Big Bang!

[Monomonk]

mball, are you speaking for every atheist again??! You promissed to stop doing that...


Would it be better to asume the best theory untill now or keep everything in the middle?

I do not remember saying I promised not to speak for atheist, but I do not feel that I
am, I am not an atheist. And would it be best to assume the best theory, well yes,
good idea, but that does not mean that we can't question the best theories.

monomonk

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But wait a minute pal, ...

I am not your pal.

..., I have not finished my theology on the narrative of the creation, as presented in the first chapter of the Bible, which the preachers have incorrectly interpreted.

I have exceedingly low expectations with regards to its quality.

But are you saying that scientist are not calling upon people to believe the Big Bang theory?

I am saying that (a) you have not the slightest idea what the theory entails, and (b) you seem committed to keeping it that way.

 

[Monomonk]

And where have you personally looked for those answers? Am I to assume that you have come here to a religious forum to look for the answers to these scientific questions? Have you considered looking for these answers on a scientific forum? Or from scientific books? Are you really looking for the answers to these questions or are you just trying to make a rhetorical point?

What I am saying is I don't have to roll over and play dead just because some scientist
says that this is the way it is. And no I have not come to "religiousforums.com to look for scientific answers, I am mentioning it here because religiousforums has an area for scientific comment, as well as religious comment. But it does seem a little
strange there are so many "scientific" atheist commenting on a religious forum!

monomonk

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I am saying is I don't have to roll over and play dead just because some scientist says that this is the way it is.

No. You could also attempt to understand the science, but you're not likely to choose that approach. Too bad ...

 

[Monomonk]

I am not your pal.

I have exceedingly low expectations with regards to its quality.

I am saying that (a) you have not the slightest idea what the theory entails, and (b) you seem committed to keeping it that way.

You are right about one thing, I am not your pal. And also you do not know that I do not know about the Big Bang. And no again, I am not committed to "keeping it that way", and I am not your little puppy that has to believe everything scientist say, who have brought catastrophic damage upon the earth.

monomonk

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are right about one thing, I am not your pal. And also you do not know that I do not know about the Big Bang.

Alright, this is what we are called upon to believe: The whole universe, somehow, shrank into an object about the size of a pea. ... But then, but then it blew up! Now wait just a cotton-picking-minute here, blew up, how could anything with that much gravity blow up?

You have made your ignorance laughably obvious.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Just to give you an idea of what you're looking at here:

This is a diagram of a helium atom. (Don't worry about the Angstrom - it's just a measurement) The tiny dot in the middle is the nucleus of the atom, where there are 2 protons and 2 neutrons. The electrons whizz around the nucleus in that "cloud" around the nucleus, too small to see in this picture. There are, in a stable helium atom, 2 electrons (To balance the charge of the protons) The remainder of the cloud is just space. Space with nothing in it. This is just to give you an idea of how small an atom could imagineably be squished down to a very very small size. There is a HUGE amount of space in matter - and were there no space, things would be very small indeed.

 

[Monomonk]

It's because it wasn't "the black holes of black holes" it was a unique phenomena called a singularity. The laws of physics break down when you approach the state of a singularity.
Also, at the point of a singularity there is only mass, no spacetime. Gravity works by warping spacetime, since there is no spacetime to warp a singularity has no gravity.
Gravity would have come into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, but it is actually quite a weak force which the incredible acceleration produced by the Big Bang easily overcame.

Well it seems so many have it all down really pat about the Big Bang, a theory which is
"highly speculative" to say the least.

The force or power of gravity depends upon the concentration of atoms, if the atoms
are wide spread the gravitational force is weak, if the atoms are extremely concentrated the force is very strong. This great and powerful force can be seen in black holes. A black hole that is pulling into itself great stars is not a weak force!

But anyway, here we have the universe falling in on itself, and when it is a hundred
miles across does it still have gravity, I guess so, we still have got to get it down to
a pea. Then it gets down to the size of walnut, it still has gravity I guess, but maybe not much, and has not decided to blow up for for some reason. Then finally we reach the proverbial pea, now we have reached the point of "singularity", where nothing works, not even gravity! Now it would seem we do not need a Big Bang, because without gravity it would just fall apart. I don't know, I just don't know, maybe too
much speculation here, maybe the Big Bang theory needs to blow up!

monomonk

 

[Monomonk]

I don't know how the universe was created. And I never will. I'm leaving it at that. I'm not going to make stuff up just so I have an answer to an impossible question. I think each and every theory that anyone has come up with could likely be wrong. What are the chances out of all the possibilities that someone would have figured out how this improbable event occured?? Probably not...

I will say one thing for you mister, you are being very honest here, and honesty is hard
to find.

monomonk

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm going to say that I'm very disappointed in the way some people are handling this thread; I've only noticed two posts that actually try to explain the Big Bang theory while everyone else just accuses Monomonk of being stupid and puts words in his mouth, such as bringing God into his questioning of the theory when he never once mentioned Him or implied anything to do with God. (you might call me hypocrite for accusing you guys of putting words into his mouth when you never used the word stupid, but saying things like: "you have not the slightest idea what the theory entails, and you seem committed to keeping it that way," implies stupidity. And just so we're aware, ignorance and stupidity are synonyms; I read calling someone ignorant or saying someone has ignorance without trying to correct it, the same as calling someone stupid.

Guys, (Jayhawker Soule and Mball) if you find that he doesn't seem to understand the Big Bang theory, why not try to EXPLAIN it instead of just implying to him that he's stupid? After all, that attitude won't help him understand anything.


That being said, Monomonk, I do highly recommend trying to understand the Big Bang theory, which is just a THEORY, mind you(and one that I, like you, question, though for different reasons) by reading about it in books. I'm not sure you'll get all the information you need on the subject here; it's a very complicated theory that would take 100 posts to fully explain on these forums. I can't explain it to you, I'm afraid, as I don't fully understand it myself.

 

[whereismynotecard]

I will say one thing for you mister, you are being very honest here, and honesty is hard
to find.

monomonk

Okay... but I'm not a mister.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm going to say that I'm very disappointed in the way some people are handling this thread; I've only noticed two posts that actually try to explain the Big Bang theory while everyone else just accuses Monomonk of being stupid and puts words in his mouth, ....

At issue is not stupidity but willful ignorance, I notice that you are not disappointed in the fact that Monomonk (a) clearly knows nothing about the Big Bang, (b) clearly has made zero effort to learn anything about the Big Bang, yet (c) presumes to make absurd statements about a theory he neither understands nor cares about in the least.

His approach is irresponsible and intellectually bankrupt, while yours is to enable him. It typifies a codependency that speaks volumes about the scientific illiteracy we see around us. As such I am thoroughly disappointed in both of you.

 

[YmirGF]

Monomonk here are two relatively good links that will explain the flaw in your thinking.

From UCLA: Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology

"The Big Bang is really nothing like a black hole. The Big Bang is a singularity extending through all space at a single instant, while a black hole is a singularity extending through all time at a single point." I think you can see that that is a rather important difference right off the bat.

Weburbia: The Universe

I hope this helps explain why you are having difficulty with the concept. :yes:
The basic problem is that you do not have the theory down right to begin with, hence the problemo. :sorry1:

 

[Magic Man]

I do not remember saying I promised not to speak for atheist, but I do not feel that I am, I am not an atheist. And would it be best to assume the best theory, well yes, good idea, but that does not mean that we can't question the best theories.

monomonk

All right. Let's start with this one. He was not talking to you. He was talking to me. He was saying that you were acting like I was speaking for all atheists. You're welcome to question this theory, but you should learn more about it first. You are also not just questioning it. You are starting from the position that it is false without knowing much of anything about it.

 

[Magic Man]

What I am saying is I don't have to roll over and play dead just because some scientist
says that this is the way it is. And no I have not come to "religiousforums.com to look for scientific answers, I am mentioning it here because religiousforums has an area for scientific comment, as well as religious comment. But it does seem a little
strange there are so many "scientific" atheist commenting on a religious forum!

monomonk

OK, first, you don't have to just accept something because someone says so. I'm not sure where you get the idea that everyone expects you to accept and believe the BB theory just because someone says so. What you should do is learn about it, and then decide one way or the other. It's the best explanation we have so far. You're more than welcome not to believe it, but don't come around here trying to show the flaws in it when you clearly don't even understand it.

Now, about the "scientific atheist" comment. First, what's the difference between a scientific atheist and a scientific theist? Second, the claim that it's weird for atheists (or "scientific atheists" if you want) to come to a religion site is old and tired. It's an interesting topic that all kinds of people like to discuss. There's nothing weird about discussing a topic you're interested in. Why are you here? Clearly you don't believe in Hinduism or Wicca, and yet you're on a site that is here to discuss those topics. Funny how that doesn't seem weird to you...

 

[Magic Man]

You are right about one thing, I am not your pal. And also you do not know that I do not know about the Big Bang. And no again, I am not committed to "keeping it that way", and I am not your little puppy that has to believe everything scientist say, who have brought catastrophic damage upon the earth.

monomonk

What is this "catastrophic damage" you feel scientists have brought upon the earth?

 

[Magic Man]

I'm going to say that I'm very disappointed in the way some people are handling this thread; I've only noticed two posts that actually try to explain the Big Bang theory while everyone else just accuses Monomonk of being stupid and puts words in his mouth, such as bringing God into his questioning of the theory when he never once mentioned Him or implied anything to do with God. (you might call me hypocrite for accusing you guys of putting words into his mouth when you never used the word stupid, but saying things like: "you have not the slightest idea what the theory entails, and you seem committed to keeping it that way," implies stupidity. And just so we're aware, ignorance and stupidity are synonyms; I read calling someone ignorant or saying someone has ignorance without trying to correct it, the same as calling someone stupid.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Monomonk is obviously not interested in learning about anything, much less the BB theory. Ignorance and stupidity are not generally synonyms. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge without judgement on the person's character. Stupidity is a judgement on the person's mental abilities. When we say that Monomonk is ignorant about the BB theory, we just mean that he lacks knowledge of it, not that he can't grasp the knowledge of it. In fact, Jay even gave him the credit that he assumes Monomonk has the ability to grasp it, meaning he's not stupid. Monomonk has shown that he lacks knowledge of the theory, and is therefore ignorant on that subject. He has also shown that it is a conscious choice to remain ignorant of it, hence the "willul ignorance".

Guys, (Jayhawker Soule and Mball) if you find that he doesn't seem to understand the Big Bang theory, why not try to EXPLAIN it instead of just implying to him that he's stupid? After all, that attitude won't help him understand anything.

Again, we weren't implying that he was stupid, just ignorant. They are two different things, as I just showed. And, as I said to Monomonk, there's no point is trying to explain it to him. His mind is made up. This is not about him asking questions to obtain answers. This is his attempt to prove the BB theory false. He's also then using the "Who? Me?" response to any accusations concerning that. His intent was never to get answers, but when someone points it out, he wants to play the victim because he somehow thinks it'll help his case.

That being said, Monomonk, I do highly recommend trying to understand the Big Bang theory, which is just a THEORY, mind you(and one that I, like you, question, though for different reasons) by reading about it in books. I'm not sure you'll get all the information you need on the subject here; it's a very complicated theory that would take 100 posts to fully explain on these forums. I can't explain it to you, I'm afraid, as I don't fully understand it myself.

I just have one little problem with the use of the phrase "just a theory", as if to imply it's any worse than a law or less binding than something else. You have missed the idea of theories here. I will have to leave that for someone else to explain, though, or at least explain it later when I can think better.

 

[Riverwolf]

At issue is not stupidity but willful ignorance, I notice that you are not disappointed in the fact that Monomonk (a) clearly knows nothing about the Big Bang, (b) clearly has made zero effort to learn anything about the Big Bang, yet (c) presumes to make absurd statements about a theory he neither understands nor cares about in the least.

His approach is irresponsible and intellectually bankrupt, while yours is to enable him. It typifies a codependency that speaks volumes about the scientific illiteracy we see around us. As such I am thoroughly disappointed in both of you.

Yet you do nothing to help him with this ignorance... instead you spend your time bashing him.

Ever consider explaining to him WHY his statement is absurd so that we're all on the same page as you?

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Monomonk is obviously not interested in learning about anything, much less the BB theory. Ignorance and stupidity are not generally synonyms. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge without judgement on the person's character. Stupidity is a judgement on the person's mental abilities. When we say that Monomonk is ignorant about the BB theory, we just mean that he lacks knowledge of it, not that he can't grasp the knowledge of it. In fact, Jay even gave him the credit that he assumes Monomonk has the ability to grasp it, meaning he's not stupid. Monomonk has shown that he lacks knowledge of the theory, and is therefore ignorant on that subject. He has also shown that it is a conscious choice to remain ignorant of it, hence the "willul ignorance".



Again, we weren't implying that he was stupid, just ignorant. They are two different things, as I just showed. And, as I said to Monomonk, there's no point is trying to explain it to him. His mind is made up. This is not about him asking questions to obtain answers. This is his attempt to prove the BB theory false. He's also then using the "Who? Me?" response to any accusations concerning that. His intent was never to get answers, but when someone points it out, he wants to play the victim because he somehow thinks it'll help his case.




I just have one little problem with the use of the phrase "just a theory", as if to imply it's any worse than a law or less binding than something else. You have missed the idea of theories here. I will have to leave that for someone else to explain, though, or at least explain it later when I can think better.

Thanks for explaining your reasoning behind your statements; now we're on the same page. But if he clearly doesn't want to have things explained to him, why even bother responding? If he has defensive walls up as you say, then responding to him is like trying to tell a brick wall to talk to you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yet you do nothing to help him with this ignorance... instead you spend your time bashing him.

Correct.

Ever consider explaining to him WHY his statement is absurd so that we're all on the same page as you?

No, since he's made it abundantly clear that he does not care to learn.