Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[Polymath257]

It does? Why?

Because it is assuming causality when it seems very unlikely to apply.

 

[Polymath257]

When have I said that the universe is finite?
I said that it is finite into the past.
Space-time had a beginning at T = 0. It is currently 13.7 billion years old, according to current understanding. That's a finite age.

My main concern here is that when quantum effects are included, it is quite possible that time can be extended back further, potentially infinitely far into the past. In that case, the start of the expansion becomes some sort of phase transition.

But you are correct in the classical theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ever heard it said you can never win an argument with a conspiracy theorist?
Claim 1 - There was no catastrophe in the Jordan Plain - it's just a myth
Claim 2 - So yes, something DID happen in the Jordan Plain, but the myth was built around this event.

What does it take for YOU to be 'convinced' the Abrahamic story was true. Genesis said it happened at night. Abraham was on the lee side of the mountain range and Lot was in Zoar, down south. There was an exodus from the region afterwards.

Nice strawman. But it i s nice that you are finally admitting that you are a conspiracy theorist.

Top bad that you still do not understand the concept of evidence. Right now you have none. All you have is an ad hoc explanation. No scholar takes those seriously.;

What would it take for me to take the myth seriously? Actual evidence support your story. Learn what evidence is and then you might be able to find some.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My main concern here is that when quantum effects are included, it is quite possible that time can be extended back further, potentially infinitely far into the past. In that case, the start of the expansion becomes some sort of phase transition.

But you are correct in the classical theory.

I can be satisfied with "We don't know yet". The "yet" is a very important part of the answer since it implies that people are looking for an answer.

 

[rational experiences]

I never understood how or why a human man says going back in time is anything other than a loss of mass being burnt out converted. Beginning highest coldest fused. No light.

Seeing clear gas in space once burning took a long time into a future to go cold and clear.

You take destroy then infer that awareness allows you to put it back together in now time.

Fused fusion is in your way.

Do you intend to remove all fusion by your latest fakery?

 

[PruePhillip]

Nice strawman. But it i s nice that you are finally admitting that you are a conspiracy theorist.

Top bad that you still do not understand the concept of evidence. Right now you have none. All you have is an ad hoc explanation. No scholar takes those seriously.;

What would it take for me to take the myth seriously? Actual evidence support your story. Learn what evidence is and then you might be able to find some.

Ok, there's a claim that a story was historic. The plains of Jordan were struck at night. One eyewitness was on the lee side of the mountains near Jericho. His brother in law was in the southen city of Zoar. In the morning a witness climbed to a high point and stated that the scene was like the smoke of a furnace.
Later some evidence turned up that this might have been the site of an air burst, and 50,000 people died. The evidence will take a decade or so to be confirmed or dismissed. But if it does then we should accept the Genesis account - and as a result of this our main witness joined the exodus of people from the area.
No conspiracy. The only conspiracy was this was all crafted a thousand years later, when there would no longer be any live history.

 

[Polymath257]

Ever heard it said you can never win an argument with a conspiracy theorist?
Claim 1 - There was no catastrophe in the Jordan Plain - it's just a myth
Claim 2 - So yes, something DID happen in the Jordan Plain, but the myth was built around this event.

What does it take for YOU to be 'convinced' the Abrahamic story was true. Genesis said it happened at night. Abraham was on the lee side of the mountain range and Lot was in Zoar, down south. There was an exodus from the region afterwards.

Which part of the Abrahamic story? That a city was destroyed? The evidence seems to point in that direction.

That the city was destroyed because an avenging God was mad? No evidence for this at all.

Think of it like this. What would it take for you to be convinced the Iliad and the Odyssey of Homer are true?

We know Troy existed. We know it was destroyed at a particular time. We know that Darian Greeks were expanding at the time. We have evidence they were involved in the destruction of Troy.

But does that show that the war was started when Paris judged who of the Goddesses was fairest? Does it show the Zeus took a particular interest in the battle? Or Athena? Or Hera? or Apollo?

The original events inspired myths and legends that grew with the telling (as such stories tend to do). The evidence can show that the myth was based on a real event.

But it cannot show that this real event was caused by supernatural forces. That aspect of the story must be relegated to myth for Troy just as it is for Sodom.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, there's a claim that a story was historic. The plains of Jordan were struck at night. One eyewitness was on the lee side of the mountains near Jericho. His brother in law was in the southen city of Zoar. In the morning a witness climbed to a high point and stated that the scene was like the smoke of a furnace.
Later some evidence turned up that this might have been the site of an air burst, and 50,000 people died. The evidence will take a decade or so to be confirmed or dismissed. But if it does then we should accept the Genesis account - and as a result of this our main witness joined the exodus of people from the area.
No conspiracy. The only conspiracy was this was all crafted a thousand years later, when there would no longer be any live history.

Sorry, you need to prove that you have an eyewitness. Claims of eyewitness testimony is not eyewitness testimony.

And where did you get the number 50,000 from? All I see are holes here.

And you still do not have a testable hypothesis. Therefore you do not have evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, there's a claim that a story was historic. The plains of Jordan were struck at night. One eyewitness was on the lee side of the mountains near Jericho. His brother in law was in the southen city of Zoar. In the morning a witness climbed to a high point and stated that the scene was like the smoke of a furnace.
Later some evidence turned up that this might have been the site of an air burst, and 50,000 people died. The evidence will take a decade or so to be confirmed or dismissed. But if it does then we should accept the Genesis account - and as a result of this our main witness joined the exodus of people from the area.
No conspiracy. The only conspiracy was this was all crafted a thousand years later, when there would no longer be any live history.

There would have been oral traditions that lasted for quite a long period of time. And the legend would grow with the retelling.

A story saying that a particular person witnessed the event in question would be *exactly* the type of story that would be made up for dramatic effect.

So even if the meteor explanation of Tell Hammam is correct (which is being debated currently), it still does not prove that the eye witness aspect is historic as opposed to legend. And it certainly does not imply that any supernatural event took place. Quite the contrary.

 

[PruePhillip]

There would have been oral traditions that lasted for quite a long period of time. And the legend would grow with the retelling.

A story saying that a particular person witnessed the event in question would be *exactly* the type of story that would be made up for dramatic effect.

So even if the meteor explanation of Tell Hammam is correct (which is being debated currently), it still does not prove that the eye witness aspect is historic as opposed to legend. And it certainly does not imply that any supernatural event took place. Quite the contrary.

No other nations recorded this event. It would have impacted Egypt because the same year as this putative air burst Lower Egypt fell to the 'Hyksos.' Coincidence? Probably, but we can't be sure. Truth is there would have been many refugees from this event, and they have finally overwhelmed Egypt.
Same with the cultic center of Shiloh - we read only that the Ark of the Covenant was taken, nothing else. That was a good 600 years before the so-called writing of the bible, and in Babylon times Shiloh was just a hill, a tell actually - and in it they found the actual shrine and the 'horns of the altar' and Mosaic sacrifice in the way beasts were butchered. I doubt all these accounts somehow were handed down as myths - I hold they were written down at the time or shortly thereafter, just as many nations do with significant events.

 

[PruePhillip]

Sorry, you need to prove that you have an eyewitness. Claims of eyewitness testimony is not eyewitness testimony.

And where did you get the number 50,000 from? All I see are holes here.

And you still do not have a testable hypothesis. Therefore you do not have evidence.

I only have to find melted ceramics, splintered bone or shocked quartz to have 'evidence.'
Proof, no, not yet, but sure... evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Well first of all, the theorem only has one condition in order for it to hold...which is that the average Hubble expansion is greater than zero.

Not quite true.

First of all, it assumes that spacetime is accurately described by a Lorentzian metric and that the geodesics of said metric are relevant for the physics. In essence, this is an assumption that classical physics is operative and would be violated in a full quantum theory of gravity (as Guth, the G in the paper, points out elsewhere).

Second, it has a particular definition of the Hubble parameter for inhomogeneous and anisotropic universes. The positivity of this parameter is unclear in general.

Third, it only shows that individual geodesics are finite into the past. it does NOT show that the universe as a whole is finite into the past.

So, yes, the BGV theorem is interesting and places limits on which classical expanding universe scenarios are reasonable. In particular 'eternal inflation' scenarios are excluded. But these are all semi-classical theories, relying on a classical description of gravity. This is *certainly* wrong at sufficiently energetic scales.

So, the BGV theorem shows that in a semi-classical universe, and a geodesic along which a particular Hubble parameter is increasing on average, that particular geodesic is finite into the past.

This does NOT imply that the universe as a whole has a beginning (even in the semi-classical universes).

It also does NOT apply to scenarios involving quantum gravity (which is certain to be necessary at some point) since it depends on a semi-classical formulation.

Finally, even *if* it was shown that the universe as a whole has a geodesic singularity in the past, that in NO way implies anything about it being 'created' or even being 'caused'. That is a completely separate argument than the BGV theorem and fails for other reasons.

 

[Polymath257]

No other nations recorded this event. It would have impacted Egypt because the same year as this putative air burst Lower Egypt fell to the 'Hyksos.' Coincidence?

Proof? What date did Lower Egypt fall to the Hyksos? Which chronology do you use for this determination? What is the precise date of the supposed meteor event? How do you determine that?

Probably, but we can't be sure. Truth is there would have been many refugees from this event, and they have finally overwhelmed Egypt.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they overwhelmed the Mitanni instead.

Same with the cultic center of Shiloh - we read only that the Ark of the Covenant was taken, nothing else. That was a good 600 years before the so-called writing of the bible, and in Babylon times Shiloh was just a hill, a tell actually - and in it they found the actual shrine and the 'horns of the altar' and Mosaic sacrifice in the way beasts were butchered. I doubt all these accounts somehow were handed down as myths - I hold they were written down at the time or shortly thereafter, just as many nations do with significant events.

Cultic centers have a way of remaining cultic centers even when religions change. In particular, there was a LOT of non-Yahweh worship even reported in the Bible, and this *is* verified by archeology. I don't see why identifying Shiloh as one of them, or even the sacrificing techniques, is so amazing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I only have to find melted ceramics, splintered bone or shocked quartz to have 'evidence.'
Proof, no, not yet, but sure... evidence.

That is not true. You only need that to have an ad hoc explanation. That does not make it evidence. Evidence needs the ability to cut both ways. You are forming a narrative after the fact. You cherry pick observations that support your ad hoc explanation. That is not how evidence works. Scientists realized how people do not reason rationally at all times. The formalized evidence a bit more. There one has to put their money where their mouth is. One has to say "if we see this it supports my claim, if we see this instead it refutes my claim". What observations would show your idea to be wrong? They need to be reasonable tests. You cannot rely on others to refute your test for you.

What you have been doing here is looking for a disaster of some sort. Any disaster would do. There is one huge question. Where is the impact crater? I am pretty sure that an air blast would not be strong enough to create shocked quartz. From my recollections they are due to an impact. Air will pass a shock wave, but I have never heard of one that is that powerful. enough to shock quartz. I looked at quite a few articles and they all seemed to be about impact:

shocked quartz meteorite - Google Search

You might find one that has a non meteor soruce.

And when it comes to the term "proof", that does not exist in reality. All that one has is evidence. In the legal world it is phrased as "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Even that implies that there is a small possibility that they could be wrong. Proof is an improper word to use because it implies that there is no doubt at all. If you could find evidence that would be a good sign, but you need something better than an ad hoc explanation when you are claiming to have evidence.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

So did you get that nonsense from Hamza Tzortzis?

Who?

The muslim copycat of william lame craig. lol

I actually got it from WLC...and funny you should laugh, considering that Craig's KCA was influenced by Islamic thought.

Anyhow, the question is nonsensical.
If there is an indentation, then there is a gravity source.
The gravity pulls the ball down and then the indentation happens.
This sequence of events requires time.

Reading comprehension. I clearly said that the bowling ball was resting for eternity. If the ball was resting for eternity, then there is clearly no "sequence of events" which "requires time".

You, and Hamza, wish to ignore that inconvenient step. So you make it an imaginary "eternal" bowling ball on an "eternal cushion". You need to resort to that kind of nonsense to pretend as if causality doesn't require a sequence of events in temporal context.

Invoking magic and fantasy is all you can do to defend that.

First of all, your critique and entire dismissal of the analogy is based on a gross misunderstanding of the analogy itself.

You falsely mentioned something about a sequence of events above, when there is/was no such thing in the analogy.

How about this...I have a sequence of events for you...

1. Understand what is being said.

AND THEN

2. Based on that understanding, feel free to offer a critique.

How is that for a sequence of events?

You say it's "obvious", but the very properties of the universe that are required for the phenomenon of causality to manifest, do not exist when the universe doesn't exist.

Obviously, I understand that...otherwise, I wouldn't be offering an transcendent cause as an explanation to explain the causality, would I?

That your mind, which evolved to avoid being eaten by lions - not to understand weird quantum physics and alike - can't wrap itself around that is irrelevant.

Physics is full of stuff that we can't wrap our minds around, but which are nevertheless true.

Quantum Physics of the Gaps.

Forensic science would be crime investigation based on evidence and scientific rules for evidence. And the reason why that is the standard today, is because it is a more reliable method of inquiry.

Having said that, your comment makes no sense.

First off, nothing you said has anything to do with my original point. Perhaps you should re-read it and obtain a better understanding of my point.

Reasoning based on evidence is very different from the type of "philosophical problems" you are talking about with respect to the frontiers of physics.

You are still missing the point and right now you are borderline strawmaning.

Having said that... both of those are fictional characters.

The characters may be fiction, but the logical reasoning they implementing are very real. Again, this is obvious the case as, as there wouldn't have been anyway to solve crime during those times and the authors/creators of the series had based those series on how crime would have been solved in those days.

That, was the point.

You were the one who was downplaying philosophy as if science is superior, and my point was simply, it isn't.

Funny how every "example" you give to make your points, come from fantasy and imagination. Like your "eternal bowling ball" that you (or rather: Hamza) invented while ignoring gravitational forces to make some silly point about causality

First of all, I don't even know who Hamza is...and like I said, William Lane Craig is the first one who I heard use the analogy....second, the "bowling ball" thing is arbitrary, as I can just as easily think of any two material objects to drive point home. So the focal point of the isn't based primarily on a bowling ball and cushion.

Third, I am a Christian apologist, and if you are a Christian apologist living in the past 30 years and you haven't been influenced by William Lane Craig, then you need to see a doctor.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Even if I would throw you a bone and agree that "philosophy" was how they solved crimes before the development of methods used today in forensics... once more, the only reason why those methods are used today, is because they are more reliable.

You are still missing the point...and the fact that I actually agree with you goes to show that you've missed the point.

I didn't say the universe is finite. I don't know if it is. There's nothing in physics that stops it from being infinite.

There is..

1. The BGV theorem stops it from being infinite.

2. The second law of thermodynamics implies that it can't be infinite.

And if that isn't enough..

3. The philosophical arguments against infinite regress stops it from being infinite.

So, you are simply WRONG.

And those are three different lines of argumentation, which means that even if you were to offer a sound critique to one, the others would still stand.

And come to think about it, I don't even think you can offer a sound critique to even one of the three.

Anyhow, I fail to see what that has to do with the point that quantum physics is spooky.

Quantum Physics of the Gaps.

I agree there is an explanation for why the universe is the way it is.
However, that doesn't follow from "it is finite".

Additionally, quantum physics most certainly is involved in that explanation.

Quantum physics of the gaps.

Several models do exactly that.

Which models do that? Which model has empirically verifiable data that has trumped the standard big bang model?

But more importantly, are you saying that "the designer dun it" DOES explain it?

The fine-tuning required for the universe/life to exist is that of an engineer...and engineers are intelligent.

No. Quantum physics is very real. Your internet device would not function if it wasn't.

Ok...so here is a challenge.

I challenge you explain the origins of my internet device...but the catch is; the answer that you provide has to exist within the device. No explanation which is external to the device can be given.

Go. Explain it.

You present those reasons?

Been there, done that.

I know it doesn't change anything. You'll just move your god backwards and plant him/her/it at the next gap in knowledge.

And then excuse him from every rule you imposed on everything else with a special pleading argument.

Having said that, according to many other physicists it can be eternal. According to even others it doesn't exist at all and the univese is in an eternal cycle of big bangs.

The BGV theorem applies to virtually all viable models. And again, you have to do more than just offer possibilities.

Mere possibilities ain't evidence. You have to provide actual EVIDENCE that your hypothesis is true...and neither you nor anyone else have been able to do that.

It is off course to be expected that you'll pick the ones that say something you can use to "fit" with your a priori beliefs. I expect nothing else.

Off course, you still have the very same problem.
You jump from "there is an unknown beginning" to "therefor, my god".

No reason, no evidence, nothing. Just confirmation bias.

Opinions.

/facepalm

It's clear you have very little understanding of how science works.
They gather evidence.
Then they build testable models to explain that evidence.
They are testable because they make predictions.
In physics models, these predictions can flow from the math.
The multi-verse is such a prediction. It's the math itself that does this.
Other aspects of the math ARE testable.

When those check out, then they are indirect evidence for the prediction that you can't test due to logistical restrains (like the multi-verse - we can't poke "outside" of it, whatever that means).

I already stated that, even under multiverse scenarios, they either..

1. Must have had a beginning.

2. Must have been fined-tuned.

There is no escape. You can continue trying to keep your multiverse dream alive, but it is dead.

And they are.
The plausibility is demonstrated by the supporting data and the successes of testing predictions.

Data such as? The multiverse is purely speculative. There is no evidence supporting it. We cannot see beyond the observable universe, and if you can't see beyond it, how do you know that anything is out there to begin with?

Tell me, how is a designer "plausible"? Which tests demonstrate it as plausible?

Spirits aren't something you can put in a test tube.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Physicists are working on answering that question.
The origins of the universe are currently unknown.

"Physicists are working on it" LOL.

And even that isn't universally true either.
First, nothing really "begins" to exist in the universe as everything is for the most part just reallocation of already existing things.

Basically, this is just another way of saying "energy cannot be created nor destroyed", which is the first law of thermodynamics.

But you got problems...because...

1. The first law only comes into play AFTER the universe began to exist in the first place...so the question of origins is not negated.

2. You can't have an infinite amount of reallocations over an infinite amount of times. Logically impossible.

So either way, your logic fails.

Second, this gets fishy at the quantum level, to say the least.

When things get tough, appeal to quantum physics to save the day!!!

But it doesn't, though.

Third, this is a statement about what you see IN the universe. To the extent that it is true, it is only so inside the universe as it manifests through the physics of the universe.

No universe = no physics of the universe = no manifestations of phenomenon produced by the physics of the universe.

I agree.

When have I said that the universe is finite?
I said that it is finite into the past.
Space-time had a beginning at T = 0. It is currently 13.7 billion years old, according to current understanding. That's a finite age.

Sorry, but you are contradicting yourself, sir.

You can't logically say the universe has a finite age, but then turn around and say that it is infinite (reallocations of matter).

True statements don't contradict each other...but false statements do...and yours...do.

That's when the space-time continuum started.
That is the point that time started flowing. The start of time.
So indeed: go back in time. Pick any point in time. The universe existed then.
So how is it wrong to say that the universe always existed? Since "always" here literally means "for all of time"?

"The universe has always existed".

"The universe is only 13.7 billion years old".

That is like saying..

"I have always been married".

"I have always been single".

Fallacious...and disgusting.

I do.
You don't seem to understand what "time" means.

Again:
1. always = for all of time.
2. time = inherent part of the universe. The space-time continuum.
3. Time started when the universe came into existence at T = 0, 13.7 billion years ago. Thus finite into the past (not necessarily into the future...)

I agree.

Therefor, whenever there was time, there was a universe. If there's a universe, there is time.
Consider the universe to be a coin and space being one side and time being the other side.
Remove the coin = remove the sides. And you can't have just 1 side.

The coin doesn't exist without the sides.
The sides don't exist without the coin.

If one is present, so is necessarily the other. They are different aspects of the same thing.


So... for all of time, the universe existed.
Whenever there was time, there was a universe.
Hence, the universe always existed.

You just said the age of the universe is finite, though.

Makes no sense.

 

[Polymath257]

There is..

1. The BGV theorem stops it from being infinite.

No, it does not. For those models it applies to, it prevents geodesics from being infinite into the past. it is still possible to have a spatially infinite universe.

2. The second law of thermodynamics implies that it can't be infinite.

SLOT is a statistical law not a fundamental one. It is like saying that if you flip a coin 2 trillion times, you are likely to get about 1 trillion heads. And, more so, your percentage of heads will be close to 50%.

But, given enough repeats, you will eventually flip all heads in 2 trillion flips.

And if that isn't enough..

3. The philosophical arguments against infinite regress stops it from being infinite.

I have yet to see a coherent philosophical argument against infinite regress. All I have seen have been based on some poorly defined notion of 'transversing' an infinite sequence.

So, you are simply WRONG.

No, if you read what he said, he made a correct statement. There is nothing that prevents a spatially infinite universe. There are arguments founded on classical (non-quantum) physics for there being a singularity in the past by necessity.

And those are three different lines of argumentation, which means that even if you were to offer a sound critique to one, the others would still stand.

And come to think about it, I don't even think you can offer a sound critique to even one of the three.

None of the ones you have given hold much water. I have pointed out the mistakes. You have ignored them or misunderstood them.

Quantum Physics of the Gaps.

Quantum physics of the gaps.

Not at all. We *know* quantum physics is part of how our universe works. And we *know* that it will be relevant for gravity at some energy. We *know* it often gives very counter-intuitive facts about the universe. And we *know* that it is an acausal description of the universe.

Which models do that? Which model has empirically verifiable data that has trumped the standard big bang model?

Which models of quantum gravity have been tested? None. But we know some sort of quantum gravity will be required for a full theory.

The fine-tuning required for the universe/life to exist is that of an engineer...and engineers are intelligent.

That is a HUGE leap of logic. yes, human engineers design things. But being fine tuned does NOT mean that the universe is designed.

Ok...so here is a challenge.

I challenge you explain the origins of my internet device...but the catch is; the answer that you provide has to exist within the device. No explanation which is external to the device can be given.

Go. Explain it.

False analogy. Since *all* causality (and hence all explanation) has to do with things *within* the universe, there *can be no* explanation (cause) of the universe as a whole.

The internet device is within the universe and is not causally closed.

Been there, done that.



The BGV theorem applies to virtually all viable models. And again, you have to do more than just offer possibilities.

False. BGV only applies to semi-classical models. It does not apply to situations involving quantum gravity.

Mere possibilities ain't evidence. You have to provide actual EVIDENCE that your hypothesis is true...and neither you nor anyone else have been able to do that.

So please provide actual evidence for a designer, not simply mere possibilities. Claims of fine tuning without addressing the theory dependence of that concept won't be enough.

Opinions.

I already stated that, even under multiverse scenarios, they either..

1. Must have had a beginning.

2. Must have been fined-tuned.

There is no escape. You can continue trying to keep your multiverse dream alive, but it is dead.

Funny that cosmologists don't agree with you.

Data such as? The multiverse is purely speculative. There is no evidence supporting it. We cannot see beyond the observable universe, and if you can't see beyond it, how do you know that anything is out there to begin with?

It is pure speculation on your part that a designer is required. To justify that there was/is a designer, you have to be very clear about how things would look *without* a designer: in other words, how they would look if only natural laws applied. That has not been done, so ALL you have is speculation. Even the BGV theorem, which theists love to exclaim, has very little support within cosmology. It is one argument that may or may not be relevant.

Spirits aren't something you can put in a test tube.

Which is a very good reason to be skeptical of their existence.

 

[Polymath257]

But you got problems...because...

1. The first law only comes into play AFTER the universe began to exist in the first place...so the question of origins is not negated.

Prove that the universe 'began to exist' in the way relevant to this argument. There was no time when the universe didn't exist.

2. You can't have an infinite amount of reallocations over an infinite amount of times. Logically impossible.

Really? Can you prove this? It seems imminently possible with a bit of understanding about infinity.

So either way, your logic fails.

When things get tough, appeal to quantum physics to save the day!!!

And sometimes it does. QM is an acausal description of the universe that is *by far* the best and most accurate we have ever had. No matter what, quantum aspects will have to be taken into account in any full theory.

I agree.

Sorry, but you are contradicting yourself, sir.

You can't logically say the universe has a finite age, but then turn around and say that it is infinite (reallocations of matter).

it is possible to have finite age and be infinite in extent.

True statements don't contradict each other...but false statements do...and yours...do.

"The universe has always existed".

"The universe is only 13.7 billion years old".

That is like saying..

"I have always been married".

"I have always been single".

Fallacious...and disgusting.

No, it is not. Not even close.

The universe has always existed MEANS that the universe existed whenever there was time.

The universe being 13.7 billion years old simply means that *time started* 13.7 billion years ago. In this scenario, there is a singularity 13.7 billion years ago and it is simply impossible to even *talk* about time before that. For someone enamored with BGV, this should be a very clear statement.

I agree.

You just said the age of the universe is finite, though.

Makes no sense.

Your mistake is thinking that 'the universe has always existed' implies that it is infinite into the past. It merely means it has existed whenever there was time.

 

[rational experiences]

Just humans fixed. The human. No past no present. Is now only.
Just earth the planet fixed.
Just heavens fixed.

Law fixed places. Fixed bodies.

Law involves change.

Heavens cooling in space. Heavens was burning now is fixed burning.

Change law cooling of the fixed position.

Past said the presence why cold clear highest science want coldest gases....to control today. They became clear cold from a past position fixed to evolution by infinity 10000000000000000000000vacuum that goes out beyond burning itself to absolute nothingness.

Why it remains cold clear naturally.

Infinite now is some place in a space future. No law now about any immaculate history. As back it was burning knows man. Now means infinity only owns cold clear.

So he fixed his machine.
He fixed the machines reaction.
He puts an already converted mass he controlled. Given a humans fixed position.

In his machine. To change the fixed position. Back in time to burning only.

That basic natural human thinking ability says why science just a human practice. Science is a liar about control of cosmic bodies as natural law.

He observed a fixed state earth natural yet unnatural causes it to change yet natural is always first changing.

Crop circle. Studies it. Says he wants it.

So how do you take it?

The ground opens up as he tries to take it from its natural saved position is his answer.

You can't have what natural owns.

Otherwise the future that exists will affect where you exist.

Science trying to force it's fixed position. Not any natural law.

Theoried I want coldest.

On earth inside our heavens where we live where his machine is fixed.... it is instant snap freeze. Fixed and coldest.

The ice age.

So to invent it. First you overheat the atmosphere by status human science fixed positions only. Forced. Then you invent it. Change by invention.

A man's know self identification is how I control inventing.

His identified past cosmic human backdrop...
Planet rock...water oxygen living biology.

Above conditions below never owned.

Bible confession I forced up above as so below.

If humans biology was put into cosmic heavens position we'd be burnt to death....ashes to ashes dust to dust.

Theme I had destroyed by human science all previous earth biology to ashes and dust. My scientific human confession I intend to do it again.

By falsifying a human life equalled the presence of dust.

Ignored teaching it was an assessment of how a human Theist made theories as just a human.

Law said why no man is God.

Changing dusts being mineral content also our biology...changed humans conscious brain mind.

So we lost natural self identified natural mutual equal human parent relationships. The example of is lived now. As proof yes science was a criminal legally.

Humans it's victim only. Innocent babies given verified by medical causes the Jesus teaching. Human conscious life sacrificed...
changed human behaviour not guilty said humans legal world teaching.

Once agreed as humans rightful legal status.

Big bang in science was altered to machines reactor position little small bang.

Law of sun light said little stone only was received as space law on ground.

Not a sin hole.

Man breaks earth gods fused law sin opens as a hole...big bang sun thesis.