It applies to sub-atomics too. All "orbit systems" from particles to planets run on the same pattern and rules.
And we didn't have any orbiting anything at this point, it was all just a really dense point of energy. Bit like what we would expect to find in a black hole but on a much grander scale. In fact there are so many similarities some have proposed our whole universe exists inside a black hole.
Violating the Roche limit turns mass into energy, not energy into mass as the theory requires.
Can someone provide a link to what he's talking about? I've been trying to double check this claim but can't find anything supporting it.
The change from energy into mass occurred as the universe expanded, allowing for the existence of matter. At the point of the singularity where your claiming there is a violation, all we would find is energy.
God is a simple concept: infinite power, wisdom, and care.
Infinite is not a simplistic concept at all. Also the way the universe operates does not match with a God possessing qualities of both infinite caring and power.
Implied cursing does not give you any proof.
it's not implied it's the forms filter and what proof do I need to provide? I was making a statement that I require proof so your not making sense here.
Guess that haters gonna hate. I admit that there are "Bible thumpers" and even charlatans out there who try to use Creationism and similar views to their advantage. They are not good representatives for this view. These are not the people to whom I was referring.
I can't think of a single one who isn't as I described.
It seems apparent now that convincing you of God and Creation is beyond the scope of my admittedly limited capacities, so I will end this series of exchanges with my thanks for a good debate and hopes that you will have a good life. I also hope that one day you will see the Gospel light; however, neither I nor anyone else cannot force you to do so.
You need to come back with evidence instead of treating God as if his existence was fact.
Infinite is not a simplistic concept at all. Also the way the universe operates does not match with a God possessing qualities of both infinite caring and power.
What a great answer. These forums need a rep system.
On the subject, I think the idea of a "god" of sorts being composed of the collective sentient minds of the universe is cool and viable (like "His Dark Materials", if you've ever read those) but making any progress on proving any of this as correct is currently beyond our capabilities.
Well if you're going to tell us it's wrong won't you need proof? I'm not saying we are allowed to tell you it's right without proof, but you should still be able to disprove it compleatly if you want to make the claim he doesn't exsist right. Just as we need compleate proof for you to except our claims.
Define God. As I point out with the previous claim of an infinitely powerful, wise and caring God, this description is in contradiction to observation. As such this disproves God as defined in this manner.
Exactly. It's impossible to prove or disprove God.
If God is real then it should be possible to prove existence. If there is no evidence supporting the claim as this seems to imply than we have no reason to accept the claim of existence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That's not always entirely true. Without evidence something becomes less likely to be true. We also have evidence of absence like above where we would expect to see certain things that we don't.
A simple example of evidence of absence provided by wiki: "checking one's pocket for spare change and finding nothing but being confident that one would have found it if it were there." If the claim is God did X and we find no evidence that God was involved or observation contradicts the claim we now have evidence of God's absence.
Something to also keep in mind perhaps even more so than your quote is absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Explosion and expansion are two different things. I'm not nit-picking.
Again, picky. But either way, where did the original elements and/or singularity come from??? That is the point here!
No, that's not the point here because the Big Bang theory doesn't say where it came from. It's like talking about evolution and then asking "Where first livings come from?". And I already told you that we don't know where the singularity came from. I can repeat myself: Maybe a quantum fluctuation, maybe the collision of two p-branes.
NOT ACCEPTABLE!!! Please don't ruin this discussion.
"WTF" is acceptable because you were talking about the "original, supposedly explosive elements" which tells me that you don't really know what the Big Bang theory actually says.
Har dee har har. Not.
NOT ACCEPTABLE!!! P-branes are membranes in M-Theory. You could just type p-brane into Google and you would have known...
God is a simple concept: infinite power, wisdom, and care.
I'd like to response with a famous quote:
âIs God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?â
So where did the membranes come from? Sooner or later, you will still reach that "first domino" point.
Maybe they always existed? We don't know.
My opinion is that you are a hard-liner who simply does not wish to acknowledge any view as valid except his own.
What do you mean by "God"? If you mean the Christian God then please look at the quote in my previous post.
Exactly. It's impossible to prove or disprove God.
God could just show up.
Anyone, when either believing in God or no God, is doing it through faith.
"Anyone, when either believing in the tooth fairy or no tooth fairy, is doing it through faith." It doesn't take faith to reject a concept that has no evidence.
