What is outside the universe?

>>9144064
>The universe is constantly expanding like a ball of dough
Expansion refers to a decrease in the local density of space at all points. It is not like something in space expanding, which has space inside and outside and finite volume.

>>9144073
>Expansion refers to a decrease in the local density of space at all points.

That's "like a ball of dough", you pedantic pretentious fuck.

I knew some moron would come in here and assume that I was misunderstanding metric expansion of space.

>>9144081
Well he did address your misunderstanding that there must be something outside the universe.

>>9144108
No he didn't.

There has to be something outside of space, even if it's "nothing".

>>9144081
>That's "like a ball of dough", you pedantic pretentious fuck.
No it's not you syphilitic horsefucker. A ball of dough gains volume, so that its total density decreases. The universe has infinite volume, only it's local density is increasing. And not the density of matter over volume (which stays the same locally due to gravity), the density of space over volume. Like an infinite sheet being stretched everywhere.

>>9144145
No there doesn't.

>>9144064
Words like "into" and "outside" are concepts that only make sense when referring to space, and space is a specific property of the universe. There's no reason to think anything meta-universal involves space and so the questions don't even make sense.

>>9144179
>>9144164
Why is it so hard for you to admit that your human brain can't comprehend "outside the universe" or "nothing"?

>>9144191
>says X has to exist
>says X can't be comprehended
Oh look it's another godfag thread

>>9144191
>outside the universe
No-one can comprehend this because it doesn't make any sense. The concept of outside refers to a relative spacial position. Space is not some fundamental part of everything that can ever exist, its a property of our universe, once you start trying to talk about anything meta-universal you can't use spacial terms to describe it because there is no evidence it even has space, or indeed that it even exists.

Think about asking what happened "before" the big bang, same thing, it doesn't make any sense. As far as we can tell, time began at the big bang so something being before it is incoherent.

>>9144064
Let's assume the universe is expanding as you say. And let's assume that there was and or is a god.

Why would that matter? It's not like showing the expansion of the universe is proof of a deity that cares for our existence. We're probably just a piece a lint in its cosmic couch. We have to continue our lives with or without god. And then that begs the question, what made him, and so on and so forth. A proof of god in our day and age is useless.

As for what it's expanding into. I don't know. I'm not an a physicist

>>9144145

> It is not like something in space expanding, which has space inside and outside and finite volume.

thats what he said.

BTFO

>>9144191
If humans can't comprehend "outside" then howcomes you're able to posit an outside in the firstplace.

>>9144064
>like a ball of dough
more like an infinitely big rubber sheet being stretched
>but what is it expanding into?
That's a misconception. all of space, even completely empty space is contained within the universe
>Something must exist outside the physical universe
Are you suggesting a multiverse? How would that support the assumption of some deity?
>That's literally proof of God
How did you jump to this conclusion? Proof of which god? Lord Kek?

>Something must exist outside the physical universe
uhh no