needimprovement

You are talking about hypothesis here, not contending theories. The Multiverse theory, i would argue that it isn't even a valid hypothesis, since i am not unaware that scientists have found a means by which they can validate the existence of other universes outside of our own space time (if that even makes logical sense). "Many of these so called theories lack empirical testability, and without hard physical evidence are unfalsifiable; outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove". The current understanding of the big-bang is in my view the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence. I think that you are taking my argument out of context in-order to feed your ego. I think i have already made it clear that i am not saying that my argument isn't vulnerable to disprove, but rather i was merely stating that if it is objectively true that all time-space-energy has a beginning insofar as it extends from an infinitely dense point (which is supported by the current evidence), then it necessarily follows that something non-physical is at the root of that singularity. I certainly am not interested in suggesting that people should believe purely on big bang cosmology alone. However, i certainly think (at least for the time being) that it points in the direction of a creator, and that should not be ignored. I think that scientists and people in general should be willing to admit what the theory implies regardless of whether or not they choose to believe in God on that basis. I think that's only fare given that many atheists who happen to be scientist happily spend enough time saying how evolution points to a meaningless purposeless universe. (Richard Dawkings is one person who is not shy about expressing the metaphysical implications of a scientific theory). I think this is a distorted view of actual events based on a popular prejudice. Many historians are beginning to see this. Again; the so called Galileo theory at the time was not scientifically validated in a strict empirical sense. See here...http://www.iep.utm.edu/sci-rel/#SH3a The link explains my point. Also, what you are basically saying is that we cannot rely on science to tell us physical truths about reality; that even well supported theories are nothing more than tautologies in that we cannot show them to be consistent with the way things truly are. They are just models of reality which constantly changes. I disagree. I think its entirely reasonable to make logical inferences from a well established scientific theory so long as you are prepared to accept that a particular theory might develop or change. Again, while i do not deny that Church leaders had their faults and ignorance's, this is a simplistic distortion of actual events; similar to claims that the church did not reject the slavery of black people or the atrocities that were committed against the Jews under Nazi Germany. A very strict and close examination of these events free of conspiracy theories and assertions, often reveals that there is a long history of anti-Catholics who have labored in distorting the facts.

Zero is a mathematical object. and the concept should also be considered in physics. Nothing in our physical world holds no mass and all matter is energy. and what is the one type of energy that creates action at a distance and en-compasses our atmosphere but is also the least understood while it is in motion? I ask only because it goes in a circle. It is all cyclical.

number system goes from 0 to ∞ (and 0 to -∞ for negatives) as far as i know nothing in our physical world holds no mass and all matter is energy (correct me if i am wrong) now, my question is: can nothing be calculated?

I have learned from physics articles that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light. I'm just curious.., could light be the reason for gravity? If not, what is the reason for gravity? Just asking... If my lack of knowledge is causing me to ask or say something stupid, I apologize in advanced.

When I have a cold, I don't need to see the bacteria, I see the symptoms that result from the bacteria creating the cold to know that the bacteria is there. So is the resurrection of Jesus, do i need to see Him resurrect to believe, or see the masses of followers of His time that believed it.

Your phrasing is odd the origins of bacteria's ability and I think you are not really responding to what I meant. Whatever you would say explains bacteria's ability is somewhere in what I was referring to, the B-Z range.

Article from Newsweek Magazine http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe.html

What if we cant understand the answer. Will machines on day, in science answer a question, in a language that we are incapability of understanding due to our limited/inferior intellect?

No. I'm just asking questions. I love science. If I recall, Pope John Paul II was always very open to the discoveries of science and even encouraged them, believing that faith and science were mutually beneficial to each other.

Why irrelevant?

Any takers?

Then one can ask, why do you think that the universe is complicated??? The only thing compliated about the universe is the small and finite uman mind trying to comprehend it in intellectual human terms. If you believe in evolution and that higher forms developed fro lower forms then humans were "built" by the simplest of single celled creatures. The very computers and internet that we are communicating on rely on the simplest of things for their entire design and development - The on/off switch. What is wise to God is foolishness to man so says St Paul in the Bible. You find wisdom in complexities where God is found in simplicity. You who make the assertion that God MUST be "intrinsically complicated" yet you have no more support for your "faith" view than you claim that I have for mine. Love is a simple concept in God's terms. Yet many volumes are written by humans trying to explain Love in "human terms". Who is simple and who is complicated? Who has the greater understanding of Love, an infant and mother who cling instinctively to each other, or the psychiatrist who writes thousands upon thousands of words trying to define it? So if you question the saying about using 10% of the brain, why don't you questions the old saying you use here?? Perhaps the problem you find with simplification is that, when it reaches a certian point (like all rules deriving from love) you begin to loose your intellectual "control". To make it simpler begins to get into things mystical. Sort of like when someone who deals with common physics begins to look at quantum physics and the things they have been trained to accept don't work anymore.... Going through the above, I find that much of it is based on "assumptions" that can no more be proved than any other "assumption". However, you have established for yourself certain assumptions that are attractive or satisfying to you and you build your other assumptions upon these. Since you choose to use the sceintific-atheistic model for your asumption there is nothing that I can say that would be accepted unless it fits your assumed model. Why do you assume she is uncertain?? Everything you write here demonstrate that you have never read "A Story of a Soul", or if you did you understood none of it.

What are the questions science cannot answer? Anything to do with origins of anything. We can only fathom the B-Z. The A is elusive.

I believe that I see a hint of the underlying problem here. You say above that Science gives you greater fulfillment than Religion because of science's ability to answer your questions where religion is not. So in reality what we are talking about is what your world view is. or in oother words where you place your faith. You prefer science because of it's ability to demonstrate some truth. No "faith" is required. The premise is testable. The reults are able to be sensed etc. That sort of thing. "Religion", does not present as clean and demonstrable result and that those you have questioned in this regard have been unable to answer you (to your satisfaction). Because of this, you seem to feel that this somehow makes the faith based less "true". But I think that if you continue to follow you own advice, and "question the question", you will find that all science can do is answer the "how's" of things but not the "why's". It can define various types of Love, and generate reams and reams of documents on the emotional interactions of human beings; it can create an entire set of terms and language to explain all of this - - - and it will never come as close or as clean or as perfect as the simple statement of Christ in my opening post. You say that you have been exposed to some of the writings of the great saints. If that includes St Therese of Liseiux, you may recall that she was talking to another, older, sister about how she found it difficult to speak about what was going on in her soul, even to her superiors. The older nun responded, "[it is] because your soul is extremely simple, but when you will be perfect, you will be even more simple, the closer one approaches to God, the simpler one becomes." (Story of a Soul, ch VII para 21-23) So where you insist on "Questioning the Question", I answer that it is better to "Simplify the Simple"....

I am providing the answer. The third super power of 9, is a 'GIGANTIC' number which has remained un-calculated, despite the use of super computers!! (to the best of my knowledge) 2 is equal to 3 is also solved in the same way as 2x2 = 5 since 4 -10 = 9 - 15 there fore 2^2 - 2x5 = 3^2 - 3x5 there fore 2^2 - 2x2x5/2 + (5/2)^2 = 3^2 - 2x3x5/2 + (5/2)^2 there fore (2-5/2)^2 = (3-5/2)^2 take sq.root on both sides there fore 2 -5/2 = 3 -5/2 there fore 2 = 3 QED If you give a close look, you'll understand the 'Modus-Operandi' behind this calculation. This method can be used to prove a number equal to its next number viz: 2=3, (2x2) 4=5, (3x3) 9=10 and so on. Let me explain the modus operandi: say we want to prove 9=10 (three threes are ten) 1. Multiply both the numbers to obtain the negative difference of the equation so 9x10=90 therefore -90 is the difference 2. Square the numbers on both sides and add (-90) there fore 81-171 = 100-190 there fore 9^2 -9x19 = 10^2 -10x19 (now multiply and divide the neg.no.by 2) there fore 9^2 -2x9x19/2 = 10^2 -2x10x19/2 3. Now add the positive difference(+90) plus 1/4 on both sides i.e. +90.1/4=361/4=(19/2)^2 there fore 9^2 -2x9x19/2 + (19/2)^2 = 10^2 -2x10x19/2 + (19/2)^2 there fore (9-19/2)^2 = (10-19/)^2 there fore 3x3 -19/2 = 10 -19/2 there fore 3x3 = 10 QED In the nutshell, the whole creation is to nullify everything, leaving (-1/2)^2 = (+1/2)^2 ------------------------------------------ The answer is 2, easy for those who remember the strings!! Like pythegorian number 3^2+4^2 = 5^2, there is another beautiful string : 10^2+11^2+12^2 = 13^2+14^2 The sum equals to 365 and sqr of 365 is 133225 another memorable number, multiplied by 2 gives 266450.

I am sorry that I am not up to the task of answering your questions to your satisfaction. Perhaps another, with greater wisdom than I can provide the answers you seek. You seek your understanding in science - in proofs, and evidence, and brain scans and defining one kind of love from another and other scientific methodology. I fear you will find such pursuit to be ultimately frustrating and futile. I would suggest a different line of study for you. Study those who have been honored for their great love. Mother Theresa of Calcutta, St Therese of Liseaux, St Francis of Assisi, and others.... Study on the lives of these people and you will begin to get the answers you seek.

No. The problem have actual solution. When I say similar to prove 2x2=5, I mean "disguised with simplicity".

Sorry to disappoint you John Cuthber, the details provided are sufficient to solve this problem. Only it is a hard nut to crack. This is similar to "prove 2x2=5" I know there are lot of math wizards on the SFN, who can easily solve this problem, hence I am holding back the solution, which is quite simple to crack this hard nut.

Sorry, the wrong answer. Try harder.

Current popular theories in physics such as quantum gravity, string theory, and black hole thermodynamics all predict that spacetime is quantized. That is, there is a smallest possible length which is on the order of quantum length. So the shortest possible distance between the two dots is the Panck length.

No, that is not a correct characterization of what I said.. And I certainly did not say that God is not real. I spoke of what is infallibly true in the Bible: the author's message, what the author is teaching. We do not need to include all the details that provide the setting of a story, as being the author's message. I also said Scripture is both "human and Divine". This is a clear affirmation of the reality of God. And how else can you account for the fact I said the author's message is infallibly true? It is because the author work's under the influence of Divine Inspiration. Divine Inspiration means Yahweh is real. He is more real than the universe, which He created ex nihilo. I am concerned that you come up with these kinds of profound misinterpretations of my posts. Maybe I will try keeping them short, perchance that will help some.

Perhaps i am wrong but the evidence suggests otherwise. You asking for a logical proof. I am merely going by what the scientists are saying, what the empirical evidence suggests. The universe has a beginning, time space and energy has a beginning, and that beginning involves our universe extending from an infinitely dense point which scientists describe as a singularity. An infinitely dense point is not physical You claim that it is a logically coherent possibility. But it isn't. There is no branes in an infinity dense point. Just because a "scientists" makes a hypothetical inference, this does not mean that the hypothesis is rational. First of all I never said that I can prove that a singularity exists. I meant only to say that the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the universe has a beginning that is grounded in an infinitely dense point. The paragraph you have written is only meaningful to somebody who seeks to understand the entirety of existence in terms of physical states. Your argument is basically the following; "if a theory doesn't point to a physical explanation, then it is false". That is ridiculous as much as it is also a pseudo explanation. An infinite universe is meaningless, unless you mean only that the universe is potentially infinite, in which case it is never actually infinite.

I don't understand why people try to treat Love as some quantifiable, finite commodity. Why do you think there needs to be a greater or lesser Love at work in Jesus? Christ is of the same essence as The Father, when he obeyed the Father, he obeyed himself. Likewise, Christ's Love for us is necessarily identical to the Father's Love for us. But we must recognize that this Love must be properly ordered to the highest Good. That is why we must put our Love of God first (in order not in quantity). Loving God and wishing to be obedient to Him in Love properly orders the Love that we then show to others. Christ says:

No. You made false comparison between the big bang and the centre of the earth.The centre of the earth does not involve the problem of all time, space, and energy extending from an infinitely dense point. It merely involves a central point which ontologically takes up space. This is an assertion pretending to be informed. Instead of answering it, I will treat it for what it is. I wouldn't expect science to explain it. We cannot make sense of it physically. The singularity lies beyond empirical explanation.

Planck time = 10^-43 seconds Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html#c2