In the beginning...

[Ted Evans]

Here is your original list:
In the beginning...

My apologies, I neglected to insert the questions in my post which I have just corrected. As you can see, there were many questions that I have asked you specifically, the OP questions were not to you specifically.

 

[Sunstone]

What I wonder is.....can anything be done about it, or are these people just hard-wired to think in such simplistic terms?

I don't really know, but I suspect they are in some respect "hardwired" to think in such terms. But to put that in context, we are all of us hardwired with certain cognitive biases, yet education and training can ameliorate how often we fall victim to them. In much the same way, I suppose that -- if some of us are hardwired to think in such simplistic terms -- education and training might help us to be more realistic.

 

[Valjean]

They said that only God can explain lightening, earthquakes, and thunderstorms? So therefore everything must be knowable? You are incorrect.

How did you get that? I implied no such thing.

You wouldn't be so hasty in declaring space, energy, and time inexplicable? I didn't say they were inexplicable. We know a great deal about them but we won't know about the original source of God unless He decides to reveal that information, and He probably won't ever do that.

You're presuming the existence of this God, then imputing characteristics, and then proposing agnosticism. Do you have any support for any of this?

Me preach? You do realize that this is a religious forum, right?

LOL -- good point, but it's actually against the rules, if you check them out.
RF is a forum for those with an intellectual interest in religion and religiosity. Preaching contributes nothing of intellectual interest and tends to be annoying.

Have I studied the evidence for the age of the universe? Yes, it's based upon the idea that gravity did not exist until after the Big Bang. That is a violation of the laws of physics as we know it. There isn't even a theory as to how gravity wouldn't work.

I don't think this is accurate. It's based more on red-shift observations and background radiation.

Where is the evidence for God? My evidence is the universe. What's yours?

That's not evidence. That's just an observed fact. How does it translate to evidence?

OK, I got it, no matter how many times I emphasize the point, "Keeping in mind, in the beginning", you are going to ignore it. Since you offer no evidence that is "capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment" and since there are many others that disagree with your assertions, I choose to believe their views, I am sure you will understand my position.

I'm going to ignore what? I just follow the evidence. Like you, I'm interested in empirical findings, speculations aren't particularly productive.

 

[Polymath257]

How about we start with these? You quote your answer to each of those questions and I will apologize for implying that you were being dishonest with your statement,

Now, if you cannot quote verbatim, your answers to those questions, then will you admit to making a false statement, twice?

[So, can you tell me what matter is created by the energy of a nuclear explosion? Since the OP refers to in the beginning and as far as I know, there were no nuclear weapons at that time so how did energy create matter, in the beginning? What was the source of that energy?

Answer in post #161.

"Other way around, actually. Mass is converted into energy in nuclear weapons. That is why they have such a large yield.

But the conversion can, and does, go the other way also. For example, if you collide two electrons together at high energy (kinetic energy), they will often produce extra matter by conversion of the kinetic energy into mass. What is produced depends on the energy level of the collision, but it is quite possible to produce protons and anti-protons (which are each 1800 times as massive as an electron).

Once again, we do not know the specifics about 'in the beginning' (even whether such a phrase makes sense isn't clear). But we know from lab results that a 'pure vacuum' with no matter in it has a higher energy than having space with matter in it. The decay from one to the other is *thought* to be one aspect of matter creation early on.

Now, if you have a universe like those predicted by loop quantum gravity (again, speculative), then there is a prior, contracting universe before ours and a 'bounce' that goes into ours. So, in that case, the energy and matter are at high compression at the 'bounce', but exist through it."

Nor did I say they were, nor did I say anything about how old the universe is, did I? Why do folks insist on any subject in creation other than the OP, is it because they know they cannot answer the questions with empirical evidence?

You asked how old the universe is in the OP, question 6.

Where did I ask that, can you quote my words, not yours?

What is your definition of “beginning”?

Answered in post #212

"A beginning is an event (time and place) where things start.

In particular, if you are asking about the universe (space AND time), there *cannot* be any 'before the beginning'."

Was the “Dot/singularity” there before the BB? If so, where did it come from, what did it consist of? What triggered the “explosion”?

Answered in post #212.

"You have a problem with your comprehension of what the BB theory says. It does *not* state that there was a 'dot' that was triggered to explode. Instead, it says that the *observable* universe as we see it today was compressed so that it would fit into a dot at some particular time. But, at that point the universe was already expanding.

What, if anything was before the expansion started is not known. We simply have no evidence from that time period. Now, if you want to know what some *extensions* of the BB description say, we can go there. But the BB description *only* deals with the current expansion phase of the universe."
"

OK, which one am I supposed to believe as honest, the one that says there is no information or ones like these two?

So with all of that, why not just answer the questions as they were asked, or, just ignore the post? Out of all the responses to the OP, how many answered the questions and how many tried to go off on how something could be done, or what could have or, completely off on a tangent?]

I know I answered that last one also, but can't find the specific post.

 

[Milton Platt]

Can any cosmology evolutionist answer these questions for me?


In the beginning...

1) If there is space, energy and time but no matter, can anything be created?

I have no idea..I'm not a physicist.

2) If there is energy, time and matter but no space, where would anything created be placed?

Again, I have no idea....when would this have to have occurred?

3) If there is time, matter and space but no energy, how could anything be created?

Again, when would this supposedly have occurred?

4) If there is matter, space and energy but no time, when could anything be created?
Ditto
5) Where did space, energy, time and matter come from?
Same question...when would this have occurred ?
6) Is the universe finite or infinite and if, it is infinite, can the age be determined?
I have no idea....have you asked a physicist or cosmologist?
7) If anyone cares to answer, I am looking for answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories.

A theory is usually supported by empirical data, and in this case, mathematical modeling using the data available. If you do not want the theories, then you are looking for raw data.....I'm sure it is available, but are you capable of using it?

 

[Super Universe]

How did you get that? I implied no such thing.

You're presuming the existence of this God, then imputing characteristics, and then proposing agnosticism. Do you have any support for any of this?
LOL -- good point, but it's actually against the rules, if you check them out.
RF is a forum for those with an intellectual interest in religion and religiosity. Preaching contributes nothing of intellectual interest and tends to be annoying.

I don't think this is accurate. It's based more on red-shift observations and background radiation.
That's not evidence. That's just an observed fact. How does it translate to evidence?

I'm presuming the existence of God? And you're presuming the absence of God. Apples to apples.

I'm imputing characteristics? Beings have characteristics. I don't imput them, they just are.

I'm proposing agnosticism? No, I'm not. Agnosticism is the idea that God is unknowable. I only proposed that the source of God is unknowable.

Do I have any support for my belief in God? Yes, but the story would not have the same effect on you that it had on me. If someone told you what it was like to be trapped in a car wreck while fire was melting away the skin on their hands and face, would your understanding of the words be the same as experiencing it?

It's acutally against the rules to preach on a religious forum? That's what they keep telling me. Do you know that once upon a time women couldn't vote and people were slaves because they had different color skin? Might doesn't make right.

You don't I'm correct that gravity did not exist until after the Big Bang? Okay, then how does all the matter in the universe eminate from a single point when we know that fractions of that amount of matter form black holes that nothing can escape from? Gravity contracts.

You think the age of the universe is based upon red shift observations? That's what I said. The scientists saw that everything (galaxies) were moving away from each other (because they were red shifted) and figured if they ran it backwards then everything must have come from one place. They're wrong. The idea of a big bang violates the law of gravity. There was no big bang. All galaxies formed in place and space is expanding which is spreading the galaxies apart.

Background radiation proves the age of the universe? If you have telescopes that can only see 13.8 billion years why would you then assume that there is nothing beyond that? It makes no sense. They need to build a series of Hubble telescopes and assemble them in space to form an interferometer and then they will be able to see farther. Hopefully, if they do that, they won't continue to make the same mistake and think that is all there is to see.

The universe is not evidence for God? You've made a claim. I will look at your evidence. Uhh, you have some, don't you?

How does my claim that the universe is proof of God translate to evidence? The same as yours. Apples to apples.

 

[gnostic]

Do I understand you correctly that even the “unknowns” is science?

It seems to me that some want to move the topic from, “In the beginning” where did space, matter, time and energy come from to an entirely different subject, interesting but not the focus of the OP.

IOW, what does the age of the universe have to do with where the four components for creation come from?

What make you think it is creation?

As to the unknown. There will always be things that unknown, or something that we are uncertain about.

Does science answer everything about the universe?

My answer would be - No it doesn't.

But science is on-going endeavour. There will always be something that we can learn about, something to discovered, something to marvel over about.

The current physical cosmology, the Big Bang model, has the most evidences, but science has only just started.

Back in the 3rd century BCE, Aristarchus predicted a new model, the heliocentric system, where the planets, including the Earth orbited around the sun, as opposed to the more popular geocentric model, where the Earth is fixed, and the sun and planets orbited around the Earth.

Geocentric model can be seen in the bible, where it described the sun moving across the sky. The geocentric model was very popular and accepted later by Christians, until Nicolaus Copernicus brought the heliocentric model, and about a century later Galileo and Kepler prove Copernicus' work, using the telescopes.

So it took about 1700 years for heliocentric to be verified as the correct model for our solar system.

We only discovered as recently as 1919, that the universe comprised more than the Milky Way. Our galaxy is just one of many billions of galaxies. It is nearly a whole century now, and we are still making discoveries.

Of course, we haven't found everything, but that doesn't stop scientists from learning more.

And we have know far more about the universe than Iron Age superstitions in the bible about some magic man performing tricks or casting spell, like "Let there be light" or creating a living adult man from dust or talking serpent or 900+ year old men before the nonexistent global flood nonsenses.

As to the 4 fundamentals...those required even more typing.

 

[Valjean]

Wow, you are joking, right? OK, you are not joking...in the beginning, IOW, before the BB, where did those four components come from, when and how were they created, in the beginning, i.e. "to come into existence : ARISE b : to have a starting point"?

I certainly agree with that assertion, now, can you tell me where, when and how that was accomplished, can you do that, keeping in mind, “…answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories.”

You're asking an advanced, theoretical physics question. I'm not a theoretical physicist, and if I were, my answer would probably take several hundred pages and be comprehensible only to other theoretical physicists. As I said before. If you're seriously interested in this branch of physics RF isn't going to be a very informative.

So, can you tell me what matter is created by the energy of a nuclear explosion? Since the OP refers to in the beginning and as far as I know, there were no nuclear weapons at that time so how did energy create matter, in the beginning? What was the source of that energy?

Nuclear explosions convert matter to energy, not energy to matter.
Why do you say energy created matter? Where did you come up with that, and what created the energy?

So with all of that, why not just answer the questions as they were asked, or, just ignore the post? Out of all the responses to the OP, how many answered the questions and how many tried to go off on how something could be done, or what could have or, completely off on a tangent?]

You're asking a bunch of laymen for a treatise on advanced physics. You'd do better to google the specific questions you have.

Why not, is creation not a subject of evolution and creationism?

"Evolution and Creationism is a forum dedicated to the theory of evolution vs the religious doctrine of magical biogenesis. It's not about cosmological creation.

Good grief, I think I see the problem; I have a theory (the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION) and you know what I have or do not have, even my conclusion. Nothing scientific about it, just simple definition of an English word.

Differing definitions lead to parties endlessly talking past each other. Agreement on precise definitions is crucial in any serious discussion. You, it seems to me, are using "theory" very generally; very broadly, but, since many of us perceived this to be a serious discussion concerning scientific issues, we've been using "theory" in the narrow, scientific sense, which is in no way speculation or conjecture.

After reading the posts in this thread, it is certainly easy to understand why there are so many that apparently believe that in the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded and over billllions and billions of years the universe was created. No space, no time, no energy, no matter, no intelligent programing, just a miracle that trumps every miracle in the Bible. Now that is faith that many Christians do not have.

But it isn't faith. it's serious, observation and fact-based science.

 

[Valjean]

I'm presuming the existence of God? And you're presuming the absence of God. Apples to apples.

But presuming the absence of something, in the absence of evidence, is reasonable. It's the logical default position.
Presuming the existence of something, absent evidence, is illogical and unreasonable.

I presume the absence of unicorns and little green men from Mars, as well. This is the reasonable position, pending evidence.
Apples to air conditioners.

I'm imputing characteristics? Beings have characteristics. I don't imput them, they just are.

You're imputing characteristics to a being you call God, but there is no evidence of this being.

I'm proposing agnosticism? No, I'm not. Agnosticism is the idea that God is unknowable. I only proposed that the source of God is unknowable.

I was using it in the broader sense, that you were proposing that something was unknowable.

Do I have any support for my belief in God? Yes, but the story would not have the same effect on you that it had on me. If someone told you what it was like to be trapped in a car wreck while fire was melting away the skin on their hands and face, would your understanding of the words be the same as experiencing it?

Understood. I have personal beliefs, as well, but I don't presume to defend them or expect anyone else to believe them.

It's acutally against the rules to preach on a religious forum? That's what they keep telling me. Do you know that once upon a time women couldn't vote and people were slaves because they had different color skin? Might doesn't make right.

The rule isn't supposed to impinge on your freedom. it's meant to avoid useless non-dialogue. It's not that we aren't interested in your beliefs, but endlessly quoting scripture, for no apparent reason but to proselytize, is neither interesting nor educational. We want to know your beliefs, why you believe them, how you came by them, why you don't believe an alternative interpretation, what your opinion on crisp vs chewy bacon is, &c.

You don't I'm correct that gravity did not exist until after the Big Bang? Okay, then how does all the matter in the universe eminate from a single point when we know that fractions of that amount of matter form black holes that nothing can escape from? Gravity contracts.

Perhaps the black holes disgorge matter into a new universe. Perhaps universes just pop into existence by means yet unknown. it's an active area of study.
Gravity contracts? You'd think so. You'd think universal gravitation would slow the rate of cosmic expansion, yet the expansion increases.
reality is often weird and counter-intuitive.

You think the age of the universe is based upon red shift observations? That's what I said. The scientists saw that everything (galaxies) were moving away from each other (because they were red shifted) and figured if they ran it backwards then everything must have come from one place. They're wrong. The idea of a big bang violates the law of gravity. There was no big bang. All galaxies formed in place and space is expanding which is spreading the galaxies apart.

If that's the case I'd urge you to publish your findings in a professional journal. I'm sure it would be a sensation.

Background radiation proves the age of the universe? If you have telescopes that can only see 13.8 billion years why would you then assume that there is nothing beyond that? It makes no sense. They need to build a series of Hubble telescopes and assemble them in space to form an interferometer and then they will be able to see farther. Hopefully, if they do that, they won't continue to make the same mistake and think that is all there is to see.

You should submit this idea to NASA, I'm sure they'd find it enlightening.

The universe is not evidence for God? You've made a claim. I will look at your evidence. Uhh, you have some, don't you?

How does my claim that the universe is proof of God translate to evidence? The same as yours. Apples to apples.

I don't need evidence. You're the one making the extraordinary claim, your's is the burden of proof. Mine is the default position.

 

[Polymath257]

You don't I'm correct that gravity did not exist until after the Big Bang?

This depends on which of several versions of quantum gravity turn out to be correct.

In basic general relativity, 'gravity' is simply the geometry of spacetime and the time coordinate cannot be extended to before the BB. This is similar to how the latitude coordinate cannot be extended past the north or south poles. So, if GR is correct, gravity didn't exist before the BB because *nothing* existed before the BB: existence started at the BB.

In various forms of quantum gravity, though, the singularity of GR is 'smoothed over' and time can be extended to before the BB. But so is gravity.

Okay, then how does all the matter in the universe eminate from a single point when we know that fractions of that amount of matter form black holes that nothing can escape from? Gravity contracts.

Depends on initial conditions. In the standard BB theory, there is no actual t=0, only t>0. So the universe existed whenever there was time. The motion was always outward, although inflationary cosmology postulates a spin-zero boson, which would provide for a 'repulsive' aspect to gravity early on. Currently we see the rate of expansion increasing, so again there is a 'repulsive' aspect to gravity even today.

You think the age of the universe is based upon red shift observations? That's what I said. The scientists saw that everything (galaxies) were moving away from each other (because they were red shifted) and figured if they ran it backwards then everything must have come from one place. They're wrong. The idea of a big bang violates the law of gravity. There was no big bang. All galaxies formed in place and space is expanding which is spreading the galaxies apart.

Since the relevant law of gravity is general relativity, and since GR actually predicts exactly this behavior (red-shifts, etc), you are simply wrong here. The *reason* space is expanding is because of the dynamics of gravity.

Background radiation proves the age of the universe? If you have telescopes that can only see 13.8 billion years why would you then assume that there is nothing beyond that? It makes no sense.

No, it is quite likely that there is more to the universe than simply the observable universe. The reason we cannot see infinitely far away, though, is that during the finite age of the universe, light has only been able to travel a certain distance.

They need to build a series of Hubble telescopes and assemble them in space to form an interferometer and then they will be able to see farther. Hopefully, if they do that, they won't continue to make the same mistake and think that is all there is to see.

Such a construact would not help. Since we can only 'see' those things that light has been able to travel to us from, anything farther than light can travel in the finite age of the universe cannot be seen (yet).

The universe is not evidence for God? You've made a claim. I will look at your evidence. Uhh, you have some, don't you?

How does my claim that the universe is proof of God translate to evidence? The same as yours. Apples to apples.

Wrong. The universe is only evidence for the existence of a universe. There is nothing about the characteristics of the universe that imply a supernatural or an intelligence to create it.

Now, it is possible that there is a multiverse (many versions of quantum gravity suggest this) and that there are intelligent beings that have learned how to create universes and that our universe is one of those, but there is no evidence for such.

 

[Super Universe]

But presuming the absence of something, in the absence of evidence, is reasonable. It's the logical default position.
Presuming the existence of something, absent evidence, is illogical and unreasonable.

I presume the absence of unicorns and little green men from Mars, as well. This is the reasonable position, pending evidence.
Apples to air conditioners.
You're imputing characteristics to a being you call God, but there is no evidence of this being.
I was using it in the broader sense, that you were proposing that something was unknowable.
Understood. I have personal beliefs, as well, but I don't presume to defend them or expect anyone else to believe them.
The rule isn't supposed to impinge on your freedom. it's meant to avoid useless non-dialogue. It's not that we aren't interested in your beliefs, but endlessly quoting scripture, for no apparent reason but to proselytize, is neither interesting nor educational. We want to know your beliefs, why you believe them, how you came by them, why you don't believe an alternative interpretation, what your opinion on crisp vs chewy bacon is, &c.

Perhaps the black holes disgorge matter into a new universe. Perhaps universes just pop into existence by means yet unknown. it's an active area of study.
Gravity contracts? You'd think so. You'd think universal gravitation would slow the rate of cosmic expansion, yet the expansion increases.
reality is often weird and counter-intuitive.

If that's the case I'd urge you to publish your findings in a professional journal. I'm sure it would be a sensation.
You should submit this idea to NASA, I'm sure they'd find it enlightening.

I don't need evidence. You're the one making the extraordinary claim, your's is the burden of proof. Mine is the default position.

Once again you've made a claim. Please provide your evidence for the absence of God.

Also, logic is simply making a valid statement, which is a conclusion that agrees with the stated premise. So, if I state that "God exists" then I say the universe is my proof of God, that is a logical statement because my conclusion agrees with my stated premise. You're trying to use the word logic as if it equals truth. That's not what it means.

You presume the absence of unicorns and little green men from Mars? So it seems you are used to presuming things without evidence? Or do you have some evidence that unicorns and little green men from Mars do not exist?

I was proposing that something was unknowable? I was proposing that is is unknowable until it is revealed, if it ever is revealed.

Reality is often weird? That's an understatement.

I should publish my findings in a professional journal? There is nothing to tell them. The scientists know the theory of the big bang violates the laws of gravity. They've chosen to ignore it.

I should submit the idea of a space interferometer to NASA? You cannot fill a cup that is already full.

I'm the one making the extraordinary claim and yours is the default position? Prove it.

 

[Polymath257]

Once again you've made a claim. Please provide your evidence for the absence of God.

Also, logic is simply making a valid statement, which is a conclusion that agrees with the stated premise. So, if I state that "God exists" then I say the universe is my proof of God, that is a logical statement because my conclusion agrees with my stated premise. You're trying to use the word logic as if it equals truth. That's not what it means.

You presume the absence of unicorns and little green men from Mars? So it seems you are used to presuming things without evidence? Or do you have some evidence that unicorns and little green men from Mars do not exist?

I was proposing that something was unknowable? I was proposing that is is unknowable until it is revealed, if it ever is revealed.

Reality is often weird? That's an understatement.

I should publish my findings in a professional journal? There is nothing to tell them. The scientists know the theory of the big bang violates the laws of gravity. They've chosen to ignore it.

I should submit the idea of a space interferometer to NASA? You cannot fill a cup that is already full.

I'm the one making the extraordinary claim and yours is the default position? Prove it.

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

 

[Super Universe]

This depends on which of several versions of quantum gravity turn out to be correct.

In basic general relativity, 'gravity' is simply the geometry of spacetime and the time coordinate cannot be extended to before the BB. This is similar to how the latitude coordinate cannot be extended past the north or south poles. So, if GR is correct, gravity didn't exist before the BB because *nothing* existed before the BB: existence started at the BB.

In various forms of quantum gravity, though, the singularity of GR is 'smoothed over' and time can be extended to before the BB. But so is gravity.



Depends on initial conditions. In the standard BB theory, there is no actual t=0, only t>0. So the universe existed whenever there was time. The motion was always outward, although inflationary cosmology postulates a spin-zero boson, which would provide for a 'repulsive' aspect to gravity early on. Currently we see the rate of expansion increasing, so again there is a 'repulsive' aspect to gravity even today.



Since the relevant law of gravity is general relativity, and since GR actually predicts exactly this behavior (red-shifts, etc), you are simply wrong here. The *reason* space is expanding is because of the dynamics of gravity.


No, it is quite likely that there is more to the universe than simply the observable universe. The reason we cannot see infinitely far away, though, is that during the finite age of the universe, light has only been able to travel a certain distance.



Such a construact would not help. Since we can only 'see' those things that light has been able to travel to us from, anything farther than light can travel in the finite age of the universe cannot be seen (yet).



Wrong. The universe is only evidence for the existence of a universe. There is nothing about the characteristics of the universe that imply a supernatural or an intelligence to create it.

Now, it is possible that there is a multiverse (many versions of quantum gravity suggest this) and that there are intelligent beings that have learned how to create universes and that our universe is one of those, but there is no evidence for such.

But gravity never ceases to be a contracting force. Gravity that is created at the exact moment the big bang is created should slow and contract the inflation back into a singularity.

It depends on the initial conditions? You guys are trying to do the impossible. You can't eliminate gravity from the big bang. Can't do it. No way, no how. Every galaxy formed in place from a nebula that formed in place. I know you want evidence for this, I don't have any that you would accept but this theory of the big bang that you are trying to prove defies your own accepted laws of physics.

Currently we see the rate of the expansion of the universe increasing so there is a repulsive aspect to gravity? No, there isn't. If I fire a rifle upward it doesn't mean that the bullet caused gravity to change into a repelling force. Another force is causing the expansion to increase, you call it dark energy.

You claim the reason space is expanding is because of the dynamics of gravity? Incorrect. You're trying to say that dark energy is gravity that is acting as a repelling force. That's like saying that every particle is essentially "a graviton only different". You're coming up with your own theory and trying to pass it off as accepted science when it's not.

The reason we can only see a certain distance is because light can only travel a certain distance since the beginning? Correct, but the distance viewed is limited by our telescopes not by the real age of the universe.

Name one telescope that can see farther than 13.8 billion light years? Just one. Hubble stared at dark space for over 3 months to resolve the Ultra Deep Field and it was full of galaxies.

The universe is only evidence for the universe? Prove it.

It is possible that there is a multi-verse? So, you can imagine a multi-verse and alien creators of universes but not a single being Creator? I would ask for your evidence for this but I know you don't have any. I love it when people expose their own prejudice. You don't like the idea of a single Creator because that single Creator would be God and God is a religious idea.

 

[Super Universe]

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

This would be sad if it weren't so funny.

 

[Valjean]

Once again you've made a claim. Please provide your evidence for the absence of God.

I have made a non-claim. You have made the claim.
Lack of belief is not a claim and does not entail any burden of proof.

Also, logic is simply making a valid statement, which is a conclusion that agrees with the stated premise. So, if I state that "God exists" then I say the universe is my proof of God, that is a logical statement because my conclusion agrees with my stated premise. You're trying to use the word logic as if it equals truth. That's not what it means.

That's not logical. it's a non sequitur. I think it's you who doesn't understand logic.

You presume the absence of unicorns and little green men from Mars? So it seems you are used to presuming things without evidence? Or do you have some evidence that unicorns and little green men from Mars do not exist?

No, I'm used to not presuming things without evidence.
You missed the whole point, this whole argument goes right over your head, doesn't it?

I was proposing that something was unknowable? I was proposing that is is unknowable until it is revealed, if it ever is revealed.

"Revealed?" Revealed by whom?

I should publish my findings in a professional journal? There is nothing to tell them. The scientists know the theory of the big bang violates the laws of gravity. They've chosen to ignore it.

Palpable poppycock!
Why would they do that? How is such a massive, international conspiracy organized?
Scientists are interested in uncovering truth, not hiding it.

I'm the one making the extraordinary claim and yours is the default position? Prove it.

How can you not see this? I'm claiming nothing. I have nothing to defend.

 

[Super Universe]

I have made a non-claim. You have made the claim.
Lack of belief is not a claim and does not entail any burden of proof.

That's not logical. it's a non sequitur. I think it's you who doesn't understand logic.

No, I'm used to not presuming things without evidence.
You missed the whole point, this whole argument goes right over your head, doesn't it?

"Revealed?" Revealed by whom?
Palpable poppycock!
Why would they do that? How is such a massive, international conspiracy organized?
Scientists are interested in uncovering truth, not hiding it.

How can you not see this? I'm claiming nothing. I have nothing to defend.

You've made a non-claim? You claim to have made a non-claim, I dismiss your claim. You think you can make up rules about who has to provide proof and who doesn't. You don't have that power.

Lack of belief is not a claim? Prove it.

My understanding of logic is a non-sequitor? Just because you can't follow it doesn't mean it's a non-sequitor. People make all kinds of claims when they don't understand things.

You're used to not presuming things without evidence? Except you presumed that the universe is not evidence of God. What evidence do you have for this claim?

I missed the point? You mean your point that those who believe in God have to prove God to you while atheists never have to prove anything? We really don't have to prove anything to you. Are you someone important to the universe that you are supposed to know that God exists? If you were supposed to know, you would know, no one would have to explain it to you.

Or do you mean your point that the word logic equals truth, when it doesn't, it means validity.

Or do you mean your point that there are default positions, when that idea is something you made up to give atheists the advantage in debates.

Or do you mean your claim that there is no God and that the universe is not evidence of God when you've provided no evidence for your claim.

I know your points, you haven't proven them.

Who would reveal where God comes from? Uhh, God would have to reveal where God comes from.

How is such a massive international conspiracy organized? I don't know. I never claimed there was a massive international conspiracy. I simply claimed the scientists were wrong about the big bang just like they were initially wrong about the Higgs-Boson, and initially wrong about Einstein's theories, and initially wrong about many other things as well.

Scientists are interested in uncovering truth, not hiding it? Okay, then explain how gravity ceases to work during the big bang. I can't wait to hear your theory, uh, you have one, don't you? Or are you just over eager to accept the scientists theories even when those theories defy their own accepted laws of physics?

How can I not see that anyone who claims that God exists has the burden of proof? What I see is an atheist who is trying to make up rules that give you an advantage in debates with believers. You don't have the power to force the burden of proof on others. Your made up rule is not a rule.

 

[In_Deepthought]

Oh my, I must admit, I have no argument with that logic. We cannot talk about, "in the beginning", because the BB is just a theory. And I thought I had heard pretty much all.

Scientists can speculate about the beginning using the BB as a model we we just do not know until data and evidence is collected and modelled.
Yes i favour the BB theory at the moment but if new science comes along to suggest or prove it wrong then i will admit I was wrong.
But the old testament of Adam and Eve scenario has already been proven that it would not be possible to create a civilisation from 2 people and again i state if the creator created the universe then who created the creator.
Essentially the question of how did the universe start / begin is the same for both sides the difference however between the sides is scientifically we are trying to find out how and when, where religiously those people will only accept a mystical way only known by god because its easy way out for them to understand a subject that is so huge in thought and complication. I think the fact is that generally most humans in the past will believe the simplest solution ie God you require no proof you never need to provide evidence only say that the requirement is faith. whereas today we want those things the more educated we become about our surroundings the more knowledge and proof we require.
"In the beginning " can be talked about by religion and science but neither have evidence yet let alone proof.
However with the work at cern and the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle "the god particle" more evidence and data and proof is going towards BB theory at the moment.

 

[Valjean]

You've made a non-claim? You claim to have made a non-claim, I dismiss your claim. You think you can make up rules about who has to provide proof and who doesn't. You don't have that power.

Lack of belief is not a claim? Prove it.

My understanding of logic is a non-sequitor? Just because you can't follow it doesn't mean it's a non-sequitor. People make all kinds of claims when they don't understand things.

You're used to not presuming things without evidence? Except you presumed that the universe is not evidence of God. What evidence do you have for this claim?

I missed the point? You mean your point that those who believe in God have to prove God to you while atheists never have to prove anything? We really don't have to prove anything to you. Are you someone important to the universe that you are supposed to know that God exists? If you were supposed to know, you would know, no one would have to explain it to you.

Or do you mean your point that the word logic equals truth, when it doesn't, it means validity.

Or do you mean your point that there are default positions, when that idea is something you made up to give atheists the advantage in debates.

Or do you mean your claim that there is no God and that the universe is not evidence of God when you've provided no evidence for your claim.

I know your points, you haven't proven them.

Who would reveal where God comes from? Uhh, God would have to reveal where God comes from.

How is such a massive international conspiracy organized? I don't know. I never claimed there was a massive international conspiracy. I simply claimed the scientists were wrong about the big bang just like they were initially wrong about the Higgs-Boson, and initially wrong about Einstein's theories, and initially wrong about many other things as well.

Scientists are interested in uncovering truth, not hiding it? Okay, then explain how gravity ceases to work during the big bang. I can't wait to hear your theory, uh, you have one, don't you? Or are you just over eager to accept the scientists theories even when those theories defy their own accepted laws of physics?

How can I not see that anyone who claims that God exists has the burden of proof? What I see is an atheist who is trying to make up rules that give you an advantage in debates with believers. You don't have the power to force the burden of proof on others. Your made up rule is not a rule.

 

[Polymath257]

But gravity never ceases to be a contracting force. Gravity that is created at the exact moment the big bang is created should slow and contract the inflation back into a singularity.

It depends on the initial conditions? You guys are trying to do the impossible. You can't eliminate gravity from the big bang. Can't do it. No way, no how. Every galaxy formed in place from a nebula that formed in place. I know you want evidence for this, I don't have any that you would accept but this theory of the big bang that you are trying to prove defies your own accepted laws of physics

But, of course, it doesn't. Why we can study it with those laws of physics. I'd suggest Wald's book on General Relativity or Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's book called Gravitation.

Currently we see the rate of the expansion of the universe increasing so there is a repulsive aspect to gravity? No, there isn't. If I fire a rifle upward it doesn't mean that the bullet caused gravity to change into a repelling force. Another force is causing the expansion to increase, you call it dark energy.

Not another force. Another contribution to the energy. It is also called the cosmological constant if you want to look up the older literature on it.

You claim the reason space is expanding is because of the dynamics of gravity? Incorrect. You're trying to say that dark energy is gravity that is acting as a repelling force. That's like saying that every particle is essentially "a graviton only different". You're coming up with your own theory and trying to pass it off as accepted science when it's not.

Nope. Dark energy is NOT a type of gravity. It is a type of energy density that stays constant on expansion. If you put such into the equations of gravity, you get an accelerating expansion.

The reason we can only see a certain distance is because light can only travel a certain distance since the beginning? Correct, but the distance viewed is limited by our telescopes not by the real age of the universe.

Name one telescope that can see farther than 13.8 billion light years? Just one. Hubble stared at dark space for over 3 months to resolve the Ultra Deep Field and it was full of galaxies.

You won't be able to see farther than 13.8 billion light years because the universe is only 13.8 billion years old and light travels one light year in a year.

The universe is only evidence for the universe? Prove it.

It is possible that there is a multi-verse? So, you can imagine a multi-verse and alien creators of universes but not a single being Creator? I would ask for your evidence for this but I know you don't have any. I love it when people expose their own prejudice. You don't like the idea of a single Creator because that single Creator would be God and God is a religious idea.

I'm just pointing it out as a possibility that it at least as likely as your creator deity and perhaps even more likely. But neither has any evidence in favor.

 

[Polymath257]

This would be sad if it weren't so funny.

OK, if you know so much physics, explain the possible spacetime metrics that satisfy Einstein's field equations for conditions where there is both matter and radiant energy. Then add a contribution to these equations corresponding to a cosmological constant.