The Kalam Argument For God
Posted on: Mon, 2006-09-25 12:34
Offline
The Kalam Argument For God
Following is what is more commonly known as a cosmological or 'first cause' argument, although techincally it is neither since an Aquinas style concluion of 'ergo God' is not reaced.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
But we don't know if the universe began, or always was.
Not to mention the periodic creation and destruction (big bang, big shrink) theory that could go on indefinently without a cause. Furthermore causality does not necessitate a god, merely a cause as it suggests. I was caused by my mother and father procreating, this does not mean that there was some higher power forcing them to.
[b]"1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause."[/b]
There are arguments against this steming from quantum theory but I will except that.
[b]"2. The universe began to exist."[/b]
No evidence for that;Even if one were to induce that all things that exist have a cause, [i]the universe[/i] only exists as a label for all that exists. Also, Matter and energy have never been created, so there is no reason to assume that it ever was.
[b]"3. Therefore, the universe had a cause."[/b]
Only if premise (1.) and (2.) are true.
Just a lame reconstruction of the cosmological argument.
Universe is not constrained by time, it contains time, and is therefore not subject to standard causality. Kind of obvious, and that's not even going into how quantum mechanics does away with the first premise.
[quote=Bashh]But we don't know if the universe began, or always was.
Not to mention the periodic creation and destruction (big bang, big shrink) theory that could go on indefinently without a cause. Furthermore causality does not necessitate a god, merely a cause as it suggests. I was caused by my mother and father procreating, this does not mean that there was some higher power forcing them to.[/quote]
Yes my argument also relies on the premise that an actual infinite cannot exist. This is because if the universe started infinite years ago (so call that t=minus infinity), then add any number to that and you will get to the same place - t = minus infinity - except of cause with infinity where you will get to t=0. This means there are only two places in time that you can be, which is obviously wrong and therefore the universe is finite.
[quote=Stephen]
[b]"1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause."[/b]
There are arguments against this steming from quantum theory but I will except that.[/quote]
Want to change your mind now?
Superiority, I am inpressed with the first part of your answer, although I'm guessing it is based at least in part on what Hume or Russell had to say on the matter. It is, however, a straw man beause I am postulating a first cause of items inside the dimensions, not the dimensions themselves which I agree are outside of time.
[quote=Thor]Following is what is more commonly known as a cosmological or 'first cause' argument, although techincally it is neither since an Aquinas style concluion of 'ergo God' is not reaced.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.[/quote]
OK, so yeah, even if we accept that the universe had a cause, certainly doesn't mean that this cause is God, so the argument doesn't work.
[quote=Thor]Yes my argument also relies on the premise that an actual infinite cannot exist. This is because if the universe started infinite years ago (so call that t=minus infinity), then add any number to that and you will get to the same place - t = minus infinity - except of cause with infinity where you will get to t=0. This means there are only two places in time that you can be, which is obviously wrong and therefore the universe is finite[/quote]
I don't see how that is "odviously wrong", perhaps you could elaborate.
Of course, There are actual infinities in mathematics all the time. Hell, there are an infinite number of points between one and two. One could try to argue that there isn't really an infinite amount of points, because we could never reach that many. But the number series still exists as an infinity..
For example, (1/2) + (1/4) +... (1/2n). When the limit of this sum is taken to infinity, it equals two.
[quote]Want to change your mind now?[/quote]
I will argue from the quantum level, however I still don't see any basis for your second or third premise (*aside from the math you just provided, though I must admit it just seems like a hokum).
[quote]Superiority, I am inpressed with the first part of your answer, although I'm guessing it is based at least in part on what Hume or Russell had to say on the matter.[/quote]
Now I'm flattered.. I mean Hume and Russell!
[quote]It is, however, a straw man beause I am postulating a first cause of items inside the dimensions, not the dimensions themselves which I agree are outside of time.[/quote]
Here's were it seems to get iffy.
You argue: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
This is induced from the actions of every thing that can be seen. However, all the "whatevers" that have ever been observed to exist have existed in the universe. To say "The universe began to exist" is to posit something that has neither been observed (infact to posit that matter/energy can be created at all would fail here) and is inherently contradictory (since "pure" nothingness is incoherent~supernatural).
The closest thing to that arguement is that the Universe as we know it began to exist and this is really making my head hurt.
Also, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, certain subatomic events are uncaused. So certain things that begin within the constraints of time happen without cause.
OY (sorry if I run on or make mistakes... I am totally out to lunch in my head).
[quote=Ph8]OK, so yeah, even if we accept that the universe had a cause, certainly doesn't mean that this cause is God, so the argument doesn't work.[/quote]
Strawman! :) I never said it proved God, I offered it as proof of a first cause.
[quote=Stephen][quote=Thor]Yes my argument also relies on the premise that an actual infinite cannot exist. This is because if the universe started infinite years ago (so call that t=minus infinity), then add any number to that and you will get to the same place - t = minus infinity - except of cause with infinity where you will get to t=0. This means there are only two places in time that you can be, which is obviously wrong and therefore the universe is finite[/quote]
I don't see how that is "odviously wrong", perhaps you could elaborate.[/quote]
(1) Start at minus infinity
(2) Add any number to it barring infinity - what do you get? Answer = minus infinity = where you started
(3) Take the other option - add infinity. What do you get? Answer = 0, infinite years after the beginning, and since there are no other options, then end.
[quote=Stephen]I will argue from the quantum level, however I still don't see any basis for your second or third premise (*aside from the math you just provided, though I must admit it just seems like a hokum).[/quote]
Ok, when people say quarks and other such sub-atomic particles appear spontaneously, they are correct, but they still have a cause - quantum vacuum energy.
[quote=Stephen]Here's were it seems to get iffy.
You argue: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
This is induced from the actions of every thing that can be seen. However, all the "whatever" that have ever been observed to exist have existed in the universe. To say "The universe began to exist" is to posit something that has neither been observed (in fact to posit that matter/energy can be created at all would fail here) and is inherently contradictory (since "pure" nothingness is incoherent~supernatural).
The closest thing to that argument is that the Universe as we know it began to exist and this is really making my head hurt.[/quote]
Uhuh this is the first really good challenge to my argument, and I hope you don't mind if I expand it a little further:
The universe is not just inside of time, it actually includes the fabric of space and time itself, and as such the universe cannot begin, for the word "begin" when outside the forth dimension is utterly meaningless. This is why the universe can be finite without destroying the rule "energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred from one form into another."
With that, I have to concede defeat. Well done!
[quote=Stephen]Also, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, certain subatomic events are uncaused. So certain things that begin within the constraints of time happen without cause.[/quote]
Please give an example, just for interests sake.
time does not necessarily have to be infinite for the universe not to have a beginning. it all depends on what exactly time is (if it is anything) and how exactly it relates to the universe
time could be a finite dimension, static to any observer outside time (if that's even possible), or it could be looping itself (though that's something I doubt)
or time could have some completely different properties, which we do not know of
Last time I checked scientists say there definatley was a begining of the universe. We don't know what there was before this universe, there could have been another.
However, who can say that god caused the universe.
[quote]1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.[/quote]
We have never witnessed anything ever come into existance with a cause. We have observed existing matter and energy forming new things, but this does not constitute something "beginning to exist", merely a rearrangement of pre-existing matter and energy. We have observed previously nonexistant matter and energy forming (in quantum physics), but this does not happen with a "cause". Nothing that has ever began to exist has ever had a cause.
[quote=celestasia]Last time I checked scientists say there definatley was a begining of the universe. We don't know what there was before this universe, there could have been another.
However, who can say that god caused the universe.[/quote]I don't normally hear scientists say that.
the most I hear from the more prominent scientists is that they [i]might[/i] be a beginning, but we don't really know.
we know there was a big bang. that is an event, but it does not say anything about what happened before the big bang, or whether there was a beginning or not.
The Big Bang is the beginning of space-time as we know it. To Paraphras ea great Genius whose name currently evades me, to ask what happened before the beginning of time is like asking what is north of the north pole.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]The Big Bang is the beginning of space-time [b]as we know it.[/b][/quote]that's the thing. we don't know what happened before the big bang, or whether there was a before the big bang.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]To Paraphras ea great Genius whose name currently evades me, to ask what happened before the beginning of time is like asking what is north of the north pole.[/quote]I don't agree with the analogy.
first, time may or may not have extended before the big bang. this analogy, however, suggests that there is no time before the big bang. so it's making an assumption.
of course there is no North beyond the point arbitrarily picked as North, although the only reason that is so, is because people have decided to arbitrarily define North as a static point, relative to the Earth's surface.
However, it is possible to go in the direction of North, and then go past it. you just won't be going "North" once you have passed the point called "North"
in other words, you can't get more north than the north pole, because that's what people have decided.
I still disagree, even if the analogy is suggesting that time does extend before the big bang (though it fails to state that), but humans have just arbitrarily picked the start of the big bang as the start of time.
because if that's the case, then that means people have simply not counted any time before the big bang (assuming there is). and if time exists prior to an event, then there [i]still is a before[/i] in relation to that event, and it [i]is[/i] therefore fair to ask what is before that event.
so one cannot simply arbitrarily pick the big bang as [i]the beginning of time[/i], because it may or may not be.
however, it may be fair to say that the big bang was the beginning of the universe [b]as we know it[/b], like stated above
[quote=Zhwazi][quote]1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.[/quote]
We have never witnessed anything ever come into existance with a cause. We have observed existing matter and energy forming new things, but this does not constitute something "beginning to exist", merely a rearrangement of pre-existing matter and energy. We have observed previously nonexistant matter and energy forming (in quantum physics), but this does not happen with a "cause". Nothing that has ever began to exist has ever had a cause.[/quote]
A lump of metal is not a car untill it is formed in that way, and only when formed in that way does the car exist. That is the way in which the termonology is usually used, but feel free to offer a different definition.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]The Big Bang is the beginning of space-time as we know it. To Paraphras ea great Genius whose name currently evades me, to ask what happened before the beginning of time is like asking what is north of the north pole.[/quote]
Stephen Law
[quote=Thor]A lump of metal is not a car untill it is formed in that way, and only when formed in that way does the car exist. That is the way in which the termonology is usually used, but feel free to offer a different definition.[/quote]
If a rearrangement of material qualifies as "beginning to exist", then you invalidate point 2 by expanding it to include absolutely everything. And that definition of "begin to exist" is in no way contradictory to an eternal universe. So a rearrangement of material constituting "beginning to exist" is not consistent with your arguement.
ohok. I wasn't sure whether it was him or George H. Smith. Then I started to think it was George H. Smith, quoting him :)
[quote=Thor]Following is what is more commonly known as a cosmological or 'first cause' argument, although techincally it is neither since an Aquinas style concluion of 'ergo God' is not reaced.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.[/quote]
You could apply the same logic to god himself. What caused god? Then you can follow that back as many levels as you like; it is a never-ending question. I think it makes more sense to stop and say matter is eternal, instead of jumping to the idea some mysterious ghost created it. Why does god have to be the only thing that "wasn't created"? The laws of thermodynamics state that matter cannot be created or destroyed also. The matter in the universe, in some form or the other, had to be eternal; the Big Bang was when it started to expand into the universe it is today. As for what caused the Big Bang, the answer is still a mystery, but I would rather leave the first mystery open to new answers, rather than solving it with another mystery (How did god come about?).
the difference is, "car" is just a concept. it is an idea that exists only in the mind.
what we see of as a car is just a collection of things that already existed in the universe, to form into a system.
and "system" is also a concept, used to describe things that work together to achieve a goal (in the case of a car, controlled conversion of chemical energy into mechanical energy, then kinetic energy)
outside of the human mind, there is no such thing as "car" or "system"
there are only collections of things which, when put together in some organised way, [b]we[/b] might label as [i]cars[/i] or [i]systems[/i], which are, like said before, not composed of anything that did not previously exist in the universe.
to sum it up:
both [i]car[/i] and [i]system[/i] are completely meaningless outside the human mind
Exactly. Rearrangement does not constitute creation.
[quote]"1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause."
There are arguments against this steming from quantum theory but I will except that.[/quote]
Of course, the Copenhagen interpretation is not accepted by a majority of scientists. But I will accept that.
[quote]"2. The universe began to exist."
No evidence for that;[/quote]
Bull. We have [i]reams[/i] of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning. To say there is "no evidence" is an outright lie. You probably don't even realize you're saying this, but you're essentially saying that scientists are basing conclusions on the Big Bang on [i]absolutely nothing at all[/i]. Way to go!
[quote]Even if one were to induce that all things that exist have a cause,[/quote]
That's a strawman. All things that [b]begin to exist[/b] have causes.
[quote]the universe only exists as a label for all that exists.[/quote]
Right, and how did "all that exists" come into existence, Mr. Beg the Question?
[quote]Also, Matter and energy have never been created, so there is no reason to assume that it ever was.[/quote]
Uh huh..."Because we don't see it today means it's NEVER happened." That's totally sound logic...*cough*
There's definitely a reason to assume that they were created, since the universe most certainly had a beginning.
[quote=P-Dunn]
Bull. We have [i]reams[/i] of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning. To say there is "no evidence" is an outright lie. You probably don't even realize you're saying this, but you're essentially saying that scientists are basing conclusions on the Big Bang on [i]absolutely nothing at all[/i]. Way to go!
[/quote]
I touched upon this in a previous message. The big bang does not begin at the very beginning of the universe, but from planck time.
From: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html
[i]Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. [b]Nothing is known of this period.[/b][/i]
So we do not know if the conditions that existed during planck time sprung out of nothing or were pre-existing. We don't know and I find it hard to believe we will ever know.
Isn't there some super- duper rules that says we can't be more accurate than planck distance and planck time? I am making this up? (in case you aren't familiar, that is a serious question)
Umm, I went and wiki'd it... i am lost so you proably know (i think that there was something in there about it...)
- i clicked around on the wikipage and i realized that entropy is sorta depressing (just my opinion... i would just rather have a big crunch then the universe becoming a bunch of radation... oh well )
Just as a thought... do you think anyone has ever been depressed and the doctor says "why are you depressed" and they say "entropy"? - I wonder what their diagnosis would be....
You claimed to have read Craig's work yet you make such stupid claims that he answers in [i]Reasonable Faith[/i]? Anyway, time for me to get to work.
[quote=noor]You could apply the same logic to god himself. What caused god?[/quote]
Do you lack basic skills of reasoning and reading by chance? The argument states whatever [b]begins[/b] to exist has a cause. Since God did not begin to exist, he does not need a cause. Thus your strawman is burned to the ground... but for fun ( and I'm feeling a bit masochistic today) I'll answer the rest anyway.
[quote]Then you can follow that back as many levels as you like; it is a never-ending question.[/quote]
Sorry, but your strawman has already been burned to the ground. The reality is the argument says that whatever begins to exist must have a cause, not everything has a cause. Do pay attention this time and actually read William Lane Craig, I bet you simply read a few internet articles and found this sufficent enough.
[quote] I think it makes more sense to stop and say matter is eternal, instead of jumping to the idea some mysterious ghost created it.[/quote]
So in other words, agree with me or you are wrong. Got a reason I should agree with you?
[quote]Why does god have to be the only thing that "wasn't created"?[/quote]
Because that's the only logical conclusion. In fact, I can prove it too and I will now. Whatever created the unverse must exist outside of it. Why? Here is my argument:
1. The unverse started to exist at a certian point in time.
2. Whatever is inside of this unverse, is as well effected by condition 1.
3. Matter is part of the unverse.
4. Therefore, matter can not be eternal, since it's effected by condition 1.
[quote] The laws of thermodynamics state that matter cannot be created or destroyed also.[/quote]
The laws of thermodynmaics also are based upon the assumption the unverse is a closed system, plus it assumes matter and energy have existed in the same amount thought history. The laws of thermodynmaics would be destroyed if:
1. Time travel were possible, since matter and energy would no longer be constiant thought all of history.
2. If other unverses exist and can interact with our own, because matter and energy could be moved from one unverse to another, thus the unverse is not a closed system nor would matter/energy be constant.
3. If God exist and is able to interact with the unverse. Since that would prove the unverse is not a closed system.
Do you ever try to learn everything about an argument before you say something?
[quote] The matter in the universe, in some form or the other, had to be eternal; the Big Bang was when it started to expand into the universe it is today.[/quote]
We have some problems and here's a few of them:
1. The big bang was very percise, by this I mean if it expanded just a faction (less than a thousandth) slower, the unverse would of never been able to expand and over-come it's own gravity. Thus destroying itself before it began. Any faster, it would of been to fast and unable to form stars, galaxies, planets, and ulimatly would be unable to support life.
2. Matter is effected by the rules of this unverse, thus it can't be eternal.
[quote]As for what caused the Big Bang, the answer is still a mystery, but I would rather leave the first mystery open to new answers, rather than solving it with another mystery (How did god come about?). [/quote]
God always existed, problem solved. Next question.
Terror
I think you are a cool guy, Terror. It takes guts to stand up for what you believe is true. I do not mean 'believe' badly, only in the sense that such ideas pertain to your beliefs. Simply using common terminology, not a view on its validity. I think that we can all recognize strengths in each other's arguments, as well as positions, which I believe is needed to figure this thing called life out. And isn't that the goal?
With that said, I do believe you could make your argument stronger. Peer review has always been a helpful guide, so I will do my best to stay helpful.
First, you say God has always existed. Sounds good, but it sounds weird when you later claim the the universe did always exist. You would probably want evidence that does relate to the big bang, because my understanding implies there were other universes, as well as a 5+D system which creates 3D universes. Perhaps I am wrong, but it would be nice to know the details on how, although God lives forever, the universe can't. It would be a excellent addition to your argument.
Also, I happened to notice feeling of animosity, on both sides. I advise you look more professional, as it will make your argument much more presentable. This will greatly help the message's readability, as well as increase general opinion of your argument. This is not the way it should work, as we should judge arguments on their merits alone, but it is how people work.
My last point is that brevity is the sole of wit. I forgot who said that, but it hold true. If you have made a point, we need not state the implications of such a point, aside from the obvious. As well as that, you could avoid taking 2 similar arguments and refuting them distinctly, even though it made help organization. This is merely a style issue, but it seems to help coherence for many people (although I do not notice that problem in your writings).
I do hope you take any advice you think prudent to accept. I would enjoy it if I saw everybody's arguments stronger, but it seems you are outnumbered, so I offer my help to you. Good luck, and thank you for your time.
[quote=JoshHickman]I think you are a cool guy, Terror.[/quote]
Terror is a lady.
[quote=JoshHickman]I think you are a cool guy, Terror.[/quote]
Thanks so much Josh, Although I am a girl.
[quote]It takes guts to stand up for what you believe is true. I do not mean 'believe' badly, only in the sense that such ideas pertain to your beliefs.[/quote]
I know you don't mean that in a bad way... I actually have respect for you... unlike other people in here, who get their info from soda cans, you use your head. That is what I ask for, you'll find I have little tollerence for ignorance and downright stupidity.
[quote]Simply using common terminology, not a view on its validity. I think that we can all recognize strengths in each other's arguments, as well as positions, which I believe is needed to figure this thing called life out. And isn't that the goal?[/quote]
Yes it is, that's why I do these debate things, for the challange and to learn.
[quote]With that said, I do believe you could make your argument stronger. Peer review has always been a helpful guide, so I will do my best to stay helpful. [/quote]
Alright than, we'll do that.
[quote]First, you say God has always existed. Sounds good, but it sounds weird when you later claim the the universe did always exist.[/quote]
I think you misunderstood me. The unverse has not always existed. There is two different lines of reasoning used to prove premsis 1 of the Kalam Cosmological argument.
The tradition way (and the way William Lane Craig does it in his book [i]Reasonable Faith[/i]) is using this mathematical arguments such as this:
1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another.
2. A collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, a series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.
Craig goes into quite a bit of details about this, but the point is this. How can the unverse exist forever when today is in fact, the last day in history? You can not have the infinate by the finate, so how could the unverse have always existed?
The other argument used to prove premsis one is scientific. For example, the big bang is the start of the unverse. The evidence of the big bang is an expanding unverse and background radiation from the orgional bang, known as 'galaxy seeds'. This points to a begining and where there is a begining, there is a cause.
[quote] You would probably want evidence that does relate to the big bang, because my understanding implies there were other universes, as well as a 5+D system which creates 3D universes.[/quote]
Other unverses are simply a theory and little more. There is no evidence to support that other unverses exist besides our own, I just mentioned it to show that the laws of thermodynamics were based upon certian assuptions.
[quote] Perhaps I am wrong, but it would be nice to know the details on how, although God lives forever, the universe can't. It would be a excellent addition to your argument. [/quote]
The scientific evidence points that the unverse begin and it will end. It will either expand untill all matter and energy is no longer able to be changed, thus the unverse cools and dies or it will stop expanding and start collapsing upon itself. Either way... it's going to end someday.
[quote]Also, I happened to notice feeling of animosity, on both sides. I advise you look more professional, as it will make your argument much more presentable.[/quote]
Has to do with people's additude. They want to be rude, than the shouldn't cry when I do the same back. I treat you far differently because you show respect in return.
[quote]My last point is that brevity is the sole of wit. I forgot who said that, but it hold true. If you have made a point, we need not state the implications of such a point, aside from the obvious.[/quote]
Oh I know, sometimes people do need to be lead by the hand though.
[quote]I do hope you take any advice you think prudent to accept. I would enjoy it if I saw everybody's arguments stronger, but it seems you are outnumbered, so I offer my help to you. Good luck, and thank you for your time.[/quote]
If you read where my oppents get their information... you can see my frustration. Wiki is a great source to get you started, but shouldn't be used for any in depth research. Plus it seems they love the 'Irrational Responders' who often times are just as bias and hateful as they claim Christians are. Many of their 'contradictions' can be answered with reading the entire passage. Why people flock to them... I don't know...
Terror
Generally, I think, the term 'guy' is unisex, so no worries. :)
I am sorry about the misunderstanding. I meant to say the universe didn't exist (the last phrase before your long reply). But luckily you answered my questions and responded to my comments, so all is well.
Also, I think you would want to change to the second mode of reasoning for the universe thing. See, in math, the vast majority of proofs (or ones I have seen as a Math major) for simple things are regressive. They prove a statement true for an infinite set, by proving it for a value, and then by showing that a step in the series doesn't invalidate it. I only use this as a metaphor for the universe. We could prove it exists for a value (lets say big bang), then apply the laws of physics (if we know the exact situation we began with), and show it will go on forever, as long as those rules implicate a continued universe (and I think they do, with things such as the laws of Thermodynamics, with the no destroying of matter or energy). This, in itself, I don't think is profound, or useful. Obviously, if we know how things work, we can figure out what will happen is that system.
My point is that in math the proof is equally valid if you go backwards. It is sometimes more difficult, but it is just as true. Now, our current understanding is that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so working the system backwards, we can say that the big bang did not spawn out of nothingness. This is only to say that the energy was already there.
Now, I know you have said this a couple of times, and it is essential to keep in mind. The laws of Thermodynamics are based on assumptions. These assumptions are pretty tricky to nail down, but I think that the set you had (I believe I saw something...?) was pretty good. The thing is, the assumptions have never been shown to be wrong. When I am doing calorimetry, I rely on the assumptions you stated, and I tend to have observable evidence to imply they are correct. Those laws are just based on all observable phenomenon, like every other 'Law'. They could, if fact, be wrong, but if it is a scientific Law, it has never been broken. Perhaps our understanding will advance, but futher understanding must also be based in verifiable phenomenon, just like other things. That seems to be a worthy addition to your argument. Perhaps you could give us an experiment we could run to show an assumption is false? I would think one has been designed, considering how many frivolous science grants are given out, you would think the ground- breaking stuff would come around more often. Though I have to say, I am still pissed that some groundbreaking ones are done before I get credit, because I thought of the Michealson- Morley experiments when I was 11. Arrgg...
[quote]Other unverses are simply a theory and little more. There is no evidence to support that other unverses exist besides our own, I just mentioned it to show that the laws of thermodynamics were based upon certian assuptions.[/quote]
Do you mean a theory in a scientific context or more like a guess? I beleve that god has as much "evidence" as multiple universes have (I dont know how much we actually have for multiple universes soo..).
[quote]because I thought of the Michealson- Morley experiments when I was 11. Arrgg...[/quote]
Yes, I know how frustraiting it is when scientists take your groundbreaking proofs and use them to win stuff.... Oh wait, I dont know :) haha, ive never even thought of one paritally good system.
*chuckles to himself*