Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

[ChemEngineer]

So, Taz, now that we have reduced you to spouting the same mindless slogan over and over again regarding issue number one, let us now move on to issue number two, as science has recently caught up with what the imperatives of logic and mathematics have told us for centuries, namely, that the cosmological order at large cannot be past eternal. The proof is in the pudding, Taz. Taste it. It's simply scrumptious!

To access the original article below, one must subscribe to New Scientist. Fortunately, I saved it to Word in 2012 because it was the very best summary of the matter for the layman I had come across. After you read it, we can systematically review the pre-reviewed proofs I discuss in my article.

Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
by Lisa Grossman
ISSUE 2847
14 January 2012

Excerpt:

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God", Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.​

​

For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. . . .​

​

. . . However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.​

​

His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today.​

​

This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same.​

​

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller 'bubble' universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation.​

​

Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time.​

​

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe.​

​

They found that the equations didn't work. "You can't construct a space-time with this property", says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can’t possibly be eternal in the past", says Vilenkin. "There must be some kind of boundary."​

​

Not everyone subscribes to eternal inflation, however, so the idea of an eternal universe still had a foothold. Another option is a cyclic universe, in which the big bang is not really the beginning but more of a bounce back following a previous collapsed universe. The universe goes through infinite cycles of big bangs and crunches with no specific beginning[. . . .] Yet when he looked at what this would mean for the universe’s disorder, again the figures didn’t add up.​

​

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.​

​

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.​

​

Vilenkin's final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg.​

​

This finally "cracked" to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time. If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed—and therefore also after a finite amount of time.​

​

"This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe", Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."​

Please, I beg you, send me the entire article. I'll pay you for it, Friend.

“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.” – Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work which supported the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. Taylor is a devout Christian.

.

“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” – Albert Einstein

(The Wall Street Journal, Dec 24, 1997, article by Jim Holt, “Science Resurrects God.”)

.

“Atoms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe is also weird, with its laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it passes beyond the scale of our comprehension.”

“Technology is a gift of God. After the gift of life it is perhaps the greatest of God’s gifts. It is the mother of civilizations, of arts and of sciences.”

“You ask: what is the meaning or purpose of life? I can only answer with another question: do you think we are wise enough to read God’s mind?” – Physicist Freeman Dyson. When Einstein died, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson filled the opening by assuming Einstein’s professorship in physics at Princeton University. He is the winner of the 1981 Wolf Prize in Physics, the 1993 Enrico Fermi Award, the 1969 Max Planck Medal, amongst many other awards.

You don't have to pay me for anything. All you need is a Youtube account, then sign in. Then go to my Discussion Page and see "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument".

Use this link after you sign in: "https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion

That link takes one to the comments, not to the lecture you reference.

 

[Ringtone]

So, Taz, now that we have reduced you to spouting the same mindless slogan over and over again regarding issue number one, let us now move on to issue number two, as science has recently caught up with what the imperatives of logic and mathematics have told us for centuries, namely, that the cosmological order at large cannot be past eternal. The proof is in the pudding, Taz. Taste it. It's simply scrumptious!

To access the original article below, one must subscribe to New Scientist. Fortunately, I saved it to Word in 2012 because it was the very best summary of the matter for the layman I had come across. After you read it, we can systematically review the pre-reviewed proofs I discuss in my article.

Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
by Lisa Grossman
ISSUE 2847
14 January 2012

Excerpt:

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God", Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.​

​

For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. . . .​

​

. . . However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.​

​

His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today.​

​

This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same.​

​

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller 'bubble' universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation.​

​

Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time.​

​

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe.​

​

They found that the equations didn't work. "You can't construct a space-time with this property", says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can’t possibly be eternal in the past", says Vilenkin. "There must be some kind of boundary."​

​

Not everyone subscribes to eternal inflation, however, so the idea of an eternal universe still had a foothold. Another option is a cyclic universe, in which the big bang is not really the beginning but more of a bounce back following a previous collapsed universe. The universe goes through infinite cycles of big bangs and crunches with no specific beginning[. . . .] Yet when he looked at what this would mean for the universe’s disorder, again the figures didn’t add up.​

​

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.​

​

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.​

​

Vilenkin's final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg.​

​

This finally "cracked" to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time. If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed—and therefore also after a finite amount of time.​

​

"This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe", Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."​

Please, I beg you, send me the entire article. I'll pay you for it, Friend.

“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.” – Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work which supported the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. Taylor is a devout Christian.

.

“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” – Albert Einstein

(The Wall Street Journal, Dec 24, 1997, article by Jim Holt, “Science Resurrects God.”)

.

“Atoms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe is also weird, with its laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it passes beyond the scale of our comprehension.”

“Technology is a gift of God. After the gift of life it is perhaps the greatest of God’s gifts. It is the mother of civilizations, of arts and of sciences.”

“You ask: what is the meaning or purpose of life? I can only answer with another question: do you think we are wise enough to read God’s mind?” – Physicist Freeman Dyson. When Einstein died, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson filled the opening by assuming Einstein’s professorship in physics at Princeton University. He is the winner of the 1981 Wolf Prize in Physics, the 1993 Enrico Fermi Award, the 1969 Max Planck Medal, amongst many other awards.

You don't have to pay me for anything. All you need is a Youtube account, then sign in. Then go to my Discussion Page and see "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument".

Use this link after you sign in: "https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion

That link takes one to the comments, not to the lecture you reference.

Actually, it's the Discussion Page of my Youtube channel.

First, sign into your Youtube account.

Second, use this link to go to that page on my channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion

Scroll down to see two major header comments entitled:

"A Refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's Sophomoric Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument by Michael Rawlings"

AND

"Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument"

These are responses to videos on Youtube for anyone to read. They are built into the comment format on my discussion page. The 14 and 16 replies respectively are just continuations of the same discussion written by me.

 

[ChemEngineer]

So, Taz, now that we have reduced you to spouting the same mindless slogan over and over again regarding issue number one, let us now move on to issue number two, as science has recently caught up with what the imperatives of logic and mathematics have told us for centuries, namely, that the cosmological order at large cannot be past eternal. The proof is in the pudding, Taz. Taste it. It's simply scrumptious!

To access the original article below, one must subscribe to New Scientist. Fortunately, I saved it to Word in 2012 because it was the very best summary of the matter for the layman I had come across. After you read it, we can systematically review the pre-reviewed proofs I discuss in my article.

Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
by Lisa Grossman
ISSUE 2847
14 January 2012

Excerpt:

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God", Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.​

​

For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. . . .​

​

. . . However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.​

​

His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today.​

​

This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same.​

​

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller 'bubble' universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation.​

​

Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time.​

​

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe.​

​

They found that the equations didn't work. "You can't construct a space-time with this property", says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can’t possibly be eternal in the past", says Vilenkin. "There must be some kind of boundary."​

​

Not everyone subscribes to eternal inflation, however, so the idea of an eternal universe still had a foothold. Another option is a cyclic universe, in which the big bang is not really the beginning but more of a bounce back following a previous collapsed universe. The universe goes through infinite cycles of big bangs and crunches with no specific beginning[. . . .] Yet when he looked at what this would mean for the universe’s disorder, again the figures didn’t add up.​

​

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.​

​

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.​

​

Vilenkin's final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg.​

​

This finally "cracked" to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time. If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed—and therefore also after a finite amount of time.​

​

"This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe", Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."​

Please, I beg you, send me the entire article. I'll pay you for it, Friend.

“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.” – Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work which supported the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. Taylor is a devout Christian.

.

“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” – Albert Einstein

(The Wall Street Journal, Dec 24, 1997, article by Jim Holt, “Science Resurrects God.”)

.

“Atoms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe is also weird, with its laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it passes beyond the scale of our comprehension.”

“Technology is a gift of God. After the gift of life it is perhaps the greatest of God’s gifts. It is the mother of civilizations, of arts and of sciences.”

“You ask: what is the meaning or purpose of life? I can only answer with another question: do you think we are wise enough to read God’s mind?” – Physicist Freeman Dyson. When Einstein died, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson filled the opening by assuming Einstein’s professorship in physics at Princeton University. He is the winner of the 1981 Wolf Prize in Physics, the 1993 Enrico Fermi Award, the 1969 Max Planck Medal, amongst many other awards.

You don't have to pay me for anything. All you need is a Youtube account, then sign in. Then go to my Discussion Page and see "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument".

Use this link after you sign in: "https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion

That link takes one to the comments, not to the lecture you reference.

Actually, it's the Discussion Page of my Youtube channel.

First, sign into your Youtube account.

Second, use this link to go to that page on my channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion

Scroll down to see two major header comments entitled:

"A Refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's Sophomoric Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument by Michael Rawlings"

AND

"Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument"

These are responses to videos on Youtube for anyone to read. They are built into the comment format on my discussion page. The 14 and 16 replies respectively are just continuations of the same discussion written by me.

I'm at your link now, 11:33 AM PDT

 

[Ringtone]

So, Taz, now that we have reduced you to spouting the same mindless slogan over and over again regarding issue number one, let us now move on to issue number two, as science has recently caught up with what the imperatives of logic and mathematics have told us for centuries, namely, that the cosmological order at large cannot be past eternal. The proof is in the pudding, Taz. Taste it. It's simply scrumptious!

To access the original article below, one must subscribe to New Scientist. Fortunately, I saved it to Word in 2012 because it was the very best summary of the matter for the layman I had come across. After you read it, we can systematically review the pre-reviewed proofs I discuss in my article.

Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
by Lisa Grossman
ISSUE 2847
14 January 2012

Excerpt:

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God", Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.​

​

For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. . . .​

​

. . . However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.​

​

His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today.​

​

This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same.​

​

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller 'bubble' universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation.​

​

Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time.​

​

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe.​

​

They found that the equations didn't work. "You can't construct a space-time with this property", says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can’t possibly be eternal in the past", says Vilenkin. "There must be some kind of boundary."​

​

Not everyone subscribes to eternal inflation, however, so the idea of an eternal universe still had a foothold. Another option is a cyclic universe, in which the big bang is not really the beginning but more of a bounce back following a previous collapsed universe. The universe goes through infinite cycles of big bangs and crunches with no specific beginning[. . . .] Yet when he looked at what this would mean for the universe’s disorder, again the figures didn’t add up.​

​

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.​

​

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.​

​

Vilenkin's final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg.​

​

This finally "cracked" to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time. If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed—and therefore also after a finite amount of time.​

​

"This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe", Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."​

Please, I beg you, send me the entire article. I'll pay you for it, Friend.

“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.” – Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work which supported the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. Taylor is a devout Christian.

.

“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” – Albert Einstein

(The Wall Street Journal, Dec 24, 1997, article by Jim Holt, “Science Resurrects God.”)

.

“Atoms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe is also weird, with its laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it passes beyond the scale of our comprehension.”

“Technology is a gift of God. After the gift of life it is perhaps the greatest of God’s gifts. It is the mother of civilizations, of arts and of sciences.”

“You ask: what is the meaning or purpose of life? I can only answer with another question: do you think we are wise enough to read God’s mind?” – Physicist Freeman Dyson. When Einstein died, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson filled the opening by assuming Einstein’s professorship in physics at Princeton University. He is the winner of the 1981 Wolf Prize in Physics, the 1993 Enrico Fermi Award, the 1969 Max Planck Medal, amongst many other awards.

You don't have to pay me for anything. All you need is a Youtube account, then sign in. Then go to my Discussion Page and see "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument".

Use this link after you sign in: "https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion

That link takes one to the comments, not to the lecture you reference.

Actually, it's the Discussion Page of my Youtube channel.

First, sign into your Youtube account.

Second, use this link to go to that page on my channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion

Scroll down to see two major header comments entitled:

"A Refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's Sophomoric Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument by Michael Rawlings"

AND

"Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument"

These are responses to videos on Youtube for anyone to read. They are built into the comment format on my discussion page. The 14 and 16 replies respectively are just continuations of the same discussion written by me.

I'm at your link now, 11:33 AM PDT

Scroll down to "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument"

Then click on "Read more" in the very same comment.

 

[Ringtone]

So, Taz, now that we have reduced you to spouting the same mindless slogan over and over again regarding issue number one, let us now move on to issue number two, as science has recently caught up with what the imperatives of logic and mathematics have told us for centuries, namely, that the cosmological order at large cannot be past eternal. The proof is in the pudding, Taz. Taste it. It's simply scrumptious!

To access the original article below, one must subscribe to New Scientist. Fortunately, I saved it to Word in 2012 because it was the very best summary of the matter for the layman I had come across. After you read it, we can systematically review the pre-reviewed proofs I discuss in my article.

Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
by Lisa Grossman
ISSUE 2847
14 January 2012

Excerpt:

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God", Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.​

​

For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. . . .​

​

. . . However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.​

​

His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today.​

​

This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same.​

​

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller 'bubble' universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation.​

​

Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time.​

​

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe.​

​

They found that the equations didn't work. "You can't construct a space-time with this property", says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can’t possibly be eternal in the past", says Vilenkin. "There must be some kind of boundary."​

​

Not everyone subscribes to eternal inflation, however, so the idea of an eternal universe still had a foothold. Another option is a cyclic universe, in which the big bang is not really the beginning but more of a bounce back following a previous collapsed universe. The universe goes through infinite cycles of big bangs and crunches with no specific beginning[. . . .] Yet when he looked at what this would mean for the universe’s disorder, again the figures didn’t add up.​

​

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.​

​

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.​

​

Vilenkin's final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg.​

​

This finally "cracked" to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time. If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed—and therefore also after a finite amount of time.​

​

"This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe", Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."​

Please, I beg you, send me the entire article. I'll pay you for it, Friend.

“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.” – Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work which supported the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. Taylor is a devout Christian.

.

“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” – Albert Einstein

(The Wall Street Journal, Dec 24, 1997, article by Jim Holt, “Science Resurrects God.”)

.

“Atoms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe is also weird, with its laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it passes beyond the scale of our comprehension.”

“Technology is a gift of God. After the gift of life it is perhaps the greatest of God’s gifts. It is the mother of civilizations, of arts and of sciences.”

“You ask: what is the meaning or purpose of life? I can only answer with another question: do you think we are wise enough to read God’s mind?” – Physicist Freeman Dyson. When Einstein died, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson filled the opening by assuming Einstein’s professorship in physics at Princeton University. He is the winner of the 1981 Wolf Prize in Physics, the 1993 Enrico Fermi Award, the 1969 Max Planck Medal, amongst many other awards.

You don't have to pay me for anything. All you need is a Youtube account, then sign in. Then go to my Discussion Page and see "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument".

Use this link after you sign in: "https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion

That link takes one to the comments, not to the lecture you reference.

Actually, it's the Discussion Page of my Youtube channel.

First, sign into your Youtube account.

Second, use this link to go to that page on my channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion

Scroll down to see two major header comments entitled:

"A Refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's Sophomoric Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument by Michael Rawlings"

AND

"Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument"

These are responses to videos on Youtube for anyone to read. They are built into the comment format on my discussion page. The 14 and 16 replies respectively are just continuations of the same discussion written by me.

I'm at your link now, 11:33 AM PDT

Scroll down to "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument"

Then click on "Read more" in the very same comment.

Note that at the end of the first comment (the title comment), it tells you "Continued in reply below".

 

[seaofnails]

It is such a shame that a grown capable man wants to take from women and pretend to - take the place of a woman.

Women who are career mothers and even future potential mothers have a special, important role in the tax bracketing system and in the family.

Gays do not produce or bear children.

The woman's body is specifically wonderfully designed and specialized and made designed, created and set up - specifically for the miracle of conception, growth, development, and birth of making a little baby. - REPRODUCTION.

And the gay community ignores the fact that women's bodies are set up and designed differently than a man's body.

Women are not comfortable and served in their capacity by working the many, many type labor jobs of males

and the Gay community knows this.

The Gay community still demands that they have the right to marry other males and have the tax breaks and privileges of a Woman and a marriage situation.

Women's bodies are much different from the body of a male - yet Gays believe that if they close their eyes and simply pretend that they are effeminate - then they deserve the tax credits and funding that is duly / truely deserved and reserved for a real female.

It is obvious that homosexuals have an eternal hatred, depreciation, disdain and total disregard, and disrespect for the female sex.

Woman = no value and no worth - in the eyes of the homosexual,

 

[surada]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Are you referring to muslims who punish homosexuality with death and sexually mutilate little girls?

There is no death penalty for homosexuality in Islam. FGM is not an Islamic practice.. and it is rare in the Gulf States.. Although it is illegal in Egypt, it is still practiced in some rural areas. Mostly it comes out of East Africa.

 

[surada]

It is such a shame that a grown capable man wants to take from women and pretend to - take the place of a woman.

Women who are career mothers and even future potential mothers have a special, important role in the tax bracketing system and in the family.

Gays do not produce or bear children.

The woman's body is specifically wonderfully designed and specialized and made designed, created and set up - specifically for the miracle of conception, growth, development, and birth of making a little baby. - REPRODUCTION.

And the gay community ignores the fact that women's bodies are set up and designed differently than a man's body.

Women are not comfortable and served in their capacity by working the many, many type labor jobs of males

and the Gay community knows this.

The Gay community still demands that they have the right to marry other males and have the tax breaks and privileges of a Woman and a marriage situation.

Women's bodies are much different from the body of a male - yet Gays believe that if they close their eyes and simply pretend that they are effeminate - then they deserve the tax credits and funding that is duly / truely deserved and reserved for a real female.

It is obvious that homosexuals have an eternal hatred, depreciation, disdain and total disregard, and disrespect for the female sex.

Woman = no value and no worth - in the eyes of the homosexual,

Your opinion is very interesting. It seems that a lot of Rabbis and Clergy have taken this matter into consideration based on scripture and decided that God made homosexuals too.

Have YOU been disrespected by any homosexuals? I haven't.

 

[seaofnails]

This is true about homosexuality - in Islam.

The Quran never comes out directly and says that homosexuality is wrong or sinful and demands no consequences or punishment for homosexuality activity.

The Quran is very giving and wishy-washy about homosexuality and simply calls homosexuals

" an excessive people. "

In Islam, homosexuality is simply nothing more but a sexual pleasure than is excessive or over the top as if { " someone is drinking excessive amounts of brandy" }

In the Quran, homosexuality is = overindulgent, unrestrained, uncontrolled, lavish and extravagant. ------- And in Islam, homosexuality is like drinking too much or just overdoing something.

In the Quran , homosexuality is an indulgence

Quran 7:80. And Lot, when he said to his people, "Do you commit lewdness no people anywhere have ever committed before you?" ____ 81. "You lust after men rather than women. You are an excessive people."

But again, no problem for the Quran - just cough, smile, and look the other way - there is an excessive person nearby who is obscene.

Ooh well. ! You notice that the Quran records Lot as having made the statement that homosexuality was lewd and an excessive act. However, the Quran never addresses the subject of homosexuality.

We find in his life story - how Mohammud dealt with homosexuality.

Here Mohammad finds out that a homosexual has a younger slave boy that He has been keeping as a sexual partner and has been having sex with this boy.

When Mohammad found out that the homosexual slave owner has given this young boy his freedom -

Mohammad then kidnaps and Re - Captures this young boy. who has been given His freedom - and Mohammad sells him in an auction - to another SLAVE TRADER - = called - Na-eem Ebn Abdullah - Al Nahham. And Mohammad takes the money and goes his way.

{ Sahid Al Bukhari 8:821 - 822. } - Also { Sahid Al Bukhari 1 # 662. and vol 9. # 256 }

In one instance, a man freed a slave that he kept as a sexual partner. When Mohammed heard what happened, he

auctioned the boy and sold him for 800 derhams to Na-eem Ebn Abdullah Al- Nahham. (Sahih Moslem vol. 7, page 83)."

Why Muslims today do not like gays - we do not know why.
there is nothing in the teaching of Islam that condemns homosexuality.

 

[seaofnails]

Hello - surada

Thank you for responding to me, I really enjoyed reading your post.

This is so true, what you say, in fact, the majority of Roman Catholic Priests and Clergy around the world are pro-homosexual and pro-gay marriage.

Pope Francis recently said he supports legalizing civil unions for gay couples ...

U.S. Catholics Have Backed Same-Sex Marriage Since 2011

While Pope Francis' comments supporting same sex civil unions were a drastic shift in Catholic church guidance, U.S. Catholics have supported gay marriage for about a decade.

news.gallup.com

However, based on scripture, we find that homosexuals will have no place in heaven - God has banished all homosexuals from entering into heaven.

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

To say - that God has MADE a homosexual, this is no different than saying that God made someone drink themselves to death or shoot up too many drugs and blow their heart out.

Or to say - God created a murderer or God created a prostitute or a child molester or a theif. all of these acts are prohibited in the Bible and an abomination and sin.

I have been disrespected by a homosexual before and every time a homosexual demands that they receive taxpayer funding for having sexual relations with another man, this is disrespectful and thievery against every married woman.

 

[surada]

Hello - surada

Thank you for responding to me, I really enjoyed reading your post.

This is so true, what you say, in fact, the majority of Roman Catholic Priests and Clergy around the world are pro-homosexual and pro-gay marriage.

Pope Francis recently said he supports legalizing civil unions for gay couples ...

U.S. Catholics Have Backed Same-Sex Marriage Since 2011

While Pope Francis' comments supporting same sex civil unions were a drastic shift in Catholic church guidance, U.S. Catholics have supported gay marriage for about a decade.

news.gallup.com

However, based on scripture, we find that homosexuals will have no place in heaven - God has banished all homosexuals from entering into heaven.

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

To say - that God has MADE a homosexual, this is no different than saying that God made someone drink themselves to death or shoot up too many drugs and blow their heart out.

Or to say - God created a murderer or God created a prostitute or a child molester or a theif. all of these acts are prohibited in the Bible and an abomination and sin.

I have been disrespected by a homosexual before and every time a homosexual demands that they receive taxpayer funding for having sexual relations with another man, this is disrespectful and thievery against every married woman.

Sodom an Gomorrah isn't about homosexuality.. and by the time Lot and Abraham came along the cities of the plain were long gone.

 

[seaofnails]

I agree that Sodom and Gomorrah were not ONLY about homosexuality.

This is really clear in the Biblical description, we see a city that was filled with prostitution and sexual immorality

The Prophet Ezekiel tells us more about it

Eze 16:15 You played the harlot ..... and poured out thy fornications on every one that passed by; :32 But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!

:33 they may come unto thee on every side for thy whoredom.
:34 You are in thy whoredoms
:35 Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the LORD:
:36 thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers


:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

There were many things that were evil about Sodom and Gomorrah - one of the main problems that Lot had was caused by Lot keeping company with his nephew Abraham.

The citizens of Sodom felt that the family lifestyle of Abraham and the way that he conducted his family life was something that incriminated Abraham, The Sodomites felt that Abrahams marriage and family lifestyle had broken the laws of their moral standards, and the punishment for this was taking Abraham and his family out in the streets and gang-raping them into conversion.

I believe that the Sodomites believed that it was some of Abraham's family that had come to visit Lot's home and the prostitutes and pimps in Sodom were very displeased and enraged with Abraham and Sarah marriage lifestyle.