By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Dinosaurs co-existed with man.

pizzahut451 on 08 October 2010
highwaystar101 said:
pizzahut451 said:
MDMAniac said:
pizzahut451 said:

i sure as hell dont believe in a a bullshit, retarded made up theory known as Big Bang


You must be genius in physics... Wait, you are not? -.-


No, im not. Physic was my least favourite subject at school. Not because i didnt understand it or was bad at it, i just didnt like it for some reason.Its in our family lol.The only subject we were bad at, is physics and technical education.

And the laws of physics didnt exist before big bang. You cant use physics to prove Big Bang

Sure you can.

We may not know the nature of, um, nature before the big bang, but we can certainly use the laws of physics to prove it happened because they existed at the point of the big bang.

For example, we can observe the way the Universe itself acts to show that a big bang occurred. I asked you once already what you explanation of the metric expansion of the Universe was, but unfortunately I never got a reply. The metric expansion of the Universe is quite an elegant observation that near enough proves the big bang theory by itself.

We can observe the doppler shift of other galaxies and when we do we find that all galaxies are moving away from each other. This can only be possible if the space they existed in themselves was expanding.

Think of it like blowing up a dotted balloon.You have a balloon with a series of dots on the surface, as you blow it up the dots aren't moving around the surface of the balloon, but they are moving away from each other due to the expansion of the balloon. The Universe is the balloon, and the dots are galaxies.

We've measured this rate of expansion and if we reverse it and extrapolate it backwards we find that the Universe had to of been a singularity (A single point) around 13.7Bn years ago.

I would just like to know how a Big Bang skeptic explains this observation.

We cant NEVER know the nature of nature before big bang, because there was no nature in the Big Bang. The nature itself was created in Big Bang. And you cant use physics to prove it happend because the laws of phyiscs (of this universe, at least) were also created in Big Bang. According to Dinesh D'Souza in his book What's So Great about Christianity "If you accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause. This spiritual cause brought the universe into existence using none of the laws of physics. The creation of the universe was, in the quite literal meaning of the tern, a miracle." He emphasizes, "It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics. In fact, the laws of physics cannot be used to explain the Big Bang because the Big Bang itself produced the laws of physics...If the universe was produced outside of the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term miracle.

 

On the second bolded part:

But there is a known scientific law that states that anything at rest must remain at rest until an external force causes it to move. So we again must conclude that something of a higher order of being than the universe itself must have caused the big bang. The conclusion remains that God was the first cause. Think about it. You used the ballon as an example, but i ask you: WHO or WHAT is blowing the ballon so that the dots are moving away from eachother because of the expansion of the ballon????? What kind of creature (entity) has that kind of power to move away whole galaxies and expand and ''organise'' the universe like a 2 dollars ballon???  And even if the existing matter created the Big Bang, that kind of matter would have to be (copied it from the article):

spaceless because it created space

timeless because it created time

immaterial because it created matter ( see the problem now?)

powerfull becasue it created Big Bang out of nothing

intellegent because the creation event and the universe was precisely deisgned. (you cant really look at the beuty of the universe and Earth itself, and say that all of that beuty happend ''by an accident'')

And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes.

Right now, AT THIS MOMENT, the thought of God being the creator of the universe is IMO AT THIS MOMENT the most logical one, until our scientists discorver evidence that debunks it. Who knows what scinece will discover in 100 or 200 years, just look how much progress they made in last 60 years. But for now, MY OPINNION is that the God is the creator of the universe.



Around the Network
RageBot on 08 October 2010
pizzahut451 said:
highwaystar101 said:
pizzahut451 said:
MDMAniac said:
pizzahut451 said:

i sure as hell dont believe in a a bullshit, retarded made up theory known as Big Bang


You must be genius in physics... Wait, you are not? -.-


No, im not. Physic was my least favourite subject at school. Not because i didnt understand it or was bad at it, i just didnt like it for some reason.Its in our family lol.The only subject we were bad at, is physics and technical education.

And the laws of physics didnt exist before big bang. You cant use physics to prove Big Bang

Sure you can.

We may not know the nature of, um, nature before the big bang, but we can certainly use the laws of physics to prove it happened because they existed at the point of the big bang.

For example, we can observe the way the Universe itself acts to show that a big bang occurred. I asked you once already what you explanation of the metric expansion of the Universe was, but unfortunately I never got a reply. The metric expansion of the Universe is quite an elegant observation that near enough proves the big bang theory by itself.

We can observe the doppler shift of other galaxies and when we do we find that all galaxies are moving away from each other. This can only be possible if the space they existed in themselves was expanding.

Think of it like blowing up a dotted balloon.You have a balloon with a series of dots on the surface, as you blow it up the dots aren't moving around the surface of the balloon, but they are moving away from each other due to the expansion of the balloon. The Universe is the balloon, and the dots are galaxies.

We've measured this rate of expansion and if we reverse it and extrapolate it backwards we find that the Universe had to of been a singularity (A single point) around 13.7Bn years ago.

I would just like to know how a Big Bang skeptic explains this observation.

We cant NEVER know the nature of nature before big bang, because there was no nature in the Big Bang. The nature itself was created in Big Bang. And you cant use physics to prove it happend because the laws of phyiscs (of this universe, at least) were also created in Big Bang. According to Dinesh D'Souza in his book What's So Great about Christianity "If you accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause. This spiritual cause brought the universe into existence using none of the laws of physics. The creation of the universe was, in the quite literal meaning of the tern, a miracle." He emphasizes, "It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics. In fact, the laws of physics cannot be used to explain the Big Bang because the Big Bang itself produced the laws of physics...If the universe was produced outside of the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term miracle.

 

On the second bolded part:

But there is a known scientific law that states that anything at rest must remain at rest until an external force causes it to move. So we again must conclude that something of a higher order of being than the universe itself must have caused the big bang. The conclusion remains that God was the first cause. Think about it. You used the ballon as an example, but i ask you: WHO or WHAT is blowing the ballon so that the dots are moving away from eachother because of the expansion of the ballon????? What kind of creature (entity) has that kind of power to move away whole galaxies and expand and ''organise'' the universe like a 2 dollars ballon???  And even if the existing matter created the Big Bang, that kind of matter would have to be (copied it from the article):

spaceless because it created space

timeless because it created time

immaterial because it created matter ( see the problem now?)

powerfull becasue it created Big Bang out of nothing

intellegent because the creation event and the universe was precisely deisgned. (you cant really look at the beuty of the universe and Earth itself, and say that all of that beuty happend ''by an accident'')

And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes.

Right now, AT THIS MOMENT, the thought of God being the creator of the universe is IMO AT THIS MOMENT the most logical one, until our scientists discorver evidence that debunks it. Who knows what scinece will discover in 100 or 200 years, just look how much progress they made in last 60 years. But for now, MY OPINNION is that the God is the creator of the universe.

So the existence of an omni-potent being who knows everything, sees everything, isn't bound to the laws of physics, who made earth specifically for the human race to destroy it, and really really loves the Jews/Muslims/Christians is, in your opinion,

LOGICAL?



Bet with Dr.A.Peter.Nintendo that Super Mario Galaxy 2 won't sell 15 million copies up to six months after it's release, the winner will get Avatar control for a week and signature control for a month.

WereKitten on 08 October 2010

Oh, dear. Somewhat lenghty rebuttal follows, just hoping this works for the best.

We cant NEVER know the nature of nature before big bang, because there was no nature in the Big Bang. The nature itself was created in Big Bang. And you cant use physics to prove it happend because the laws of phyiscs (of this universe, at least) were also created in Big Bang.

This means very little because you mix up "nature" (what do you mean by that?) , "laws of physics" and space-time, that is what all big bang theories are about. The passage you quoted is as badly fuzzy as your own words. While we don't know at what point the laws of physics as we know them today and in our local conditions would break up or be superceded by yet unknown generalizations in those extreme conditions of energy density, there is no reason for vague and absolute statements such as "It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics".

But there is a known scientific law that states that anything at rest must remain at rest until an external force causes it to move. So we again must conclude that something of a higher order of being than the universe itself must have caused the big bang.

Nonsense. You take Newton's first law of dynamics and pervert it into a vague philosphical principle, whereas it has a very definite mathematical meaning (and btw those laws are not even strictly true in all conditions, as we now work with Einstein's general relativity).

Let's say that there's a bomb in empty space. No external forces are applied. The bomb explodes, shards go everywhere, but the center of mass of the resulting cloud of matter and energy stays stationary. Newton's first law is respected, but you got an expanding cloud of matter and energy.

WHO or WHAT is blowing the ballon so that the dots are moving away from eachother because of the expansion of the ballon????? What kind of creature (entity) has that kind of power to move away whole galaxies and expand and ''organise'' the universe like a 2 dollars ballon???

Nonsense. Cosmological theories for expanding space-time metrics require no continuous application of "power". Since you're fond of Newton's laws, think of the second one: in a vacuum a moving body does not need "power" to keep moving, it perseveres in its linear, uniform motion. In the same way you can find solution to Einstein's equations that describe collapsing, expanding or fluctuating metrics of space-time, affected only by the matter and energy "inside" that space-time continuum and requiring no continuous "power" or "force".

spaceless because it created space

timeless because it created time

immaterial because it created matter ( see the problem now?)

Nonsense. You generate a very small gravitational field with your own body. That distorts space and time, so you're creating space and time (and bending it, and crushing it) in this very moment.

As for matter, we create it every day by very material means in our particle accelerators in the form of particle-antiparticle couples. We've been doing this hundreds of thousands of times a day for several scores of years.

intellegent because the creation event and the universe was precisely deisgned. (you cant really look at the beuty of the universe and Earth itself, and say that all of that beuty happend ''by an accident'')

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but surely the universe does not seem to be "precisely designed". It certainly shows a great complexity that we only begin to unravel with our rational means, but "precisely designed" would imply that it has a goal and that it could not be different from what it is, neither of which is suggested, much less proved, by our observations.

However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes.

So does Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, a medieval Satan and the flying spaghetti monster. Putting together a fictional character that sums up fuzzy explanations about what we still don't understand is very easy, could even satisfy some of your needs, but has nothing to do with logic.The same gods were once used as justification for lightning, illness, tides and apparent sun movement, and yet I'm pretty sure you'll trust scientists for an explanation of those phenomena over the religious one, even if you don't know or understand the details of atmospheric ionization or DNA replication.

You're entitled your opinions, but I suggest that if you want to pull physics in the debate in an attempt to justify them, you should first of all document yourself and not trust some of the pseudo-rational drivel that you're exposed to.

In the end your opinion might differ entirely from mine, and you could find your reasons for belief in the nooks and crannies of science and philosophy, but you should at least feel the need to make that an informed opinion.



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

highwaystar101 on 08 October 2010
pizzahut451 said:
highwaystar101 said:

Sure you can.

We may not know the nature of, um, nature before the big bang, but we can certainly use the laws of physics to prove it happened because they existed at the point of the big bang.

For example, we can observe the way the Universe itself acts to show that a big bang occurred. I asked you once already what you explanation of the metric expansion of the Universe was, but unfortunately I never got a reply. The metric expansion of the Universe is quite an elegant observation that near enough proves the big bang theory by itself.

We can observe the doppler shift of other galaxies and when we do we find that all galaxies are moving away from each other. This can only be possible if the space they existed in themselves was expanding.

Think of it like blowing up a dotted balloon.You have a balloon with a series of dots on the surface, as you blow it up the dots aren't moving around the surface of the balloon, but they are moving away from each other due to the expansion of the balloon. The Universe is the balloon, and the dots are galaxies.

We've measured this rate of expansion and if we reverse it and extrapolate it backwards we find that the Universe had to of been a singularity (A single point) around 13.7Bn years ago.

I would just like to know how a Big Bang skeptic explains this observation.

We cant NEVER know the nature of nature before big bang, because there was no nature in the Big Bang. The nature itself was created in Big Bang. And you cant use physics to prove it happend because the laws of phyiscs (of this universe, at least) were also created in Big Bang. According to Dinesh D'Souza in his book What's So Great about Christianity "If you accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause. This spiritual cause brought the universe into existence using none of the laws of physics. The creation of the universe was, in the quite literal meaning of the tern, a miracle." He emphasizes, "It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics. In fact, the laws of physics cannot be used to explain the Big Bang because the Big Bang itself produced the laws of physics...If the universe was produced outside of the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term miracle.

 

On the second bolded part:

But there is a known scientific law that states that anything at rest must remain at rest until an external force causes it to move. So we again must conclude that something of a higher order of being than the universe itself must have caused the big bang. The conclusion remains that God was the first cause. Think about it. You used the ballon as an example, but i ask you: WHO or WHAT is blowing the ballon so that the dots are moving away from eachother because of the expansion of the ballon????? What kind of creature (entity) has that kind of power to move away whole galaxies and expand and ''organise'' the universe like a 2 dollars ballon???  And even if the existing matter created the Big Bang, that kind of matter would have to be (copied it from the article):

spaceless because it created space

timeless because it created time

immaterial because it created matter ( see the problem now?)

powerfull becasue it created Big Bang out of nothing

intellegent because the creation event and the universe was precisely deisgned. (you cant really look at the beuty of the universe and Earth itself, and say that all of that beuty happend ''by an accident'')

And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes.

Right now, AT THIS MOMENT, the thought of God being the creator of the universe is IMO AT THIS MOMENT the most logical one, until our scientists discorver evidence that debunks it. Who knows what scinece will discover in 100 or 200 years, just look how much progress they made in last 60 years. But for now, MY OPINNION is that the God is the creator of the universe.

First off, we can know the nature of the big bang using physics because physics began at the point of the big bang. You keep labouring at the fallacy that we can't prove the big bang occurred because we can't prove what came before it. We can prove it happened because we can prove what happened from the point it happened and what has happened since.

To use an analogy. You're saying that I can't read a book because I can't read it before the author has wrote i, even though it has already been written. It's wrong. I can read the book from the day it is written to the present. 

Like the book, I can "read" the big bang, because it has already happened. It is perfectly provable through physics.

(I would also like to note at this point. Why do creationists seem to insist that quotes from a biased source are proof for a topic like this? They are not. 1 1=2 is proof, "Billy says that 1 1=2" is not)

...

I believe the law is Newtons first law of motion, and guess what, we've moved on a little since then. We now know that no object can ever be at an absolute rest and that all objects are in motion relative to something else. At this point I should really stop arguing physics because you have demonstrated a lack of understanding even basic physics.

You then argue that something higher than us must have created the Universe, but wait a minute...

I thought you said that you can't prove what happened before the big bang? Now you're saying that you know the nature of existence before the big bang? That does not compute.

The thing is you keep using this ID tactic of "I can't explain it, therefore God did it", proof needs to be a little more set than arbitrarily reaching a conclusion through what you determine to be unexplainable. What's sad is that most of the things you have claimed are unexplainable are actually explainable, you just need to read about them in a book (an unbiased one I may add).

Either way, the main thing that I'm concerned with is that you have in essence acknowledged the big bang exists, a theory you called retarded. You did this by admitting two things, that the Universe is expanding, and that the Universe has existed for a finite time.

Given these two facts only one real conclusion can be reached, at some point the big bang had to have occurred. Whether you believe it was a God that caused it or not is irrelevant. The point is that you accept two pieces of evidence that show to any reasonable person that the Universe must have been a singularity at some point in history, and thus the big bang occurred.

...

I also want address the fallacy of "It's beautiful, therefore God did it". The thing is, the Earth isn't beautiful. For example animals in the wild live from day to day as scared individuals, who haven't got enough food and water and are frightened from prey. Is this part of your beautiful Earth? Is this what you would deem as beautiful?

You cant just say "this is nice, and only God can create nice things" without acknowledging all the Horrible things like children with terminal illnesses. It doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

And if you want a more detailed explanation on the whole "fine tuned planet" argument, then I suggest you look into the posts I made in this thread (I believe) about the anthropic principle and how also different types of life can exist in different forms of nature. I'm not repeating them, so you'll have to find them I'm afraid.



Farmageddon on 08 October 2010
pizzahut451 said:
highwaystar101 said:

Sure you can.

We may not know the nature of, um, nature before the big bang, but we can certainly use the laws of physics to prove it happened because they existed at the point of the big bang.

For example, we can observe the way the Universe itself acts to show that a big bang occurred. I asked you once already what you explanation of the metric expansion of the Universe was, but unfortunately I never got a reply. The metric expansion of the Universe is quite an elegant observation that near enough proves the big bang theory by itself.

We can observe the doppler shift of other galaxies and when we do we find that all galaxies are moving away from each other. This can only be possible if the space they existed in themselves was expanding.

Think of it like blowing up a dotted balloon.You have a balloon with a series of dots on the surface, as you blow it up the dots aren't moving around the surface of the balloon, but they are moving away from each other due to the expansion of the balloon. The Universe is the balloon, and the dots are galaxies.

We've measured this rate of expansion and if we reverse it and extrapolate it backwards we find that the Universe had to of been a singularity (A single point) around 13.7Bn years ago.

I would just like to know how a Big Bang skeptic explains this observation.

We cant NEVER know the nature of nature before big bang, because there was no nature in the Big Bang. The nature itself was created in Big Bang. And you cant use physics to prove it happend because the laws of phyiscs (of this universe, at least) were also created in Big Bang. According to Dinesh D'Souza in his book What's So Great about Christianity "If you accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause. This spiritual cause brought the universe into existence using none of the laws of physics. The creation of the universe was, in the quite literal meaning of the tern, a miracle." He emphasizes, "It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics. In fact, the laws of physics cannot be used to explain the Big Bang because the Big Bang itself produced the laws of physics...If the universe was produced outside of the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term miracle.

 

On the second bolded part:

But there is a known scientific law that states that anything at rest must remain at rest until an external force causes it to move. So we again must conclude that something of a higher order of being than the universe itself must have caused the big bang. The conclusion remains that God was the first cause. Think about it. You used the ballon as an example, but i ask you: WHO or WHAT is blowing the ballon so that the dots are moving away from eachother because of the expansion of the ballon????? What kind of creature (entity) has that kind of power to move away whole galaxies and expand and ''organise'' the universe like a 2 dollars ballon???  And even if the existing matter created the Big Bang, that kind of matter would have to be (copied it from the article):

spaceless because it created space

timeless because it created time

immaterial because it created matter ( see the problem now?)

powerfull becasue it created Big Bang out of nothing

intellegent because the creation event and the universe was precisely deisgned. (you cant really look at the beuty of the universe and Earth itself, and say that all of that beuty happend ''by an accident'')

And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes.

Right now, AT THIS MOMENT, the thought of God being the creator of the universe is IMO AT THIS MOMENT the most logical one, until our scientists discorver evidence that debunks it. Who knows what scinece will discover in 100 or 200 years, just look how much progress they made in last 60 years. But for now, MY OPINNION is that the God is the creator of the universe.

You've already got a couple of great answers, but I'll try yet another approach.

I'll supposed everything you say is right.

You start off saying that pshysics and nature only came to be with the big bang. Then you start talking about "before the big bang". But time is a part of nature and physics. So if time only came to be with the big bang, talking about "before the big bang" equates to talking about "before time". Which makes as much sense as talking about "outside of space".

There's no before without time and there's no outside without space because by definition there's no time if there's no time and there's no space if there's no space.

You then apply the laws of science to before the big bang. But wait, didn't you just say nature and physics itself didn't exist before the big bang? So how come you're applying them to that environment?

Your argument has no internal logic.

And it goes on, you say:

"And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes."

Other Gods and explanations have already been mentioned, but have you ever heard about the concept of the God of the Gaps? That's what you're doing. "I don't know how that could work, so that must have been God".



Around the Network
pizzahut451 on 13 October 2010
RageBot said:
pizzahut451 said:
highwaystar101 said:
pizzahut451 said:
MDMAniac said:
pizzahut451 said:

i sure as hell dont believe in a a bullshit, retarded made up theory known as Big Bang


You must be genius in physics... Wait, you are not? -.-


No, im not. Physic was my least favourite subject at school. Not because i didnt understand it or was bad at it, i just didnt like it for some reason.Its in our family lol.The only subject we were bad at, is physics and technical education.

And the laws of physics didnt exist before big bang. You cant use physics to prove Big Bang

Sure you can.

We may not know the nature of, um, nature before the big bang, but we can certainly use the laws of physics to prove it happened because they existed at the point of the big bang.

For example, we can observe the way the Universe itself acts to show that a big bang occurred. I asked you once already what you explanation of the metric expansion of the Universe was, but unfortunately I never got a reply. The metric expansion of the Universe is quite an elegant observation that near enough proves the big bang theory by itself.

We can observe the doppler shift of other galaxies and when we do we find that all galaxies are moving away from each other. This can only be possible if the space they existed in themselves was expanding.

Think of it like blowing up a dotted balloon.You have a balloon with a series of dots on the surface, as you blow it up the dots aren't moving around the surface of the balloon, but they are moving away from each other due to the expansion of the balloon. The Universe is the balloon, and the dots are galaxies.

We've measured this rate of expansion and if we reverse it and extrapolate it backwards we find that the Universe had to of been a singularity (A single point) around 13.7Bn years ago.

I would just like to know how a Big Bang skeptic explains this observation.

We cant NEVER know the nature of nature before big bang, because there was no nature in the Big Bang. The nature itself was created in Big Bang. And you cant use physics to prove it happend because the laws of phyiscs (of this universe, at least) were also created in Big Bang. According to Dinesh D'Souza in his book What's So Great about Christianity "If you accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause. This spiritual cause brought the universe into existence using none of the laws of physics. The creation of the universe was, in the quite literal meaning of the tern, a miracle." He emphasizes, "It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics. In fact, the laws of physics cannot be used to explain the Big Bang because the Big Bang itself produced the laws of physics...If the universe was produced outside of the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term miracle.

 

On the second bolded part:

But there is a known scientific law that states that anything at rest must remain at rest until an external force causes it to move. So we again must conclude that something of a higher order of being than the universe itself must have caused the big bang. The conclusion remains that God was the first cause. Think about it. You used the ballon as an example, but i ask you: WHO or WHAT is blowing the ballon so that the dots are moving away from eachother because of the expansion of the ballon????? What kind of creature (entity) has that kind of power to move away whole galaxies and expand and ''organise'' the universe like a 2 dollars ballon???  And even if the existing matter created the Big Bang, that kind of matter would have to be (copied it from the article):

spaceless because it created space

timeless because it created time

immaterial because it created matter ( see the problem now?)

powerfull becasue it created Big Bang out of nothing

intellegent because the creation event and the universe was precisely deisgned. (you cant really look at the beuty of the universe and Earth itself, and say that all of that beuty happend ''by an accident'')

And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes.

Right now, AT THIS MOMENT, the thought of God being the creator of the universe is IMO AT THIS MOMENT the most logical one, until our scientists discorver evidence that debunks it. Who knows what scinece will discover in 100 or 200 years, just look how much progress they made in last 60 years. But for now, MY OPINNION is that the God is the creator of the universe.

So the existence of an omni-potent being who knows everything, sees everything, isn't bound to the laws of physics, who made earth specifically for the human race to destroy it, and really really loves the Jews/Muslims/Christians is, in your opinion,

LOGICAL?


Where did i say God created the Earth? How how can a God be bound to the laws of physics when he is out of this universe? Its like saying ''Humans cant survive being out of water longer than 5 minutes because fish cant do that, so same rules must apply''.



pizzahut451 on 13 October 2010
WereKitten said:

Oh, dear. Somewhat lenghty rebuttal follows, just hoping this works for the best.

We cant NEVER know the nature of nature before big bang, because there was no nature in the Big Bang. The nature itself was created in Big Bang. And you cant use physics to prove it happend because the laws of phyiscs (of this universe, at least) were also created in Big Bang.

This means very little because you mix up "nature" (what do you mean by that?) , "laws of physics" and space-time, that is what all big bang theories are about. The passage you quoted is as badly fuzzy as your own words. While we don't know at what point the laws of physics as we know them today and in our local conditions would break up or be superceded by yet unknown generalizations in those extreme conditions of energy density, there is no reason for vague and absolute statements such as "It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics".

But there is a known scientific law that states that anything at rest must remain at rest until an external force causes it to move. So we again must conclude that something of a higher order of being than the universe itself must have caused the big bang.

Nonsense. You take Newton's first law of dynamics and pervert it into a vague philosphical principle, whereas it has a very definite mathematical meaning (and btw those laws are not even strictly true in all conditions, as we now work with Einstein's general relativity).

Let's say that there's a bomb in empty space. No external forces are applied. The bomb explodes, shards go everywhere, but the center of mass of the resulting cloud of matter and energy stays stationary. Newton's first law is respected, but you got an expanding cloud of matter and energy.Yes, but something HAS TO TRIGGER THE BOMB. And something had to trigger the universe in order for it to start expanding. The bomb cant just exlpode for no reason just like that. Thats the biggest problme with the ''Everything came out of nothing'' crap. You can just disporve the whole theory by simply asking ''Who'' ''what'' or ''how'.

WHO or WHAT is blowing the ballon so that the dots are moving away from eachother because of the expansion of the ballon????? What kind of creature (entity) has that kind of power to move away whole galaxies and expand and ''organise'' the universe like a 2 dollars ballon???

Nonsense. Cosmological theories for expanding space-time metrics require no continuous application of "power". So WHAT DO they requre? Oh thats right!!! Absolutely nothing, because the whole big bang theory has no ground to stand on. Its all just ''Well, there was this physical matter on which we know nothing about (we're not even sure if its even possible, or how it was created, or how old it is) that somehow made other already existing matter(on which we also know absolutely nothing about) exploaded and that matter somehow for no reason, and no higher force started expanding itself. Since you're fond of Newton's laws, think of the second one: in a vacuum a moving body does not need "power" to keep moving, are you saying that the vacuum expanded the universe? it perseveres in its linear, uniform motion.  In the same way you can find solution to Einstein's equations that describe collapsing, expanding or fluctuating metrics of space-time, affected only by the matter and energy "inside" that space-time continuum and requiring no continuous "power" or "force".

spaceless because it created space

timeless because it created time

immaterial because it created matter ( see the problem now?)

Nonsense. You generate a very small gravitational field with your own body. That distorts space and time, so you're creating space and time (and bending it, and crushing it) in this very moment. Huh? Im not sure in understand you here. My body cant create space and time. As the time passes on, my body will age and eventually die and eventually fall apart as a corpse.  Please explain this more accurate.

As for matter, we create it every day by very material means in our particle accelerators in the form of particle-antiparticle couples. We've been doing this hundreds of thousands of times a day for several scores of years.There is a big diffrence between a matter we humans create every day, and the matter that universe is made out of. You cant use that as an example.

intellegent because the creation event and the universe was precisely deisgned. (you cant really look at the beuty of the universe and Earth itself, and say that all of that beuty happend ''by an accident'')

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but surely the universe does not seem to be "precisely designed". It certainly shows a great complexity that we only begin to unravel with our rational means, but "precisely designed" would imply that it has a goal and that it could not be different from what it is, neither of which is suggested, much less proved, by our observations.

''but "precisely designed" would imply that it has a goal and that it could not be different from what it is, neither of which is suggested, much less proved, by our observations'' Our observations on the universe are very very very limited and and we know so little about it, you cant say that like we already explored and understood the universe 100%. And what if the design (or the ''plan'') of the universe is that it is constantly changinig  or evolving. Its much simmilar like the Gods plan on humanity, which has no real direction. Basiclly, we are in charge of the Gods plan, because THAT IS his plan. The same rulles COULD (but im not so sure about it) applay to the universe. 

However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes.

So does Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, a medieval Satan and the flying spaghetti monster. Putting together a fictional character that sums up fuzzy explanations about what we still don't understand is very easy, could even satisfy some of your needs, but has nothing to do with logic.The same gods were once used as justification for lightning, illness, tides and apparent sun movement, and yet I'm pretty sure you'll trust scientists for an explanation of those phenomena over the religious one, even if you don't know or understand the details of atmospheric ionization or DNA replication. The diffrence between an abrahamic God and spaghetti monster is that they are totaly diffrent (lol captan obvious). The spaghetti monster can be disporven quite easly, an abrahamic God cant.

You're entitled your opinions, but I suggest that if you want to pull physics in the debate in an attempt to justify them, you should first of all document yourself and not trust some of the pseudo-rational drivel that you're exposed to.I never did put them in the debate. All i said that they didnt existed before big bang. The people who quoted me pulled them in debate.

In the end your opinion might differ entirely from mine, and you could find your reasons for belief in the nooks and crannies of science and philosophy, but you should at least feel the need to make that an informed opinion.


Answers in BOLD



pizzahut451 on 13 October 2010
Farmageddon said:
pizzahut451 said:
highwaystar101 said:

Sure you can.

We may not know the nature of, um, nature before the big bang, but we can certainly use the laws of physics to prove it happened because they existed at the point of the big bang.

For example, we can observe the way the Universe itself acts to show that a big bang occurred. I asked you once already what you explanation of the metric expansion of the Universe was, but unfortunately I never got a reply. The metric expansion of the Universe is quite an elegant observation that near enough proves the big bang theory by itself.

We can observe the doppler shift of other galaxies and when we do we find that all galaxies are moving away from each other. This can only be possible if the space they existed in themselves was expanding.

Think of it like blowing up a dotted balloon.You have a balloon with a series of dots on the surface, as you blow it up the dots aren't moving around the surface of the balloon, but they are moving away from each other due to the expansion of the balloon. The Universe is the balloon, and the dots are galaxies.

We've measured this rate of expansion and if we reverse it and extrapolate it backwards we find that the Universe had to of been a singularity (A single point) around 13.7Bn years ago.

I would just like to know how a Big Bang skeptic explains this observation.

We cant NEVER know the nature of nature before big bang, because there was no nature in the Big Bang. The nature itself was created in Big Bang. And you cant use physics to prove it happend because the laws of phyiscs (of this universe, at least) were also created in Big Bang. According to Dinesh D'Souza in his book What's So Great about Christianity "If you accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause. This spiritual cause brought the universe into existence using none of the laws of physics. The creation of the universe was, in the quite literal meaning of the tern, a miracle." He emphasizes, "It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics. In fact, the laws of physics cannot be used to explain the Big Bang because the Big Bang itself produced the laws of physics...If the universe was produced outside of the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term miracle.

 

On the second bolded part:

But there is a known scientific law that states that anything at rest must remain at rest until an external force causes it to move. So we again must conclude that something of a higher order of being than the universe itself must have caused the big bang. The conclusion remains that God was the first cause. Think about it. You used the ballon as an example, but i ask you: WHO or WHAT is blowing the ballon so that the dots are moving away from eachother because of the expansion of the ballon????? What kind of creature (entity) has that kind of power to move away whole galaxies and expand and ''organise'' the universe like a 2 dollars ballon???  And even if the existing matter created the Big Bang, that kind of matter would have to be (copied it from the article):

spaceless because it created space

timeless because it created time

immaterial because it created matter ( see the problem now?)

powerfull becasue it created Big Bang out of nothing

intellegent because the creation event and the universe was precisely deisgned. (you cant really look at the beuty of the universe and Earth itself, and say that all of that beuty happend ''by an accident'')

And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes.

Right now, AT THIS MOMENT, the thought of God being the creator of the universe is IMO AT THIS MOMENT the most logical one, until our scientists discorver evidence that debunks it. Who knows what scinece will discover in 100 or 200 years, just look how much progress they made in last 60 years. But for now, MY OPINNION is that the God is the creator of the universe.

You've already got a couple of great answers, but I'll try yet another approach.

I'll supposed everything you say is right.

You start off saying that pshysics and nature only came to be with the big bang. Then you start talking about "before the big bang". But time is a part of nature and physics. So if time only came to be with the big bang, talking about "before the big bang" equates to talking about "before time". Which makes as much sense as talking about "outside of space".

There's no before without time and there's no outside without space because by definition there's no time if there's no time and there's no space if there's no space.

You then apply the laws of science to before the big bang. But wait, didn't you just say nature and physics itself didn't exist before the big bang? So how come you're applying them to that environment?

Your argument has no internal logic.

And it goes on, you say:

"And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes."

Other Gods and explanations have already been mentioned, but have you ever heard about the concept of the God of the Gaps? That's what you're doing. "I don't know how that could work, so that must have been God".

 

Before Big Bang there was only God, and he is timeless and spaceless,and he can exist out of time and space and so no time or space was needed for him to create the Big Bang.  So i can easly  say before time. Simple. There. You see how i disporeved your ''I wanna confuse you'' post with one sentence???



bannedagain on 13 October 2010
Chrizum said:
Slimebeast said:
Farmageddon said:
Slimebeast said:

Because the cannibals are wrong of course. Duh.

Edit: Holy crap, wall of text :/

Lost the track of time and length, actually just lost an exam beacuse of this. God, sometimes I hate the internet.

Anyway, sorry for the lenght of it :P


I know I'm quoting from a couple pages back, but it seem this is the backbone of your argument.

I mean, you're saying there are absolute morals, that are intrinsically right. And when people show there are other cultures who disagree with your morals, you defend your position by saying "they are wrong".

Now, I'm not sure you notice it, but you're basically saying you're right because you're right.

There are absolute morals because my morals* are absolutely right. And my morals are right because they are. So there are absolute morals because there are.

*- or a subset of morals I'm not entirely aware of but which includes many of my morals -

Do you see it?

Sure, when you apply it to the extreme case like the murder cannibals, it's easy to make it sound "right". Of course doing that is wrong. Who could think otherwise? No one here, sure. But those guys did think so.

My point is, don't you realise those guys could use the same argument you used? Let's say some people, over there, are having this same discussion. One of them argues agains absolute morals and uses us as example. The other says, yeah, but they are obviously wrong. For them, the idea of our moral (on this matter) could be as outrageous and revolting as their is to us.

What exactly is the diference that makes your argument valid and "his" wrong? What makes you better? Is it because you're some kind of bastion of Truth? Why can't he feel the same? And, if you can apply the same argument for both sides, doesn't that show you the argument itself is invalid?

Now, before you ask, it doesn't mean I would be complacent to their practice. I have my opinion, and I believe I have every right to defend it whenever it concerns me, even if I can't quite prove my opinion is right at an absolute sense. I simply trust my opinion better, that's the reason for it to be my opinion after all.

Anyway, I actually think they are wrong because I don't believe people have souls you'll absorb by eating and both will turn into a better being or something like that, which I suppose is more or less their reasoning. You might think they are wrong because people do have souls, but you'll only cause these souls suffering by eating them. How can you be so sure you're right and they're wrong anyway?

Any of the groups may have any amount of objective (or objective-looking - for them) evidence to support their views, and in this sense believe they are indeed right, above an opinion. But of course you can't really be completelly sure.

Just as much as you could put yourself in a position of being objectivelly right as opposed to them by last couple of paragraph's reasoning, I could, by the same reasoning. see myself in the same position relative to you. But you'd argue against that, and say my "evidence" is no good. How's that different? Any of the three groups could position itself like that against any of the other two. Of course, since their conclusion looks so absurd for us, it's easy to dismiss that.

Point being that these morals aren't absolute in the sense that morals "passed down" (or provoked or inspired or whatever) by a superior, perfect being (which was the conclusion you were trying to draw, right?) should be. Better yet, my point is that even if we agree that those guys are wrong, there's no way we can derive a "God" from that or even ascribe a deeper, transcendental meaning to our agreement.

You could argue something like "see, they have different morals because they're basing their morals on a different subset of beliefs", sure. In a sense you might even be able to argue they feel it's wrong to cause suffering just for the sake of it and that that's the deeper moral universal among humans.

I'd say there's indeed a tendency for that, but then again, we're social animals. It makes complete biological sense if we have that kind of predisposition on some level. No sense invoking a superior being to explain that. Basically what you're saying is humans have some genetic resemblance between themselves. Don't think anyone is going to argue that. But our actual morals differ a lot. Even if people have a tendency to feel it's wrong to cause suffering just for the sake of it, most people don't feel so bad when there's personal gain involved, at varying degrees.

And how they vary. Someone might be ok to do it just for a bit of  sadistic pleasure while others might need much, much more. And in this sense that "basic moral" is so feeble and would allow such different outcomes that look mutually outrageous and unbearable that I am hard pressed to see anything so special about that.

Actually, it might be simplyfied even more to say people, even if at an unconcious (or partialy unconcious) level, balance the pluses and the cons of their actions for themselves and only take actions that seem positive on that light. That's your moral universal destiled. We're all assholes deep down. Cheers.

I think I kinda dragged it out too much, not sure it's as coherent as I'd like, but it should make sense :)

Also, this is really off-topic, ins't it? :P

You pulled it out of context.

It's an arguing method, to reply like that. The background is that I felt Highwaystar hadn't gotten to the core point I'm discussing. And the background is also that he objected to my statement of objective morals being false. What's his evidence for objective morals being false? He simply demonstrates there are different cultures with different morals in history of mankind (as if I wasn't aware of that) and from that draws a conclusion that morals are culturally relative and can not be universal. In my opinion that was a poor argument. Btw here is Highwaystar's statement I replied to:

"I ask, how can two societies be so radically different in their moral code, and yet their morals be absolute? It's actually impossible."

But I never said that every person and every culture has a full understanding of the absolute moral code. I never said that all expressions of morals on our planet are absolute. Nothing like that.
(actually for my case I only need to show one strong example of universal morals, thus my drastic example of torturing babies in the thread)

My original statement in this thread (that Highwaystar objected to) was:
since most people have absolute morals (without knowing or admitting it to themselves) most people also believe in the supernatural.

(the logic of the second part of the statement goes something like this: absolute morals needs an external cause, or at least they make a strong argument for something supernatural like a God, aka "the moral argument" for the existence of God, which is an age-old argument).

Yes it's off-topic.

I also think there are some absolute morals (like not killing eachother), but that doesn't have anything to do with God whatsoever. Morals come from rationality (which, in most cases, is the absolute opposite of God).

@Chrizum 

God is the number one reason to kill. Your god is not as cool as my god so there is there rational thinking.  So religious people that don't look much into logic are kind of like fanboys.  when questioned of logic or reason it always goes to, I have faith.

 

This article is a joke. sorry can't help it.

just like the christians saying the earth was the center of the solar system and even killing thousands for opposing the idea, like burning bruno at the stake. Good way to get your point accross, believe me or I will hurt or kill you.

Never believe in any belief system that uses fear to operate.

Now kill this article for good.



RageBot on 13 October 2010
pizzahut451 said:
RageBot said:
pizzahut451 said:
highwaystar101 said:
pizzahut451 said:
MDMAniac said:
pizzahut451 said:

i sure as hell dont believe in a a bullshit, retarded made up theory known as Big Bang


You must be genius in physics... Wait, you are not? -.-


No, im not. Physic was my least favourite subject at school. Not because i didnt understand it or was bad at it, i just didnt like it for some reason.Its in our family lol.The only subject we were bad at, is physics and technical education.

And the laws of physics didnt exist before big bang. You cant use physics to prove Big Bang

Sure you can.

We may not know the nature of, um, nature before the big bang, but we can certainly use the laws of physics to prove it happened because they existed at the point of the big bang.

For example, we can observe the way the Universe itself acts to show that a big bang occurred. I asked you once already what you explanation of the metric expansion of the Universe was, but unfortunately I never got a reply. The metric expansion of the Universe is quite an elegant observation that near enough proves the big bang theory by itself.

We can observe the doppler shift of other galaxies and when we do we find that all galaxies are moving away from each other. This can only be possible if the space they existed in themselves was expanding.

Think of it like blowing up a dotted balloon.You have a balloon with a series of dots on the surface, as you blow it up the dots aren't moving around the surface of the balloon, but they are moving away from each other due to the expansion of the balloon. The Universe is the balloon, and the dots are galaxies.

We've measured this rate of expansion and if we reverse it and extrapolate it backwards we find that the Universe had to of been a singularity (A single point) around 13.7Bn years ago.

I would just like to know how a Big Bang skeptic explains this observation.

We cant NEVER know the nature of nature before big bang, because there was no nature in the Big Bang. The nature itself was created in Big Bang. And you cant use physics to prove it happend because the laws of phyiscs (of this universe, at least) were also created in Big Bang. According to Dinesh D'Souza in his book What's So Great about Christianity "If you accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause. This spiritual cause brought the universe into existence using none of the laws of physics. The creation of the universe was, in the quite literal meaning of the tern, a miracle." He emphasizes, "It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics. In fact, the laws of physics cannot be used to explain the Big Bang because the Big Bang itself produced the laws of physics...If the universe was produced outside of the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term miracle.

 

On the second bolded part:

But there is a known scientific law that states that anything at rest must remain at rest until an external force causes it to move. So we again must conclude that something of a higher order of being than the universe itself must have caused the big bang. The conclusion remains that God was the first cause. Think about it. You used the ballon as an example, but i ask you: WHO or WHAT is blowing the ballon so that the dots are moving away from eachother because of the expansion of the ballon????? What kind of creature (entity) has that kind of power to move away whole galaxies and expand and ''organise'' the universe like a 2 dollars ballon???  And even if the existing matter created the Big Bang, that kind of matter would have to be (copied it from the article):

spaceless because it created space

timeless because it created time

immaterial because it created matter ( see the problem now?)

powerfull becasue it created Big Bang out of nothing

intellegent because the creation event and the universe was precisely deisgned. (you cant really look at the beuty of the universe and Earth itself, and say that all of that beuty happend ''by an accident'')

And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes.

Right now, AT THIS MOMENT, the thought of God being the creator of the universe is IMO AT THIS MOMENT the most logical one, until our scientists discorver evidence that debunks it. Who knows what scinece will discover in 100 or 200 years, just look how much progress they made in last 60 years. But for now, MY OPINNION is that the God is the creator of the universe.

So the existence of an omni-potent being who knows everything, sees everything, isn't bound to the laws of physics, who made earth specifically for the human race to destroy it, and really really loves the Jews/Muslims/Christians is, in your opinion,

LOGICAL?


Where did i say God created the Earth? How how can a God be bound to the laws of physics when he is out of this universe? Its like saying ''Humans cant survive being out of water longer than 5 minutes because fish cant do that, so same rules must apply''.

...WTF?

Are you trolling me?



Bet with Dr.A.Peter.Nintendo that Super Mario Galaxy 2 won't sell 15 million copies up to six months after it's release, the winner will get Avatar control for a week and signature control for a month.