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 Crayfish
Originally posted by spy66
What force formed the compressed singularity ?
This question shows a misunderstanding of the nature of a singularity. These are places where all dimensions take on values of either infinity or null. That includes the dimension of time. Asking what caused the big bang makes no sense as time came into existence at that moment.
To clarify this, imagine time as a spatial dimension that appears to you as something like a length of string. In this analogy the big bang would be like the beginning of the piece of string. Asking what caused the big bang is like asking what caused the piece of string to begin.
A better question is why does the piece of string exist at all? The key thing about re-framing the question in this way is it takes the emphasis away from the "beginning" and puts it on to the universe in its entirety.
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by spy66
But such a comparative examination is done from an inductive category, making the whole thing uncertain, and as causality (as we know it) at the same time breaks down, the introduction of SPECIFIC 'intent' (originating from beyond event horizon) is just guessing. We don't know the rules of this alleged new order.
'time' is part of our Universe.
Scientists have come to some agreement on descriptions of events that happened 10−35 seconds after the Big Bang, but generally agree that descriptions about what happened before one Planck time (5 × 10−44 seconds) after the Big Bang are likely to remain pure speculation.
Originally posted by Leemo
Once you actually read philosophy of religion you will actually see where it fits in with religion/science. It fits in perfectly in front of everyone's eyes without them realizing it.
Originally posted by pajoly
You can't exclude something that does not exist.
You can't exclude something that does not exist
Originally posted by bogomil
Originally posted by pajoly
You can't exclude something that does not exist.
That's where the fun starts. Is it a nothing-nothingness, or a seemingly nothingness?
Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by bogomil
Originally posted by pajoly
You can't exclude something that does not exist.
That's where the fun starts. Is it a nothing-nothingness, or a seemingly nothingness?
Well its quite easy to break down. We know that our universe is. But our universe was nothingness before it came into existence. The energy mass that formed our existing universe must have always existed.
"Nothing" can't exist if we have something that is infinite. because infinite takes up all space possible.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Darwin was a scientist.
I watched a tv programme about Darwin last night and have come to some conclusions about his theory and how he came to write the origin of species.
Darwin was a great believer in God in the beginning, however his daughter died and he wrote about the experience.
This made him question God as he was taught and believed that the God he had learned about would not have done this to his daughter.
Also, when coming up with the theory, 'manufacturing' was a word that had only been introduced about thirty years previous. Until then it had not been used.
So my conclusion is that Darwin was basing all his theory on; there is no God and things are made. Having this belief Darwin gives evidene to prove his theory. His theory being, there is no god and things are made. He then goes out to prove this. He produces evidence for his belief.
Evidence does not prove truth.
Evidence is supplied to convince us of a belief.
The belief was there is no god and things are made. Darwin then went on to show us his opinion.
When The origin of species was written, Darwins friend wrote to him and said when he read the book it made him full of sorrow. He said that he was trying to kill God.
edit on 8-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bogomil
Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by bogomil
Originally posted by pajoly
You can't exclude something that does not exist.
That's where the fun starts. Is it a nothing-nothingness, or a seemingly nothingness?
Well its quite easy to break down. We know that our universe is. But our universe was nothingness before it came into existence. The energy mass that formed our existing universe must have always existed.
"Nothing" can't exist if we have something that is infinite. because infinite takes up all space possible.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
Highlighted: ["The energy mass that formed our existing universe must have always existed."]
Not necessarily. Byt why do you skip around out there, before you understand the more simple aspects?
Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Darwin was pretty angry that his daughter had been taken, he adored her, it is obvious in his writings.
He had lost his faith in God which previous to the illness and death of his daughter was unquestionable.
He then believed in a cruel world instead of the beautiful, rich experience he had witness beforehand.
This made him see what he had been studying, researching for years as a cruel struggle for life, for survival of the fittest. He saw through his veil of grief, the new concept of manufacturing, cruel world, survival and death.
This brought up in his mind words like competition.
Darwin left part of his garden to grow untouched and studied which plants endured and which ones didn't and concluded that the ones that endured were the winners.
As i watched and heard this, the thought:
When an artist chooses a color from the pallet, say yellow does that make yellow the winner and all the other colors losers?????
I have already considered that. Maybe you missed it. There's the OPTION of causality different from the one we know.
Quote: [" This is not really a mystery if you consider that, according to Einstein, time is actually part of the fabric of the Universe. Both the idea that time does not exist outside of our Universe and the idea that, if time exists outside of it, it must somehow correspond to our time simply ignore the fact that time is part of our Universe as much as space is."]
That's a guess.