"my favorite part are all the people who say 'OMG humans cant understand the universe so this site is dumb!!' and yet one of the most recent editions of TIME magazine is all about SCIENCE trying to uncover the beginning of the universe". YES! YES! TIME magazine, the world's most renowned authority on "science"...proving what exactly? *yawn*
it's kind of funny to see people loosely throwing around accusations. if you're caught critically analyzing a ytmnd about the existence of god you're immediately branded as a bitter atheist. what about the people who are exercising their freedom to choose their beliefs and feel it is necessary to point out logical fallacies in whetstone's reasoning?
If a model undergoes sufficient testing without being proven wrong then it becomes a theory. What whetstone doesn’t seem to understand is that we currently don’t know everything about the universe, which is why he shouldn’t even be using it in his arguments. Why would a 24 year old mortgage insurance salesman know more about the universe than the thousands of hardworking physicists in this world who DON’T know everything about the universe??????
“Are there such things as paralell universes?! (aimed at the college
professors)” - shintahimura
Im not a college professor, but it appears to me that no one here has actually studied physics anyway...let alone thermodynamics. I’m currently studying physics at the grad level and so I can try to answer your question by saying “we really don’t know”. There have been hundreds of journal articles written about the possibility of parallel universes, other special dimensions, etc. however, there currently aren’t any practical scientific experiments that we can do to prove or disprove any these theories. In science we do not strive to PROVE anything. We only try to formulate MODELS that describe the universe and then test those models to try to DISPROVE them.
...based on philosophical concepts (philosophy would be an area that I have only studied for one semester…apparently like most of people here on ytmnd) and scientific principles (something that I have been studying for quite some time now). Therefore my suggestion is that if you intend to make an argument for the existence of god, the first thing you should do is completely abandon your use of the concept of the “universe” anywhere in your argument.
in black hole physics it is often suggested that beyond the event horizon of a black hole there is a place that is completely disconnected from our universe. As of today, we do not currently know of any practical scientific experiments that we could do to prove OR disprove any mathematical theories about the characteristics of the universe (especially whether or not there are other universes and/or other dimensions in space that cannot be observed). You claim to be a 24 year old mortgage insurance salesman. I imagine that when you’re dealing with a client you’re expected to have credibility as a salesman. Well It works the exact same way when you try to make any kind of argument (whether it be about god or the weather)...
The universe is a much more difficult region of space for scientists to map accurately. People have been arguing over the origin and the exact contents of the universe for hundreds of years, and we still haven’t been able to come up with a 100% certain description of it. I am currently working on my masters degree in physics, and as a person with several years of scientific background, I am not about to try and come up with my own description of the universe (its contents and its dimensions), let alone try to argue with people about where it came from (IF it came from anything). I wouldn’t even want to get into a discussion about the theoretical parts of astrophysics (black holes)...
just so you know: when you refer to the "universe" and try to use it as a component in your argument for the existence of god, you're referring to a very shady scientific concept. When Christopher Columbus tried to convince the king and queen of spain that he could make it to India by traveling west across the atlantic ocean, not only was he making an assumption about the extent of land mass on the planet but he was also making an assumption about the dimensions of the planet. Both of his assumptions ended up being completely wrong. Is it fair to say that Christopher Columbus, a person with no scientific credibility, could be trusted with any of his arguments that were based on premises about the size and contents of the earth? what about the entire universe
i'm giving this 5 stars...but only because it actually encouraged me to say something. i consider myself an agnostic, and needless to say i didn't find any of your arguments convincing. it's not because i don't want to believe in god or because i'm a dick. it's just that all of your arguments are based on deductive logic. even if all your premises were true, the conclusions that you draw from them do not necessarily follow. also, you should probably leave physics out of any argument for the existence of god
st4rsic's recent comments: