It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Of course they don't "know", nobody was around to verify the beginning of the universe. But you are incorrect, one of the greatest discoveries of science in the 20th century was that the universe is indeed finite.
Joseph Silk: Head of Astrophysics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
No. We do not know whether the Universe is finite or not. To give you an example, imagine the geometry of the Universe in two dimensions as a plane. It is flat, and a plane is normally infinite. But you can take a sheet of paper [an 'infinite' sheet of paper] and you can roll it up and make a cylinder, and you can roll the cylinder again and make a torus [like the shape of a doughnut]. The surface of the torus is also spatially flat, but it is finite. So you have two possibilities for a flat Universe: one infinite, like a plane, and one finite, like a torus, which is also flat.
www.esa.int...
originally posted by: Prezbo369
Personal testimony is not the best form of evidence, physical evidence that can be repeatedly collected and verified is a lot stronger when it comes to forming a conclusion.
So first you claim that we "know" that the universe had a beginning, then you say, "Of course, we don't know". Then you say that we "know" that the universe is finite.
No. We do not know whether the Universe is finite or not.
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.
Personal testimony is not the best form of evidence, physical evidence that can be repeatedly collected and verified is a lot stronger when it comes to forming a conclusion.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Tangerine
It's absurd to claim that physics, for example, is a religion.
Of course, because Physics isn't a belief that forms one's views of the purpose of life. Nor does it attempt to explain the meaning of life.
------------
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: windword
Of course they don't "know", nobody was around to verify the beginning of the universe.
You mean Moses wasn't around to verify the beginning of the universe he described in Genesis?
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Nobody has verified the Big Bang, all models have failed. The current model theory requires anti-gravity forces that have never been observed to exist, it's only a hypothesis.
originally posted by: johndeere2020
This is true.
But in my other thread, you have completely dismissed my observations in the real world based on statistical data as nonsense.
I doubt you can be trusted as you seem to pursue a double standards in that regards.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Prezbo369
Nobody has verified the Big Bang, all models have failed. The current model theory requires anti-gravity forces that have never been observed to exist, it's only a hypothesis.
originally posted by: Prezbo369
'my observations in the real world based on statistical data'
You made claims that were not reflected in any of the links you posted, you basically abused the sources you did post and attempted to deceive anyone reading your misogynistic thread.
In my opinion you cannot be trusted to hold a genuine and honest discussion about anything.
originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Tangerine
Gnostics were the only ones who had actually read the book. The rest pretended they'd read it and didn't see the whopping contradictions.
What book..there was no formalized canon of scripture until into the 13th century AD. Gnostics didnt need books per se for gnosis
originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing
God does not 'create' evil; it just allows for its manifestation (its up to the human to self determine the consequences of utilizing this negative form of energy;
If youre referring to the god of the old testament, sure "it" did. In its omniscience Jehovah took a nap or went off to attend to other "worldly matters" in the same Eden it created for Adam. Somehow its creation "the serpent" was beyond Jehovahs omniscience and then things went sour. I like how Jehovah bitches about adam to his fellow creators that "now we better chuck them out of Eden in case they try the Tree of Everlasting life".
I try to wrap my head around this. I thought Adam already was perfect. Why have a tree of Life within reach? Was this Tree needed for earthlings and or the Elohim to extend their lifespan or to mitigate the effects of the gravity of Earth upon these spacefaring Elohim So many questions so few answers
Why would Jehovah have to run by the Elohim his next course of action? This is why I believe the Gnostics were considered heretics and ruthlessly hunted down. They rightfully stated that this earth is controlled by the "demiurge"
How it exactly occurred is currently unknown, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence strongly suggests that it did.
In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless (because the gravitational force appears to have unlimited range) and must be a spin-2 boson.
All you have shown is that physicists don't agree on the origin of the universe, and that some assume that it MUST have had a beginning.
They have only derived such conclusion through the optical phenomenon called "red-shifting" of more distant galaxies which they deduced to be cause by retreating galaxies at speeds of significant % to the speed of light.
Atheism most certainly isn't a belief that forms one's views on the purpose of life nor does it attempt to explain the meaning of life. I see that we agree that atheism is not a religion.
Sure it does, "there is no purpose to life", is a viable answer to the question.