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

[DOC]

This is to all extent and purposes just a rehash of a previous thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120745), I will leave this one open and close the "original" however any further such breaches (which you have been previously warned about) will result in further action which may include suspension or banning.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:

Sure, the inflationary theory of cosmology states that vacuum fluctuations resulted in a gravitational singularity. This is essentially a point of zero volume containing all of the mass and energy we see in the current universe. Since the volume was zero, density was infinite and spacetime essentially did not exist yet. General relativity indicates other values at infinity in this singularity as well, but most people are most aware of the density value. Just after t=0, known as the Inflationary Period, elementary particles began to separate out. Less than a second later, the fundamental forces separated as well.

One of the reasons it is known as inflationary cosmology is that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, at least not the type one normally thinks of. It is an expansion, separation, and cooling. Once things have cooled enough to allow for "normal" matter, the four fundamental forces, particularly gravity, take over and, ta-da!, here we are almost 14 billion years later.

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?

[learner]

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.

[wollery]

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 100 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:Why not quote an actual theoretical astrophysicist on this subject?

Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of a 100 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom.Which is completely consistent with everything that astronomers and physicists know about the Universe, and which, if anyone took a serious look at the data, would obviously follow from the evidence at hand.

My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact? No idea, but it's not relevant to the real question.

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?Almost certainly not. But again, this is not relevant to the real question.


The real question is, why don't you make an effort to understand what the scientists are actually saying, and look at the evidence that they use to come to these conclusions, rather than skim reading what a single person on an internet forum presents as a simplified version, and presenting it (in strawman version) as some sort of vain attempt to prove that science says patently foolish things, and that all scientists are clearly idiots?

I have some questions for you DOC -

Do you understand the basic tenets of relativity? Do you understand the basic principles of the scientific method? Do you know how the evidence for the inflationary theory was gathered? Do you understand how the arguments for the inflationary theory developed from the evidence that was gathered? Do you understand what is meant by the term "Singularity"? Do you understand what is meant by the term "Quantum Fluctuation"?

If the answer to any of these is yes, then please provide the evidence to back up the assertion by explaining them in your own words.

[matt.tansy]

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

[JoeEllison]

Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism?

DOC? Why are you so eager to display and reinforce your own ignorance, instead of actually learning things?

[learner]

Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism?

DOC? Why are you so eager to display and reinforce your own ignorance, instead of actually learning things?

Well said that man...:)

[volatile]

Can we have a forum book drive for this guy? He obviously needs to read something that isn't on a screen for once.

I'll gladly buy him an undergraduate cosmology textbook, if only I thought he'd read it.

[devnull]

this is just so sad..... its beyond words.

[Mashuna]

Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of a 100 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?

I've done thorough research on this question, ever since I saw it posed in the 'Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins' thread. I have polled over 4,000 self-described atheists, and here is the breakdown of the results.

81.7% Already knew this
17.4% Didn't know this, and when it was explained to them said 'Really? Huh, that's kind of cool. I didn't know that.' Interestingly, every single one of them used those exact words. I don't know why, but it's outside the scope of this particular poll. Maybe further research could be interesting.
1.8% Filled the poll in twice.


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?

As described above, my extensive research indicates no.

[JoeEllison]

Can we have a forum book drive for this guy? He obviously needs to read something that isn't on a screen for once.

I'll gladly buy him an undergraduate cosmology textbook, if only I thought he'd read it.

Same here... I've got some pretty good "layman" level books from real scientists too, that I would be willing to give DOC if I thought there was even 1 chance in 100 that he would give them a fair and honest reading.

[DOC]

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.

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.

[joobz]

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, in the same way Genesis believes the universe had a beginning.
Are you saying that Universe was non-existent when it was a singularity?

[volatile]

Doc - I will buy you both Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable and Simon Singh's Big Bang (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Big-Bang-Important-Scientific-Discovery/dp/0007152523/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218372991&sr=1-6) if you promise to read them and review them here. Would you do that? Take the time to learn about the things you so lazily decry?

[DOC]

Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism?

What are the serious strawman and illogical attacks on modern science and atheism?

[Damien Evans]

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?

This isn't even worth the time to type a reply to.

[joobz]

What are the serious strawman and illogical attacks on modern science and atheism?
It's the implication that you ask. THe premise of this question (unlike your evolution one) is correct. Modern science theory does say that the entire universe was at one time smaller than a pea.


Now, you imply much in this question. And that is what people are taking objection with. In a direct analogy, how do you feel about the question:
Do most christians know that they practice ritualistic canabalism?

[DOC]

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

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

[JoeEllison]

What are the serious strawman and illogical attacks on modern science and atheism?

You don't actually know anything about science, or even basic English. For instance, you don't understand that "zero volume" doesn't mean"smaller than a pea", or what a "singularity" is, or how all the evidence and math works. So, your description is a strawman. You don't have the foundation to talk about the subject, you've shown no interest in gaining that background, so all of your comments based on second- and third-hand incomplete layman's descriptions are strawmen by definition. You are ignorant in the literal sense: you just don't know what you are talking about.

Then, based on your ignorance, you go after atheists who are "ignorant" only in the sense that you are saying things that they "don't know" because you are saying things that aren't true, and that science doesn't say. Furthermore, your claim that doubts about specific scientific theories somehow mean that your religious viewpoint has any validity is an illogical position... a pathetic joke of a position, truth be told. If it turns out that science is wrong on something, it doesn't make your superstition any less foolish and ignorant, period. One has nothing to do with another.

[DOC]

It's the implication that you ask. THe premise of this question (unlike your evolution one) is correct. Modern science theory does say that the entire universe was at one time smaller than a pea.


Now, you imply much in this question. And that is what people are taking objection with...

What am I implying and what are people objecting to?

[volatile]

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

If I buy you Singh's excellent, readable book which will explain just that in interesting detail and easy-to-understand prose, will you read it? In other words - do you really want the answers to this question or are you just content to believe what you were told first?

Please, I'm serious. I am pretty much broke, but I will gladly spend my own money on two wonderful books that will answer all the silly questions ypu persist on posting here. Will you accept my offer? It is conditional on you reading them and posting reviews of your thoughts on them here.

[DOC]

You don't actually know anything about science, or even basic English. For instance, you don't understand that "zero volume" doesn't mean"smaller than a pea", or what a "singularity" is, or how all the evidence and math works.

It doesn't matter what I know and don't know; this thread is not about DOC. If I said anything wrong in this thread state what I said is wrong. Please list all the things I said in this thread that are wrong.

[bokonon]

Well the God of Christianity is "eternal" by definition so the Christian God can't have an origin since He always existed. 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? Just floating in the vast void, no one to talk to, nothing to look at, solitary confinement in a sensory deprivation chamber from which escape was impossible, eon after lonely eon of endless ennui, as the eons themselves smeared together into units of unimaginable cosmological boredom, uninterrupted, neverending...

The drone of nothingness drove him mad. Most Christians don't know that, because the backstory of the bible has been suppressed. "In the beginning," they say.

Not even close...

[joobz]

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

[joobz]

What am I implying and what are people objecting to?
You're implying that if people realized what science said about the universe, that they would find it so improbable as to discount it and turn towards religion.

n much the same way, my questions
Do most christians know that they practice ritualistic canabalism?
The implication is clear, If people knew that thier religion revered a horribly amoral and evil practice (canabalism), they may start questioning other aspects of thier faith.

[JoeEllison]

It doesn't matter what I know and don't know; this thread is not about DOC. If I said anything wrong in this thread state what I said is wrong. Please list all the things I said in this thread that are wrong.

It has already been pointed out. We know you're too lazy to learn anything about science, but you could at least read your own threads.

[triadboy]

DOC - you may have a misunderstanding embedded in your brain. When the singularity expanded it didn't throw out a bunch of planets and stars - it expanded into a hot 'soup'. Over billion of years, gravitational forces and thermonuclear activities made the stars - then the stars made the matter you now see.

[Delvo]

Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism?

DOC? Why are you so eager to display and reinforce your own ignorance, instead of actually learning things?I don't know much about DOC, but I do know that whatever you're accusing him of wasn't done in this thread. So either it's false, or it applies to something else somewhere else and should be left there, not dragged over here. And it's ad-hominem, having nothing to do with the point.

However, DOC, I don't know what the point is. What makes you wonder whether most atheists know this, or suspect that they wouldn't? And what effects would you expect that it might have on their religion/philosophy, and why would you expect any at all? I don't get where this question came from or where it's going. It's like seeing someone ask whether most left-handed people know that most lumber comes from pine trees and whether that knowledge would affect their typing speed. That lack of context or explanation (plus perhaps your previous posting history) might be why people seem to think that you mean this stuff to somehow imply that familiarity with the Big Bang would make atheists not be atheists anymore.

[Ladewig]

I knew it.

DOC, just because you can't comprehend the idea that the universe began with the big bang does not mean other people cannot comprehend it.

Let me describe the problem another way. Let's say that I found it inconceivable that Christians would worship God if they knew that He instructed people to execute rape victims. If I ran over to a Christian board and said "How many Christians know that the Bible instructs its followers to kill rape victims" would my message really convert anyone? Would you change your beliefs if I asked that question? Would the people you know change their beliefs?


. . . . . . .

citation - Deuteronomy 22:23-24

[volatile]

I don't get where this question came from or where it's going.

Welcome to the forum. You've not been here long, have you? :)

[JoeEllison]

I don't know much about DOC, but I do know that whatever you're accusing him of wasn't done in this thread. So either it's false, or it applies to something else somewhere else and should be left there, not dragged over here. And it's ad-hominem, having nothing to do with the point.

You don't understand what ad hominem means, then. When someone frequently lies and demonstrates ignorance on various subjects, pointing out their dishonesty and ignorance isn't an illogical thing to do. An ad hominem would be to claim that he must be wrong because he smells bad or because he kicks puppies. Not that I'm saying anything of the sort, just giving examples. :D

Also, you'll learn over time that sometimes it is best to just cut to the chase with some people. DOC isn't asking a question, he's making an attack and sticking a question mark on the end of it.That's his pattern, that's what he does.

[Tricky]

Do most theists know that there is nothing in the Big Bang theory that requires divine intervention? If DOC is any indication, then the answer is "no".

[DOC]

I've done thorough research on this question, ever since I saw it posed in the 'Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins' thread. I have polled over 4,000 self-described atheists, and here is the breakdown of the results.

81.7% Already knew this
17.4% Didn't know this, and when it was explained to them said 'Really? Huh, that's kind of cool. I didn't know that.' Interestingly, every single one of them used those exact words. I don't know why, but it's outside the scope of this particular poll. Maybe further research could be interesting.
1.8% Filled the poll in twice.



As described above, my extensive research indicates no.

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?

[Fitter]

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?
Why do you want to know this? Does it contradict your own "solid research" in the "Most atheists do not know..." thread?

[DOC]

a singularity is a point of infinite mass and zero volume. What is your source for this definition.

[DOC]

Why do you want to know this? Does it contradict your own "solid research" in the "Most atheists do not know..." thread?

Just curious how 4000 atheists were contacted to do a poll.

[joobz]

What is your source for this definition.
http://www.123exp-astronomy.com/t/01564079733/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
Stephen Hawkins, "A Brief History of Time."
among many many others.

I have now answered your question directly and honestly.
So, now, Answer me. Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity that it did not exist?

[Mister Agenda]

Has anyone ever noticed that in order to get a joke, you have to have a sense of humor that's up to the challenge?

[Mashuna]

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?

I stood in the centre of Manchester with a clipboard, and asked people as they walked past.

I asked if they were an atheist, then if they said yes, I asked them if they knew that 100 billion galaxies came from a thing smaller than a pea.

The exact words that every single one of the 17.4% who were unaware of this, were as I originally quoted, namely 'Really? Huh, that's kind of cool. I didn't know that.' Every one of them said exactly that, word for word.

[DOC]

http://www.123exp-astronomy.com/t/01564079733/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
Stephen Hawkins, "A Brief History of Time."
among many many others.

I have now answered your question directly and honestly.
So, now, Answer me. Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity that it did not exist?

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.

[gentlehorse]

Every one of them said exactly that, word for word.

Really? Huh, that's kind of cool.

[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 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 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity [/quote)

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. 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!

[fishbob]

In particular, everyone expects GR to have broken down completely when the density reaches the Planck scale.

Planck Scale - Really? Huh, that's kind of cool. I didn't know that.

[joobz]

Can't I give him the benefit of the doubt just a little? You are welcome to, of course. I have no power to prevent you from doing so. :)


Surely he was implying that your definition is different.
He implied my definition is different, but he didn't say it. He didn't say why it was different. He only said that the words I used were not found in those sources. DOC will hide behind semantics to avoid admitting error. As such, I hold him to the same level of semantics for providing credit.

If he had said, "Joobz you are wrong, because a singularity is of infinite density...." I would give him the point. In this case, you were the one to make the correction and I give you full credit for highlighting my mistake, for which I thank you.


ETA: please note the important point of this whole exchange. I have answered DOC's questions. DOC has refused to answer mine.

[Btodd]

DOC's argument seems to be that since science's explanation for the beginning of the universe is really hard to imagine, then I might as well accept an explanation that's even harder to imagine out of intellectual spite.

[Richard Masters]

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?

If I pretend to agree with DOC, will you buy me those books? :D
I haven't read them, and would certainly like to.*

[FireGarden]

If I pretend to agree with DOC, will you buy me those books? :D
I haven't read them, and would certainly like to.*

This Barnes and Noble page:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780007162208&displayonly=CHP&z=y#CHP

has a link titled "Read a sample chapter." But I get an "error on page" message when I click it. That's probably because I'm using an old browser.

That said, there are only five chapters in the book. So, if it gives you anything at all, it's probably only a few pages rather than a whole chapter.

[sackett]

And I ask the Mods (Peace and Blessings Be Upon Them) to change Wollery's handle to Don Quixote. To be sure, Wollery's better mounted than the Don: knowledge and coherency will carry your farther than any Rosinante. But the effort is the same: tilting at a mindless object flailing wind, an object that can never even be aware of the knight's existence. The event will be the same too: a broken lance and a woeful countenance, no more.

Hell no I won't be Sancho. Not my department, Mods.

[FireGarden]

You are welcome to, of course. I have no power to prevent you from doing so. :)

:)

[Hokulele]

To the OP:

42.

No.


Mashuna, you are the king of all awesomosity.

[RandFan]

An ad hominem would be to claim that he must be wrong because he smells bad or because he kicks puppies. You seem to imply these are bad things. What if I give up the kicking puppies thing? Would you then concede that I'm not half bad?

[Richard Masters]

This Barnes and Noble page:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780007162208&displayonly=CHP&z=y#CHP

has a link titled "Read a sample chapter." But I get an "error on page" message when I click it. That's probably because I'm using an old browser.

That said, there are only five chapters in the book. So, if it gives you anything at all, it's probably only a few pages rather than a whole chapter.

I'll settle for finding a list of recommended books on JREF, and getting my own copy. I know I've seen it before... somewhere.

[Hokulele]

I'll settle for finding a list of recommended books on JREF, and getting my own copy. I know I've seen it before... somewhere.


Here is the current list. Enjoy! :)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2694827#post2694827

[DOC]

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.

Was the force that caused the Big Bang a "natural" force or a "supernatural" force?

[RandFan]

Was the force that caused the Big Bang a "natural" force or a "supernatural" force?

Science: As you heat the water the molecules begin to move about. Eventually the water converts to steam and rises.
DOC: You mean god did it?
Priest: Yes DOC, everything that happens is supernatural whether it's tiny people who live in the trunks of trees and ferry the sap to the top of the branches or Apolo who transports the sun accross the sky in his chariot.
Science: Sheesh.

[DOC]

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...

You seem to be saying the origin of the universe doesn't really matter to atheists.

[RandFan]

You seem to be saying the origin of the universe doesn't really matter to an atheist. As far as their athesim goes, yeah.

[Civilized Worm]

If you could prove that a god created the universe, then it would affect their atheism.

[DOC]

Science: As you heat the water the molecules begin to move about. Eventually the water converts to steam and rises.
DOC: You mean god did it?
Priest: Yes DOC, everything that happens is supernatural whether it's tiny people who live in the trunks of trees and ferry the sap to the top of the branches or Apolo who transports the sun accross the sky in his chariot.
Science: Sheesh.

Water is converted to steam by natural forces, but natural forces didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang. If they did what were those natural forces?

[joobz]

Water is converted to steam by natural forces, but natural forces didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang. If they did what were those natural forces.
what do you mean by natural forces? What part of the big bang theory suggests natural forces weren't at play?

[DOC]

If you could prove that a god created the universe, then it would affect their atheism.

Would you say the Big Bang was caused by natural forces or supernatural forces. If you believe natural forces, what were they?

[Civilized Worm]

I don't know.

[joobz]

Would you say the Big Bang was caused by natural forces or supernatural forces. If you believe natural forces, what were they?
what are the natural forces which convert water to steam?

[JoeEllison]

what Are The Natural Forces Which Convert Water To Steam?

Jeebus Did It!!! Jeebus Did It!!!

[Mashuna]

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."

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.

[RandFan]

...natural forces didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang. Says who?

ETA: Maybe you should take Volitile up on his offer. Ignorant is not a very good way to discuss this issue.

[DOC]

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.

Please name just one of these centenarian scientists.

Einstein for one. That's why he added his fudge factor. Because it was difficult for him to accept that the universe had a definite beginning.

[bobhope2112]

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.

What Bible are you reading? The KJV says nothing of the sort:

Genesis 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=9)

[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. [5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

In the beginning, God creates the heaven and the earth. Clearly the earth is not the same as the universe. The heaven, which we see further down, is the firmament--a separation of the waters. The firmament is likewise not the universe. Where is the universe ever mentioned?

If the universe is eternal, as you say God is, it would have given him a convenient place to stand/float while waiting to pop through the clouds (http://www.deathslinky.com/assets/images/Holy_Grail_God_small.gif).

[DOC]

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?

So the answers to these questions are in a book? Why don't you bring excerpts from these books in here so we all can see them?

[Mashuna]

Mashuna, you are the king of all awesomosity.

Yay! I've got a compliment I can add to my sig now.

[mrshadyvale]

So the answers to these questions are in a book? Why don't you bring excerpts from these books in here so we all can see them?

You know what, DOC? I may be a new guy to these forums, but I think this thread is enough for me to understand what your self appointed purpose here is.

Look at the above, why didn't you actually answer the question?

I have noticed you have only two methods of answering questions personally directed at you:

1) Ignore and change the subject.

2) You answer with a question.

Your method of discussion reminds me of my niece, asking "Why?" to every response given. I'm calling you out right now and asking you to respond to the question asked of you by joobz:

Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity that it did not exist?

Do you have the capacity to answer this very direct question with a "yes" or a "no" or are you going to continue to ignore it?

[Sunstealer]

Einstein for one. That's why he added his fudge factor. Because it was difficult for him to accept that the universe had a definite beginning.Could you expand on what this fudge factor is please.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Just curious how 4000 atheists were contacted to do a poll.

I don't really care if 40,000 atheists believed that freaking magic brought them into existance what does your question have to do with anything? What does the opinion of atheists have to do with anything? Are you attempting to refute atheism via "fact" attrition? If you compile enough entirely unrelated factoids on atheism you can strawman the group together and avoid having to actually debate whether or not gods actually exist? Christian apologists have been doing that for years and it has yet to work. Ask Vox Day, I don't think he's over came up with a meaningful argument regarding the existance of his LORD in his life.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

...natural forces didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang.


Says who?

Name two natural physical laws that existed at the time of the Big Bang?

[DOC]

Could you expand on what this fudge factor is please.

Einstein put a fudge factor into one of his theories which he later said was the greatest regret of his professional life?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC

...natural forces didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang.




Name two natural physical laws that existed at the time of the Big Bang?
You've ignored my questions on this subject. I do not know what you mean by Natural forces. (which you are now calling natural physical laws). These ideas are not synonymous. As such, We need for you to define what you are talking about in order to answer your question.

You could start by first describing what are the natural forces responsible for turning "water to steam"? Why do you believe these forces are not present during the big bang?

[volatile]

So the answers to these questions are in a book? Why don't you bring excerpts from these books in here so we all can see them?

They're in many books. I'm just recommending two of the more accessible ones. Will you read them?

[JoeEllison]

So the answers to these questions are in a book? Why don't you bring excerpts from these books in here so we all can see them?

Why don't you just read the books instead? Why do you seek a superficial overview instead of actual knowledge? Are you just scared out of your mind at the thought of actually learning things? People (including me) are willing to GIVE YOU FREE BOOKS. That's how confident we are. Are you confident enough to read those books?

[DOC]

They're in many books. I'm just recommending two of the more accessible ones. Will you read them?

These forums are about discussing. If you have answers "discuss" them? Don't tell me they're someplace else? If I thought for a second that your books had answers, I would take the time in my busy life to read them. The fact that you won't discuss them in a discussion arena makes me suspicious. You sound like an author who wants to promote books.

[zooterkin]

Please name just one of these centenarian scientists.

Einstein for one.

Einstein lived to be over a hundred? News to me.

[volatile]

These forums are about discussing. If you have answers "discuss" them? Don't tell me there someplace else? If I thought for a second that your books had answers, I would take the time in my busy life to read them. The fact that you won't discuss them in a discussion arena makes me suspicious. You sound like an author who wants to promote books.

I can assure you that I am not Richard Dawkins or Simon Singh posting under a pseudonym.

I can also assure you that if you truly want to learn about evolution or the big bang, a 75,000 word book written by an expert in the field will be much more interesting, comprehensive and enlightening than a few quips from interested amateurs on an internet forum.

I am offering to buy you books. They have all the answers to the questions you post here on a regular basis. If you are asking these questions in good faith - that is, if you genuinely want to know the answers to them and are not just asking them mendaciously - these two books are fantastic and easy-to-read starting points for entry to what are complex, vast subjects.

Will you read them? If not, why not?

[DOC]

Why don't you just read the books instead? Why do you seek a superficial overview instead of actual knowledge? Are you just scared out of your mind at the thought of actually learning things? People (including me) are willing to GIVE YOU FREE BOOKS. That's how confident we are. Are you confident enough to read those books?

See post 97 for my response to this? You and others seem to be saying "Hey this stuff is too complex to discuss in Randi!" You don't see me saying that about the Bible, I discuss things.

[joobz]

These forums are about discussing.
Then why do you insist on avoiding questions? I've answered your's, yet you evade mine.

It seems you are preoccupied with motes instead of beams.

[DOC]

Einstein lived to be over a hundred? News to me.

Non Sequitur

[Eddie Dane]

Although the OP is a clear example of DOC's ongoing war with reality, there is some merit to the question posed.
The miracle of the universe is far greater than we usually realise. 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.

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

[DOC]

Then why do you insist on avoiding questions? I've answered your's, yet you evade mine. I'll answer your questions if you admit you were wrong about what a singularity is.

[Fredrik]

Was the force that caused the Big Bang a "natural" force or a "supernatural" force?
Water is converted to steam by natural forces, but natural forces didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang. If they did what were those natural forces?
Would you say the Big Bang was caused by natural forces or supernatural forces. If you believe natural forces, what were they?

Name two natural physical laws that existed at the time of the Big Bang?
This is ridiculous. It's obvious what you're trying to do. Creationists and other woo believers do it all the time. You know that you can't win the argument, so you're trying to find one thing that your opponents don't understand fully and then you intend to point at that and just act as if you just won the argument. It's pathetic.

Your question doesn't even make sense, since there's no definition of "time" that's valid at the big bang (see #48 and #59). And even if it did, it wouldn't get you any closer to winning the argument.

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?

400 years ago no one knew why the orbits of planets are (approximately) elliptical. Does that mean that the force of gravity was supernatural 400 years ago? Did it suddenly become natural when Newton found his theory? 100 years ago, no one knew why the orbit of Mercury didn't look exactly as was predicted by Newton's theory. Does that mean that gravity went back to being supernatural again at some time before that? Did it once again become natural 1915 when general relativity had been found?

[JoeEllison]

See post 97 for my response to this? You and others seem to be saying "Hey this stuff is too complex to discuss in Randi!" You don't see me saying that about the Bible, I discuss things.

You're a liar. We're not saying it is too complex to discuss, we're saying that it is complex enough to require a background THAT WE ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE FOR FREE.

You would absolutely challenge anyone who rejected the Bible without reading it to actually read it first. We are extending the same reasonable challenge to you, and since the Bible is free and the books we suggest are not free, we are willing to pay for you to read them.

If you are too afraid, just admit it. If you aren't a coward, accept the challenge, accept the free books, and read them. The choice is yours.

[mrshadyvale]

Riddle me this, DOC...

You tell us you have no interest in reading the material cited... but demand that it be cited when people quote the knowledge from said material.

I am stating an opinion here based off of your specific actions in this particular thread. I believe you are merely here to attack a position that directly challenges (in your mind) your dearly held beliefs in a series of superstitions. Not a single thing you have said in here makes me believe that you have the slightest interest or intention of having your questions answered or discussed in any kind of logical form.

Now please do not misunderstand me, I am not trying to make a personal attack on you, but I offer up my personal observation based off of what I have experienced here.

You mention the purpose here is discussion, yet it certainly appears that you have zero interest in discussing anything that was not proposed by you.

[joobz]

I'll answer your questions if you admit you were wrong about what a singularity is.
Unrelated and dishonest request. I've already admitted the mistake I've made.

So, will you answer my 3 questions?

1.) Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity (or something similar) that it did not exist?
2.) What are the natural forces which convert water to steam?
3.) Why are these natural forces not at play during the big bang?

I had asked more questions, but I figure if you answer these, I'll assume you are truly interested in discussion as you claim.

[zooterkin]

Non Sequitur
Hardly. Do you read what you write, and what you reply to?


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.

If the scientists of one hundred years ago now believe something different, they must be over one hundred years old.

Please name just one of these centenarian scientists.

I asked you to name one of these scientists who was over one hundred years old.

Einstein for one.

Einstein lived to be over a hundred? News to me.

Born March 14, 1879(1879-03-14)
Died April 18, 1955 (aged 76)


Perhaps what you meant to say initially was that the consensus among scientists a hundred years ago was that the universe was eternal (do you have a reference for that?), but that now the Big Bang is thought most likely. Given the amount of evidence that has been gathered in that time, it would be more surprising if the consensus had not changed.

[joobz]

You would absolutely challenge anyone who rejected the Bible without reading it to actually read it first. We are extending the same reasonable challenge to you, and since the Bible is free and the books we suggest are not free, we are willing to pay for you to read them.

What if someone was to reject the bible because they were creeped out by the immoral behavior of symbolic canabalism?

[learner]

See post 97 for my response to this? You and others seem to be saying "Hey this stuff is too complex to discuss in Randi!" You don't see me saying that about the Bible, I discuss things.

It is possible that "this stuff" is too complicated to discuss at length and is best learnt from an expert . It is also possible that the Bible is not too complicated to discuss "in Randi"
It takes an open enquiring mind to absorb the former.... this takes effort.
It takes a closed mind, a defensive attitude and blind faith to believe the latter.... Not much effort required

[mrshadyvale]

Joobz, you continue to ask the questions that I, for one, would most certainly like the answers to!

[JoeEllison]

What if someone was to reject the bible because they were creeped out by the immoral behavior of symbolic canabalism?

They should still have at least read the relevant passages, right? I think the point is to get away from a poster's interpretation of a layman's book which is giving a view on an expert's findings. I think we'd like to force DOC to get as close to actual research, and as far away from his strawmen, as is reasonably possible.

[joobz]

They should still have at least read the relevant passages, right? I think the point is to get away from a poster's interpretation of a layman's book which is giving a view on an expert's findings. I think we'd like to force DOC to get as close to actual research, and as far away from his strawmen, as is reasonably possible.
I agree. It's why in all my discussions in this forum regarding the bible, I'll refer to biblegateway.com.

ETA: like I've heard before. The best argument against the bible is the bible itself.

[RandFan]

Name two natural physical laws that existed at the time of the Big Bang? That "existed"? What does that mean? What do you mean by "at the time"?

[JoeEllison]

I agree. It's why in all my discussions in this forum regarding the bible, I'll refer to biblegateway.com.

ETA: like I've heard before. The best argument against the bible is the bible itself.

And, by the same token, the best arguments for science come from science, and we're not afraid to provide DOC with the best science has to offer. The question is whether or not he's brave enough to deal with it.

[cgordon]

It doesn't matter what I know and don't know; this thread is not about DOC.

Oh, yes, it is. It's all about DOC and what DOC believes and DOC trying to pull some sort of sad 'gotcha' on all us dumb atheists.

Sigh.

Sorry DOC, I must agree with all those who offered to buy you books. You really need to get out more.

[joobz]

Joobz, you continue to ask the questions that I, for one, would most certainly like the answers to!
thank you. I am sincerely trying to have a discussion with DOC.

[joobz]

And, by the same token, the best arguments for science come from science, and we're not afraid to provide DOC with the best science has to offer. The question is whether or not he's brave enough to deal with it.
Don't forget that the best arguments against specific scientific theories have come from science as well. It's this self-corrective mechanism that is at the heart of the scientific method and what prevents it from being dogmatic.

[JoeEllison]

thank you. I am sincerely trying to have a discussion with DOC.

Too bad DOC isn't interested in an honest discussion with anyone.

[JoeEllison]

Don't forget that the best arguments against specific scientific theories have come from science as well. It's this self-corrective mechanism that is at the heart of the scientific method and what prevents it from being dogmatic.

That self-corrective mechanism is why we're not afraid to present our best evidence to DOC, and why DOC is afraid to be exposed to that evidence. The worst that can happen to those of us who respect rationality is that we become wiser today than we were yesterday, which is the sort of net positive that science provides. The worst that can happen to DOC is that he has to admit that his worldview is wrong, which for him is impossible to deal with on even the most superficial level.

[Beerina]

"Smaller than a pea" is still a darn sight larger than "nothing", from which a god supposedly made it.

Secondly, IANAP, but from what I see, there appear to be 2 things, forces, and probably infinitely small zero-dimension particles (quarks, electrons). Once gravity overcomes the other forces, they can crush into each other infinitely well. Whether reality approaches this mathematical model or not, I don't know.

In any case, however goofy this theory sounds, it's still some 10-12 magnitudes less goofy than "goddidit!"

[Sunstealer]

Einstein put a fudge factor into one of his theories which he later said was the greatest regret of his professional life?Oh, I'm well aware of what you call the fudge factor is and why it was added, but I wanted you to answer in your own words. I suspect the word "expand" which was in Italics in my post was too subtle for you to realise this and that you don't actually know what the "fudge factor" is and why it was added and then retracted.

[DOC]

Although the OP is a clear example of DOC's ongoing war with reality, there is some merit to the question posed.
The miracle of the universe is far greater than we usually realise. 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.

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

So you're a pantheist who believes in miracles, that's interesting.

Thanks for saying the question posed in the OP has merit, but why is the OP a clear example of my "alleged" war with reality?

[Sunstealer]

These forums are about discussing. If you have answers "discuss" them? Don't tell me they're someplace else? If I thought for a second that your books had answers, I would take the time in my busy life to read them. The fact that you won't discuss them in a discussion arena makes me suspicious. You sound like an author who wants to promote books.What's the point? I mean honestly. I don't think it would be fair or within copy right laws to expect someone to copy large chunks of text onto a forum from a book just to show you. Does posting the exact same text here make it somehow more relevant or correct?

You do understand that the concepts that will be explained to you in laymen's terms will still more comprehensive and easier to understand than asking for multitudes of people to post here. Your time would be better spent reading the books on offer than on the interwebz.

[Seismosaurus]

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?

Well in the UK this fact is taught to every school child, repeatedly, by the age of 16. If they take physics at A level they will be learning the supporting evidence in some detail. It's also been the subject of many, many science documentaries over the years. So in theory just about everybody, atheist and believer alike, should know it. Of course many people forget the things they learn at school and don't watch science documentaries.

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?

I wouldn't have thought so. Why would it?

[Worm]

Serious deja-vu

The only thing that is lacking so far is DOC finding some document on the net from a respectable scientist that appears to support his position...

[DOC]

Unrelated and dishonest request. I've already admitted the mistake I've made.

This is not admitting you were wrong about what a singularity is:

Perhaps went about the wrong way in my question, but again my original point is valid.

I want to hear you say "I was wrong about the definition of a singularity."

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. Maybe it's time to look in the mirror.

[Seismosaurus]

Was the force that caused the Big Bang a "natural" force or a "supernatural" force?

I see no reason to suppose that the big bang was caused by anything at all. Why do you suppose that it was?

[mrshadyvale]

You refuse to discuss this unless you hear someone admit to a mistake? Once again, your conversational technique reminds me of my four year old niece.

Oh, I get it now, If DOCs last post is any indication, he won't respond to our direct questions. Instead, he will only respond to opinions expressed about his misguided attempt to take a scientific idea and turn it into anti atheist sentiment.

Joobz has asked you SEVERAL questions that you continue to completely avoid. Do you just skip over what you don't think is worth your valuable time?

I think all of us have a distinct interest in trying to figure out what your point is. You started this thread and have made NO attempt to explain what it is you are trying to convey.

From your actions here I think we might be able to draw the conclusion that your initial post in this thread had no point and there is actually no discernible connection between the "pea" and atheists.

[Olowkow]

I think part of the problem in arguing "big bang" is that no one really knows what is going on before a certain time....yet. The Planck time is about 5x10^-44 seconds, and some believe that this is the smallest segment of time that has any meaning for scientific calculations. Our math just breaks down beyond that, and even Alan Guth does not claim to have the answers. His "inflation" seems to involve a sort of total change of state from intensely focused energy of a vacuum fluctuation, to a foam of quarks. I don't really get it, but there is little doubt in my mind that something went "pop" a long time ago.

There are certainly more fertile areas to discuss that can debunk any theistic ideas about the natural world.

I know it sounds like some are asking honest questions, but I agree with those that say that these questions are just specious. I am pretty sure these folks are aware that science just does not know the answers yet in certain areas, and they try to provoke an essentially meaningless debate.

As for any scientific findings changing my lack of belief in a god, it is pretty unlikely, but quite frankly, it would really be intriguing if there were in fact a creator of some sort behind all of this marvelous stuff of the known universe. It certainly would not be any entity that gave a rat's ass about us termites though.

[JoeEllison]

You refuse to discuss this unless you hear someone admit to a mistake? Once again, your conversational technique reminds me of my four year old niece.

Oh, I get it now, If DOCs last post is any indication, he won't respond to our direct questions. Instead, he will only respond to opinions expressed about his misguided attempt to take a scientific idea and turn it into anti atheist sentiment.

Joobz has asked you SEVERAL questions that you continue to completely avoid. Do you just skip over what you don't think is worth your valuable time?

I think all of us have a distinct interest in trying to figure out what your point is. You started this thread and have made NO attempt to explain what it is you are trying to convey.

From your actions here I think we might be able to draw the conclusion that your initial post in this thread had no point and there is actually no discernible connection between the "pea" and atheists.
I think you've got a good handle on DOC's discussion style, which is best described as "chicken**** 101"

He poses a flawed question, refuses to accept or even acknowledge most of the evidence showing how flawed his question is, and he laces most of his posts with insults towards his intellectual superiors, which at this point means everyone except that other troll plumjam. He's fundamentally dishonest, and has shown himself to be pretty cowardly in this thread.

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?

[joobz]

This is not admitting you were wrong about what a singularity is:Yes it is, as are these:

He implied my definition is different, but he didn't say it. He didn't say why it was different. He only said that the words I used were not found in those sources. DOC will hide behind semantics to avoid admitting error. As such, I hold him to the same level of semantics for providing credit.

If he had said, "Joobz you are wrong, because a singularity is of infinite density...." I would give him the point. In this case, you were the one to make the correction and I give you full credit for highlighting my mistake, for which I thank you.


ETA: please note the important point of this whole exchange. I have answered DOC's questions. DOC has refused to answer mine.

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

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.



I want to hear you say "I was wrong about the definition of a singularity."
I'll leave this statement as it stands. I think it clear what you want and it isn't discussion. Too bad.



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.
And you still haven't proven that you do. Like I say, me being wrong doesn't equate you being right.

Maybe it's time to look in the mirror.
I'm quite happy with what I see. I've been honest, forthright and willing to admit error. Can you say the same?

[DOC]

I see no reason to suppose that the big bang was caused by anything at all. Why do you suppose that it was?

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

[Olowkow]

This is not admitting you were wrong about what a singularity is:

I want to hear you say "I was wrong about the definition of a singularity."

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. Maybe it's time to look in the mirror.

Density/mass, an easy mistake to make. Doc needs a pound of flesh.
Oh, the irony. Call him on the phone for heaven's sake.

[Seismosaurus]

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

Science describes how the universe works. Before the big bang there was no universe was there? So why would there be science?

[fuelair]

Was the force that caused the Big Bang a "natural" force or a "supernatural" force?
Is a fart a natural or supernatural force if it comes from a certain brain rather than a certain rectum? Is god a supernatural fart or a natural fart of the nervous system?

[fuelair]

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?

He who hesitates is hesitant, therefore, he who ignores must logically be.........?

[joobz]

Density/mass, an easy mistake to make. Doc needs a pound of flesh.
Oh, the irony. Call him on the phone for heaven's sake.
The amusing part is my mistake doesn't at all effect the signifigance of the question that I asked on the first page of this thread. The question that has remained unanswered.

Oh well, I think your avatar is quite appropriate for this thread though. Proof that the big bang occured, isn't it?

[mrshadyvale]

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

That is the single most dishonest question you have asked YET. Based off of the collection of things you have said in this thread and your general practice of what you call "discussion" I can only assume you have no idea how to have an intellectual discussion.

If you would like to know why it is Atheists appear to be aggressive towards your views it is not because of your views, but rather you show no respect for other people and their honest pursuit of answers from you.

Many of us have asked many questions of you in this thread, and you dance around them while saying things like the above. I have weighed the very things you have said in this thread and determined that, in my personal opinion, that your mind is so dense with superstition, hatred of opposition, and fear of alternate ideas, that it is not in your capacity to have an actual discussion.

So, DOC, you have my apologies for the things I have previously said in regards to your actions so far in this thread. I made the assumption early on that you had the capacity to enter in to an intelligent discussion. I mean you no disrespect and do not wish this to be viewed as an insult.

I made the mistake of assuming that this would be an actual conversation. I suppose maybe I cannot be completely blamed... an inquisition is the religious version of a conversation. Besides, no one expects the inquisition.

[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.:rolleyes:

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]

http://images.bigfail.com/i/f/10/00/081.jpg

[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.

[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.

:p "...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://forums.randi.org/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.

[DOC]

Speaking of time, I just don't have enough of it to get to all of the questions or comments. If I don't get a post then I don't get to it.

[arthwollipot]

Well, I can confidently say that DOC has actually learned something from the Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95977) thread.

He has learned that he should not make declarative statements. Notice how the topic of this post is in the form of a question?

However, as others have already pointed out, DOC does not accept the answer "yes". So it need not have been in the form of a question at all.

DOC, why is this thread in the form of a question and not the other? If you don't have the time to respond to me, I'll understand.

[DOC]

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

Or have faith to believe something you don't understand is true.

[bokonon]

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

Your observation, while true, is nonsensical as a response to the post you quoted. Perhaps there was a point you intended to make, and you simply failed to make it.

You said god does not exist in time. Since the universe we live in is filled with time, if god doesn't live in time, there doesn't seem to be any place for him in the universe in which we live. In fact, it appears to be the case that god (the eternal, benevolent, omnipotent thingie described in fundamentalist literature) does not exist in our universe.

[devnull]

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.

yeh, got it. If I take a marshmallow, and compress it down to zero volume, I have infinite density but still only finite mass (ie, the original mass of the marshmallow).

[DOC]

DOC, why is this thread in the form of a question and not the other?

The title of the other thread might have sounded condescending which wasn't my intention. I was just saying it in a matter of fact way.

Actually my personal opinion is that most atheists (and theists also) don't know that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe and that they all came from a thing smaller than a single atom according to mainline scientific "theory". They might have heard of the big bang, but they know what that entails.

Just like they might have heard of abiogenesis but they don't know a leading (and from what I've seen, the main) scientific theory is that all life (plant and animals) came from the same bacteria organism.

I also believe that if more atheists found out about all this, and then took some time to dwell on it, it would effect the beliefs of some.

[autumn1971]

See post 97 for my response to this? You and others seem to be saying "Hey this stuff is too complex to discuss in Randi!" You don't see me saying that about the Bible, I discuss things.
But the Bible is a simplistic collection of primitive myths and stories.
I am fully confidant that I can explain to you a Disney movie in one hundred words or less; the question of fundamental physics at ultra-high densities I would leave to the experts. I believe that I understand them as well as any layman does, but in this case simple analogies are no substitute for knowledge of the math and physics. If you gain a layman's understanding (and yes, layman's understanding means that which interested non-experts have) then the more knowledgeable will be able to take you further.
Read. It works.

[DOC]

The song Let It Be exists in time.
Paul McCartney exists in time.

Your observation, while true, is nonsensical as a response to the post you quoted. Perhaps there was a point you intended to make, and you simply failed to make it.

You said god does not exist in time. Since the universe we live in is filled with time, if god doesn't live in time, there doesn't seem to be any place for him in the universe in which we live. In fact, it appears to be the case that god (the eternal, benevolent, omnipotent thingie described in fundamentalist literature) does not exist in our universe.

God is an eternal Spirit according to mainline Christianity (although this is not true in the Mormon faith). God being an eternal Spirit can dwell in the universe but not in any way be subjected to or influenced by time. (Unless He chose to for some reason)

[grayman]

God is an eternal Spirit according to mainline Christianity (although this is not true in the Mormon faith). God being an eternal Spirit can dwell in the universe but not in any way be subjected to or influenced by time. (Unless He chose to for some reason)


Since he's a fictional character, I guess you could say whatever you want; doesn't make him any more real.

[Gate2501]

God is an eternal Spirit according to mainline Christianity (although this is not true in the Mormon faith). God being an eternal Spirit can dwell in the universe but not in any way be subjected to or influenced by time. (Unless He chose to for some reason)


Yeah, when I read the entry for *Eternal Spirit* in my monster manual I saw that bit about Eternal Spirits being able to dwell in the universe but not in any way be subjected to or influenced by time.

Crazy stuff.

[autumn1971]

Okay, God v. Superman, Greco-Roman rules. . .

GO!

[-Fran-]

I also believe that if more atheists found out about all this, and then took some time to dwell on it, it would effect the beliefs of some.

Oh my GOD!! That true?? Them scientists really say that??? :eek: Oh my GOD, I need a church, NOW!!





:rolleyes:

[arthwollipot]

The title of the other thread might have sounded condescending which wasn't my intention. I was just saying it in a matter of fact way.

Actually my personal opinion is that most atheists (and theists also) don't know that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe and that they all came from a thing smaller than a single atom according to mainline scientific "theory". They might have heard of the big bang, but they know what that entails.

Just like they might have heard of abiogenesis but they don't know a leading (and from what I've seen, the main) scientific theory is that all life (plant and animals) came from the same bacteria organism.

I also believe that if more atheists found out about all this, and then took some time to dwell on it, it would effect the beliefs of some.Well, you can persist in this opinion, but the consensus of the board is that you are wrong, and that most atheists do know these things, and that it doesn't affect their philosophy on the existence of a deity (I won't go so far as to call it a "belief").

I thought that this was pretty clear from the other thread, DOC. As I said over there, I know quite a few atheists, and most of them are pretty scientifically literate. I don't personally know anyone who doesn't understand what the big bang model of cosmogenesis means, and although I haven't specifically asked the question of every one of them, they all appear to understand what abiogenesis is (which, as pointed out in the other thread, is not what you think it is).

So what's up, DOC? (Sorry, had to say it) Why are you asking this question at all? What are you trying to achieve by asking the question? You have already clearly established that you will not simply take "yes" as an answer.

You've been on at Joobz for admitting mistakes, so why can't you admit yours? You can't even admit that your vision of abiogenesis is contrary to the current science - how about your opinion on how many atheists understand various scientific concepts?

I just want to hear you say "I was wrong about how many atheists understand basic scientific concepts".

[devnull]

Actually my personal opinion is that most atheists (and theists also) don't know that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe and that they all came from a thing smaller than a single atom according to mainline scientific "theory". They might have heard of the big bang, but they know what that entails.


You might be right, you might be wrong. Without a questionnaire I guess we'll never know.


Just like they might have heard of abiogenesis but they don't know a leading (and from what I've seen, the main) scientific theory is that all life (plant and animals) came from the same bacteria organism.


Thats not the theory at all. Go do some reading.


I also believe that if more atheists found out about all this, and then took some time to dwell on it, it would effect the beliefs of some.

But a magical being who exists outside of time (when he feels like it) who always existed, didnt evolve, and yet was somehow powerful enough to create 100 billion galaxies from nothing, created life spontaneously (for no apparent reason) from nothing 8000 years ago (while seeding all the evidence to point elsewhere) - that's easier to believe?

Again Doc, you argue from incredulity. You cant "visualise" it (your pea analogy is very telling) so therefore it cannot be true. But instead of simply stating that you dont understand it/dont believe it, you instead point to an even more unbelievable hypothesis and pronounce its truth by fiat.

Are you seriously telling me you see nothing wrong with this thought process?

[Undesired Walrus]

But a magical being who exists outside of time (when he feels like it) who always existed, didnt evolve, and yet was somehow powerful enough to create 100 billion galaxies from nothing, created life spontaneously (for no apparent reason) from nothing 8000 years ago (while seeding all the evidence to point elsewhere) - that's easier to believe?


Not to mention forgiving sins, reading minds, and caring about a species that came along 13.7 Billion years after the creation of the Universe, on a tiny planet in a far flung corner of the universe, that had 96% of all life go extinct 250 Million years earlier.

[Fiona]

Actually my personal opinion is that most atheists (and theists also) don't know that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe and that they all came from a thing smaller than a single atom according to mainline scientific "theory". They might have heard of the big bang, but they know what that entails.

Just like they might have heard of abiogenesis but they don't know a leading (and from what I've seen, the main) scientific theory is that all life (plant and animals) came from the same bacteria organism.

I also believe that if more atheists found out about all this, and then took some time to dwell on it, it would effect the beliefs of some.


And that is the problem, DOC. You are at a sceptics board. You have been here long enough to know that the person who makes a claim shoulders the burden of proof. That is how this game is played.

What you have really done is make a claim which is in the form "Most atheists do not know that science says all the galaxies come from something smaller than a pea". That is a claim which is quite easy to evidence, and Mashuna has pointed that out in a very witty post - witty and profoundly relevant. Other bits of evidence have been kindly provided by other posters ( even though they have no need to provide it, since the claim is yours). Thus Seismosaurus has explained this is taught in schools; and most of the atheists in this thread ( an admittedly small and self- selecting sample) have explained they do know it. So the evidence we do have is against you and it is now up to you to do the work: make a survey or find a survey which asks the question. There is nothing to prevent you doing this, and although it would be time consuming, and you might have to learn a fair bit about designing such studies, even a flawed bit of research would give us something to discuss. It is clear from the time you have spent on these two threads that you do have the time (nothwithstanding your busy life).

But you did not do this. Not about big bang and not about abiogenesis. In this thread you avoided the issue by posing your statement as a question. This has not fooled anyone. Arthwollipot has stated it most clearly but everyone else has recognised your ploy to some extent and has called it implicitly or explicitly.

You have now made it plain that you do not accept the affirmative answer and you are not interested in the evidence which supports that affirmative answer. Nor are you interested in research which would challenge that answer.

This is not about physics. I have already said I do not have the background to understand the physics, and I think randfan has admitted as much too. But it is clear there are those here who do have that understanding and they have spent their time and effort to help you to get it as well. You are not interested. That effort is not wasted because once again I have learned a little and I am sure many others have too. But you have not

While the physics is hard, and, as Hokulele has pointed out, the layman's usual mode of approach to new problems does not serve us very well in these fields ( visualisation and analogy tend to break down as tools in this area, for example); market research is a lot simpler and you have no excuse for not getting the basic idea in that field.

I suggest you accept the rules of the game, DOC. Go and find some evidence in support of your claim, then come back to us. I will be interested in the results, as I have said. I think others will as well. If you find that people do know this, and it does not affect their atheism, you will have learned something about the diversity of people. That is genuinely interesting if you happen to have that cast of mind. If your survey is sophisticated enough you might be able to test your second hypothesis (that this will make a difference to atheists' beliefs) too: or you can make a second bit of research to look at that one. There is a lot of scope here. Why not do something about it, instead of hanging on to your opinion in face of what evidence we do have. You might even enjoy it!

[mrshadyvale]

I also believe that if more atheists found out about all this, and then took some time to dwell on it, it would effect the beliefs of some.

Wait... holy moly, I think I get it now!

I understand why you asked so many loaded questions and did not answer any of the ones posed to you.

I totally believe your point now, it makes perfect sense!

You see, even though the people in this thread are the "evil scientist fringe" they come armed with the brutal facts... but... because god is infinite and perfect in every way imaginable and impossible that he is not bound within the facts of the universe.

If I stop to think about the singularity for a moment and realize how much is involved with it... thousands of minds with millions of hours of research and the worlds most advanced technology... all working with the most advanced fields of study... of course they would get it wrong! There is no way that three hundred different data sets could all line up and paint a picture of such complexity.

Since our minds created science... but science created the idea of something so small and so dense and so short in time... then it MUST be flawed! My mind can't understand it... and it can kind of sort of understand the idea of god... so what is more likely?

Thank you, DOC! To think, my faith was placed in doctors, scientists, and engineers! How simple it has been, all the terrible things in my life are because of them! They have done nothing for advancement in any way.

Doctors, scientists, and engineers... when all I need is god, church, and prayer. I can only hope when I am dying in a hospital that my surgeon is more familiar with the Holy Bible than Grays Anatomy!

Thanks, DOC, you have turned this once godless skeptic with your superior command of classic debate and your Atlas like grip on the reality of the world we live in.

[FireGarden]

what do you mean by natural forces? What part of the big bang theory suggests natural forces weren't at play?

Benefit of the doubt time, again....

Maybe Doc has heard that gravitational/electromagnetic forces didn't exist immediately after the BB. I can't think of a reasonable quote which wouldn't mentioned unified forces, but maybe he heard something unreasonable.

So he asks: if these natural forces weren't shaping the BB, what did? Some other natural force? Or a supernatural force?

The given answer is the union of the natural forces.

I don't remember if the Singh book mentions unificiation of forces. And it's not something I understand.

If you heat up water to high enough temperatures, then the water molecules break up. I can imagine something similar for atoms, or even subatomic particles. But conditions so extreme that the forces join up? How does a force unify with another? What does it even mean?

Maybe it's time to go over to the science forum....

[FireGarden]

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 am willing to say that my own understanding of the big bang and singularities is bound to be wrong in places. It certainly has been in the past. I've not been corrected in this thread, so far, but I have been corrected in real-life discussions.

I don't understand the unification of forces. My tensor calculus is absolutely naff. Without getting better at that, I will still be a layman at this topic.

I still recommend you read Singh's book. Check it out from a library, or accept the generous offer made to you on this thread. Think of Volatile as the JREF's Gideon.

[FireGarden]

[Just got to the top of page 5, which makes this post pointless.]

[FireGarden]

I also believe that if more atheists found out about all this, and then took some time to dwell on it, it would effect the beliefs of some.

It may well cause some atheists to change their mind -- that kind of thing doesn't always require a well-crafted argument. So far, it seems that you have changed the mind of no-one in this thread.

btw,
Atheism is more common amongst working scientists than amongst the public in general.

[Mashuna]

Due to the well thought-out nature of her posts, and agreement with what I want to say but in a more erudite manner, I'd appreciate it if people could just mentally add, "plus what Fiona said" at the end of my posts.

Thanks.

[volatile]

DOC - let me re-iterate my offer. One copy each of Climbing Mount Improbable and The Big Bang to you if you'll promise to read them and post your reviews here. They are both readable, comprehensive and accessible summaries of the basics of the two theories you have so much problem with.

What have you got to lose? You'll learn what the things you are so convinced are wrong actually say, the better to arm yourself against these kinds of threads. All you'll be doing is preventing yourself arguing against strawmen.

[Seismosaurus]

Actually my personal opinion is that most atheists (and theists also) don't know that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe and that they all came from a thing smaller than a single atom according to mainline scientific "theory". They might have heard of the big bang, but they know what that entails.

On what do you base this opinion, if I may ask?

I also believe that if more atheists found out about all this, and then took some time to dwell on it, it would effect the beliefs of some.

Why? I've told literally thousands of people about this exact thing, and the reactions I have seen generally range from "so what" through to "pretty cool" and "how do we know?"

[Worm]

If anything, I suspect that this whole argument, as with the previous one, is backwards.

So it would be :

Many theists do not understand the scientific principles of abiogenesis or the big bang, and if they did, it would affect the beliefs of some.

Maybe. That's clearly a massive generalisation and probably unfair to many theists, but it's probably more accurate than the previous incarnation.

[wahrheit]

I want my money back. Just read through the entire thread, and right there, on the previous page (page 5), DOC more or less re-posts his OP. Completely ignoring almost everything that has been written in-between.

[bokonon]

Since he's a fictional character, I guess you could say whatever you want; doesn't make him any more real.
Santa Claus isn't subjected to time either. That's why he can visit the houses of all the good little boys and girls in the time it would take less fictional characters to make a ham sandwich.

[joobz]

Maybe Doc has heard that gravitational/electromagnetic forces didn't exist immediately after the BB. I can't think of a reasonable quote which wouldn't mentioned unified forces, but maybe he heard something unreasonable.

So he asks: if these natural forces weren't shaping the BB, what did? Some other natural force? Or a supernatural force?

The given answer is the union of the natural forces.

I don't remember if the Singh book mentions unificiation of forces. And it's not something I understand.
His refusal to answer the question is clear, don't you think? Doesn't matter what he "heard". Only what his argument is.

If you heat up water to high enough temperatures, then the water molecules break up. I can imagine something similar for atoms, or even subatomic particles. But conditions so extreme that the forces join up? How does a force unify with another? What does it even mean?
Actually, the molecules don't break up when water turns to stream. The molecules stay in tact. What occurs is as you add heat (increase the enthalpy of the water), the kinetic energy of each individual molecule exceeds the cohesive intermolecular forces resulting in the escape of the water molecule from the liquid state to the gas state. The tendency of the escape to occur is determined by the water's fugacity.
Maybe it's time to go over to the science forum....
We all can stand to learn.

ETA: I know the analogy of water you give was to describe the events with high heat. I wanted to refer to what my original question to DOC was and know why HE (not you, not anyone else) felt his questions were logical.

[bokonon]

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.
That's kind of my position too. When asked "How did it all begin?" I give Bogart's (Marlowe's) answer: "I can't remember that far back." It's not as though the answer is likely to change my life -- "if the big bang is correct, I will kick the puppy, but if the evidence favors the steady state, I will eat the baby." As an atheist, it's a given that I will kick the puppy AND eat the baby, and the musings of physicists and cosmologists are powerless to change that.

I'll readily admit that I don't really "understand" the science underpinning BB theory (vast numbers of galaxies expanding from something the size of a BB, I hear) any more than I "understand" quantum mechanics (electrons go from here to there, and never occupy the space between? Maybe THEY'RE Santa Claus...)

Even though some of the claims of science may be incredible enough to make me incredulous, I can't see myself EVER making the illogical leap to "That stuff can't possibly be true, therefore we'll live forever and an undetectable all-powerful all-knowing benevolent spirit governs us all." I'm willing to grant that "that stuff" may be shown to be incorrect some day, either in minor details or in major concepts, but the world's too big and complicated, and my time and abilities are too limited to understand or even to expose myself to all of it. I'll worry about how to get this piece of code to do what it's supposed to do, and let others worry about what happened in a critical sub-second span more than 13 billion years ago.

[bokonon]

Actually, the molecules don't break up when water turns to stream. The molecules stay in tact.
I expect if you heat the steam enough, the molecular bonds will break as well, which is how I read the original statement. I could be wrong about both the intended meaning of the original statement and the hypothesis that if you make it hot enough, water will break into hydrogen and oxygen. I know the "standard" method of splitting water molecules is electrolysis, which doesn't depend on heat.

[joobz]

God is an eternal Spirit according to mainline Christianity (although this is not true in the Mormon faith). God being an eternal Spirit can dwell in the universe but not in any way be subjected to or influenced by time. (Unless He chose to for some reason)
And this eternal, "outside of time" spirit* expects his worshipers to practice symbolic, ritualistic canabalism? I think if more people knew what christinanity said, then perhaps we'd have less christians.


*Defining something which has never been observed as being outside of time is like defining the color of something invisible.

[joobz]

I expect if you heat the steam enough, the molecular bonds will break as well, which is how I read the original statement. I could be wrong about both the intended meaning of the original statement and the hypothesis that if you make it hot enough, water will break into hydrogen and oxygen. I know the "standard" method of splitting water molecules is electrolysis, which doesn't depend on heat.Yes, that is true, but I wasa refering to the original question I was posing to DOC, which firegarden seemed to be referring to. Again, DOC claimed these were obeying natural forces (which he later called natural physical laws). I know the laws at play, but was not (and still not) convinced that DOC does.

[RandFan]

Or have faith to believe something you don't understand is true.Not blind faith. I understand the scientific method, logic, reason, experimentation, publishing, peer review, replication and the predictive power of theory. I understand that theoretical physicists make prediction and then test them and other scientists try to tear those theories apart. Further I don't simply wallow in ignorance and argue based on my incredulity. I make sincere attempts to try and understand. I've read A Brief History of Time and The Elegant Universe and I will read the books recommended by Volatile.

Don't compare me to you. My faith is borne of something far greater than the blind devotion that has given us thousands of gods. It's based on reason and logic.

[Ryan O'Dine]

For our Christian friends lurking in this thread who are scratching their heads about the problem of compressing matter to extremely small volumes, I offer a little lecture. Some people have already touched on these things, but I’d like to make it tidy. Most posters here can skip this. Here goes...

The matter that was compressed in the Big Bang was not in the form of stars, planets, galaxies, dirt, or even atoms as we know them today. The closer you get to the hypothetical Point of Origin -- the Big Bang -- the weirder matter gets.

At a certain point in time, the universe was nothing but hydrogen atoms (mostly, to be precise). As you go backwards in time, getting closer to the BB, there’s not a hydrogen atom to be found, only baryons -- protons and neutrons. Keep going and there are no baryons any more, only a kind of quark-gluon plasma. Keep going and you pass the inflationary period where even the quarks disappear. Some theories have a universe entirely made of strings, from the infamous superstring theory. Keep going, and who knows what you get. At his point, we simply don’t. However, there’s nothing to say we can’t. Eventually.

In fact, we know that at each point along the way, matter becomes increasingly compressible. We even have evidence of this from the real world, such as with neutron stars:

A typical neutron star has a mass between 1.35 and about 2.1 solar masses, with a corresponding radius between 20 and 10 km,[1] respectively—in contrast, the Sun is 30,000 to 70,000 times larger. Thus, neutron stars have overall densities of 8.4 × 1016 to 1 × 1018 kg/m³,[2] which compares with the approximate density of an atomic nucleus of 3 × 1017 kg/m³.[3] The neutron star's density varies from below 1 × 109 kg/m³ in the crust increasing with depth to above 6 or 8 × 1017 kg/m³ deeper inside.[4]


This relates to the Chandrasekhar limit discussed above. It’s roughly the dividing line between a normal star (down to a white dwarf) and a neutron star. After that, you’re looking at the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, which defines the line between a neutron star, and what would be a quark star (if they exist). The densities correspondingly increase. That is, matter becomes increasingly compressible.

But that’s not the whole story. As has been mentioned, even the five forces get weird the closer you get to the BB. The strong and weak nuclear forces become indistinguishable from each other, and that force merges with electromagnetism, and eventually even gravity joins the fray until you’re left with only one single superforce.

But even that’s not all. The distinction between force and force carrier blurs at some point. The difference between force and force carrier, and spacetime itself eventually blurs.

In short, the higher your energy density, the more exotic the universe becomes. At some stage you’re no longer talking about compressing “matter” at all, as we generally think of it.

In fact, The mystery isn’t really that this highly weird, exotic and anti-intuitive universe can become increasingly compressed the closer you get to the BB. The real mystery is that we can actually model what’s happening mathematically. That we can, in some sense, understand it.

How do we do that? Ah, yes... they call it “science.” Wonderful stuff, that.

Okay, class dismissed.

[Filippo Lippi]

Not a christian and perhaps only a semi-lurker, but thanks for that, Ryan.

Fask-kinating

[volatile]

Ditto.

For more info, FireGarden asked the question I was thinking when I read that post - "How does a force unify with another? What does it even mean?" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120812).

I wish I'd paid more attention in high-school physics! It's so interesting now.

[Shalamar]

In The Beginning there was...

Something.

What this something was, Scientists aren't really sure, but they have a lot of really good ideas, though sometimes this resulted in food fights.

Technically, this Something was nowhere. Or everywhere was in the same place. Or.. Something.

Then Something caused this Something to suddenly expand. What were the somethings? Well, no-one knows, but there were more food fights.

Moments after Something caused the Something to expand, we start to understand. The Something is Hydrogen. Lots of it. A great deal of it.

The Hydrogen , via Gravity, bound together, forming stars. The Stars compressed the hydrogen in other forms of matter, such as Oxygen, Iron, Chemicals, People, Conspiracy Theorists, and Theists.

Thats right. Everything. You me, rocks, computers, planets, is made of Star Dust. Left-over remnants from ancient dead stars and supernovas. No food fights were involved this time.

There is evidence for this. There is the 'fossilized' remants of the Big Bang (Horrendous Space Kablooie!) called the cosmic Background Radiation.

Of course, there is still some more confusion. The Universe is still expanding, and getting faster at it. This is where the concepts of Dark Matter, and Dark Energy come into play. Possibly more food fights as well.

In a nutshell? We have evidence for the Big Bang, but we don't know what was there BEFORE the Big Bang We're doing our darnest to find out. Ain't science grand?

[grayman]

I want my money back. Just read through the entire thread, and right there, on the previous page (page 5), DOC more or less re-posts his OP. Completely ignoring almost everything that has been written in-between.

And this surprised you?

[wahrheit]

And this surprised you?

Hope dies last. No, I'm afraid it didn't surprise me. In fact, it makes me feel rather sad.

Look at all the brain power in this forum. There are smart and very educated people in just about any field here. And yet, some folks reading their posts seem to be completely ignorant of simple facts, well-known logical fallacies and general style in discussion.

A good example might be the pea/point issue in this thread regarding the "size" of the universe right before the BB. Let's say you didn't know about that before reading this thread. Now, after reading the thread, you should realize it was a gazillion times smaller than a pea. In fact, you should realize that the term "size" as we use it in everyday conversation does not apply at all. Even a microscope won't help you here. You should realize that this is not about some ultra super squeezing machine compressing matter to levels beyond imagination. You should instead realize that you have entered the realm of (theoretical) physics, where silly comparisons and pseudo-questions won't be of any help.

Yet, some people in some threads fail to do so, or fail to admit it. And it does not require a degree. Just common sense and basic reading comprehension, imho.

[Olowkow]

The amusing part is my mistake doesn't at all effect the signifigance of the question that I asked on the first page of this thread. The question that has remained unanswered.

Oh well, I think your avatar is quite appropriate for this thread though. Proof that the big bang occured, isn't it?

Yes, the 2.7 K COBE image. It has always been very impressive to me because of the difficulty involved in acquiring it.

[Elizabeth I]

I wish I'd paid more attention in high-school physics! It's so interesting now.

I did pay attention. I didn't understand at least half of it (no lie - I got every grade from an A to an F in that class.)

But I did make it through The Elegant Universe and one other book about string theory.

[arthwollipot]

I wish I'd paid more attention in high-school physics! It's so interesting now.I absolutely agree. I didn't like science in school - it was only well after I finished school that I started reading.

Now I have a very good layman's understanding of science. I understand, for example, what general relativity says and what it means, but I don't understand the mathematics behind it. If I could do my life over again I'd pay more attention to maths and science in school.

[DOC]

DOC - let me re-iterate my offer. One copy each of Climbing Mount Improbable and The Big Bang to you if you'll promise to read them and post your reviews here. They are both readable, comprehensive and accessible summaries of the basics of the two theories you have so much problem with.

What have you got to lose? You'll learn what the things you are so convinced are wrong actually say, the better to arm yourself against these kinds of threads. All you'll be doing is preventing yourself arguing against strawmen.

You are flooding the thread, I already responded once.

ETA: Nobody is stopping you from bringing in excerpts so we can discuss them.

[mrshadyvale]

Yeah, don't you guys remember? He has no interest in reading anything about facts and science, his time is too valuable!

[DOC]

Yeah, don't you guys remember? He has no interest in reading anything about facts and science, his time is too valuable!

This is dishonest, nowhere did I say this.

[mrshadyvale]

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

Now, maybe I'm just an ignorant country mouse, but I would say my interpretation of the above remark is fair.

Or, maybe you would like to clarify what you meant. Since you are so adamant about joobz owning up to what he said, I am sure you will have no problem practicing what you preach.

Cheers.

[DOC]

Actually my personal opinion is that most atheists (and theists also) don't know that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe and that they all came from a thing smaller than a single atom according to mainline scientific "theory". They might have heard of the big bang, but they know what that entails.

On what do you base this opinion, if I may ask?

Many years of life experience. If others have a different opinion so be it.

Why? I've told literally thousands of people about this exact thing, and the reactions I have seen generally range from "so what" through to "pretty cool" and "how do we know?"

Sounds like they were students. Maybe later in their life when they have the time to dwell on it, it probably will baffle some like it baffled and irritated Einstein.

[DOC]

And this eternal, "outside of time" spirit* expects his worshipers to practice symbolic, ritualistic canabalism? I think if more people knew what christinanity said, then perhaps we'd have less christians.

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.

And this is off topic anyway.

[mrshadyvale]

DOC, you accused me of being dishonest.

I replied to your assertion with evidence to the contrary.

I am not as dense as to think that you would offer up an apology. In fact, in rereading this thread from the beginning it is my opinion you owe many people an apology by your continued disregard for their opinions... but none will be offered.

It is obvious you are a hypocrite. Call this a personal attack, but I think the evidence clearly shows that you either do not have the capacity for respect of other people or you are blatantly rude for personal benefit.

If you mean to portray yourself as a messenger for your lord and savior, I think he should be distancing himself from you in every way possible. By all viewable remarks, it certainly appears that your crusade in the JREF forums is not a selfless mission to bring the word of god to the masses... but rather a selfish practice of snide indulgence and self prescribed ignorance.

You insulted me, blatantly. I will not cry over the remark, much worse has been said, but you continue to disrespect us all through your hypocrisies.

You started this thread to converse, but only by your own selfish rules. Do you even have the ability to engage in fair and coherent discussion... or will this post be ignored like so many others?

[arthwollipot]

Many years of life experience. If others have a different opinion so be it.Far be it from me to claim that I know the circumstances of your life, but I would hazard a guess that you haven't really hung around with a lot of atheists. You're a religious man, right? People of like interests tend to gather in social groups. Most of your friends and acquaintances would also be religious folk, just like most of my friends and acquaintances are atheists and agnostics. Water finds its own level.

Additionally, many atheists don't tend to talk about being atheists very much around strangers - especially in the USA. So you wouldn't necessarily know that any given person is an atheist.

So I would put it to you that your "many years of life experience" does not equip you to make generalisations about what "most" atheists think or believe.

I could be wrong about this - you may have grown up as the only theist in a town full of atheists. But I doubt it.

[DOC]

DOC, you accused me of being dishonest.

I replied to your assertion with evidence to the contrary.

Where's the evidence?

[mrshadyvale]

#226.

In my experience, reading helps a great deal in forums such as this one.

[DOC]

Yeah, don't you guys remember? He has no interest in reading anything about facts and science, his time is too valuable!

and


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

are not in any way similar, Mrshadyvale. It sounds trollish to me especially coming from someone with 32 posts.

[mrshadyvale]

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?

[-Fran-]

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?

Ignore him. He has stated many times before that he thinks his high post count, and the fact that many people respond to his threads means that what he says is actually smart and worthwhile, so by his own twisted logic a person with low post count can't have anything important to say - that is of course yet another indication of that he talks a lot of you know what :rolleyes: You are not the first to point out to him that it is totally irrelevant, and have realized that it is much like banging your head against the proverbial wall to do point this out to him, along with all the other logic he doesn't get either.

[DOC]

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?

I'm "done" talking with you unless you talk about the topic and not me personally. The evidence is in post 233. And I see you've been a member over 2 years with 34 posts.

[arthwollipot]

I'm "done" talking with you unless you talk about the topic and not me personally. The evidence is in post 233. And I see you've been a member over 2 years with 34 posts.And since I have been a member since 2005 and have over 10,000 posts, what I have to say isn't worthwhile either. :rolleyes:

[mrshadyvale]

Thanks, Fran, I have been going back and reading some of the other threads started by said person. I admire many of you in this forum for your wonderful show of patience while attempting to fight an unwindable battle.

I love these forums, most of you guys and gals kick butt.

Cheers.

[DOC]

Ignore him. He has stated many times before that he thinks his high post count, and the fact that many people respond to his threads means that what he says is actually smart and worthwhile, so by his own twisted logic a person with low post count can't have anything important to say ...

This is laughable and false. The only times I bring up my thread counts is when people try to discredit or debase me in someway. I never said it means I'm smart.

[paximperium]

Thanks, Fran, I have been going back and reading some of the other threads started by said person. I admire many of you in this forum for your wonderful show of patience while attempting to fight an unwindable battle.

I love these forums, most of you guys and gals kick butt.

Cheers.

Well keep posting. Don't let someone like DOC prevent you from contributing to a thread because he sure as hell doesn't contribute anything just volume. He "wins" an argument by pure repetition until everyone else gets bored and leave.

[lionking]

I'm "done" talking with you unless you talk about the topic and not me personally. The evidence is in post 233. And I see you've been a member over 2 years with 34 posts.
And pointing out someone's post count is on topic?

[mrshadyvale]

Well keep posting. Don't let someone like DOC prevent you from contributing to a thread because he sure as hell doesn't contribute anything just volume. He "wins" an argument by pure repetition until everyone else gets bored and leave.

I have no intention of discontinuing my activity by any means. I have not only enjoyed discussing many separate topics here, but there is so much education and wisdom to be shared that I have learned a great deal as well.

Oh... wait... that was the wrong response... I think what I meant to say was:

BOO! Get away from here! I'm a scary troll! I've been in the shadows for several years just waiting of someone deserving of my trollitude! Boowhahahaha!

[Darat]

To all participants - please keep to the topic of the thread and avoid the personalisations.

[mrshadyvale]

My apologies to the admins for participating in taking this so far off topic... back onto the topic at hand:

DOC, I think many of us have been asking for clarification on what the "pea" theory has in connection to Atheism. What is it about that particular scientific idea that directs it into any particular group of people?

And, I would really like you to answer the question regarding the topic as asked by joobz several times, please.

Thank you.

[mrshadyvale]

DOC, we would like to get back to the topic at hand, but we cannot get back to the discussion if you do not address the questions directed towards you.

Please, there are many aspects of this theory we can discuss in regards to the question you posted, but the discussion will continue to go nowhere unless the questions asked are addressed.

Could you please clarify your view on how this theory is related to the existence of a supreme being?

[Mashuna]

Many years of life experience. If others have a different opinion so be it.

Although we have evidence for our opinions Doc. Where's yours?

[wahrheit]

Maybe later in their life when they have the time to dwell on it, it probably will baffle some like it baffled and irritated Einstein.

Oh noes, the thread got Einsteined, again. :rolleyes:

What exactly was it that baffled and irritated Einstein?

[FireGarden]

Actually, the molecules don't break up when water turns to stream. The molecules stay in tact. What occurs is as you add heat (increase the enthalpy of the water), the kinetic energy of each individual molecule exceeds the cohesive intermolecular forces resulting in the escape of the water molecule from the liquid state to the gas state. The tendency of the escape to occur is determined by the water's fugacity.
We all can stand to learn.

You're right. And I appreciate the correction.
If you turn the heat up even higher, the water molecule will break up. Of course, by then, it's a steam molecule. :)

Shows how easy it can be to use the wrong language to explain things you understand. If I'd used "H2O" instead of "water", you'd have had no leg to stand on.... :)

I expect if you heat the steam enough, the molecular bonds will break as well, which is how I read the original statement.

That's what I meant, but it's not what I said.

[FireGarden]

are not in any way similar, Mrshadyvale. It sounds trollish to me especially coming from someone with 32 posts.

I can still give you the benefit of the doubt.

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

Which science books have you read?
And how many recommendations would you need to check Simon Singh's book out of the library (or accept a free copy)?

Seriously,
if the first chapter doesn't get you hooked, I'll let you off for not reading the rest.

[DOC]

Seriously,
if the first chapter doesn't get you hooked, I'll let you off for not reading the rest.

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