miracles

[Phenoca]

Who can catch the ball?
Trash can.
I'm sorry for ever doubting you God.

[thankyou]

Who can catch the ball?
Trash can.
I'm sorry for ever doubting you God.

Never doubt God.

Ask and ye shall receive.


At Skald miracles are all around us. Each time a new born is born healthy is a miracle. Each time a mother survives from child birth is a miracle. Each time a person lives through cancer and other harsh disease is a miracle. And so on. Miracles are all around is.

[FarmerM]

I do not worship the dead

Jesus died.

[hian]

Billions of years, Hian.
Mankind's earliest ancestors are estimated to only be a few million years old.
The majority of our intellectual and scientific evolution have taken place in the last few thousand years.

That's not an argument. What's the more reasonable view here? That technology has limits, or that it doesn't?

Our technology has greatly advanced, but not beyond reason. There is such a thing as physical constraints.

You are looking at the problems of tomorrow with the knowledge and tools of today.

No, I am looking at a state of the universe that is categorically and mutually exclusive to everything we know is needed for pretty much anything to work at all. That's not a minor point - It's not a matter of discovering a new source of energy,
or envisioning a new type of life (non-carbon based life), it's a matter of envisioning life existing in empty space, void of every single thing that our reality today consists of. Good luck.

Assuming you know how things are going to play out that far in the future is super arrogant and a giant faux pas in the scientific community.

As a matter of degree.
Most theories in science are predictive in nature. The faux pas in science is making predictions on insufficient evidence, or being overly assertive about things that are still up for debate.
By your logic, medical scientists wouldn't be able to assert future effects of vaccines, or viral spreads - except that they do all the time.
Since we're speaking colloquially here, I did not feel the need to qualify my stance adding in points like "most likely..." or "going by what we currently know about the universe", because those things goes without saying for anyone but people who're either A.) not arguing in good faith, or B.) idiots.

Also, from a philosophical point of view - what's the qualitative difference between something happening very far in the future, and something happening in near future? The only difference is whether or not we'll be around to see it happen - the level of certainty you can hold about a future event is not by any means proportional to how far into the future you're looking unless we're talking about chained events with several variables.
The end of the universe is not such an event. It only relies on a very few set of variables, such as the expansion-rate of the universe, which we already observe to be happening at this very moment.

Making the prediction that, given time, all the stars will burn out, and that all the physical bodies in the universe will be swallowed by black holes/supermassive black holes is not something that is done the same way that you might guess tomorrow's weather.

For example, the gravity assist that the New Horizon probe received from Jupiter increased it's speed by about 600%. So, even if everything else is gone who can say that the black holes can not be used as a power source.

Because by the end, there won't be any black holes there either.

I could fire off possibilities all day but ultimately I don't know and assuming that I did would be akin to infants discussing their own theories on thermodynamics.

I can also spin an nearly endless amount of inane "possibilities" - there is a huge difference though between pointless quasi-philosophical possibilities that that you an I can fire off against each-other and the scientific theories about the future state of the universe down the line, and how it's entirely incompatible with every conception of life as we know now it.

It might be the case that things transpire differently - it also might be the case that there is a planet out there made entirely out of Swiss cheese. One of those things seem likely based on evidence though, and the other is pure conjecture and fantasy.

Oh. On the Square/Circle thing.
If I spin a square really fast, I also have a circle.

No you don't - You have a square that spins really quickly, creating the optical illusion of being a circle.
If you can't see something as simple as the categorical difference of the two phenomenon, then this is a rather pointless dialogue to be engaged in.