Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What actually went Bang in the Big Bang

drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 10:10:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Atheists suggest that intelligent life occurred from this path. A singularity of energy exploded, that energy became matter, matter became life, life became intelligent. In essence Energy, Matter, Life, Intelligence. All things tend to cycle and that is why we are now creating with our intelligence and energy new forms of matter, life, and intelligence. So as we see it goes Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence.
As a Panenthiest the only difference between an Atheist and I is that I suggest the cycle did not start from some immense point of energy exploding. It started with the explosion of immense intelligence. An epiphany that is existence. From my view the cycle goes Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->""".
Atheists simply assume step 2 is the beginning.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 10:27:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 10:10:56 PM, drpiek wrote:
Atheists suggest that intelligent life occurred from this path. A singularity of energy exploded, that energy became matter, matter became life, life became intelligent. In essence Energy, Matter, Life, Intelligence. All things tend to cycle and that is why we are now creating with our intelligence and energy new forms of matter, life, and intelligence. So as we see it goes Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence.
As a Panenthiest the only difference between an Atheist and I is that I suggest the cycle did not start from some immense point of energy exploding. It started with the explosion of immense intelligence. An epiphany that is existence. From my view the cycle goes Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->""".
Atheists simply assume step 2 is the beginning.

What does the Big Bang have to do with atheists?

Note: There was no explosion, only a sudden and rapid expansion of space. The name "Big Bang" is a derisory and inaccurate name bestowed by an opponent to the theory.

Your "logical argument" is peurile and based on "all things tend to cycle". Really? The evidence is that the universe tends to increasing entropy and life is a local, temporary exception. Oops.

Scientists haven't created biological life from scratch yet. If we ever do create life, it may first be artificial intelligence in a computer system. How does that affect your little fantasy?

Could you also explain the step Intelligence->Energy? Remember that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We're all ears.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 10:35:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 10:27:03 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/11/2015 10:10:56 PM, drpiek wrote:
Atheists suggest that intelligent life occurred from this path. A singularity of energy exploded, that energy became matter, matter became life, life became intelligent. In essence Energy, Matter, Life, Intelligence. All things tend to cycle and that is why we are now creating with our intelligence and energy new forms of matter, life, and intelligence. So as we see it goes Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence.
As a Panenthiest the only difference between an Atheist and I is that I suggest the cycle did not start from some immense point of energy exploding. It started with the explosion of immense intelligence. An epiphany that is existence. From my view the cycle goes Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->""".
Atheists simply assume step 2 is the beginning.

What does the Big Bang have to do with atheists?
This is where most Athiests stop thinking.

Note: There was no explosion, only a sudden and rapid expansion of space. The name "Big Bang" is a derisory and inaccurate name bestowed by an opponent to the theory.

Sudden Rapid Expansion, just different words for explosion
Your "logical argument" is peurile and based on "all things tend to cycle". Really? The evidence is that the universe tends to increasing entropy and life is a local, temporary exception. Oops.

Yes life, not intteligence
Scientists haven't created biological life from scratch yet. If we ever do create life, it may first be artificial intelligence in a computer system. How does that affect your little fantasy?

Give it time. So far the closest we have come is an entirely man made set of DNA inserted into a cell membrane. Give it another 100 years. Also "Artificial" intelligence is simply intelligence without the need for life, think back to step 1.

Could you also explain the step Intelligence->Energy? Remember that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We're all ears.

My intelligence allows me to manipulate, energy. I simply suggest energy is the product of intelligence. We are within the mind of God. A thought.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 11:13:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 10:27:03 PM, dee-em wrote.........The evidence is that the universe tends to increasing entropy and life is a local, temporary exception. Oops.

Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence." ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara or the cycle of manifestation, "The Great Day," which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by "Pralaya," a dark period, which to our finite minds seems as an eternity. "Manvantara," is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, "Pralaya," is the evening that proceeds the next creative day. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest in which we now exist are referred to in the book of Genesis as the generations of the universe.

The English word "Generation," is translated from the Hebrew "toledoth" which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as "births," or "descendants," such as "These are the generations of Adam," or "these are the generations of Abraham, and Genesis 2: 4; These are the generations of the Universe or the heavens and earth, etc. And the "Great Day" in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which those who attain to perfection are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not attain to perfection are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

A series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it. Every universe from the first to the last, from the smallest to the greatest, which have been created throughout the eons of eternity, still exist in their independent Space-Time positions within the eternal and boundless cosmos.

The New international Version, the Scofield Referrence Bible, and the Companion Bible, all note that the phase in Genesis 1: 2; The earth was formless and void (Having neither shape or mass) should be correctly translated, "The earth became without form and void." The Hebrew word "Hayah" translated "was," means "To become, occur, come to pass, Be." (Vines Complete Expository of Old and New Testament Words, 1985. "To Be.")

I am sure that one day our scientific community will prove that the wise religious men of old, had been correct in their belief.

Another universe may have preceded ours, study finds. May 14th, 2006. Courtesy Penn State University and World Science staff.

Three physicists say they have done calculations suggesting that before the birth of our universe, which is expanding, there was an earlier universe that was shrinking.

The results stem from a theory that claims the fabric of space and time is made up of minuscule, indivisible bits, much as matter is.

Scientists believe our cosmos began in a sort of explosion called the Big Bang, when everything that exists---which had previously been packed into one infinitely dense point---burst outward.

The universe is still expanding according to this view, because it was born expanding.

According to some proposals, the Big Bang is a repeating cycle. Universes might expand, then shrink back to a point, then expand again. Thus the "Bang" would be really more like a bounce.

The idea is appealing in some ways, but scientists have found it far from easy to test. Einstein"s Theory of Relativity, a key basis for the Big Bang theory, is silent on what happened before that event.

"General relativity can be used to describe the universe back to a point at which matter becomes so dense that it"s equations don"t hold up," said Abhay Ashtekar, director of the Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Penn State University in University Park, Penn.

To go further, physicists must use tools Einstein didn"t have, he added. Ashtekar and two post-doctoral researchers developed such tools through a combination of Quantum physics- the science of subatomic particles"and general relativity, which describes the large-scale structure of space and time.

They found that before the Big Bang, there was a contracting universe. Other than the fact it was shrinking, they added, it was similar to ours in terms of the geometry of its space and time, or spacetime, as cosmologists call it since Einstein found the two are interwoven.

"In place of a classical Big Bang there is in fact a quantum bounce," said Ashtekar. "We were so surprised by the finding," he added, that the team repeated the calculations for months to include different possible values of some numbers representing the current universe. But the results kept pointing to a bounce.

The findings appear in the current issue of the research journal Physical Review Letters.

While the general idea of another, pre-Big Bang universe isn"t new, Ashtekar said, this is the first mathematical study that systematically establishes its existence and deduces properties of its spacetime geometry.

The notion that spacetime has a geometry involves the idea that it can be curved or flat. A "flat" spacetime is one in which geometry works as we normally expect; for example, parallel lines never meet. But Einstein found that material objects deform this flatness, introducing curvature.

To arrive at their pre-existing universe finding, Ashtekar"s group used loop quantum gravity, a theory that seeks to reconcile General relativity with quantum physics. These two seemingly fundamental theories are otherwise contradictory in some ways.

Loop quantum gravity, which was pioneered at Ashtekar"s institute, proposes that spacetime has a discrete "atomic" structure, as opposed to being a continuous sheet, as Einstein, along with most us, assumed.

In loop quantum gravity, space is thought of as woven from one-dimensional "threads." The continuum picture remains mostly valid as an approximation. But near the Big Bang, this fabric is violently torn so that it"s discrete, or quantum, nature becomes important. One outcome of this is that gravity becomes repulsive instead of attractive, Ashetkar argued; the result is the Big Bounce.

Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, a cosmologist who has explored some related concepts, wrote in an email that the new research "Supports, in a general way, the idea that the Big Bang need not be the beginning of space and time."

The universe "may have undergone one or more bangs in its past history," he added.

Gentorev.......... The Big Bang theory which is the best model that we have today as to the origin of this particular universe, is still in the process of evolution as more data is gathered.

These Theories of the Big Crunch are still in their infancy, but eventually they will prove the religious theories from thousands of years ago, are correct.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 2:04:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 10:35:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/11/2015 10:27:03 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/11/2015 10:10:56 PM, drpiek wrote:
Atheists suggest that intelligent life occurred from this path. A singularity of energy exploded, that energy became matter, matter became life, life became intelligent. In essence Energy, Matter, Life, Intelligence. All things tend to cycle and that is why we are now creating with our intelligence and energy new forms of matter, life, and intelligence. So as we see it goes Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence.
As a Panenthiest the only difference between an Atheist and I is that I suggest the cycle did not start from some immense point of energy exploding. It started with the explosion of immense intelligence. An epiphany that is existence. From my view the cycle goes Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->""".
Atheists simply assume step 2 is the beginning.

What does the Big Bang have to do with atheists?
This is where most Athiests stop thinking.

Can you please answer the question instead of deflecting?

Note: There was no explosion, only a sudden and rapid expansion of space. The name "Big Bang" is a derisory and inaccurate name bestowed by an opponent to the theory.

Sudden Rapid Expansion, just different words for explosion

No, there's an important distinction. An explosion occurs within an existing space. The Big Bang was space itself expanding. Nothing exploded.

Your "logical argument" is peurile and based on "all things tend to cycle". Really? The evidence is that the universe tends to increasing entropy and life is a local, temporary exception. Oops.

Yes life, not intteligence

The only intelligence we know about is associated with living beings. Do you know something we don't?

Scientists haven't created biological life from scratch yet. If we ever do create life, it may first be artificial intelligence in a computer system. How does that affect your little fantasy?

Give it time. So far the closest we have come is an entirely man made set of DNA inserted into a cell membrane. Give it another 100 years.

Then you will be able to argue Life->Life. So what? You could say that now for evolution and simple reproduction. Lol.

Also "Artificial" intelligence is simply intelligence without the need for life, think back to step 1.

I'm trying to. I don't see any connection. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Could you also explain the step Intelligence->Energy? Remember that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We're all ears.

My intelligence allows me to manipulate, energy. I simply suggest energy is the product of intelligence.

You can suggest anything you like. It is blatantly false though unless you can demonstrate the manufacture of some energy using only your intelligence. Lol.

We are within the mind of God. A thought.

Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 4:55:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Returning to the topic: I googled this up for you mob:

This universe was born about 14 billion years ago. That means that we can only see the stars and galaxies whose light has taken less than 14 billion years to reach us. The Light from objects that are more than 14 billion light years away has not as yet reached us, the light from those objects is still on its way. The consequences of this is that we can only see a portion of the universe. We call it the "Observable universe". And the observable universe is surrounded by it"s horizon. It"s pretty much like the horizon at sea. Just as we know there"s more sea over the horizon, we know there"s more of the Universe over it"s horizon,

How much? Well according to the standard picture which is called "Inflation", there is an infinite amount. So imagine the observable universe is like a soap bubble. Well, beyond the edge of it, there are an infinite number of soap bubbles. All of them would have had a "Big Bang", and in all of them different galaxies and stars would have congealed out of the cooling debris of the "Big Bang" fireball. In short, they would all have different histories.

The question should have been: "What actually went Bang in the Big Bangs; (Plural)
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 5:55:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 4:55:37 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Returning to the topic: I googled this up for you mob:

This universe was born about 14 billion years ago. That means that we can only see the stars and galaxies whose light has taken less than 14 billion years to reach us.

Yes.

The Light from objects that are more than 14 billion light years away has not as yet reached us, the light from those objects is still on its way.

No. Remember that the universe was much smaller in the past and galaxies were closer together. For that reason, the event horizon has a radius of about 46 billion light years at present.

The consequences of this is that we can only see a portion of the universe. We call it the "Observable universe". And the observable universe is surrounded by it"s horizon. It"s pretty much like the horizon at sea. Just as we know there"s more sea over the horizon, we know there"s more of the Universe over it"s horizon,

Yes.

How much? Well according to the standard picture which is called "Inflation", there is an infinite amount. So imagine the observable universe is like a soap bubble. Well, beyond the edge of it, there are an infinite number of soap bubbles.

Not necessarily. It depends on the topology of the universe.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com...

All of them would have had a "Big Bang", and in all of them different galaxies and stars would have congealed out of the cooling debris of the "Big Bang" fireball. In short, they would all have different histories.

Unwarranted speculation given that the topology (not geometry) of the universe is not known.

The question should have been: "What actually went Bang in the Big Bangs; (Plural)

No.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 6:55:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
To summarize what I gathered from our dear Atheist friend (a quiet amusing psychological journey); he doesn't know what eternal entity initiated the expansion of the universe, he is not willing to philosophically analyze the entity's nature, but he definitely knows that the entity is random and has zero-IQ.

He believes a collection of atoms in semiconductors can produce inherent actual intelligence and spark life without being programmed to emulate reactions from humans (who are, wait for it,... intelligence beings). Meaning that there will be computers committing suicide, feeling lonely and trying to communicate with other computers, shutting down in your face in a tempter tantrum, etc. yikes!
Sorry to break it to you, but artificial intelligence and computer systems are constructed by beings endowed with rational insight, in other words they are an extension of the rationality of their users and designers, and they have no understanding of the computations they make. They are intelligent in the same way a TV is entertaining or informative.

On a side note, I would like to dismiss your assertion that assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, as that assertion is without evidence. Needless to say, I will act smug and act as if I need to provide no reasons for my beliefs and claims.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 7:14:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 6:55:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
To summarize what I gathered from our dear Atheist friend (a quiet amusing psychological journey);

Starting with an ad hom. How civil of you.

he doesn't know what eternal entity initiated the expansion of the universe,

There's nothing quite like assuming your conclusion. Lol.

he is not willing to philosophically analyze the entity's nature,

I don't analyze the nature of entities that can't be shown to exist.

but he definitely knows that the entity is random and has zero-IQ.

Putting words into someone else's mouth? That's a new low for you.

He believes a collection of atoms in semiconductors can produce inherent actual intelligence and spark life without being programmed to emulate reactions from humans (who are, wait for it,... intelligence beings). Meaning that there will be computers committing suicide, feeling lonely and trying to communicate with other computers, shutting down in your face in a tempter tantrum, etc. yikes!
Sorry to break it to you, but artificial intelligence and computer systems are constructed by beings endowed with rational insight, in other words they are an extension of the rationality of their users and designers, and they have no understanding of the computations they make. They are intelligent in the same way a TV is entertaining or informative.

Did I at any time say that artificial intelligence had been achieved yet? Your ridicule has been wasted on a strawman. But don't let that stop you. Lol.

On a side note, I would like to dismiss your assertion that assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, as that assertion is without evidence. Needless to say, I will act smug and act as if I need to provide no reasons for my beliefs and claims.

We've been through this before and you had egg on your face then. If you believe the rule is not valid, then applying it in order to invalidate the rule is an obvious failure in logic. Would you like another egg?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 7:19:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The ignorance displayed in this debate regarding Big Bang cosmology is quite astonishing. And the fact that everyone in this thread is talking as if they know things to good certainty is pretty much a joke.

If you don't know what 'expansion' and 'big bang' are, then why the hell are you trying to make arguments based on Big Bang Cosmology? That's like trying to talk about the chemistry of water without knowing what hydrogen and oxygen atoms are. It simply cannot be done.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 7:49:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 7:14:28 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/12/2015 6:55:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
To summarize what I gathered from our dear Atheist friend (a quiet amusing psychological journey);

Starting with an ad hom. How civil of you.

Interesting that you are decrying a negative statement I never made. I wonder why.

he doesn't know what eternal entity initiated the expansion of the universe,

There's nothing quite like assuming your conclusion. Lol.

Especially if the assumption is causality, Aka. one of the principle of logic, Mr. beginningless casual chain.

he is not willing to philosophically analyze the entity's nature,

I don't analyze the nature of entities that can't be shown to exist.

Oooh! Interesting. Please provide an argument that He can't be shown to exist, all arguments for God's existence are false be default without even analyzing them, and prove that Hilbert's hotel paradox (the first cause is not eternal) is not a paradox while you are at it.

but he definitely knows that the entity is random and has zero-IQ.

Putting words into someone else's mouth? That's a new low for you.

Yeah, what you call falling from space into a bottomless pit.
So you are saying that I am wrong in my analysis and you acknowledge that the universe is by design is a possibility. Please provide reasons why you think the universe popping up randomly by a mysterious zero-IQ entity, you have yet to name, is a more probable possibility.

Also, can you tell me which one requires more intelligence:

http://skywalker.cochise.edu...

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

He believes a collection of atoms in semiconductors can produce inherent actual intelligence and spark life without being programmed to emulate reactions from humans (who are, wait for it,... intelligence beings). Meaning that there will be computers committing suicide, feeling lonely and trying to communicate with other computers, shutting down in your face in a tempter tantrum, etc. yikes!
Sorry to break it to you, but artificial intelligence and computer systems are constructed by beings endowed with rational insight, in other words they are an extension of the rationality of their users and designers, and they have no understanding of the computations they make. They are intelligent in the same way a TV is entertaining or informative.

Did I at any time say that artificial intelligence had been achieved yet? Your ridicule has been wasted on a strawman. But don't let that stop you. Lol.

You are the one who proposed AI as a new synthetic lifeforms, I provided reasons why this propositions is more than likely impossible.

On a side note, I would like to dismiss your assertion that assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, as that assertion is without evidence. Needless to say, I will act smug and act as if I need to provide no reasons for my beliefs and claims.

We've been through this before and you had egg on your face then. If you believe the rule is not valid, then applying it in order to invalidate the rule is an obvious failure in logic. Would you like another egg?

Lol, I just demonstrated that the rule self-refutes itself, therefore it is invalid. Dismissing (pun intended) that fact and defending the self-destructive rule shows the proverbial rotten egg landfill you live in.

If we assume the rule is valid: The rule becomes invalid.
If we assume the rule is invalid: The rule is still invalid.
Conclusion: There is no possibility other than the rule being invalid.

But hey, what can I say? Desperate Atheism-inspired anti-logic.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 7:52:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 10:10:56 PM, drpiek wrote:
Atheists suggest that intelligent life occurred from this path. A singularity of energy exploded, that energy became matter, matter became life, life became intelligent. In essence Energy, Matter, Life, Intelligence. All things tend to cycle and that is why we are now creating with our intelligence and energy new forms of matter, life, and intelligence. So as we see it goes Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence.
As a Panenthiest the only difference between an Atheist and I is that I suggest the cycle did not start from some immense point of energy exploding. It started with the explosion of immense intelligence. An epiphany that is existence. From my view the cycle goes Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->""".
Atheists simply assume step 2 is the beginning.

Matter is only an illusion and so is time and space. The mind of God is a beautiful thing for those of us who understand how we were created.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 7:54:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 10:35:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/11/2015 10:27:03 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/11/2015 10:10:56 PM, drpiek wrote:
Atheists suggest that intelligent life occurred from this path. A singularity of energy exploded, that energy became matter, matter became life, life became intelligent. In essence Energy, Matter, Life, Intelligence. All things tend to cycle and that is why we are now creating with our intelligence and energy new forms of matter, life, and intelligence. So as we see it goes Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence.
As a Panenthiest the only difference between an Atheist and I is that I suggest the cycle did not start from some immense point of energy exploding. It started with the explosion of immense intelligence. An epiphany that is existence. From my view the cycle goes Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->""".
Atheists simply assume step 2 is the beginning.

What does the Big Bang have to do with atheists?
This is where most Athiests stop thinking.

Note: There was no explosion, only a sudden and rapid expansion of space. The name "Big Bang" is a derisory and inaccurate name bestowed by an opponent to the theory.

Sudden Rapid Expansion, just different words for explosion
Your "logical argument" is peurile and based on "all things tend to cycle". Really? The evidence is that the universe tends to increasing entropy and life is a local, temporary exception. Oops.

Yes life, not intteligence
Scientists haven't created biological life from scratch yet. If we ever do create life, it may first be artificial intelligence in a computer system. How does that affect your little fantasy?

Give it time. So far the closest we have come is an entirely man made set of DNA inserted into a cell membrane. Give it another 100 years. Also "Artificial" intelligence is simply intelligence without the need for life, think back to step 1.

Could you also explain the step Intelligence->Energy? Remember that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We're all ears.

My intelligence allows me to manipulate, energy. I simply suggest energy is the product of intelligence. We are within the mind of God. A thought.

Psalm 139
17: How precious to me are thy thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 9:45:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 7:19:04 AM, Envisage wrote:
The ignorance displayed in this debate regarding Big Bang cosmology is quite astonishing. And the fact that everyone in this thread is talking as if they know things to good certainty is pretty much a joke.

If you don't know what 'expansion' and 'big bang' are, then why the hell are you trying to make arguments based on Big Bang Cosmology? That's like trying to talk about the chemistry of water without knowing what hydrogen and oxygen atoms are. It simply cannot be done.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 9:56:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 7:52:13 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 2/11/2015 10:10:56 PM, drpiek wrote:
Atheists suggest that intelligent life occurred from this path. A singularity of energy exploded, that energy became matter, matter became life, life became intelligent. In essence Energy, Matter, Life, Intelligence. All things tend to cycle and that is why we are now creating with our intelligence and energy new forms of matter, life, and intelligence. So as we see it goes Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence.
As a Panenthiest the only difference between an Atheist and I is that I suggest the cycle did not start from some immense point of energy exploding. It started with the explosion of immense intelligence. An epiphany that is existence. From my view the cycle goes Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->""".
Atheists simply assume step 2 is the beginning.

Matter is only an illusion and so is time and space. The mind of God is a beautiful thing for those of us who understand how we were created.

In other words, you are saying that you are god, and that we, the people you are trying to convince, do not exist...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 9:58:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 9:56:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 2/12/2015 7:52:13 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 2/11/2015 10:10:56 PM, drpiek wrote:
Atheists suggest that intelligent life occurred from this path. A singularity of energy exploded, that energy became matter, matter became life, life became intelligent. In essence Energy, Matter, Life, Intelligence. All things tend to cycle and that is why we are now creating with our intelligence and energy new forms of matter, life, and intelligence. So as we see it goes Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence.
As a Panenthiest the only difference between an Atheist and I is that I suggest the cycle did not start from some immense point of energy exploding. It started with the explosion of immense intelligence. An epiphany that is existence. From my view the cycle goes Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->""".
Atheists simply assume step 2 is the beginning.

Matter is only an illusion and so is time and space. The mind of God is a beautiful thing for those of us who understand how we were created.

In other words, you are saying that you are god, and that we, the people you are trying to convince, do not exist...

We exist as characters in a dream that God planned and created called Eternal Life.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 10:00:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 10:10:56 PM, drpiek wrote:

As a Panenthiest the only difference between an Atheist and I is that I suggest the cycle did not start from some immense point of energy exploding. It started with the explosion of immense intelligence.

And, your evidence for that is what, exactly?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 10:01:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just to throw it in here, a new hypothesis has been presented that obviates the need for a 'Big Bang' and accounts for universal expansion without dark energy or dark matter. It also posits that the universe itself is eternal and has always been here. It's new, still unproven and undergoing rigorous examination to see if it can be falsified. The originators say that it avoids the apparent conflicts between General Relativity and Quantum Physics so it's a pretty bold step. It will be intriguing to see how it works out and we could have a whole new cosmology if it does stand up under examination.

http://inhabitat.com...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 10:09:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 9:58:31 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 2/12/2015 9:56:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 2/12/2015 7:52:13 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 2/11/2015 10:10:56 PM, drpiek wrote:
Atheists suggest that intelligent life occurred from this path. A singularity of energy exploded, that energy became matter, matter became life, life became intelligent. In essence Energy, Matter, Life, Intelligence. All things tend to cycle and that is why we are now creating with our intelligence and energy new forms of matter, life, and intelligence. So as we see it goes Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence.
As a Panenthiest the only difference between an Atheist and I is that I suggest the cycle did not start from some immense point of energy exploding. It started with the explosion of immense intelligence. An epiphany that is existence. From my view the cycle goes Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->""".
Atheists simply assume step 2 is the beginning.

Matter is only an illusion and so is time and space. The mind of God is a beautiful thing for those of us who understand how we were created.

In other words, you are saying that you are god, and that we, the people you are trying to convince, do not exist...

We exist as characters in a dream that God planned and created called Eternal Life.

Which means that you do not actually exist, and that you make a part of god. Does your god sleep, need to have entertainment, or what?

{35} Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
{36} Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
{37} Or have they the depositories [containing the provision] of your Lord? Or are they the controllers [of them]?
{38} Or have they a stairway [into the heaven] upon which they listen? Then let their listener produce a clear authority.

(Quran 52:35-38)
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 10:15:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 10:09:04 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 2/12/2015 9:58:31 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 2/12/2015 9:56:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 2/12/2015 7:52:13 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 2/11/2015 10:10:56 PM, drpiek wrote:
Atheists suggest that intelligent life occurred from this path. A singularity of energy exploded, that energy became matter, matter became life, life became intelligent. In essence Energy, Matter, Life, Intelligence. All things tend to cycle and that is why we are now creating with our intelligence and energy new forms of matter, life, and intelligence. So as we see it goes Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence.
As a Panenthiest the only difference between an Atheist and I is that I suggest the cycle did not start from some immense point of energy exploding. It started with the explosion of immense intelligence. An epiphany that is existence. From my view the cycle goes Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->""".
Atheists simply assume step 2 is the beginning.

Matter is only an illusion and so is time and space. The mind of God is a beautiful thing for those of us who understand how we were created.

In other words, you are saying that you are god, and that we, the people you are trying to convince, do not exist...

We exist as characters in a dream that God planned and created called Eternal Life.

Which means that you do not actually exist, and that you make a part of god. Does your god sleep, need to have entertainment, or what?

{35} Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
{36} Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
{37} Or have they the depositories [containing the provision] of your Lord? Or are they the controllers [of them]?
{38} Or have they a stairway [into the heaven] upon which they listen? Then let their listener produce a clear authority.

(Quran 52:35-38)

You're only one of His characters, too.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 10:28:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Bump - sig change.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 10:29:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 10:10:56 PM, drpiek wrote:
Atheists suggest that intelligent life occurred from this path. A singularity of energy exploded, that energy became matter, matter became life, life became intelligent. In essence Energy, Matter, Life, Intelligence. All things tend to cycle and that is why we are now creating with our intelligence and energy new forms of matter, life, and intelligence. So as we see it goes Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence.
As a Panenthiest the only difference between an Atheist and I is that I suggest the cycle did not start from some immense point of energy exploding. It started with the explosion of immense intelligence. An epiphany that is existence. From my view the cycle goes Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->""".
Atheists simply assume step 2 is the beginning.
Please present your views for peer-review. You are wasting a lot of people's times in your distorted understanding of scientific theories. Intelligence is non material. You are confusing intelligence with the material world.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 12:31:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 10:29:26 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/11/2015 10:10:56 PM, drpiek wrote:
Atheists suggest that intelligent life occurred from this path. A singularity of energy exploded, that energy became matter, matter became life, life became intelligent. In essence Energy, Matter, Life, Intelligence. All things tend to cycle and that is why we are now creating with our intelligence and energy new forms of matter, life, and intelligence. So as we see it goes Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence.
As a Panenthiest the only difference between an Atheist and I is that I suggest the cycle did not start from some immense point of energy exploding. It started with the explosion of immense intelligence. An epiphany that is existence. From my view the cycle goes Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->""".
Atheists simply assume step 2 is the beginning.
Please present your views for peer-review. You are wasting a lot of people's times in your distorted understanding of scientific theories. Intelligence is non material. You are confusing intelligence with the material world.

You are reading what I said wrong. My position is that the material comes from intelligence. Not the other way around.
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 3:48:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ignoring the whole of the arguing I just would like to say that the "Big Bang" would not have made a bang. There is no air in space and so there was no sound....just saying.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 4:34:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 10:10:56 PM, drpiek wrote:
Atheists suggest that intelligent life occurred from this path. A singularity of energy exploded, that energy became matter, matter became life, life became intelligent. In essence Energy, Matter, Life, Intelligence. All things tend to cycle and that is why we are now creating with our intelligence and energy new forms of matter, life, and intelligence. So as we see it goes Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->Intelligence.
As a Panenthiest the only difference between an Atheist and I is that I suggest the cycle did not start from some immense point of energy exploding. It started with the explosion of immense intelligence. An epiphany that is existence. From my view the cycle goes Intelligence-> Energy->Matter->Life->""".
Atheists simply assume step 2 is the beginning.

I'm pretty sure not all atheists subscribe to the big bang. Why would intelligence be a part of it? Is matter and energy required to be intelligent to exist?
You can call me Mark if you like.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 9:47:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 7:49:30 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 2/12/2015 7:14:28 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/12/2015 6:55:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
To summarize what I gathered from our dear Atheist friend (a quiet amusing psychological journey);

Starting with an ad hom. How civil of you.

Interesting that you are decrying a negative statement I never made. I wonder why.

No, an "amusing psychological journey" was meant as a compliment. You couldn't lie straight in bed.

he doesn't know what eternal entity initiated the expansion of the universe,

There's nothing quite like assuming your conclusion. Lol.

Especially if the assumption is causality, Aka. one of the principle of logic, Mr. beginningless casual chain.

Assuming your conclusion is still a fallacy. Try applying some actual logic instead of making it up as you go along. Causality requires time. Time is a property of the universe. Trying to apply causality to the origin of the universe is obviously a fallacy.

he is not willing to philosophically analyze the entity's nature,

I don't analyze the nature of entities that can't be shown to exist.

Oooh! Interesting. Please provide an argument that He can't be shown to exist, ...

No such argument is needed. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim of existence, as I said above.

... all arguments for God's existence are false be default without even analyzing them, and prove that Hilbert's hotel paradox (the first cause is not eternal) is not a paradox while you are at it.

Please, you are obviously getting quite desperate now when you stray so far off-topic.

but he definitely knows that the entity is random and has zero-IQ.

Putting words into someone else's mouth? That's a new low for you.

Yeah, what you call falling from space into a bottomless pit.
So you are saying that I am wrong in my analysis and you acknowledge that the universe is by design is a possibility. Please provide reasons why you think the universe popping up randomly by a mysterious zero-IQ entity, you have yet to name, is a more probable possibility.

I repeat. Desist from putting words in my mouth and stay on topic. Is that at all possible for you?

Also, can you tell me which one requires more intelligence:

http://skywalker.cochise.edu...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Who cares? Get back on-topic.

He believes a collection of atoms in semiconductors can produce inherent actual intelligence and spark life without being programmed to emulate reactions from humans (who are, wait for it,... intelligence beings). Meaning that there will be computers committing suicide, feeling lonely and trying to communicate with other computers, shutting down in your face in a tempter tantrum, etc. yikes!
Sorry to break it to you, but artificial intelligence and computer systems are constructed by beings endowed with rational insight, in other words they are an extension of the rationality of their users and designers, and they have no understanding of the computations they make. They are intelligent in the same way a TV is entertaining or informative.

Did I at any time say that artificial intelligence had been achieved yet? Your ridicule has been wasted on a strawman. But don't let that stop you. Lol.

You are the one who proposed AI as a new synthetic lifeforms, I provided reasons why this propositions is more than likely impossible.

Liar. You didn't provide one single reason. It was all an argument from incredulity. Artificial intelligence is not about creating an analogue of the human mind as you naively seem to imagine in your ignorance. In fact, rudimentary AI systems are already in widespread use:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

On a side note, I would like to dismiss your assertion that assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, as that assertion is without evidence. Needless to say, I will act smug and act as if I need to provide no reasons for my beliefs and claims.

We've been through this before and you had egg on your face then. If you believe the rule is not valid, then applying it in order to invalidate the rule is an obvious failure in logic. Would you like another egg?

Lol, I just demonstrated that the rule self-refutes itself, therefore it is invalid. Dismissing (pun intended) that fact and defending the self-destructive rule shows the proverbial rotten egg landfill you live in.

If we assume the rule is valid: The rule becomes invalid.
If we assume the rule is invalid: The rule is still invalid.
Conclusion: There is no possibility other than the rule being invalid.

But hey, what can I say? Desperate Atheism-inspired anti-logic.

The only thing you have demonstrated is how foolish you are. Not only is your intellect so lacking that you can't spot your own logical fallacy, but when it is pointed out to you, you persist. That makes you doubly foolish.

Hitchen's Rule (HR): An assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The only way you can show that HR is invalid is to assume its validity and apply it to itself. That's not logic, that's farce.
LMAO.
More LMAO.
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 1:05:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm done with the religion section.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
Gentorev
Posts: 2,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 1:23:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 5:55:37 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/12/2015 4:55:37 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Returning to the topic: I googled this up for you mob:

This universe was born about 14 billion years ago. That means that we can only see the stars and galaxies whose light has taken less than 14 billion years to reach us.

Yes.

The Light from objects that are more than 14 billion light years away has not as yet reached us, the light from those objects is still on its way.

No. Remember that the universe was much smaller in the past and galaxies were closer together. For that reason, the event horizon has a radius of about 46 billion light years at present.

The consequences of this is that we can only see a portion of the universe. We call it the "Observable universe". And the observable universe is surrounded by it"s horizon. It"s pretty much like the horizon at sea. Just as we know there"s more sea over the horizon, we know there"s more of the Universe over it"s horizon,

Yes.

How much? Well according to the standard picture which is called "Inflation", there is an infinite amount. So imagine the observable universe is like a soap bubble. Well, beyond the edge of it, there are an infinite number of soap bubbles.

Not necessarily. It depends on the topology of the universe.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com...

All of them would have had a "Big Bang", and in all of them different galaxies and stars would have congealed out of the cooling debris of the "Big Bang" fireball. In short, they would all have different histories.

Unwarranted speculation given that the topology (not geometry) of the universe is not known.

The question should have been: "What actually went Bang in the Big Bangs; (Plural)

No.

dee-em wrote..........No. Remember that the universe was much smaller in the past and galaxies were closer together. For that reason, the event horizon has a radius of about 46 billion light years at present.

Gentorev.............Are you saying that we can see heavenly objects that are 46 billion light years away from earth?
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 1:32:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/13/2015 1:23:00 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/12/2015 5:55:37 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/12/2015 4:55:37 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Returning to the topic: I googled this up for you mob:

This universe was born about 14 billion years ago. That means that we can only see the stars and galaxies whose light has taken less than 14 billion years to reach us.

Yes.

The Light from objects that are more than 14 billion light years away has not as yet reached us, the light from those objects is still on its way.

No. Remember that the universe was much smaller in the past and galaxies were closer together. For that reason, the event horizon has a radius of about 46 billion light years at present.

The consequences of this is that we can only see a portion of the universe. We call it the "Observable universe". And the observable universe is surrounded by it"s horizon. It"s pretty much like the horizon at sea. Just as we know there"s more sea over the horizon, we know there"s more of the Universe over it"s horizon,

Yes.

How much? Well according to the standard picture which is called "Inflation", there is an infinite amount. So imagine the observable universe is like a soap bubble. Well, beyond the edge of it, there are an infinite number of soap bubbles.

Not necessarily. It depends on the topology of the universe.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com...

All of them would have had a "Big Bang", and in all of them different galaxies and stars would have congealed out of the cooling debris of the "Big Bang" fireball. In short, they would all have different histories.

Unwarranted speculation given that the topology (not geometry) of the universe is not known.

The question should have been: "What actually went Bang in the Big Bangs; (Plural)

No.

dee-em wrote..........No. Remember that the universe was much smaller in the past and galaxies were closer together. For that reason, the event horizon has a radius of about 46 billion light years at present.

Gentorev.............Are you saying that we can see heavenly objects that are 46 billion light years away from earth?

Yes. They are 46 billion light years away now but the light from those galaxies was well on its way to us when the universe was much smaller.

Read the link I gave you:

But due to the universe"s expansion, the radius of the observable universe is not 13.8 billion light-years. Current estimates instead set its radius at about 46 billion light-years, an estimate made in co-moving coordinates, which account for the expansion of the universe. As the universe ages, the size of the observable universe will continue to expand. - See more at: http://www.skyandtelescope.com...