Originally posted by AThousandYoung "The beginning of time" refers to a point before which we can know nothing. That does not mean that the matter did not exist before then.
actually it does, since matter can not exist without space, and [b]time
Originally posted by AThousandYoung What makes you think this? General Relativity tells us that the universe was once a point of infinite density and zero volume.
i said matter cannot exist without space and time. you are telling me that space can exist without matter, that means nothing to me. it does nothing to disprove what i have just said.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenom i said matter cannot exist without space and time. you are telling me that space can exist without matter, that means nothing to me. it does nothing to disprove what i have just said.
No, I said matter existed without space, before time.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenom you obviously didnt pay attention to the video, or did not watch it all. he does use proof, matter can not be destroyed or created, and since it exists in time, it had a beginning, implying that an entity created it, an entity that exists outside of time. he says it is god, but i say it is an unknown entity at this moment.
That is based on a whole lot of assumptions. Firstly science has not yet shown that time had a beginning. Science has not shown that the observable universe is the entire universe. Science has not shown that every entity must have a creator in fact that contradicts your earlier statement that matter can not be created - a statement that science has already proved is totally false. Matter can and is created and destroyed (nuclear power, the sun etc)
The whole idea that if the universe appeared from nowhere therefore it must have been created is flawed in so many ways. It is little more than a guess based on a misunderstanding of the workings of the currently observable universe.
Originally posted by twhitehead That is based on a whole lot of assumptions. Firstly science has not yet shown that time had a beginning. Science has not shown that the observable universe is the entire universe. Science has not shown that every entity must have a creator in fact that contradicts your earlier statement that matter can not be created - a statement that science has alread ...[text shortened]... e than a guess based on a misunderstanding of the workings of the currently observable universe.
all theories on how we came to be are based on assumptions. time having a beginning is one of those assumptions. i did not contradict myself, i said that matter can not be created, EXCEPT by an entity outside of our universe. also i would like you to show me where matter has been destroyed, not just broken down.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenom all theories on how we came to be are based on assumptions. time having a beginning is one of those assumptions. i did not contradict myself, i said that matter can not be created, EXCEPT by an entity outside of our universe. also i would like you to show me where matter has been destroyed, not just broken down.
Time having a beginning is not an assumption that is used in any scientific theory that I know of. Do you know of one? please share!
Matter can be converted to energy as I am sure you know. The matter no longer exists. It has therefore been destroyed. It is not simply broken down.
What it all comes down to is that EcstremeVenom simply doesn't understand the science. It's too complicated for him. Rather than concede that his comprehension is deficient, he assumes that science is deficient, and therefore presumes that god wins by default.
Originally posted by whodey Science can peer back as far as the Big Bang and no further so in that respect that is our beginning as far as they are know or will ever know.
Not so. Science can not peer as far back as the Big Bang and there is no good reason to assume that we cannot know anything before that or whether or not there was a 'before that'. You sound very similar to someone who claims that you cannot travel beyond the edge of the earth (as you may fall off or get eaten by sea monsters).
ps There are a number of hypothesis which propose that the visible universe is not the whole universe and more importantly that it should be possible to test whether or not they are correct ie detect the non-visible parts.
Originally posted by Iron Monkey I'm pretty sure most people posting in this thread don't understand the science.
What science? The original poster wasn't talking about science, he was talking about God, and some mumbo jumbo he had conjured up to make himself feel better about deluding himself.
Originally posted by rwingett What it all comes down to is that EcstremeVenom simply doesn't understand the science. It's too complicated for him. Rather than concede that his comprehension is deficient, he assumes that science is deficient, and therefore presumes that god wins by default.
or the sources i am using are from theists who do not understand science. or you just do not understand religion.
Originally posted by twhitehead What science? The original poster wasn't talking about science, he was talking about God, and some mumbo jumbo he had conjured up to make himself feel better about deluding himself.
he does use science in some of his videos, also, many atheists/agnostics jump to a conclusion that anything a theist says is nonsense. "he is just a theist, what does he know?" sort of thing. no matter how much of a scientist a theist may be, his theories will always be nonsense to an atheist/agnostic
16 Dec '07 07:15
i am now a believer.
Back to Top