I don’t know there is any official ruling on the matter but my guess would have it be micro all the way down.
Ughhh! Given my d’ruthers, I prefer to abstain for fear of giving the impression that I know the How through revelation or personal observation.
Oh, sorry…I misunderstood. I thought macro referred to Adam and Eve and micro referred to Jesus of Nazareth’s conception. But since that’s not exactly what you were referring to, I’m inclined to agree with you.
2 Likes
I disagree. 
1 Like
If I understand you correctly, you are not saying an infinite number of universes exist, but you still think it’s a possibility for there to be an infinite number of them.
Of course there can’t be precisely an infinite number of universes since that isn’t an actual number. Regardless, from our POV, it is an indeterminant number and quite possibly in flux. We should pursue empirical questions that are in our weight class.
Thank you Mark for stating the obvious. There cannot be an infinite number of present objects or… an infinite number of past events.
Check out this quote by Russell:
“It is to be presumed, for example, that there are an infinite collection of trios in the world, for if this were not the case the total number of things in the world would be finite, which, though possible, seems unlikely. In the third place, we wish to define “number” in such a way that infinite numbers may be possible; thus we must be able to speak of the number of terms in an infinite collection, and such a collection must be defined by intension, i.e. by a property common to all its members and peculiar to them.”
Betrand Russell, ‘Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy’
1 Like
I carry the rank of captain in that regard.
1 Like
And is it not true the cause of the universe is to be found in us or outside of us?
Kant said something along that line, and I’m probably butchering the context:
“We are completely ignorant whether it is to be met within us or outside us.”
If I understood him correctly, he is also saying both that the “universe” is eternal and that it is created.
It’s quickly becoming a choice between classical theism and something that is dangerously, ever so close to solipsism.
1 Like
I don’t even know if the universe did or could have had a cause. Some speculation is so far out on thin ice as not to warrant an opinion.
I’ve always imagined that what supports God belief is as much a part of the unfolding of the cosmos as everything else, only earlier to emerge with a role to play in our own emergence. What possible difference could it make from our point of view?
1 Like
Ha! If that’s actually what I said, then clearly, I said what I wanted to say wrong. However, if that’s actually what you think I said, you misunderstood me.
- I think I’ve mentioned, to you or to someone, or maybe I was just talking to myself, that one of the biggest challenges in trying to talk some things through is coming to an agreement on taxonomy. If you want to say cosmos = universe = world, fine, I can live with that However, In that case, I can only handle one: one cosmos/one universe/one world. Anything smaller is a subset of “The One”; and, IMO, there are subsets of subsets and subsets of subsets of subsets, all the way down to indivisible things that have mass and move through “The One”.
- AND, because we’ve agreed–if, indeed, we do agree–that “the One Cosmos”, “the One Universe”, “the One World” are synonyms, I am not saying that an infinite number of universes exist NOR would I be silly enough to suggest that there’s a possibility for there to be an infinite number of them.
- On the other hand, if you’re willing, I prefer: One cosmos, and a subset of many universes in the one cosmos, and subsets of many things in each of the universes.
- Your call, if you want to make it. If you don’t, then I call the latter option: One cosmos and, potentially (i.e. possibly), an infinite number of universes. Why infinite? Because my Absolute Space is really, REALLY, R-E-A-L-L-Y big and can hold an infinite number of universes, but it’s only big enough to hold one cosmos.
1 Like
Maybe this will help cut through the misunderstanding:
Are quantifiable objects relative?
As far as what logic requires and what the objective evidence supports I certainly agree with you. But when you factor in what this God belief is supposed to accomplish and what positive roles it can play in human life, then the role God plays in the origin of the universe and ourselves does make a difference.
On the other side of this, it has recently been claimed by some that our ultimate destiny and nature of our existence after death is irrelevant also. But again it depends on what this God belief is supposed to accomplish. Long term planning and living life in the context of long term objectives is a very important part of our humanity. And thus both origins and destiny has a profound impact on how we live our lives and the value we see in it. This is not to say these are the same for everyone to be sure. It is quite true that while theists see more meaning in a life which is in the context of a continuation, atheists often see more meaning in a life which has an end.
Whose misunderstanding? yours or mine?
Because if it’s mine, your question doesn’t cut through it. If it’s yours, then you’re asking the wrong person.
Some people who talk about the One would question the objective reality of other things. I’m just not sure if you are that kind of thinker, and sometimes I suspect people don’t understand what it is they are really describing.
I certainly ain’t one of them kind of guys. In fact, I think, quite the opposite. For example: I can say, and have said, that I am confident that I live, move, and have my existence on an objectively real planet, and I am absolutely, 100% certain of at least two things: that (a) my wife and (b) my dog, both of whom are laying down near me, are my wife and my dog and not yours or anybody else’s nor are they figments of my imagination. Moreover, I am not so egocentric that I believe the world around me will cease to exist when I die.
As for many of the things that I have mentioned in private messages to you and in this thread, my understanding could always be honed to become sharper, but currently I’m of the opinion that my understanding is sufficient here and now.
That’s really great to read!
So I’ll take that as a no regarding the relativity of quantity.
As far as the private messages, besides the wall of text that I didn’t bother to read, I felt like the conversation was left hanging on whether a person (as in a disembodied observer, if I wasn’t clear about it) can measure a purely empty space.
1 Like
What a relief! I don’t have to apologize. 
2 Likes