quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I'm not a fanatic I am just frustrated. They have already explained away the possibility of a source of God as you say, and it doesn't exist. Science will never explain God and cannot explain God because science is about facts not fantasies. It's just something (God) people made up when they had no science and could not explain anything. That' s why they believed the earth was flat and it was the center of the universe, which was wrong.

Not that my opinion is important but I think people need to spend more time educating themselves about science and a lot less time, better yet no time at all, on religion. In fact, if you look at religion closely, organized religion, they don't do what's good for the people they do what's good for themselves to maintain their significance. I'm not a socialist but Marx was right, religion is the opium of the masses

I think religion would be better off coming clean and just telling people the truth, which is that there is no God. Then they can do what they really ought to do which is to act as the moral compass of humanity to make the world a better place to live. I think that would make religion more valuable in the long term and ensure its relevance.

And in addition we would not have to waste time trying to understand illogical contradictory nonsense. It just doesn't make sense, why don't they just tell people they rewrote the Bible five or 10 times just to take out the parts that conflicted with each other?

And it still doesn't make any sense. I would love to see the pope tell people the truth that Adolph Hitler was a proud Roman Catholic, and Hitler said so himself in the German parliament.

That's my opinion, but I don't expect it to get much traction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

You do not have enough data to make that determination with certainty.

And some humans like making up or adhering to answers from out of thin air when faced with that situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
but there is no actual proof of it having happened..

Do you know what red shift is?

More to the point, do you know what you're talking about? In a previous post, you commented...

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

some humans like making up or adhering to answers from out of thin air when faced with that situation.

Ya think?

Big Bang theory postulates that our universe, not just matter but also time and space, began with a singularity that expanded into the reality we know today. But this is by defnition a wholly supernatural explanation. Absent space and time, such a singularity could not exist in any terms meaninful to physics, and neither could it have "expanded" in any sense meaningful to physics, if there was no space "outside" it to expand in to. And, of course, if either of those supernatural propositions is false, then (if it happened at all) it wasn't the beginning.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Absent space and time, such a singularity could not exist in any terms meaninful to physics

The bold is not quite correct. Singularities are quite meaningful to physics. They are difficult for a human to visualize, but our perception doesnt make any difference to nature.

Excuse me? I didn't say the concept wasn't meaningful. I said, "such a singularity could not exist."

Physics has its Principles

The ‘Schwarzschild singularity’ does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light... The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity. ~Albert Einstein

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fitznicely

OK, sorry for the derailment, but I have to ask...for those who DO believe in God...that all powerful, all-knowing entity...

Why is it so hard to believe that he is clever enough to create all the stuff science discovers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Singularities most certainly can exist.

Singularities "exist" only as mathematical concepts -- and if you care to claim otherwise, it will take more than your word for it. Faith is not an option.



K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I'm not a fanatic I am just frustrated. They have already explained away the possibility of a source of God as you say, and it doesn't exist. Science will never explain God and cannot explain God because science is about facts not fantasies. It's just something (God) people made up when they had no science and could not explain anything. That' s why they believed the earth was flat and it was the center of the universe, which was wrong.

Not that my opinion is important but I think people need to spend more time educating themselves about science and a lot less time, better yet no time at all, on religion. In fact, if you look at religion closely, organized religion, they don't do what's good for the people they do what's good for themselves to maintain their significance. I'm not a socialist but Marx was right, religion is the opium of the masses

I think religion would be better off coming clean and just telling people the truth, which is that there is no God. Then they can do what they really ought to do which is to act as the moral compass of humanity to make the world a better place to live. I think that would make religion more valuable in the long term and ensure its relevance.

And in addition we would not have to waste time trying to understand illogical contradictory nonsense. It just doesn't make sense, why don't they just tell people they rewrote the Bible five or 10 times just to take out the parts that conflicted with each other?

And it still doesn't make any sense. I would love to see the pope tell people the truth that Adolph Hitler was a proud Roman Catholic, and Hitler said so himself in the German parliament.

That's my opinion, but I don't expect it to get much traction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Black holes are singularities who's effects have been observed in the real world. Take Steven Hawking's word for it.

You don't understand Hawking in this context. A singularity is a point in space, not an object.

The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume.

Hence, such a singularity cannot exist in any terms meaningful to our current physics (English syntax note: "meaningful" refers to "exist").

And going back to the beginning, if you'll excuse the pun, absent space you can't have a "point in space," and therefore no "singularity" (by any definition) could be the beginning of the universe.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

No, you either dont understand or are intentionally ignoring what I said.

Hawking: "so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume"

Me: "They are difficult for a human to visualize, but our perception doesnt make any difference to nature."

Okay, we're done here. That quote was not from Hawking. So for the second time, you've not even bothered to read the links I've posted. You're just here to preach the Word of Willbeurdaddy, without offering a shred of anything substantive to support your nonsense.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

No, you either dont understand or are intentionally ignoring what I said.

Hawking: "so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume"

Me: "They are difficult for a human to visualize, but our perception doesnt make any difference to nature."

Okay, we're done here. That quote was not from Hawking. So for the second time, you've not even bothered to read the links I've posted. You're just here to preach the Word of Willbeurdaddy, without offering a shred of anything substantive to support your nonsense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Further, you limited your comments to a Big Bang universe. There are a number of theories of the creation of the universe that don't require singularities, including the Hawking-Hartle no boundary universe.

Further? Further what? The Big Bang is what I was addressing, in case you missed the point.

Nice dance step, though.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Black holes are singularities who's effects have been observed in the real world. Take Steven Hawking's word for it.

You don't understand Hawking in this context. A singularity is a point in space, not an object.

The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume.

Hence, such a singularity cannot exist in any terms meaningful to our current physics (English syntax note: "meaningful" refers to "exist").

And going back to the beginning, if you'll excuse the pun, absent space you can't have a "point in space," and therefore no "singularity" (by any definition) could be the beginning of the universe.

K.

No, you either dont understand or are intentionally ignoring what I said.

Hawking: "so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume"

Me: "They are difficult for a human to visualize, but our perception doesnt make any difference to nature."


Hawking doesnt say that they dont exist, and has spent a good bit of time explaining the differences between types of singularities.

Further, you limited your comments to a Big Bang universe. There are a number of theories of the creation of the universe that don't require singularities, including the Hawking-Hartle no boundary universe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I think religion would be better off coming clean and just telling people the truth, which is that there is no God.

Science knows this? Or just you?

Please provide the details in your answer. Thank you.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


I was taught that the big bang may occur over and over again according to the rubber band theory, a theory which, to me, ties in nicely with some of the beliefs of the ancient Hindus. According to the rubber band theory gravity pulls all matter together and compresses it to the point it explodes with a "big bang" after which the new universe expands until gravity once again overtakes the weakening force of the explosion and draws it all back together again, then it all endlessly repeats.