|
Post by Shiv on Nov 29, 2009 1:17:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by notavailable on Nov 29, 2009 1:24:16 GMT -5
HOLY f**k.
|
|
|
Post by Shiv on Nov 29, 2009 1:26:27 GMT -5
That's my interpretation of this thread
|
|
|
Post by notavailable on Nov 29, 2009 1:33:45 GMT -5
Its a fair consensus.
|
|
|
Post by augustwinterman on Nov 29, 2009 1:42:59 GMT -5
That's my consensus as well.
|
|
|
Post by davo on Nov 29, 2009 3:06:57 GMT -5
is Clare here: On the last page somewhere, someone said (yes, I'm lazy and can't be bothered to look) that matter cannot be created from natural processes. This is happening ALL THE TIME, as mass is equal to energy (oh wait, I probably need to stop using natural units). One way in which we can see this conversion happening in nature is in the fusion of atoms in stars- as hydrogen fuses to form helium (through a number of steps), mass is lost as the internal energy of a helium atom is greater so that the strong nuclear force can hold the bigger atom together. As stars get bigger, they can form even larger atomic nuclei, and so more energy is lost. Atomic bombs also use this process. Astrophysicists believe (and I don't know much about this, as I'm much more a theoretical physicist) that there was a huge amount of energy in what is known as a singularity, which is an infinitesimally small, infinitely dense and infinitely hot point. This point exploded and eventually formed the universe. As this singularity is ridiculously hot, there is a lot of energy within it, which was converted to mass. Read more on the Big Bang theory if you want to know more. By the way, I was just being silly with natural units as my tutor at uni is always talking about them.
|
|
|
Post by alastairjohnjack on Nov 29, 2009 3:18:48 GMT -5
So the big bang designed all the laws of the universe?
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Nov 29, 2009 3:24:13 GMT -5
On the last page somewhere, someone said (yes, I'm lazy and can't be bothered to look) that matter cannot be created from natural processes. This is happening ALL THE TIME, as mass is equal to energy (oh wait, I probably need to stop using natural units). So you are trying to tell me that a lack of matter and energy can turn itself into matter and energy (on its own)? Please, give me a gun. *edit* the above was obviously intended to be humorous. Please, take you gun back, as I won't be needing it. But still, if your claim is what I think it is, I'm baffled, to say the least. How can 'Lack of thing' or 'NO-thing' act in any way/shape/form?
|
|
|
Post by alastairjohnjack on Nov 29, 2009 3:44:12 GMT -5
"Please, take you gun back"
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Nov 29, 2009 4:25:35 GMT -5
who exactly are you guys debating? We are merely discussing at this point. I was hoping an atheist on this forum would offer some insight but the few who are here are prolly just busy/havent checked the thread.
|
|
|
Post by davo on Nov 29, 2009 4:56:12 GMT -5
So the big bang designed all the laws of the universe? Wasn't saying that. That point is exactly why I believe in God. On the last page somewhere, someone said (yes, I'm lazy and can't be bothered to look) that matter cannot be created from natural processes. This is happening ALL THE TIME, as mass is equal to energy (oh wait, I probably need to stop using natural units). So you are trying to tell me that a lack of matter and energy can turn itself into matter and energy (on its own)? I'll say it again. A singularity has infinite heat. Does this not mean anything to you? Ever heard of thermal energy? And the fact that it didn't remain a singularity is another of the reasons I believe in God. This post was all Clare again, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by feverstone on Nov 29, 2009 9:10:11 GMT -5
Were you on the toilet, Shiv?
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on Nov 29, 2009 10:07:37 GMT -5
Matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural causes. There is a thing called anti-matter, but it also has the same properties. There is the idea/theory that everything has existed forever. Although I don't understand that, I admit it's possible.Actually, impossible because A: An actual infinite cannot exist* B: A beginning-less series of events is an actual infinite Conclusion: The universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past and must have come into being, or else It would be a beginning-less series of events. *An actual infinite is a natural (that is, not supernatural) occurrence of infinity, such as physical objects, potential, and other empirically measurable things. They are impossible due to the fact that they are subject to infinite regression, which is self refuting. Also, it's countered by scientific data concerning A: Expanding galaxies and B: The laws of thermodynamics COOL so I don't have to accept that as a possibility anymore!
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Nov 29, 2009 17:12:56 GMT -5
I'll say it again. A singularity has infinite heat. Does this not mean anything to you? Ever heard of thermal energy? And the fact that it didn't remain a singularity is another of the reasons I believe in God. This post was all Clare again, by the way. I do believe I misunderstood you, sorry. I hope I haven't given the impression that I'm a science-buff or something. I'm not, I'm just going by what I already know, and by what I can google or wikipedia. Anyways...Let me see if I am grasping what a singularity is. If heat/thermal energy is not a singularity (aka, thermal energy is finite), then this universe is also finite. Seeing that we are indeed existent, we must have been put here. Could you elaborate on what a singularity is if I'm off?
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on Nov 30, 2009 6:09:25 GMT -5
I don't understand all this about singularity and what it has to do with thermal heat/energy...
|
|