(July 20, 2012 at 5:42 am)Ace Otana Wrote: If a clock entered the outer edges of a black hole, it'll stop. Mass effects time, and that when all the mass/energy was concentrated into an infinite speck, time itself cannot exist. So there cannot be a cause, seeing as there is no time for a cause to exist in.

It stops from the perspective of an outside observer. The clock keeps going.

The real point is that time is a parameter given favored value by humans because it's easy for us to understand the world from the point of view of constant, forward moving time. It has no favored value in comparison to space, energy or momentum.

But yes, the universe didn't have a beginning because time exponentially loses definitive value as one gets closer to the big bang. (What's north of the North Pole?)

Some differences with God and universe eternity.

1. Universe to be eternal, would have to have time as eternal, giving an infinite regress, while God's eternity is that of no beginning, but not having time with him (existing without time).
2. There is scientific arguments showing why universe can't be eternal, there is no scientific arguments against why God can't exist or be eternal.
3. There is philosophical arguments showing why time must have began, there is no philosophical arguments to show why God must have began.

(July 21, 2012 at 5:44 am)Selliedjoup Wrote:

(July 20, 2012 at 7:03 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Wow, because science doesn't have have all the answers(yet) therefore god.

Gee, what a compelling argument.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Your only saving grace at this point is to admit that you either have never read the article, or have read it and didn't understand its meaning.

If you were to claim that you read and understood the article and thought dropping it as an argument to the previous post was appropriate, I can only conclude that you are a significant shareholder in water and vinegar companies.

(July 21, 2012 at 10:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Some differences with God and universe eternity.

1. Universe to be eternal, would have to have time as eternal, giving an infinite regress, while God's eternity is that of no beginning, but not having time with him (existing without time).
2. There is scientific arguments showing why universe can't be eternal, there is no scientific arguments against why God can't exist or be eternal.
3. There is philosophical arguments showing why time must have began, there is no philosophical arguments to show why God must have began.

1. Existence without time is oxymoronic, since it is defined as being within a spatio-temporal context.

2. There is no scientific argument against god's existence because the the very concept is too vague and ill-defined to come under the purview of science.

3. There is no valid philosophical argument for the beginning of time. Any beginning needs a temporal context. For time to have began, time must already exist for time to start in.

(July 21, 2012 at 5:41 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(July 20, 2012 at 7:43 am)pgrimes15 Wrote: Many cosmologists (the most famous being Fred Hoyle) have problems with the Big Bang theory considering it to be the 20th century's version of the creation story.

https://sites.google.com/site/bigbangcosmythology/

The basic case is that the galactic redshift has been misinterpreted as indicating speed of recession, whilst it is actually an indication of distance, and is caused by something called the "Compton Effect" where photons are absorbed by intergalactic gas and retransmitted at a lower energy. The site also mentions how the cosmological heirarchy is acting like a priesthood where the Big Bang idea is so firmly entrenched (it is in textbooks after all ) that all dissenting views are dismissed, and anyone who wants to get ahead in the field (i.e. wants study and research grants) cannot afford to be seen as a maverick.

Make up your own mind.

Regards

Grimesy

The guy who wrote that is also a 9/11 truther.

Make up your own mind.

I didn't know that. Have you got a reference - I assume you mean John Kierein - Google only comes up with cosmology stuff.

The point I was getting at is that the Big Bang theory has been a millstone around the neck of rationalist debaters, and a positive boon for Xtian apologists using the first cause argument.

Regards

Grimesy

(July 21, 2012 at 10:55 am)cato123 Wrote:

(July 21, 2012 at 5:44 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Your only saving grace at this point is to admit that you either have never read the article, or have read it and didn't understand its meaning.

If you were to claim that you read and understood the article and thought dropping it as an argument to the previous post was appropriate, I can only conclude that you are a significant shareholder in water and vinegar companies.

I initially quoted what I was addressing.

(July 21, 2012 at 10:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Some differences with God and universe eternity.

1. Universe to be eternal, would have to have time as eternal, giving an infinite regress, while God's eternity is that of no beginning, but not having time with him (existing without time).
2. There is scientific arguments showing why universe can't be eternal, there is no scientific arguments against why God can't exist or be eternal.

Using this logic, you can assign to god ANY property that you so desire on a whim. You could propose that not only does he exist outside of time, but he also has a preference for people whose name begin with the letters A and F, and that he likes to manifest himself and go snorkelling in the red sea every so often.

I challenge you to provide any argument, proof or reasoning that god does exist, or is eternal.

burden of proof once again *sigh*

(July 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm)pgrimes15 Wrote:

(July 21, 2012 at 5:41 am)Zen Badger Wrote: The guy who wrote that is also a 9/11 truther.

Make up your own mind.

I didn't know that. Have you got a reference - I assume you mean John Kierein - Google only comes up with cosmology stuff.

The point I was getting at is that the Big Bang theory has been a millstone around the neck of rationalist debaters, and a positive boon for Xtian apologists using the first cause argument.

Regards

Grimesy

Remember that the BBT predicted not only the CMB, but it's temperature to an astonishingly accurate degree.

Also the British Physicist Roger Penrose claims to have discovered evidence of 5 previous big bang events http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news...e-big-bang
Make of that what you will.

(August 2, 2012 at 6:11 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Remember that the BBT predicted not only the CMB, but it's temperature to an astonishingly accurate degree.

Isn't that the same as saying Pontias Pilate was a real man so the bible is true ?

What about these things that are needed to make BBT fit the observations

Cosmic Inflation
Dark Matter
Dark Energy

All invented concepts needed to shoe-horn BBT into reality.
Sounds a bit like religion to me.

Regards

Grimesy

While I wholly agree that theist "something from nothing" arguments are pathetic and tiresome, let's not rush to embrace one fable to displace a more odious one. At present, the science is still unsettled. We don't know how the universe began, if it began and why. I'd say however, that in the same way that Dawkins referred to Darwin making it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, modern physics and cosmology provide plausible alternatives to this apologetic chestnut. And I dare say, the alternatives that science posits make use of demonstrable mechanisms; the GodDidit hypothesis does not.

One minor point. Some physicists, like Hawking, do not postulate a singularity, as when the universe was below the Planck length, our physics simply no longer apply.