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

[lionking]

On the OP, because the thread has become reasonably catty and I'm not really interested:

What's the alternative?

If we take as a given that the universe is expanding (which may or may not be true, but all signs point to yes; I've also read that the rate of expansion is accelerating, though how you'd measure this is beyond me), then it follows that if we track backwards through the history of time that the universe will shrink. Extrapolating from this, it follows that the totality of the universe was once in one location.

I have an extremely shoddy grasp of cosmology, but it seems that if a then b, correct?

There are others who are far more knowledgeable in this area, but I'll have a crack. All observations show the universe to be expanding as measured by the red shift of the light coming from stars and galaxies - this is as close to a fact as you can get in this field, and yes the rate of accelleration allows cosmologists to estimate the time of the big bang. I think that some would nitpick at the word "location" as before space and time, which commenced at the big bang, the idea of location is meaningless. But as others have said, the big bang theory and the concept of all matter and energy in the universe originating from a singularity of infinite density fits all observations far better than other theories, like the steady state theory.

And like others, I highly recommend Simon Singh's book.

Finally, welcome to the forum.

 

[FireGarden]

Seriously? Was this particular theory named anything easily searchable?

I found a quote:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_bigbang.html

Others claimed that the idea of an initial singular point of infinite density arose only because we had adopted a picture in which the universe was expanding at the same rate in every direction. Thus when the expansion was traced backward everything arrived at one point simultaneously. If, however, the expansion were slightly asymmetrical (and in reality it is), then when we traced it backward the imploding material would be out of step, so it might well avoid producing a singularity.

“When these objections were explored, they failed to remove the expected singularity. In fact, the addition of pressure actually assisted its creation, because of Einstein's famous discovery that energy and mass are equivalent (E=mc2). Pressure is just another form of energy and thus is equivalent to mass; when it grows very large, it creates a gravitational force that opposes the repelling effect we usually associate with a pressure. Trying to avoid the singularity by increasing pressure was self-defeating; it actually made the singularity worse! Moreover, when Einstein's theory of gravitation was used to find other possible types of universes—universes that expand at different rates in different directions, or possess variations from place to place—the singularity remained. It was not just an artifact of symmetrical universe models. It seemed to be ubiquitous.”

So the theory doesn't have much backing now. But the maths to knock it is beyond me.

If you want another alternative to the big bang, you can google for solid state theory -- as lionking mentions.

And, yes.
Welcome to the forum.

 

[joobz]

Joobz it sounds like you make up your own lexicon (example: canabalism). You should stay as close as possible to the wording of the sources you read.

So, you avoid substance due to a spelling error? I do not truly expect anything different since you have no evidence for your OP assertion.


Allow me to make an equal assertion.
If more people knew that christianity preached the worship of a diety who viewed symbolic cannibalism and who has slaughtered innocent children, people would be less likely to be christian.

 

[joobz]

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.

I'm willing to agree to this. DOC, will you put up?

 

[asmodean]

So your only evidence that I am a "troll" is that I have only 32 posts to my name?

Do you have more evidence, or is this remark much like your others?

Well, quality over quantity, eh? =)

Still, quantity is a quality in itself.

 

[DOC]

...If the universe is eternal, as you say God is...

The bible is the one that says God is eternal:

Deut. 33: 27, Ps. 90: 2, Ps. 93: 2, Ps. 102: 27, Ps. 146: 10, Isa. 57: 15, Isa. 63:16, Mal. 3: 6, Rom. 1: 20, 1 Tim. 1: 17, Heb. 13: 8, Rev. 22: 13

 

[DOC]

So, you avoid substance due to a spelling error? I do not truly expect anything different since you have no evidence for your OP assertion.

Spelling had nothing to do with it. Your use of the word cannibalism to describe the Catholic ritual is absurd. Also to imply that that ritual is a part of all Christianity is wrong.

 

[joobz]

Spelling had nothing to do with it. Your use of the word cannibalism to describe the Catholic ritual is absurd. Also to imply that that ritual is a part of all Christianity is wrong.

really? So communion doesn't involve transubstantiation and doesn't represent the eating of Jesus' body and blood?

 

[Fredrik]

DOC, you asked for an excerpt from the Singh book. You can get it yourself at Amazon. Link.

Now how about an answer to the question I asked in #105?

I see that my question isn't the only one you're ignoring. You're ignoring every question that tries to get you to explain what your point is.

 

[Ysidro]

Spelling had nothing to do with it. Your use of the word cannibalism to describe the Catholic ritual is absurd. Also to imply that that ritual is a part of all Christianity is wrong.

Transubstantiation:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

 

[joobz]

DOC, you asked for an excerpt from the Singh book. You can get it yourself at Amazon. Link.

Now how about an answer to the question I asked in #105?

I see that my question isn't the only one you're ignoring. You're ignoring every question that tries to get you to explain what your point is.

I beleive DOC's reluctance is linked to a tit-for-tat situation. In the other thread regarding evolution, DOC claimed how Norman Geisler, "one of the World's great apologist's" made arguments against atheism that were concrete. Everyone demanded that DOC present the arguments here instead of demanding by proxy. As such, DOC is doing the same thing here.


So, the form of the argument is the same, the substance is different.

Differences include:
1.) theist apologetics isn't evidence based and it is not independantly verifiable.
2.) I went to the amazon text and found blatant illogical statements (E.g., sasyiny university is derived from a contraction of unity and diversit) that made me distrust the honesty of the text.

 

[joobz]

Transubstantiation:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

of course, the apologetic is that this represents a "spiritual body/blood" and therefore doesn't count as cannibalism. This is of course why I said symbolic cannibalism. The symbolism is there directly. It isn't imagined. It is blatant.

 

[Ysidro]

of course, the apologetic is that this represents a "spiritual body/blood" and therefore doesn't count as cannibalism. This is of course why I said symbolic cannibalism. The symbolism is there directly. It isn't imagined. It is blatant.

That or we'll just end up with No True Scotsmen again. Which was sort of my point. But then, if no one else can make Doc see he might not have all the answers I doubt I'll be able to.

 

[zooterkin]

Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.

The bible is the one that says God is eternal:

Deut. 33: 27, Ps. 90: 2, Ps. 93: 2, Ps. 102: 27, Ps. 146: 10, Isa. 57: 15, Isa. 63:16, Mal. 3: 6, Rom. 1: 20, 1 Tim. 1: 17, Heb. 13: 8, Rev. 22: 13

So, rather than posting what is said, you're posting references? Are you worried about them being scrutinised?


Anyway, how does a document written by many different people over centuries prove anything? The bible is true because the bible says it is?

 

[Wally]

Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.

For some reason the phrase "pearls before swine" comes to mind

 

[bokonon]

Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.

I'm sure that's it. Your steel-trap mind was so quick to understand the reams of explanations introduced and re-introduced in the abiogenesis thread that I'm sure no one expects they'd have to type each book in its entirety several times in this thread before concluding that you'd never grasp the material they'd so painstakingly provided.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information [about the Big Bang --ed], 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?

Going back to the OP, I’m going to answer the question.

An atheist finding out for the first time what the BB entails might react as follows...

1. “Science is coming to some highly startling conclusions that are very difficult to understand on their face. I wonder how they reached those conclusions? There must be a lot of extremely interesting evidence coupled with some really high level mathematics, the latter of which is surely beyond me. Damn my ignorance! Someone remind me, how is ignorance remedied again...?”

2. “If I’m wrong and there is a God, He must be even more powerful than those religious folk say. After all, they have Him uttering a few words of Hebrew, and -- poof -- there’s the universe! Whereas the God that science is revealing has done things which the God of the Bible never came close to. In fact, this DOC character seems to think his God couldn’t have created the BB because it’s just impossible. I wonder what he thinks ‘all-powerful’ or ‘omnipotent’ means...”

3. “Well, a superficial description of the BB by someone who’s shown no mastery of the subject convinces me it’s not worth believing no matter the evidence. Therefore, I’m converting to Christianity, which is clearly my only remaining alternative. Now, where’s that church with all the hot chicks...”

 

[gypsey]

bokonon

Originally Posted by DOC
Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.

I'm sure that's it. Your steel-trap mind was so quick to understand the reams of explanations introduced and re-introduced in the abiogenesis thread that I'm sure no one expects they'd have to type each book in its entirety several times in this thread before concluding that you'd never grasp the material they'd so painstakingly provided.

His mind really is like a steel trap
Rusty and Illegal in 37 States

as for the OP I can honestly say that while I didn't know exactly what Science had to say it doesn't make any difference to the state of my belief or disbelief
while doc on the other hand could turn a fanatic to atheism with his hypocrisy and dishonesty, I would be ashamed to be a member of anything he was a part of and would go out of my way to disassociate from him

 

[Shalamar]

So, rather than posting what is said, you're posting references? Are you worried about them being scrutinised?


Anyway, how does a document written by many different people over centuries prove anything? The bible is true because the bible says it is?

The Bible says that God is Eternal, and he created the earth, the Universe and everything. The Bible says it is true, therefor, God has always existed, and he created the Earth.

Since God created the earth, the Universe, and everything, and it is known to be true, therefore, the Bible must be true...

Personally, I'd much rather that Doc read those books. Asking for 'excerpts' to discuss would be much like taking only 'excepts' from a Shakespearian play to discuss the entirety of it. Of a great novel, or, heaven forbid, taking excerpts from the bible.

These topics on the Big Bang and the formation of the Universe is a BIG BIG subject. I really don't understand it, but these sound like good books to do so. The only reason I suspect that Doc is willing to read these books (For FREE!) is because they would contradict his carefully held version of reality, and actually challenge his intellect.

 

[Marcus]

After all, if other people offer to give you $50 or $100 worth of books that explain their position, and you are unwilling to read those books, what does that say about you?

It says that you are very, very afraid of how actual knowledge of the real world could affect your faith in Sky Daddy.