Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Agent.Tom]

No, I believe a logical person would read genesis and conclude immediately based on known scientific facts that either the story is complete bull or it is an allegorical story that coveys hidden meaning.

I grow tired of your ad hobelim attacks.

You might as well have tattooed a big penis on your forehead.

Wow. Did you miss the pun and the razz smiley, or, are you just that sensitive?

 

[hobelim]

I grow tired of your ad hobelim attacks.

You might as well have tattooed a big penis on your forehead.

Wow. Did you miss the pun and the razz smiley, or, are you just that sensitive?

lol, no I noticed how clever and cute and good natured it all was right away....

as I said.......

 

[Agent.Tom]

You might as well have tattooed a big penis on your forehead.

Wow. Did you miss the pun and the razz smiley, or, are you just that sensitive?

lol, no I noticed how clever and cute and good natured it all was right away....

as I said.......

I genuinely was trying to insert a little humor but I guess it was a bad idea since you don't know me. My apologies.

As far as your assertion goes that any logical person would immediately dispense with the Genesis account; you fail to recognize the possibility that someone can be a believer and still deal with the bible in a logical manner. Once (and this I understand isn't possible, given your position) you get past the idea that a Being created all this.... then nothing is impossible when it comes to what that Creator can do. A tree that bears fruit which, when eaten, gives someone new knowledge? Well, that's actually pretty low on the scale of miracles provided in the bible.

Take an honest step outside this discussion and pretend you are a computer programmer (assuming you are not). If you could write a program that creates a virtual universe -- do you think it would then somehow be impossible for you to create a virtual tree that provides knowledge to someone who eats from it? Expand that thought outward. Is there anything you could not accomplish in this reality you have created? Talking snakes and donkeys? No problem. Parting the waters of the Red Sea? Piece o' cake.

 

[Boss]

I love it, the idiot who professed that protons and neutrons revolve around atoms like planets around the sun is telling Einstein he knows nothing about general relativity.

Again, I did not "profess" any such thing. I gave an analogy of how the pattern we see in microscopes regarding atoms is very similar to the patterns we see in planetary systems across the universe, and that point remains perfectly valid. I incorrectly stated the order of nomenclature, which I admitted just as soon as it was pointed out, when I was incorrectly accused of being a "molecular biologist." Since then, this empty-headed idiot, who hasn't made ANY valid point in this entire thread, has decided that he will continue to repeat this "professed" line over and over again, in order to ridicule. I never "professed" anything, I presented an analogy and was incorrect about order, and admitted I was wrong immediately. Apparently, being incorrect and immediately admitting you are wrong, is now an indication of idiocy. This is the point Ed seems to be determined to make, as much as he can. Of course, it's the ONLY point he has had ANY basis for in the entire thread, so I guess we can cut him some slack.

As for the "Big Crunch" theory, you could have saved yourself a lot of time explaining it, and simply posted "WE DON'T KNOW", as you repeatedly pointed out in the explanation itself. You see, for us non-idiots, whenever we "don't know" something, we don't have a problem admitting it, we come right out and say that "we don't know" and we don't run around acting as if we really DO know.

Regardless, the universe is simply not contracting. Theories that it will one day stop expanding and begin to contract, are not based in physics or math. It is a speculative guess. The really cool thing about it is, humans will probably never exist long enough to witness it happen, if it ever does. Armed with this detail, morons like Ed are confidently running around proclaiming this is "proven science" and can't be disputed.

 

[Ha3mme8tt]

So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!

 

[Boss]

That's my point. PEOPLE who claim to believe scripture read genesis and wrongly think the story is about the creation of the universe, even though scientific discoveries make the literal interpretation of that story impossible to be true and a complete contradiction of known truths.

according to some PEOPLE believing the story is a literal depiction of the creation of the universe is a required belief foundational to salvation even though such an assertion is false.

Nothing in science makes the creation story impossible. You have to apply a literal interpretation and relegate God to physical limitations, in order to even assume that something doesn't conform to science.

My personal beliefs don't involve "salvation" so I can't tell you about religions who do or don't believe salvation hinges on belief in the creation story from a totally literal perspective. But I do know and have known, quite a few Christians, and none of the ones I know, believe the creation story is intended literally or that you have to believe in a literal interpretation in order to receive salvation. Most of the Christians I am aware of, believe that salvation depends on whether you accept Jesus Christ as the living son of God, who died on the cross for your sins.

Now... there IS the possibility, the creation story of the bible, was written by some moron like Ed, who simply presented it as if it were a proven fact, when it was only a speculative theory at best? Because... who was around to record this story as it unfolded? The Bible tells us the story through the eyes of God. This, in itself, means the story is our imagination, divinely inspired or not. No one was here to witness these events except God. Does the modern scientific validity of the literal interpretation, have anything to do with the question of spiritual existence? Not the least bit.

Interesting side note to the question of the "creation story" in the bible. When God punished Adam and Eve, he sent them out to "replenish" the Earth. Think about what "replenish" means... were there people before Adam and Eve? Is the biblical account of God's creation of man, the original creation of man, or merely the re-creation of man in God's image? Read it carefully, it can be interpreted as such.

Perhaps man had existed in a more uncivilized sense, a part of nature like everything else, cousins to the monkeys, etc.. and this Spiritual Force intervened to bestow man with spiritual understanding, which sparked humanity? This would explain one of the biggest flubs in the story, who did the children of Adam and Eve get with? Well, the Christians will jump in with their opinions to explain this, but why wouldn't the Bible explain it? I mean, of you were writing a novel, this would be a critical omission in the story line, don't you agree? This leads me to believe the creation story in the bible, at least the way it is interpreted by modern Christians, is not exactly accurate or clear, even in a metaphoric sense.

It still doesn't nullify human spirituality.

 

[edthecynic]

Isn't it curious, we find atoms, the smallest thing in the universe we can see... and they are orbited by little round protons, neutrons, and electrons. Then we can go to the most powerful telescopes and as far out into the universe as we can look, we see small suns, orbited by planets and planets orbited by moons... a pattern. Big Bangs do not create patterns, they create chaos. This is a testable hypothesis. So what can be the physical science explanation for pattern, order, logic, where we should find chaos?

Spiritual energy.

And this scientific ignoramus claims to be a MOLECULAR biologist. Before you can understand the structure of a molecule, you must understand the structure of the atom, especially the electrons which are the key to how atoms combine into molecules. This idiot thinks protons and neutrons are in orbit!

Atoms are made up of protons neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons do not orbit an atom, they make up the nucleus of an atom. Electrons orbit the nucleus.

The universe IS chaotic!!! Something in the universe is smashing into something else constantly. The universe is a Perpetual Commotion Machine.

Uhm.. I never claimed to be a molecular biologist, I think that was YWC.

Maybe he can explain the atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons thing better than I? The point is still, from the smallest things to the farthest reaching things, our universe has pattern of design. Now.... Go and blow up ANYTHING... and see what results?

Pattern or Chaos?

And that point is still wrong because as was pointed out, the universe is chaotic. You are simply pontificating that chaos is a pattern. Blow something up and you set it in motion. The universe is in motion with something colliding into something else due to that chaotic motion. For short periods you might observe some gravitational patterns to the objects in chaotic motion, but the patterns never last. Chaos wins out in the end.

What is a "short period of time" in relation to the universe and physical existence? What we observe, from the smallest atom to the farthest planetary system, is similarity of pattern. i.e.; design. Even the chaotic events in the universe are predictable, because physics has order, it isn't random. You simply can't argue that "chaos wins out in the end" because we've not reached "the end" of time yet. According to Dorito, the universe doesn't have a beginning or end, so how can chaos win out in the end?

You seem to think that if you repeat your erroneous pontification that by your almighty authority it is declared to be true.

The most common pattern in the universe is the vortex. In no atom, from the smallest to the largest, do the electrons orbit in a vortex. So your bullshit breaks down immediately no matter how much you pontificate.

And as was pointed out, while the universe has no beginning or end, TIME does. In time, all the chaotic matter in the universe will have collided into one universal unstable compressed mass that will again go bang and time will begin again.

And this is a wonderful little fairy tale that science and physics doesn't support.

I love how a pompous idiot who thinks protons and neutrons rotate around an atom acts like he knows what science and physics support. One of the three possible fates of the universe is the "Big Crunch" I described above in layman's terms for a simpleton like you.

Wow.... what an intelligently designed and ingenious system of function!

Hmmmm.......

I love it, the idiot who professed that protons and neutrons revolve around atoms like planets around the sun is telling Einstein he knows nothing about general relativity.

Again, I did not "profess" any such thing. I gave an analogy of how the pattern we see in microscopes regarding atoms is very similar to the patterns we see in planetary systems across the universe, and that point remains perfectly valid. I incorrectly stated the order of nomenclature, which I admitted just as soon as it was pointed out, when I was incorrectly accused of being a "molecular biologist." Since then, this empty-headed idiot, who hasn't made ANY valid point in this entire thread, has decided that he will continue to repeat this "professed" line over and over again, in order to ridicule. I never "professed" anything, I presented an analogy and was incorrect about order, and admitted I was wrong immediately. Apparently, being incorrect and immediately admitting you are wrong, is now an indication of idiocy. This is the point Ed seems to be determined to make, as much as he can. Of course, it's the ONLY point he has had ANY basis for in the entire thread, so I guess we can cut him some slack.

As for the "Big Crunch" theory, you could have saved yourself a lot of time explaining it, and simply posted "WE DON'T KNOW", as you repeatedly pointed out in the explanation itself. You see, for us non-idiots, whenever we "don't know" something, we don't have a problem admitting it, we come right out and say that "we don't know" and we don't run around acting as if we really DO know.

Regardless, the universe is simply not contracting. Theories that it will one day stop expanding and begin to contract, are not based in physics or math. It is a speculative guess. The really cool thing about it is, humans will probably never exist long enough to witness it happen, if it ever does. Armed with this detail, morons like Ed are confidently running around proclaiming this is "proven science" and can't be disputed.

First of all, you never admitted you were wrong, you merely repeated your planetary model every time including this last post. You say that claiming the whole atom is orbited by its parts is simply an order problem and not a fundamental concept problem, but it is as fundamentally wrong as your planetary model for the orbits of the electrons around the nucleus. You probably saw an illustration of an atom with a flat orbital layout and saw planets around a sun. But what you saw was only an overly simplified illustration of an atom. The electrons actually orbit in all directions and planes, not in a flat planetary plane. Furthermore I pointed out that the most common pattern in the universe is the VORTEX, not a planetary orbit or an electron's orbit around its nucleus. So you have been wrong on many levels while you continue to pontificate that the universe shows design patterns.

Boss' atoms

An illustration closer to reality.

Vortex

Vortex

Vortex

 

[edthecynic]

As for the "Big Crunch" theory, you could have saved yourself a lot of time explaining it, and simply posted "WE DON'T KNOW", as you repeatedly pointed out in the explanation itself. You see, for us non-idiots, whenever we "don't know" something, we don't have a problem admitting it, we come right out and say that "we don't know" and we don't run around acting as if we really DO know.

Regardless, the universe is simply not contracting. Theories that it will one day stop expanding and begin to contract, are not based in physics or math. It is a speculative guess. The really cool thing about it is, humans will probably never exist long enough to witness it happen, if it ever does. Armed with this detail, morons like Ed are confidently running around proclaiming this is "proven science" and can't be disputed.

The ultimate hypocrisy of a sociopath. After denying that you pontificate what you don't know, you pontificate that the universe is not contracting, something that is not known only theorized, again pontificating that the theory is not based in physics or math after the physics and math were posted.

Then after pointing out that I said that neither a curved or flat universe has been proven yet, you then pompously accuse me of proclaiming a curved contracting universe as proven science.

You are a piece of work!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Lets assume for the sake of discussion that God exists as the supreme living being whose absolute existence is the source and sustainer of all that is seen and unseen who could have in theory created any possible reality.


Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?


Isn't it much more likely that some other despicable creature would tell you that to be saved you have to believe that Jesus was an edible triune mangod who floated up into the sky and will return one day when the dead come out of their graves to take believers up into hebbin to rule the earth for an eternity while they watch unbelievers burn forever in sulfurous flames?

Did you never read the story about the serpent in the garden?

"Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?"

What Does God require us to believe that contradicts known truths ?

That's my point. PEOPLE who claim to believe scripture read genesis and wrongly think the story is about the creation of the universe, even though scientific discoveries make the literal interpretation of that story impossible to be true and a complete contradiction of known truths.

according to some PEOPLE believing the story is a literal depiction of the creation of the universe is a required belief foundational to salvation even though such an assertion is false.

The story of genesis is about the giving of the law, and the creation of Adam and Eve about the elevation of people from among the wild beasts of the field into a 'living being' aware of right and wrong and bound to the consequences of their actions..

The law is the light which separates the darkness and before the light was given, "the earth was without form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep' which has further allegorical meaning.

[Looks like a lot of misinformation contained in the rest of your post. anyone who studies the scriptures thoroughly knows there is no such place as the hell you describe. The punishment is everlasting death the gift for believers is everlasting life.

Yes I did read the serpent and Eve story. Clearly Angels and God can do things that defy our known logic.

Nonsense. Angels and devils and all the wild beasts of the wilderness described in scripture from dogs and pigs to serpents and vultures are allegorical descriptions of well known types of people that allude to the heights and depths of human potential. The story is just a fairy tale. try to learn what it teaches.

[Let's assume all the theories of how the universe got here and this planet was developed to support life and then miraculously life was spontaneously generated with no aid but naturalism were true. does that not defy logic by our current knowledge ?

We have no viable explanation for origins of anything. Reality shows us that living organisms are produced by other living organisms and they are produced by other organisms that are of the same kind.

You believe a logical person would believe a living organism was produced by non-life ?

No, I believe a logical person would read genesis and conclude immediately based on known scientific facts that either the story is complete bull or it is an allegorical story that coveys hidden meaning.

And after being shown how the story can be interpreted allegorically without contradicting reality a logical person would renounce their superstitious delusions forever and cut the ties that bind them in ignorance without ever looking back.

Interpreting Genesis as though it were just one narrative is your first error, as it has several different storylines in it about totally different people and eras.

You are projecting your expectations of Genesis onto it as much as any YEC fundamentalist.

Most of its stories have been found in other cultures of the region, so it would seem to be more than you think it is.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I love how a pompous idiot who thinks protons and neutrons rotate around an atom acts like he knows what science and physics support. One of the three possible fates of the universe is the "Big Crunch" I described above in layman's terms for a simpleton like you.

The expansion of the universe is proven to be accelerating.

There will be no Big Crunch.

There are some theories that are speculative and not supported by any science at the moment but that 'work around' the accelerating universe problem, but so far all the concepts tossed out essentially to support an infinitely lasting universe have been proven wrong, and I don't see any reason to suppose this will stop. It seems that atheists are so desperate to believe the universe is of infinite duration that they propose fanciful things that science consistently knocks down.

Not exactly, the oldest farthest extremes of the universe are found to be accelerating away from us, but that does not necessarily mean they are expanding. They could also be accelerating towards a super massive universal black hole and therefore be contracting.

You seem to have an infinitely expanding universe confused with a cyclic universe.

You don't seem to grasp what is going on. The various parts of the universe are not just expanding BUT ACCELERATING. There is no evidence of this acceleration slowing down at all, at least none I have read or have ever even seen reference too.

Can you provide a link to the source you are getting this paradoxical speculation from?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom? Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know?

Make no mistake, if this theory had ever been tested and proven, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So there's simply no peer-reviewed evidence to consider, no published findings in science journals, not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates, as the cute little illustration depicts. Not a goddamn thing!

Yet... here it is, presented as if this is the scientific FACT that no one can refute or question! The really astonishing thing is, even if they are entirely correct, and the universe operates in a systematic way, like the freaking cycles on a washing machine... does that somehow "disprove" an intelligent designing force? Or is it more evidence OF such a force?

Discovery of Accelerating Universe Wins 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics: Scientific American

The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded today to Saul Perlmutter at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Brian Schmidt at the Australian National Lab and Adam Reiss at Johns Hopkins University for their discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe.

“In a universe which is dominated by matter, one would expect gravity eventually should make the expansion slow down, the Royal Swedish Academy’s Olga Botner said this morning at the announcement event in Stockholm. "Imagine then the utter astonishment when two groups of scientists headed by this year’s Nobel Laureates in 1998 discovered that the expansion was not slowing down, it was actually accelerating."

"By comparing the brightness of distant, far-away supernovae with the brightness of nearby supernovae," Botner continued, "the scientists discovered that the far-away supernovae were about 25 percent too faint. They were too far away. The universe was accelerating. And so this discovery is fundamental and a milestone for cosmology. And a challenge for generations of scientists to come.”

So the Big Crunch is not happening as it is proven that the universe is not only expanding but ACCELERATING in its expansion. This contradicts any notion of a Big Crunch.

Again, if you pay attention to what is actually proven and what is assumed based on what was proven you find that it is only proven that the farthest extremes of the universe are ACCELERATING. What is ASSUMED is that acceleration is the result of expansion due to some as yet unproven dark energy. However the ACCELERATION could also be the result of the gravitational pull of a super massive universal black hole which would support a contracting universe. .

Except that the acceleration is being seen in multiple different directions, not just one or a few.

And it is observed at the extremes where an acceleration would be more easily noticed and measured, and between galaxies as the gravitational force seems to belay the metric expansion.

 

[Boss]

The ultimate hypocrisy of a sociopath. After denying that you pontificate what you don't know, you pontificate that the universe is not contracting, something that is not known only theorized, again pontificating that the theory is not based in physics or math after the physics and math were posted.

Then after pointing out that I said that neither a curved or flat universe has been proven yet, you then pompously accuse me of proclaiming a curved contracting universe as proven science.

You are a piece of work!

LOL... So Ed is now saying, it is not known, what he previously posted about contracting universe, but neither is expansion, and that is simply false. We know the universe is expanding, and the outer edges are expanding faster. Of course, it is a theory, like much of science, but it is a testable theory. The idea that our universe eventually reaches a 'maximum' expansion, then starts contracting in on itself, is not supported by physics, or anything we can observe or test. It's a faith-based concept.

BUT... EVEN IF... every single word is true, and our universe works like a Maytag, predictably cycling through like clockwork, to regenerate amazing and wonderful life and intelligence, over and over again... what an AMAZING machine God has created, don't you agree?

 

[JimBowie1958]

not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates

there is no reason for it to contract - after the explosion everything is expanding outwards where in the extreme future due to its angular projectile will eventually collide back into itself causing the finite compression necessary to again cause another expansive explosion.

That assumes a contained universe. Current measurements indicate an infinite universe. .

Dear Lord, do you have a LINK to a cite that has this 'observation', just one?


With an infinite universe, the mass would also be infinite, gravitational force would be infinite and there would be no acceleration in the universe's expansion.

Explain that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The ultimate hypocrisy of a sociopath. After denying that you pontificate what you don't know, you pontificate that the universe is not contracting, something that is not known only theorized, again pontificating that the theory is not based in physics or math after the physics and math were posted.

Then after pointing out that I said that neither a curved or flat universe has been proven yet, you then pompously accuse me of proclaiming a curved contracting universe as proven science.

You are a piece of work!

LOL... So Ed is now saying, it is not known, what he previously posted about contracting universe, but neither is expansion, and that is simply false. We know the universe is expanding, and the outer edges are expanding faster. Of course, it is a theory, like much of science, but it is a testable theory. The idea that our universe eventually reaches a 'maximum' expansion, then starts contracting in on itself, is not supported by physics, or anything we can observe or test. It's a faith-based concept.

BUT... EVEN IF... every single word is true, and our universe works like a Maytag, predictably cycling through like clockwork, to regenerate amazing and wonderful life and intelligence, over and over again... what an AMAZING machine God has created, don't you agree?

Ed seems to start with his conclusion and then look for anything that might fit those conclusions and then accept them.

The vast majority of sources I have read have never suggested that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is toward A BLACK HOLE.

But I am going to dig in to this topic and see what is available. I have a theory that some here maybe resorting to blatant bullshit to cover their asses.

 

[edthecynic]

The expansion of the universe is proven to be accelerating.

There will be no Big Crunch.

There are some theories that are speculative and not supported by any science at the moment but that 'work around' the accelerating universe problem, but so far all the concepts tossed out essentially to support an infinitely lasting universe have been proven wrong, and I don't see any reason to suppose this will stop. It seems that atheists are so desperate to believe the universe is of infinite duration that they propose fanciful things that science consistently knocks down.

Not exactly, the oldest farthest extremes of the universe are found to be accelerating away from us, but that does not necessarily mean they are expanding. They could also be accelerating towards a super massive universal black hole and therefore be contracting.

You seem to have an infinitely expanding universe confused with a cyclic universe.

You don't seem to grasp what is going on. The various parts of the universe are not just expanding BUT ACCELERATING. There is no evidence of this acceleration slowing down at all, at least none I have read or have ever even seen reference too.

Can you provide a link to the source you are getting this paradoxical speculation from?

As I have said repeatedly, it is only ACCELERATION that is measured, expansion is assumed. As I also pointed out, the universe was measured as slowing down originally. Then at the extremes acceleration was measured and attributed to an ASSUMED dark energy. I an assuming the gravity of a supermassive universal black hole is doing the accelerating towards the Big Crunch. Both are theoretical assumptions and neither is proven or disproved, but mine is simpler and involves only known phenomena. Occam's Razor applies.

Glimpse at early universe finds expansion slowdown | Atom & Cosmos | Science News

New measurements have captured the universe’s expansion when it was slowing down 11 billion years ago, before a mysterious entity called dark energy took over and began spurring the cosmos to expand faster and faster. The measurements, reported online November 12 at arXiv.org, are an important step toward understanding what dark energy is and how it works.

About 15 years ago, astronomers discovered that the universe’s expansion is accelerating by cataloging spectacular stellar explosions called type 1a supernovas. Because each explosion emits almost exactly the same amount of light, astronomers can use a supernova’s observed brightness to determine its distance, and then measure its redshift, or how much its light is stretched, to determine how fast the supernova is moving away from Earth. Astronomers Adam Riess of Johns Hopkins University, Saul Perlmutter of the University of California, Berkeley and Brian Schmidt of Australian National University shared the 2011 Nobel Prize for their work using this technique to reveal that the universe’s expansion is currently accelerating and has been for the last 5 billion years or so.

But as bright as supernovas are, they are difficult to see deep in the cosmos, at distances corresponding to the time when the universe was only a few billion years old. So an international team of scientists with the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey, or BOSS, employs a different method. They use the 2.5-meter Sloan telescope at New Mexico’s Apache Point Observatory to collect light produced by feasting supermassive black holes that thrived a couple billion years after the dawn of the universe 13.7 billion years ago.

As that light makes its long journey toward Earth, it occasionally runs into clouds of hydrogen gas and gets partially absorbed. BOSS scientists crunched the data on the light of almost 50,000 black hole emissions to create a map of where those gas clouds are and, using redshifts, how fast they are receding.

Based on the speeds of the most distant of those clouds, BOSS scientists determined the universe’s expansion rate a mere 3 billion years after the Big Bang. The team then compared its measured rate with those from more recent eras to conclude that the universe’s expansion was slowing at that time. “The universe was a very different place,” says study coauthor and University of Utah physicist Kyle Dawson.

The BOSS finding is consistent with physicists’ theories of how the universe’s growth rate has changed. Immediately after the Big Bang, the universe ballooned rapidly in a split-second era called inflation. Expansion continued afterward, but like a coasting car, the cosmos had nothing to keep it accelerating. The gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe was acting like rolling friction, gradually slowing down the expansion.

But as the universe got larger and matter got more diluted, scientists believe something began pressing the gas pedal again, causing expansion to accelerate once more. Scientists don’t know exactly what the culprit is, so they call it dark energy. Eleven billion years ago, dark energy made up less than 10 percent of the total content of the universe; today it makes up almost three-quarters.

BOSS and other surveys are allowing scientists to chart the universe’s expansion rate over time and determine the evolving role of dark energy. The measurements so far lend support to the leading theory that dark energy is a natural property of empty space: The more the universe expands, the stronger dark energy becomes.

Other theories posit that dark energy is a temporary phenomenon like inflation, and that matter’s gravitational pull will one day take over and temper the universe’s growth spurt. Still other physicists suggest that dark energy will cause runaway expansion, perhaps to the point that in several billion years it will pull apart galaxies, stars, planets, and even atoms in a doomsday scenario called the Big Rip.

“We can’t confidently predict the future of the universe,” Riess says, “until we get a ton of measurements about the past.” BOSS scientists are working toward that goal by collecting data from 100,000 more ancient black holes. Then they plan to upgrade to a larger telescope and survey more objects with a project called BigBOSS in 2017.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I have read different ideas on what actually existed at time point ZERO. Some seem to think that there was nothing prior to ZERO, some say it was there before but only sprang into existence in an instant. Some say Membranes of an interdimensional region 'touched' (whatever that actually means) and caused the Big Bang.

All I know is this: no matter how many iterations of time you use, whether linear, circular or spiral or whatever, an infinite number of finite periods of time cannot have preceded the present. It is as impossible as counting to and down from an infinite value. Cant happen. This fact is not of the Xeno paradox sort in that no time is reduced in parallel to with distance, etc. This infinite limit is simply a mathematical fact.

That is not what is being proposed. There is only a single infinite universe of space/time. The period of time that we are counting from the current big bang is meaningless as far as the universe is concerned. It is an entirely arbitrary limitation that we are using from our own myopic perspective. The universe has always existed and while it constantly changes form it has no limitations as far as time is concerned.

The flow of time must have a first moment in time for the simple fact that if there is no first moment in time, then there is nothing for time to come after. If there is no first hour, then there are no hours that follow. If there is no first second, then no seconds can follow.

The universe cannot have always existed. It is impossible.

Time as we experience it is a flow but it is it not like a river where you can find the "source of time". Time is a "fluid" concept that is more akin to tides than rivers. There is a "doppler" effect to time where the faster you travel the slower relative time moves. It is even theoretically possible to travel backwards in time.

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment - NASA Science

It is just as erroneous to assume that there was a "beginning of time" as it is to assume that the universe was "created". Time is just another dimension of the space/time continuum in which we exist. The universe has always existed and as time is only a dimension of the universe it too has always existed.

 

[edthecynic]

The ultimate hypocrisy of a sociopath. After denying that you pontificate what you don't know, you pontificate that the universe is not contracting, something that is not known only theorized, again pontificating that the theory is not based in physics or math after the physics and math were posted.

Then after pointing out that I said that neither a curved or flat universe has been proven yet, you then pompously accuse me of proclaiming a curved contracting universe as proven science.

You are a piece of work!

LOL... So Ed is now saying, it is not known, what he previously posted about contracting universe, but neither is expansion, and that is simply false. We know the universe is expanding, and the outer edges are expanding faster. Of course, it is a theory, like much of science, but it is a testable theory. The idea that our universe eventually reaches a 'maximum' expansion, then starts contracting in on itself, is not supported by physics, or anything we can observe or test. It's a faith-based concept.

BUT... EVEN IF... every single word is true, and our universe works like a Maytag, predictably cycling through like clockwork, to regenerate amazing and wonderful life and intelligence, over and over again... what an AMAZING machine God has created, don't you agree?

Again, all we know is the extremes of the universe are accelerating, expansion is an assumption. There is not enough data or measured dark energy to confirm expansion. We do not have enough data to confirm that Ω = 1. Both sides are speculating, each side has problems to be overcome by better data.

 

[edthecynic]

The ultimate hypocrisy of a sociopath. After denying that you pontificate what you don't know, you pontificate that the universe is not contracting, something that is not known only theorized, again pontificating that the theory is not based in physics or math after the physics and math were posted.

Then after pointing out that I said that neither a curved or flat universe has been proven yet, you then pompously accuse me of proclaiming a curved contracting universe as proven science.

You are a piece of work!

LOL... So Ed is now saying, it is not known, what he previously posted about contracting universe, but neither is expansion, and that is simply false. We know the universe is expanding, and the outer edges are expanding faster. Of course, it is a theory, like much of science, but it is a testable theory. The idea that our universe eventually reaches a 'maximum' expansion, then starts contracting in on itself, is not supported by physics, or anything we can observe or test. It's a faith-based concept.

BUT... EVEN IF... every single word is true, and our universe works like a Maytag, predictably cycling through like clockwork, to regenerate amazing and wonderful life and intelligence, over and over again... what an AMAZING machine God has created, don't you agree?

There you go pontificating your bullshit even after you were given the math and science. Don't you ever get tired of lying?????

 

[Hollie]

Wow. Did you miss the pun and the razz smiley, or, are you just that sensitive?

lol, no I noticed how clever and cute and good natured it all was right away....

as I said.......

I genuinely was trying to insert a little humor but I guess it was a bad idea since you don't know me. My apologies.

As far as your assertion goes that any logical person would immediately dispense with the Genesis account; you fail to recognize the possibility that someone can be a believer and still deal with the bible in a logical manner. Once (and this I understand isn't possible, given your position) you get past the idea that a Being created all this.... then nothing is impossible when it comes to what that Creator can do. A tree that bears fruit which, when eaten, gives someone new knowledge? Well, that's actually pretty low on the scale of miracles provided in the bible.

Take an honest step outside this discussion and pretend you are a computer programmer (assuming you are not). If you could write a program that creates a virtual universe -- do you think it would then somehow be impossible for you to create a virtual tree that provides knowledge to someone who eats from it? Expand that thought outward. Is there anything you could not accomplish in this reality you have created? Talking snakes and donkeys? No problem. Parting the waters of the Red Sea? Piece o' cake.

The real issue with you comment about “deal(ing –ed.) with the bible in a logical manner” is that there is nothing at all logical about the Genesis tale. It’s flawed at its inception and if you actually took the time to read it – in context – you would find that your gawds lied throughout the fable. Satan told the truth.
Christian theists have a real hard time with this. They consider all other-believers (atheists included) to be in a state of rebellion to "the truth" -- a truth they themselves ultimately admit has to be embraced purely on a "say-so" basis. Well, that sort theistic "truth" is literally indistinguishable from other theistic "truths" because all religious beliefs have that same impossible qualifier. Belief by faith.

Faith in the accuracy of the holy book(s)

Faith that prophecy was actually events that truly happened in a given "present" that reflected a fulfillment of what was claimed in a "past" -- as opposed to the simpler process of saying, "Er, yeah, Jesus was born in Bethlehem" -- which goes totally uncorroborated-- but remains accepted as gospel truth nonetheless

Faith that miracles actually occurred (but exist outside validation)

And so on...

On the other side, we have a standard of knowledge and a bevy of evidence that points to a very naturalistic and integrated process by which life could have reached its present level of sophistication. There's a mountain of clues pointing to this, but since it remains silent on whether or not there is a deity involved, it's assumed that the process conflicts with the deity itself.

Well, evolution says nothing about gods, and doesn't pretend to. what it does do is it conflicts with the account of Genesis and therein lies the problem (that theists have. Eviltuionists have no problem with theists until theists try to force theology in science classes. Then there is a fight).

But if one wants to push the issue (and this thread exists as an example of "pushing the issue") -- then theists (Boss, et al. need to confront the problem of why their gawds would put into place a wrong paradigm (in this case, Genesis), or prove the paradigm (Genesis) is right, with evidence.

If you defend the "wrong info" theory by saying "a Being created all this", then you must address why other cultures didn't have such a conflict with immense timelines, and more or less sophisticated ideas and you're going to have to address why the gods offers no updates, but prefers there be clashes of ideology to a destructive level. Remember, this is a god who claims to have a vested interest in our salvation so leaving clear hints as to his veracity is something he'd pretty much have to embrace in order to successfully fulfil his own agenda.

If you defend the literalist position, that means you start by proving god exists, first and foremost.

Then you need to prove 6 days is an accurate number for the creation itself. Not 6 trillion years, not 6 hours, not 6000 weeks, but 6 days.

And of course you'll have to prove that competing tales are mythology whereas the Genesis account is not.

Every atheist I know-- myself included-- eagerly await a hint of such proofs from any theist, anywhere, any time. After thousands of years, not one has managed to do it.

Which, of course, really isn't that surprising.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wow. Did you miss the pun and the razz smiley, or, are you just that sensitive?

lol, no I noticed how clever and cute and good natured it all was right away....

as I said.......

I genuinely was trying to insert a little humor but I guess it was a bad idea since you don't know me. My apologies.

As far as your assertion goes that any logical person would immediately dispense with the Genesis account; you fail to recognize the possibility that someone can be a believer and still deal with the bible in a logical manner. Once (and this I understand isn't possible, given your position) you get past the idea that a Being created all this.... then nothing is impossible when it comes to what that Creator can do. A tree that bears fruit which, when eaten, gives someone new knowledge? Well, that's actually pretty low on the scale of miracles provided in the bible.

Take an honest step outside this discussion and pretend you are a computer programmer (assuming you are not). If you could write a program that creates a virtual universe -- do you think it would then somehow be impossible for you to create a virtual tree that provides knowledge to someone who eats from it? Expand that thought outward. Is there anything you could not accomplish in this reality you have created? Talking snakes and donkeys? No problem. Parting the waters of the Red Sea? Piece o' cake.

"...deal with the bible in a logical manner"?

You provided a fantasy option rather than a logical one because you could not logically get over the initial hurdle of the "existence" of a "creator". Unless you can provide a "logical" basis for the existence of a "creator" everything else is just an exercise in futility.

So let's address the logical possibility of the existence of an entity capable of "creating" the universe. To create something on this scale means creating all of the matter and energy that exists out of nothing and impose on it the physical law of the conservation of mass. Which brings us to the first logical paradox. If matter can neither be created nor destroyed does this mean that your creator has limitations? That it is possible for your creator to create something that he cannot destroy. If this is true then your creator is not omnipotent and it begs the question as to what other limitations does he have?

Can a "perfect" being "create" an imperfect world? Isn't the creation of this imperfect world evidence that your creator is not "perfect"? Logic says that a perfect being could not create something that is imperfect. So it looks like we have used logic to discover another limitation of your creator.

We can continue this process but you probably get the idea by now that "dealing with the bible in a logical manner" is a double edged sword. Religion and faith have a place in this world but it is separate and distinct from logic, reason and science. There is a reason why science does not ever set out to "disprove" religion. Believers are making a mistake if they try and "use science" to "prove religion".