|
there is no G-d? religion is bull? read this and I DARE YOU TO ARGUE :) (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJBARON |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Well, the same thing you can then say about the universe itself. It too does not need a creator, it may have always existed as well. And as far as perfection goes, it never seems to break any of its laws. So in a sense, it is perfect as well.
|
how can you say that about the universe? The modern day theory as far as i know is the idea of an expanding universe. The currently held theory about the big bang, which is very plausable, suggests a beginning. I heard there is a recent theory that creation began through a burst of information or something? I'm sure you have heard about this.... This is also seen within the first 2 words of the bible, which read in a way reads "created with wisdom" relating back to the modern day theory.
and the universe has phenomenons all the time man. What your saying is also perfectly fine according to Jewish law and interpritation.
[about the G-d thing i'll call Him by the name we use in hebrew, HA-SHEM {the - name}]
What im saying is that maybe the definition of Hashem we have all been accustomed to in the western world is in fact not remotely like what reality of the situation is.
jewish tradition speaks like this: Hashem created the universe in a way so that Hashem would be hidden from our views so that we have to really think logically and analyze the world so that we have to work for it.
In essense, on purpose Hashem created a totally perfectly working universe, so we can look at all aspects of this creation and marvel in the awe and try to gain a scope of how reality is. Look at all the creation, and if you can imagine that all the perfect working universe was created for the intellectual man that has the capacity to realize behind all this natural organization there exists a Creator, above all creation, that wants to bestow kindness onto us. Hashem therefore, created this world and universe so that if we did not seek the truth, we can easily get lost in the million and 1 theories out there...
by the way, what is a diest exactly??
| quote: |
Well, until recently, you were the only pro-israeli discussing this matter. Still, not participating in this debate that you so pompously call a real intellectual conversation does not indicate one's stupidity, rather one's lack of interest or indecission on the matter. Besides, you didn't come up by your arguments yourself as well, you just copy-pasted them from another site. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it doesn't tell anything about your own intellectual capabilities. Somehow I have a feeling you're not quite secure about yourself, as you both directly and indirectly keep mentioning your superb intellect. |
i started this thread with something by an accredited source..
you see, I know my views are generally different then most people on this board. Who is right? I know my answers are not subjective at all, and I know what I know is through objective logical analysis. And logical analysis can be wrong too! we can be logical and come to the wrong conclusions because we are missing something.
I am saying that on this subject, the only response I have heard from the anti-israel people which in my mind are seem lowly due to their incapability to distingush fact from feeling, only post BS posts.
I must admit I am surprised at the depth some people have here, you have impressed me very much so!
anyways i gotta do some stuff ill be back later... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJBARON
I am saying that on this subject, the only response I have heard from the anti-israel people which in my mind are seem lowly due to their incapability to distingush fact from feeling, only post BS posts. |
Strange, these are my sentiments exactly about any Creationist/IDer, minus the anti-israel part. Their inability to distinguish scientific fact and observation from their fundamental religious beliefs is all too evident. I believe that if you would like to discuss Creationism/ID topics, instead of posting a copy/paste article(s) that discusses a broad range of topics, pic a few out instead which grabs you the most and let's discuss those. Before you do, however, to savoid redundancy you might want to answer some of the refutations given to you, specifically those of probability and argument from incredulity. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJBARON
how can you say that about the universe? The modern day theory as far as i know is the idea of an expanding universe. The currently held theory about the big bang, which is very plausable, suggests a beginning. |
And what makes you so certain that was the beginning? Yes science can reveal what conditions were like in the universe as we know it, up until a fraction of a second after the big bang, however we have no idea of what preceded the big bang itself. For all we know, the big bang originated from a chicken. |
|
|
| surferfb |
| And it is suggested that the universe ends with a "big crunch" which is pretty much the opposite of the big bang. So the universe ends by going back to one point. Once that happens another big bang takes place. Therefore, universe has no beginning or end, but has always been there. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by surferfb
And it is suggested that the universe ends with a "big crunch" which is pretty much the opposite of the big bang. So the universe ends by going back to one point. Once that happens another big bang takes place. Therefore, universe has no beginning or end, but has always been there. |
That theory currentely isn't sitting pretty with most astrophysicists. They say now that there is not enough mass in the universe to halt its expansion. However, since we don't even know or understand the properties of 90% of the mass of the universe, I would be hesistant to close out that theory in its entirety. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
That theory currentely isn't sitting pretty with most astrophysicists. They say now that there is not enough mass in the universe to halt its expansion. However, since we don't even know or understand the properties of 90% of the mass of the universe, I would be hesistant to close out that theory in its entirety. |
If by your 90% figure you're referring to that ambiguous dark matter stuff, I higly doubt it will be able to stop the escape velocity of matter expanding outward. Little is known about this substance, but all indications point toward infinite expansion regardless. It's just too strong for gravity to take hold, though I could be wrong (and I'm sure I am). |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| We arent capable yet to understand all this universe mistery.. although if one sits to think about it, to me its very scary stuff....:nervous: |
|
|
| Renegade |
| I thought the Big Crunch theory was thrown out upon the discovery that the rate of the expansion of the universe was actually increasing? Surely if the universe were to contract once more, we would have seen a slowing rate of acceleration after the big bang? |
|
|
| rizen |
hey guys im posting this from the end of the universe, theres a door here, should i open it? it may be god or something out of men in black II
i wonder if the universe will countinue to expand or is there a limit? :conf: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
If by your 90% figure you're referring to that ambiguous dark matter stuff, I higly doubt it will be able to stop the escape velocity of matter expanding outward. Little is known about this substance, but all indications point toward infinite expansion regardless. It's just too strong for gravity to take hold, though I could be wrong (and I'm sure I am). |
Ah yes, well I can answer both your and Renegade's questions together quite convenientely. Yes I was referring to dark matter. And yes current indications are that the rate of expansion was actually increasing. Now from some lectures I attended a while ago, what's interesting is that the amount of dark matter in the universe is increasing as well. Some theorize that as the universe expands, this expansion creates more dark matter. What does that tell us? That dark matter, despite having mass, has attributes of self-repulsion! Actually, it is not so much the dark matter that exhibits attributes of self-repulsion but rather dark energy. Dark energy is a relatively new theory and in the past mass density alone would be the determinant of the fate of our universe. However, since the apparent acceleration of our universe is fueled by the role of dark energy, the fate of our universe has shifted to the role dark energy plays in controlling our acceleration. What is not known, is anything about the nature of dark energy ... whether it is something that decays or its equation of state changes, etc. Basically, could dark energy actually change its state and have properties of attraction in the future? Well, the article I was reading explains it much better:
| quote: |
After the introduction of inflationary theory or the very early universe by Guth (9), many theoretical cosmologists became convinced that the universe must be flat and that the total energy density must equal the value (termed the critical value) that distinguishes a positively curved, closed universe from a negatively curved, open universe. Furthermore, noting how the evidence for dark matter was growing and extrapolating from the previous decade of study, the theoretical cosmologists became attracted to the beguiling simplicity of a universe in which virtually all of the energy density consists of some form of matter, roughly 4% being the ordinary matter and 96% the dark matter. In fact, observational studies were never compliant to this vision. Although there was a wide dispersion in total mass density estimates, there never developed any convincing evidence that there was sufficient matter to reach the critical value. The discrepancy between observation and the favored theoretical model became increasingly sharp.
Finally, dark energy came to the rescue (10). The only thing dark energy has in common with dark matter is that both components neither emit nor absorb light. In all other respects, they are different. Microphysically, they are composed of different constituents. Most significantly, dark matter, like ordinary matter, is gravitationally self-attractive and clusters with ordinary matter to form galaxies. Dark energy is gravitationally self-repulsive and remains nearly uniformly spread throughout the universe. Hence, a census of the energy contained in all the galaxies would miss almost all of the dark energy. So, by positing the existence of a dark energy component, it became possible to account for the 70-80% discrepancy between the measured mass density and the critical energy density predicted by inflation (11, 12, 13, 14). But the dark energy dominated models make a strong prediction � that the universe is currently accelerating, due to the gravitational self-repulsion of the dominant dark energy component. This ran contrary to the then-current best observational tests based on the brightness of distant supernovae. Then, two independent groups (15, 16) found evidence of the acceleration from observations of supernovae, and the model with a dominant dark energy component became the concordance model of cosmology.
Dark energy has changed our view of the role of dark matter in the universe and our vocabulary for describing the cosmological possibilities. If this paper had been written a decade ago, before any serious consideration of dark energy, the focus would have been on the mass density. According to Einstein�s general theory of relativity, in a universe composed only of matter (particles and radiation), it is the mass density that determines the geometry, the past history and the future evolution of the universe. For example, if the mass density exceeds the critical value, the self-gravity of the matter would cause the current expansion to eventually halt and reverse and, also, space would be positively curved. If the mass density is right at the critical value, space is flat (Euclidean) and the universe expands forever. Hence, the structure and fate of the universe would rest on the value of the ordinary plus dark matter density. With the addition of a new component, the story is totally different. First, what determines the geometry of the universe is whether the total energy density equals the critical value, where now we add to the mass contribution (identifying its energy according to E=mc2) the dark energy contribution. Second, the period of matter domination has given way to dark energy domination. So, the important cosmological role of dark matter is in the past when it was the dominant contribution to the energy density, roughly the first few billion years. Our future is determined by the nature of the dark energy, which is sufficient to cause the current expansion of the universe to accelerate, and the acceleration will continue unless the dark energy should decay or change its equation of state.
|
http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/osdark.pdf
Therefore, when I say that we don't even know what 90% or whatever of the mass of the universe even IS, (or more importantly the nature of the component causing its acceleartion, aka dark energy) I'm saying that we cannot come to an absolute conclusion that the big crunch/bang theory is completely out the window. |
|
|
| CortexBomb |
| quote: | Originally posted by rizen
i wonder if the universe will countinue to expand or is there a limit? :conf: |
That depends on things that are currently beyond science to comprehend.
If the universe *does* continue to expand as it's currently postulated the entirity of the cosmos will slowly experience "heat death" as matter becomes so spread out and heat so slight that nothing of consequence can actually form into meaningful shapes.
Basically you're taking x amount of matter, and spreading it more and more thinly because of the expansion of space.
As for *if* it *could* expand forever, I don't see any reason why it *couldn't*, but that doesn't mean that it will either. If the expansion is only speeding up as the current models state than the possibility of a "crunch" in the future which would culminate in yet another big bang seems to be waning unless someone can come up with a new model for why the expansion would slow, and ultimately retract.
All that said, everything is completely dependent on current models holding up, and given the extremely vast spatial/time aspect of cosmology it's very difficult to get a model that can be anything approaching 100% reliable. |
|
|
|
|
