Revolutionary wrote:No, I have plenty to say and own my own voice in doing so.... What I have to say speaks for itself without having the ego to prove anything beyond what it has to offer!
You're the one throwing declarations around! You get to own that!
And I have. I have both philosophy and science on my side. You assert an endless void when science itself hasn't settled the issue yet, you assert infinite matter without any proof whatsoever based on an erroneous application of the law of conservation of mass, you assert a 'closed' infinite model, and so on and so on. That's a whole lotta assertin' Lucy, and yet you claim you have nothing to prove. Like I said, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. You've derailed this thread much too much and wasted everyone's precious time. But then again why not, you think time is timeless
No, I asserted logic for the cause of advancing a discussion.....
You can place anything you desire beyond our universe..... Place God beyond our observable universe.... Is God infinite? If so, how is that defined?
Is it by void or some sort of mass?
If God isn't infinite, where does God begin and where does God end? What exists beyond those points?
Can't we just speculate that infinite mass is a lot more impressive as a reflection than infinite void, even where God is a concept?
We're not proving anything, we're just using our melon for a moment.
The problem is when we indulge beyond the bare acceptance of belief that God exists and created this arena, to actually contemplate infinite mass.... What you fail to understand where conservation of mass is concerned is that mass can radiate away from, and be 'lost' concerning the seemingly 'contemplatively' finite boundaries of a system.... This theory doesn't declare that mass disappears.... poof! The impact point when examining an infinite multiverse of infinite mass and universes is that this seemingly 'lost' radiant energy (mass) is radiating out of every universe and never disappears but is concentrated in massive gravitational fields where it begins to seamlessly shift density.
We don't have to prove this, for the very obvious reason that it is impossible.... Infinity doesn't have an algorithm, it is something that we can't equate.
You have claimed that science proves God simply because you can't have mass without having something to create it.... To show an arena where mass is infinite having always existed, where every finite point of said mass is a gravitational process of it's own properties in an infinite expanse that keeps it uniform and static to a greater degree; it simply disproves your declaration that it requires a creator. Regardless of what you choose to believe, your declaration is not backed by any scientific proof.
Incomprehension of a possible arena of infinite mass is not an excuse for declaring proof, nor is "if it exists it must have a creator".
I am not taking a position to prove an infinite arena of mass (regardless if it makes more sense, God or not), but you CAN NOT declare that our observable universe is proof of God..... End of story!
BTW, your circular arguments where you demonstrate you can't grasp the most basic objective logic and apply it to a discussion, is what has derailed this thread.... I could answer your latest claim with the same thing I've repeated for the past 4 pages to you! But of course, all you have is projections and accusations; wonder where those came from?