Is the bible a fairy tale?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1504 May 17, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>How do you know that?
Evidence provided by reality.
susanblange wrote:
I don't believe that.
Then you don't believe in reality.
susanblange wrote:
I'm going to believe and trust in God and his word.
Christians believe and trust in God and "His Word". Muslims believe and trust in God and "His Word". Jews believe and trust in God and "His Word". You believe and trust in God and "His Word".

In actual fact none of you have "His Word". All any of you have is an old book and a bunch of dreams.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1505 May 17, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>The pen is mightier than the sword. God ended the cold war with his words. Zechariah 6:8. And has also killed with words, "...and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked". Isaiah 11:4. I wouldn't underestimate the power of Gods spoken word.
I didn't. His words are magic. KJV is just playing petty word games to differentiate Godmagic from "other" magic, as if there's any discernible difference other than the person doing the magical poofing.

It may be an incredibly important point for him, not so for anyone else.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1506 May 17, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>"Fools despise wisdom and instruction"
Which is why creationists find ignorance a virtue.
Imhotep

Windermere, FL

#1507 May 17, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Have you ever heard the song Imagine by John Lennon? No religion and REM, I'm losing my religion. "The Lord is my Rock, my strength and my song". "Behold their sitting down and their rising up, I am their music" Lamentations 3:63. There will be a golden age but it will be ushered in by a God the world does not know.
You missed another catchy tune!

http://touch.dailymotion.com/video/xe4g4w_jes...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1508 May 17, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>"Fools despise wisdom and instruction"
Agreed, but you don't seem to apply that to yourself.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1509 May 17, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>"Fools despise wisdom and instruction"
And the wise despise ignorance and superstition.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1510 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
At any time, there space was expanding. There was no 'going from A to not-A' because there was no time in which 'A' was the case.
<quoted text>
False. And irrelevant.


"A" is the singularity.

"Non-A" is the expansion.

The instant in which the universe is thought to have begun rapidly expanding from a singularity is known as the "Big Bang"

If what you claim is true, and it is not, then it would be impossible for scientists to speak in terms of "x number of seconds into the expansion".

It would be also impossible to say expansion, or inflation occurred.

What you are saying is the Big Bang was not an event, and did not happen.

And all that to be able to deny causality.

You are a religious zealot.

KJV

United States

#1511 May 17, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
All you guys and gals.
I laugh my ass off at your claims.
Go ahead give me another proven fact like evolution. I alway like that one. Or how the mighty Colorado river flowed up hill to make the grand cannon that's a good one too. "

I see you still refuse read any real textbooks.

Why do you choose to be ignorant?
"Nothing" exploding to create everything LOL
KJV

United States

#1512 May 17, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
All you guys and gals.
I laugh my ass off at your claims.
Go ahead give me another proven fact like evolution. I alway like that one. Or how the mighty Colorado river flowed up hill to make the grand cannon that's a good one too. "

Atheists make no claims. Theists are the ones who lie about god and deny the fact of evolution.

You demonstrate your "higher morals" to us with every lie you tell.
What existed when there was no time, energy, matter & space?

I realize you're a simpleton so I don't expect an answer.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1513 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

Given the nature of causality, the universe *cannot* have a cause because causes are always *in* the universe.
Are they now?

Well, you'll have to excuse me. I did not know that you are aware of all causality.

I also was not aware that you have the knowledge of whether any existence is possible independently of the known universe.

It seems I underestimated you.

I did not know that you are a god.

But let me ask you, Lord.

If you opened the door to a dark closet, and someone inside it shot you between the eyes with a shotgun, would you insist you were not shot because, as you know, there is nobody in your closet?

No, you are not a god.

What you are is a liar, and a religious zealot.

KJV

United States

#1514 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Which is not what any scientific theory says.
[QUOTE]God did it."

Prove it.

[QUOTE]Because God created them. With out God they would not exist. As in what was there when there was not the Big Bang or its after math."

Nonsense.

[QUOTE]Why do you believe that the Big Bang just happened when there was nothing (nothing as in the absences of everything) to feed it?
Weird!
"

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.
I'm not talking about the Big Bang theory as I have stated many times.
I am discussing what was there when there was "no" Time, Space, Matter & Energy. In other words what existed when there was no Big Bang or Big Bang after math. And please no "north of the North Pole statements". Shlts getting old.

Does a 2 dimensional plane really exist?
KJV

United States

#1515 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.

[QUOTE]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.
Please define "space" that has no Time, no Matter and No energy.
KJV

United States

#1516 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.

[QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE]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.
"Once again, the misunderstanding between space itself expanding and stuff moving through space."

What is space with out all matter and energy and time. What would this space look like?
KJV

United States

#1517 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[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.
"

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.
Is the universe expanding?

The scientific answer is "Yes"

If its expanding then it has an edge right next to where it doesn't exist.
KJV

United States

#1518 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Ans: there *is* no barrier!
[QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE]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.
"Ans: there *is* no barrier!"

Is the universe expanding?
Science says yes.
Then there is an edge / barrier.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1519 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey,*your* lack of understanding doesn't mean I am a liar. We clearly exist. And the best description for why we exist is the Big Bang scenario.
Can't be.

You just eliminated the Big Bang, as you claim there is "no time" when it could have happened.

You also eliminated the birth of the universe, as you say there is "no time" when it could have started.

Nothing happened, because there was "no time".

We do not exist.
KJV

United States

#1520 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Ans: there *is* no barrier!
[QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE]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.
"Actually, in the Big Bang theory, there are two possibilities:"

This is just plan BS.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1521 May 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why creationists find ignorance a virtue.
Then they must consider you a saint.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1522 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the wise despise ignorance and superstition.
If you meet one, you could ask him.
KJV

United States

#1523 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[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.
"

You do realize all of this is just a rhetorical lead-up to the introduction of string theory, right?
String Theory has failed every test put to it. It has not passed one test. Not one

Doc String theory is a myth, it's dead it's no longer science. Get over it. The LSD trip that lead to string theory is over!

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) 23 min 15th Dalai Lama 77,159
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 2 hr yehoshooah adam 4,340
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 4 hr Frindly 1,097
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Frindly 32,304
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 5 hr Frindly 948
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 15 hr Aerobatty 258,484
Atheists are subhuman filth that need to be exe... Wed Roec 1
More from around the web