Originally posted by King Kandy
Nope, it's called changing the subject. You want me to go back 20 pages or so, I bet you've changed the subject no less than seven times. That's cowardly debating. I'm taking a stand now by refusing to play your game and argue a new subject. Either finish addressing the issues we were in the middle of discussing, or this conversation is over.
So you don't know what caused the singularity to expand then?
I really don't know why you are taking this discussion so seriously. You are free to believe what you wish. I simply asked you to answer the question of all questions that would bring an end to all this controversy and you side stepped it.
There would be no need to go back and answer any other questions twenty pages back and you still dodged.
It is almost like you know you are stumped but you're just reluctant to admit and use this thing about taking a stand as a pretense. Think about it of all the times to take a stand as such why now why not a year ago or two years ago--or even three years ago?
Question of all questions: what caused the singularity to expand?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So you don't know what caused the singularity to expand then?I really don't know why you are taking this discussion so seriously. You are free to believe what you wish. I simply asked you to answer the question of all questions that would bring an end to all this controversy and you side stepped it.
There would be no need to go back and answer any other questions twenty pages back and you still dodged.
It is almost like you know you are stumped but you're just reluctant to admit and use this thing about taking a stand as a pretense. Think about it of all the times to take a stand as such why now why not a year ago or two years ago--or even three years ago?
Question of all questions: what caused the singularity to expand?
Nobody knows that. As a matter of fact, the Big Bang is just one theory of the origin of the Universe.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
[B]Nobody knows that. As a matter of fact, the Big Bang is just one theory of the origin of the Universe. [/B]
There is no doubt that the scheme of physics... postulates a date at which either the entities of the Universe were created in a state of high organization, or pre-existing entities were endowed with that organization which they have been squandering ever since. Moreover, this organization is admittedly the antithesis of chance. It is something which could not occur fortuitously. It has been quoted as scientific proof of the intervention of the Creator at a time not infinitely remote from today. It is one of those conclusions from which we can see no logical escape - only it suffers from the drawback that it is incredible.
- Sir Arthur Eddington
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is no doubt that the scheme of physics... postulates a date at which either the entities of the Universe were created in a state of high organization, or pre-existing entities were endowed with that organization which they have been squandering ever since. Moreover, this organization is admittedly the antithesis of chance. It is something which could not occur fortuitously. It has been quoted as scientific proof of the intervention of the Creator at a time not infinitely remote from today. It is one of those conclusions from which we can see no logical escape - only it suffers from the drawback that it is incredible.- Sir Arthur Eddington
That is a lovely theory by Sir Arthur Eddington.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is no doubt that the scheme of physics... postulates a date at which either the entities of the Universe were created in a state of high organization, or pre-existing entities were endowed with that organization which they have been squandering ever since. Moreover, this organization is admittedly the antithesis of chance. It is something which could not occur fortuitously. It has been quoted as scientific proof of the intervention of the Creator at a time not infinitely remote from today. It is one of those conclusions from which we can see no logical escape - only it suffers from the drawback that it is incredible.- Sir Arthur Eddington
Who is only a single person and at that one who died in 1944 making him ignorant of decades of developments in science.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who is only a single person and at that one who died in 1944 making him ignorant of decades of developments in science.
If the initial state of the universe had to be chosen extremely carefully to lead to something like what we see around us, the universe would be unlikely to contain any region in which life would appear.... It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.
- (Stephen) Hawking, op. cit., p. 126
"It's truly a wonderful age we live in . We advance in leaps and bounds. Only because we question unceasingly. It's just unfortunate that for so long when ever we've said "I don't know", some con artist (who doesn't know either) tells you he has the truth and you should give him your money or fight in his army, join his cult, or do what he says. He also tells you you'll know it was the truth once you die. It must be true cause no one ever asks for a refund. Think what we could have achieved without religion."
-Some random YouTuber
Man, I just LOVE throwing around quotes 😉
Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing
by Slashdot
Thanks to James Pycroft for the link.
Reposted from:
http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/03/14/172226.shtml
"Speaking to a sold out crowd at the Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture, Hawking said yesterday that he now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. He said more work is needed to prove this but we have time because 'Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.'
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[b]Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing
by Slashdot
Thanks to James Pycroft for the link.Reposted from:
http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/03/14/172226.shtml
"Speaking to a sold out crowd at the Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture, Hawking said yesterday that he now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. He said more work is needed to prove this but we have time because 'Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.'
Please define nothing. What is it made of, and what happen to it after the big bang?
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Nothing in this context is just that: nothing.In other words, God did not use pre-existing matter to create matter or matter did not exist before God created it.
But wait, if god made the universe out of nothing, then nothing is now something that god made the universe from. The act of creation would also create nothingness. Imagine a times line that starts at the big bang and extends into the remote future and remote past. This nothingness would have had to have been created by the big band at the same time that the universe came into existence.
So, you believe that the universe is 13.5 billion years old? If so, we are in agreement. However I think we disagree on nothingness. Nothingness can't exist, because once nothingness becomes something it is no longer nothingness. Nothingness is very unstable, and always becomes something. I have to admit, this would have to be an absolute. For something to exist, nothingness must always become something.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But wait, if god made the universe out of nothing, then nothing is now something that god made the universe from. The act of creation would also create nothingness. Imagine a times line that starts at the big bang and extends into the remote future and remote past. This nothingness would have had to have been created by the big band at the same time that the universe came into existence.So, you believe that the universe is 13.5 billion years old? If so, we are in agreement. However I think we disagree on nothingness. Nothingness can't exist, because once nothingness becomes something it is no longer nothingness. Nothingness is very unstable, and always becomes something. I have to admit, this would have to be an absolute. For something to exist, nothingness must always become something.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Nothing in this context is just that: nothing.In other words, God did not use pre-existing matter to create matter or matter did not exist before God created it.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Nothing in this context is just that: nothing.In other words, God did not use pre-existing matter to create matter or matter did not exist before God created it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But wait, if god made the universe out of nothing, then nothing is now something that god made the universe from. The act of creation would also create nothingness. Imagine a times line that starts at the big bang and extends into the remote future and remote past. This nothingness would have had to have been created by the big band at the same time that the universe came into existence.So, you believe that the universe is 13.5 billion years old? If so, we are in agreement. However I think we disagree on nothingness. Nothingness can't exist, because once nothingness becomes something it is no longer nothingness. Nothingness is very unstable, and always becomes something. I have to admit, this would have to be an absolute. For something to exist, nothingness must always become something.
Try reading my post this time.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So you don't know what caused the singularity to expand then?I really don't know why you are taking this discussion so seriously. You are free to believe what you wish. I simply asked you to answer the question of all questions that would bring an end to all this controversy and you side stepped it.
There would be no need to go back and answer any other questions twenty pages back and you still dodged.
It is almost like you know you are stumped but you're just reluctant to admit and use this thing about taking a stand as a pretense. Think about it of all the times to take a stand as such why now why not a year ago or two years ago--or even three years ago?
Question of all questions: what caused the singularity to expand?
Question of all questions: How do Japanese Maples undergo photosynthesis?