- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 04 2010,21:49) Stu,
Please explain to me again what you mean by 'Religious Platitude', that term you seem to use almost as much as Roo uses 'Anathema' and WJ uses 'AdHominem'
I will explain it JA.They try to baffle people with bigger words when their simple logic fails.
Yeah Stu, explain your understanding in a way that can be followed.
You know the real genius is not in using big words and spouting of what others say.
Look at Google. It has the most simple interface and yet it can search for almost anything in less than a second. All the complicated stuff is hidden away. In fact I would go as far to say that giving people complexity shows that you lack the genius to make it easy and simple.
Now, we only ask you to explain how nothing can become something without any kind of external influence. You have failed thus far to explain that, and any spouting off about antibaryons, dark energy, or quantum doesn't cut it because that is just a smoke-screen to cover the fact that you don't have a clue as to how nothing can create, produce, or turn into something.
Come on man. Step up to the plate or admit you do not have a clue.
Thanks in advance.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 05 2010,09:00) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2010,21:13) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 04 2010,20:55) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2010,20:54) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 04 2010,20:31) I am just as interested in seeing what particles can be discovered as you. Whatever the outcome, it cannot disprove God.
What god?Stuart
The source of all.
Religious Platitude.Yet again.
Stuart
This topic is not about who is God, but that God exists or he doesn't as a response to Hawking's recent book.So not religious platitude, just an honest answer without changing this topic.
Again you fail Stu.
Try again.
What god was that again?Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 05 2010,13:09) Yeah Stu, explain your understanding in a way that can be followed. You know the real genius is not in using big words and spouting of what others say.
Look at Google. It has the most simple interface and yet it can search for almost anything in less than a second. All the complicated stuff is hidden away. In fact I would go as far to say that giving people complexity shows that you lack the genius to make it easy and simple.
Now, we only ask you to explain how nothing can become something without any kind of external influence. You have failed thus far to explain that, and any spouting off about antibaryons, dark energy, or quantum doesn't cut it because that is just a smoke-screen to cover the fact that you don't have a clue as to how nothing can create, produce, or turn into something.
Come on man. Step up to the plate or admit you do not have a clue.
Thanks in advance.
I have given the simplest explanation that does the topic justice. As I explained, common sense is not enough. If you are not up to understanding it, then perhaps less bluster and more curiosity is the appropriate response.Not being able to express counter-intuitive concepts in baby language for you is not the same thing as not having a clue.
Meantime, what has the christian fantasy story actually added to our understanding of the origins of the universe? Nothing, actually. All that is ever done is retrospectively bend Judeo-christian mythology until it could be thought of as fitting reality – if you stand right back, squint and exercise pretty lose artistic license. The arrogance of the christian who proclaims his ignorance as a virtue is not something I think you should be proud of.
Baryons and antibaryons are the particles that constitute matter and antimatter respectively. Their separation to give us a matter world with little obviously present in the way of antimatter is something of a mystery in science. Can you step up to the plate and give us a god-based explanation of that to the detail that Hawking is able to give for most of the rest of it?
I'm not holding my breath.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 05 2010,09:05) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2010,21:01) I am interested in the question of the appearance of space, time, energy and matter, amongst many things. You appear to be interested in a magic car.
And the faith required to believe that it all came from nothing.I don't have a problem with your interest in space, time, energy, matter, etc. I have a similar interest. No, just your religion that says it all came from nothing. Your math that is trying to convince people that 0 can become 1 without any influence outside of the 0 itself. Show me the math or logic behind your theory that something can come from nothing.
So far we are yet to see your logic or proof as to why there was nothing and it became something.
Again I probably need to point out that you have failed on this point and I have rightly pointed out that if you fail, then you cannot continue to promote something based on failure unless you are happy to be associated with failure.
As we have discussed already, you not being able to believe something is no reason to suppose it did not happen. You being able to show why it couldn't happen could be reason…Hawking:
In real time, the universe would appear to begin its expansion at a minimum radius. At first, the expansion would be what is called inflationary. That is, the universe would double in size every tiny fraction of a second, just as prices double every year in certain countries. The world record for economic inflation, was probably Germany after the First World War. The price of a loaf of bread, went from under a mark, to millions of marks in a few months. But that is nothing compared to the inflation that seems to have occurred in the early universe: an increase in size by a factor of at least a million million million million million times, in a tiny fraction of a second. Of course, that was before the present government.
This inflation was a good thing, in that it produced a universe that was smooth and uniform on a large scale, and was expanding at just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe, quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period, the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy, to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Reagan economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy, will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe.
If you want more details consult the source:
http://www.ralentz.com/old/astro/hawking-1.html
To understand it fully you would need a background in quantum gravity, and in Feynman's quantum electrodynamics.
If you just want to carry on mocking these geniuses, go ahead. I'm sure it will make you look masterful and impressive. Unless you can match their maths and disprove them. Good luck with that.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2010,14:18) As we have discussed already, you not being able to believe something is no reason to suppose it did not happen.
Correct. Now think about how you don't believe in God and think that this is no reason to suppose that he doesn't exist.At least believe your own words, and if you do, I will take that as progress.
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2010,14:18) In real time, the universe would appear to begin its expansion at a minimum radius. At first, the expansion would be what is called inflationary. That is, the universe would double in size every tiny fraction of a second, just as prices double every year in certain countries. The world record for economic inflation, was probably Germany after the First World War. The price of a loaf of bread, went from under a mark, to millions of marks in a few months. But that is nothing compared to the inflation that seems to have occurred in the early universe: an increase in size by a factor of at least a million million million million million times, in a tiny fraction of a second. Of course, that was before the present government. This inflation was a good thing, in that it produced a universe that was smooth and uniform on a large scale, and was expanding at just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe, quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period, the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy, to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Reagan economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy, will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe.
How did nothing borrow from itself to cause a fluctuation?
It is impossible for nothing to do something.The only explanation was that there was something else causing the influence.
I call that God. Atheists appear to believe that somehow nothing can do something.
Illogical, doesn't compute, fail.
Hey t8,
“Before the Universe, Stu Was”
In fact, “All things were created by Him and For Him” and “All things are sustained by him”
He doesn't seem to see how ridiculous he appears.
The more he tries to explain the more ridiculouser he appears.Poor Stu. All that learning has frazzled his brain and he thought he was gonna be “the beesnees” but ended up as the one with the need to be.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 06 2010,11:15) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2010,13:48) What god was that again? Stuart
More smoke from Stu.
You still don't appear to be able to answer the question. What is a god? What god do you mean?Can you answer without resorting to fantasy descriptions and platitudes?
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 06 2010,11:18) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2010,14:18) As we have discussed already, you not being able to believe something is no reason to suppose it did not happen.
Correct. Now think about how you don't believe in God and think that this is no reason to suppose that he doesn't exist.At least believe your own words, and if you do, I will take that as progress.
We have been over this countless times t8, you must be playing to the crowds now.So, for the crowds, I will repeat my answer: I am agnostic, as we all must be. I make the provisional conclusion that, given the complete lack of unambiguous evidence for gods, no such thing exists. I will be swayed by unambiguous evidence. Do you have any?
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 06 2010,11:22) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2010,14:18) In real time, the universe would appear to begin its expansion at a minimum radius. At first, the expansion would be what is called inflationary. That is, the universe would double in size every tiny fraction of a second, just as prices double every year in certain countries. The world record for economic inflation, was probably Germany after the First World War. The price of a loaf of bread, went from under a mark, to millions of marks in a few months. But that is nothing compared to the inflation that seems to have occurred in the early universe: an increase in size by a factor of at least a million million million million million times, in a tiny fraction of a second. Of course, that was before the present government. This inflation was a good thing, in that it produced a universe that was smooth and uniform on a large scale, and was expanding at just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe, quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period, the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy, to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Reagan economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy, will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe.
How did nothing borrow from itself to cause a fluctuation?
It is impossible for nothing to do something.The only explanation was that there was something else causing the influence.
I call that God. Atheists appear to believe that somehow nothing can do something.
Illogical, doesn't compute, fail.
You have not disproved Hawking, all you have done is insisted it is impossible. Actually why is it impossible?Stuart
Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 06 2010,12:32) Hey t8, “Before the Universe, Stu Was”
In fact, “All things were created by Him and For Him” and “All things are sustained by him”
He doesn't seem to see how ridiculous he appears.
The more he tries to explain the more ridiculouser he appears.Poor Stu. All that learning has frazzled his brain and he thought he was gonna be “the beesnees” but ended up as the one with the need to be.
Three religious platitudes (although refreshingly used in mockery) and one example of poor English, which perhaps was used as a language device for effect.While I am not in his league by any stretch, I will borrow from Christopher Hitchens and be happy that you have got to the ad hominems so fast. You obviously have nothing to contribute, not even in defense of your fantasy worldview.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 06 2010,16:32) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 06 2010,11:15) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2010,13:48) What god was that again? Stuart
More smoke from Stu.
You still don't appear to be able to answer the question. What is a god? What god do you mean?Can you answer without resorting to fantasy descriptions and platitudes?
Stuart
Stuart, that is changing the subject of the topic, and there are plenty of topics that can cater for this and if there is not, then you can start one. But in keeping with the subject and explaining God within that context, God on one hand is the source of all. The first. The original. The eternal. No one or nothing exists before him and if it did, then that is God.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 06 2010,16:36) You have not disproved Hawking, all you have done is insisted it is impossible. Actually why is it impossible? Stuart
I have pointed out correctly that there must exist something else if nothing became something. Otherwise there would be nothing now. It is this that neither you or Hawking can disprove.Hawking's statements are only workable if you are looking at a certain snapshot and ignore anything before that snapshot. But if you look further out, you have to conclude that there was some other influence that made nothing become something for the simple reason that nothing can do nothing and something can do something. This is the reality that you are ignoring.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 07 2010,09:35) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 06 2010,16:32) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 06 2010,11:15) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2010,13:48) What god was that again? Stuart
More smoke from Stu.
You still don't appear to be able to answer the question. What is a god? What god do you mean?Can you answer without resorting to fantasy descriptions and platitudes?
Stuart
Stuart, that is changing the subject of the topic, and there are plenty of topics that can cater for this and if there is not, then you can start one. But in keeping with the subject and explaining God within that context, God on one hand is the source of all. The first. The original. The eternal. No one or nothing exists before him and if it did, then that is God.
You mentioned this god thing, so you decided it was important. I asked you what it is you are talking about, and now it appears I was right: you do not have any better an answer than a list of religious platitudes. Five of them, to be precise.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 07 2010,09:38) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 06 2010,16:36) You have not disproved Hawking, all you have done is insisted it is impossible. Actually why is it impossible? Stuart
I have pointed out correctly that there must exist something else if nothing became something. Otherwise there would be nothing now. It is this that neither you or Hawking can disprove.Hawking's statements are only workable if you are looking at a certain snapshot and ignore anything before that snapshot. But if you look further out, you have to conclude that there was some other influence that made nothing become something for the simple reason that nothing can do nothing and something can do something. This is the reality that you are ignoring.
Sorry, was there a reason for the impossibility of Hawking's statement anywhere in there? You are just saying you think it is not possible. I can just as easily say you are wrong, it is perfectly possible.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 06 2010,16:34) So, for the crowds, I will repeat my answer: I am agnostic, as we all must be. I make the provisional conclusion that, given the complete lack of unambiguous evidence for gods, no such thing exists. I will be swayed by unambiguous evidence. Do you have any?
Great stuff Stu. You are taking honesty more seriously now.I can work with that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
