Godly speculation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2015, 10:02 AM
RE: Godly speculation
(05-02-2015 03:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Since the universe has no prime mover how was the Big Bang universe expanded? By what type of external or internal catalyst?

Of if it is steady state/oscillating composed of matter and energy, how did matter and energy get composed (since conservation of matter and energy says it can neither be added nor removed)?

Welcome to the real world. Just because science doesn't have all the answers to all your questions doesn't justify inserting "Jebus done did it", (even we all know that you fundies, more than ANYTHING else REALLY REALLY REALLY NEED ALL your questions answered before lunch, or you have a tantrum). It really is more about Psychology than anything else. Cognitive closure etc. BTW matter and energy are interchangeable. Your question belies your ignorance of Physics, ("get composed" hahahaha). Voldemort did it. How about just go with "Jebus done did it" ? I doubt you're going to move much beyond that anytime soon.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 10:22 AM
RE: Godly speculation
All,

I take it then that though I'm asking you for science answers to gaps in cosmology rather than theology, you have none at this time.

If the tables were turned, I might have said something like "I don't know, but at the first moments of expansion during the Big Bang, it is thought (although this is a controversial stance) that the tremendous temperatures, speeds and pressures involved suspended laws we take for granted at this time like Conservation of Matter and Energy..."

Then we would be discussing and debating rather than mocking my position. After all, either a natural law was not in operation when matter first appeared or it was...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 10:27 AM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2015 10:33 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Godly speculation
At work.

Will not really be in position to post for another five or so hours and by then some one else might have given a better answer, so untill then.....

'Q', there are some fundamental flaws on your posts about the early expansion of everything.

One that immediately comes to my uneducated thoughts is that reality is STILL expanding.

So there are two questions being conflated together. Innitial universal expansion and the current universal inflation.

The two are not the same, as far as I know.

Hope that helps a little.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: Godly speculation
(09-02-2015 10:22 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

I take it then that though I'm asking you for science answers to gaps in cosmology rather than theology, you have none at this time.

If the tables were turned, I might have said something like "I don't know, but at the first moments of expansion during the Big Bang, it is thought (although this is a controversial stance) that the tremendous temperatures, speeds and pressures involved suspended laws we take for granted at this time like Conservation of Matter and Energy..."

Then we would be discussing and debating rather than mocking my position. After all, either a natural law was not in operation when matter first appeared or it was...

The odds of Genesis being a Sumerian-derived myth are more likely. Goddidit has no explanatory power and is a useless explanation.
If you look at rainbows and see god, that works for you, but if you're a physicist and need to specify the energy values needed to provide a falsifiable theory backed with evidence? Not so much....

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 10:37 AM
RE: Godly speculation
(09-02-2015 10:22 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

I take it then that though I'm asking you for science answers to gaps in cosmology rather than theology, you have none at this time.

If the tables were turned, I might have said something like "I don't know, but at the first moments of expansion during the Big Bang, it is thought (although this is a controversial stance) that the tremendous temperatures, speeds and pressures involved suspended laws we take for granted at this time like Conservation of Matter and Energy..."

Then we would be discussing and debating rather than mocking my position. After all, either a natural law was not in operation when matter first appeared or it was...

If there were answers, they wouldn't be gaps. You'll note that we don't offer bullshit answers when the answer is "we don't know".

You, on the other hand, just make shit up.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
10-02-2015, 08:50 AM
RE: Godly speculation
(09-02-2015 10:27 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Will not really be in position to post for another five or so hours and by then some one else might have given a better answer, so untill then.....

'Q', there are some fundamental flaws on your posts about the early expansion of everything.

One that immediately comes to my uneducated thoughts is that reality is STILL expanding.

So there are two questions being conflated together. Innitial universal expansion and the current universal inflation.

The two are not the same, as far as I know.

Hope that helps a little.

Much cheers to all.

And, as I've written, the Bible comments on the expanding universe. Yet I'm seeking naturalist answers and my questions are regarding initial expansion and the conservancy and "creation" of matter. Again, even the word creation conjures God but I'm seeking naturalist answers. Thanks!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 08:58 AM
RE: Godly speculation
(09-02-2015 10:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 10:22 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

I take it then that though I'm asking you for science answers to gaps in cosmology rather than theology, you have none at this time.

If the tables were turned, I might have said something like "I don't know, but at the first moments of expansion during the Big Bang, it is thought (although this is a controversial stance) that the tremendous temperatures, speeds and pressures involved suspended laws we take for granted at this time like Conservation of Matter and Energy..."

Then we would be discussing and debating rather than mocking my position. After all, either a natural law was not in operation when matter first appeared or it was...

If there were answers, they wouldn't be gaps. You'll note that we don't offer bullshit answers when the answer is "we don't know".

You, on the other hand, just make shit up.

I'm comfortable with saying four of the more powerful words in apologetics when they are required, "I do not know," especially since God does know and should be contacted directly--but I'm not making things up. My theology is fundamentalist/evangelical and consistent.

You also are placing the conversation in a challenging position. You seem to be the first person on this thread, including me, who is saying cosmology here has gaps rather than possible naturalistic explanations. The problem is, as I see it, the gaps require the suspension of natural, cosmic laws--what we Christians call supernatural and what you call gaps in scientific knowledge, sure--but more specifically:

*Either the pre-Big Bang universe had all of what we think of as matter and energy condensed down into a "space" so small it would be gravitational on an near-infinite scale and then "nothing" made it release and begin to expand or...

*The steady/oscillating universe was always here and...

*Both of those examples require matter and energy to be sourced from somewhere--disobeying the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy

Since a small child could offer the explanation that the matter and energy was injected into this "space" from another dimension or universe, you clearly haven't offered such because you see the "problem" of infinite regression and wish to avoid the theological implications.

But you are hardly working efficiently toward deconverting me when I ask repeatedly in this thread for naturalistic explanations and your response is "Dunno, but it couldn't be a personal being, that's for sure..." and "Q, you're making stuff up..."

How can you legitimately accuse me of making things up by asking you for naturalistic explanations for cosmology events that seem--well, otherwise?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 09:21 AM
RE: Godly speculation
(30-01-2015 03:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 03:15 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  The act of creation circumscribing a god to another dimension? To where it's effects are no longer felt or evidenced in this universe?

The universe does seem to be without any supernatural first-cause or prime mover.

Though I would make a simpler assumption and state that no such first-cause ever existed.

I'm asking because I have guesses but not all the info - I'd like to learn more about cosmology, I think you're wrong, but I'd like to hear more of the science in lay terms from you:

The universe has no prime mover - but either was a big bang infinite singularity that was not moved by an external or internal catalyst to expand to become the known universe? Or is it a steady state/oscillating thing composed of matter and energy - that was composed without having been composed despite the conservation of matter and energy?

Also, and this is more of a philosophical aside, if science demonstrated that there was a prime mover, would you ascribe the prime mover's powers to be near-omnipotence (from our finite, human perspective) and worship the prime mover?

No. Why would I worship anything? Why should I?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: