- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 26 2009,03:02) Quote (Stu @ April 25 2009,22:10) This could be wrong. Given the evidence we have, it is a reasonable model: Quote From p.97 of Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays by Stephen Hawking: THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least ten-to-the-eightieth 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/antiparticle pairs. And where did the energy come from to create this 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 Keynesian economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy will not have to be paid until the end of the universe.
Are there any objections to the science, or is it just going to be endless ignorant strawmen and ad homs?
Stuart
Hi StuQuote When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Quote And where did the energy come from to create this matter? The answer is that it was borrowed from the gravitational energy of the universe. Isn't gravitational energy something?
Can you explain to me how the gravitational energy of the universe is “nothing”?
The two above statements make no sense.
WJ
All those christians who say that you cannot expect to understand god, and here you are making enormous demands on science being “understandable” for you.When you climb a hill, ie gain gravitational energy, do you get noticeably heavier?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 26 2009,09:02) HOW is it a 'good point'? How can “nothing' explode? Stuart
Um. You are the one telling the story.You are entertaining the idea that everything came from nothing. So logically speaking, nothing became everything. Therefore if everything came by a Big Bang, then nothing eventually exploded.
Nothing > Singularity > Explosion.
So there was this law/logic/program that enabled nothing to become a singularity and to explode to become enormous.
If this is the case, who created the law?
As a programmer I know that a program obeys the rules and exploits the features of its host operating system.
Are you trying to tell me that the construct/operating system/law/program or whatever that told or enabled the singularity to explode and create everything just sort of happened by magic?
You seem to neglect or forget all the connotations of your own theory. When we raise obvious questions, we don't get answers. Yet you are able with authority to say that there was no authority guiding the creating process.
Something isn't right with your theory Stu. It is full of holes. But I guess that you may not be able to see those holes as we can.
If there is zero balance and that zero balance is subject to a $5 withdrawal, now you have something. When I pay the $5 back, the balance is again zero, nada, nothing. OK, I understand that.
But take your blinders off Stu. For this to be possible, there has to be a money system. You need to ask yourself not that everything was zero and will return to zero, but by what construct and creative force allows for this possibility and you need to be open to possibility that it may itself be incorrect science.
You don't seem to go far enough in your questioning and hence you are satisfied to not dig to deep.
But there are people here and elsewhere that dig deeper and hence your rants about “what a load of crap” make sense. It is rubbish to you because you are not interested in even looking at the deeper understanding.
Ignorance is bliss until reality sets in Stu.
Quote Um. You are the one telling the story.
You are entertaining the idea that everything came from nothing. So logically speaking, nothing became everything. Therefore if everything came by a Big Bang, then nothing eventually exploded.
No I still don’t see how that follows. I can see how you would think it follows. However, everything came from nothing is not the same statement as nothing became everything.Quote Nothing > Singularity > Explosion.
So there was this law/logic/program that enabled nothing to become a singularity and to explode to become enormous.
Really? Was this revealed to you?Quote If this is the case, who created the law?
Which law?Quote As a programmer I know that a program obeys the rules and exploits the features of its host operating system.
Cool. You really do lead a dynamic and stimulating life since you converted to Paulianity.Quote Are you trying to tell me that the construct/operating system/law/program or whatever that told or enabled the singularity to explode and create everything just sort of happened by magic?
Did your Imaginary Friend tell you to ask me that? ‘He’ is playing games with you now. Why ask me when you have the hotline to use?Quote You seem to neglect or forget all the connotations of your own theory. When we raise obvious questions, we don't get answers. Yet you are able with authority to say that there was no authority guiding the creating process.
I counted three strawman arguments in that paragraph. That is pretty efficient, even for a creationist.Quote Something isn't right with your theory Stu. It is full of holes. But I guess that you may not be able to see those holes as we can.
The holes are not apparent to me, and not able to be articulated by you. Does that not speak volumes for your hollow accusations?Stuart
Quote If there is zero balance and that zero balance is subject to a $5 withdrawal, now you have something. When I pay the $5 back, the balance is again zero, nada, nothing. OK, I understand that.
But take your blinders off Stu. For this to be possible, there has to be a money system. You need to ask yourself not that everything was zero and will return to zero, but by what construct and creative force allows for this possibility and you need to be open to possibility that it may itself be incorrect science.
You seem to think that money is a material thing. It is actually made of promises. In the case of the Big Bang, there are promises but no promisers though. Is that analogy simple enough for you?Quote You don't seem to go far enough in your questioning and hence you are satisfied to not dig to deep.
In this discussion I am the sherpa carrying your luggage and leading the way, and you are the ungrateful tourist.Quote But there are people here and elsewhere that dig deeper and hence your rants about “what a load of crap” make sense. It is rubbish to you because you are not interested in even looking at the deeper understanding.
Ignorance is bliss until reality sets in Stu.
OK. Over to you. The ‘deeper understanding is…’Stuart
Stu 1:11-12
11 Stu a self aware compilation of trillions of sophisticated biological machines called cells deduced that there was no God or intelligent design in nature even though biological design existed in much greater quantity and was far superior to synthetic man-made designs.
12 Stu deduced that death and nothing gave birth to everything and life and he believed it that much that he put all his cards on the table and challenged belief in God with such ferocity that if he turned out to be wrong, he could only be considered extremely foolish and disadvantaged, but he was willing to take that risk anyway because he was a slave to his bias.Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 26 2009,09:05) Quote (Stu @ April 26 2009,09:02) HOW is it a 'good point'? How can “nothing' explode? Stuart
You tell us!!
I didn't claim that 'nothing' exploded.Stuart
Quote Stu 1:11-12
11 Stu a self aware compilation of trillions of sophisticated biological machines called cells deduced that there was no God or intelligent design in nature even though biological design existed in much greater quantity
Unsupported assertionQuote and was far superior to synthetic man-made designs.
The biochemistry yes, the engineering not always.Quote 12 Stu deduced that death and nothing gave birth to everything and life
Strawmen (x2).Quote and he believed it that much that he put all his cards on the table
Disproved assertion.Quote and challenged belief in God with such ferocity
…thank you…Quote that if he turned out to be wrong, he could only be considered extremely foolish Only if god believes in the bible.
and disadvantaged,
Unsupported assertion.Quote but he was willing to take that risk anyway because he was a slave to his bias.
Disproved assertion.I was right about the strawmen, although perhaps I underestimated the ability of a creationist to lie / forget / misrepresent being disproved in the past.
There is a commandment against two of those weaknesses.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 28 2009,22:44) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 26 2009,09:05) Quote (Stu @ April 26 2009,09:02) HOW is it a 'good point'? How can “nothing' explode? Stuart
You tell us!!
I didn't claim that 'nothing' exploded.Stuart
You claim that there was nothing.
I take it that you also claim that there was an explosion.
So from zero to hero with a lot of imagination in between.Stu 1:13-14
13 Stu was also gifted in the art of dodging questions and concentrating only on what he believes. This severely reduced Stu's ability to learn new things and look at other paradigms that challenged his religion of nothing.
14 One day Stu joined Heaven Net and from his postings the above was confirmed.Quote (t8 @ May 05 2009,17:09) Quote (Stu @ April 28 2009,22:44) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 26 2009,09:05) Quote (Stu @ April 26 2009,09:02) HOW is it a 'good point'? How can “nothing' explode? Stuart
You tell us!!
I didn't claim that 'nothing' exploded.Stuart
You claim that there was nothing.
I take it that you also claim that there was an explosion.
So from zero to hero with a lot of imagination in between.
Yes I claim there was nothing.There was almost certainly an explosion of the kind described by Big Bang cosmology. That is nearly universally accepted by physicists working in cosmological disciplines. Not that acceptance by physicists should be the criterion for a good model, but you will find it quite difficult to argue against the evidential case they make.
Zero is a human concept that did not exist until it was invented; your hero Saul of Tarsus was a great ape of a species yet to evolve, and this stretches the imagination of most, and especially dogmatic christians with a one-track mind, although we should definitely make an exception in your case as you have discarded many strawmen on your journey here, and have recently embraced the concept of open-mindedness.
We have nearly got as far as “there was nothing, then an explosion OF space-time, with matter and energy resulting from the increase in gravitational energy due to that expansion of space time”.
If you think common sense is going to be a major cognitive strategy for understanding THAT, then you will be stuck with goat-herder epistemology and you may as well keep their mythology as well.
On recent signs t8 there is hope for you. We may even have to stop patronising you too.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ May 05 2009,17:12) Stu 1:13-14
13 Stu was also gifted in the art of dodging questions and concentrating only on what he believes. This severely reduced Stu's ability to learn new things and look at other paradigms that challenged his religion of nothing.
14 One day Stu joined Heaven Net and from his postings the above was confirmed.
…Of course he who would like not to be patronised (an assumption I realise) probably needs not to patronise others…Still, if Saul of Tarsus can dream things not likely to be true, I should be allowed to as well!
Stuart
In other news,
Stu 1:13 is an ad hom as well, another logical fallacy. And an empirical one too.
Stuart
Stu 1:15-16
15 Stu demonstrated clearly to all that his beliefs were more a product of his bias than common sense and this bias led him to hear only that which he wanted to hear, thereby severely reducing the pool of knowledge that he drew upon, making him ignorant to all the common sense that pointed to the existence of a creator.
16 Stu shared this plight with many other proud so-called thinkers of his age, and aptly demonstrated how the self proclaimed wise engaged in foolish doctrines.
17 Stu was a lesson for all to the consequences that can happen to a mind that doesn't believe in his creator. He showed how the mind can be darkened by reason of bias which forms his belief in nothing and using scientific thinking to support the view that there is no creator and no design in the physical universe which of course the opposite is actually an obvious conclusion.Stu 1:16
16 And Stu was blind to the creator of the universe, so he chose to believe in nothing in the place of God and he also couldn't grasp how foolish it is to think that nothing can actually make something and something greater than all the intelligence of humanity combined. He even failed to see how rediculous it was to believe that nothing even made life, when it is common knowledge that only life makes life.
17 He failed to see how silly it was that the universe with an IQ of exactly zero (less than a chimp) could do greater technology on a biological and physical scale than all the intelligence of man which combined was the greatest IQ that he knew about.
18 So it seemed wise to leave Stu in his delusion with the hope that one day that it might dawn on him how silly it is to believe that nothing and not a creator was in the beginning and produced everything.
19 The holy scriptures which he was so opposed to actually recorded his condition when it said:
20 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
21 and so we come to the end of this book and hope that others can learn not to repeat what is written there in, lest they also chase fables in the place of truth.This debate seems somewhat futile to me – the best minds the human race has have not yet been able to explain the ultimate origins of the universe. There is strong evidence for Big Bang theory in terms of Doppler shift of light from other galaxies, and a certain amount of understanding of what would be the case at higher temperatures (as the energy in the universe is more concentrated together). The exact nature of the universe is far beyond current human understanding.
It isn't helpful to think of it as an explosion since it implies a medium surrounding the universe for it to explode into. I personally like the analogy of the flatlanders living on a globe – they perceive their world as flat (and so did we until not so long ago!), and infinite. It is incomprehensible to them to note the third dimension through which their world curves.
Given how recently we discovered we could make big boom by setting up a chain reaction with neutrons and certain heavier elements, I think it's safe to say there's a hell of a lot more we don't know about the universe.
You – as in the pattern of electrical activity that you identify as “you”, are indeed mostly nothing. If you are crushed into neutrons you will be invisible on a human scale, and if you are crushed further we don't know what happens, only that it does. Since matter and energy are interchangeable, I presume you become some form of energy – and how much space does energy occupy? Consider the existence of the photon – a particle with zero rest mass? It's only mass is a product of the energy it contains.
Seriously though, despite the best efforts of a teacher at school – I became a programmer, not a physicist, and it's far out of my intellectual domain.
I could offer you some advice, T8 – but the question I ask myself is, would you even consider it?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
