[needimprovement]

Moontanman, on 29 August 2010 - 02:21 PM, said:

As has been said before needimprovemnt, the idea of a singularity is loosing ground to other theories that do not require it.

You are talking about hypothesis here, not contending theories. The Multiverse theory, i would argue that it isn't even a valid hypothesis, since i am not unaware that scientists have found a means by which they can validate the existence of other universes outside of our own space time (if that even makes logical sense). "Many of these so called theories lack empirical testability, and without hard physical evidence are unfalsifiable; outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove". The current understanding of the big-bang is in my view the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

Moontanman, on 29 August 2010 - 02:21 PM, said:

It's why hanging your religious ideas of science is often a mistake,

I think that you are taking my argument out of context in-order to feed your ego. I think i have already made it clear that i am not saying that my argument isn't vulnerable to disprove, but rather i was merely stating that if it is objectively true that all time-space-energy has a beginning insofar as it extends from an infinitely dense point (which is supported by the current evidence), then it necessarily follows that something non-physical is at the root of that singularity.

I certainly am not interested in suggesting that people should believe purely on big bang cosmology alone. However, i certainly think (at least for the time being) that it points in the direction of a creator, and that should not be ignored. I think that scientists and people in general should be willing to admit what the theory implies regardless of whether or not they choose to believe in God on that basis. I think that's only fare given that many atheists who happen to be scientist happily spend enough time saying how evolution points to a meaningless purposeless universe. (Richard Dawkings is one person who is not shy about expressing the metaphysical implications of a scientific theory).

Moontanman, on 29 August 2010 - 02:21 PM, said:

First it was the idea of a flat earth, then Catholic church hung it's hat on the geocentric universe with crystal spheres, each time the Church had to back away when reality was shown to be drastically different and people were jailed, tortured and even killed as the Church tried to suppress the correct information in favor of the view the church supported. Trying to say science supports a particular religious view is always a mistake....

I think this is a distorted view of actual events based on a popular prejudice. Many historians are beginning to see this. Again; the so called Galileo theory at the time was not scientifically validated in a strict empirical sense. See here...http://www.iep.utm.edu/sci-rel/#SH3a

The link explains my point.

Also, what you are basically saying is that we cannot rely on science to tell us physical truths about reality; that even well supported theories are nothing more than tautologies in that we cannot show them to be consistent with the way things truly are. They are just models of reality which constantly changes. I disagree. I think its entirely reasonable to make logical inferences from a well established scientific theory so long as you are prepared to accept that a particular theory might develop or change.

Moontanman, on 29 August 2010 - 02:21 PM, said:

The Church has gotten to where it's at by suppressing, often violently, other religions, not because of some basic truth....

Again, while i do not deny that Church leaders had their faults and ignorance's, this is a simplistic distortion of actual events; similar to claims that the church did not reject the slavery of black people or the atrocities that were committed against the Jews under Nazi Germany. A very strict and close examination of these events free of conspiracy theories and assertions, often reveals that there is a long history of anti-Catholics who have labored in distorting the facts.

[Moontanman]

needimprovement, on 31 August 2010 - 01:25 PM, said:

You are talking about hypothesis here, not contending theories. The Multiverse theory, i would argue that it isn't even a valid hypothesis, since i am not unaware that scientists have found a means by which they can validate the existence of other universes outside of our own space time (if that even makes logical sense). "Many of these so called theories lack empirical testability, and without hard physical evidence are unfalsifiable; outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove". The current understanding of the big-bang is in my view the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

The key here are the words "in my view" your view is so heavily influenced by religion it has become nothing but a religious view.... you are a excellent example of being blinded by the light, you are so blind you can't see anything other than the light. Theories change, the idea of the big bang has been a problem for many scientist from day one, it asserts a singularity, a sign to some that a theory has problems. many people are working ways to avoid that singularity. You attraction to it is because it conforms to the religious idea of creation, this feeling of it having to be right due to creation is just a religious bias, nothing more....

Quote

I think that you are taking my argument out of context in-order to feed your ego. I think i have already made it clear that i am not saying that my argument isn't vulnerable to disprove, but rather i was merely stating that if it is objectively true that all time-space-energy has a beginning insofar as it extends from an infinitely dense point (which is supported by the current evidence), then it necessarily follows that something non-physical is at the root of that singularity.

My ego? You are arguing that the big bang has to be right, what do you base that on other than your own desperate need for confirmation of your own religious views....

Quote

I certainly am not interested in suggesting that people should believe purely on big bang cosmology alone. However, i certainly think (at least for the time being) that it points in the direction of a creator, and that should not be ignored. I think that scientists and people in general should be willing to admit what the theory implies regardless of whether or not they choose to believe in God on that basis. I think that's only fare given that many atheists who happen to be scientist happily spend enough time saying how evolution points to a meaningless purposeless universe. (Richard Dawkings is one person who is not shy about expressing the metaphysical implications of a scientific theory).

Why because it helps you proselytize? Why should anyone be willing to admit anything to support religion other than the people who believe? Why should anyone stick their neck out for religion when religion is so reluctant to support anything that does not support it...

Quote

I think this is a distorted view of actual events based on a popular prejudice. Many historians are beginning to see this. Again; the so called Galileo theory at the time was not scientifically validated in a strict empirical sense. See here...http://www.iep.utm.edu/sci-rel/#SH3a

Finally a link to support your point.... of course it is a link to a site that grossly distorts and down plays the role of the church in suppressing new idea and tries to show that a geocentric universe is just as good as the sun being at the center of the solar system and tries to smooth over the the conflict between the two systems. One made real sense the other was a complex bunch of excuses arbitrarily put together to try and keep the idea of a stationary Earth in place..... fail....

Quote

The link explains my point.

No it asserts your point by grossly distorting the reality of the message.... Typical for religion

Quote

Also, what you are basically saying is that we cannot rely on science to tell us physical truths about reality; that even well supported theories are nothing more than tautologies in that we cannot show them to be consistent with the way things truly are. They are just models of reality which constantly changes. I disagree. I think its entirely reasonable to make logical inferences from a well established scientific theory so long as you are prepared to accept that a particular theory might develop or change.

No, i am saying exactly what you said in your last sentence, you are trying to distort what i said to support your idea of religious truth being better than science. Establishing a religious perception by using science is a mistake, trying to assert a religious reality is dangerous because for religion to change it's mind people often have to die, all it takes for science to change is better evidence....

Quote

Again, while i do not deny that Church leaders had their faults and ignorance's, this is a simplistic distortion of actual events; similar to claims that the church did not reject the slavery of black people or the atrocities that were committed against the Jews under Nazi Germany. A very strict and close examination of these events free of conspiracy theories and assertions, often reveals that there is a long history of anti-Catholics who have labored in distorting the facts.

Yeah, the anti Catholics laboring to distort the facts, got any evidence of this? I didn't mention anything about Nazis or slavery did I? I was thinking more about the violent suppression of non Christian religions across Europe and the complete destruction of the cultures of central and South America even down to destroying all written records and histories of those cultures. yes those terrible anti catholics got what they deserved I am sure.... This has occurred where ever Catholics have encountered other cultures.... especially primitive cultures...

[jcarlson]

Frankly, even with all the false dichotomies being thrown about, I don't see where a god necessarily comes into play here.

If the universe has no true 'beginning' and the big bang expansion is the result of physical phenomena, well, obviously there's no need to invent a god to explain it.

But even if the universe had a 'beginning' in the sense that it appeared from nothing, why suppose god? You are assuming the spontaneous creation of matter and energy from nothing is an effect which requires a cause, needimprovement, and I don't see why. If this is what happened there is no other known instance of it ever happening. While we see things being "created" from existing matter and energy in everyday life which certainly are "caused", this is not evidence that the universe being "created" from nothing requires a "cause" because they are really two different definitions of "create" (one implying changing existing matter and energy from one form to another, and the other implying matter and energy appearing from nothing), and thus we have nothing to inductively reason from, and therefore no reason to assume a cause is necessary. Just because something is counter-intuitive doesn't mean it's wrong, and therefore doesn't mean you get to invent an arbitrary omnipotent super-being to mend it.

[needimprovement]

Mr Skeptic, on 18 August 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

Well, I think it could be zero. I don't really understand the maths, but basically it is that gravity cancels out the positive energy. Seems a bit strange to me, but I can't really say one way or the other.
Zero-energy_Universe

Just hitting the link.
What's a "tensor perspective"? Is it the same as “vector perspective”? (i.e. having direction)

Thanks.

[Mr Skeptic]

I can say little about tensors, other than that they're the reason I don't understand general relativity.

[needimprovement]

Moontanman, on 31 August 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

The key here are the words "in my view" your view is so heavily influenced by religion it has become nothing but a religious view....

Your view is heavily influence by false and distorted knowledge.

You confuse hypothesis for theories and you make claims about history that is mostly exaggerations and distortion about what really happened. I feel sorry about anybody who is folly enough to take you seriously.

Moontanman, on 31 August 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

you are a excellent example of being blinded by the light, you are so blind you can't see anything other than the light.

You are an excellent example of somebody who has been blinded by meta-naturalism posing as scientific knowledge.

Moontanman, on 31 August 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

Theories change, the idea of the big bang has been a problem for many scientist from day one, it asserts a singularity, a sign to some that a theory has problems.

A singularity is a problem only if you hold to a particular philosophical world view; mainly naturalism.

I have no problem if people can find a legitimate way of removing the singularity. But most people are attempting this purely on the basis that the alternative is unacceptable to philosophical naturalism. Its no surprise to me that most of these so called theories (hypothesis) cannot even be validated empirically. They assert something outside of the universe; out of reach of being falsified.

Moontanman, on 31 August 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

many people are working ways to avoid that singularity. You attraction to it is because it conforms to the religious idea of creation, this feeling of it having to be right due to creation is just a religious bias, nothing more....

Its irrelevant why I am attracted to it. I could be attracted to the idea that 2+2 = 4, but this does not in anyway remove the legitimacy of the fact that 2+2 does equal 4. The scientific evidence points to a singularity. If the singularity was nothing more than an assertion you wouldn't have people working so hard to remove it. I am merely pointing out that a singularity necessarily involves a non-physical element. Now if you know of a valid "theory" that disproves the singularity, well that's just fine.

Moontanman, on 31 August 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

My ego? You are arguing that the big bang has to be right, what do you base that on other than your own desperate need for confirmation of your own religious views....

Again you are distorting what I have been saying. It seems to me that you don't really know what you are talking about. I don't know much either, but at least I can determine the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

Moontanman, on 31 August 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

Why because it helps you proselytize? Why should anyone be willing to admit anything to support religion other than the people who believe? Why should anyone stick their neck out for religion when religion is so reluctant to support anything that does not support it...

If scientists are willing to point to the scientific evidence which they believe supports their atheism, then the theist has a legitimate right to point to scientific evidence which they believe supports theism. And if the scientific atheist is honest, they will accept that the real evidence at this point in time points to a singularity; an absolute beginning of what we understand to be physical. Now they can argue that perhaps one day some theory will come along which will remove the singularity. That's fine, so long as they are willing to accept that the singularity could be here to stay for good, and that the metaphysical consequences of this being the case is supernatural in proportion.

Moontanman, on 31 August 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

Finally a link to support your point.... of course it is a link to a site that grossly distorts and down plays the role of the church in suppressing new idea and tries to show that a geocentric universe is just as good as the sun being at the center of the solar system and tries to smooth over the the conflict between the two systems. One made real sense the other was a complex bunch of excuses arbitrarily put together to try and keep the idea of a stationary Earth in place..... fail....

This is just your assertion distorting information that my link provided. You can ignore it if you like, but this just shows how venomously opposed you are to the idea that you could be wrong. Pride is a killer of intelligence

[Mr Skeptic]

needimprovement, on 2 September 2010 - 03:52 PM, said:

The scientific evidence points to a singularity.

What scientific evidence points to a singularity?

[Moontanman]

Needimprovment, you are like a bank robber using other bank robbers as a source of information to show that robbing banks is a good thing... You accuse me of the very things you are doing, you never defend your ideas with anything other than religion and belief. You choose to ignore any data offered that shows your religious in a bad way and you do your best to gloss over any accounts of anything you cannot ignore. Specific points I have made you have failed to address


Your religion is no better than anyone else's.

You belittle and denigrate any other religion and anyone who believes it by belittling and denigrating their ability to believe.

You ignore the horrific things the church has done to other cultures by claiming those accounts were reported by anti catholics, how sad, you back up lies with even more lies.

You have no idea how science works yet you make claims about certain theories that you think might support your religion. You then do your best to belittle any other science that disagrees with your pet theory.

After loosing the battle you then turn and attack the person you are arguing with because you cannot win via better evidence for your argument.

Very sad but typical of the ultra religious mind set.

[caharris]

Didn't Hawking study black holes because he thought the singularity (mathematically) matched that of the big bang? And didn't Hawking and Penrose (the guys who mathematically "made" the singularity) reject the idea later?

[Airbrush]

caharris, on 3 September 2010 - 01:11 AM, said:

Didn't Hawking study black holes because he thought the singularity (mathematically) matched that of the big bang? And didn't Hawking and Penrose (the guys who mathematically "made" the singularity) reject the idea later?

Why must the universe begin with a singularity? Maybe there was no singularity if the Big Bang started from a rather huge region, if caused by a collision of higher dimensions. Singularity is just a delusion, like thinking the Earth was flat because it appeared to be flat, or that the Milky Way was the entire universe, with smudgy things called nebulae, because it appeared that way. The big bang was a general expansion starting from a region of undeterminable size, but not a singularity.