random question about the infinite universe

[askandanswer]

If the universe is simultaneously both infinite and expanding does that mean it is more infinite today than it was yesterday?

The only other things that I can think of that are both infinite and expanding are God's knowledge, glory and power.

When two things share the same attribute, and that attribute is exceedingly rare or unusual, then that raises questions as to whether those two things are actually just one thing, or whether there is some kind of relationship between those two things. 

Edited May 5, 2019 by askandanswer

[JohnsonJones]

5 hours ago, askandanswer said:

If the universe is simultaneously both infinite and expanding does that mean it is more infinite today than it was yesterday?

The only other things that I can think of that are both infinite and expanding are God's knowledge, glory and power.

When two things share the same attribute, and that attribute is exceedingly rare or unusual, then that raises questions as to whether those two things are actually just one thing, or whether there is some kind of relationship between those two things. 

Ever do Calculus?

[askandanswer]

Never even got near it. 

[Guest Scott]

11 hours ago, askandanswer said:

If the universe is simultaneously both infinite and expanding does that mean it is more infinite today than it was yesterday?

The universe is not infinite.  It is merely all existing matter. 

[Traveler]

On 5/4/2019 at 10:06 PM, askandanswer said:

If the universe is simultaneously both infinite and expanding does that mean it is more infinite today than it was yesterday?

Technically infinite is a mathematical term that is symbolic.  In fact all numbers are symbolic.  For example take the number 5 - it does not exist anywhere in our universe.  Outside of mathematics; when someone says something is infinite, I am of the mind that they either do not know how to express their understanding or they do not understand what they are talking about.  Our English language seems to encourage the exaggerated miss use of literal terms.  For example, ever hear someone say they are willing to give 110%?  I have heard individuals say such a thing and then in the next sentence say, "Nobody is perfect".

With all our understanding of the universe - we can only account (reason) for about 5% of the universe that we think we know exist.  To which I ask my fellow scientist and engineers the question, "How can any reasonable person that understands elementy college science think that atheism or even agnosticism is a logical and probable conclusion?"  It would be like saying that dinosaurs never existed and cannot exist anywhere else because we cannot find anything like them (especially size wise) living on earth today.

 

The Traveler

[Jamie123]

On 5/5/2019 at 5:06 AM, askandanswer said:

If the universe is simultaneously both infinite and expanding does that mean it is more infinite today than it was yesterday?

The only other things that I can think of that are both infinite and expanding are God's knowledge, glory and power.

When two things share the same attribute, and that attribute is exceedingly rare or unusual, then that raises questions as to whether those two things are actually just one thing, or whether there is some kind of relationship between those two things. 

x = the number of whole numbers greater than 5

y = the number of whole numbers greater than 10

Now they are both infinite, but x is nevertheless greater than 7 because there are 5 numbers greater than 5 which are not greater than 10. The relationship between them is x = y + 5.

Not all infinities are the same. When I was at college, our maths professor (a wonderfully enthusiastic "academic bum" who  wore a grimy college scarf, spoke with a mouthful of gravel and always pronounced calculus "carculus") once got talking about numbers being "countably infinite" (like the natural numbers 1, 2, 3...) and "uncountably infinite" (like the set of fractions). A classmate put it a little more prosaically, saying "countably infinite numbers are countable if you're stupid enough to go on counting".

Edited May 17, 2019 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

On 5/6/2019 at 3:21 PM, Traveler said:

With all our understanding of the universe - we can only account (reason) for about 5% of the universe that we think we know exist.  To which I ask my fellow scientist and engineers the question, "How can any reasonable person that understands elementary college science think that atheism or even agnosticism is a logical and probable conclusion?"  It would be like saying that dinosaurs never existed and cannot exist anywhere else because we cannot find anything like them (especially size wise) living on earth today.

Playing devil's advocate: We've only explored a tiny proportion of space, and have not yet discovered Bertrand Russell's flying teapot.However, we cannot conclude that the teapot probably does not exist, since we still have the remaining 99.99999....however many 9's% of space still to explore.

Being annoyingly pedantic: Agnosticism is not a conclusion, but the absence of a conclusion.

[Traveler]

24 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Playing devil's advocate: We've only explored a tiny proportion of space, and have not yet discovered Bertrand Russell's flying teapot.However, we cannot conclude that the teapot probably does not exist, since we still have the remaining 99.99999....however many 9's% of space still to explore.

Being annoyingly pedantic: Agnosticism is not a conclusion, but the absence of a conclusion.

It is my personal observation that agnosticism is more a conclusion of religion and the rejection of religion than a observation directly related to the universe.  In short more of a failure of religion than of science (since science and not religion is blamed for agnosticism).  I am of a different opinion in that I think flawed religion is more to blame for agnosticism than is flawed science.  I  believe you opinion may be based more in not understanding what a agnostic is concluding.  Please allow me to make an observation and use historical Christianity (creation from nothing - ex nihilo) as an example.  The only possibility for diversity in thought, believe and behavior could only exist if G-d created it to be so - but historical Christianity insists that man (man being the product of all men) is wholly responsible and that the origin, creator and designer is 100% resolved of any responsibility.  This gets even more interesting because historical Christians believe G-d to know all things - including the conclusion of every individual he created from the circumstance into which they were born.  In short it is the classical argument between free will and divine determinism (or destiny).   

From my personal observation with agnostics that I have encountered - they look at all the arguments being made by historical Christians and come to the conclusion that it is flawed.  And I believe such logic is both conclusive and accurate.

 

The Traveler

[Jamie123]

On 5/17/2019 at 3:20 PM, Traveler said:

From my personal observation with agnostics that I have encountered - they look at all the arguments being made by historical Christians and come to the conclusion that it is flawed.  And I believe such logic is both conclusive and accurate.

Just two points:

• I'm still a little unclear what you think agnostics are concluding. Are you saying that an agnostic concludes that religion is flawed, but differs from the atheist in that he/she has nothing to put in its place? In other words: "I don't know what the answer is, but it's not that?"
• Are you saying that if there were no "false" religion in the world, but only "true" religion (by which you presumably mean Mormonism) then there would be no agnosticism because no one would be able to fault Mormonism the way they fault traditional Christianity?

Edited May 20, 2019 by Jamie123

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Just two points:

• I'm still a little unclear what you think agnostics are concluding. Are you saying that an agnostic concludes that religion is flawed, but differs from the atheist in that he/she has nothing to put in its place? In other words: "I don't know what the answer is, but it's not that?"
• Are you saying that if there were no "false" religion in the world, but only "true" religion (by which you presumably mean Mormonism) then there would be no agnosticism because no one would be able to fault Mormonism the way they fault traditional Christianity?

I am saying that many (even many raised with a traditional Christian background) take a hard look at life and death and realize that there is very little justice in life and even less in death.  Traditional Christianity teaches that G-d created it all but is not responsible for any injustice but that we suffer and die because of someone else's sins.  The concept makes no sense.

I would say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only Christ based religion that teaches principles - not just in a redeeming merciful G-d but that we all existed before we were born and justly chose to experience our mortal seemingly unjust condition and eventual death (cause by someone else?).  That an intelligent, understanding, merciful and loving G-d not only planned it all (including an ultimate sacrifice) BUT allowed us to choose for ourselves before we were born.

I am convinced if anyone understood G-d without false notions (which would not be taught in a true religion) - there would be no agnostics or atheists.  Rather every knee would bow and every tongue would confess that Jesus is the Christ.

 

The Traveler

[Jamie123]

45 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am saying that many (even many raised with a traditional Christian background) take a hard look at life and death and realize that there is very little justice in life and even less in death.  Traditional Christianity teaches that G-d created it all but is not responsible for any injustice but that we suffer and die because of someone else's sins.  The concept makes no sense.

I've often thought that myself: a recurring Christian phrase is "if we have a creator who calls us to account..." But why does that even make sense? If an architect creates a building, and that building falls down, does the architect call the building to account? No...the people who the building was built for call the architect to account!

But I put that down to bad theology rather than bad religion per se. A lot of nonsense is talked from the pulpit, and people accept it because (i) it's what they're used to hearing and (ii) the minister spend x years at Bible college and they didn't, so he must know what he's talking about.

The fact that I'm not a Mormon doesn't necessarily mean I don't think a lot of what Mormon's teach isn't closer to the truth than what some mainstream protestants spout.

[Guest Mores]

On 5/17/2019 at 8:22 AM, Jamie123 said:

Being annoyingly pedantic: Agnosticism is not a conclusion, but the absence of a conclusion.

Being equally pedantic, I'd say that agnosticism today is an excuse to be atheist when they realize atheism also has as many flaws as any ideology does.

7 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

"I don't know what the answer is, but it's not that?"

We can appraise the value or validity of an ideology in three ways:

1) I can believe it if it is better than all others I've come across.
2) I can believe it until I have sufficient cause to disbelieve it.
3) I only believe it because I've found sufficient evidence to believe it is true.

3 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I've often thought that myself: a recurring Christian phrase is "if we have a creator who calls us to account..." But why does that even make sense? If an architect creates a building, and that building falls down, does the architect call the building to account? No...the people who the building was built for call the architect to account!

Yes, but we are not inanimate objects.  At least, we're not supposed to be.  And therein lies the difference.

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I've often thought that myself: a recurring Christian phrase is "if we have a creator who calls us to account..." But why does that even make sense? If an architect creates a building, and that building falls down, does the architect call the building to account? No...the people who the building was built for call the architect to account!

But I put that down to bad theology rather than bad religion per se. A lot of nonsense is talked from the pulpit, and people accept it because (i) it's what they're used to hearing and (ii) the minister spend x years at Bible college and they didn't, so he must know what he's talking about.

The fact that I'm not a Mormon doesn't necessarily mean I don't think a lot of what Mormon's teach isn't closer to the truth than what some mainstream protestants spout.

God has held himself accountable... We call it the Atonement of Christ.

Though that God paid for everything...  Every wrong... Every hurt... Every injustice. No matter the source.

Having paid that he can then hold us accountable for what we do..  Or to your architect idea... God built the building... he paid for the building... he paid for if the building collapses on us...  But if we choose take a sledge hammer to the wall or pee on the floor he can hold us accountable for that.

[Jamie123]

2 minutes ago, Mores said:

Yes, but we are not inanimate objects.  At least, we're not supposed to be.  And therein lies the difference.

Nope - humanity is not exactly analogous to a building. But neither is God exactly analogous to the architect who built the building. But maybe...maybe...humanity is to God as a building is to its architect. In other words, the analogy is not to the objects themselves but to the relationship between them.

Now I come to think of it though, I don't believe God is ever likened to an architect. (Except of course by the Freemasons.) Paul uses the analogy of the potter and the pot - maybe I should have used that instead.

[Guest Mores]

Just now, Jamie123 said:

Nope - humanity is not exactly analogous to a building. But neither is God exactly analogous to the architect who built the building. But maybe...maybe...humanity is to God as a building is to its architect. In other words, the analogy is not to the objects themselves but to the relationship between them.

Now I come to think of it though, I don't believe God is ever likened to an architect. (Except of course by the Freemasons.) Paul uses the analogy of the potter and the pot - maybe I should have used that instead.

Well, the way we see it, God is the architect of the universe including all those which care not capable of making decisions.  Man alone is capable of making real decisions -- gospel definition of intelligence.  And man alone is not a "created object", but a child of God.

Recognize the difference between a craftsman who crafts something vs. that same craftsman having a child.

[Jamie123]

10 minutes ago, Mores said:

And man alone is not a "created object", but a child of God.

I suspect that we've now hit a major difference between Mormonism and mainstream Protestantism (and probably Catholicism too - perhaps Anatess will put me right here): according to the latter a human being is a created object - and a flawed created object too, born into original sin - but may become a child of God by being "born again".

But now I think about it, didn't Joseph Smith imply something similar to this when he said "The natural man is the enemy of God"?

Edited May 20, 2019 by Jamie123

[Guest Mores]

Just now, Jamie123 said:

I suspect that we've now hit a major difference between Mormonism and mainstream Protestantism (and probably Catholicism too - perhaps Anatess will put me right here): according to the latter human is a created object - and a flawed created object too, born into original sin - but may become a child of God by being "born again".

But now I think about it, didn't Joseph Smith imply something similar to this when he said "The natural man is the enemy of God"?

That we are flawed?  Yes. But the creation of an object is always subject to the integrity of the materials used in the creation.

NOTE: The following is not "doctrine" per se.  But it is reasoning based on some doctrine and some "common beliefs" of our theology.

God, himself, cannot "create" something with a flaw.  Otherwise, He would be imperfect.  What he can do is take something that pre-exists with a flaw and use it in the creation of something greater.  It is that pre-existent flaw that makes us an enemy to God.  It is only by throwing off the natural man that we can gain salvation.

The reason we are children is that our creation was quite different than the creation of the universe.

[Jamie123]

15 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

God has held himself accountable... We call it the Atonement of Christ.

Though that God paid for everything...  Every wrong... Every hurt... Every injustice. No matter the source.

Having paid that he can then hold us accountable for what we do..  Or to your architect idea... God built the building... he paid for the building... he paid for if the building collapses on us...  But if we choose take a sledge hammer to the wall or pee on the floor he can hold us accountable for that.

First paragraph: Any mainstream Christian would agree with that (though some would say that atonement applies only to certain people - the Elect).

Second paragraph: Any mainstream Christian would agree with that also.

Third paragraph: You seem to contradict yourself here; if God paid for every wrong, no matter what the source, that would surely include the wrongs caused by our own wickedness and stupidity (such as peeing on the floor or hammering the walls).

[estradling75]

7 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

First paragraph: Any mainstream Christian would agree with that (though some would say that atonement applies only to certain people - the Elect).

Second paragraph: Any mainstream Christian would agree with that also.

Third paragraph: You seem to contradict yourself here; if God paid for every wrong, no matter what the source, that would surely include the wrongs caused by our own wickedness and stupidity (such as peeing on the floor or hammering the walls).

Not at all...  If I loan my kid my car...  Anything they do in that car... I will pay for.  But that does not mean that I can not selectively choose to charge them for some things as I deem fit

[Jamie123]

17 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Not at all...  If I loan my kid my car...  Anything they do in that car... I will pay for.  But that does not mean that I can not selectively choose to charge them for some things as I deem fit

Ah...I think I get what you're saying now. You sound a bit like my own father when I was a kid: "If you break or lose your [insert whatever important item] I'll buy you a new one, but I'll deduct the money from your allowance." That used to bug me no end: I never could (and still don't) understand the difference between his buying me something and making me pay for it out of money I would otherwise have received, and me buying it for myself out of money I did receive.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Jamie123

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

Ah...I think I get what you're saying now. You sound a bit like my own father when I was a kid: "If you break or lose your [insert whatever important item] I'll buy you a new one, but I'll deduct the money from your allowance." That used to bug me no end: I never could (and still don't) understand the difference between his buying me something and making me pay for it out of money I would otherwise have received, and me buying it for myself out of money I did receive.

 

Because you think the logic was about 'who paid?'  Where as the logic is really more about 'what did he try to teach you by holding you responsible?'

 

[Jamie123]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

 

Because you think the logic was about 'who paid?'  Where as the logic is really more about 'what did he try to teach you by holding you responsible?'

 

I think the lesson in responsibility would have been more powerful if he'd made me replace the thing myself - or else done without it and learned the consequences. Not that I want to criticize my parents' parenting skills - my mum and dad were totally the best - but I've taken a different kind of path myself as a father.

P.s. I've just been thinking this over and I have to confess I suck. Recently my daughter lost her retainer and I paid for a new one. The only lesson in responsibility she got from me was to have to endure my moaning at her in the car all the way to the orthodontist. Maybe my dad was onto something...

Edited May 20, 2019 by Jamie123

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I think the lesson in responsibility would have been more powerful if he'd made me replace the thing myself - or else done without it and learned the consequences. Not that I want to criticize my parents' parenting skills - my mum and dad were totally the best - but I've taken a different kind of path myself as a father.

And since we were originally talking about God (since I am not qualified to really talk about your dad) and "punishment" you just answered why it appears that we have to pay... even if God has already

Edited May 20, 2019 by estradling75