Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[RecoveringYuppy]

I'm not sure mashuna is remembering the poll right. I was one of those atheists that cold clammy morning in Machester and my answer was "'Really? Huh, that's kind of cool. I didn't know that. Really? Huh, that's kind of cool. I didn't know that."

 

[bobrayner]

Actually modern science "theorizes" that the approximate 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe came from not only something smaller than a pea but something smaller than a single atom. I used a pea though because we can actually visualize its size.
...
And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God?

No problem for me, because I understand the subject. A degree in physics taught me many great things - which reinforced my atheism. The more one learns about the real world and how it works, the more it becomes obvious that god is a myth and the bible is fiction. It appears that you don't understand the subject, which may explain why you're unhappy about it.

 

[JFrankA]

Okay. Admittingly, I've only skimmed through the thread, but it seems to me that the point is this: If more Atheists realized that the scientific theory of how the universe was created, (i.e., all matter and energy came from a single point and expanded out in an explosion), they'd find the idea so ludicrous that it would make more sense that some omnipotent, invisible, all powerful being just created objects and placed them in the universe and start them moving.

Forgive me for saying this this way, but that's just stupid.

For the sake of arguement, let's just go your way. I know the Big Bang Theory fairly well for a layman. So explain yours to me. I have some questions:

Where is this being? Where does he (or she) reside? What materials did s/he have at his/her disposal? Where are those materials stored? How does this being manipulate those items? How long does it take to make this stuff? If s/he makes a mistake in building something, does s/he erase it and start again? If there is this being, creating this stuff, why would it want to? Are we a pet project? Are we just an "erector set" for some young kid? Are there more of these beings each with their own universe? How big is THEIR universe and who created that one?

...we are getting a little sci-fi here, but if your "theory" is true, these are legitimate questions. And they need answers that are part of the evidence we already have, such as:

How does this model fit the mathematical formulas that have been reinforced over and over in how objects in the universe spins? How and why does this explain that the universe is still expanding? Since the properties of the speed of light are constant, and we know that when we look in the sky we are looking into the past, if all of this was created, why are there differences in the ages of stars and everything (bare in mind that the ages range is enormous)?

I can come up with more, and I'm sure an astronomer or a physicist can come up with a lot more, but I'm short on time. I think I've made my point.

Your "theory" has to match the facts. So far someone saying "because the bible says so" doesn't cut it. That's not answering any questions, that's just avoiding them.

 

[fuelair]

Actually modern science "theorizes" that the approximate 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe came from not only something smaller than a pea but something smaller than a single atom. I used a pea though because we can actually visualize its size.

You might ask how could "all" of the matter of 10 billion trillion stars which exist in an estimated 100 billion galaxies come from something smaller than an atom. Here is how Hokuele says it is theorized to have happened by inflationary theory which some in this forum say or imply is modern mainline science:



Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of the 10 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom. My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact?

And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God?

Doesn't affect mine - though I believe that out of all the atheists in the world a large number do not care and/or know about it. It really doesn't matter to atheists.
And it is correct based on all the available evidence.
Evidence being something that your claimed religion - which you have created and been caught in falsehoods about multiple times in this forum- lacks.

 

[volatile]

DOC - is there a reason you're ignoring my posts? I am offering to pay for you to get the answers to these questions. I will send you two excellent books that will lay out what you want to know. Will you read them?

I take it you want to at least try and understand what it is you're arguing against - surely that can only help you?

 

[joobz]

You haven't answered my question, I asked where did you get the definition that:

"a singularity is a point of infinite mass and zero volume."

I see that definition nowhere in the sites you provided. Nowhere do I see it say that a singularity is a point of infinite mass and zero volume.

DOC, that's my rewording of the definitions provided in those sources.
If it is wrong, I would be happy to correct myself. Wollery is the most qualified to make that analysis.

Now, you've avoided this question of mine 3 times.
Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity that it did not exist?

and this question of mine 2 times.
how do you feel about the question:
Do most christians know that they practice ritualistic canabalism?

 

[zooterkin]

Scientists as little as 100 years ago believed the universe was eternal. But they now believe the universe had a definite beginning -- much like Genesis believes the universe had a definite beginning.

Please name just one of these centenarian scientists.

 

[Fredrik]

DOC, that's my rewording of the definitions provided in those sources.
If it is wrong, I would be happy to correct myself. Wollery is the most qualified to make that analysis.

Now, you've avoided this question of mine 3 times.
Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity that it did not exist?

There's actually nothing in science that says that the universe was a singularity. What is known is this: The universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, so if we want to use general relativity to describe the large-scale behavior of our universe, we must look for homogeneous and isotropic solutions of Einstein's equation. Those solutions were found in the 1920's (I think) and are now called FLRW^WP solutions. There are three such solutions, and all of them describe an expanding universe. To be more specific, they all describe spacetimes that can be "sliced" up into 3-dimensional spaces that we can think of as representing "space, at time t" for different values of t, and in a specific mathematical sense, space at time t is "bigger" than space at time t'<t, and this size goes to zero as t goes to zero.

However, there's no event in a FLRW spacetime that has the time coordinate 0. Every event has t>0. The singularity isn't an event in spacetime. The "big bang" is just a name for the limit t goes to 0. So the phrase "when the universe was a singularity" doesn't quite make sense. The word "when" refers to a specific value of the time coordinate t, but the universe wasn't in any way "singular" at any t>0 and there is no t=0 in these solutions.

 

[FireGarden]

a singularity is a point of infinite mass and zero volume. We extrapolate that fact due to 1.) Cosmic background radiation and 2.) the expansion of the universe.

So, now, Answer me. Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity that it did not exist?

I'm not Wollery, but...
A singularity has infinite density, not infinite mass. In theory, there are mini-black holes the size of sub-atomic particles. They'd include a singularity with very little mass.

And, actually, your source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Talks of infinite density, which is very different to what you said -- so DOC got one right.

 

[bokonon]

DOC - is there a reason you're ignoring my posts?

Willful ignorance?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Well the God of Christianity is "eternal" by definition so the Christian God can't have an origin since He always existed. Scientists as little as 100 years ago believed the universe was eternal. But they now believe the universe had a definite beginning -- much like Genesis believes the universe had a definite beginning.

Whether the universe had a beginning or not is a simple yes or no question. How significant do you think it would be if Genesis got this one yes or no question, right? How many yes or no questions did Genesis get wrong?

BTW do you think scientists in general think there was nothing before the singularity of the big bang? Are you aware of any controversy concerning the singularity itself?

 

[Smackety]

Actually modern science "theorizes" that the approximate 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe came from not only something smaller than a pea but something smaller than a single atom. I used a pea though because we can actually visualize its size.

You might ask how could "all" of the matter of 10 billion trillion stars which exist in an estimated 100 billion galaxies come from something smaller than an atom. Here is how Hokuele says it is theorized to have happened by inflationary theory which some in this forum say or imply is modern mainline science:



Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of the 10 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom. My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact?

And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God?

Still makes more sense..

 

[joobz]

There's actually nothing in science that says that the universe was a singularity. What is known is this: The universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, so if we want to use general relativity to describe the large-scale behavior of our universe, we must look for homogeneous and isotropic solutions of Einstein's equation. Those solutions were found in the 1920's (I think) and are now called FLRW^WP solutions. There are three such solutions, and all of them describe an expanding universe. To be more specific, they all describe spacetimes that can be "sliced" up into 3-dimensional spaces that we can think of as representing "space, at time t" for different values of t, and in a specific mathematical sense, space at time t is "bigger" than space at time t'<t, and this size goes to zero as t goes to zero.

However, there's no event in a FLRW spacetime that has the time coordinate 0. Every event has t>0. The singularity isn't an event in spacetime. The "big bang" is just a name for the limit t goes to 0. So the phrase "when the universe was a singularity" doesn't quite make sense. The word "when" refers to a specific value of the time coordinate t, but the universe wasn't in any way "singular" at any t>0 and there is no t=0 in these solutions.

Cool. thank you for the clarification. I knew that the big bang only referred to the few infitesimal moments after t = 0, but I was under the impression that the current theory stated a universal singularity at t=0. Perhaps went about the wrong way in my question, but again my original point is valid. At t=0, are we to say the universe didn't exist? Saying that the universe didn't exist prior to that is like asking what's north of the north pole.

 

[joobz]

I'm not Wollery, but...
A singularity has infinite density, not infinite mass. In theory, there are mini-black holes the size of sub-atomic particles. They'd include a singularity with very little mass.

But I was referring to the big bang singularity, which I thought was infinite mass.

And, actually, your source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Talks of infinite density, which is very different to what you said -- so DOC got one right.

False Dichotomy. Any error on my part (which I acknowledge I did make an error) isn't proof of DOC being correct. Check back and note that DOC made no claim where my error was, only that the exact words I used were not contained in those references. These are fundementally different concepts.

 

[FireGarden]

Doc,
I've been an atheist for as long as I can remember. Cosmology is a totally different subject. If science is still wrong about cosmology, and that is proven tomorrow, it will have no effect on my atheism.

I second the recommendation of Singh's "The Big Bang" (The first chapter of which is the best pop-science chapter in any book ever). You'll still have questions after reading it. But they will be better questions.

 

[RandFan]

I have always been an atheist. I was born that way and have remained unadulterated since. I have since learnt of the theory of the "big bang" (I think of it as a "big expansion") so i comply with your last paragraph. Having acquired this knowledge has upped my admiration of science and the scientific method. It in no way has increased, for me, the likelihood of a god or gods. Invoking a god or gods doesn't seem to me to be the way to answer any questions regarding the universe. The obvious problem of god origin arises. I appreciate that the idea, that all matter came from such a small source, is hard to comprehend. a god that did it is harder for me to comprehend... My view for what its worth.

I'm RandFan and I approve of this post. No need to peruse any further but I will. It's a good post though.

I was born an atheist and was subsequently indocrinated into being a true blue believer. I served in many church leadership positions. Graduated seminary, served a two years mission and faithfuly went to church nearly every Sunday. For some odd reason I opened my eyes and questioned everything I knew and that lead me to reason and atheism.

I know about the big bang. I know what scientists theorize about the big bang. I find it damn fascinating and have no problem with it whatsoever.

Two of my favorite books are A Brief History Of Time and The Elegant Universe. I choose not to wallow in ignorance and simply rely on incredulity or my own understanding.

From brief history of time:

Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory... Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.

DOC, instead of arguing from ignorance why don't you falsify the theory?

 

[RandFan]

DOC - is there a reason you're ignoring my posts? I am offering to pay for you to get the answers to these questions. I will send you two excellent books that will lay out what you want to know. Will you read them?

I take it you want to at least try and understand what it is you're arguing against - surely that can only help you?

No. Like any good Scientologist, Sikh, Hindu, Mormon, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholic, Baptist, etc., DOC knows the truth and doesn't need to understand anything beyond the Bible.

He ignores me also.

We scare him.

 

[FireGarden]

But I was referring to the big bang singularity, which I thought was infinite mass.

Google turns up:
http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae649.cfm

The Big Bang singularity is a point of zero volume, but very high mass, which makes the density infinite.

The Big Bang contained all the matter/energy in the universe. So, yes, that's a lot. I guess that if the universe has infinite mass today, then the BBS had infinite mass back then.

Is the mass in the universe infinite?
I'm not sure. I googled. And I'm still not sure.

False Dichotomy. Any error on my part (which I acknowledge I did make an error) isn't proof of DOC being correct. Check back and note that DOC made no claim where my error was, only that the exact words I used were not contained in those references. These are fundementally different concepts.

Can't I give him the benefit of the doubt just a little? Surely he was implying that your definition is different.

 

[Fredrik]

I was under the impression that the current theory stated a universal singularity at t=0.

When physicists say that there's a singularity at t=0, what they mean is that stuff goes to infinity as t goes to 0. So in way, current theory does say that there's a singularity at t=0, but that statement requires some interpretation (which I believe I have provided now).

At t=0, are we to say the universe didn't exist? Saying that the universe didn't exist prior to that is like asking what's north of the north pole.

I would say that asking what happened before (or even during) the big bang is like asking what's north of the north pole. The "before" (t<0) and "during" (t=0) is not just unknown, but also undefined in the theoretical framework. We can talk about the limit t goes to 0, since every t>0 is well-defined, but there is no t=0 or t<0 in general relativity.

So questions about t=0 or t<0 don't really make sense in GR, but it's well known that GR can't be valid in all circumstances. In particular, everyone expects GR to have broken down completely when the density reaches the Planck scale^WP. So we need another theory to describe the universe, not just at t=0 and t<0, but also at t>0 when t is really small. It's quite possible that t=0 and t<0 would be well-defined in such a theory.

Unfortunately, no such theories have been found yet (although people are working on several candidates), so we're going to have to wait a while before we can even ask questions about t=0, and maybe even longer before we can answer them.

 

[learner]

How did you contact 4000 atheists? And what was the exact question you asked them? And what were the "exact words that every single one of them used?

No, no, surely Docs not gonna go for it, no, no,, oops yes!