The Devil’s Delusion

[PoliticalChic]

translation:

I don't take your 'anger' seriously....it has become comedy gold.

Comedy gold is this delusion of yours that I'm angry.

The more I offer dispositive posts, the more angry you get...and the more I chuckle.

Your "dispositive posts" ... now that's funny!

But don't give up, Lowest... Moses was once a basket case.
At some point, you'll have to buy a ticket on the clue train.

Cupcake, you should take a moment away from the unappetizing contemplation of your nostrils and licking windows to take note that you're not on any train at all, but rather the shortest possible of short buses.

Welcome to camp USMB, today’s lesson: conflict resolution.

See the efficacy of the spanking I administered...now you're almost civil!

Good boy, Lowest!
Dog biscuit?

 

[LOki]

Loki have you noticed you are all by your lonesome in repeatedly calling PC a big dummy?

Could it be because on the board she is universally considered anything but?

And have you considered the implications it must necessarily have upon our perception of your intellect?

Why do you persist with these implication of intellectual vanity? What makes you think that your retarded perception of my intellect is of any interest to me?

 

[edthecynic]

"I always love it when dishonest CON$ and Christians take quotes from scientists out of context. The Full quote says something entirely different."

1. Sorry, Beets...but you are wrong.

Hawking, provided as an expert in the area, lays out both halves of the question.
The key part of the quote is exactly what I want shown:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator."

2. Now, focus like a laser: anyone who agrees with, or has quoted the 'Big Bang' is supposing a beginning...and that supposes that something or someone initiated that explosion.

Unless you can give examples of similar episodes that have no cause.
Can you?
No? You accept it based on your faith, huh?

3. BTW, I was familiar with the entire paragraph that you provided.
Do you understand it?
It is simply the kind of nonsense that
a) atheist-scientists must mouth, or be faced with the existence of God, or
b) the kind of prattle that folks like you are willing to accept or face the dire posibility of actually thinking.

4.Here it is, again: "... neither beginning nor end..."

Now, you and the other poor souls who have a need to subscribe to your mythical 'science'...
...how about some examples, evidence, that there is anything outside of faith, that has "neither beginning nor end."

Careful...if you say that 'you suppose God was always there, I'll suppose that the universe was always there...' then you are handing the argument over to me...as I have said that science and religion have this kind of faith in common: I win- in nature there is nothing with no beginning nor end.

5. Now, if you cannot come up with said evidence, yet maintain that science is not based on faith, then it is you, not I, who is foolish.
I'd rather call you foolish than 'dishonest,' as it appears clear that you didn't
understand the Hawking quote.

What I love best about pompous know-it-alls is they are too stupid to know when they are making fools of themselves.

It is GRAVITY that initiated the Big Bang.

And you have again violated the First Law of Thermodynamics. That's grammar school science!

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means energy has no beginning nor end, it exists today in the exact same total quantity as has always existed in the past and will always exist in the future.

Where was it before it came into existence?


The only thing that "exists today in the exact same total quantity as has always existed in the past and will always exist in the future" is your bewilderment.

Energy always existed, that's what cannot be created means.

But keep the foolishness coming, it goes great with your pompous condescension.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Science got you the computer you're posting on fools, Religion did not.

Religion got you the Western Civilization that fostered the scientific development that got you the computer.

 

[G.T.]

Science got you the computer you're posting on fools, Religion did not.

Religion got you the Western Civilization that fostered the scientific development that got you the computer.

No, humans did.

 

[koshergrl]

Loki have you noticed you are all by your lonesome in repeatedly calling PC a big dummy?

Could it be because on the board she is universally considered anything but?

And have you considered the implications it must necessarily have upon our perception of your intellect?

Why do you persist with these implication of intellectual vanity? What makes you think that your retarded perception of my intellect is of any interest to me?

Primarily the fact that you always respond to my accurate evaluations of your alleged intellect.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What I love best about pompous know-it-alls is they are too stupid to know when they are making fools of themselves.

It is GRAVITY that initiated the Big Bang.

And you have again violated the First Law of Thermodynamics. That's grammar school science!

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means energy has no beginning nor end, it exists today in the exact same total quantity as has always existed in the past and will always exist in the future.

Where was it before it came into existence?


The only thing that "exists today in the exact same total quantity as has always existed in the past and will always exist in the future" is your bewilderment.

Energy always existed, that's what cannot be created means.

But keep the foolishness coming, it goes great with your pompous condescension.

1. Vocabulary first. I've already copped to 'pompous'...
...now you add 'condescension'- the trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior.

OK, ok....guilty as charged!!
Jeeeeezzz...how much guilt do these shoulders have to assume????

2. Now for the reasons that my sentence should be reduced to 'time served.'
Of course I'm exhibiting condescension!!!
Look at the loony stuff you post!!!

"Energy always existed, that's what cannot be created means."
Where did it come from?
Is it possible that you are so nescient that you don't realize that you are changing the nature of the question under discussion??

The subject is hardly recondite, in fact, it is junior high school science: energy cannot by created BY MAN, merely changed from one state to another.

3. The actual origin of energy, as is everything else, is provided here: Genesis 1:2

It refers to the void: A completely empty space: "the black void of space".


Now just stop adding charges!!!
Or else.....

 

[edthecynic]

Where was it before it came into existence?


The only thing that "exists today in the exact same total quantity as has always existed in the past and will always exist in the future" is your bewilderment.

Energy always existed, that's what cannot be created means.

But keep the foolishness coming, it goes great with your pompous condescension.

1. Vocabulary first. I've already copped to 'pompous'...
...now you add 'condescension'- the trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior.

OK, ok....guilty as charged!!
Jeeeeezzz...how much guilt do these shoulders have to assume????

2. Now for the reasons that my sentence should be reduced to 'time served.'
Of course I'm exhibiting condescension!!!
Look at the loony stuff you post!!!

"Energy always existed, that's what cannot be created means."
Where did it come from?
Is it possible that you are so nescient that you don't realize that you are changing the nature of the question under discussion??

The subject is hardly recondite, in fact, it is junior high school science: energy cannot by created BY MAN, merely changed from one state to another.

3. The actual origin of energy, as is everything else, is provided here: Genesis 1:2

It refers to the void: A completely empty space: "the black void of space".


Now just stop adding charges!!!
Or else.....

Funny thing, my physics book does not have those two words. Please link to the "junior high school" physics book you got those two words from.

There was no time when your God, or the Giant Spaghetti Monster for that matter, existed that energy didn't already exist. Basically you have taken energy, given it a human personality and called energy "God."

BTW, the bible is not a physics book.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Energy always existed, that's what cannot be created means.

But keep the foolishness coming, it goes great with your pompous condescension.

1. Vocabulary first. I've already copped to 'pompous'...
...now you add 'condescension'- the trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior.

OK, ok....guilty as charged!!
Jeeeeezzz...how much guilt do these shoulders have to assume????

2. Now for the reasons that my sentence should be reduced to 'time served.'
Of course I'm exhibiting condescension!!!
Look at the loony stuff you post!!!

"Energy always existed, that's what cannot be created means."
Where did it come from?
Is it possible that you are so nescient that you don't realize that you are changing the nature of the question under discussion??

The subject is hardly recondite, in fact, it is junior high school science: energy cannot by created BY MAN, merely changed from one state to another.

3. The actual origin of energy, as is everything else, is provided here: Genesis 1:2

It refers to the void: A completely empty space: "the black void of space".


Now just stop adding charges!!!
Or else.....

Funny thing, my physics book does not have those two words. Please link to the "junior high school" physics book you got those two words from.

There was no time when your God, or the Giant Spaghetti Monster for that matter, existed that energy didn't already exist. Basically you have taken energy, given it a human personality and called energy "God."

BTW, the bible is not a physics book.

Don't you want to claim that your physics book was always there, and always will be?

 

[LOki]

Loki have you noticed you are all by your lonesome in repeatedly calling PC a big dummy?

Could it be because on the board she is universally considered anything but?

And have you considered the implications it must necessarily have upon our perception of your intellect?

Why do you persist with these implication of intellectual vanity? What makes you think that your retarded perception of my intellect is of any interest to me?

Primarily the fact that you always respond to my accurate evaluations of your alleged intellect.

"Accurate evaluations" that are "proven" to be "accurate" by nothing but your belief that they are "accurate."

Riiiiiiiiight.

 

[edthecynic]

1. Vocabulary first. I've already copped to 'pompous'...
...now you add 'condescension'- the trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior.

OK, ok....guilty as charged!!
Jeeeeezzz...how much guilt do these shoulders have to assume????

2. Now for the reasons that my sentence should be reduced to 'time served.'
Of course I'm exhibiting condescension!!!
Look at the loony stuff you post!!!

"Energy always existed, that's what cannot be created means."
Where did it come from?
Is it possible that you are so nescient that you don't realize that you are changing the nature of the question under discussion??

The subject is hardly recondite, in fact, it is junior high school science: energy cannot by created BY MAN, merely changed from one state to another.

3. The actual origin of energy, as is everything else, is provided here: Genesis 1:2

It refers to the void: A completely empty space: "the black void of space".


Now just stop adding charges!!!
Or else.....

Funny thing, my physics book does not have those two words. Please link to the "junior high school" physics book you got those two words from.

There was no time when your God, or the Giant Spaghetti Monster for that matter, existed that energy didn't already exist. Basically you have taken energy, given it a human personality and called energy "God."

BTW, the bible is not a physics book.

Don't you want to claim that your physics book was always there, and always will be?

Gee, no surprise you can't back up the "PompousCheek Law of Thermodynamics."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Funny thing, my physics book does not have those two words. Please link to the "junior high school" physics book you got those two words from.

There was no time when your God, or the Giant Spaghetti Monster for that matter, existed that energy didn't already exist. Basically you have taken energy, given it a human personality and called energy "God."

BTW, the bible is not a physics book.

Don't you want to claim that your physics book was always there, and always will be?

Gee, no surprise you can't back up the "PompousCheek Law of Thermodynamics."

I've warned you to leave my cheeks out of this.....
...now you are going to get it.

The Big Bang represents the beginning... physicists believe and accept this. In fact, proposed it.

But, phyicists also accept that they not only cannot explain where and what was before the Big Bang...but that the Laws of Phyics, your physics book which advances the principles and laws that explain our earth, do not conform to the singularity known as the Big Bang.


1. The redshift indicates an expanding universe. When one retreats the thesis, i.e., if the universe is expanding,

a. The particles must have been closer at some time

b. And hotter at some time

c. The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!! This is known as the Big Bang Singularity.

2. Get it? All the lines converge into…..the beginning! This presents a problem if one is tempted to believe in a universe with no beginning and no ending. The Big Bang, therefore, suggests a universe that is finite in time.

3. In the Sixties Hawking and Penrose joined in constructing ‘singularity theorems’. These seemed to show that everything now visible to us must have originated from a single point, or from something much like one: some ‘singularity’ where gravitationally induced curvature was indefinitely high, and at which particle histories had their first moments. John Leslie reviews

4. Astronomer Joseph Silk states that at singularity the laws of physics break down! On the shores of the unknown: a short history of the universe - Joseph Silk - Google Books

5. "Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists....one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.
Christopher Isham is a theoretical physicist at Imperial College London.


Now that I've 'backed up' the precis that this thread supposes....how about you take along walk on a short pier!


And remember: Atheists don't solve exponential equations because they don't believe in higher powers.

 

[geauxtohell]

The following is from "The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions," by David Berlinski...

1. There are those who argue that science is in opposition to religion, and that science offers sophisticated men and women a coherent vision of the universe.

2. There have been four powerful and profound scientific theories since the great scientific revolution was set in motion in the seventeenth century:
a. Newtonian mechanics,
b. Maxwell’s theory of the electromagnetic field,
c. Special and general relativity
d. And quantum mechanics

3. English mathematical physicist Roger Penrose has described the theories as “sometimes phenomenally accurate,” but a “tantalizingly inconsistent scheme of things.” The result, we know better than we did what we do not know, and what we have not grasped: how the universe began, how the mind functions, why we are here, how life emerged, or, with assurance, that it did.

4. No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses. When and if one questions the meaning of life, the number of his days, he hardy turns to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer.

a. Prominent figures have hypothesized that we are merely cosmic accidents. Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so…and it is an article of their faith based on the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them in ways the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate.
There is not the slightest reason to think that this is so.

5. While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love and meaning, what the religious traditions of mankind have said forms a coherent body of thought. It is a system of belief both adequate and more fitting to the complexities of our existence: recompense for suffering, principles beyond selfishness. Reassurance.
While I do not know if any of this is true, I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.

The truth is science is intentionally mute about the existence of the supernatural. It is beyond the ability of science to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural entity.

Anyways who claims otherwise, whether pro or con, has stepped outside the limitations of the scientific method. Dawkin's work supporting his atheistic worldview are not scientific works. They are opinion pieces (which is why they aren't peer reviewed).

On the other hand, Berlinski and his colleagues at the Discovery Institute are a bunch of hacks too.

So, dirty, hands abound.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The following is from "The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions," by David Berlinski...

1. There are those who argue that science is in opposition to religion, and that science offers sophisticated men and women a coherent vision of the universe.

2. There have been four powerful and profound scientific theories since the great scientific revolution was set in motion in the seventeenth century:
a. Newtonian mechanics,
b. Maxwell’s theory of the electromagnetic field,
c. Special and general relativity
d. And quantum mechanics

3. English mathematical physicist Roger Penrose has described the theories as “sometimes phenomenally accurate,” but a “tantalizingly inconsistent scheme of things.” The result, we know better than we did what we do not know, and what we have not grasped: how the universe began, how the mind functions, why we are here, how life emerged, or, with assurance, that it did.

4. No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses. When and if one questions the meaning of life, the number of his days, he hardy turns to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer.

a. Prominent figures have hypothesized that we are merely cosmic accidents. Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so…and it is an article of their faith based on the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them in ways the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate.
There is not the slightest reason to think that this is so.

5. While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love and meaning, what the religious traditions of mankind have said forms a coherent body of thought. It is a system of belief both adequate and more fitting to the complexities of our existence: recompense for suffering, principles beyond selfishness. Reassurance.
While I do not know if any of this is true, I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.

The truth is science is intentionally mute about the existence of the supernatural. It is beyond the ability of science to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural entity.

Anyways who claims otherwise, whether pro or con, has stepped outside the limitations of the scientific method. Dawkin's work supporting his atheistic worldview are not scientific works. They are opinion pieces (which is why they aren't peer reviewed).

On the other hand, Berlinski and his colleagues at the Discovery Institute are a bunch of hacks too.

So, dirty, hands abound.

I understand that the length of the thread precludes your reading of all of the posts...but as far as "The truth is science is intentionally mute about the existence of the supernatural."
this is not the case.

The reason for both the Berlinski tome and the OP based on same, is that a certain element of atheist scientists have opened the fray with comments, attacks on religion, and several books, mentioned elsewhere in the thread.


But, based on your strong criticism of Dr. Berlinski, I wonder if you are basing this on the book, 'The Devil's Delusion,' or were there some other books of his that you've read?

You have read his books, haven't you?

 

[geauxtohell]

I understand that the length of the thread precludes your reading of all of the posts...but as far as "The truth is science is intentionally mute about the existence of the supernatural."
this is not the case.

It is. Regardless of what anyone's opinion is, the fact is the scientific method is straightforward and limits itself to what can be reproduced and falsified. Since the supernatural can not be reproduced or falsified, it can not fit into the scientific method. It is beyond the scope of science to attempt to quantify the existence or lack thereof of a God. Any purist would tell you the same. That was the major objection with "Intelligent Design". The issue was never whether or not it was true. That is beyond the scope of science to know. The issue is that the basic hypothesis (used loosely) fell outside the scope of the scientific method. It was not a scientific theory and demanding that it be treated as such required a bastardization of basic scientific methodology.

As I said, Dawkins is guilty, but so is Berlinski and the Discovery Institute.

The reason for both the Berlinski tome and the OP based on same, is that a certain element of atheist scientists have opened the fray with comments, attacks on religion, and several books, mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

A very small element, and when they opine on issues of God and religion, they automatically step outside of the realm of science and enter into the realm of personal opinion.

The same standard we applied to the ID crowd applies to Dawkins.

But, based on your strong criticism of Dr. Berlinski, I wonder if you are basing this on the book, 'The Devil's Delusion,' or were there some other books of his that you've read?

You have read his books, haven't you?

No. I haven't. Nor will I stick money into the pocket of such a dishonest hack. I don't buy Dawkin's books either.

My criticism of Berlinkski and the Discovery Institute comes from following the ID issue since before the Dover trial married with my own formal studies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I understand that the length of the thread precludes your reading of all of the posts...but as far as "The truth is science is intentionally mute about the existence of the supernatural."
this is not the case.

It is. Regardless of what anyone's opinion is, the fact is the scientific method is straightforward and limits itself to what can be reproduced and falsified. Since the supernatural can not be reproduced or falsified, it can not fit into the scientific method. It is beyond the scope of science to attempt to quantify the existence or lack thereof of a God. Any purist would tell you the same. That was the major objection with "Intelligent Design". The issue was never whether or not it was true. That is beyond the scope of science to know. The issue is that the basic hypothesis (used loosely) fell outside the scope of the scientific method. It was not a scientific theory and demanding that it be treated as such required a bastardization of basic scientific methodology.

As I said, Dawkins is guilty, but so is Berlinski and the Discovery Institute.

The reason for both the Berlinski tome and the OP based on same, is that a certain element of atheist scientists have opened the fray with comments, attacks on religion, and several books, mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

A very small element, and when they opine on issues of God and religion, they automatically step outside of the realm of science and enter into the realm of personal opinion.

The same standard we applied to the ID crowd applies to Dawkins.

But, based on your strong criticism of Dr. Berlinski, I wonder if you are basing this on the book, 'The Devil's Delusion,' or were there some other books of his that you've read?

You have read his books, haven't you?

No. I haven't. Nor will I stick money into the pocket of such a dishonest hack. I don't buy Dawkin's books either.

My criticism of Berlinkski and the Discovery Institute comes from following the ID issue since before the Dover trial married with my own formal studies.

If only I could come up with a time-saving program such as the one you've developed, the abilty to speak with authority about works and subjects that you've not read.


A gift. A true gift.
With the hours that you save, you must have months saved up by the end of the year.

 

[edthecynic]

Don't you want to claim that your physics book was always there, and always will be?

Gee, no surprise you can't back up the "PompousCheek Law of Thermodynamics."

I've warned you to leave my cheeks out of this.....
...now you are going to get it.

The Big Bang represents the beginning... physicists believe and accept this. In fact, proposed it.

But, phyicists also accept that they not only cannot explain where and what was before the Big Bang...but that the Laws of Phyics, your physics book which advances the principles and laws that explain our earth, do not conform to the singularity known as the Big Bang.


1. The redshift indicates an expanding universe. When one retreats the thesis, i.e., if the universe is expanding,

a. The particles must have been closer at some time

b. And hotter at some time

c. The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!! This is known as the Big Bang Singularity.

2. Get it? All the lines converge into…..the beginning! This presents a problem if one is tempted to believe in a universe with no beginning and no ending. The Big Bang, therefore, suggests a universe that is finite in time.

3. In the Sixties Hawking and Penrose joined in constructing ‘singularity theorems’. These seemed to show that everything now visible to us must have originated from a single point, or from something much like one: some ‘singularity’ where gravitationally induced curvature was indefinitely high, and at which particle histories had their first moments. John Leslie reviews

4. Astronomer Joseph Silk states that at singularity the laws of physics break down! On the shores of the unknown: a short history of the universe - Joseph Silk - Google Books

5. "Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists....one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.
Christopher Isham is a theoretical physicist at Imperial College London.


Now that I've 'backed up' the precis that this thread supposes....how about you take along walk on a short pier!


And remember: Atheists don't solve exponential equations because they don't believe in higher powers.

I will quote a famous, in her own mind, know it all, "If only I could come up with a time-saving program such as the one you've developed, the abilty to speak with authority about works and subjects that you've not read.


A gift. A true gift.
With the hours that you save, you must have months saved up by the end of the year."

Your problem is you don't know the difference between TIME and ENERGY. It is TIME that began at the Big Bang, not ENERGY. TIME has a beginning, it is not eternal, ENERGY has no beginning nor end and cannot be created nor destroyed. It was the already existing ENERGY that went bang at the Big Bang.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gee, no surprise you can't back up the "PompousCheek Law of Thermodynamics."

I've warned you to leave my cheeks out of this.....
...now you are going to get it.

The Big Bang represents the beginning... physicists believe and accept this. In fact, proposed it.

But, phyicists also accept that they not only cannot explain where and what was before the Big Bang...but that the Laws of Phyics, your physics book which advances the principles and laws that explain our earth, do not conform to the singularity known as the Big Bang.


1. The redshift indicates an expanding universe. When one retreats the thesis, i.e., if the universe is expanding,

a. The particles must have been closer at some time

b. And hotter at some time

c. The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!! This is known as the Big Bang Singularity.

2. Get it? All the lines converge into…..the beginning! This presents a problem if one is tempted to believe in a universe with no beginning and no ending. The Big Bang, therefore, suggests a universe that is finite in time.

3. In the Sixties Hawking and Penrose joined in constructing ‘singularity theorems’. These seemed to show that everything now visible to us must have originated from a single point, or from something much like one: some ‘singularity’ where gravitationally induced curvature was indefinitely high, and at which particle histories had their first moments. John Leslie reviews

4. Astronomer Joseph Silk states that at singularity the laws of physics break down! On the shores of the unknown: a short history of the universe - Joseph Silk - Google Books

5. "Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists....one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.
Christopher Isham is a theoretical physicist at Imperial College London.


Now that I've 'backed up' the precis that this thread supposes....how about you take along walk on a short pier!


And remember: Atheists don't solve exponential equations because they don't believe in higher powers.

I will quote a famous, in her own mind, know it all, "If only I could come up with a time-saving program such as the one you've developed, the abilty to speak with authority about works and subjects that you've not read.


A gift. A true gift.
With the hours that you save, you must have months saved up by the end of the year."

Your problem is you don't know the difference between TIME and ENERGY. It is TIME that began at the Big Bang, not ENERGY. TIME has a beginning, it is not eternal, ENERGY has no beginning nor end and cannot be created nor destroyed. It was the already existing ENERGY that went bang at the Big Bang.

1. So glad you perused the above - if I may live up to your charges, and call it incisive- post, and have digested the material - at least to the best of your ability.

Your post, your argument, is the best you can inform!

Good.

2. That must mean that you understand the redshift and its importance, the evidence that it provides for an expanding universe, and the Big Bang theory.

Further, that you understand that "The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!!"

So, we are in agreement that temperature, the density of the material present at the 'beginning,' and the curvature of the universe are all at infinity...

3. Perhaps you would like to change your statement "It is TIME that began at the Big Bang, not ENERGY. TIME has a beginning, it is not eternal, ENERGY has no beginning nor end..."...either that or differentiate between "ENERGY" and temperature...
....and explain what appears to be an inconsistency in your belief that 'ENERGY has no beginning nor end,' yet, current theory has the temperature falling from the Big Bang 'til now? Does this imply that there was a beginning....and as it drops, that there will be an ending?

a. Would you care to explain the difference in the eternal nature of energy as compared to time? There is such a difference according to you....no?

4. I hesitate to mention this, as it seems so obvious to anyone actully cognizant in terms of this thread, but the definiton that you have so much faith in for ENERGY, "no beginning nor end," certainly makes it sound like a certain central figure in my argument....
....does it not?


In the words of the famed Brown Bomber, 'you can run, but you can't hide.'



And my regards to your Mini-Beets who seems to hang on your every word, licking at your shoes....
...good-boy, G.T.!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've warned you to leave my cheeks out of this.....
...now you are going to get it.

The Big Bang represents the beginning... physicists believe and accept this. In fact, proposed it.

But, phyicists also accept that they not only cannot explain where and what was before the Big Bang...but that the Laws of Phyics, your physics book which advances the principles and laws that explain our earth, do not conform to the singularity known as the Big Bang.


1. The redshift indicates an expanding universe. When one retreats the thesis, i.e., if the universe is expanding,

a. The particles must have been closer at some time

b. And hotter at some time

c. The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!! This is known as the Big Bang Singularity.

2. Get it? All the lines converge into…..the beginning! This presents a problem if one is tempted to believe in a universe with no beginning and no ending. The Big Bang, therefore, suggests a universe that is finite in time.

3. In the Sixties Hawking and Penrose joined in constructing ‘singularity theorems’. These seemed to show that everything now visible to us must have originated from a single point, or from something much like one: some ‘singularity’ where gravitationally induced curvature was indefinitely high, and at which particle histories had their first moments. John Leslie reviews

4. Astronomer Joseph Silk states that at singularity the laws of physics break down! On the shores of the unknown: a short history of the universe - Joseph Silk - Google Books

5. "Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists....one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.
Christopher Isham is a theoretical physicist at Imperial College London.


Now that I've 'backed up' the precis that this thread supposes....how about you take along walk on a short pier!


And remember: Atheists don't solve exponential equations because they don't believe in higher powers.

I will quote a famous, in her own mind, know it all, "If only I could come up with a time-saving program such as the one you've developed, the abilty to speak with authority about works and subjects that you've not read.


A gift. A true gift.
With the hours that you save, you must have months saved up by the end of the year."

Your problem is you don't know the difference between TIME and ENERGY. It is TIME that began at the Big Bang, not ENERGY. TIME has a beginning, it is not eternal, ENERGY has no beginning nor end and cannot be created nor destroyed. It was the already existing ENERGY that went bang at the Big Bang.

1. So glad you perused the above - if I may live up to your charges, and call it incisive- post, and have digested the material - at least to the best of your ability.

Your post, your argument, is the best you can inform!

Good.

2. That must mean that you understand the redshift and its importance, the evidence that it provides for an expanding universe, and the Big Bang theory.

Further, that you understand that "The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!!"

So, we are in agreement that temperature, the density of the material present at the 'beginning,' and the curvature of the universe are all at infinity...

3. Perhaps you would like to change your statement "It is TIME that began at the Big Bang, not ENERGY. TIME has a beginning, it is not eternal, ENERGY has no beginning nor end..."...either that or differentiate between "ENERGY" and temperature...
....and explain what appears to be an inconsistency in your belief that 'ENERGY has no beginning nor end,' yet, current theory has the temperature falling from the Big Bang 'til now? Does this imply that there was a beginning....and as it drops, that there will be an ending?

a. Would you care to explain the difference in the eternal nature of energy as compared to time? There is such a difference according to you....no?

4. I hesitate to mention this, as it seems so obvious to anyone actully cognizant in terms of this thread, but the definiton that you have so much faith in for ENERGY, "no beginning nor end," certainly makes it sound like a certain central figure in my argument....
....does it not?


In the words of the famed Brown Bomber, 'you can run, but you can't hide.'



And my regards to your Mini-Beets who seems to hang on your every word, licking at your shoes....
...good-boy, G.T.!

A neg from G.T.?
Too bad you can't fight it out in public, Mini.

 

[G.T.]

There's nothing to fight out, maxi. You have no argument when you say things like the fundamentals of science are faith based. That's absurd, and the very machine you use to type such absurdity should be proof enough for ya dear. Unfortunately, the Religion you worship hasn't given you anything but arrogance & ignorance wrapped tightly into a big ball of shit! You stank!~