Are We Truly In The End Times?

[Super Dude]

Is our president a black Democrat who is simultaneously a Communist and a Nazi, despite the two ideologies being diametrically opposed? I'm expecting the end any day now.

[theseoafs]

Is our president a black Democrat who is simultaneously a Communist and a Nazi, despite the two ideologies being diametrically opposed? I'm expecting the end any day now.

And a Muslim. Don't forget Muslim.

[Adami]

Isn't it Hallmark?

Not for long.

[Scheavo]

Example.  We can get a due date for when a baby is supposed to come....but no idea *EXACTLY* when the baby will come.   But when the mommy's getting really big...you know it will be any day now.  But exactly which day?  No one has any clue.

K, fair enough.

We know how all will end. Scientists tell us that the universe is expanding, and everything in it is growing farther and farther apart. As it does so, it grows colder and colder, and its energy is used up. Eventually all the stars will burn out and all matter will collapse into dead stars and black holes. There will be no light at all; there will be no heat; there will be no life; only the corpses of dead stars and galaxies, ever expanding into the endless darkness and the cold recesses of space; a universe in ruins. The entire universe marches irreversibly toward its grave. So not only is the life of each individual person doomed; the entire human race is doomed. The universe is plunging toward inevitable extinction—death is written throughout its structure. There is no escape. There is no hope.

Well, it depends upon which scientists you listen to. What we do know is that the universe appears to be expanding, at this point in time. There are, however, otehr ways of explaining this observed expansion that don't require the universe actually expanding (one is that "time" is leaving the universe, so that things occur more slowly than they used to. This could explain the red shift we observe.

However, I think the more interesting theory I've red regards what happens at the end of the scenario you listed above. Everything could indeed keep expanding, but at some point, when matter is spread out enough, that matter basically goes through a "big bang," and creating another universe. Someone on these boards remembers the name of this theory, but I can't.

So ya, you could be right, and scientists who purport that could be right, but it hasn't quite been verified enough to claim that this end is what we know will occur. We've been observing, scientifically, the sky for only like 500 years, which is basically nothing compared to the universe. There are more than likely aspects of the cosmos we know nothing about, becuase those events simply haven't happened and allowed us to observe them.

[eric42434224]

We know how all will end. We know there is a suggested hypothesis that relies on certain varying assumptions.

Fixed that part for you.  You're welcome.   

[Omega]

Ay ay ay...

Are people really going to deny that our universe is expanding and the consequences that it entails?

And Scheavo, I think you're referring to the Oscillating Universe theory (or the Big Crunch). Either way, the Oscillatory Universe theory is not only fraught with all sorts of problems, but it has also been determined that there is not enough entropy in the universe to warrant a re-coalescence of space-time to produce a cyclical universe.

[jsem]

Is our president a black Democrat who is simultaneously a Communist and a Nazi, despite the two ideologies being diametrically opposed? I'm expecting the end any day now.

And a Muslim. Don't forget Muslim.

And Jewish...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o45I7cVFRSM

Remember when I saw this, I was ROFL.

[Scheavo]

And Scheavo, I think you're referring to the Oscillating Universe theory (or the Big Crunch). Either way, the Oscillatory Universe theory is not only fraught with all sorts of problems, but it has also been determined that there is not enough entropy in the universe to warrant a re-coalescence of space-time to produce a cyclical universe.

Actually, I'm referring to the exact opposite, where matters gets like infinitesimally spread out.

[Omega]

And Scheavo, I think you're referring to the Oscillating Universe theory (or the Big Crunch). Either way, the Oscillatory Universe theory is not only fraught with all sorts of problems, but it has also been determined that there is not enough entropy in the universe to warrant a re-coalescence of space-time to produce a cyclical universe.

Actually, I'm referring to the exact opposite, where matters gets like infinitesimally spread out.

Yes, well, that's Heat Death...what I just described. Not sure how, exactly, a dead universe with no energy, no light, no motion, etc, would ever be able to "birth" a new universe, never mind what "birth a new universe" would even entail. The truth that one has to brave up and face, whether one likes it or hates it, is that our universe will "end" in the manner I described. 20th (& 21st) century cosmology could be adequately summed up as a series of failed attempts of not only to avoid an absolute beginning of the universe, but also to avoid the hopeless implications of the heat death of our universe.

[eric42434224]

Ahhh...another thread soon to be locked because someone cant have a discussion without stating a theory/hypothesis/position/belief is not an opinion, but pure and undeniable fact.

 

[Scheavo]

Our universe would indeed end, what I'm pointing out is that this does not necessarily mean that all existence ends, etc.

I'll try and find the theory I'm thinking of. You may not be able to conceive of how it's possible, but luckily there's smart physicists who use math and physical principles to show this can be possible. And I would just like to remind you that I'm not proposing this as the Truth, but simply proposing this as a possible result.

Have you ever talked with physicists and astrophysicists? They're usually very skeptical people, who realize that what they're observing is but a part of reality, and they don't draw such affirmative strong opinions as you do.

[jsem]

In fact, a lot of theoretical physicists wouldn't even dare to describe what reality is. Because, they don't know.

[eric42434224]

In fact, a lot of theoretical physicists wouldn't even dare to describe what reality is. Because, they don't know.

Theoretical Physicists, the experts, may not know....but......

[jsem]

[Omega]

I think the problem here is that many of you assume that all theories are equally probable and therefore equally valid. Yes, I acknowledge that there exist other "theories" for both the beginning of existence (or lack thereof) of our universe and of its inevitable fate. Yet just because they "exist" doesn't entail that one should be skeptical of all others and declare them all standing as equally probable. But the hard truth is that all the evidence we have gathered points clearly to both a beginning of existence of our universe (indeed an absolute beginning) and the heat death of our universe. The evidence supporting both the beginning of our universe and its heat death are so overwhelming and the evidence against them so underwhelming that these two assertions can be as closely accepted as established facts, not mere "opinions" or "far fetched hypotheses". As I said, whether you like it or hate it, the likelihood of the universe both having begun to exist and its inevitable heat death is positively overwhelming, an no amount of bickering will change that (nor will desperately throwing ludicrous counter-hypotheses such as "bubble-universes" or the "many worlds hypothesis" which have been, for the large part, obviously conjured up not with the pursuit of scientific wisdom in mind, but rather as a desperate, last-ditch attempt to avoid a beginning of the universe and its end).

[bosk1]

I don't think it's an issue of whether one does in fact "like it or hate it."  I don't think anyone really cares.  And most acknowledge that we really don't have enough evidence in to take a hard position on how the universe will end, even if we did care enough to debate it.

[yeshaberto]

So, didn't think it needed a new thread, but I happened to stumble upon this a little while ago - and thought it was interesting

https://www.the-end.com/

May 27, 2012 we're all goners apparently

*sigh*     Stuff like that really annoys me.  The Bible contains TONS of prophesies, yes.  But NONE of them have anything to do with what that author says they have to do with.  Just another attempt to prey on the gullible and ill informed. 

Aren't the presence of prophecies problematic for Matthew 24:36-40? If the Bible were literally true, that is.

Do you mean the presence of purported modern-day attempts to come up with specific dates?  Yes, that is problematic because, as you pointed out, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."

No, I mean, why are their prophecies in the Bible at all, if only the God knows when the world will end? Don't prophecies pretend to know such things?

the rest of Matt 24-25 details the reason that Jesus warned of the end of time.  and the biblical prophecies indicate it will be immediate and universally catastrophic (rather than a slow process over time). 
the point is to remind us that our lives are fragile and to live as "wise servants" rather than "foolish"
if I know that the boss is coming to the job site at any time, it will affect my behavior

[skydivingninja]

Is our president a black Democrat who is simultaneously a Communist and a Nazi, despite the two ideologies being diametrically opposed? I'm expecting the end any day now.

And a Muslim. Don't forget Muslim.

He's also a secret Kenyan atheist radical who declares wars on marriage. 

[eric42434224]

I think the problem here is that many of you assume that all theories are equally probable and therefore equally valid. Yes, I acknowledge that there exist other "theories" for both the beginning of existence (or lack thereof) of our universe and of its inevitable fate. Yet just because they "exist" doesn't entail that one should be skeptical of all others and declare them all standing as equally probable. But the hard truth is that all the evidence we have gathered points clearly to both a beginning of existence of our universe (indeed an absolute beginning) and the heat death of our universe. The evidence supporting both the beginning of our universe and its heat death are so overwhelming and the evidence against them so underwhelming that these two assertions can be as closely accepted as established facts, not mere "opinions" or "far fetched hypotheses". As I said, whether you like it or hate it, the likelihood of the universe both having begun to exist and its inevitable heat death is positively overwhelming, an no amount of bickering will change that (nor will desperately throwing ludicrous counter-hypotheses such as "bubble-universes" or the "many worlds hypothesis" which have been, for the large part, obviously conjured up not with the pursuit of scientific wisdom in mind, but rather as a desperate, last-ditch attempt to avoid a beginning of the universe and its end).

Hear that Theoretical Physicists?  Fact.  Boom.
Omega has spoken.

If we all just agree to accept all your opinions as facts, will you stop talking about them, so we can have fewer topics derailed/locked?

Thx


EDIT:  And just to be clear, it is obvious we dont give all theories equal validity.  What we do, is understand what a theory/hypothesis is, and understand that it is based on assumptions that may, or may not be correct.  We are also not so close minded as to think the most reasonable or popular theory -at this time- cant be changed or outright disproven in the future.  We realize that there is one fact in this particular discussion.....that there is a lot more we dont know about the Universe.  A little over a century ago, the atom was the smallest component in the universe.....but YOU know the beginning and eventual fate of the UNIVERSE.  Right 

[Scheavo]

I think the problem here is that many of you assume that all theories are equally probable and therefore equally valid. Yes, I acknowledge that there exist other "theories" for both the beginning of existence (or lack thereof) of our universe and of its inevitable fate. Yet just because they "exist" doesn't entail that one should be skeptical of all others and declare them all standing as equally probable. But the hard truth is that all the evidence we have gathered points clearly to both a beginning of existence of our universe (indeed an absolute beginning) and the heat death of our universe. The evidence supporting both the beginning of our universe and its heat death are so overwhelming and the evidence against them so underwhelming that these two assertions can be as closely accepted as established facts, not mere "opinions" or "far fetched hypotheses". As I said, whether you like it or hate it, the likelihood of the universe both having begun to exist and its inevitable heat death is positively overwhelming, an no amount of bickering will change that (nor will desperately throwing ludicrous counter-hypotheses such as "bubble-universes" or the "many worlds hypothesis" which have been, for the large part, obviously conjured up not with the pursuit of scientific wisdom in mind, but rather as a desperate, last-ditch attempt to avoid a beginning of the universe and its end).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw

No, it's not a "last-ditch effort," it's a serious effort to understand the world we observe.

[Omega]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw

No, it's not a "last-ditch effort," it's a serious effort to understand the world we observe.

There’s no evidence that such a world ensemble exists. Nobody knows if there even are other parallel universes at all. Indeed, you might agree with William Lane Craig that even if there is such a multiverse, it wouldn’t really undermine the kalām argument anyway, since the past of the multiverse must also be finite and thus in need of a temporal cause. If an individual is willing to believe that a multiverse or some sort of "world ensemble" exists without any evidence to support their belief, then how can such an individual ever criticize another who believes in a God for which "no evidence" exists?

Also, Scheavo, the reason why so many atheists and non-believers even hold to the baseless belief that a multiverse exists is simply to be able to explain away the incomprehensibly intricate fine-tuning of the universe we observe by appealing to a an ensemble of an infinite amount of universes, making our "unique" universe seem like the mere product of inevitable chance. In other words, the multiverse hypothesis is appealed to in an attempt to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe we observe.

[Scheavo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw

No, it's not a "last-ditch effort," it's a serious effort to understand the world we observe.

There’s no evidence that such a world ensemble exists. Nobody knows if there even are other parallel universes at all.f the universe we observe.

In other words, the multiverse hypothesis is appealed to in an attempt to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe we observe.

Holy fuck, now you're objection is to the theory is that it might possibly explain what we see? Ya know, every single hypothesis that has ever been developed was done so "in an attempt to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe we observe." If you carefully listen at the end, you'll notice how he nicely explains the answers you looking for may not be there, simply becuase they're not there. You're trying to ascertain why the earth is as far  away from the sun as it is, as if there's a reason, when looking for a reason is looking at the thing all wrong.

[Super Dude]

Well, we won't know for at least another few trillion years anyway, so why worry?

[Omega]

Holy fuck, now you're objection is to the theory is that it might possibly explain what we see?

Of course not. My objection to it was "there’s no evidence that such a world ensemble exists. Nobody knows if there even are other parallel universes at all. Indeed, you might agree with William Lane Craig that even if there is such a multiverse, it wouldn’t really undermine the kalām argument anyway, since the past of the multiverse must also be finite and thus in need of a temporal cause."

I was merely emphasizing that the multiverse theory, as there is no evidence to even support it -- it is all mere conjecture -- was thought up merely to avoid the problem of the fine-tuning of our universe. This way, one could merely appeal to the multiverse to explain the fine-tuning of our universe. Why is our universe so intricately fine-tuned to allow for the formation of life? "Dude, like, the multiverse can explain all that, bro. I don't need to believe in some magical tooth fairy to explain that haha" one such atheist may quip. But, as I said, it's incredibly preposterous for one who believes in the multiverse for which there is no evidence to turn around and blast theists for allegedly believing in a God for whom there isn't "any evidence" "either".

[jammindude]

Holy fuck, now you're objection is to the theory is that it might possibly explain what we see?

Of course not. My objection to it was "there’s no evidence that such a world ensemble exists. Nobody knows if there even are other parallel universes at all. Indeed, you might agree with William Lane Craig that even if there is such a multiverse, it wouldn’t really undermine the kalām argument anyway, since the past of the multiverse must also be finite and thus in need of a temporal cause."

I was merely emphasizing that the multiverse theory, as there is no evidence to even support it -- it is all mere conjecture -- was thought up merely to avoid the problem of the fine-tuning of our universe. This way, one could merely appeal to the multiverse to explain the fine-tuning of our universe. Why is our universe so intricately fine-tuned to allow for the formation of life? "Dude, like, the multiverse can explain all that, bro. I don't need to believe in some magical tooth fairy to explain that haha" one such atheist may quip. But, as I said, it's incredibly preposterous for one who believes in the multiverse for which there is no evidence to turn around and blast theists for allegedly believing in a God for whom there isn't "any evidence" "either".

I don't agree with Omega very often...but this post deserves HUGE applause.  Totally agree...

[eric42434224]

Aaaaaaaand....here we go again.   

[ClairvoyantCat]

lol.

[bosk1]

Aaaaaaaand....here we go again.   

lol.

And posts like this contribute to discussion how?  Knock it off, both of you.

[Scheavo]

I was merely emphasizing that the multiverse theory, as there is no evidence to even support it -- it is all mere conjecture -- was thought up merely to avoid the problem of the fine-tuning of our universe. This way, one could merely appeal to the multiverse to explain the fine-tuning of our universe. Why is our universe so intricately fine-tuned to allow for the formation of life? "Dude, like, the multiverse can explain all that, bro. I don't need to believe in some magical tooth fairy to explain that haha" one such atheist may quip. But, as I said, it's incredibly preposterous for one who believes in the multiverse for which there is no evidence to turn around and blast theists for allegedly believing in a God for whom there isn't "any evidence" "either".

And once again you continue to demonstrate the fact that you don't seem to be putting any serious effort into understanding what I'm saying.

I'm not saying, accept this theory of the multiverse. I'm not doing that for the reasons you've given. What I am doing is giving you a differing worldview, one that is consistent and logical, and which can explain the same facts of life we encounter. It doesn't mean it's scientifically proven, but such theories are scientifically consistent, meaning you trying to just wash them away shows a clear prejudice, and a clear desire that there be a God sans every other piece of evidence.

And remember, I have not and never have said you are wrong. I have never said your theory is inadequate, or that it couldn't explain reality - I have only said that any "proofs" you have brought to the table are full of wholes and don't prove anything.

[Ultimetalhead]

So, didn't think it needed a new thread, but I happened to stumble upon this a little while ago - and thought it was interesting

https://www.the-end.com/

May 27, 2012 we're all goners apparently

*sigh*     Stuff like that really annoys me.  The Bible contains TONS of prophesies, yes.  But NONE of them have anything to do with what that author says they have to do with.  Just another attempt to prey on the gullible and ill informed. 

Seems like this new book and the bible seem to have some inherent similarities.

[MondayMorningLunatic]

I was merely emphasizing that the multiverse theory, as there is no evidence to even support it -- it is all mere conjecture -- was thought up merely to avoid the problem of the fine-tuning of our universe. This way, one could merely appeal to the multiverse to explain the fine-tuning of our universe. Why is our universe so intricately fine-tuned to allow for the formation of life? "Dude, like, the multiverse can explain all that, bro. I don't need to believe in some magical tooth fairy to explain that haha" one such atheist may quip. But, as I said, it's incredibly preposterous for one who believes in the multiverse for which there is no evidence to turn around and blast theists for allegedly believing in a God for whom there isn't "any evidence" "either".

I agree with you about the multiverse. But I think that "fine tuning" is a loaded term because it assigns an inherently positive value to life. Why is a universe with life superior to one without it? Simply because we say so.

[Adami]

Holy fuck, now you're objection is to the theory is that it might possibly explain what we see?

Of course not. My objection to it was "there’s no evidence that such a world ensemble exists. Nobody knows if there even are other parallel universes at all. Indeed, you might agree with William Lane Craig that even if there is such a multiverse, it wouldn’t really undermine the kalām argument anyway, since the past of the multiverse must also be finite and thus in need of a temporal cause."

I was merely emphasizing that the multiverse theory, as there is no evidence to even support it -- it is all mere conjecture -- was thought up merely to avoid the problem of the fine-tuning of our universe. This way, one could merely appeal to the multiverse to explain the fine-tuning of our universe. Why is our universe so intricately fine-tuned to allow for the formation of life? "Dude, like, the multiverse can explain all that, bro. I don't need to believe in some magical tooth fairy to explain that haha" one such atheist may quip. But, as I said, it's incredibly preposterous for one who believes in the multiverse for which there is no evidence to turn around and blast theists for allegedly believing in a God for whom there isn't "any evidence" "either".

I don't agree with Omega very often...but this post deserves HUGE applause.  Totally agree...

To be fair, by the same logic one could say that the belief in a creator is merely a way to avoid the problem of our universe being happenstance.



EDIT: My point is that these ideas assume a truth that is merely a belief, and then dismisses other beliefs as merely being ways of avoiding the truth that we have somehow come to.

[theseoafs]

Yup.

[SeRoX]

I wish we were. The world is being unbearable.

[kirksnosehair]

This guy is fascinating
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLEUSunaVIo