Singularity as God

[idav]

No, what you're suggesting is a contradiction to what timeless mean.

That the expansion of the universe occur at all, ie. the Big Bang, then the singularity is not timeless. The singularity ceased to be when space-time expanded and all the energies in the singularity cool down enough for subatomic particles to form atomic particles (protons, neutrons, nuclei), which eventually combined with electrons to form the first matter - the hydrogen atoms.

Hydrogen then coalesced from gravity to eventually igniting, to produce the first stars. Other heavier elements are formed from early stars, and earliest stars died out providing materials for formations of more new stars, as well as planets and other celestial objects.

No, idav, the singularity is not timeless. Time is only relative to our measurement of how far we can estimate in the universe, but time didn't begin with the BB; it existed before the BB or expansion. We just don't have the technology yet, to look beyond the BB.

The singularity would have been a point of intense mass which when observing from the outside would look like time stands still inside the singularity, but an object could go the speed of light or have the mass of a black hole and still be able to do things and still would be timeless.

As the singularity started expanding it's mass and/or speed would have been too much for spacetime to be much of an effect. Of course no space doesn't allow for such a thing but giving the singularity space isn't enough. Mass and/or velocity has to give way in order for time to start speeding up, which would happen as the universe cooled and developed the first element Hydrogen.

 

[Nada]

hey Bible,
In another cluster beyond the shadow of this cluster, right besides the circling twin of the vanishing vortex into which the reflection of our image is focused back to us, shines the other side of another cluster that's in sight of another cluster, far beyond the sight of any other image.
And then another, when does Buzz find his home planet, or cluster, or cosmos ?
Fly away with me, I'm on my way to a star!
~
'mud

 

[idav]

 

[gnostic]

Despite it's objection I take such an idea seriously, no scientists can say where all the stuff comes from so I don't see the issue.

But neither can any religious or theist creationists can say where everything come from. Inserting "god" into the singularity or the Big Bang, is nothing more than a cop out and wishful thinking. It is also intellectual dishonesty.

Leads back to science needing to insert god

No, idav. You are the one who need to insert god into science, not science.

Science doesn't need to insert god, because god is not falsifiable.

Without even evidence to support a deity of any sort, how can scientists possibly insert god into the singularity, when it, he or she doesn't exist?

A lack of evidence for god, mean there are no evidences for a god (or gods).

The very notion that science has to insert god into any scientific or cosmological theory, just because science have no answer yet to what the singularity is, it utterly absurd.

 

[idav]

But neither can any religious or theist creationists can say where everything come from. Inserting "god" into the singularity or the Big Bang, is nothing more than a cop out and wishful thinking. It is also intellectual dishonesty.



No, idav. You are the one who need to insert god into science, not science.

Science doesn't need to insert god, because god is not falsifiable.

Without even evidence to support a deity of any sort, how can scientists possibly insert god into the singularity, when it, he or she doesn't exist?

A lack of evidence for god, mean there are no evidences for a god (or gods).

The very notion that science has to insert god into any scientific or cosmological theory, just because science have no answer yet to what the singularity is, it utterly absurd.

Science simply is knowledge of god and how things work. If god is real then science should find something with the power, being eternal, and all present, and science has found it with the singularity. They also found how much power their is in just one single atom. So people will ask where is god but when will we be satisfied, we find it everywhere, in the fabric of reality and the beginning of the cosmos. I only need science to confirm what I suspect.

 

[metis]

Science simply is knowledge of god and how things work. If god is real then science should find something with the power, being eternal, and all present, and science has found it with the singularity. They also found how much power their is in just one single atom. So people will ask where is god but when will we be satisfied, we find it everywhere, in the fabric of reality and the beginning of the cosmos. I only need science to confirm what I suspect.

But this approach is not scientific in the slightest because bias is not being negated by taking a much more objective approach.

 

[idav]

But this approach is not scientific in the slightest because bias is not being negated by taking a much more objective approach.

I have taken an object approach but how you define god matters. I defined it and found it, thats the initial singularity and everything we see its spawed today. Whats left is whether the attributes I claim are true and they have been confirmed through testing.

 

[metis]

I have taken an object approach but how you define god matters. I defined it and found it, thats the initial singularity and everything we see its spawed today. Whats left is whether the attributes I claim are true and they have been confirmed through testing.

There is literally no objective evidence to suggest that singularity in any way relates to a god. If there was, it would have been clearly established and broadcast the world over every minute of every day in every year. It's a belief, that's fine, but beliefs simply are not objective evidence.

 

[idav]

There is literally no objective evidence to suggest that singularity in any way relates to a god. If there was, it would have been clearly established and broadcast the world over every minute of every day in every year. It's a belief, that's fine, but beliefs simply are not objective evidence.

Attribute one infinte power and energy, two eternal, three omnipresent. What more should god be? If science stepped on god they would be worried the math was wrong.

 

[metis]

Attribute one infinte power and energy

Mere speculation.

two eternal

Mere speculation.

three omnipresent.

Mere speculation.

Science relies on objective evidence, not mere speculation.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We don't need a god, reality just fits the definition far as i can tell. I feel like people have been looking for god and science just keeps stumbling all over it, they of course hesitate such a label. I am saying if it quacks like a duck..... well you know.

Depends on how you define deity. You're basically just taking the common monotheistic traits of deity and applying it to pantheism.

 

[idav]

Mere speculation.


Mere speculation.


Mere speculation.

Science relies on objective evidence, not mere speculation.

I have given the evidence. The ramfications of general relativity have been observed experimentally. I dont have to tell you the power they find in mere atoms and particles.Time dildilationis proven experimentally. Spacetime is shown to be one since the big bang as a 4th dimension. Qm only shows this more since things in quatum states are experimentally showing to have these attributes which happens to be everything we are made of.

 

[Thief]

As cosmologists study the origins, the universe has given some very good clues. Creationists suppose a creator responisble for the universe and everything in it. It makes sense to me that the energy and everything that is the universe to be god.

When looking deeper into the universe the trick of time allows us to see the beginning. Theory of relativity shows time doesnt really exist because the energy and matter at speed of light or huge mass is timeless. Only at the high enough energy rates like that of a singularity would qualify as god like power. Everything else would be a temporal version of god, trapped in a material state, but within being divine. In the beginning of the big bang, time would not exist until the high energy states cooled down enough to form what we know as matter.

Allow me to tweak the post ...just a little....
Time does not exist at all.
Never did....never will.
It is a measurement created by Man and used by Man.

That said...
Movement takes place....then you measure it.
In the beginning....no motion....no measure.

Last I heard the calculations on hand break down as you approach the singularity.
Last I heard.....the first few hundred thousand years have insufficient form to be sure of anything.

 

[idav]

Allow me to tweak the post ...just a little....
Time does not exist at all.
Never did....never will.
It is a measurement created by Man and used by Man.

That said...
Movement takes place....then you measure it.
In the beginning....no motion....no measure.

Last I heard the calculations on hand break down as you approach the singularity.
Last I heard.....the first few hundred thousand years have insufficient form to be sure of anything.

'No time' doesnt mean 'no motion'. Otherwise how can something be moving the speed of light, such as photons, be timeless. That is what einstein theorized and modern experiments confirm as predicted.

 

[Thief]

'No time' doesnt mean 'no motion'. Otherwise how can something be moving the speed of light, such as photons, be timeless. That is what einstein theorized and modern experiments confirm as predicted.

For the singularity to be singular.....no secondary point allowed.
Nowhere to come from....no where to go to......
No motion.

 

[Thief]

'No time' doesnt mean 'no motion'. Otherwise how can something be moving the speed of light, such as photons, be timeless. That is what einstein theorized and modern experiments confirm as predicted.

I have pondered on this for quite some 'time'.
But it would be incorrect to say 'time' is the item affected.
The item in motion is affected.
The method of measure might not apply.....or would it?
If you achieve the speed of light....do you age?
Do you freeze in stride like a statue?
If you become 'frozen'....how do you hit the brakes?
hehehehehee

 

[metis]

I have given the evidence. The ramfications of general relativity have been observed experimentally. I dont have to tell you the power they find in mere atoms and particles.Time dildilationis proven experimentally. Spacetime is shown to be one since the big bang as a 4th dimension. Qm only shows this more since things in quatum states are experimentally showing to have these attributes which happens to be everything we are made of.

But that's no more evidence of a creator-god than just reading tea leaves. Maybe there is a creator-god, so who am I to say or imply there isn't, but the fact of the matter is that we cannot confirm there is one, nor can we confirm how many deities there hypothetically could be.

 

[metis]

'No time' doesnt mean 'no motion'. Otherwise how can something be moving the speed of light, such as photons, be timeless. That is what einstein theorized and modern experiments confirm as predicted.

There is no indication that there ever was "no motion", and most of the cosmologists that I have read do believe that there was likely some movement prior to the BB. And neither of Einstein's Theories of Relativity suggest that there was no motion.

 

[idav]

I have pondered on this for quite some 'time'.
But it would be incorrect to say 'time' is the item affected.
The item in motion is affected.
The method of measure might not apply.....or would it?
If you achieve the speed of light....do you age?
Do you freeze in stride like a statue?
If you become 'frozen'....how do you hit the brakes?
hehehehehee

They don't even think it is feasible to hit that speed, because of the infinite amount of constant power needed to achieve and stay the speed of light. Yeah getting to godlike level of power is not supposed to be easy lol.
UCSB Science Line sqtest

 

[idav]

There is no indication that there ever was "no motion", and most of the cosmologists that I have read do believe that there was likely some movement prior to the BB. And neither of Einstein's Theories of Relativity suggest that there was no motion.

Agreed.