Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 11/26/2017 at 4:45 PM, Quisant said:

 

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

wslm.

*

That's me done for the day with the forum.

Hi, thanks for responding. I was hoping for more ofa detail response as to how; Raw material/matter that makes up this universe always existed? 

Can you possibly give any kind of reference from any cosmologist that suggest this? 

Edited by power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2017 at 3:52 PM, M.IB said:

Alright, Thanks. I apologize also since I thought you were an atheist (I saw the "Christian humanist" recently). 

What do you think of my post? Ya know, Christian or Atheist, Muslim or anything else, these are just words or titles. But really its the ideas behind the title that we are discussing. So what do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2017 at 5:59 PM, Quisant said:

This is beyond anything in our experience, it is counter-intuitive and thus makes no logical sense on the face of it. But it is simply expanding. 

Expanding through? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2017 at 10:42 PM, iCambrian said:

And I think when God is described as an "external" force, you are pushing God, to the outside, like God isn't present within and around us. And it turns into a situation where the true deists are the ones arguing in favor of the existence of God, using kalam style arguments.

Yes, God created the cosmos, he bounded it by special laws, listed by God. However these laws, created by God wouldn't be applied to him. That also what I can use for the point I mentioned as miracles.

For example why would Evolution not be something done by God? Aren't creations heading to the "better" after all? Fine tuning is clear in this universe. 

On 11/24/2017 at 10:42 PM, iCambrian said:

Just because God is not actively transforming reality before our eyes in wild and crazy ways, it doesn't mean that God should be assumed as absent. 

Agreed.

On 11/24/2017 at 10:42 PM, iCambrian said:

I would be hesitant to...say, as an example, whatever is causing space objects to move apart is an external force, and is therefore God.  Because then you might end up figuring out that what causes the spreading, and it may not be a force that is materialistically different than any other force. Then people sort of push God back. 

Its like the whole God of the Gaps thing. God shouldnt be confined to some sort of abstract beginning force that nobody can explain. Because then when we do find out how to explain it, God gets pushed back.

However, the summary I wanted to utter differently, was, That God doesn't necessarily intervenes, he created this cosmos we live at. For example Quantum fluctuations, they use this argument for the unlikeness of a creator. But it was really a "force" or "law of nature". How are they so sure it wasn't a law put by God?

Quote

What do you think of my post? Ya know, Christian or Atheist, Muslim or anything else, these are just words or titles. But really its the ideas behind the title that we are discussing. So what do you think?

I think it was a good explanation, but some points I had to disagree with you. Another normal discussion in this world :) I just was clearing the fact that I thought you were an atheist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2017 at 7:01 PM, power said:

Hi, thanks for responding. I was hoping for more ofa detail response as to how; Raw material/matter that makes up this universe always existed? 

Can you possibly give any kind of reference from any cosmologist that suggest this? 

I have only just noticed your post, sorry busy all day.

I don't think you have read or understood my earlier post. 

I don't know where I got the expression from (may have been Prof. Brian Cox BBC Wonders of the universe) but it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making.

It is accepted that the Big bang was an effect of the Initial Singularity (you can google that).

Let me ask you a question: What do you think were the raw materials, the basic constituents that made up the Singularity?    

*

Share this post


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

I have only just noticed your post, sorry busy all day.

I don't think you have read or understood my earlier post. 

I don't know where I got the expression from (may have been Prof. Brian Cox BBC Wonders of the universe) but it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making.

It is accepted that the Big bang was an effect of the Initial Singularity (you can google that).

Let me ask you a question: What do you think were the raw materials, the basic constituents that made up the Singularity?    

*

Hi, i clearly understood your earlier post, but i felt you did not address when you stated: Raw material/matter that makes up this universe always existed? 

What intrigued me was "always existed" that was what really arouse my curiosity. Now, when you refer to "always existed" Implying Raw/material are infinite? Moreover, there’s a point of logic here.  How could we possibly know what happened at the very beginning of the universe? No experiment can yet probe such an early time, and none of the available equations are powerful enough or usable enough to allow us to come to clear and unique conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, power said:

 Moreover, there’s a point of logic here.  How could we possibly know what happened at the very beginning of the universe? No experiment can yet probe such an early time, and none of the available equations are powerful enough or usable enough to allow us to come to clear and unique conclusions.



This point was already answered in my earlier post, infact all your questions have been addressed already;  please read it again and if there is something you disagree with or do not understand I will do my best to try and clarify.

My earlier post:

Though we have good evidence that the observable universe began about 14 billion years ago, we know nothing at all about what existed before then. 
Science can only speculate what was before the Big Bang.The process of inflation erased all evidence of anything that may or may not have come before. 

There exist a few theories but they are a long way from being validated 

Personally, I find it reasonable to believe that there cannot be “nothing” before the Big Bang because “nothing” cannot produce something. From nothing, nothing can come. 
Something can only come from something, and that something is the universe in another form for some atheists or the necessary entity for some theists.

I also find it reasonable to add that 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 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. 
 

*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2017 at 10:39 AM, Quisant said:



This point was already answered in my earlier post, infact all your questions have been addressed already;  please read it again and if there is something you disagree with or do not understand I will do my best to try and clarify.

My earlier post:

Okay thanks. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 11/30/2017 at 10:39 AM, Quisant said:



Thi

Though we have good evidence that the observable universe began about 14 billion years ago, we know nothing at all about what existed before then. 
Science can only speculate what was before the Big Bang.The process of inflation erased all evidence of anything that may or may not have come before. 

There exist a few theories but they are a long way from being validated 

Personally, I find it reasonable to believe that there cannot be “nothing” before the Big Bang because “nothing” cannot produce something. From nothing, nothing can come. 
Something can only come from something, and that something is the universe in another form for some atheists or the necessary entity for some theists.


 

*

Something can not come from nothing.”

How do you know? We haven’t had any nothing to see whether anything can come from it.

It may be that an absolute nothing HAS to cause something.

We’ve never had any to find out.

Edited by power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2017 at 10:39 AM, Quisant said:



 

I also find it reasonable to add that 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 contradict God's reputation of unchanged and unchangeable)

 

Can you possibly elaborate on : unchanged and the unchangeable? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2017 at 10:39 AM, Quisant said:

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. 
 

*

I cannot see the logic, it also doesn't make any sense, how can we measure such transformation had occurred? When you had stated; The process of inflation erased all evidence of anything that may or may not have come before? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/09/2017 at 5:55 PM, Quisant said:

Unless of course you can  show me how the supernatural (above nature) can be observed in the natural Universe.

only God can show you... 

Edited by kirtc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2017 at 5:39 AM, Quisant said:

 

Though we have good evidence that the observable universe began about 14 billion years ago, *

If you were posting in 1919 , 1929, 1955, 1965, 1993 and 2006 you would say the age and size is ? 

Point is its best guess/evidence at a given time, with the full understanding that tomorrow it may change. Nothing is Absolute. Its a point in time understanding, Age, Size, contents, Evolution, (Cosmic, biological, ) etc..( Nothing is Absolute Knowledge). Best evidence/theory of today open to drastic change at time....

Quote

Age & Size of the Universe Through the Years

Our estimate of the age and size of the Universe has changed during the past century. Cosmic Times reflects this through the "Age of the Universe" and "Size of the Universe" boxes in the upper left and upper right of each edition. The Size refers to the diameter of the known universe.

Here we describe these estimates.

1919
Age: Infinite
Size: 300,000 Light Years

In the early 20th century, astronomers thought that the Universe was infinitely old and unchanging. Meanwhile geologists were determining the age of the earth to be about 1.6 billion years old using early applications of radioactive decay.

At the time, some astronomers thought that the Milky Way comprised everything in the Universe. As described in the article Mt. Wilson Astronomer Estimates Milky Way Ten Times Bigger than Thought, Harlow Shapley studied the distances to globular clusters to determine the size of the Milky Way Galaxy to be 300,000 light years across.

1929
Age: 2 Billion Years
Size: 280 Million Light Years

In 1924, Edwin Hubble determined the distance to the Andromeda Nebula to be 900,000 light years. By 1929, he had measured the distances to 24 additional spiral nebulae in his study to determine distances to the galaxies for which Slipher had previously determined redshifts. The farthest was 140 million light years away, making the universe 280 million light years across.

One result from Hubble's discovery of the relationship between the recessional velocity and distance to distant galaxies is that the constant which defines that relationship is also related to the age of the universe. If the universe has been expanding, and Hubble's constant gives the expansion rate, then its inverse gives the amount of time that the expansion has been going on. Hubble's initial value of this constant gives an age of the universe of 2 billion years. Interestingly, at this same time geologists had determined the age of the Earth to be 3 billion years.

1955
Age: 6 Billion Years
Size: 4 Billion Light Years

As a result of the recalibration of the Cepheid distance scale and of the new results from the 200-inch telescope at Mt. Palomar, the size of the Universe increased to 4 billion light years by the mid-1950's.

In 1952, Walter Baade redetermined the value of Hubble's constant to be much lower than what Hubble had estimated. As a result, the Universe was found to be about 6 billion years old.

1965
Age: 10-25 Billion Years
Size: 25 Billion Light Years

The farthest objects in 1965 were the quasars. The most distant known quasar, named 3C9, was found to be about 12 billion light years away. This gives a size for the universe of about 25 billion light years.

In 1958, Alan Sandage again lowered the value of Hubble's constant, but ended up with a range of ages for the Universe between 15 and 25 billion years. As of 1965, this uncertainty remained, since subsequent studies by a variety of astronomers found different values within this range.

1993
Age: 12-20 Billion Years
Size: 30 Billion Light Years

Quasars continue to define the size of the universe into the early 1990's. Quasars had been found with recessional velocities nearly 90% the speed of light, giving distances of 15 billion light years. This gives a size of the universe of 30 billion light years across.

The value of Hubble's constant remained uncertain, giving a range in age for the universe of 12-20 billion years.

2006
Age: 13.7 Billion Years
Size: 94 Billion Light Years

The most distant objects in the Universe are 47 billion light years away, making the size of the observable Universe 94 billion light years across. How can the observable universe be larger than the time it takes light to travel over the age of the Universe? This is because the universe has been expanding during this time. This causes very distant objects to be further away from us than their light travel time. For additional information, see Ned Wright's Cosmology FAQ.

The Hubble Key Project, conducted by the Hubble Space Telescope from 1991 to 2000, nailed down the value of the Hubble Constant and hence the age of the Universe. Results from the WMAP satellite further confirmed and refined the age of the Universe to be 13.7 billion years.

https://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/teachers/guide/age_size.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2017 at 5:39 AM, Quisant said:

 

Though we have good evidence that the observable universe began about 14 billion years ago, we know nothing at all about what existed before then. 
Science can only speculate what was before the Big Bang.The process of inflation erased all evidence of anything that may or may not have come before. 

 

Above post is riddled with "The value of Hubble's constant". Here is more guess work, if, maybe, must have been , unanswered question, what powered it.. will  be presented as Facts, Undeniable evidence 

Inflation:

Quote

Inflation

One problem that arose from the original COBE results, and that persists with the higher-resolution WMAP data, was that the Universe was too homogeneous. How could pieces of the Universe that had never been in contact with each other have come to equilibrium at the very same temperature? This and other cosmological problems could be solved, however, if there had been a very short period immediately after the Big Bang where the Universe experienced an incredible burst of expansion called "inflation." For this inflation to have taken place, the Universe at the time of the Big Bang must have been filled with an unstable form of energy whose nature is not yet known. Whatever its nature, the inflationary model predicts that this primordial energy would have been unevenly distributed in space due to a kind of quantum noise that arose when the Universe was extremely small. This pattern would have been transferred to the matter of the Universe and would show up in the photons that began streaming away freely at the moment of recombination. As a result, we would expect to see, and do see, this kind of pattern in the COBE and WMAP pictures of the Universe.

But all this leaves unanswered the question of what powered inflation. One difficulty in answering this question is that inflation was over well before recombination, and so the opacity of the Universe before recombination is, in effect, a curtain drawn over those interesting very early events.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2017 at 5:39 AM, Quisant said:

 

Though we have good evidence that the observable universe began about 14 billion years ago, we know nothing at all about what existed before then. 
Science can only speculate what was before the Big Bang.The process of inflation erased all evidence of anything that may or may not have come before. 

There exist a few theories but they are a long way from being validated 

Personally, I find it reasonable to believe that there cannot be “nothing” before the Big Bang because “nothing” cannot produce something. From nothing, nothing can come. 
 

Lets' have a layman lesson on Bigbang101

Quote

What's This Big Bang All About?

In 1927, an astronomer named Georges Lemaître had a big idea. He said that a very long time ago, the universe started as just a single point. He said the universe stretched and expanded to get as big as it is now, and that it could keep on stretching.

What an Idea!

The universe is a very big place, and it’s been around for a very long time. Thinking about how it all started is hard to imagine.

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/big-bang/en/

bigbang201

https://home.cern/about/physics/early-universe

*****

Like Mr. Darwin, we have another noble idea about the Universe. Someone said, this is what  "I Think".

Darwin's sketch of the tree of life

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheism undermines Science.

Rational intelligibility is a prerequisite. Have got to believe in the rational intelligibility of the Universe before we can do any science. Science doesn't give us that.

As per atheists, since human life is a result of an unguided evolution, and as materialists are reductionist.

Reducing belief to the physics, chemistry and biology  of neurological structures.

In the end, if the ideas, belief, scientific theories , hypotheses are ultimately the result of the motion of atoms in your brain produced by an unguided random mindless process.

1) Why should you believe in any idea,scientific hypothesis, theory produced by such mindless process? 

2) As material does not recognize Truth, how would you know how to interpret  Scientific  Data ?

3) How does a mindless process/entity utilize  new data? 

Driving rationality from irrationality is logically incoherent- a severe Delusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted Three Videos: Only Looking to Discuss the Delusional Arguments from the Atheists side - as they make their point. ( Not looking for a a engagement from the Religion point of view). No God questions/Discussion- 

Looking to Discuss the Delusions of the Atheists. These Neo Atheists have a philosophy of Actively Marketing their Religion and Actively undermining the Divine Religion. Here I am more concerned with their Delusional Arguments, as their followers are parroting the same arguments in highschools/collages/universities and this active Marketing of their Faith and negative branding of the Divine Religion can raise doubts in the mind of youngsters as the Marketers are very shrewd and use a certain type of vocabulary, symbolism, derogatory language and are skillful in making a layman feel inadequate and backward. -commonly you deny "science" and believe in other stuff. 

Origin of New/Neo Atheists/Atheism, Second part of 1900's,(1950+) was it a result of The World  War's - Financial Depression- World freeing it self form the colonial Rulers- . Solders who participated and the civilians who endured the World Wars and other Traumatic events related to Wars and genocide Kind of like PTSD after a traumatic experience. 

A person(World Population) usually is at a very vulnerable mental state, after a Tragedy/Traumatic event and the first thing they question is it there a God. 

Rebellion, Freedom and Peace and Humanism and No Religion Philosophy -Free Love - will be very effective in this state. Consider the origin of the Hippy movements and the Woodstock mentality. I believe this movement found a cause and is still alive - looking to make the World a Woodstock festival. Using ":science" ( with a small "s"-data manipulation/taking advantage of the layman utilizing and mixing definitions ) as the spear to silence the opposition.

T.O.E (Theory of Evil)  as propagated by the adherent has far reaching negative consequences for Humanity. 

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are the leading Advocates- 

Darwinism does lead to Atheism/Agnosticism. 

Few Dots, you may want to connect..

Darwin Book in 1859

1919 Age: Infinite

In the early 20th century, astronomers thought that the Universe was infinitely old and unchanging.  

1930’s World divided in Steady State or Expanding Universe theories

World War 1918

World War II 1945

Korean War 1950

Vietnam War 1945

*****

Richard Dawkins 1941

Christopher Eric Hitchens 1949

Sam Harris 1967

Big Bang Theory- Expanding Universe 1960’s

PEACE Movement

Hippie Movement 1960’s

March of Progress :The illustration was commissioned by Time-Life Books for the Early Man volume (1965)

1969 Woodstock Festival

Richard Dawkins Book: The Selfish gene 1976

“Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion” Who said this? ( Richard Dawkins? ) 

As Transcendence described by adherents as where Exotic meets Poetry, Music, landscape etc....

When do you think was the opportune time to revive Darwin and start the chimp love affair?

These vocal and very articulate backers of Darwinism - which era they belong to  and what is their world view?

Looking for your Constructive thoughts/criticism. 

( I will continue and post specific Delusions from the Three Videos posted above, Atheist/Agnostics/Humanists/Secularists  can respond or avoid its your prerogative. )  

Edited by S.M.H.A.

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


×