Skip to main content

Big Bang: The Universe is NOT Expanding

  • Author:
  • Updated date:
big-bang-the-universe-is-not-expanding
Here is a picture of ME after a hard days work. As you can see, my jeans have EXPANDED!

Here is a picture of ME after a hard days work. As you can see, my jeans have EXPANDED!

EXPANSION: WHAT IS THAT BLACK STUFF??  AND WHAT IS THE "EDGE" OF THE BUBBLE MADE FROM...BRICKS? STEEL? PLASTIC?

EXPANSION: WHAT IS THAT BLACK STUFF?? AND WHAT IS THE "EDGE" OF THE BUBBLE MADE FROM...BRICKS? STEEL? PLASTIC?

Atheists claim their God/Singularity CREATED the Universe, which has SHAPE. What is the background that gives SHAPE to the Universe??

Atheists claim their God/Singularity CREATED the Universe, which has SHAPE. What is the background that gives SHAPE to the Universe??

CAN WE THROW A SPEAR THROUGH THE BRICK WALL AT THE EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE?  WHY NOT??????????????

CAN WE THROW A SPEAR THROUGH THE BRICK WALL AT THE EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE? WHY NOT??????????????

big-bang-the-universe-is-not-expanding
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! Is the Universe a BOX that encloses you? If so, then WHAT is outside the box?

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! Is the Universe a BOX that encloses you? If so, then WHAT is outside the box?

big-bang-the-universe-is-not-expanding


Your Jeans Can Expand


Have you ever put on a freshly-washed pair of jeans and noticed how tight-fitting they are? Have you also noticed that by the end of the day, they are not as tight and are actually more comfortable?

In fact, this happens to me every day. Just look at the picture (above) of ME after a long days work. My jeans have clearly expanded, even to the point of tearing.

What is going on?

Let’s first assume that your body didn’t gain or lose any weight during the day.

Your body, due to its motion throughout the day, has exerted “tension” on the individual fibers of the pants. This caused the fibers to “expand” or stretch. This process has made the fibers a little “longer” and a little “thinner”. The total amount of matter comprising those pants didn’t increase or decrease. Your body simply “displaced” the matter (atoms in the fibers) from one location to another.



But The Universe Cannot Expand


Scroll to Continue

As illustrated with the pants example, only physical objects can expand. All physical objects have shape/form/contour.

Is the Universe a physical object? Is the Universe like a pair of pants, or like an apple we can point to?

Early man pointed to all objects and gave them a name. The name is irrelevant. The name is just an association/relation from a concept in the brain, to an object in the physical world. This is how language began. So the word “apple” is a concept, just as all words are concepts. But this concept “apple”, resolves to a physical object hanging from a tree.


Now I ask you: What does the word “Universe” resolve to.....an object or a concept?

First of all, the word Universe is a concept, as all words are concepts.

Now does the word Universe resolve to any physical object? Can we point to ‘the’ Universe?

The answer is unequivocally: NO!



Do you see the problem we have here? The problem has to do with the consistent use of language and comprehension in any scientific context. So let's first clarify the language, which is the key obstacle here. The mysterious word Universe is a concept, which is defined as follows:


Universe: A concept that embodies matter (atoms) and space (nothing).


It's capitalized because there is only one. We are referring to 'THE' Universe.

Although 'the’ Universe is a NOUN for the purposes of ordinary speech, it cannot be treated as a noun in the course of a scientific presentation. We know that atoms may move with respect to each other, but when space or 'the' Universe starts moving, watch out! Someone slipped a “mickey” in your beer!


Concepts don’t move, and they most definitely don't expand. Only physical objects have the ability to move, expand, stretch, dilate, etc.


So what is the object when we make reference to ‘the’ Universe?
The objects are the atoms, which we collectively refer to as 'matter'. The concept Universe embodies matter (something, atoms) and space (nothing).


So when somebody claims that “The Universe is expanding”.....what EXACTLY are they saying?


  1. Are they saying that physical objects (stars, planets, trees, mountains, water, people, cats, dogs) are expanding?
  2. Are they saying that space itself (which is nothing) is expanding?
  3. Are they saying that all the objects and their atoms are in motion and flying apart in the vastness of space?


Actually, Relativity and the Big Bang Theory claim that it is SPACE which is expanding!

But space is nothing. It is not an object. It lacks shape/form. As such, it cannot “stretch” like your pants can, when you consume too many physical objects.


When asked what the universe is expanding into, the Big Bang theorists declare that it is expanding into nothing.

It is ridiculous to claim that the Universe is expanding at many times the speed of light (> c) into nothing, especially when Relativity dictates that the speed of light must be constant. And if the Universe is expanding into nothing, then it is actually expanding into “space”! So this is a total contradiction of terms for Relativity and the Big Bang Theory.


It is impossible for something which is lacking shape, like the Universe and space, to expand/stretch!


For anybody to claim that space itself expands, they are IMPLICITLY saying that space is a physical object, it has shape, and is irrevocably contoured by 'something'.

So here is your Homework:


1) Draw a picture of space.
2) Label the 'stuff' that is on the outside of space and contours it. What is this ‘stuff’ made of....matter or nothing?


Mathematicians claim that the Universe is a finite physical object, such as an ocean, but that there is nothing outside of it providing contour and shape.

Well, we know that the ocean is an object, since it has shape. When we throw a rock into the ocean, the water is displaced and the sea level rises, because there is space (nothing) above the water.

When the Universe is said to “expand”, there must be NOTHING (space) that it is expanding into. But these mathematicians are claiming that it is ‘the’ space itself which is expanding. Again, this is a total contradiction. You cannot claim that space is expanding, and it is expanding into NOTHING, when “nothing” is already referring to space. The “nothing” is already there, and everywhere!



Big Bang Theorists claim that no matter where you are in the universe, all galaxies move away from YOUR location, due to space expansion.

In fact, Big Bang Theory demands such a scenario. Back to the ocean example: If the ocean increases between the boats and outwards, ALL the boats should be moving away from each other as the ocean rises. No exceptions!
This is not what the astronomers verify. Andromeda is blue shifted and allegedly on a collision course with the Milky Way, barely 2 million light years away.

This observation alone contradicts and debunks the Big Bang Theory and the alleged expansion of the Universe!




The Universe Has NO Beginning and NO End


In physics, it is irrational to say that an atom began to exist in the past. It is also irrational to say that an atom will cease to exist in the future. In physics, we say that an atom exists (present tense). Matter exists ONLY in present tense.

Otherwise it is up to the mathematician to explain how “nothing”, can acquire Length, Width, and Height, and form into an atom. Also, they will have to explain how an atom can lose Length, Width, and Height, and turn into nothing.


The Universe cannot have an 'end', because such terminology is alluding to an object. The Universe is obviously NOT an object. It is a concept. Concepts don't have an end like a table has an end.


So the correct terminology is:

  1. The amount of matter in the Universe is constant. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Space cannot convert into matter, and matter cannot convert into space.
  2. Space has no shape and is therefore neither finite nor infinite (remember: ‘infinite’ is an adjective that modifies objects).
  3. The Universe is a concept that includes matter and space.


You see, the Universe consists only of a bunch of atoms, rocks, gases, light, stars, etc. The Universe has no ability to memorize previous locations. In other words, the Universe does not recognize ‘time’. Time is a figment of the imagination of living entities, such as humans. The reason we perceive time is that we have memory. Without memory, there is no such notion as time. Without memory, there is only the present. Time is a conscious observer phenomenon. The mathematicians never understood this and they never will. Their memory of past events clouds their thinking. As far as the Universe is concerned, the Moon WAS not there and WILL not be over there. The Moon IS there. The Moon can only have one location – the location it actually has NOW.


Comments

fatfist (author) on January 28, 2015:

"This shape U...Call it a letter or a grapheme, or whatever"

Make up your mind already regarding this 'U' you drew on the board in the Physics Conference. In the context of YOUR presentation, what does that chicken-scratch represent?

Is it 'a' shape?

Is it 'a' letter?

Is it 'a' grapheme?

Is it an object?

Is it ‘a’ whatever?

Which is it? It can’t be everything under the Sun, for that commits the Fallacy of Equivocation: using ambiguity to cover all your bases so you can win every possible contradiction you propose. Remember, this is a Physics Conference, and the audience is smart enough to call you out on your fallacies/contradictions. They ain’t gonna let ya get away with murder.

The audience awaits your answer so we can understand what you are talking about....but more importantly, to see if YOU understand what you are talking about.

Bruce Quint on January 28, 2015:

This shape--U--, is not an object? Call it a letter or a grapheme, or whatever, it matters not, it is still an object.

fatfist (author) on January 27, 2015:

".letters are objects- for they have SHAPE. "

You confused the object 'A' one can illustrate on paper with the alphabetic units of language we call letters or graphemes. The former is an object while the latter is a concept that ascribes meaning in language. Never the twain shall meet.

object: that which has shape

concept: a relation between objects

The OBJECT 'A' you illustrate on paper is related to other objects (i.e. B, C, D...) to form the CONCEPT we call "letter" for the purposes of ascribing meaning in linguistic use for human communication and understanding.

Bruce Quint on January 27, 2015:

All words, on a screen or page, are composed of letters..letters are objects- for they have SHAPE. You can even use one letter-shape to stand-in for the hypothetical object called the universe(like the letter U). Human practice has it, that objects like numbers and letters in combination can even stand in for non objects like time or length. It is irrational to confuse the number or letter for the concept of time or length. But I get ahead of myself, I have not understood your definition for the word, 'concept'..?

fatfist (author) on January 20, 2015:

"So now we still have a circular reference."

No circular reference at all. A "subject" is the topic in question in the sentence, be it an object or a concept. When we apply the definition of object to that subject, we resolve the ontological context of the referent to determine if it has shape or not.

"Space: no object"

no object = not that which has shape = that which lacks shape

grock on January 20, 2015:

I didn't know if we should use dictionary.com since we are wanting to define terms rationally.

Dictionary.com says, "That:used as a SUBJECT or OBJECT..."

We know the word "that" is not an OBJECT, because space is not an object.

But according to dictionary.com, here is the definition of "Subject" :

"THAT which forms a basic matter of thought,discussion, investigation, etc".

So now we still have a circular reference.

I don't think we can use dictionary.com for our definitions.

How about this definition:

Space: no object

If so, should we all use this from now on? If not, what should we use?

Monk E Mind from My Tree House on January 20, 2015:

Ha hA! AND that my friend is that!

fatfist (author) on January 20, 2015:

You can easily look it up yourself. In Science, we only define the key terms of the hypothesis and theory.

But since you're new at this stuff, I’ll show you just this one time how you, your friends and family can go about finding the definitions of common every day terms of ordinary speech.

You can use google to find a dictionary. Alternatively you can go to the library or a book store. Sometimes if I'm close to a University, I'll pop into the English department and ask a PhD Professor of Linguistics and Grammar, especially an expert in Contextual Grammars.

For instance, dictionary.com says:

that: used as the subject or object of a relative clause.

In the context of the definition of object, ‘that’ is used as the subject in question. It can’t be an object because that’s what we’re trying to define. Specifically, the term ‘that’ alludes to the referent used to evaluate its ontological context to determine whether it has shape or not. If that referent does, then it’s an object.

grock on January 20, 2015:

Oh, I meant the definition of the word, "that".

fatfist (author) on January 20, 2015:

"Can you define "that"?"

Here's the definitions....

space: that which lacks shape

object: that which has shape

space is the antithesis of object.....nothing vs something. There is no other option or category. It's like ON or OFF.

grock on January 20, 2015:

This all makes sense to me, I just want to try to define some terms so I can try a hypothesis/theory combination.

grock on January 20, 2015:

You say, space: THAT which lacks shape

Can you define "that"?

fatfist (author) on June 12, 2014:

There shouldn't be anything wrong with that. This is after all a politically correct forum. Just don't make me nervous cuz my hands start to sweat...

Percy Titsham on June 12, 2014:

I'm cute, yeah. But it's more of a bromance - let me get that straight from the off.

fatfist (author) on June 11, 2014:

I couldn't care less if the universe is expanding or not....if you're cute, all I wanna do is hold your hand. Perhaps I can find some diamonds in this vast universe that are worthy of your hand....

Percy Titsham on June 11, 2014:

So what you're saying is that because we live in an expanding universe we could never hold hands?

fatfist (author) on June 11, 2014:

C'mon Percy....let's make sense here. Take any explosion or expansion, say a bomb. All the pieces fly off away from each other.

In the case that space is alleged to expand, this necessarily implies that space is an object and has a surface. This expanding surface will pull all the galaxies apart. Try it on your bedsheet (i.e. the fabric of space). Put objects on it and get 4 people to pull on each corner of the sheet, even expanding it. The objects will move away from each other because they are in CONTACT with the fabric.....just like the galaxies are alleged to be in CONTACT with space during expansion. This is what the Mathematicians are saying. You're smart, Percy. How can you swallow this nonsense?

Percy Titsham on June 11, 2014:

But the only reason boats (galaxies) exist is due to gravity and, in this case, boats attract each other. So it is only natural that, eventually, boats will begin to move towards each other. Some will move away from each other, but they will end up moving towards other boats.

fatfist (author) on June 11, 2014:

Percy,

If the ocean Universe increases between the boats and outwards (i.e. as in BB expansion), the boats have no choice but to follow suit and move outwards with the flow.

Percy Titsham on June 11, 2014:

Thanks for the compliments!

Okay, if we stick to your point about "If the ocean increases between the boats and outwards, ALL the boats should be moving away from each other as the ocean rises. No exceptions"

If the boats are free to float wherever on the ocean they do not necessarily all move away from each other.

fatfist (author) on June 03, 2014:

This is funny stuff, onekleverG, and has to do with Math, not with Physics. Math is a tautological system of Formal Logic founded on man-made rules (axioms) and premises. Any conclusion reached by Math is none other than a DERIVATION directly from the axioms and the input premises. Like in any System of Logic, what you put IN is what you get OUT. There is no other option.

Ergo, Math has nothing to do with reality. Reality is not tautological and not subject to man-made rules or other subjective opinions. Reality can only be critically reasoned and rationally explained. Even most PhD Math Professors are SHOCKED to discover this for the first time in their lives. I mean, these clowns warmed up a seat in University for 7+ years and still don’t understand what Mathematics is about. I pity these fools as I see tears in their eyes whenever I educate them about the trials & tribulations of Bertrand Russell.

Russell eventually realized this about Math when after decades of failing to show that Mathematics is absolute and having to do with reality; he became mentally ill and almost died like his buddies Turing, Cantor and Godel. He finally realized that Math cannot prove anything in reality and was a huge proponent of this fact.

“Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.” - Bertrand Russell

onekleverG on June 03, 2014:

Okay :P, imagine a stretched cloth sheet, now place a rock on it, doesn't it bend the area around it. This is what gravity is, it bends space and time around it and the one causing it is matter, matter a +ve energy came into existence by many subatomic particles joining together.origin of Life is a whole new lot of things to explain and the thiest and athiest wannabes interpret the whole thing wrong and go fuck around with the misinterpreted info and spread some bizarre facts which aren't even real and i explained origin of the universe in previous comment. Nt knowing an answer means god exists, it can definitely not be possible, when you get into the field of science, you'll realize the very minute perfection of detail ti complex stuff. You'll realize that you are part of the living system rather than thinking

onekleverG on June 03, 2014:

Hey ff I enjoyed this very much! Although I haven't had enough time to read all the comments it was extremely interesting & educational thank you! I was trying to explain to someone why the universe doesn't expand here is there reply. So lemme explain you, since atleast you're open minded and want to listen to theories, best theory is the big bang, now why does it makes sense?. The universe coming out of nothing is stupid right, no if you were thinking like that then you may be a tad wrong. Now what is nothing, it is zero(0) and this was the time when singularity was there, meaning nothing but can't you write 0 as -1+1?it's the same thing right, so in the universe the +ve 1 indicates the matter which occupy space and there is gravity around them which is the - ve part cause all matter in the universe hav gravitational force directly proportional to the product their mass. -1+1 us too small for the ratio of universe, there representation for universe would be -infinity+infinity. But the wonder in them is that when you add them you get zero but they exist as well cause everything so far has an equal and opposite to maintain neutrality and the reason for nothing to exist in such bizarre state accounting for all the very thing around us as well as the opposite is the big bang. Hope you could understand :)

fatfist (author) on May 23, 2014:

Percy,

“we measure space (even if space doesn't exist, as you are so eager to point out).”

How can you measure nothing which doesn't exist, you fool? If a term in language doesn’t resolve to an object, then it resolves to nothing. That’s why what that term alludes to doesn't exist and cannot possibly be measured…..unless you’re snorting Zoloft and smoking crack cocaine of course! You need to enter a drug rehab center so you can talk rationally for once in your life.

When you graduate with a clean bill of health, you can begin to educate yourself on the difference between OBJECTS & CONCEPTS so you can live in reality like the rest of us:

.

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/What-is-an

https://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/The-Ontology-of-L...

.

“Our universe only expands”

‘Universe’ is a CONCEPT, not an object. Only objects can possibly expand, like your pants!

Universe: A concept that embodies matter (atoms) and space (nothing).

Concepts like Universe, love, justice, virtue, tranquility, etc. have no shape, no architecture, and are NOT amenable to ‘expansion’, stretching, shrinking, etc. We learn this on the first day of Junior Kindergarten. Did you learn anything in JK, Percy, or were you just picking your nose and playing hooky? Regardless….learn the diff between objects and concepts and you’ll get back on track.

It’s IMPOSSIBLE for a concept like ‘the’ Universe to expand!

“the concept of infinity is not just a concept - it is fact!”

LOL, not according to YOUR Priests! For the first time in your life you should read their published Scriptures, instead of just gawking & drooling over their likeness in photos, framing their autographed pictures on your wall, watching their Sunday specials on TV, parroting their “cherry-picked” verses from their Scriptures….and buying their used undergarments on eBay so you can sleep with them under your pillow!

.

“The infinite divisibility of a continuum is an operation which exists only in thought. It is merely an idea which is in fact impugned by the results of our observations of nature and of our physical and chemical experiments. Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought — a remarkable harmony between being and thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” -- David Hilbert (Mathematician Extraordinaire), On The Infinite

“the infinite certainly doesn’t exist in the same sense that we say ‘There are fish in the sea.’ Existence in the mathematical sense is wholly different from the existence of objects in the real world.” -- Kasner & Newman (Mathematicians Extraordinaire), Mathematics and the Imagination

.

There you have it right from the mouths of YOUR experts on the subject: infinity is just a delusionary thought stemming only from human apes high on crack cocaine and Zoloft. There are NO infinities in reality!

I hope you attend that rehab center real soon…..your sanity depends on it!

Percy Titsham on May 22, 2014:

"In fact, Big Bang Theory demands such a scenario. Back to the ocean example: If the ocean increases between the boats and outwards, ALL the boats should be moving away from each other as the ocean rises. No exceptions!

This is not what the astronomers verify. Andromeda is blue shifted and allegedly on a collision course with the Milky Way, barely 2 million light years away.

This observation alone contradicts and debunks the Big Bang Theory and the alleged expansion of the Universe!"

No it doesn't. You're assuming that the boats on the surface of the water are static relative to each other. They're not! They are free to move however they wish. The boats are independent of the water even though they float on it. The clue is in the very analogy you present.

You also lack an understanding of how we measure space (even if space doesn't exist, as you are so eager to point out).

Our universe only expands according to how we observe it. Whether it is actually expanding or not is irrelevant when discussing with people like yourself. I personally prefer the 'shrinking atom' theory which supposes an infinitely small universe which is perpetually forced out of existence in the presence of the mathematical property of infinity.

Does the 'mathematical property of infinity' make a difference? Yes it does. As you (fatfist) have already asserted - the concept of infinity is not just a concept - it is fact!

Any finite object existing inside an infinite realm is always almost non-existent. And that is our universe!

nicholashesed on May 06, 2013:

maybe I should have gone to university after all ;)

Nah.

I'm a quick learner. I can start applying what I learn here.

fatfist (author) on May 06, 2013:

“Do you have any recommended reading other than what you have here? “

What I present in my articles comes from my university courses of study in Natural and Formal Languages. It’s pretty standard stuff in the field of Linguistics. I haven’t had the need to investigate other sources.

nicholashesed on May 06, 2013:

very good. I am going to read all your stuff even the comments.

Btw. In your other hub you speak of syntactical grammar and contextual grammar as if you have texts or are involved in teaching. Do you have any recommended reading other than what you have here? I want to get to the point where I can discern words at a higher level like what you are doing. This will help me in life and more especially reading the Bible.

fatfist (author) on May 06, 2013:

Space is a noun in language because we have conceptualize it. But mathematicians never made it past the syntactical grammar stage. They treat space as a substance that can bend, stretch and hold a planet in orbit. It can hold a planet in place and yet doesn't even mess up your hair when it pushes against the planet. Funny!

Space is reasoned rationally at the critical thinking stage....something which the mathematicians try to dismiss as petty semantics.

space: that which lacks shape

nicholashesed on May 06, 2013:

I cannot believe I'm saying this but you have irrevocably convinced me that the universe or more precisely space simply does not and even cannot expand!!! I've been reading modern cosmology for years and never understood the concept and never found a reasonable explanation. Why? Because it is simply impossible for nothing to stretch. Thank you fatfist!!! You have a certain acquired wisdom which I appreciate.

And I agree with you about criticizing BB and other modern scientific ideologies as pseudo-religions. After years of reading this stuff my understanding as a practicing Roman Catholic was that some scientists turned the universe into their god. Idol worship. Their universe is in some ways more mysterious than God Himself!!! How does space expand? Miraculous foam. Particles continually appear and annihilate each other. Dark energy. Not only does it expand it accelerates! The idea that the universe expands has even found its way into Biblical interpretation, e.g. when Isaiah says, "He who stretches out the heavens as a tent". They say that this is inerrant because of the ideas of modern cos.

I kept thinking to myself (from my Roman Catholic view) that in order for some of these ideas to be true; God would have to be accomplishing a continuous miracle just to keep everything held together. Or some people say everything is a miracle. But that is non-sense. We live in the age of blind leading the blind, even in religion.

God created nature to exist on its own. But I still think matter had a beginning. God miraculously created something. Prior to something their is only God. God adopted mankind, etc. Everything was created for God. Etc.

Still just understanding this one point is truly precious.

fatfist (author) on April 25, 2013:

Got any picture of that space you observed, Wolfy? I am very anxious to see its edges or perimeter and very curious as to what is outside that space object. Perhaps Lawrence Krauss' and Richard Dawkins' DEISTIC GOD ??

Hi there, Deistic God....I'm fatfist....I'm fat around the edges....pear-shaped and a lardass of sorts....but I've been a good boy this year. Will you please relay that message to Santa, just as you do for all the other bonehead Atheists out there?

fatfist (author) on April 23, 2013:

Wolfy,

“First off, you seem to not know that "space-time" is demonstrably evident, and you seem to think that space itself cannot expand”

To settle this matter objectively, all you gotta do is define the key term which makes or breaks your argument about space expanding: SPACE! Your definition is:

Wolfy: “Space: the 3 coordinates which define relative position.”

So the definition of space DEFINES another concept you call position? Ummm…Wolfy, this is a recursive and ambiguous attempt at a definition. A Scientific Definition only gives us the meaning of the term in question without committing the Fallacy of Equivocation or going off into tangents to attempt to define other terms. Here, educate yourself on what a SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION is all about:

https://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-a-Scienti

Sorry, Wolfy….You haven’t defined space….your definition is unscientific.

But let’s further dissect what you have so you can get a better understanding of what your proposal is up against.

The “coordinate” concept is used in the context of location. The three coordinates are known as longitude, latitude, and altitude. Coordinates have two properties: direction and orthogonality. In Physics, coordinates have to do with LOCATION and point towards the test object. We need 3 coordinates to specify any location on or in a sphere: longitude, latitude, and altitude. Without an object, there is are no coordinates and no location. Physics 101!

The “position” concept is used in the context of an object (i.e. architecture). Position is the 'site' or volume the object 'takes up'. Position is the object itself. Physics has no use for the term ‘position’ because Physics explicitly uses the term OBJECT. Now, if by “position” you are alluding to where an object is located, then Physics uses the term LOCATION….so you gotta get your terminology proper. It is in Religion & Mathematics where they confuse Position for Location.

Now…..despite your failed definition, I will assume that you are attempting to define space as an object. So you are telling the audience that we can use the 3 coordinates (longitude, latitude, and altitude) to locate a test object WITHIN this object you call SPACE. Just like we can use 3 coordinates to locate a rock WITHIN the Earth. So naturally, just like we can illustrate the Earth, you had better be able illustrate this alleged object you call “space”. An internet link will do.

You need to justify your proposal by showing the audience an image of this “space” object and illustrating and labeling what is OUTSIDE this “space” object. Only then can we understand whether space is an object that is amenable to motion and actions, like expansion.

I mean….it is YOU who claims that an object is what you OBSERVE. So please…don’t keep us in suspense….illustrate this space object you observed, its shape, its border and please label what is outside its border. Please and thank you!

If you can’t illustrate this, then your whole argument about expanding this alleged space object is moot!

fatfist (author) on April 23, 2013:

Wolfy,

“Object: something observable.”

Failures:

1) Something is a synonym for object. This is circular, rhetorical, meaningless and unscientific.

2) Your definition necessitates a SECOND object, the observer to detect an object. You are saying that an object requires 2 objects. Equivocation and contradiction. So the question still remains: what is an object?

3) A definition which invokes an observer within the definition itself, is subjective and unscientific.

In Physics, this is how object is defined rationally, unambiguously, without observers and without contradictions.

Object: that which has shape. (Synonym: physical, particle, thing, body, architecture, substance, finite, anything, something, discrete, entity, stuff, medium)

The Moon has shape before any human evolves to observe and give an opinion on the issue.

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/What-is-an

.

“Concept: something imaginable.”

Failures:

1) Something is a synonym for object. A concept is not an object. Fatal category error! This is contradictory and unscientific.

2) Concepts are conceptualized…..not imagined. The term ‘imagine’ comes from ‘image’ which necessarily invokes shape and visualization of an object. To conceptualize is to imagine objects in a RELATION, not merely a lone object! A relation necessarily invokes a minimum of 2 objects. You only invoked 1. This is contradictory.

Here’s how we rationally define concept without contradictions….

Concept: a relation between two or more objects.

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/The-Ontolo...

Wolfy on April 23, 2013:

First off, you seem to not know that "space-time" is demonstrably evident, and you seem to think that space itself cannot expand. This is fundamentally inaccurate. Space can and does expand, and this knowledge informs general relativity which has been demonstrated many times, and is demonstrated every day in satellites. Space as the layman term is very different from the physical term. No-one claims space is expanding into "nothing", they claim it is expanding. Period.

Space does not need to expand into anything. Just as the surface of a balloon, as a two dimensional object, can expand nevertheless.

Next point. Space can have shape, related to what the sum of interior angles of a triangle is, or the value of pi. Look up hyperbolic space, or draw a triangle on a balloon. Our space just happens to be relatively flat. You keep coming back to this. Space is not a normal 3 dimensional object, it's hard to picture in your head. It is infinite and unbounded.

Relative motions between nearby galaxies does NOT disprove the Hubble flow. The farther away from earth you go, the less blue shifted galaxies there are, this is because the larger the distance is, the more Lambda in Friedmanns equations matters. There is a distance beyond which there are NO blue shifted galaxies. The father you look the slower the regression is, indicating that the universe is accelerating in it's expansion, the Nobel prize was awarded for this.

Third point: particles are formed all the time, and we can show under exactly which conditions atoms are formed, as well as neutrons, protons, photons, neutrinos, etc. You misuse both mater and space, and matter does form spontaneously in "empty space". You come close to a good point when you talk about the perception of time, but you fail to acknowledge that it is a dimension, only slightly different from any other dimension in physics.

Last point: seriously, a bad illustration in a first year astronomy textbook is not proof of anything. Clearly the illustration is representing either a portion of the universe, or the observable universe. The universe CAN expand faster than light, and if you need proof, go look at a map of the CMBR. The universe is infinite, yet in TIME we "see" an edge. The universe goes beyond that, but light has not reached us from it yet.

Space: the 3 coordinates which define relative position. Time: the coordinate that defines relative change. Knowledge: The quality generally given to things that are both demonstrable, and falsifiable, that have not been demonstrated false. Nothing: in the physical sense, this is like Absolute Zero. It does not exist. Object: something observable. Concept: something imaginable. Mathematics is the language of physics, and it is demonstrable to have relation to reality.

fatfist (author) on March 25, 2013:

“If it indeed isn't real, what's the proper way to talk about phenomena/processes that are deemed to have a 'temporal component'”

Look at your watch….or a calendar or something. Time conceptually relates the memorized motion of objects. Look at the last posts of my article on entropy for an explanation of time.

"What's the proper language to use"

Canada: English, French and Mandarin

USA: English and Spanish

Luis on March 25, 2013:

Hi fatfist,

just trying to wrap my head around the notion that time isn't real. If it indeed isn't real, what's the proper way to talk about phenomena/processes that are deemed to have a 'temporal component' (like, say, biological evolution or cognition)? For example , if we're assessing a claim about the split between two lineages of dinosaur, how do we go about addressing 'when' it happened? What's the proper language to use if we want to get away from (what appears to be) the shorthand convenience of time-talk?

fatfist (author) on December 24, 2012:

Hi Confuscience,

“I have briefly tried to look up if light 'dims' over distance, but have not found anything significant. "Expansionists" have said that light doesn't diminish over distance, only spreads out over that distance (?). Does this mean light is in perpetual motion, never slowing down or ending?”

Light is not a ‘thing’. Light is not in motion. Light is not an entity/object. Light is a phenomenon. Light is a concept. Light is what an object DOES. There is an object that mediates this phenomenon we call light.

Light, in and of itself, has no speed. What has speed is the rate at which an object moves to mediate the phenomenon we call light.

“They then say, that we don't see all the light in the night sky because space is expanding at a faster rate than light moves”

We already established that it is impossible for light to ‘move’. It is also impossible for space (i.e. nothing) to move (i.e. expand). Concepts are not amenable to motion. Mathematics is a Religion and nothing more.

“Anyway, is this 'tired light hypothesis' related to how light diminishes in space, and therefore, why we don't experience a flood of light from distant stars?”

Mathematicians have no explanation of the Tired Light Theory. Only a Physicist can explain this phenomenon which is predicated on a rational hypothesis for a mediator of light.

To understand the phenomenon of light you need to understand that it is impossible for there to be any discrete standalone particles in the universe. Why? Because discrete particles cannot mediate the phenomenon of attraction we call gravity. Case closed!

All atoms in the universe are necessarily interconnected via some mediating entity that is responsible for the phenomena of gravity, light, magnetism and electricity. Only a rope can pull a dog towards you (i.e. gravity) and only a rope can simulate the c = frequency x wavelength property of light - nothing else; and certainly not particles, waves or wavicles.

This is sooooo important, that it warrants repetition:

Only a rope can simulate the c = frequency x wavelength property of light - nothing else; and certainly not particles, waves or wavicles.

There is no other object that can possibly simulate the c = frequency x wavelength property of light....only the rope!

All atoms are interconnected via a 2-stranded rope-like entity. When an atom torques the rope (just like you torque a clothesline), a torque signal is sent down the rope to all the atoms in another galaxy. This torque signal physically affects the receiving atoms (inducing motion); be it the atoms comprising our retinas or the atoms comprising a rock. It is this phenomenon we call LIGHT.

As objects like stars and galaxies move closer or apart, they respectively compress or stretch the links of the two-stranded rope. This is what physically happens to a two-stranded taught rope when it is pushed together or pulled apart while torque signals are sent from either end of this medium. This changes the wavelength and hence the frequency of the torque signals we call light. But c always remains constant because the medium (i.e. transport highway) for light hasn’t changed. The speed of light, c, is necessarily medium-dependent! Since many of these torqueing frequencies are OUTSIDE our visible spectrum (i.e. our retinas have a limited bandwidth response to stimulus), we cannot SEE most of these resulting effects of light in the night sky. This is only an illusion that makes the sky “APPEAR” dark “to us”. Our sensory system has certainly fooled us….big time! Obviously, this doesn’t mean that these torque signals aren’t reaching us. In fact, they are stimulating every single atom in our bodies as we speak; not to mention all the atoms in the Universe. We can detect this background EM radiation which has NOTHING to do with an alleged Big Bang or any mythical Creation. This phenomenon we call “background radiation” specifically has to do with all the atoms in the Universe torqueing the two-stranded ropes which interconnect them; i.e. the sender sends a torque signal to the receiver and the receiver sends it back to the sender, simultaneously! This simultaneous ping-pong effect is called the Principle of Ray Reversibility (PPR) of light.

Again, since many of these torqueing frequencies are beyond our visible spectrum, we cannot SEE most of these stars in the night sky. Hence we are fooled into thinking that most the night sky is devoid of light from distant objects…but it’s not. The effects of light and color are the result of the motion (i.e. torque signal frequency) of the mediator of light. Obviously, most of the portion of the EM spectrum is not detected by our petty retinas. But this doesn’t mean these torque signals of light are not being sent to every single atom in the Universe. The Universe goes about its business irrespective of what a petty human ape can observe or detect with his limited senses and technology. Reality is indeed observer-independent!

Monk E Mind from My Tree House on December 24, 2012:

Awesome explanation!

Monk E Mind from My Tree House on December 23, 2012:

Hi Confuscience,

As for tired light, as I said it is a theory that has been disguarded by mainstream physics. It is related to redshift and opposes space expansion, so they had to drop it. GIYF!

Yes, DO argue semantics. Definitions are important. Stick to your guns. I admire any philosopher that defines his terms! Very unusual indeed.

confuscience on December 23, 2012:

MonkeyMinds,

Thanks for the response. But what's the 'tired light hypothesis'? Sorry, but my knowledge of physics and its theories is very limited, though I find FatFist's demand for rigorous definitions quite refreshing.

My background is in contemporary philosophy (though I'm not published or work in academia), and I find most philosophic arguments, in fact, revolve around definitions. I snicker when someone accuses me of debating semantics; most often, it does.

Anyway, is this 'tired light hypothesis' related to how light diminishes in space, and therefore, why we don't experience a flood of light from distant stars? Sorry for being so inquisitive, but I would like to know more...

Regarding the expansion of space, yeah, I've always thought it was awkward, at best. In order for space to 'expand', it would have to be something rather than nothing, but as you remarked, space is NOTHING, merely a concept we created to distinguish the distance between separate objects. Besides, if space DID 'expand', tension would be necessary, like hands stretching a membrane taut... THAT'S IT! The Universe is God's "dental dam", stretching around His girlfriend's nether-region! He's just practicing safe-sex!.... Let this be a lesson for us all; if you think she's spunky, cover your monkey!!!

Cheers!

Monk E Mind from My Tree House on December 22, 2012:

Yer talking about Olber's Paradox. Ever heard of iron poor tired light?

It's not red-shifted light. The sky is dark in places, and it's not a matter of no stars being there. It's a matter of stars being so far away that the light is too faint to reach us. The reason the tired light hypothesis has lost traction, is because the mathemagicians can't think of a physical mechanism to explain it, and because of time dilation and other impossible nonsense.

There is a simple physical explanation and it involves the Rope Hypothesis. Look it up. For now just realize that space is nothing. Care to explain how nothing can expand?

Understand that the light frequency is below the visible threshold.

confuscience on December 22, 2012:

Hey FatFist,

I'm not well versed in the intricacies of physics or cosmology, but one rebuttal to the 'Eternal Universe" model is the darkness of the night sky. If the universe did not begin to exist, then the night sky would be incredibly bright.

I have briefly tried to look up if light 'dims' over distance, but have not found anything significant. "Expansionists" have said that light doesn't diminish over distance, only spreads out over that distance (?). Does this mean light is in perpetual motion, never slowing down or ending?

They then say, that we don't see all the light in the night sky because space is expanding at a faster rate than light moves.... WHOA!?! This is were they lose me. And here I've always been told, nothing is faster than the speed of light... Except if we jump to "ludicrous speed" and save Princess Vespa from Dark Helmet.

Anyway, just wanted to get your input on the whole "night sky would be too bright" response.

El Dude on December 02, 2012:

Smackdown.

fatfist (author) on December 02, 2012:

Jmstar,

“you do seem to think, is that truth=opinion”

This discussion is not about entertaining what I or you or anyone else “thinks”. Opinions are irrelevant in any discussion of reality. It is extremely easy to justify that all truths are subject to the sensory system of an individual…ergo, all truths are none other than opinions. Here is how we justify this in a way that is impossible to be contradicted by anyone…..and I mean anyone!

https://discover.hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/...

“a truth like "Every Human will die someday"

That’s not a truth. It doesn’t even fall within the CONTEXT of truth; be it “universal truth” or “absolute truth”, or any other nonsensical truth that a human ape can invent by magically pulling it out of his ass!

That is a propositional statement about the future, and it cannot be proven (i.e. validated) as either true or false. All truths are necessarily about the PRESENT as they are proven (validated) in the PRESENT by an observer…..not in the past or in the future where there are no “present” observers to validate them, understand?

That proposition is either a ‘guess’ or a ‘prediction’. In Physics we don’t do guesses or predictions….that stuff is for the cultish Bimbos we call Astrologers & Mathematicians. In Physics we can easily explain why all living entities age and cannot replicate their molecular structures forever as they shed and acquire atoms during their lifetime.

Every single atom in our bodies is interconnected to every single atom out there in the universe. This means that we are nothing but puppets that are bound to the effects of gravity and EM radiation. We cannot escape these processes no matter where we are located. The persistent effect of the whittling of a DNA here ….or the pulling of a cell atom out of alignment there, within our bodies…..is a destructive process until our bodily system is overcome (i.e. damaged based aging). These cumulative effects are proportional to age: the longer you live, the more you will accumulate this damage. The gravity of the Earth is the strongest in our vicinity and is essentially tearing us apart minute by minute. Just look at what happens to women’s breasts as they age….or how our bodies sag as a whole. At some point, cells and organs begin malfunctioning, and eventually throw in the towel. Also, the immune system starts failing us or we undergo hormonal changes – again, due to the atomic stresses within every cell and molecule in our body. On top of this destructive process, we also add the high frequency torque signals from space known as ‘cosmic rays’ (i.e. radiation) suddenly disrupting every molecule in our body by torqueing all its atoms. Now you can begin to understand what is happening to you as you age. In general, this is what is causing us to shed and acquire atoms (via food) in our body to repair these effects and to live another day….until our body cannot repair them any longer. Every single object in the universe is being disrupted by gravity (tension) and radiation (torque signals). It’s unavoidable. Gravity and radiation cannot be blocked with any shields.

No object, whether a star, planet, rock, living being, etc. can ever stay as is forever. The Universe is essentially a perpetual atomic recycling machine. All the atoms in the Universe have been recycling themselves for eternity….and will continue to do so forever more!

“the TRUTH about our purpose in this case would not require any human to validate it inorder to be OBJECTIVE truth”

All alleged truths stem from propositional statements. All statements must be validated by a human BEFORE they are decreed as true or false. You need to understand these basics. Without proof, there is no truth. Ergo, “objective truth” is impossible. All your alleged truths are only YOUR opinions/beliefs (i.e. subjective truths). You cannot objectively justify any proposition to be “objectively truth”…..nope, no way…impossible!

“ the game of semantics we played”

Yes, you did play lots of semantic “games” by avoiding to DEFINE any of your terms that make or break your arguments. When you don’t define, you create loopholes that are stealthily used to give ambiguous meanings to your terms for the purposes of winning every argument using deception. We call this: intellectual dishonesty!

You cannot play these games here. I hold everyone accountable for their statements. If you cannot define your terms….then you are nothing but a Priest who wants to brainwash people in order to create a following, like Theism, Atheism, Relativity, Quantum, String Theory, etc.

El Dude on December 02, 2012:

Jmstar your dumb brain didn't learn anything, you just repeated your bible propaganda about Truth and God.

Truth is a concept, how can it be "part of" reality?! Concepts don't exist by definition. But here's a test for you, since you know so much. Define truth unambiguously.

Truth: _______________

"having God as the basis from which our purpose is derived from"

This doesn't make any sense. I cannot derive purpose from a potato or a cloud, can I? Tell me how that works, please. I love me some good old deriving.

Jmstar on December 02, 2012:

I think i'm going to leave things there and so since that is all I have to say, I am off to the edge of the universe lol

I came across this page by accident, but I never expected to stay on it for this long. I learned quite a bit from our discussion, especially in the game of semantics we played lol

Until next time, Bye

Jmstar on December 02, 2012:

“shape…..'SAID' to 'exist'”

I meant an object is 'SAID' to 'exist' when I said that...anyways regarding truth

I get the feeling that you don't think there is an ultimate truth to your life with regards to things like purpose or meaning... but anyways that is probably irrelevant ..but what you do seem to think, is that truth=opinion...

If a thought about a truth like "Every Human will die someday"... that would be a universal truth about the future of all humans, which would NOT depend on anyone to validate it as truth in order to actually happen.

"What is truth to you….is a LIE to your neighbor! Whom shall the audience believe? How do know who is telling the truth?

...would it really even matter at all if I thought a statement was THE TRUTH like the one I mentioned about death...? Would that truth really depend on my neighbor or the audience to believe in it.... Truth is NOT dependent on what humans think or believe.

Let me give you another example... lets say God himself created us humans for a purpose, and also but a soon to occur consequence for those who don't fulfill this purpose.

Now remember God as a concept is not subjective, therefore having God as the basis from which our purpose is derived from, would make it binding and objective because God transcends human subjectivity.

That being said, the TRUTH about our purpose in this case would not require any human to validate it inorder to be OBJECTIVE truth, including the neighbor who thinks of it as a lie hahaha

Truth is not just a mere opinion but apart of our reality.

fatfist (author) on December 01, 2012:

Jmstar,

“ I do believe in God but I have my own reasons for that”

It doesn’t matter what your opinions/beliefs are. The only thing the audience wants to know is your Hypothesis and Theory.

Your Hypothesis = God with no space and no matter.

Your Theory = God created space and matter and …..blah blah.

“shape…..'SAID' to 'exist'”

You gotta be kidding me, right? Shape is a concept….the property of an object. Concepts don’t exist. Only objects exist. You are still struggling with the basics, Jmstar…..I don’t know what to do with you. Did you read the article on ‘concepts’ I gave you?

“ But reality is not dependent on our what, or how we can explain things rationally or not.”

Exactly! Reality is not dependent on humans and their opinions (i.e. God exists and hides in the 27 th dimension).

Reality can only be critically analyzed and defined…. and phenomena in reality can only be rationally explained by humans. That’s it….there is no other rational option. And this is what I have done for you.

“I never said you should use human SENSORY SYSTEM”

Good! Then I’m glad you rationally understand that only our INTELLIGENCE and critical thinking/reasoning faculties can be used to rationally conceptualize reality and rationally explain phenomena.

Jmstar on December 01, 2012:

I never said you should use human SENSORY SYSTEM......

Jmstar on December 01, 2012:

Fatfirst, I do believe in God but I have my own reasons for that..which would be a waste of time to mention here because like you said "who cares what a human ape like you thinks".... anyways back to the topic

"SHAPE is the ONLY intrinsic property that any object has."

Shape is the ONLY understandable intrinsic property that any object is 'SAID' to have and so for that reason it is considered to be observer-independent, and 'SAID' to 'exist',it is all in the linguistics, but to ASSUME that it is impossible in reality for there to be an existence without the property of shape or an object in reality without the normal intrinsic property of shape for us to describe it with , would just be your OPINION. Of course there would be no way to ever describe it or even rationally or reasonably explain it using your god given intelligence. It is in this manner that human intelligence is limited with regards to understanding the full dimensions of reality.

We only can think about an object as some-thing with the concept of shape as an intrinsic property and so that then leaves us if we are to talking "rationally" according to you, with only one option left no shape = no-thing . But reality is not dependent on our what, or how we can explain things rationally or not.

NTELLIGENCE can be used to reason and rationally explain reality…..and NOT the human SENSORY SYSTEM (i.e. perception). Do you understand the difference, or is this above your reasoning capacity, Jmstar? Intelligence has NO limitations

"Shape is an intrinsic and observer-independent property of all objects."

and so you assume that an object with

fatfist (author) on December 01, 2012:

Jmstar,

“God is something but not an Object”

Oxymoron…a Linguistic Contradiction!!

An object is ‘some-thing’….not ‘no-thing’. They are synonyms!

something: that which has shape (Synonyms: object, material, , exhibit, physical, thing, something, stuff, body, structure, architecture, substance, medium, particle, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, island, statue, bulk)

“ what you are able to conceive of is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with objective reality. “

Nonsense! Only INTELLIGENCE can be used to reason and rationally explain reality…..and NOT the human SENSORY SYSTEM (i.e. perception). Do you understand the difference, or is this above your reasoning capacity, Jmstar? Intelligence has NO limitations….whereas the sensory system is extremely limited. Here, educate yourself on the basics:

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/What-is-IN...

“We can't conceive of a something, that has no shape or location”

We can most certainly conceive of circles, superman, a 2018 Corvette…..none of which have location, but nonetheless are ‘something’ i.e. objects!

Just because you are uneducated enough to understand the difference, doesn’t mean nobody else can’t conceive it.

But nonetheless….we can easily conceive of the void/space/vacuum which has no shape AND no location. If you can’t, then you should either learn what a CONCEPT is….or….ask God to give you a refund on your non-functioning brain, got it?

Space/void: that which lacks shape.

There….I just conceived it!!! Space/void is a concept. Every single word in any language falls in either the categories of OBJECT or CONCEPT. There is no other option….ever.

LOL, either you are brain-dead or just trolling…..which is it?

“but is that all there is to reality NO!”

You are welcome to tell the audience what your personal THIRD option is, aside from OBJECTS (i.e. something) or CONCEPTS (i.e. nothing). What is the other option between SHAPE and NO-SHAPE???

“even objects which is (that which has shape), invokes subjective observers like the concept of shape which is nothing but a concept that we humans have invented “

Nonsense! You don’t know your brain from a hole in the ground.

Shape is an intrinsic and observer-independent property of all objects. In fact….SHAPE is the ONLY intrinsic property that any object has. The Moon has shape, it doesn’t blend with space to become nothing…. irrespective of any life evolving here to give an opinion on the issue.

And yes, we invented the word ‘shape’ to describe this property of objects. But we did not invent the intrinsic property of shape. Why? Because shape is observer-independent! Love and justice, otoh, are observer-dependent concepts. We actually invented love and justice….but not shape.

Learn the basics before chasing your tail with the ignorance your Pastor bestowed upon you.

“if all concepts are just ideas from subjective observers”

No! You still don’t get it. Here, I will write s-l-o-w-l-y so you can perhaps understand:

There are observer-independent concepts which don’t invoke an observer WITHIN their definition (i.e. shape, object, exist, location, distance, length).

And there are observer-dependent concepts which DO invoke an observer within their definition (i.e. love, justice, virtue, happiness, money).

Please get a basic education, Jmstar. How much does one cost in your neck of the woods? Here….I am compelled to whip out my wallet and pay for it so as not to see you being an ignoramus all your life! What a shame.

“Existence is OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT!”

Exactly! Keep repeating it until it sinks in. Maybe you can undo all the brain damage your Pastor did to you all your life. I can only hope that there is HOPE for you.

Jmstar on December 01, 2012:

"God is necessarily SOMETHING (an object) because THE ONLY OTHER OPTION IS NOTHING!"

......your so hopeless, you just can't think outside of the box eh...

God is something but not an Object the term object is defined (that which has shape) and so because he is not an Object the only other CONCEIVABLE OPTION is nothing... but remember what you are able to conceive of is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with objective reality. We can't conceive of a something, that has no shape or location (i.e not an object) in reality, so the only other conceivable option remaining is nothing...but is that all there is to reality NO!..that is only what we try and conceive of as an objective reality... because even objects which is (that which has shape), invokes subjective observers like the concept of shape which is nothing but a concept that we humans have invented therefore it does not exist?

See you said: If your God is a concept, like IMMATERIAL…..than you summarily excluded your God from existence.

and you define these terms as such:

exist: something somewhere (an object with location)

Object: that which has shape/form

So the objects are understood with concepts.. like shape/form and if all concepts are just ideas from subjective observers How are you defining your key terms objectively when the definition of the term 'object' involves concepts that subjective observers like us are required to understanding first.. this is then subjective and so the term 'exists' which an object with location also invokes subjective observers? But remember you said Existence is OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT!

fatfist (author) on December 01, 2012:

Jmstar,

“First of all, you don't even know what my Religion is!”

You confuse Religion with Theology. Do you know the difference? I don’t need to know or understand YOUR Theology. But I have already demonstrated that you have a Religion….not to mention that you admitted to believe in a God (irrelevant what Theology He belongs to).

“you understand things like God, shape/form, space, universe”

We only understand CONCEPTS….and we do so by defining them. All words are lexical concepts with meanings. You should ask your parents to drive you to school a few days a week so you can learn that, ok?

We cannot understand OBJECTS…..we point at them, illustrate them and name them. Please tell the audience WHAT you personally understand about the object ‘coconut’. Can you? Just try and watch the audience throw eggs at you!

God IS an OBJECT! God is necessarily something (has shape) instead of nothing (no shape)…..there is no other option.

Space and universe are concepts we define in no ambiguous terms.

Can you parents afford to send you to school, Jmstar???

“The reason you can perceive two objects”

Irrelevant!

Your subjectively personal biased observations have nothing to do with reality, much less with Physics. Reality is NOT dependent on observers. The Moon exists whether an ape like you perceives it or not. Period!

Reality can only be Hypothesized and Rationally explained with the Scientific Method as I explained to you in spades earlier.

Your argument is moot.

“OBJECTS IN THE MATERIAL WORLD”

You are a Religious Philosopher, aren’t you? Your Priest must have raped you pretty damn hard with these contradictory ideas, right?

Listen…..there is NO “material” or “immaterial” world…..no “natural” or “unnatural” world….whatever the heck that nonsense means.

There is only REALITY.

The Universe is a binary system…..space (nothing) and matter (atoms)…….something or nothing. There is NO other option.....neither material, immaterial, natural or unnatural (whatever the heck that nonsense means).

Either YOU are part of reality…or you are divorced from it, as you seem to indicate with your nonsensical gobbledygook.

“God is an immaterial entity”

Oxymoron…a Linguistic Contradiction!!

Entity: that which has shape (Synonyms: material, object, exhibit, physical, thing, something, stuff, body, structure, architecture, substance, medium, particle, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, island, statue, bulk)

Immaterial: that which lacks shape (synonym: nothing, space, void, vacuum)

Material is object. Immaterial is concept. Only objects can possibly exist. Concepts are RELATIONS between objects. Relations don’t exist! Do you understand this much, Jmstar???

See…..you don’t even understand your own sentences….that’s why you chase your tail in contradictory circles.

You need to learn Linguistics & Grammar 101. Jmstar, do you live in the ghetto? I mean, can your parents afford to send you to Primary School??

“Entity: is something that exists by itself, although it need not be of material existence.”

A clown like you should learn the basics, Jmstar.

A circle is an entity…..a 2018 Corvette is an entity….but they don’t exist! Your definition is refuted!!

Objecthood and existence are two different concepts……not synonyms, as you assume.

Entity: that which has shape (Synonyms: material, object, exhibit, physical, thing, something, stuff, body, structure, architecture, substance, medium, particle, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, island, statue, bulk)

“Your right God is an entity that is 'something' rather than 'nothing'”

It is irrelevant whether you label my statement right or wrong. What is relevant is whether it is rational. God is necessarily SOMETHING (an object) because THE ONLY OTHER OPTION IS NOTHING! Of course….the Theologian does not want His precious God to be ‘nothing’.

There is only something or nothing….there is NO other option. If your God is a concept, like IMMATERIAL…..than you summarily excluded your God from existence.

Ha ha ha! Now you’ve told the audience that your God is a concept i.e. nothing! You've told us that YOUR God is impossible to exist. Nice!

Monk E Mind from My Tree House on December 01, 2012:

^^^"God...is a complete non-physical immaterial unique entity."^^^

Kewl! I think you just said God is Space. In Him we live and move and have our being.

Jmstar on December 01, 2012:

monkeymind your probably right about that hahaha

Jmstar on December 01, 2012:

Fatfist,

"Listen, Jmstar…..you really need to learn the intricate details of YOUR Religion"

First of all, you don't even know what my Religion is!... So how can you talk to me about the details of my Religion in the first place?..... And then you quote verses of the Bible to teach me about my Religion hahahaha.

You seem to be confusing yourself and your peers by the way you seem to think you understand things like God, shape/form, space, universe...

I am going to try and get you to understand the irrational absurdity of your claims and illogical reasoning.

Let start with conceptual differentiation, this concepts includes space, distance, form, and physical features. The reason you can perceive two objects is due to differences like colour, size, and shape, including their placement, in other words there is a distance between them. In absence of these concepts could you perceive the two objects or any objects at all? No, You could not, because these concepts are required to perceive any number of entities. Your probably thinking what this has to do with anything.....Just bare with me

Now since the cause responsible for creating the sum of all matter in the natural world (assuming there is such an entity*) is beyond the physical natural world, you can safely assume that there are NO CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENTIATORS such as distance (i.e space), shape, colour and size; that can ever be associated with the unnatural reality of such an entity; because these concepts ONLY MAKE SENSE WHEN RELATING TO OBJECTS IN THE MATERIAL WORLD!! (exclusively applicable when relating to objects of nature, but nonsensical to associate with an entity existing as an unnatural reality.)

Now try and see how illogical it sound when you say:

"how can God possibly have shape/form AS THE BIBLE DICTATES if there is NO void? What background gives shape to God if not space? God cannot exist without space. Ergo…space is MORE powerful than God!"

See your forgetting that, there would be an absence of conceptual differentiators such as distance (space), shape, colour and size beyond the existence of the material world (again assuming there is such an existence) ; because these concepts only make sense when applied to the natural reality of the material world. To even try and make sense of the shape/form, or structure of an entity that exists beyond the physical material world; is illogical as that would place the entity within and apart of the the natural reality of the material world and.. So this would lead to an absurdity as it would imply that the whole of the material world was created ( or brought into existence) by itself..The cause of the material world must exist in a unique state of exists independently and with the absence of any and all conceptual differentators such as the concept of shape/form, and even space which can ONLY and I mean ONLY make any sense when speaking about objects of the nature. It would be meaningless and illogical to even try and apply these concepts to an unnatural immaterial entity like God.

Think about it!.. God is an immaterial entity because he created the sum of all material ( i.e Objects).. So now you have an entity that gives rise to another entity besides itself with a completely different nature and reality from itself..God is the only entity that exists independently, and uniquely from any other entity and with no limits. So while he brought into existence a different entity altogether with a different reality and nature (i.e Objects) which also includes its dependent reality on space because objects have limits and are finite. Like you said a concept that embodies Objects (matter/Atoms) and space is what we call the Universe.Remember an Object like Atoms can not exist without space which is because of the finite reality of the material world in which that Atom exists as an object; that type of reality is not the same reality of God's unique independent existence as an entity with a different nature from the material world and who is 'beyond' it. Not "outside" cause that simply just extends the boundary of the material world (not physically speaking but mentally).

"All entities/ Objects have shape/form, wether invisible or not (including GOD)"

Uum.... You mean MATERIAL OBJECTS are the only type of "entity" in the material world that must have shape/form. But be carefull to not assume that ONLY material objects are the ONLY TYPE of 'entity' in existence because objects (i.e matter, atoms) are simply just be A material 'entity', which is simply 'said' to exist but not the 'ONLY TYPE'. and remember you agreed that objects are not proven or disproven to exist; but just simply exist BY DEFINITION of the word 'exist'.

Entity: is something that exists by itself, although it need not be of material existence.

Now Concerning God, whether or not you think in God can be a possible entity is not my concern but I hold the view that entities are of two types but first lets defined entity:

"have a LOT of explaining to do!"

..explained the existence of an immaterial entity in a study like physics which only excepts and words with a only material existence view of reality, deriving key term in accordance with that... is pointless.

Now concerning God, whether or not you think in God can be a possible entity is not my concern, but I hold the opinion that reality is better made sense of by having two types of entities:

1. Material/Physical (objects: that which has shape such as Atom, rock, Humans)

2. Immaterial ( God, soul etc...) Not an object if you the way defined 'Object' (that which has shape/form in the physical world)... but still a "something" nonetheless.

you said,

"God is hypothesized by theologians to be an entity that is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. In order to be ‘ God must absolutely have shape/form, and structure to His being. Only ‘nothing’ lacks shape/form!"

Your right God is an entity that is 'something' rather than 'nothing' But don't jump to the assumption that entities must have a material existence or assume that things with Shape/form (i.e Material entities) can only be said to be an entity....But yeah sure, if a material entity (i.e an OBJECT) like Atoms, and rocks lack Shape/form... Then we are no longer talking about an object...and so what then is left within the observable natural world; when you don't have a material entities such as Atoms present?....Open space!.... which you call NOTHING...but wait remember God is not nothing, but is rather something, a completely immaterial unique entity!.. So what parts of nature would you look for a Non-physical or immaterial entity such as God? Surely not somewhere in open space...any location at all. So where is he? The most rational answer is simply be to say 'as an independent and immaterial unique state of existence.. with the absence of conceptual differentiator...Therefore if there are no knowable conceptual differentiators we cannot claim a multiplicity in any manner, as I have explained above the impossibility of perceiving plurality or multiplicity in absence of these concepts.. In other words no space which means he would take up everything as an entity ALONE and as one reality limitless by contrast to the natural reality of the finite objects of material existence.

Monk E Mind from My Tree House on November 30, 2012:

"I think monkeyminds is right im wasting my time here..."

Not what I said. Precision is precious, JMstar. What I said was:

'... if you are going to come back with stuff like, "the thinker, the thot, and the thing" you'd be better off at Philosophy 101, down the hall on the far left of physics.

fatfist (author) on November 30, 2012:

Jmstar,

“Information is not of standalone entities in our environment. It would be a concept and so concepts are associative, they relate objects, and only result from thought.”

Bingo! Now ya learnin’.

“ the way the terms 'reality' and 'exists' are defined”

They are synonyms, as I explained in detail earlier. Bottom line: all words have meanings. If you cannot define YOUR term unambiguously and use it consistently in your dissertation without contradictions….then you haven’t the SLIGHTEST CLUE what the word means, got it? There are no words without meanings!

“So this has nothing to do with truth”

TRUTH = OPINION. What is truth to you….is a LIE to your neighbor! Whom shall the audience believe? How do know who is telling the truth? Do we ask your Pastor to decide? Do we ask Richard Dawkins to decide?

Please educate yourself on 'truth' before making a fool out of yourself:

https://discover.hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/...

“ Physics or the scientific method does not deal with stuff like the phenomenon of experience which we have all throughout our lives nor does it even address the experiencer even though the ultimate reality that we know from any experience is the experiencer itself, in other words ourselves.”

Exactly!!!!

It is the Psychology and Mental Illness departments of the Insane Asylum which deal in the study of your Emotions, Personal Experiences, Grievances, Attitude Issues, Panic Attacks, Personality Disorders,….and all other subjectivities.

“ God how would you expect me to scrutinize him under the scientific method “

Huh? Ya mean….you don’t even know???

Listen, Jmstar…..you really need to learn the intricate details of YOUR Religion before posting such nonsense in public forums and embarrassing yourself and your peers. Listen and listen well: The Theologians of YOUR Religion have Hypothesized God to be an object…..God has shape/form!!!!

Here, read your Bible and educate yourself:

Numbers 12:8 -- “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the FORM of the LORD.”

Job 4:15-17 -- “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A FORM stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?”

See how simple that was? Just read your Bible....and not just the cherry-picked verses which your Pastor forced you to memorize by rote in Sunday school.

Even God cannot elude His objecthood and structure to His being, which gives Him shape. Those who disagree that all entities/objects have shape/form, whether invisible or not (including God Himself), have a LOT of explaining to do! God is hypothesized by theologians to be an entity that is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. In order to be ‘something’, God must absolutely have shape/form, and structure to His being. Only ‘nothing’ lacks shape/form!

See….God is a Hypothesis of the sci method because God allegedly performs events (i.e. Creation).

Now, you need to explain the Theory of Creation using God. How did God create space & matter from the void, especially when space is the void??

Also, ...how can God possibly have shape/form AS THE BIBLE DICTATES if there is NO void? What background gives shape to God if not space? God cannot exist without space. Ergo…space is MORE powerful than God!

You have a lot of contradictions to resolve, Jmstar!

“Empirical evidence' seems to be the only valid way YOU think conclusion can be reached rationally”

OMFG!!!

I never said that. Why are you putting words in my mouth and strawmaning me?

Jmstar…..you were talking rationally up to this point. Now you bite your tongue by asking for evidence (an OPINION!).

The Scientific Method is a conceptual field of study: Hypothesis + Theory are used to EXPLAIN the evidence provided by natural phenomena. You need to EXPLAIN the process of creation in your Creation Theory. Explanation is CONCEPTUAL only!!!! Explanation has nothing to do with evidence. We can explain the physical mechanism that makes a car work without even having the evidence of a car right in front of us for analysis. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF ON THE BASICS, ok?

ScienceOfLife on November 30, 2012:

"Their arguments are destroyed in an instant, right before their very eyes."

"they have ZERO arguments"

Actually Fatfist, their arguments are zero-dimensional! So they are there, you just need a special Large Bullshit Collider to see them. I mean, everyone in the biz knows this. It's all very technical and you probably wouldn't be able to fathom the zero-dimensionality of the arguments with such a puny 3d brain. But I assure you, the arguments exist! So when you think atheists and thiests all run away, actually they're still there because they can travel through time and win the argument any time (argument particles are made of pure information you know).

Jmstar on November 29, 2012:

Hahahahaha how condescending fatfist..

before I leave I want to understand your position..

You claim that you do not have a personal perspective on reality.. and that Existence is OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT! and that it is impossible to prove anything. Therefore you simply try and

define your key terms objectively (i.e. WITHOUT INVOKING OBSERVERS WITHIN THE DEFINITION) ...and so entities like the runner or objects exist BY DEFINITION of the word ‘exist’, only! Not by proof or opinion or knowledge just BY DEFINITION.

Now the terms you claim to define objectively are:

Reality (existence): An object having location

Object: that which has shape

Exist: something somewhere (an object with location).

According to the way these terms are defined something like information ( ex. information in a letter, or software codes, produced from conscious activity) is not be an object (that which has shapes or physical limits) and so because, it is not an object it does not have a location, which means it is not a part of reality and does not Exist BY DEFINITION of the word 'exist' only! nothing else, not your opinion, or knowledge, or even your personal perspective about it.

Information is not of standalone entities in our environment. It would be a concept and so concepts are associative, they relate objects, and only result from thought. They can only be thought about or referenced by means of the name we assign them. The name is what we call a “word”. Words are labels for concepts;

So if I am to understand you correctly; the way the terms 'reality' and 'exists' are defined; there can only one way something can be a part of reality (as you defined it)... and that is, if it is a stand alone entity in the environment . So this has nothing to do with truth and ultimate reality...physics it is just the study of stand alone entities or objects (that which has shape) first and foremost which fundamentally exist only BY DEFINITION of the word 'exist'. Physics or the scientific method does not deal with stuff like the phenomenon of experience which we have all throughout our lives nor does it even address the experiencer even though the ultimate reality that we know from any experience is the experiencer itself, in other words ourselves. But that is subjective and not an object so no scientific conclusions can be reached about them because you said, that your role was to simply define key terms like 'reality' and 'existence' and use them as possible hypothesis + theory (if it is rational without contradiction) to reach a conclusion on what is POSSIBLE or IMPOSSIBLE, only!

lool I think monkeyman is right im am wasting my time here...

By the way fatfist defending faith you say...? Listen if I believe in God how would you expect me to scrutinize him under the scientific method since that is the ONLY way you resolve all issues of existence in 'reality'..( as you have defined: an object having location) Empirical evidence' seems to be the only valid way YOU think conclusion can be reached rationally...

If your asking me what conclusions through rational deduction gives me good reason to BELIEVE in God... Now that would be a more valid question to ask... but I think monkeyminds is right im wasting my time here...

fatfist (author) on November 29, 2012:

"This is probably my last post"

Oh, this is very predictable & understandable, Jmstar. All atheists, mathematicians and theists alike will always run away from the argument because their Religion has been destroyed by rationality. None of these Bimbos will ever stay here to defend their faith of Big Bang Creationism because they have ZERO arguments.

Atheists & Theists were obviously created by God for the purposes of incessantly arguing with each other until the human race goes extinct. God likes to have fun by watching these brain-dead primates duke it out with purely EMOTIONAL arguments....ha ha, it's very funny!

It is when these Bimbos known as Atheists & Theists come here, that they realize it’s not “business as usual”. Their arguments are destroyed in an instant, right before their very eyes. They don’t even know what hit them!

So yeah.....running is the best option at their disposal.

fatfist (author) on November 29, 2012:

Jmstar,

“reality is not as simple as you try to explain”

Of course….to brain-dead Religionists who have the incessant fetish to belong in EMOTIONAL GROUPS utilizing the suffix of “-ism”; i.e. atheism, theism, materialism, physicalism, spiritualism, Big Bangism, Creationism, etc……they don’t even understand that we systematically DEFINE ‘reality’ and EXPLAIN phenomena.

Reality (existence): An object having location

Only the clueless Bimbos known as atheists & theists will unwitting attempt to explain a definition….LOL! The rest of us will use our God-given brains to simply define our key terms.

“physics is a limited study all together and yet you assume that you have understood reality with those simple semantics”

Brain-dead Bimbos who are divorced from reality haven’t the slightest clue that only OBJECTS can have LIMITS. Concepts, like Physics, have no physical limits because they are predicated on human study via intelligence (a concept) which has NO physical limits whatsoever. Here, Jmstar….please educate yourself on the basics of intelligence:

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/What-is-IN...

“the runner exists but not the running... simple to understand”

Praise the Lord! Thank you for starting to talk rationally, Jmstar!

“how can you prove the runner exists in the first place without relying on your subjective experience of the runner”

Exactly!!!!!!

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you, Jmstar,…. maybe I was wrong about you……maybe you are not like those brain-dead atheists & theists out there. Unlike those clowns, you seem to grasp this basic kindergarten-level reasoning.

The term PROOF refers to an activity of VALIDATION us humans must perform in order to decree a proposition to be valid (i.e. true, right, correct, certain, etc.) And you have obviously used your brain’s critical thinking faculties to REASON that ‘proof’ is predicated on a human’s subjective and extremely limited sensory system. Hence, proof is an impossible task to achieve by any living entity. Ergo, PROOF=OPINION!

And now you understand why this Religious ritual known as PROOF is divorced from reality, and hence, is not part of the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory). The sci method can only conclude what is POSSIBLE or IMPOSSIBLE…..and not what is allegedly ‘proven’ or ‘disproven’.

And that’s why it is impossible to prove existence. I mean, you can’t even prove that Michael Jackson existed…..you can’t even prove that your hand exists. Don’t believe me??? Just try to prove any of these and you will finally come to terms with all this in a jiffy!!!

READ MY LIPS: There is NO provision for PROOF in the definition of ‘exist’.

Exist: something somewhere (an object with location).

Object: that which has shape

Where do you see the word ‘proof’ in the definition of exist????

Where do you see humans or any observers performing opinionated rituals in the definition of exist????

Existence is OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT! It doesn’t depend on the opinionated rituals of us petty humans.

Ergo, the runner is a living entity that exists BY DEFINITION of the word ‘exist’, only! He may exist “out there” independent of our knowledge, as long as the runner is an object and is located somewhere. Knowledge or proof has nothing to do with existence.

Existence is part of the Hypothesis and is always hypothesized by us in our field of study (i.e. let’s hypothesize that a runner exists). Now, our Theory of why those footprints were found in the woods, will use the runner from our Hypothesis to explain the phenomenon or causation of those footprints.

If our theory is rational without contradictions….the runner is POSSIBLE to exist. Otherwise, impossible to exist as proposed by the theory.

This is how we resolve all issues of existence in reality without the opinions of proof….Understand??

Monk E Mind from My Tree House on November 29, 2012:

"This is probably my last post"

One can only hope.

Because, if you are going to come back with stuff like, "the thinker, the thot, and the thing" you'd be better off at Philosophy 101, down the hall on the far left of physics.

Jmstar on November 29, 2012:

fatfist,

Hahahaha how bold divorced from reality eh...

look once again reality is not as simple as you try to explain, physics is a limited study all together and yet you assume that you have understood reality with those simple semantics..

Let me simply thing for you a bit. Just bare with me for a bit. You said the runner exists but not the running... simple to understand, but how can you prove the runner exists in the first place without relying on your subjective experience of the runner. How can you prove that he really does exists and is real beyond your subjective perceptions of him?

Ok now think about information does it exist anywhere in the universe or reality? I know that this invokes observers and so without them one may be tempted to so say no but because there are the observes we can't deny its existence and our experience of it.

This is probably my last post.. I enjoyed this discussion, semantics aside lol

take care

fatfist (author) on November 28, 2012:

Jmstar,

“and what can be said to be real or exist should not be restricted to your personal perspective on reality”

Exactly!!!!

Reality is not dependent of observers and their opinions. Reality is like the mafia….it rubs out all the witnesses and their opinions. Hence, reality can only be reasoned via your brain’s intelligence using your God-given critical thinking faculties. If you cannot define your terms objectively (i.e. WITHOUT INVOKING OBSERVERS WITHIN THE DEFINITION ITSELF)…then you injecting YOUR personal perspective on reality! I am glad you finally understand this, jmstar.

“Oh and regarding concepts, both concepts and abstractions certainly exist as an objective, reality-based form of awareness”

Abstractions are concepts…..and NO….they do NOT exist in any way, shape or form. Concepts are RELATIONS BETWEEN OBJECTS. Humans invented all concepts by associating objects in relations. Please educate yourself on objects vs concepts, jmstar….I beg you!

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/The-Ontolo...

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/What-is-an

Jmstar on November 28, 2012:

Wow that sure is a lot of semantics lol. It was an interesting read but now it is time for my response.

First of I see quite a number of problems with some of your semantics and also the conclusions you reached depending on those semantics.

I'll start with this:

(Space is not an object. Space is our conception of nothing....the void!

space: that which lacks shape (synonym: nothing, void, vacuum).

Hence, it is utterly meaningless to qualify space with the adjectives finite or infinite. Adjectives only qualify OBJECTS. You cannot qualify or describe 'nothing'. Space has no color, temperature, shape, length, border, etc. Space is the only word that can only be described using negation....because space is nothing.)

The problem here is how you define space. You seem to think space and nothing are synonyms which is incorrect.

What is Nothing?

To get to a real form of "NOTHING", we need to go into outer space. Imagine that you go to the farthest, emptiest corner of the universe. This is as close to nothing as we are ever going to get. What we are looking for is a section of space that contains zero atoms. No atoms at all -- it is a perfect vacuum. That is the best approximation of "NOTHING" that we have in our universe today. But here's a deeper question : Is a section of space that contains zero atoms really "NOTHING"?

Not really. Space, even if there are no atoms in it, is "something." For example, photons can move through space even if the space contains zero atoms. So can gravity. So can radio waves. So can a magnet's field. And we can measure space -- a chunk of space has a length, a width and a height. And time elapses. In other words, empty space is a measurable framework that has the ability to transmit certain types of energy.

"TRUE NOTHING" would be truly nothing -- no space. This is hard to get a grasp on, because we cannot imagine this kind of nothing. We have never seen it. It is, presumably, what existed before the universe existed. Apparently, at the creation of the universe, there was truly nothing. Space, with its ability to transmit different types of energy, was created when the universe was created. Then energy in this space condensed into matter -- the atoms that we find all around us today.

"TRUE NOTHING" is that immeasurable, zero-energy, non-existent thing that did not exist before the universe, and all the space in it, came into existence. Who knows what that was like?

A significant point to raise here is that nothingness should not be misconstrued as the nothingness that some physicists talk about. The term nothingness in this context refers to the absence of anything physical, in other words there is no pre-existing ‘stuff’. In light of the beginning of the universe, there was absolutely nothing before it began to exist, which is why physicists have explained the universe as having a space-time boundary.

However, nothingness as defined by some physicists relates to the quantum vacuum. This is misleading because the quantum is something. In quantum theory the vacuum is a field of energy pervading the whole of the universe. That is not ‘nothing’; it is a structured and highly active entity, a sea of fluctuating energy, which is still part of the cosmos and it did not pre-exist the universe.

Next, I see an issue with the way you defined Eternal, why don't you try this

Eternal as an Adjective:

1. Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning. Valid for all time; essentially unchanging.

There is nothing to suggest it is only an adverb of the time metric of motion only.

You then said:

(‘infinity’ implicitly alludes to the sizes of objects (having a beginning of construction, but no end))

Infinite is an adjective which means: Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate: like "an infinite number of stars" so it alludes to more then just size but also a potential, never actual: the number of parts that can be taken always surpasses any assigned number. So the concept of the actual infinite cannot be exported into the real world, because it leads to contradictions and doesn’t make sense

For example Take the distance between two points, one may argue that you can subdivide the distance into infinite parts, but you will always be subdividing and never actually reach the ‘infinitieth’ part! So in reality the infinite is potential and can never be actualized. The infinite is just an idea and doesn’t exist in the real world.

So if we refer back to an infinite history of past events we can conclude, since events are not just ideas they are real, the number of past events cannot be infinite. Therefore the universe must be finite, in other words the cosmos had a beginning.

You said:

(Reality is a synonym for existence. What is real is what exists. Only OBJECTS can possibly be said to exist.

object: that which has shape

exist: something somewhere (an object with location)

Does the 'past' exist? Is the 'past' an object? Plug in the word 'past' in the above definitions and see what you get. You will realize that 'past' is only a concept....a mere idea. Nature has no past. Nature only has objects: stars, planets, atoms, living entities, etc.)

I disagree because what is real does not necessarily have to be an object, nor are objects the only thing that can possibly be said to exist. It seem you are alluding to Physicalism which is a philosophical theory holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things. I think that reality as a whole encompasses more then just objects which are comprised of matter for example awareness/consciousness, minds, and information which exist but are neither objects. Most of your premises stem from a perspective on reality known as materialism. I don't really care if you hold materialism as your philosophical viewpoint, but the way you define words like 'reality' and what can be said to be real or exist should not be restricted to your personal perspective on reality and then labelled as scientifically coherent.

Oh and regarding concepts, both concepts and abstractions certainly exist as an objective, reality-based form of awareness, but they do not have any existence independent of the mind that is using them. So I go back to the broad nature of existence when I bring this up...

I hope this isn't too long of a response hahaha.. I look forward to your response.

take care.

fatfist (author) on November 28, 2012:

Jmstar,

"you are thinking of space incorrectly. You say that it cannot be infinite and then you say it cannot be finite and you somehow mply this to the whole universe."

Before you can qualify space with either adverbs or adjectives, you must define this KEY term that makes or breaks your argument, right? When people do not define their key terms, they surreptitiously insert loopholes in their arguments for the purposes of validating their argument across many irreconcilable contexts.

For example, if I say that God is 'love' an a 'being', I have summarily excluded God from existence.

Why?

Because God cannot be a concept, like 'love' or 'justice'. Concepts are just relations we invent between objects for the purposes of understanding some process an object performs. God is indeed a being (i.e. object) as proposed by Theologians.

Space is not an object. Space is our conception of nothing....the void!

space: that which lacks shape (synonym: nothing, void, vacuum).

Hence, it is utterly meaningless to qualify space with the adjectives finite or infinite. Adjectives only qualify OBJECTS. You cannot qualify or describe 'nothing'. Space has no color, temperature, shape, length, border, etc. Space is the only word that can only be described using negation....because space is nothing.

"nothing in our physical reality and or the relative universe can be infinite which includes the past"

Again, you must watch your words in a Scientific Context. The term INFINITE is an ADJECTIVE. Hence, it can only qualify objects. The 'past' or 'time' are CONCEPTS, not objects. You cannot qualify them with 'infinite'. In fact, the term infinite is an oxymoron....a self-refuting term, because no object can ever be infinite. The term 'infinite' cannot be used in any sentence in any coherent manner.

"There cannot be an infinite number of past events."

Infinite regress is addressed in detail here:

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/INFINITE-R...

"The past is not just an abstract concept it is a part of our reality."

Reality is a synonym for existence. What is real is what exists. Only OBJECTS can possibly be said to exist.

object: that which has shape

exist: something somewhere (an object with location)

Does the 'past' exist? Is the 'past' an object? Plug in the word 'past' in the above definitions and see what you get. You will realize that 'past' is only a concept....a mere idea. Nature has no past. Nature only has objects: stars, planets, atoms, living entities, etc.

"If I were then to imply that the universe was like an object and had a shape, then I would assume the boundaries of this shape would starts with its coming into existence and finish with its end."

The universe is a concept only. To imply the U is an object, implies that it has a border and that it is surrounded by an environment. What is this environment....space? If so, then space is already included in the Universe....hence, universe is not an object.

"the fourth dimension: time"

You need to understand the terms which make or break your argument. Time is a concept, not a dimension.

Dimension is an adjective that describes the architecture of OBJECTS, namely, that their vertices face in 3 hypothetical mutually orthogonal directions.

Time is NOT an object.....time is NOT a dimension. The dimensions are LENGTH, WIDTH, HEIGHT.

"I think all objects are finite but not all finite things are objects."

You need to define your key terms so that they make your statements Scientifically coherent. Only objects can be qualified with the adjective FINITE. Concepts cannot. Also, the term 'infinite' is a self-contradictory adjective as explained above.

I don't mean to beat you up with semantics, but everyone needs to understand the terms of their arguments. So yeah, Scientific discussions are necessarily dependent on semantics so everyone can understand what the proponent is presenting to the audience.

Jmstar on November 27, 2012:

@fatfist

I see I wana get in on this ok lol

here are my thoughts (im a theist btw)

Back in one of your early remarks you said :

(It is impossible for anything to be “infinite” in reality.Why? Because if there was, we would not exist, as it would take up everything.For example, if matter was infinite, there would be no space. There would only be one solid block of matter, and no life that could move. If space was infinite, there would be no matter, and hence no life.)

I noticed that you said Matter cannot be infinite therefore matter is finite. But when it comes to space you claim that it could never be infinite, and then instead of viewing space to be finite, you go on to say:

(If you say that space is “finite”, you are saying that space has shape and that something is TACITLY on the outside of 'it' providing contour! You are saying that space is an object.)

The problem I see with this statment is that you are thinking of space incorrectly. You say that it cannot be infinite and then you say it cannot be finite and you somehow mply this to the whole universe.

The universe is a concept that embodies matter and space. And so nothing in our phyical reality and or the relative universe can be infinite which includes the past of this physical reality we live in. There cannot be an infinite number of past events. The past is not just an abstract concept it is a part of our reality. The universe is not eternal nor is space or Matter eternal..

If I were then to imply that the universe was like an object and had a shape, then I would assume the boundaries of this shape would starts with its coming into existence and finish with its end. Unlike objects found in space, the 'shape' the universe would have could be observed possibly from the fourth dimension: time. (assuming there was such an observer during it beginning and end). So an object in the sense shape and boundary in time instead of space. Now try to draw that on paper lool

I think all objects are finite but not all finite things are objects. I think the universe is "object-like" because of the finite nature of our physical reality.

What do you think?

fatfist (author) on November 27, 2012:

Yeah, too many Religionists (i.e. atheists & Mathematical Fizzicysts) believe in the BB. What do you expect from ex-theists?

Jmstar on November 27, 2012:

This is one long discussion

fatfist (author) on August 07, 2012:

@neo,

Care to elaborate/explain ....or is this your final argument, just more faith-based assertions coming from you?

BTW....you didn't answer the showstopper questions I asked you about YOUR Religion. If you think of yourself as a man who can justify his case, please go over to that article and attempt to answer those simple questions I asked.

If you are not a man.....well....just pull up your skirt and go home to your faith.

"As always, replies are encouraged"

I've been replying but you haven't answered any question. Do you wish to participate in an intelligent conversation or did you come here to troll??

neo@theskepticarena on August 07, 2012:

Reading your debate with Matt Slick made me feel like I was watching 2 bozos mutually masturbating each other.

Perhaps bozos wasn't the right word.

Morons. There, that's the right word.

As always, replies are encouraged

neo

fatfist (author) on June 04, 2012:

And remember, mass is a concept which relates the weight of an object to a pre-DEFINED and agreed upon standard (the kilogram in France). Mass is a concept that humans invented. Atoms have nothing intrinsic to them which can be called “mass”. Nothing has mass.

If you take 'Le Kilo' from France to the North Pole, its mass changes. You no longer have 1 kilogram.

In fact, from the wiki...

"the mass of the IPK lost perhaps 50 µg over the last century... The reason for this drift has eluded physicists"

So, OFFICIALLY, a kilogram doesn't weigh a kilogram any more. Its mass has mysteriously CHANGED!!

Like I said....mathematical fyzics is nothing but a RELIGION. They have no explanations for anything.....it’s all voodoo.

fatfist (author) on June 04, 2012:

Alan,

“What is the proper place for logic?”

Logic’s domain is within the conceptual “system” that is built upon it. A system is a set of pre-defined rules of inference/engagement. They are known as axioms. For example, math has its pre-defined rules of arithmetic, irrational numbers, complex numbers, infinite numbers, geometry, calculus, etc. There are no numbers in reality. These concepts are only of use to us humans who deal with abstractions in our daily lives and require a rule-based system of inference (i.e. logic) in order to make DERIVATION-BASED decisions from these abstract relations we invent.

For example, money is an abstract relation....a mere concept. A 100-dollar bill is just a piece of paper, no different than toilet paper. We attach an abstract and artificial VALUE to this paper and cal