| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NewBeliever
Intern
Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 60
Local time: 8:41 PM
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: Is this true? |
  |
|
I came across this today. I was wondering if anyone knows how true it is.
It stated:
"The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins), the scientific community has now proposed roughly 50 different IUT variants. Scientists hope that one of the current IUTs will sire an accurate reconstruction of the birth of our universe, though it is universally acknowledged that all of the current IUTs have their problems. It seems the only way to get realistic calculations to match an IUT model is to make assumptions... " |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
hillbillyatheist
Administrator
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 16072
Local time: 8:41 PM
Location: Denver Colorado.
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:08 pm Post subject: Re: Is this true? |
|
|
| NewBeliever wrote: | I came across this today. I was wondering if anyone knows how true it is.
It stated:
"The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins), the scientific community has now proposed roughly 50 different IUT variants. Scientists hope that one of the current IUTs will sire an accurate reconstruction of the birth of our universe, though it is universally acknowledged that all of the current IUTs have their problems. It seems the only way to get realistic calculations to match an IUT model is to make assumptions... " |
personally I don't know, as I don't keep up with my astronomy, but I still can see where this is going.
your argument is "scientists can't really determine where the universe came from, that proves god created it"
but it doesn't. all it would prove is that we don't know how this universe started (or even if it started at all)
imagine yourself back in the days of greek mythology and someone saying, "our scientists don't know what lighting is and thats because its thor the thunder god"
and you should see why your argument fails.
for you to win you would have to give PROOF that your god started it all. got any? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sal1981
Do you hear me now?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2799
Local time: 1:41 AM
Location: Behind the computer
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What's IUT?
_________________
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman
"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nimitz
Guest
Local time: 11:41 AM
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Another attempt to shift the burden. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gerard
Worshipper of the Solstice
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 4077
Local time: 1:41 AM
Location: Groningen, the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sal1981 wrote: | | What's IUT? |
Inflationary Universe Theories.
You can read this stuff here:
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/origin-of-the-universe.htm
The page tries to suggest that the Big Bang was an
| Quote: | | effort to propose an atheistic mechanism for the origin of the universe. |
the suggestion being that we are stuck with an ex-nihilo event that somehow has to be explained in pure materialistic terms, which is neccesary for their argument.
Hence:
| Quote: | The third option, the universe has always been here, is no longer a feasible alternative -- it contradicts empirical science. No other scientifically plausible theories for the origin of the universe have ever been proposed.
The implications of various 20th century discoveries have put atheists in an awkward position. Logic now requires that they identify an uncontrolled mechanism by which the universe could have initiated, designed, created and developed itself without an Intelligent Director. |
The reason why the universe could not always have been there and what empirical science would contradict that is not very clearly clarified. I suppose it will come down to the assumption that a.) the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and b.) entropy increasing as per 2nd LOT.
| Quote: | | Einstein’s theory of gravity (which has been thoroughly validated by extensive experimental confirmation) and Hubble’s astronomical observations preclude an eternal universe. We now know beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe began at some point in the finite past. |
This is of course only a given if you presuppose a. There is no reason to do that, making b. irrelevant to the particular rationalisation that is put forward here.
Gerard
_________________
The Historical Atlas of Europe
But as man exists in nature, I am not authorized to say that his formation, is above the power of nature.
Paul Henri Thiry Baron d' Holbach, (1723-1789)
Not collecting stamps is my hobby.
Gerard, (1962-*) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OrdinaryClay
Royal Citizen
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 384
Local time: 8:41 PM
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gerard wrote: |
The reason why the universe could not always have been there and what empirical science would contradict that is not very clearly clarified. I suppose it will come down to the assumption that a.) the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and b.) entropy increasing as per 2nd LOT.
| Quote: | | Einstein’s theory of gravity (which has been thoroughly validated by extensive experimental confirmation) and Hubble’s astronomical observations preclude an eternal universe. We now know beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe began at some point in the finite past. |
This is of course only a given if you presuppose a. There is no reason to do that, making b. irrelevant to the particular rationalisation that is put forward here.
|
There are disagreements amongst physicists about very, very early points in the history of the universe. That is clear, but there are notable ones who believe the science supports an initial boundary and an eternal future.
http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OrdinaryClay
Royal Citizen
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 384
Local time: 8:41 PM
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:09 pm Post subject: Re: Is this true? |
|
|
| NewBeliever wrote: | I came across this today. I was wondering if anyone knows how true it is.
It stated:
"The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins), the scientific community has now proposed roughly 50 different IUT variants. Scientists hope that one of the current IUTs will sire an accurate reconstruction of the birth of our universe, though it is universally acknowledged that all of the current IUTs have their problems. It seems the only way to get realistic calculations to match an IUT model is to make assumptions... " |
I think it is. I'm certainly not a cosmologist, but my understanding is that the calculations in any IUT can be tweaked and can result in different results. A good book on how the whole Inflationary Theory of the universe came about is by the guy who came up with it - Alan Guth. He wrote "The Inflationary Universe" to describe how and why he came up with the idea. Pretty good book. It is a little dated, especially with all the string theory stuff going on now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NewBeliever
Intern
Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 60
Local time: 8:41 PM
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
you guys are funny.
I only asked a question. I even put it in the religion section.
This is just a test of my atheistic manors:
Hey, You fat hick, You wouldn't know proof if it was on your plate of hog shit you fat fuck.
Your next thought? My guess:
"Hmmm, I wonder if he hers a purrty mouth?"
or
“SUUUEEEEWWWW, his arse smells ohhhh soooo good.”
How were they?
I just messin, most forums I don't get to respond like that.
*** EDIT***
Gerard and Ordclay
Thanks guys, I will check them out. Bullshit abounds on both sides and it hard to sift it all out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sal1981
Do you hear me now?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2799
Local time: 1:41 AM
Location: Behind the computer
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ooooooooook
We know how the universe looked like 10^-43 seconds after what we call the Big Bang. Everything before those 10^-43 seconds is speculation.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html
| Quote: | Before 1 Planck Time
Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10^-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period. |
_________________
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman
"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23105
Local time: 8:41 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sal1981 wrote: | Ooooooooook
We know how the universe looked like 10^-49 seconds after what we call the Big Bang. Everything before those 10^-43 seconds is speculation. |
exactly right.
the God of the Gaps has now been squeezed into 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of second. congrats, theists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NewBeliever
Intern
Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 60
Local time: 8:41 PM
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | Sal1981 wrote: | Ooooooooook
We know how the universe looked like 10^-49 seconds after what we call the Big Bang. Everything before those 10^-43 seconds is speculation. |
exactly right.
the God of the Gaps has now been squeezed into 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of second. congrats, theists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time |
God of Gaps is wrong totally here.
Are you saying that as soon as we can describe it mathematically that means no God?
Is Mathematics is the proof of no god?
That we have a math equation for something proves no God?
Are you saying that because we know some of the physical laws of the universe (like E=MC^2) that proves no God?
lets see if I got it:
2+2=4
oh my _____ , I was wrong. ALL WRONG there is no God.
you atheist are right.
lmao
If bullshit had wings ... I be in (as in; part of one) a flock of bullshit birds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23105
Local time: 8:41 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
if we can explain the universe, what need is there of god? if your god is so easily understood, he's not much of a deity, now is he?
what need is there of 'faith' when we have facts?
your god is impotent and useless.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
