On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:52:09 -0500, "adman" wrote:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of cosmology that
the physical universe we see today was created out of nothingness (meaning -
no time, no space, and no matter....

This is not the accepted theory. The universe was NOT crreated and
there was NO state of "nothingness". Wrong on two counts already.

You need to get aquainted with quantum physics.


snip the rest of the creationist nonsense





"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan

On Apr 4, 4:07 pm, PD wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:57 am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:



On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:27 am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51 am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote toalt.atheismon04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We don't know that the Great Arkleseizure didn't sneeze it into
existence either.

And so what?

However there is zilch, zip, nada reason to think that it was either
sneezed or created.

That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
physics we know.

This is fundamentally an argument (and a silly one) about the UNKNOWN.
You are discussing the nature of something that is *established* to be
outside of our present domain of knowledge.

No, we are discussing idiots who think their religious beliefs should
be given equal credence with science.

There is no credence to be measured between science and religion in
the domain of the UNKNOWN.



Nobody outside their religion even gives it a thought because it's
merely the myths and legends of one of the thousands of religions out
there.

It's not even "the unknown" because there is no reason whatsoever to
bring it up.

It doesn't even make sense to talk about "vanishing small
probability/possibility" because its believers imagine this
consciously leaves room for it.

Once again, you are arguing about the value of extrapolating (and
thereby mentally computing a probability/possibility) laws from INSIDE
their domain of applicability to OUTSIDE their domain of
applicability. And you are asserting, incorrectly, that this is the
more "scientific" approach to treating the unknown than the religious
approach to treating the unknown. I dispute that, and I believe a very
large number of working physicists would dispute that. At least,
that's how I was trained as a working physicist.





When in fact it doesn't even arise outside the imagination of the
believers - who have already assigned a probability of 1 to it.

Now, you can have opinions or expressions of faith (that is, something
you believe without evidence) about how the unknown should be treated.
You can suggest, for example, that it is your *belief* that we will
encounter no fundamental surprises in the unknown once that boundary
is pushed. There will be people who *believe* the opposite.
You can suggest, for example, that we should operate under a rule that
says "Don't believe in anything until you have evidence for it." There
will be people who do not see the operational value of that.

And you can invent beliefs people don't have. It won't get you
anywhere.

Note that even among *scientists*, there is not consensus on the
proper way to treat the unknown. There are hundreds of theoreticians,
for example, that are working and working hard on *highly* speculative
what-if scenarios for which there is absolutely no evidence
whatsoever. You may regard that as foolish. The scientific community
does not unilaterally agree. In fact, the scientific community in
general does think there is value in that kind of research, but the
choice to work in that domain is purely personal. There are some that
are driven and gifted in that area, and there are others that driven
and gifted in more evidentiary areas.

However they are just scenarios, they _do_ fit the known facts and
unlike gods nobody claims they are accurate explanations. Just avenues
to be explored.

Read my lips. These are what-if scenarios for which there is NO
experimental evidence whatsoever. There is no accuracy of explanation
to be judged. There are no known facts fit. There is NO match to data
of any kind from string theory or brane theory or spin-foam lattice
theory, yet there are hundreds of very competent physicists who are
spending their careers on it.

then how competent might they be while
spending their careers on crappy theories
with no any match data?

why are you insulting them,

becus they have a diploma and you dont have?





There is no equivalence between the suggestions that have been
proposed by physicists which break no known scientific laws, and the
unjustified invoking of a creator or a sneezer.

You're missing the point. The laws we understand are KNOWN not to work
in the first short time after the Big Bang. They CAN'T. What laws DO
work in that domain, we are presently oblivious to, though we are
working on several different possibilities that aren't obviously
wrong.

I'm missing nothing. You're re-interpreting an over-simplification.

PD

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

On Apr 4, 2:51*am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote to alt.atheism on 04
Apr 2008:



We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.


We know as far back as 1x10^-43 seconds into it's occurrence.

As you correctly state, what happened before that, we do not know,
because physics, as we understand it fails there.

In case you are unaware of what looks like, written in arithmetical
format, it is -
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.

Now if the information available, is not sufficient to persuade you
that it was a natural event, how come some childish bronze age myths,
with no explanation at all, as to how or why it was done, ARE enough
to persuade you that it was not natural, but supernatural, that there
was some external factor, i.e. a god, involved?

....Other than incredulity, and wishful thinking, that is.

On Apr 3, 9:33 pm, Lars Eighner wrote:
In our last episode, , the
lovely and talented adman broadcast on alt.atheism:

Example One: As the speed of light (300,000km per second) is approached then
time slows, and at the speed of light time does not pass. This means for a
photon of light which travels at exactly the speed of light, time does not
pass. Therefore the photon is outside of time, and ETERNAL.

Wrong. Time to hit the physics books again.


Again?
You mean he actually read them once?

What is wrong with this and the rest of you points is that you have not
appreciated the differences of reference frames.

--
Lars Eighner http://larseighner.com/
Countdown: 291 days to go.
PDW

On Apr 4, 2:56*pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD



wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51*am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote toalt.atheism on 04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We know as far back as 1x10^-43 seconds into it's occurrence.

As you correctly state, what happened before that, we do not know,
because physics, as we understand it fails there.

In case you are unaware of what looks like, written in arithmetical
format, it is *-
*0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.

I'm aware. That is the number that's associated with the Planck epoch,
beyond which we know *everything* goes to hell in a handbasket. In
actuality, our uncertainty is quite a bit worse than that, since we
know that the Standard Model breaks down at the 1 TeV scale (roughly
where we hope to find Higgs bosons and/or supersymmetry) and that is
10 times lower energy (and longer in time) than what you've written.
In fact, we do not have even the slightest idea what happened before
the inflationary epoch at around 10^-35 seconds, and as I just said,
we don't really know much at all about the laws of physics other than
unsupported guesses (supersymmetry et al) before 10^-27 s. That is
sixteen orders of magnitude different than where you are claiming we
know the laws of physics. In case you are unaware of what that looks
like in arithmetic format, that is 10000000000000000.

Note that NONE of that information tells you ANYTHING about any
explanation for the big bang other than what was in effect some time
AFTER the big bang, let alone how or why it was done, which is
precisely what you find lacking in the bronze age myth. In fact, the
information provided tells you precisely that you do not know any
natural explanation of anything prior to 10^-27 s.

The fact remains that we are talking about the unknown. Not having a
natural explanation for the events prior to 10^-27 s is NOT persuasive
that there was a supernatural creator instead. On the other hand, not
having evidence of a supernatural creator for the events prior to
10^-27 s is NOT persuasive that there is a natural accounting (which
we do not have) either. The point being: I don't see why you think
there needs to be persuasion one way or the other about the realm of
the unknown. It seems to me to be a spectacularly ill-advised mandate
to decide to be persuaded either way about the unknown. "Well, if I'm
not persuaded of THIS about the unknown, then I guess I must be
persuaded of THAT about the unknown instead." Why on earth would you
do that, other than just being in the mood for a fight and having to
pick a side?

Now if the information available, is not sufficient to persuade you
that it was a natural event, how come some childish bronze age myths,
with no explanation at all, as to how or why it was done, ARE enough
to persuade you that it was not natural, but supernatural, that there
was some external factor, i.e. a god, involved?

...Other than incredulity, and wishful thinking, that is.

On Apr 4, 3:31*pm, PD wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:56*pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:



On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51*am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote toalt.atheismon 04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We know as far back as 1x10^-43 seconds into it's occurrence.

As you correctly state, what happened before that, we do not know,
because physics, as we understand it fails there.

In case you are unaware of what looks like, written in arithmetical
format, it is *-
*0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.

I'm aware. That is the number that's associated with the Planck epoch,
beyond which we know *everything* goes to hell in a handbasket. In
actuality, our uncertainty is quite a bit worse than that, since we
know that the Standard Model breaks down at the 1 TeV scale (roughly
where we hope to find Higgs bosons and/or supersymmetry) and that is
10 times lower energy (and longer in time)

10^16 times lower in energy.
Forgive the typo. Looked fine before clicking Post.

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
physics we know.

But we do have evidence that the "laws", I use the term tentatively,
of known physics, do not apply during that first, tiniest fraction, of
a second.

OTOH; What do the creationists have?

Goddidit?

On Apr 4, 3:37*pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
physics we know.

But we do have evidence that the "laws", I use the term tentatively,
of known physics, do not apply during that first, tiniest fraction, of
a second.

OTOH; What do the creationists have?

Goddidit?

They have no better and no worse that what we physicists have.
Speculations.
Now, you may think, "Yeah, but my speculations are better than your
speculations, because they're *scientific* speculations." That's
putting glasses and a dress shirt on a pig. A pig is still a pig, and
a speculation is still a speculation.

Please keep in mind that I do NOT consider creationism (or its alter
egos) science. Never have, never will. But scientists -- at least the
good ones -- are a little squeamish about claiming science understands
something it does not.

PD

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:31:48 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

On Apr 4, 2:56*pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD



wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51*am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote toalt.atheism on 04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We know as far back as 1x10^-43 seconds into it's occurrence.

As you correctly state, what happened before that, we do not know,
because physics, as we understand it fails there.

In case you are unaware of what looks like, written in arithmetical
format, it is *-
*0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.

I'm aware. That is the number that's associated with the Planck epoch,
beyond which we know *everything* goes to hell in a handbasket. In
actuality, our uncertainty is quite a bit worse than that, since we
know that the Standard Model breaks down at the 1 TeV scale (roughly
where we hope to find Higgs bosons and/or supersymmetry) and that is
10 times lower energy (and longer in time) than what you've written.
In fact, we do not have even the slightest idea what happened before
the inflationary epoch at around 10^-35 seconds, and as I just said,
we don't really know much at all about the laws of physics other than
unsupported guesses (supersymmetry et al) before 10^-27 s. That is
sixteen orders of magnitude different than where you are claiming we
know the laws of physics. In case you are unaware of what that looks
like in arithmetic format, that is 10000000000000000.

Note that NONE of that information tells you ANYTHING about any
explanation for the big bang other than what was in effect some time
AFTER the big bang, let alone how or why it was done, which is
precisely what you find lacking in the bronze age myth. In fact, the
information provided tells you precisely that you do not know any
natural explanation of anything prior to 10^-27 s.

The fact remains that we are talking about the unknown. Not having a
natural explanation for the events prior to 10^-27 s is NOT persuasive
that there was a supernatural creator instead. On the other hand, not
having evidence of a supernatural creator for the events prior to
10^-27 s is NOT persuasive that there is a natural accounting (which
we do not have) either. The point being: I don't see why you think
there needs to be persuasion one way or the other about the realm of
the unknown. It seems to me to be a spectacularly ill-advised mandate
to decide to be persuaded either way about the unknown. "Well, if I'm
not persuaded of THIS about the unknown, then I guess I must be
persuaded of THAT about the unknown instead." Why on earth would you
do that, other than just being in the mood for a fight and having to
pick a side?

That has to be the longest straw man, that I have ever read.



Now if the information available, is not sufficient to persuade you
that it was a natural event, how come some childish bronze age myths,
with no explanation at all, as to how or why it was done, ARE enough
to persuade you that it was not natural, but supernatural, that there
was some external factor, i.e. a god, involved?

...Other than incredulity, and wishful thinking, that is.


....And you didn't answer the question.

On Apr 4, 3:51*pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:31:48 -0700 (PDT), PD



wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:56*pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51*am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote toalt.atheismon 04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We know as far back as 1x10^-43 seconds into it's occurrence.

As you correctly state, what happened before that, we do not know,
because physics, as we understand it fails there.

In case you are unaware of what looks like, written in arithmetical
format, it is *-
*0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.

I'm aware. That is the number that's associated with the Planck epoch,
beyond which we know *everything* goes to hell in a handbasket. In
actuality, our uncertainty is quite a bit worse than that, since we
know that the Standard Model breaks down at the 1 TeV scale (roughly
where we hope to find Higgs bosons and/or supersymmetry) and that is
10 times lower energy (and longer in time) than what you've written.
In fact, we do not have even the slightest idea what happened before
the inflationary epoch at around 10^-35 seconds, and as I just said,
we don't really know much at all about the laws of physics other than
unsupported guesses (supersymmetry et al) before 10^-27 s. That is
sixteen orders of magnitude different than where you are claiming we
know the laws of physics. In case you are unaware of what that looks
like in arithmetic format, that is 10000000000000000.

Note that NONE of that information tells you ANYTHING about any
explanation for the big bang other than what was in effect some time
AFTER the big bang, let alone how or why it was done, which is
precisely what you find lacking in the bronze age myth. In fact, the
information provided tells you precisely that you do not know any
natural explanation of anything prior to 10^-27 s.

The fact remains that we are talking about the unknown. Not having a
natural explanation for the events prior to 10^-27 s is NOT persuasive
that there was a supernatural creator instead. On the other hand, not
having evidence of a supernatural creator for the events prior to
10^-27 s is NOT persuasive that there is a natural accounting (which
we do not have) either. The point being: I don't see why you think
there needs to be persuasion one way or the other about the realm of
the unknown. It seems to me to be a spectacularly ill-advised mandate
to decide to be persuaded either way about the unknown. "Well, if I'm
not persuaded of THIS about the unknown, then I guess I must be
persuaded of THAT about the unknown instead." Why on earth would you
do that, other than just being in the mood for a fight and having to
pick a side?

That has to be the longest straw man, that I have ever read.

If you say so. A straw man is usually something known to be wrong for
the purpose of knocking it down. What I said was right, not wrong.




Now if the information available, is not sufficient to persuade you
that it was a natural event, how come some childish bronze age myths,
with no explanation at all, as to how or why it was done, ARE enough
to persuade you that it was not natural, but supernatural, that there
was some external factor, i.e. a god, involved?

...Other than incredulity, and wishful thinking, that is.

...And you didn't answer the question.

Yes, I did. It was apparently too long for you to read. I'll try to
keep it to the comic book speech bubble.

They aren't.

PD