scientific proof of god

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

I understand what you are saying Psi but you are thinking along the same lines as Bonkey, that we are the important factor in the argument when in fact we are irrelevant to the argument entirely.

I dont think you do.

If you can put together a scientific examination to test the hypothesis that ducks exist (and I'll be picking flaws in it) then I'll show you what I mean.

As I have said, even if God himself (assuming he exists) is the only intelligence that can actually scientifically determine he exists, then that is still scientific method. And even if God himself cannot come up with a way to do it, it doesn't prove it is impossible (well, without getting into the theological debate that God and do anything).

You miss the point entirely. By definition of the term "scientific enquiry" you cannot construct a scientific enquiry into thematter at hand.

I mean if humans had never existed, it would still be possible to measure the speed of light and test for electomagnetic radation.

Its not the testers that I take issue with, its the testing thats the issue.

Observation is not scientific enquiry.

Zombrex

larryone wrote:

Fair enough.
Directly from Wikipedia.
"The supernatural (Latin: super- "exceeding" + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are beyond the current scientific understanding and concept of nature, and which may actually directly contradict conventional scientific understandings. Concepts in the supernatural domain are closely related to concepts in religious spirituality and metaphysics."

"Nature (also called the material world, the material universe, the natural world, and the natural universe) is all matter and energy, especially in its essential form. Nature is the subject of scientific study, and the history of the concept is linked to the history of science."

Ok, can you not see the contradition in those two definitions?

The first definition basically says anything that does not fit with in the current model of scientific understanding is super-natural. That definition fails to understand what science actually is.

For example, if something contradicts a law of nature, instead of that something being "super-natural" it is act the law of nature that is incorrect. The law changes to this new understanding of reality.

For example, ghosts. Ghosts are normally considered "super-natural" in that they contradict the ideas we have about the nature of reality. But if ghosts actually exist they are prefectly natural and fall inside the nature of reality as much as telephones and wine bottles (strange example I know, just looking around my desk ). It is only our arrogance and lack of understanding that classifies them as super-natural because they fall outside of our understand, not outside of reality. It isn't the ghosts that our wrong, it is our ideas of what reality should be like that is wrong.

The second definition is the one I would use - nature is all matter and engery (and I would imagine any other fundamental "things" we have not yet discovered or put a name to). So basically nature is everything. If ghost exist they are simply another part of nature. If God exists he is simply another part of nature, on a par with my telephone.

The term "super-natural" is a human concept/buzz word, for things we don't understand, just like "magic" is a term we give to something when we don't understand how it happened. In reality everything we don't understand and term "super-natural" are (if they actually exist) just another part of nature.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

If you can put together a scientific examination to test the hypothesis that ducks exist (and I'll be picking flaws in it) then I'll show you what I mean

You are missing my point ... if I can't do that does it mean it is impossible to determine if a duck exists? Ever?

I will humour you. The most obvious examiniation would be to find a duck and look at it. Maybe pick it up and give it a good shake. (yes I know actual science is a bit more complicated that shaking ducks)

Of course I know where you are going with this, I have to know where to find a duck before I can determine if it exists or not. And since I don't know how to determine if God exists I can never test if he does in the first place.

But imagine for a sec I find a duck. Now imagine all the tests that you would recommend I do on that duck to determine if it is really there. Ok ... all the tests and examinations that you would do, in your head swirling around.

Ok now imagine, just before you do the test, all humans are wiped out. In fact imagine all intelligence everywhere and that will ever exist, is wiped out. Do all the methods you have though of just evaporate because we are not there to actually carry them out? Does it now become impossible, using those same methods, to determine if the duck exists? No, the methods are all still vaild, there is just no one around to actually do them. In fact the methods were valid before you even "discovered" them.

If the answer to the question "Can you show a duck exists, using scientific methods" is yes before all humans are destroyed, the answer is still yes even after all humans are destroyed. In fact the answer was yes before the question was even asked. The answer is always yes.

This is where it gets a bit tricky. The methods are vaild even if no one has actually thought of them yet. The method to determine if a duck exists is valid a 100 million years ago before there actually were ducks, and long before anyone actually came up with the idea. If a duck magically appeared 100 million years ago you could (assume you also appeared) perform the same tests to determine if it is a duck and those tests would be valid.

The validity of the method exists independently of us actually thinking to use it.

If God exists the scientific method to determine he exists also exists independently of if we will ever discover it, or even realise its there.

psi wrote:

You miss the point entirely. By definition of the term "scientific enquiry" you cannot construct a scientific enquiry into thematter at hand.

No, the enquiry must be able to be to be independently verified. For example, if I walk into a wall I know I exist, but to be proper enquiry someone else needs to be able to throw me into a wall and see what happens. But me throwing myself into a wall is still a vaild method to determine if I exist.

psi wrote:

Its not the testers that I take issue with, its the testing thats the issue.

But your argument seems to be we can't think of way to test so therefore it is impossible to ever test.

psi wrote:

Observation is not scientific enquiry.

Observation is part of scientific enquiry. I don't remember saying it was the only part.

larryone

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, can you not see the contradition in those two definitions?

The first definition basically says anything that does not fit with in the current model of scientific understanding is super-natural. That definition fails to understand what science actually is.

No it doesnt, it says anything that doesnt fit within the current scientific understanding and concept of nature is supernatural.

Wicknight wrote:

For example, if something contradicts a law of nature, instead of that something being "super-natural" it is act the law of nature that is incorrect. The law changes to this new understanding of reality.

For example, ghosts. Ghosts are normally considered "super-natural" in that they contradict the ideas we have about the nature of reality. But if ghosts actually exist they are prefectly natural and fall inside the nature of reality as much as telephones and wine bottles (strange example I know, just looking around my desk ). It is only our arrogance and lack of understanding that classifies them as super-natural because they fall outside of our understand, not outside of reality. It isn't the ghosts that our wrong, it is our ideas of what reality should be like that is wrong.

They fall outside the current scientific understanding and concept of nature. You are assuming nature to be synonymous with reality. If it is possible for something to exist that is supernatural, then it exceeds the definition of nature as it is generally understood. Your understanding may be different.

Wicknight wrote:

The second definition is the one I would use - nature is all matter and engery (and I would imagine any other fundamental "things" we have not yet discovered or put a name to). So basically nature is everything. If ghost exist they are simply another part of nature. If God exists he is simply another part of nature, on a par with my telephone.

Nature is everything that can be considered matter and energy.

Wicknight wrote:

The term "super-natural" is a human concept/buzz word, for things we don't understand, just like "magic" is a term we give to something when we don't understand how it happened. In reality everything we don't understand and term "super-natural" are (if they actually exist) just another part of nature.

That's one perspective. Where does spirituality fit into this?

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

Ok ... what is the standard definition of natural phenomenon that can exclude things that do exist?

You still have not provided me a definition of the term natural phenomenon


Still waiting ...

Still no definition of what you mean by "natural" phenomenon ...

Still .... waiting ..... *gasp* ...

I've told you how to find it, and why its important.

I've also told you I'm not willing to be your proxy/teacher.

After that, its up to you.

I am saying that one way to definitely prove the centre of galaxy is or is not made of cheese is to go there and actually look (observe) ... are you saying that would not be considered observable enough for scientific method?

Go back and read what you originally posted. You claimed one could scientifically prove that it is made of mice and cheese, but that doesn't make it so.

I said that is not the case.

IF you're now changing that to say that you can propose a test to determine whether or not it is so, then your claim has changed, and clearly my refutation shouldn't be assumed to still hold. I have consistently arguing that this is what could be done, and that this is not what you originally claimed.

So you've now shifted your stance to agree with what I said in order to suggest that I'm the one in the wrong?

Sigh ... I wasn't actually claiming the centre of the galaxy is made of cheese ... :rolleyes:

No - you said it could be scientifically proven. I said it couldn't. Now, if thats pedantry on my part, and you're getting frustrated by all of this nit-picking, I would suggest that such clarity of distinction is a central requirement with science, and the discussion of it. It is the exactly relaxing of such precision that leads to the popular acceptance of misconceptions such as the concept (stated by Bush, I believe) that "what is a theory but another word for an idea". This is not true when using the term in a scentific sense, but this was the sense the term was being used in.

Bonkey you have jumped way off topic into the realm of the philosophical debate that "nothing can be really know" in an attempt to show that you cannot prove God exists cause you can't prove anything actually exists ... sigh ...

No. I haven't. I'm fully staying on-topic insisting that it is impossible to prove God exists, because we cannot address the question using scientific methods.

I have clarified, subsequent to your suggestions, that this is intened to be read in the present. I do not rule out that science may some day be able to formulate such tests rather than speculate that they may exist. I don't rule out that should such tests be accepted, that we may some day have the ability to carry them out.

However, such acceptance would require those who define God to agree that something was an acceptable test, ideally prior to its predictions being tested.

I have also have argued that God will, in my opinion, always be "retreated" to the Gaps. Indeed, given that there will always be the unproveable (and we can prove that!), I believe that God will remain in this category....this, however, is belief- and not science-based.

"There is no actual reason why there cannot be a scientific determination of God's existance (assuming he does exist) to that same standard that there can be a scientific determination of anything"

If you mean "cannot" in the continuous, then you're basically suggesting that a univeral negative cannot be proven. Thats obvious. Just as you can't prove that God doesn't exist, you can't prove that a Theory of God or a Proof of God does not and can not exist.

Universal Negatives aren't worth much though.

Anything that actually exists can be determined (heaven forbit I use the word "proved") to exist by scientific methods.

This is a belief, not an established scientific principle. This is also contradicted by the accepted scientific understanding of the meaning "natural phenomenon", which I have told you how to find.

Nothing that exists lies outside of the realm of science. To claim otherwise is to not understand what science is.

Given that "existence" in that sense isn't a scientific concept in the first place, I find that suggestion ludicrous.

So clearly, you must feel that I don't understand what science is.

I, On the other hand, am frustrated by your refusal to accept clear instructions on how to find a meaning for a term as an answer to what the term means.

I see no point in continuing. Take your final shot if you like, but I feel I've made my point as well as I can at this stage.

jc

Zombrex

Not sure that post clariffied what I was saying ...

You are talking about the ability to form the method used to test the idea, ie we cannot form the tests need to prove God exists.

But the ability of the methods to test the idea are actually independent on our ability to formulate these methods in the first place. The way to test for atoms (not saying there is one way) was a valid method before we even thought of it, or even knew we were supposed to be looking at atoms in the first place.

Freddie59

Son Goku wrote:

And here we have the crux of the problem.

bonkey, you know you're correct, I know you're correct and anybody here can see from your posts that you're correct.
The problem is that your point, about science not addressing these issues, is just ignored by these kind of people. Instead of you being somebody patiently explaining something, you're just "the arrogant science guy" in their eyes.

Is there a scientific proof of God?
No, of course not. There is no debate, the mere definition of science crushes such a conjecture immediately.

Look at the language of the post above, it has all the trade marks I've seen over and over again of people who just inexplicably hate science.
Making fun of the fact that science uses big words (Ignoring the fact that science needs to because a lot of the things it deals with have no common language term.)and saying it's part of a long standing "tradition of deception".

Freddie59, science is trying to prove God isn't there, you aren't under attack and claims about science being bull**** that has been paddle for centuries are obviously incorrect.
(Hello technology that only appeared in the 20th century)

So man, grow up. Science isn't an angry old professor telling you that you can't go to Church, it's a complimentary discipline, another subject area in the sea of human knowledge.

And thats it.

No it isn't actually. Can science prove He isn't there.......:D

Freddie59

bonkey wrote:

After seeing someone use the term on slashdot, I like to refer to such approaches as scientism rather than science.

I can jsut see the Shopping Channel ad now...

Scientism...all the power of Science, but none of the annoying restrictions.
But wait...there's more!
If you buy into Scientism today, you can believe whatever you like and ridicule science at the same time absolutely free.
Buy your Introduction to Scientism today for the unbelievably cheap* price of $99.99, and your world will never be the same

*Scientismically true


/me changes channels....

jc

Well, there's only one biblical quote that adequately covers this post, and it is:

"Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you."

And there's quite a few of you here. No point in continuing. God was, is, and always will be - regardless of how much you try to argue Him out of existence. He will, when your time comes, always be there to forgive you the times when you denied Him. As I bow out, may I take this opportunity to wish all of you in this thread (both believers and non-believers...and even the scientists;) ) a very Happy, Holy and peaceful Christmas. God bless to one and all.

Son Goku

Freddie59 wrote:

No it isn't actually. Can science prove He isn't there.......:D

I meant to say "science isn't trying to prove that God isn't there".

rsynnott

Freddie59 wrote:

No it isn't actually. Can science prove He isn't there.......:D

Can science disprove that invisble giant kittens walk the land? That Santa Claus, moving at thousands of times the speed of sound, visits every house on Christmas Eve? That Mary Harney can fly?

Do you think it's likely that any of those things are true?

GuanYin

Freddie59 wrote:

No it isn't actually. Can science prove He isn't there.......:D

I'll tell you what. I'll go door to door preaching the word of the christian God if you can complete this challenge:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/19/boing_boings_250000_.html

Hamza

This is in relation to "bonkey's" argument that "something can come out of nothing" is extremely shallow, hilarious and naive. No i'm not a christian. He says that at a quantum level even empty space can produce something without any governing intelligence/law. what he is saying is that "empty space is more intelligent than him because even bonkey cant create something out of nothing. Secondly, with his logic of randomness we should expect to see dogs wearing bikinis, eating prawns with a fork and knife, the fish doing the twist and rock'n'roll on the sands of sahara and on and on. People who know little of science are atheists, people who know science in depth believe in a higher intelligence/being..... Francis bacon.

GuanYin

Sorry for my delay in getting back to this. "Rebranded Pagan Festival Cheer" and all that.

Wicknight wrote:

You are missing my point ... if I can't do that does it mean it is impossible to determine if a duck exists? Ever?

I will humour you. The most obvious examiniation would be to find a duck and look at it. Maybe pick it up and give it a good shake. (yes I know actual science is a bit more complicated that shaking ducks)

If you don't know if a duck actually exists or not, how dod you find a duck?

Of course I know where you are going with this, I have to know where to find a duck before I can determine if it exists or not. And since I don't know how to determine if God exists I can never test if he does in the first place.

Spot on. A+. You cannot test a hypothesis generated around a set of conditions that are unknown. At least not in this situation.

But imagine for a sec I find a duck. Now imagine all the tests that you would recommend I do on that duck to determine if it is really there. Ok ... all the tests and examinations that you would do, in your head swirling around.

I fail to see how, scientifically, you can continue with the charade.

I'll humour you though. In order for you to find a duck, you need to know what a duck looks like, or at least what a duck is likely to look like. What it boils down to is testing to see if what you find is a duck or not. You're not testing to see if it exists, for it must surely do in order to be there.


Transmute this scenario to God (or unicorns, fairies or elves - whatever). What do they look like? Where do you look for them? We know none of these things. So how do we go about testing whether something is a God or not. Because it looks like one?

A scientific enquiry constructs a hypothesis. Some assumptions can be made, but if the overriding assumption MUST be valid in order to even conduct the test, then it is not a valid scientific enquiry.

Ok now imagine, just before you do the test, all humans are wiped out. In fact imagine all intelligence everywhere and that will ever exist, is wiped out. Do all the methods you have though of just evaporate because we are not there to actually carry them out? Does it now become impossible, using those same methods, to determine if the duck exists? No, the methods are all still vaild, there is just no one around to actually do them. In fact the methods were valid before you even "discovered" them.

Your missing the point. My argument is irrespective of who or what is carrying out the test.

My argument is on the basis and nature of scientific enquiry. What you are proposing, is not science. There is no logical chain of progressive steps to arrive at your final test.

If the answer to the question "Can you show a duck exists, using scientific methods" is yes before all humans are destroyed, the answer is still yes even after all humans are destroyed. In fact the answer was yes before the question was even asked. The answer is always yes.

No, because a duck either exists or it doesn't. Science, scientific enquiry and any hypothesis you generate to test the model, REQUIRES a duck to exist before you can test it.

This is where it gets a bit tricky. The methods are vaild even if no one has actually thought of them yet. The method to determine if a duck exists is valid a 100 million years ago before there actually were ducks, and long before anyone actually came up with the idea. If a duck magically appeared 100 million years ago you could (assume you also appeared) perform the same tests to determine if it is a duck and those tests would be valid.

Again, your showing a basic mis-understanding of scientific enquiry. Time, testers, people and methodology are irrelevant. The provision required for doing the test overrides the outcome of the test.

In essence, the very nature of being able to carry out the procedure invalidates the outcome. This is not science.

The validity of the method exists independently of us actually thinking to use it.

Again, read above. In order for the method to be valid, the hypothesis is redundant.

If God exists the scientific method to determine he exists also exists independently of if we will ever discover it, or even realise its there.

Yes, but that not science.

No, the enquiry must be able to be to be independently verified. For example, if I walk into a wall I know I exist, but to be proper enquiry someone else needs to be able to throw me into a wall and see what happens. But me throwing myself into a wall is still a vaild method to determine if I exist.

See above (your arguing the same case in alot of different ways).

But your argument seems to be we can't think of way to test so therefore it is impossible to ever test.

No, my argument is that if we can think of a way to test then the hypothesis fall to pieces.

Observation is part of scientific enquiry. I don't remember saying it was the only part.

Fair enough. But scientific observation is about gathering data, impartially. Seeing as there is an inherent bias in testing to see if something exists (you need to know the criteria for its existance) thenyou can't construct a valid test.

What you can do is observe that something exists and test to see what it is. But that not the same thing.

Son Goku

Hamza wrote:

This is in relation to "bonkey's" argument that "something can come out of nothing" is extremely shallow, hilarious and naive. No i'm not a christian. He says that at a quantum level even empty space can produce something without any governing intelligence/law. what he is saying is that "empty space is more intelligent than him because even bonkey cant create something out of nothing. Secondly, with his logic of randomness we should expect to see dogs wearing bikinis, eating prawns with a fork and knife, the fish doing the twist and rock'n'roll on the sands of sahara and on and on. People who know little of science are atheists, people who know science in depth believe in a higher intelligence/being..... Francis bacon.

Eh, something can come from nothing at the quantum level.
It isn't bonkey's logic of randomness or him trying to say that empty space is somehow more intelligent than him, it is an observed fact.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

No, because a duck either exists or it doesn't. Science, scientific enquiry and any hypothesis you generate to test the model, REQUIRES a duck to exist before you can test it.

Ok, I think I see the confusion here

I am not saying science can test if God exists or doesn't exists (ie provide an answer to that question). As you said it REQUIRES a duck to exist first.

I am saying that if God exists, it is possible to show he exists using science, merely by the fact that he does eixst. That if he exists he does not some how fall outside of science.

But he has to exist in the first place, just like the duck has to exist for one to test for it.

psi wrote:

Time, testers, people and methodology are irrelevant.

That is my entire point.

Bonkey was claiming that, even if God exists, that it is still impossible for science to determine (prove) this existance because God is super-natural, that science only looks at the natural world, and that we as a species cannot come up with the tests to do this, or understand the outcome of these test.

I am saying our ability to discover the method to test that God exists is irrelevant to the issue of if it is possible or not (if God actually exists in the first place).

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

That is my entire point.

Bonkey was claiming that, even if God exists, that it is still impossible for science to determine (prove) this existance because God is super-natural, that science only looks at the natural world, and that we as a species cannot come up with the tests to do this, or understand the outcome of these test.

Ok, get out of the habit of suggesting science aims to prove anything. It doesn't, never has and never will.

If he exists and we find him, our definition of what is natural changes, so if that is your point then technically you're both right.

But thats very different to saying we can or can't prove he exists.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Ok, get out of the habit of suggesting science aims to prove anything. It doesn't, never has and never will.

If he exists and we find him, our definition of what is natural changes, so if that is your point then technically you're both right.

But thats very different to saying we can or can't prove he exists.

I'm not, I am saying God, if he exists, is a natural entity, part of the natural world, and falls into the realm of science. Therefore it is not impossible for science to show the existance of God.

This position (ironically) is used by a lot of scientists and philosophiers, and by myself, as as sign that God doesn't actually exist in the first place.

As one physics professor on Horizon or some BBC program put it

"If God exists he is just another law of physics, the ball will fall due to gravity unless God stops it. Which kinda makes you think he doesn't exist"

bounty

no one knows anything about how the universe was created, therefore there is infinite possibilities, which means one theory is as correct as the next

personally i like my dog's theory, when i asked her, she said "woof woof"... i call it the woof woof theory of creation... fascinating

bonkey

Freddie59 wrote:

And there's quite a few of you here. No point in continuing. God was, is, and always will be - regardless of how much you try to argue Him out of existence.

And yet again, we see a poster who is inable to distinguish between the assertions that "There is not and cannot be scientific proof that God exists" and "God does not exist".

Its perhaps just as well that you choose to bow out. While you remain incapable of making the distinction I have (once again) noted above, you will only ever be frustrated by your misinterpretation of what is being said.

Hamza wrote:

People who know little of science are atheists, people who know science in depth believe in a higher intelligence/being..... Francis bacon.

Same as to Freddie59 - this has nothing to do with what I said. It is only relevant to those who wish to blur the issue to launch yet another religious attack on science and its purposes.

The rest of your analysis of my previous posts is, to be frank, worthless. Its not worth taking seriously enough to respond to.

jc

bonkey

bounty wrote:

no one knows anything about how the universe was created, therefore there is infinite possibilities, which means one theory is as correct as the next

personally i like my dog's theory, when i asked her, she said "woof woof"... i call it the woof woof theory of creation... fascinating

The word 'theory', in both instances above, cannot be understood in the scientific sense of the word. So the point is irrelevant to the topic.

What you're basically saying is "believe what you like cause no-one can prove otherwise". In otherwords....you're agreeing that there cannot be a scientific proof

jc

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

I am saying that if God exists, it is possible to show he exists using science, merely by the fact that he does eixst. That if he exists he does not some how fall outside of science.
...
Bonkey was claiming that, even if God exists, that it is still impossible for science to determine (prove) this existance because God is super-natural, that science only looks at the natural world, and that we as a species cannot come up with the tests to do this, or understand the outcome of these test.

I am saying our ability to discover the method to test that God exists is irrelevant to the issue of if it is possible or not (if God actually exists in the first place).

Let me put it another way.

I posit that there is a "parallel" universe, which exists entirely seperately to this one, with no possible method of communication between the two.

By your logic, if this universe exists, then science can "prove" it does.

There can be no proof that this completely seperate universe doesn't exist, but equally there can be no proof that it does, as by definition it is unproveable using scientific methodology, for in order to obtain this "proof", we would have to refute the underlying definition that there is no way of communicating with (hence receiving information from, hence detecting) this universe.

This shows that your logic is not consistent without either redefining what the question is addressing (e.g. "completely undectable" must be read as "completely undetectable thus far", or somesuch), or what constitutes a scientific theory.

So the argument that "existence == proveable by science" is not consistently true, even if we ignore the misuse of the notion of proof.

jc

Dades

bonkey wrote:

I posit that there is a "parallel" universe, which exists entirely seperately to this one, with no possible method of communication between the two.

Then this parallel universe might as well not exist. If it cannot be seen, measured, detected, communicated with, and cause any noticable effects within our own universe - it is simply conjecture or the product of someone's imagination.

Is this not why wicknight was suggesting that if God existed we would be show his existence using science?

Excuse me if I'm in catch up mode.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

I posit that there is a "parallel" universe, which exists entirely seperately to this one, with no possible method of communication between the two.

Can anything exist in that universe?

bounty

bonkey wrote:

The word 'theory', in both instances above, cannot be understood in the scientific sense of the word. So the point is irrelevant to the topic.

well science doesnt understand anything about the creation, so you cant put any restrains on the types of theorys, anythings possible

bonkey wrote:

What you're basically saying is "believe what you like cause no-one can prove otherwise". In otherwords....you're agreeing that there cannot be a scientific proof.....

....yet

im confident that scientists will figure everything about the universe(s) out, what it is, how or if it could start, and how or if it could end... just a matter of time

The Atheist wrote:

Then this parallel universe might as well not exist. If it cannot be seen, measured, detected, communicated with, and cause any noticable effects within our own universe - it is simply conjecture or the product of someone's imagination.

while watching those string theory movies i posted in maths, the guy behind m-theory was talking about that maybe the reason that the force of gravity is so weak, compared to the other forces, is because gravity is not confined to our universe. he went on to say, that maybe one day it may be possible to use gravity to communicate with other universes

personally i think there has to be infinite universes because i cant believe i defied the centillions to 1 chance that i exist, everything thats possible must happen

Moriarty

bounty wrote:

personally i think there has to be infinite universes because i cant believe i defied the centillions to 1 chance that i exist, everything thats possible must happen

You have to exist to be able to think that though, so effectively there is no 'chance'. You will always exist when you have the ability to think about whether you exist or not. Your existance has no bearing on whether there is a single universe and it was just a fluke that conditions were right for our existance, or if there are an infinite amount of universes and this one had the right conditions for life, or indeed if there are countless other universes with another you thinking exactly the same thing at exactly the same time.

bounty

yea, your right Moriarty, its impossible to say with any confidence either way, i do like the idea of there being countless other me's, i wonder if theres a me somewhere who has figured out how to communicate with other me's?

but my opinion is slightly towards there being infinite universes over just one, because in those movies they talk about how everything is random at the quantum level, i think this is somehow related to different universes diverging yea, im probably wrong

Dades

bounty wrote:

i posted in maths, the guy behind m-theory was talking about that maybe the reason that the force of gravity is so weak, compared to the other forces, is because gravity is not confined to our universe. he went on to say, that maybe one day it may be possible to use gravity to communicate with other universes

How have we determined that the force of gravity is weak?!

There is only one force of gravity, one that governs the entire cosmos, one that has dictated the size and consistancy of all life (on this planet, at least). If we have nothing to compare it with what is it weak in comparison to?

rsynnott

The Atheist wrote:

How have we determined that the force of gravity is weak?!

There is only one force of gravity, one that governs the entire cosmos, one that has dictated the size and consistancy of all life (on this planet, at least). If we have nothing to compare it with what is it weak in comparison to?

I think he means as compared to electromagnetic force, and to the strong and weak atomic force.

Son Goku

The Atheist wrote:

How have we determined that the force of gravity is weak?!

There is only one force of gravity, one that governs the entire cosmos, one that has dictated the size and consistancy of all life (on this planet, at least). If we have nothing to compare it with what is it weak in comparison to?

The other forces, its absurdly weak compared with them, but possibly because it is so different from the rest of them.

Dades

I think he means as compared to electromagnetic force, and to the strong and weak atomic force.

The other forces, its absurdly weak compared with them, but possibly because it is so different from the rest of them.

Okay. Clear as mud.

As you were...