Atheism vs. Christianity: 2008 debate

[orcus116]

I believe in God and have no interest in debating an Atheist who will just mock anything I would possibly say. Since a belief in God is based on faith and not tangible evidence, you can't and won't win an argument with an Atheist. You will just aggravate and frustrate yourself to the point you wonder why you were stupid enough to engage in such a conversation.

I could actually see a Christian do that before an atheist would. There are definitely fanatics on both sides but Id guess there are a lot more dumb, blind faith Christians with no idea what they're talking about than dumb, closed-minded atheists. I've found that Christians get more offended that someone can't believe in God so they result in that stle of nonsense arguing.

[Nigerius Rex]

That may be true of some Christians, but I know a large number who could adequately defend their faith using logic and reason. To be entirely honest, you now are doing what you may accuse and despise so many Christians of doing which is blankly applying a label and stereotype to an entire group which is unfair and insulting.

I'm not exactly sure where I said I "despise" the behaviour of Christians, but okay then. I believe you are the one labeling me.

You said this: "defend their faith using logic". Faith literally means "trusting/believing in God". So in order to defend your faith using logic you would have to prove with logic that God exists. Which is impossible.

I find it more common that intelligent Christians have a strengthened confidence in their faith brought on by study of the bible and religious history, not a distinct confidence in their faith simply because it is their faith.

In other words to have an abundance of faith in something does not require a distinct lack of factual evidence to support it.

[Tick]

I believe in God and have no interest in debating an Atheist who will just mock anything I would possibly say. Since a belief in God is based on faith and not tangible evidence, you can't and won't win an argument with an Atheist. You will just aggravate and frustrate yourself to the point you wonder why you were stupid enough to engage in such a conversation.

I could actually see a Christian do that before an atheist would. There are definitely fanatics on both sides but Id guess there are a lot more dumb, blind faith Christians with no idea what they're talking about than dumb, closed-minded atheists. I've found that Christians get more offended that someone can't believe in God so they result in that stle of nonsense arguing.

I think it does go both ways. My point was which party of the conversation is the guilty one, my point was, its an argument you won't win.

[Vivace]

From what I can tell so far....the Christian side seeks to prove a few several tenets about Christianity, such as the need for a creator and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and based on these "truths," concludes that since these abnormalities are true, it is no problem that other Christian abnormalities, which cannot be proven, are also true.

The historicity of the resurrection is only necessary for the Atheist. For a Christian it is simply a mystery with no material evidence to support it. It is an article of faith that you either hold or do not hold. You cannot prove the mysteries of the Church, you can simply prove the elements that surround those mysteries that are material and can be proven in order to promote an idea that makes logical sense but must be accepted only through faith.

The Atheist side, on the other hand, focuses on the aspects of Christianity that can be refuted by modern science, and states that since so many things can be refuted, when something historically difficult to refute such as the resurrection comes along, it's no problem to dismiss it.

Again, you can't refute faith based on science but you can based on reason. Faith is a matter of conviction of a belief. For example person A has faith in a flying spaghetti monster. This cannot be refuted using science but it can be refuted as an idea based on surround elements and materials that led us to the idea of a flying spaghetti monster for example, what does it symbolize and what witnesses do we have that can describe this object for us? Again, an atheist cannot base the falsehood of a religion by using science to disprove it. Science cannot prove it to begin with but science also cannot prove anything that isn't material. This is why we have disciplines focused on philosophy. for example, the universality of the human being cannot be proven through science but we can arrive at the universality of the human being through reflection of the individual that I can see and through other individuals that I might be able to categorize and thus come to the idea of universality. this is another reason why I balk at atheists who claim "Science Only" when a lot of things we come to recognize and believe through philosophical ideas have no basis in this "Science only" facet of discipline.

In the end...I think that both sides present strong evidence intermingled with weak evidence...For example, I do feel that the Christian claim that existence of absolute morals demands a God is sort of ill-founded.

What say y'all?

By absolute do they mean natural morality to which we might have a difficult time in describing the terms of such. Although we could define a few absolute morals I don't think the immediate cause of them would point to God. A better argument for the existance of God is universality of the sciences over the particularity of the sciences. Particular sciences calls for a more abstract mechanism to help us understand them. For example I can understand Arthematic through abstraction of numbers. Eventually when you abstract far enough to come to a universality that includes all wisdom from the particular. It's through this universality, called First Principles that you can finally reach the idea of God. This is a far far stronger argument on the existance of God than through the existance of Morals or even absolute morals given that irrational animals do not have morals. Because of this you must go past absolute morals and reach a universality that covers animals and man. For example the intellect.

[Ħ]

I'll be honest.  Your post makes me confused.     I couldn't follow.

I don't think you can really prove God philosophically, to be honest...I think, as was done in the beginning of the debate, the only proof of God is in the creation itself.  Romans 1 defines this issue.

Anyway, I agree that a Christian usually becomes a Christian based on faith, and the evidence comes later.  That seems more in line with what God wants, since we walk by faith and not by sight.  But there are people where the opposite is true as well, and I suppose that's fine, as long as Christianity is the end result.

[Vivace]

I don't think you can really prove God philosophically, to be honest...I think, as was done in the beginning of the debate, the only proof of God is in the creation itself.  Romans 1 defines this issue.

Never said it was a proof but that it presents an excellent "idea" of God.

[orcus116]

Anyway, I agree that a Christian usually becomes a Christian based on faith, and the evidence comes later.  That seems more in line with what God wants, since we walk by faith and not by sight.  But there are people where the opposite is true as well, and I suppose that's fine, as long as Christianity is the end result.

Coming from a background rooted in facts and logical thinking I just can't agree with either of those statements. I understand both but I just can't understand how someone can start on faith, get evidence or have the evidence to begin with and decide that ultimately the faith based concepts are truer and more believable. Then again if you have that faith to begin with any evidence that supports it will seem more believable anyways even if they are the most ridiculous illogical concepts.

For example the Grand Canyon was, by scientific geological conclusions, formed over millions (maybe thousands I need to check but I'm really tired) of years of erosion. Still, there are some Christians out there that firmly believe that it was formed due to Noah's flood. They actually believe that it only took 40 days of flood water to completely erode one of the deepest land formations on the North American continent. To me that is belief flying completely in the face of actual facts.

[Vivace]

Anyway, I agree that a Christian usually becomes a Christian based on faith, and the evidence comes later.  That seems more in line with what God wants, since we walk by faith and not by sight.  But there are people where the opposite is true as well, and I suppose that's fine, as long as Christianity is the end result.

Coming from a background rooted in facts and logical thinking I just can't agree with either of those statements. I understand both but I just can't understand how someone can start on faith, get evidence or have the evidence to begin with and decide that ultimately the faith based concepts are truer and more believable. Then again if you have that faith to begin with any evidence that supports it will seem more believable anyways even if they are the most ridiculous illogical concepts.

For example the Grand Canyon was, by scientific geological conclusions, formed over millions (maybe thousands I need to check but I'm really tired) of years of erosion. Still, there are some Christians out there that firmly believe that it was formed due to Noah's flood. They actually believe that it only took 40 days of flood water to completely erode one of the deepest land formations on the North American continent. To me that is belief flying completely in the face of actual facts.

Faith is rooted in that which has no evidence to back it up. Thus in order to have faith in something, you don't have evidence, you have witnesses and you have the Word. Faith first comes from the Word, and is cemented further through witnesses. You can use material evidence to create ideas that are posits of Articles of Faith, but never can faith have evidence to back it up for faith with evidence is not faith. you have faith because the evidence is beyond human reason.

Also those who hold to a literal interpretation of Creationism in my mind is doing more harm to themselves than good. We can certainly posit the idea of a kinda-of "Adam and an Eve" to which the human race get's its roots, but to hold that everything from Genesis must hold as absolute fact is just bad judgment in my eyes. Genesis is a creation myth which describes something that cannot be posited through evidence, it can only be posited through the idea and thus Genesis is a creation myth that helps take that which is beyond human reason and transforms it into signs and symbols which we interpret into the "idea". The Garden of Eden? It's an "idea" that explains the human condition before sin. Does it look exactly like the garden of eden? No. Is the Garden of Eden a metaphor? Yes. Most of the creation myths of our history contains in part a flood story, but for some reason literalist will dismiss scientific fact (dismiss our senses). Again, this is wrong. The flood story again is part of a creation myth and in the flood story we "learn" about God. the flood story itself serves to teach us about the Divine Word and is there for the human mind to understand God. It is not there for us to take 100% literally and believe it as if it were completely true and that God contradicts himself through faith and science. This does not mean that science will disprove God. Again, you cannot disprove that which is beyond the human condition to even prove or disprove at all. The fact we can't prove something doesn't mean it cannot exist. Science follows this frequently.

[Ħ]

Anyway, I agree that a Christian usually becomes a Christian based on faith, and the evidence comes later.  That seems more in line with what God wants, since we walk by faith and not by sight.  But there are people where the opposite is true as well, and I suppose that's fine, as long as Christianity is the end result.

Coming from a background rooted in facts and logical thinking I just can't agree with either of those statements. I understand both but I just can't understand how someone can start on faith, get evidence or have the evidence to begin with and decide that ultimately the faith based concepts are truer and more believable. Then again if you have that faith to begin with any evidence that supports it will seem more believable anyways even if they are the most ridiculous illogical concepts.

For example the Grand Canyon was, by scientific geological conclusions, formed over millions (maybe thousands I need to check but I'm really tired) of years of erosion. Still, there are some Christians out there that firmly believe that it was formed due to Noah's flood. They actually believe that it only took 40 days of flood water to completely erode one of the deepest land formations on the North American continent. To me that is belief flying completely in the face of actual facts.

Vivace pretty much covered it.  Regarding the Grand Canyon....In fairness, a worldwide flood + rapid division of "Pangea" (a rather ignored "Bible myth") is someting I think could have done (and did) the job.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

Regarding the Grand Canyon....In fairness, a worldwide flood + rapid division of "Pangea" (a rather ignored "Bible myth") is someting I think could have done (and did) the job.

Really, that's impossible. There is absolutely no way that could be explained with science.

Firstly: a worldwide flood? There's not enough water on the planet to cover all land surface, not even half of it. So where did all the water come from? And even if the amount of water on the planet magically doubled in volume the water would still have to be going at, what, 150000 miles an hour to cause that kind of erosion in such a short amount of time.
Secondly: A rapid division of an entire continent? Do you know how slow tectonic plate movement is? The division of Pangea into seperate continents took from 200 million years ago to 135 million years ago. That's 65 million years. Doesn't sound so rapid to me.

Also, Pangea an ignored bible myth? That's strange, I thought it was a generally accepted idea among scientists worldwide. Please, get your facts straight before you say these things, or just accept that there's no way stuff like this can be scientifically explained. Not to mention other important biblical events like the resurrection of Christ.

[Ħ]

Whoa dude.  Hold up.  I think you're blowing up a few of the things I said beyond what I actually meant to say.

Let me deal with both issues.

First of all, the flood.  You ask where the water came from, since there's obviously not enough water here, even if you converted all the vapor to liquid.  An analysis of the creation story reveals a body of water separate from the body of water which became Earth.

Second of all, the division of Pangea.  Let me start by saying that Pangea is indeed a scientific concept, like you said, that exists apart from creationism.  The "Bible myth" I'm referring to is the rapid division of Pangea.  Yes, I realize that the tectonic plates move very very slowly.  But that's if they are left untouched.  Do you have an issue with the my belief that God momentarily "sped up" the process, and returned it to it's original rate?  Of course, it has the appearance of age, since we can only measure the present rate of tectonic movement and do the math from there.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

First of all, the flood.  You ask where the water came from, since there's obviously not enough water here, even if you converted all the vapor to liquid.  An analysis of the creation story reveals a body of water separate from the body of water which became Earth.

Okay. So that body of water was just floating around space and happened to hit the earth's atmosphere without evaporating? If you look at that from a scientific standpoint for a moment, do you really think that's possible? If you think it would, than every scientist in the world would disagree with you.

The "Bible myth" I'm referring to is the rapid division of Pangea.  Yes, I realize that the tectonic plates move very very slowly.  But that's if they are left untouched.  Do you have an issue with the my belief that God momentarily "sped up" the process, and returned it to it's original rate?  

I don't have an issue with your beliefs, however, I will say that they are impossible from a scientific point of view. I will try to explain. Tectonic plates drift on magma, which is liquid stone. Where 2 tectonic plates come together there is a so-called subduction zone. Here, one plate slides below the other plate and melts because of the extreme heat, so it becomes magma again. When one plate slides relatively rapidly it's called an earthquake. Still, an earthquake may be just a few inches of movement.

So if you say God could have somehow sped up the process, he would have had to make the magma far, far hotter than it currently is. The current temperature is about 1300-2000 degrees celsius. At this temperature tectonic plates move at about 2 inches a year. Say the division of Pangea took about 10.000 years, which is nothing in earth's total history. Then the magma would have to be some 100000 times hotter than it currently is. There are several major problems with that.

First: At that temperature earth would turn into a star. This temperature would be impossible to maintain for more than 1 millisecond or so, because it would require an enormous amount of energy the earth doesn't have. The earth's core is made up out of metal. An amount of energy this big would require the earth's core to be made up out of quark gluon plasma, like stars. The problem with that is when God were to slow the process down again the star would implode.

Second: Remember, tectonic plates drift on magma. So if the magma were that hot, the plates would just melt entirely.

Third: At that temperature the earth would be many, many times hotter than our sun currently is. So all the other planets in the solar system would have evaporated.

Of course, it has the appearance of age, since we can only measure the present rate of tectonic movement and do the math from there.

Well, the temperature of magma can't drop below 700 degrees celsius because the stone would become solid. The temperature can't go above 3000 degrees celsius because otherwise the stone that makes up the plates would melt entirely and there would just not be enough energy for that to happen.

I'm sorry, but anyone with a scientific background will see that your ideas are just incompatible with the basic principles of nature.

[Ħ]

Well-informed post.

But you seem to think that I am approaching this from a deist perspective, where God created everything, and just leaves it.  I am saying that God is an active intervener in the Earth's processes.  He is able to create and contain the energy required to make the processes work.

I understand that by my saying "God could do it" doesn't leave any room for debate, and I never intended to debate these issues.  The only reason I brought up the Pangean division was because Orcus said that most Christians describe the formation of the Grand Canyon as a result of the flood, which I believe is inadequate.  I simply didn't want the Christian position to be misrepresented.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

Well-informed post.

Thanks.

But you seem to think that I am approaching this from a deist perspective, where God created everything, and just leaves it.  I am saying that God is an active intervener in the Earth's processes.  He is able to create and contain the energy required to make the processes work.

Okay. If you believe that God can create and contain energy and change the properties of certain materials when needed then your explanation would certainly be plausible.

I understand that by my saying "God could do it" doesn't leave any room for debate, and I never intended to debate these issues.  The only reason I brought up the Pangean division was because Orcus said that most Christians describe the formation of the Grand Canyon as a result of the flood, which I believe is inadequate.  I simply didn't want the Christian position to be misrepresented.

Okay. I understand.

[GuineaPig]

I was under the impression that most Christians (outside of the U.S.) didn't take Genesis literally.

The numbers in the U.S. are disgusting, but natural history is accepted for the most part outside of the United States (and other religious countries such as Turkey, for example, but I'm mainly considering Western countries).

[Ħ]

I was under the impression that most Christians (outside of the U.S.) didn't take Genesis literally.

The numbers in the U.S. are disgusting, but natural history is accepted for the most part outside of the United States (and other religious countries such as Turkey, for example, but I'm mainly considering Western countries).

I know that Catholicsm is more widespread than in the States, which is probably why, since they take an allegorical view on Scripture.  Using Wikipedia, here's some stats I got:

According to a 2001 Gallup poll, about 45% of North Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process", and 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process".

[GuineaPig]

I was under the impression that most Christians (outside of the U.S.) didn't take Genesis literally.

The numbers in the U.S. are disgusting, but natural history is accepted for the most part outside of the United States (and other religious countries such as Turkey, for example, but I'm mainly considering Western countries).

I know that Catholicsm is more widespread than in the States, which is probably why, since they take an allegorical view on Scripture.  Using Wikipedia, here's some stats I got:

According to a 2001 Gallup poll, about 45% of North Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process", and 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process".

I don't know what you're getting at.  The U.S. has a remarkably scientifically illiterate population, as shown by the stats you provided.  I mean 45% is just ridiculously awful.  If Catholicism was more widespread, as you say, it would be less brutal (maybe), so I don't know what you mean by that sentence.  It seems contradictory.

[Vivace]

I have to agree. 45% seems a bit high.

[Ħ]

1)  The Catholic Church is more influential outside the U.S, hence "most Christians (outside of the U.S.) didn't take Genesis literally."
2)  Catholicism is less influential inside the U.S., therefore, numbers of creationists high inside the U.S, as evidenced by the Gallup poll.

Don't see where I'm contradicting myself.

[Vivace]

1)  The Catholic Church is more influential outside the U.S, hence "most Christians (outside of the U.S.) didn't take Genesis literally."
2)  Catholicism is less influential inside the U.S., therefore, numbers of creationists high inside the U.S, as evidenced by the Gallup poll.

Don't see where I'm contradicting myself.

ah!

[Ħ]

Is that an "Oh, I see what he's saying" ah or a "Egads!" ah?

[GuineaPig]

In my case, it's an "Egads! I did not see the word "than" in your post!"

But even in countries where Protestantism is as or more prevalent, creationism is not nearly as widespread a belief.  It's why American public schools desperately need to keep religious influences out of science classes.

[Ħ]

In my case, it's an "Egads! I did not see the word "than" in your post!"

But even in countries where Protestantism is as or more prevalent, creationism is not nearly as widespread a belief.  It's why American public schools desperately need to keep religious influences out of science classes.

Yeah, I sort of disagree with the public school system myself.  In my opinion, schools should be allowed to choose for themselves, so parents can send the kid to the one they feel has a better teaching...but that's a totally separate issue.

[Seventh Son]

In my case, it's an "Egads! I did not see the word "than" in your post!"

But even in countries where Protestantism is as or more prevalent, creationism is not nearly as widespread a belief.  It's why American public schools desperately need to keep religious influences out of science classes.

Yeah, I sort of disagree with the public school system myself.  In my opinion, schools should be allowed to choose for themselves, so parents can send the kid to the one they feel has a better teaching...but that's a totally separate issue.

Yeah, but if people tax dollars go towards supporting them, then the material taught had best be up to snuff.

[Adami]

In my case, it's an "Egads! I did not see the word "than" in your post!"

But even in countries where Protestantism is as or more prevalent, creationism is not nearly as widespread a belief.  It's why American public schools desperately need to keep religious influences out of science classes.

Yeah, I sort of disagree with the public school system myself.  In my opinion, schools should be allowed to choose for themselves, so parents can send the kid to the one they feel has a better teaching...but that's a totally separate issue.

Private schools sure. But public schools are based on proximity. People don't choose which public school to go to.

[Seventh Son]

In my case, it's an "Egads! I did not see the word "than" in your post!"

But even in countries where Protestantism is as or more prevalent, creationism is not nearly as widespread a belief.  It's why American public schools desperately need to keep religious influences out of science classes.

Yeah, I sort of disagree with the public school system myself.  In my opinion, schools should be allowed to choose for themselves, so parents can send the kid to the one they feel has a better teaching...but that's a totally separate issue.

Private schools sure. But public schools are based on proximity. People don't choose which public school to go to.

This too. Like if a school taught creationism I can't simply go to a school that doesn't because I don't have a way to do so. So I'd be stuck.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

In my case, it's an "Egads! I did not see the word "than" in your post!"

But even in countries where Protestantism is as or more prevalent, creationism is not nearly as widespread a belief.  It's why American public schools desperately need to keep religious influences out of science classes.

Yeah, I sort of disagree with the public school system myself.  In my opinion, schools should be allowed to choose for themselves, so parents can send the kid to the one they feel has a better teaching...but that's a totally separate issue.

Private schools sure. But public schools are based on proximity. People don't choose which public school to go to.

This too. Like if a school taught creationism I can't simply go to a school that doesn't because I don't have a way to do so. So I'd be stuck.

Don't know about other school districts/states, but the Brandywine SChool District in Wilmington, Delaware has a 'choice' system in which you can choose which public school to go to

[Seventh Son]

In my case, it's an "Egads! I did not see the word "than" in your post!"

But even in countries where Protestantism is as or more prevalent, creationism is not nearly as widespread a belief.  It's why American public schools desperately need to keep religious influences out of science classes.

Yeah, I sort of disagree with the public school system myself.  In my opinion, schools should be allowed to choose for themselves, so parents can send the kid to the one they feel has a better teaching...but that's a totally separate issue.

Private schools sure. But public schools are based on proximity. People don't choose which public school to go to.

This too. Like if a school taught creationism I can't simply go to a school that doesn't because I don't have a way to do so. So I'd be stuck.

Don't know about other school districts/states, but the Brandywine SChool District in Wilmington, Delaware has a 'choice' system in which you can choose which public school to go to

Well around here you can choose if you want, but the bus won't take you anywhere but the school in your district, so you'll have to get another ride. Growing up as a kid, the bus was the only way to get to school. There was no other way for me to get to school without the bus.

[icysk8r]

I'm somewhat disappointed the atheist guy brought up Hitler first in his list of different types of Christians.

I also think his whole "Jesus in space" tangent is a bit stupid.  I don't remember the verse myself, but I don't think you can take a literal approach to everything in the Bible, especially metaphors  

The Atheist guy does seem to be a little unstructured in his argument.  I like how the Christian guy basically has bullet points, but the Atheist guy is sort of all over the map.

I actually have a type of "shell theory" of the universe that I came up with as I was falling asleep last night.  I'm not an astrologist by any means, but I want to ask one of my professors if this is possible.  Basically...outer space is a sphere, just like the earth is.  Once you hit the "edge of the universe," you enter a new "shell," which is, in turn, another sphere.

You can't hit the edge of a sphere.  Sphere's have no edges.

[eric42434224]

I'm somewhat disappointed the atheist guy brought up Hitler first in his list of different types of Christians.

I also think his whole "Jesus in space" tangent is a bit stupid.  I don't remember the verse myself, but I don't think you can take a literal approach to everything in the Bible, especially metaphors  

The Atheist guy does seem to be a little unstructured in his argument.  I like how the Christian guy basically has bullet points, but the Atheist guy is sort of all over the map.

I actually have a type of "shell theory" of the universe that I came up with as I was falling asleep last night.  I'm not an astrologist by any means, but I want to ask one of my professors if this is possible.  Basically...outer space is a sphere, just like the earth is.  Once you hit the "edge of the universe," you enter a new "shell," which is, in turn, another sphere.

You can't hit the edge of a sphere.  Sphere's have no edges.

Ummm....if you are inside a sphere, and you travel towards the outside of the sphere....wont you eventually reach the edge of the sphere?  Seems an appropriate description.

[Implode]

He's talking semantics. In the mathematical definition of "edge", spheres have no edges while there still is an actual surface.

I'd argue that it is impossible to reach the edge of the universe because all of space and time is within the universe.

Also, he then says that atheists believe the universe has been here forever.  wut

Going with my above statement, I'd agree that the universe has been around "forever".

[icysk8r]

I'm somewhat disappointed the atheist guy brought up Hitler first in his list of different types of Christians.

I also think his whole "Jesus in space" tangent is a bit stupid.  I don't remember the verse myself, but I don't think you can take a literal approach to everything in the Bible, especially metaphors  

The Atheist guy does seem to be a little unstructured in his argument.  I like how the Christian guy basically has bullet points, but the Atheist guy is sort of all over the map.

I actually have a type of "shell theory" of the universe that I came up with as I was falling asleep last night.  I'm not an astrologist by any means, but I want to ask one of my professors if this is possible.  Basically...outer space is a sphere, just like the earth is.  Once you hit the "edge of the universe," you enter a new "shell," which is, in turn, another sphere.

You can't hit the edge of a sphere.  Sphere's have no edges.

Ummm....if you are inside a sphere, and you travel towards the outside of the sphere....wont you eventually reach the edge of the sphere?  Seems an appropriate description.

Oh okay I misunderstood what he meant.  By sphere I thought he meant more of a planetary sphere because he compared it to earth.  It didn't make sense to me. Now I see what he's saying..but still don't understand it, because if when you reach the "edge" of the universe  you just go into another universe then that still means there is no end.

[Ħ]

Actually that is what I meant.  And I didn't necessarily mean "the universe."  I meant outer space, in general, is a spherical shape.  I don't see any evidence for it, nor any evidence against it; it's just my imagination.

[icysk8r]

Actually that is what I meant.  And I didn't necessarily mean "the universe."  I meant outer space, in general, is a spherical shape.  I don't see any evidence for it, nor any evidence against it; it's just my imagination.

So by spherical shape you mean it like we exist on a plane on the circumference (for lack of a better word) of a spherical shape?  If so then you truly can't have an edge.  Or do you mean we exist INSIDE a spherical shape, and you can burst through the wall of this shape and that is the "edge"

[Ħ]

The second.