Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth


Ye Old One wrote:
On 21 Mar 2006 12:50:13 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:
On 20 Mar 2006 16:55:15 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:
On 8 Mar 2006 17:40:35 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


AC wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 08:09:25 GMT,
Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6 Feb 2006 17:05:21 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

All known constants of the universe and
laws of physics and chemistry were null and void and wholly
unapplicable to the singularity.

Mmmmm. There is some debate over some things, but yes, for the sake of
argument, you are correct.

Now, what power created that condition?

None. No power was needed.

How could such a condition ever come about? It's a valid question
unless you wish to assert that this situation was a very rare or unique
condition that just happened without a cause.

We have no way of knowing if it is rare or even unique.


No idea? OK, what power could
theoretically create such a condition?

There is no need for a power to have created the condition. The
condition existed. All the energy that would one day make our
universe, all in a space less than about 1.616 × 10-35 meters across.

I suppose that you believe that entropy in this initial state was a
non-issue as well.

Yes, because for quite some time energy was flowing into the system.
Only when that stopped could enthropy have a meaning.

Energy flowing to this singularity system?!? Are you serious?

As I said, singularity is not the best word to use because it was not
like the singularity that produces a blank hole. A Black Hole
Singularity (BHS) has space around it, the BBS didn't.

Right. The BBS singularity contained time and space itself. But, it
is this singularity (BBS) that I am talking about (and I thought you
were too). So, the BBS singularity had energy flowing into it? If so,
then it didn't contain time and space completely. If not, then it had
to come about with all the necessary energy already contained in it.


So, then there was energy (and perhaps matter) outside of the
singularity.

No, inside the expanding space.

Then, what was that "for quite some time energy was flowing into the
system" quote referring to?


So, now the singularity was not the only thing in
existence.

Forget the singularity - it is confusing things for you. Think instead
of the universe, expanding many times faster than the speed of light.

I was trying to look that the singularity to see how it might have
originated. Once the thing started expanding, no problem. But before
it began expanding is where our focus should be...in order to determine
if such a system was even possible to exist at all, much less originate
through purely natural processes.


I am almost afraid to ask this...what was the source of
this energy?

Vacuum.

Look up "Cosmic inflation".

So, there was a "perturbative" vacuum where we think it was a true
vacuum but something/some event prevents us from making that
conclusion, i.e. the singularity that drew its energy from it. So, in
one sense, it looks like a true, absolute vacuum (no mass, no energy,
no time, no space), but can't be because of its interaction with the
singularity.

Wow! Sort of like thinking about how to move slower than already being
stopped. It's like the physics point to something that is there even
though the math says that there isn't anything. And you're sure of the
math AND physics. Alas, traditional math and physics are not enough.




Still no idea. Well, if
science is incapable of handling such a question, then perhaps we ought
to look to something else for answers.

Who said science is incapable? Yes, of course, there are still
questions to answer, that is why scientists still have jobs.

Science's own revelations seem
to lead one to the idea of a Supreme Being.

There is one point in time, back behind the 10^-43 second barrier of
the Planck epoch, where, just possibly, a Supreme Being could have his
home. However, not YOUR SB, your SD is an interferring, evil,
meglomaniac who made man as his person playthings. That sort of god is
the invention of primitive man.

That was a quick change...from cool, calm, collected scientist to
fire-breathing theologian. :-)

No, just a clear statement of facts.

I am pleasantly surprised that you admitted the slight possibility that
the Supreme Being's existence might be necessary at t=10^-43.

There is no need for one, and certainly if one existed he could not
have had any interreaction with out universe after the instant of
creation - so he would not be the eivil god of your bible.

Why would this god that you describe not have ANY interaction with our
universe after t=0?

Because nothing can. Even blackhole/whitehole bridges, if they exist,
can only operate within our universe.

But, maybe like our analysis, or lack thereof, of the singularity and
the false vacuum surrounding it, we don't have the math and physics to
analyze a Being who is outside of this universe but who can interact
with it at any time.


If we were to create a new universe in the lab, something that is not
actually beyond the realm of possibility in the future, we would cease
to be able to interact with it as soon as it forms.

I would like (seriously) to read more about this untouchable universe
within a universe. Any books that you can recommend?



Try reading "Black Holes and Baby Universes and other Essays" by
Stephen Hawking. It will answer a lot of oyur questions.

OK. Thanks.




I wasn't hinting at the Strong Anthropic Principle. I was hinting at
the Supreme Being theory.

In which scientific jounal was that theory published?

None. I don't know of any scientific journal that allows a theory with
non-naturalistic aspects to be published.

So it is not science then?

It may be. It's just not accepted by the limited, fallible humans who
publish those journals.

Noooo. If it was science it could be considered.

I think that such journals don't consider those theories because they
deal with the supernatural as well as the natural, not because the
scientific methodology is flawed.





As to the odds, I'm not sure what Jim even means. How does one even come up
with a means of calculating such odds? If this is truly a case of something
before the universe began, then how does one even determine the sorts of
variables.

Then let's not be so quick to proclaim that science has shown us, at
least in some general terms, how the universe began.

But it has done just that. Unlike your religion which has only shown
us a bunch of bronze age fairy stories.

Or, worse yet, stone age "God did it" concepts. Gasp!


Same thing.

--
Bob.

--
Bob.


.

Relevant Pages