What's your definition of "God"?

[Atom]

Originally Posted by jdspc

Why Atom...The Bible tells me so...

Now where have I heard that before..

lol

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Actually, yes. When you deny infinite density you deny the Big Bang theory. Infinite density is at the center of the Big Bang theory.

No sir, i don't see any infinites at all in this universe. You can't have infinite density at one point and then suddenly lose it. Or perhaps you're trying to redefine 'infinite'?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

No sir, i don't see any infinites at all in this universe. You can't have infinite density at one point and then suddenly lose it. Or perhaps you're trying to redefine 'infinite'?

Rank, you being obtuse on purpose?

Of course we don't see any infinites. Did I say we did? Can you read English? What did I say? You quoted it, so you should know.
[QUOTEJohn Scott]
Actually, yes. When you deny infinite density you deny the Big Bang theory. Infinite density is at the center of the Big Bang theory.[/QUOTE]

Does that say "Oh yes, I see infinites everywhere!"? No, does it say "I agree with infinite density!"?? No.

It says "Infinite density is at the center of the Big Bang theory".

You want to debate that? Do you?

Originally Posted by en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the universe which has the primary assertion that the universe has expanded into its current state from an initial state of infinite density and temperature.

Or, the source you quoted yesterday:

Originally Posted by www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/cosmology.html

The earliest state of the universe is inanimate since the singularity involves the life-hostile conditions of infinite temperature, infinite curvature and infinite density.

Originally Posted by big-bang-theory.com

The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities."

Infinite. D.e.n.s.i.t.y.

So you still think that your denial of infinite density is compatible with the Big Bang Theory? Your version, "somewhat high density" would be the "Not Really Big, Not Really Bang, More Like A Low Swooshing Sound Theory".

[mrgee]

God doesnt exist...imo

[backgammonnn123]

How the heck did every known physical law in this universe come about???? By random chance? Common sense tells us that this is impossible because of the infinite amount of probabilities here. There is an order in this universe and it can only have come about by an intelligent design of some sort.
Any rational human being can see this.

[Atom]

I agree.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by backgammonnn123

How the heck did every known physical law in this universe come about???? By random chance? Common sense tells us that this is impossible because of the infinite amount of probabilities here. There is an order in this universe and it can only have come about by an intelligent design of some sort.
Any rational human being can see this.

Richard Dawkins wrote quite an extentive article in his book The God Delusion which addresses this very issue. I suggest you to read that, it explains accurately why your theory doesn't hold grounds.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Richard Dawkins wrote quite an extentive article in his book The God Delusion which addresses this very issue. I suggest you to read that, it explains accurately why your theory doesn't hold grounds.

Really? I didn't see it. Are you referring to the anthropic principle?

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Really? I didn't see it. Are you referring to the anthropic principle?

No, I'm not referring to the anthropic principle. I'm referring to "There is an order in this universe and it can only have come about by an intelligent design of some sort."

This is a very much used argument by ID defenders, and has been addressed in Dawkins' book.

Besides, the whole intelligent design issue is too ridiculous to spend any energy on, it only gives religious folks the illusion that they actually have some sort of credibility. All their ridiculous arguments have been debunked time and time again by various scientists and it's about time to ignore those people, they are just trolling the intellectual community.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Ferre

No, I'm not referring to the anthropic principle. I'm referring to "There is an order in this universe and it can only have come about by an intelligent design of some sort."

This is a very much used argument by ID defenders, and has been addressed in Dawkins' book.

How exactly did he respond to that? Maybe you should paraphrase.

And, how exactly did matter come about, and all laws of nature become so extraordinarily compatible with human existence? The so called "fine tuning" of the universe. That was the point you were attempting to rebut.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...22902820192304

So, go ahead, rebut it.

[Rankenstein]

Ah, right, where were we? Oh, yes.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Rank, you being obtuse on purpose?

Why, yes. Yes, I am. It's one of my standard debating tactics.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Actually, yes. When you deny infinite density you deny the Big Bang theory. Infinite density is at the center of the Big Bang theory.

Not at all - you really need to keep up with current thinking, John.

In the big bang theory, it's only called infinite because it involves a division by zero.

Think of a black hole. When the star that formed it collapsed, does it suddenly produce an infinite amount of matter from nowhere? No. Yet we say it has 'infinite' density, even though the mass it contains is actually finite. The reason why we call it 'infinite' is because density equals mass divided by volume. The volume is zero (that's the singularity part) therefore the density is infinite.

Originally Posted by John Scott

It says "Infinite density is at the center of the Big Bang theory".

You want to debate that? Do you?

Yes, and you missed out 'punk' at the end there.

Anyway, infinite density as I say is a consequence of zero volume. Now, we have no knowledge at all before some small number of Planck units (I think it's actually one unit) after the Big Bang, and that means that the idea of the universe going back to a point of zero volume, is just that. An idea. Like the idea of a singularity in a black hole. The black hole singularity is something that Hawking has been trying to show is avoidable, and I see no solid proof that the universe went back to zero volume either, even though it looks that way. Hence, I don't see any infinites - does that help to clarify what I'm talking about? Hawkings actually started studying black holes when he realised the universe was pretty much a black hole in reverse - that's what led him in that direction.

"it seems that quantum effects can remove the most objectionable feature, of singularities in classical General Relativity....
...The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the Earth, or so I'm told. I have not been there myself."
- Stephen Hawking

For more info, read up on imaginary time and the no boundary proposal.

[John Scott]

Rank, you seem to be confused.

Yet we say it has 'infinite' density, even though the mass it contains is actually finite.

No, it's not. That's why it is called infinite density.

According to the Big Bang theory, all matter in universe had the precise same starting point from which it expands. When I say precise, I mean "precise", I don't mean "close to".

So the matter that makes up the planet earth originated from the a dot smaller than a needle pin that was also occupied by every other planet in the universe. In fact, the dot was so small that it didn't even occupy ANY space. Infinite density.

[sremington]

Big Bang is a cool theory. I don't accept it quite yet. Not that it couldn't have happened, but rather there really is no proof to determine why we are even here. There is definitely evidence but I don't think we can really can determine fully one way or another.

I think it takes faith no matter what you believe.

Thought I would chime in

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Rank, you seem to be confused.

"Yet we say it has 'infinite' density, even though the mass it contains is actually finite." - Me

No, it's not. That's why it is called infinite density.

According to the Big Bang theory, all matter in universe had the precise same starting point from which it expands. When I say precise, I mean "precise", I don't mean "close to".

So the matter that makes up the planet earth originated from the a dot smaller than a needle pin that was also occupied by every other planet in the universe. In fact, the dot was so small that it didn't even occupy ANY space. Infinite density.

That's true, in that, that's how the big bang theory goes, but infinite density definitely does not equal infinite mass. You can have infinite density with just a single atom occupying zero volume. Any mass with no volume has infinite density. It's the zero volume that gives rise to the 'infinite' part, not the amount of matter that's actually in there.

[Adamantium]

What bugs me out about the God concept is the whole no beginning thing that one must accept. It seems that to accept what most people mean by God, you have to accept that God had no beginning and just always was.

I can't even imagine that the Universe had no beginning. So, that points me to a God type scenario, a scene of creation. Then I think about God, and God always just having been, and can't imagine that either. If I accept that there must have been a beginning to the Universe, why would I not accept there was a beginning to God? How could God, or anything, just always been? Think about it. I don't think something can come from nothing, can it? Many have said no, it can't, and point to that as an indication everything was created by a "God." So, why would that not apply to God? I have never heard a reasonable explanation as to how there just could have always been a God. It just doesn't seem right, the way it doesn't seem right that there was no beginning to a Universe.

How could an entity that wanted to produce humans just have always been around even when there was no reason or nothing to be around? Did God just appear out of magic? I seriously can't wrap my mind about it.

For me, it is one of the obstacles to fully accepting that there is a God, because to accept that there is a God, I feel as though I am forced to accept that there was no beginning to God. I have a real problem with that. Do you, at all? Think about it and be honest.

[sremington]

Yes this bugged me for years. But we have to remember that maybe God created time and we are stuck in the confines of time when trying to determine truth.

I still don't get it though... LOL

But if you think about it.... if that is the truth then there was never a beginning in any scenario you present. If there was never a beginning then we wouldn't be here as we are constantly going back in time trying to find the beginning point.

So somewhere there HAD to be a beginning of some sort in order for us to have arrived at this point in time where I am typing this message to you.

[Adamantium]

Originally Posted by sremington

Yes this bugged me for years. But we have to remember that maybe God created time and we are stuck in the confines of time when trying to determine truth.

I still don't get it though... LOL

But if you think about it.... if that is the truth then there was never a beginning in any scenario you present. If there was never a beginning then we wouldn't be here as we are constantly going back in time trying to find the beginning point.

So somewhere there HAD to be a beginning of some sort in order for us to have arrived at this point in time where I am typing this message to you.

Seems like a lot of trouble just to make some fancy monkeys. I know, "souls." So you make some fancy monkeys with souls because you emotionally need to be loved and worshiped? Here is my point on that: if God is all-knowing, and knows the future, it makes the alleged purpose of making humans seems negated. He already knows what will happen, he already knows about prophecies, World War 1, and slavery. So what's with the Great Flood and drowning babies and old ladies because you were disappointed in how they turned out? You already knew how they would turn out. In fact, because you didn't pick a more nervous, cautious, or whatever Eve, and instead made one more naive than that, she ate the apple. Now my kids are born with sin - thanks.

When you know the future and you pick the setting, the people, the circumstances, etc. you are editing. You are creating the future. If you change the type of person, the setting, or any factor at all, you change the future. God created the future when he created Adam and Eve, when he picked the kind of people Noah and his family was, the list goes on. I am assuming Biblical God for the ease of conversation, if you know what I mean.

So I don't buy the whole "God didn't know how we would turn out" thing, and I don't buy the whole "God made us so we can love him" thing. God is already in the future, knowing it. As soon as he made us he saw it all in a flash if he is all-knowing. In fact, like I said, he shaped it by making us the species we are and creating scenarios, AND by intervening as he has at various times. Change how you intervene and you change the future, again. God edits? The whole thing seems absurd.

To make it worse, God had no beginning. Just always was, magically, even when there was nothing. Something from nothing. You buy that? I don't.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Adamantium

So, why would that not apply to God?

Because he isn't a physical being, according to most religions. Physical forms always have a beginning and always have a point when they end.

The spiritual reality posited by people who believe in a spiritual reality is not subject to rot, rust, decay, etc. In that reality, is is assumed that a spirit could always be.

Who knows?

[Adamantium]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Because he isn't a physical being, according to most religions. Physical forms always have a beginning and always have a point when they end.

The spiritual reality posited by people who believe in a spiritual reality is not subject to rot, rust, decay, etc. In that reality, is is assumed that a spirit could always be.

Who knows?

I don't see how not being a physical being magically excuses you or qualifies you to have no beginning. Both can have no beginning theoretically, especially if God wanted it (I assume). You have to accept something from nothing with God, if you believe God just always was, since you would be saying God was there even when there was absolutely nothing.

Unless, of course, you want to say all of it just always was. But then you conflict with what most people see as the need for God - which was, creating the Universe.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

That's true, in that, that's how the big bang theory goes, but infinite density definitely does not equal infinite mass. You can have infinite density with just a single atom occupying zero volume. Any mass with no volume has infinite density. It's the zero volume that gives rise to the 'infinite' part, not the amount of matter that's actually in there.

And the amount of matter that was in this nothingness that suddenly started to expand was all matter in the universe.