I've seen enough of these thread's attacking God.

[Macodrone]

Doubtful Dreamer

black_wing_angel

Um...the idea of the empty void that we call "outer space" could "tear"...does not in any way conform to the laws of physics. Also, it is my understanding that the universe itself does not expand nor contract. It's just....empty void. It's nothingness.

The idea of space-time "tearing" is absurd, but it is the universe itself which is expanding. It is incorrect to picture everything drifting off into a void after some event flung it all outwards as such an event is incapable of explaining the observations and would require unobserved inhomogeneities and anisotropies. What this means is that we should, by observation, be able to very easily tell where the edge of universe is because the density there must be radically different than the density not at the edge. We do not observe any such differences at the boundaries of the observable universe. So, why is everything moving away from everything else? They are drifting apart because space is carrying them away from each other. It explains the largely isotropic and homogeneous universe we see and eliminates problems of requiring some spatially identifiable center for everything. It also helps explain why some red shifts are associated with velocities in excess of the speed of light.

As for what the fate of the universe is which appears to have spawned the debate, it is going to expand forever. Dark energy is causing an acceleration in the expansion which is strongly counteracting gravity and the universe is observed to be flat anyways [it has a density such that it will expand forever even without dark energy]. Penrose, I think it was, has this idea of cosmological conformal remapping, where after a certain period of expansion, the universe essentially restarts, but the idea is not very popular nor is it well supported despite Penrose's claims otherwise [he claims to have found patterns in the WMAP data, but no one else agrees with his analysis and believe he did some rather heavy cherry picking to get it to agree with his theory].

For what is probably the more pertinent question, where did the universe come from, we don't know. All modern theory simply tells us what happens once it is there for things to happen too. There have been various scientifically minded ideas which would give rise to a universe which looks like ours, but they are rather unspecific and very, very far from being precise or scientifically well founded. This does not mean that they are bad ideas, just that this line of inquiry is rather young and currently underdeveloped [cosmology has only held that the universe has a finite age for around of 60-70 years and the lack of ideas as to how to get observational evidence is a rather large roadblock to advancement].

Except the universe won't expand forever because A) eventually every star that has ever existed or will exist will blink out of existence.
B) Time isn't infinite.
C) Space-time has an elastic property which allows it to stretch and there are thousands of physicists and a lot of renowned physicists who liken the fabric of space to a rubber band.
D) The universe is not infinite in size or density and cannot expand forever.

string theory, wave theory, and general relativity all support the idea of a universe which will collapse on itself

[Fermionic]

Macodrone

Except the universe won't expand forever because A) eventually every star that has ever existed or will exist will blink out of existence.
B) Time isn't infinite.
C) Space-time has an elastic property which allows it to stretch and there are thousands of physicists and a lot of renowned physicists who liken the fabric of space to a rubber band.
D) The universe is not infinite in size or density and cannot expand forever.

string theory, wave theory, and general relativity all support the idea of a universe which will collapse on itself

It's nice that this question, still a point of heavy debate amongst physicists, is solved so easily by you.

[Doubtful Dreamer]

Macodrone

A) eventually every star that has ever existed or will exist will blink out of existence.

Has nothing to do with the expansion of space time.

Quote:

B) Time isn't infinite.

Is a baseless assertion. The universe has a definite starting point, but asserting that the universe cannot expand unendingly because we can define a beginning has no basis.

Quote:

C) Space-time has an elastic property which allows it to stretch and there are thousands of physicists and a lot of renowned physicists who liken the fabric of space to a rubber band.

The only thing that I can think of as spawning this is the commonly used example of inflating a balloon [or stretching out a rope]. These examples are imperfect as what is happening is there is literally more space between the objects. It is not "stretched out," but formed.

EDIT: Also, the elasticity of space time deals with how mass couples to it to give rise to the curvature that defines the gravitational force, not the expansion of space time.

Quote:

D) The universe is not infinite in size or density and cannot expand forever.

It is of finite density, but is largely considered to be infinite as a result of several problems which arise if it is finite. For example, a finite universe that has a spatial shape of a simple 3 dimensional object suffers from an identifiable center, a red shift that should go down as distance increases, and should have identifiable inhomogeneities at the edge of the expansion. None of this is observed and thus we cannot have a simple, finite 3 dimensional universe. So, the spatial dimensions must be the surface of a more complex 4 dimensional object. This cannot be a 4 dimensional sphere as the universe is observed to be flat on the largest scales, so we are limited to multiply connected rather than simply connected objects. The problem then arises that certain analyses of the WMAP data show that the universe must be infinite or a sphere and only an infinite universe would satisfy the flatness condition. As such, a finite universe is increasingly incompatible with big bang cosmology.

NASA saying it simpler

Quote:

string theory, wave theory, and general relativity all support the idea of a universe which will collapse on itself

String theory doesn't say much about big bang cosmology and is largely incomplete anyways, wave theory appears to be fiction [as in I have never heard of it nor can I find anything about it], and general relativity predicts collapse only when the universe is dense enough, which it is not.

[Macodrone]

Doubtful Dreamer

Macodrone

A) eventually every star that has ever existed or will exist will blink out of existence.

Has nothing to do with the expansion of space time.

Quote:

B) Time isn't infinite.

Is a baseless assertion. The universe has a definite starting point, but asserting that the universe cannot expand unendingly because we can define a beginning has no basis.

Quote:

C) Space-time has an elastic property which allows it to stretch and there are thousands of physicists and a lot of renowned physicists who liken the fabric of space to a rubber band.

The only thing that I can think of as spawning this is the commonly used example of inflating a balloon [or stretching out a rope]. These examples are imperfect as what is happening is there is literally more space between the objects. It is not "stretched out," but formed.

EDIT: Also, the elasticity of space time deals with how mass couples to it to give rise to the curvature that defines the gravitational force, not the expansion of space time.

Quote:

D) The universe is not infinite in size or density and cannot expand forever.

It is of finite density, but is largely considered to be infinite as a result of several problems which arise if it is finite. For example, a finite universe that has a spatial shape of a simple 3 dimensional object suffers from an identifiable center, a red shift that should go down as distance increases, and should have identifiable inhomogeneities at the edge of the expansion. None of this is observed and thus we cannot have a simple, finite 3 dimensional universe. So, the spatial dimensions must be the surface of a more complex 4 dimensional object. This cannot be a 4 dimensional sphere as the universe is observed to be flat on the largest scales, so we are limited to multiply connected rather than simply connected objects. The problem then arises that certain analyses of the WMAP data show that the universe must be infinite or a sphere and only an infinite universe would satisfy the flatness condition. As such, a finite universe is increasingly incompatible with big bang cosmology.

NASA saying it simpler

Quote:

string theory, wave theory, and general relativity all support the idea of a universe which will collapse on itself

String theory doesn't say much about big bang cosmology and is largely incomplete anyways, wave theory appears to be fiction [as in I have never heard of it nor can I find anything about it], and general relativity predicts collapse only when the universe is dense enough, which it is not.

A) Has everything to do with the finite reaches of space. Unless you believe in the multiverse theory which our universe exists in an infinite space where infinite other universes exist opposed to the single universe in a single space which is connected to a string of infinite other universes

B) Learn time theory because calling my assertion baseless. Time / inner time theories postulate that time is not infinite.

C) I've also seen doughnut models of the universe, and even question mark shaped models. The universe cannot be infinitely existing because everything is subject to entropy. The Universe is subject to the same laws as everything within it, is it not? Cyclic universe theory makes a far stronger argument both mathematically and semantically than an infinite universe model theory

D) http://www.space.com/7145-big-wave-theory-offers-alternative-dark-energy.html

not dense enough *yet*

regardless. We can both agree that a God wasn't involved in some sort of creation theory.

[Candle Shadows]

Suicidesoldier#1

Candle Shadows

Suicidesoldier#1

It's all about faith silly.

How about you prove God doesn't exist.


Also it isn't circular logic.

God exists because he exists isn't circular, it's a statement.


Blue is blue because it's blue.

That not circular, that's a straight line.


Why does the universe exist; it just does?

Explain to me how that's better.

Why the ******** did you just use that quote "Prove that he doesn't exist".
If he created the universe, then the flying spaghetti monster created God. The Flying spaghetti monster is invisible and can phase through any matter. Prove that he doesn't exist! That means he must exist!

No he didn't.

Precisely, so come up with another sort of proof that God exists

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Candle Shadows

Suicidesoldier#1

Candle Shadows

Suicidesoldier#1

It's all about faith silly.

How about you prove God doesn't exist.


Also it isn't circular logic.

God exists because he exists isn't circular, it's a statement.


Blue is blue because it's blue.

That not circular, that's a straight line.


Why does the universe exist; it just does?

Explain to me how that's better.

Why the ******** did you just use that quote "Prove that he doesn't exist".
If he created the universe, then the flying spaghetti monster created God. The Flying spaghetti monster is invisible and can phase through any matter. Prove that he doesn't exist! That means he must exist!

No he didn't.

Precisely, so come up with another sort of proof that God exists

I'm not trying to prove God exists.

Sheesh.

[Euphoric XTC]

Macodrone

I'm an Atheist myself.
I'm inviting any young earth creationist, or any theist in general to tell me why their God is real AND how he created us.

I will not accept:
A: Circular reasoning
B: Newton's first law of thermodynamics
C: Arguments from Fallacy.

Using logical thinking, and expressing your case logically. Explain, without using the word faith, or references to the bible, or how God proves himself because X made Y because Z was made by Y who wouldn't exist without X so X has to be true.

If God is real, you should be more than capable of explaining how without making superstitious references.

If God didn't exist, then how would you explain Miracles?

[Macodrone]

Euphoric XTC

Macodrone

I'm an Atheist myself.
I'm inviting any young earth creationist, or any theist in general to tell me why their God is real AND how he created us.

I will not accept:
A: Circular reasoning
B: Newton's first law of thermodynamics
C: Arguments from Fallacy.

Using logical thinking, and expressing your case logically. Explain, without using the word faith, or references to the bible, or how God proves himself because X made Y because Z was made by Y who wouldn't exist without X so X has to be true.

If God is real, you should be more than capable of explaining how without making superstitious references.

If God didn't exist, then how would you explain Miracles?

I see what you did there.

talk2hand talk2hand

[Euphoric XTC]

Macodrone

Euphoric XTC

Macodrone

I'm an Atheist myself.
I'm inviting any young earth creationist, or any theist in general to tell me why their God is real AND how he created us.

I will not accept:
A: Circular reasoning
B: Newton's first law of thermodynamics
C: Arguments from Fallacy.

Using logical thinking, and expressing your case logically. Explain, without using the word faith, or references to the bible, or how God proves himself because X made Y because Z was made by Y who wouldn't exist without X so X has to be true.

If God is real, you should be more than capable of explaining how without making superstitious references.

If God didn't exist, then how would you explain Miracles?

I see what you did there.

talk2hand talk2hand

Perhaps, when it comes to God, explanation isn't necessary. Perchance, we aren't in position to question these materials, perhaps we should aim towards an intent within our boundaries that would serve as stimuli for responses which would appease our interests and avail hereafter.

[leif0000]

Well, if it wasn't true, then people made the concept of God as someone to explain things they cannot fully comprehend...hence, the said "miracles"...

I dunno...it's just a guess...

[Doubtful Dreamer]

Macodrone

A) Has everything to do with the finite reaches of space. Unless you believe in the multiverse theory which our universe exists in an infinite space where infinite other universes exist opposed to the single universe in a single space which is connected to a string of infinite other universes

The death of stars has very little to do with the big bang expansion. Such events will not effect the rate of expansion as they leave the energy density unchanged.

Quote:

B) Learn time theory because calling my assertion baseless. Time / inner time theories postulate that time is not infinite.

Care to post a link? I am not saying that we can go back an infinite amount of time, but there is nothing suggesting that you cannot go forward an infinite amount of time.

Quote:

C) I've also seen doughnut models of the universe, and even question mark shaped models. The universe cannot be infinitely existing because everything is subject to entropy. The Universe is subject to the same laws as everything within it, is it not? Cyclic universe theory makes a far stronger argument both mathematically and semantically than an infinite universe model theory

The torus is the best one as it is the one that can satisfy the flatness condition, but t does not fit the WMAP data very well. 4-spheres do fit the data in many cases, but they are not allowed do to the flatness condition. The only topology that fits both is an infinite universe which is why, like the NASA article I linked states, the universe is largely considered to have an infinite spatial extent.

As for arguments from entropy, all that this means is that the universe will eventually reach a state where the energy density is approximately the same everywhere, not that it will stop expanding.

Quote:

D) http://www.space.com/7145-big-wave-theory-offers-alternative-dark-energy.html

Thanks for the link. All this proposes, however, is a solution to the dark energy problem that isn't dark energy and which may very well be a worse model than dark energy [the model has not been compared with observational data]. If it is a better model, we still have the problem that the universe is flat and thus does not contain enough stuff to overcome the expansion.

Quote:

not dense enough *yet*

Unless we are somehow violating energy conservation, it cannot be dense enough.

Quote:

regardless. We can both agree that a God wasn't involved in some sort of creation theory.

I think we agree on the basics; we are just arguing over some details.

[Macodrone]

Doubtful Dreamer

Macodrone

A) Has everything to do with the finite reaches of space. Unless you believe in the multiverse theory which our universe exists in an infinite space where infinite other universes exist opposed to the single universe in a single space which is connected to a string of infinite other universes

The death of stars has very little to do with the big bang expansion. Such events will not effect the rate of expansion as they leave the energy density unchanged.

Quote:

B) Learn time theory because calling my assertion baseless. Time / inner time theories postulate that time is not infinite.

Care to post a link? I am not saying that we can go back an infinite amount of time, but there is nothing suggesting that you cannot go forward an infinite amount of time.

Quote:

C) I've also seen doughnut models of the universe, and even question mark shaped models. The universe cannot be infinitely existing because everything is subject to entropy. The Universe is subject to the same laws as everything within it, is it not? Cyclic universe theory makes a far stronger argument both mathematically and semantically than an infinite universe model theory

The torus is the best one as it is the one that can satisfy the flatness condition, but t does not fit the WMAP data very well. 4-spheres do fit the data in many cases, but they are not allowed do to the flatness condition. The only topology that fits both is an infinite universe which is why, like the NASA article I linked states, the universe is largely considered to have an infinite spatial extent.

As for arguments from entropy, all that this means is that the universe will eventually reach a state where the energy density is approximately the same everywhere, not that it will stop expanding.

Quote:

D) http://www.space.com/7145-big-wave-theory-offers-alternative-dark-energy.html

Thanks for the link. All this proposes, however, is a solution to the dark energy problem that isn't dark energy and which may very well be a worse model than dark energy [the model has not been compared with observational data]. If it is a better model, we still have the problem that the universe is flat and thus does not contain enough stuff to overcome the expansion.

Quote:

not dense enough *yet*

Unless we are somehow violating energy conservation, it cannot be dense enough.

Quote:

regardless. We can both agree that a God wasn't involved in some sort of creation theory.

I think we agree on the basics; we are just arguing over some details.

*A car alarm kept me up all night so excuse me if I sound "sleepy" (read stupid)*

A) Then suppose it's backwards. The gravitational forces of the stars are what keep the universe's form stable. Assuming the membrane theory is correct and that the area outside of spatial expansion is nonexistent and what we see as the universe is the be all end all of space.

B) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/3319218/Time-is-running-out-literally-says-scientist.html That is a link to the article where someone suggests time might not be infinite.

I can't find a good link on inner time but generally inner time is synonymous with quantum time where the distance between second A and second B is determined by all the events in between. A second is determined by the positioning of every atom in the universe and B second is where they ended after the the events of A (>---- > X>--- > ) B
So I postulate that a universe with absolutely nothing in it, as we're sure to see in the billions of years that follow is a universe without movement and therefore without physical time. Semantically we'd still know that 1 second is 1 second because our hypothetical clocks would tell us so but real time wouldn't function.

C) There are also a large number of scientists who say the universe only appears infinite and flat because of it's enormity which is more or less a scatoma of whether the findings reflect a universe which is infinite and flat or a universe which appears infinite and flat.

D)Bit of a tangent really, but in line with conservation of energy. When our universe is empty of stars. There will still be trillions of super massive black holes where the galaxies used to be. Something something... I need sleep.

[Doubtful Dreamer]

Macodrone

A) Then suppose it's backwards. The gravitational forces of the stars are what keep the universe's form stable. Assuming the membrane theory is correct and that the area outside of spatial expansion is nonexistent and what we see as the universe is the be all end all of space.

Given that overall, the universe is observed to be isotropic and homogeneous, what really matters is the energy density, not concentrations of mass. Since the death of stars only alter local density, not total density, it should not really change anything.

Quote:

B) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/3319218/Time-is-running-out-literally-says-scientist.html That is a link to the article where someone suggests time might not be infinite.

I rather like articles that have quotes from string theorists before the LHC became operational. They are full of fun quotes that they now regret. The current parameterization of string theory is known to be wrong as it predicted the formation of microblack holes at the LHC. These objects are completely absent. Furthermore, the supersymmetric string theories are even worse off as the LHC has required a reparameterization of supersymmetry as well due to its failure to find any trace of the lightest supersymmetric particle. Overall, string theory is not doing so good with such results, though the fix has largely been to push all possibly observed effects to ever higher energy scales.

Anyways, I wonder how their results work with the reparameterizations that have been required. I also wonder if their results require a specific parameterization to allow for the observed effects. If it tightly constrains string theory for this effect to occur, then this explanation is not possible as the current form of string theory is observationally incorrect.

Quote:

I can't find a good link on inner time but generally inner time is synonymous with quantum time where the distance between second A and second B is determined by all the events in between. A second is determined by the positioning of every atom in the universe and B second is where they ended after the the events of A (>---- > X>--- > ) B
So I postulate that a universe with absolutely nothing in it, as we're sure to see in the billions of years that follow is a universe without movement and therefore without physical time. Semantically we'd still know that 1 second is 1 second because our hypothetical clocks would tell us so but real time wouldn't function.

Except that the vacuum will still be there and the vacuum is rather busy [and has observable consequences, such as the Casimir effect].

Quote:

C) There are also a large number of scientists who say the universe only appears infinite and flat because of it's enormity which is more or less a scatoma of whether the findings reflect a universe which is infinite and flat or a universe which appears infinite and flat.

The WMAP data rather strongly supports an infinite universe. I am not going to say that it is infinite, but asserting that it is definitely finite is rather silly. The best we can say about the spatial extent of the universe is that it is currently undetermined and likely infinite within the current data.

Quote:

D)Bit of a tangent really, but in line with conservation of energy. When our universe is empty of stars. There will still be trillions of super massive black holes where the galaxies used to be. Something something... I need sleep.

Hope you get some sleep and can clarify this point later.

[Tarako6]

Lorenzaccio

It comes down to faith. Faith doesn't require any facts, wich is why it's faith.

Saying mankind is the closest thing to any god is pretty dumb. A god isn't dependant on water, food, air, sleep, warmth.

All we have is intelligence. We are just as, if not more, vulnerable to the forces of nature as any other living thing. We have buildings and infrastructure to protect us. It's not very effective, look up : Katrina, Fukushima, the Tsunami.

It might be a smart thing to create a bomb that could destroy the planet but it's not very wise.
We have a systeme that we rely on that is based on a non-renewable ressource. That means it's not sustainable, that means it will end.
We may think we master this world but so does an abusive father thinks he masters his children. We haven't mastered it, we are just destroying our home, and with it, ourselves.
Sounds like a suicidal god. And besides, if anything is close to god it's the sun. It doesn't rely on anything but the laws of physics.

Depends on which god. Some greek gods actually are very humanistic, even though they're immortal-some can still be choked till they pass out and such or have an achilles heel-which can at least horribly injure if not kill them, and then there's Olympus flame which killed even the gods. There's probably plenty more, granted most involve gods killing gods; I'm certain there are a couple circumstances/scenarios involving mortals doing great feats, even if most of them tend to have to use a blessed/powerful artifact of sorts.

However, I agree with your initial statement .The OP posted more than an oxymoron, as faith is categorized under the irrational line of thinking. Logic, deductive reasoning, and a couple faiths like Protestants fall under the "rational" line of thinking, but, even then when one veers too far on either side it becomes irrational-which protestants technically do as well becoming 'irrational'. Some things that are irrational can be rational. Expecting someone to rationally prove something that cannot be proven (or disproven) is in the lines of irrational thinking. o_O Also amusing because of the thread title itself.

?? Katrina didn't involve buildings specifically built for it. We have tech that's built to withstand earthquakes now. I don't think wind/water pressure/magma preparations can be far off, you're critiquing unprepared incidents. If you can provide examples of buildings properly engineered to withstand tsunamis like there are bomb shelters for protecting people against bombs, that failed, then I'll accept it. For eruptions and tsunamis, and even hurricanes there are detections systems now though. So if you want to argue that we can't predict accurately to prepare, that'd also be acceptable reasoning. But if it's just how catastrophic they have been, when there was no procedure in place (or buildings built for it) or nobody knew it was coming, then you should narrow your argument rather than flat out say we can't handle natural disasters.

Non-renewable? Are you talking about fossil fuels or oil? 'cause those are the only ones I can think of off of the top of my head, neither of which are good for the planet anyways. Unless you mean 'fresh water' ?...in which case is exactly why we developed so many purification processes, and in the past people just lived off of wine/booze because the raw water itself was mostly undrinkable. For food, that's what farming and breeding livestock is for. There's also routine methods within that to keep the land the person is farming alive. Or are you going on about urbanization? Which, I could mostly agree on, carelessly destroying life to put in more buildings/roads, though technically it doesn't involve a "non-renewable resource" per say, it's more that people aren't taking care of the earth and replacing the bits they take like they should-like Indians did.
But I need to know where you're going with that before I can properly respond.

TLDR: I think everything but your first and last statement need rephrasing or more specification. No qualms with the bomb statement either, though I thought it was funny. =p

Random note: Also, I think Indians and monks arguably 'mastered the earth' itself, but the Indians pretty much all died/disappeared like the Mayans or don't have their roots and monks live in the Himalayas/etc.