Astronomers date star's birth back to nearly the dawn of time


Recommended Posts

The onus of proof is on those who propose the existence of a supreme being, not the other way round.

Ok

If your alleged proof stands up to logic and reasoning then I see no reason why anyone would not believe it.

That would be the logical thinking

So you're essentially saying that only those who accept the existence of a higher being would accept the proof of said being because only when you accept the existence of the aforementioned being could the evidence in support of it make any sense.

Not really. Well, you have to first accept the notion that a higher being exists in order to be able to understand the reasoning behind it

Cheap defined by who? You? And since when did you represent everyone else?

I don't. I'm sorry if I implied it that way

Please dont generalize ALL atheists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I believe in God because my mind says he exists. Why should I not believe in him?

Because you shouldn't always trust the little voice/s in your head?? beyond your own mind why should you believe??

If you choose not to keep a closed mind, then you'll see the bigger picture.

wooooah, hold the phone ET! You can't seriously think that when you choose to believe in a god "because your mind tells you" that you have an open mind?!?

My logic is, why should I need to believe in something? There is, from my view (whether god/s exists or not), no decent reason to think god exists. And hence no reason to believe.

Theres no point being nihilistic and thinking that its all meaningless.

Where are you getting the idea that atheists are nihilistic!??! Just because I don't believe in any religions, or pray to any gods, doesn't mean everything is meaningless. I don't see how a God can suddenly make things even more meaningful. Characters in a book are still meaningless out side of the story.

It is laughable to think we are here on a planet, doing our things for no reason. Everything has a purpose.

Did your mind tell you that??

If you think life is meaningless then your life is cheap

Life can never be personally meaningless, I wouldn't be sitting here otherwise.

Edited by acies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because we can't intuitively understand it doesn't make it impossible. We can't intuitively understand quantum mechanics without converting the notions into abstract mathematics either. It's just the environment we evolved in that makes the idea seem weird because it flies in the face of how we, as a species, see the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we find out, do you think the findings will contradict and laws/teachings of physics we have today?

If it does, science will do as science does and accept facts and will change human understanding. It's happened before with things such as relativity and the aether but I think people are setting themselves up for a shock if they think any answer to a question like what happened before the big bang will be anything but a completely baffling and practically incomprehensible bunch of calculations contradictory to our every day common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it does, science will do as science does and accept facts and will change human understanding. It's happened before with things such as relativity and the aether but I think people are setting themselves up for a shock if they think any answer to a question like what happened before the big bang will be anything but a completely baffling and practically incomprehensible bunch of calculations contradictory to our every day common sense.

So, if we do get something useful out of it, even though understanding it may take some time, which area of physics would it most likely over-rule or change our understanding of? Or speculation is of no use here as we don't know any of the possible outcomes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how someone who calls themselves a "scientist" or an "astronomer" can make these wild statements about how old something is and how that relates to the age of the universe. All that they can do is extrapolate data that they have been taking in a very short amount of time (a fraction of a "blink" of time in comparison with the age of the universe) and come up with these wild statements. Extrapolated data can not be trusted... any educated person would know better.

It is like "carbon dating." Pfffffft. The ego on some peoples shoulders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if we do get something useful out of it, even though understanding it may take some time, which area of physics would it most likely over-rule or change our understanding of? Or speculation is of no use here as we don't know any of the possible outcomes?

Can you rephrase this please, I don't quite get what you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies.

If we find something that contradicts our current understanding of physics, which specific area of physics is this likely to occur in? Or is there no point speculating as we don't know what the outcome will be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, as I've said in other threads; as much as I love and follow science, I'm simply a cheerleader and in no way a technical-scientific thinker, though I believe myself to have a very good understanding of what science is and it's role. Maybe someone like Ripgut could speculate about something like this but I wouldn't even want to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies.

If we find something that contradicts our current understanding of physics, which specific area of physics is this likely to occur in?

Depends on what is doscovered...

Or is there no point speculating as we don't know what the outcome will be?

Formulation of an hypothesis is a critical step within the scientific method, it is used to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation ( an equation is derived) explaining the phenomena and/or making a prediction, based on current evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is that we cannot predict anything because we don't have any evidence of what it could be like?

A prediction in science is based off of evidence that is currently available, let me put it this way.

If you cram a jar full of flies, by knowing the current pattern of how flies, fly. You can predict that when you release the lid of that jar that they are going to fly in random directions as opposed to one single uniformed flight pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is, what prediction is there about what will happen when the try to see the "Big Bang" again? And what evidence is there that "this" will happen, provided it does happen.

AND, what evidence is there that the universe came from a single densely packed atom, and that this was the only thing in existence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is, what prediction is there about what will happen when the try to see the "Big Bang" again? And what evidence is there that "this" will happen, provided it does happen.

AND, what evidence is there that the universe came from a single densely packed atom, and that this was the only thing in existence?

I have to take my newborn son to his first checkup, but here:

Cosmology FAQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.