Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[Subduction Zone]

The measured total energy of the universe equals the number of facts you have presented in this thread.

The error that I made was discussing this was the most-closed minded person at RF.

You were talking with yourself?

And you almost got the total energy of the universe right. The problem is that you do not understand facts or evidence. I have presented facts. But you seem to think for some odd reason that I have not done so. That means that you think that the total measured energy of the universe is zero. And that was correct. Do you know what that means? Let me help you with that. It means that there was no violation of natural law.

The problem is that you do not understand natural law and think that what is understood by scientists is a violation of it. You should be trying to learn instead of making claims that you cannot support. I am far from being the most close minded person on RF, that title more rightly goes to a person that makes claims and cannot support them when that person makes claims that he has to know are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean the no-thing that you defined already, rhetorically, not interested in my answer? Here's my answer regardless:

1) If the BB expanded within a container of some kind, still beyond our furthest telescopes, the expansion violated natural laws of this universe.

2) If the BB expanded inside a no-thing, human finite minds would have trouble comprehending a no-thing, and it helps for us both as laypersons to start with space and time itself expanded/expand.

So I'll make this simple for you--YOU define forensic evidence that you would accept as proof of a supernatural occurrence and then I will explain how said occurrence happened via natural causes only.

You still do not understand the expansion of space. Space is not expanding "into" anything. This is a hard concept to grasp since we live in only a small part of this vast universe of ours. You will sometimes heard of the expansion as a "metric expansion". That means that the distance between objects increases over times but there is no expansion into another space. This is why analogies are often used, but those analogies have to be done in our three dimensional world. Sometimes one need to describe events only mathematically since math does not "care" what we believe. Math is neutral.

It might help if you do not think of the universe as being contained at all. The universe does not appeared to be contained. Science never proposes a violation of natural law. What it does instead is to tell you when scientists have hit the limits to current understanding. Our current physics works to a time that is a very small fraction of a second after the start of the Big Bang. But our mathematical understanding fails at that point. Sometimes that is described as saying that the laws of science have failed, but that is not the case. It is only our understanding that is incomplete.

 

[Kfox]

You still do not understand the expansion of space. Space is not expanding "into" anything. This is a hard concept to grasp since we live in only a small part of this vast universe of ours. You will sometimes heard of the expansion as a "metric expansion". That means that the distance between objects increases over times but there is no expansion into another space. This is why analogies are often used, but those analogies have to be done in our three dimensional world. Sometimes one need to describe events only mathematically since math does not "care" what we believe. Math is neutral.

Perhaps expand is the wrong word to use. By definition, in order for something to expand, it has to increase in size. In order for something to have size, it must have boundaries. If Space has boundaries, that means there is a place where Space does not exist. My question is; how is Space different from where it does not exist? If there is no distinction, how can you claim it has boundaries allowing it to expand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps expand is the wrong word to use. By definition, in order for something to expand, it has to increase in size. In order for something to have size, it must have boundaries. If Space has boundaries, that means there is a place where Space does not exist. My question is; how is Space different from where it does not exist? If there is no distinction, how can you claim it has boundaries allowing it to expand?

No. Sorry but you are applying definitions incorrectly. You are assuming that the universe is Newtonian but we know that is not the case.

Space does not appear to have any boundaries. There may be no edge to space and non-space in the way that you are thinking.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We can start with a basic pronouncement of Bible code: "Love your neighbor as yourself . . . treat people the way you yourself with to be treated." If that doesn't answer your inquiry, what possibly could?

That's not bible code.
As in: it's not original to the bible at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, you asked me rhetorically for evidence, not seeking evidence

Because he knows you don't have any. We all know that.

However, I would love to be shown wrong on that point. I'm sure the same goes for others here.
So, do you have any?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Skeptics agree--NATURAL laws like conservation of matter and energy were violated by the BB expansion

This is simply blatantly false.

, that is, SUPER-natural occurance.

GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's not a paradox? Skeptics who say "natural law did not exist at Planck time because of [unknown] natural law" are making a self-defeating, paradoxical remark!

And people who claim skeptics say that while they don't, are arguing a strawman.

 

[Kfox]

No. Sorry but you are applying definitions incorrectly.

Which definition have I applied incorrectly?

You are assuming that the universe is Newtonian but we know that is not the case.

So you claim the laws of physics does not apply to the Universe? How do you know this?

Space does not appear to have any boundaries. There may be no edge to space and non-space in the way that you are thinking.

If there are no boundaries, there cannot be any expansion. If you disagree, explain how this is possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which definition have I applied incorrectly?

Here:

"By definition, in order for something to expand, it has to increase in size. In order for something to have size, it must have boundaries. "

Your definitions only apply to a Newtonian understanding of space. Newton was close enough to get to the Moon and back but incorrect when the effects of relativity get measurably large.

So you claim the laws of physics does not apply to the Universe? How do you know this?

Where did I claim that? I can see that you do not understand the laws of physics. Once again, Newton was only approximately correct. If you have smartphone with GPS you refute Newton on a regular basis.

f there are no boundaries, there cannot be any expansion. If you disagree, explain how this is possible.

Incorrect. Where did you get this idea from? All that is needed for an observable expansion is for distances between to relatively non-moving points increases. And that can be observed. This article may help:

Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia

 

[Kfox]

Incorrect. Where did you get this idea from? All that is needed for an observable expansion is for distances between to relatively non-moving points increases. And that can be observed. This article may help:

Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia

How do you measure a point where nothing exists? How can the distance between two points increase without movement?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you measure a point where nothing exists? How can the distance between two points increase without movement?

Your first question does not appear to address my explanation to you. And it increases because space itself expanded.

Have you heard the balloon analogy? It can mislead people to think that there is an ether. But let's try to ignore that. Space can be likened to a large balloon. You can have two ants on a balloon that is being blown up. They may not be moving relative to the balloon so that if at any time the balloon is not being inflated the two ants will not be moving relative to each other. The expansion of space is that sort of expansion. It is a an expansion of space itself.

 

[Kfox]

Your first question does not appear to address my explanation to you. And it increases because space itself expanded.

Have you heard the balloon analogy? It can mislead people to think that there is an ether. But let's try to ignore that. Space can be likened to a large balloon. You can have two ants on a balloon that is being blown up. They may not be moving relative to the balloon so that if at any time the balloon is not being inflated the two ants will not be moving relative to each other. The expansion of space is that sort of expansion. It is a an expansion of space itself.

Two ants on an expanding balloon may not be moving relative to the balloon, but they are moving relative to each other.

The expansion of space is that sort of expansion. It is a an expansion of space itself.

How are you defining space? I define space as where nothing exists. Nothing has an eternal existence, because either you have something, or you have nothing; there are no other options. Something cannot have an eternal existence thus when you run out of the existence of something, all you could possibly have left is nothing. Thus nothing/space has an eternal existence. Obviously you disagree, so tell me where I've gone wrong.

 

[night912]

Two ants on an expanding balloon may not be moving relative to the balloon, but they are moving relative to each other.


How are you defining space? I define space as where nothing exists. Nothing has an eternal existence, because either you have something, or you have nothing; there are no other options. Something cannot have an eternal existence thus when you run out of the existence of something, all you could possibly have left is nothing. Thus nothing/space has an eternal existence. Obviously you disagree, so tell me where I've gone wrong.

What you just said, is a non sequitur.

First of all, you've changed your definition of "space" from when you first used it. And second, you define "space" as exist and not exist. You define space as where nothing exists, yet your use of the word "nothing" is actually being used as "a thing" instead of being "no thing." You are in basically describing space as being eternally expanding.

 

[night912]

End of prior universe - regression issue violating [natural] Law of Conservation

King theory about a tower surrounded by roses spitting out universes - regression issue violating [natural] Law of Conservation

BB still expanding - has nothing to do with initial expansion violating [natural] Law of Conservation

Came into existence - issue violating [natural] Law of Conservation

Closed system came into existence - issue violating [natural] Law of Conservation

Open system fed from multiverse - regression issue violating [natural] Law of Conservation

All wrong. None of those violate the Law of Conservation. Apparently, you do not understand what that law means. My advice to you is, before you start debating/arguing about a particular thing/idea, you must have an understanding of it before engaging with someone. So it's best for you to do some research on a particular topic before you engage in a discussion with others. This will help prevent you from talking out of your a** and not make claims about the particular subject resulting in demonstrating your ignorance in the subject. So far, the only evidences that you have shown are the ones that support the notion that you are in fact, ignorant of the subject that you are discussing. The evidences are your claims that you made, which resulted in others showing them to be errors and/or refute your own argument. And when you do research on a particular topic, you should always use multiple sources. Reading multiple sources helps you understand what is actually being said, compared to just one source where you were able to read what was written, but not able to comprehend what it's saying. And that's the biggest problem with ignorance, thinking and/or only having just enough knowledge and understanding of a particular topic to think that you know about it, but not enough to know that you don't know enough to see that you are wrong.


even though most likely you're not going to take it

 

[Subduction Zone]

Two ants on an expanding balloon may not be moving relative to the balloon, but they are moving relative to each other.

Correct. The distant galaxies may not be "moving" relative to space. It is space that is moving by expanding.

How are you defining space? I define space as where nothing exists. Nothing has an eternal existence, because either you have something, or you have nothing; there are no other options. Something cannot have an eternal existence thus when you run out of the existence of something, all you could possibly have left is nothing. Thus nothing/space has an eternal existence. Obviously you disagree, so tell me where I've gone wrong.

Space is the medium that matter exist in. There can be relative distances between points. And one thing that may be impossible in our universe is for "nothing" to exist. You would need to define nothing. And you have gone wrong in assuming that there is something external to this universe. We do not know if that is so. That is an unjustified assumption on your part. All that we can describe is our universe right now. It had a beginning as we know it 13.8 billion years ago. There may have been no "before". Time could have started with the Big Bang.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You still do not understand the expansion of space. Space is not expanding "into" anything. This is a hard concept to grasp since we live in only a small part of this vast universe of ours. You will sometimes heard of the expansion as a "metric expansion". That means that the distance between objects increases over times but there is no expansion into another space. This is why analogies are often used, but those analogies have to be done in our three dimensional world. Sometimes one need to describe events only mathematically since math does not "care" what we believe. Math is neutral.

It might help if you do not think of the universe as being contained at all. The universe does not appeared to be contained. Science never proposes a violation of natural law. What it does instead is to tell you when scientists have hit the limits to current understanding. Our current physics works to a time that is a very small fraction of a second after the start of the Big Bang. But our mathematical understanding fails at that point. Sometimes that is described as saying that the laws of science have failed, but that is not the case. It is only our understanding that is incomplete.

Your immense autodidactic knowledge extends to physics, math and cosmology. I'm impressed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You were talking with yourself?

And you almost got the total energy of the universe right. The problem is that you do not understand facts or evidence. I have presented facts. But you seem to think for some odd reason that I have not done so. That means that you think that the total measured energy of the universe is zero. And that was correct. Do you know what that means? Let me help you with that. It means that there was no violation of natural law.

The problem is that you do not understand natural law and think that what is understood by scientists is a violation of it. You should be trying to learn instead of making claims that you cannot support. I am far from being the most close minded person on RF, that title more rightly goes to a person that makes claims and cannot support them when that person makes claims that he has to know are wrong.

Since you are making counter claims without providing facts, go ahead and explain what you're saying here, which is different than "you don't understand". I say the Law of Conservation, for one example, was not in operation at Planck time. Please provide your skilled refutation below.

Thank you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

All wrong. None of those violate the Law of Conservation. Apparently, you do not understand what that law means. My advice to you is, before you start debating/arguing about a particular thing/idea, you must have an understanding of it before engaging with someone. So it's best for you to do some research on a particular topic before you engage in a discussion with others. This will help prevent you from talking out of your a** and not make claims about the particular subject resulting in demonstrating your ignorance in the subject. So far, the only evidences that you have shown are the ones that support the notion that you are in fact, ignorant of the subject that you are discussing. The evidences are your claims that you made, which resulted in others showing them to be errors and/or refute your own argument. And when you do research on a particular topic, you should always use multiple sources. Reading multiple sources helps you understand what is actually being said, compared to just one source where you were able to read what was written, but not able to comprehend what it's saying. And that's the biggest problem with ignorance, thinking and/or only having just enough knowledge and understanding of a particular topic to think that you know about it, but not enough to know that you don't know enough to see that you are wrong.


even though most likely you're not going to take it

None of which is a refutation of what I wrote. Instead of "you don't understand," teach me. Explain how at the expansion of the BB/Planck time, natural law was in operation.

Which natural law was the catalyst for the expansion? Which natural law moved the universe from infinite mass to finite mass/time/energy, etc.?

Please explain it here in lay terms or scientific terms, since I'm a dullard. Give citations where appropriate, if you feel you need to do so:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your immense autodidactic knowledge extends to physics, math and cosmology. I'm impressed.

It is merely superior to yours. That is no great accomplishment.