as evident by the puddle analogy. How is this applicable when discussing the design of the universe at large, that isnt made for humans? Its a cheap cop out to avoid arguing intelligent design.

That was the point of the puddle analogy. You're thinking about it backwards. I suspect at this point that you're a presuppositionalist, so anything I say will come off as backwards to you. Any further discussion is a waste of time.

I wonder how you atheists feel when the puddle theory is presented alongside "God works in mysterious ways" you guys are just hypocrites

I don't know what this means (or what it's supposed to mean). "God works in mysterious ways" doesn't mean anything to me because I'm unconvinced of it's existence.

Have a good day!

 

[Kenny West]

I didn't say anything about how I feel (it's irrelevant). I don't need to refute your deduction since I'm not making a positive claim.

I didn't say any of that.

The misapplication of the puddle analogy is proof enough of your feelings.

You post an analogy thats supposed to represent my thought process when it doesn't even apply to this discussion. The puddle analogy is reasoning the world at large according to an individuals existence. We're in a thread discussing the origin of space and time. You don't see how you're off the mark?

No you, you saw "god" and just wanted to chuck a literary (hence appeal to authority) joke about creationist thinking at me and thought I would be too dumb to notice the square peg doesnt fit in the round hole. Thats your bad.

Actions speak louder than words sir

It is fortunate that the scientific method allows for changes when more information becomes available. Imagine if it had to stay unchanged throughout all time!

That was the point of the puddle analogy. You're thinking about it backwards. I suspect at this point that you're a presuppositionalist, so anything I say will come off as backwards to you. Any further discussion is a waste of time.

Throw misapplied analogies then accuse someone of being a "presuppositionalist" on your way out of bailing out of a discussion you contributed nothing to. loser debate tactics

Yeah go ahead and see yourself out kid.

 

[Skeptic]

The misapplication of the puddle analogy is proof enough of your feelings.

You post an analogy thats supposed to represent my thought process when it doesn't even apply to this discussion. The puddle analogy is reasoning the world at large according to an individuals existence. We're in a thread discussing the origin of space and time. You don't see how you're off the mark?

No you, you saw "god" and just wanted to chuck a literary (hence appeal to authority) joke about creationist thinking at me and thought I would be too dumb to notice the square peg doesnt fit in the round hole. Thats your bad.

Actions speak louder than words sir

Throw misapplied analogies then accuse someone of being a "presuppositionalist" on your way out of bailing out of a discussion you contributed nothing to. loser debate tactics

Yeah go ahead and see yourself out kid.

Yeah, apparently we're talking past each other? You win, champ!

 

[tuckgod]

Nothing ever really dies.