Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ron_Burgundy said:

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed by chemical means. 

In physics, it is done all the time.

High School demonstration:   Balance a lead weight -this works 'best'- and heat it. The mass it gains tips the balance. Then as it cools, it returns to balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hasanhh said:

In physics, it is done all the time.

High School demonstration:   Balance a lead weight -this works 'best'- and heat it. The mass it gains tips the balance. Then as it cools, it returns to balance.

In physics: see conservation of mass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quisant said:

You need to define what you mean by "began." If you mean "came into existence ex nihilo," then no, it's not at all plausible. 

The example of "began" is present in your own comments.

4 hours ago, Quisant said:

a singularity which expanded into our universe

What caused the state of singularity to "began" rapid expansion? 

Nothing comes from nothing dictates the casualty. We need to see the cause & effect. State of singularity itself is an effect. What caused that effect? 

Where that state of singularity existed? In space-time or the space-time also captured into that state of singularity? 

4 hours ago, Quisant said:

Matter and energy change form, but they are never created or destroyed. This is such a constant that it is incorporated into the laws of thermodynamics.
( Surely God wouldn't violate the laws of thermodynamics; even if you hold the belief He could, what does it say about His quality of creating the law in the first place then? Must not of been a very good law, ect..)

The "hot & dense" state of singularity indicates the existence of matter & energy as well as indicates the existence of laws as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ron_Burgundy said:

In physics: see conservation of mass. 

Law of Conservation of mass was given many years before the recent observations and need to be revised. 

Energy, Matter, Space and time according to modern cosmology were created from a single point and before that there was no space, matter, energy and time. So, it should be redefined as: Energy and matter were first created but human can only transform it from one state to another state which is only ability given by them to God and matter and energy can only be destroyed by God :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ron_Burgundy said:

please explain

Easy The heat absorbed elevates the electrons to higher and more energetic levels. This increases the mass. When it cools, the action is reversed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Easy The heat absorbed elevates the electrons to higher and more energetic levels. This increases the mass. When it cools, the action is reversed.

Like water that is hot turns into steam and when it is cold it turns into water again. Can such things be considered coincidences in nature ? Only an idiot can think them as coincidence and wise one will call it a design. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Because many Atheists including Einstein propounded theories that Universe is in steady state and neither contracts nor expands, when Edwin Hubble came up with those observations and Mathematicians said that this expansion means that there must be state from where it started and that was point of infinite mass, space, energy and time, the Atheists got failed.

After that someone other Atheist scientist, I think it was Fred Hoyle who said that Universe was always expanding, new idea, Atheist admitted they were wrong before.....

Soon, the scientists also came up with observations that universe also contracts when black holes were discovered and now Atheists were again in conundrum.....Lolz, Science cannot save you neither those idiot scientists who are trying to make fool out of you. 

What you say is partly true, when Hubble presented his evidence of the expansion of the universe, Einstein embraced the idea. He called his adherence to the old idea “my greatest blunder.” At least he had the honesty of admitting his mistake.

None of this has dealt any blow to atheism.

That you dislike atheists is quite obvious, unfortunately for you atheism has never been as prevalent as nowadays.

:)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Because many Atheists including Einstein propounded theories that Universe is in steady state and neither contracts nor expands, when Edwin Hubble came up with those observations and Mathematicians said that this expansion means that there must be state from where it started and that was point of infinite mass, space, energy and time, the Atheists got failed.

After that someone other Atheist scientist, I think it was Fred Hoyle who said that Universe was always expanding, new idea, Atheist admitted they were wrong before.....

Soon, the scientists also came up with observations that universe also contracts when black holes were discovered and now Atheists were again in conundrum.....Lolz, Science cannot save you neither those idiot scientists who are trying to make fool out of you. 

What you say is partly true, when Hubble presented his evidence of the expansion of the universe, Einstein embraced the idea. He called his adherence to the old idea “my greatest blunder.” At least he had the honesty of admitting his mistake.

None of this has dealt any blow to atheism.

That you dislike atheists is quite obvious, unfortunately for you atheism has never been as prevalent as nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Quisant said:

What you say is partly true, when Hubble presented his evidence of the expansion of the universe, Einstein embraced the idea. He called his adherence to the old idea “my greatest blunder.” At least he had the honesty of admitting his mistake.

None of this has dealt any blow to atheism.

That you dislike atheists is quite obvious, unfortunately for you atheism has never been as prevalent as nowadays.

At least you admitted that I spoke truth. And you admitted that Einsten admitted it a greatest blunder and gave a theory just to please Atheists and when he said such thing, whole the Atheists community rose to oppose him for saying such truth. What a weakness.

Yes, I hate falsehood and Atheism is just another word to falsehood like the word lie. A wise person never loves falsehood.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

The example of "began" is present in your own comments.

I began to exist a while back, but I do not come from nothing.

 

19 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

hat caused the state of singularity to "began" rapid expansion? 

Nothing comes from nothing dictates the casualty. We need to see the cause & effect. State of singularity itself is an effect. What caused that effect? 

Where that state of singularity existed? In space-time or the space-time also captured into that state of singularity? 

It might well be stated that the universe is an effect of the big bang.
And it can be inferred that the big bang was an effect of the singularity.

What cannot be said is that the singularity was an effect. Right now there is not enough information to declare with any certainty what it was. Theories abound. Including the omnipresent God of the gaps.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Quisant said:

I began to exist a while back, but I do not come from nothing.

 

It might well be stated that the universe is an effect of the big bang.
And it can be inferred that the big bang was an effect of the singularity.

What cannot be said is that the singularity was an effect. Right now there is not enough information to declare with any certainty what it was. Theories abound. Including the omnipresent God of the gaps.
 

Well, every Islamic saying is a scientific fact for me. I have seen that whoever opposed Islamic explanation of creation has just saw failure.The only difference between Muslims and Atheists is of belief. Atheists wait to get another belief of them being proved false. While Muslims wait to witness another belief of them being approved by Science. 

Everything that changes is not eternal and whatever you may call it such as singularity or whatever, it would have been called unaffected if it were unchangeable. since it changed so it was effected by some agent whatever you may call it either "Mother nature" or "Intelligent being" or "God in our language". You cannot disprove it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Quisant said:

I began to exist a while back, but I do not come from nothing.

:) Just refer you Kalam cosmological argument & its first premise is based on "something cannot come into being from nothing".

You are struggling with your comment "nothing begins to exist".

6 minutes ago, Quisant said:

It might well be stated that the universe is an effect of the big bang.
And it can be inferred that the big bang was an effect of the singularity.

And singularity was an effect of????

7 minutes ago, Quisant said:

What cannot be said is that the singularity was an effect. Right now there is not enough information to declare with any certainty what it was. Theories abound. Including the omnipresent God of the gaps.

:) So as per your point, even the principle of casualty "begins to exist" from the expansion of that singularity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

Just refer you Kalam cosmological argument & its first premise is based on "something cannot come into being from nothing".

You are struggling with your comment "nothing begins to exist".

Consider this: if God creates the universe "out of His own being or mind”, that means the universe (or the 'raw material of the universe’) is eternal in the sense that (the raw material of) the universe is God's being. It didn't begin.
(This would also contradict God's reputation of unchanged and unchangeable)

If God creates out of 'pre-existing' material it means that something was already there.

In either case you cannot say that the universe began, you can say that 'stuff' was transformed from one state to another. 

Therefore, your premise that 'Everything that has a beginning has a cause' and that 'The universe began'...is flawed from the very start.

 

Furthermore, positing a God to explain the existence of the singularity solves nothing. 

Now you've just got someone else you have to explain the existence of, and what's worse is you have no actual evidence this person actually exists apart from conjecture that maybe it might explain the existence of the singularity. 

Also according to your logic there has to be a super-creator to explain the existence of this hypothetical creator, and another super-duper creator to explain the existence ... well, you get the picture. Turtles all the way down.
 

See you tomorrow.

wslm

*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Quisant said:

Consider this: if God creates the universe "out of His own being or mind”, that means the universe (or the 'raw material of the universe’) is eternal in the sense that (the raw material of) the universe is God's being. It didn't begin.
(This would also contradict God's reputation of unchanged and unchangeable)

If God creates out of 'pre-existing' material it means that something was already there.

In either case you cannot say that the universe began, you can say that 'stuff' was transformed from one state to another. 

Therefore, your premise that 'Everything that has a beginning has a cause' and that 'The universe began'...is flawed from the very start.

 

Furthermore, positing a God to explain the existence of the singularity solves nothing. 

Now you've just got someone else you have to explain the existence of, and what's worse is you have no actual evidence this person actually exists apart from conjecture that maybe it might explain the existence of the singularity. 

Also according to your logic there has to be a super-creator to explain the existence of this hypothetical creator, and another super-duper creator to explain the existence ... well, you get the picture. Turtles all the way down.
 

See you tomorrow.

wslm

*

 

You are right that everything that has been created existed prior to it's physical form but where,"in knowledge of God". But that thing cannot come out itself without the help of God. In order to come into physical form, it required permission of God. God says I am absolute knowledgeable and He knows everything but whatever He knows depends on Him to come into being and they cannot come itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Easy The heat absorbed elevates the electrons to higher and more energetic levels. This increases the mass. When it cools, the action is reversed.

Isn't it changing a form?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

Law of Conservation of mass was given many years before the recent observations and need to be revised. 

Energy, Matter, Space and time according to modern cosmology were created from a single point and before that there was no space, matter, energy and time. So, it should be redefined as: Energy and matter were first created but human can only transform it from one state to another state which is only ability given by them to God and matter and energy can only be destroyed by God :D

If you wanna talk about modern science they don;t know what caused the big bang and what was there before big bang. Modern science doesn't obsolete first law thermodynamics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ron_Burgundy said:

If you wanna talk about modern science they don;t know what caused the big bang and what was there before big bang. Modern science doesn't obsolete first law thermodynamics. 

So, why saying that Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Transformation of one thing into another itself suggests that it comes into being and then vanishes. Transformation into another class is also ending of one form and coming of existence of another. We die but we do not end, we only come from one state to another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

So, why saying that Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Transformation of one thing into another itself suggests that it comes into being and then vanishes. Transformation into another class is also ending of one form and coming of existence of another. We die but we do not end, we only come from one state to another. 

in other words 

Quote

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ron_Burgundy said:

in other words 

 

Well, we must say that energy and matter are incontrovertible rather than saying they do not die. and even if the scientists say that they can neither be created nor destroyed then according to Ayotullah Rohullah Khomeini our belief is correct that "Man will be raised again as per the definition of this law".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Well, we must say that energy and matter are incontrovertible rather than saying they do not die. and even if the scientists say that they can neither be created nor destroyed then according to Ayotullah Rohullah Khomeini our belief is correct that "Man will be raised again as per the definition of this law".  

I do believe that and have no doubts about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×