It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Science fails to exclude God

page: 10
29
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:49 AM

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.

How many dimensions where there before time came into existence. Infinite or null?

And what is the difference between the infinite and null?

May i ask: if time didn't exist before our universe was created, then how was it created/formed?

How can infinite or null change and become time?

Because as you state: time didn't exist before our universe cam into existence.

That means the infinite must be a constant, and how does a constant change all by it self and become time?

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:16 AM

Originally posted by bogomil

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.

Although you're correct that we cannot establish it for t = -1 (aka beyond event horizon), we can establish with absolute certainty that causality existed on the Universe from instant t = 0, as causality is behind cause and effect.

If causality did not exist for t = 0, whatever is it that triggered the big bang, be it God's will, a fluctuation of m-branes, or whatever you name it, it would have absolutely no effect if causality wasn't already present.

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.

To answer your question in the previous paragraph as well as this one, if time existed beyond the event horizon, it does not necessarily run in synchonism with ours, as our 'time' is part of our Universe.

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:20 AM
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.

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:28 AM

You wrote:

["If causality did not exist for t = 0, whatever is it that triggered the big bang, be it God's will, a fluctuation of m-branes, or whatever you name it, it would have absolutely no effect if causality wasn't already present."]

I have already considered that. Maybe you missed it. There's the OPTION of causality different from the one we know.

And please: NO inductive category semantic games (I wouldn't believe it of you, just in case). Because we could use the same word, 'causality', for our causality and the optional other causality, it doesn't mean, that they have ANYTHING to do with each other.

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.

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:28 AM
i got alot bye

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:28 AM

'time' is part of our Universe.

That is also what i am trying to say. The only time we can observe is the time within our own 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.

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:29 AM

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.

Example?

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:34 AM
You can't exclude something that does not exist.

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:39 AM

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?

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:42 AM

You can't exclude something that does not exist

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:46 AM

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)

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:55 AM
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)

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:00 AM

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?

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:02 AM

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)

Or maybe more precise: Killing the myth of 'god'.

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:08 AM

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?

When are you going to stop with your accusations, and start to produce something useful of your own.

What do you mean by saying not necessarily? That dosent tell me a damn thing.

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:16 AM
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?????

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:18 AM

Your questions to Crayfish indicate clearly to me, that you haven't understood much of what's been presented to you. So what's the purpose of asking more questions without meaning.

Quote from post to crayfish: ["How many dimensions where there before time came into existence. Infinite or null?

And what is the difference between the infinite and null?

May i ask: if time didn't exist before our universe was created, then how was it created/formed?

How can infinite or null change and become time?

Because as you state: time didn't exist before our universe cam into existence.

That means the infinite must be a constant, and how does a constant change all by it self and become time?"]

Quote from your recent post to me: ["What do you mean by saying not necessarily? That dosent tell me a damn thing."]

It means, that the original claim from you, which I answered to, not necessarily is true. Energy (as we define and know it) doesn't have to be trans-cosmic (beyond event horizon).

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:21 AM

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 lived on my farm close to 40 years. I only have to look out through the window to see survival of the fittest as a dominant (but not exclusive) part of biological life.

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:23 AM
Originally posted by bogomil

I have already considered that. Maybe you missed it. There's the OPTION of causality different from the one we know.

And I said that I understand and agree with you about it regarding anything before event horizon, but not during and after event horizon itself, that is t = 0 and after. There is no reason to even postulate a different causality when the one we have works perfectly fine. You would need to give an actual reason to even postulate it for the event horizon. Yes, lots of Universal laws cease to work properly or even stop working at all, and yet cause and effect does not seem to cease working, even when the laws that ought to determine the outcome of a cause become chaotic themselves. We can track down causality's presence all the way back to t = 0. Before that, I agree that it is everybody's guess.

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.

I did not understand. Please, elaborate.

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:25 AM

There is no difference between null and infinite.
There was no time before existance and there is no time now.
Time is a construct of your mind.
Time 'appears' to exist when you 'think' it into existance.
It is now and i can 'think' of tomorrow. This makes time 'appear' to exist. Time is in fact an illusion made out of the belief of future/past. This illusion of time only ever happens 'now'.
Nothing exists as such.
Only this space from which you are seeing from 'exists'.
Can space 'exist'?

top topics

29