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: GetHyped
a reply to: edmc^2
Your strategy seems to be to just make things up as you go along and then conclude "therefore, god did it". This form of rationalization and motivated reasoning may help with your personal cognitive dissonance but don't seriously expect anyone else to be persuaded by it.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: edmc^2
See? You're doing it again. You're simply making up premises and then concluding "therefore, god". Like I say, this level of illogical post hoc rationalization might be philosophically comforting to you but don't expect anyone else to buy it.
originally posted by: GetHyped
originally posted by: edmc^2
Yet you're not able to refute my facts.
This is what you don't seem to grasp. You opinions are not facts. The onus is on you to back up your statements with hard, scientific evidence. So far you have offered nothing.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: edmc^2
[citation needed]
The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from - or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with.
originally posted by: edmc^2
why must a citation needed to prove something that is obvious?
But if you insist, I don't need to go far since Ergo, sun provided one already, that is:
The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from - or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with.
www.cfa.harvard.edu...
originally posted by: GetHyped
originally posted by: edmc^2
why must a citation needed to prove something that is obvious?
It's only "obvious" to you because you see the world through the lens of a religious person who is not interested in the pursuit of objective truth, only in molding reality to reflect your own personal faith.
But if you insist, I don't need to go far since Ergo, sun provided one already, that is:
The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from - or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with.
www.cfa.harvard.edu...
Right, but then you tack on the end "therefore, god did it". You see the blatant discontinuity in logic here?
originally posted by: tsingtao
God exists,
sorry, thought it was just a stop sign, lol!
lots of peoples anthropomorphaize Him. hell, you get what i mean. spelling be damed.
that is unfortunate.
the f'ker doesn't have a beard or sit on a cloud. seriously?
what was the question again?
originally posted by: edmc^2
"Out of something INFINITE (or someone ETERNAL) comes something finite".
That is, that the Physical Universe IS the result of something INFINITE.
The the INFINITE bounds the FINITE.
I know this based on logic, common sense and known scientific facts.
When I said the Universe is FINITE, I mean the observable PHYSICAL, MATERIAL universe. That which is observable due to its physical characteristics.
That which is composed of planets, stars, galaxies, clusters and super clusters is finite. That which has an origin, a beginning 13.8 bya.
It began in the Singularity, the Big Bang.
Actually, energy can't be eternal
Thus, it's finite but ever expanding
But where is it expanding to?
BTW - an expanding universe proves once again an Origin, a biginning.
the idea that our Universe started from a singularity was a very good one back when we thought that the only important things in our Universe were matter and radiation, but now that we know about inflation, there is no reason to believe that our Universe ever had a singularity in the past.
originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: edmc^2
Which one is logical:
Trying to use Earth and physical law based logic to describe something that bares no resemblance to either, then inserting God into the answer.
Or realising all known laws breakdown at that point, we have absolutely no idea what went on and should explore what did go on instead of inserting a random answer because it suits personal beliefs.
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
a reply to: edmc^2
Actually, energy can't be eternal
Yeah, right. Unless you call it "god" of course lol.
Then explain how it popped into existence (realizing terms such as "big bang" and "singularity" does no such thing, the idea of a supposed "singularity" explains little this way, it just raises more questions). Then perhaps you could explain how you know (in a supportable scientific sense) that it will one day go back out of existence.
Thus, it's finite but ever expanding
If it is finite, where's the centre? The same ideas tell us that no matter where we observe from, we see the same thing.
Galaxies are not expanding, the space inside atoms is not expanding. Are black holes expanding?
But where is it expanding to?
Quite possibly...nothing. If it is infinite, the question is meaningless.
As to the part we can observe? Assuming it is expanding into something, it would simply be expanding either commensurate with or into the part of the universe we can't observe. No indication of magic beings and none are required for this.
Though there is some work being done with the hypothesis that the interpretation is wrong (that the universe is gaining mass).
BTW - an expanding universe proves once again an Origin, a biginning.
Not to most reasonable people. To them it indicates the distances between galaxies appears to be getting larger. The rest is your belief because it is consistent with a fantasy about some god or unicorn.
Not a bad blog, worth a look...
scienceblogs.com...
the idea that our Universe started from a singularity was a very good one back when we thought that the only important things in our Universe were matter and radiation, but now that we know about inflation, there is no reason to believe that our Universe ever had a singularity in the past.
originally posted by: bastion
Why do you assume it has to be a person creating it? Various studies have indicated things like quantum whirlpools can create Universes. If you say it was a God who created it, you need proof to back up that claim as I could say a potato made it and have a more valid assumption as we know for a fact potatoes exist.
All you seem to be doing is approaching the subject with the idea God created the Universe then creating constraints, assumptions, axioms etc..that appear to back up the claim, which is entirely the wrong way to approach science.
You appear to be under the assumption you're disproving what others are saying here, when in fact all you're doing is proving how little you understand the subject and close-minded you are.