Intelligent Design == Human Design?

quote:

---

All you presented was a long list of unsupported assertions and special pleading.

---

You consider the second law of thermodynamics an assertion or special pleading?The most trusted math of physics an assertion or special pleading?I DO assert that there is no place absent of energy.I DO assert that i exist.Are you suggesting that my assertions are wrong?Please explain.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Why must the atheists look?

---

I want all to KNOW. This debate is about the truth of God IS or ain't by scientific evaluation. This isn't my creed vs your creed.

quote:

---

You're going to accept what, exactly? That the words "law" and "math" exist to be used over and over as if they were pronouns? Click on "tesla Posts Only": There isn't a single calculation in any of your posts. And the closest you've come to a propper usage of any law is the First Law of Apologetics.

---

The second law of thermodynamics.
The most reliable math of physics. :International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Miss-Interpreting Quantum Collapse.Calculation : T-0 is inevitable.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Again, writing the word is not the same as applying the law. If I say cheese grater, do I magically have grated cheese? No. What in evolution violates 2Lot? Show your math.

---

It's Not my math. Its the physicist's. I'm saying what they say. Ask them.

quote:

---

I'm not arguing the reliability of math, I'm arguing your ability to apply it. Unless you're Schneibster you're blowing smoke.

---

I am agreeing with what the physicist's are Teaching. The only difference is I'm examining T-0, Which they choose to ignore. But they agree T-0 is inevitable. I'm just examining what that means. And no one has yet shown me where my examination is wrong.If T-0 is inevitable, I'm right.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Now you know.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

source:Teaching and Learning STEM

​

The Big Bang
To see what it means to say the universe had a beginning, consider a group of galaxies chosen at random throughout the universe. The illustration below shows five galaxies as they appear now and as they would have appeared at several times in the distant past. At some point in the past (about 6-10 billion years ago), all of these galaxies would have been half as far apart as they are now. At an earlier time they would have been half as far apart as that, and so on. If you extrapolate this process backwards you eventually come to a time in the past when the galaxies would have been right on top of one another. Put another way, the density of matter (or energy) in the universe was higher at earlier times, and extrapolating this process backwards we come eventually to a time when that density would have been infinite. This moment of infinite density is called the big bang.7

​

Having defined the moment of the big bang in this waythe time when all distances between objects were zeroI am not going to talk about that time. A point of infinite density, known in physics as a "singularity," makes no sense. Moreover, our current theories do not predict that such a moment occurred in the past. Our best physical theories, including general relativity and quantum mechanics, stop working when we try to describe matter that is almost infinitely dense. That word "almost" is important. The theories don't simply break down at the instant of the big bang singularity; rather, they break down a short time afterwards when the density has a certain value called the Planck density.

​

The Planck density, which is the highest density we can hope to describe with our current physics, is over 1093 g/cm3, which corresponds to roughly 100 billion galaxies squeezed into a space the size of an atomic nucleus. For virtually any application we can imagine this limitation of our theories is completely irrelevant, but it means we can't describe the universe immediately after the big bang. We can only say that our current model of the universe begins when the density was somewhere below the Planck density and we can say virtually nothing about what the universe was like before that. We therefore take as our initial condition a universe at or just below the Planck density, and any questions about the instant of the big bang itself are eliminated from consideration.

---

another source: Big Bang - WikipediaThis is ridiculously redundant. Your either not going to read it or not understand it. The point is, the most reliable math of physics says T-0 is inevitable. and I'm looking at what a singularity is, and how it evolved. Einstein's math has been reliable and is still accepted. only the interpretations are changing as we try to explain lack of dimensions mathematically. ill get a link for field equations: Einstein field equations - WikipediaNow : See why I'm not posting equations? You really expect me to sit down and argue a couple semesters worth of math in a debate? I'm saying the singularity is reliably THERE. and you can do the research and find scientists agree with that. they just do not interpret what that means.my point is the singularity is inevitable. all energy at that point exists without any other variables. and we know it evolved. the question i asked was : HOW. And mathematically there is only one possible scenario : decision/intelligence. because there is no environment. It must be a self directed act.I will let the rest of my argument rest. let you all decide.but please PLEASE PLEASE Do not decide blindly by position. Its important enough to need to KNOW.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

The first half of your argument is semantics or out of context quotes. for the most part.

quote:

---

Then cite where that is said. What you have cited here says "any questions about the instant of the big bang itself are eliminated from consideration." If the physicists do not know, and are honorable enough to state that they do not know, why do you insist that they are saying otherwise?

---

I however love this question. I'm saying that the physicists are being foolish for ignoring the fact that point of time exists.As long as two things are, when questioning an evolved state; Before that is a relevant question. Only when we get to one do we have the whole picture.You also ignore: don't the solutions to the Einstein field equations say that space must either by contracting or expanding? Although this is not proof of the big bang theory, it supports the empirical evidence that space is expanding, no?
Science works the other way around.
Measurements that the universe is expanding supports the premise that Einstein's field equations are correct in being a good description of the universe.The math is reliable. T=0 (your welcome), IS there.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

The part that you aren't getting is that the alleged singularity at t=0 is an illusion, a simple horizon effect.

---

This is a foolish assumption. empirical data suggest otherwise. There is no area absent of energy. so it came from energy.The universe is expanding.it has negative pressure or a vacuum in which all exists in, and Ive never seen a vacuum without it being contained.You have to examine the empirical data the math is analyzing. It fits. That's reliability.Now why can a scientist accept something as sci-fi as string theory, and ignore a model that fits the unexplained data much better to the empirical data of how life works? like live things inside of living things keeping them alive: such as bacteria in your intestines that break down food and therefore give you energy. the bacteria reproduces to survive its species never knowing that without them we'd die.The area inside your body to the bacteria is infinite. Just like space to us is infinite. Why is it so much more difficult to accept if that's what our observations show?You can't discover the truth about what I'm telling you by finding a scientist that agrees with it. THIS you have to think greater than them. because they have already chosen a position to ignore this data. because it does not fit their position.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

I've been getting the idea you've been saying physicists conclude that T=0 is inevitable.

​

Are you now saying they don't conclude T=0 is inevitable, for which they are foolish.

---

They agree T=0 is inevitable. The foolish part is they ignore what it signifies. But not all. There are plenty of advocates that base God a mathematical necessity.Many in science agree, and believe, in God.My folly has been in arguing with the ones in science who do not. But then, If i debate the truth with those who agree...wheres the debate?The debate i have is with the empirical data the math explains. without empirical data math is useless. The math and the empirical data match.However, there is empirical data that i have not seen any math to explain. But I'm not educated enough to have that data anyways.I have not told any lies. nor came here to befuddle anyone's beliefs. i came here to debate the truth, for the truth. and ill trust the data because there is no argument against it that is supported by the evidence.What are scientists to do? Teach us all the laws of science, and its math, and then say we can trust none of it? Good luck with funding THAT scientist. We can trust the data. So why not really examine it?What happens at this debate site matters to very few. Its when i am in college that the debates here will have been an aid.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

They agree that the maths are unable to carry them beyond T=tp. You claim that you can extrapolate beyond T=tp. Are physicists unfamiliar with extrapolation, or do they fear there be dragons?

---

They agree the math offers no explanation because gravity cannot be explained earlier than that point.The math still shows T=0 an inevitable point. nice research btw. Your self educating for the argument

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Nonsense. Look, let's imagine for the sake of conversation that there was such a singularity. An ubersuperduper-a-zillion-times-uber black hole. And let's allow that that singularity was a person, with intents and purposes. Let's even allow it to contain within itself in some sense the nature of an enormous 3-headed being who dislikes masturbation.

---

You are confusing religion with God.If a model was formed based on the data i am suggesting the model suggests:1: the energy of T=0 is the foundation of all things. All that exists and has reality; exists within that energy. because if the energy was destroyed, so would all that is based on it be destroyed.2: the said theory is backed up by the data of expansion. Because: there is no area absent of energy, the universe must be expanding within an area of energy.3: This data is backed up by the vacuum in space. Because: no negative pressure has been found to exist without containment within boundaries.Even if you don't get it, the scientists here don't get it, Or; No one gets it; The data supports this model. Perhaps a couple years from now ill have the tools and education necessary to further show The model.Edited by tesla, : typo etc.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

You've got that backwards. Gravity cannot be explained earlier than that point because the math fails. Not the other way round. Gravity doesn't know the math.

---

Teaching and Learning STEMT=0 is inevitable because its the start.another words: " Einstein’s theory of special relativity changed all that. From it we learned that the universe had a beginning. That beginning includes not only matter and energy, but space and time as well. This obviously presents a problem cooperating with the first law of thermodynamics. The universe could not suddenly exist where nothing had existed before at least not by natural means. This truth was so apparent to Einstein that he inserted a fudge factor into his theory to force the equations to reinstate the eternal universe.Edwin Hubble discovered that the galaxies were moving away from each other. The more distant the object the faster it was moving away. This indicated the universe was expanding. It took some effort on Hubble's part but Einstein became convinced of this evidence and removed the fudge factor from his theory. The result was the sobering conclusion that moving backward in time we eventually come to a point where time equals zero. At the moment T=0, matter and energy become compressed into zero dimensional space. Don't misunderstand that to mean a tiny speck floating in empty space. In fact space itself becomes infinitely small. "-Quote from another science dude.Edited by tesla, : added a quote.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

You are right to say that it would defy credulity to assume the universe just came about without causation. After all nothing known in the universe has come about without causation. There is always cause and effect. However, defaulting to God is not necessarily the de facto answer in the absence of explanation. Anything imaginable is possible without clear evidence to support it or refute it.

---

I love your post.I'm not "defaulting" to God. I'm simply recognizing evolution. In an evolving state; "before that" is a relevant question until you get to the start, which must be singular.As far as multi-verse and other issues about the death of an old universe etc. Know this: Anything can be dreamed up. But what does what we know now say?Let me propose this model to explain what we know :T=0 is a singularity. The energy there cannot die, although definitely was modified. Because at T=0 existence IS. Its all there is.Inside that energy our universe came into being. For a singularity to evolve, there are no other variables available to explain an evolution accept intelligence. a self directed act.Get a piece of paper. label it "existence". Draw a small circle on it. label it "our known universe". now..draw whatever else you want to within that area of "existence". Because the possibilities become endless. All the data we currently have only really say's : This universe is contained within it.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

tesla, it is really a very bad idea to be coy when it comes to citing sources. It just adds to the annoyance among your readers, who will tend to lose interest in your posts and dwindle away.

---

My apologies, I'll make sure i leave a source on future quotes. however, the data was correct. you can search further but the point is moot.

quote:

---

If you want to be scientific, you have to be willing to do the same thing with scripture that you do with any scientific text:

---

I haven't quoted any scripture. I found an easy explanation for what i was trying to relay. Not sure if your link is the place, but the information i quoted is whats relevant, not the source. Truth is Truth.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

You are assuming, most likely unwittingly, that time and gravity continue acting as they do right down to T=0.

---

No I'm not. I'm recognizing T=0 is a real point in time. where time becomes irrelevant.You know my argument by now. why splatter gooble gobble to avoid the truth that t=0 is inevitable? I'm NOT arguing what the math explains of the conditions at the times just past T=0. I'm recognizing where our universe had to start from.Even IF our universe is within 20 other universe's and dimensions, T=0 will always be inevitable in an evolved state. Because: as long as two things "are" in an evolved state, Before that is a relevant question. another words: there was a start.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.

---

It is absolute that i exist.

quote:

---

From a CalTech website.

---

I would suggest a psychiatric evaluation of Caltech.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Teaching and Learning STEMYou say a whole lot, without saying anything pertinent. That is a tactic of politics and sophistry.

quote:

---

t=0 is inevitable

​

No it's not.

---

You love to ignore science apparently. Did you read the link above? Does it help?I'll explain it.T=0 is similar to the analogy about the ground. we know the ground is there. The math doesn't. T=0 is the start. We know the start is there. The math cannot explain it, But its There. Its the tangible evidence we have that lets us know when the math is telling the truth. The math used to show our most accepted theory the BBT, is based on observations of our universe. Real, tangible evidence. It is the real observations the math agrees with, and observation agrees with.That's why good scientists will not stray far from the BBT. The math is backed up by what we actually see. And so reliably so, you'll have a hard time telling any physicist to ignore what that math Say's.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides