Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

Itisnowagain
reply to post by GargIndia

 

It is obvious here - it has nothing to do with thinking.
Please listen to the talk I posted if you want to hear more about Advaita (one without a second).

edit on 9-1-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

You seem to be very fond of posting videos.

I do not have an internet connection to watch your videos. So I shall make it simple for you.

Open a new thread about Advaita vs Traitwad and then we shall put our arguments there. This thread is not the right place.

We have proved many times that 'advaita' is false and is against both 'Veda' and 'Shastra' as well as common sense, many times. So let me do it one more time for you, as you are so sold on it, and always try to confuse people with it.

spy66


Did you have to ask Your professor for permission to engage in this topic?
If Your professor is engaged along your side, he/she just have to take whats comming. If he /she is affended, it is Your professors personal problem, He/she better work out their emotions issues somewhere else. This is a Public forum. I am not under Your professors authority and dont have to answer to Your professor.

Your professor can freely create hes/her own account and join in. Will i be talking to you or Your professor while we do this?

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

Are you off your meds? You clearly don't have a grasp on the finer points of tense because I made a reference in past tense not present. It's an interesting deflection tactic though to try to mock myself and my education as opposed to providing any answers or supporting your statements. I've been out of school for many years now and some of those professors are no longer with us so without a ouija board it's safe to say you won't ge talking to them. Anytime you want to supply your citations or sources were all on pins and needles eagerly awaiting your master stroke contribution whenever your through making yourself look silly.

reply to post by peter vlar


I am not going to wast Your time for very long.

Question: What time existed before the Big Bang /Singularity or center point?

neoholographic
It doesn't get any clearer than this.

Yepp. Clear as a cup of dark coffee.

reply to post by spy66

Good question. I think the best answer I can give is that space-time never begins or ends and time as we measure it is simply a human construct thus time as we refer to it couldn't have existed prior to the singularity because we haven't any frame of reference.

peter vlar
reply to post by spy66

 

Good question. I think the best answer I can give is that space-time never begins or ends and time as we measure it is simply a human construct thus time as we refer to it couldn't have existed prior to the singularity because we haven't any frame of reference.

- When i refer to time i am not refering to the clock. I am refering to matter and particles that take up space. Was there any mater and particles in existance before the big bang that you know of?

-I know you cant confirm this, but what is Your understanding of it?

-You say that there was always time, and that there always will be time; But what type of time existed before Our time; The Big Bang?
Our time is controlled by expansion/changes in mater and particles.

There must have been some form of time to form the center point/Singularity /The Big Bang ?
If not it would never have been formed.

- What is Your knowledge about that?



-What do you know about the expanding singularity: What makes the void/matter and particles that makes up the Space between galaxies, stars and so on; expand? That Space is Close to a absolute vacuum, "No presure at all".

spy66
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

By asking if there is an external 'pressure' you are showing that you do not understand cosmological expansion. It is not about space expanding against an external force, it is expanding from a central point outwards. Additionally, the singularity has to be infinite due to the universe being infinite. A finite singularity cannot produce infinite mass and energy.

If the singularity is expanding from a Central force or point, it must be expanding against a exsternal force as well. How can you exclude the exsternal force?????????

If the singularity is a Central point. What is surrounding it? What makes the Central point Central if nothing is surrounding it????????
The singularity must have a surrounding Space or force since the singularity is a Central point????????

Or am i missing something here???

What you say dont make any sense at all.

What this post needs, is more question marks.

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Really

begoodbees
the evolutionists ignore all evidence that contradicts their beliefs

The evidence presented by creationists is always crap evidence - misinterpreted, misunderstood, overhyped and often outright hoaxed. I have seen this again and again, without variation.

spy66
reply to post by peter vlar
Question: What time existed before the Big Bang /Singularity or center point?

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

Q: What is 'North' of the North-Pole?

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

begoodbees
the evolutionists ignore all evidence that contradicts their beliefs

The evidence presented by creationists is always crap evidence - misinterpreted, misunderstood, overhyped and often outright hoaxed. I have seen this again and again, without variation.

I agree. In Genesis Chapter 1. It is clearly stated that Earth and the sea brought forth all life.

And it certanly happened over time "day 1, day 2, day 3 and so.

spy66

peter vlar
reply to post by spy66

 

Good question. I think the best answer I can give is that space-time never begins or ends and time as we measure it is simply a human construct thus time as we refer to it couldn't have existed prior to the singularity because we haven't any frame of reference.

- When i refer to time i am not refering to the clock. I am refering to matter and particles that take up space. Was there any mater and particles in existance before the big bang that you know of?

-I know you cant confirm this, but what is Your understanding of it?

My understanding is that all matter in existance was entirely within the confines of the singularity. That much can be verified through what we can physically observe and correlate through math. The real kicker though is where did the singularity come from? And unfortunately I don't think we will see the answer to that in my lifetime. I'm rather partial to black holes being the recycling center for
Matter and energy in our universe. With my background being grounded in Antgropology I can't say for sure though as physics/cosmology isn't my forte. I just like to learn as much as possible and having a former Columbia physics professor in the family makes it easy to ask a lot of questions.

-You say that there was always time, and that there always will be time; But what type of time existed before Our time; The Big Bang?
Our time is controlled by expansion/changes in mater and particles.

Again I don't have a solid answer for that. One thing I won't do is blow smoke up your bum and try to convince you I know something I don't have an answer to. I can only Speculate and as I said above, I favor black holes being the Defacto recycling center of the universe or Multiverse. Depending on your personal inclination towards one or the other I could give a slightly different answer.

There must have been some form of time to form the center point/Singularity /The Big Bang ?
If not it would never have been formed.

- What is Your knowledge about that?

My knowledge of that is we really don't know anything prior to 10 to the 32nd seconds after the Big Bang began. There is no shortage of hypothesis about what may or may not have existed but that particular math is a little beyond my scope. I wish I had a better more succinct answer but I'm not sure that anyone does.

-What do you know about the expanding singularity: What makes the void/matter and particles that makes up the Space between galaxies, stars and so on; expand? That Space is Close to a absolute vacuum, "No presure at all".

Once the universe began to expand at the speed of light it set it all in motion. In the near vacuum there werent any
other forces in the early universe to halt or slow down the expansion. I would use the Voyager mission as an example. One the craft was set on its course and gained its momentum, nothing will stop its progress until its caught in the gravity of another object or crashes. The same principle applies to matter in the early universe. Additional expansion forces would come into play from supernova explosions, quasars, pulsars etc. energy can't be created or destroyed it only changes form. When any of these catastrophic events occurs in the cosmos it affects things across an entire galaxy as new heavier elements are fused together and forces spread matter and energy in every direction. It's a classic example if 'from chaos comes order' because eventually gravity kicks in and these heavier elements coalesce create new stars and on and on.

reply to post by peter vlar


I see; we have to talk a bit about black holes. I am not sure i know what a black hole is, so you got to help me out.

1. Is a black hole a large mass of some sort?

2. Is the black hole flat or spherical?

3. Is it gravity that pulls matter and particles into the black hole, or is it the force of a vacuum?

4. Does a black hole pull matter and particles equally from all directions or just from one direction?

5. Can a black hole exist if there are no matter and particles present?

6. What kind of energies are emitted from black holes?

EDIT: 7. Arent black hols just found in the center of galaxies?
Does that mean that at one point in time, in the future, every Galaxy will colide and form one very large black hole that again will form a New singularity?

energy can't be created or destroyed it only changes form

Not true. The energy mass that make up the singularity was made when the singularity was formed. It can never disapear because; where would it disapear to?

spy66

Question: What time existed before the Big Bang /Singularity or center point?

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

Assuming a big bang type of event occurred, what makes you think there was any time before this? It is generally thought to mark the beginning of time and space.

spy66

I agree. In Genesis Chapter 1. It is clearly stated that Earth and the sea brought forth all life.

It also attributes this to an "idiot sky fairy" who is entirely imaginary, instead of our understanding the forces of nature, which are real.

It also claims the earth existed before stars, yet we know the earth is almost entirely made up of the remnants of exploded stars which had existed for billions of years. It also claims there was a night and day before the sun existed. It also claims the earth flourished with plants (grasses, herbs, fruits etc) before the sun existed (photosynthesis)...and so on... These ridiculous, simplistic and contradictory creation myths give the appearance of being pulled out of some delusional goat herder's @rse lol, but are more likely to have been "borrowed" from other cultures.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

begoodbees
the evolutionists ignore all evidence that contradicts their beliefs

The evidence presented by creationists is always crap evidence - misinterpreted, misunderstood, overhyped and often outright hoaxed. I have seen this again and again, without variation.

Is an 'experience' an evidence? Yogis have seen the process of creation and destruction of universe in trance state (a state when soul can travel beyond body).

The theory of evolution had its time and place. It held good until science was developing.

Now microbiology is quite advanced, and all available evidence point to fallibility of theory of evolution.

If "theory of evolution" fails in experiments obviously does not prove "theory of creation". But it at least proves that we humans have gaps in our understanding of powers present in nature.

reply to post by GargIndia


Any person who is willing to explore the process of Creation can message me.

I shall point to resources that can be helpful.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Time always elapses. Time never stops.

There is no 'space-time'. 'space-time' is nothing but confusion.

The 'space' may expand or contract, but time does not get affected by that at all.

We need to see beyond "theory of relativity" and "special theory of relativity".

e=mc^2 is a beautiful equation. It holds because visible matter is formed by a combination of particles of 'prakriti' or gross matter and energy - a power of God. The energy transforms super-dense super-cold matter into lighter observable matter.

However this equation has a deep flaw. The flaw is the assumption that mass converts into energy. The fact is mass simply dissociates from energy when it changes shape. So proving this equation requires a very elaborate experiment, where confining of end products is necessary.

What if some 'particles' are produced which just lose their lightness by a breakdown of energy from matter. The area of minute black-hole is not yet understood. But if it happens in atomic reactions, the resulting very small very heavy uncharged particles will simply escape any vessel made to contain them.

GargIndia
Is an 'experience' an evidence?

Not if you can't show it to others

If "theory of evolution" fails in experiments obviously does not prove "theory of creation". But it at least proves that we humans have gaps in our understanding of powers present in nature.

That goes without saying but it is human nature to fill those gaps with just about anything. Science tries to counteract that.

GargIndia
Is an 'experience' an evidence? Yogis have seen the process of creation and destruction of universe in trance state (a state when soul can travel beyond body).

As far as science is concerned, personal anecdotes are of very low value in terms of evidence (ie, they aren't really considered evidence).

On their own, they are proof of nothing.

However, they can sometimes be useful in formulating a hypothesis, which you could then attempt to test for scientifically.

GargIndia
However this equation has a deep flaw. The flaw is the assumption that mass converts into energy.

Well, I have never weighed nueclear fuel rods before and after fission and I'm willing to bet you haven't either and you probably haven't carried out that "very elaborate experiment" so your claim has nothing to hold it up.

Not saying you can't be right but at this point it is just an idea.