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

[Hokulele]

Sorry to possibly take this OT, but:

doesnt infinite density imply infinite mass?

Whoops, sorry I missed this.

Actually, no. Infinite density can imply an infinite mass, but when talking about a gravitational singularity, it is the volume term (zero) that pushes the density to infinity (the old "divide by zero" error that freaks out HP calculators). You can theoretically have a singularity with a very small mass, but it will still have infinite density.

 

[Fredrik]

DOC, how about an answer to what I asked in #105?

Now can you please explain why you're asking about this? Suppose that there had existed a theoretical framework such that the question had made sense, and that we wouldn't have been able to answer it. How exactly does that win the argument for you, or support your beliefs in any way?

(Your question was about what "natural forces" existed at the time of the big bang).

 

[jj]

Whoops, sorry I missed this.

Actually, no. Infinite density can imply an infinite mass, but when talking about a gravitational singularity, it is the volume term (zero) that pushes the density to infinity (the old "divide by zero" error that freaks out HP calculators). You can theoretically have a singularity with a very small mass, but it will still have infinite density.

The singularity has indeterminate mass, actually, at least from of the point of view of calculating the mass.

One can calculate the mass-energy from the gravitational effects, but not from the density.

And we can calculate those to this day, oddly.

 

[Hokulele]

The singularity has indeterminate mass, actually, at least from of the point of view of calculating the mass.

One can calculate the mass-energy from the gravitational effects, but not from the density.

And we can calculate those to this day, oddly.

Good point. I was approaching the problem from the other end (Chandrasekhar limit).

 

[Piggy]

Did I know it? Yes
How many atheists know it? Most
If they didn't know it, would they then believe in the far more implausible
god theory? No

Ditto.

 

[JoeEllison]

The singularity has indeterminate mass, actually, at least from of the point of view of calculating the mass.

One can calculate the mass-energy from the gravitational effects, but not from the density.

And we can calculate those to this day, oddly.

Good point. I was approaching the problem from the other end (Chandrasekhar limit).

This is part of the reason we want DOC to read a few books, and STFU until he has... you are both talking way over his silly little head.

 

[tsig]

I've been looking for one of the 1.8% who filled the form in twice. If you could clarify which of the two answers you'd like to give, I'll amend the poll accordingly.

Well when i did my poll,

10% made paper airplanes with the form

10% grabbed the form and ran to the bathroom

10% dropped to their knees sobbing Jesus, Jesus

10% took a swing at me

10% had their head explode

10% of the women thought I was hawt and so did 10% of the men.

That's all for now I have some phone calls to make.

(imitation is the sincerest form of flattery)

 

[Hokulele]

This is part of the reason we want DOC to read a few books, and STFU until he has... you are both talking way over his silly little head.

Another good point. After all, even god can be limited (paging Dr. Chandrasekhar, yes I know he is dead).

Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.

 

[JoeEllison]

Another good point. After all, even god can be limited (paging Dr. Chandrasekhar, yes I know he is dead).

DOC, however, has decided that he is more perfect than "God", and assumes that he is infallible. He claims to have a level of intelligence that is complete and infinite, and there is nothing any mere human can teach him.

Maybe DOC thinks that he himself is "God"?

 

[blobru]

Although the OP is a clear example of DOC's ongoing war with reality, there is some merit to the question posed.

"...ongoing war with reality..." -- poor DOC -- if you can't beat 'em, berate 'em!

The miracle of the universe is far greater than we usually realise.

"The miracle of the universe": I guess in the sense that we still haven't worked out special laws for its first 10^-43 (.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) seconds, it's a "miracle" (supernatural). But that it 'happened' at all may not be: GR says even empty spacetime has potential energy due to its curvature; quantum fluctuations, an observed property of empty spacetime, produce local curvatures; according to Mr. Einstein's equations, positive (closed) curvatures will use this potential to inflate exponentially, from zilch to the universe we see today, maybe forever; to me, the mindblowing thing is there's no reason to think this isn't happening constantly in the region whence sprang our universe; universes may be more numerous than all the particles in all the stars we see in ours.

And I must admit that meditating on the size and complexity of it all sometimes gives me a warm, fuzzy, pantheist feeling. If I'm in a romantic mood.

Yeah, on good days I'd like to say "thank you" too: give matter & energy a pat on the back. People are matter & energy -- so making someone else feel better it turns out is the best way we have of saying "thanks".

By the way, this is my first post. So I guess that makes me an ex-lurker.

Once you're out, you can never go back... just like the universe (Big Crunch notwithstanding, that is).

 

[fuelair]

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.

Actually, having read much of the bilge that Doc passes off as information/opinion, I have no respect for Doc or the horse he rode in on.

 

[Hokulele]

Yeah, on good days I'd like to say "thank you" too: give matter & energy a pat on the back. People are matter & energy -- so making someone else feel better it turns out is the best way we have of saying "thanks".

And it is things like this that can make any ungainly OP worthwhile. There is gold in them thar hills.

 

[Richard Masters]

Here is the current list. Enjoy!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2694827#post2694827

Thanks

 

[RandFan]

This is part of the reason we want DOC to read a few books, and STFU until he has... you are both talking way over his silly little head.

Over mine also. At least I'm honest enough to admit it... or smart enough to realize it.

 

[joobz]

Good point. I was approaching the problem from the other end (Chandrasekhar limit).

Thanks for that! I never heard of the limit and did a quick search.

 

[uruk]

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.

I guess you've never heard of the oscillating universe theory.

 

[DOC]

Did you ever wonder what he did during all those billions of jillions of trillions of zillions of years of eternality before he "created the heaven and the earth" a mere 6000 (spit!) years ago?

God doesn't exist in time. Time is a thing that had a definite beginning according to science. You can't live in time before you create time. Effect can't precede its cause.

 

[bokonon]

God doesn't exist in time.

Time exists now.
Therefore...

Well, I guess one possibility is that god ceased to exist as soon as time entered the picture. That would certainly be consistent with the universe as we observe it today.

 

[DOC]

Time exists now.
Therefore...

Well, I guess one possibility is that god ceased to exist as soon as time entered the picture. That would certainly be consistent with the universe as we observe it today.

The song "Let it be" exists now. That doesn't mean Paul McCartney ceases to exist.

 

[paximperium]

God doesn't exist in time. Time is a thing that had a definite beginning according to science. You can't live in time before you create time. Effect can't precede its cause.

Therefore God does not exist. Thanks for playing.