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

[devnull]

Sorry to possibly take this OT, but:

doesnt infinite density imply infinite mass?


The questions that DOC struggles with are many of the same questions we all struggle with. What does infinite density really mean? What caused the singularity? What does it mean to have no time/no universe/nothing?

The difference is that instead of admitting "I dont know" and trying to learn more, DOC refers to the mystical "answer for everything".

 

[Fiona]

I will come clean if it helps, DOC. I did know that science says the universe came from something smaller than an atom: and I found this quite interesting but not very exciting. This is because I am not a scientist and I trust those who are to go on researching and learning and disseminating what they learn for the rest of us, at whatever level we would like to know about it. For me that is just about the level called "general knowledge". I cannot follow mathematical arguments and I do not have enough knowledge about physics to read text books. I had trouble when I read A Brief History of Time so maybe I am a lot like you, if you resist reading recommended books because they are too hard for you. I do like to have things outlined for me in this forum because I can ask my daft questions and people are patient in explaining.

I don't ask about things I don't want to know about (well not very often and usually only in social situations where it is polite to do so). I assume this is also true of you, because otherwise you would be wasting other people's time and that would not be polite, IMO.

People here have tried to engage honestly in discussion with you in this thread and in the other one about evolution. I can only conclude that you are not getting the kind of answers you are looking for, therefore.

Since you ask whether most atheists know this, and that has been answered in the affirmative, the second question does not arise, does it? So what is it you now wish to know? Obviously it is not the detail of what is known by scientists, because that has been offered and you have ignored the offer. While reading science books might be hard, if you took up the generous offer made then asked questions where you got lost, I think the people here would be more than willing to help you: so I have found, anyway.

On the basis of your question I am inclined to think you find it hard to accept that people can be aware of the fact you raised at the outset and you are not willing to take the answer "yes" you have been given. Mashuna has very cleverly shown you what to do about that, so if that is the problem you have a strategy. We will all be interested in the results, I imagine.

If you do accept the answer you have been given then perhaps your problem lies elsewhere. Maybe you just find it really difficult to believe that the fact does not cause an atheist any problem. If that is so then, speaking only for myself, I can tell you honestly that I do not find this fact affects my outlook. You asked if atheists do not care about the origin of the universe: well surprising as it may be to you that is exactly where I find myself. I couldn't give a toss, frankly. What science is telling us is interesting but it does not impinge on my life at all and my interests (as in what I really pay attention to) are elsewhere.

I wonder if that is a problem for you. I have seen many people insist that everybody is interested in the "big questions of life" like why we are here and what happens after death. If that is what you believe then I am here for to tell you that it is not universally true. I do not care because I concluded long ago that these things are not knowable. Once I reached that conclusion I never troubled my light-minded little head about it again. I quite like hearing what scientists and theologists are doing about it, but then I quite like reading fiction too. And it has just as much practical importance to me.

Does that help at all ?

 

[JoeEllison]

So then I guess you believe we should trash science because it is based on the concept of cause and effect.

More of your ignorance about science... do you ever get tired of humiliating yourself?

 

[DOC]

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

Ok, you said the above. But I just want you to be intellectually honest and have the courage to say: I was wrong (not only in my semantics) but in my understanding of the concept of big bang singularity when I said a singularity has infinite "mass" and zero volume.

If you can't say that publicly you are a phony to constantly say I don't understand certain scientific concepts.

So please just be honest and say "my {Joobz} understanding of the concept of big bang singularity was wrong". Can you say that publicly, yes or no.

I"m not doing this to embarrass you, I just feel if you can dish it out so much, you should be able to humble yourself and admit your understanding of the concept of singularity was "significantly" wrong.

 

[JoeEllison]

Ok, you said the above. But I just want you to be intellectually honest and have the courage to say: I was wrong (not only in my semantics) but in my understanding of the concept of big bang singularity when I said a singularity has infinite "mass" and zero volume.

If you can't say that publicly you are a phony to constantly say I don't understand certain scientific concepts.

So please just be honest and say "my {Joobz} understanding of the concept of big bang singularity was wrong". Can you say that publicly, yes or no.

I"m not doing this to embarrass you, I just feel if you can dish it out so much, you should be able to humble yourself and admit your understanding of the concept of singularity was significantly wrong.

You're doing this to cover up your own obvious flaws. Stop already, you've humiliated yourself enough to last the rest of the year already.

 

[RandFan]

I"m not doing this to embarrass you, I just feel if you can dish it out so much, you should be able to humble yourself and admit your understanding of the concept of singularity was "significantly" wrong.

Riiiight! I can't speak for joobz but you are the height of hypocrisy.

Your implications about the big bang and atheists are laughable and of no bearing on science generally and physics specifically. You haven't discovered anything that would give pause to cosmologists or astrophysicists.

Your ignorance and incredulity are not arguments but you honestly think they are and at the same time want to suggest that you actually know anything significant about the Big Bang.

 

[JoeEllison]

 

[joobz]

I"m not doing this to embarrass you, I just feel if you can dish it out so much, you should be able to humble yourself and admit your understanding of the concept of singularity was "significantly" wrong.

I would be happy to use any words you chose, if you can explain to me what part of my error was "significantly" wrong in context to the question I posed.

ETA: I am happy to see that I am not the only one who see's the Hypocricy in DOC's demands.

 

[DOC]

More of your ignorance about science... do you ever get tired of humiliating yourself?

So are you saying the understanding of "cause and effect" principle is not of the utmost importance in science.

 

[Seismosaurus]

So are you saying the understanding of "cause and effect" principle is not of the utmost importance in science.

Isn't science a description o the laws that govern the behaviour of the universe? If so, why would they apply to the creation of that universe in the first place?

Wouldn't it be like asking whether the Declaration of Independence was constitutional?

 

[JoeEllison]

So are you saying the understanding of "cause and effect" principle is not of the utmost importance in science.

I'm saying that you treat science as some sort of "magical" thing, just like the idiotic superstitious faith that you base your life on. The reality is that science is more complicated than your pathetic superficial understanding can accept, and YOUR UNDERSTANDING of "cause and effect" principle is not of the utmost importance in science the way you think it is.

Your ignorance is the main problem here, not science. You really don't understand anything at all, and you show your ignorance with every post. We've offered to pay out of our own pockets to correct your ignorance, so your continued lack of knowledge is a willful and intentional thing on your part.

 

[Foster Zygote]

DOC, I asked you previously to define the limit of the compressibility of matter. Unless you can demonstrate that there is some actual dimension to sub-atomic particles, then I fail to see the point of this thread. You are obviously implying that there is something self-evidently ridiculous about cosmological theories involving singularities, but you have failed to demonstrate why this should be viewed as ridiculous.

 

[DOC]

I would be happy to use any words you chose, if you can explain to me what part of my error was "significantly" wrong in context to the question I posed.

You didn't pose the question, I did:

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 {joobz} provided. Nowhere do I see it say that a singularity is a point of infinite mass and zero volume.

Your use of the word mass is significantly incorrect and not just semantics. There is not shame in admitting you were significantly wrong about this "one thing". You have no trouble publicly saying I don't understand the Big Bang.

 

[joobz]

You didn't pose the question, I did:

That wasn't the question I was referring to. I was referring to this question:

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.

Are you saying that Universe was non-existent when it was a singularity?

To which you asked

How can you say it "was" a singularity, and what is your definition of a singularity.

which lead to my answer. I answered your question in good faith. I was mistaken in my definition, but that mistake doesn't change the relevance of my original question.

Your use of the word mass is significantly incorrect and not just semantics. There is not shame in admitting you were significantly wrong about this "one thing". You have no trouble publicly saying I don't understand the Big Bang.

Signifigance is only felt in reference to the context of the argument. You claim my error is significant, then explain why it is significant to my question.


For example, your error(which you never admitted to) in claiming atheist's didn't know what science said about our origins because your description of what science says was wrong. As such, it is impossible to say that atheists did/didn't know that, because it wasn't an accurate statement.


I welcome you to explain the context of my error and why you feel it is significant to my origin question.

 

[RandFan]

You have no trouble publicly saying I don't understand the Big Bang.

You are a hypocrite given the ignorance you've demonstrated.

 

[mrshadyvale]

DOC, who are you to demand someone publicly acknowledge ANYTHING?

Under what illusion of authority do you have the idea that it is even appropriate for you to demand that someone "admit" anything.

To everyone: Has anyone here, besides our good friend and peer, DOC, found it necessary for anyone (including joobz) to offer any kind of response beyond what has already been said?

I mean, joobz, as far as I can read it, you owned up to your mistake and qualified it with a very reasonable explanation.

DOC, I will grant you points for your persistence in trying to refute being called out by several of us by trying to attack the only brief hole you saw in the topic. Your disrespect for all of us in this thread is insulting at the very least. Your continued avoidance of what has been asked of you marks you as disrespectful not only to the very topic you pose but to those of us that have gone beyond respectful patience to bring you to some sort of scientific understanding.

I do not speak for anyone but myself, but I believe you do not have the capacity to understand the majority of what has been asked of you. I do not expect an intelligent reply.

 

[Hokulele]

There is not shame in admitting you were significantly wrong about this "one thing".

Let's make a deal, if you admit that you were significantly wrong that knowing the common description of the origin of the universe would make people less likely to be atheists, I will personally add my own request for joobz to formally admit he swapped the terms for mass and density. After all, there is no shame in being wrong, correct?

And while you are at it, how about you explain in your own words the difference between mass and density and how that affects the discussion of a gravitational singularity.

 

[GeeMack]

The only reason I make a point of this is that you are constantly saying I don't know what I'm talking about regarding science.

You don't. And obviously you've decided you'd rather not...

If I thought for a second that your books had answers, I would take the time in my busy life to read them.

 

[Hokulele]

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.

Well, I went back to the OP for a bit as something about it had been bothering me throughout this thread, and here it is (my bolding). I think this type of comment is a key to realizing why DOC has such trouble with the scientific concepts here. There is a great deal of physics, biology, mathematics, and other scientific data that just cannot be visualized. Humans live their entire life at a particular scale. Concepts outside of that scale are often much harder to grasp, especially for those who haven't been exposed to the "hard" sciences.

DOC, do you understand why your substitution is actually preventing you from understanding what many people here are talking about?

Here is an extremely cool site that puts the issue of scale into, well, perspective (click the Enter button for either full-screen or 1024x768 mode).

http://www.nikon.com/about/feelnikon/universcale/index.htm

 

[JoeEllison]

Well, I went back to the OP for a bit as something about it had been bothering me throughout this thread, and here it is (my bolding). I think this type of comment is a key to realizing why DOC has such trouble with the scientific concepts here. There is a great deal of physics, biology, mathematics, and other scientific data that just cannot be visualized. Humans live their entire life at a particular scale. Concepts outside of that scale are often much harder to grasp, especially for those who haven't been exposed to the "hard" sciences.

DOC, do you understand why your substitution is actually preventing you from understanding what many people here are talking about?

Here is an extremely cool site that puts the issue of scale into, well, perspective (click the Enter button for either full-screen or 1024x768 mode).

http://www.nikon.com/about/feelnikon/universcale/index.htm

I doubt that DOC has the courage to click on your link, let alone to deal with the consequences of the information you've provided through that link.