Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

THE supreme living being is not a super-human being, in fact it would not have any physical attributes to qualify as God.

You were just trying to make the subject of what I wrote to YWC about your pathetic unsuccessful attempts to deal with being soundly refuted over and over and over and over and over..........again.

But there is no evidence of all this refuting, that's an amazing thing. I see where all of you are claiming my points have been refuted, but there never seems to be any quotes posted or anything to distinguish where this has happened in the thread. Perhaps this is all in your head?

The point was that even if God existed people who claim to know all about him( even if their concept of God is just an intelligent energy force that has no sense of logic) and then try to persuade others into 'believing' their bullshit that contradicts both reality and logic are hardly distinguishable from the serpent described in the fairy tale.

I don't know about serpents in fairy tales. Sounds like a religious construct to me. If you don't believe in religious concepts, why are you pretending to argue one?

That was the point.

What? That you wanted to argue religious concepts you don't believe in and have no idea of what you're talking about with regard to?

and don't worry about me worrying about your state of confusion. I really don't care if you lack the integrity to admit your errors shut up and go back to the drawing board.

I can clearly see your dedication to the super intelligent energy force that has no sense of logic and that you have your well deserved reward already.

enjoy!

But I am not confused. You seem to be, you are here arguing religious concepts, which you've claimed you don't believe in. Trying to say a "supreme living being" is NOT to be confused with a "super human being" ...not sure what the difference is, but you feel compelled to tell us there is one.

Yes, whenever my initial argument has been refuted, I will return to the drawing board, but that hasn't happened yet. Certainly, it hasn't happened as a result of your profound proclamation. You don't believe my argument, you don't accept it, but you haven't refuted it.

 

[Hollie]

Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom? Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know?

Make no mistake, if this theory had ever been tested and proven, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So there's simply no peer-reviewed evidence to consider, no published findings in science journals, not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates, as the cute little illustration depicts. Not a goddamn thing!

Yet... here it is, presented as if this is the scientific FACT that no one can refute or question! The really astonishing thing is, even if they are entirely correct, and the universe operates in a systematic way, like the freaking cycles on a washing machine... does that somehow "disprove" an intelligent designing force? Or is it more evidence OF such a force?

The above truly displays the fallacy of the intelligent design creationist. You should be aware that the theories surrounding the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are not intended to contradict your religious beliefs. They are theories, proposed to account for the function of nature based upon the available science. The hyper-religious such as Boss predefine the function of nature as being subordinate to his gawds / supermagical intelligent designer. For that personality type, all of nature can be explained with the four word, “the gawds did it”.


Religious faith is not a requirement to understand the natural world. And in fact, faith can often be a limitation to exploration and the seeking of knowledge. “Holy texts” laud faith. Faith is needed only when reason fails. If reason fails, then anything outside of reason by definition is irrational. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; obviously not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease? Reason and empirical evidence verifies our existence, and faith is necessary only when non-authorities attempt to foist their non-authoritative points of view on those gullible enough to either follow or have need to follow.

We see clearly that Boss leads his argumentation with the prior insistence that his gawds are true and thus, requires that science must be false because it doesn't "disprove" his gawds.

Humanity is evolving away from gawds mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner.

Would you consider this as intelligent design ?

Genetically Engineered Animals


How bout this ?

Engineered enzymes for chemical production. [Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

I saw nothing to suggest there was anything supernatural taking place.

What a waste of time.

Back to your stupor.

 

[hobelim]

But I am not confused. You seem to be, you are here arguing religious concepts, which you've claimed you don't believe in. Trying to say a "supreme living being" is NOT to be confused with a "super human being" ...not sure what the difference is, but you feel compelled to tell us there is one.

how many of you are there?

 

[Derideo_Te]

But I am not confused. You seem to be, you are here arguing religious concepts, which you've claimed you don't believe in. Trying to say a "supreme living being" is NOT to be confused with a "super human being" ...not sure what the difference is, but you feel compelled to tell us there is one.

how many of you are there?

Is Boss's first name Sybil?

Sybil (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hobelim]

But I am not confused. You seem to be, you are here arguing religious concepts, which you've claimed you don't believe in. Trying to say a "supreme living being" is NOT to be confused with a "super human being" ...not sure what the difference is, but you feel compelled to tell us there is one.

how many of you are there?

Is Boss's first name Sybil?

Sybil (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

whenever someone speaks of themselves in the plural they either think of themselves as royalty or are speaking for a crowd. Since boss is neither royalty nor speaking for anyone else the prognosis isn't very good.

how many are there is irrelevant, its name is legion.

Probably a super intelligent energy force with no sense of logic that escaped from the herd of pigs that threw themselves over a cliff a long time ago and found a new place to hide in the addled mind of boss.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The above truly displays the fallacy of the intelligent design creationist. You should be aware that the theories surrounding the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are not intended to contradict your religious beliefs. They are theories, proposed to account for the function of nature based upon the available science. The hyper-religious such as Boss predefine the function of nature as being subordinate to his gawds / supermagical intelligent designer. For that personality type, all of nature can be explained with the four word, “the gawds did it”.


Religious faith is not a requirement to understand the natural world. And in fact, faith can often be a limitation to exploration and the seeking of knowledge. “Holy texts” laud faith. Faith is needed only when reason fails. If reason fails, then anything outside of reason by definition is irrational. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; obviously not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease? Reason and empirical evidence verifies our existence, and faith is necessary only when non-authorities attempt to foist their non-authoritative points of view on those gullible enough to either follow or have need to follow.

We see clearly that Boss leads his argumentation with the prior insistence that his gawds are true and thus, requires that science must be false because it doesn't "disprove" his gawds.

Humanity is evolving away from gawds mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner.

Would you consider this as intelligent design ?

Genetically Engineered Animals


How bout this ?

Engineered enzymes for chemical production. [Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

Lets assume for the sake of discussion that God exists as the supreme living being whose absolute existence is the source and sustainer of all that is seen and unseen who could have in theory created any possible reality.


Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?


Isn't it much more likely that some other despicable creature would tell you that to be saved you have to believe that Jesus was an edible triune mangod who floated up into the sky and will return one day when the dead come out of their graves to take believers up into hebbin to rule the earth for an eternity while they watch unbelievers burn forever in sulfurous flames?

Did you never read the story about the serpent in the garden?

"Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?"

What Does God require us to believe that contradicts known truths ?

Looks like a lot of misinformation contained in the rest of your post. anyone who studies the scriptures thoroughly knows there is no such place as the hell you describe. The punishment is everlasting death the gift for believers is everlasting life.

Yes I did read the serpent and Eve story. Clearly Angels and God can do things that defy our known logic.

Let's assume all the theories of how the universe got here and this planet was developed to support life and then miraculously life was spontaneously generated with no aid but naturalism were true. does that not defy logic by our current knowledge ?

We have no viable explanation for origins of anything. Reality shows us that living organisms are produced by other living organisms and they are produced by other organisms that are of the same kind.

You believe a logical person would believe a living organism was produced by non-life ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The above truly displays the fallacy of the intelligent design creationist. You should be aware that the theories surrounding the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are not intended to contradict your religious beliefs. They are theories, proposed to account for the function of nature based upon the available science. The hyper-religious such as Boss predefine the function of nature as being subordinate to his gawds / supermagical intelligent designer. For that personality type, all of nature can be explained with the four word, “the gawds did it”.


Religious faith is not a requirement to understand the natural world. And in fact, faith can often be a limitation to exploration and the seeking of knowledge. “Holy texts” laud faith. Faith is needed only when reason fails. If reason fails, then anything outside of reason by definition is irrational. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; obviously not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease? Reason and empirical evidence verifies our existence, and faith is necessary only when non-authorities attempt to foist their non-authoritative points of view on those gullible enough to either follow or have need to follow.

We see clearly that Boss leads his argumentation with the prior insistence that his gawds are true and thus, requires that science must be false because it doesn't "disprove" his gawds.

Humanity is evolving away from gawds mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner.

Would you consider this as intelligent design ?

Genetically Engineered Animals


How bout this ?

Engineered enzymes for chemical production. [Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

I saw nothing to suggest there was anything supernatural taking place.

What a waste of time.

Back to your stupor.

Man can intelligently design biologically just like they design and build homes ,cars,computers.

But there can't be a super intelligent being that created and designed all we see. Back to your fairytale that all things we see was produced by chance with no purpose involved.

 

[Boss]

how many of you are there?

Is Boss's first name Sybil?

Sybil (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

whenever someone speaks of themselves in the plural they either think of themselves as royalty or are speaking for a crowd. Since boss is neither royalty nor speaking for anyone else the prognosis isn't very good.

how many are there is irrelevant, its name is legion.

Probably a super intelligent energy force with no sense of logic that escaped from the herd of pigs that threw themselves over a cliff a long time ago and found a new place to hide in the addled mind of boss.

And here you are, displaying your most proficient troll-like behavior, diverting away from the thread topic to make some inane non-point about some dreamed-up allegation you've made. When I said "we" in my post in question, I was referring to those of us who are reading this thread. That IS where you posted, and this ISN'T a private conversation between you and I, therefore, the usage of "we" as I stated, was correct.

But let's not let that stop you from doing what you know how to do best, hurl insults at me, denigrate me in every way your little vapid minds can think up. This way, the less intelligent sheeple who stumble into this thread at 3k+ posts, will assume that you two geniuses (Dorito & hobelim) have successfully vanquished all my arguments, and you are merely enjoying the spoils of victory, as your servant girls feed you grapes.

*someone cue the harp music!*

 

[edthecynic]

We see clearly that Boss leads his argumentation with the prior insistence that his gawds are true and thus, requires that science must be false because it doesn't "disprove" his gawds.

I only pointed out the cute little illustration of a cyclical universe, is not supported by science or physics. It is a theory that has not been tested or verified and can't be tested or verified. It is being falsely submitted here, as if it is "science" when it is not. Science is testable and verifiable, this theory isn't. This theory is more akin to "because I say so" than anything I have presented. But even IF the theory is absolutely correct, it still doesn't disprove a creator, in fact, it reinforces such a possibility because we have yet another "system" of organized structure and form, not what you generally get when things explode.

Again we have the idiot who professed that protons and neutrons revolve around the atom like planets around the sun claiming absolute authority on what is science and physics.

The cyclic nature of the universe is predicted by the mathematics of the general theory of relativity and the cosmological principle. When Einstein tried to apply his General Theory of Relativity to the universe as a whole, he found that space-time as whole must be warped and curved back on itself, which in itself would cause matter to move, shrinking uncontrollably under its own gravity. If the universe lacks the repulsive effect of dark energy, then gravity will eventually stop the expansion of the universe and it will start to contract until all the matter in the universe collapses to a final singularity, a mirror image of the Big Bang known as the "Big Crunch." This gives the possibility of an oscillating or cyclic universe, where the Big Crunch is succeeded by the Big Bang of a new universe, and so on, potentially ad infinitum. It all depends on the geometry of the universe. According to General Relativity the density parameter, Omega (&#937, is related to the curvature of space. Omega is the average density of the universe divided by the critical energy density, i.e. that required for the universe to be flat (zero curvature). The curvature of space is a mathematical description for expressing local relationships between distances, a spherical universe with &#937; > 1, a hyperbolic universe with &#937; < 1, and a flat universe with &#937; = 1.

So we see that a cyclic universe is based on math and observations and not "because I say so" which is YOUR only offering. Current observations suggest a flat universe, but that depends on a measure of dark energy that has not yet been confirmed and in fact current measurements come up very short. So while the cyclic universe is slightly out of favor today, it has not yet been disproved and as new data is collected could very well be confirmed.

 

[Hollie]

Would you consider this as intelligent design ?

Genetically Engineered Animals


How bout this ?

Engineered enzymes for chemical production. [Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

I saw nothing to suggest there was anything supernatural taking place.

What a waste of time.

Back to your stupor.

Man can intelligently design biologically just like they design and build homes ,cars,computers.

But there can't be a super intelligent being that created and designed all we see. Back to your fairytale that all things we see was produced by chance with no purpose involved.

That was even more pointless than your previous bit of pointlessness.

 

[Hollie]

Would you consider this as intelligent design ?

Genetically Engineered Animals


How bout this ?

Engineered enzymes for chemical production. [Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

Lets assume for the sake of discussion that God exists as the supreme living being whose absolute existence is the source and sustainer of all that is seen and unseen who could have in theory created any possible reality.


Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?


Isn't it much more likely that some other despicable creature would tell you that to be saved you have to believe that Jesus was an edible triune mangod who floated up into the sky and will return one day when the dead come out of their graves to take believers up into hebbin to rule the earth for an eternity while they watch unbelievers burn forever in sulfurous flames?

Did you never read the story about the serpent in the garden?

"Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?"

What Does God require us to believe that contradicts known truths ?

Looks like a lot of misinformation contained in the rest of your post. anyone who studies the scriptures thoroughly knows there is no such place as the hell you describe. The punishment is everlasting death the gift for believers is everlasting life.

Yes I did read the serpent and Eve story. Clearly Angels and God can do things that defy our known logic.

Let's assume all the theories of how the universe got here and this planet was developed to support life and then miraculously life was spontaneously generated with no aid but naturalism were true. does that not defy logic by our current knowledge ?

We have no viable explanation for origins of anything. Reality shows us that living organisms are produced by other living organisms and they are produced by other organisms that are of the same kind.

You believe a logical person would believe a living organism was produced by non-life ?

Obviously, this is from a graduate of the Harun Yahya madrassah.

 

[Hollie]

The above truly displays the fallacy of the intelligent design creationist. You should be aware that the theories surrounding the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are not intended to contradict your religious beliefs. They are theories, proposed to account for the function of nature based upon the available science. The hyper-religious such as Boss predefine the function of nature as being subordinate to his gawds / supermagical intelligent designer. For that personality type, all of nature can be explained with the four word, “the gawds did it”.


Religious faith is not a requirement to understand the natural world. And in fact, faith can often be a limitation to exploration and the seeking of knowledge. “Holy texts” laud faith. Faith is needed only when reason fails. If reason fails, then anything outside of reason by definition is irrational. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; obviously not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease? Reason and empirical evidence verifies our existence, and faith is necessary only when non-authorities attempt to foist their non-authoritative points of view on those gullible enough to either follow or have need to follow.

We see clearly that Boss leads his argumentation with the prior insistence that his gawds are true and thus, requires that science must be false because it doesn't "disprove" his gawds.

Humanity is evolving away from gawds mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner.

Would you consider this as intelligent design ?

Genetically Engineered Animals


How bout this ?

Engineered enzymes for chemical production. [Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

Lets assume for the sake of discussion that God exists as the supreme living being whose absolute existence is the source and sustainer of all that is seen and unseen who could have in theory created any possible reality.


Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?


Isn't it much more likely that some other despicable creature would tell you that to be saved you have to believe that Jesus was an edible triune mangod who floated up into the sky and will return one day when the dead come out of their graves to take believers up into hebbin to rule the earth for an eternity while they watch unbelievers burn forever in sulfurous flames?

Did you never read the story about the serpent in the garden?

What's interesting about the Adam and Eve fable is that in connection with the outcome of eating the fruit, the serpent told the truth. God lied. How ironic.

 

[Boss]

We see clearly that Boss leads his argumentation with the prior insistence that his gawds are true and thus, requires that science must be false because it doesn't "disprove" his gawds.

I only pointed out the cute little illustration of a cyclical universe, is not supported by science or physics. It is a theory that has not been tested or verified and can't be tested or verified. It is being falsely submitted here, as if it is "science" when it is not. Science is testable and verifiable, this theory isn't. This theory is more akin to "because I say so" than anything I have presented. But even IF the theory is absolutely correct, it still doesn't disprove a creator, in fact, it reinforces such a possibility because we have yet another "system" of organized structure and form, not what you generally get when things explode.

Again we have the idiot who professed that protons and neutrons revolve around the atom like planets around the sun claiming absolute authority on what is science and physics.

The cyclic nature of the universe is predicted by the mathematics of the general theory of relativity and the cosmological principle. When Einstein tried to apply his General Theory of Relativity to the universe as a whole, he found that space-time as whole must be warped and curved back on itself, which in itself would cause matter to move, shrinking uncontrollably under its own gravity. If the universe lacks the repulsive effect of dark energy, then gravity will eventually stop the expansion of the universe and it will start to contract until all the matter in the universe collapses to a final singularity, a mirror image of the Big Bang known as the "Big Crunch." This gives the possibility of an oscillating or cyclic universe, where the Big Crunch is succeeded by the Big Bang of a new universe, and so on, potentially ad infinitum. It all depends on the geometry of the universe. According to General Relativity the density parameter, Omega (&#937, is related to the curvature of space. Omega is the average density of the universe divided by the critical energy density, i.e. that required for the universe to be flat (zero curvature). The curvature of space is a mathematical description for expressing local relationships between distances, a spherical universe with &#937; > 1, a hyperbolic universe with &#937; < 1, and a flat universe with &#937; = 1.

So we see that a cyclic universe is based on math and observations and not "because I say so" which is YOUR only offering. Current observations suggest a flat universe, but that depends on a measure of dark energy that has not yet been confirmed and in fact current measurements come up very short. So while the cyclic universe is slightly out of favor today, it has not yet been disproved and as new data is collected could very well be confirmed.

I did not "profess" anything, stop being a drama queen, stuff a tampon in!

The theory that our universe reaches some arbitrary maximum expansion point, then contracts back in on itself, is NOT SUPPORTED BY PHYSICS! The Einstein theory of special and general relativity, has nothing to do with this unfounded and baseless opinion. It is not supported with ANY math or logic, the universe is not contracting, it is expanding, and the outer edges are expanding faster, not slower. "Could very well be confirmed" are your words, do you not understand what they mean? Means your theory is BUNK! You have absolutely NO scientific basis for it today. May as well be theorizing a magic unicorn created the universe!

 

[edthecynic]

Isn't it curious, we find atoms, the smallest thing in the universe we can see... and they are orbited by little round protons, neutrons, and electrons. Then we can go to the most powerful telescopes and as far out into the universe as we can look, we see small suns, orbited by planets and planets orbited by moons... a pattern. Big Bangs do not create patterns, they create chaos. This is a testable hypothesis. So what can be the physical science explanation for pattern, order, logic, where we should find chaos?

Spiritual energy.

Atoms are made up of protons neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons do not orbit an atom, they make up the nucleus of an atom. Electrons orbit the nucleus.

The universe IS chaotic!!! Something in the universe is smashing into something else constantly. The universe is a Perpetual Commotion Machine.

I only pointed out the cute little illustration of a cyclical universe, is not supported by science or physics. It is a theory that has not been tested or verified and can't be tested or verified. It is being falsely submitted here, as if it is "science" when it is not. Science is testable and verifiable, this theory isn't. This theory is more akin to "because I say so" than anything I have presented. But even IF the theory is absolutely correct, it still doesn't disprove a creator, in fact, it reinforces such a possibility because we have yet another "system" of organized structure and form, not what you generally get when things explode.

Again we have the idiot who professed that protons and neutrons revolve around the atom like planets around the sun claiming absolute authority on what is science and physics.

The cyclic nature of the universe is predicted by the mathematics of the general theory of relativity and the cosmological principle. When Einstein tried to apply his General Theory of Relativity to the universe as a whole, he found that space-time as whole must be warped and curved back on itself, which in itself would cause matter to move, shrinking uncontrollably under its own gravity. If the universe lacks the repulsive effect of dark energy, then gravity will eventually stop the expansion of the universe and it will start to contract until all the matter in the universe collapses to a final singularity, a mirror image of the Big Bang known as the "Big Crunch." This gives the possibility of an oscillating or cyclic universe, where the Big Crunch is succeeded by the Big Bang of a new universe, and so on, potentially ad infinitum. It all depends on the geometry of the universe. According to General Relativity the density parameter, Omega (&#937, is related to the curvature of space. Omega is the average density of the universe divided by the critical energy density, i.e. that required for the universe to be flat (zero curvature). The curvature of space is a mathematical description for expressing local relationships between distances, a spherical universe with &#937; > 1, a hyperbolic universe with &#937; < 1, and a flat universe with &#937; = 1.

So we see that a cyclic universe is based on math and observations and not "because I say so" which is YOUR only offering. Current observations suggest a flat universe, but that depends on a measure of dark energy that has not yet been confirmed and in fact current measurements come up very short. So while the cyclic universe is slightly out of favor today, it has not yet been disproved and as new data is collected could very well be confirmed.

I did not "profess" anything, stop being a drama queen, stuff a tampon in!

Stop being a pathological liar!

 

[BreezeWood]

not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates

there is no reason for it to contract - after the explosion everything is expanding outwards where in the extreme future due to its angular projectile will eventually collide back into itself causing the finite compression necessary to again cause another expansive explosion.

Whu?? Due to it's "angular projectile?" Dude... go blow something up! See if it's "angular projectile" causes whatever you blew up to return to it's original state again! Go ahead, test it several times, see if you can ever cause the blown up object to ever return to the state it was in before it exploded? This theory is BUNK, plain and simple. It has NO basis in physics or science. You may as well be claiming the supreme spiritual energy periodically gathers all the elements in the universe together again, and starts over. It has just as much scientific basis as this bullshit.

angular projectile, within the dimensional universe for pedestrians is the equivalent return, to its origin of a tossed boomerang ...

Derideo_Te: That assumes a contained universe. Current measurements indicate an infinite universe.

the curvature of the projectile would be accomplished unhindered in an infinite universe - as would an infinite universe also allow other similar occurrences in succession ...



because of expansion - in the distant future Earths sky will become void of any visible celestial object - after the apex of the projectiles (boomerang) curvature - the other celestial objects will begin reappearing and in the greatest of time will become visible to the naked eye just prior to everything colliding back into themselves.

 

[BreezeWood]

anyone who studies the scriptures thoroughly knows there is no such place as the hell you describe. The punishment is everlasting death the gift for believers is everlasting life.

the gift for believers is everlasting life.


surly your scriptures did not make you believe a falsehood -


What is possible is - Life in the Everlasting.

 

[edthecynic]

The theory that our universe reaches some arbitrary maximum expansion point, then contracts back in on itself, is NOT SUPPORTED BY PHYSICS! The Einstein theory of special and general relativity, has nothing to do with this unfounded and baseless opinion. It is not supported with ANY math or logic, the universe is not contracting, it is expanding, and the outer edges are expanding faster, not slower. "Could very well be confirmed" are your words, do you not understand what they mean? Means your theory is BUNK! You have absolutely NO scientific basis for it today. May as well be theorizing a magic unicorn created the universe!

I love it, the idiot who professed that protons and neutrons revolve around atoms like planets around the sun is telling Einstein he knows nothing about general relativity.

First of all the outer edges are accelerating and ASSUMED to be expanding. The problem with that ASSUMPTION is from where we are we cannot actually know whether they are accelerating farther away from us because the universe is expanding or if they are accelerating toward a super massive universal black hole that is also farther away from us. We only KNOW that they are accelerating AWAY from us, the rest is speculation on ALL sides.

What we do see is that the objects near us are definitely slowing down as the universe near us expands and it is only the distant objects in the universe that are accelerating. The problem with being certain that the distant universe is expanding is that when you look out in space you are not looking out in a straight line. You are looking AROUND the WARP of space/time. I have tried to keep the explanations simple enough for an idiot who thinks protons and neutrons rotate around atoms, but that has only encouraged you to claim it is unscientific. So here is a link with some of the math and science made about as simple as it can be. If you take the time to read it, which you won't, you would see that there are problems with the flat universe that competes with the cyclic universe. I had referred to this when I mentioned the calculation for the measured dark energy necessary for a flat universe is way too small. Remember without that dark energy you get the Big Crunch, so while a flat universe is the current accepted standard model, the Big Crunch has not been disproved and completely ruled out. It is STILL a valid option in science and physics in spite of your official pontification.

Accelerating Universe and Dark Energy - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

Like dark matter, cosmic inflation (even if it is not actually proven beyond all doubt) is now usually seen as part of the standard Big Bang theory, and to some extent the two additional concepts rescue the Big Bang theory from being completely untenable. However, other potential problems still remain.

The universe has continued to expand since the Big Bang, albeit at a slower rate since the period of inflation, while at the same time the gravity of all the matter in the universe is working to slow down and eventually reverse the expansion. Two main possibilities therefore present themselves: either the universe contains sufficient matter (known as the "critical mass") for its gravity to reverse the expansion, causing the universe to collapse back to what has become known as the “Big Crunch”, a kind of mirror image of the initial Big Bang; or it contains insufficient matter and it will go on expanding forever.

According to General Relativity, the density parameter, Omega, which is defined as the average density of the universe divided by the critical density (i.e. that required for the universe to have zero curvature) is related to the curvature of space. If Omega equals 1, then the curvature is zero and the universe is flat; if Omega is greater than 1, then there is positive curvature, indicating a closed or spherical universe; if Omega is less than 1, then there is negative curvature, suggesting an open or saddle-shaped universe.

The cosmic inflation model hypothesizes an Omega of exactly 1, so that the universe is in fact balanced on a knife’s edge between the two extreme possibilities. In that case, it will continue expanding, but gradually slowing down all the time, finally running out of steam only in the infinite future. For this to occur, though, the universe must contain exactly the critical mass of matter, which current calculations suggest should be about five atoms per cubic metre (equivalent to about 5 x 10^-30 g/cm3).

This perhaps sounds like a tiny amount (indeed it is much closer to a perfect vacuum than has even been achieved by scientists on Earth), but the actual universe is, on average, much emptier still, with around 0.2 atoms per cubic metre, taking into account visible stars and diffuse gas between galaxies. Even including dark matter in the calculations, all the matter in the universe, both visible and dark, only amounts to about a quarter of the required critical mass, suggesting a continuously expanding universe.

However, in 1998, two separate teams of astronomers observing distant type 1a supernovas (one led by the American Saul Perlmutter and the other by the Australians Nick Suntzeff and Brian Schmidt) made parallel discoveries which threw the scientific community into disarray, and which also has important implications for the expanding universe and its critical mass. The faintness of the supernova explosions seemed to indicate that they were actually further away from the Earth than had been expected, suggesting that the universe’s expansion had actually speeded up (not slowed) since the stars exploded. Contrary to all expectations, therefore, the expansion of the universe actually seems to be significantly speeding up - we live in an accelerating universe!

The only thing that could be accelerating the expansion (i.e. more than countering the braking force of the mutual gravitational pull of the galaxies) is space itself, suggesting that perhaps it is not empty after all but contains some strange “dark energy” or “antigravity” currently unknown to science. Thus, even what appears to be a complete vacuum actually contains energy in some currently unknown way. In fact, initial calculations (backed up by more recent research such as that on the growth of galaxy clusters by NASA's Chandra x-ray space telescope and that on binary galaxies by Christian Marinoni and Adeline Buzzi of the University of Provence) suggest that fully 73 - 74% of the universe consists of this dark energy.

If 74% of the total mass of the universe consists of dark energy, and about 85% of the remaining actual matter (representing about 22% of the total) is dark matter (see the section on Dark Matter for more discussion of this), then this suggests that only around 4% of the universe consists of what we think of as "normal", everyday, atom-based matter such as stars, intergalactic gas, etc. As of 2013, based on cosmic microwave background radiation data from the Planck satellite, the latest figures are closer to 68%, 27% and 5% respectively. Nowadays, this is generally accepted as the "standard model" of the make-up of the universe. So, for all our advances in physics and astronomy, it appears that we can still only see, account for and explain a small proportion of the totality of the universe, a sobering thought indeed.

Incorporating dark energy into our model of the universe would neatly account for the "missing" three-quarters of the universe required to cause the observed acceleration in the revised Big Bang theory. It also makes the map of the early universe produced by the WMAP probe fit well with the currently observed universe. Carlos Frenk's beautiful 3D computer models of the universe resemble remarkably closely the actual observed forms in the real universe (taking dark matter and dark energy into account), even if not all scientists are convinced by them. Alternative theories, such as Mordehai Milgrom's idea of "variable gravity", are as yet poorly developed and would have the effect of radically modifying all of physics from Newton onwards. So dark energy remains the most widely accepted option.

Further corroboration of some kind of energy operating in the apparent vacuum of space comes from the Casimir effect, named after the 1948 experiments of Dutch physicists Hendrik Casimir and Dirk Polder. This shows how smooth uncharged metallic plates can move due to energy fluctuations in the vacuum of empty space, and it is hypothesized that dark energy, generated somehow by space itself, may be a similar kind of vacuum fluctuation.

Unfortunately, like dark matter, we still do not know exactly what this dark energy is, how it is generated or how it operates. It appears to produce some kind of a negative pressure which is distributed relatively homogeneously in space, and thereby exerts a kind of cosmic repulsion on the universe, driving the galaxies ever further apart. As the space between the galaxies inexorably widens, the effects of dark energy appears to increase, suggesting that the universe is likely to continue expanding forever, although it seems to have little or no influence within the galaxies and clusters of galaxies themselves, where gravity is the dominant force.

Although no-one has any idea of what dark energy may actually be, it appears to be unsettlingly similar to the force of cosmic repulsion or “cosmological constant” discarded by Einstein back in 1929 (as mentioned in the section on The Expanding Universe and Hubble’s Law), and this remains the most likely contender, even if its specific properties and effects are still under intense discussion. The size of the cosmological constant needed to describe the accelerating expansion of our current universe is very small indeed, around 10^-122 in Planck units. Indeed, the very closeness of this to zero (without it actually being zero) has worried many scientists. But even a tiny change to this value would result in a very different universe indeed, and one in which life, and even the stars and galaxies we take for granted, could not have existed.

Perhaps equally worrying is the colossal mismatch between the infinitesimally small magnitude of dark energy, and the value predicted by quantum theory, our best theory of the the very small, as to the energy present in apparently empty space. The theoretical value of dark energy is over 10^120 times smaller than this, what some scientists have called the worst failure of a prediction in the history of science! Some scientists have taken some comfort about the unexpectedly small size of dark energy in the idea that ours is just one universe in an unimaginably huge multiverse. Out of a potentially infinite number of parallel universes, each with slightly different properties and dark energy profiles, it is not so unlikely that ours just happens to be one with a dark energy that allows for the development of stars and even life, an example of the anthropic principle.

 

[hobelim]

Would you consider this as intelligent design ?\\

Genetically Engineered Animals


How bout this ?

Engineered enzymes for chemical production. [Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

Lets assume for the sake of discussion that God exists as the supreme living being whose absolute existence is the source and sustainer of all that is seen and unseen who could have in theory created any possible reality.


Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?


Isn't it much more likely that some other despicable creature would tell you that to be saved you have to believe that Jesus was an edible triune mangod who floated up into the sky and will return one day when the dead come out of their graves to take believers up into hebbin to rule the earth for an eternity while they watch unbelievers burn forever in sulfurous flames?

Did you never read the story about the serpent in the garden?

"Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?"

What Does God require us to believe that contradicts known truths ?

That's my point. PEOPLE who claim to believe scripture read genesis and wrongly think the story is about the creation of the universe, even though scientific discoveries make the literal interpretation of that story impossible to be true and a complete contradiction of known truths.

according to some PEOPLE believing the story is a literal depiction of the creation of the universe is a required belief foundational to salvation even though such an assertion is false.

The story of genesis is about the giving of the law, and the creation of Adam and Eve about the elevation of people from among the wild beasts of the field into a 'living being' aware of right and wrong and bound to the consequences of their actions..

The law is the light which separates the darkness and before the light was given, "the earth was without form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep' which has further allegorical meaning.

[Looks like a lot of misinformation contained in the rest of your post. anyone who studies the scriptures thoroughly knows there is no such place as the hell you describe. The punishment is everlasting death the gift for believers is everlasting life.

Yes I did read the serpent and Eve story. Clearly Angels and God can do things that defy our known logic.

Nonsense. Angels and devils and all the wild beasts of the wilderness described in scripture from dogs and pigs to serpents and vultures are allegorical descriptions of well known types of people that allude to the heights and depths of human potential. The story is just a fairy tale. try to learn what it teaches.

[Let's assume all the theories of how the universe got here and this planet was developed to support life and then miraculously life was spontaneously generated with no aid but naturalism were true. does that not defy logic by our current knowledge ?

We have no viable explanation for origins of anything. Reality shows us that living organisms are produced by other living organisms and they are produced by other organisms that are of the same kind.

You believe a logical person would believe a living organism was produced by non-life ?

No, I believe a logical person would read genesis and conclude immediately based on known scientific facts that either the story is complete bull or it is an allegorical story that coveys hidden meaning.

And after being shown how the story can be interpreted allegorically without contradicting reality a logical person would renounce their superstitious delusions forever and cut the ties that bind them in ignorance without ever looking back.

 

[Agent.Tom]

No, I believe a logical person would read genesis and conclude immediately based on known scientific facts that either the story is complete bull or it is an allegorical story that coveys hidden meaning.

I grow tired of your ad hobelim attacks.

 

[hobelim]

No, I believe a logical person would read genesis and conclude immediately based on known scientific facts that either the story is complete bull or it is an allegorical story that coveys hidden meaning.

I grow tired of your ad hobelim attacks.

You might as well have tattooed a big penis on your forehead.