The Big Bang "Theory" Contradicts Science

» Home » History

There's no reason for how the matter got there or how it expanded or how an explosion could possibly bring about order. Therefore, it is unscientific. NOTICE: This explanation of mine stinks (give me a break; it was my first debate) because it addresses the big bang as I was taught (that it was the ultimate beginning)- not the big bang as it is best explained (that it is the beginning, but not the ultimate one).

Stranger

15 Feb 2008 21:58

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Well I plainly don't see how explosions make things or bring things into being when we use them all the time to destroy life.

gottfried

17 Mar 2009 01:14

3 Comments

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. It was an expansion. The only time scientists, or scientifically literate people, refer to it as an explosion is when speaking to someone not fluent in science. The only reason scientifically illiterate people refer to it as an explosion is because they don’t know what the theory actually states. Also, the Big Bang didn’t “create” anything per say. Everything that’s in the universe today (all the energy and matter) was there when the Big Bang occurred. It was just in a different form due to the difference in the universe’s volume, density, and temperature. I’d be happy to explain anything concerning topics of the Big Bang to you. Because, like evolution, a lot of people just plain out don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to that subject.

Hizashi

22 Mar 2009 23:51

Comment

It’s alright to call the Big Bang an explosion, so long as you know the circumstances of such an event. The term “Big Bang” was actually a joking phrase coined by Fred Hoyle, who rejected the concept. So, it’s kind of a misnomer in a way, because the universe wasn’t big at the time (it was incredibly small, dense, and hot) and there really was no bang (sound can’t travel through space). The name just stuck with the theory after a while. Anyway, the Big Bang doesn’t violate the mass-energy equivalence concept because, like I said in my last post, it doesn’t say anything was actually “created”. It is understood that all the matter and energy was already present before the Big Bang occurred, just existing within a different form due to the conditions of the time. In fact, no molecules like atoms would have existed then. It was too hot (estimated to be trillions of degrees). Instead, you just had energy basically. After the Big Bang occurred, the universe began to expand and eventually cool down to the point where Quarks (particles that make up Protons and Neutrons), Electrons, and other elementary particles could be converted into mass from energy (E=mc squared), then to the point where atoms could form from the Quarks and Electrons (mostly Hydrogen). Continue on down the line for a few billion years and you end up where we are now.

How did the "rock/meteor or whatever it was" get there? How can life forms evolve from an exploding rock? And seriously, how did this whole thing about evolution just happen to start bringing up "evidence" right after Darwin "discovered" it when he wrote down a thought in his journal? If we evolved, wouldn't we have remembered that we did throughout the years? Seriously, think about it

ckell663

24 Sep 2008 03:56

Add a Comment

The idea to settle for theories that are not bound to become law defies science

characters

17 Mar 2008 16:10

2 Comments

I’m actually surprised at how you seem to believe you “know” that the Big Bang Theory will never become a scientific law in the future.

Hizashi

17 Mar 2008 20:31

Comment

No evidence that theory is real and earth created by chance yeh right it was created by God

vgking13

06 Mar 2008 21:54

2 Comments

I've created a list of evidence in my post supporting this topic, please view it and see what you think.

Hizashi

17 Mar 2008 20:24

Comment

True. There are many contradictions throughout, and I would like to see some strong evidence that says it happened. That is right. There is none.

-125_

19 Feb 2008 21:56

8 Comments

I'd like to see these contradictions you speak of, please.

Hizashi

17 Mar 2008 20:29

Comment

IF YOU ARE AGAINST, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE. It is against what is accepted, I know, but the truth is not always accepted (and if you think "Oh, come on! This guy is not accepting the truth of the big bang!" then I challenge you to provide proof). Notice how none of the votes for the big bang bring any evidence. One of them says there is an explanation, but does not elaborate because it is probably flawed as well and does not answer the question of origin at all.

Stranger

18 Feb 2008 16:50

2 Comments

I've provided evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory on this topic, please view it and see what you think. I've also corrected many of your misconceptions about the theory I've seen you make as well.

Hizashi

17 Mar 2008 20:32

Comment

Uhhh... How'd you come up with that?

minimac

20 Apr 2009 17:02

Add a Comment

That is one of the worst constructed arguments I have ever read.
So in return I shall give a poorly constructed comment back - 'I Disagree'

CharliNoir

06 Dec 2008 11:13

Add a Comment

That's why they have built the particle accelerator in Geneva. They believe a particle known as the Higg's boson collided with mater to give it mass. If a particle has no mass then it isn't considered matter. Photons don't have mass, they're known as particles, not matter. So in answer to your question, no it doesn't contradict it at all.

Tromanator

29 Sep 2008 14:17

2 Comments

Photons are natural or supernatural? I expect they'd be natural. And if that is a false dichotomy to you, how?

Stranger

05 Apr 2009 19:14

Comment

For the most part, astrophysics has worked like this:
1. Someone ponders an issue and comes up with an idea.
2. Someone tries to prove or disprove the idea with mathematics.
3. Conclusions drawn from mathematics are attempted to be proven or dis proven with instrumentation.

This process has provided some of the most awesome findings known to humans. Great stuff.

The Big Bang theory is a culmination of massive doses of this process. Certainly not proven. Certainly subject to modification. But certainly not simply an idea.

As for a reason...one possibility is a creator wanted to create the universe and POOF! A Big Bang. A creator who could go POOF! And create a universe could easily fulfill your trifecta of qualifying arguments.

Its justsumguys theory...I know I can't handle the math end of it....and I certainly can't afford the instrumentation so I'm not planning on getting it published in Scientific Weekly any time soon.

justsumguy

23 Jul 2008 01:28

1 Comment

This is just a heads up, but I’ve already tried informing Stranger that the principles of the Big Bang can fit perfectly with his religious views so long as he lets them. Unfortunately, he tends to side more with things he’s viewed on creationist websites, those of which not only know very little about the Big Bang but do not support anything concerning it for various reasons. Some of the subjects on the websites discuss such things as how CMB radiation cannot be an evidence for the Big Bang, young-Earth creationism, the “something cannot come from nothing” idea, and the ever popular “The Big Bang violates the laws of entropy”. If you scroll down to our debate you'll find most of these topics being discussed. This is why our debate was put on hold. I gave him many links to research off of.

Hizashi

30 Jul 2008 04:57

Comment

No as any good theory it limits itself to interpreting the existing data as best it might. As for the order out of chaos notion rest assured the order you mention is more on the order of localized anomalies in the general condition. The best and simplest description of the universe is a thin hydrogen gas with some impurities.

finsch

03 Jul 2008 17:26

Add a Comment

The big bang theory is science.

wallaceg12

19 May 2008 18:05

2 Comments

So they say.

Stranger

19 May 2008 19:10

Comment

Go and study up first you ignorant hick. It is laughable that religious people mock contemporary scientific beliefs and theories, yet the minute one slightly sways in the favour of religion, they suddenly cling to it and use it to challenge scientists.

ibanex_87

03 May 2008 22:52

3 Comments

I'm religious and I think science is one of they best things around. I took my confirmation name from the Catholic patron saint of SCIENCE.

Mark

03 May 2008 22:56

Comment

Let me guess...you're one of those scientifically ignorant types who "thinks" that the Second Law of Thermodynamics "proves" evolution is false.

You're obviously too uneducated to have heard of words such as _gravity_ or _radioactive decay_.

19 Apr 2008 10:23

1 Comment

Nothing you said is an attempt to show my alleged error.

Stranger

24 Apr 2008 16:51

Comment

I think that an extensive amount of research should be done by those who agree with this topic’s title, since many of them seem to have very little, if any, knowledge of the actual contents of the Big Bang theory itself.

Amatsu

18 Mar 2008 21:55

2 Comments

Amen to that.

Hizashi

19 Mar 2008 01:40

Comment

Once again, as I have done in two other separate topics so far, I’ll create a list of some evidence that supports the Big Bang Theory. But first, I’d like to say that the Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion. Besides the fact that it got bigger over time, the Big Bang has almost nothing in common with an explosion. Furthermore, it was also not “big” at all, since the Universe was believed to be smaller than the atomic nucleus of an atom prior to the expansion itself. Also, speaking to Stranger, you’re completely incorrect about how order cannot arise from explosions. For example, Supernovae produce heavy elements, and the shock waves from them compress interstellar gases, which begins the formation of new stars. Another example would be how explosions of atomized gasoline produce compressed gas, which is harnessed in internal combustion engines to power automobiles and other equipment. Also, addressing your comment to Openurmind when you stated that “…it contradicts the law of entropy that says things can't become more "advanced" over time in isolation.”, I assume you‘re referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you are, then I must inform you that the Second Law of Thermodynamics says no such thing. It states that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This in no way prevents increasing or advancing order simply due to the fact that entropy is not the same as disorder. In fact, sometimes the two correspond. Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size. With these notations aside, I’ll now present the much requested evidence for the Big Bang Theory that some people don't believe exists.

The following information is fact:

-The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.
-The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.
-The Big Bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

Please note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them. I would like to also state that inconsistencies are not irresolvable. Yes, there are still unresolved observations concerning the theory, however, simply because you don’t know the answer to a certain question in no way implies that the question has no answer.

Hizashi

17 Mar 2008 10:30

32 Comments

I like this guy. Thank you for this Hiz. Strangers, I will leave you in his capable hands, learn from him, he knows his stuff.

StBalders

17 Mar 2008 16:19

Comment

I think of the Big Bang as an explosion because it fits the general definition. According to probably any dictionary; if it violently expands and releases much energy, it is an explosion. 
I call it the Big Bang because that is what the "theory" is called.
You said that order can come from an explosion. Supernovas are said to produce heavy elements. Do they make the elements alone or do supernova explosions push out the elements already in existence which are remnants of the "dead" star while affecting them with the heat they release? (I may be wrong about that 'cause I did not research this particular thing well) The combustion-engine example is just of people (intelligence) using the energy released by the explosion to get their machines moving. The released energy is not increased order. The only order came from outside intelligence harnessing the released energy. That order is not from an explosion but from energy used from an explosion by intelligent design.
You said that the shock waves from a supernova "...compress interstellar gases, which begins the formation of new stars." 
The problem is that a supernova only blows things outward from the point of the explosion and does not compress from more than one side to make gases into stars.
Regarding entropy- isn't entropy the science about decay of all natural things? The concept is that physical things go from the most organized state to the least organized state. That makes impossible the idea that the unorganized state of an explosion (big bang) could have caused the organized states of planetary bodies and marvels in nature. In heat, energy is more compact but energy inevitably spreads out into a less organized state, released into colder places where energy is in a less organized state.
You said that entropy could be used to produce order with molecules- I don't understand. Elaborate, please.
Do you believe the "big bang" happened at one point in space? If so, the radiation is not evidence because scientists have not been able to detect where it comes from. If it is evidence, then the radiation would be proven to have come from one point in space. It is not the case. You said the Big Bang predicted the abundance of those elements you listed and said: "No other models have been able to do so." That is not evidence the Big Bang happened. That shows the "big bang-" believing scientists got something right about what is in space. If they proved that those elements were released from the big bang, then that would be evidence. It is assumption to say those elements are primordial, though. But, again: is that evidence the big bang happened? No.
If you have not read my reasoning for why deity is the ultimate cause, then ask if you want to attack it here.

Comment

Stranger, you seem like a very intelligent person. Although, I’m quite concerned about the way you handle your information. I’ll address each one of your points individually, attempting to avoid the comments you‘ve made that don’t effect the outcome of my debating side at all.

1. Definition of an Explosion;

What you consider the Big Bang to be has nothing to do with what it actually is. It was an expansion, not an explosion. You will find that information almost anywhere on the Internet.

2. What the Big Bang Theory is called;

I’m aware that the name of the theory is “The Big Bang”. I was pointing out that the name is contradictory to what the theory actually describes.

3. Stars creating elements;

Stars create heavy elements, notably those heavier than Oxygen, through Nuclear Fusion. A supernova would release these elements upon it’s death (although I’m sure both possibilities you mentioned are reasonably legit).

4. Combustion Engine;

You’re exactly right on the section concerning the combustion engine, however, whether or not people are controlling the outcome in no way counters the fact that an explosion is indeed occurring and being kept in order. Also, I mentioned nothing about increasing order in my statement of the combustion engine, I simply said that explosions can produce order.

5. Interstellar gases;

You assume that the interstellar gases must be compressed at the same site as the supernova occurred. This is not always the case.

6. Entropy;

No, that is not the concept. Wherever you got this information from is incorrect. Your misinterpreted concept of entropy is what has been misleading you in your entire debate so far (as well as many other comments you've made in other debates). The standard misconception of the Big Bang is that of an explosion of matter into already existing space. This is not the case. Rather, BBT holds that space-time itself expanded. Further, our everyday conceptions of "order" and "disorder" do not really apply to the physical quantity called "entropy". Indeed, as shown by Kolb and Turner, the entropy of the early universe was extremely low, possibly even zero since these same measurements are notable still today. One could characterize the entire distribution of matter and energy in the universe with a single number (the temperature) to a very good approximation. Compare that to the universe we see now, filled with complicated, disorderly distributions of galaxies, stars and gas. The amount of entropy in these objects is enormous. Hence, the idea that the entropy of the Universe has somehow decreased in violation of the second law of thermodynamics is largely nonsensical. The complexity we observe around us today can be produced from the ultimate order of the hot but cooling gas of the big bang.

7. Direction of where the radiation comes from;

Yes, scientists have found the direction of which the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation is coming from. It is coming from all directions, everywhere in the Universe.

8. Evidence;

I suggest you do extensive research into the Big Bang. I can only conclude from your responses, and the fact that a lot of your information used (entropy) is misinterpreted, that you have very little knowledge of what you’re discrediting.

9. Deity as the ultimate cause;

I have no interest in your religious beliefs, nor do I see what they have to do with the Big Bang. Unless you would like me to read over and comment on what you’ve posted, I don’t intend on doing so. Also, from your comment you left me concerning this subject, I now believe I see where your hostility towards the Big Bang is coming from (religious ties). Need I remind you that, contrary to what most refuters of the Big Bang believe, the theory itself is not meant to describe the origin of the Universe. It is meant to describe the current state of our Universe today.

Comment

Thank you for the compliment. You seem intelligent, too.

You said you attempted to avoid the comments I made that don't affect the outcome of your "debating side." If you mean my first comments, I said those things not to affect your debate side's main purpose, which I think is what you meant by "outcome," but to make clear why I call it the big bang and why the big bang is an explosion. You did not say how it was not an explosion. you claimed it was just an expansion. Where is the support? Please don't point to somewhere in the Internet like some other macroevolutionists and big bang believers when you can tell me yourself. The "theory" is about an explosion to me. I know it is said to be an expansion but how is it not an explosion?
I know that you were aware of what the name of the theory is called and that you were pointing out that the name is contradictory to what it describes but I said that because it was possible that you said that to make me look like someone who doesn't even understand the "theory." I don't know every aspect of the idea but I know its basic proposition.

On your third number, you seem to agree with me that stars make the elements that the explosion of the supernova releases. That means those explosions don't cause order.

On the internal-combustion engine, you said: "...an explosion is indeed occurring and being kept in order." Not really. The energy from the explosion is not in order. It is only kept contained. By order, you may have meant "contained and harnessed" but the order is not greater organization in that case. Is the energy in the engine in a more intricate arrangement? No. The explosions in the engine don't cause the order. Again: they release energy that is used to power machines. That is not an explosion causing order. That is an explosion's released energy being used by outside intelligence to power machines.

On your fifth number- I did not "...assume that the interstellar gases must be compressed at the same site as the supernova occurred." Why did you assume that I assumed that?
I said: "The problem is that a supernova only blows things outward from the point of the explosion and does not compress from more than one side to make gases into stars." You probably thought that by "side," I meant "side of where the supernova itself happened." I meant any side in space that the shock waves could reach, which is a huge reach, I assume.

How is my concept of entropy wrong? Where is the support for your claim?

You said that BBT (I think "Big Bang "Theory" is what that is short for) "...holds that space-time itself expanded." What did it expand into?

If you are suggesting near the end of your #6 that I said anything against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, when did I ever?
 You don't see it, do you? You don't see that within that # six, that you said totally opposing things: "...the idea that entropy of the Universe has somehow decreased in violation of the second law of thermodynamics is largely nonsensical. The complexity we observe around us today can be produced from the ultimate order of the hot but cooling gas of the big bang."
You said it is nonsensical to believe that entropy can be violated yet you believe that an ultimately causeless expansion of some gases can- contrary to entropy- over time, become the complexity we see around us. There is no way they can build up by physical means. What physical means do you believe could have been the reason for such a thing? Gases can never become organized into greater states when they are moving away from a point because entropy doesn't allow it. I should point out that you do not have a reason for what caused the big bang. What do you think?

Do you believe there was more than one expansion? If it was from one point, as I think you believe, then the background radiation you think of as proof for the big bang is not proof at all for it. This is because the radiation would come from one point in the universe, not from everywhere, as it seems to be.

It is nice to know you don't care about my belief in deity. Deity has to do with the issue because you believe that an expansion of some matter which you can not account for (ultimately)brought the beautiful and awesome universe into existence while I believe that the universe was created by deity. I told you why I believe in another debate.Belief in deity is a reasonable belief which I can back up if you want me to here.

The "theory" does not and can not describe the origin of the universe. As a matter of fact, science can't describe the ultimate origin of the universe. If science can't, how can science fiction?

Comment

Alright, Stranger, since our posts are getting longer and we appear to be straying from the subject’s main point, I’m not going to respond to the first few topics we’ve been discussing (unless you ask me to). Instead I’m going to focus on your very much favored entropy arguments.

I suggested the Second Law of Thermodynamics in my previous post because it is the one that deals with entropy (whether you knew that or not). Since my words seem virtually meaningless to you concerning what entropy is, please view the definition and statistics of it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy. Please point out to me where, on that entire page of discussion concerning entropy or any related links, that it states increasing order is not possible. If you still don’t understand after reading up on the matter, I’ll try to explain once more the best I can. But after that, I’m not sure I can make it any clearer.

I have no idea where you get the idea that I claimed there was more than one expansion of the Universe. I claimed, nor inferred, no such thing. As far as I know, the Big Bang theory speaks of one expansion, not many.

Please let me know if what you’re hinting towards is centered around the idea that the Big Bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (commonly used by Creationists in the phrase of  “something cannot come from nothing“). I’ll be happy to explain that to you as well.

As I’ve stated before, the Big Bang is not meant to describe the origins of the Universe, rather, it is meant to describe its current state. Your religious beliefs are perfectly compatible with the Big Bang theory. Also, let’s keep this as a scientific debate. I see no need to bring religious views into a situation where objective evidence is needed. You tend to be straying away from scientific standpoints to religious ones whenever you attempt to prove to me a point. We’re arguing science, not reason. We can both go on forever about what “reasons” we have for the Universe’s beginning. For that purpose, let’s stay on track. At the start of this debate, you claimed the Big Bang theory contradicted science and I said it did not. That was our debate. Let’s keep it scientific.

Comment

I want to bring up again my asking you to elaborate on your belief that entropy could be used to produce order "...in the sorting of molecules by size." I should have brought that up in my earlier comment above.

I asked you what space-time expanded into. I don't want you to escape this question.

I prefer saying "entropy" rather than the long "second law of thermodynamics" because I don't want to sound like I'm "so smart" with my big terms.

You avoided answering: "How is my concept of entropy wrong? Where is the support for your claim?" and the basically same question on my earlier response: "-isn't entropy the science about decay of all natural things?"
You said: "Please point out to me where [on Wikipedia's entropy page/ its links] it states increasing order is not possible."  I never said that increasing order is not possible. I have been saying it is impossible for physical things (in the case of the Big bang: a few types of gases) to become organized into greater complexity without cause because entropy does not allow it. The challenge is for you and other people with great faith in the big bang to find a cause for that impossibility.

You said: "I have no idea where you get the idea that I claimed there was more than one expansion of the Universe. I claimed, nor inferred, no such thing." 
I never said you claimed or inferred such a thing. I asked you if you believed in more than one expansion because when I pointed out that background radiation does not come from a single point in space to another big bang- believer, they avoided being cornered by saying there was more than one expansion. I did not say you believed that- I asked if you did.

The first law is about the conservation of energy saying that energy can not be created or destroyed. Do you disagree with this concept of it? I have not used it, I think, as something against the big bang. I should look into it more, though...

What caused the big bang?

My religious belief regarding the Cosmos is not compatible with the big bang. The Jewish story of creation is not compatible with the story of the expansion of some gases causing the universe. Why should I compromise? 
I have support for why deity exists. You read it at some other place and brought to the table some ideas strange to me against the idea of ultimate cause. I plan on answering that. I repeat why I brought deity into the argument and how it is not getting off track: the big bang is one belief for how the universe came to be. Deity is another. I think I have the right to bring up an alternative to answer what the big bang is supposed to answer.

Also, I said the Big bang could not explain the origin but I knew that it was not meant to. I said it to make the point that no science, much less sci-fi, could explain the ultimate origin.

Comment

Alright, Stranger, I’ll address each one of your points I avoided previously since you have asked me to.

Order of Molecules (perhaps my way of phrasing that quote you used previously was not very accurate);

I was referring to the way molecules and compounds always follow certain laws. An example of this is how the addition of one Proton to the atomic nucleus of Hydrogen (a GAS) will always result in the creation of one of the isotopes of Helium. Hydrogen will not spontaneously turn into Nitrogen from the addition of one proton to its nucleus. Taking it one step further, the combination of two Hydrogen atoms and a single Oxygen atom will always result in the compound H20 (water). Taking it even one step further than the previous example, if we have a number of amino acids in a solution, for instance, they do not combine "randomly", they combine according to their chemical properties. Thus, any given mixture of amino acids will always combine in the same ways, in accordance with the laws of chemistry. The fact that these events occur, quite organized in most cases, should ultimately shroud doubt on your theory of how “..it is impossible for physical things (in the case of the Big bang: a few types of gases) to become organized into greater complexity without cause because entropy does not allow it”. And just in case you’re wondering what the cause is for the binding of Protons and Neutrons within the atomic nucleus of atoms, it is known as the Nuclear Force, sometimes referred to as the Strong Interaction (although the two are exactly the same).

Space-time;

I don’t know what space-time expanded into, nor does anyone I’ve ever spoken to I don‘t believe. Do you?

Entropy;

I’ve responded to your entropy claim once again in another debate under the title of “Evolution is the only Logical Reason With Any Evidence As to Why We’re Here Today”, but I’ll repeat myself on this comment as well after explaining the definition of entropy itself. Entropy, according to physics, is a measure of the energy in a system or process that is unavailable to do work. Increasing order and organized complexity are NOT violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), even temporarily. A violation would be a decrease in entropy without a greater increase in entropy to go with it. Neither universal growth nor evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics because both take advantage of local differences in entropy. Please refer to the Wikipedia page explaining entropy and its relationship with order and disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28order_and_disorder%29).

Multiple Expansions;

To answer your question, no, I don’t necessarily believe such.

First Law of Thermodynamics;

Yes, I agree with that concept. However, if you’re going to look up the First Law of Thermodynamics, be sure not to confuse it with the Conservation of Energy law (what a lot of people tend to do). They are not entirely the same thing.

Religious Beliefs;

Whatever you’d like to believe is perfectly fine. All I asked it that we keep this debate scientifically objective, rather than attempting to argue “logical reasoning”.

Big Bang;

You seem to contradict yourself in your statements sometimes. You claim you know that the Big Bang is not meant to describe the origins of the Universe, yet you continually assert that it does in other statements you make. Such as this one “the big bang is one belief for how the universe came to be. Deity is another”. I'm sure there are a few ways to interpret this sentence, if I used the wrong interpretation please let me know.

Comment

Why should the fact that those events occur(regarding molecules and compounds) shroud doubt on the idea that physical things can't be organized into greater complexity without cause? You gave me a cause. It's the "Nuclear Force" (which I should look into more, but it seems plausible for now). Because there is a cause which you yourself pointed out, the molecule organization mentioned does not shroud doubt on what I said.

Thank you for admitting you don't know what "space-time" supposedly expanded into.
You asked me if I knew what it expanded into. I am not the one who believes that so I am not supposed to answer that.

You gave a definition of entropy and said: "Increasing order and organized complexity are NOT violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), even temporarily." I never said that. You either knowingly or unwittingly missed parts of my claim. I said increasing order without cause is a violation of entropy- not any increasing order.
You did not say how my concept of it was wrong.

Also, you said: "Neither universal growth nor evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics..." What do you mean "universal growth"?                                 You probably include macroevolution in that word "evolution." If so, what do you believe causes macroevolution? I want to kill two birds with one stone. I want to deal with macroevolution and the big bang here.

Since you believe in one expansion of the Big Bang, do you admit that the radiation that is supposed to be evidence for it is not evidence for it because the radiation would have to come from one point in space- radiation which you said: "... is coming from all directions, everywhere in the Universe"?

I want to use logic in my arguments. Why separate science and reasoning here? I know that pretty much anything can have "reasoning" but if I am wrong, tell me how.

I said: "The big bang is one belief for how the Universe came to be." 
I mean by that: "The big bang is one belief for how the Universe came to be the way it is now/ as we see it." I said that deity is an alternative explanation to answer what the Big bang is supposed to answer, but that means the idea of deity is an explanation for how the universe is the way we see it as the BB"T" tries to explain. The BB"T" is an explanation for how the universe came to be as we know it now. The same with the explanation of deity I hold. You see what I mean? I should have been clear...again.

What caused the alleged Big Bang?

Comment

I see. So I missed the overall point you’re trying to get at. I apologize then. I just assumed that since the "increasing order is impossible" concept was the one you used in so many other debates, it was also what you were referring to in this one. With that said, I’m quite confident that from your most recent response, I now know what you’re attempting to argue now, “Cause and Effect”. If I’m wrong, please inform me. As before, I’ll address your responses individually.

Order of Molecules;

Good point. Since I missed what you were getting at to begin with, there’s no need to proceed any further with this particular explanation.

Space-time;

So your hypothesis is that the Big Bang, as according to the scientific community, never occurred at all?

Entropy and Cause;

I suppose I did miss your overall point. I actually already explained the “Cause and Effect” claim in one of my responses to your comments within another debate entitled “Creationism Is Wrong”, but since I’m not confident you noticed it, I’ll explain it once again. The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay (explained by the Weak Interaction), suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe (as purposed by the String Theory), that allow a Universe without a first cause. By definition, a cause comes before an event (although sometimes cause and effect can be simultaneous). If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused. This same claim raises the counterargument question of “What caused God?” If, as you and many others claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same logical reasoning, neither does the universe. You should keep in mind, Stranger, that our experiences in everyday life are very poor preparation for the extreme and bizarre conditions one encounters in cosmology. The things cosmologists deal with are very hard to understand. To reject scientific theories and hypotheses because of that fact, though, would be to retreat into the “argument from incredulity”, which I feel you’re getting very close to here.

Universal Growth;

I was referring to the growth of the Universe. However, since you’ve made it clear that you do not believe “increasing order” violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics as I originally thought, my explanation on that subject need not continue.

Macroevolution;

I’d assume the causes of macroevolution are the same as evolution itself, those causes being natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow (a thing called non-random mating may also be a cause).

CMB Radiation;

I really don’t get why you assume that one particular point is where the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation must be coming from. If this conclusion of yours is somehow tied to the “Center of the Universe”, please let me know and I’ll explain that to you.

Reasoning;

You’re absolutely right. Anything can have reasoning, but that’s not what determines a claims accuracy. I can present to you a vast amount of reasons why extraterrestrials that fly around in UFOs come to our planet, but does that validate my claim of it actually happening? No. This is why I asked that reasoning be left out of a scientific argument based on objective evidence. However, since you continue to pressure the idea of using “logic” and “reason” over objective evidence, I’ve done the same in a few of my previous responses above and below.

Big Bang;

I understand what you meant now. However, if your “deity”, which is supposedly responsible for the creation of the Universe as we know it, does not need a cause, why does the Big Bang?

Comment

You said: "I just assumed that since the "increasing order is impossible" concept was the one you used in so many other debates, it was also what you were referring to in this one." When did I ever say that in any other debate or comment?

I say again what I am arguing: a violent expansion of a few types of gases can never bring about greater organization because entropy does not allow it. I said there needs to be a cause for the building up of matter in the "theory." Without a cause, it is unscientific.

On "space-time," no. That is not what I meant to say regarding space-time. I meant to hint that it is a flaw in the BB"T." A flaw in that the BB"T" can't explain that proposed situation of space-time expanding. This is one flaw. I know the "theory" is not "complete" and I think it will never be, though you may have faith it could.

I know you gave an explanation against the science of cause and effect but I'd rather deal with every Big bang issue here, so I don't have to repeat things. It is convenient for me.
Just because we don't know every single reason/cause for every natural thing does not mean that there are exceptions to the rule. You have faith there are exceptions. Do you put your faith in the Big Bang above Newton's third Law (- for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction)? I hope you see that it is faith, not science, that supports the Big Bang idea.

Please explain simply what the "argument from incredulity" you speak of is.

You said: "If, as you and many others claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same logical reasoning, neither does the universe." There is a difference between deity and the universe: one is not physical and the other is. Science can only say that physical things need a cause. Science can't say that what is not natural needs a cause (By the way, when I say "physical things", I mean here to include time and space, which are natural things, although apparently different than matter). That is why only deity can be the ultimate cause. As you probably noticed, I reject your claim that there does not have to be a cause for all natural things. It needs good support/ evidence. Ironically, you need a good reason for that.

Microevolution is proven. But macroevolution (evolutiion from one species to become another or have descendant species different from it) is not science because, if it was true, there would be more fossils of intermittent species (in-between supposedly related species) than there are of species we know to have actually existed (including extinct ones). It is not that there are less of them, it is that there are none.
"Natural selection" does not bring about macroevolutionary change. What is the evidence that it does?

When has genetic drift taken part in formation of any new species?

According to evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-10a.htm (an anti-big bang and anti-macroevolution website from Tennessee of the "Bible Belt," I think, that I have not checked fully but seems helpful to me), "NOT ONCE has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes), nor such a mutation that was permanent, passing on from one generation to another!"
Gene flow- Where is the evidence that it brings about a new species? The same goes with non-random mating.

On the background radiation: Why do you assume that I assume "that one particular point is where the...radiation must be coming from? I was saying that for the radiation to be proof for the Big Bang idea, it would have to come from one point.
I am also not saying that the radiation comes from one place. It doesn't. As for the center of the universe- if there is, I don't know where it is. Maybe there is no center. I don't know about that.

Comment

Stranger, I’ve explained all I can in order to help you understand what I’ve been speaking of. However, your argument seems to boil down to something along the line of “If you can’t answer my questions, then your theories are wrong”. I’ve asked others on this sight, mainly those who have a religious belief of some sort, to review what I've typed to see what they think and none of them seem to have any trouble understanding and accepting anything I’ve spoken of, especially entropy. From this, I can only conclude one of two things: Either you don’t understand what I’m explaining, or you refuse to understand what I’m explaining no matter what. The second one is what I’m kind of seeing right now from you. I understand completely what you’re trying to say in your arguments, as I’ve heard almost the exact same claims before. However, the other person claiming such eventually understood what I was talking about. You, on the other hand, seem to refuse to take anything I say into consideration. This response is probably going to be one of my last in this debate with you. I don’t know how else to explain what I already have and you seem to continue to ask for evidence that could easily be found with a little research. I’ll address each one of your points individually, as I have done every other time. I'm not trying to be offensive with any of my statements, I'm simply trying to be straightforward. 
Increasing Order;
In many debates you argued that things cannot become more “organized” over time, now you've started ending the same claim with the phrase  "without a cause". Just like what you repeated in your second statement of your previous post.

Entropy;

Something need not have a cause to be scientific. Why do you continue to repeat this as if it were a security blanket to your debate? If indeed something needs a cause to be in existence, there should be a scientific law stating that, shouldn’t there? I’m not familiar with a law saying such. If you could point out to me one that does, I'd be happy to believe you.
Big Bang;
I see. So just because an answer has not been given to a question you’ve asked, you assume that the question has no answer.

Cause and Effect;

Exactly, that’s why I used the phrase “possible exceptions”. Also, please inform me of how Newton’s Laws of Motion disprove anything regarding the Big Bang. I’m curious as to why you think that.

Argument from Incredulity;

It means an “argument from disbelief”. Simply put, just because one disbelieves in something, they attempt to argue against it, regardless of what the evidence points to.

Deity;

I see. So by your logic, your deity gets special treatment by being immune to any universal laws, simply because you know that your theory would be severely questioned if you didn’t claim such. Why do you assume, without evidence, that your deity is immune to scientific laws? Also, if you reject my claim that there does not have to be a cause for all natural things, please inform me of the “cause” for radioactive decay, as no one has figured that out yet. If you’re going to deny my claim that there are possible exceptions to that particular law, please back it up with supporting evidence of why you think so, not just “because I don’t believe that”.

Macroevolution;

From your statements and claims above, you have definitely fallen back to the “argument from incredulity”. Need I remind you that the burden to present evidence is placed upon you, since you’re the one making all the claims about how macroevolution is false and the Big Bang contradicts science. Both of these models have a variety of supporting evidence. By making the claims that you are, you're suppose to support them with objective evidence, not simply assert that the evidence given by either model is false. Out of our entire debate, I have yet to see you present any objective evidence to support any of your claims, while you seem to continue to ask for it from me. The only “evidence” you’ve given to support any of your assertions are questions. The majority of your claims are originally the claims that creationists have been using for years. You’re not the first one to think of any of this, and you surely won’t be the last. However, if the “flaws” you’ve presented throughout this debate were in any way harmful to a scientific model, don’t you believe the experts of the scientific community would have looked into such “flaws” already? Or do you simply believe that the scientific community is naive and refuses to recognize any of it?

Gene Flow;

Once again, you ask for evidence from me, yet present none to support your own side other than questions. Macroevolution is very widely accepted by the scientific community, and so is the Big Bang. You can find evidence supporting either of them almost anywhere on the internet, providing you actually look for supporting evidence rather than alleged “contradictions”. I’m not going to take up a great deal of more space explaining things in detail to you simply because you have not bothered to look up things for yourself.

CMB Radiation;

It is not considered “proof” of the Big Bang, it is considered evidence supporting it. Once again, read up on what CMB radiation is and how it supports the Big Bang model.

Comment

I am sorry for not being clear. I see that what I said could be taken a different way from what I meant. To be clear, I added "without a cause." That is what I meant by "isolation." Isolated from an agent to cause it (or a natural cause).

Please don't think that I am basically saying "If you can't answer my questions, then your theories are wrong." That is not how I think.

On entropy, which you think I am being stubborn about in that I am, to you, not understanding or refusing to understand what you have been saying- I asked you HOW my concept was wrong. You responded by giving me a definition of entropy. Now that I think I am clear about why the Big bang can't be the cause for the organization seen in the universe (it would be contrary to entropy for matter to be organized without a cause out of a violent expansion), giving me a definition would not be telling me how my concept is wrong. Please say how I'm wrong now.

In response to your "Entropy" section above, I was saying that for matter to organize into greater levels of complexity without a reason is not a scientific claim. Am I wrong about that?

On your "Big Bang" section now- I was pointing out a problem with the "theory". I don't assume there is no cause for such a thing. An imagined cause can be given for the imagined big bang.

On the "Cause and effect" -There are "possible exceptions" if you have the faith for it, not that there is proof for it. Do you believe that Newton's third law does not apply to the Big Bang? If the big bang is a natural explanation, it needs a cause (for every action, a reaction). I forget, but maybe I mistook you for Moegreche regarding ultimate cause...did I? If there is no reason for how matter combined to make planets and stars, among other things, that is against science. That third law is opposed to it.

Again: deity is not physical so scientific laws do not apply. It is an unscientific proposition for the question of what brought about natural things, so it is immune to scientific laws.
What caused radioactive decay? It is entropy that makes things decay. What caused entropy? I believe deity did. I don't expect you to believe that, but, since only deity can be the ultimate cause, and thus, is- that is why I have faith it was deity. Maybe some natural thing caused entropy but I know that, as far back as one goes, it was deity who caused.

I believe that no natural thing is exempt from Newton's 3rd law because there is no proof otherwise and I have been taught that scientific laws are constant. Do you disagree that they are constant?

Why do you say that the burden of evidence is on me when I say my proposed idea for the cause of the universe as it is now is UNSCIENTIFIC while yours claims to be SCIENTIFIC?
I told you my reasoning for why deity exists. I think I pointed out flaws (I do not say I was the first to point them out) in the BB"T."

Do you think I'm not aware that most scientists believe that? Of course they do. You seem to have faith in the majority of scientists as if they were infallible. They know more than me about science. Ok. They have spent their lives doing research/ experiments/ studies and I have not. Ok. (Although there can be no experiment for the beginning of the universe as we know it)
BUT they are wrong when it comes to what caused the universe because nothing they present as evidence is. I said why and I am not the only one, of course.
Majority does not make something right, whether God or the BB. You know that.
One of the reasons many believe such ridiculous ideas like a universe without an ultimate cause or that species are related by blood, is because most experts believe it. That is faith.

On macroevolution, you failed to prove it. I know there are many claims for evidence, but what is there? I ask you and you should present evidence if you claim there is.

I heard that the radiation was considered as proof of the idea. The point is it does not support the big bang. If it supports it, there would be radiation coming from one point from which the expansion occurred, right?

Comment

Stranger, I am hereby done responding within this debate, as I have explained what you’ve asked of me the best I can. I also noticed that you still did not present any objective or empirical evidence supporting why you believe that there are problems with the Big Bang and macroevolution. I apologize that I cannot continue debating with you on this subject, but I feel as though you’re not understanding what I’m attempting to explain to you (and the fact that we’re consuming a lot of space within the “comments” section). Therefore, I am going to reference you to sites that cover, in detail, each one of the points you seemed to mention throughout our debate. Maybe these links can explain more clearly what I could not (I quoted a couple of small portions from the Big Bang link I believe when explaining the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Please do extensive research within each of the sites I list and you will most likely find what you've been seeking throughout our entire debate.

Entropy;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28order_and_disorder%29

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/thermo.htm

These links explain all one should need to know concerning entropy, including some of the “flaws” that certain people claim that entropy causes for evolution. I have yet to find where, out of all of these links, it states that things “..cannot become more organized over time without a cause”. Entropy simply does not imply that.

Big Bang;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

This link explains nearly all the evidence supporting the Big Bang model and also what some continue to call “flaws” within the theory itself. It also contains links to the right side of the page pertaining to many other aspects of the Big Bang, including a link leading to a discussion on Pseudoscience (which is what Creationism and Intelligent Design are considered).

Macroevolution;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

These two sites explain a vast majority of the evidence supporting macroevolution. They also discuss some confusions many people have when addressing macroevolution itself.

Newton’s Laws of Motion;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/newtltoc.html

These are pages discussing Newton’s Laws of Motion. I still have yet to find how any of these three laws provide “problems” for the Big Bang.

Radioactive Decay/Dating;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/radiodte.htm

The first page discusses radioactive decay, while the second one discusses radioactive dating and many misconceptions some people seem to have about it (I think I’ve already given the second link out within another debate). Also, entropy does not cause radioactive decay, as the unstable isotopes are not “isolated” systems.

Please read over the site links I’ve given you whenever you find the time, as I feel they will help you understand a lot of what you’ve been asking me throughout our debate.

Comment

You can put the links in my shoutbox.

But I still want you to respond to me:
 ( now that I am clear concerning entropy-  or at least I think I am) 
"...for matter to organize into greater levels of complexity without reason is not a scientific claim. Am I wrong about that?"

I had brought entropy up because I thought and still believe that scientists know of no proven process / no proven cause / no proven way, that makes disorganized gases into organized matter in the Big Bang concept.
In other words, there is no way gases that expanded made the universe because there is no way they could just form into stars and stuff.

I brought up Newton's third law because it is foundational. 
"There had/has to be a cause for natural phenomena" is foundational for me. From this I know about deity and from this, can tell that the Big Bang has to explain what made the gases form into stars and stuff. I think it has to explain that for it to be truly science. It needs proof, not empty claims.

I will use my imagination now, for the sake of argument,  to think that there is evidence for the Big Bang occurring. Okay... that imagined evidence proves it occurred...but that does not explain how gases became stars and stuff.

Comment

Alright Stranger, I think I know where you’re going with this as of now. With that said, let me try to explain what you’ve mentioned in your previous post the best I can, with as little text as I can.

"...for matter to organize into greater levels of complexity without reason is not a scientific claim.”;

Actually, I agree with you there. However, I’ll explain exactly HOW the disorganized gases from the Big Bang’s expansion would have formed stars and other matter. What you’ve spoken of doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the Big Bang model, as far as “reason” goes. It has to do with the Four Fundamental forces that I think I mentioned before. Since, as you seem to believe, everything needs a “cause”, let me elaborate on what the cause for the events you’ve spoken of are (or were). I’m sure you’re aware of what gravitation is. It’s the attractive force between all bodies that possess mass. Now then, since a gravitational force is felt by all objects that contain mass, that means that all objects will constantly pull and tug on one another, the larger masses having a dominate gravitational effect over smaller masses. This is how disorganized gases gather together within space. After gravitation has done its job, there’s the force known as the Strong Interaction (which I implied that you read up on before). When Protons and Neutrons come extremely close, the Strong Interaction overpowers the other three Fundamental forces (Electromagnetism, Gravity, and Weak Interaction) and immediately sticks the particles together. This is how atoms are held together, despite the group of Protons within the atomic nucleus having alike charges. When certain atoms comes close enough for the Strong Interaction to take over, nuclear fusion occurs (the best example of this is how stars fuse hydrogen into helium). Electromagnetism and the Weak Interaction also play parts within these processes sometimes, but for the most part, that’s how gases form stars. As for other forms of matter, I believe common knowledge of how gravitation holds objects together should explain that part for you.  So, there you go. If you’d like more information on anything I’ve covered view the following links.

Comment

You do realize that it is speculation and not proven- this reason for gases to organize more?
Here are some points... [I had a website here I referred to- if it is wrong to refer to any website, I did not know or forgot. I don't see why Hizashi's links above are fine but not the website I referred to- I am intending for a forandagainst authority person to read what is in brackets]
       1) If the particles are expanding, they are getting farther away from each other. That means they can't combine later on if they did not combine (by gravity) initially. The model is saying, as I see it, that gravity was weaker at the start of the expansion because it could not bring the particles together at first, and that, contrary to science, gravity got the power to bring particles together which got farther apart in the expansion later on. Gravity is a constant, isn't it?- or did my science teachers lie to me?

2) Since they exploded into "nothing" (if I'm wrong about that aspect of the model, please let me know), there is nothing to slow down the particles or change their direction. That means that they can't begin swirling together into anything.

3) Let's Imagine that the gases could change direction and some met one another. In line with entropy, gases spread out and do not condense by themselves/ for no reason. The model needs to explain that with evidence for it to be science. Otherwise, that requires faith.

I will eventually see the websites you told me I should see. I want to respond now instead of waiting after I finish reading the several sites.

Comment

The Four Fundamental forces are more than just “speculation”. Three of the four (with the exception of gravity) are very well understood and have been discovered to be mediated by particles within the Boson category. Gases becoming organized is also more than just “speculation”. Take a look at the Earth’s atmosphere. Gravitation keeps it fixed within a certain range of the Earth itself, preventing the gases from escaping into space. Like I’ve stated before, I think you should research more about what you discredit before debating on a topic about it. I also hope you realize that everything you have claimed about “deity” up until this point within this debate is definitely something that is considered “speculation and not proven“, and is actually poorly enforced as far as objectivity goes. The descriptions and forces I’ve described to you are not simply “speculation”, however, to the contrary, the majority of what you claim is.

1) I don’t know the full extent of what your science teachers actually said, but if they said that the Universe is expanding, then no, they didn’t mislead you. You’re just not well educated on the subjects you continue to discredit (not implying you’re not intelligent). The force that is causing the Universe’s expansion is known as “Dark Energy”, somewhat of an anti-gravitational force. I suggest you read up on that as well. Initially, gravitation was stronger than dark energy. However, for a reason I’m unsure of at this point (meaning I don’t know personally if the cause has been identified as of yet), dark energy eventually became dominant.

2) The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion, it was an expansion. You’re exactly right, there isn’t anything we know of that could slow down the edges of the Universe during the expansion, due to the fact that dark energy is causing the Universe to expand at an increasing pace. However, you’re wrong about how speed prevents matter from combining (it actually helps the combining of particles in a lot of cases). Also, no type of matter moves at a constant speed forever. Anything with mass will slow down eventually. Keep that in mind.

3) Entropy prevents particles and gases from condensing? Honestly, where are you getting these ideas? I’ve already given you the “reasons” why particles condense and combine.

All in all, I highly suggest you look at the sites I’ve given you within the past couple of comments of mine. It will explain a great deal of what you continue to ask me. Also, it would prevent us from having to type post after post, especially when you need me to explain types of forces and things to you.

Comment

I am foolish for not being clear again.
I am not saying that those "4 fundamental forces" are speculation but that the idea that any of them were the reason expanding gases got together to form stars is speculation. See the difference?

You said that gravity was the reason for gas to come together after the alleged big Bang by saying:
 "Now then, since a gravitational force is felt by all objects that contain mass, that means that all objects will constantly pull and tug on one another, the larger masses having a dominate gravitational effect over smaller masses.This is how disorganized gases gather together within space." 
Is there proof for that in the Big Bang model of gases expanding? Lack of proof makes it speculation.

Deity is unscientific as an explanation. I've said it before. But there is indirect proof: nature itself. Since nature can't bring itself into existence, something non-natural did. By nature, I mean "the universe, with all its phenomena." Gravity and real, unseen forces are natural phenomena.

1) Some of my science teachers, if I remember right, told me that gravity was constant. I agree with them. I asked you if you think they lied (to be clear: lied about that). I still want you to answer.
"Dark energy," according to NASA, is known to exist with the reasoning they give here: "...light from the supernova has been red-shifted by the expansion of the universe. By measuring this red-shift from the spectrum of the supernova, astronomers can determine how much the universe has expanded since the explosion. [notice that NASA says the BB was an explosion] By studying many supernovae at different distances, astronomers can piece together a history of the expansion of the universe. In the 1990's, two teams of astronomers...were looking for distant type 1a supernovae in order to measure the expansion rate of the universe with time. They expected that the expansion would be slowing, which would be indicated by the supernovae being brighter than their redshifts would indicate. Instead, they found the supernovae to be fainter than expected. Hence, the expansion of the universe was accelerating! In addition, measurements of [CMB] indicate that the universe has a flat geometry on large scales. Because there is not enough matter in the universe- either ordinary or dark matter- to produce this flatness, the difference must be attributed to a 'dark energy'. [That flat geometry of the universe claim, I'll look into unless I forget or don't have the time...it happens] This same dark energy causes the acceleration of the expansion of the universe." 
It seems to me that what is said to be proof for dark energy rests on the assumption that red shift has to do with the universe expanding. There are a few ideas about what causes infrared shift and one of them, according to another site I can't directly mention, is the "Speed redshift "theory," a.k.a. the "Doppler theory of redshift" which says that redshifts are caused by stars moving away from us. I don't know if you believe it, but it is wrong because, if redshift is caused by stars moving away from us, then we are the center of the universe. The site says, "If the Big Bang really occurred, the universe would be rushing outward from where the explosion occurred, 
-not from our planet!" 
There are more plausible explanations for redshift (I am not saying that stars moving away won't make redshift but that redshift does not prove an expanding cosmos). 
There are these explanations too: Gravitational redshift, second-order Doppler shift, and energy-loss shift. You probably know about them.
Since there is no proof for an expanding universe, (CMB radiation is not proof since, as we have gone over, it "comes from everywhere" and would have to come from one point to prove or support the BB) the proposed dark energy can not cause the acceleration of the universe since the universe can't accelerate since it's not expanding.

2) Was it a violent expansion that released energy or not?

I did not say that speed prevents matter from combining, but that the gas particles in the BB model are moving from one point away from it and away from each other. If things move away from each other and there is nothing to change their direction or slow them down, then they can't start swirlin'.

"No type of matter moves at a constant speed forever. Anything with mass will slow down eventually." You are right when you are talking about a universe with objects all over the place, but isn't it so, in the BB model, that gas expanded outwards into "nothing" along with "space-time"? If it expands into nothing, then what will stop it?

3) "Entropy prevents particles and gases from condensing? Honestly, where are you getting these ideas?"
      You interpret my words and twist them in a way to make me look like an idiot. I never said what you said I said there. I said:
"In line with entropy, gases spread out and do not condense by themselves/ for no reason." Do you think gases can condense by themselves / for no reason? 
And then you say: "I've already given you the 'reasons' why particles condense and combine." Are you aware of what you did? Anyway, your claim that gravity brought the expanding gases together into stars I have rejected as speculation and unproven claiming. 
I think your intentions are to make me look bad. You have a history of doing it, but maybe you are not aware though you are too smart to not be aware...

Comment

If all you’re asking for is my opinion, then I’ll give it to you.

Yes, gravitation is a constant. Also, yes, the Big Bang was a violent expansion that released energy. Call it an explosion if you’d like. It really doesn’t effect the outcome of the evidence. I guess it can be considered an explosion. Maybe I was too picky on that particular subject. Call it an apple if you’d like. I suppose it really doesn’t matter.

Take as much time as you need to read the links. The Big Bang link has multiple other links within it concerning the same subjects and different ones as well. Please view one of the links within the site I’ve given you entitled “What is the Universe Expanding into?” by Ned Wright (it should be under the category called “What does the theory really say?”. It contains a multitude of questions that have been asked with answers that are given. However, please try to understand what you’re reading. It’s not going to help if you read over the information and do not understand what you’ve just read. That’s what’s going to lead you to make misconceptions and misinterpretations. If you’re as intelligent as I suspect you are, you shouldn’t have too much trouble understanding the contents of the sites.

Comment

good stuff....but I obviously disagree with your seemingly absolute conclusion that saying "god did it" is not a valid theory. The arguments you make against a creator are simply non-conclusive.

The big bang theory has ushered in the theory that the universe is finite. I'm sure you know one of the main forces behind the findings that lead to the big bang theory was that the universe was infinite. You also know there were some scientists that fought tooth and nail to adhere to the infinite universe.

Let's forget the word "god". Too much attached to the word. Let's forget the word "creator" because it's too attached to the word "god".

How about this as theory. I'm in the idea stage here. Almost all the great theories have started in this stage...so I am not bound to mathematics and instrumentation. If you want to conclusively say this theory is invalid...you're gonna have to break out the formulas and spend alot of money on the instruments needed to disprove infinity. Until they can account for the bottom line energy behind the bang....and what is behind that....and so on....infinity is a valid theory. Not only is it valid, it is what the search is truly after. The ultimate answer. The absolute first energy from which all else is derived. There can be no other.

Perfect eternity. No beginning. No end. The ultimate constant. No space. No time. No space-time continuum. Nothing other than perfect eternity. No such thing as nothing. Can't get to the end of perfect eternity and get to nothing. Might as well be in the middle. There is no middle. The only thing that could possibly be described by all science to be eternal.

The existence of a temporal universe is impossible because temporal cannot exist. There is no room for it because perfect eternal doesn't leave any space for anything else to exist.

But humans are the proof that the universe exists because they are aware of it. Them and any other aware beings that humans have not seen but believe to exist. The ONLY proof that the odds-on temporal universe exists....taking in all human reasoning....is because humans say so. And if anything seems temporal...it's humans. Again, as far as humans can see and touch, to within one second of the big bang, they all die with no scientific proof to the contrary.

Having temporal human reasoning insisting that infinity can't exist is nuts.

My challenge to you is to forget all exposure to religion and gods and use what seems to be good brain to define perfect eternity. I say there is at least the smallest temporal chance that perfect eternity could be responsible for the universe.

One hint, compare what science knows about neutrenos and seeing within a second of the big bang to what science knows about what makes you, you.

No comparison. My theory is compared to you, the universe is the smallest area that could possibly be defined and it's entire duration is the smallest amount of time that could possibly be measured.

My theory is you are eternal. The universe is temporal and you are directly hooked up to what is beyond the universe.

But I'm justsumguy. Best wishes.

Comment

You misunderstand what I was actually saying. Claiming “God did it” is definitely a valid theory. I never said it wasn’t. It’s just an inconclusive one, just like any argument against such a theory. First of all, one would have to define the term “creator” before continuing any further into such a theory. Second, depending on the definition chosen, one would have to know something about this creator (something that can be validly demonstrated) in order to draw any objective conclusions. Since, in my personal opinion, I don’t use the term “creator” in my visions of the Universe nor know anything about any such entity, I would be going against my material principles to argue for or against such an idea. I’m not in support of an idea concerning a creator, but neither am I against one. The only reason I challenged such an idea was because Stranger supported it so strongly and I usually challenge the principles of others to see how well they can support their own ideals. But thank you for the explanation. It was appreciated.

Comment

The arguments I constantly hear for this is that there was nothing to cause the matter to exist in the first place, so there must be a god. And yet, no one seems to realize that the same logic would have to be applied to them. Sometimes they have an answer, "Well, God is infinite and so doesn't need a cause."
The simple truth is that causality is just a word we have used to describe certain events - there is no actual definable "cause." We know that energy can be converted into matter, so matter doesn't have to exist in the first place.

Moegreche

12 Mar 2008 04:09

2 Comments

It is unscientific to believe that an explosion occurred for no reason, much less that an explosion brought order and high levels of organization. If there is a proposed reason, it is likely a natural reason and it had to have a beginning. Thus, no physical and natural cause could have been the ultimate cause for all physical things. Only deity can be the reason. Deity does not have to have a beginning because deity is not physical. Only physical things have to have a beginning or cause. So, how does the big bang idea not contradict science? A big bang/ explosion caused the order and intricate wonders of the universe, both huge and microscopic? No way.

Stranger

12 Mar 2008 14:13

Comment

Science is the search for verifiable truth and big bang is merely a working theory. If a working theory is considered unscientific then I do not understand science. Before everyone knew the world was round it was scientific fact that the world was flat (thanks to the church) so I guess we will have to wait on this one. But a working theory by no means contradicts science.

openurmind

04 Mar 2008 00:20

14 Comments

It does contradict science because it contradicts the law of entropy that says things can't become more "advanced" over time in isolation. The big bang is just that, as if an explosion brings high levels of organization like galaxies. That's unscientific. If it is a working theory, then they better change nearly everything about it. So much so that it becomes something else. In other words, proponents of the notion need to come up with something else that actually works. That something else will never come. You may have faith it will, but you are in darkness if you have that faith. Why reject deity? It actually works as a reason. Not a scientific reason, but as the only reason that does not contradict science.

Stranger

12 Mar 2008 14:25

Comment

Entropy and life
    Main article: Entropy and life
    For over a century and a half, beginning with Clausius' 1863 memoir "On the Concentration of Rays of Heat and Light, and on the Limits of its Action", much writing and research has been devoted to the relationship between thermodynamic entropy and the evolution of life. The argument that life feeds on negative entropy or negentropy as put forth in the 1944 book What is Life? by physicist Erwin Schrödinger served as a further stimulus to this research. Recent writings[citation needed] have utilized the concept of Gibbs free energy to elaborate on this issue. Tangentially, some creationists have argued that entropy rules out evolution.[45]

In the popular 1982 textbook Principles of Biochemistry by noted American biochemist Albert Lehninger, for example, it is argued that the order produced within cells as they grow and divide is more than compensated for by the disorder they create in their surroundings in the course of growth and division. In short, according to Lehninger, "living organisms preserve their internal order by taking from their surroundings free energy, in the form of nutrients or sunlight, and returning to their surroundings an equal amount of energy as heat and entropy."[46]

Evolution related definitions:

* Negentropy - a shorthand colloquial phrase for negative entropy.[47]
    * Ectropy - a measure of the tendency of a dynamical system to do useful work and grow more organized.[30]
    * Syntropy - a tendency towards order and symmetrical combinations and designs of ever more advantageous and orderly patterns.
    * Entropy – a metaphorical term defining the extent of a living or organizational system's intelligence, functional order, vitality, energy, life, experience, and capacity and drive for improvement and growth.
    * Ecological entropy - a measure of biodiversity in the study of biological ecology.

Comment

BASIC SCIENTIFIC METHOD APPLIED TO THE BIG BANG

1) DEFINE/ IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM. The problem is that [many] people don't know how the universe came to be.

2) FORM A HYPOTHESIS. The big bang hypothesis is that the universe came about from an expansion of compacted gases.

3) MAKE OBSERVATIONS. What observations? We can't see the BB and the background radiation that is observed does not come from one point so it does not support the BB.
Also: TEST HYPOTHESIS/ PERFORM EXPERIMENTS. 
Has the Big Bang been tested or has there ever been an experiment to see if it could work?

4) ORGANIZE AND ANALYZE DATA. No testing or experimenting can be done to verify the BB so no data can be collected for that purpose.

5) DO EXPERIMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS? There are no experiments or observations that support it. From this point, if the hypothesis is not supported, it should be abandoned or altered.

6) DRAW CONCLUSIONS. To many people and many scientists, they conclude that the Big Bang is science. How can they conclude that without support? By faith.

7) COMMUNICATE RESULTS. There can be no results without any test or experiment,  but the lie that the Big Bang is science is thoroughly communicated.

By the way, I'm no Catholic.

Comment

Measure the spectrum of the sun, it has slots where light of very specific colors is absorbed by the hydrogen in the sun that appear as black bands in the spectrum. These bands also appear in the light from distant galaxies, but the are shifted towards the red end of the spectrum.
The shifting is caused by the Doppler effect, as the stars recede the frequency of the light is reduced just as the pitch of a moving siren is reduced when it passes us and begins to move away.

We can measure the distance of distant galaxies in a number of ways, but the first reliable way was measuring the brightness of supernovae explosions in the distant galaxy - at the time it seemed that all supernovae had the same brightness.

When distance was plotted against speed, the graph was a fairly straight line - the further from us, the faster the galaxy was receding.
Wind that idea back in time and one of the first conclusion reached was that the galaxies all started out from the same place - an incredibly hot fireball which expanded and cooled. The Big Bang.

A significant confirmation of this theory was the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is, in effect, the echo of the light of the Big Bang.

All these facts have now been confirmed in many other different ways. The universe is now known to be 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years old.

Comment

I disagree. There are a lot of scientific theories and evidences out there that explain the big bang and more. Over the years, scientists have discovered many evidences of how things got here and how they have evolved throughout time. There have been many articles and books written about the theories. It is crazy to think that with today's technology that scientist do not have a clue about the big band. With the telescopes that they have, they are able to see and measure fragments that could possibly be related to the big bang. Therefore, I do not believe that the big bang theory contradicts Science in any way.

BullDog

16 Feb 2008 01:07

1 Comment

What faith you have!
What evidence, though?

Stranger

18 Feb 2008 16:40

Comment

It's only unscientific to those who don't have a clue about science. In fact, there are many theories about how it came into being, most recently m-theory which seems to explain it all quite handily.

Cephus

15 Feb 2008 23:05

47 Comments

I am in the dark about this "m-theory." Please tell me and prove it.

Stranger

18 Feb 2008 16:40

Comment

Since you do not explain simply or with detail this thing that you believe and are not satisfied with BBC's explanation of M "theory", I saw these sites below and ask if you approve them. If you do not,  I expect for you to tell me why. http://wwww.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/3012_elegant_00.html     and   superstringtheory.com
The latter shows mathematics for string theory. The math they show, I do not even try to understand, but don't need to because I know that there is no ultimate cause for any matter in the beginning given in the m "theory" and it is flawed as it is. I see that the "theory" does not answer the basic question of the origin of all things physical so I do not care about the proposed math that does not solve that question. As I said before and what  you have avoided answering: What caused it all?

As for that experiment you mention:  the scientists are planning to create a "self-contained universe" but don't you see that they are CREATORS and the universe they plan on making is not going to come about  from an explosion, but design/intent (if it is successful)? Do you believe the experiment could be carried out without experimenters?

Comment

Hizashi, I said: "The math they show, I do not even try to understand, but don't need to because I know that there is no ultimate cause for any matter in the beginning given in the m "theory" and it is flawed as it is. I see that the "theory" does not answer the basic question of the origin of all things physical so I do not care about the proposed math that does not solve that question. As I said before and what you have avoided answering: What caused it all?"
You said: "You willingly admit you don't try to understand the mathematics of such a theory, but right afterwards conclude you don't need to because you know for sure it's all wrong anyway. Overall, you confess to not knowing anything about M-Theory [initially] but proceed to claim you know it is false for reasons that have nothing to do with the theory you didn’t bother trying to understand."
Okay. Look. I said WHY I didn't need to know about the scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo that- even IF it is true- does not answer the question about the ultimate origin of nature.
Of course my reason had to do with my rejection. It doesn't answer the ultimate-origin question and is on par with the Big Explosion idea, so I am inclined to discredit it. I should have said that it is speculation. I didn't. Sorry.

And Cephus, paraphrasing me as saying "I don't get it, therefore it must be wrong" may fool a fool, but is flawed since you OMIT my REASON for why I consider it irrelevant. Besides, I am biased (not that you guys aren't): not inclined to believe a speculative story that goes hand in hand with the big explosion "theory" that is invalid, as I plan to continue to argue.

I should have said that it is speculation to me, but the point is that it doesn't solve the ultimate question. When I said that there's no explanation for how the matter got there, I referred to (and didn't say it. I should have said it) the ultimate explanation for how matter got there.

Comment

The fact is that you don't want to know or simply don't know what caused it all.
I do and have shown how I know and repeat here.

Logically, science can't cover the ultimate cause because it only is concerned with the natural, and the ultimate cause can't be natural because if it is, then it would need a cause itself, and thus, not be the ultimate cause.
So, the proposition of a supernatural agent or agents works as the apparently only explanation that does work.

And how do I know that there had to be an ultimate cause? Because, since everything natural is breaking down over time, if one goes backwards in time far enough, one will find a point at which there was a maximum level of organization in nature so that going back further would be impossible unless a deity is proposed to explain the beginning of "universal decay." The Bible says that sins brought that universal decay of nature so that all things die and break down.

So far, you have not been open-minded enough to even entertain the idea of divinity. But you have no excuse to deny divinity.

Comment

You probably can’t find what you’re looking for because you’re using the wrong words to find it or you‘re expecting it to jump out at you. It takes more than a quick two minute search of random websites on google to find some of this information. Although, I can’t say I’m too confident about you searching for something scientific anyway, seeing as how you have a lot of creationist sites you probably go to often (though I'd be surprised if any of the idiots who support those creationists sites even knew what M-Theory was). Anyway, M-Theory does postulate a cause for the Big Bang. Within its context it actually allows for what you call the “ultimate cause” to be natural. I know you don’t like that kind of thing and you’ll probably immediately reject anything I say concerning M-Theory afterwards, but I’m use to your presuppositions about science by now so I won’t be surprised. Regardless, on to the explanation. In M-Theory, there exist what’s called Membranes. Membranes are spatially extended mathematical concepts. They reside within one of the eleven dimensions proposed to be present within M-Theory. Often called P-Branes, depending on which dimensions it exists in depends on the number that replaces the letter “P” in the name. A 0-Brane is a zero dimensional brane which would be equivalent to point particles. A 1-Brane is a one dimensional brane which would be equivalent to strings. A 2-Brane is a two dimensional brane which would be equivalent to a flat surface (2-D). A 3-Brane is a three dimensional brane which would be equivalent to volume (3-D). The list goes all the way up to eleven. Within M-Theory, strings, the spatially extended one dimensional objects also called 1-Branes, replace elementary particles to which we’re accustomed to (Electrons, Photons, ect). Each string possesses a different “vibration” so to speak, which in tern determines what kind of particle it is actually symbolic of (an Electron would have a particular “vibration” of its own and a Photon would have a particular “vibration” of its own). In M-Theory’s framework, a string that exists within the eleventh dimension is capable of expanding infinitely, creating what is sometimes called a floating membrane. Other, lower dimensional branes, are capable of “resting” upon the floating membrane. When two floating membranes collide, it is thought to result in the formation of a new type of brane, essentially, a new universe. Think of the collision as being the new universe’s Big Bang. Since, to my knowledge, a membrane cannot be destroyed, they exist infinity. Thus, there could exist an infinite number of floating membranes colliding with one another infinitely to create an infinite number of universes that exist on the floating membranes themselves.

It is my understanding that the “ultimate cause” you talk about is required to be infinite, since if it is finite you can always go further back and ask “What was before that?”. Well, I just offered an infinite solution that fits with the “ultimate cause” you always ask for. In this scenario, you can’t go far enough back to ask “What was before the first floating membrane?” because you’ll never be able to get that far due to the number being infinite. In fact, there doesn’t even have to be an infinite number of floating membranes. There could simply be two. Since there is no way to actually know how long the floating membrane has existed in the first place, it could be infinite in existence itself. Therefore, the two infinitely existing membranes could have collided an infinite number of times to create an infinite number of universes. Whether or not you consider such an explanation plausible is up to you. I’m fairly certain you wont’ due to your presuppositions about the issue itself. But, in any case, there exists an alternative explanation for your “ultimate cause”, which, from my perspective, is no less likely than the one you cling to. M-Theory is mostly theoretical for the moment. But you never asked for evidence of anything, just an explanation. Although, M-Theory does possess a wide variety of mathematical support, which counts for something.

Comment

I went to an anti-creationist website for m-theory, so no (I also tried with another one that I had offered up to Cephus earlier, but I couldn't get on).

I'd rather have you explain your beliefs to me than to have to take the long and tedious route of looking at all the sites you want me to. It is much easier for me and would help the debates progress faster. I'll still do the long and unnecessarily tedious route as I agreed to if you are not going to change your mind.

To defeat the apparent mightiness of your argument, I simply have to point out that something natural being infinite is not science (empirical/fact/provable), but UNPROVABLE SPECULATION. That means that that explanation for the "ultimate origin of all nature" is science fiction. As in sci-fi, there is much scientific-sounding, number-crunching intellectual-sounding lingo. But we all know it means nothing for it is fiction, and "fiction" is a nice way to say NOT REAL.

Here's the big difference between my deity explanation & yours:
My proposition does not make an exception to the LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT IN NATURE. Yours does. In other words, I don't have to twist the truth to make my proposition plausible. You can believe that the aforementioned Law of cause and effect is not absolutely universal, but then you'd be standing on your presupposition and faith alone, not good reason. The only reason one would reject deity in favour of your "theory" is if they don't want to believe in God, so they make the leap of faith- unsupported by anything substantial, of course- that nature (at least part of it) always existed.

The belief in membranes as infinite backwards (i.e. always having existed) is a religious belief for it is faith-based and concerns what science does not cover. It has a veneer of science over it, but if you look at it for what it is, as I have, you see how pathetic the idea is.

One more thing: of course m-theory explains the big bang idea. I didn't object to that. I objected to the ULTIMATE issue with it.

Comment

I completely forgot about this debate.

“To defeat the apparent mightiness of your argument, I simply have to point out that something natural being infinite is not science (empirical/fact/provable), but UNPROVABLE SPECULATION.”

Really? What scientific law prevents anything natural from being infinite? I’m not aware of one. How about energy Stranger? Energy cannot be created or destroyed. That’s the conservation of energy law. If it can’t be created, it must have always existed in one form or another. If it can’t be destroyed, it will always exist in one form or another. No beginning and no end. That fit’s the definition of the word infinite. There’s no experiments to date that can disprove the conservation of energy law. So what do you say about that? By the scientific criteria of the law, energy seems pretty infinite to me. That is, unless you can disprove the conservation of energy law. I’m sure you’ll probably try just so you don’t have to change viewpoints. Another example is in mathematics. Mathematical equations are an important part of many scientific fields of study (i.e. M-Theory). In mathematics, it’s definitely possible to prove a set to be infinite. Is a mathematical infinity not considered natural to you or something? An example of a mathematical infinity is a singularity, which I mentioned before while talking with you. A gravitational singularity is a point in space at which the quantities used to measure the gravitational field of something become infinite. Are black holes unnatural because they possess singularities inside their event horizon? Getting straight down to it, there are multiple apparent infinities that exist within nature. You have no backing for the claim that something natural cannot be infinite, much less it not being science.

“That means that that explanation for the "ultimate origin of all nature" is science fiction. As in sci-fi, there is much scientific-sounding, number-crunching intellectual-sounding lingo. But we all know it means nothing for it is fiction, and "fiction" is a nice way to say NOT REAL.”

Prove it. If M-Theories calculations are incorrect, then demonstrate how they are. If something natural cannot be infinite, then prove it. That’d be a definite way to shut me up. Simply prove your claims instead of just making them. That’s the nice thing about science. If something’s wrong within a scientific concept it can be shown to be. So if you ever claim something in science is incorrect, you have to either put up or shut up. I do find it really odd though that the person who’s claiming someone else’s explanation is “fiction” is also the same person who’s explanation consists of a supernaturally divine being that’s never been observed. That sounds to me like pure speculation, especially since you‘ve never presented any backing, other than some personal reasoning, for such an idea. How ironic. It’s just weird that you would think an explanation can be “defeated” by claiming it’s fiction or just speculation, when the one you offer is in the same category. I don’t care if the explanation is scientific, mythological, or what. If claiming it’s just speculation is a refutation then the argument applies to all ideas. That means your explanation is also refuted for the same reasons. End of story. You’re basically cheating. You’re saying your explanation is allowed to be pure speculation and it’s still an acceptable one, but anyone else’s explanation has to be more than speculation or it’s not acceptable. This is the same thing Voov tried before. I refused to debate with him because he wouldn’t stop doing things like that. In this case, claiming something is refuted because it’s only speculation wouldn’t even apply to M-Theory unless you completely ignored the mathematical support it holds (which you might be doing since you’ve said before you don’t need to know it because you’re sure it’s wrong).

“My proposition does not make an exception to the LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT IN NATURE. Yours does.”

No it doesn’t. If something is infinite in existence, it need not be caused. You agree on that part I’m sure. Well, my explanation involved something infinite in existence. So the cause and effect concept isn’t violated. You’d first have to prove that something natural cannot be infinite before you could even hope to get any backing for saying my concept violates cause and effect.

Comment

“In other words, I don't have to twist the truth to make my proposition plausible.”

No, you just have to twist the truth and make up stuff for someone else’s proposition to look implausible. You’ve made a bunch of claims, but you have no backing for any of them. You say something natural cannot be infinite. Okay. Prove it. I mean, you have nothing to go by but your opinion. You have no support of any kind for such a claim. Not even a little bit of evidence.

“You can believe that the aforementioned Law of cause and effect is not absolutely universal, but then you'd be standing on your presupposition and faith alone, not good reason.”

The concept of cause and effect isn’t violated within my theory. You can’t prove it is. You claim something natural cannot be infinite, which is the basis for your claim about my idea violating cause and effect. But you can’t demonstrate how something natural cannot be infinite, so, consequently, your claims about the cause and effect concept being broken within the boundaries of my theory are void.

“The only reason one would reject deity in favour of your "theory" is if they don't want to believe in God, so they make the leap of faith- unsupported by anything substantial, of course- that nature (at least part of it) always existed.”

I just want to go through the two phrases in this quote of yours that apply to your own explanation. First we have “leap of faith”. Next is “unsupported by anything substantial”. I’m going to ask you to either put up or shut up now Stranger. Disprove the conservation of energy law and gravitational singularities within your next post or stop saying something natural cannot be infinite (unless you consider singularities and energy to be unnatural, which makes no sense). I’m serious. No more empty claims. If you don’t put up or shut about the natural infinity thing within your next post, as in you just ignore what I’ve asked of you, I’ll probably just not reply back at all.

“The belief in membranes as infinite backwards (i.e. always having existed) is a religious belief for it is faith-based and concerns what science does not cover. It has a veneer of science over it, but if you look at it for what it is, as I have, you see how pathetic the idea is.”

M-Theory isn’t a religious belief. There’s no religious belief I’m aware of that possesses mathematical support like M-Theory. I’d choose any idea imaginable over your purely speculative one as long as it had the mathematical support of M-Theory. Face it, your idea is pure speculation. I can’t emphasize the “pure” part enough. While M-Theory’s propositions aren’t perfect and most of it is still in its infant stages of development, it still possesses more support for its concepts than anything in your theory can even come close to. You may not like the things proposed by the theory, but you can’t ignore the fact that it’s mathematical support outweighs any unsupported concept within your theory. M-Theory has mathematics to back it’s concepts up. Your theory consists of nothing but your opinions. Yeah, I’d go with M-Theory any day over empty claims. I still don’t rule your theory out as being impossible. It’s just far less probable in the wake of M-Theory.

Comment

Oh, Cephus...
I was subjected to indoctrination attempts at public schools that taught racist macroevolution and the big explosion notion, so I am not as ignorant of those myths as you imply.

Thank you, jalapenos.

((( “To defeat the apparent mightiness of your argument, I simply have to point out that something natural being infinite is not science (empirical/fact/provable), but UNPROVABLE SPECULATION.”

Really? What scientific law prevents anything natural from being infinite? I’m not aware of one. )))
None. But the point is that it is not science that anything natural was/is infinite. (The bizarre set of parentheses are substitutes for quotation marks to avoid confusion.)

Energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work.
How can there be a capacity of a physical system to do work without there being a physical system? There can't be. Therefore, energy depends on the existence of (a) physical system(s), which is/are subject to the law of cause and effect in nature. That means that energy did not always exist. Obviously, it can't be created or destroyed as far as human experience records (deity can make exceptions/miracles), but the law of conservation of energy applies to energy in the state of the universe as it is now (i.e. with matter already existing).

"Mathematical equations are an important part of many scientific fields of study (i.e. M-Theory)." I referred to this before as a veneer of science over the pure speculation of that science fiction.

"In mathematics, it’s definitely possible to prove a set to be infinite." Yes, in theory it works. But since you can't find even one line in actual existence and not as a mere abstract conception, then your inevitable failure will prove my point. There are no lines in the universe, strictly speaking. There are only finite segments and rays. And even what seems to be a line may be slightly curved. If you can find me a line, I'll shut up. But it better not be a ray or a segment and it better be proven in actuality, not in abstract math. This seems ridiculous, but it's actually true.

"A gravitational singularity is a point in space at which the quantities used to measure the gravitational field of something become infinite."
Is it infinite or is it unable to be measured by limited people? Just because we can't measure something doesn't mean it's infinite. It could seem infininte, but is it really? What we can be sure of is that we can't fully measure a singularity. www.big-bang-theory.com says: "What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of 'black holes.' "
As with space in the universe,  is it beyond our ability to measure or infinite? What we can be sure of is that it is beyond our ability to measure.

((( “That means that that explanation for the "ultimate origin of all nature" is science fiction. As in sci-fi, there is much scientific-sounding, number-crunching intellectual-sounding lingo. But we all know it means nothing for it is fiction, and "fiction" is a nice way to say NOT REAL.”

Prove it. )))
I aready did and repeat with more now: something natural being infinite is not science (empirical/fact/provable), but UNPROVABLE SPECULATION. That means that the "m-theory" explanation for the "ultimate origin of all nature" is pretty much just imaginary, and thus, science fiction. Since your arguments for nature's infinity failed, there is no way that m-theory (with its proposed infinite occurrence of membranes) is plausible for the ultimate explanation of nature. So it is not real, at least as you present it to be.

You said: "I do find it really odd though that the person who’s claiming someone else’s explanation is “fiction” is also the same person who’s explanation consists of a supernaturally divine being that’s never been observed. That sounds to me like pure speculation, especially since you‘ve never presented any backing, other than some personal reasoning, for such an idea. How ironic. It’s just weird that you would think an explanation can be “defeated” by claiming it’s fiction or just speculation, when the one you offer is in the same category."
Again: "Here's the big difference between my deity explanation & yours:
My proposition does not make an exception to the LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT IN NATURE. Yours does." Add to that the fact that I do not claim deity to be a scientific explanation while you claim your m-theory is a scientific explanation. Since you make that claim, you have to do more than propose an explanation; you have to prove it (which I have done for divinity's existence), or at the very least give sound reasoning for it (which is what I have done for deity). Since I showed how the infinite-nature premise of your m-theory argument is flawed, your speculative theory is trash as far as explaining the ultimate origin of nature.

"If claiming it’s just speculation is a refutation then the argument applies to all ideas." True. The thing is: my deity proposition is sound and your infinite-nature m-theory proposition isn't, as was demonstrated.

"You’re basically cheating. You’re saying your explanation is allowed to be pure speculation and it’s still an acceptable one, but anyone else’s explanation has to be more than speculation or it’s not acceptable." Mine has to be more than speculation, too, so I'm not cheating. I am not affiliated with Voov, despite agreeing on some things.

To be continued...

Comment

"In this case, claiming something is refuted because it’s only speculation wouldn’t even apply to M-Theory unless you completely ignored the mathematical support it holds (which you might be doing since you’ve said before you don’t need to know it because you’re sure it’s wrong)." 
All I need to do is show that one premise is flawed and I can avoid having to bother with other premises like the math that I would probably not understand. I am very bad at unneeded math. I failed algebra in high school and later in college. Go ahead and use this against me. It will backfire if you do.

"You’d first have to prove that something natural cannot be infinite before you could even hope to get any backing for saying my concept violates cause and effect. " Agreed and accomplished.

"You’ve made a bunch of claims, but you have no backing for any of them. You say something natural cannot be infinite. Okay. Prove it. I mean, you have nothing to go by but your opinion. You have no support of any kind for such a claim. Not even a little bit of evidence." 
Something natural can't be infinite because, as I said before, since all natural things break down, if you go back far enough, there had to be a point at which nature was in highest order. Before that you can go no further without making an exception to the law of breaking down, which entropy is about. Making that exception would be twisting the truth for one's own agenda: something deity proponents don't have to do, but God-deniers and eternal-nature proponents just might.
You say I don't back up my claim. I did. You either forgot it or ignored it or didn't read where I said it. I doubt it was the latter.

"There’s no religious belief I’m aware of that possesses mathematical support like M-Theory"
It's not exactly religious, but it can be considered as such because it is faith-based & no proof is given. The only thing is it rejects the supernatural, has no actual scripture and has a coating of science. It is more sci-fi than religious, though. Its "mathematical support" is like that found in some sci-fi story and amounts to nothing, as I explained.

"Your theory consists of nothing but your opinions." 
Is it possible for an opinion to be fact, and thus truth? Of course.
Since my "opinion" of deity's existence is sound, it is truth. Not just subjective, since I have objective evidence and sound reason to support my proposition. And since I have taken down none-divine explanations for nature's ultimate existence, my truth is THE truth, not just a truth, in which case it would possibly be wrong and be subjective.

"I’d go with M-Theory any day over empty claims"
As I have shown, that is a contradiction.

M-theory is boring as sci-fi. I prefer Metroid. It has cool aliens. I like the two-legged ice beasts.

Comment

“Energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work.”

More specifically, energy is the work that can be done by a force. It’s a scalar quantity.

“How can there be a capacity of a physical system to do work without there being a physical system?”

I don’t know what you’re defining “physical system” to mean, but in physics that simply means the things you’re analyzing. If you’re analyzing the energy produced by a force, then the energy under analysis is the physical system.

“There can't be. Therefore, energy depends on the existence of (a) physical system(s), which is/are subject to the law of cause and effect in nature.”

Energy depends on the existence of a force. I don’t think you’re using the phrase “physical system” properly. It’s as if you think it always refers to something composed of matter like a rock or house. It doesn’t. I can refer to energy as well.

“That means that energy did not always exist. Obviously, it can't be created or destroyed as far as human experience records (deity can make exceptions/miracles),..”

That means nothing of the sort, because you haven’t shown how energy is not infinite. You’ve claimed it can’t be infinite because it must be the result of a physical system. But your definition of physical system doesn’t appear to include forces like electromagnetism or gravitation. It only appears to include matter-based systems. I do like how you add in that your explanation’s allowed to bypass all the rules. Here I am showing how my explanation goes by all the rules while you just skip by merrily claiming those rules don’t apply to your stuff. But, that’s fine. I’ll still play the game even though you’re cheating.

“..but the law of conservation of energy applies to energy in the state of the universe as it is now (i.e. with matter already existing).”

It applies to the state of energy within a closed system. The conservation law states that the energy of a closed system stays constant and doesn’t change. Consequently, that means the energy of a closed system cannot be created or destroyed. As long as the system is closed, the total amount of energy within it will be static. If the universe has always been a closed system and will always be a closed system, the total amount of energy within it will always stay the same (for an infinite amount of time).

“I referred to this before as a veneer of science over the pure speculation of that science fiction.”

I’ll bet. Because an idea that defies known laws of physics and isn’t supported by any mathematics at all  is definitely more believable than an idea that obeys the laws of physics and possesses a large amount of mathematical support right?

“Yes, in theory it works. But since you can't find even one line in actual existence and not as a mere abstract conception, then your inevitable failure will prove my point. There are no lines in the universe, strictly speaking. There are only finite segments and rays. And even what seems to be a line may be slightly curved. If you can find me a line, I'll shut up. But it better not be a ray or a segment and it better be proven in actuality, not in abstract math. This seems ridiculous, but it's actually true.”

Do you even consider that some of the things you say against my proposition also apply to your own? I’ll turn that back around at you for a moment. Let’s ask the question “Can a god create the universe?” The answer would be “Yes, in theory. But since you can’t find one line of actual existence and not as a mere abstract concept, then your inevitable failure will prove my point.” Get the point? If mathematics is invalid as an example of infinity because it is abstract, then so is your god.

Comment

“Is it infinite or is it unable to be measured by limited people?”

That’s basically what infinity means. Your god is infinite because it’s attributes cannot be measured correct? A singularity is infinite because it’s attributes cannot be measured.

“Just because we can't measure something doesn't mean it's infinite.”

Alright. Then there’s no reason to think any attribute about your god is infinite either. You see how a lot of what you say works both ways?

“It could seem infininte, but is it really? What we can be sure of is that we can't fully measure a singularity.”

As far as we can tell it is. If it weren’t immeasurable we’d have a measure for it wouldn’t we? I get what you’re trying to say, that we don’t know 100 percent that it’s infinite. But think about it Stranger. Is that an argument against anything really? We don’t know 100 percent on anything at all. There’s always a possibility something could be wrong. To say that something is wrong because it could be isn’t a good claim. You could be wrong about your idea that your god is infinite, but does that mean you automatically are? I could be wrong about a singularity being infinite, but does that mean I automatically am?

“As with space in the universe, is it beyond our ability to measure or infinite? What we can be sure of is that it is beyond our ability to measure.”

That’s pretty much what infinity means. Something that’s beyond measure is infinite (infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitely big, infinitely existing, ect).

“I aready did and repeat with more now: something natural being infinite is not science (empirical/fact/provable), but UNPROVABLE SPECULATION. That means that the "m-theory" explanation for the "ultimate origin of all nature" is pretty much just imaginary, and thus, science fiction. Since your arguments for nature's infinity failed, there is no way that m-theory (with its proposed infinite occurrence of membranes) is plausible for the ultimate explanation of nature. So it is not real, at least as you present it to be.”

You haven’t proven anything. There’s no scientific law against something natural being infinite. Unless you can whip out one real quick, ALL of your claims to the contrary are meaningless. There’s no other way around it Stranger. Either you demonstrate that there’s some kind of scientific law against something natural being infinite or stop making claims about how something natural being infinite goes against science. If you can’t provide a law against natural infinites, then don’t say they’re unscientific.

“Add to that the fact that I do not claim deity to be a scientific explanation while you claim your m-theory is a scientific explanation. Since you make that claim, you have to do more than propose an explanation; you have to prove it, or at the very least give sound reasoning for it. Since I showed how the infinite-nature premise of your m-theory argument is flawed, your speculative theory is trash as far as explaining the ultimate origin of nature.”

Stop claiming victory on something you haven’t done. I’ll say it again. Show me a scientific law that prevents the occurrence of natural infinites or stop saying that such a thing is unscientific.

Comment

“All I need to do is show that one premise is flawed and I can avoid having to bother with other premises like the math that I would probably not understand. I am very bad at unneeded math. I failed algebra in high school and later in college. Go ahead and use this against me. It will backfire if you do.”

I’m not going to insult your intelligence if that’s what you’re expecting.

“Agreed and accomplished.”

Not accomplished. Where was it accomplished? Did you show a scientific law stating that something natural cannot be infinite? I didn’t see one. I just saw a bunch of claims.

“Something natural can't be infinite because, as I said before, since all natural things break down, if you go back far enough, there had to be a point at which nature was in highest order. Before that you can go no further without making an exception to the law of breaking down, which entropy is about. Making that exception would be twisting the truth for one's own agenda: something deity proponents don't have to do, but God-deniers and eternal-nature proponents just might.”

That’s not a good reason because it’s not scientifically accurate. Entropy is about thermal energy. Simply because all things "break down" as you would say doesn’t mean they cease to exist. Show me the part of thermodynamics that says energy will cease to exist at some point in the future.

I’ll skip the rest of what you said because it basically just repeats and I’d end up repeating myself if I responded to it all. So unless you really want me to comment on those parts, I won't.

Comment

Your entire rejection of M-Theory’s proposition rests with the assumption that it’s unscientific for natural infinities to exist. I already gave examples of natural infinites, but you claimed they weren’t infinite. Despite the fact that you couldn’t explain why, let’s try this a different way. To sum up my posts, I’m asking you to show me a scientific law that prevents natural infinites from existing. I already know there’s not one. You seem to think there is though. So, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt in hopes that you can provide one. As it seems, this one thing is what can decide the debate. If you can present a scientific law that prevents something natural from being infinite (going ahead and try entropy), then my examples of natural infinities are invalid, which means, consequently, that M-Theory would not be a just answer for your “ultimate cause“ question. If you can’t, then your accusations about natural infinites are invalid, which means, consequently, that you have no just reason to deny M-Theory as either a scientific theory or as an alternative idea to your “ultimate cause” question. That’s the wager here. You can choose whether or not to respond to the rest of what I said (though I’m sure you will since the idea of me being right on something probably sounds impossible to you), but this part right here is the end all scenario to this debate.

Comment

The last put up or shut up challenge was too vague. It left open opportunities for you to beat around the bush. I’m going to reconfirm what I just said so there’s no reason for confusion. The put up or shut up challenge to end this debate here and now is to provide me with an actual scientific law that ultimately prevents something natural from being infinite. No unreferenced claims. Tell me the name of the actual law and why you think it prevents natural infinities. We'll go over exactly what the law states afterwards. I’m sure entropy is already on your mind. Go ahead and use it if you want. I saw that one coming two days ago. Make sure you have a back up law though, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't prevent natural infinities. Just a heads up on that one. As a matter of fact, don’t even bother responding to anything else but this right here (unless you feel it absolutely necessary for whatever reason). It’ll save both of us a lot of typing since this can solve the whole problem once and for all.

Comment

"Energy depends on the existence of a force."
The definition I used of "physical system" obviously excludes energy from being one, though energy certainly is a physical system. Well, you know what I mean now.

Electromagnetism and gravitation depend on matter to exist, as well. You can't have gravity without mass, and you can't have mass without substance. That substance is matter.
Electromagnetism also depends on the existence of particles, which are matter. SInce those two physical systems depend on matter, they are, by extension, subject to cause & effect and, thus, not infinite.

"...your definition of physical system doesn’t appear to include forces like electromagnetism or gravitation. It only appears to include matter-based systems. I do like how you add in that your explanation’s allowed to bypass all the rules. Here I am showing how my explanation goes by all the rules while you just skip by merrily claiming those rules don’t apply to your stuff. But, that’s fine. I’ll still play the game even though you’re cheating." 
Now you know that by "physical system(s)" in the definition I gave, it refers to those that are not energy. I have just shown in the above paragraph that electromagnetism and gravity depend on matter to exist. I'm not cheating. I was simply not clear in my definition. Am I clear enough now?

"I’ll bet. Because an idea that defies known laws of physics and isn’t supported by any mathematics at all is definitely more believable than an idea that obeys the laws of physics and possesses a large amount of mathematical support right?"
Deity and all true laws are in harmony. Your m-theory with infinite natural things defies science and reason, as I have continued to prove. Which, then, is more believable? My supernatural logic-abiding proposition or your completely naturalistic logic-defying proposition?
And I already said why I don't need to even look at your "theory's" math. Any mathematician can apply math to science fiction that works on paper, but it doesn't make the science fiction any less false. You hide behind numbers that mean nothing. You know what? I'll let you explain how the math works in reality rather than on paper. Apply it to reality so we can see how it works. If it can't be tested, it's not scientific. If you won't show it for me, do it for the reader. I'll be waiting to show how it doesn't fly. Then you won't continue unleashing the paper tiger of that mathematics. The shadow is great but the paper will be crumpled.

I notice you failed to prove that a line exists in actuality. That means your proposed "infinite natural thing" is not infinite. So much for that "support." See how it topples.

"Do you even consider that some of the things you say against my proposition also apply to your own? I’ll turn that back around at you for a moment. Let’s ask the question “Can a god create the universe?” The answer would be “Yes, in theory. But since you can’t find one line of actual existence and not as a mere abstract concept, then your inevitable failure will prove my point.” Get the point? If mathematics is invalid as an example of infinity because it is abstract, then so is your god."

In your last line, you cheat by changing my argument by saying "If math is invalid as an example of infinity because it is abstract, then so is your god." 
I didn't say that it is wrong because it is abstract. I said it is wrong because it is NOTHING MORE THAN ABSTRACT AND DEFIES LOGIC. Look. Deity is abstract for those who don't know him, and a bit for those who do, but, unlike your mythological science fiction (not referring to math, but your whole m-theory), deity is MORE THAN ABSTRACT: deity is proven; real. Proven by your existence, your doubts, your every cell, all of nature, and all things that are known to exist. How? Because only a divine explanation works to ultimately explain existence of natural things. I've said this so many times it's crazy. If you want to shut me up, then find a plausible alternative to my ultimate explanation or a flaw in my deity proposition. As I have shown (by pointing out that energy, electromagnetism, and gravity depend on matter to exist and are thus not infinite), you have no plausible alternative, which means you have no reason to reject deity, which means you should put up or shut up or better yet humble yourself and submit to deity. I won't argue with you about the right deity because you haven't gone past the acknowledgement of divinity's existence, which even demons do.

(((“Is it infinite or is it unable to be measured by limited people?”

That’s basically what infinity means.)))
One thing is people's use of the term "infinite" for natural things like space, and another thing is what infinity actually is. Since there is no number to put on something so great that we can't measure it, people conveniently say it's infinite. Strictly speaking, no physical thing is known to be infinite. If you have the faith to believe that, fine. Just don't say it's science, for it is not proven nor provable.

(((“Just because we can't measure something doesn't mean it's infinite.”

Alright. Then there’s no reason to think any attribute about your god is infinite either. You see how a lot of what you say works both ways? )))
Like I said before, deity is not promoted as a scientific explanation; deity is not to be -nor can be- measured. I can propose whatever I want about the supernatural. As long as it's plausible...

To be continued...

Comment

"You haven’t proven anything. There’s no scientific law against something natural being infinite. Unless you can whip out one real quick, ALL of your claims to the contrary are meaningless. There’s no other way around it Stranger. Either you demonstrate that there’s some kind of scientific law against something natural being infinite or stop making claims about how something natural being infinite goes against science. If you can’t provide a law against natural infinities, then don’t say they’re unscientific. "
There doesn't have to be a scientific law that says something natural can't be infinite. Once again, my point is that IT IS NOT SCIENCE THAT SOMETHING NATURAL IS INFINITE. Surely you don't think it is science that something natural is infinite?
And again: you can believe that, but you have no proof.

"I’ll say it again. Show me a scientific law that prevents the occurrence of natural infinites or stop saying that such a thing is unscientific."
 Using your reasoning: why don't you show me a scientific law that prevents the occurrence of space pirates in the planet Zebes beyond our reach? Don't you dare tell me that my aliens are unscientific for you need science to make a stupid law saying "Space pirates do not exist" before you can say that it is unscientific to say that space pirates exist.
-My point is that IT IS UNSCIENTIFIC TO SAY THAT SOMETHING NATURAL IS INFINITE JUST AS IT IS UNSCIENTIFIC TO SAY THAT SPACE PIRATES EXIST.  [edit:]: Space pirates are possible, but the other is really logically impossible: for something natural to have always existed.

"Entropy is about thermal energy. Simply because all things "break down" as you would say doesn’t mean they cease to exist. Show me the part of thermodynamics that says energy will cease to exist at some point in the future." 
Why you bring up the future I do not know, for I am talking about the past. You make an empty claim: "as you would say doesn't mean they cease to exist." Why don't you ask me what I believe instead of inventing what I "would" say?
And don't confuse when I say "nature can't be infinite" as saying future infinity, for I refer to the past infinity: backwards in time forever. I am not sure about future infinity of nature. I believe earth will be renewed and the sun will die out and other apocalyptic things (pun intended), but that's another issue.

"...I’m sure you will since the idea of me being right on something probably sounds impossible to you..."
No, Hizashi. You aren't always wrong to me. You just happen to be wrong a lot on things like these.

"The put up or shut up challenge to end this debate here and now is to provide me with an actual scientific law that ultimately prevents something natural from being infinite. "
I have demonstrated (with my space pirates example) that it is absurd to need a scientific law to say that something is unscientific. One thing is "scientific" and another thing is "possible." And it's not even possible logically, since it defies the law of cause and effect. Even if you claimed your m-theory was unscientific but sound, you'd be lying.

Comment

I was very tempted to keep commenting on everything you typed, but I’m only going to respond to things that are either not entirely accurate when concerning science or pertain to the put up or shut up challenge of my last post in order to avoid dragging this debate out longer than it needs to be (which I know will happen if I don’t skip to the point each time).

“Electromagnetism and gravitation depend on matter to exist, as well. You can't have gravity without mass, and you can't have mass without substance. That substance is matter. Electromagnetism also depends on the existence of particles, which are matter. Since those two physical systems depend on matter, they are, by extension, subject to cause & effect and, thus, not infinite.”

Matter and energy are two halves of the same whole. They’re two different forms of the same thing. Energy can turn into matter and matter into energy. If you have energy, then you can have matter. If you have matter, then you can have energy. The total amount of energy present within our universe includes all the matter as well, since the equation E=Mc squared is applied. If you were to somehow get rid of all matter in the universe, there would still be energy. You’re implying that energy cannot exist without matter. That’s just not true. Your definition of a physical system is not useful because it is scientifically inaccurate (by not including energy as a system).

I’ve read through your entire posts twice already and I find that you made no attempt to show me a scientific law preventing natural infinites. I did notice you said at one point that there doesn’t have to be a law preventing them. Yes, there does actually, at least in order for your claims to be true. Because you have no room to say a natural infinity isn’t scientific if there’s no scientific law against them. Here’s the thing Stranger. Your whole argument rests on the idea that natural infinites are unscientific. If that’s true, then you should be able to show a scientific law that prevents there from being natural infinities. If you can’t, then there’s no reason to keep saying that a natural infinity is unscientific, because the only way it would be unscientific in the first place is if the laws of physics ruled the occurrence out. Claiming energy can be created or destroyed is unscientific, because it violates the conservation of energy law which rules out the possibility that energy can be created or destroyed. Claiming a body of mass won’t be effected by the gravitational influence of another body of mass is unscientific, because it violates the laws of gravity which rules out the event that mass will not influence other mass gravitationally. Claiming electrical currents won’t effect magnetic ones is unscientific, because it violates the laws of electrodynamics which rule out the possibility of electricity not being capable of influencing a magnetic field. Likewise, claiming something natural can be infinite should violate a particular law in order to be classified as unscientific. You haven’t tried to name a law it violates. If it doesn’t violate a scientific law, then it’s not unscientific. Plain and simple. You can either start naming scientific laws you think it might violate or stop saying natural infinities are unscientific. Knowing you though, you’ll probably choose the third option to keep saying they’re unscientific even though you’re unable to give a law the concept violates. Like I said, this challenge to you is the verdict of the entire debate. You made the claims about natural infinities being unscientific, so it’s up to you to prove it. And the only way to do so is to show a law that such a concept would violate if it were true. I’ll repeat it one more time. If you can present a scientific law that prevents something natural from being infinite, then my examples of natural infinities are invalid, which means, consequently, that M-Theory would not be a just answer for your “ultimate cause“ question. If you can’t, then your accusations about natural infinites are invalid, which means, consequently, that you have no just reason to deny M-Theory as either a scientific theory or as an alternative idea to your “ultimate cause” question. There’s no more beating around the bush, no more unreferenced claims. Don’t just say it anymore. Show it. In your terms, I suppose you could say that if you can present a law that says what you say, then you “win”. If you can’t, then I “win”. That’s all there is to it. You can repeat what you’ve already said (about how you've demonstrated "this" and "that") again and again, but the only true way to prove me wrong is to do what I just mentioned. Anything else is just an empty claim.

Comment

"Matter and energy are two halves of the same whole. They’re two different forms of the same thing"
I read that when looking for the physics definition of energy before but didn't think it was necessary to mention. Well, if they're pretty much the same thing, then energy is subject to cause and effect as matter is. This point should not be separated from my main point in the second section after this one.

"If you were to somehow get rid of all matter in the universe, there would still be energy." It's hard to believe that all matter can cease to exist completely. Do you have proof for that? What's your reasoning for that being possible? It's just imaginary to show what you mean, I see, but no... energy- being capacity for work- can't exist without a worker (something to do the work).

"You’re implying that energy cannot exist without matter. That’s just not true. Your definition of a physical system is not useful because it is scientifically inaccurate (by not including energy as a system). "
I clarified the definition so that it excludes energy as a physical system among those referred to (not that energy isn't a physical system) yet you're saying it is not useful. You know what I mean now. How can you have capacity for a physical system (that isn't energy) to do work without there being a physical system (which is subject to cause&effect and is thus not infinite backwards)?

"I’ve read through your entire posts twice already and I find that you made no attempt to show me a scientific law preventing natural infinites. I did notice you said at one point that there doesn’t have to be a law preventing them. Yes, there does actually, at least in order for your claims to be true. Because you have no room to say a natural infinity isn’t scientific if there’s no scientific law against them. Here’s the thing Stranger. Your whole argument rests on the idea that natural infinites are unscientific. If that’s true, then you should be able to show a scientific law that prevents there from being natural infinities. If you can’t, then there’s no reason to keep saying that a natural infinity is unscientific, because the only way it would be unscientific in the first place is if the laws of physics ruled the occurrence out."
I have been saying that it is unscientific to say that something natural is infinite. Why? Because something is only scientific if there is proof for it. There is no proof for that, therefore it is unscientific. 
There seems to be disagreement on the meaning of "unscientific."
Tell me if the claim that aliens exist is scientific (you ignored my point made with space pirates. I don't know how you could do that having read my stuff twice). There is so far no proof for aliens' existence (though I believe it's possible that there are beings elsewhere).
And there's a big difference between the alien claim and your nature-always-having-existed-in-some-way claim:
The alien proposition doesn't make an exception to the law of cause and effect. The other one does, as I have continued to prove.
"Your whole argument rests on the idea that natural infinites are unscientific" Not exactly natural infinities but any of such backwards (that is, having always existed).

"Claiming energy can be created or destroyed is unscientific, because it violates the conservation of energy law which rules out the possibility that energy can be created or destroyed."
To be clear, I did not violate the "energy can't be created or destroyed law" because the law applies to energy in an already existing universe. And, as I am arguing, the universe didn't always exist, so the law didn't always exist or at least apply.

You gave that example (and others) to show that something is unscientific if it violates a law. I agree, but that isn't the only way something can be unscientific. The other is if there is no proof to back it up and if there is no good reason to believe the thing in question (e.g. if it involves making an exception to a law. In m-theory's case: cause and effect) and if it is untestable (in m-theory's case: the premise that something natural always existed, among other things).

"...the only true way to prove me wrong is to do what I just mentioned. Anything else is just an empty claim. "
As I said above, finding a violation of a scientific law is not the only way to expose something as unscientific.

Comment

“It's hard to believe that all matter can cease to exist completely. Do you have proof for that? What's your reasoning for that being possible? It's just imaginary to show what you mean, I see, but no... energy- being capacity for work- can't exist without a worker (something to do the work).”

It was just an example to illustrate how energy can exist without matter because they’re two forms of the same thing Stranger. Relax. It wasn’t an attempt to say matter could all spontaneously disappear. However, the “workers” you mention could be a force (Strong Interaction, Weak Interaction, Electromagnetism, or Gravitation) because the physics definition of the word energy is “the work done by a force”. Known scientific theories and laws (electrodynamics, chromodynamics, General Relativity, etc) state that these forces can indeed exist even if there were no matter present in the universe at all. In the first few seconds of the Big Bang, temperatures are estimated to be so hot that matter could not even form, yet the forces of gravity, electromagnetism, Strong and Weak interaction still existed (all thought to be combined into one until temperatures cooled). They can exist, and interact with themselves (i.e. the Gluons exchanging color charges between one another), even while zero matter is present. That’s why they’re called the fundamental forces of nature. Energy can exist without any matter due to the fundamental forces and you have yet to give a scientific law proving energy cannot be infinite.

“I have been saying that it is unscientific to say that something natural is infinite. Why? Because something is only scientific if there is proof for it. There is no proof for that, therefore it is unscientific.”

No. Something is scientific when there is scientific support for it. I don’t know what you mean by “proof”, but in science there’s no such thing as absolute, can never be wrong end all questions proof. The word “proof” in science simply means evidence whenever it’s used (usually referring to a large amount of it). The scientific support for energy being infinite in existence comes from the conservation of energy law (not to mention the mathematics which support a number of naturally immeasurable systems).

“Tell me if the claim that aliens exist is scientific”

No, because there’s no scientific evidence for the claim. The statement that aliens could exist is scientific in some sense though, due to mathematical probability since there are billions of stars within the Milky Way with at least a few million that are like our Sun.

“To be clear, I did not violate the "energy can't be created or destroyed law" because the law applies to energy in an already existing universe. And, as I am arguing, the universe didn't always exist, so the law didn't always exist or at least apply.”

If that’s the case, then there’s no reason to assume that cause and effect would have always applied either, because cause and effect only applies to things already in existence within the universe. So why continue acting like it did? If your only refutation is that the conservation of energy law may not have always applied, then the same thing goes for the cause and effect notion too. Therefore, you should stop claiming cause and effect is violated. So you can either exempt the cause and effect argument from the rest of the debate under the claim that universal laws might not have always applied, or you can keep the cause and effect argument and assume they always have. Either way, it benefits me. Because if you get rid of the conservation of energy law by saying it didn’t always apply, that means that cause and effect might not always have applied either. If that’s the case, your whole argument falls apart since your main refutation involves the cause and effect notion. And since cause and effect might not have always applied you can’t use it as an argument against anything proposed by M-Theory. If you choose to keep the cause and effect concept, meaning you want to assume it’s always applied, then I get to also assume that the conservation of energy law has always existed just to be fair. There’s no way for you to beat me out on this one. You’ve backed yourself into a corner.

“You gave that example (and others) to show that something is unscientific if it violates a law. I agree, but that isn't the only way something can be unscientific. The other is if there is no proof to back it up and if there is no good reason to believe the thing in question (e.g. if it involves making an exception to a law. In m-theory's case: cause and effect) and if it is untestable (in m-theory's case: the premise that something natural always existed, among other things).”

I’ve listed the conservation of energy law, electrodynamics, chromodynamics, General Relativity, and mathematical support which all allow for natural infinites, of different kinds, to exist. What have you got? You simply say a natural infinity violates cause and effect. That’s all. But you forget that if something is truly infinite in existence, it can’t violate cause and effect because you can’t demonstrate how it was caused. Your strongest alleged refutation is that universal laws might not always have applied. That could indeed be true. The thing is, you can’t assume one universal concept hasn’t always applied without assuming the rest haven’t. That includes your famed cause and effect concept. I want you to choose now. We need to establish whether or not we’re going to assume universal laws have always applied or not. So, since the decision is going to effect your argument the most, I want you to also make the choice.

Comment

“As I said above, finding a violation of a scientific law is not the only way to expose something as unscientific.”

I know. But I said it’s the only way for you to refute M-Theory’s propositions. And it is. Because, contrary to what you’re willing to admit obviously, I have given support for natural infinites (conservation of energy, singularities, and mathematical sets). You can claim they don’t support the concept of a natural infinity all you want. But they do. Whether it’s in an abstract sense or not, they support the notion of natural infinites indefinitely. Claiming they're unscientific because they're abstract is stupid, because scientific concepts need not be concrete. That being said, the only way for you to defeat M-Theory’s proposition is to present a scientific law which doesn’t allow natural infinities. I already know there’s not one. So you can’t accomplish that task anyway, even if you did try. Again, we come down to a new refutation you just offered, that being the idea that universal laws, like the conservation of energy law, might not have always applied. That’s actually a reasonable claim, because it could be true. But, once again, you forget that the claim works both ways in the argument. If natural laws have not always existed, then cause and effect might not have either, therefore, your refutation for natural infinites, which is that they violate cause and effect, is worthless if cause and effect hasn't always applied. So, make the choice. Are we assuming in this debate that natural laws have always existed or not?

Comment

"It was just an example to illustrate how energy can exist without matter because they’re two forms of the same thing Stranger. Relax. It wasn’t an attempt to say matter could all spontaneously disappear."
Hence my saying afterwards "It's just imaginary to show what you mean, I see, but no... "

((( However, the “workers” you mention could be a force (Strong Interaction, Weak Interaction, Electromagnetism, or Gravitation) because the physics definition of the word energy is “the work done by a force”. ))) 
Of course matter is not the only worker possible. 
The strong Interaction depends on particles to exist. How can you have an interaction without interactors?
The weak interaction also depends on particles to exist and, likewise, is subject to cause & effect by extension.
I already said that electromagnetism depends on particles to exist. Likewise with gravity.

"Known scientific theories and laws (electrodynamics, chromodynamics, General Relativity, etc) state that these forces can indeed exist even if there were no matter present in the universe at all." 
According to answers.com, chromodynamics is/are "The physics of the relationship between color-carrying quarks, especially the nature of their strong interaction, which is characterized by the exchange of gluons."
Quarks are particles, so chromodynamics depends on that which is subject to cause&effect, and so is subject to the same by extension.
Nothing you offered supports your claim that something natural could have always existed.
Anyway, how do those things you listed "...state that these forces can indeed exist even if there were no matter present in the universe at all"? I don't believe that for it's nonsense that nontangible things (such as the strong interaction) dependent on particles can exist without those particles.

"They can exist, and interact with themselves (i.e. the Gluons exchanging color charges between one another), even while zero matter is present."
Proof?

"Energy can exist without any matter due to the fundamental forces..." The fundamental forces you offered depend on matter, so your claim fails.

"...you have yet to give a scientific law proving energy cannot be infinite." I don't need to because I have shown that you have no proof for an always-existant-nature, and your claim defies logic (making an exception to a law of nature), which makes it unscientific.

"The scientific support for energy being infinite in existence comes from the conservation of energy law (not to mention the mathematics which support a number of naturally immeasurable systems)."
The law is but one. You forget the law of cause and effect. Look at the big picture. Find harmony between the laws. That harmony is found when you see that nature did not always exist, but was begun by the non-natural.
A scientific law may not have always applied before nature existed. That's the only time they haven't applied.
As for what you have in parentheses: come on!
Abstract infinities need to be proven to be used as proof. You can't. You could not find one line in reality, as opposed to theory. I didn't say that something is unscientific ONLY because it's abstract, but that something is unscientific if it is NOTHING BUT ABSTRACT, as infinite lines are. Just as the claim that space pirates exist is nothing but abstract, so, too, is your claim (and, again: the alien claim is logically possible unlike your always-existant-nature claim, for the alien claim does not make an exception to cause&effect as yours arbitrarily does).

((( “Tell me if the claim that aliens exist is scientific”

No, because there’s no scientific evidence for the claim. )))
So you put the alien claim to the rigors of science but not your eternal-nature claim? I know you've thought that there is proof for eternally-past nature, but nothing you offered works.

"If that’s the case, then there’s no reason to assume that cause and effect would have always applied either, because cause and effect only applies to things already in existence within the universe. So why continue acting like it did?"
Cause & effect is that all natural things are caused, not that all natural things are causes. And I have shown how nature couldn't have always existed: the "dying" of nature: decay: breaking down of nature.

"There’s no way for you to beat me out on this one. You’ve backed yourself into a corner. " ha. Then I suppose I can go through walls.

If you want- which you won't-, believe your imaginary membranes are supernatural. It'll be good for you because then you won't have to reject a scientific law to make them work, although you'd be ridiculous to think that mindless membranes could make the universe- unless they are proposed to have a will, and thus, a mind. But even then...

If something is empirically untestable, is it scientific?

"I’ve listed the conservation of energy law, electrodynamics, chromodynamics, General Relativity, and mathematical support which all allow for natural infinites, of different kinds, to exist."
All depend on matter or, in the case of math, are nothing but untestable abstract notions.
How does General Relativity PROVE that there are truly infinite natural things? NOT JUST UNTESTABLE ABSTRACT things.

"What have you got? You simply say a natural infinity violates cause and effect. That’s all." 
You list a bunch of empty claims and compare them to my single truth. One truth is worth more than a million lies.
And, uh...no. I said more than what you said I merely said, and backed it up with good ol' logic.

"But you forget that if something is truly infinite in existence, it can’t violate cause and effect because you can’t demonstrate how it was caused." IF is a little word that makes a big difference. And it is possible for nature to be infinite into the future without it having always existed. That's kind of what I believe.

Comment

"Claiming they're unscientific because they're abstract is stupid, because scientific concepts need not be concrete."
As I have said before, it is unscientific since it is NOTHING BUT ABSTRACT.

You said to me and to no avail: "But, once again, you forget that the claim works both ways in the argument"

I can apply your words to you: Claiming that the notion of metroid life-forms in the Planet Zebes is unscientific because it is abstract (imaginary) is stupid, because scientific concepts need not be concrete.

Give up and you'll spare us loss of time.
Or as you would now expect of me to say:
The great Khan speaks.
Shall I unleash my hordes upon you?
If you surrender, your fortress will not be utterly destroyed.
I will, however, leave your arguments in ruins...
and trample on your precious pride.
You are in 暗闇, therefore you are not light.

(I got "darkness" translated into Japanese from the internet)

But seriously. Any argument against God must be brought down. I take it personally, since he adopted me and created me indirectly. If you treat him as a mere alternative, your alternative is going down. There is only one way. The truth is narrow.

Comment

Alright. I’m getting tired of this. It's become really irritating. It’s the same thing over and over. I’m done addressing your claims. I’m going to address the subjects by explaining what they’re actually about and what the theories of the subjects actually say. If you want to disagree with everything concerning those theories and concepts, then you go right ahead. Because when you do that, you’re not just disagreeing with me. You’re disagreeing with the entire scientific community and all their knowledge concerning those topics. I’m done playing the debating game with someone who doesn’t know anything about science to begin with. Yes, I’m bringing that up again because it’s a major flaw in anything you say relating to science. It’s like person who admittedly knows little about mathematics trying to disprove the equations in an algebra paper written by someone else who does. It makes no sense. It’s a stupid idea.

Fundamental Forces:

A fundamental interaction is a process where elementary particles interact with one another. An elementary particle is something without a known substructure (like a quark). However, gauge bosons (the fundamental force particles) are also considered to be elementary particles. Hence, they can interact with themselves even if no other elementary particles, like quarks, are present (though they are more often than not acting on matter). Gluons can interact with one another without matter involved because gluons carry a color charge, which can be exchanged between other gluons. The only exception to the self-interacting thing would be photons, since they carry no net charge. They wouldn’t be capable of interacting directly with one another due to the fact that they’re virtually all the same. However, a photon can interact with things that aren’t composed of matter, like a magnetic field. Either way, the absence of matter in no way implies the absence of the fundamental forces. No scientific theory states that nor is it a law of any kind. The evidence and support for the things I just said is within the scientific theories you know so little about that you had to do an internet search to find out what I was referring to. So don’t hassle me for proof of anything when you have virtually no idea what I’m talking about to begin with. You think getting the definition of chromodynamics from answers.com all of a sudden makes you knowledgeable on the issue? Don’t kid yourself Stranger. You know close to nothing about science, much less chromodynamics or electrodynamics, yet you’re so sure you’ve got it right. That’s ridiculous. I already know all of this stuff, whereas you probably just keep having to look the words and definitions up every time I mention them because you’ve most likely never heard of half the things I’m talking about, which isn’t really a problem until you start trying to debate on subjects like this without already knowing the parameters of the topic. I can’t believe you thought I’d know so little about physics that a quick internet search would prove me wrong. Not a chance. You’ll have to do about three more years worth of internet searches to even come close to knowing what I do about science.

Singularities:

Another scientific phenomenon you probably never heard of before I mentioned it in your shout box a couple of weeks ago, yet you’re sure you know enough about it to know it’s not infinite. Again, what a ridiculous thought. Infinity simply means something that is immeasurable. It doesn’t matter what the property is (density, temperature, volume, existence, ect). Any attribute has the potential to be infinite if it is immeasurable. I don’t care what your opinionated definition of infinity might be. We’re talking about science, so we’re going to use the scientific definition of the word. A singularity is infinite. Mathematical equations have shown that. Gripe and complain all you want. I don’t care. Demonstrate how a singularity can’t be infinite, or be quiet. I don’t want to hear about how something abstract can’t be scientific. That idea couldn’t be more wrong. How do I know? Because science isn’t limited to the concrete. You can’t demonstrate how something abstract can’t be scientific. You probably wouldn’t be able to even if there was a way, because your understanding of science is weak. As usual, all you can do is make assertion after assertion. You have no scientific backing for anything, just claim after claim of how you think “this” or “that” is wrong because of unscientific reasons. Go ahead and quote me on this, making even more claims afterwards about how you've already demonstrated something. You haven't demonstrated anything other than the fact that you know nothing of science.

Comment

Cause and Effect:

I’m going to get right down to the point Stranger. I’ve been yanking your chain the whole time. There’s no scientific law that states there must be a cause for everything. You won’t find one, because one doesn’t exist. Causality is an important concept when concerning experiments meant to explain certain phenomenon. But no scientific theory or law says that there is undoubtedly a cause for everything that occurs, nor that there must be. Yep, that also means that there’s no scientific law stating that the universe must be caused. That idea is all in your head. There’s nothing scientific about it. Sure, the universe could have been caused and it could be better to understand through experimentation if it were. But there’s still no scientific law that says it must have been caused or else something is wrong. The closest scientific law that the cause and effect idea relates to is Newton’s third law of motion (to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). But even that law doesn’t say that the universe had to have a cause. You can wave around a flag with “Cause and Effect” written all over it as much as you want. It’s still meaningless. You want to talk about something being unscientific? Your claim about the universe requiring a cause is unscientific because it lacks any kind of support. A universe that's caused is no more likely than one that isn't caused because there are theories which allow for either one. I was foolish to try to play the game by your rules, because your rules make no sense. I shouldn’t have even let this part go as far as it did. Well, now you know. If you were educated on science like you should be while debating on scientific subjects, you would have called me on that from the start. But, as anyone can plainly see, you aren’t as educated on science as you should be. I could probably get away with a bunch of things like that and you’d never know the difference because science to you is like calculus to an infant.

M-Theory:

Well, I’m sure I don’t need to repeat the same thing again. But I will anyway. This is yet another scientific subject you know almost nothing about but are apparently convinced you have the means to disprove it. Yeah, right. The day you disprove a scientific theory you know nothing about is the day I become a pastor. I can’t even believe you fool yourself into thinking you possess the capabilities to prove something scientific to be incorrect. It just baffles me. You already admitted that you probably wouldn’t understand the mathematics of M-Theory at all. That right there should trigger a neuron impulse that says “Don’t debate about M-Theory”. But, you still try to anyway. Why? I’m not exactly sure. But regardless of the reason, it’s a stupid idea.

Comment

Stranger, I’m sure you’re an intelligent person. I don’t have much of a doubt about that. But you have virtually no right to be going against scientific theories, laws, or concepts when you don’t understand roughly anything about them. You’re all alone with your claims Stranger. I’m not making anything up. This is actual science. You don’t know hardly anything about General Relativity, chromodynamics, electrodynamics, singularities, or M-Theory. I do. So does the scientific community, who you’re convinced you just outsmarted by mentioning the phrase “cause and effect” a couple of times. Those theories and concepts have been worked on by some of the greatest minds in history. We’re talking about Einstein when it comes to singularities, and you’re under the impression that you, a scientifically illiterate college student, just proved him wrong. That’s sad. I’m supposed to believe you’re right when you don’t even know as much as I do about science? I mean, all of a sudden this one lone little college guy comes along claiming it’s all not what it’s said to be, and I’m suppose to believe him? Please. You can’t even address the actual things I mention directly because you don’t hardly know anything about them. What you usually do is address them indirectly by bringing up something else. Not only do I know more about all this than you, you’re also going up against thousands of minds who have way more knowledge on the stuff than me. And yet, you’re still cocky enough to think, with your quick searches on answers.com, that you’ve outsmarted everyone, including people like Einstein, on natural infinites such as singularities. I’m not sure if I should laugh at you or pity you. It’s not because you’re less knowledgeable in science than me, or anyone else, that’s the problem. It’s because you seem to act like you don’t have to be in order to speak on subjects of science. The fact is, you do have to be. And you’re not. That’s a major problem. I’m done debating with you about science. It almost seems hopeless. You’re so close-minded. Anything outside your presuppositions is not even considerable in your mind. That kind of thinking is a barrier to progress. That’s why we never make any. You’re too busy trying to disprove anything that doesn’t agree with your presumptions that you don’t realize you have no idea what you’re talking about. You don’t try to understand anything. You’re not willing to learn things you don’t understand. All you’re interested in is attacking anything that’s not in harmony with your personal beliefs. It’d be different if when I explained something you asked questions about it in an attempt to further your understanding on the issue. But that’s not what happens. There’s no questions involved. It’s just you claiming everything that’s not in agreement with your religious beliefs is wrong no matter what. You don’t understand science. That’s the most important and damaging flaw in every argument you’ve ever made against something scientific. I’m not going to debate with you on any subject concerning science until you stop pretending like you know the stuff and admit that you don’t. If you want to keep pretending you know about science by quoting me on everything and trying to argue against it all, be my guest. You can continue to fool yourself if you want, but you’re not going to fool me (or anyone else who knows their stuff). You already revealed your true intentions when it comes to things like this, and those intentions weren’t to learn or understand. You’re a close-minded scientifically illiterate religiously motivated joke. When you’re ready to get serious and start learning about what you don’t know, I’ll be waiting. Until then, our postponed debates on macroevolution and the Big Bang aren’t going to happen. I’m not going to go through all this again. It’s a waste of time.

Comment

Deity hasn't been proven wrong here. As for me, I have only been proven ignorant of all of your science fiction, not that I claimed to know it all. When Hizashi said that electromagnetism and the other commonly known forces prove nature always existed, I knew that wasn't so. When questioned, he backed up to quarks within the forces. That didn't work, so he backed up to gluons. That worked, since I knew nothing of them. All I have to do is figure out how gluons and the like are subject to the UNofficial law of cause and effect (Hiz will probably not agree that it is scientific even though science depends more on "cause and effect" than the doctrine of macroevolution and the big explosion notion combined, but I'll argue with him when I got it all- if I get it all).

I need to prove that nature didn't always exist. Hizashi did not prove that it did, but claimed it. I don't take him at his word nor do I take speculators referred to as scientists at theirs (when it contradicts the scriptures). So far, I can't deny his alternative to deity with proof, but, yeah, I'm relying on faith and the fact that I know God- which means nothing to you, I know- to continue a sceptic to his claim.

You do well to let Hizashi do the work for you.

I expected the heretic to be gloating when I saw a new comment here, but it was you. Gloat while you can. It's the last man standing who wins. You think I can't get up again. Even if I don't, it is only me. I'm not the best defender of my faith. If I fail, there can come another, and probably will.

One last thing: you must have enjoyed it when you read that I call myself a dog and a fool. I actually think that's funny.

Comment

It doesn't have to be proven wrong, the believer is solely responsible for proving it right.  I no more have to disprove an unproven god than I have to disprove green unicorns living on a planet 500,000 light years away.  If you want to convince anyone that your god is real, it rests solely on you to back it up with demonstrable, objective evidence.

Unfortunately, you've done a really rotten job of it.  Oh sure, you play little games and make absurd leaps, but as far as actually proving your case, you've done nothing.  Proving that nature didn't always exist, and who says that it did, doesn't prove the factual existence of God.  You might believe it, just as Muslims believe in the factual existence of Allah and Hindus believe in the factual existence of their myriad of gods, but until you can do more than make unsubstantiated claims, until you can back up your words with demonstrable evidence, you're not going to convince anyone.  High-level scientologists supposedly believe in Xenu and his psychic thetans, but to anyone outside of their ridiculous cult, the idea sounds absurd.  Here's a news flash for you, your beliefs sound just as absurd to anyone who does not already embrace them.

Either you need to put up actual evidence or you can accept that you'll sound like a lunatic, it's your choice.

Comment

The way Stranger phrased things makes it sound like I abandoned electromagnetism and the other forces when he argued against the way they operate because the concepts were flawed. That’s not the case. I swapped examples only because Stranger obviously didn’t get what I was talking about. Stranger’s knowledge of electromagnetism, gravity, the weak interaction, the strong interaction, W and Z bosons, photons, virtual particles, quantum vacuum fluctuations, singularities, thermodynamics, branes, space-time, relativity, and M-Theory is feeble. In fact, Stranger knows no more about any of those than he does about gluons. I’m not sure why he implied that he is educated on the four fundamental forces (or at least enough to debate on them). He’s not. Nowhere close actually. The only time he’s probably ever even spoken about them is when he was debating with me (a whole two times maybe). Stranger wouldn't be able to tell you how any of the four forces work without looking it up somewhere (of which he only spends a couple of minutes doing most likely, which isn't enough). The thing is, it doesn’t even matter how educated Stranger becomes on any of those topics. As long as he pairs them side by side with his little scriptures each time the entire effort put forth learning is completely worthless. It means nothing to learn about something if you’ve already decided it’s wrong no matter what. That’s why Stranger will NEVER properly understand scientific concepts unless he’s willing to put aside his 1,700 thousand year old writings and view just the science without involving irrelevant religious doctrines. Since he’s made it clear he doesn’t intend to do that anytime soon, I will hold to my word that I will not debate with him at all about anything scientific until the day comes when he lets those presuppositions go. My guess is that him and I won’t be debating ever again.

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

5 minutes ago

Sounds like a good idea to me. Here is an idea. Buy a food cart. Set up a stand and sell an assortment of meats on... read more...

43 minutes ago

Funny you should bring it up. I'm just about to launch a nation wide army of side walk vendors who will be selling a wide... read more...

53 minutes ago

No. Lots of things happen and matter with NO RELATION to pink floyd whatsoever. MLK was born before pink floyd, without... read more...

54 minutes ago

I don’t know, I saw rat on a stick one time and it kind of put me off the whole thing. But you can put your meat on a stick... read more...

55 minutes ago

Yeah. There are only so many ideas in the world. Even the best polts/ideas have been taken from another person, who got it... read more...

Related Debates

	“The Answer Is Of Course, That It Would Be Best To Be Both Loved And Feared. But Since The Two Rarely...
	The Bible Is Not Really Inspired By God
	Eskimo Tribes Did Not Kill Their Baby Girls.
	The 21st Century Is A Better Century To Live In Than The 1900s
	In The Finno-Ugrian War, The Finnish People Are The Greatest People On Earth
	It Is Ironic That The Romans Killed Jesus Yet The Pope Resides In Rome
	Do Not Hold The Son For The Crimes Of The Father
	Music And Speeches Influenced The African American Civil Rights Movement.
	Hitler Was Correct
	Every Pope Is Fallible

New Debates

	Taylor Swifts You Belong With Me Song/video Is Really Good, Happy, Feelgood, Cheesy, Uplifting Song!
	This Really Is A Very Good, Very Interesting, Knowledegable Site.
	We Need More Meats On Sticks
	People Who Do Not Vote For President Should Not Be Able To Critcize Him/ Her
	You Should Stop Beating Your Wife
	The American Love Affair With Guns Is Britain’s Fault.
	People On This Site Seem Too Serious And Don't Seem To Know How To Just Act Assinine. Debate The Rediculous....
	An Hung Parliament Would Be A Disaster For Britain.
	The Wackiest, Krazy, Zany People Are Often The Dullest
	French Cuisine Is The Most Delicious In The World...; )