|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creator of God, Big Bang | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4622 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
which is why it should b further scrutinized String Theory. Don't hold your breath however, it has no evidence that I am aware of.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1614 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
i know the basics. useless to me.
what is useful, is to further scrutinize what we can or cannot say about the singularity. I'd like to discuss some of them, but can't unless you can admit to me that it is: singular timeless energy, as it was described as: being: all the "energy" of the universe, focused at "one" point. so: singular, timeless energy? is that not what it Say's ? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
Vacate writes
quote:As I understand it, there is no foreseeable way to detect string matter. In order to probe something, the probe must be smaller than the thing. If I want to probe, say, my computer screen, my hand has to be at most the size of the screen or smaller. If I want to probe and apple, I would have to use my fingers rather than my palm. If I want to probe a marble, I would have to use the tip of my fingers rather than my hand. But strings are theorized to be infinitesimally smaller than the smallest subatomic particle that we know of. What string theorists have proposed, however, is that the next best thing we can do test out the predictions of string theory. So far, it's worked wonderfully in most cases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Vacate,
Vacate writes: We do appear to be in agreement. I have never had a problem with inserting God into the before. Call it what you will, it harms nothing and if it gives your days meaning - I am all for it. My complaint comes when it trivializes or contradicts science. God can never trivialize or contradict science. You see He invented it.The problem is he made us. Science is not the problem and neither is God the problem. God made man so He could have someone choose to love Him just because He is God. But to accomplish that He had to give us a lot more choices also. So I have my view of what is right, your have yours, in other words everybody has an opinion. Those opinions can be warped by many different things. So we are the problem because of our choices. The energy that is talked about is what keeps everything together and moving in a cordinated way. It also keeps it from flying apart.In Him we move and have our being. Nothing exists without God. If you will put God instead of Nature you would have the same thing I do. God set the laws and everything follow the laws but mankind. Hope that helps "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4622 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
i know the basics. useless to me. what is useful, is to further scrutinize what we can or cannot say about the singularity. If you know the basics then why do you ask to further scrutinize something that cannot be scrutinzed? Relativity breaks down at that point, so outside of philosophy how do you propose to study it?
so: singular, timeless energy? is that not what it Say's ? Scientifically I do not believe that it says anything at all. I assure you I am not trying to be difficult.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1614 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
If you know the basics then why do you ask to further scrutinize something that cannot be scrutinzed? Relativity breaks down at that point, so outside of philosophy how do you propose to study it? i meant the basics of string theory. its useless, because it proves nothing. its science fiction in science based on..what? i don't get any of it, because i cant reason it, so its useless to me. but of the singularity, relativity becomes necessity, because all energies came from the one. objective reality means to look at reality as it is, and not as what it could be. by this principle you can look at what can be said of the singularity by what is real of it. that it is real by necessity, timeless, and then seek the other questions and answer them objectivly. too many scientist who are hard on their positions warp the reality of what they study. you have heard it stated in a better way. but it alludes me. seek the truth.
Scientifically I do not believe that it says anything at all. I assure you I am not trying to be difficult. i believe you. i wasn't either but for a very long time was the debate in me. but as i believe in the truths in science, so also do i believe in the truth of this science, because by necessity as everything IS so also is the singularity. for without it, nothing could be. and i KNOW i am. this science is true, but it needs expansion. the parts i have observed of it are true, but there are many more truths that can be discovered about it if a greater mind was to apply the knowledge. seek the truth of it..it may take time..it took me years. but seek the truth, and you'll find it. and i cannot begin to speculate how much in science that you will discover once understanding the truth. my task that i fill is mine, but yours is special still. and perhaps you will be the one who will show to science the truth. i can only hope. but as the singularity is, debate the truth of what it means. further scrutinize what it can be said, or not said of it. you know my position. i know yours. but i hope that if you find that : by all the laws of science God IS. that you will proclaim it with the power of proof by science laws. and say : if by all the laws of science God IS. then by all the laws of science, God IS. i have debated here on this site for a time. and truly, nothing more can i say that i haven't already said. i wish to leave it to either be debated or not by the rest who are here, but as i feel in my heart to do, will i do. and Gods will be done. Tim Brown keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4622 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
but of the singularity, relativity becomes necessity You don't understand. If relativity breaks down at the singularity you cannot use it. That is why another theory is needed. Relativity does not work.
by this principle you can look at what can be said of the singularity by what is real of it. As far as I can tell, not much (or nothing) is known.
too many scientist who are hard on their positions warp the reality of what they study. I am sure if there are too many you won't have a problem listing a few.
this science is true, but it needs expansion. the parts i have observed of it are true, but there are many more truths that can be discovered about it if a greater mind was to apply the knowledge. That is correct. You don't think that scientists have brushed off their hands and called it a day do you? Of course there is more to learn. As long as there is a universe there are things that can be studied.
seek the truth of it..it may take time..it took me years. but seek the truth, and you'll find it. Your not suggesting that you have the truth that each and every scientist has worked lifetimes to attain, what has taken you years has taken humanity hundreds?
and i cannot begin to speculate how much in science that you will discover once understanding the truth. Ah, I see. You mean magical truth and not knowledge gained from science. I thought you meant "what is true" to mean "what is scientific". So does this magical truth supercede what knowledge has been gained from science?
i have debated here on this site for a time. and truly, nothing more can i say that i haven't already said. i wish to leave it to either be debated or not by the rest who are here No need to hurry off. Kick off your shoes and stay a while, perhaps you will get some definitive answers about string theory, singularities, or Big Bang. You may even find you have more to contribute than you realized. Grow a thick skin, question carefully, and you can learn a lot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1614 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
You don't understand. If relativity breaks down at the singularity you cannot use it. That is why another theory is needed. Relativity does not work. relativity does not break down. the energy that was first was all one. all the same all relative to itself. and from it came all things. and all things are relative to each other because they are relative to the one. if a scientist Say's "i study science by its tentative theories, but i accept it as reality", what reality have they accepted? the truth will be known. maybe not today. maybe not this time. but there will be a time. then you also will know. Gods will be done. so be it. Edited by tesla, : No reason given. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lemkin Junior Member (Idle past 5918 days) Posts: 24 Joined: |
He didn't say the word God, he said creator.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lemkin Junior Member (Idle past 5918 days) Posts: 24 Joined: |
This is completely different than what you are saying. He is not judging anything, he is basically keeping the peace. That is like saying that a teacher is not allowed to say their opinion on something. I was not asking him to become the final authority, I was simply saying that (s)he is a person too, and also has the right to an opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lemkin Junior Member (Idle past 5918 days) Posts: 24 Joined: |
You have the right to your opinion and you have the right to defend your opinion, but using the name teen4christ is very disrespectfull. If you want to choose a name, make it a name that actually represents what you believe in. The Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth", it doesn't say "in the beginning God created the timeless singularity." Having the name teen4christ misrepresents who you are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth", it doesn't say "in the beginning God created the timeless singularity." Ah, I see. So I take it God didn't create the cosmic microwave background, the quasars, none of the galaxies outside the Milky Way, and even none of the stars further than around 7000ly away? And it says that God made light, so I guess he made the e/m field, and perhaps by association the whole of electroweak... but it never mentions QCD - who made the gluons?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
It may surprise you, Lemkin, but a very large number of Christians accept Big Bang cosmology, and even modern geology and evolution.
Christians come in many more flavors than literalist Creationists. Hell, even Creationists come in multiple flavors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lemkin Junior Member (Idle past 5918 days) Posts: 24 Joined: |
Saying that God made the heavens and the Earth means that he created the Earth and everything outside of it. Haven't you ever heard of outer space being called the heavens? I not quite sure I know what point you were trying to make...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lemkin Junior Member (Idle past 5918 days) Posts: 24 Joined: |
A Christian believes in the Bible. The Bible says that the whole Bible is true. The Bible contains Genesis 1:1. This is why a true Christian should not accept the big bang theory.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024