5 Questions for an athiest

Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
5 Questions for an athiest

NO DEBATEING GOING ON (unless the athiests have differing views on some ones answer)

I have 5 questions for you athiests. This isn't a debate, and don't think I intend to debate you. I just want to know more about what you believe.

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

 

As I think of more questions I will post them. If I have any questions as to what you are talking about, I will either post them or message you.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

Steady state is dead. Big Bang is King. Read this:

Lies, Damn Lies, and False Beliefs about Ex Nihilo aka How to pretend you know cosmology without really trying

The Absurdity of the Cosmological Argument

 

Quote:
4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

This shows ignorance of thermodynamics. Read these:

The Absurdity of the Cosmological Argument

Lies, Damn Lies, and False Beliefs about Ex Nihilo aka How to pretend you know cosmology without really trying

Entropy and Life- The Functions of Thermodynamics and their implications for biological systems

Quote:
. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

Of course I believe in Evolution. Darwin did not retract his theory. That is a lie. That was made up by Lady Elizabeth Hope the Evangelist while Darwin was on his deathbed. Darwin was a very serious scientist and he would never have retracted ToE. 

 

Quote:
2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?
Gas???? What the hell are you talking about? A gas is a state of intermolecular bonding which has a conc. Of 24dm^3/mol at room temperature. It is the physical state of a substance at the atomic level in which there are o intermolecular bonds. That is the definition of a gas. There was no gas after the Big Bang. There were not even any atoms. At the immense temperatures of the Big Bang’s immediate effects, free protons and neutrons collide with such incredible force that the protons bind with neutrons and each other, forming element nuclei, a process called nuclear fusion. However, this can only form elements up to beryllium. Big Bang nucleosynthesis was responsible for the formation of all the nuclei up to of Beryllium-8 isotope, which includes deuterium, helium, lithium and beryllium built successively from free protons and neutrons, then deuterium, then helium, which were created in the immense temperatures of the first several minutes of the Big Bang. The ingredients created by BB Nucleosynthesis form stars, which, as discussed, continue to fuse nuclei to create all the elements up to Iron. When the star dies, it generates such massive energy levels as to create the rest of the elements in the table. Deuterium is highly unstable and almost all of it fuses to create helium. However, the deuterium bottleneck delays this process slightly. Anyway, the gist of BBN is that all the elements to create a star (helium and hydrogen being of primary importance), are there. And then the star can make the rest up to Iron, this is why the process is called the nucleosynthesis bridge. The stars take over from where the BB left off, they start by forming the most important biological element, carbon, by the triple-alpha process, ignition by the proton-proton chain, the other biological elements of oxygen and nitrogen by the C-N-O cycle, silicon, the noble gas neon, and the heavy metal Iron. The Big Bang theory dictates that the universe was born in an immensely and uniformly hot and extremely dense point which expanded outwards in accordance with thermodynamics, this means that as the spatiotemporal fabric expanded, the universe and its matter cooled greatly, very quickly in fact. The average temperature in the universe is 2.7K, which is -270 C. Since the universe is homogenous, what we should see is an afterglow, a faint radiative microwave background that dates back to the Big Bang (recall what I said about light showing us the past), the fluctuations of which became everything we see around us. In other words, if we could look past the quasar engines at the fringe of the visible universe- we could see the moment of creation itself. The cosmic background radiation is the most distant and old thing that humans have ever observed. The universe was initially opaque but as it cooled and spread out, it became black roughly 380,000 years After The Big Bang. The microwave background, in other words, is a picture of what the entire universe looked like just moments after it's creation, and a COBE photograph of it was taken by spectroscopes and microwave radiation probes by a device called the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm only going to answer

I'm only going to answer what I can answer.  I'm not big on making up answers, after all...

5.  Clearly, big bang.  Even my non-physicist brain can wrap itself around the descriptions of background radiation and tracing matter/energy back to planck time.

4.  It's not too difficult.  It's mainly a matter of doing real reading and learning what the laws of thermodynamics say and what they do not say.  Entropy lines up perfectly with the big bang.  If you want to read about it, here's a great link.

3.  Truly, there is no debate over evolution vs creation.  Evolution does exist, with as much certainty as gravity.

2. Refer back to the link I gave you.

1. I used to be a Christian.  I would say that they're generally good people who are deluded into believing that they are doing good by spreading Christianity, but who are actually causing great harm to individuals as well as the culture as a whole.

Please post any questions.  PM me only about mod issues, ok?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
5. Oscillating universe

5. Oscillating universe theory

4. Order is perception

3.  Darwin never retracted his theory but even if he did natural selection is still the only accepted theory of evolution in existence (I'm supposing you're a lamarkian).

2. matter and energy have always existed, gases are matter and therefore have always existed in one form or another.

1. A Christian is a person who adheres to a variant of the Christian religion. 


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
  This is coming off the

 

This is coming off the top of my head, and I don't know as much as most people here, so I ask anyone to correct any errors I might make here.

 

5. I support the Big Bang theory since it has been well-supported that the universe is rapidly expanding in all directions from a central point. I know that observing that the further away an object is in space relative to earth, the more they appear to be red-shifted. I know they've supported this with other types of observations, but my knowledge of astronomy is not very thorough.

 

4. Who says that the universe has order?

 

3. When did Darwin retract his theory? I smell bullshido. Of course I believe in evolution. The geologic column, man. No bunnies in the precambrian and all that. And that's the easy stuff to understand.

 

2. I don't think anyone proposes that the entire universe formed when a gas cloud collapsed on itself and exploded. That is how our solar system formed, but I don't think the universe.

 

1. See hamby's answer. I like his.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: NO

Crossover wrote:

NO DEBATEING GOING ON (unless the athiests have differing views on some ones answer)

I have 5 questions for you athiests. This isn't a debate, and don't think I intend to debate you. I just want to know more about what you believe.

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

 

As I think of more questions I will post them. If I have any questions as to what you are talking about, I will either post them or message you.

5. The Big Bang Theory.

4. What law states this?

3. Why do I believe in Evolution? It's been proven, I can see and test it for myself, I can observe fossil records and notice changes over a period of time. I can study DNA and observe the mutations that have happened.

2. The... singularity?

1. Since I lived in the Bible Belt for... well, my whole life... I can give you a fair description of most Christians and how I view them.

Most Christians are uneducated, selfish, dimwitted individuals who do anything and everything they can to segregate and force their beliefs on their friends, family, and others in the persuit of, what people on the internet call, penis size. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Oscillating

Quote:

Oscillating universe theory

Thats been dead for ages as well. But it used to hang around.

Several renowned physicists got thinking that perhaps an intelligent civilization could create a "physical God" or the ultimate information processor which could simulate all quantum brain states. In a sense, we could create a physical manifestation of "the mind of God"(This would still not hold any of the classical theist attributes of God, because I have shown through the laws of physics that this is impossible. But it is the closest we could get). This would only work in an oscillatory universe because the gravitational contraction would have such force and colossal heat energy that the gradient of unequal distribution would rise so steeply that the maximal level of information processing would exponentially rise.

However, new data about inflationary space due to observed Supernovae have all but debunked oscillatory universe theory, the Dark Energy is more than a match for gravity . It would all depend in Tipler's Omega point about the relative density of the universe, but new observational evidence have caused this mathematical relationship to collapse. It is conceded that given the observations, Omega cannot equal >1. The thermal gradient necessary to produce a maximally intelligent entity, which would probably be represented in a complete simulation of reality with quantum brain states in the machine, does not exist.

 

The graph is simple enough to understand:

If Omega is greater than one, then the gravitational pull of the matter in the universe will overpower the antigravitation of Dark energy, and crush itself back into a fiery pinprick, if Omega is precisely zero, the acceleration of the universe is also precisely zero which means that rate of expansion velocity is precisely constant, and if it is smaller than one, it will accelerate originally than begin to decelerate, and the same if it is precisely equal to one, just at a smaller rate.

The rate of acceleration constant of Hubble’s law:

Unless the density of the universe is zero (this has been debunked), the universe will accelerate or decelerate, hence Hubble’s law changes with time. The parameter of deceleration is

Q=-H-2(dH/dT+H2)

The observations of standard candle variables in 1998 have confirmed that q is negative, which means that the universe is accelerating in expansion.

And when we insert the parameter into the redshift, we get:

Zc/H0

Where c is the speed of light in a vacuum and H0 is Hubble’s constant integrated into the Freidmann equation. It would be simpler if the deceleration parameter was zero (zero density Omega parameter), which would mean the age of the universe is simpler to calculate, but it is not. The Hubble Age of the universe is calculated by winding the clock backwards, to find out how long ago the moment of creation must have been for Hubble’s constant to be matched with Hubble’s constant. For a non-zero q parameter, this is given by:

1/H0, which, recalling that the constant based on our observations is 70km/s/MPs, is...hey! 14 billion years. At 71 km/s/MPs, it is 13.8 billion years. If the density parameter was zero, the constant would simply be the inverse of the age of the universe, since the graph is precisely linear, or H=1/t, which would give us 7x10^-11. Since the distance for small scale redshift is zc/H0, the distance to galaxies can be expressed by the wavelength of z multiplied by 13.8 billion light years, which, of course, would only work if the universe was indeed that old, since light is the stop on the speed of information in the universe. Hubble's law dictates that redhsift is directly proportional to distance by the simple formula v=HD, where v=the recessional velocity of the object from Earth, H is Hubble's constant and D is the distance this object is from us. To find the acceleration parameter by these empirical observations, then, we simply insert our data into the formula which gives us the acceleration rate, which is what we want to know. This is why, undoubtedly, if you were confused since I would surely get a ridiculous number by the formula H=1/t or vice-versa, we must remember to insert this into the acceleration formula, which converts it into a sensible number, and is given above. Considering that Omega is not zero, and that we now have empirical evidence for it being larger than one, it follows that it is accelerating, so q will be a negative value. As for the recessional veloctity, is simply differentiated by dH/dT (this is in the formula), which will give us our answer. And our answer is...

The universe is accelerating at a rate of 71 kilometers per second per Megaparsec (which means that for every megaparsec of distance, the speed increases by 71km/s)

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I’m not really interested

I’m not really interested in answering 2 through 5 (3 is just ridiculous) but concerning number1, I don’t think that all christians are really the same. Although I do think that they all are to some degree comfortable believing lies and not asking questions. I think that the ones that start to feel uncomfortable and question their beliefs end up on websites like this one arguing with their former brothers in christ or whatever you like to call it.   

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Oscillating universe theory

Thats been dead for ages as well. But it used to hang around.

It still does, Martin Bojowald from Institute for Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Penn State just published a paper on it in July. That would be at least one more peer reviewed publication than creationists have presented. Smiling

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070702_mm_big_bang.html


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I read it carefully, but you

I read it carefully, but you need to be careful: that article is [i]not[i] oscillatory universe theory. O.U was explained by me in the above post. It is the belief that Omega Density paramater is <1 therefore the universe will contract back into a singularity after a long acceleration (as shown by the graph), which may or may not provide the seed for another Big Bang. Hence the universe "oscillates". This has been proven totally false. It is not happening. The universe is accelerating in expansion according to redshift (I outlined the precise mathematical way in which we may detect this). What this article was advocating was cyclic Brane cosmology. That is the invocation of Multiverse theory, to which I am much, much more sympathetic than the most certainly false theory of Oscillatory universe. The article says that the origin of the Big Bang may be Brane collision, and advocates the cyclic brane model. It does not say that the universe density will change based on a density parabola, by which it will begin to accelerate in contraction. Most scientists (I among them) as of 2007 expect, based on present data, that the universe will accelerate in expansion, not vice-versa.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: NO

Crossover wrote:

NO DEBATEING GOING ON (unless the athiests have differing views on some ones answer)

I have 5 questions for you athiests. This isn't a debate, and don't think I intend to debate you. I just want to know more about what you believe.

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

Big bang 

Quote:
4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

Don't know. You are basically asking why are the phsyical laws the way they are. I really don't know the answer to this.

Quote:
3. Do you believe in evolution?

Yes. Evolution is a fact. 

Quote:
I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory.

No he didn't you have been lied to about this. 

Quote:
REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

No. I have not seen any other satisfactory explanation. God theory is dead and has been rejected by the vast majority of those educated in the relevant areas. 

Quote:
2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

Errr there where not any atoms until considerably after the big bang. I think you are asking where the matter came from prior to the big bang and the answer to that is I don't know. There are some intersting ideas on the matter but I honestly do not know the answer. I pretty certain it was not created by magic though.

Quote:
1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

Deluded, irrational (at least in their metaphysical thinking)  

 

Quote:
As I think of more questions I will post them. If I have any questions as to what you are talking about, I will either post them or message you.

Ok 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: NO

Crossover wrote:

NO DEBATEING GOING ON (unless the athiests have differing views on some ones answer)

I have 5 questions for you athiests. This isn't a debate, and don't think I intend to debate you. I just want to know more about what you believe.

From what I've seen, this is a common way for theists to word their queries when asking these type of questions and it causes me to wonder what they mean when they state that they just "want to know more about what you believe". It seems like a way of, perhaps unintentionally, trying to level the playing field.

By using the word believe it creates the false impression that all beliefs are equally valid. After all, when we use the same word to denote the reason/s different peoples hold to a different worldviews then all worldviews must be equally supported. They are all simply beliefs. Of course this is not the case. There are evidenced beliefs, learned beliefs, faith based beliefs, true beliefs, false beliefs, etc... 

It seems to me a better wording would be "I want a better understanding of your position" or something that doesn't conceal an equivocation. Maybe that's just me though. As I said, it very possibly isn't something done intentionally to be misleading but seems to be more of a basic difference between the way different people view the concepts that support their worldviews.

Anyway, the questions;

Quote:
5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

The Big Bang model is, to my knowledge, the best evidenced model for the very early universe. Of course, this is science and the time frame makes ca complete picture difficult so the Big Bang model should not be taken as gospel (for lack of a better term). However, until there is a model that better fits the evidence to protest that the Big Bang is incorrect would require producing evidence to show it as incorrect. I know of no such evidence at this moment so have no choice but to consider it an accurate depiction of the events that took place just after the universe's initial state.

Quote:
4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

It is my understanding that the Big bang does not produce order from disorder. In the Big Bang model the state of the very early universe is much more ordered than the universe's present state. Imagine a piece of paper on whcih are drawn many small dots all of the same size and all equally spaced. Now imagine a piece of paper with circles of several different sizes scattered at random intervals. Which is more ordered?

The human brain has trouble distinguishing order from disorder. Often, because we are pattern finding critters we see patterns in disorder more so than in the total unioformity of true order. Therefor, the human brain often will misplace order as randomness and disorder as order.

Quote:
3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

Again with the "believe". I "believe" in evolution in the same way I "believe" in computers.

As has been pointed out the Darwin retraction story is wholly fictitious. Do a google search on it and click on a non apologist link and you can read about it fvor yourself. 

As far as other theories for the variety of life we see on the planet today, there are none. The ToE is the only evidenced scientific theory that explains the diversity of life.

Quote:
2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

Good question, though use of the word gases seems somewhat misguided. The truth is right now no one seems to know. There are theories but to try and discuss the merits and problems of them all right here would probably not be fruitful considering neither of us (assuming you aren't a cosmologist or theoretical physicist) would really know what we were talking about.

The best we can really do is read the theories proposed by those who have spent years building their education and study and expertise and understanding in the area and see what we consider reasonable from our layman's perspective. Of course, even if we don't find a particular theory reasonable, this does not mean we have a legitimate objection unless we truly understand the theory and have solid evidence that contradicts it. Even then we could be mistaken and if we are disagreeing with a fairly solidly agreed upon explanation, we most likely are mistaken.

As for my personal view, I see no reason why the universe's initial state requires an explanation. It seems to me to be completely reasonable to think it is all that has ever existed. This is not to say it has existed infinitely, only that it has existed eternally.

Quote:
1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

People who hold a belief that I see as completely unreasonable and holding a highly dangerous and unequaled potential for abuse. Other than that, good friends, bad friends, good parents, bad parents, good neighbors, bad neighbors, pretty much as people.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod has answered

deludedgod has answered questions 2 through 5 far better than I could so it would be superfluous to add to them.

 

As for:

Crossover wrote:

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

It would depend on the individual in question. Religious belief is only one facet of a person's make up.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
I've seen several things I

I've seen several things I would like to adress, and rather than posting alot of posts, I'll just put them all in one.

 

DELUDEDGOD:

WOW. I respect you alot for that science thing. I'm no good at science and anyone who gets it is automatically smarter than me, in my mind. I followed your post as well as my unscientific mind could. That was very thorough. But really, the point of questions number 2 is 'what is eternal?' I mean, even before the actual creation of the universe, what is eternal? 

 

HAMBYDAMMIT:

By question 3, I don't mean creation v.s. evolution. I'm just wondering if there is another theory outside of evolution that people  believe (other than creationism).

 

VESSEL:

Ok, I am trying to get a better understanding of your position! I say beleive because that is more of a personal word, which is the point I'm trying to get across. Everyone believes different things, and i am trying to get different veiws here. 

 

THE PARTICIAN:

You are right. it does vary individually, but I'm saying in general. If you don't wnat to generalize that's cool with me. But I'm just trying to get an idea of how Christians in general are percieved. it's just for my own curiosity, so it's not major that you answer it. 

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: WOW. I respect you

Quote:

WOW. I respect you alot for that science thing. I'm no good at science and anyone who gets it is automatically smarter than me, in my mind. I followed your post as well as my unscientific mind could. That was very thorough. But really, the point of questions number 2 is 'what is eternal?' I mean, even before the actual creation of the universe, what is eternal? 

 

 

I'm too tired to form a response right now, so I'll just take it from my essay on the cosmological argument, where I answered that question at the bottom: 

I am a scientist, I hold that the concept of “nothing” is not viable. I accept it is entirely possible that something may exist eternally. However, the attributes of God would make the claim that God exists eternally very invalid. Perhaps another solution?

I think atheists who assert the universe always existed have got it slightly more correct than theists. There are an array of cosmological theories to choose from which propose the eternal existence of universes, branes and vacuums. I will introduce you to them and the evidence being gathered from them. Remember, when we speak of the universe not eternally existing, we speak of our universe, which is a collection of material bodies interacting within a spatiotemporal fabric.

If we want something of a slightly more scientific bent than God, perhaps Multiverse and brane cosmology will interest you. Brane cosmology yis motivated by superstring unification theory and M-theory, but it is essentially a dimensional description in mathematical terms. The most open question in QM and theoretical physics today is the number of dimensions needed to describe the universe. For this, we turn to the physics concept of branes. Where a brane describes a dimension, and the unfortunately named p-brane denotes the number of spatial dimensions. To find the number of dimension to describe an object is simply {p+1) since we always add one time dimension. There are many dimensions that may be needed to explain the universe. The space time continuum in which events take place is a 3-brane, with three spatial dimensions and one time dimension, at least as traditionally described. Some theories predict it is a membrane, which would imply the universe is holographic. Anyway, the point is that universes are formed by brane collision, which will break the ex nihilo symmetry (very low entropy, highly unstable) in different ways.

On a similar order, and proposed by Andrei Linde and Alan Guth is Multiverse theory. This is gaining rapid acceptance among cosmologists for its explanatory power. Multiverses will be proved or disproved within several years or decades if the SLOAN mini-black hole detection comes online. I shall keep agnostic towards it until then. Its theoretical background is excellent, its mathematical conjectures all work out, there are no arbitrary parameters (unlike Standard model), in short, in theoretical physics, it passes the brutal initiation process in flying colors. No fuck-ups, no insertions of mathematical equations by hand, no contradictions like that disaster we had with electromagnetism/nuclear bonding before the Kaluza-Klein model. It is a very clean theory.

The gist is that our universe is one of many. This is a cosmological theory and is not to be confused with parallel universes, which is a quantum decoherence solution to the wavefunction collapse proposed by Hugh Everett III. Multiverse is a cosmology theory which ties in with inflation in that the homogeneity of inflation is broken by tiny non-homogenous pockets of the spatiotemporal fabric which do actually match Alan Guth’s calculations when they were analyzed by WMAP, the point being that universes routinely bud off each other, since the hyperinflation post-Planck era causes these pockets to amplify exponentially, and become another universe, another vacuum fluctuation occurs, and universes spring forth from each other, since the chaotic inflation can be compared to bubbles coalescing in a pot (that’s Brane cosmology. For Multiverse, think of bubbles budding off each other in a child’s bubble-blower). Multiverse theory dictates that while our universe may indeed by finite and eternal, the multiverse is infinite and eternal. This means that universes should be connected to their mothers by white holes, otherwise known as wormholes. And the best part is, its testable. This picture here shows what I am talking about with regards to budding:

 

In the essay I am writing called On the Anthropic Principle, I discuss Lee Smolin’s Loop quantum gravity and his theory of how multiverses evolved to gradually become more suitable to have the constants necessary for the evolution of biological structures. In short, if multiverse could tie in with the evidence for inflation, answer the fine-tuning problem, it would be a better hypothesis (soon to be crowned theory) than God. The difference between this and the absurdity of God is that it is testable and falsifiable. It does not break the entropy laws (as God does), it does not appeal to magic or fallacy. It checks out, in short.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote:   5. Big

Crossover wrote:

 

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? 

Big bang. But as a note: the big bang was a transitional event.

"A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory, partly described in the last two chapters, that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it ever really banged at all."

- Brian Greene "The Fabric Of The Cosmos."

Big bang theory only tells us about our universe from 'Planck time'. Big bang theory can tell us nothing about the universe prior to this time. (this is what grand unified theories seek to accomplish)

"Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period (and nothing can be known from this period from the perspective of big bang theory).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html

 

Quote:
 

  4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

1) The claim that order cannot come from disorder is false. See chaos theory.

2) There is nothing to reconcile, seeing as no cosmologist alive believes that the big bang was a 'disorderly, purely chaotic event', sans any laws.

 

Quote:
 

3. Do you believe in evolution? 

Evolution is not a belief, it is a scientific theory based on a preponderence of facts. Those who doubt it don't realize that it is the cornerstone of the biological sciences and employed on a daily basis for real world results.

Quote:
 

 

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from?

Depends upon whether you believe our universe is the only universe or part of  a megaverse.

For your answer, why not read what cosmology has to say rather than asking atheists?

Where would the matter come from?

"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631

Ok then, where does the energy come from?

As for the source of the original energy? There are several theories:

a) Edward Tryon has put forth the idea of a vacuum fluctation, which is NOT a violation of physical law, as the original source. Alan Guth's Inflationary Model explains the rapid expansion of this energy. Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth. Tryon makes the point that the total sum of positive and negative energy in the universe may well be ZERO, indicating again, that no physical laws are violated by the big bang event. As Tryon writes: "Im my model, I assume that our present universe did appear out of nowhere 10 to the 10th power years ago. Contrary to the popular belief, such an event need not have violated any of the conventional laws of physics. Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth. Note: this version is akin to ex nihlio creation, except that it does NOT violate any laws of physics and does not require a 'miracle'.

b) Alex Vilenkin proposed, in contrast to the Hartle-Hawkings boundless model, an initial state of no dimensional nothingness that is overcome by vacuum tunneling to a dimensional state. As per his model, 'eternal nothingness' is an absolute impossibility.

See my audio file on this: http://www.candleinthedark.com/exnihilo.mp3

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

Quote:
 

 1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? 

Not enough information. Someone could describe me as a christian, for example:

baptised

raised a catholic

read the bible

actually knows the history of christianity.

actually knows matters of theology

considered theology as a career.

I'm more of a christian that most christians....

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Crossover

Crossover wrote:

VESSEL:

Ok, I am trying to get a better understanding of your position! I say beleive because that is more of a personal word, which is the point I'm trying to get across. Everyone believes different things, and i am trying to get different veiws here. 

Yes, that wording just has a better tone to it.

My point was that there is probably a basic difference between the way you use the word belief and the way many atheists use the word, so when you view people's responses and consider them within the context of the way you use the word belief your understanding of their position will still contain a distortion. 

Many of the questions you asked aren't the type of things that really fall under the banner of what one might categorize as personal beliefs. They are better categorized as peoples understandings of current scientific knowledge.

I am sure you are earnest in your desire to get a better understanding of people's positins on certain topics. I am sorry if I came across as doubting your sincerity.

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: 5. Big

Crossover wrote:

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

big bang.

Quote:

4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

i don't, because i don't believe there's a conflict of that nature.

Quote:

3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

yes i do, and darwin never retracted. that's a theist myth.

Quote:

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

i think this was answered previously, and better than i could.

Quote:

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

i personally view most christians as either uninformed(they don't know any better) or in denial(they don't want to know any better for any number of reasons).

 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: THE

Crossover wrote:
THE PARTICIAN:

You are right. it does vary individually, but I'm saying in general. If you don't wnat to generalize that's cool with me. But I'm just trying to get an idea of how Christians in general are percieved. it's just for my own curiosity, so it's not major that you answer it.

 

*Builds wall* Eye-wink

But that's the point: what do you mean when you say a Christian?  That could mean anything from a kindly old lady knitting for the WRVS to a rabid fundamentalist.  Most Christians I know are just normal people who happen to believe in God.  Some believe quite sincerely, others casually.  Apart from the lunatic fringe it's no real biggie. 

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: NO

Crossover wrote:

NO DEBATEING GOING ON (unless the athiests have differing views on some ones answer)

I have 5 questions for you athiests. This isn't a debate, and don't think I intend to debate you. I just want to know more about what you believe.

I believe that I don't know a lot of things. Debate is just a sport with no knowledge value (sorry debators). Knowledge is discovered through logic and argumentation, while debate depends on oratory and impomptu argument construction. 

Quote:
 

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different? 

If by belief you mean what have I seen the best arguments for, then Big Bang theory is far superior to steady state. Big Bang is a huge misnomer, and a term that should have been different from the beginning. Too late now, though. 

Quote:
 

4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

Here's why the big bang is a misnomer. The instant of the big bang was a state of maximal order. It is actually the progression toward disorder that creates what we see in our modern world. You could think of it like milk being left out. It starts out an even substance, but as air gets to it (entropy) it begins to coagulate, get lumpy, and as things stick together they seperate into various fluids (space and matter).

Quote:
 

3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

Darwin did not retract his theory. I have no idea where that rumor started, but it is false. Evolution runs on entropy, essentially. Evolution is still very much a strong theory based on sound deductions and cogent arguments, the premesis of which are too numerous to list here but are reiterated (sometimes poorly, and for that I'm sure we owe an apology) throughout this forum.

Quote:
 

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

Before there were atoms there were particles. Before we had various particles we had one single type of particle. Before that, who knows. As I tried to explain above this situation is similar to the milk analogy. Particles combined to form new particles, combining to form atoms, combining to form gasses. Gasses coalesce[sp?] to form nebula and, eventually, stars. Stars live out their life based on their fuel (the amount of gas collected as per chaos theory, which is based partly on entropy). Then they explode and release different kinds of atoms. These atoms have properties which allow them to form mollecules. Over time, enough of these molecules are produced that they create a sort of solar disk. These disks coalesce further in their orbit around their suns to produce asteroids. Asteroids collide and evenutally form planets. The rotation of these planets depends on how the asteroids collided with eachother, which is related to gravity and the spin of the disk. A large object can pull smaller objects toward it and, via collision, change the large object's spin.

Quote:
 

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

I would say a christian is just someone who believes in christ somehow. Wether they think christ was an actual person or not, or if they simply follow the supposed teachings of christ is of little definite consequence.

 

Quote:

As I think of more questions I will post them. If I have any questions as to what you are talking about, I will either post them or message you.

Thanks. A lot of us work in the sciences, so it's usually interesting to us to provide explanations that most people would sooner not listen to; some people think this is boring!


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
5. I'm not a physicist, but

5. I'm not a physicist, but I know enough about physics to see how the cosmological evidence indicates that things in the universe must have once been closer together and hotter.   It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if things used to be closer and hotter, then they are now getting farther away and cooler.

4. As explained better in links already posted, order happens without violating any known physical law.

3. Evolution doesn't require my belief, or anyone's belief.  Unlike creationism which requires faith, evolution is the best possible explanation for the evidence available regardless of what people believe.  That's the cool thing about science--you don't need to believe it.

2.  (already answered better by others--I agree)

1. There are consistent, known, predictable biological reasons why people would choose to adhere to a religion like Christianity and persist in the delusion against reason.  Christians--and I also was once one--are people who haven't yet learned better. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I'll answer

I'll answer anyway.

 

Quote:

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

Big Bang

 

Quote:

 4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

Through what we know about high energy physics, symmetry breaking etc...

 

Quote:

 3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

Evolution. If you feel it conflicts with your faith read 'Finding Darwin's God' by Ken Miller (Christian biolchemist.) 

Quote:

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

High energy break down. Once the universe reached a temp of ~10^5K the electro force came in and atoms finally formed.

 

 

Quote:

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

One who follows the teachings of Christ. 

 

 

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
None of these questions

None of these questions have anything to do with atheism, except for the last one, which makes cultural presumptions (why no ask what a Hindu is, or a Jew?).

 

5.-4. No opinion. Handled better by more qualified people.

 

3. Do you believe in evolution?

 

There's that loaded word, "belief." The theory of evolution is the best explanation for something so far, and a better explanation could compete with or usurp it. That it threatens religion in its incidental contradiction of creation myths doesn't make it analogous to those things. It's an actual explanation based on reality, not some fairy that has to be willed into existence by your faith.

 

I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory.

 

Haha, wrong. Just... WRONG. Oh, the propaganda machine at work. Why is it necessary to fabricate such venomous lies if "creation scientists" have indeed earned their title?

 

REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

 

The theory of evolution could be knocked on its ass tomorrow by another theory supported by evidence and hypotheses. It ain't gonna be "it got blinked into existence by something," and I'll eat my hat if it is. That's the cool thing about science -- it ain't faith. Even if some old scientist wants to hang on to a failed theory because he devoted 30 years to it, he can't just will his theory into being accepted based on nothing. Look at how many famous and admired scientists have hit the wall after making their big discoveries (Einstein and Newton come ti mind). The respect we have for them doesn't make their latter conclusions credible.

 

2. No opinion.

 

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

 

Usually someone born into a traditionally Christian family. Their actual beliefs vary wildly, and few professed Christians know anything about their religion. They are victims of a mainstream cult.


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
THANK YOU SO MUCH! Thank

THANK YOU SO MUCH! Thank you for all of your answers. ou have been helpful.

 

This next question is for you science guys!!!! I heard a Christian scientist (not the religion, but a guy who is a scientist and a Christian) argue that the big bang was proof of God. This is basically what he said, though not an exact quote:

 

The fact that we know there was on moment where the universe was created tells us that the Biblical story of creation might be true, because it also has the universe being created all at once. How are we to know that God din't actually use the "big bang" to create the universe.

 

What is your response to that? To me, logically it makes sense, but I have a limited knowlege of the "big bang" theory and as I have seen on this board, a wrong idea about a theory can mean your entire idea of the flaws or good things about that theory are entirely WRONG.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: This next

Crossover wrote:


This next question is for you science guys!!!! I heard a Christian scientist (not the religion, but a guy who is a scientist and a Christian) argue that the big bang was proof of God. This is basically what he said, though not an exact quote:

 

Well, the person who first proposed it (George Lemaitre) was a priest. I'm not sure if he said that it was proof. 

 

Quote:
 

The fact that we know there was on moment where the universe was created tells us that the Biblical story of creation might be true, because it also has the universe being created all at once. How are we to know that God din't actually use the "big bang" to create the universe.

 

 

There are many things that could have caused the Big Bang.  

 

I'm not a fan of 'God of the gaps' I used to be, but then I realized how absurd it is. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   This next

Quote:

 

This next question is for you science guys!!!! I heard a Christian scientist (not the religion, but a guy who is a scientist and a Christian) argue that the big bang was proof of God. This is basically what he said, though not an exact quote:

He would do well, then, to verse himself in the method of his employment:

The Notion of Scientific or Indeed any Empirical Proof of God is Absurd

Quote:

 The fact that we know there was on moment where the universe was created tells us that the Biblical story of creation might be true, because it also has the universe being created all at once. How are we to know that God din't actually use the "big bang" to create the universe.

Again, I simply direct you to this:

 The Absurdity of the Cosmological Argument

Pay special attention to the topics of:  Entropy dynamics, chaotic inflation, the absurdity of "simultaneous causation", brane cosmology, multiverse and system dynamics.

In other words, just read the whole thing. 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: NO

Crossover wrote:

NO DEBATEING GOING ON (unless the athiests have differing views on some ones answer)

I have 5 questions for you athiests. This isn't a debate, and don't think I intend to debate you. I just want to know more about what you believe.

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

I'm going to skip these two because my knowledge of cosmology is limited.  I defer to the scientists on this one.

 

Crossover wrote:
3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

I have not read the other responses, but I'm sure you've already been told multiple times that Darwin didn't recant his theory.

The only people who don't "believe" in evolution are those who know nothing about it.  Your insistence that Charles Darwin took it all back is indicative of lack of knowledge both about Darwin and his proven theory.  Yes, proven.  Evolution is a fact and a theory.  I'm sure you've been given links to Talk Origins.

So, I guess you could say I "believe" in evolution the same way I "believe" the earth is roughly spherical and revolves around the sun.   I "believe" in evolution in much the same I way I "believe" that when I drop my stapler, it will fall to the floor. 

Crossover wrote:
2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

Again, I'm a bit weak on cosmology, but from what little I understand the concept of "before" is meaningless when it comes to the big bang.  When the gases or whatever they are (forgive my ignorance) started to expand, space-time began. 

Crossover wrote:
1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

I've got to be honest.  I detest most of the Christians I have known.  Generally, they have been dishonest, cruel, quarrelsome, annoying and willfully ignorant.  They tend to be incurious because they're afraid of learning something that will shatter their fragile world view.  As a result, they are under-educated yet totally convinced they are right about everything. 

Obviously, I don't know every Christian and the ones who live where I am tend to be of the obnoxious right-wing variety.  I try to give each person I meet the benefit of doubt, but I admit to being a bit jaded.

 

Lyrics to "Shades of Grey" by Billy Joel 

 

Some things were perfectly clear

Seen with the vision of youth [faith?] 

No doubts and nothing to fear

I claimed a corner on truth.

These days it's harder to say

I know what I'm fighting for

My faith is falling away

I'm not that sure anymore

 

Shades of Grey

Wherever I go

The more I find out

The less that I know

Black and white is how it should be

But shades of grey are the colors I see

 

Once there were trenches and walls

One point of every view

Fight 'til the other man falls

Kill him before he kills you

These days the edges are blurred

I'm old and tired of war

I hear the other man's words

I'm not that sure anymore.

 

Shades of Grey

Are all that I find

When I look to the enemy line

Black and white were so easy for me

But shades of grey are the colors I see

 

Now with the wisdom of years

I try to reason things out

And the only people I fear

Are those who never have doubts

Save us all from arrogant men

And all the causes they're for

I won't be righteous again

I'm not that sure anymore 

 

 

 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Crossover

Crossover wrote:

DELUDEDGOD:

WOW. I respect you alot for that science thing. I'm no good at science and anyone who gets it is automatically smarter than me, in my mind.

Careful, Crossover - You are right in respecting the knowledge and talents shown on this site, but please do not belittle your own intelligence.  I have been guilty of this in the past and it was pointed out to me (thank you, my friends) that just because I have not studied a subject extensively does not mean that I am unintelligent.

You are here; you are asking questions - those two things alone are evidence that you are intelligent. 

 As to the rest of the questions you posed, my answers would only be more of the same that others have posted so I won't bore you with them. 

I do, however, have a question for you:  What is your perception of atheists?


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: THANK YOU

Crossover wrote:

THANK YOU SO MUCH! Thank you for all of your answers. ou have been helpful.

This next question is for you science guys!!!! I heard a Christian scientist (not the religion, but a guy who is a scientist and a Christian) argue that the big bang was proof of God. This is basically what he said, though not an exact quote:

The fact that we know there was on moment where the universe was created tells us that the Biblical story of creation might be true, because it also has the universe being created all at once. How are we to know that God din't actually use the "big bang" to create the universe.

What is your response to that? To me, logically it makes sense, but I have a limited knowlege of the "big bang" theory and as I have seen on this board, a wrong idea about a theory can mean your entire idea of the flaws or good things about that theory are entirely WRONG.

My response would be that any Christian who thinks the universe was created "all at once" never read Genesis:

Day 1: light --> day/night (not that you'd get night without anything to put between an observer and a light source. Not that any light source currently exists in this narrative, just the light itself...).

Day 2: firmament (not that there'd be anything for this stuff to exist around). Oh, and it looks like water got created somewhere in there, too, maybe as a firmamential byproduct.

Day 3: Earth and sea.

Day 4: Stars, moon and sun. Sort of wondering how day and night were divided in day 1 with no sun...

Day 5: Non-human living things.

Day 6: Adam.

Day 7: Rest day.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Crossover

jce wrote:
Crossover wrote:

DELUDEDGOD:

WOW. I respect you alot for that science thing. I'm no good at science and anyone who gets it is automatically smarter than me, in my mind.

Careful, Crossover - You are right in respecting the knowledge and talents shown on this site, but please do not belittle your own intelligence.  I have been guilty of this in the past and it was pointed out to me (thank you, my friends) that just because I have not studied a subject extensively does not mean that I am unintelligent.

You are here; you are asking questions - those two things alone are evidence that you are intelligent. 

 As to the rest of the questions you posed, my answers would only be more of the same that others have posted so I won't bore you with them. 

I do, however, have a question for you:  What is your perception of atheists?

Thanks.

 

My perception of athiests. I've encountered two types of athiests really.

1. The extremists wh obasically tell me to go to hell because I'm a Christian

2. Athiests who are really smart, funny, and nice. Just really cool people.

 

Sadly, because my experience has been mostly with the first group I tend to have that bias hiding in the back of my mind, but because of the second group I realize just how crazy the first group is. It reall goes the same way with Christians, and I understand taht. I dont like the wako Christians who tell you you're goinng to hell any more than you do...in fact they tell me I'm going to hell!

 

So I guess to generalize my perception of athiests, some smart, nice guys who are in need of a savior. Thats not to say thats how all or a majority of athiests are, but based on my experience...thats how I veiw athiests.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
This next one is more or

This next one is more or less silly. I'm sure most of you know the biblical story of the ends times. With the anti-christ that everyone loves, the rapture and all of that. Well, if that were to happen tommorrow (which it probably won't)...but if it were, would you not believe in God? I mean, ever since I first heard the story of teh rapture I thought "wouldn't everybody say 'hey, these Christians predicted all of this...they were right". I mean, c'mon, it would be to much stuff predicted to write off as a coincidence, right? I'm sure the anti-Christ would have some excuse...but cmon, would anybody just say "o crap...they were right"?

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
    yeah it would have to

    yeah it would have to spot on however, not like all the other prophecies....you know one or 2 kicking in and forgetting the rest of it all.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote:

Crossover wrote:
This next one is more or less silly. I'm sure most of you know the biblical story of the ends times.
I just noticed that stories from the bible are referred to as being biblical. That's really an odd way of referring to a story. When I refer to a story from Aesop's Fables, I don't called it an aesopical story. I wonder if this is just another feature of religion that gives it the illusion of being especially unique?
Quote:
With the anti-christ that everyone loves, the rapture and all of that.
Actually I love rational concepts as opposed to incoherent concepts and fairy tales.
Quote:
Well, if that were to happen tommorrow (which it probably won't)
Bet on it never happening
Quote:
...but if it were, would you not believe in God? I mean, ever since I first heard the story of teh rapture I thought "wouldn't everybody say 'hey, these Christians predicted all of this...they were right". I mean, c'mon, it would be to much stuff predicted to write off as a coincidence, right? I'm sure the anti-Christ would have some excuse...but cmon, would anybody just say "o crap...they were right"?
Why are you so obsessed with your fantasy? Is it some form of obsessive-compulsive disorder?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: I just noticed

aiia wrote:

I just noticed that stories from the bible are referred to as being biblical. That's really an odd way of referring to a story. When I refer to a story from Aesop's Fables, I don't called it an aesopical story. I wonder if this is just another feature of religion that gives it the illusion of being especially unique?

Nice try to take an insult to Christianity...but refering to works like that aren't only religous. Socratic writtings, Homeric hyms, Nostradomic prophecies....see? its not just a religion thing after all!

 

 

AS for the rest of your post...I would appreciate it iff you would not post on this topic any more. See, I tried to get only intelligent people in this topic, who were capable of having an adult discussion. But seeing as you can't answer a simple question without going out of your way to make childish comments and taking sabs at the question rather tha answering it, I would be happy if you would either grow up and post something that is actually worth my time reading, or not post on this topic at all.

I have not made any statments here that have even been remotely a stab at athiest ideas, and I expect to be treated with the same courtesy.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote:

Crossover wrote:


aiia wrote:


I just noticed that stories from the bible are referred to as being biblical. That's really an odd way of referring to a story. When I refer to a story from Aesop's Fables, I don't called it an aesopical story. I wonder if this is just another feature of religion that gives it the illusion of being especially unique?



Nice try to take an insult to Christianity...but refering to works like that aren't only religous. Socratic writtings, Homeric hyms, Nostradomic prophecies....see? its not just a religion thing after all!





AS for the rest of your post...I would appreciate it iff you would not post on this topic any more. See, I tried to get only intelligent people in this topic, who were capable of having an adult discussion. But seeing as you can't answer a simple question without going out of your way to make childish comments and taking sabs at the question rather tha answering it, I would be happy if you would either grow up and post something that is actually worth my time reading, or not post on this topic at all.

I have not made any statments here that have even been remotely a stab at athiest ideas, and I expect to be treated with the same courtesy.
You seem to be upset about something. Is it because you've never had the guts to question your religious concepts? Is it because you refuse to acknowledge that the word 'god' has no meaning? I suspect this to be the case.

So the possibility occurred to me that some people have an obsessive compulsion to believe in a god even when shown that such a thing couldn't exist.

Despite your (and others' ) sensitivity to criticism of your silly belief even when presented with clear nullifying arguments I must respond for the sake of posterity and truth, your feelings be damned. If you do not want to be embarrassed, perhaps you need to rethink your position.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
aii wrote:You seem to be

aii wrote:

You seem to be upset about something. Is it because you've never had the guts to question your religious concepts? Is it because you refuse to acknowledge that the word 'god' has no meaning? I suspect this to be the case.

Or could it quit possibly be because your childish remarks and arrogance are p***ing me off? You'll never know.

Quote:

So the possibility occurred to me that some people have an obsessive compulsion to believe in a god even when shown that such a thing couldn't exist.

At this point I don't care what occured to you. I asked you to either answer the question like an adult or stop posting on this topic. Now I'm telling you GROW UP. Until you can come to realize how childishyou are being keep your childish posts to yourself and take them out of this topic.

Quit possibly the on thing that you never realized is that you have an obsession wth denying the fact taht something is bigger than you. Your other athiests friends on there have been more than helpful in this discussion, and throught the entire board they have been more mature. I am sad to say that it appears you are incappable of open thought, and adult behavior.

Quote:

Despite your (and others' ) sensitivity to criticism of your silly belief even when presented with clear nullifying arguments I must respond for the sake of posterity and truth, your feelings be damned. If you do not want to be embarrassed, perhaps you need to rethink your position.

You have not even been grown enough to present me with a clear nullifying arguement. Which based on my experience with you in this topic, it is fair to assume you are unable to do considering you are one of the most arrogant and childish people I have ever talked to. I have not been embarrassed, and I can not be. This is an online forum, I have a life. The opinions of a few people that I don't know and probably will never meet is the very last thing on my mind. There are plenty of other threads for you to be as childish as you want, and for you to argue all of want. Do it there. This topic is not for debating.

You have not said anything to make me question my faith, you have only hurt the opinion I have of athiests. There are plenty of grown up athiests capable of having intelligent discussions on here, and you my friend do not seem to be one of them.

Grow up or stop posting on this topic.

 

[MOD EDIT - removed curse word per Kill 'Em With Kindness forum rules] 

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1264
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Crossover, I would indeed

Crossover,

I would indeed treat is as a coincidence.  christians have been predicting the end times ever since the religion started. 

Think of the boy who kept crying "Wolf".  When a wolf finally showed up,  nobody cared.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: aii

Crossover wrote:

aii wrote:

You seem to be upset about something. Is it because you've never had the guts to question your religious concepts? Is it because you refuse to acknowledge that the word 'god' has no meaning? I suspect this to be the case.

Or could it quit possibly be because your childish remarks and arrogance are p***ing me off? You'll never know.

Quote:

So the possibility occurred to me that some people have an obsessive compulsion to believe in a god even when shown that such a thing couldn't exist.

At this point I don't care what occured to you. I asked you to either answer the question like an adult or stop posting on this topic. Now I'm telling you GROW UP. Until you can come to realize how childishyou are being keep your childish posts to yourself and take them out of this topic.

Quit possibly the on thing that you never realized is that you have an obsession wth denying the fact taht something is bigger than you. Your other athiests friends on there have been more than helpful in this discussion, and throught the entire board they have been more mature. I am sad to say that it appears you are incappable of open thought, and adult behavior.

Quote:

Despite your (and others' ) sensitivity to criticism of your silly belief even when presented with clear nullifying arguments I must respond for the sake of posterity and truth, your feelings be damned. If you do not want to be embarrassed, perhaps you need to rethink your position.

You have not even been grown enough to present me with a clear nullifying arguement. Which based on my experience with you in this topic, it is fair to assume you are unable to do considering you are one of the most arrogant and childish people I have ever talked to. I have not been embarrassed, and I can not be. This is an online forum, I have a life. The opinions of a few people that I don't know and probably will never meet is the very last thing on my mind. There are plenty of other threads for you to be as childish as you want, and for you to argue all of want. Do it there. This topic is not for debating.

You have not said anything to make me question my faith, you have only hurt the opinion I have of athiests. There are plenty of grown up athiests capable of having intelligent discussions on here, and you my friend do not seem to be one of them.

Grow up or stop posting on this topic.

 

[MOD EDIT - removed curse word per Kill 'Em With Kindness forum rules]

 

This is the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum. 

From the main forum page:

Religious debate forum, that is heavily moderated, with strict rules. Posters must make every effort to be kind and courteous. No cursing, no insults, no deconstructive criticism. Moderation is provided by a theist-atheist mod team for fairness.

 

From Kill 'Em With Kindness thread Tentative Rules for this Forum:

1. No ad hominem attacks. 

2. No profanity

3. No preaching (you can use the bible to prove a biblical point, but you can't use the bible as evidence for God. Adam will revise/expand later, this was actually his rule)

4. Make every effort to be civil, polite, understanding, and caring for your fellow human.

 

This is your first warning. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry. I didn't know

I'm sorry. I didn't know that p*** was considered a curse word. It's interesting that its not a curse word even in Christian forums, but it is in an athiest forum. I'll try to remember not to use it again on here.

 

But might I ask wh p*** is a curse word and d*** is not? I edited the word myself because when not used in the proper context, I view it as a cuss word.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Crossover, the warning was

Crossover, the warning was not for your language.  That's minor and very excusable.

 

The warning was for the multiple ad hominem attacks. 

Examples:

Crossover wrote:
Now I'm telling you GROW UP. Until you can come to realize how childish you are being keep your childish posts to yourself and take them out of this topic.

Crossover wrote:
I am sad to say that it appears you are incappable of open thought, and adult behavior.

Crossover wrote:
it is fair to assume you are unable to do considering you are one of the most arrogant and childish people I have ever talked to.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


HumanisticJones
HumanisticJones's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: 5. Big

Crossover wrote:

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

I go with the cosmic expansion.  We can clearly see that all radiant matter in the universe is moving out from a single point.  Cosmic Expansion (the Big Bang) is the best explanation and is supported by the evidence.

Quote:
 

4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

I don't remember a scientific law that states order cannot come from disorder.  A snowflake is by any definition more ordered than a water droplet, but snowflakes form from water droplets (by way of loosing energy at that).  The law of Entrop, which... correct me if I'm wrong... you seem to be attempting to quote simply states that over time the amount of free energy in a closed system will reduce to zero.

Quote:
 

3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

One, Darwin never retracted his theory.  Even if he did, Galileo retracted his model of earth moving around the sun (though he was forced to) which didn't suddenly make it false that the earth does in fact orbit the sun.  While there may be other theories that explain biological diversity and the arrival of homo sapiens, none of them have gone through the rigors of research, evidence, debate, and inquiry that evolution has been subjected to for over a century.  So yes, I believe that evolution is the best explanation for biodiversity on earth. 

 

Quote:

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

I don't know.  Honest answer, I don't know.  But I would venture to guess that by the laws of thermodynamics, the energy and matter has always existed in one form or another. 

Quote:
 

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

Christians in general to me are people that believe in the divinity of a man alledged to have existed 2000 years ago, taught as a prophet, been executed for heresy, and resurected three days later... all of which has no contemporary source and is only referenced in the legends of these events and by the believers of said ledgends.  Apart from that its really hard to generalize Christians when most denominations can't agree on anything.

The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.


Crocoduck
Crocoduck's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: NO

Crossover wrote:

NO DEBATEING GOING ON (unless the athiests have differing views on some ones answer)

I have 5 questions for you athiests. This isn't a debate, and don't think I intend to debate you. I just want to know more about what you believe.

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

As I think of more questions I will post them. If I have any questions as to what you are talking about, I will either post them or message you.

 

5.  Big Bang

4.  Scientific laws as we know them did not exist prior to or at the moment of the Big Bang.

3.  Evolution

2.  There were no "gases" that caused the Big Bang.  The singularity cannot be characterized as such (see answer to #4 above).

1.  A person who is inflicted with a prolific mind virus.

Crocoduck - A missing transitional link that theists have been hoping does not exist...


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: NO

Crossover wrote:

NO DEBATEING GOING ON (unless the athiests have differing views on some ones answer)

I have 5 questions for you athiests. This isn't a debate, and don't think I intend to debate you. I just want to know more about what you believe.

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

 

As I think of more questions I will post them. If I have any questions as to what you are talking about, I will either post them or message you.

 

5) I don't believe any of it as I don't know enough.  I find Big Bang to be fascinating subject matter and interesting to read about.

4)  I don't try to Eye-wink

 3)  Yes, I do believe in evolution.  The Darwin retracting thing appears to be a misconception.  But my reasons for beliving in evolution are not due to his theory, but due to the advances on it since then.

2) I don't know.

1) The average Christian is not a Christian at all but finds comfort in the organization.


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, I haven't read all

Sorry, I haven't read all of the above posts. But here are my answers.

5. Big Bang: it has the most evidence, so it gets my support. I know they haven't worked out all of the bugs yet, I don't like the idea that some propose of time starting then (I don't see how time can start), but it is the best we've got at the moment.

4. I'm not a physicist, so I'll skip this one.

3. Evolution, definately. There is a mass of evidence for it from the fossil record, the living world around us, selective breeding, molecular genetics and you can observe evolution happening in bacteria and viruses.

2. I think there is some confusion with this question.

1. Just like all religions, christians range from non-practicing quite rational people to fanatics. The only thing they have in common is delusion.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   .... I would quess

   .... I would quess infinite big bangs, and before that infinite bangs going backwards, as just part of a yet bigger unimaginable cosmos, where zero doesn't exist .... how can it ?  ,  ?

.... all is evolution, every bit of it.

christians ? , they just can't help it .... so confused .... jesus had a clue .... this is it he said ! so get along , be nice, atheist jesus indeed seems a treasure, a real hero,

... and was no xian ..... whatever he was, we can do better, as he said ..... then came bible paul/saul to ruin our day ..... and then muhammad, bush .....

as far as moses writing on stone, let us just say that's basic and was a nice start, the big 10 .... Worship yourself is the way I read it, a jew idea of ending superstition , it still hasn't caught on, and the sabbath was to be a gift, a day off, that got messed up too ....

geezzz people ....  this is god, that's my quess .

  

 

  


Kazuya
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: 5. Big

Crossover wrote:

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

5. Big Bang

4.They are in perfect harmony, no need for reconcilement.

3.Yes, Evolution. In addition to that I believe in Abiogenesis. Although beleive is not really the right word, because I got mathematical evidence, that shows the likeliness of abiogenesis.

2. I want to correct the question. "Where did matter come from?"

This question is generally asked by theists, normally quoting Stephen Hawking, that the Big Bang created time and matter and therefor matter couldn't have always existed. There is a fallacy in it. Another normally associated statement from theists, is the wrong claim, "that nothing can only create nothing" and therefor some omnipotent creator mus havebrought our universe into existence. The theory of quantum fields, clearly states that actually something can happen/come from nothing. And no this does not contradict the law of conservation of energy. Because this law is actually a little bit more complicated than just "Energy can not be created nor destroyed"

1. A christian is somebody who believes in Jesus Christ. 


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
where did it all come from?

I think you missed a major part in your answer because you were going off about gases.  The question I want answered is, where did it all come from?  Did matter have a beginning or is matter infinite and has always been around and finally it formed into people and computers so we can debate online about where it came from?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Seth, do you just ignore

Seth, do you just ignore all post by scientists?  Your question has been answered.

To answer the second question made by the OP:

I've heard a lot of different versions of the End Times story.  Some of them are quite tame, and others sound like something out of a sci-fi movie.  Frankly, if all the tribulation is about is lots of wars and earthquakes, it isn't much to worry about.  We've never had a period without wars and earthquakes.

However, if 1.1 billion people disappeared at once, and they all happened to be Christians... yeah.  I'd strongly reconsider my beliefs.

Of course, in doing so, I'd have to deal with the fact that half of the End Time stories say that I'd already be beyond hope anyway, so it might not make any difference.

If I start seeing dragons and horsemen riding through the sky with plagues in buckets, or whatever they're supposed to be carrying (I really haven't read it in a long time), that would definitely have a profound impact on my assessment of reality.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: I think you

seth wrote:
I think you missed a major part in your answer because you were going off about gases. The question I want answered is, where did it all come from? Did matter have a beginning or is matter infinite and has always been around and finally it formed into people and computers so we can debate online about where it came from?

 

There is no definitive answer. The equations that lead to the big bang all fall apart at the singularity. Several theories are around that try to deal with this. 


bluescat48
bluescat48's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2007-12-09
User is offlineOffline
#5 A combination of both

#5 A combination of both ie; Universes starting and others dying.

#4 Where is the disorder?

#3 Yes

#2 See Answer to Question #5

# 1 Too broad a topi. There are too many types of Christians.


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote:

Crossover wrote:

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

Sphere versus flat ? I know flat earth model as been dead for a while but which one do you believe ? Or do you believe someting different?

Crossover wrote:

4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

Please read about thermodynamics before asking us this question.

Crossover wrote:

3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

Darwin never retracted his theory and even if he did, ToE as lived up, astoundingly, to it's predictions, so it is still a more than valid theory.

And there are absolutly no theories out there that ever came close to account for what we observe in nature, only ToE did that.

ID was refuted over and over again.

Crossover wrote:

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

The real question you are asking is : "Where did all this "primordial" energy come from in the first place."

No one knows, it's a mystery, get over it ! Ignorance is not a proof in favor of God's existence.

Crossover wrote:

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

I usually don't generalize. (bullshit I generalize all the time)

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com