₦airaland Forum

FreeIgboho:
Brother is a colloquial term just as when you say my good friend or such. In fact there are people who call everyone my love (which can be honestly quite annoying). You know it is not meant to be literal hence you don't fire back "when did I become your love?!"

First of all you are not my BROTHER in any way because you and i are not related so i'm your NEIGHBORS.

Secondly calling someone GOOD to you may mean nothing but to my own teacher it's serious {Luke 18:18} but all the same let me make this clear to you:

If you're not a JW you're my NEIGHBOR like anyone else only JWs are my BROTHERS.

DeepSight:
If the universe is all that exists, into what is the universe expanding?

It's just expanding. There is no something it is expanding into.

LordReed:
It's just expanding. There is no something it is expanding into.

For a rational person you surprise me. So in your voodoo world, a thing can expand when there is no space for it to expand into? Does that make any sense whatsoever.

And you talk about incoherence?

DeepSight:
For a rational person you surprise me. So in your voodoo world, a thing can expand when there is no space for it to expand into? Does that make any sense whatsoever.

And you talk about incoherence?

LoLz. See this is where your intuitions will fail you. You think these is an outside but there isn't at least not one you or anybody can demonstrate. I am not well versed in cosmology to explain it to you, look it up to get a better handle on it.

LordReed:
LoLz. See this is where your intuitions will fail you. You think these is an outside but there isn't at least not one you or anybody can demonstrate. I am not well versed in cosmology to explain it to you, look it up to get a better handle on it.

I am not looking anything up - three reasons. One, I dont need to. Two. This is such a lame excuse too often used. Three. I never expected such a line from you of all people.

Having Lunch. Will be back.

MaxInDHouse:
First of all you are not my BROTHER in any way because you and i are not related so i'm your NEIGHBORS.

Secondly calling someone GOOD to you may mean nothing but to my own teacher it's serious {Luke 18:18} but all the same let me make this clear to you:

If you're not a JW you're my NEIGHBOR like anyone else only JWs are my BROTHERS.

My friend (see, I just called you my friend though for all I know you could be a bot), it is just colloquialism, besides you can't stop anyone from calling you brother!
Soo, just relax and be the best brother you can be!

DeepSight:
I am not looking anything up - three reasons. One, I dont need to. Two. This is such a lame excuse too often used. Three. I never expected such a line from you of all people.

Having Lunch. Will be back.

Dude do you want to count how many times you've asked me to look something up? So now it is a bad thing bah? LoLz.

LordReed:
Dude do you want to count how many times you've asked me to look something up? So now it is a bad thing bah? LoLz.

Alright. Well I imagine if I ask you to look something up, it's a specific thing. Asking me to look up the broad subject of the nature of the universe is quite different as it touches on various things including quantum physics.

Anyway pardon me there. Now, let me go the to the issues.

You see, my friend, there are all too many things that strict materialists tend to skip over when hard scientific questions are being posed on existential matters. If you point a strict evolutionist to the logical gaps in the theory of evolution they tend to wave it all away by pointing to the millions and millions of years that the process took - even where it is clear that not even eternity would suffice to remedy the logical gaps pointed out. In the same way when very serious logical gaps are pointed out to strict materialists in terms of the prevailing cosmic model of the origin and nature of the universe, they tend to quickly drop the excuse you just did - namely that what comes to us intuitively breaks down at a quantum level etc. it's generally escapist. When you speak of the fundamental principles of causality for example (without which no rational discussion can ever be had) they will tell you that causality breaks down at the quantum level. What is their evidence for this? Generally they will point to virtual particles in a quantum vacuum as proof that something can emerge from nothing. This of course fails because not even a quantum vacuum is nothing. It contains low gaseous pressure and so of course the argument fails. Nonetheless they will leave the matter at that, since they have dropped the word "quantum" believing that that word is a get of jail free card. It is not. This is specifically why I said your excuse was way to often used.

Let us just settle down and look at the prevailing cosmic model of the universe. We are told that the universe had a beginning. That it expanded from the point of a singularity with the big bang. No one of course properly defines what exactly that singularity was. We move on nonetheless. But you see, so long as a singularity existed, and there was a moment when an expansion commenced, that was an event. And events only happen within a timeline.

The problem here is that the prevailing model says that time and space were both created at the moment of the big bang. This is absurd because the bang being an event, could only possibly occur within an already existing timeline. This means that time already existed. Furthermore the very fact of expansion itself tells us that the expanding singularity was expanding into something. There is no such thing as nothingness anywhere in existence and there is no perfect void or vacuum as well. Therefore the expansion could only be happening into already existing space. It is utterly incoherent, incongruous and meaningless to say it is expanding into nothing, or it is just expanding without there being any space to expand into. That fails.

Accordingly we can tell that both time and space pre-exist the universe. This is why I feel it is wrong to claim that the universe is all that exists. Time and space exist before and beyond it. Both time and space are eternal and infinite and self existent by their very nature. They are part of the default components of reality.

So if we return to the fundamental question as to whether you can know anything outside the universe, there is alot to discuss. But I must warn you again about this question of saying that this universe is all that exists. At sometime, people may have said the same of the solar system or of our Milky Way Galaxy. People may have thought that our galaxy was the universe. Likewise in time we may well find other universes beyond this one.

When I gave you the imagery of the womb and the sea recall that I said I was leaving you with images. I didn't mean them as exact analogies the way you began to take them by saying that the baby and the fish cannot reason. I was taken aback by that which is why I said "Sweet Jesus." I was only presenting you with imagery of beings that dwell in a space where they cannot know or understand that other life and spaces exist beyond their realm.

DeepSight:
Alright. Well I imagine if I ask you to look something up, it's a specific thing. Asking me to look up the broad subject of the nature of the universe is quite different as it touches on various things including quantum physics.

Anyway pardon me there. Now, let me go the to the issues.

You see, my friend, there are all too many things that strict materialists tend to skip over when hard scientific questions are being posed on existential matters. If you point a strict evolutionist to the logical gaps in the theory of evolution they tend to wave it all away by pointing to the millions and millions of years that the process took - even where it is clear that not even eternity would suffice to remedy the logical gaps pointed out. In the same way when very serious logical gaps are pointed out to strict materialists in terms of the prevailing cosmic model of the origin and nature of the universe, they tend to quickly drop the excuse you just did - namely that what comes to us intuitively breaks down at a quantum level etc. it's generally escapist. When you speak of the fundamental principles of causality for example (without which no rational discussion can ever be had) they will tell you that causality breaks down at the quantum level. What is their evidence for this? Generally they will point to virtual particles in a quantum vacuum as proof that something can emerge from nothing. This of course fails because not even a quantum vacuum is nothing. It contains low gaseous pressure and so of course the argument fails. Nonetheless they will leave the matter at that, since they have dropped the word "quantum" believing that that word is a get of jail free card. It is not. This is specifically why I said your excuse was way to often used.

Let us just settle down and look at the prevailing cosmic model of the universe. We are told that the universe had a beginning. That it expanded from the point of a singularity with the big bang. No one of course properly defines what exactly that singularity was. We move on nonetheless. But you see, so long as a singularity existed, and there was a moment when an expansion commenced, that was an event. And events only happen within a timeline.

The problem here is that the prevailing model says that time and space were both created at the moment of the big bang. This is absurd because the bang being an event, could only possibly occur within an already existing timeline. This means that time already existed. Furthermore the very fact of expansion itself tells us that the expanding singularity was expanding into something. There is no such thing as nothingness anywhere in existence and there is no perfect void or vacuum as well. Therefore the expansion could only be happening into already existing space. It is utterly incoherent, incongruous and meaningless to say it is expanding into nothing, or it is just expanding without there being any space to expand into. That fails.

Accordingly we can tell that both time and space pre-exist the universe. This is why I feel it is wrong to claim that the universe is all that exists. Time and space exist before and beyond it. Both time and space are eternal and infinite and self existent by their very nature. They are part of the default components of reality.

So if we return to the fundamental question as to whether you can know anything outside the universe, there is alot to discuss. But I must warn you again about this question of saying that this universe is all that exists. At sometime, people may have said the same of the solar system or of our Milky Way Galaxy. People may have thought that our galaxy was the universe. Likewise in time we may well find other universes beyond this one.

When I gave you the imagery of the womb and the sea recall that I said I was leaving you with images. I didn't mean them as exact analogies the way you began to take them by saying that the baby and the fish cannot reason. I was taken aback by that which is why I said "Sweet Jesus." I was only presenting you with imagery of beings that dwell in a space where they cannot know or understand that other life and spaces exist beyond their realm.

Erudite and well-written. Kudos. However, I have to say your position on time and space have to start with definition of time and space. Depending on that definition, if the universe is all that exists then it can be said that existence of the universe is what created time and space. So please what exactly do you mean by time and space?

FreeIgboho:
Erudite and well-written. Kudos. However, I have to say your position on time and space have to start with definition of time and space. Depending on that definition, if the universe is all that exists then it can be said that existence of the universe is what created time and space. So please what exactly do you mean by time and space?

Thank you.

Time is the continuum into which events are interpolated.
Space is the void into which things are interpolated.

DeepSight:
Thank you.

Time is the continuum into which events are interpolated.
Space is the void into which things are interpolated.

Thanks 4 your quick response. Are you then saying that eternal now is not time?
As for space, that "void" is called nothing (though you can't imagine it), and isn't it existence of something that turned that nothing into space?

FreeIgboho:
Thanks 4 your quick response. Are you then saying that eternal now is not time?

Somehow I would not have suspected you of being profound enough to use the phrase "eternal now." It is a very profound term because the truth is that whereas people have this perception that time moves, it in fact does not move anywhere. It is events that occur within its stillness and it is the difference between those events that we record as passing time. Time as a dimension of motion is therefore what scientists refer to as time. It is not real time. Real time is like one single eternal moment.

As for space, that "void" is called nothing (though you can't imagine it), and isn't it existence of something that turned that nothing into space?

Again, well done. Because that infinite void which we call space is very tempting to see as nothingness and yet it is not nothing.

FreeIgboho:
My friend (see, I just called you my friend though for all I know you could be a bot), it is just colloquialism, besides you can't stop anyone from calling you brother!
Soo, just relax and be the best brother you can be!

I'm not stopping you but telling you the truth so you're free to call anyone your brother but i will never ever call you my brother unless you are related to me and most especially those related to me in God's organization!

DeepSight:
Alright. Well I imagine if I ask you to look something up, it's a specific thing. Asking me to look up the broad subject of the nature of the universe is quite different as it touches on various things including quantum physics.

I didn't ask you to look up the nature of the universe as a whole. We are talking of what the universe is expanding into so I say look it up and you think I was asking you to look up the nature of the universe? C'mon man.

DeepSight:
Somehow I would not have suspected you of being profound enough to use the phrase "eternal now." It is a very profound term because the truth is that whereas people have this perception that time moves, it in fact does not move anywhere. It is events that occur within its stillness and it is the difference between those events that we record as passing time. Time as a dimension of motion is therefore what scientists refer to as time. It is not real time. Real time is like one single eternal moment.



Again, well done. Because that infinite void which we call space is very tempting to see as nothingness and yet it is not nothing.

Thanks.
In that case then "real time" is NOT a continuum. So are you withdrawing your previous definition of time?

"Infinite void" is simply another way of saying nothing. It is introduction of something that turns it into Infinite void. If nothing exists then "Infinite void" makes no sense

FreeIgboho:
Thanks.
In that case then "real time" is NOT a continuum. So are you withdrawing your previous definition of time?

"Infinite void" is simply another way of saying nothing. It is introduction of something that turns it into Infinite void. If nothing exists then "Infinite void" makes no sense

One struggles with words in existential matters. When I say continuum, I don't mean that it is moving. It is just there, but the fact that it will forever continue being there is the sense in which it is a continuum.

Also I understand what you mean by infinite void being problematic. It's just for want of better words. I really mean infinite space but that will amount to using the same word to define itself. We can think of a better word. Perhaps expanse, extent or latitude.

LordReed:
I didn't ask you to look up the nature of the universe as a whole. We are talking of what the universe is expanding into so I say look it up and you think I was asking you to look up the nature of the universe? C'mon man.

Well it is still the nature of the universe. But as regards that question I am sure you know it is the sort of thing I would have studied over ages.

Generally they will tell you that it's not expanding into anything which is nonsensical. They will tell you to think of the universe as a balloon and that space is only created inside the balloon as it is blown up. This is absurd because that balloon would never get bigger in size if there wasn't space outside the balloon to accommodate it.

DeepSight:
Well it is still the nature of the universe. But as regards that question I am sure you know it is the sort of thing I would have studied over ages.

Generally they will tell you that it's not expanding into anything which is nonsensical. They will tell you to think of the universe as a balloon and that space is only created inside the balloon as it is blown up. This is absurd because that balloon would never get bigger in size if there wasn't space outside the balloon to accommodate it.

Dude don't be so pedantic. It is only one aspect of the nature of the universe so I wasn't asking you go look up the whole thing.

Publish a paper telling us what it is expanding into so I can see my guy the Nobel prize winner. LoLz.

FreeIgboho:
Thanks.
In that case then "real time" is NOT a continuum. So are you withdrawing your previous definition of time?

"Infinite void" is simply another way of saying nothing. It is introduction of something that turns it into Infinite void. If nothing exists then "Infinite void" makes no sense

As I explained, words are a challenge. I would stick with "continuum" for time though, in the sense that I explained it, and will even also use it for space in the same sense - namely that they continue to exist being self existent. Note that this is a very different sense from the moving time perception that many have when they use the same word.

As for void, I already offered alternatives such as "expanse."

LordReed:
Dude don't be so pedantic. It is only one aspect of the nature of the universe so I wasn't asking you go look up the whole thing.

Alright, alright alright, alright.

Publish a paper telling us what it is expanding into so I can see my guy the Nobel prize winner. LoLz.

No need. I have already said it. It is expanding into already existent space. Naturally. Logically.

The thing is you must acknowledge that it is illogical to say that it is expanding into nothing.

DeepSight:
One struggles with words in existential matters. When I say continuum, I don't mean that it is moving. It is just there, but the fact that it will forever continue being there is the sense in which it is a continuum.

Also I understand what you mean by infinite void being problematic. It's just for want of better words. I really mean infinite space but that will amount to using the same word to define itself. We can think of a better word. Perhaps expanse, extent or latitude.

DeepSight:
As I explained, words are a challenge. I would stick with "continuum" for time though, in the sense that I explained it, and will even also use it for space in the same sense - namely that they continue to exist being self existent. Note that this is a very different sense from the moving time perception that many have when they use the same word.

As for void, I already offered alternatives such as "expanse."

Thanks.
I would say you actually defined what you say scientists call time which is indeed a continuum and which of course cannot exist without the universe if the universe is all that exists.

The word you are looking for is "nothing". That's what existed before the universe if the universe is all that exists. Once you introduce something you have infinite void (void of that thing you just introduced). You can't have void if nothing exists, just as you can't have up without down. Therefore if the universe is all that exists it can be said that infinite void ("empty space"} was created by the universe coming into existence.

FreeIgboho:
Thanks.
I would say you actually defined what you say scientists call time which is indeed a continuum and which of course cannot exist without the universe if the universe is all that exists.

The word you are looking for is "nothing". That's what exists before the universe if the universe is all that exists. Once you introduce something you have infinite void (void of that thing you just introduced). You can't have void if nothing exists, just as you can't have up without down. Therefore if the universe is all that exists it can be said that infinite void ("empty space"} was created by the universe coming into existence.

The problem is there is noting like nothing. Nothingness, by definition, does not exist.

DeepSight:
The problem is there is noting like nothing. Nothingness, by definition, does not exist.

😅It's like saying "does.not exist" does not exist. That "does not exist" is what is called nothing. It is absence of any existence and is impossible to imagine because anything you imagine is something!

FreeIgboho:
😅It's like saying "does.not exist" does not exist. That "does not exist" is what is called nothing. It is absence of any existence and is impossible to imagine because anything you imagine is something!

Good - therefore understand that there is nothing like nothingness. There is only somethingness. Infact, this is one of the fundamental logical proofs of the existence of GOD - the eternal and self-existent something.

DeepSight:
Good - therefore understand that there is nothing like nothingness. There is only somethingness. Infact, this is one of the fundamental logical proofs of the existence of GOD - the eternal and self-existent something.

Of course there is absence of existence. Just because you can't imagine absence of a cup does not mean there is no absence of a cup (you can imagine a cup but not "no cup"}. God has to exists in an entirely different dimention or system of things outside what we are discussing

FreeIgboho:
Of course there is absence of existence. Just because you can't imagine absence of a cup does not mean there is no absence of a cup (you can imagine a cup but not "no cup"}. God has to exists in an entirely different dimention or system of things outside what we are discussing

Absence of all existence is nothing. I repeat: there is nothing like nothing. And since something cannot come from nothing, the fact that anything exists is proof of the existence of an eternal and self existent something - which is what God is.

DeepSight:
Absence of all existence is nothing. I repeat: there is nothing like nothing. And since something cannot come from nothing, the fact that anything exists is proof of the existence of an eternal and self existent something - which is what God is.

I'm saying God is not involved in this "nothing" we are discussing. I'll give an illustration: if this universe were a simulation in a computer, from the perspective of those within the simulation what existed before the simulation was launched is non-existence - unimaginable nothing. But outside the computer a whole "spirit world" of totally different reality exists which is where we locate God. What we are concerned with is world within the computer reality. And in that reality what existed before the simulation was launched was nothing - from perspective of those within the simulation.

FreeIgboho:
I'm saying God is not involved in this "nothing" we are discussing. I'll give an illustration: if this universe were a simulation in a computer, from the perspective of those within the simulation what existed before the simulation was launched is non-existence - unimaginable nothing. But outside the computer a whole "spirit world" of totally different reality exists which is where we locate God. What we are concerned with is world within the computer reality. And in that reality what existed before the simulation was launched was nothing - from perspective of those within the simulation.

I really cant see the problem you are trying to create, especially since you qualified it with the bold.

DeepSight:
I really cant see the problem you are trying to create, especially since you qualified it with the bold.

These kind of discussions have to be qualified because you don't know what you don't know that you don't know and you don't know what constraints were placed on your brain so you have to always say from what perspective. If you place God within this system of things then it becomes quite a legitimate question to ask where God came from or who created God

FreeIgboho:
These kind of discussions have to be qualified because you don't know what you don't know that you don't know and you don't know what constraints were placed on your brain so you have to always say from what perspective. If you place God within this system of things then it becomes quite a legitimate question to ask where God came from or who created God

We have strayed too far from the topic of this thread. Create a new one on these matters and invite myself and LordReed there.

DeepSight:
We have strayed too far from the topic of this thread. Create a new one on these matters and invite myself and LordReed there.

Well that's how these type of threads usually are - they can go in all sorts of dimensions. But we're still in the same discussion of God and why Jesus is obviously God the Son of God if we look at the evidence and NOT go by our man-made notions of what God is

DeepSight:
I really cant see the problem you are trying to create, especially since you qualified it with the bold.

Remember we have consistently qualified the discussion with:
"If the universe were all that exists "