A world with a loving God.

just me said:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=omnipotence definition
Click to expand...

the quality of having unlimited or very great power.

Interesting.

https://www.google.com/search?q=omnipotent+definition&rlz=1C1GCEA_enCA813CA813&oq=omnipotent&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l7.3320j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.


So Google can't even agree with itself. I'd say that disqualifies it as a reputable source for topically-sensitive definitions.
 
Hope can only suffer once for a short time, there is still hope in our world if it does.
 
DaveC426913 said:
the quality of having unlimited or very great power.

Interesting.

https://www.google.com/search?q=omnipotent+definition&rlz=1C1GCEA_enCA813CA813&oq=omnipotent&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l7.3320j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.


So Google can't even agree with itself. I'd say that disqualifies it as a reputable source for topically-sensitive definitions.
Click to expand...

Means omnipotent for a human = great power

Means omnipotent for a deity = unlimited power

:)
 
Vociferous said:
According to Alan Guth's cosmological inflation, the universe did come from nothing, or very very little (due to the uncertainty principle), which he called "the ultimate free lunch". So no, science does not unequivocally say nothing is not possible. Albeit many scientists find the idea distasteful enough to invent infinite but unevidenced universes trying to explain it away.
Click to expand...
Vociferous, ''very very little'' is not nothing. Besides, Guth is talking here (below) about the ''observable universe'' taken back in time to just before the inflation period. Notice Guth says his theory does not rule out an infinite universe.

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html

Here's a quote from page 4:

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth4.html

Suppose we trace back through time the observed region of the Universe, which has a radius today of about 10 billion light-years. As we trace its history back to the end of the inflationary period, our description is identical to what it would be in the traditional Big Bang theory, since the two theories agree exactly for all times after the end of inflation. In the inflationary theory, however, the region undergoes a tremendous spurt of expansion during the inflationary era. It follows that the region was incredibly small before the spurt of expansion began - 1025 or more times smaller in radius than in the traditional theory. (Note that I am not saying that Universe as a whole was very small. The inflationary model makes no statement about the size of the Universe as a whole, which might in fact be infinite.)
Click to expand...
 
"A World with a loving God".... has gone to... power levels... this is how super heroes were made up! Threads like this. Just an observation.

EDIT:
God = unlimited
god = limited
 
Last edited:
foghorn said:
Vociferous, ''very very little'' is not nothing. Besides, Guth is talking here (below) about the ''observable universe'' taken back in time to just before the inflation period. Notice Guth says his theory does not rule out an infinite universe.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think it can come of absolutely nothing, but I acknowledge some people might not think inflation technically supports that. And how Guth changed his tune over time is immaterial. An infinite universe is not justified by science, as it ultimately requires a fallacious infinite regress.
 
Vociferous said:
Personally, I think it can come of absolutely nothing, but I acknowledge some people might not think inflation technically supports that. And how Guth changed his tune over time is immaterial. An infinite universe is not justified by science, as it ultimately requires a fallacious infinite regress.
Click to expand...
''not justified by science,''
Yet, running the observable universe backwards until its values for energy density (matter and EM radiation) reach near singularity, does not say or give any indication about the spatial extent of the whole universe. As you know, every point in the universe is the centre of its own observable universe. So, you could say values for energy density reach singularity at every point in an infinite universe.
How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
 
foghorn said:
''not justified by science,''
Yet, running the observable universe backwards until its values for energy density (matter and EM radiation) reach near singularity, does not say or give any indication about the spatial extent of the whole universe. As you know, every point in the universe is the centre of its own observable universe. So, you could say values for energy density reach singularity at every point in an infinite universe.
How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Click to expand...
Making claims about things beyond the observable universe is not justified by science, as physics dictate that we can never know anything about that, due to the relative expansion of space exceeding the speed of light limit on the transmission of information. IOW, relative to us, light sources beyond the cosmic horizon are moving faster than light, just because of the metric expansion of space. This horizon acts as an event horizon of a black hole, which also bars the retrieval of information.

All else is pure speculation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top