Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Seem to me your argument is we are too perfect to not have a creator. But I say if we have a creator it isn't a perfect God because we aren't perfect.are you a materialist? science has its limitations don't you agree? how can you measure or weigh an idea or a thought?God.....according to theistsI don't know, what?massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...
since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)
"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theological positions, to mean that God is used as a spurious explanation for anything not currently explained by science.
those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."
During World War II the German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed the concept in similar terms in letters he wrote while in a Nazi prison. Bonhoeffer wrote, for example:
how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.
In November of 1919, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was confirmed by an eclipse where light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways. In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter. The cosmic evolutionary phase - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles. The stellar evolutionary phase saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust). These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase were controlled by the laws of nature which came into existence with space and time. The data undeniably shows that at the early beginning the universe was hot and dense and has expanded.That's not what you observe with your limited understanding of physics. That's your problem, not the problem of science.Nope. That's not what we observe at all.Then even without mass-containing matter, the conversion, and cycle of the universe can, and will continue, ad infinitum. No limit.No. that it has no effect on the matter that does have mass as it pertains to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.So, it is your contenmtion, that with no mass-containing matter, there can be no energy conversion, correct?That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?
.True. At this point I see no evidence. All the things I don't know the answer to don't prove god exists. Fear of the afterlife won't convince me. Wishful thinking won't. Because it makes me feel better isn't a reason to believe. Because it does more good than harm isn't a good reason in fact I believe the opposite. If it makes you a better person doesn't matter. Because most people believe doesn't move me. In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.It won't for you. Nothing will.
In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.
genome: the complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or organism.
the above is for all living beings, what shapes and where did the genome come from and the manufacturing process of organic tissue - before the beings inception ... and please, it is not related to the awful 4th century coup d'etat.
as a spoken language ... the beings existence post operative.
Yes we are. The Bible called this before science did. DNA too.
Show me.
Man—in the form of Adam—was indeed made from the “dust” of the ground. However, the Earth and its component materials were created before the stars, not from the stars (Gen. 1:16).
Read more at: Are humans made of stardust? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Why do you believe perfection is the standard of measure? Were you not given the rarest gift in the universe? How fucking perfect was that? I think I'll take all that goes with life and be thankful for the gift I was given, bad eyes included.Seem to me your argument is we are too perfect to not have a creator. But I say if we have a creator it isn't a perfect God because we aren't perfect.are you a materialist? science has its limitations don't you agree? how can you measure or weigh an idea or a thought?God.....according to theistsI don't know, what?massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?
since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)
"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theological positions, to mean that God is used as a spurious explanation for anything not currently explained by science.
those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."
During World War II the German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed the concept in similar terms in letters he wrote while in a Nazi prison. Bonhoeffer wrote, for example:
how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.
Our Creator is something physical, real and can be explained scientifically. And some questions are unknowable.
Why would a God create an eye that wears out? He could have made the eye better. So he's not a perfect all knowing thing. Must not be
People like you like to pretend they understand quantum mechanics. You bandy it around like you understand what it means. You do dumbass things like try to disprove the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because of a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation and has an extremely low cross section for interaction with matter.There you go trying to understand quantum mechanics with your high school physics again. Come on back when you develop the ability to understand how it is possible to convert matter into energy without losing mass.No. Not an endless cycle. So says the 2nd law of thermodynamics.That is a presumption. You are still thinking in linear terms. The universe is cyclical. Energy converted to matter, matter converted to energy, in endless cycle, no need for any outside motivator.since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.
The only solution to the first cause is the eternal.No, because it infers a violation of the First law of Thermodynamics. It implies that there can be an effect without a cause. "God created the universe," Okay. From whence came God. In order for this "God" to have existed, something must have created it. However, that would negate it being God; rather it is just another effect of some other cause.isn't that a valid scientific question?You are preseming that there was an "original cause", or that one was necessary. And your support for this claim is...?my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'Ad your point? The fact remains that these virtual particles can be infinitely created, and destroyed to fuel the "engine" of the universe, wthout affecting the overall mass of the universe, thus without "violating" the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics."As a consequence of quantum mechanical uncertainty, any object or process that exists for a limited time or in a limited volume cannot have a precisely defined energy or momentum. This is the reason that virtual particles – which exist only temporarily as they are exchanged between ordinary particles – do not necessarily obey the mass-shell relation. However, the longer a virtual particle exists, the more closely it adheres to the mass-shell relation. A "virtual" particle that exists for an arbitrarily long time is simply an ordinary particle – in that sense electromagnetic waves, e.g. in a microwave oven, consist of real photons rather than virtual ones. (A typical power oven emitting microwaves of roughly λ=3cm at a power of 700 W produces {\displaystyle 10^{26}}real photons per second.)
However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes. As such, there is no absolute distinction between "real" and "virtual" particles. In practice, the lifetime of "ordinary" particles is far longer than the lifetime of the virtual particles that contribute to processes in particle physics, and as such the distinction is useful to make."
Virtual particle - Wikipedia
.A couple quotes from Andrew Flew (1923-2010).....one of the most famous atheists in the past half century:"Goddidit" is an answer.....if there is a first cause/supreme being then why not call it God? 'nothing' sure doesn't cut it....Ok. and until just over 100 years ago science couldn't answer the question "how does the sun work?"my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'
Science isn't an object or a source...it's a process and method of discovery and knowledge.
No...we don't know how the universe came about or the details. Maybe we never will. But "Goddidit" isn't an answer. It doesn't mean anything more than "We don't know."
If God created the universe...how? and where was God's existence before the universe was created, and can that even be explained in a way that would make sense?
also who or what do you think made the universe so orderly?....who or what created all the scientific laws that govern our physical world? scientists sure don't have the answer to that one...
Complexity/Order proves god exists.
The Teleological argument [2], or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
Big Bang > Cosmic Inflation > Big Bang Nucleosynthesis > Stellar Formation > Galaxy Formation > Stellar Nucleosynthesis > Solar System Formation > Earth Formation > Abiogenesis > Evolution
Note: Crystallisation is one example of how matter can readily self-organise into complex, ordered shapes and structures eg. Bismuth.
See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organisation, Evolution [2], The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado [2] (Hoyle’s fallacy).
Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2, Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.
“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin
Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.
I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.
Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments.
I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.
that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.
And, as ahs been repeatedly demonstrated, your "observations" are decidedly out of date, overly simplistic, and lacking in understanding:In November of 1919, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was confirmed by an eclipse where light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways. In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter. The cosmic evolutionary phase - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles. The stellar evolutionary phase saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust). These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase were controlled by the laws of nature which came into existence with space and time. The data undeniably shows that at the early beginning the universe was hot and dense and has expanded.That's not what you observe with your limited understanding of physics. That's your problem, not the problem of science.Nope. That's not what we observe at all.Then even without mass-containing matter, the conversion, and cycle of the universe can, and will continue, ad infinitum. No limit.No. that it has no effect on the matter that does have mass as it pertains to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.So, it is your contenmtion, that with no mass-containing matter, there can be no energy conversion, correct?
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
Big Bang Theory
- First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
- Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
- Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
- Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
That's what I have observed. And don't forget that entropy proves the universe is not eternal and therefore must be of a finite age. So clearly not only do I have a sound scientific basis for my beliefs, I have the scientific consensus. This is objective evidence.
You seem to have missed the last line in that article you read: "One possible solution is to replace particles with strings. String theories are quantum theories of gravity in the sense that they reduce to classical general relativity plus field theory at low energies, but are fully quantum mechanical, contain a graviton, and are thought to be mathematically consistent." In other words, the problem isn't with including gravitons, and other qwuantum particles in theories, but with replacing the classic particle equations, with strings, and beams; a more sophisticated, and elegant understanding of the quantum composition of the universe.People like you like to pretend they understand quantum mechanics. You bandy it around like you understand what it means. You do dumbass things like try to disprove the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because of a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation and has an extremely low cross section for interaction with matter.There you go trying to understand quantum mechanics with your high school physics again. Come on back when you develop the ability to understand how it is possible to convert matter into energy without losing mass.No. Not an endless cycle. So says the 2nd law of thermodynamics.That is a presumption. You are still thinking in linear terms. The universe is cyclical. Energy converted to matter, matter converted to energy, in endless cycle, no need for any outside motivator.since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...
"...A detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions. Wow.
Most theories containing gravitons suffer from severe problems. Attempts to extend the Standard Model or other quantum field theories by adding gravitons run into serious theoretical difficulties at energies close to or above the Planck scale. This is because of infinities arising due to quantum effects; technically, gravitation is not renormalizable. Since classical general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to be incompatible at such energies, from a theoretical point of view, this situation is not tenable..."
Graviton - Wikipedia
You mean like believing the universe had a beginning?Sure. However, ideas, and thoughts are personal, and subjective. One can hardly use them as objective evidence of divinity, now can one.are you a materialist? science has its limitations don't you agree? how can you measure or weigh an idea or a thought?God.....according to theistsI don't know, what?massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?
since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)
"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theological positions, to mean that God is used as a spurious explanation for anything not currently explained by science.
those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."
During World War II the German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed the concept in similar terms in letters he wrote while in a Nazi prison. Bonhoeffer wrote, for example:
how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.
Thank you for proving the point in my signature. "They worship science but are the first to reject it when it does not suit their purposes."And, as ahs been repeatedly demonstrated, your "observations" are decidedly out of date, overly simplistic, and lacking in understanding:In November of 1919, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was confirmed by an eclipse where light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways. In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter. The cosmic evolutionary phase - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles. The stellar evolutionary phase saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust). These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase were controlled by the laws of nature which came into existence with space and time. The data undeniably shows that at the early beginning the universe was hot and dense and has expanded.That's not what you observe with your limited understanding of physics. That's your problem, not the problem of science.Nope. That's not what we observe at all.Then even without mass-containing matter, the conversion, and cycle of the universe can, and will continue, ad infinitum. No limit.No. that it has no effect on the matter that does have mass as it pertains to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
Big Bang Theory
- First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
- Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
- Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
- Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
That's what I have observed. And don't forget that entropy proves the universe is not eternal and therefore must be of a finite age. So clearly not only do I have a sound scientific basis for my beliefs, I have the scientific consensus. This is objective evidence.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
You really shouldn't try to to make definitive statements about the nature of the universe with only a high school physics understanding of cosmology.
No. I saw it. I also saw all that other stuff. I don't claim to be a quantum mechanics expert, that doesn't mean I don't know anything about it. You on the other hand know very little about it. We have evidence that the universe started as a very hot and dense object and expanded and cooled. There was a beginning. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics corroborates it. And gravitons have nothing to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.You seem to have missed the last line in that article you read: "One possible solution is to replace particles with strings. String theories are quantum theories of gravity in the sense that they reduce to classical general relativity plus field theory at low energies, but are fully quantum mechanical, contain a graviton, and are thought to be mathematically consistent." In other words, the problem isn't with including gravitons, and other qwuantum particles in theories, but with replacing the classic particle equations, with strings, and beams; a more sophisticated, and elegant understanding of the quantum composition of the universe.People like you like to pretend they understand quantum mechanics. You bandy it around like you understand what it means. You do dumbass things like try to disprove the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because of a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation and has an extremely low cross section for interaction with matter.There you go trying to understand quantum mechanics with your high school physics again. Come on back when you develop the ability to understand how it is possible to convert matter into energy without losing mass.No. Not an endless cycle. So says the 2nd law of thermodynamics.That is a presumption. You are still thinking in linear terms. The universe is cyclical. Energy converted to matter, matter converted to energy, in endless cycle, no need for any outside motivator.since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?
"...A detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions. Wow.
Most theories containing gravitons suffer from severe problems. Attempts to extend the Standard Model or other quantum field theories by adding gravitons run into serious theoretical difficulties at energies close to or above the Planck scale. This is because of infinities arising due to quantum effects; technically, gravitation is not renormalizable. Since classical general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to be incompatible at such energies, from a theoretical point of view, this situation is not tenable..."
Graviton - Wikipedia
Stick to bargain basement theology; physics, and quantum mechanics is clearly above your understanding.
I reject nothing. I updated your outdated understanding. Guess what? 50 years ago one would reasonably have insisted that petroleum was the only way to power the engine of an automobile, because that was our technical understanding of the time. However were you to try to suggest that, to day, I would quickly, and easily demonstrate how incorrect you are. That wouldn't be "denying science, or engineering"; it would be demonstrating that your understanding of such is woefully outdated.Thank you for proving my point in my signature. "They worship science but are the first to reject it when it does not suit their purposes."And, as ahs been repeatedly demonstrated, your "observations" are decidedly out of date, overly simplistic, and lacking in understanding:In November of 1919, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was confirmed by an eclipse where light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways. In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter. The cosmic evolutionary phase - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles. The stellar evolutionary phase saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust). These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase were controlled by the laws of nature which came into existence with space and time. The data undeniably shows that at the early beginning the universe was hot and dense and has expanded.That's not what you observe with your limited understanding of physics. That's your problem, not the problem of science.Nope. That's not what we observe at all.Then even without mass-containing matter, the conversion, and cycle of the universe can, and will continue, ad infinitum. No limit.
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
Big Bang Theory
- First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
- Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
- Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
- Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
That's what I have observed. And don't forget that entropy proves the universe is not eternal and therefore must be of a finite age. So clearly not only do I have a sound scientific basis for my beliefs, I have the scientific consensus. This is objective evidence.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
You really shouldn't try to to make definitive statements about the nature of the universe with only a high school physics understanding of cosmology.
Whose have I dismissed?You seem to have taken it out of context. I would not expect an atheist to understand my faith anymore than I would be able to understand a faith that was not my own.This is funny. I didn't have enough or the right kind of faith. Lol. Sorry I can't fully believe the unbelievableI doubt you did, more than likely you had notional faith; superficial faith. I suspect if you are honest with yourself you will admit that you really didn't believe even when you thought you believed. But I could be wrong. Either way it does not change my point. You would not be expected to know and understand a faith that is not yours.
The "No true scotsman" fallacy:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
The Ding version:
Person A: "Nobody with faith becomes an atheist."
Person B: "But I had faith, and I became an atheist."
Person A: "Ah yes, but nobody with _true_ faith becomes an atheist."
Funny thing is that when those atheists were Christians, Ding would have been praising them for their _true_ faith. Ding only recategorizes faith as "not true" after the change to atheism. How convenient. Perhaps Ding can give us an objective standard to judge whether faith is "true" in the here and now, without waiting to see what the future brings. But I doubt it.
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen F Roberts
No, there wasn't. You believe there was - because you need to, because without that hypothetical beginning your entire theological position falls apart - but there is a perfectly reasonable, and mathematically sound, theory of cosmology which requires no such beginning.No. I saw it. I also saw all that other stuff. I don't claim to be a quantum mechanics expert, that doesn't mean I don't know anything about it. You on the other hand know very little about it. We have evidence that the universe started as a very hot and dense object and expanded and cooled. There was a beginning. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics corroborates it. And gravitons have nothing to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.You seem to have missed the last line in that article you read: "One possible solution is to replace particles with strings. String theories are quantum theories of gravity in the sense that they reduce to classical general relativity plus field theory at low energies, but are fully quantum mechanical, contain a graviton, and are thought to be mathematically consistent." In other words, the problem isn't with including gravitons, and other qwuantum particles in theories, but with replacing the classic particle equations, with strings, and beams; a more sophisticated, and elegant understanding of the quantum composition of the universe.People like you like to pretend they understand quantum mechanics. You bandy it around like you understand what it means. You do dumbass things like try to disprove the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because of a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation and has an extremely low cross section for interaction with matter.There you go trying to understand quantum mechanics with your high school physics again. Come on back when you develop the ability to understand how it is possible to convert matter into energy without losing mass.No. Not an endless cycle. So says the 2nd law of thermodynamics.That is a presumption. You are still thinking in linear terms. The universe is cyclical. Energy converted to matter, matter converted to energy, in endless cycle, no need for any outside motivator.
"...A detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions. Wow.
Most theories containing gravitons suffer from severe problems. Attempts to extend the Standard Model or other quantum field theories by adding gravitons run into serious theoretical difficulties at energies close to or above the Planck scale. This is because of infinities arising due to quantum effects; technically, gravitation is not renormalizable. Since classical general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to be incompatible at such energies, from a theoretical point of view, this situation is not tenable..."
Graviton - Wikipedia
Stick to bargain basement theology; physics, and quantum mechanics is clearly above your understanding.
My understanding of understanding of physics and cosmology is just fine. I wasn't the one arguing that gravitons negated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.I reject nothing. I updated your outdated understanding. Guess what? 50 years ago one would reasonably have insisted that petroleum was the only way to power the engine of an automobile, because that was our technical understanding of the time. However were you to try to suggest that, to day, I would quickly, and easily demonstrate how incorrect you are. That wouldn't be "denying science, or engineering"; it would be demonstrating that your understanding of such is woefully outdated.Thank you for proving my point in my signature. "They worship science but are the first to reject it when it does not suit their purposes."And, as ahs been repeatedly demonstrated, your "observations" are decidedly out of date, overly simplistic, and lacking in understanding:In November of 1919, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was confirmed by an eclipse where light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways. In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter. The cosmic evolutionary phase - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles. The stellar evolutionary phase saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust). These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase were controlled by the laws of nature which came into existence with space and time. The data undeniably shows that at the early beginning the universe was hot and dense and has expanded.That's not what you observe with your limited understanding of physics. That's your problem, not the problem of science.Nope. That's not what we observe at all.
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
Big Bang Theory
- First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
- Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
- Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
- Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
That's what I have observed. And don't forget that entropy proves the universe is not eternal and therefore must be of a finite age. So clearly not only do I have a sound scientific basis for my beliefs, I have the scientific consensus. This is objective evidence.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
You really shouldn't try to to make definitive statements about the nature of the universe with only a high school physics understanding of cosmology.
As it is with your understanding of physics, and cosmology.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
No. Time and space are not eternal. Time and space came into existence. At which time the matter and energy that make up you today were created. Before that point nothing existed. We don't know what is outside the box. We can only know what is inside it.That is not the pertinent question. Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal? My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.No necessarily because mass and energy are equivalent. The loss would occur in either transaction. Do you believe that gravitons prevent the loss of usable energy in a closed system when matter is converted to energy or vice versa?The only dumbass here is you. Allow me to ask the question again. In fact, let's start simple.My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.
Do you agree that matter is converted to energy at the cost of mass?
We'll, you tell me. How much energy would be lost in converting 0 mass to energy?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Maybe it isn't eternally the way it is now but time and space are eternal, no? 90 trillion years ago time and space existed but this universe may not have existed. If not, does that mean god didn't exist 90 trillion years ago? Was he not born yet?
The truth is God was born when we made him up.
I didn't say it negates it; I said it bypasses it. There is a difference.My understanding of understanding of physics and cosmology is just fine. I wasn't the one arguing that gravitons negated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.I reject nothing. I updated your outdated understanding. Guess what? 50 years ago one would reasonably have insisted that petroleum was the only way to power the engine of an automobile, because that was our technical understanding of the time. However were you to try to suggest that, to day, I would quickly, and easily demonstrate how incorrect you are. That wouldn't be "denying science, or engineering"; it would be demonstrating that your understanding of such is woefully outdated.Thank you for proving my point in my signature. "They worship science but are the first to reject it when it does not suit their purposes."And, as ahs been repeatedly demonstrated, your "observations" are decidedly out of date, overly simplistic, and lacking in understanding:In November of 1919, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was confirmed by an eclipse where light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways. In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter. The cosmic evolutionary phase - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles. The stellar evolutionary phase saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust). These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase were controlled by the laws of nature which came into existence with space and time. The data undeniably shows that at the early beginning the universe was hot and dense and has expanded.That's not what you observe with your limited understanding of physics. That's your problem, not the problem of science.
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
Big Bang Theory
- First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
- Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
- Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
- Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
That's what I have observed. And don't forget that entropy proves the universe is not eternal and therefore must be of a finite age. So clearly not only do I have a sound scientific basis for my beliefs, I have the scientific consensus. This is objective evidence.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
You really shouldn't try to to make definitive statements about the nature of the universe with only a high school physics understanding of cosmology.
As it is with your understanding of physics, and cosmology.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
And yet you keep coming back here to talk about it.True. At this point I see no evidence. All the things I don't know the answer to don't prove god exists. Fear of the afterlife won't convince me. Wishful thinking won't. Because it makes me feel better isn't a reason to believe. Because it does more good than harm isn't a good reason in fact I believe the opposite. If it makes you a better person doesn't matter. Because most people believe doesn't move me. In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.It won't for you. Nothing will.My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension, I'll let you take time to do a bit of study, and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.Lol, how does that impact the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics on matter that has mass?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
How does this prove god exists?
I have found the best way to get over my cognitive dissonance is a nice drive in my vette after a round of golf at the club. I think I'll do that tomorrow.He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy. Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end. As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God. Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.It won't for you. Nothing will.My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension, I'll let you take time to do a bit of study, and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
How does this prove god exists?
I know what he's experiencing.
the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance
