275 replies to this topic

[al-amiyr]

Lovely debates. Continue!----------->

[Seeker79]

Lion6969, on 13 November 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Seeker what I mentioned about singularity to alien comes from,

Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.


Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.

Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, The Creator: Beyond Time and Space, (1996) p. 11.

Prior to singularity according to the above there was nothing! Time, space and matter began with the expansion of that singularity!

I understand lion, but they are using the term nothing to describe a state of pure vaccume. By " " no time" they are describing a time in which there was no standard energy to move through the vacuum because it had not appeared yet, by space they are talking about THE ----SPACE--- BETWEEN things. If there are no things yet, then obviously there cannot space between them. Non of those theories have any reason to propose that the actual vaccume was not here. prior to the emergence of the energy for this universe. No evidence and no reason to assume. In fact SUSKIND  builds a lot of his models on this very notion.

Most of those very scientist tend to think that this universe started as a quantum fluctuation within the vacuume. Quite obviously the virtual particle dance had to exist if there is going to be a universe creating fluctuation in the first place.

The point here is that the way scientists use the word "nothing" does not mean nothing at all which I try to separate as "THE BIG NOTHING"

Even in creation models quite obviously god was here before, so THE BIG NOTHING is pretty much a fantasy for every one concerned.

Just to add: there is also no reason to assume within this vacuum very far away beyond the expansion horizon other big bangs do not exist.

Edited by Seeker79, 13 November 2012 - 08:23 PM.

[Darkwind]

Lion6969, on 13 November 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

Singularity maybe an infinity symbol but it's not an export of the infinite. Singularity mathematically equals= 0. 0 was invented to represent the infinite in mathematical axioms and conventions and it means nothing ie zero too!

No infinity is not zero. Pi is not zero, but it is an infinite number.  A Mandelbrot set is infinite and it is not 0. Oh got to pick up the neighbors kids from school bye

[Seeker79]

Darkwind, on 13 November 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Everybody keeps talking about the singularity like it is a thing, but in reality it is the infinity symbol at the bottom of the black board. Which actually means there is something wrong with the equation. In science you keep picking at it until you figure it out, With religion you chuck it out the window and leave it for god to pick up. That is the fundamental difference between religion and science. There is no faith in science. There is no science in religion.

I agree for the most part, but the two can reconcile in potentials. I

Infinity does not mean something is wrong. That is an assumption. Infinity might well be the answer.

[Lion6969]

Alienated Being, on 13 November 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Well, yes; if his intentions were for people to understand the actual processes as to how the universe was created, then he should have. He is, after all, the designer and creator of everything... so, I fail to see as to how an accurate explanation regarding the processes would be that difficult.

It's not that an explanation in detail is difficult, the point is it's not needed, as long as the fundamental aspects are relayed. Plus who's to say the a full detailed design etc is within our comprehension? Your assuming you have the same capacity as god, that's illogical in itself. The beginning process, the expansion the end process etc are referred to and science with its limitations confirms the beginning process and expansion so far, self discovery via science seeing and observing the mechanisms and structure in place do not negate the agent behind them. Do you not comprehend this?

Quote

From what I am getting from your argument is that you are suggesting that the translations are incorrect, meaning that what they are translated into saying in BOTH contexts, it really means everything (all matter)?

No the translations are best the fit some linguistic expert deemed for the original words. To understand the full depth of the verses you have to be versed in Arabic. the Arabic words used denote splitting, separation, expanse, etc. There are no English words equivalent to the Arabic that carry that much depth hence you can only choose one or two words to convey the meaning in English! It's simple really!

Quote

Firstly, metaphysics is (and always has been) code-word for BS. It has no place in the realm of tangible research...

Lmao, metaphysics is BS, says it all! You really lack any scientific understanding because science only operates on a physical plane, beyond the singularity is known as metaphysical because if it was physical then our science would not breakdown at singularity it would go beyond it to another physical plane where our science would function. Clearly you have no clue!

Quote

Secondly, I believe that I would much rather grasp on to what science can prove as being irrefutable fact instead of adhering to untestable metaphysical clap-trap.

Lol, really. So how cone accept the clergies clap trap regarding what is beyond the singularity? They have no scientific proof!

Quote

And you can't prove the existence of unicorns either, nor can you disprove them.

But you could reason for them or not, but if you believe in a multiversity then all possibilities exist, even unicorns! Lmao!

[Lion6969]

Seeker79, on 13 November 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

I understand lion, but they are using the term nothing to describe a state of pure vaccume. By " " no time" they are describing a time in which there was no standard energy to move through the vacuum because it had not appeared yet, by space they are talking about THE ----SPACE--- BETWEEN things. If there are no things yet, then obviously there cannot space between them. Non of those theories have any reason to propose that the actual vaccume was not here. prior to the emergence of the energy for this universe. No evidence and no reason to assume. In fact SUSKIND  builds a lot of his models on this very notion.

Most of those very scientist tend to think that this universe started as a quantum fluctuation within the vacuume. Quite obviously the virtual particle dance had to exist if there is going to be a universe creating fluctuation in the first place.

The point here is that the way scientists use the word "nothing" does not mean nothing at all which I try to separate as "THE BIG NOTHING"

Even in creation models quite obviously god was here before, so THE BIG NOTHING is pretty much a fantasy for every one concerned.

Just to add: there is also no reason to assume within this vacuum very far away beyond the expansion horizon other big bangs do not exist.

No before the singularity there was nothing, as in we font know what metaphysical reality existed if any. The singularity appeared, consisting of time space and the sum of all matter condensed to such a small size it virtually equals 0.  

Anything proposing other universes other physical planes existing before are conjecture and philosophically flawed.

The vacuum you refer to is a rich structure of fluctuating energy, it's matter thus came into existence at the bigbang!

[Lion6969]

Darkwind, on 13 November 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

No infinity is not zero. Pi is not zero, but it is an infinite number.  A Mandelbrot set is infinite and it is not 0. Oh got to pick up the neighbors kids from school bye

Like I said we can only comprehend infinity through mathematical axioms and conventions. Hence we created symbols to represent it 0! However there is no export of the infinite in reality ie in our universe, if there is, show me please!

[Lion6969]

I'm not rejecting the possibility of multiverse or string theory I'm simply saying there is no empirical data for them nor are they philosophically sound, nor does it negate a cause to it all and that cause to be god.

[Alienated Being]

Lion6969, on 13 November 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

It's not that an explanation in detail is difficult, the point is it's not needed, as long as the fundamental aspects are relayed.

This very thinking is the reason as to why scientific progress has been impeded throughout the centuries.

"It is how it is; we don't NEED to understand anything any further!".

Quote

Plus who's to say the a full detailed design etc is within our comprehension?

Who is to say that it is not?

Quote

Your assuming you have the same capacity as god, that's illogical in itself. The beginning process, the expansion the end process etc are referred to and science with its limitations confirms the beginning process and expansion so far, self discovery via science seeing and observing the mechanisms and structure in place do not negate the agent behind them. Do you not comprehend this?

Your sentences are confusing in this response. Please re-word it so I can formulate a proper response.

Quote

No the translations are best the fit some linguistic expert deemed for the original words. To understand the full depth of the verses you have to be versed in Arabic. the Arabic words used denote splitting, separation, expanse, etc. There are no English words equivalent to the Arabic that carry that much depth hence you can only choose one or two words to convey the meaning in English! It's simple really!

I do not see how usage of the words "splitting", "separation", "expanse", etc. would be at all difficult to translate in to English, especially when it is being translated by a linguistic expert.

Quote

Lmao, metaphysics is BS, says it all! You really lack any scientific understanding because science only operates on a physical plane, beyond the singularity is known as metaphysical because if it was physical then our science would not breakdown at singularity it would go beyond it to another physical plane where our science would function. Clearly you have no clue!

Just because we are uncertain as to what existed beyond singularity, that does not indicate that what existed beyond it is completely beyond our realm of scientific understanding; it simply means that we just have not found an answer yet.

Quote

Lol, really. So how cone accept the clergies clap trap regarding what is beyond the singularity? They have no scientific proof!

These are theories, I never said that I irrefutably accepted them. I just said that there are THEORIES surrounding the notion that the universe was ALWAYS here.

Quote

But you could reason for them or not, but if you believe in a multiversity then all possibilities exist, even unicorns! Lmao!

Assuming the Michiao Kaku is right in his theory of multiverses.

All of your arguments are laced with red herrings, straw-men and other logical fallacies. . . . And you type "Lol", "Lmao", etc. in an attempt to belittle and berate my disposition. . . .

You are an interesting character...

Edited by Alienated Being, 13 November 2012 - 10:42 PM.

[Seeker79]

Lion6969, on 13 November 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

The vacuum you refer to is a rich structure of fluctuating energy, it's matter thus came into existence at the bigbang!

How so. How do you/we know this? I can tell you it's not by taking our observations backwards.

[Seeker79]

Lion6969, on 13 November 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

I'm not rejecting the possibility of multiverse or string theory I'm simply saying there is no empirical data for them nor are they philosophically sound, nor does it negate a cause to it all and that cause to be god.

But it does not infer one either. But multiverses and and infinities sure goes a long way to propose a god like being within
The realm of logic and not gaps.

[Lion6969]

Alienated Being, on 13 November 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

This very thinking is the reason as to why scientific progress has been impeded throughout the centuries.

Another hollow assumption on your behalf.

Quote

"It is how it is; we don't NEED to understand anything any further!".

That's a typical response I expect from someone of very little understanding! I said the mechanisms ane mechanics of the process are self discovery for us, for example if I created a machine and had a conversation with you about it, I would only refer to the basic fundamentals and don't have any need to be specific to you as you would lack the expertise and understanding at that level, in the same way the author of Quran refers to the processes we mentioned which are the basic fundamentals, however with those who are more learned they delve deeper in to the words and verses which is unique to the Quran, it contains both the layman terms and a deeper meaning for those who are more learned. Ie heavens earth to the layman means the universe and everything in it, the same words carry depth which also infer other aspects. This is the bit you can't follow!

Quote

Who is to say that it is not?

To say such a statement indicates you don't even understand the god argument, and god. So you can't even begin to debate hence why you make illogical statements inferring that you have the same capacity as god......it's laughable, you don't even know what's behind you without looking!

Quote

I do not see how usage of the words "splitting", "separation", "expanse", etc. would be at all difficult to translate in to English, especially when it is being translated by a linguistic expert.

The word in Arabic for all the above is one word, you used three different English words so far maybe a few more too. Can't you see the difficulty, it's linguistic 101, sometimes there are no equivalent word in the language that the original is being translated into! You can't see after using three different meanings of the one Arabic word and meanings fit perfectly with the beginning process of the universe

Quote

Just because we are uncertain as to what existed beyond singularity, that does not indicate that what existed beyond it is completely beyond our realm of scientific understanding; it simply means that we just have not found an answer yet.

So then you live in blind faith that one day your clergy will discover the metaphysical, using the religion of science! I mean come on, is that like a prophecy?

Quote

These are theories, I never said that I irrefutably accepted them. I just said that there are THEORIES surrounding the notion that the universe was ALWAYS here.

Lmao, you see your still stuck way back in time, believing the universe has always been here! Lmao, do you understand the implications of that, what about the finite becoming observed by Hubble so to speak and the data related, indicating a beginning, yet you think it's always been here. Dude the theories you refer to are desperate attempts to show an infinite universe but empirical data ie science shows otherwise, you have more belief in theories with no proof, it's called blind faith!

Quote

Assuming the Michiao Kaku is right in his theory of multiverses.

It's like I said I don't reject the theories out right after the Quran says that Allah is the lord of the worlds, so it don't bother me about multiverses, I'm saying there are fallacies in them, they don't offer a cause, they have no say on god. Even if those theories are taken seriously, they require a first cause, conceptual analsys applied can show that cause to be god!

Quote

All of your arguments are laced with red herrings, straw-men and other logical fallacies. . . . And you type "Lol", "Lmao", etc. in an attempt to belittle and berate my disposition. . . .

You are an interesting character...

You too are interesting and I'm not belittling you! I genuinely do laugh at some statements, but I don't mean to offend

I don't reason for god based on the god of the gaps reasoning, that's entirely a Christian field!

[Seeker79]

Alienated Being, on 13 November 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

All of your arguments are laced with red herrings, straw-men and other logical fallacies. . . . And you type "Lol", "Lmao", etc. in an attempt to belittle and berate my disposition. . . .

You are an interesting character...

Oh come on AB... Let's not play that game, lion has got you beat in the formal logic department.

[al-amiyr]

Seeker79, on 13 November 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

Oh come on AB... Let's not play that game, lion has got you beat in the formal logic department.

Nothing left of skeleton. The Lion ate him.

[Alienated Being]

Seeker79, on 13 November 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

Oh come on AB... Let's not play that game, lion has got you beat in the formal logic department.

And I would not expect any other kind of a response coming from you.