Science Proves Creation

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[HARK!]

Now you are just being silly. If your comments (decribed by you as axioms) were empirical they wouldn't be (couldn't be) axioms. They would be well established observations that were, nevertheless, subject to dismissal by contrary observations.
As a side note, since you are implictly expressing this purported axiom mathematically, it should be remembered that such axioms are not necessarily true.

The universe is being observed at this very moment. The fact that it has limits are well established. You would do well to look into this subject before you make anymore embarrassing comments.

Your inability to understand that matter and and energy can be infinite in an infinite universe. Since the logic is straightforward, yet you cannot grasp it, I fear it is beyond my pedagogical skills to bring you to understanding.

The Universe is finite. You seem to have tremendous difficulty grasping this simple concept.

I'm glad you were entertained. I'm sorry you were not educated. (See previous comment regarding pedagogy.

Ad hominem: The death whimpers of a feeble argument.

I am not so asserting. I am stating that we do not currently know the finite/infinite status of mass, energy or space. The onus on you is to demonstrate that mass and energy cannot be infinite and this you cannot do with non-axioms. What else do you have?

Again, the Universe is observable. It's quantifiable. We don't know that it isn't surrounded by a sphere of magic unicorns. Even if so, the magic unicorns won't save your argument from father time. Even if our universe was within a closed system; over infinite time, it would have already reached thermal equilibrium, long, long ago. It didn't.

 

[HARK!]

The space-time continuum, is only 13.7 billion years old.
You are essentially arguing against the claim that it is eternal.
So, what's that about?

!3.7 billion is finite. Eternity is not finite

Doesn't follow.

Instead, the only logical conclusion is that it hasn't existed eternally.

How you jump from that to "therefor, some being created it", is unclear. Well, not that unclear off course... because it's rather obvious that you are just engaging in the fallacy of assumed conclusion coupled with an argument from ignorance.

How you jumped to the the conclusion that I said, "therefor, some being created it," is unclear. I said that it was created.

Speaking of fallacies, have you ever heard of a strawman argument?

Again: does not follow.

And current models of the universe, do not have the universe existing for eternity.

You have a very strange idea of how things are "proven".

Then the models, and the science are in agreement. My conclusion stands.

 

[HARK!]

Well, your wait is over.

I just pointed out to you that "the universe can't have existed for eternity" does not automatically translate to "therefor, some being created it".

It just translates into "therefor, the universe has NOT existed for eternity".

Straw man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the logical fallacy. For other uses, see Straw man (disambiguation).
"Man of straw" redirects here. For the novel by Heinrich Mann, see Der Untertan.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"

Straw man - Wikipedia

 

[Ophiolite]

The universe is being observed at this very moment. The fact that it has limits are well established. You would do well to look into this subject before you make anymore embarrassing comments.

The emboldened words are a paraphrase of what I said. Let me work it through for you step by step. (You will see from the second comment in my signature that I take responsibility for your misunderstanding of my post.)

1. The universe is being observed at this very moment.
2. At this very moment and in the past it has been subject to empirical observations.
3. Empirical observations and axioms are not the same thing.
4. You have claimed (correctly) that empirical observations exist.
5. You have then (incorrectly) asserted that those observations are axioms.
6. As I said before, that's just silly.

The observable limits of the universe are reasonably well established. If the actual limits of the universe are well established you will have no problem providing relevant citations. I shall take the absence of of such citations as a a tacit acknowlegement, by you, that you were mistaken on this point.

The Universe is finite. You seem to have tremendous difficulty grasping this simple concept.

Provide the citations from peer reviewed journals of sound reputation that state this unequivocally.
What you seem to be ignoring is that the scientific consensus is that we do not know whether the universe is infinite or finite.

Ad hominem: The death whimpers of a feeble argument.

There was no ad hominem. Earlier you had said this "You're feeble stab at an anaology was entertaining;"

It was therefore clear that you were entertained by my analogy, but that you learned nothing from it. i.e. My statement, as written, was "I'm glad you were entertained. I'm sorry you were not educated. (See previous comment regarding pedagogy.)".

Implicitly that passage read, "I'm glad you were entertained by my analogy, I am sorry my analogy did nothing to educate you further."

I specifically referred you back to my comments on pedagogy. That was to ensure you did not somehow mistake my remark for an ad hominem.

I apologise for writing with insufficient clarity for my meaning on that point to be clear. It would be a nice gesture if you were now to apolgise for the inaccurate accusation of an ad hominem.

Again, the Universe is observable. It's quantifiable. We don't know that it isn't surrounded by a sphere of magic unicorns. Even if so, the magic unicorns won't save your argument from father time. Even if our universe was within a closed system; over infinite time, it would have already reached thermal equilibrium, long, long ago. It didn't.

The observable universe is quantifiable.
The observable universe does not appear to have existed for infinite time.

Your basic thesis is founded on a rejection of currently held scientific views. If you wish to challenge these you will need something more substantial than axioms that are not axioms, interpretations that are misinterpretations, all accompanied by much handwaving and no substance. Good luck with that. It's been fun, but I'm going to go play with the grown ups.

 

[DogmaHunter]

!3.7 billion is finite. Eternity is not finite

Did I say it was?

How you jumped to the the conclusion that I said, "therefor, some being created it," is unclear. I said that it was created.

I know. The word "created", especially when used in a forum like this one by a theist, kind of has some implications. Are you saying that you don't have a certain being in mind who did the creating?

Then the models, and the science are in agreement. My conclusion stands.

Depends what you mean by "created".

 

[HARK!]

Did I say it was?

Then we are in agreement?

I know. The word "created", especially when used in a forum like this one by a theist, kind of has some implications. Are you saying that you don't have a certain being in mind who did the creating?

You will make what inferences that you will. I said what I said.

Depends what you mean by "created".

cre·ate
/krēˈāt/
verb

• 1. bring (something) into existence: "he created a thirty-acre lake" synonyms: produce, generate, bring into being, make, fabricate, ... more

Powered by Oxford Dictionaries

'Bring into being' is a fine synonym

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Then we are in agreement?



You will make what inferences that you will. I said what I said.



cre·ate
/krēˈāt/
verb

• 1. bring (something) into existence: "he created a thirty-acre lake" synonyms: produce, generate, bring into being, make, fabricate, ... more

Powered by Oxford Dictionaries

'Bring into being' is a fine synonym

As a matter of interest, do you believe it is possible for a non-being to create? The difference between what you said (the universe was created) and what DogmaHunter misquoted (the universe was created by a being) is the explicit reference to a non-specified agent of creation. For DogmaHunter to have misrepresented your idea you would need to demonstrate that a non-being is capable of creation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then we are in agreement?



You will make what inferences that you will. I said what I said.



cre·ate
/krēˈāt/
verb

• 1. bring (something) into existence: "he created a thirty-acre lake" synonyms: produce, generate, bring into being, make, fabricate, ... more

Powered by Oxford Dictionaries

'Bring into being' is a fine synonym

Please just give a straightforward answer / clarification to my "concern".
When you say the universe was "created", then do you imply that that is an action inentionally performed by some being or not? I ask, because it is ambiguous. "to create" usually refers to / implies some agent that does the creating. I want to know if that is the case here.

I like clarity.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The universe is being observed at this very moment. The fact that it has limits are well established. You would do well to look into this subject before you make anymore embarrassing comments.

The Universe is finite. You seem to have tremendous difficulty grasping this simple concept.

The energy and matter certainly take up a finite (albeit expanding) area, but who knows what it's expanding into, or if that is even a valid question to ask.

Again, the Universe is observable. It's quantifiable. We don't know that it isn't surrounded by a sphere of magic unicorns.

We don't entirely know what it is surrounded by, if anything. There could be an infinite nothingness beyond the expanding universe for all we know.

Even if so, the magic unicorns won't save your argument from father time. Even if our universe was within a closed system; over infinite time, it would have already reached thermal equilibrium, long, long ago. It didn't.

That assumes certain qualities on the energy and matter of the universe. Evidence suggest these things which might conflict with your assertion:
1. the expansion of the universe hasn't been consistent over time (it appears that it may be expanding at a faster rate now than it did in the past).
2. the exact properties of dark matter and dark energy (which make up most of the universe) are not well understood, and they may have an influence on the dispersal of energy you aren't accounting for.
3. I'd also like to see your mathematical model through which you conclude that the energy of the universe should have reached equilibrium a long time ago.

 

[HARK!]

As a matter of interest, do you believe it is possible for a non-being to create?

How do you define non-being?

The difference between what you said (the universe was created) and what DogmaHunter misquoted (the universe was created by a being) is the explicit reference to a non-specified agent of creation. For DogmaHunter to have misrepresented your idea you would need to demonstrate that a non-being is capable of creation.

No I don't. I already demonstrated that he presented a straw man fallacy.

 

[HARK!]

Please just give a straightforward answer / clarification to my "concern".
When you say the universe was "created", then do you imply that that is an action inentionally performed by some being or not? I ask, because it is ambiguous. "to create" usually refers to / implies some agent that does the creating. I want to know if that is the case here.

I like clarity.

I didn't imply such. Again, your inference. I don't know how I can make it any more clear.

 

[Jon Osterman]

This is not a good argument. The Big Bang model does not claim that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. It only claims that it was very dense and hot, and since then has expanded and cooled. We can't say what happened beyond that 13.7-ish billion years because the universe would be so hot that our current physics models can't descibe it. It could have (perhaps) had a "bounce" from a previously collapsing universe, or even been a bubble nucleating from a larger "universe" with different conditions. There is no evidence for a singularity.

Furthermore, since we don't have any way to probe (currently) such high temerature and density states, we don't understand the physical laws and can't be sure that the second law of thermodynamics is valid in this regime. The high density and temperature could have performed a "reset" of some kind on entropty.

Having said that, I think you made quite a good argument in the OP. The axioms are fine and the interpretation of the 2nd law is fine. In fact, I think it is a correct interpretation that (if nothing untoward happened, like Jesus' return, or indeed just a dynamical change in the cause of universe expansion) the universe will eventually suffer heat death.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

How do you define non-being?

Something that is not a being. How do you define it?

No I don't. I already demonstrated that he presented a straw man fallacy.

No you didn't. Unless you can show that a non-being is capable of creation the addition of "by a being" does not alter your argument one iota. So, please demonstrate that a non-being can create.

 

[HARK!]

The energy and matter certainly take up a finite (albeit expanding) area, but who knows what it's expanding into, or if that is even a valid question to ask.

Something (plasma) is expanding into the absence of something. (space)

We don't entirely know what it is surrounded by, if anything. There could be an infinite nothingness beyond the expanding universe for all we know.

I've seen no evidence that anything but space exists outside of the limits of the Universe.

That assumes certain qualities on the energy and matter of the universe. Evidence suggest these things which might conflict with your assertion:
1. the expansion of the universe hasn't been consistent over time (it appears that it may be expanding at a faster rate now than it did in the past).

How would this conflict with my assertion?

2. the exact properties of dark matter and dark energy (which make up most of the universe) are not well understood, and they may have an influence on the dispersal of energy you aren't accounting for.

Can you prove that dark matter/energy make up any part of the Universe; let alone, even exist?

3. I'd also like to see your mathematical model through which you conclude that the energy of the universe should have reached equilibrium a long time ago.

That statement was made in the context of a refutation to the hypothetical that the Universe is somehow encapsulated and eternal. If EMR travels to any limited distance, with an unlimited amount of travel time; then if it began its' travel an unlimited amount of time ago; then it would have reached its' limits, an unlimited amount of time ago.

 

[HARK!]

No you didn't. Unless you can show that a non-being is capable of creation the addition of "by a being" does not alter your argument one iota. So, please demonstrate that a non-being can create.

NASA - The Solar System
www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/F_The_Solar_System_prt.htm
The sun's gravity creates extreme pressures and temperatures within itself, sustaining a thermonuclear reaction fusing hydrogen nuclei and producing ...


Now run along and stop pestering me.

 

[Speedwell]

I've seen no evidence that anything but space exists outside of the limits of the Universe.

You've seen no evidence that even space exists ouside the limits of the universe--there isn't any.

 

[HARK!]

This is not a good argument. The Big Bang model does not claim that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. It only claims that it was very dense and hot, and since then has expanded and cooled.

If it was very hot; would it not have emitted EMR? Would it not have dissipated unrecoverable heat?

We can't say what happened beyond that 13.7-ish billion years because the universe would be so hot that our current physics models can't descibe it

Our current Physics models don't allow for the dissipation of very high concentrations of heat? If a law does not apply 100% of the time; is it law; or is it nothing more than a really, really, really, really, good guess, at best?

It could have (perhaps) had a "bounce" from a previously collapsing universe

What mechanism would capture unrecoverable heat in a collapsing universe?

or even been a bubble nucleating from a larger "universe" with different conditions.

If the known universe came from a larger universe, wouldn't visible light also have come from the same source?

 

[HARK!]

You've seen no evidence that even space exists ouside the limits of the universe--there isn't any.

What is the Universe expanding into? For that matter what is between an electron and a proton?


The mass of an atom is determined by the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. The lightest element in existence is hydrogen, which has only one proton. The combined number of protons and neutrons possessed by an element is knows as its atomic mass. The average atomic mass of the elements on Earth can be found displayed in the periodic table. Unlike a proton, a neutron has no charge, but its mass is about the same as that of a proton. The mass of the proton or neutron is 1836 times bigger than that of the electron.

The size of the atoms is about 1~2 Å. Compared to the overall size of the atom, the nucleus is about the size of a raindrop in a playground. A nucleus’ volume is only 10^14 that of the atom. Empty space takes up most of the space occupied by an atom.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

NASA - The Solar System
www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/F_The_Solar_System_prt.htm
The sun's gravity creates extreme pressures and temperatures within itself, sustaining a thermonuclear reaction fusing hydrogen nuclei and producing ...

lol You're not very good at words, are you? You appear to be saying that creating pressures and temperatures (i.e. manipulating energy and matter) is comparable to creating energy and matter.

Now run along and stop pestering me.

No problem. No point trying to have a discussion with somebody who doesn't understand the meaning of their own words.