# The Universe: Eternal or no?



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

So Gunny, you believe in eternity?  Eternal god, eternal damnation, eternal heaven?

What in this world or the universe can you point to that proves 'eternalism'?


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> So Gunny, you believe in eternity?  Eternal god, eternal damnation, eternal heaven?
> 
> What in this world or the universe can you point to that proves 'eternalism'?



The answer to your question is both simple and complex.  The belief itself is based on faith.  There is nothing that proves eternalism.

If the universe is infinite but not eternal, then where would it go?


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

There is nothing in the universe that is eternal.  So I guess you're telling me that because of your faith you believe in eternalism, even though everything in the phenomenal world is impermanent.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> There is nothing in the universe that is eternal.  So I guess you're telling me that because of your faith you believe in eternalism, even though everything in the phenomenal world is impermanent.



I did not say anything in the universe was eternal.  I said the universe itself.  While everything in the universe might not be eternal, there is no more proof to substantiate the claim that it isn't than there is to substantiate that it is.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 14, 2008)

Actually, even science says the universe is eternal, matter and energy can NOT be destroyed nor created, thus it is forever here, just changing forms.


----------



## XVZ (Dec 14, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Mr Bass is *NOT* married and no longer engages in premarital sex since he became saved 8 years ago.


No wonder you are little more than a shrieking curmudgeon. Perhaps if you got laid once in awhile you wouldn't feel the need to relieve yourself by shoving poles up your ass.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Actually, even science says the universe is eternal, matter and energy can NOT be destroyed nor created, thus it is forever here, just changing forms.



That's what I said.  I just trimmed it down.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

XVZ said:


> No wonder you are little more than a shrieking curmudgeon. Perhaps if you got laid once in awhile you wouldn't feel the need to relieve yourself by shoving poles up your ass.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

Gunny said:


> I did not say anything in the universe was eternal.  I said the universe itself.  While everything in the universe might not be eternal, there is no more proof to substantiate the claim that it isn't than there is to substantiate that it is.



Actually, there is more to substantiate the universe is impermanent than eternal.

Everything observable in our world is impermanent.

This is actually a deep philosophical subject.  It's silly of me to get into it on this thread.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Actually, there is more to substantiate the universe is impermanent than eternal.
> 
> Everything observable in our world is impermanent.
> 
> This is actually a deep philosophical subject.  It's silly of me to get into it on this thread.



No, a better phrase is what scientists use, it's NOT STATIC.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Actually, there is more to substantiate the universe is impermanent than eternal.
> 
> Everything observable in our world is impermanent.
> 
> This is actually a deep philosophical subject.  It's silly of me to get into it on this thread.



I can fix that.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Actually, there is more to substantiate the universe is impermanent than eternal.
> 
> Everything observable in our world is impermanent.
> 
> This is actually a deep philosophical subject.  It's silly of me to get into it on this thread.



While I can easily understand that nothing within the universe is eternal, the universe itself has to be eternal.

This is where science contradicts itself.  Scientific law states you cannot get something from nothing, nothing being absolute.  Yet the Big Bang theorizes just that.  Something being created from nothing.

Now you are suggesting, if I understand you correctly, that it can return to nothing.  That of course makes nothing something which is self-contradictory.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 14, 2008)

Gunny said:


> While I can easily understand that nothing within the universe is eternal, the universe itself has to be eternal.
> 
> This is where science contradicts itself.  Scientific law states you cannot get something from nothing, nothing being absolute.  Yet the Big Bang theorizes just that.  Something being created from nothing.
> 
> Now you are suggesting, if I understand you correctly, that it can return to nothing.  That of course makes nothing something which is self-contradictory.



Actually this is why scientists need to start hiring PR more. the "Big Bang" doesn't even come close to describing what the theory is, it only describes the end of the theory. It starts out as a massive amount of particles without form then gathers, as the center grows denser the gravitational field is suppose to get stronger then once most of it is gathered into a solid mass it gets torn apart from the extreme gravity. Though you are right, that theory is one of the less logical of them all, it's sad really that people aren't looking into the lesser known ones since some of them (talking strictly scientific here) are much more logical and easily tested. The only one that is REALLY out there (again a lesser known one) is the tear theory, but that breaks every law of physics and even logic known to us and therefore was tossed out rather quickly.


----------



## alan1 (Dec 14, 2008)

The universe is too big to allow it to fail.
Too Big to Fail


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

OK.  Where I'm coming from in this discussion is observing in nature that everything is impermanent.

Ourselves, as human beings, the universe and its contents and all beings therein are impermanent.

You cannot believe in a created universe without presuming the universe once did not exist.  The universe is not eternal.

Even God folks think God created the universe, which means it did not exist eternally.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> OK.  Where I'm coming from in this discussion is observing in nature that everything is impermanent.
> 
> Ourselves, as human beings, the universe and its contents and all beings therein are impermanent.
> 
> ...



However in this case, both science AND religion fail big time. For something to exist then it must be created, but what created that which created it, and then what created that before that? Neither will ever answer this one epic question, and some who have pondered it too much have gone insane for obvious reasons. What created the creator?


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Actually this is why scientists need to start hiring PR more. the "Big Bang" doesn't even come close to describing what the theory is, it only describes the end of the theory. It starts out as a massive amount of particles without form then gathers, as the center grows denser the gravitational field is suppose to get stronger then once most of it is gathered into a solid mass it gets torn apart from the extreme gravity. Though you are right, that theory is one of the less logical of them all, it's sad really that people aren't looking into the lesser known ones since some of them (talking strictly scientific here) are much more logical and easily tested. The only one that is REALLY out there (again a lesser known one) is the tear theory, but that breaks every law of physics and even logic known to us and therefore was tossed out rather quickly.



The problem with theories is they are theories.  Supposedly logical conclusions on man's part that are limited by man's intellect.  Where science explains actual fact in regard to Man and our world and the observable universe I don't have much argument.

It is when science steps outside of its own rules and tries to explain what it cannot that I start asking questions.  IMO, the origin of the universe and life on Earth are two of those attempts.  

It's my opinion that science does itself a disservice by trying to disprove religion by creating its own.  Then people do it a further disservice by stating it as absolute and provable fact because it suits their agenda.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> OK.  Where I'm coming from in this discussion is observing in nature that everything is impermanent.
> 
> Ourselves, as human beings, the universe and its contents and all beings therein are impermanent.
> 
> ...



I understand what you are saying.  Your last sentence though ... which "God folk?"  My take on it is he created what is within the universe.


----------



## William Joyce (Dec 14, 2008)

I remember learning in physics in college that the sun will run out of nuclear fuel in a few billions years.  The Earth will be incinerated.  So when I slack off on mowing the lawn and the wife complains, I just say, "but honey..."


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> No, a better phrase is what scientists use, it's NOT STATIC.




That's a better phrase for a scientist, I'm talking philosophy.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> However in this case, both science AND religion fail big time. For something to exist then it must be created, but what created that which created it, and then what created that before that? Neither will ever answer this one epic question, and some who have pondered it too much have gone insane for obvious reasons. What created the creator?



That's why Buddhist philosophy transcends creation myths.  The world appears solid and unchanging, but when examined closely it is neither.

Matter is merely atoms with alot of empty space in continuous motion.  Even atoms when examined have no solidity or permanence.

The world appears to us through our five senses, and it is compelling.  But the dream world appears to us in exactly the same way, and when we wake up, it vanishes.

Similarly, when we go to sleep, the 'waking world' vanishes, and we move in a dream world, with seemingly real experiences.

When we die, its just like waking up from one dream into the next.

Everything is in a continual dance of moving in and out of existence.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> However in this case, both science AND religion fail big time. For something to exist then it must be created, but what created that which created it, and then what created that before that? Neither will ever answer this one epic question, and some who have pondered it too much have gone insane for obvious reasons. What created the creator?



Depends on what parameters you put on a creator.  In Judeo-Christianity, the Creator has always been.  In this regard, religion doesn't fail.

In reality though, a creator only has to be a life form beyond Man's intellect and/or capabilities.  In this case, both science and religion fail to explain the origin of the creator.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> That's why Buddhist philosophy transcends creation myths.  The world appears solid and unchanging, but when examined closely it is neither.
> 
> Matter is merely atoms with alot of empty space in continuous motion.  Even atoms when examined have no solidity or permanence.
> 
> ...



So, in Buddhist philosophy life is eternal ...  only the form that life inhabits changes?


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

Gunny said:


> I understand what you are saying.  Your last sentence though ... which "God folk?"  My take on it is he created what is within the universe.



Don't you consider yourself a believer in a Creator God?  The evidence does not exist for the belief, but I accept that you believe in a personified creator God with a gender.

What is God to you? 

It's interesting this thread is on the science forum, but nowadays physics and theology often meet.  The Dalai Lama loves to talk to scientists.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

Gunny said:


> So, in Buddhist philosophy life is eternal ...  only the form that life inhabits changes?



No.  That's not quite true.  Buddhism is the path of the middle way--neither believing in eternalism nor nihilism.

In one manner of speaking, you are getting close.  We talk about consciousness, and awareness quite a bit in Buddhism.  

We discuss what happens in the dying process and what happens after this life.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

Gunny said:


> I understand what you are saying.  Your last sentence though ... which "God folk?"  My take on it is he created what is within the universe.



Yes.  I follow what you are saying is that God created the universe.  You cannot say the universe is eternal.

More likely, IMO, universes pass in and out of existence.  Why wouldn't they?  Everything else we know about changes.

A belief in an eternal God is illogical.  But that's ok.  Beliefs are beliefs.

What gets interesting to me is when we start discussing what we think God is.  That's when we can begin to approach each other more closely, no matter what our creeds.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 14, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Depends on what parameters you put on a creator.  In Judeo-Christianity, the Creator has always been.  In this regard, religion doesn't fail.
> 
> In reality though, a creator only has to be a life form beyond Man's intellect and/or capabilities.  In this case, both science and religion fail to explain the origin of the creator.



This is very true. One thing many atheists I have spoken to about science neglect to consider is that the parameters for much of the theories are still too abstract for science to utilize, much less explain. Though science is nothing more than a label for things which can be proven, and if time permits may someday prove much more than we can even foresee, there is still a lot that our science has yet to touch on. One great example is how far we reach into space, the further we go, the more we learn that there is soooooo much more out there. Until something can be given an absolute there is no way our science can come close. This is why some form (any form) of religion is required for true happiness and enlightenment. Until science can answer everything, many need something to look forward to and religion offers that.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Yes.  I follow what you are saying is that God created the universe.  You cannot say the universe is eternal.
> 
> More likely, IMO, universes pass in and out of existence.  Why wouldn't they?  Everything else we know about changes.
> 
> ...



I am responding backwardly, to the last part it's not the topic that makes it easier to discuss, it's that not one person in this conversation has said "that's the way it is and there can be no other." So long as everyone involved maintains civility in any discussion this is the result.

Now, as for the eternal, I still believe you are mixing up terms. Again, even science calls the universe eternal, the only thing that changes is it's form and shape. Fluid was the word I would describe it as.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

Everything in the universe is impermanent.  Some of the stars we see in the heavens have already passed out of existence.

The universe is impermanent.  It is not logical to say the universe is eternal and God, as a personified Creator, is eternal.

If the universe had a beginning, it can not have been, or be, eternal.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Don't you consider yourself a believer in a Creator God?  The evidence does not exist for the belief, but I accept that you believe in a personified creator God with a gender.
> 
> What is God to you?
> 
> It's interesting this thread is on the science forum, but nowadays physics and theology often meet.  The Dalai Lama loves to talk to scientists.



I put it in science because at the point I moved it, I thought we were discussing scientific theory.  Besides, it'll last longer here before Shogun finds it goes into his Tasmanian Devil act.

I believe in a creator we call "God."  I also believe he at least initially presented himself in human form.  He has however presented himself as many different things.  

The Bible states he created Man (Adam) in his own image.  However, I don't know that gender would be all that important to a being that can create life.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

The Bible was written by men.


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> The Bible was written by men.


Written by men yet inspired by the Holy Spirit. Science cannot get a hold of that no matter how hard it tries.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

RodISHI said:


> Written by men yet inspired by the Holy Spirit. Science cannot get a hold of that no matter how hard it tries.



Inspired?  Perhaps.  But inspired by who or what?  What is it you call the Holy Spirit?

Please answer from your own direct understanding and experience, and not a bible quote, please.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Yes.  I follow what you are saying is that God created the universe.  You cannot say the universe is eternal.
> 
> More likely, IMO, universes pass in and out of existence.  Why wouldn't they?  Everything else we know about changes.
> 
> ...



I can neither say the universe is eternal nor not eternal.  

If the universe, which is the background for our existence and the existence of all energy and matter within, how can it pass out of existence and what does it pass into?  I think it is not logical to believe the universe is both infinite and finite.

As far as defining a creator, we can go ANYWHERE with that.  If in the future, Man gains the ability to create human life, AND travel back in time to the dawn of Man, what is he?  A creator who creates man in his own image.

Likewise, the aforementioned life form that is beyond Man's intellectual capability with the ability to create life.  "God" is a label humans use.  What humans perceive(d) as unexplainable way back when was always covered in superstitious beliefs based on assumptions.  

Or a creator could be the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible.   The former two could EASILY be explained away as the latter by primitive men.


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Inspired?  Perhaps.  But inspired by who or what?  What is it you call the Holy Spirit?
> 
> Please answer from your own direct understanding and experience, and not a bible quote, please.


I could not possibly describe to you something that is beyond description to one who does not know what gave them the breath of life.

The Holy Spirit is what made man through his/her breath. I say his/her because they are one inseperable being. The Holy Spirit is what rules the hearts of men/women. It is that portion within that determines/gives love. Not the love of flesh like many would proclaim but the love that is sang about in the songs that touch the hearts. It is that portion inside that no man can touch no matter how hard he/she tries. It is the love we have for one another that makes us care no matter how much we would like to be angry. it is that portion in each that knows how pure the heart of a child is before the world has corrupted the child. It is a being that can touch the heart of anyone at any time if they will renew their minds and seek Him/Her. It is the wisdom that we know is inside of us but yet we know not from where it came.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

RodISHI said:


> *I could not possibly describe to you something that is beyond description to one who does not know what gave them the breath of life.*
> The Holy Spirit is what made man through his/her breath. I say his/her because they are one inseperable being. The Holy Spirit is what rules the hearts of men/women. It is that portion within that determines/gives love. Not the love of flesh like many would proclaim but the love that is sang about in the songs that touch the hearts. It is that portion inside that no man can touch no matter how hard he/she tries. It is the love we have for one another that makes us care no matter how much we would like to be angry. it is that portion in each that knows how pure the heart of a child is before the world has corrupted the child. It is a being that can touch the heart of anyone at any time if they will renew their minds and seek Him/Her. It is the wisdom that we know is inside of us but yet we know not from where it came.



My question was an opportunity to find common ground.   Your first sentence contains a putdown.  It was more than likely not intended.

In my tradition, we refer to the 'nature of mind', or 'suchness', 'that which cannot be imagined or described'.

This is neither him nor her, or a person in anyway.  It is pure being, open presence, spaciousness.  It is an absence of hatred, jealous, pride, desire, and ignorance.  

The truth of love has to be experienced.  We can describe it with words, but that is conceptual and only approximates the meaning.


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> My question was an opportunity to find common ground.   Do you find any common ground with people who are not of your same beliefs?


Sure but I do not hedge
when it comes to what I have been shown to be true. Why would I? You asked me to explain in my own words. I did that what more is it that you want? You are eluding and telling people the Bible/Torah is in error because it was written by men. I tell you it was written by men via the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not in error and I personally know this to be true as do many others. Does that insult you?


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 14, 2008)

I ask this sky, do you know who Jesus/Yahushua is?


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

RodISHI said:


> Sure but I do not hedge
> when it comes to what I have been shown to be true. Why would I? You asked me to explain in my own words. I did that what more is it that you want? You are eluding and telling people the Bible/Torah is in error because it was written by men. I tell you it was written by men via the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not in error and I personally know this to be true as do many others. Does that insult you?



Go back and check my posts.  Nowhere have I said the Bible is in error because it was written by men.  I said the Bible was written by men.  Period.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

RodISHI said:


> I ask this sky, do you know who Jesus/Yahushua is?



Do you know what Buddha is?

Who are you referring to in these words you wrote 'one who does not know what gave them the breath of life'.


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Go back and check my posts.  Nowhere have I said the Bible is in error because it was written by men.  I said the Bible was written by men.  Period.


 Does that mean you have never said that before?


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Do you know what Buddha is?
> 
> Who are you referring to in these words you wrote 'one who does not know what gave them the breath of life'.


I do not know buddha sky. 


I am refering to anyone that does not know who gave them that breath of life that they have.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

RodISHI said:


> Does that mean you have never said that before?


Yes.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

RodISHI said:


> I do not know buddha sky.
> 
> 
> I am refering to anyone that does not know who gave them that breath of life that they have.



Do you have any interest in finding common ground?


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Yes.


Why would you use the phrase "written by men" other than to ceate an elusion that the Bible/Torah is fallible? If in fact I spoke out of turn to you personally then I do apoligize.

You say you are looking for common ground. If in fact this is the case then answer this simple question do you know who Yahashua is?


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

RodISHI said:


> Why would you use the phrase "written by men" other than to ceate an elusion that the Bible/Torah is fallible? If in fact I spoke out of turn to you personally then I do apoligize.
> 
> You say you are looking for common ground. If in fact this is the case then answer this simple question do you know who Yahashua is?[/QUOTE
> 
> ...


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you use the phrase "written by men" other than to ceate an elusion that the Bible/Torah is fallible? If in fact I spoke out of turn to you personally then I do apoligize.
> ...


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

Common ground is where we discover that we are discussing the same topic, but the concepts and words get in the way.

That's a nice story.  The moral of the story appears to be that the Buddhist was ok once she was baptized.

You admit you don't know what Buddha is anymore than I know what Yahashua.  Common ground implies a reciprocal interest.  Is your point that unless I listen to a sermon about Yahashua you have no interest in knowing what Buddha means?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 14, 2008)

Catherine Faber, Phd Biologist

The Word of God 

From desert cliff and mountaintop we trace the wide design,
Strike-slip fault and overthrust and syn and anticline...
We gaze upon creation where erosion makes it known,
And count the countless aeons in the banding of the stone.
Odd, long-vanished creatures and their tracks & shells are found;
Where truth has left its sketches on the slate below the ground. [1]
The patient stone can speak, if we but listen when it talks.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.

There are those who name the stars, who watch the sky by night,
Seeking out the darkest place, to better see the light.
Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will,
Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still		  [2]
High above the mountaintops, where only distance bars,
The truth has left its footprints in the dust between the stars.
We may watch and study or may shudder and deny,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky.

By stem and root and branch we trace, by feather, fang and fur,
How the living things that are descend from things that were.
The moss, the kelp, the zebrafish, the very mice and flies,
These tiny, humble, wordless things -- how shall they tell us lies?
We are kin to beasts; no other answer can we bring.
The truth has left its fingerprints on every living thing.
Remember, should you have to choose between them in the strife,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote life.

And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade	 [3]
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.

 	-- Catherine Faber


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

So much for interfaith dialogue.


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Common ground is where we discover that we are discussing the same topic, but the concepts and words get in the way.
> 
> That's a nice story.  The moral of the story appears to be that the Buddhist was ok once she was baptized.
> 
> You admit you don't know what Buddha is anymore than I know what Yahashua.  Common ground implies a reciprocal interest.  Is your point that unless I listen to a sermon about Yahashua you have no interest in knowing what Buddha means?


Actually there is more to the story than she just got Baptised sky. 

Do you think I need to know what Buddha means? Or is it that you do not want to hear what Yahushua means? We could go in a circle all day if you like. Or you can get to the point you wish to make, or ask the questions you have in your mind. 

See as in as much as many wish to spread Buddhism, Isalm, etc... others wish to spread Christianity. Some are just lost puppies out in the comos trying to find their way and they snag the first thing that they think gives or may give them peace.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

RodISHI said:


> Actually there is more to the story than she just got Baptised sky.
> 
> Do you think I need to know what Buddha means? Or is it that you do not want to hear what Yahushua means? We could go in a circle all day if you like. Or you can get to the point you wish to make, or ask the questions you have in your mind.
> 
> See as in as much as many wish to spread Buddhism, Isalm, etc... others wish to spread Christianity. Some are just lost puppies out in the comos trying to find their way and they snag the first thing that they think gives or may give them peace.



Never mind.   The point I make is that when you strip away the concepts and words we use in our different traditions there is a common experience.  That is the place to find peace on earth.  It is a place beyond concepts, it is heart to heart experience.

I have that when I talk to Gunny, and a few others here.  Sorry, you and I seem to have missed each other somewhere along the line.  So be it.


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Never mind.   The point I make is that when you strip away the concepts and words we use there is a common experience.
> 
> I find that often when I have good talks with others.  Sorry, I seem to not be seeing eye to eye at all with you.
> 
> Take care.


You take care also sky.




Walk in the spirit, a journal I started for friends. Needs work but the basics are there.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

RodISHI said:


> You take care also sky.



BTW I looked up the meaning of the word and it is Aramaic for Jesus or the Holy Spirit.  Buddha is a Sanskrit term that means 'one who is awake'.

In Tibetan, it is sang gye--which means to clear away and to unfold.

It is a direct, moment to moment experience.  When it occurs 24/7 lifetime after lifetime we call this enlightenment.


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> BTW I looked up the meaning of the word and it is Aramaic for Jesus.  Buddha is a Sanskrit term that means 'one who is awake'.
> 
> In Tibetan, it is sang gye--which means to clear away and to unfold.
> 
> It is a direct, moment to moment experience.  When it occurs 24/7 lifetime after lifetime we call this enlightenment.


There now you have some common ground. The Bible/Torah is much the same in the manner once awakened one needs to understand some of what the words actually mean. I left a link on the last post that tells the more complete version of my dear friends. Not that it covers it all but it hits the highlights. I started the blog last year and have not been back to write anymore since we did not have internet for awhile.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

RodISHI said:


> Actually there is more to the story than she just got Baptised sky.
> 
> Do you think I need to know what Buddha means? Or is it that you do not want to hear what Yahushua means? We could go in a circle all day if you like. Or you can get to the point you wish to make, or ask the questions you have in your mind.
> 
> See as in as much as many wish to spread Buddhism, Isalm, etc... others wish to spread Christianity. Some are just lost puppies out in the comos trying to find their way and they snag the first thing that they think gives or may give them peace.



I find what other people believe to be interesting, and in some cases, if not careful, I actually learn something new.  It does not mean you have to accept any or all of what that person believes.  

It is hard and even more rare to have this discussion without tripping over our own beliefs and not hearing what we read; rather, intent on responding "why not."  It is THE very reason you rarely see me in these discussions.  

My point being you are privileged to have an audience that is listening to what you say; which, as I mentioned, is rare where religion is concerned.  It is only fair to listen in turn, agree or not.  

ANd I don't mean this as a personal attack, so don't take it that way ... it's a serious question:  are you insecure enough in your religioous belief that you feel you have to shut out and/or put down others?  I'm just trying to understand your POV, and you are, whether or not intentionally, being subtly condescending, IMO.


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 14, 2008)

Gunny said:


> I find what other people believe to be interesting, and in some cases, if not careful, I actually learn something new.  It does not mean you have to accept any or all of what that person believes.
> 
> It is hard and even more rare to have this discussion without tripping over our own beliefs and not hearing what we read; rather, intent on responding "why not."  It is THE very reason you rarely see me in these discussions.
> 
> ...





No offense taken Gunny. No insecurity that I know of. Never hurts to do a self examination.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 14, 2008)

Let us know the results of your self-examination.


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 14, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Let us know the results of your self-examination.


That is an ongoing process. Not sure how long it will last. I'll do another study to see if the original study results concur with the lastest study results. Who knows I may be able to write a scientrific results of that study one day. A good English major to help with the study would not hurt.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 14, 2008)

Okay, since I see where this wonderful discussion is about to go I will make one last post to it myself then duck out before it goes too much further.

Sky, while a star itself may not exist anymore, the matter and energy it was made of does still exist, just in another form and place. So the universe itself is eternal, and even if it wasn't there is also the fact of what eternal means. Due to our minds being unable to comprehend past a certain value of time to us it is eternal. It was here long before us and will remain in many forms long after. So from almost all perspectives it is eternal, however it is very fluid, the matter changes frequently, even within our own grasp of time. Energy moves in many directions and shifts into many forms, again even within our tiny grasp of time. So even if there was a true 'beginning' and will be a true 'ending' we cannot perceive this, eternal is abstract not a finite time period.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 15, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Okay, since I see where this wonderful discussion is about to go I will make one last post to it myself then duck out before it goes too much further.
> 
> Sky, while a star itself may not exist anymore, the matter and energy it was made of does still exist, just in another form and place. So the universe itself is eternal, and even if it wasn't there is also the fact of what eternal means. Due to our minds being unable to comprehend past a certain value of time to us it is eternal. It was here long before us and will remain in many forms long after. So from almost all perspectives it is eternal, however it is very fluid, the matter changes frequently, even within our own grasp of time. Energy moves in many directions and shifts into many forms, again even within our tiny grasp of time. So even if there was a true 'beginning' and will be a true 'ending' we cannot perceive this, eternal is abstract not a finite time period.



It's going somewhere?  

Reconcile what you just posted in regard to fluid and matter changing frequently with SD's comment along the lines of moving in and out of existence.  

The difference I see in your and my POV and SD's is we are saying the universe is infinite, while SD is stating, by saying it moves in and out of existence that something beyond must exist to support her theory.  Sort of the "worlds within worlds" POV without calling it that.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 15, 2008)

RodISHI said:


> No offense taken Gunny. No insecurity that I know of. Never hurts to do a self examination.



I was just curious.  Trying to pinpoint where exactly you are coming from.  My POV is that no matter what anyone else believes or posts on this board ... and this discussion usually devolves into mindless insultfests ... is I am not required to change anything I believe simply because someone else believes something different.  

It is a form of self-examination, IMO, to compare my beliefs to those of others.  If my beliefs can't stand up to others, not comparing them wouldn't  make the weakness to them go away.  A hard comparison to make when one is dealing in faith.

But discussing is not selling, and I think evangelicals are cherrypicking their facts.  Yes, Christ says to spread the word.  Christ did not however force his words on unwilling audiences and cautions us to not waste our time doing so.


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 15, 2008)

Gunny said:


> I was just curious.  Trying to pinpoint where exactly you are coming from.  My POV is that no matter what anyone else believes or posts on this board ... and this discussion usually devolves into mindless insultfests ... is I am not required to change anything I believe simply because someone else believes something different.
> 
> It is a form of self-examination, IMO, to compare my beliefs to those of others.  If my beliefs can't stand up to others, not comparing them wouldn't  make the weakness to them go away.  A hard comparison to make when one is dealing in faith.
> 
> But discussing is not selling, and I think evangelicals are cherrypicking their facts.  Yes, Christ says to spread the word.  Christ did not however force his words on unwilling audiences and cautions us to not waste our time doing so.


 I agree.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 15, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> OK.  Where I'm coming from in this discussion is observing in nature that everything is impermanent.
> 
> Ourselves, as human beings, the universe and its contents and all beings therein are impermanent.
> 
> ...



Actually the Bible does not say God created the Universe.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 15, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> That's why Buddhist philosophy transcends creation myths.  The world appears solid and unchanging, but when examined closely it is neither.
> 
> Matter is merely atoms with alot of empty space in continuous motion.  Even atoms when examined have no solidity or permanence.
> 
> ...



You can no more prove the last 2 sentences then a "God" person can prove God exists. You have FAITH those sentences are true.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 15, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> No.  That's not quite true.  Buddhism is the path of the middle way--neither believing in eternalism nor nihilism.
> 
> In one manner of speaking, you are getting close.  We talk about consciousness, and awareness quite a bit in Buddhism.
> 
> We discuss what happens in the dying process and what happens after this life.



Once again you can not prove anything happens after death except that the body decomposes.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 15, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> BTW I looked up the meaning of the word and it is Aramaic for Jesus or the Holy Spirit.  Buddha is a Sanskrit term that means 'one who is awake'.
> 
> In Tibetan, it is sang gye--which means to clear away and to unfold.
> 
> It is a direct, moment to moment experience.  When it occurs 24/7 lifetime after lifetime we call this enlightenment.



You can not prove there are lifetimes after lifetimes anymore than I can prove God exists. Or that heaven exists.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can no more prove the last 2 sentences then a "God" person can prove God exists. You have FAITH those sentences are true.




It is more an extension of logic, sarge.  You don't have to believe in lifetime after lifetime.  You can merely look at this very life, and all the kinds of lives we have had in just this one life.

There is the life within the womb, a more primitive life, sometimes we resembled amoeba or an animal.  Then there is the life we experienced as babies, and toddlers, and children, and teenagers, and adulthood, and for some of us, middle aged.

If we live long, we will experience old age before we die.  we can make this extension of other lives also when we consider the dream life we have.

You are correct, I cannot prove this--it just makes logical sense to me, but I have studied this philosophy for many years, and believing in life afer death was not something I started out believing.

Concepts of eternal heaven and hell were part of my chidlhood religious indoctrination but eternalism never made sense to me.

Everything in the universe is in a continuous state of coming into and going out of existence.  Impermanence is easy to observe.

So, yes, you may say this is a belief, but it is one based on observation and logic.

The analogy of life being dreamlike makes sense to me because when we go to sleep, the waking universe for us, dissolves in our experience, and then through the five senses we experience the dream life as real.

Since Buddhist teachings are about enlightenment, this is the direction we train in.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again you can not prove anything happens after death except that the body decomposes.



What you describe is a point of view called nihilism.  Nothing happens after death, because you think the body is all important.  The body is merely a vehicle for consciousness.  We cannot prove consciousness either.  It does not have a color, smell, taste, touch or feel, but we experience consciousness in this very moment.

It is consciousness that moves the body.  Even though we cannot see consciousness leave the body when we die, we do know that something has changed.   When the body dies, no matter how much we loved the person, we cannot wait to get rid of the corpse.  The body is not you or me.  So what are we?

We are consciousness, and we can become aware of consciousness by training our minds and hearts in meditation.  Then when we die, there will be a seamless transition to the next life, and if we are fortunate, that will be another human life, so that we can train again toward enlightenment.

If we train now, to experience the dream world lucidly, it will prepare us well for the dying process.

The philosophies behind all religious teachings are merely methods for experiencing and training in recognizing 'that which cannot be imagined or described.'

What's wonderful Sarge, is that you have great questions.  It makes so much sense to not take anything on faith alone.  You must engage your intellect and mind.  In Buddhism, we don't expect anyone to take anything just on faith.  Questions are encouraged.  The great Khenpos or scholars in my tradition not only are well studied, but they are well practiced in meditation, and they know from direct experience, the truth of these teachings.

I have faith in them, not just because of their learnedness, but because of the qualities they demonstrate.  Infallible signs of practice are limitless seeming love, compassion, joy, and equanimity.

Love does not mean merely romantic love in Buddhism, nor does it mean only the attachment we feel toward our family and loved ones.  Love in Buddhism, means the wish for other beings to be happy.  Compassion in Buddhism does not mean sympathy, or pity.  Compassion means the sincere desire for others to be free of suffering.  Each and every being, without exception.

Joy does not mean wallowing in pleasant experience.  Joy in Buddhism means rejoicing in the fortune of others.  Equanimity means an equal kind regard for all beings--whether they are friends, enemies or strangers.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 15, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> It is more an extension of logic, sarge.  You don't have to believe in lifetime after lifetime.  You can merely look at this very life, and all the kinds of lives we have had in just this one life.
> 
> There is the life within the womb, a more primitive life, sometimes we resembled amoeba or an animal.  Then there is the life we experienced as babies, and toddlers, and children, and teenagers, and adulthood, and for some of us, middle aged.
> 
> ...



There is no "logic" that leads one to believe in reincarnation. It is simply the same desire by your beliefs to find solace in the fact we die. We believe in Heaven, you believe in multiple lives.

A non religious person would explain that as man's desire to make sense of life and death. To provide a meaning of some kind that man can grasp and hold on to.

You keep saying nothing is eternal, yet you keep saying life is a continious cycle. Which is it? IF, as you claim, life is a cycle that repeats over and over, guess what? It never ends. It just changes.

I suggest you think about eternal in a different manner. Eternal means in at least one sense, never ending. Your belief that life is a cycle that repeats over and over, also is in a way never ending.

Others have used the concept here and you seem to not be grasping it. Just because everything changes does not mean nothing is eternal. A repeating cycle that never ends would be eternal. A universe that constantly changes but continues to exist in one form or another, is eternal.

You do not have a problem grasping the concept except you get wrapped up in the Christian belief system which you do not believe in. Ignore the "eternal" God concept and apply eternal to YOUR concept of life cycles. You do not believe in God, so it does not matter if we believe he is eternal or not, since YOU believe we are worshipping a false concept.

Change alone does not negate the term eternal EXCEPT in regards a very FINITE item, entity or such.

It is all semantics. IF you believe that life is a continuing cycle from one state to another, then ask your self " Does the cycle ever end?" If your answer is no then the CYCLE is eternal.

Science supports eternity also. Science states that you can not destroy or eliminate certain things. They change , they become different, but the basic block NEVER goes away.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 15, 2008)

Where I think we find common ground in all religions is in what I label; 'that which cannot be imagined or described' or 'that which is' pure being itself.

Some people call that God, IMO.  Where Buddhism departs from theists, is that those who belief in God tend to personify God, and put personality characteristics onto God.  God is angry, God is judging, etc etc.

In Buddhism, we examine that which separates us from 'that which cannot be imagined or described' which tends to be words and concepts.  Every religion IMO is trying to get to the same thing, direct experience, moment to moment of spacious presence beyond the confines of our ordinary minds.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 15, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> So Gunny, you believe in eternity?  Eternal god, eternal damnation, eternal heaven?
> 
> What in this world or the universe can you point to that proves 'eternalism'?



I think all material things are limited. Only God, love, and our souls have the potential to last forever.

IMO.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 15, 2008)

Gunny said:


> It's going somewhere?
> 
> Reconcile what you just posted in regard to fluid and matter changing frequently with SD's comment along the lines of moving in and out of existence.
> 
> The difference I see in your and my POV and SD's is we are saying the universe is infinite, while SD is stating, by saying it moves in and out of existence that something beyond must exist to support her theory.  Sort of the "worlds within worlds" POV without calling it that.



Well ... normally when an intelligent conversation get this far it starts attracting some of those who like to degrade it for some reason, but this one is holding longer than I had expected, cool. 

Perhaps the 'world within worlds' idea is what Sky is using. If so the fluid isn't the right word either. Fluid is the description used because the universe is constantly shifting forms, matter is changing between states and recently we discovered than while matter and energy cannot be destroyed or created the two are interchangeable, a shock to the scientists but a theory I had a LOOONG time ago (I got to say "I told ya so" to a local scientist, WOOT!), and this has reinforced the fluid description even more. It's using a more abstract description of the behavior of matter and energy in place of the long explanation of how everything is working on the 'action-reaction' law thus constantly changing. Also, the movement of stars and planets is often described as fluid.


----------



## Abelian Sea (Dec 15, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Everything in the universe is in a continuous state of coming into and going out of existence. Impermanence is easy to observe.



Except that there appears to be a base substance that doesn't go away.

People die, but that of which they are made remains. People are born and grow, but physically they build themselves out of material they injest.

Same with objects; material is gathered to make them and when they end, that material is still around in some form.

That too is easy to observe and fuels my suspicion that there is something permanent underlying all that we experience.



> The analogy of life being dreamlike makes sense to me because when we go to sleep, the waking universe for us, dissolves in our experience, and then through the five senses we experience the dream life as real.



That really bothered me when I was a kid. I occasionally have some very realistic dreams and I used to worry "how do I know when I'm dreaming and when I'm awake?" I heard of the "pinch me" method and, later, the smell test (the idea being that dreams don't do well with olfactory sensation, so if, for example, you smell your stinky stocks and they don't stink, you're probably dreaming) but had dreams that could pass those tests.

I got it worked out, though. There is a continuousness to waking reality. In it, you can track your sensory input back a few minutes and find all sorts of mundane details that are glossed over in dreams. You can ask, "how did I physically just get here? Did I walk, drive?" I've never had a dream that could incorporate a realistic fifteen minute car ride without disolving or becoming entirely about riding in a car with no particular destination. Waking experience has a smooth continuum of contexts, whereas the paramaters of dreams shift about willy-nilly. There's also the influence of outside forces; while awake you feel these keenly and constantly, whereas in a dream the flow is rarely disturbed by factors outside of yourself, and even then the connection between outer event and dream event is typically attenuated.

My point being, waking reality is fundamentally different from dreams, in ways that, I think, make it eminently more qualified to be called "real." It is connected and on-going. I enjoy dreaming and have paid attention to it all my life, and based on that can't help but conclude that dreams really are just momentary confusions, where the emotional and sensory background static become the sole focus of the mind, which then just makes some shit up because it's used to things making sense and being connected. Therefore, I'm wary of any analogy based on dreaming vs. waking experience that puts the two on the same level of reality.

And yes, I know waking reality could be a trick, like in the Matrix. But if it is, well, then, I'm falling for it.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 15, 2008)

Point to one object in the Universe that is permanent.  Waking reality and dream reality are essentially the same.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 15, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Point to one object in the Universe that is permanent.  Waking reality and dream reality are essentially the same.



Not in _my_ dreams. 

Have you seen the movie Waking Life? you might enjoy it.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 15, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Point to one object in the Universe that is permanent.  Waking reality and dream reality are essentially the same.



Certainly there is a difference.  However, your statement does give clarity to what I suspected, in the context of the universe moving in and out of existence.  I take it you mean moving in and out of one existence into another?  If that is the case, then it is still eternal, only now you have something the universe must exist within to move in and out of.  

Your stance seems very logical except this part.  It is not logical to assume there is no eternal stage for existence.  Anything that does not exist, cannot exist without being created.  Be it a human, or a universe.  If the universe is created, then it exists on an even bigger stage that supports its existence.

Or, as I contend, the universe is the stage we exist on.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 15, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Certainly there is a difference.  However, your statement does give clarity to what I suspected, in the context of the universe moving in and out of existence.  I take it you mean moving in and out of one existence into another?  If that is the case, then it is still eternal, only now you have something the universe must exist within to move in and out of.
> 
> Your stance seems very logical except this part.  *It is not logical to assume there is no eternal stage for existence.  Anything that does not exist, cannot exist without being created.  Be it a human, or a universe.  If the universe is created, then it exists on an even bigger stage that supports its existence.
> 
> Or, as I contend, the universe is the stage we exist on*.



An eternal stage for existence?  That doesn't make sense to me.  Everything, the universe, it's contents and all beings therein are impermanent.  But what is it that the universe arises within?  Is that unobstructed, authentic and incorruptible?  Is that space itself indestructible?  Is this what some may call God?

What if what you call "God' or I call Buddha is spacious presence, the ground of being itself?  What if it is within this spacious presence that the impermanent universe, its contents and beings therein arises?  

Just like a mirror is the ground for the arising of an image, the image cannot be established to be anything other than the mirror.  The sky is the ground for the arising of a rainbow, the rainbow cannot be established to be anything other than the sky.  This may be the essential truth of inseparability, oneness, all pervasiveness.  This may be the way to determine what is true, and what is false.

Rather than describing this within the limitation of time--whether eternal or non-eternal, the essence itself, this spacious presence, the ground of being can in no way be altered by flaws, it is incorruptible.  In Buddhism, we may say the perfection of sublime knowing is unborn and unceasing, free of flaws.  Indescribable, inconcievable, and inexpressible.

All material objects can be injured by weapons, they are vulnerable.  Since conditions can conquer or destroy them, they are destructible.  Since they can change into one thing or many, they are false.   Since they can be altered, they are corruptible. Since they involve movement and vacillation and have no permanent location, they are unstable.  Things so characterized have no true existence.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 15, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Certainly there is a difference.  However, your statement does give clarity to what I suspected, in the context of the universe moving in and out of existence.  I take it you mean moving in and out of one existence into another?  If that is the case, then it is still eternal, only now you have something the universe must exist within to move in and out of.
> 
> Your stance seems very logical except this part.  It is not logical to assume there is no eternal stage for existence.  Anything that does not exist, cannot exist without being created.  Be it a human, or a universe.  If the universe is created, then it exists on an even bigger stage that supports its existence.
> 
> Or, as I contend, the universe is the stage we exist on.



I like the stage reference. You also make a great point, the what does the universe exist in? Then what does that exist in as well? Bah! There you go making me think on that track. *shudder* okay ... as disturbing as the possibilities are to me, it's one topic which some writers have jumped on. My two favorites have very different theories, each have their own merit. One (Asimov) believed that the universe is actually part of an atom to another, then another, etc.. The other (Lovecraft) believed it is some alien experiment that was forgotten about and that the universe is actually just a zoo for some beings so different from us we can't even imagine them.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 15, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> An eternal stage for existence?  That doesn't make sense to me.  Everything, the universe, it's contents and all beings therein are impermanent.  But what is it that the universe arises within?  Is that unobstructed, authentic and incorruptible?  Is that space itself indestructible?  Is this what some may call God?
> 
> What if what you call "God' or I call Buddha is spacious presence, the ground of being itself?  What if it is within this spacious presence that the impermanent universe, its contents and beings therein arises?
> 
> ...



You keep saying the universe is impermanent and this is where I disagree.  It cannot be.  I agree that everything within is.  However, the universe cannot pass out of existence, then back into existence without a creator.  Once it passes out of existence there is nothing.  Nothing is absolute.  _Something_ (the universe) cannot come from nothing of its own volition.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 15, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> I like the stage reference. You also make a great point, the what does the universe exist in? Then what does that exist in as well? Bah! There you go making me think on that track. *shudder* okay ... as disturbing as the possibilities are to me, it's one topic which some writers have jumped on. My two favorites have very different theories, each have their own merit. One (Asimov) believed that the universe is actually part of an atom to another, then another, etc.. The other (Lovecraft) believed it is some alien experiment that was forgotten about and that the universe is actually just a zoo for some beings so different from us we can't even imagine them.



If you look, I mentioned something similar to Lovecraft earlier in the thread.  All a creator really would have to be is something -- a life force --beyond Man's ability to comprehend with the ability to create life.  That would be "God" to mortal man.

The worlds within worlds concept is a bit too fantastic for me.  That is completely outside the realm of supportable theory, IMO.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 15, 2008)

Gunny said:


> You keep saying the universe is impermanent and this is where I disagree.  It cannot be.  I agree that everything within is.  However, the universe cannot pass out of existence, then back into existence without a creator.  Once it passes out of existence there is nothing.  Nothing is absolute.  _Something_ (the universe) cannot come from nothing of its own volition.


Hmm. I'm gonna have to come back to this from another angle.  Let me see if I can approach it in a different way.

All phenomena arise from ever-changing relationships with other phenomena, including the minds of the observers.  I am concerned with HOW things exist, not IF and WHETHER things exist, or WHY things exist, such as God, the devil or the spaghetti monster made them.

1) The universe consists of myriads of particles in a constant state of movement.

(2) These particles form aggregates which hang together for a time and then disintegrate.

Nothing whatsoever remains identical from one moment to the next.  All 'things' are impermanent, and so all things are in reality processes. Things do not stay the same from one millisecond to the next. Anything composed of atoms is composed of parts in a constant state of flux.   Existence is merely impermanence viewed in slow-motion.

Because this is how the universe exists in continuous motion, we can say it is transient, not permanent.

We cannot say that we as human beings inherently exist;

(1) An inherently existing entity exists in splendid isolation without the need to reference any other entity. It is completely defined by its own nature.

(2) An inherently existing entity is uncaused.

(3) It is indestructible.

(4) It is eternal.

(5) It is unchanging when viewed externally.

(6) It cannot undergo any internal changes of state.

(7) It either has no constituent parts, or if it has parts those parts are inseparable.

(8) Consequently, nothing can be ejected or removed from it.

(9) Nothing can be added to it (this would change its definition).

(10) No change in external conditions (up to and including the destruction of the entire universe) can affect it.


God may be a candidate for an inherently existing entity, but if he were truly inherently-existent he could never undergo a change of state in response to external conditions (eg become angry at sinners/infidels and send plagues, pestilences, shaheeds etc to destroy them). Neither would it matter to him whether he was worshipped or not, for no external factor could in the slightest degree affect him.

Also, if God is omnipotent, he has the power to destroy everything, including himself. So even God must be empty of inherent existence because his continued existence is contingent on his not committing suicide.


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 15, 2008)

where do things go when they go into a 'black hole'


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 15, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> where do things go when they go into a 'black hole'



I suggest looking it up because it's REALLY complicated, but to simplify:

A black hole isn't a hole at all, it's a collection of REALLY dense matter than has a very strong gravitational pull. Everything that gets too close is mashed into this same dense ball of matter.


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 15, 2008)

o i got the concept of the black hole....but i still dont think it just intensifies into this massive thing...that is thinking like magnets hitting magnets etc...but something else has to be happening in black holes....


----------



## Gunny (Dec 16, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Hmm. I'm gonna have to come back to this from another angle.  Let me see if I can approach it in a different way.
> 
> All phenomena arise from ever-changing relationships with other phenomena, including the minds of the observers.  I am concerned with HOW things exist, not IF and WHETHER things exist, or WHY things exist, such as God, the devil or the spaghetti monster made them.
> 
> ...



Obviously, I need another avenue of apporach as well.  In your #1 above, you say "the universe consists of ..."  The implication that universe is the playing field is clear.  

IF the universe is infinite, it cannot, in and of itself, be transient.  There is nothing else.  The universe cannot go outside itself in order to be transient if it is all.

All matter and energy WITHIN the universe is transient.

You are projecting onto "God" using logic limitted by your intellectual capability.  I don't know the answer to "What exactly is God?"  "God" can be anything beyond Man's intellectual capability to understand and possessing the technology to create life.

In your transient universe, everything is in a constant state of change.  Yet, we remain a constant.  By accident or design?  It is not logical, IMO,  to assume that in complete chaos, something as orderly as life on Earth, and Man's self-awareness is mere happenstance.  

Your last statement about God is circular logic.  God may or may not have the ability to destroy himself.  If he is above all the other emotions you say he is, then certainly he would be above whatever emotion leads to suicide?

Man ascribes to "God" certain man-like qualities that IMO, are NOT representative of a benevolent and loving God.  In that regard, we are in agreement.  

Even if we take the Holy Bible at its stated word -- that it is the Word of God as told to Man -- Man STILL wrote the Bible and I learned real quick in 4 years of journalism that if you give Man a pen, he's editorializing.  And if you give government a God, they are going to ensure that history records that God is on their side.  

In that regard, I don't agree with the strict teachings of Christianity that the Bible is THE unquestionable word.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 16, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> o i got the concept of the black hole....but i still dont think it just intensifies into this massive thing...that is thinking like magnets hitting magnets etc...but something else has to be happening in black holes....



Within the context of this conversation, it is energy and matter WITHIN the universe.  Other than that, it is what it is.  A vortex that disentegrates matter that is sucked into it.  

Nobody I know of has come out the other side to let us know what the end result is.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 16, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Within the context of this conversation, it is energy and matter WITHIN the universe.  Other than that, it is what it is.  A vortex that disentegrates matter that is sucked into it.
> 
> Nobody I know of has come out the other side to let us know what the end result is.



A black hole isn't really a 'hole,' so I don't think there is anyway of passing through one and coming out the other side.  A black hole is an object.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 16, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Obviously, I need another avenue of apporach as well.  In your #1 above, you say "the universe consists of ..."  The implication that universe is the playing field is clear.
> 
> IF the universe is infinite, it cannot, in and of itself, be transient.  There is nothing else.  The universe cannot go outside itself in order to be transient if it is all.
> 
> ...



The Bible itself gives WARNING about changing one word of it and what will happen to those that do leave out or add to the Bible....

These warnings were not there by happenstance imho....

In other words, God, being Omni past, present, future, was well aware that His inspired Word would be messed with, by man.  Otherwise, there would be no need for such a warning...again, imo....so, i guess I am agreeing with you.

Care


----------



## Care4all (Dec 16, 2008)

Buddhism is very interesting to me....moreso, than many other religions that differ with my own!  

There are some theories that during the years that Christ has no history writen about him in the Bible, that Jesus traveled to Asia with his uncle and spent some time in Asia...

(please don't ask me to prove such, i just remember reading it somewehere, some time ago!)


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 16, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Buddhism is very interesting to me....moreso, than many other religions that differ with my own!
> 
> There are some theories that during the years that Christ has no history writen about him in the Bible, that Jesus traveled to Asia with his uncle and spent some time in Asia...
> 
> (please don't ask me to prove such, i just remember reading it somewehere, some time ago!)


There are records of some dynasty rulers talking to God. Records have been found in China that have the Lion, the Light and the Lamb. I'll try to remember where I was reading those records (It has been more than a few years back) and see if I can find them online. If I can find them online I'll put a link in.

A history writer wrote referring to God's Chinese Son

This is a forum in China where they discuss faith. You may need a languag pack to read the posts. Very good conversation in this particular string about the divisions in the America's and Europe over religion. http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/redirect.php?gid=2&fid=13&tid=545622&goto=nextnewset

Traditionsanother link to give some insight.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 16, 2008)

You know, Science has proven or taken as truth, that the Universe is expanding....i don't know where that fits in to eternal?

And then the theory of parallel universes/M/string theory.

I am with Ret gny sarg on this, when it comes to the Bible....it states that God created the Heavens and the Earth and gathered all the waters within it and put them on Earth, and the Bible also stated that the heavens and the stars within such, were infinite...uncountable, while men on Earth actually thought they knew the "number" of stars in the sky and gave them a "number" in count....but it doesn't say the term  Universe, (I don't think?)....and in the very last book of the Bible it states that God created a new Heaven and a new Earth as well....

I don't know where any of that fits in to this equation!  

care


----------



## Amanda (Dec 16, 2008)

Care4all said:


> You know, Science has proven or taken as truth, that the Universe is expanding....i don't know where that fits in to eternal?
> 
> And then the theory of parallel universes/M/string theory.
> 
> ...



I'm good with the biblical explanation. I don't think we need any more understanding of the universe for most of our lives. Maybe someone trying to launch a rocket into space needs to know more, but not 99.9% of the people.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 16, 2008)

The elements of the universe are eternal. They cannot be created or destroyed, only moved and rearranged. it is hard for our finite minds to comprehend that such things have always been. When we think of something being created we think of something being made out of thin air when in reality it is an arrangement of physical and spiritual matter. And although we do not see it, spirit is still matter but can only be detected by spiritual means.
In the end, we will all see that it is matter. Just a more pure version of it.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 16, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Buddhism is very interesting to me....moreso, than many other religions that differ with my own!
> 
> There are some theories that during the years that Christ has no history writen about him in the Bible, that Jesus traveled to Asia with his uncle and spent some time in Asia...
> 
> (please don't ask me to prove such, i just remember reading it somewehere, some time ago!)



Some say that when Jesus 'wandered in the desert' for three years, he wandered to India and he studied meditation with Buddhist masters.

There is speculation that Christ's body disappearing--aka his resurrection--is a phenomena called rainbow body which Buddhist saints achieve.  The body literally dissolves into light after dying.  To this day, highly accomplished Buddhist masters achieve this evidence of enlightenment; the rainbow body.


Of course, this kind of story rankles fundamentalist Christians, who consider it blasphemy.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 16, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Some say that when Jesus 'wandered in the desert' for three years, he wandered to India and he studied meditation with Buddhist masters.
> 
> There is speculation that Christ's body disappearing--aka his resurrection--is a phenomena called rainbow body which Buddhist saints achieve.  The body literally dissolves into light after dying.  To this day, highly accomplished Buddhist masters achieve this evidence of enlightenment; the rainbow body.
> 
> ...



You might enjoy Christopher Moore's book "Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff" I found it really funny and interesting. Some Christians would be appalled by it.


----------



## Abelian Sea (Dec 16, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Waking reality and dream reality are essentially the same.



 If you say so. That statement doesn't comport with my experiences/observations, though.

The most immediately relevant difference I've noticed between them is one of consequences. In a dream, it doesn't really matter what you do or don't do. It doesn't effect anyone else, and its effect on the dream itself is rather random and blurred away quickly. In waking reality, what you do does have an impact on other people's personal realities, and has lasting, detectable, and often predictable effects on the world. 

I suppose you could see the effects of your actions on the two realities as being merely different in degree; in one the effects are shorter-lived and less predictable, in the other longer- and more, so there is little in the way of "essential" difference. In this one sense I could see the waking world being a "slow dream."

But when it comes to other people, the difference is stark and telling. In a dream you cannot have an impact on another person. In waking reality you generally cannot avoid effecting other people. This, along with the longevity and continuity of consequences in waking reality, suggests that waking reality is far more of a "real world" than dream reality. Our actions _matter_ in the waking world; they bring happiness and misery to other experience-having beings.

Other differences I've noticed between the two kinds of reality (from the way they play on the senses to the ways in which one can cheat laws of motion) all also seem to support the notion that waking reality is real place that we inhabit and dreams are short delusions that inhabit us.

Perhaps there are just things I'm ignorant of, but this issue began to seriously concern me when I was four years old and currently my conclusion is that waking reality and dream reality are _not_ essentially the same.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 16, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> A black hole isn't really a 'hole,' so I don't think there is anyway of passing through one and coming out the other side.  A black hole is an object.



Cool with me.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 16, 2008)

Care4all said:


> You know, Science has proven or taken as truth, that the Universe is expanding....i don't know where that fits in to eternal?
> 
> And then the theory of parallel universes/M/string theory.
> 
> ...



Science theorizes the universe is expanding.  In order to come to this conclusion one would need at least a center; which, science does not have.  All science can say with certainty is that it appears the universe is expanding based on observation from Earth.  

If it is expanding, WHAT is it expanding into?


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 16, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Science theorizes the universe is expanding.  In order to come to this conclusion one would need at least a center; which, science does not have.  All science can say with certainty is that it appears the universe is expanding based on observation from Earth.
> 
> If it is expanding, WHAT is it expanding into?



Good point, and the real flaw with the 'big bang' theory. Moving, yes the universe is constantly moving, expanding ... from where?


----------



## B94 (Dec 18, 2008)

Come on people lets get some of this straight. 
Dreams are not reality but reality might be a dream. The universe and all that is known to man fits in one grain of sand on the beach full of sand. The answer to most of the questions in this thread is that man knows very little and then tries to explain the unknown. I particularly like the people that have determined what happens to people after they die.


----------



## XVZ (Dec 18, 2008)

RodISHI said:


> There are records of some dynasty rulers talking to God.


This is the science and technology forum. Magic man belongs on the fantasy board.


Care4all said:


> You know, Science has proven or taken as truth, that the Universe is expanding....i don't know where that fits in to eternal?


Science has only evidence to suggest that the galaxies are all moving away from each other. That is what is meant by 'the universe is expanding' and from there different theories will have different elements but none of them are 'proven'.



Care4all said:


> And then the theory of parallel universes/M/string theory.


This can go on the fantasy board as well. There is no evidence and I am not aware of a string theory that actually makes a prediction that could in theory be tested (the essence of science).



Care4all said:


> I am with Ret gny sarg on this, when it comes to the Bible....it states that God *[snip...]*


Now you are getting off topic with psychobabble.



Amanda said:


> I'm good with the biblical explanation.


Now there is the mark of wasted mind. You are 'good' with an explanation that has no evidence in support of and was dreamed up by mere men with the knowledge of caveman 



Truthspeaker said:


> The elements of the universe are eternal. They cannot be created or destroyed, only moved and rearranged. it is hard for our finite minds to comprehend that such things have always been. When we think of something being created we think of something being made out of thin air when in reality it is an arrangement of physical and spiritual matter.


What the hell is *spiritual matter*?



sky dancer said:


> Of course, this kind of story rankles fundamentalist Christians, who consider it blasphemy.


You and Christians alike are blasphemous! Blasphemous to rational and sane thinking.



sky dancer said:


> Waking reality and dream reality are essentially the same.


I've been consciously aware many times while asleep that I am dreaming.


Gunny said:


> Science theorizes the universe is expanding.  In order to come to this conclusion one would need at least a center; which, science does not have.  All science can say with certainty is that it appears the universe is expanding based on observation from Earth.
> 
> If it is expanding, WHAT is it expanding into?


If you draw points on a balloon and blow it up, it would appear from each point's perspective that it is the center and everything is traveling away from it. So no, a center need not be defined. Also, the big bang theory from which the accelerating universe is derived from says nothing about the creation of the universe or that everything was located at a specific point. All it says is that sometime in the past, the universe was very dense and had an explosion of expansion called inflation that eventually dissipated and then began accelerating again.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 18, 2008)

XVZ said:


> Now there is the mark of wasted mind. You are 'good' with an explanation that has no evidence in support of and was dreamed up by mere men with the knowledge of caveman



Unlike a lot of people on the interweb I've never claimed to be smart. What's so wasted about what I believe? I'm not doing anything where it would matter one way or the other what I believed.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 18, 2008)

Amanda said:


> Unlike a lot of people on the interweb I've never claimed to be smart. What's so wasted about what I believe? I'm not doing anything where it would matter one way or the other what I believed.



nothing's wrong with it....

he/she just wants to appear as though THEY are smart....it seems....  

this is where runoff, is a good thing....let his/her opinion wash away....


----------



## XVZ (Dec 18, 2008)

Amanda said:


> Unlike a lot of people on the interweb I've never claimed to be smart. What's so wasted about what I believe? I'm not doing anything where it would matter one way or the other what I believed.


Certainly you do not have to devote your mind to science, but if you are going discuss such topics, I'd hope you respect rudimentary concepts and know that unsupported conjectures such as religion have no place. One stands out like a peasant at a feast for kings when they prattle on with psychobabble about supernatural dogma beliefs when the order of the day is scientific inquiry.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 18, 2008)

XVZ said:


> Certainly you do not have to devote your mind to science, but if you are going discuss such topics, I'd hope you respect rudimentary concepts and know that unsupported conjectures such as religion have no place. One stands out like a peasant at a feast for kings when they prattle on with psychobabble about supernatural dogma beliefs when the order of the day is scientific inquiry.



So even though there are plenty of scientists that believe in God you would like to exclude God from the discussion. I guess it does make it easier to be right if you keep dissenting opinions out. 

I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong, all I said was that the Bible is good enough for me. I don't know why that is such a threatening concept. Don't believe it if you don't want to.


----------



## XVZ (Dec 18, 2008)

Amanda said:


> So even though there are plenty of scientists that believe in God you would like to exclude God from the discussion. I guess it does make it easier to be right if you keep dissenting opinions out.


No respectable scientist will bring up a god in a scientific discussion. Humans are by nature irrational and most scientist who claim to subscribe to faith readily admit their knowledge that it is an irrational belief, one that has no basis in science and therefore completely divorced from scientific inquiry. Then you have so-called Christian scientists who are anything but scientists, so do not attempt to use them. You will also note a trend that the more distinguished and accomplished a scientist is, the more likely that person is to be an atheist. The percentage of the the top scientists in the world that are atheist are inverse that you will find for the general population. Around 90% are atheist, whereas about 90% of the general population believes in magical mythologies affectionately called religion. 



Amanda said:


> I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong, all I said was that the Bible is good enough for me. I don't know why that is such a threatening concept. Don't believe it if you don't want to.


Well if you had your facts straight, I don't think you'd bother to bring up such a stupid straw man!


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 18, 2008)

XVZ said:


> No respectable scientist will bring up a god in a scientific discussion. Humans are by nature irrational and most scientist who claim to subscribe to faith readily admit their knowledge that it is an irrational belief, one that has no basis in science and therefore completely divorced from scientific inquiry. Then you have so-called Christian scientists who are anything but scientists, so do not attempt to use them. You will also note a trend that the more distinguished and accomplished a scientist is, the more likely that person is to be an atheist. The percentage of the the top scientists in the world that are atheist are inverse that you will find for the general population. Around 90% are atheist, whereas about 90% of the general population believes in magical mythologies affectionately called religion.
> 
> 
> Well if you had your facts straight, I don't think you'd bother to bring up such a stupid straw man!



Dude you are way out of line. No respectable scientist? Although Albert Einstein's concept of god was different from a lot of peoples he still believed there was one. I guess because he isn't in this new and enlightened age we live in he is now no longer respectable. Probably because he believes in God.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein)
"I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." 
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
How about Dr. Francis Collins living today. Religious wackos like us are hard to shut up when we back it up with logic.
javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/bestoftv/2007/04/03/foreman.francis.collins.intv.cnn','2009/04/02');


----------



## Amanda (Dec 18, 2008)

XVZ said:


> No respectable scientist will bring up a god in a scientific discussion. Humans are by nature irrational and most scientist who claim to subscribe to faith readily admit their knowledge that it is an irrational belief, one that has no basis in science and therefore completely divorced from scientific inquiry. Then you have so-called Christian scientists who are anything but scientists, so do not attempt to use them. You will also note a trend that the more distinguished and accomplished a scientist is, the more likely that person is to be an atheist. The percentage of the the top scientists in the world that are atheist are inverse that you will find for the general population. Around 90% are atheist, whereas about 90% of the general population believes in magical mythologies affectionately called religion.


 
You make a lot of sweeping generalizations for someone trying to prove the kind of point you're pursuing. So if a scientist is Christian they are anything but scientists, huh? Ok, you win. 



XVZ said:


> Well if you had your facts straight, I don't think you'd bother to bring up such a stupid straw man!


LOL, I get called stupid as a profession, do you think it bothers me when someone does it on the interweb?  You're going to have to try harder if you're going to hurt my feelings.

I wonder sometimes if all the "smart people are usually atheists" stuff also holds true about angry people. I sure meet a lot of angry people that claim to be smart. Here's one you'll like: I'd rather be happy than smart. Srsly. Have fun with it.


----------



## XVZ (Dec 18, 2008)

Amanda said:


> You make a lot of sweeping generalizations for someone trying to prove the kind of point you're pursuing. So if a scientist is Christian they are anything but scientists, huh? Ok, you win.


Wrong, you misunderstand completely. Someone is perfectly capable of being a scientist and a christian, a so-called "Christian scientist" (that is their self proclaimed title most of the time) are people who attempt to use science to prove their preconceived religious beliefs.

Anyone who takes that approaching of attempting to prove something they want to believe is not practicing science. That was my point, it is not my fault that you aren't capable of understanding something so basic.



Amanda said:


> LOL, I get called stupid as a profession, do you think it bothers me when someone does it on the interweb?  You're going to have to try harder if you're going to hurt my feelings.


If you understood what I said, you'd know I was not calling you stupid. Do you know what a straw man is?  Here is a hint, it is not a reference to your lack of womanhood.



Amanda said:


> I wonder sometimes if all the "smart people are usually atheists" stuff also holds true about angry people. I sure meet a lot of angry people that claim to be smart. Here's one you'll like: I'd rather be happy than smart. Srsly. Have fun with it.


I assure you that any perception of anger is all in your head, just like your god fellow.



Truthspeaker said:


> Dude you are way out of line. No respectable scientist? Although Albert Einstein's concept of god was different from a lot of peoples he still believed there was one. I guess because he isn't in this new and enlightened age we live in he is now no longer respectable. Probably because he believes in God.


Where did I say no respectable scientist will believe in a god? Did I say that? No. You'd like for me to say that so you could prattle on with your diatribe. But that is not what I said, try again.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 18, 2008)

XVZ said:


> I assure you that any perception of anger is all in your head, just like your god fellow.



When I was talking about smart people why did you think I was including you? 

I'm sorry, that wasn't nice, but I thought it fitting sense you implied that I wasn't capable following your post. Maybe some tit for tat will make you see how condescending you're being. Or maybe not. Whatever.

I'm going to go back to being happy now. Have fun being smart.


----------



## XVZ (Dec 18, 2008)

Amanda said:


> When I was talking about smart people why did you think I was including you?
> 
> I'm sorry, that wasn't nice, but I thought it fitting sense you implied that I wasn't capable following your post. Maybe some tit for tat will make you see how condescending you're being. Or maybe not. Whatever.
> 
> I'm going to go back to being happy now. Have fun being smart.


As soon as you show any evidence of being able to comprehend what I have written, I will make note to offer you a congratulation.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 18, 2008)

"No respectable scientist will bring up a god in a scientific discussion." Are the exact words if you just scroll up Einstein. PUn intended


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 18, 2008)

It doesn't take a scientist to be able to see through your thinly veiled disbelief in God.


----------



## XVZ (Dec 18, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> It doesn't take a scientist to be able to see through your thinly veiled disbelief in God.


I stand by that statement. Perhaps you are confused as to what a scientific discussion is.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 18, 2008)

XVZ

Are you an eternalist?  If so, you have much in common with people who believe in God.


----------



## XVZ (Dec 18, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> XVZ
> 
> Are you an eternalist?  If so, you have much in common with people who believe in God.


Commonality with those who believe in a god is not news to me, everyone in my family are religious loons. Fortunately the indoctrination started late with me and the BS never took root


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 18, 2008)

XVZ said:


> Commonality with those who believe in a god is not news to me, everyone in my family are religious loons. Fortunately the indoctrination started late with me and the BS never took root



Are you saying that you feel as though the universe is eternal?  That's a religious POV, not a scientific one.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 18, 2008)

XVZ said:


> I stand by that statement. Perhaps you are confused as to what a scientific discussion is.



Well at least I showed you where you stated that no respectable scientist would consider the existence of a God when you said you didn't make that statement. Now you are standing by that statement. Good for you.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 18, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Everything in the universe is impermanent.  Some of the stars we see in the heavens have already passed out of existence.
> 
> The universe is impermanent.  It is not logical to say the universe is eternal and God, as a personified Creator, is eternal.
> 
> If the universe had a beginning, it can not have been, or be, eternal.



In science, it is time that has a beginning. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If energy cannot be created, it can't increase and if it can't be destroyed, it can't decrease therefore,  if energy can't increase or decrease it is a constant. Energy can only change form.


----------



## PeterS (Dec 18, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Well at least I showed you where you stated that no respectable scientist would consider the existence of a God when you said you didn't make that statement. Now you are standing by that statement. Good for you.



All religions are built around irrationalism. Science springs out of the rational attempt to explain the irrational. So how could science not consider the existence of god? But considering the existence of god is not a scientific proof of god and that Einstein, or any other scientist, considered the existence lends no more credence to god then you or I considering the same. You are spinning in a fallacy which is no surprise since what you are arguing is irrational...


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Dec 18, 2008)

The universe is eternal enough where I wouldn't mind at all going all the way with the opinion that it is eternal.


----------



## PeterS (Dec 18, 2008)

FistyTheBadger said:


> The universe is eternal enough where I wouldn't mind at all going all the way with the opinion that it is eternal.



Did you know that if the universe is infinite and matter finite than what was is and what is will once again be. So how does it feel to be immortal?


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 19, 2008)

Actually, matter is finite only within itself, the amount of matter could be infinite as well.

Oh, science actually has that stated to. Space isn't a complete vacuum, it's just the particles of gas are so spread out it's like a vacuum to us. So the universe is still 'filled'.


----------



## XVZ (Dec 19, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Well at least I showed you where you stated that no respectable scientist would consider the existence of a God when you said you didn't make that statement. Now you are standing by that statement. Good for you.


I never made any such statement. Scientists are human beings and have lives outside of their science work. They engage in many things that have nothing to do with science such as art, music, sports, religion. You however completely misunderstand what I have said and continue to do so when it has been so plainly and clearly explained to you where your fault in cognizance lies. Since you haven't answered my question as to what you consider a scientific discussion to be, I can only assume that you are clueless. Until you answer that question correctly, going by the aptitude you have proven to be capable of thus far, you are properly classified under *retard* and will therefore be treated as such.



sky dancer said:


> Are you saying that you feel as though the universe is eternal?  That's a religious POV, not a scientific one.


Wrong. Neither is more scientific than the other. A particular theory in science may favor one over the other, but there is no evidence to believe one theory to be more correct than another when it comes this particular issue.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 19, 2008)

PeterS said:


> Did you know that if the universe is infinite and matter finite than what was is and what is will once again be. So how does it feel to be immortal?



But in the SAME form???  Or different forms, IF this were true?

Just seems like a Mayan Prophesy to me...verse science???

Care


----------



## PeterS (Dec 19, 2008)

Care4all said:


> But in the SAME form???  Or different forms, IF this were true?
> 
> Just seems like a Mayan Prophesy to me...verse science???
> 
> Care



Grab a piece of dough and mark the position of every molecule. Now start kneading it an infinite amount of times. Since the matter of the dough is finite and the times kneaded infinite the number of times the molecules would return to the original position would be infinite. So what was is and what is will be again. 

And matter may well be infinite but not within our universe else there would have been no big bang but a continual constant roar. Since space is infinite there would be an infinite number of universes each containing just enough finite matter for critical mass. This of course would raise the possibility that not only can I exist an infinite number of times in this universe but since all matter was once uniform and critical mass for each universe the same I can also exist an infinite number of times in an infinite number of universes. 

In other words, life eternal, Make sense???


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 22, 2008)

edthecynic said:


> In science, it is time that has a beginning. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If energy cannot be created, it can't increase and if it can't be destroyed, it can't decrease therefore,  if energy can't increase or decrease it is a constant. Energy can only change form.



I agree 100%. I have been saying that all along. It will be interesting to see how soon scientists will be able to detect matter that is spirit.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 22, 2008)

PeterS said:


> All religions are built around irrationalism. Science springs out of the rational attempt to explain the irrational. So how could science not consider the existence of god? But considering the existence of god is not a scientific proof of god and that Einstein, or any other scientist, considered the existence lends no more credence to god then you or I considering the same. You are spinning in a fallacy which is no surprise since what you are arguing is irrational...



It may be irrational to you, but not to others, Einstein included.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 22, 2008)

PeterS said:


> Did you know that if the universe is infinite and matter finite than what was is and what is will once again be. So how does it feel to be immortal?



It feels great! Except matter is not finite.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 22, 2008)

Scientists are already able to describe matter as constantly moving particles that can be reduced and reduced and are primarily empty space.   That is consistent with Buddhist teachings on 'the way things truly abide'.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 22, 2008)

XVZ said:


> I never made any such statement. Scientists are human beings and have lives outside of their science work. They engage in many things that have nothing to do with science such as art, music, sports, religion. You however completely misunderstand what I have said and continue to do so when it has been so plainly and clearly explained to you where your fault in cognizance lies. Since you haven't answered my question as to what you consider a scientific discussion to be, I can only assume that you are clueless. Until you answer that question correctly, going by the aptitude you have proven to be capable of thus far, you are properly classified under *retard* and will therefore be treated as such.
> 
> 
> Wrong. Neither is more scientific than the other. A particular theory in science may favor one over the other, but there is no evidence to believe one theory to be more correct than another when it comes this particular issue.



Well, since I am such a retard, let me ask you a retarded question, it shouldn't be too hard to answer given your infinite wisdom. 
What exactly do you think is a scientific discussion? Since you are obviously unquestionable, I would seek answers from you if you are so kind. Please forgive my idiocy. Try and explain it like I ride that short bus to school please. Please no words with more than 3 syllables


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 22, 2008)

PeterS said:


> Grab a piece of dough and mark the position of every molecule. Now start kneading it an infinite amount of times. Since the matter of the dough is finite and the times kneaded infinite the number of times the molecules would return to the original position would be infinite. So what was is and what is will be again.
> 
> And matter may well be infinite but not within our universe else there would have been no big bang but a continual constant roar. Since space is infinite there would be an infinite number of universes each containing just enough finite matter for critical mass. This of course would raise the possibility that not only can I exist an infinite number of times in this universe but since all matter was once uniform and critical mass for each universe the same I can also exist an infinite number of times in an infinite number of universes.
> 
> In other words, life eternal, Make sense???



Quite right. to me it doesn't make sense in my retarded mind that any of us will just cease to exist.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 22, 2008)

Spiritual matter? LOL Funny joke. Transdimensional is less fictional.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 22, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Spiritual matter? LOL Funny joke. Transdimensional is less fictional.



People laughed at columbus when he suggested the world was round, what a psycho he must have been. Certainly if our all knowing scientists can find it in their few years of studying(30-100 for the smartest ones), then spirit can't possibly be real matter. Silly me. 

It takes more than a brain to be able to reason. animals don't reason, they react. We reason, we feel, we have emotions, that can't be seen by scientists microscopes yet. but I believe those things absolutely have to be a biproduct of spirit and another complex table of elements not discovered. My humble opinion.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 22, 2008)

Um, first animals do reason and many do have emotions.

Secondly, don't confuse matter with energy.


----------



## XVZ (Dec 22, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Well, since I am such a retard, let me ask you a retarded question, it shouldn't be too hard to answer given your infinite wisdom.
> What exactly do you think is a scientific discussion? Since you are obviously unquestionable, I would seek answers from you if you are so kind. Please forgive my idiocy. Try and explain it like I ride that short bus to school please. Please no words with more than 3 syllables


One that us-es rea-son and log-ic! Durrr... 



Truthspeaker said:


> People laughed at columbus when he suggested the world was round, what a psycho he must have been.


This is retarded bullshit that an elementary pupil would spout who just came from a class with a dumbass elementary teacher with an even dumber textbook. No, Christopher Columbus did not suggest to the people of the world that the Earth was round. It was in fact a widely accepted notion among all intellectuals of the day. Even the ancient Greeks knew that the world was round and were able to accurately estimate the Earth's diameter.


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Dec 22, 2008)

XVZ said:


> This is retarded bullshit that an elementary pupil would spout who just came from a class with a dumbass elementary teacher with an even dumber textbook. No, Christopher Columbus did not suggest to the people of the world that the Earth was round. It was in fact a widely accepted notion among all intellectuals of the day. Even the ancient Greeks knew that the world was round and were able to accurately estimate the Earth's diameter.


But the lesson comes through, does it not?


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 22, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> People laughed at columbus when he suggested the world was round, what a psycho he must have been. Certainly if our all knowing scientists can find it in their few years of studying(30-100 for the smartest ones), then spirit can't possibly be real matter. Silly me.



Columbus was doubted by the religious people not the scientists, he got his theory from other scientists, it wasn't even his own he was just the one brave enough to go against the church.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 22, 2008)

FistyTheBadger said:


> But the lesson comes through, does it not?



What the ... ? Ooookay ... drinking too much does kill brain cells. How can a lesson that does not exist "come through." Even the Ancient Egyptians traveled around the globe.


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Dec 22, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> What the ... ? Ooookay ... drinking too much does kill brain cells. How can a lesson that does not exist "come through." Even the Ancient Egyptians traveled around the globe.


The lesson that one man can be right while the establishment is wrong comes through.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 22, 2008)

FistyTheBadger said:


> The lesson that one man can be right while the establishment is wrong comes through.



Um ... no. The only lesson is that religious zealots can successfully supress science when they rid the are of literacy and logic.


----------



## Dante (Dec 22, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Um ... no. The only lesson is that religious zealots can successfully supress science when they rid the are of literacy and logic.



you left out critical thinking skills. teach to the test so we have a conforming populace ready to be led by their crosses.


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Dec 22, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Um ... no. The only lesson is that religious zealots can successfully supress science when they rid the are of literacy and logic.


No other group can oppress any other person?


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 22, 2008)

FistyTheBadger said:


> No other group can oppress any other person?



What you say is true, any group can oppress another, but the Columbus story still does not support TruthUknown's assertions, even by a stretch.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 23, 2008)

XVZ said:


> One that us-es rea-son and log-ic! Durrr...
> 
> 
> This is retarded bullshit that an elementary pupil would spout who just came from a class with a dumbass elementary teacher with an even dumber textbook. No, Christopher Columbus did not suggest to the people of the world that the Earth was round. It was in fact a widely accepted notion among all intellectuals of the day. Even the ancient Greeks knew that the world was round and were able to accurately estimate the Earth's diameter.



Yes indeed, nonetheless, since you can't comprehend that I knew that already I will have to state that I did. But there were still many who didn't believe the "intellectuals". Many ancient civilizations knew that the earth was round, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that societies can take a step back in knowledge. the common process of the day had columbus as a fool.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 23, 2008)

XVZ said:


> One that us-es rea-son and log-ic! Durrr...
> 
> 
> This is retarded bullshit that an elementary pupil would spout who just came from a class with a dumbass elementary teacher with an even dumber textbook. No, Christopher Columbus did not suggest to the people of the world that the Earth was round. It was in fact a widely accepted notion among all intellectuals of the day. Even the ancient Greeks knew that the world was round and were able to accurately estimate the Earth's diameter.



Reason and logic as YOU see it. reason and logic to me is something entirely different to you. You say that everyone religious is a loon, including your family. You are a bitter, confused young person and you are jealous of the religious knowledge that people have because you just can't figure it out for yourself.

Or maybe you have got all the eons of the cosmos figured out in your 18 years of existence. I guess you learned that while playing final fantasy 48 according to your avatar.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 23, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Columbus was doubted by the religious people not the scientists, he got his theory from other scientists, it wasn't even his own he was just the one brave enough to go against the church.



Not all religious people felt that way. King Ferdinand did not.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 23, 2008)

DevNell said:


> you left out critical thinking skills. teach to the test so we have a conforming populace ready to be led by their crosses.



How insulting and bigoted of you to say that religious people are incapable of critical thinking. Don't you think that you WOULD have to think critically before believing in something you haven't seen. You don't get that so you condemn it.


----------



## XVZ (Dec 24, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> How insulting and bigoted of you to say that religious people are incapable of critical thinking. Don't you think that you WOULD have to think critically before believing in something you haven't seen. You don't get that so you condemn it.


That is precisely what is being said. Belief in something you cannot demonstrate a reason for believing *doesn't* require critical thinking. Visit a loon asylum to get a grasp of the stupidity involved in baseless beliefs.

Those lunatics will swear to you that they and only they know the truth. They can't demonstrate how or why they know what they know, just tell you that they know and you do not. And we all know why they can't demonstrate their beliefs, because they in fact know absolutely nothing. They are mentally deranged. They believe they know, but they don't know; it is an the highest order of irrationality and insanity.



Truthspeaker said:


> Yes indeed, nonetheless, since you can't comprehend that I knew that already I will have to state that I did.


I am quite capable of comprehending that fact that you made a completely idiotic statement and now that you have been called on it, you are backpeddling and attempting to save face by implying you meant something completely opposite of what you said 



Truthspeaker said:


> But there were still many who didn't believe the "intellectuals".


Just as you do not believe the intellectuals, yes - there were a lot of fools then and there are a lot of fools like you now.



Truthspeaker said:


> Many ancient civilizations knew that the earth was round, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that societies can take a step back in knowledge. the common process of the day had columbus as a fool.


Yes, the rise of Christianity and fall of Rome certainly was a huge step back in knowledge.



Truthspeaker said:


> Reason and logic as YOU see it. reason and logic to me is something entirely different to you.


You have not demonstrated any use of reason or logic. Belief in something that was indoctrinated into your brain but you cannot demonstrate is using neither reason nor logic. You must be able to demonstrate the facts whether those facts be repeatable experiments that produce the same results, or mountains of archival data, or observation of recurrent phenomenon, etc, that support your argument and clearly articulate the logic that results from said facts. You have no facts to work with so any insistence that you are using reason or logic is a nonstarter.

I will demonstrate to you an example of a loony argument. Someone puts forward to the scientific community that they have solved the mechanism behind gravity. This someone says that they have been revealed the truth and you must trust that they know what they are talking about. They explain that it is in fact a force driven by invisible undetectable strings manipulated by countless undetectable gremlins that in fact rule the universe. They go on to further explain that they know this because one of the gremlins revealed himself only to his mind.

 Are you going to take this loon with any ounce of seriousness?



Truthspeaker said:


> You say that everyone religious is a loon, including your family. You are a bitter, confused young person and you are jealous of the religious knowledge that people have because you just can't figure it out for yourself.


Thanks for your opinion, but I am not bitter nor confused. I in fact get along quite well with religious people, including my family.



Truthspeaker said:


> Or maybe you have got all the eons of the cosmos figured out in your 18 years of existence. I guess you learned that while playing final fantasy 48 according to your avatar.


I am not sure why you think my avatar has anything to do with final fantasy. But you are the only one that is trying to pass off knowledge that you clearly do not have. You no doubt believe you have such knowledge, but that is only because you are insane. See the top of this post.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 24, 2008)

XVZ said:


> I am not sure why you think my avatar has anything to do with final fantasy. But you are the only one that is trying to pass off knowledge that you clearly do not have. You no doubt believe you have such knowledge, but that is only because you are insane. See the top of this post.



Actually, that's probably the first time I have seen TS use any logic.

The eyes look like a Final Fantasy poster, but he was trying to be smart, there are only 13 of them so far.


----------



## Dante (Dec 24, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> How insulting and bigoted of you to say that religious people are incapable of critical thinking. Don't you think that you WOULD have to think critically before believing in something you haven't seen. You don't get that so you condemn it.



how insulting for you to purposefully misrepresent what I wrote.

your god will punish you for this one.


----------



## Dante (Dec 24, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> How insulting and bigoted of you to say that religious people are incapable of critical thinking. Don't you think that you WOULD have to think critically before believing in something you haven't seen. You don't get that so you condemn it.



the saddest part is you probably believe the image you project in your mind is what I or others see. Oh contraire!  Your faith based honesty and morality? How could you do what you just did and live with yourself?

here: 





> *Originally Posted by KittenKoder:*
> Um ... no. The only lesson is that *religious zealots* can successfully supress science when they rid the are of literacy and logic.





> *Originally Posted by DevNell:*
> you left out critical thinking skills. teach to the test so we have a conforming populace ready to be led by their cross



you do see where you got bagged don't you? 

clue: religious zealots are not viewed by me as average religious people, but by you? 

you make no distinction between zealots and the average religious person because you are blinded by your own zealotry.

for shame!!!


----------



## XVZ (Dec 24, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Actually, that's probably the first time I have seen TS use any logic.
> 
> The eyes look like a Final Fantasy poster, but he was trying to be smart, there are only 13 of them so far.


Well it should be noted that his first use of logic resulted in a faulty conclusion 

Link please to said poster so I can judge the resemblance for myself.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 24, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Secondly, don't confuse matter with energy.



Matter and energy are interrelated according to the equation, E=mc2
Think of matter as highly concentrated energy.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 26, 2008)

The Big Bang occurred, and the Universe was formed.  The Universe had a beginning, and something that has a beginning is not eternal.

However......it IS forever.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 26, 2008)

DevNell said:


> clue: religious zealots are not viewed by me as average religious people, but by you?
> 
> you make no distinction between zealots and the average religious person because you are blinded by your own zealotry.



In general, and on message boards especially, we (religious people) seem to get lumped together a lot. So, when someone starts slamming religion it's not that much of a leap to think that you (as a religious person) is being targeted.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 26, 2008)

On forums and message boards there is an equality opportunity to get targeted or slammed for your views.

I don't think 'religious' people get particularly singled out.  Some boards, it's the atheists get smashed to smithereens.

What's fun for me as a non-theist, is that I get heat from the atheists and I get it from the Christians and other theists.

Back to the topic.  How can the Universe be permanent?  If it was created, then it had a beginning and will have an end.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 26, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> On forums and message boards there is an equality opportunity to get targeted or slammed for your views.
> 
> I don't think 'religious' people get particularly singled out.  Some boards, it's the atheists get smashed to smithereens.
> 
> ...



My point was that someone using the term "religious zealots" doesn't necessarily mean they aren't talking about all religious people. Some people seem to think that if you believe in God you're a zealot by definition.

I believe the universe can have an end.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 26, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> On forums and message boards there is an equality opportunity to get targeted or slammed for your views.
> 
> I don't think 'religious' people get particularly singled out.  Some boards, it's the atheists get smashed to smithereens.
> 
> ...



Well, what's fun for me (as a Christian Taoist with Jewish understanding), as well as have a decent grounding in science, is that I can talk to ANYONE about ANYTHING.  But.....that's only because I'm open to hearing new things.

And.....what says anything that has a beginning has to have an end?  If you're a Christian, then, according to John 3:16......"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, and whosoever believeth in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

Which means, that you live forever, but, because you have a beginning (birth) you cannot be eternal like God.

Same thing with the Universe.  Now, if you were to look into things like exploding stars at the end of their life cycle, you would see that some of them form into nebulae and end up creating new stars all over again, which, means they also will last forever.

Entropy is a myth.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 26, 2008)

I prefer the term "Dogma Junkie"


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 26, 2008)

Rob-

What is it that 'does not perish'?  Certainly, God was not talking about the material, was he?

What does not perish?  That's an interesting topic, and one that I think we may find common ground on---at least those of us who have a spiritual path.  Zealots and non-zealots alike.

Are all atheists nihilists?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 26, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Rob-
> 
> What is it that 'does not perish'?  Certainly, God was not talking about the material, was he?
> 
> ...



Think of it in Buddhist terms of rebirth.  The old body dies, and the soul travels to a new one, but, the soul is still the individual, not the body.

Are all atheists nihilists?  Nope.  The reason that I say that, is because in order for a person (generally) to become an atheist, they generally have a decent intelligence, as well as a fair knowledge of science, which is why they think that they are "better" than the ones that go by faith, as they know how things work, therefore shutting off the need for faith.

Scientists are well organized, and most are looking for a way to make a buck by bringing something good to the world.  More importantly, they understand order, structure, and method, therefore not being able to be disorganized makes them unable to become nihilists.

Although......some may.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 26, 2008)

In your understanding, as a 'Christian Taoist with Judaism knowledge' what is the 'soul'?  Is it endowed with personality?  Is it 'the real you'?  Is it consciousness or awareness itself?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 26, 2008)

XVZ said:


> That is precisely what is being said. Belief in something you cannot demonstrate a reason for believing *doesn't* require critical thinking. Visit a loon asylum to get a grasp of the stupidity involved in baseless beliefs.
> 
> Those lunatics will swear to you that they and only they know the truth. They can't demonstrate how or why they know what they know, just tell you that they know and you do not. And we all know why they can't demonstrate their beliefs, because they in fact know absolutely nothing. They are mentally deranged. They believe they know, but they don't know; it is an the highest order of irrationality and insanity.
> 
> ...



I am quite sure you told all of your family that they are loons and that went over well
You mentioned evidence and repeating phenomena, those are the exact things that cause a person to be religious, they see evidence of the things they hope to be true and repeating phenomena that others may not consider to be phenomena. Like a prophecy coming true, or someones life being enhanced by their religion or archaelogical evidence that supports a claim from scripture that for a long time was mocked. 
There is plethora of such examples. You can try and explain them away but that is your interpretation and doesn't have to be ours. The fact that you are not open to the idea show ignorance on your part.
And if I am so insane, and it is so obvious that everyone can see it, Why do you feel the need to reply to my baseless posts. Why don't you just block me out or ignore me? I don't think you are taking time to go to the assylum and argue with the real loons. Well I have a theory on that too.
The truth has a certain ring to it and has a phenomenal power to draw the attention of those who do and dont like it. it has to be commented on either for or against it, it is impossible to be neutral, either one tries to discredit it with Socratic arguments or wants to know more and at least gives it a chance.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 26, 2008)

Anywhoo, I think we are off topic, I think the universe is eternal. I think elements have always been but are indefinitely molded and shaped througout eternity. Life never truly ends, and there is always progression of intelligences, meaning animals, humans and interstellar species. Even if you don't agree with me you have to agree that it is a cool thing to believe in if it were true.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 26, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> In your understanding, as a 'Christian Taoist with Judaism knowledge' what is the 'soul'?  Is it endowed with personality?  Is it 'the real you'?  Is it consciousness or awareness itself?



What is the Soul?  A small piece of God that He carved out from under his Throne with the blade of Self Will.

Is it endowed with personality?  Yep.  What part of it's a small piece of God do people miss?

Is it the "real" You?  Also true.  God gives us a piece of Himself as a way to help guard and care for Gaia.  

Conciousness and Awareness are two different things dear.  You can be concious of something, but unaware of it.  You can be aware of something, but you can't stay unconscious of it.


----------



## XVZ (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> I am quite sure you told all of your family that they are loons and that went over well
> You mentioned evidence and repeating phenomena, those are the exact things that cause a person to be religious, they see evidence of the things they hope to be true and repeating phenomena that others may not consider to be phenomena. Like a prophecy coming true,


What is an example of a prophecy that you think has been predicted and then came true? 



Truthspeaker said:


> or someones life being enhanced by their religion


 You think that is evidence to support a mythology dreamed up by men with the mere knowledge of cavemen?



Truthspeaker said:


> or archaelogical evidence that supports a claim from scripture that for a long time was mocked.


What claims have been backed up by archaeological evidence? Does Anything support the absurd mythological claims? Or is it just evidence to support that there was a real and mundane event from which the mythology was dreamed up?



Truthspeaker said:


> There is plethora of such examples. You can try and explain them away but that is your interpretation and doesn't have to be ours. The fact that you are not open to the idea show ignorance on your part.


You believe Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, and all the other mythological bullshit in the Bible _without evidence_ and you want to say that I am ignorant for not believing it? You are completely deranged.



Truthspeaker said:


> And if I am so insane, and it is so obvious that everyone can see it, Why do you feel the need to reply to my baseless posts. Why don't you just block me out or ignore me? I don't think you are taking time to go to the assylum and argue with the real loons. Well I have a theory on that too.


Sounds to me like you wish to have free reign to spread your bullshit!

I never said your insanity is obvious and that everyone can see it. In fact, if you had been paying attention, you would know that I said the exact opposite. Can you guess where? Test yourself, see how smart you are. I'll even encourage you to cheat since I am completely convinced you'll be required to... here I'll even help you out, reread this post.



Truthspeaker said:


> The truth has a certain ring to it and has a phenomenal power to draw the attention of those who do and dont like it. it has to be commented on either for or against it, it is impossible to be neutral, either one tries to discredit it with Socratic arguments or wants to know more and at least gives it a chance.


The only truths we can know about our world come from scientific understanding, so I suppose you are correct in that religious zealots come up with all kinds of mindlessly stupid arguments in an attempt to discredit science and pass off fairy tale conjecture as "truth".


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 29, 2008)

XVZ said:


> What is an example of a prophecy that you think has been predicted and then came true? Joseph Smith's prophecy on the civil war over 30 years in advancehttp://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/people/joseph_smith/civil_war.html
> 
> 
> You think that is evidence to support a mythology dreamed up by men with the mere knowledge of cavemen?I should think so. Cavemen weren't that stupid.
> ...


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 29, 2008)

Oh yeah anybody see that special on The History Channel Sodom and Gomorrah and the archaelogical evidence of a meteor shower and meteor that crash landed and destroyed the city? I watched it last week and the astrologers were pretty amazing how accurate they were. I'll do some surfing and find a link to it.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 29, 2008)

Anywhoo, I don't think this thread is about who is right and who is wrong, I thought it was just to share opinions and respect others. I think the universe is eternal.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 29, 2008)

All things in this Universe &#8211; and the Universe itself, will come to an end one day.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 30, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> All things in this Universe  and the Universe itself, will come to an end one day.



Even if you are right about that, no matter what happens after we die, the important thing is to be a good person and remembered as such.


----------



## Dante (Dec 30, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Anywhoo, I think we are off topic, I think the universe is eternal. I think elements have always been but are indefinitely molded and shaped througout eternity. Life never truly ends, and there is always progression of intelligences, meaning animals, humans and interstellar species. Even if you don't agree with me you have to agree that it is a cool thing to believe in if it were true.



 Even if you don't agree with me you have to agree that it is a cool thing to believe in if it were true._..just like the Easter Bunny, Santa, the Tooth Fairy (did he marry tom thumb?),.. _

yeah, it would all be cool


----------



## Dante (Dec 30, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Even if you are right about that, no matter what happens after we die, the important thing is to be a good person and remembered as such.



agree. do you think it is possible do do this without religion?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 2, 2009)

DevNell said:


> agree. do you think it is possible do do this without religion?



Yes of course. Religion was never required to show the quality of a person's character. 
But I do think the universe is eternal. I would think proof of this would be found in that no scientist has found the true destruction of an element yet. If they were destructable, then periodically we would find some truly disappear from existence wouldn't we? I think it is illogical to suppose the elimination of an element. They always have been and they always will be. Things that have beginnings have ends. I think the elements never had  either. There have to be some constants in the universe right?


----------



## midcan5 (Jan 4, 2009)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/50677-life-chance-eternity.html


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 4, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Yes of course. Religion was never required to show the quality of a person's character.
> But I do think the universe is eternal. I would think proof of this would be found in that no scientist has found the true destruction of an element yet. If they were destructable, then periodically we would find some truly disappear from existence wouldn't we? I think it is illogical to suppose the elimination of an element. They always have been and they always will be. Things that have beginnings have ends. I think the elements never had  either. There have to be some constants in the universe right?



If religion was never required to show the quality of a person's character, then can you please explain to me why so many religious people determine the quality of a persons character by their religion?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 9, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> If religion was never required to show the quality of a person's character, then can you please explain to me why so many religious people determine the quality of a persons character by their religion?


 It may be considered necessary to some religions to be religious in order to have good character but not in my religion.

It's easy to see that religion is not needed to be a good person.


----------



## hansom (Feb 20, 2009)

Believing the universe has a beginning, i would posit that without the introduction of additional energy/information, it will eventually end


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 20, 2009)

hansom said:


> Believing the universe has a beginning, i would posit that without the introduction of additional energy/information, it will eventually end



maybe the universe just is......


----------



## ABikerSailor (Feb 20, 2009)

Always ask "why", and you'll never run out of questions.

Never run out of questions, and then you'll understand that there is always something new.

How do you think brainstorming works?

Nope...........entropy is a myth.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 31, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> The Big Bang occurred, and the Universe was formed.  The Universe had a beginning, and something that has a beginning is not eternal.
> 
> However......it IS forever.



It is TIME that has a beginning!
The Energy of the universe has always existed and will always exist in exactly the same total quantity according to the First Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 31, 2009)

hansom said:


> Believing the universe has a beginning, i would posit that without the introduction of additional energy/information, it will eventually end



The universe is a perpetual "commotion" machine with an Entropy of ZERO. It will never run out of energy.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 31, 2009)

sky dancer said:


> OK.  Where I'm coming from in this discussion is observing in nature that everything is impermanent.
> 
> Ourselves, as human beings, the universe and its contents and all beings therein are impermanent.
> 
> ...



Most people are not "wired" to think in terms of always has been and forever without defaulting to god for the cover answer.

If there was a start of the universe where did everything come from?  

That alone is enough information to only allow that everthing always was and always will be which also by the way dissalows the need or existance of a god.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Mar 31, 2009)

I watched a documentary about theories on the  universe...I think it was on the Discover Science Channel...probably within the last month.  The idea is that the dominant belief among astronomers now is that the Univerise is _not_ eternal.  The Big Bang theory is part of that.  There was one guy who never bought the Big Bang theory because it wasn't consistent with his belief that the Universe is eternal.  I guess I should've taken notes so I could be more specific.  But I remember it all started with Catholic Priest Georges Lemaitre, who came up with the Big Bang theory.  So I Googled him and found the piece at 'A Day Without Yesterday': Georges Lemaitre & the Big Bang .  I think you can see from that article that, before Lemaitre's theory, most scientists believed the universe is eternal and that acceptance of that theory changed that.  I think it kind of swung back the other way with the Oscillating Unvierse theory, but my understanding is that that theory has now come under question.  There's a reference to that in the linked article.

A quote:

*"Lemaitre believed that the universe would keep expanding. He argued that the Big Bang was a unique event, while other scientists believed that the universe would shrink to the point of another Big Bang, and so on. The observations made in Berkeley supported Lemaitre's contention that the Big Bang was in fact 'a day without yesterday." '*


----------



## JohnStOnge (Mar 31, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> If there was a start of the universe where did everything come from?
> 
> That alone is enough information to only allow that everthing always was and always will be which also by the way dissalows the need or existance of a god.



I think you've kind of got it backwards.  A very prevalent belief in Astronomy right now is that the universe did have a beginning in the form of the Big Bang and that it's not going to contract again in a manner consistent with the idea of an eternal, oscillating existence.  In fact it might be the dominant belief.  The question you pose does not provide an argument against the existence of God at all.  You just choose to assume that the physical universe is eternal because you start off wanting to rule the existence of God out.  A universe with a beginning, it seems, must be problematic for you.

Believe me, the belief that the Universe did indeed have a "start" is not limited to religous people.  There are a lot of people in astronomy who believe it purely because that's what they think the observations suggest.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 1, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > The Big Bang occurred, and the Universe was formed.  The Universe had a beginning, and something that has a beginning is not eternal.
> ...




Time and space are combined together in the form of the space-time continium.

Neither has a beginning or end.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 1, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a start of the universe where did everything come from?
> ...



I think you get your science 411 from the back of your co co puffs box.  The big bang was obviously not "the beginning" moron.  Nothing new was "created" from the bang.  Do a little research and get back to me.

I work with facts.  You are just here to appologise for you stupid fantasy religion.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 1, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...




*Time exists only in terms of motion. Space/time began at the Big Bang and ends at a Black Hole.*


----------



## JohnStOnge (Apr 2, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> I think you get your science 411 from the back of your co co puffs box.  The big bang was obviously not "the beginning" moron.  Nothing new was "created" from the bang.  Do a little research and get back to me.
> 
> I work with facts.  You are just here to appologise for you stupid fantasy religion.



Not from the back of a Kocoa Puffs box at all.  It's clear that there is question as to whether or not the universe had a beginning.  Here is an article on something Stephen Hawking had to say about it in 2006:

Hawking Floats Genesis Bubble in Beijing

A quote:

*"He described -- through his electronic speech synthesizer -- how the general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe provoked conceptual changes, which meant that the idea of an ever-existing, ever-lasting universe was no longer tenable. "*


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 2, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > I think you get your science 411 from the back of your co co puffs box.  The big bang was obviously not "the beginning" moron.  Nothing new was "created" from the bang.  Do a little research and get back to me.
> ...



Um ... stop trying to re-interpret science, you really suck at it most times.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Apr 3, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Um ... stop trying to re-interpret science, you really suck at it most times.



Kitten, it is clear that there is a question as to whether or not the universe is eternal that has nothing to do with religion.  What is it that you think I'm "re-interpreting" about what Hawkins is reported to have said?  Here it is again:

*"He described -- through his electronic speech synthesizer -- how the general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe provoked conceptual changes, which meant that the idea of an ever-existing, ever-lasting universe was no longer tenable. "*

Now, explain to me how that can be interpreted in any way other than noting that Hawkins said that the idea of an eternal universe is not tenable? If the article falsely represented what he said, that's another issue.  But I have no reason to believe that it did.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 3, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Um ... stop trying to re-interpret science, you really suck at it most times.
> ...



*How about it is "Hearsay." Can you produce anything Hawking has PUBLISHED that says that??? A Cynic likes to know such things first before he decides since I would have expected Hawking to explain these UNSPECIFIED "conceptual changes" or at least list them. I'm not aware of Hawking ever PONTIFICATING before, so the Cynic in me is suspicious, to say the least.*


----------



## JohnStOnge (Apr 4, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> *How about it is "Hearsay." Can you produce anything Hawking has PUBLISHED that says that??? A Cynic likes to know such things first before he decides since I would have expected Hawking to explain these UNSPECIFIED "conceptual changes" or at least list them. I'm not aware of Hawking ever PONTIFICATING before, so the Cynic in me is suspicious, to say the least.*



Ed, I am not even going to attempt to look at all the things Hawking has published.  All I can suggest to you is that you look on your own into the question of an eternal universe.  I am confident that you will find that there is doubt about it. 

Look, there is no way we can know whether or not the universe is eternal or not anyway.  All I'm talking about is what's believed.  And I think that if you look on your own in any way you wish into the question of what's believed about the concept of an eternal universe you will find that there's a lot of doubt about it.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 4, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > *How about it is "Hearsay." Can you produce anything Hawking has PUBLISHED that says that??? A Cynic likes to know such things first before he decides since I would have expected Hawking to explain these UNSPECIFIED "conceptual changes" or at least list them. I'm not aware of Hawking ever PONTIFICATING before, so the Cynic in me is suspicious, to say the least.*
> ...



*We know the energy of the universe cannot be created or destroyed, so energy is a constant according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy. How is that not eternal enough?*


----------



## JohnStOnge (Apr 4, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> *We know the energy of the universe cannot be created or destroyed, so energy is a constant according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy. How is that not eternal enough?*



We know that is true given that the Universe exists.  The problem is that the "Big Bang" theory has been largely accepted and things have happened to cast doubt on the "Oscillating Universe" theory.  It's all based on observations causing astronmers to believe that the Universe as it is now started with a "Big Bang." There was an idea that the universe is enternal and goes through a series of "Bangs" and "Contractions."  But observations have been interpreted as making that seem unlikely.  Seriously, ed, if you start looking for discussions of that among astronomers you will see that I'm telling you the truth. 

Actually, though, I don't know what to do when you won't accept a report on what somebody like Hawkins said.  Hawkins was a champion of the idea of an eternal universe in oscillation and now he's reported as saying tha idea is not tenable.  But you say someone has to provide you with a published paper on his part saying what he's reported to have said.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 4, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > *We know the energy of the universe cannot be created or destroyed, so energy is a constant according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy. How is that not eternal enough?*
> ...



*Again, hearsay does not have the weight of of a published document, which would list the observations, which you didn't, and explain the INTERPRETATION. *


----------



## Kalam (Apr 4, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> JohnStOnge said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You may want to read up on the second law if you believe that the universe is eternal.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 4, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JohnStOnge said:
> ...



*I'm quite familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. 

Familiar enough to assume you are going to try to twist the Law stated as, "In a closed thermodynamic system, Entropy NEVER DECREASES" since all other expressions of the SLoT involve the transfer of heat. Now the two words I emphasized should warn you I am aware of the word games and semantics played with the SLoT, but I'm sure that won't stop you from trying anyway. Will it?
So please tell me why the SLoT prevents the universe of energy from being eternal.*


----------



## JohnStOnge (Apr 5, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> *Again, hearsay does not have the weight of of a published document, which would list the observations, which you didn't, and explain the INTERPRETATION. *



Ok Ed.  Maybe  at some point I'll have to find an article published by Hawking or somebody else in a peer review journal positing the idea that the universe has a beginning.  For now I will give you some comments by Hawking that are direct quotation of his own words in full context.  

The page at 'Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing' by Slashdot - RichardDawkins.net includes the transcript of a lecture delivered by Hawking at Cal Berkeley on March 13, 2007.   I think it's pretty reasonable to interpret what he said as reflecting a belief that there is uncertainty over the question of whether or not the universe is eternal.  In fact, in my opinion, he operates on the premise that the universe did have a beginning.  Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

*"When Lifshitz and Khalatnikov published their claim, I was a 21&#8212;year-old research student, looking for something to complete my PhD thesis. I didn't believe their so-called proof, and set out with Roger Penrose to develop new mathematical techniques to study the question. We showed that the universe couldn't bounce. If Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is correct, there will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and space-time curvature, where time has a beginning.

Observational evidence to confirm the idea that the universe had a very dense beginning, came in October 1965, a few months after my first singularity result, with the discovery of a faint background of microwaves throughout space."*

I guess you can say that's hearsay because it's what he's said to have said and he's not standing in front of us saying it.  But c'mon.  We don't need to see a paper of his published in a peer reviewed journal to know what he believes when he says what he believes.

Anyway, again, I think that if you yourself make an honest effort to look into the question of what's believed by those who study such things you'll see that I'm correct.  It is not a situation where the community of astronomers and physicists generally considers the idea of an eternal universe as firmly established.  In fact, my opinion is that at this time that community leans toward believing it is not.  

And as far as I can tell, a critical moment substantially contributing to the current state of belief is described in the article at Evidence mounts that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating - physicsworld.com .  My  understanding is that, prior to that, it was more generally believed that the universe will expand to a certain point due to the big bang then contract back upon itself then there will be another big bang, another contraction, and so on.  That can be an eternal process.  But, as I understand it, evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating rather than decelerating cast doubt upon the idea that it will ever contract so doubt was cast upon the eternal oscillating universe model.  It hasn't gone away, as you can see in the article at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1138251/posts , but I don't think it's something that's considered relatively definite.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 5, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > *Again, hearsay does not have the weight of of a published document, which would list the observations, which you didn't, and explain the INTERPRETATION. *
> ...



*First of all, Hawking says TIME has a beginning, not energy. It is the eternally existing energy that was contracted to a point of infinite density. 

And in your Physics World link it says this:* 
"If the mass of the Universe is large enough, the expansion will eventually decrease and the Universe will then collapse in on itself. However, if the density of matter in the Universe is less than a certain critical density, *it will continue to expand for ever.*"
*If the universe expands forever then it also has to exist forever to expand forever. So either way the energy of the universe is eternal.
Get it???*


----------



## JohnStOnge (Apr 5, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> [
> 
> *If the universe expands forever then it also has to exist forever to expand forever. So either way the energy of the universe is eternal.
> Get it???*



No, because "eternal" means both no end AND no beginning.  One more time ed: Please, do you own Google searches, etc.  There is a real question as to whether the universe had a beginning or not.   I mean, there is a reality independent of what we know.  Either the universe had a beginning or it didn't.  But it's clear that we don't know whether it did or not right now.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Apr 5, 2009)

Another thing, Ed, you bolded and emphasized certain language  from what Hawkins said but did not emphasize some important language that closely followed.  Here's what I'm talking about:

*"If Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is correct, there will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and space-time curvature, where time has a beginning.

Observational evidence to confirm the idea that the universe had a very dense beginning, came in October 1965, a few months after my first singularity result, with the discovery of a faint background of microwaves throughout space."
*

You emphasized the statement about time having a beginning.  But notice he also said that the _universe_ had a beginning.  If the universe had a beginning, it is not eternal.  

Now, the fact that Hawkins believes the universe has a beginning doesn't mean he's right.  But what I'm trying to get at is that we don't _know_ and that there is question about it. If one says "the universe is eternal," that is not known to be a fact.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 5, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



*OK, and one more time for you, too. It was TIME that had a beginning at the Big Bang. The universe is ENERGY in one form or another. Energy can't be created, so no beginning, and it can't be destroyed, so no end. The Big Bang is the point where the already existing, full energy of the universe began to expand.  

Let me try to explain it another way. If you toss a ball straight up in the air it rises to a certain point and no farther and then falls back to its starting point. So it passes every point in its path twice, once up and once down, except one. There is one point at the top, a singularity, where the ball is neither rising or falling. This condition is extremely unstable and lasts only a tiny moment, but for one moment the ball was not moving at all.

Now back to the universe, there is a point, a singularity where all the energy of the universe is compressed into the same point, and for one singular moment the universe is neither expanding nor contracting. For one singular moment there is no movement so for that singular moment TIME does not exist because in physics time exists ONLY in terms of motion. The next moment is the beginning of time at the point of the Big Bang where the movement of expansion starts. So it is TIME that begins at the Big Bang not the energy of the universe.*


----------



## ItsFairmont (Apr 5, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JohnStOnge said:
> ...




Why draw attention to your prophet?

You say there is no God but God alone, and yet you focus attention on the prophet?

Focus on God, then, and nevermind the man who reminded you.


----------



## Kalam (Apr 5, 2009)

ItsFairmont said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I'm more interested in the discussion at hand. If I want religious advice, I'll give you a ring...


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 5, 2009)

The Universe: Eternal or no? .....................i say yes


----------



## Kalam (Apr 5, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> The Universe: Eternal or no? .....................i say yes


An eternal universe is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 5, 2009)

Kalam said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > The Universe: Eternal or no? .....................i say yes
> ...



the universe existed before you ... it will exist after you.....


----------



## Kalam (Apr 5, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...



That doesn't mean that it's always existed and that it will continue to exist infinitely.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 5, 2009)

Kalam said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > The Universe: Eternal or no? .....................i say yes
> ...



*You've already pontificated that without proof, parroting it again won't make it any less wrong.
Please explain why it's impossible, according to the SLoT, and without misstating the SLoT or violating the First or Third Laws.
How hard can that be? You seen so sure, so certain.*


----------



## Kalam (Apr 5, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...



The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system tends to approach maximum entropy over time. The universe is an isolated system. Therefore, if the universe had always existed, it would have attained maximum entropy an infinite amount of time ago. This isn't very complicated.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 6, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



*I already stated that the SLoT stated correctly was: "In a closed thermodynamic system, Entropy NEVER DECREASES." We seem to be in agreement with the closed system part, but you go off from there, so I'm going to have to pin you down to scientific words. You see my SLoT gives you an equation for the SLoT, but your words seem to give a different equation. 

So with the words "tends to approach maximum" seems to imply that the key words I mentioned in an earlier post, "NEVER DECREASES" would have to be "ALWAYS INCREASES' for your "tends to approach maximum" to imply maximum entropy would have occurred an "INFINITE amount of time" (what ever that is, time is not infinite) ago. Are you sure you got that from a credible SCIENTIFIC source? You know statistics has a law of entropy just like yours, but it is not valid in physics and is different from the scientific SLoT I gave. The one you gave is conspicuously not in scientific language. 

I can assure you my SLoT is correct and entropy does not ALWAYS INCREASE, if it did, then no matter could exist. If you check a legitimate scientific source you will see it is "never decreases." The Creationists play your word games and use a nonscientific law of entropy as the SLoT.

So I need you to clarify, are you saying the SLoT says entropy is "ALWAYS increasing?"
Do you know the difference between "never decreases" and "always increases" in scientific language. Remember in scientific language there is no such thing as: "It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. "Is" means the equal sign and absolutely nothing else but the equal sign. So "never decreases" is a different mathematical sign than "always increases."

If you don't know, why don't you give me your SLoT as the equation it represents and I'll tell you if "tends to approach maximum" is "never decreases" or "always increases." Of course, for you to claim of having already reached max entropy at some unmeasured time in the infinite past, if I understand your point correctly, would require an "always increasing" entropy.
So your finite universe has to exist where there is no matter.
Did you know that?*


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 6, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



How do you know that the universe is an isolated system?  You fundis make too many assumtions.  "there is no god but God?"  If only you had enough mental steam to see what a rediculous statement that is.


----------



## Kalam (Apr 6, 2009)

-Rudolf Clausius.

_"The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum."_
-Rudolf Clausius. 



edthecynic said:


> Did you know that?


Don't take a condescending tone towards me.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 6, 2009)

Kalam said:


> -Rudolf Clausius.
> 
> _"The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum."_
> -Rudolf Clausius.
> ...



*And Newton said that a body at rest tends to stay at rest, then along came Einstein and he said there is no such thing as a body at rest.

Never decreases means greater than OR EQUAL TO ZERO, and always increases means greater than but NOT EQUAL TO ZERO. What you have tried to do is eliminate the equal to zero part with semantics since it can't be done with math. When entropy equals zero it does NOT tend to a max, it stays the same.
If entropy can't equal zero then no matter can exist.

In an earlier post on this thread I quipped that the universe was a perpetual COMMOTION machine with an entropy of ZERO. *


----------



## Kalam (Apr 6, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > -Rudolf Clausius.
> ...


Far be it from me to contradict someone who knows more about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics than the inventor of both concepts.


----------



## Kalam (Apr 6, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> How do you know that the universe is an isolated system?  You fundis make too many assumtions.


Because it fits the definition of isolated system. This is common scientific knowledge, not something I'm assuming or pulling out of my ass.  



HUGGY said:


> "there is no god but God?"  If only you had enough mental steam to see what a rediculous statement that is.


You misspelled "ridiculous," dipshit. Your "mental steam" pipe must have a couple of leaks...


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 6, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



*So you are saying science has learned nothing since the time of Clausius!!!

The fact remains, the SLoT says Entropy CAN equal zero, and when Entropy equals zero there is NO tendency toward a max. There is no tendency in either direction, the "tendency" is to STAY THE SAME. So the SLoT says entropy can stay the same OR increase but it can't decrease, get it???
So your burden is to prove that matter can exist when entropy can't equal zero, and you haven't and can't meet that burden.*


----------



## N4mddissent (Apr 6, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



It is a closed/isolated system _as far as we know_.  Einstein believed in a static eternal universe for much of his career.  He was no fool.  Fred Hoyle postulated continuous generation of matter.  The idea is not generally accepted now, but these guys were not stupid.  Maybe the concept overall is more complicated than you imply.


----------



## N4mddissent (Apr 6, 2009)

If current understanding holds, the universe will end in the sense that it will possibly experience a "heat death".  As far as a beginning, given our understanding of expansion and the original singularity, that could be considered a beginning.  Beyond the singularity I think it's pretty much speculation.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 6, 2009)

N4mddissent said:


> If current understanding holds, the universe will end in the sense that *it will possibly experience a "heat death".*  As far as a beginning, given our understanding of expansion and the original singularity, that could be considered a beginning.  Beyond the singularity I think it's pretty much speculation.



*This heat death refers to the fact that Kinetic energy, the energy of motion, is the energy that does work, a force through a distance. So as kinetic energy changes heat, entropy, through friction, eventually the universe will run out of useful energy to do work with, the theoretical "heat death" of the universe when all motion stops. 

The problem with that is no matter whether the universe contracts in a big crunch or expands forever the universe will still be in motion and so work can always be done. Furthermore the Third Law of Thermodynamics says there is no temp at which all motion stops, Absolute Zero, so again no heat death of the universe.*


----------



## JohnStOnge (Apr 6, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> OK, and one more time for you, too. It was TIME that had a beginning at the Big Bang. The universe is ENERGY in one form or another.



Did you notice the part where he said _the universe_ had a beginning?

Look, I'm not saying he's right.  I don't know. But neither do you.


----------



## N4mddissent (Apr 7, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> > If current understanding holds, the universe will end in the sense that *it will possibly experience a "heat death".*  As far as a beginning, given our understanding of expansion and the original singularity, that could be considered a beginning.  Beyond the singularity I think it's pretty much speculation.
> ...



I think the general consensus tends to lean toward heat death.  At the very least, the universe will reach a state asymptotically approaching absolute zero.  I'm not so certain that expansion of space can be considered motion, especially for the purposes of doing work.  I'll have to ask about that one.  I don't think it's important to quibble over whether the universe achieves absolute zero or is very close to absolute zero- the effect as far as we're concerned is the same.  It will be a boring place to be.


----------



## Tor Hershman (Apr 11, 2009)

sky dancer said:


> So Gunny, you believe in eternity?  Eternal god, eternal damnation, eternal heaven?
> 
> What in this world or the universe can you point to that proves 'eternalism'?



Dang, Sky Dancer, I was gonna post
The question should be, Eternity: Yes or No? and the answer is  no. but you beat moi to it.

This board done gotz some real smart people like, like really.


----------



## Terral (Apr 11, 2009)

Hi Gunny:



Gunny said:


> sky dancer said:
> 
> 
> > So Gunny, you believe in eternity?  Eternal god, eternal damnation, eternal heaven?
> ...



The universe is definitely 'finite' and nowhere near 'infinite.' We know for a 'fact' that the universe is finite, because anything that is truly 'infinite' cannot possibly 'expand.' Since we are definitely looking at an 'expanding' universe (Wiki), then by definition this creation is certainly 'finite.' The Big Bang Theory of Creation is a "*MYTH*" (my thread) BTW . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Kalam (Apr 11, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> So you are saying science has learned nothing since the time of Clausius!!!


I'm saying that his fundamental definitions of entropy and the second law are still as true as they have always been. You're the one contradicting accepted scientific laws and concepts, man.  



edthecynic said:


> The fact remains, the SLoT says Entropy CAN equal zero, and when Entropy equals zero there is NO tendency toward a max. There is no tendency in either direction, the "tendency" is to STAY THE SAME.


Your second statement is false. The overall tendency is toward a maximum, that maximum being thermodynamic equilibrium. This has been demonstrated empirically as well as through logical formulae. 



edthecynic said:


> So the SLoT says entropy can stay the same OR increase but it can't decrease, get it???


I'm not sure that you get it. Something that can "stay the same OR increase" can not be accurately described as tending to stay the same. We know that entropy can and does increase. Therefore, to tend toward sameness, those increases would have to be met with decreases. We already know that net decreases in entropy do not occur. The tendency, however long it may take, is toward a maximum. 



edthecynic said:


> So your burden is to prove that matter can exist when entropy can't equal zero, and you haven't and can't meet that burden.


I've never made that argument. The burden of demonstrating that entropy tends not to increase, or that entropy remains the same, lies with you.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 11, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gunny:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*The universe is definitely 'finite' and nowhere near 'infinite.' We know for a 'fact' that the universe is finite, because anything that is truly 'infinite' cannot possibly 'expand.' Since we are definitely looking at an 'expanding' universe (Wiki), then by definition this creation is certainly 'finite.' The Big Bang Theory of Creation is a "MYTH" (my thread) BTW . . . 
*

What utter stupidity.  Heres a clue for the clueless.  The universe is not JUST the hard stuff.  It also includes the spaces within and BEYOND.  What a moron.


----------



## Terral (Apr 11, 2009)

Hi Huggy:



HUGGY said:


> What utter stupidity. Heres a clue for the clueless.



Sticks and stones . . . Huggy can send us three sentences of stupidity, but we already knew that. :0) 



HUGGY said:


> The universe is not JUST the hard stuff.



The universes is not nearly as '*hard*' as getting Huggy to back up his nonsense with credible third-party evidentiary support. 



HUGGY said:


> It also includes the spaces within and BEYOND. What a moron.



Yes. Huggy might be a moron, but we are entertained just the same. My point (again) is that an infinite universe is incapable of 'expanding,' unless a simultaneous 'contraction' is taking place at the very same time. And yet, Hubble's Law says,

Wiki


> *Hubble's law* is the statement in physical cosmology that distant galaxies are receding from us at a velocity proportional to their distance from us.[1] The velocity of these objects was inferred from their redshifts, many measured much earlier by Vesto Slipher (1917) and related to velocity by him.[2]. The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble in 1929[3] after nearly a decade of observations. It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang.


Boil all of the related evidence down to realize we are living inside an 'expanding' universe where 'distant galaxies' are moving away in direct proportion to 'their distance from us.' Mr. Huggy should realize that anyone proposing the thesis that the *Big Bang Theory Of Creation Is A MYTH* (my thread again) is no moron and I welcome his rebuttals to my OP presentation anytime he is ready to begin supporting his foolishness using Science, Scripture or anything else. I would also like to see his advocating or opposing views to my *Pressure-Sheath Technology paper* (here), if he really feels qualifed to debate me on that topic; or on any of my standing *911Truth/Bible Truth presentations* (here) for that matter. Now if we can get back to Hubble&#8217;s Law for one minute:

  Everyone truly seeking &#8216;the truth&#8217; on the &#8216;finite universe&#8217; (this place is really very small) should realize that Hubble&#8217;s Law has two possible explanations:

Wiki: Big Bang:



> Hubble's law has two possible explanations. Either we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies&#8212;which is untenable given the Copernican Principle&#8212;or the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. This universal expansion was predicted from general relativity by Alexander Friedman in 1922[7] and Georges Lemaître in 1927,[8] well before Hubble made his 1929 analysis and observations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson and Walker.


  Either our Milky Way Galaxy is near the center of an explosion of galaxy chains, or the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere; according to this verifiable third-party resource. The problem is that the universe is not uniformly expanding everywhere, or the distant galaxies would be traveling at the same rate as those near our Milky Way Galaxy; and we just saw that those far-away galaxies are traveling at speeds proportionate to their distances. The truth (from my thesis) says that our earth is the universal body representing the very center of this universe &#8216;and&#8217; that every particle of matter (visible and invisible) was once part of a Singularity Expression &#8216;Eth &#8216;Erets (The Earth) creation that was &#8216;destroyed&#8217; about 14 billion years ago with the Big Bang (broken into trinities). That means the exterior matter on the perimeter of the preexisting universe was thrown in all directions with no resistance &#8216;and&#8217; the matter inside near the &#8216;center&#8217; (like us) is moving slowly because of the outward mass resistance. 

  This little planet (bottom of Fig 3) was chosen by the Lord God (Christ) to become the location for his incarnate *&#8220;son of God&#8221;* (Luke 3:38 = Adam), because everyone in this universe (seen and unseen) is a member of his currently broken body (1Cor. 15:22). Therefore, everything in this broken universe is moving away from &#8216;us&#8217; at speeds relative to their distance &#8216;and&#8217; we are very near the &#8216;center&#8217; of the universe at the very same time. :0) 

  If all you can do is call people names using three of four sentences of nonsense, then even the fool knows enough to close his lips and appear wise to somebody. Proverbs 17:28.

  GL,

  Terral


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 11, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > So you are saying science has learned nothing since the time of Clausius!!!
> ...



No, the SLoT says entropy NEVER DECREASES and never decreases means entropy can and does equal zero. It's up to you to prove your law that eliminated the zero is mathematically equal to the actual SLoT. As I said before, you can't, so you resort to semantics to get rid of that pesky zero. And I remind you if entropy can't equal zero no matter would be able to exist.


----------



## Kalam (Apr 11, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> No, the SLoT says entropy NEVER DECREASES and never decreases means entropy can and does equal zero. It's up to you to prove your law that eliminated the zero is mathematically equal to the actual SLoT. As I said before, you can't, so you resort to semantics to get rid of that pesky zero. And I remind you if entropy can't equal zero no matter would be able to exist.


Once again, I've never argued that chnages in entropy cannot equal zero. You, however, are suggesting that "doesn't decrease" = "remains the same."


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 11, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > No, the SLoT says entropy NEVER DECREASES and never decreases means entropy can and does equal zero. It's up to you to prove your law that eliminated the zero is mathematically equal to the actual SLoT. As I said before, you can't, so you resort to semantics to get rid of that pesky zero. And I remind you if entropy can't equal zero no matter would be able to exist.
> ...



No, I clearly said "never decreases" means "greater than OR equal to zero" and when entropy equals zero it remains the same. So entropy can tend to increase in one closed system but stay the same in another. I said the universe was a perpetual commotion machine with an entropy of zero.


----------



## Kalam (Apr 11, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


If entropy can increase, it eventually will, tending toward a maximum at equilibrium. If there are two possibilities, ie: remaining the same or increasing, it is illogical to assume that a system will always experience one or the other. Since decreasing isn't possible, every isolated system will experience both positive changes in entropy and instances in which entropy does not increase or decrease. This is still a net increase and an overall tendency towards maximum equilibrium.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 11, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



No, it's one or the other. If every isolated system experienced BOTH, again, no matter would be able to exist.


----------



## Kalam (Apr 11, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I'm only concerned with one isolated system.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 11, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



Do you even read what you post?


----------



## Kalam (Apr 11, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Nice attempt to divert attention away from the discussion at hand. You know very well that the isolated system referred to in my last post contains all other isolated systems. 

So, why do you erroneously believe that the universe does not experience net increases in entropy?


----------



## Terral (Apr 11, 2009)

Hi Ed:



edthecynic said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



If all you guys can muster is one line of 'isolated system' nonsense, then a good idea might be to wait a day or two until something 'more' comes to mind. The Topic appears to be about whether the universe is eternal 'or' something else and the quantitative measure of disorder in an isolated system has nothing to do with anything; unless one of you guys have reconciled Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. 

This creation will be remade more than a 1000 times (like Rev. 21:1), before the microcosmic mirrors the macrocosmic; because the visible 'and' invisible universes (and the soul-like realm joining them) are currently BROKEN. This current universe is nothing more than a tiny watermelon seed in comparison to the sun, when compared to the visible universe coming to exist at the end of all the ages to come.  

GL,

Terral


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 11, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



Because the Entropy of the universe CAN equal zero.

 "In concise form, the second law, as formulated mathematically in 1862 by German physicist Rudolf Clausius, states that in a cyclical heat-driven process which is in any way possible the following relation will always hold:





where dQ is an element of the heat given up by a body to any reservoir of heat during its own changes, heat which it may absorb from a reservoir being here reckoned as negative, and T is the absolute temperature of the body at the moment of giving up this heat. [1] The quantity "dQ/T" is called entropy."


----------



## Kalam (Apr 11, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You're arguing that the entropy of the universe therefore always equals zero. This is incorrect.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 11, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



The entropy of the universe remaining constant means the entropy of the universe equals zero.

The role of expansion for the entropy of the universe
Ulrych, Emil; Voracek, Pavel
Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 186, no. 1, Dec. 1991, p. 157, 158.

It is proposed, under the assumption of the closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe, that the cosmological expansion/contraction on its own has an entropy balancing effectively the changing entropy of the cosmic fluid in such a way that at every epoch* the total entropy of the universe remains constant.* It is argued that, thermodynamically, the universe, as a whole, behaves like a self-gravitating formation of an adiabatic gas, quite regardless of the processes occurring in the cosmic fluid.


----------



## Gurdari (Apr 13, 2009)

sky dancer said:


> So Gunny, you believe in eternity?  Eternal god, eternal damnation, eternal heaven?
> 
> What in this world or the universe can you point to that proves 'eternalism'?



Well, you can't destroy or create matter, so eternal the universe must be (in some form or another).

Just wonder why the universe has THAT particular amount of matter in it... if we actually discover just what that number/equation is, is that a 'God' number? Whatever God may be?


----------



## Kalam (Apr 13, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> The entropy of the universe remaining constant means the entropy of the universe equals zero.
> 
> The role of expansion for the entropy of the universe
> Ulrych, Emil; Voracek, Pavel
> ...



Ok, I see what you're saying. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that we live in a closed universe that will end in a "big crunch," correct? Your theory is at odds with scientific observations, which all seem to indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating rather than being slowed as your theory assumes it must be. I'm afraid that this hypothesis is based on more assumptions than the idea of an expanding, cooling universe approaching thermodynamic equilibrium and "heat death."


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 13, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The entropy of the universe remaining constant means the entropy of the universe equals zero.
> ...



Nowhere did I say the universe should be slowing all the time, that is YOUR Straw Man assumption. 
And if you understood anything about the Big Crunch, you would know that the universe would be expected to accelerate in the vortex of the Black Hole of the Big Crunch. If you watch water getting sucked down a drain, anything caught in the vortex leading to the drain ACCELERATES the closer it gets to the drain.


----------



## Kalam (Apr 13, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Nowhere did I say the universe should be slowing all the time, that is YOUR Straw Man assumption.


The belief that the universe's expansion will be slowed and reversed by gravity is basically the central belief of the big crunch hypothesis. 



edthecynic said:


> And if you understood anything about the Big Crunch, you would know that the universe would be expected to accelerate in the vortex of the Black Hole of the Big Crunch. If you watch water getting sucked down a drain, anything caught in the vortex leading to the drain ACCELERATES the closer it gets to the drain.


The universe is accelerating in its expansion. No contraction or acceleration towards any black hole or "drain" is occurring, and none will ever conceivably occur. Recent observations confirming the universe's accelerating expansion have effectively shown your hypothesis to be junk science.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 13, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Nowhere did I say the universe should be slowing all the time, that is YOUR Straw Man assumption.
> ...



Gravity is the engine of the universe. None of your claims have been settled yet, in fact, we still don't have a quantum theory of gravity yet. Matter can't accelerate on its own, that violates the First Law, a gravitational field must provide the acceleration.
Your problem is you are thinking linearly. When you look out in space, you are not looking straight out, but looking around in an arc. 

You should think of the universe as a spiraling cosmic VORTEX. I'm sure you've seen in gymnastics there is a floor exercise where they hold a stick with a long ribbon connected at the end. With a flick of the wrist the ribbon takes the shape of an expanding spiral vortex beginning at the singularity of the point where it connects to the stick. 
The difference between the ribbon and the universe is the ribbon would be a STRING in the 11 dimension hyperspace of multilayer String/M Theory, that as each expanding loop spirals out away from the singularity, it eventually starts to fold out around itself. Eventually it expands no more and each loop starts to get smaller and starts accelerating into a contracting vortex. We see it getting farther away from us and accelerating at the same time and falsely assume it is still expanding because it is still getting farther away from us. Viewed from a perspective above the equator, the universe looks like Feynman's sphere and viewed from the poles, an expanding or contracting cone shaped vortex like the warped space of Hawking. The Big Crunch is still a valid theory.


----------



## Chris (Apr 13, 2009)

"For us believing physicists, time has the value of mere illusion, however tenacious."

Albert Einstein


----------



## Kalam (Apr 14, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



...why should I believe that the universe is a vortex when all evidence suggests that it has euclidean curvature? Why not go with the evidence and assume that it's flat and expanding at a continuously accelerating rate?

WMAP- Shape of the Universe


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 15, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



The Universe is known to have an Axis, discovered in 1997 by Borge Nodland and John P. Ralston. 'Axis' means a 'line around which something rotates and the Cosmos is rotating around the Black Hole at the center of the universe. 

NASA's COBE satellite proved conclusively, in 1998, that the Early Cosmos was born in the 'hot soup' of a perfectly smooth and evenly distributed giant cloud of hydrogen, with no signs of any Big Bang or Clumping Up (Star-birth etc.) anywhere. The Cosmos has since Clumped Up.

Clumping Up only happens in a Whirlpool (Vortex). 

The Cosmos must, therefore, resemble a Whirlpool, and is probably shaped a lot like the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51) or our own Milky Way. Like these Galaxies, the Cosmos too has a Black Hole at the center.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Apr 16, 2009)

Good GRIEF.


----------



## Kalam (Apr 16, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> The Universe is known to have an Axis, discovered in 1997 by Borge Nodland and John P. Ralston. 'Axis' means a 'line around which something rotates and the Cosmos is rotating around the Black Hole at the center of the universe.
> 
> NASA's COBE satellite proved conclusively, in 1998, that the Early Cosmos was born in the 'hot soup' of a perfectly smooth and evenly distributed giant cloud of hydrogen, with no signs of any Big Bang or Clumping Up (Star-birth etc.) anywhere. The Cosmos has since Clumped Up.
> 
> ...



Dude. C'mon.

_Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. *Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.*​_
WMAP- Shape of the Universe


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 16, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The Universe is known to have an Axis, discovered in 1997 by Borge Nodland and John P. Ralston. 'Axis' means a 'line around which something rotates and the Cosmos is rotating around the Black Hole at the center of the universe.
> ...



OK, if you click on your own link and then click on the highlighted words in the section you copied and pasted and there is a time illustration shown below. To understand my model of the universe you merely have to imagine that that illustration is rotating as it expands. A Cosmic Vortex.

 If you look on the right side you will see it is starting to flair out. Picture it continuing to flair out as it expands, it will over time start to fold out over itself. Eventually it will expand no more and its diameter will start to narrow as everything in the universe is drawn into a supermassive Black Hole at the back end of the point where the time chart begins on the left tracing out a shape the same the expansion only compressing this time so the vortex narrows rather than expands. So my model just continues from where yours leaves off..


----------



## Kalam (Apr 16, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> WMAP- Shape of the Universe
> 
> OK, if you click on your own link and then click on the highlighted words in the section you copied and pasted and there is a time illustration shown below. To understand my model of the universe you merely have to imagine that that illustration is rotating as it expands. A Cosmic Vortex.


The universe is rotating? Rotating compared to what? 



edthecynic said:


> If you look on the right side you will see it is starting to flair out. Picture it continuing to flair out as it expands, it will over time start to fold out over itself.


That contradicts the idea of a universe with euclidean geometry. There is no logical basis for the assumption that the universe will experience a massive spacetime fuck-up and "double back" on itself, so to speak, rather than continuing on the course of expansion it's always followed. 



edthecynic said:


> Eventually it will expand no more and its diameter will start to narrow as everything in the universe is drawn into a supermassive Black Hole at the back end of the point where the time chart begins on the left tracing out a shape the same the expansion only compressing this time so the vortex narrows rather than expands. So my model just continues from where yours leaves off..


Yours makes baseless speculations where no speculation is needed. The universe expanded from a singularity or some sort of similarly compressed, infinitesimal state. The expansion is accelerating and will presumably continue on its current course until the universe reaches maximum entropy and experiences a "heat death." The best theory makes the fewest assumptions.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 16, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > WMAP- Shape of the Universe
> ...



Fewest assumptions but most presumptions! LOL

You are assuming the universe can gain speed on its own after slowing down. A violation of the First Law. Only the influence of an outside force, like the gravity of a supermassive black hole, can accelerate the distant universe.
A heat death violates the Third Law.

The best theory is the one whose assumptions and presumptions don't violate proven laws.


----------



## Kalam (Apr 16, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> You are assuming the universe can gain speed on its own after slowing down.


That isn't my assumption.

The Cosmological Constant
Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



edthecynic said:


> A violation of the First Law. Only the influence of an outside force,


...like a positive cosmological constant/dark energy...



edthecynic said:


> A heat death violates the Third Law.


False.

Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 16, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > You are assuming the universe can gain speed on its own after slowing down.
> ...



From your own link:



> How physically plausible is the cosmological constant?
> 
> The physical interpretation of the cosmological constant as vacuum energy density is supported by the existence of the "zero point" energy predicted by quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, particle and antiparticle pairs are consistently being created out of the vacuum. Even though these particles exist for only a short amount of time before annihilating each other they do give the vacuum a non-zero potential energy. This concept of the vacuum energy has been experimentally confirmed through the Casimir effect, where two uncharged conducting plates attract each other due to quantum fluctuations. In general relativity, all forms of energy should gravitate, including the energy of the vacuum, hence the cosmological constant.
> 
> ...


----------



## garyd (Apr 17, 2009)

Nope science does not say the Universe is eternal in fact scinece states that the Universe cannot be eternal. Ever hear of the Big Bang which essentially maintains that our current universe has not always existed. IN fact  since our univese is expanding it cannot be eternal in the accepted sense of the term.

That being the case any being call it God or whatever that may have created this universe must then logiclally exist outside of the context of this universe and therefore ultimately be unobservable by anything within this universe unless he/she/it chooses to reveal his/her/it's presence to some one within this universe's context.


----------



## Kalam (Apr 17, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> *Such high theoretical calculations of
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you think I'm retarded? 

The conclusion you chose to omit:
_*Even though theoretical calculations of the cosmological constant are not fully understood*, the fact remains that the vacuum energy *does exist*. Since gravity couples all forms of energy, the cosmological constant remains as a *physically plausible* part of modern cosmology._​


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 19, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > You are assuming the universe can gain speed on its own after slowing down.
> ...





Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > *Such high theoretical calculations of
> ...



No, I think you are dishonest.

Physically plausible BUT with a value of ZERO, not the POSITIVE value you need.


----------



## Kalam (Apr 23, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



A "cosmological constant with a value of zero" is not a cosmological constant, dude. My position is generally accepted and is in agreement with empirical data. Yours is rooted in speculation, makes unfounded assumptions, and contradicts observed evidence and recorded data.

See "conclusion":
Cosmological Constant


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 23, 2009)

Kalam said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



The conclusion was that confirmation was required.



> Conclusion
> 
> In the past, we have had only upper limits on the vacuum density and philosophical arguments based on the Dicke coincidence problem and Bayesian statistics that suggested that the most likely value of the vacuum density was zero. Now we have the supernova data* that suggests that* the vacuum energy density is greater than zero. This result is very important *if true. We need to confirm it using other techniques*, such as the WMAP satellite which has observed the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background with angular resolution and sensitivity that are sufficient to measure the vacuum energy density. CMB data combined with the measured Hubble constant do confirm the supernova data: there is a positive but small vacuum energy density.


--------------------------------------------



> The Universe is known to have an Axis, discovered in 1997 by Borge Nodland and John P. Ralston. 'Axis' means a 'line around which something rotates and the Cosmos is rotating around the Black Hole at the center of the universe.
> 
> NASA's COBE satellite proved conclusively, in 1998, that the Early Cosmos was born in the 'hot soup' of a perfectly smooth and evenly distributed giant cloud of hydrogen, with no signs of any Big Bang or Clumping Up (Star-birth etc.) anywhere. The Cosmos has since Clumped Up.
> 
> ...



What you still haven't explained away is the rotation of the universe, which you have run from twice already. A supermassive black hole would account for BOTH the acceleration of the distant universe AND its rotation which you cannot with your unconfirmed Cosmological Constant. 
You might find this link very interesting.

TRUMPET UNIVERSE


----------

