J.D. wrote:


That's not what I was saying... I said that the universe being eternal is a possibility, because it is possible that we simply cannot fathom infinity despite its existence. My theory however, is based on the assumption that what our gut tells us is true, and that infinity cannot exist. This is based on a lot of assumptions, but to deny that the assumptions could possibly be false would be ignorant of me. As I said, either the universe is eternal and there was no cause, or is not eternal and there was a cause. We probably can't do both at the same time, but one of them alone might be true.



Well I was saying that your theory was that the universe was eternal, but yeah...Why make a guess? Once again, it intrigues me, so why not?

Buddahchuck wrote:

I'm not sure this falls under the category of "fact". Modern animals are descended from previous species is only true if we accept the theory of evolution, it's actually part of the theory.

Wosret wrote:


No... Newtonian general relativity was not wrong, or shown incosistent. Einsteinian special relativity merely explains everything general relativity explains, and more. It is a better theory, the facts that general relativity explained have not changed (one of which being implicit in the theory is that things have been observed to fall toward the center of the earth, as I explained) and yes, quantum machanics could conceivably someday replace special relativity. Though special relativity will not have been wrong, quantum machanics will just explain everything it did, and more, so it will be the better theory.

The big bang could conceivably be replaced, evolution by natural selection could be replaced, and special relativity could be replaced. The facts I outlined however will not be then wrong, they will simply be explained by a better theory. They will stay the same.

Techeth wrote:


What are the reasons to think they don't?

J.D. wrote:
I think there's some confusion between facts and theories here.

This was directly taken from the dictionary-

Fact
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

Theory
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

With that, I think it's reasonable to assume that we cannot base facts on theories, but only theories from facts. True, theories are used to explain facts, but facts can't be formulated from theories. Facts can only be formulated from facts. So, as strongly as you may feel on one theory, that doesn't mean that you can go claiming it to be absolute undeniable fact.

J.D. wrote:

I didn't say my gut, I said our. I mean infinity can't make sense to anyone, unless they're some kind of super-genius, OR they aren't thinking about it enough. No one could possibly comprehend infinity, for it seems impossible to simply go on forever. That being said, I still rest my point that it's possible it exists even though we can't understand it, although I personally doubt it.

J.D. wrote:

Also, some accept that infinity is impossible, yet still argue that there was nothing before time. I, however, say that's a contradiction. If infinity is impossible, then time indeed began, so if everything has a cause and causality requires duration, then time would be necessary for whatever caused time. If you argue that time is uncaused, then that would mean it had no origin, and is therefore infinitely old. In other words, if you accept the infinity is impossible, then you must also accept that my theory is plausible.