The Universe

Damaged Eagle wrote:If you agree with science holding all the answers to the universe then I don't understand your problem.....

When did I ever say science holds all the answers to the universe? You really can't read can you?

boards of FL wrote:"But what caused the universe to start expanding?" I don't know, and I'm comfortable with that. I feel no need to fill in the gaps with old fairy-tales.

Enjoy your conversation with yourself. What BS arguments will you attribute to me next? That you cannot manage to read and directly respond is not my problem.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

The same holds true for the question of why the universe suddenly kick started only fifteen billion years ago and what caused it to occur thereby defying Newton's Three Laws of Motion.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

This is where I entered the original dialectic on this subject way back in my redding.com days. One poster, in the now defunct forums, was discussing the point using Aristotle's Prime Mover as part of the exploration. He wasn't trying to prove anything using the philosophy of Aristotle, just trying to broaden one's way of thinking. From there it eventually segued into Descartes' Ontological Argument and beyond.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

The same holds true for the question of why the universe suddenly kick started only fifteen billion years ago and what caused it to occur thereby defying Newton's Three Laws of Motion.

How does the Big Bang defy Newton's Laws?

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

The body (a universal size black hole) was at rest prior to the beginning of the expanding universe 14-15 billion years ago.

What external force was applied to it to cause it to change into a expanding universe?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb0Oop1nnvk



...Pay attention Bob we already covered this.

[quote="boards of FL"]

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:If you agree with science holding all the answers to the universe then I don't understand your problem.....

When did I ever say science holds all the answers to the universe? You really can't read can you?

Then what are you saying with this statement?...

boards of FL wrote:Or, put another way, on one hand you have cave dwellers with whatever knowledge they possessed thousands of years ago, and then you have highly educated people of today, with all of their powerful instruments and technology.

Cave dwellers from thousands of years ago vs scientists of today.

Not once in this discussion have you been able to show that your belief in science is any better at proving that you know so much more than those you criticize in the red highlighted statement.

Is this just another example of your discrimination and prejudice towards other beliefs and methods of doing things?

Even Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, the Inca's, the Mayan's, the Aztec's, etc... have had creation beliefs.

What makes yours so much better?

boards of FL wrote:Enjoy your conversation with yourself.

I thought I was conversing with you.

boards of FL wrote:What BS arguments will you attribute to me next?

I don't know... What bullshit statements are you going to try to say next?

Just how small do you think the universe will get as we travel back in time?

It can't simply wink out of existence. That would defy the Laws Of Conservation of Matter and Energy...

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

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

Therefore as we go back in time the universe will finally become a universal size black hole whose size is governed by the amount of mass/energy it contains.

boards of FL wrote:That you cannot manage to read and directly respond is not my problem.

I read just fine...

...It's not my fault you don't know anything about science and most especially astrophysics...



...But I do.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB3b1W6rEDw

ImpishScoundrel wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:
The same holds true for the question of why the universe suddenly kick started only fifteen billion years ago and what caused it to occur thereby defying Newton's Three Laws of Motion.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

This is where I entered the original dialectic on this subject way back in my redding.com days. One poster, in the now defunct forums, was discussing the point using Aristotle's Prime Mover as part of the exploration. He wasn't trying to prove anything using the philosophy of Aristotle, just trying to broaden one's way of thinking. From there it eventually segued into Descartes' Ontological Argument and beyond.

I understand and I've been trying to make that point with BOF.

I'ma thinkin' that BOF is having a hard time with it though.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-R8gHj_7v8

This whole thing is like trying to think way backwards. Like if I had to think back to the beginning of a car...all the way back to the steam shovel digging the iron out of the ground. We will never know how many unseen forces acted to build this complex system or it's possibly humble beginning. BUT a little mental masturbation helps to pass the time<-( whatever that is).

For every question that science answers many more questions spring up to take it's place.

In many ways it's like the old legend of cutting off the heads of the...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h15mYcJc6zw

TEOTWAWKI wrote:This whole thing is like trying to think way backwards. Like if I had to think back to the beginning of a car...all the way back to the steam shovel digging the iron out of the ground. We will never know how many unseen forces acted to build this complex system or it's possibly humble beginning. BUT a little mental masturbation helps to pass the time<-( whatever that is).

Whenever we think we've figured it out, all we have to ask is "what happened before that?".
In other words, what happened BEFORE the Big Bang? What happened BEFORE what happened BEFORE the Big Bang? And ad infinitum.
And the same holds true for God creating the universe. What created God? And what created whatever it was that created God?

The thing that tickles me most, is that since I've been old enough to observe the discussion about all this, I've always seen it invariably lead to argument and ill will. Everyone wants to understand it and thinks he understands it and that becomes in conflict with the others who think they understand it differently. And argument always ensues. My christian god is better than your muslim god so you're an asshole. My explanation for the origin of life is better than your explanation so you're an asshole.
When in reality none of us knows shit and likely never will.
It's a hoot?

Bob wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:This whole thing is like trying to think way backwards. Like if I had to think back to the beginning of a car...all the way back to the steam shovel digging the iron out of the ground. We will never know how many unseen forces acted to build this complex system or it's possibly humble beginning. BUT a little mental masturbation helps to pass the time<-( whatever that is).

Whenever we think we've figured it out, all we have to ask is "what happened before that?".
In other words, what happened BEFORE the Big Bang? What happened BEFORE what happened BEFORE the Big Bang? And ad infinitum.
And the same holds true for God creating the universe. What created God? And what created whatever it was that created God?

The thing that tickles me most, is that since I've been old enough to observe the discussion about all this, I've always seen it invariably lead to argument and ill will. Everyone wants to understand it and thinks he understands it and that becomes in conflict with the others who think they understand it differently. And argument always ensues. My christian god is better than your muslim god so you're an asshole. My explanation for the origin of life is better than your explanation so you're an asshole.
When in reality none of us knows shit and likely never will.
It's a hoot?

Arguments like this do tend to lead to what happened before that type of questions...

Isn't it great? It's just like a big bouncing...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9aHrgtf2zY



As for people getting pissed off... If they can't handle the heat they shouldn't live in glass houses.

What if something evolves? Who claims the universe had to have a start? I've always found the idea that there was nothing and then an explosion, the result of which is what we now call the universe, incredible.

In order for something to explode, something had to be there BEFORE the bang.

The truth is, it's like death. Nobody who exists knows for sure if anything happens after the event.

But so what? Whatever our fate, we'll get there. On these lines, I agree with Bob -- the answers just aren't there and I can live without them.

Damaged Eagle wrote:Not once in this discussion have you been able to show that your belief in science is any better at proving that you know so much more than those you criticize in the red highlighted statement.

Would you agree that as time moves forward, man's understanding of the universe increases? Don't we learn more about our world as we spend more time here? We used to think the earth was flat. No we know it is not. We used to thing the earth was the center of the universe. Now we know it is not. We used to attribute things like seasonal changes, storms, and other weather-related phenomena to gods. Now we can explain those scientifically. Do you agree with all of this?

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Enjoy your conversation with yourself.

I thought I was conversing with you.

You are conversing with someone who apparently claims that a prior instance of our universe collapsed back on itself and formed a black hole, which ultimate exploded again and created our current universe. This person that you have made up also apparently claims that science currently holds the answer to all questions. I have said none of the above, so...

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:What BS arguments will you attribute to me next?

I don't know... What bullshit statements are you going to try to say next?

Can you give me an example of a bullshit statement that I have made?

Damaged Eagle wrote:Therefore as we go back in time the universe will finally become a universal size black hole whose size is governed by the amount of mass/energy it contains.

You're assuming that matter existed before the expansion. We do not know for sure that that was the case. I'm beginning to wonder if you really even understand the concept of the big bang. Everything you have said in this thread thus far suggest that you do not:

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

From the wiki article:

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago,[2][3][4][5][6][7] which is thus considered the age of the universe.[8][9][10][11] After this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei could have formed quickly, thousands of years were needed before the appearance of the first electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:That you cannot manage to read and directly respond is not my problem.

I read just fine...

Perhaps you do. Its just the comprehension part that escapes you.

Damaged Eagle wrote:...It's not my fault you don't know anything about science and most especially astrophysics...

Guy who can't read good and thinks the big bang theory involves an exploding black hole is telling me that I don't know anything about science and astrophysics.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Not once in this discussion have you been able to show that your belief in science is any better at proving that you know so much more than those you criticize in the red highlighted statement.

Would you agree that as time moves forward, man's understanding of the universe increases?

Not necessarily.

boards of FL wrote:Don't we learn more about our world as we spend more time here?

Do we?

Are you sure the predictions of science are not just childish metaphors that show similarity but really have nothing to do with the true nature of the universe?

boards of FL wrote:We used to think the earth was flat. No we know it is not. We used to thing the earth was the center of the universe. Now we know it is not. We used to attribute things like seasonal changes, storms, and other weather-related phenomena to gods. Now we can explain those scientifically. Do you agree with all of this?

So the shaman of science have better tools at predicting certain things. It does not necessarily mean that their methods are better. How many more people can man now kill more efficiently because he now has these tools?

Has man learned to quell his killing instinct? I think not... Man is still an aggressive animal who will kill his own brother to possess what he has. This story is as old as Cain and Able.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi_sYZ86ka4

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Enjoy your conversation with yourself.

I thought I was conversing with you.

You are conversing with someone who apparently claims that a prior instance of our universe collapsed back on itself and formed a black hole, which ultimate exploded again and created our current universe. This person that you have made up also apparently claims that science currently holds the answer to all questions. I have said none of the above, so...

So now you deny what science says happened?

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:What BS arguments will you attribute to me next?

I don't know... What bullshit statements are you going to try to say next?

Can you give me an example of a bullshit statement that I have made?

See below...

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Therefore as we go back in time the universe will finally become a universal size black hole whose size is governed by the amount of mass/energy it contains.

You're assuming that matter existed before the expansion. We do not know for sure that that was the case. I'm beginning to wonder if you really even understand the concept of the big bang. Everything you have said in this thread thus far suggest that you do not:

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

From the wiki article:

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago,[2][3][4][5][6][7] which is thus considered the age of the universe.[8][9][10][11] After this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei could have formed quickly, thousands of years were needed before the appearance of the first electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

Where does it state in your quoted article that there was nothing there to begin with?

That defies the Laws Of Conservation of Mass and Energy.

Looks like you're now saying that a miracle occurred.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:That you cannot manage to read and directly respond is not my problem.

I read just fine...

Perhaps you do. Its just the comprehension part that escapes you.

Perhaps you'd better read your article again and explain where all that mass and energy came from.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:...It's not my fault you don't know anything about science and most especially astrophysics...

Guy who can't read good and thinks the big bang theory involves an exploding black hole is telling me that I don't know anything about science and astrophysics.

Yes I am unless you're saying a miracle occurred... In which case you're admitting that God did have a helping hand in creating the universe.



*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtzIWPeun7c&list=PL15D2FB6E422EC88B

boards of FL wrote:

Would you agree that as time moves forward, man's understanding of the universe increases? Don't we learn more about our world as we spend more time here? We used to think the earth was flat. No we know it is not. We used to thing the earth was the center of the universe. Now we know it is not. We used to attribute things like seasonal changes, storms, and other weather-related phenomena to gods. Now we can explain those scientifically. Do you agree with all of this?

I'm with you 100%. The discovery of science is what has given us a limited understanding of our natural environment (our concept of "universe") and it will continue to do so. And it could eventually give us an explanation for the origin of life on Earth.

That really needs to be separated out of the other discussion. The one which relates to the nature of existence.
Two very distinct and unrelated issues.

Damaged Eagle wrote:So the shaman of science have better tools at predicting certain things. It does not necessarily mean that their methods are better.

Well. Ancient man looked around and said "World flat". Today, we get inside spaceships and fly out to space and confirm the world is round. We can also confirm many other things about our universe that the ancient man could not even comprehend.

If you don't see that as gaining a better understanding of our surroundings over time, well...

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Therefore as we go back in time the universe will finally become a universal size black hole whose size is governed by the amount of mass/energy it contains.

You're assuming that matter existed before the expansion. We do not know for sure that that was the case. I'm beginning to wonder if you really even understand the concept of the big bang. Everything you have said in this thread thus far suggest that you do not:

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

From the wiki article:

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago,[2][3][4][5][6][7] which is thus considered the age of the universe.[8][9][10][11] After this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei could have formed quickly, thousands of years were needed before the appearance of the first electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

Where does it state in your quoted article that there was nothing there to begin with?

Uh...it doesn't? And no one has ever made such a claim? Having problems reading again? Seriously, from where are you getting the idea that anyone said "there was nothing to begin with"? Can you quote, specifically, whatever it is that you're reading that leads you to such a conclusion?

Damaged Eagle wrote:
So the shaman of science have better tools at predicting certain things. It does not necessarily mean that their methods are better. How many more people can man now kill more efficiently because he now has these tools?

There is a real popular misunderstanding of what science is. And I have grave suspicions that if you ask a high school graduate to define what science is that most would not be able to.
Science is not a man in a white lab coat. Not an A-Bomb. Not a microprocessor. And not a "miracle drug".

Science is a method for determining what is valid. It does so by attempting to exclude any conclusion which is based on "what we want to believe" or any pre-conceived biases or anything else which cannot be verified with the scientific method.
It's really as simple as that. What science is used for has nothing to do with the method of science per se.

When science is polluted with politics (left or right) or religion, it's not science even though it's claimed to be. It then becomes the very thing science by definition wants to exclude.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:
So the shaman of science have better tools at predicting certain things. It does not necessarily mean that their methods are better. How many more people can man now kill more efficiently because he now has these tools?

There is a real popular misunderstanding of what science is. And I have grave suspicions that if you ask a high school graduate to define what science is that most would not be able to.
Science is not a man in a white lab coat. Not an A-Bomb. Not a microprocessor. And not a "miracle drug".

Science is a method for determining what is valid. It does so by attempting to exclude any conclusion which is based on "what we want to believe" or any pre-conceived biases or anything else which cannot be verified with the scientific method.
It's really as simple as that. What science is used for has nothing to do with the method of science per se.

When science is polluted with politics or religion it's not science even though it's claimed to be. It then becomes the very thing science by definition wants to exclude.

surely you must believe in global warming...Algore says sooo...

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

surely you must believe in global warming...Algore says sooo...

When the scientific method (and by that I mean pure unpolluted science) is applied to the issue of climate change, I will accept the findings.

I believe there already could be data obtained by the scientific method to provide us valid conclusions about climate change. But the "messengers" for that data are now so suspect and polluted by politics (both left and right) that it's impossible for me to even get interested in it, let alone accept it.

I despise and loathe "political science". And my use of the term is different from from the accepted definition. I use the term to describe a bastardization of science.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:So the shaman of science have better tools at predicting certain things. It does not necessarily mean that their methods are better.

Well. Ancient man looked around and said "World flat". Today, we get inside spaceships and fly out to space and confirm the world is round. We can also confirm many other things about our universe that the ancient man could not even comprehend.

If you don't see that as gaining a better understanding of our surroundings over time, well...

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Therefore as we go back in time the universe will finally become a universal size black hole whose size is governed by the amount of mass/energy it contains.

You're assuming that matter existed before the expansion. We do not know for sure that that was the case. I'm beginning to wonder if you really even understand the concept of the big bang. Everything you have said in this thread thus far suggest that you do not:

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

From the wiki article:

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago,[2][3][4][5][6][7] which is thus considered the age of the universe.[8][9][10][11] After this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei could have formed quickly, thousands of years were needed before the appearance of the first electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

Where does it state in your quoted article that there was nothing there to begin with?

Uh...it doesn't? And no one has ever made such a claim? Having problems reading again? Seriously, from where are you getting the idea that anyone said "there was nothing to begin with"? Can you quote, specifically, whatever it is that you're reading that leads you to such a conclusion?

I'm not making any conclusions. I'm merely making observations... Isn't that what a good scientist does?..... Are you having problems comprehending what you're reading?

So what was there 14 to 15 billion years ago if it wasn't a universal size black hole?

The energizer bunny?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:
So the shaman of science have better tools at predicting certain things. It does not necessarily mean that their methods are better. How many more people can man now kill more efficiently because he now has these tools?

There is a real popular misunderstanding of what science is. And I have grave suspicions that if you ask a high school graduate to define what science is that most would not be able to.
Science is not a man in a white lab coat. Not an A-Bomb. Not a microprocessor. And not a "miracle drug".

Science is a method for determining what is valid. It does so by attempting to exclude any conclusion which is based on "what we want to believe" or any pre-conceived biases or anything else which cannot be verified with the scientific method.
It's really as simple as that. What science is used for has nothing to do with the method of science per se.

When science is polluted with politics (left or right) or religion, it's not science even though it's claimed to be. It then becomes the very thing science by definition wants to exclude.

As I've asked on the last page...

Are you sure the predictions of science are not just childish metaphors that show similarity but really have nothing to do with the true nature of the universe?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfHjkKXu0oA

Damaged Eagle wrote:

As I've asked on the last page...

Are you sure the predictions of science are not just childish metaphors that show similarity but really have nothing to do with the true nature of the universe?

Again, science is a construct of human intellect. It provided humans with an improved method of arriving at conclusions. Before we had science, society as a whole arrived at conclusions because those who had been designated (or designated themselves) clergymen told us what was valid. Our conclusions were based on opinion.
Whatever the Pope (or whoever) believed was considered the source of truth and validity.
I think it's arguable that science gave us a better method than that to arrive at what was valid. You may not think that's a better method, I don't know. But if you don't, I don't share your opinion.

As to your specific question: do I think "the predictions of science are not just childish metaphors that show similarity but really have nothing to do with the true nature of the universe?"

"The true nature of the universe" is a big question. Is science capable of explaining the "true nature of the universe". I'm not sure. I suppose with enough time it's possible. But of course the concept of the "universe" is not the same as the truly fundamental question I always harken back to. That question being "what is the nature of all existence".
And no I don't necessarily see anything about science as being a "childish metaphor". Not actual science. The polluted science of Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh may be that, but as I have already said, that's not science.

Bob wrote:
Again, science is a construct of human intellect. It provided humans with an improved method of arriving at conclusions. Before we had science, society as a whole arrived at conclusions because those who had been designated (or designated themselves) clergymen told us what was valid. Our conclusions were based on opinion.
Whatever the Pope (or whoever) believed was considered the source of truth and validity.
I think it's arguable that science gave us a better method than that to arrive at what was valid. You may not think that's a better method, I don't know. But if you don't, I don't share your opinion.

My own beliefs about what is or is not are my own. If you choose to jump to conclusions about me you are free to do so... That doesn't make them right.

Me thinks you miss the point I'm making with your friend.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSR6ZzjDZ94

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Me thinks you miss the point I'm making with your friend.

Sorry I don't understand. Who is my friend and what is the point I'm missing. State it again and I'll try to respond.