Is the bible a fairy tale?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1464 May 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No magic
He merely spoke everything into existence. So God did it with words.
Words alone are insufficient. They require the addition of Godmagic to make it work.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1465 May 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...
Part 3
Issue #2: Problem of expanding
The expanding universe theory is often compared to a balloon being blown up. As the balloon expands the amount of space available also expands. The problem of an expanding universe is that it must expand INTO something. If there's anything to expand into, that space must, as shown above, belong in the universe.
But where did all that empty space come from, and why are they forgetting that it's also part of the universe? This seems to be a case of people forgetting what the term universe really refers to.
Wrong. Once again, the expansion is of space itself. In a literal sense, the universe is expanding 'into the future'. In the balloon analogy, the radius of the balloon is time.
Issue #3: Problem of time
Along with the problem of empty space, the expansion theory also runs into the problem of time.
Let's look at the empty space ahead of the light waves again. Since we have shown that the empty space ahead of the waves is a part of the universe, let us go back in time 10 seconds.
Would the same empty space still be a part of the universe 10 seconds ago? The obvious answer is yes. Well what about 10 years ago? Long before the waves reaches the empty space, it is still a part of the universe.
Taking this to it's furthest conclusion, would that same space ahead of today's light waves still be a part of this universe way back when the Big Bang happened only 1/2 second ago? The answer again is yes.
And once again we have the same basic misunderstanding that the Big Bang predicts matter and energy moving through space with some sort of boundary ahead of it. That is NOT at all what the Big Bang theory claims. Once again, the basic theory has space being uniform and isotropic: the same at every location and in every direction. ALL space is filled with matter and that space is expanding. There is NO EDGE.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1466 May 17, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Again, the purpose of the flood was to kill mankind and this flood accomplished that purpose. God promised that there would never be another judgment like this on mankind by a flood.
Since you have now stated the flood was a local event (and if it was based on a real event, I agree) it failed in its task. Humans had already populated much of the rest of the world a long time before that.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1467 May 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...
Part 4
Issue #4: Problem with light at zero MPH
What does the universe look like when light is reduced to 0mph or is stopped altogether?
One of the main parts of the big bang theory is that we will eventually see a contraction.
That is not necessary, and is most likely wrong. Even the most basic version of the Big Bang theory had *three* possibilities: contraction, a limiting case where the speed of expansion drops gradually to zero, and a case where the speed continues forever. With the cosmological constant (aka, dark energy), there is a possibility (and, it seems, the reality) of accelerating expansion.
That is, eventually the expansion will stop, and the natural gravitational forces will pull everything back together over a long period of time until it is all collected into the same singularity from which the Big Bang happened and everything will start all over again. This is generally referred to as the Big Crunch.
Even in the basic theory, this only happens if the density of matter and energy is high enough for the gravitational effect to dominate the expansion. The current data does NOT support this option.

Technical point: the Big Crunch singularity is NOT the same as the Big Bang singularity. And, the cycle does NOT have to repeat itself.
The important consequence of this theory is that it will pull everything, matter and light back into the crunch to begin the process. If anything is left outside the Big Crunch before it explodes again, then this, by definition contradicts the concept of the Big Bang being the start of everything. Also if you consider a universe to contain a huge, but ultimately finite amount of matter and photons, then if everything is not sucked back in with each crunch, even if that amount is only an amount of photons, then the bang gets smaller and smaller with each instance. Also that would mean that the universe is equal in size to the speed of light times the time of the very first bang, if there ever was one. So the theory must maintain that the Big Crunch pulls EVERYTHING back in.
Once again, the misunderstanding between space itself expanding and stuff moving through space.
Well usually our attention is focused at the beginning (Big Bang) and the end (Big Crunch) but I think we need to look at the midpoint.
So let us imagine we are at the very outer reaches of space riding along with the furthest light waves in the universe. The time occurs when the gravity behind us is so great, we will go back to where we began.
And a consequence of this misunderstanding. NOT at all what the theory says. In fact, quite the opposite of what it says.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1468 May 17, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>But somebody on earth today will find it. You can exclude half the earth because they are not female. Then you can exclude everyone who is not descended from Joseph/Ephraim. And you can exclude people who are too young or too old. That narrows it down and you can look at each person critically on an individual basis.
False, as you have already assumed your theology is the correct one before it has been found. Male, female, young old, sprog of Joseph, non-sprog of Joseph, alien space lizard man from Rigel XII, all are equally viable.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1469 May 17, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...
Part 6
Or will we?
In this case, the gravitational forces must act upon the furthest light waves and slow them down little by little until...
We can imagine at some point the exact moment when the light waves reach their zenith where their outward force exactly matches the gravitational pull. In other words, light is stopped altogether. I'm sure Einstein would've loved to try to consider what this scenario should be like. Maybe he did. I'm not sure.
The most realistic way around this bizarre scenario is to imagine that the pull is not precise and simply turns the light wave in a large slowing arc until they head back in the other direction.
This case creates a possible scenario where if we place ourselves in the right place at the right time (In the light waves path on their return trip) It would be possible to look forward any observe the universe forming behind us. Of course we couldn't turn around and watch the crunch at the same time since the gravity would presumably pull all tell tale light back into itself. Again, this is a very strange effect to imagine.
In either case it is hard to imagine the situation of a gravity so strong that ALL light photons would eventually be stopped before reversing course or arcing back to the beginning. This is not to say that this can't happen, but on a universe wide scale this would indeed be an interesting phenomenon to work out.
Issue #5: Problem of the edge
Another problem with an expanding universe theory is the presupposition that an edge to the universe must exist.
We have already shown that the empty space ahead of all matter exists in the universe as well, so what is at the edge of the universe? Let's look at it logically.
Let us imagine the edge of all space and time as a barrier of some kind. An impenetrable barrier enclosing all space, both empty and occupied through which matter and time can not pass. The edge of the universe must be something of this nature, right?
Any barrier, no matter what shape, size, composition, thickness, etc. always has two important sides: The side holding the contents and the opposite side, which is furthest away from the contents. Both sides always have a defined edge and therefore something on the other side of each edge. In this theoretical case, one edge touches the universe.
[/QUOTE]

Once again, ALL of this is based on the misunderstanding that there *is* an edge to the expansion in the Big Bang theory. That is wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1470 May 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...
Part 7
The simple question that should come to mind then is: What is at the other side of the barrier?
Ans: there *is* no barrier!
With this basic understanding, we must conclude that anything on the other side of this "barrier", even if it's pure empty space must also be a part of the universe. Even if the other side consists of space/matter that doesn't conform to any law of physics currently known to man, it does still exist, and therefore must be included in the list of "Everything that exists anywhere" and therefore is part of the universe.
This means that any imagined barrier to the universe can not exist.
OK so just for thoroughness let's take away an assumption: Let's assume that the aforementioned "barrier" has no other side. To do this it must be a barrier of infinite thickness. Anything less would create another "side" as mentioned above.
OK so we now have a barrier of unknown composition and infinite thickness enclosing the entire universe.
What's wrong with this picture? Simple: Any barrier, no matter what it's made of, how impenetrable or how thick is still a part of this universe. Even a barrier of a thickness of 10,001,000 googolplex light-years (Trust me that's VERY thick) is still a part of this universe. The fact that we can't analyze it, penetrate it or get any information on its internal composition doesn't mean that isn't a part of the universe.
So if the barrier to the universe is infinite in thickness and since the barrier is part of the universe, the universe is also infinite in size.
All a very deep misunderstanding of what the Big Bang theory says: in particular, there is NO BARRIER. In fact, the Big Bang thoery assumes a uniform, isotropic universe: the same everywhere and in all directions.
If no barrier to the universe exists, then the universe is still infinite in size.
And *this* is the point that seems to be missing: that it is possible to have no barriers, but still be finite in size.
Ultimate conclusion: The universe is infinite in size at all times.
Actually, in the Big Bang theory, there are two possibilities: either the expansion stops and there is a contraction, in which case space is *finite*, OR the expansion continues forever and space is *infinite* at all times.
The universe is infinite in size and time
Time had no beginning and will have no end
And this is still a definite possibility even in the context of a Big bang *if* the actual Big Bang singularity is 'smoothed out' by quantum effects, as predicted by string theory and loop quantum gravity.
Summary: the author doesn't understand the theory being argued about. Even the basic concepts like spatial expansion versus explosion are completely misunderstood.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1471 May 17, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Quantum Mechanics the failed theory?
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.
Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
From Nova:
"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.
RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...
LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.
So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.
[/QUOTE]

You do realize all of this is just a rhetorical lead-up to the introduction of string theory, right?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1472 May 17, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
That is why I am discussing when the Big Bang hadn't happened. What was there? The answer is "nothing", a complete void of anything.
How does nothing become everything?
[/QUOTE]

No, that is NOT the claim. The claim is that the question itself is nonsense: there *was* no *when the Big Bang hadn't happened*!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1473 May 17, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
And that would be your proof of the Big Bang?
[/QUOTE]

1. relation of red-shift to distance for galaxies
2. elemental abundances for hydrogen, deuterium, helium-3, and helium
3. the existence of the cosmic background radiation (this eliminated the Steady State theory).
4. The prediction that the background radiation would be an almost perfect black-body radiation (it agrees to one part in 100,000)
5. The nature of gravitational lenses (shows the large-scale geometry of the universe)
6. the differences between galaxies far away (and hence seen farther back in time) and those now (showing the growth of galaxies over time)
7. the specific deviations from black-body radiation seen in the background radiation (these deviations are caused by the density fluctuations that lead to galaxies eventually).
8. all evidential support for general relativity (since the Big bang is based on that theory)
9. the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect and the link to galaxy densities.
10. studies of distant supernova showing an accelerating rate of expansion.

And *all* of these are merely overviews. The specific data is overwhelming, especially with the results of COBE and WMAP.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1474 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is NOT the claim. The claim is that the question itself is nonsense: there *was* no *when the Big Bang hadn't happened*!
That is a false statement.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1475 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is not what any scientific theory says.
<quoted text>
Prove it.
<quoted text>
Nonsense.
<quoted text>
You keep misunderstanding this point. The Big Bang theory does NOT say there was a time when there was nothing and that the nothing exploded to produce the universe. You keep harping on this point, but that isn't what is claimed. The problem, as far as I can see, is that you can't seem to grasp the concept of a time when there was no 'before'. I can understand it is tricky, but that is where your understanding seems to be failing. If there was no 'before', there was no cause.
That is another false statement. Actually three false statements in one.

1. Cause is not required to be temporally "before". There is nothing known to prevent coincidental causality.

2. The "before" you are eliminating is "before" in universe time, which has a definite "beginning" under the theory. You do not know whether that "beginning" is "All", unless your are omniscient, and I do not believe you are.

3. You are using a requirement of a result of the explosion - universe time - as a prerequisite for any causality of the explosion itself. That is logically incoherent.

In order for an explosion of something to occur, the "something has to exhibit "non-explosion" and "explosion".

Otherwise, there is no explosion.
CunningLinguist

Winter Garden, FL

#1476 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is NOT the claim. The claim is that the question itself is nonsense: there *was* no *when the Big Bang hadn't happened*!
You are the person with the numbers... ;)

Lots of numbers are mentioned here, this sounds conspiracy theory ala 'Loose Change' but may have some merit.

https://www.uncensoredsurvival.com/front40/

NOTE: Off Topic - Collapse of the US dollar? Within 16 months?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1477 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is NOT the claim. The claim is that the question itself is nonsense: there *was* no *when the Big Bang hadn't happened*!
If the "Big Bang" is an event, the substance of the event has to exhibit both "explosion" and "non-explosion".

If it does not, there is no event.

You are incoherent.

The backbone of critical thinking is LOGIC.

The Law of NonContradiction: "A cannot be both A and not-A at once and in the same sense. In other words, something (a statement) cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way."

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1478 May 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
In order for an explosion of something to occur, the "something has to exhibit "non-explosion" and "explosion".
Otherwise, there is no explosion.
You are right. There is no explosion in the Big Bang. Matter does NOT move through space in the basic Big Bang model: space itself is expanding.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1479 May 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If the "Big Bang" is an event, the substance of the event has to exhibit both "explosion" and "non-explosion".[/QU ITE]
Technically, the singularity is NOT an event. It has no spacetime location because time cannot be extended to the singularity.

And the Big Bang was NOT an explosion.

[QUOTE]The Law of NonContradiction: "A cannot be both A and not-A at once and in the same sense. In other words, something (a statement) cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way."
Which is not violated here.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1480 May 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That is another false statement. Actually three false statements in one.
1. Cause is not required to be temporally "before". There is nothing known to prevent coincidental causality.
All causality occurs in time. Coincidental causality (which isn't a coherent concept) still requires time to happen, so is still part of the universe. The universe itself cannot be caused.
2. The "before" you are eliminating is "before" in universe time, which has a definite "beginning" under the theory. You do not know whether that "beginning" is "All", unless your are omniscient, and I do not believe you are.
Correct. There are multiple theories. I was talking about one of them. We do not have the data to distinguish between that one and the others. The other theories *do* have time before the Big Bang (which is more of a Big Bounce or a Big Pinch). And in those theories, causality *does* make sense for the Big Bang.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1481 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right. There is no explosion in the Big Bang. Matter does NOT move through space in the basic Big Bang model: space itself is expanding.
That's a weasel point.

It makes no difference if matter is moving through space or space is expanding.

A cannot be both A and non-A. Going from A to non-A requires cause.

The logic is unaffected, and yours is incoherent.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1482 May 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If the "Big Bang" is an event, the substance of the event has to exhibit both "explosion" and "non-explosion".[/QU ITE]

Polymath wrote:
Technically, the singularity is NOT an event. It has no spacetime location because time cannot be extended to the singularity.

And the Big Bang was NOT an explosion.
----------

What was it then?

You are not trying to claim it did not occur.

So it was something.

It cannot be both A and non-A, therefore, a cause is required for A.

Substiute any term you like.

Take out "explosion" and substitute "fart".

It matters not in the least to the critical point, and you are wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1483 May 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a weasel point.
It makes no difference if matter is moving through space or space is expanding.
A cannot be both A and non-A. Going from A to non-A requires cause.
Wrong. There is no 'going from A to not-A' happening here. And, in any case, why would that require a cause?
The logic is unaffected, and yours is incoherent.
No, your understanding is just deficient.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min IB DaMann 61,687
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr Dogen 2,757
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 6 hr Uncle Sam 97
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 7 hr nanoanomaly 5,971
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 13 hr Regolith Based Li... 28,326
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Mar 22 Eagle 12 452
Deconversion Mar 20 Eagle 12 138
More from around the web