(March 3, 2018 at 11:47 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: @Banned

Explain how god created the universe without quoting the Bible.

"Once upon a time, there was a girl and three bears"....

NO, there were two bears and they mauled the kid for picking on a bald guy.

(March 3, 2018 at 11:47 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Explain how god created the universe without quoting the Bible.

Can I use Peter?

(March 3, 2018 at 1:52 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

(March 3, 2018 at 11:47 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Explain how god created the universe without quoting the Bible.

Can I use Peter?

That is as good as any other explanation theists come up with.

Banned, could have been robbing and raping people, if it wasn't for religion, instead he is just spreading fear of God using any means possible to drag people in to his Magical business plan. Not bad.

(March 3, 2018 at 9:10 am)Hammy Wrote: It's not really quite nothing. And Lawrence has been rightly criticized for the term 'nothing' by both philosophers and other physicists.

But I guess, "A Universe From Almost Entirely Empty Space Teeming With Quantum Activity" isn't as punchy of a book title.

I wasn't certain whether Lawrence or the media were pushing the nothing line.
He seemed to go aloing with it and then he didn't.

I guess it goes back to defining nothing as something relative.

---

(March 3, 2018 at 9:58 am)polymath257 Wrote: Thisisn't quite accurate. Many of the heavier elements have very small half-lives, so they decay. But when they decay, what happens is the nucleus splits and we get two or more other nuclei: the matter didn't disappear. These heavy nuclei are formed by colliding two other large nuclei together. They don't just 'appear'.

True,

(March 3, 2018 at 6:46 pm)Banned Wrote:

(March 3, 2018 at 9:10 am)Hammy Wrote: It's not really quite nothing. And Lawrence has been rightly criticized for the term 'nothing' by both philosophers and other physicists.

But I guess, "A Universe From Almost Entirely Empty Space Teeming With Quantum Activity" isn't as punchy of a book title.

I wasn't certain whether Lawrence or the media were pushing the nothing line.
He seemed to go aloing with it and then he didn't.

I guess it goes back to defining nothing as something relative.

I got what he was saying. Again, it was more of an analogy. The sub particle world is so small that there is a quantum world that can fly under the radar, that is what he meant by "nothing" . And I do agree when he says, "nothing is unstable". 

Quantum mechanics is science, an old book of mythology isn't.

You couldn't comprehend Lawrence Krauss if you had 5 life times let alone 5 minutes.

Do us all a favor.  Take your fucking bible, go sit in the corner and jerk off.  At least you will accomplish something if you can even do that right.

(March 3, 2018 at 11:12 am)popeyespappy Wrote: When people like Krauss and Hawking talk about a universe from nothing or it makes no sense to talk about before the Big Bang they are being a bit deceitful. They are being deceitful because while they believe it is possible maybe even probable that our particular X, Y, Z, + T observable universe began with the Big Bang they also believe there was probably a background something that it came from.

String Theory is currently the leading theory on what that something is. Krauss even believes that if String Theory is true then a multiverse is probable. If a multiverse is true then there are other spacetime universes besides ours.

String Theory isn’t the only possibility though, and the Big Bang is far from confirmed. Other possibilities include our universe is cyclic. expanding and collapsing over and over again. Another possibility is it could be the result of the collapse of the false vacuum of a previous higher energy vacuum.

Krauss himself talks about some of this in this short article about the limits of knowledge.

String theory appealed to me when I first read it. I like aspects of all the main theories, and see plenty of overlapping.

Science wants to have a formula that accounts for matter which only considers what is observable or measureable, even if only in theory.
Which is somewhat consistent with the practice and application of scientific thinking.
While one theory will account for one phenomenon, it will fail where another doesn't. You would think that if we picked the best of each theory we'd have a better picture.

---

(March 3, 2018 at 11:47 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: @Banned

Explain how god created the universe without quoting the Bible.

Good question, but we are discussing the treatment of the topic by the scientific and philosophical communities.

I know some people have fearfully belched out "sky god," so I'll wait until their fever dies down and they start communicating without being so immotive.

My response to your question belongs in the religious section, because I go by what the Bible contains.
But in this section, I am willing to explore the way people handle these topics, which they have pretty much covered.

(March 3, 2018 at 7:09 pm)Banned Wrote:

(March 3, 2018 at 11:47 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: @Banned

Explain how god created the universe without quoting the Bible.

Good question, but we are discussing the treatment of the topic by the scientific and philosophical communities.

I know some people have fearfully belched out "sky god," so I'll wait until their fever dies down and they start communicating without being so immotive.

My response to your question belongs in the religious section, because I go by what the Bible contains.
But in this section, I am willing to explore the way people handle these topics, which they have pretty much covered.

In other words "I can't."

(March 3, 2018 at 7:38 pm)Cod Wrote:

(March 3, 2018 at 7:09 pm)Banned Wrote: Good question, but we are discussing the treatment of the topic by the scientific and philosophical communities.

I know some people have fearfully belched out "sky god," so I'll wait until their fever dies down and they start communicating without being so immotive.

My response to your question belongs in the religious section, because I go by what the Bible contains.
But in this section, I am willing to explore the way people handle these topics, which they have pretty much covered.

In other words "I can't."

Banned, to be fair to you, when someone says, "I believe" and points to the writings of antiquity, OF ANY LABEL, my reaction is the same, be it Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, ect ect ect, not just you, I roll my eyes and think, "That was then, this is now".

I do think most humans are good people, or at least think they are trying to do the right thing. But most humans adapt the religions of their parents long before they can formulate adult critical thinking skills. 

Why would you base your life on old mythology Banned? I am not claiming it should be illegal or forced out of existence by government. I am merely asking "why"? 

We have cell phones now, why would anyone still use Morris Code?