(May 16, 2017 at 6:18 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: If nothing can exist outside of time, then what is the singularity that gave birth to the big bang?

Since time is a quantity, things can happen before it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Science's observations of how we experience time is not the same thing as time.

(May 16, 2017 at 6:33 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(May 16, 2017 at 6:18 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: If nothing can exist outside of time, then what is the singularity that gave birth to the big bang?

Since time is a quantity, things can happen before it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Science's observations of how we experience time is not the same thing as time.

Take a body. Let's say "X".
Let's draw a 2D plain:

 |
 |
 |
 |
Z
 |
 |
 |
------------------------------------------------------------
                        X

So X is the distance, Y is the time.
Move and Z will increase. 

Experience is what gave birth to this geometric description.

As x increase; z increase too. As if our experience is being stored an recorded, any move we do is naturally met by an increase in Time.

It's not "emotions"; it's not "guts and feelings"; it's fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space


Time is a scientific fact. 

Quote:Lagrange wrote in his Mécanique analytique (published 1788, based on work done around 1755) that mechanics can be viewed as operating in a four-dimensional space — three dimensions of space, and one of time.[1] 

(May 16, 2017 at 6:18 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: If nothing can exist outside of time, then what is the singularity that gave birth to the big bang?

You tell me because singularity is a pseudoscience. An idea that William Lane Craig pushes.

(May 16, 2017 at 7:22 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(May 16, 2017 at 6:18 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: If nothing can exist outside of time, then what is the singularity that gave birth to the big bang?

You tell me because singularity is a pseudoscience. An idea that William Lane Craig pushes

It's not pseudoscience.
Einstein’s theory of general relativity has a singularity that happens when matter collapse under its own gravitational pull.

Come on Atlas, read a science book. If you want to know anwser to that question take Stephen Hawking "Brief History of Time" (you know one of the most famous books of our times). In it Hawking writes "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe." This conclusion follows from quantum mechanics, the theory of atomic processes that was developed in the years following the introduction of Einstein's theories of relativity. Quantum mechanics, which also is now confirmed to great precision, tells us that general relativity, at least as currently formulated, must break down at times less than the Planck time and at distances smaller than the Planck length. It follows that general relativity cannot be used to imply that a singularity occurred prior to the Planck time and that Craig's use of the singularity theorem for a beginning of time is invalid.
Universe probably never had a beginning. We can always have one event follow another, and we can always have one event precede another.
And also I made a topic about this in science section. It should still be on the 1st page.

(May 16, 2017 at 11:47 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Come on Atlas, read a science book. If you want to know anwser to that question take Stephen Hawking "Brief History of Time" (you know one of the most famous books of our times). In it Hawking writes "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe." This conclusion follows from quantum mechanics, the theory of atomic processes that was developed in the years following the introduction of Einstein's theories of relativity. Quantum mechanics, which also is now confirmed to great precision, tells us that general relativity, at least as currently formulated, must break down at times less than the Planck time and at distances smaller than the Planck length. It follows that general relativity cannot be used to imply that a singularity occurred prior to the Planck time and that Craig's use of the singularity theorem for a beginning of time is invalid.
Universe probably never had a beginning. We can always have one event follow another, and we can always have one event precede another.
And also I made a topic about this in science section. It should still be on the 1st page.

But here it seems that he acknowledges the fact:

Quote:At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. 
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Since the universe it expanding, and it was proven that everything reaches the point of zero acceleration outwards as we advance in the past, a singularity would be a must have scenario. What Hawkings is saying pours directly into that.

(May 17, 2017 at 8:43 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(May 16, 2017 at 11:47 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Come on Atlas, read a science book. If you want to know anwser to that question take Stephen Hawking "Brief History of Time" (you know one of the most famous books of our times). In it Hawking writes "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe." This conclusion follows from quantum mechanics, the theory of atomic processes that was developed in the years following the introduction of Einstein's theories of relativity. Quantum mechanics, which also is now confirmed to great precision, tells us that general relativity, at least as currently formulated, must break down at times less than the Planck time and at distances smaller than the Planck length. It follows that general relativity cannot be used to imply that a singularity occurred prior to the Planck time and that Craig's use of the singularity theorem for a beginning of time is invalid.
Universe probably never had a beginning. We can always have one event follow another, and we can always have one event precede another.
And also I made a topic about this in science section. It should still be on the 1st page.

But here it seems that he acknowledges the fact:

Quote:At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. 
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Since the universe it expanding, and it was proven that everything reaches the point of zero acceleration outwards as we advance in the past, a singularity would be a must have scenario. What Hawkings is saying pours directly into that.

UGGGGGG

Atlas, attacking science or trying to co opt science does not work. It does not work when Muslims do it, it does not work when Christians do it, it does not work when Jews or Buddhists or Hindus do it. BUT YOU ALL DO IT.

You are trying the same fallacious tactic as NEO and Steve11 have as Christians. When you cant quote the Koran/ or bible directly, you attack science in an attempt to debunk it, when you cant do that, then you try to co opt science to try to get it to point to your holy writing. It does not work when any religion tries to pull it.

(May 17, 2017 at 9:02 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 8:43 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: But here it seems that he acknowledges the fact:

Since the universe it expanding, and it was proven that everything reaches the point of zero acceleration outwards as we advance in the past, a singularity would be a must have scenario. What Hawkings is saying pours directly into that.

UGGGGGG

Atlas, attacking science or trying to co opt science does not work. It does not work when Muslims do it, it does not work when Christians do it, it does not work when Jews or Buddhists or Hindus do it. BUT YOU ALL DO IT.

You are trying the same fallacious tactic as NEO and Steve11 have as Christians. When you cant quote the Koran/ or bible directly, you attack science in an attempt to debunk it, when you cant do that, then you try to co opt science to try to get it to point to your holy writing. It does not work when any religion tries to pull it.

Where did I attack science?

Actually; I accuse those who never count on science to conclude a view as being "ignorant" and perhaps even the cause behind lots of disasters.

I furthermore despise those who take science out of its context -i.e intentionally hiding context, take a word and forget the rest-.
Take it all or leave it all.

Saying that the universe is expanding, and that religious books like the Quran stress on the fact is not an act of taking science out of its context: simply the fact matches a verse and a context.

Saying that the universe contains bodies with hell-like features -i.e black holes- is not taking science out of its context.

Twisting a holy book to match a filthy thought I'm having, or twisting science to match a filthy scenario in my head is the true forgery and ultimate elimination of context. Sadly, missionaries and preachers from all religions seem to master the context-stripping tactic, and sadly, many fall for it.

Science is obvious. Stressing on a fact is not equal to throwing the fact into a blender along with personal demons and religious bullshit to produce a Shiite cocktail, or a Catholic juice, or a Sunni falafel, or an American fucking-dooda to fill the walls of personal psychological problems with, earning a tiny price by winning a tiny forum topic via spamming a foe into submission with ill logic and twisty ways.

(May 17, 2017 at 9:48 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 9:02 am)Brian37 Wrote: UGGGGGG

Atlas, attacking science or trying to co opt science does not work. It does not work when Muslims do it, it does not work when Christians do it, it does not work when Jews or Buddhists or Hindus do it. BUT YOU ALL DO IT.

You are trying the same fallacious tactic as NEO and Steve11 have as Christians. When you cant quote the Koran/ or bible directly, you attack science in an attempt to debunk it, when you cant do that, then you try to co opt science to try to get it to point to your holy writing. It does not work when any religion tries to pull it.

Where did I attack science?

Actually; I accuse those who never count on science to conclude a view as being "ignorant" and perhaps even the cause behind lots of disasters.

I furthermore despise those who take science out of its context -i.e intentionally hiding context, take a word and forget the rest-.
Take it all or leave it all.

Saying that the universe is expanding, and that religious books like the Quran stress on the fact is not an act of taking science out of its context: simply the fact matches a verse and a context.

Saying that the universe contains bodies with hell-like features -i.e black holes- is not taking science out of its context.

Twisting a holy book to match a filthy thought I'm having, or twisting science to match a filthy scenario in my head is the true forgery and ultimate elimination of context. Sadly, missionaries and preachers from all religions seem to master the context-stripping tactic, and sadly, many fall for it.

Science is obvious. Stressing on a fact is not equal to throwing the fact into a blender along with personal demons and religious bullshit to produce a Shiite cocktail, or a Catholic juice, or a Sunni falafel, or an American fucking-dooda to fill the walls of personal psychological problems with, earning a tiny price by winning a tiny forum topic via spamming a foe into submission with ill logic and twisty ways.

Don't care. Again, you all do it.

There is not one single religion in the world that does not have apologists whom either try to debunk science or try to co opt science. 

Scientific method is a tool, a neutral method, it is not a religion and is not there to favor any religion or to point to any holy book. 

You are stuck in the same boat as any other follower of any other religion. You don't get to blame us for your own inability to see this.

(May 17, 2017 at 10:00 am)Brian37 Wrote: Don't care. Again, you all do it.

There is not one single religion in the world that does not have apologists whom either try to debunk science or try to co opt science. 

You must care. And you should; too.
Caring about yourself, at least. Personal belief is more of a structure to your own brain.
We are not the same. While some serve an agenda, Churches and communities, others don't. 
The difference is so severe, that reaches the degree of murdering difference; silencing voices that doesn't match the tone of the cult forming the majority.

When anonymity is given, like on forums, the difference shows.
Even AF has so many sub-sections in an attempt to organize theists into the categories they represent.

Quote:Scientific method is a tool, a neutral method, it is not a religion and is not there to favor any religion or to point to any holy book. 

What if a faith stressed on the scientific method's concepts, that make it so trustworthy?
For example, honesty abut the result. Never to lie about the results. Testing before proving and stating. 



Didn't Abraham observe, thought about interesting questions... before believing ?
His story is there on the Quran. Should I shut up and let the mainstream opinion eat me, rejecting the observation paradigm?

i.e argument from design??

Quote:You are stuck in the same boat as any other follower of any other religion. You don't get to blame us for your own inability to see this.

I would actually count some to be my life-long tormentors, and some of the filthiest humans I know in terms of morality.
Atheists hurt me less than these theists; make me bleed less; too.