Hawking says physics proves there is no time for "Gawd".

[Staidhup]

So how or who created this infinitesimal black hole and why did it go bang? Second question, if there was in fact no time existing before the bang then what was there? third question, if in fact mater can not be created nor destroyed, only altered, then it's logical to conclude mater existed before the bang? So is the universe nothing more then an element or evolving sub-particle existing in a drop of rain? Or do we exist in a test tube in a laboratory, in another dimension, sounds like the twilight zone, quick, call Rod we need some help understanding the true existence of the universe. I will continue to believe in God. Ever wonder why scientists continue to define our very existence, it's as if life and the beauty we have been blessed with is not enough.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So how or who created this infinitesimal black hole and why did it go bang?

We don't know. I guess since we don't know something that must mean God exists.

Second question, if there was in fact no time existing before the bang then what was there?

Same answer

Do you know who your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather was? No? Guess he must not have existed.

third question, if in fact mater can not be created nor destroyed, only altered, then it's logical to conclude mater existed before the bang?

General relativity actually allows for the creation of matter/energy through the cosmological constant.

 

[Liability]

If every particle has it's anti-particle equivalent, what happens to a quark that collides with an anti-quark?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If every particle has it's anti-particle equivalent, what happens to a quark that collides with an anti-quark?

They would annihilate one another and turn into a bunch of radiative energy.

That's not what happens with fission. In fission, (some of) the energy which bonds nucleons together in an atom is liberated, This energy IS measured as inertial mass - gravity affects it just like mass does - but the number of nucleons does not change.

If you were to take an impenetrable hollow sphere such that no energy or matter could escape from it, and set off a nuclear bomb inside of it - you'd measure the same mass before as after.

Like I said though, its all the same thing. Mass IS energy - the amount of energy that a mass is equal to is determined by E=mc^2.

What, I think, many people would be surprised to find out (I know I sure was) is that the traditional idea of mass-energy conservation no longer strictly applies with general relativity.

 

[NeoTemplar]

When you're talking theoretical astrophysics as an example, you're an talking about ideas that are supported by mathematics, which is to say it could possibly work, but we don't have the means to physically test it as the scientific method requires.

In other words you go on teachings and faith

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I really want you to explain AGAIN why it is that scientific theories require no evidence to be seriously considered, and what justifies the double standard you've applied to faith-based theories...i.e., the dismissal of said theories because there is no hard *evidence*.

Please. Provide some citations, if you would, that show evidence that scientific minds think this way.

When you're talking theoretical astrophysics as an example, you're an talking about ideas that are supported by mathematics, which is to say it could possibly work, but we don't have the means to physically test it as the scientific method requires.

Bullshit. We can test it by observation numb nuts.

My point about the Theory of Relativity tried to illustrate that. While technically still a theory, enough facets of it have been proven to the point that it's not only generally accepted, but applied, and the modern world would be vastly different without it. It's not like everything can be neatly confirmed with one easy test, it's complex stuff.

General relativity, though widely accepted, is still in the process of experimental proof. We have not, for instance, observed gravity waves yet.

Not all science is theory,

Theory is the best product that science can produce. The rest is all raw data.

 

[Liability]

If every particle has it's anti-particle equivalent, what happens to a quark that collides with an anti-quark?

They would annihilate one another and turn into a bunch of radiative energy.

That's not what happens with fission. In fission, (some of) the energy which bonds nucleons together in an atom is liberated, This energy IS measured as inertial mass - gravity affects it just like mass does - but the number of nucleons does not change.

If you were to take an impenetrable hollow sphere such that no energy or matter could escape from it, and set off a nuclear bomb inside of it - you'd measure the same mass before as after.

Like I said though, its all the same thing. Mass IS energy - the amount of energy that a mass is equal to is determined by E=mc^2.




What, I think, many people would be surprised to find out (I know I sure was) is that the traditional idea of mass-energy conservation no longer strictly applies with general relativity.

Radiation IS a form of energy, so "radioactive energy" makes little sense.

And what YOU had said earlier is that the number of quarks remain constant. But this is not necessarily true. Quarks can be destroyed or transformed as it were and so the number of quarks COULD change.

The fact is, there is far too much we don't know to go around claiming that any possible answer is "the" answer when it comes to the transformation of matter into energy or vice versa.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So how or who created this infinitesimal black hole and why did it go bang? Second question, if there was in fact no time existing before the bang then what was there? third question, if in fact mater can not be created nor destroyed, only altered, then it's logical to conclude mater existed before the bang? So is the universe nothing more then an element or evolving sub-particle existing in a drop of rain? Or do we exist in a test tube in a laboratory, in another dimension, sounds like the twilight zone, quick, call Rod we need some help understanding the true existence of the universe. I will continue to believe in God. Ever wonder why scientists continue to define our very existence, it's as if life and the beauty we have been blessed with is not enough.

This can be looked at the same way from the opposite angle. As awe inspiring and beautifully complex as life and existence are at face value, is it not enough for you unless there's some bearded wish-granter in the sky whose magic is responsible for all of it? Without a supernatural backdrop that makes superhuman powers in comic books look tame, are the cosmos not amazing enough for you to appreciate?

For most human beings, the glaringly obvious answer is no, it is not enough. That goes for believers, atheists, and agnostics alike. Just about everyone wants to have an understanding (or wants to believe that they have an understanding) of the true nature of being. That's why religions exist, that's why philophy exists, that's why scientists exist. Hungering for knowledge is a basic human trait. It's stupid to criticize that most useful urge just because you've chosen to don a set of religious blinders and shut yourself off from honest consideration of ideas contrary to those you currently believe. Dogma's a bitch.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If every particle has it's anti-particle equivalent, what happens to a quark that collides with an anti-quark?

They would annihilate one another and turn into a bunch of radiative energy.

That's not what happens with fission. In fission, (some of) the energy which bonds nucleons together in an atom is liberated, This energy IS measured as inertial mass - gravity affects it just like mass does - but the number of nucleons does not change.

If you were to take an impenetrable hollow sphere such that no energy or matter could escape from it, and set off a nuclear bomb inside of it - you'd measure the same mass before as after.

Like I said though, its all the same thing. Mass IS energy - the amount of energy that a mass is equal to is determined by E=mc^2.




What, I think, many people would be surprised to find out (I know I sure was) is that the traditional idea of mass-energy conservation no longer strictly applies with general relativity.

Radiation IS a form of energy, so "radioactive energy" makes little sense.

I said radiative energy.

And what YOU had said earlier is that the number of quarks remain constant. But this is not necessarily true.

IT IS IN A FISSION REACTION.

 

[koshergrl]

Deflection. It is your friend, if you're a kook, and you wear it well.

Deflection of what, the bottom portion of your post that was irrelevant?

I'd say bringing up another thread about homosexual marriage, and linking it, is the epitome of deflection. The purpose is to change the subject, and divert attention away. Hence, deflect.

 

[bobcollum]

Deflection. It is your friend, if you're a kook, and you wear it well.

Deflection of what, the bottom portion of your post that was irrelevant?

I'd say bringing up another thread about homosexual marriage, and linking it, is the epitome of deflection. The purpose is to change the subject, and divert attention away. Hence, deflect.

I figured since we both had our sides out there the actual evidence should be available if anyone wanted it, like I said in the post.

If you don't want your reckless attempts at debating thrown in your face than I'd suggest that you stop making them.

That thread wasn't even about gay-marriage either, so good on ya.

 

[koshergrl]

Makes no nevermind, it's completely irrelevant, hence "deflection".

You've made a poor showing, but like most of the pseudo intellectuals who traipse around here, you can't see it. Just because you SAY you're a "master debater" doesn't make you one. Your sad, contradictory assertion that those who theorize from a perspective of faith are necessarily held to a much higher standard than those who claim to theorize from a "scientific" standpoint has been effectively decimated, and not just by me.

But I want to meditate on it again because it's just funny...

"Scientific" theories don't have to be proven because they're "scientific".

However, "faith" based theories must meet the most rigid evidentiary standards...cuz they're faith based!

Brilliant. Are you per chance related to TDM?

 

[bobcollum]

^ Doesn't get it.

Not surprised.

 

[Liability]

They would annihilate one another and turn into a bunch of radiative energy.

That's not what happens with fission. In fission, (some of) the energy which bonds nucleons together in an atom is liberated, This energy IS measured as inertial mass - gravity affects it just like mass does - but the number of nucleons does not change.

If you were to take an impenetrable hollow sphere such that no energy or matter could escape from it, and set off a nuclear bomb inside of it - you'd measure the same mass before as after.

Like I said though, its all the same thing. Mass IS energy - the amount of energy that a mass is equal to is determined by E=mc^2.




What, I think, many people would be surprised to find out (I know I sure was) is that the traditional idea of mass-energy conservation no longer strictly applies with general relativity.

Radiation IS a form of energy, so "radioactive energy" makes little sense.

I said radiative energy.

Yes. Yes you did. My mistake.

And what YOU had said earlier is that the number of quarks remain constant. But this is not necessarily true.

IT IS IN A FISSION REACTION.

Another fair reply (at least so far as we know). Two for two for OPPD

 

[koshergrl]

^ Doesn't get it.

Not surprised.

Of course I get it.

And it proves you're a joke.

I get it, and it proves you're a joke.

"We have surveyed five ways in which the New Atheists attempt to exempt themselves from the demands of evidentialism while criticizing religious belief for failing to satisfy those demands, and we have seen that they all fail. Therefore, on matters concerning evidence and justification, the New Atheists have no good reason to treat their atheism differently from how they treat belief in the divine.

"Yet although the concept of burden of proof in informal settings is ill-understood, that does not stop many from confidently proclaiming how the burden of proof should be assigned."

http://www.philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence

 

[bobcollum]

Makes no nevermind, it's completely irrelevant, hence "deflection".

You've made a poor showing, but like most of the pseudo intellectuals who traipse around here, you can't see it. Just because you SAY you're a "master debater" doesn't make you one. Your sad, contradictory assertion that those who theorize from a perspective of faith are necessarily held to a much higher standard than those who claim to theorize from a "scientific" standpoint has been effectively decimated, and not just by me.

Link?? I may throw around 'mass-debater' as humorous innuendo, but I'm pretty darn certain I've never made a claim to being a "master debater".

But I want to meditate on it again because it's just funny...

"Scientific" theories don't have to be proven because they're "scientific".

However, "faith" based theories must meet the most rigid evidentiary standards...cuz they're faith based!

You're such a schmuck sometimes, I'm almost positive it's intentional. Have you noticed how they call it "the Theory of Relativity" and "the Theory of Evolution"? They do that because they're still recognized as theories, not fact, because the process of verifying them is is painstaking, and in some instances technologically out of reach at this point. It doesn't mean they will be forever, and it definitely doesn't equate to your perceived double standard between that and "faith based theories"...which is a BS term, because it would have to mean that you were in the process of proving it's true, and my guess is you already think it is.

The theory of relativity could end up being wrong, despite it being partially proven to the point that we can apply it practically, like with GPS navigation. Are you willing to make the same claim about your religion, that it might end up being the wrong story? I bet you can't.

Brilliant. Are you per chance related to TDM?

Mature as someone that's losing an argument.

 

[bobcollum]

koshrgrl you make the usual mistake of assuming I'm a full-fledged atheist.

I know there isn't a way to know for sure in either direction...but I definitely think I know what side will prevail in the end.

 

[Flopper]

that is just theory...I believe there is no beginning or end to the universe or time. correct me if I am wrong.

That's just a theory. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[daws101]

why should hawking cause so much chaos with believers ?
if their myth is correct then gawd lives outside of time and is unaffected by it or physics or anything in the material universe..
on the flip side there is no evidence for anything outside the material universe not gawd or anything at all.

 

[koshergrl]

koshrgrl you make the usual mistake of assuming I'm a full-fledged atheist.

I know there isn't a way to know for sure in either direction...but I definitely think I know what side will prevail in the end.

It doesn't matter if you are, or aren't. The approach the New Atheists referenced in my source is the exact same one you're using, and it's a big fat fail for the same reasons.