Ye Religion Thread

[DaHanG]

Actually, i have really only made one assumption, and it is based on a mathematical certainy  .  And about the big bang, i believe that such and event leading up to the universe as we see it today is incredibly improbable. maybe even 1 out of infinity? 

Yes, the mathematical certainty that any astrophysicist would likely dispute.

I hate to appear dogmatic, but the big bang almost certainly did happen. So did evolution. It may seem like an unlikely scenario without looking at the evidence. Luckily the evidence is publicly available and I encourage you to take a closer look.

I think the concept of infinite simply references a huge unknown number (5.6 x 10^856 for example).

i mean, since it refers to an actual number and all. 

The beauty of such a statement is how uncertainty was expressed with the word "think".

I think the whole idea is that the density of this singularity is infintely increasing because the size of the particle is decreasing while not releasing any matter - therefore getting infinitely dense. If you were to say at one particular point in time though how dense this particle was then it may fall onto a real huge number. Perhaps quadz can correct me (someone who actually researched in great detail this sort of thing).

I think we must also consider the concept of such "common sense" laws actually breaking down during the singularity. This has shown to be possible in fields such as quantum physics and relativity theory.

[Whirlingdervish]

well to describe something as infinitely dense, first we'd have to drop the assumption that all matter in the universe is made up of particles... (at some point we'd reach a universal minimum particle size and encounter packing difficulties....)

I believe this is where we'd have to make the jump to string theory and describe everything in terms of the energy that composes it. So technically, something that is infinitely dense could(should) also be infinitely energetic and infinitely massive, but not necessarily infinitely large in 3 dimensions... (which represent 3/4 of our ability to measure things..)

If you leave particles in the the observation, you'd have to account for their actual size, shape and orientation to each other..
(how big is an electron?)

[metaL]

Yes, the mathematical certainty that any astrophysicist would likely dispute.

Actually, i doubt ANYONE would dispute that infinity cannot be quantified, which was my point.  5/0 anyone? 5 divided by zero is known as "undefined" because it refers to the amount of times zero goes into five.  It will go into five infinitely and never reach 5, or any value for that matter, as infinity does not associate with any numerical value.

I hate to appear dogmatic, but the big bang almost certainly did happen. So did evolution. It may seem like an unlikely scenario without looking at the evidence. Luckily the evidence is publicly available and I encourage you to take a closer look.

I have seen much evidence on the big bang.  I have also seen more evidence and studied more on evolution than one needs to.  I am simply skeptical of humans evolving from the earliest of monkeys.

I think the whole idea is that the density of this singularity is infintely increasing because the size of the particle is decreasing while not releasing any matter - therefore getting infinitely dense. If you were to say at one particular point in time though how dense this particle was then it may fall onto a real huge number. Perhaps quadz can correct me (someone who actually researched in great detail this sort of thing).

I think we must also consider the concept of such "common sense" laws actually breaking down during the singularity. This has shown to be possible in fields such as quantum physics and relativity theory.

Ok, "getting infinitely dense" regards to an increasing number, such as a limit, as in calculus.  This is not the same as infinity.  This is not what you stated before, as it appeared you meant infinity in a literal sense, which is what we have been discussing as of lately.  My problem was with something infinitely dense in a literal sense, which would mean it has either an infinite mass (this particle would be, everything), or a volume of zero (it would not exist).

EDIT: whirling: if i can remember right from the days of chemistry, an electron is 1/186 AMU's (atomic mass units).  Whereas protons and neutrons both have a mass of 1 AMU, although neutrons have a slightly greater mass than protons. its been a while though 

[jägermonsta]

I have seen much evidence on the big bang.  I have also seen more evidence and studied more on evolution than one needs to.  I am simply skeptical of humans evolving from the earliest of monkeys.

yeah, you ever wonder why monkeys don't evolve into humans anymore? wth...

(how big is an electron?)

7"

[DaHanG]

[quote author=j

[jägermonsta]

[quote author=j

[DaHanG]

Unfortunately it's hard to tell when someone is joking . What you said is actually quite typical of a creationist 

 

[Whirlingdervish]

I think that WAS the joke..

[quadz]

It's just shortsightedness combined with a total lack of hindsight and a barrier called "faith" that blocks out all incoming information that doesn't entirely agree with the aforementioned views by declaring it irrelevant or inapplicable..

Anyone read the new Crichton book, State of Incomprehensibility?


j/k j/k

[jägermonsta]

"I've begun worshiping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to "God" are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate."

-George Carlin

[Whirlingdervish]

It's just shortsightedness combined with a total lack of hindsight and a barrier called "faith" that blocks out all incoming information that doesn't entirely agree with the aforementioned views by declaring it irrelevant or inapplicable..

Anyone read the new Crichton book, State of Incomprehensibility?


j/k j/k

well fine.. I'll dumb it down a bit:

creationist views are akin to being unable to see your own past, intentionally shutting you eyes to block out the future, and using "blind" faith to explain away anything you don't understand in the present.

did you notice a pattern there, or was this one just as incomprehensible?
 

[quadz]

I think the whole idea is that the density of this singularity is infintely increasing because the size of the particle is decreasing while not releasing any matter - therefore getting infinitely dense. If you were to say at one particular point in time though how dense this particle was then it may fall onto a real huge number. Perhaps quadz can correct me (someone who actually researched in great detail this sort of thing).

I think we must also consider the concept of such "common sense" laws actually breaking down during the singularity. This has shown to be possible in fields such as quantum physics and relativity theory.

I wish I understood this stuff better.

[quadz]

Anyone read the new Crichton book, State of Incomprehensibility?

well fine.. I'll dumb it down a bit:

Sorry, it appears my joke went awry.

[Whirlingdervish]

ROFL. I'm thinkin we all might need to lighten up on the sarcasm and such for the sake of understanding one another...
This is just getting downright confusing!
 


I could have just said "creationism = blindness" but that would have been way too easy!

[reaper]

Anyone read the new Crichton book, State of Incomprehensibility?

very funny, it's to bad god exists and he is incomprehensible. anyways, here is something i found on the net about how a singularity can be viewed as infinite.