gnostic
The Lost One
Mate. I never said that one model is infinite. It is some of the atheists who said that one of the models that suits them is absolute. One atheist even gave a model that he cooked up. So hopefully some will read this.
Maybe you like to side with your kind. But you should note, that I never said that they were wrong. I just asked them questions that they didnt answer. For example one proposed the cyclic universe model, and the other of course just got very angry for no reason. So maybe you should tell me which model have I proposed to be absolute and infinite in this thread.
I have explained this to one of the people you mentioned above. In detail. But thanks.
But some atheists here do. And they have said that some models are definitely absolutely. You defended them as well. So you are practicing a bias. A double standard. I see that all the time.
I asked a few questions that came up from the investigation of the causal structure of space time. Atheists here proposed certain models as their preferred ones but they were not argued considering the questions. Showed that there are three different geometric models considered what was proposed was only one which is when Omega is one. Of course it was not understood and retorted back with a bit of rhetoric. Angry rhetoric.Its funny really.
Also, even though euclidian metrics is the most prevalent along with a specially flat universe, asymptotically Euclidean metrics is considered although cosmologists like Penrose are interested in a finite region rather than at infinity. Connected, disconnected asymptotically Euclidean metrics. Now you should note that some positive claims were made. I mean 100% assured, poise claims. And when questioned, the response is an insult. When asked a very specific question about the radii, the hot Big Bang model, the Hartle and hawking no boundary model and the radii calculation in it, the response is of course a snide remark.
So mate. Rather than responding for others and taking sides, just provide your insight which is a far better approach to make.
Now that you made some comments, can you specifically explain very clearly without any frills how you would explain the thermodynamic problems posed in the cyclic universe model? You seem to know the responses of the others very well so maybe you know the questions I asked. You should.
The density parameter at a rapid expansion in inflation would be pushed towards omega=1 and of course the geometry to flatness and the prediction that stems from inflation is that the universe is flat according to Guth. Everyone gets this. Since the discovery of dark energy so cosmic microwave background and supernovae calculations show that it adds Omega m approximately 0.69 so that the Omega is plus 1 or 1+ or - 0.01. Thats why I asked the specific question specifying Omega at 1. But of course the question was not understood, not clarified, but rhetoric was the issue.
I would suggest that rather than eternally delving in a quest to debunk others no matter what, and engaging in good conversation trying to understand others, and if not understood ask for clarifications, and if something is not known being candid, is the way to go.
Thanks and cheers. I appreciate your post.
You have completely misunderstood my reply.
My post has nothing to do with theism vs atheism, or with science vs religion.
Did I say anything about theism, religion, creation, Genesis or god, in my post?
No.
Just as I didn’t bring up theism, I didn’t say anything about atheism. There was no atheism this or theism that.
You have blown my post out-of proportions.
I was only focusing what you said about the universe being infinite or not infinite. And I was focusing on the only model that has “scientific theory” status - the Big Bang theory, which is why I gave you that link.
All I was saying that astrophysicists don’t know at this time, but in the Big Bang cosmology, they have PROPOSED several possible shapes of the universe that COULD indicate whether the universe was infinite or not infinite.
I have even provided you a link that briefly explain those 3 POSSIBLE SHAPES of the universe - “spherical”, “saddle-shape” or “flat”.
The webpage also stated quite clearly there are limitations to technology, both past and present, that they cannot observe the entire universe, therefore they cannot yet to determine the universe’s actual shape.
So according to Big Bang theory, they have not yet confirmed the shape of the Universe or if it is infinite or finite.
How did you misread my post, so badly?
And btw, the Big Bang cosmology has nothing to do with atheism or with theism, because scientists from both parties have contributed to BB theory.
For instance, there were 3 pioneers who independently proposed the Big Bang theory in 1920s except that it was never called the Big Bang theory until 1949; back in the 1920s, 30s & most of the 40s, it was only referred to as the Expanding Universe Model.
These 3 astrophysicists were -
- Alexander Friedmann (1922), Russian
- Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25), American
- Georges Lemaître (1927), Belgian
Friedmann was atheist, but Lemaître, known as the “Father of the Big Bang theory”, was a theist and a Christian. Not only that, Lemaître was also Catholic priest.
But whether they were theists or atheists, it wasn’t important. The Big Bang theory, is a scientific theory, not an atheism-vs-theism forum.
Get your fact straight before making this false pro-atheism claim.
Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Maxwell were all Christians, as well as physicists too. Do see me being biased - rejecting their contributions to science because they were “theists”?
No. You are being ridiculous with your false allegations.
You owe me an apology for completely misunderstanding my intentions in my reply and for accusing me of being biased.
