Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Universe Had no beginning?

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 8:50:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

Because this is just a theory, not even really, it's more of a "write your own adventure" type of deal. There is absolutely 0 evidence to support anything the Big Bang says except some theoretical math and some telescope images.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 8:50:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

You would meet a challenge specifically in the bolded parts. There's an argument that true infinities are impossible
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 8:51:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:50:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

Because this is just a theory, not even really, it's more of a "write your own adventure" type of deal. There is absolutely 0 evidence to support anything the Big Bang says except some theoretical math and some telescope images.

Compared to a thousand year old book, that is pretty concrete.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 8:51:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

The Fool: NO kidding lol. its sham ITS theologin LIE. The whole time. all its states is that matter was condensed. NO Body else in the world thinks what you guys are thinking. Its hilarious. and scary. at the same time.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 8:53:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
ConPo, comsic radiation also supports the Big Bang Theory. The telescopic images and the cosmic radiation constitute more sound evidence than a book written by nomads in the desert.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 8:54:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:50:50 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

You would meet a challenge specifically in the bolded parts. There's an argument that true infinities are impossible

Whatever logic is used to construct that argument probably collapsed at the singularity.
"At that time, which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity (on which Friedmann's solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down." - Steven Hawking
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 8:54:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When I first came to DDO hearing of those nonsense arguments. I couldn't believe my ears.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 8:57:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:50:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

Because this is just a theory, not even really, it's more of a "write your own adventure" type of deal. There is absolutely 0 evidence to support anything the Big Bang says except some theoretical math and some telescope images.

Gravity is just a theory. I don't see you jumping off buildings.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 8:58:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:54:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:50:50 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

You would meet a challenge specifically in the bolded parts. There's an argument that true infinities are impossible

Whatever logic is used to construct that argument probably collapsed at the singularity.
"At that time, which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity (on which Friedmann's solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down." - Steven Hawking

That didn't really respond to the objection. He basically just said "math can't handle infinite numbers, but scientifically they're still possible". I don't really see a warrant there. It first needs to be proven that infinities are possible to begin with, Stephen Hawkings saying they're possible doesnt make them possible.

I dont find the argument of first causation very sound however.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 8:59:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:57:00 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:50:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

Because this is just a theory, not even really, it's more of a "write your own adventure" type of deal. There is absolutely 0 evidence to support anything the Big Bang says except some theoretical math and some telescope images.

Gravity is just a theory. I don't see you jumping off buildings.

There is absolutely 0 evidence to support anything about gravity except some theoretical math and some apples falling off trees.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:02:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:54:49 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Theologins hate science, they were only siding with that theory to take advantage of the allready converted and niave believers. They can't stand science in any other sense. And they will just as quickly turn against that too. Whatever to manipulate the beliefs of people. There whole system is based on dishonesty. Ethier an abuse of logicm, science or knowledge.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:04:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:50:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

Because this is just a theory, not even really, it's more of a "write your own adventure" type of deal. There is absolutely 0 evidence to support anything the Big Bang says except some theoretical math and some telescope images.

Really? Are we going down that "it's just a theory" road?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:04:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:58:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:54:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:50:50 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

You would meet a challenge specifically in the bolded parts. There's an argument that true infinities are impossible

Whatever logic is used to construct that argument probably collapsed at the singularity.
"At that time, which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity (on which Friedmann's solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down." - Steven Hawking

That didn't really respond to the objection. He basically just said "math can't handle infinite numbers, but scientifically they're still possible". I don't really see a warrant there. It first needs to be proven that infinities are possible to begin with, Stephen Hawkings saying they're possible doesnt make them possible.

I dont find the argument of first causation very sound however.

My argument isn't that Steven Hawking says infinites are possible, therefore they must be. I'm saying that logic and rules as we know it were completely irrelevant at the singularity.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:04:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:50:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

Because this is just a theory, not even really, it's more of a "write your own adventure" type of deal. There is absolutely 0 evidence to support anything the Big Bang says except some theoretical math and some telescope images.

The Fool: you mean until you found out the truth. But before I am sure it was the most clearist piece of evidence in the universe. <(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:13:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 9:04:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:58:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:54:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:50:50 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

You would meet a challenge specifically in the bolded parts. There's an argument that true infinities are impossible

Whatever logic is used to construct that argument probably collapsed at the singularity.
"At that time, which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity (on which Friedmann's solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down." - Steven Hawking

That didn't really respond to the objection. He basically just said "math can't handle infinite numbers, but scientifically they're still possible". I don't really see a warrant there. It first needs to be proven that infinities are possible to begin with, Stephen Hawkings saying they're possible doesnt make them possible.

I dont find the argument of first causation very sound however.

My argument isn't that Steven Hawking says infinites are possible, therefore they must be. I'm saying that logic and rules as we know it were completely irrelevant at the singularity.

Ike logic is in the organization of our mind, if logic is not applicable it means we haven't been able to make sense of it. Not that it was in fact true, that it was breaking logical rules. Random is the appearence we get when the mind cannot pick up a particular pattern. It doesn't follow that there is not pattern. That is the biggest mistake of science right now. If I say to the that the explanation is randomness. You would be no better of if I gave you no explanation at all. or infact if you were completly ignorance of the situation at hand.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:16:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:53:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
ConPo, comsic radiation also supports the Big Bang Theory. The telescopic images and the cosmic radiation constitute more sound evidence than a book written by nomads in the desert.

Before you and LK insult the Bible, take a moment to consider that Christian Theology is compatible with the Big Bang Theory.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:22:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:50:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

Because this is just a theory, not even really, it's more of a "write your own adventure" type of deal. There is absolutely 0 evidence to support anything the Big Bang says except some theoretical math and some telescope images.

One question, sir: How effective are the "theoretical math and some telescope images" as evidence? or rather yet, isn't that a false description of the true observational evidence/proof/examples of solid reasoning behind the Big Bang model?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:33:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 9:04:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:58:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:54:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:50:50 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

You would meet a challenge specifically in the bolded parts. There's an argument that true infinities are impossible

Whatever logic is used to construct that argument probably collapsed at the singularity.
"At that time, which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity (on which Friedmann's solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down." - Steven Hawking

That didn't really respond to the objection. He basically just said "math can't handle infinite numbers, but scientifically they're still possible". I don't really see a warrant there. It first needs to be proven that infinities are possible to begin with, Stephen Hawkings saying they're possible doesnt make them possible.

I dont find the argument of first causation very sound however.

My argument isn't that Steven Hawking says infinites are possible, therefore they must be. I'm saying that logic and rules as we know it were completely irrelevant at the singularity.

But you've never explained why
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:33:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 9:16:30 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:53:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
ConPo, comsic radiation also supports the Big Bang Theory. The telescopic images and the cosmic radiation constitute more sound evidence than a book written by nomads in the desert.

Before you and LK insult the Bible, take a moment to consider that Christian Theology is compatible with the Big Bang Theory. <(;D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:36:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 9:33:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 9:16:30 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:53:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
ConPo, comsic radiation also supports the Big Bang Theory. The telescopic images and the cosmic radiation constitute more sound evidence than a book written by nomads in the desert.

Before you and LK insult the Bible, take a moment to consider that Christian Theology <(;D)
is compatible with the Big Bang Theory. <(;D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:41:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:50:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

Because this is just a theory, not even really, it's more of a "write your own adventure" type of deal.
Oh.....I'm sorry to say but arguing that it's "just a theory" is rather weak of an answer. Note that, a scientific theory also requires sufficient experimentation and evidence to back its premises up --which include the explanation of a model relating to phenomena on such a basis as well as reasoning or observation.

There is absolutely 0 evidence to support anything the Big Bang says except some theoretical math and some telescope images.
Well, that may be true, but I wonder how do you view the potential of such "telescope images" as being the base of further inferences, conclusions, and directions in research?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:43:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:59:46 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:57:00 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:50:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

Because this is just a theory, not even really, it's more of a "write your own adventure" type of deal. There is absolutely 0 evidence to support anything the Big Bang says except some theoretical math and some telescope images.

Gravity is just a theory. I don't see you jumping off buildings.

There is absolutely 0 evidence to support anything about gravity except some theoretical math and some apples falling off trees.

Yep, just like there is absolutely 0 evidence to support anything about evolution except for some theoretical models of evolutionary change or some scattered bones or body parts.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:43:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 9:33:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 9:04:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:58:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:54:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:50:50 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

You would meet a challenge specifically in the bolded parts. There's an argument that true infinities are impossible

Whatever logic is used to construct that argument probably collapsed at the singularity.
"At that time, which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity (on which Friedmann's solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down." - Steven Hawking

That didn't really respond to the objection. He basically just said "math can't handle infinite numbers, but scientifically they're still possible". I don't really see a warrant there. It first needs to be proven that infinities are possible to begin with, Stephen Hawkings saying they're possible doesnt make them possible.

I dont find the argument of first causation very sound however.

My argument isn't that Steven Hawking says infinites are possible, therefore they must be. I'm saying that logic and rules as we know it were completely irrelevant at the singularity.

But you've never explained why

Hawking (sorry for referencing him so much, that's where I'm getting my information from) writes that all scientific laws are made under the assumption that space-time is smooth and flat. However, during the big bang, the gravity of all that condensed matter forces an infinite curve that changes the nature of the universe. So the laws can be discarded
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:47:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 9:16:30 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:53:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
ConPo, comsic radiation also supports the Big Bang Theory. The telescopic images and the cosmic radiation constitute more sound evidence than a book written by nomads in the desert.

Before you and LK insult the Bible, take a moment to consider that Christian Theology is compatible with the Big Bang Theory.

I am not in any way oppose this statement but would like to ask for an exposition...how?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:49:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 9:43:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/10/2012 9:33:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 9:04:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:58:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:54:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:50:50 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

You would meet a challenge specifically in the bolded parts. There's an argument that true infinities are impossible

Whatever logic is used to construct that argument probably collapsed at the singularity.
"At that time, which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity (on which Friedmann's solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down." - Steven Hawking

That didn't really respond to the objection. He basically just said "math can't handle infinite numbers, but scientifically they're still possible". I don't really see a warrant there. It first needs to be proven that infinities are possible to begin with, Stephen Hawkings saying they're possible doesnt make them possible.

I dont find the argument of first causation very sound however.

My argument isn't that Steven Hawking says infinites are possible, therefore they must be. I'm saying that logic and rules as we know it were completely irrelevant at the singularity.

But you've never explained why

Hawking (sorry for referencing him so much, that's where I'm getting my information from) writes that all scientific laws are made under the assumption that space-time is smooth and flat. However, during the big bang, the gravity of all that condensed matter forces an infinite curve that changes the nature of the universe. So the laws can be discarded

So why should we assume that during the big bang an infinite curve was formed? See this is kind of going back and forth: Scientific laws get discarded because they didnt apply during the big bang, but the big bang wasn't subscribed to scientific law because they scenario in which it happened was illogical (infinite curve). That begs the question as to why we need to assume law violating circumstances to begin with.

What does the term infinite curve even mean?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:50:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 8:50:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?


Because this is just a theory<(;D), not even really, it's more of a "write your own adventure" type of deal<(=D). There is absolutely 0 evidence<(.D) to support anything the Big Bang<(XD) says except some theoretical math<(:D) and some telescope images<(8D).
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:52:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What is a circle?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:53:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 9:49:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 9:43:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/10/2012 9:33:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 9:04:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:58:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:54:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:50:50 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?

You would meet a challenge specifically in the bolded parts. There's an argument that true infinities are impossible

Whatever logic is used to construct that argument probably collapsed at the singularity.
"At that time, which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity (on which Friedmann's solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down." - Steven Hawking

That didn't really respond to the objection. He basically just said "math can't handle infinite numbers, but scientifically they're still possible". I don't really see a warrant there. It first needs to be proven that infinities are possible to begin with, Stephen Hawkings saying they're possible doesnt make them possible.

I dont find the argument of first causation very sound however.

My argument isn't that Steven Hawking says infinites are possible, therefore they must be. I'm saying that logic and rules as we know it were completely irrelevant at the singularity.

But you've never explained why

Hawking (sorry for referencing him so much, that's where I'm getting my information from) writes that all scientific laws are made under the assumption that space-time is smooth and flat. However, during the big bang, the gravity of all that condensed matter forces an infinite curve that changes the nature of the universe. So the laws can be discarded

So why should we assume that during the big bang an infinite curve was formed? See this is kind of going back and forth: Scientific laws get discarded because they didnt apply during the big bang, but the big bang wasn't subscribed to scientific law because they scenario in which it happened was illogical (infinite curve). That begs the question as to why we need to assume law violating circumstances to begin with.

What does the term infinite curve even mean?

Well, one question. If we assume there were "law-violating circumstances", then at what point in the history of the universe were such laws established or cemented?

And what about this "infinitive curve"--despite the lack of an actual definition of the term--makes it unable to be applied???
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 9:56:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 9:50:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:50:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/10/2012 8:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Big Bang theory states that prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, all matter, space, and time was concentrated in the singularity. The singularity however was infinitely dense and infinitely round. If the object was infinite, does that not imply that it had no origin? At the singularity, all laws we currently recognize collapsed and became irrelevant,...including the law of causation.

With this, the Big Bang can't actually be used as a case that the Universe was caused. If the Universe had no beginning, then doesn't that destroy the theist belief that God designed it?


Because this is just a theory<(;D), not even really, it's more of a "write your own adventure" type of deal<(=D). There is absolutely 0 evidence<(.D) to support anything the Big Bang<(XD) says except some theoretical math<(:D) and some telescope images<(8D).

ConservativePolitico wrote:
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tried to use philosophy to explain science<(8O). Energy states the universe had to have a beginning<(X0). Con used more science and busted Pros burden of proof.<(;D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL