Something Is Wrong, and It’s Not the Universe

[james bond]

You are ignoring the rest of my evidence though. It can’t be viewed in a vacuum. It’s the evidence in its entirety which makes the case.

I said we have to start with cosmology and your cosmology is based on a closed universe. Instead, it is likely we have an open universe that it's shape is flat and open. It could be flat and curved and open, too.. What you are proposing is that it is spherical and closed which the modern evidence does not support.

What is the shape of the universe?

You are ignoring the rest of my evidence though. It can’t be viewed in a vacuum. It’s the evidence in its entirety which makes the case.

The rest of your arguments become specious if you cannot start your universe.

 

[james bond]

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

That's one definition based on empiricism. With creation science, we also have rationalism or facts, reasoning, and historical truths. We have the same facts. We also have that which goes beyond our universe and that is the supernatural from rationalism.

What is your definition of science then?

Science has always been about knowledge and scientific argument based on best theory and the scientific method. Yours has no real science such as things pop into existence from nothing. The video debunked that concept.

ETA: Your science is similar to your religion in that it does not have a source. You make a statement which we have to accept, but it does not mean we have to accept it as it is only coming from you. It's very trying to argue scientific knowledge or even religious knowledge with someone who doesn't provide a source for their arguments.

 

[ding]

You are ignoring the rest of my evidence though. It can’t be viewed in a vacuum. It’s the evidence in its entirety which makes the case.

I said we have to start with cosmology and your cosmology is based on a closed universe. Instead, it is likely we have an open universe that it's shape is flat and open. It could be flat and curved and open, too.. What you are proposing is that it is spherical and closed which the modern evidence does not support.

What is the shape of the universe?

You are ignoring the rest of my evidence though. It can’t be viewed in a vacuum. It’s the evidence in its entirety which makes the case.

The rest of your arguments become specious if you cannot start your universe.

Let’s start simply.

Do you believe the universe had a beginning?

 

[ding]

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

That's one definition based on empiricism. With creation science, we also have rationalism or facts, reasoning, and historical truths. We have the same facts. We also have that which goes beyond our universe and that is the supernatural from rationalism.

What is your definition of science then?

Science has always been about knowledge and scientific argument based on best theory and the scientific method. Yours has no real science such as things pop into existence from nothing. The video debunked that concept.

ETA: Your science is similar to your religion in that it does not have a source. You make a statement which we have to accept, but it does not mean we have to accept it as it is only coming from you. It's very trying to argue scientific knowledge or even religious knowledge with someone who doesn't provide a source for their arguments.

I believe the question was what is your definition of science, not tell me what you believe is wrong with your perception of my perception of science.

So let me ask you again, what is your definition of science?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

That's one definition based on empiricism. With creation science, we also have rationalism or facts, reasoning, and historical truths. We have the same facts. We also have that which goes beyond our universe and that is the supernatural from rationalism.

What is your definition of science then?

Science has always been about knowledge and scientific argument based on best theory and the scientific method. Yours has no real science such as things pop into existence from nothing. The video debunked that concept.

ETA: Your science is similar to your religion in that it does not have a source. You make a statement which we have to accept, but it does not mean we have to accept it as it is only coming from you. It's very trying to argue scientific knowledge or even religious knowledge with someone who doesn't provide a source for their arguments.

Give it up, nutball. Nobody is impressed.

 

[james bond]

Let’s start simply.

Do you believe the universe had a beginning?

We already went over this. You didn't even watch the video. I have a source.

OTOH, you claim you are Catholic, believe in God, but he didn't create anything. What kind of religious nutballer are you?

So let me ask you again, what is your definition of science?

I already gave it. Not only do you not have sources, you do not read my answers.

Instead of covering ground already covered, let's put it to use.

Basically, your argument for big bang fails because the evidence does not back it up. You do not believe in FTL speeds and that's what happened with cosmic expansion.

You believe something comes from nothing based on quantum _________ (fill in the blank). Even Stephen Hawking admitted a quantum particle needed space. Along with that, it needs time to take action. Do you not agree with this?

I presented Kalam Cosmological Argument in that the universe had a beginning. It showed the existence of God. God had Jesus create the universe and everything in it.

Now, do you want me cover the astrophysics, too?

We can't even get a start with your arguments. What is your cosmology? What are your sources?

 

[james bond]

Give it up, nutball. Nobody is impressed.

That's what I said about your telescope and camera. Nobody is impressed. You are an idiot and religious atheist nutballer.

 

[ding]

I already gave it. Not only do you not have sources, you do not read my answers.

No. You didn’t

The definition of science is.....

 

[ding]

We already went over this. You didn't even watch the video. I have a source.

OTOH, you claim you are Catholic, believe in God, but he didn't create anything. What kind of religious nutballer are you?

You didn’t answer the question. Did the universe begin? It’s a simple yes or no.

 

[james bond]

I already gave it. Not only do you not have sources, you do not read my answers.

No. You didn’t

The definition of science is.....

Now, you are lying. See post #262.

You didn’t answer the question. Did the universe begin? It’s a simple yes or no.

See post # 257.

Now, will you answer my questions in post #266 or are you incapable?

 

[ding]

I already gave it. Not only do you not have sources, you do not read my answers.

No. You didn’t

The definition of science is.....

Now, you are lying. See post #262.

You didn’t answer the question. Did the universe begin? It’s a simple yes or no.

See post # 257.

Now, will you answer my questions in post #266 or are you incapable?

I guess we are done then.

 

[ding]

Incongruity revealed.

 

[james bond]

Incongruity revealed.

No incongruity unless it's on your part. You do not have sources and I've demonstrated you are a science hypocrite when we discussed the universe expanding FTL. We both concluded that nothing can travel FTL in the universe.

Yet, big bang hypothesis has cosmic expansion which have objects traveling FTL in a universe that was just created microseconds before.

That's not all. Your:

"Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium, we know that the universe did have a beginning."

has no foundation. Where is your source for space and time beginning? How do you explain the items you mentioned?

OTOH, I had a cosmology for the beginning. It debunked whatever convoluted cosmology the above is describing. I was ready to start discussing the astrophysics, some of which you mentioned, but you can't get past questions that I've already answered. Besides, you do not answer questions that I asked you. You are incapable. What else am I suppose to conclude. I provided the cosmology that debunked your argument above and explained how spacetime came into being. I can't help it if you can't read or watch someone else's arguments.

 

[james bond]

I’m not a creationist.

If I get the last word, the let me repeat. This was hilarious . ding believes in God, but he didn't create anything. He didn't have people write his autobigraphy. The Bible is analogy that people made up.

Whatever started spacetime can be explained by atheist science and it evolved.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, now that the voodoo ritual has run its course...

The accelerated expansion of space is due to an unknown reason. One idea is dark energy. Here is a great article about it:

The Counterintuitive Reason Why Dark Energy Makes The Universe Accelerate

 

[ding]

I’m not a creationist.

If I get the last word, the let me repeat. This was hilarious . ding believes in God, but he didn't create anything. He didn't have people write his autobigraphy. The Bible is analogy that people made up.

Whatever started spacetime can be explained by atheist science and it evolved.

Ummm... God loves science. He created it.

Your definition of science, "Science has always been about knowledge and scientific argument based on best theory and the scientific method" doesn't describe what science is. It describes what science does.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

doesn't describe what science is

Science is a method. Describing this method describes science.

 

[ding]

Well, now that the voodoo ritual has run its course...

The accelerated expansion of space is due to an unknown reason. One idea is dark energy. Here is a great article about it:

The Counterintuitive Reason Why Dark Energy Makes The Universe Accelerate

The belief that the universe is accelerating is based upon the assumption that the speed of light is constant throughout the universe and that the instruments and methods they use to estimate the rate of expansion are correct and accurate. The results of which have led them to conclude that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. But whether one believes it is accelerating at a constant rate of expansion or accelerating, the one thing that no one can deny is that they all objects are moving farther apart from all other objects. That the universe is expanding.

 

[ding]

doesn't describe what science is

Science is a method. Describing this method describes science.

Science is the study of nature so as to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature.

I bet this definition, even though correct and precise, disturbs you.

 

[james bond]

Well, now that the voodoo ritual has run its course...

The accelerated expansion of space is due to an unknown reason. One idea is dark energy. Here is a great article about it:

The Counterintuitive Reason Why Dark Energy Makes The Universe Accelerate

If you understand how the media takes an evolution idea or an idea based on evolutionary thinking, and accepts it without really with no scientific method, and then uses it via repetition to drum it into the heads of rubes, then you know how it works. What bothered me about evolution at first was them continuing to say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion years old. I mean if it is a fact and we know it, then why repeat it over and over again? This happened with dinosaurs to birds thesis and then birds are dinosaurs thesis. The idea of dark energy and dark matter and its description is an intriguing one, but not one founded upon any science. It's atheist "faith-based" science. It is from theoretical physics and repeated so often that dark energy and dark matter exists today, even if they don't. This is why atheism and its science of evolution is a religion. That should be a fact drummed into the puny brains of the internet atheists.

Now, what did you get out of the article Fort Fun Indiana? What makes it great to you?