Comments
801 - 820 of 1,922 Comments Last updated Oct 20, 2013

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#817
Apr 17, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"OK, so if there is a multi-verse, then the 'universe' includes that also. Good."
Yes the universe would contain all Multi-verses.
"In that case, it is meaningless to talk about 'before the universe'. It isn't even a meaningful phrase."
Not true at all. You've shown that your scared of the obvious. 13.71 billion years ago or so, there was nothing and nothing can not create the BB.
If there is a multi-verse, the age of 13.7 billion years is simply the age of the current expansion phase of one piece of the multi-verse. it is not the age of the multi-verse, just our local 'small-u' universe.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#818
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
If there was no before time then you're saying the universe was always in existence and never had a beginning
Let me see if I can clarify this for you. If the universe is 13.7 billion years old, then the phrase '13.8 billion years ago' is meaningless. It literally has no meaning because time itself began 13.7 billion years ago. It is similar to attempting to talk about a latitude of 100 degrees north.

This is not the same as saying there was 'nothing' 13.8 billion years ago. We would not say there is 'nothing' at latitude 100 degrees. Instead, the phrase itself is the problem. There wasn't a 13.8 billion years ago, just as there is no latitude 100 degrees north

When you say the phrase 'the universe was always in existence', there are two natural meanings:

1) that the universe existed whenever there was time. This is, in fact, the case.

2) That time existed infinitely far into the past and the universe has existed for all that time. This is NOT the case in our scenario because time did NOT extend infinitely far into the past.

In case 1), the universe (and time) had a beginning, but was uncaused and did not exist 'forever'(another problematical word).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#819
Apr 17, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
What a beautiful reputation you are building for the credibility of atheists!!! Lies are not good material to build reputations.
What atheist are you referring to?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#820
Apr 17, 2013
 
Skippy has falsified the multiverse.

Not sure how yet, but he's definitely done it.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#821
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Nope.. You missquoth as is your habit-- you lie, in plain English.

The >>current existence<< of the universe is roughly 15 billion years or so (give or take)

!
<<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< <

This article is about scientific estimates of the age of the universe.

The age of the universe is defined inphysical cosmology as the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The best estimate of the age of the universe, as of 22 March 2013, is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years (4.351 ± 0.017 × 1017 seconds) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model. The uncertainty of 37 million years has been obtained by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects, such as microwave background radiation measurements by the Planck satellite, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling timeof the universe since the Big Bang, and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_uni...

Hubble Time

The inverse of the Hubble constant H has the units of time because the Hubble law is
v = H d
where v is the velocity of recession, H is the Hubble constant, and d is the distance. Thus, from this equation, we have that 1/H = d/v. but d/v is distance divided by velocity, which is time (e.g., if I travel 180 miles at 60 miles/hour, the time required is t = d/v = 180/60 = 3 hours).

Thus, the Hubble time T is just the inverse of the Hubble Constant:

T = 1 / H
Taking a value of H = 20 km/s/Mly (where Mly means mega-light years),

where all the factors are necessary to convert the time units to years and I've rounded some numbers to simplify the display.

The physical interpretation of the Hubble time is that it gives the time for the Universe to run backwards to the Big Bang if the expansion rate (the Hubble "constant") were constant. Thus, it is a measure of the age of the Universe. The Hubble "constant" actually isn't constant, so the Hubble time is really only a rough estimate of the age of the Universe.

Reasonable assumptions for the value of the Hubble constant and the geometry of the Universe typically yield ages of 10-20 billion years for the age of the Universe. For example, H near 50 km/s/Mpc gives a larger value for the age of the Universe (around 16 thousand million years), while a larger value of 80 km/s/Mpc gives a lower value for the age (around 10 thousand million years). Therefore, we shall take this information, and additional information from other methods to estimate the age of the Universe that we have not discussed, to indicate an age of approximately 15 billion years for the Universe.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmo...
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#822
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Nope.. You missquoth as is your habit-- you lie, in plain English.

The >>current existence<< of the universe is roughly 15 billion years or so (give or take)

!
April 24, 2002 — The Hubble Space Telescope has read the embers of burnt-out stars to come up with a new way of estimating the universe’s age, scientists said Wednesday. The latest age estimate — 13 billion to 14 billion years — is consistent with the conclusions reached using other methods.

Past observations of faraway celestial objects known as Cepheid variable stars have yielded estimates of 12 billion to 15 billion years for the universe’s age. But those observations depended on assumptions related to how the universe has expanded over those billions of years.

Another method, used by the European Southern Observatory, depended on estimating the rate of radioactive decay within old stars. The European researchers came up with a figure of more than 12.5 billion years.

University of Chicago astrophysicist Michael Turner, commenting on the latest research, said that further studies were essential because the question of the universe’s age is so fundamental to our understanding of the cosmos.

“What’s exciting is, we’re now making enough measurements that we can do these critical tests for age consistency,” he toldMSNBC.com .

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077812/
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#823
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Nope.. You missquoth as is your habit-- you lie, in plain English.

The >>current existence<< of the universe is roughly 15 billion years or so (give or take)

What came before? We do not know-- but energy certainly could have per-existed the current state.

Besides: all that there is, is matter & energy (really-they are the same stuff, just in different states).

So.

Is your god made of matter or energy? Or both?

Be careful what you choose, here....!
Is your god made of matter or energy? Or both?

Nether, he created energy and matter and space. He is made of none of that.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#824
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Nope.. You missquoth as is your habit-- you lie, in plain English.

The >>current existence<< of the universe is roughly 15 billion years or so (give or take)

What came before? We do not know-- but energy certainly could have per-existed the current state.

Besides: all that there is, is matter & energy (really-they are the same stuff, just in different states).

So.

Is your god made of matter or energy? Or both?

Be careful what you choose, here....!
"What came before? We do not know-- but energy certainly could have per-existed the current state. "

If there was energy then there was the universe.

"We do not know-- "

This is correct because you refuse to except the truth.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#825
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Let me see if I can clarify this for you. If the universe is 13.7 billion years old, then the phrase '13.8 billion years ago' is meaningless. It literally has no meaning because time itself began 13.7 billion years ago. It is similar to attempting to talk about a latitude of 100 degrees north.

This is not the same as saying there was 'nothing' 13.8 billion years ago. We would not say there is 'nothing' at latitude 100 degrees. Instead, the phrase itself is the problem. There wasn't a 13.8 billion years ago, just as there is no latitude 100 degrees north

When you say the phrase 'the universe was always in existence', there are two natural meanings:

1) that the universe existed whenever there was time. This is, in fact, the case.

2) That time existed infinitely far into the past and the universe has existed for all that time. This is NOT the case in our scenario because time did NOT extend infinitely far into the past.

In case 1), the universe (and time) had a beginning, but was uncaused and did not exist 'forever'(another problematical word).
Ok so I'll try and state this in a more correct manner.

Was there anything when there was no time?
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#826
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>If there is a multi-verse, the age of 13.7 billion years is simply the age of the current expansion phase of one piece of the multi-verse. it is not the age of the multi-verse, just our local 'small-u' universe.
So your claim is that before there was time there might still have been Multi-verses?
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#827
Apr 17, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm saying that whenever there was time, the universe existed. This is true even if time cannot be extended infinitely into the past.

It is still possible for the universe to 'have a beginning' if time cannot be extended into the past further than a certain amount.

In any case, whether time is infinite or not, there is no 'before time'. it is a contradiction in terms.
So time is 13.7 billion years old, not the universe?

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#828
Apr 17, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
Produce the post where I claim that we have come out of nothingness. We have come from our parents. It is the beginning of the universe; the first thing that gave sequence to expansion and evolution was caused into existence ex-nihilo. Lies are not a good policy to build a good reputation. That's embarrassing!
Here.
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
Creator is implied by force of Logic.
Please explain this creator of the universe then.
If this creator is not a magical being.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#829
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Everything, without exception, is made of matter or energy or both-- usually both (a lot of both).

Which is your GOD made of, then? Matter or energy or both?

Be careful of your answer-- there WILL be a quiz!
"Everything, without exception, is made of matter or energy or both-- usually both (a lot of both)."

In your universe. LOL

You're like a gold fish in a blacked out bowl claiming everything has to be wet because in my universe everything is wet.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#830
Apr 17, 2013
 
Sorry posted to the commet.
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text> Produce the post where I claim that we have come out of nothingness. We have come from our parents. It is the beginning of the universe; the first thing that gave sequence to expansion and evolution was caused into existence ex-nihilo. Lies are not a good policy to build a good reputation. That's embarrassing!
Here

Shibolet wrote:
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text> Creator is implied by force of Logic.
Please explain this creator of the universe then.

If this creator is not a magical being.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#831
Apr 17, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Is your god made of matter or energy? Or both?
Nether, he created energy and matter and space. He is made of none of that.
Then?

Your god is 100% fiction-- if he is neither matter nor energy?

He cannot exist!

QED.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#832
Apr 17, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
This is correct because you refuse to except the truth.
I'd be happy to entertain your hypothesis.

First?

You must SHOW YOUR WORK-- let's see the PROOF of your argument(s).

Hint: your bible is not sufficient proof--it's fatally flawed, as such can be simply dismissed out of hand. A book from a REAL god? Would be divine. The bible simply isn't.

So-- get busy-- lets see your...

.... "truth".

(I've got a bowl of popcorn at the ready)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#833
Apr 17, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Everything, without exception, is made of matter or energy or both-- usually both (a lot of both)."
In your universe. LOL
You're like a gold fish in a blacked out bowl claiming everything has to be wet because in my universe everything is wet.
Everything in the universe IS made of matter and energy.

If your god is neither of these?

Your god is not >>OF<< the universe.

It may as well not exist, then--!

It really is that simple.

If your god >>IS<< >>of<< the universe?(able to interact with it) then your god MUST BE MATTER/ENERGY.

It really IS that simple.

(I have another bowl of popcorn, to watch you squirm around this one)
Thinking

Staines, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#834
Apr 17, 2013
 
Danepak.
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Prove that it is a straw man by giving me what I am asking.
Thinking

Staines, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835
Apr 17, 2013
 
He's a good man and you've good taste!

I need to see Tim again, but not just in Joseph - I want to see him doing his own thing again.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
One of my all-time favorite Minchin videos.
:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#836
Apr 17, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
He's a good man and you've good taste!
I need to see Tim again, but not just in Joseph - I want to see him doing his own thing again.
<quoted text>
I have not had the honor of seeing him live, all my experience has been YouTube.

Alas. I suspect he's not that popular in 'Murrica...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

5 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 5 min Patrick 217
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 8 min Patrick 224,163
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 2 hr Growupchildren 21,392
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... 10 hr DonPanic 1,285
HELL real or not? (Sep '13) 13 hr religionisillness 271
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 13 hr religionisillness 370
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Thu religionisillness 834
•••
•••