No Possibility of God

[ratiocinator]

Where is my evidence about gravity?

No, about the angels you mentioned.

Einsten math describes the bb? No, heheh... It doesn't.

Simply wrong - go find pretty much any textbook on relativity (I have three to hand) and you'll find a section on cosmology.

You are way out of your league.

That's funny.

Einstein didn't come up with the idea of the big bang so how could his earlier math describe the big bang?

Einstein produced the field equations of general relativity. The BB cosmological models are solutions to said equations. Here is a page about solutions to the field equations: Exact solutions of Einstein's equations - Scholarpedia If you go to section 5 Some important solutions, then section 5.2 The Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) solutions, those are the ones that cover BB cosmology. See also here: Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric - Wikipedia and here: Big Bang - Wikipedia.

Einstein actually did realise that his original equations implied an expanding (or contracting) universe and tried to modify them with the "cosmological constant" to produce a static universe. He abandoned it when Hubble discovered the universe was indeed expanding (it's now considered a possible explanation for dark energy), read about it here: Cosmological constant - Wikipedia.

All locations approach each other as we go back in time? And gravity allows matter that is very close together to move away from each other? Ever hear of something called a black hole? You can look it up.

Black holes are described by a different solution (that describes a very different situation) to the same field equations.

My evidence is the universe. What is yours?

Every test we have been able to to on general relativity confirms it. The universe agrees with the theories you are rejecting.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Well, it's called mass-energy, and the universe and everything in it is made from mass-energy, or is a property or effect of mass-energy.

Accept no substitutes.

Actually mass-energy is a property of something.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, it's called mass-energy, and the universe and everything in it is made from mass-energy, or is a property or effect of mass-energy.

No - mass and energy are both properties (as I think we've discussed before), at the most basic level we have quantum fields and space-time-gravity - and currently no tested theory that unites the two.

We simply don't know what happened at "Time Zero" because of the aforementioned lack of a theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe | Live Science

So time didn't exist before the Big Bang?
There seems a lot of certainty that prior to the BB time did not exist at least by people certainly smarter than me.

Has science finally provided an answer to the age-old question of God's existence?
Is Hawking wrong about time?
Or, is there some workaround which allows God to exist/create in a timeless state?

In fact, according to Hawking, nothing existed prior to the Big Bang and it is perfectly ok to accept that.

While I think he should have nuanced that statement a bit... He isn't really wrong.
Everything we know at this point suggests that time is a dimension of the space-time continuum.
Logically, if you remove the space-time continuum, you also remove the time dimension.

So the universe "always" existed. Talking about "before the universe" is like talking about "north of the north pole". There's no there, there.

However........
That is only based on what we currently know. And what is most certainly true, is that what we currently know is not correct or the whole story. It might be, but it seems to me to be rather unlikely.

We have no conclusive theory for the origins of the universe. We have no quantum theory of gravity. We have no unified field theory for physics. We have no explanation for dark matter and energy. There is SO MUCH we don't know yet. Is there a multi-verse? And if there is, is it eternal, or did the multi-verse itself also have some type of "beginning"? If we remove our space-time bubble from the cosmos, do we then find ourselves in some other temporal bubble? Is the multi-verse a large space-time bubble that contains, and produces, smaller space-time bubbles?


So many questions, so little answers....

So with that in mind, I think his claim professes far to much certainty that we simply do not have... Eventhough it is technically consistent with what we DO know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I mean, let's say a person here presented the argument that Hawkings did.

OP: There is no time for a Creator to have existed in.

The arguers: Straw Man. We think God exists outside time.

Argument over.

No, argument not "over".

Instead, time to point out an incorehent, self-refuting point in that statement:
To exist implies temporal conditions.

So to say that something (anything) can "exist" outside of time, is like claiming a married bachelor.

Being a bachelor excludes one from being married.
Just like no time excludes temporal phenomenon, like "existing". Or "creating" for that matter.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They're just simplistic and mostly addressing dumb fundie interpretations

Have you ever considered that the fundies are the people that Dawkins is actually addressing?

He is no theologian

You don't need to be a theologian to point out the absurdities of fundamentalist theism.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

To exist implies temporal conditions.

If God existed sans creation, he existed outside time.

 

[atanu]

Well, it's called mass-energy, and the universe and everything in it is made from mass-energy, or is a property or effect of mass-energy.

Accept no substitutes.

I have an uncanny feeling as if I am talking with Aupamanyav.

There are a few things we can discuss. As far as I know, space-time and momentum-energy go together for evolution of the Big Bang state to present universe. For example, Planck density is 10 to the power of 94 g/cm. Yeah. Space is small. Yet space is defined. In smaller than Planck distance scenario, the simplest static black holes have mass but neither electric charge nor angular momentum. But that is ideal. Although the Black holes are characterized by mass, angular momentum and charge, the concept of the area come in through the 'event horizon'. Anyway, I am not an expert in this and this is immaterial for the discussion at hand.

But. When you say 'accept no substitute', I think that either you are bluffing or you have not examined the implications. Or maybe I am a duffer and I am not getting a simple point.

If the 'mass-energy' is the only reality, how will you assign 'mass'? Suppose you have a condition of absolute monism with some matter 'X' and nothing besides it. How does its mass-energy get to be known?

Furthermore, suppose I accept your commandment 'mass-energy and no substitute', can you derive the 'I am' awareness and its phenomenal consciousness from 'mass-energy'? Kindly show it.

Again suppose, you succeed and give a formalism of how 'X', characterised by 'mass-energy' generates 'phenomenal consciousness'. That would be a mental model, developed using the given power of consciousness. But how do you ever actually come to know the 'X' in its non-dual primitive form, since as per your model there is no competence of knowledge in the primitive ontological matter? You can never know it empirically, except indirectly. So, kindly solve the problem of 'Explanatory Gap' and show how 'mass-energy' generates 'phenomenal consciousness'?

...

 

[PureX]

In fact, according to Hawking, nothing existed prior to the Big Bang and it is perfectly ok to accept that.

Except that, logically, something cannot have resulted from nothing.

 

[Link]

No more North then North pole analogy doesn't make sense with respect to time. He's got to let go of his irrational conjecture and not be stubborn.

God is proven so many ways to exist.

 

[Super Universe]

No, about the angels you mentioned.



Simply wrong - go find pretty much any textbook on relativity (I have three to hand) and you'll find a section on cosmology.



That's funny.



Einstein produced the field equations of general relativity. The BB cosmological models are solutions to said equations. Here is a page about solutions to the field equations: Exact solutions of Einstein's equations - Scholarpedia If you go to section 5 Some important solutions, then section 5.2 The Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) solutions, those are the ones that cover BB cosmology. See also here: Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric - Wikipedia and here: Big Bang - Wikipedia.

Einstein actually did realise that his original equations implied an expanding (or contracting) universe and tried to modify them with the "cosmological constant" to produce a static universe. He abandoned it when Hubble discovered the universe was indeed expanding (it's now considered a possible explanation for dark energy), read about it here: Cosmological constant - Wikipedia.



Black holes are described by a different solution (that describes a very different situation) to the same field equations.



Every test we have been able to to on general relativity confirms it. The universe agrees with the theories you are rejecting.

Where is my evidence for angels? Why should I give you that? Are you someone very important? You can look up video's online of astronauts on the ISS seeing something outside the window and screaming, but, of course, that doesn't prove anything.

Can you point out where your link says "big bang?" Because it's not there. Also, the argument was whether Einstein's math proved the big bang. It doesn't prove the big bang. No math can because it's impossible. Einstein did not come up with the idea of the big bang because it's not in Relativity or Special Relativity.

Also, the Wiki page on the Big Bang says this "Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This irregular behavior, known as the gravitational singularity, indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. It then goes on to say that after the big bang the laws of physics do work. They just don't work for the very beginning.


Einstein's original equations implied and expanding or contracting universe? He was very good at math, not so good at theory.

Black holes are described by a different solution than a singularity? So black holes have completely different gravity?

Every test on relativity confirms it? But relativity is not evidence of the big bang. It's evidence of relativity.

The scientists are doing everything they can to force everything to fit with this big bang idea but the whole time they are violating the most fundamental physical law of all, gravity. That's not science. You can't violate your own accepted laws.

 

[Thief]

mmmm…...seems to me....

the universe is EXPANDING
which strongly indicates it had a starting POINT

a primordial singularity

 

[WalterTrull]

Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe | Live Science

So time didn't exist before the Big Bang?
There seems a lot of certainty that prior to the BB time did not exist at least by people certainly smarter than me.

Has science finally provided an answer to the age-old question of God's existence?
Is Hawking wrong about time?
Or, is there some workaround which allows God to exist/create in a timeless state?

In fact, according to Hawking, nothing existed prior to the Big Bang and it is perfectly ok to accept that.

What's impossible is you and me. Nevertheless...

 

[ratiocinator]

Can you point out where your link says "big bang?" Because it's not there.

What link didn't mention it? One of them was the wiki page about the BB. The link is the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker solutions. I seem to have overestimated your ability to read for comprehension and make simple connections...

Also, the argument was whether Einstein's math proved the big bang. It doesn't prove the big bang.

No it wasn't, it was about you telling me that it disproved the BB and that the Einstein's maths was not used to describe it. Both claims that are entirely false.

Einstein did not come up with the idea of the big bang because it's not in Relativity or Special Relativity.

False - it is General Gelativity. The BB (the geometry of the universe expanding from a hot dense state) is described by solutions to the field equations of GR. Einstein originated the field equations but they are non-linear differential equations that make finding exact solutions to them rather difficult. In fact, I read in one book the Einstein didn't expect any exact solutions to be found at all. It was somewhat surprising that Schwarzchild found the first exact solution less than a year later.

Also, the Wiki page on the Big Bang says this "Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This irregular behavior, known as the gravitational singularity, indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. It then goes on to say that after the big bang the laws of physics do work. They just don't work for the very beginning.

I know.

Black holes are described by a different solution than a singularity? So black holes have completely different gravity?

No, there aren't different sorts of gravity but there are different situations and different solutions to the field equations that apply. One is a massive body within space-time and one involves the whole of space-time.

 

[ratiocinator]

No more North then North pole analogy doesn't make sense with respect to time.

Because.....?

God is proven so many ways to exist.

You've posted a few supposed proofs and they all had obvious flaws, do you want another go?

 

[Super Universe]

What link didn't mention it? One of them was the wiki page about the BB. The link is the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker solutions. I seem to have overestimated your ability to read for comprehension and make simple connections...



No it wasn't, it was about you telling me that it disproved the BB and that the Einstein's maths was not used to describe it. Both claims that are entirely false.



False - it is General Gelativity. The BB (the geometry of the universe expanding from a hot dense state) is described by solutions to the field equations of GR. Einstein originated the field equations but they are non-linear differential equations that make finding exact solutions to them rather difficult. In fact, I read in one book the Einstein didn't expect any exact solutions to be found at all. It was somewhat surprising that Schwarzchild found the first exact solution less than a year later.



I know.



No, there aren't different sorts of gravity but there are different situations and different solutions to the field equations that apply. One is a massive body within space-time and one involves the whole of space-time.

Friedmann-Lamaitre-Robertson-Walker are not Einstein. The argument was that Einsteins equations PROVED the big bang and they did not. The Wiki pages says that all equations DO NOT explain the theorized early part of the big bang.

The force of gravity is too strong for things in close proximity but the force falls off with the square of the distance. The problem with the bb idea is the singularity. Can't do it. Can't happen because it's just a big black hole. The inflation part is correct but the scientists wanted everything to come from one place and so they are forcing it when the math says no.

I was saying the math disproved the bb? It does if you use it right. Look up black holes. That's a singularity. If you just say "Well, we don't know about the bb singularity." That's a lie. Gravity contracts. A lot of gravity is a black hole. All the matter in the universe in one place is a black hole. Physicists are unethical lying pieces of (you know what).

The only way the bb idea could have worked was if the early material had no mass. No mass means no gravity. But then you have to explain how the material gained mass and nothing in physics can describe that.

The field equations explain the bb? And gravity is where?

There are different situations and solutions to the field equations? Can't violate gravity. You can play with the math all you want and you can get it to work except for one thing, gravity. There is no getting around it.

Here's what is going to happen. In a few years when the James Webb Telescope is launched the astronomers are going to find out that the universe is much larger than 13.8 billion years. So, there is going to be a debate and the piece of (you know what) physicists are going to try and say the bb is just older than they thought but some of them are going to finally realize that, there's just no way. It might not happen in our lifetime but the bb idea is going down. Oh, and the ridiculous Conservation of Energy is going down too because it's entirely dependant on the bb. And this idea that there is a dimension of time, that's going down to, but that is another discussion.

 

[ratiocinator]

Friedmann-Lamaitre-Robertson-Walker are not Einstein.

As I keep saying, they are solutions to Einstein's field equations, that is, they are a consequence of Einstein's mathematics and Einstein's theory.

The argument was that Einsteins equations PROVED the big bang and they did not.

False - that was never the argument. I first joined the conversation when you said:

Gravity would never allow a big bang to happen. It didn't happen.

You later claimed that:

Gravity is the most fundamental law of physics and gravity says the big bang could not have happened.

and

Newton and Einsteain already did the math on gravity.

and

Einsten math describes the bb? No, heheh... It doesn't.

So, it's always been about you claiming that the theories of gravity disproved the BB - which is simply false.

The Wiki pages says that all equations DO NOT explain the theorized early part of the big bang.

The presence of a singularity indicates that the theory breaks down at the very beginning. The theory breaks down just as much at the centre of a black hole, so you can't claim that one is correct and try to wave away the other because it has a singularity. Also the modern notion of black holes was also given by a solution of the field equations that wasn't due to Einstein himself (the Schwarzschild solution).

I was saying the math disproved the bb? It does if you use it right.

And you know this how...? You didn't even understand the pop-science version of expanding space, and now you're trying to tell us that you know how to disprove the BB using maths? As I said before: publish this and claim your Nobel Prize - you can be rich and famous. I suspect, however, that you have no grasp of the maths at all.

Physicists are unethical lying pieces of (you know what).

Again, how would you know - where is your evidence?

The rest is just simplistic, ill-informed, hand-waving waffle that you're trying to put up against the hard mathematics and solid evidence for the BB.

 

[Segev Moran]

Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe | Live Science

So time didn't exist before the Big Bang?

Time didn't exist in our POV.
We have no way (currently) of knowing what really happened prior to the big bang, but in our definition of time, it really didn't exist.
It relates to Einsteins (and others) space-time concept.
It suggests that time is not a linear thing and it is not objective rather it is relational to the speed of an object in space.
So time is actually a location and the rate of change in location.
This means, that faster objects "experience" different time than slower ones.
More than that, as "space" was only created in the first plank of the big bang, there was no space, hence no time.

There seems a lot of certainty that prior to the BB time did not exist at least by people certainly smarter than me.

This is proved by many evidence we collected over the years.
The big bang theory describes a singularity point where all the matter and energy of our universe was condensed into one single point.
It such condition, there is no possibility for time to exist.

Imagine you stare at a table.
For you, there is no time difference between the first leg and the second leg.
In your POV, the table exists as a whole.
BUT, if you will examine the nano world of the table, you will discover a constant motion of particles.
although extremely fast, the particles move. they "experience" time inside the table.
So in the particles "POV", the table doesn't exist in the same time.

Has science finally provided an answer to the age-old question of God's existence?

No

Is Hawking wrong about time?

Probably not
This theory is well supported by many experiments.

Or, is there some workaround which allows God to exist/create in a timeless state?

Actually, the fact there is a scientific acceptance of a "timeless" state, it actually gives more "power" to the God argument as God many times is described to be out side of time.
Imagine that God is the observer of the table (universe) and we are the particles in it.

In fact, according to Hawking, nothing existed prior to the Big Bang and it is perfectly ok to accept that.

Exactly.
Its ok to accept the fact that there was nothing, not only that, there was nothing "forever".
Until something (an unknown cause to science [yet ] changed that state and suddenly, out of this "nothing" something emerged.

 

[Bird123]

Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe | Live Science

So time didn't exist before the Big Bang?
There seems a lot of certainty that prior to the BB time did not exist at least by people certainly smarter than me.

Has science finally provided an answer to the age-old question of God's existence?
Is Hawking wrong about time?
Or, is there some workaround which allows God to exist/create in a timeless state?

In fact, according to Hawking, nothing existed prior to the Big Bang and it is perfectly ok to accept that.

Mr Hawking had armies of medical problems. He allowed this to corrupt his view.

Much of what I say Mr. Hawking knew but ignored. Quantum physics is showing the possibility of many dimensions. Would not a dimension without time fit into the realm of possibilities? Next, the assumption that nothing existed before the BB is no more than an assumption. There is far more that we do not know than we do. Making broad assumptions based upon what Mr. Hawking believed do not translate into truth. Until one gets the entire picture, real truth is out of reach. Can one really rest on mere Beliefs? I think not!!

Let's don't accept. Let's Discover the Real Truth!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Super Universe]

As I keep saying, they are solutions to Einstein's field equations, that is, they are a consequence of Einstein's mathematics and Einstein's theory.



False - that was never the argument. I first joined the conversation when you said:

You later claimed that:
and
and


So, it's always been about you claiming that the theories of gravity disproved the BB - which is simply false.



The presence of a singularity indicates that the theory breaks down at the very beginning. The theory breaks down just as much at the centre of a black hole, so you can't claim that one is correct and try to wave away the other because it has a singularity. Also the modern notion of black holes was also given by a solution of the field equations that wasn't due to Einstein himself (the Schwarzschild solution).



And you know this how...? You didn't even understand the pop-science version of expanding space, and now you're trying to tell us that you know how to disprove the BB using maths? As I said before: publish this and claim your Nobel Prize - you can be rich and famous. I suspect, however, that you have no grasp of the maths at all.



Again, how would you know - where is your evidence?

The rest is just simplistic, ill-informed, hand-waving waffle that you're trying to put up against the hard mathematics and solid evidence for the BB.

There are solutions to the field equations? Right but those do not predict, or allow, a singularity. They allow inflation because the galaxies are far enough away from each other so the force of gravity is insignificant. Inflation is not the bb.

The theory of gravity does disprove the bb. You think inflation means bb. It doesn't. Inflation is inflation. The bb is the bb. One is allowed by Newton/Einstein, the other is not.

The singularity means the theory breaks down? EXACTLY! Now you are starting to get it. It breaks down because it's IMPOSSIBLE. If you just stick with inflation, you're good. Once you try to take it farther, you violate your own laws.

I didn't understand the pop science version? You mean the bb? That's not even pop science. It's super inflated ego's over riding known physical laws because they think they are soooo smart when they're not. Guys who are good at math, are good at math. Theory should be left up to Philosophy majors, or artists, anyone but a math robot.

I should get my Nobel Prize? Oh, a primitive human award. Wow! That would be fantastic. Evolved beings should come from all over the universe just to get primitive human awards named after some guy who invented dynamite.

Where is my evidence? History.

Ever hear of something called GRAVITY? I think you should look it up. Then come back and I will explain it to you. Also, bring some of your math robots with you and I'll explain the real dimensions to them. Nevermind, let them rust.