String theory is a theory based on observations and accepted in credential theoretical physics; there is no evidence so far for them and they are a prototype for the resolution to the problems in Quantum Physics and Relativity, I have mentioned that it is one
argument I did not state it was fact, what I said is not ignorant, it is my attempt along with other physicists to answer questions we have about the universe which faith, has not done a very good job of answering... at all.
What is ignorant and becoming tiresome is your dubbing my contributions ignorant and not backing those claims up. Theories are all we have to go on, Quantum theory, theory of relativity, theory of evolution and string theory. We haven't confirmed evidence for string theories predication because we don't yet have the machines to make measurements to detect them, but that doesn't mean they aren't there to be discovered. Our predictions based on observations we have made is all we can go on presently.
Our predictions as to the fate of the universe is based on some observations from the science we already know (expanding universe, singularities, big bang, big crunch etc), they aren't just guess work. We might not know for sure now which is why I said:
Well
one argument is that because there are a set number of Quantum Fluctuations possible and constraint of laws of physics the universe will end either in a big rip or a big crunch...
This argument is that if big crunches and big bangs keep occurring, if Quantum Fluctuations still occur we will have a degree of certain results, this is already fact - if you have a set number of quantum fluctuations eventually with enough volume (space) and time you will eventually get repetitions like a cosmic roulette wheel on massive proportions and seeing as if big bangs and big crunches occur over and over again this will result in eventually a repetition of the same universes, not to mention the theory of 'tunneling' to a new universe if the big rip occurs.
This is what I suggested by no 'eternity' in the same way another probabilistic system can also only have a limit of results; I then expanded that one argument is that string theory says that if big bangs do create multiple laws of physics and different universes there will still be a set number of them and a limit, this is because dimensions as we know them, namely space and time will only allow a certain amount of probabilities on the amount of information that is contained within that system, for instance the space you occupy has a certain number of Quantum Fluctuations that can be arranged in a certain manner, in other words a limit of information, so has the universe as we know it which with enough repetitions would equal repeating patterns like the roulette wheel...
Assuming these differences are dimensions as some string theories
predict they will have limit as well at the highest degree - see the Calabi Yau manifold for instance.
All I mentioned above is credible and accepted as possible within the framework of the universe we understand, and to which is a lot more accurate than anything 'faith' can or will ever offer and in time science even if we are wrong with some of the theories we currently have, will find the answers, while faith will remain stuck in its claims it has always made and never will change.
Now if you are going to call my claims ignorant, please back up your claim and put forth an argument on your side of the discussion and offer something that backs up your claim of my being ignorant, baring in mind that your first actual post in this thread was trolling and did not pertain to the question, I shrugged this off as a joke but as of late you seem to have this agenda of constantly claiming I am not putting forward credential arguments for the origin of the universe and its fate, for one, I am offering an argument in scientific understanding and accepted scientific theories, and to which you ignore and do not reply to only to label me 'ignorant' in other threads; ignorant to what exactly? Elaborate don't expect me to guess if I am making ignorant claims. Do you understand? Or are you going to continue this constant rebuke of hit-and-run posting where you accuse me of being ignorant without backing it up? I'd like to know if I am being ignorant, I like to learn. I don't think I am though I am substantiating my argument within the constraints of what we know and scientific fact and scientific theory that is accepted.
Now can we please get back to the threads topic of can you define God? If you aren't going to oblige that please leave. Which again was another genuine question for my understanding of others belief in God (I actually do care about what people think of their theism and beliefs because I want to learn), if you won't oblige and keep harassing me claiming I am talking ignorance without backing that up, leave. I am frankly getting very tired of it, it seems you have an agenda and it isn't scientific.
I can only offer what we can think about the universe based on the observations we have and the science that I follow up on from reputable scientific organizations and figures, I do offer an air of certainty but if it is accepted by many reputable scientists it is good enough for me and I will trust their confidence from their observations, when the facts come along that prove them wrong I will accept them.
What are you offering in return besides personal unsubstantiated rebuke Harold?