The big bang and the creation of the universe.

[Thief]

Who knows how or if a singularity begins to exist. It would be just as easy to just say magic did it.

But to this post.....

We know the singularity in terms of regression.
Science goes right up to it....now and then.

As for magic.....love the stuff....
but creation is not magic.

 

[zaybu]

Who knows how or if a singularity begins to exist. It would be just as easy to just say magic did it.

Singularities are mathematical points, they don't represent anything real. So yeah, if they would suddenly exist, that would be real magic.

 

[Almustafa]

it is all symantics, like was said before...

even with the magic thing, back in the day in medieval times, science didnt exist... every one called what we would call 'science' magic....
so now adays we flipped it around now call 'magic' science, since magic doesnt exist its all just science...

its all about perspective...

 

[zaybu]

it is all symantics, like was said before...

even with the magic thing, back in the day in medieval times, science didnt exist... every one called what we would call 'science' magic....
so now adays we flipped it around now call 'magic' science, since magic doesnt exist its all just science...

its all about perspective...

It was magic in the days of medieval times, mainly because of ignorance. We've deciphered a few things since then.

 

[Repox]

--------------- stop filling this disucssion with your nonesense ---------------

if you brain is not capable of understanding this simple question then please go do something els with your time.

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist):
"Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate
triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist):
“To understand the universe at the deepest level, we have to understand why is there something rather than nothing,”
“Why do we exist? Why this particular set of laws, and not some other? I believe the answers to all of these things is M-theory.”

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics):
"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required
to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."


So guys....define NOTHING!!!!

I believe the key concept for understanding nothing is time. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, matter and energy move toward entropy. Therefore, the universe or matter and energy are not eternal. Then, assuming the big bang is true (scientists accept evidence from radiation fallout studies), then we have a time line for the universe. Thus far, science has not proven the existence of matter or energy before the big bang. Don't we call nonexistence nothing?

How did the universe come from nothing? Based on logic, science cannot explain it because nothing has no physical properties. The only explanation is God did it! Scientist have struggled to explain what happened. Therefore we have theories of multiple universes, bubble universes, parallel universes, and bold assumptions that the universe is eternal. All of these theories are without proof. Some atheistic scientists like Hawking have proposed multiple universes as the explanation, while not being able to explain the origin of that first universe, the one that spawned all the others. The key to the problem is TIME. All scientists, including Hawking, accept physical laws but fail to explain conflicts between them and their theories. If time results from the entropy of matter and energy, then it must have a beginning. In the beginning, there was nothing. How can something come from nothing?

There is only one explanation. Only God, a non-material being, can create something from nothing.:bow:

 

[zaybu]

I believe the key concept for understanding nothing is time. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, matter and energy move toward entropy. Therefore, the universe or matter and energy are not eternal.

OUCH! Entropy is the measure of disorder in the universe. So you can't conclude that matter and energy are not eternal. You need rethink this whole thing.

 

[idav]

Singularities are mathematical points, they don't represent anything real. So yeah, if they would suddenly exist, that would be real magic.

As long as there is at the very least a singularity then there isn't a "nothing" to worry about. But yes I realize that bringing the math of the universe all the way back to a single point in infinite doesn't solve anything.

 

[Repox]

OUCH! Entropy is the measure of disorder in the universe. So you can't conclude that matter and energy are not eternal. You need rethink this whole thing.

You need to explain. My argument is about time being a parameter for the origin of nothing. If time and energy move toward entropy then how can you consider it to be eternal?
What is the evidence for matter and energy being eternal?

Of course, there is none. That's the point. So, if time and energy are not eternal, there is a time line to the universe. Science agrees that the big bang is the origin for time. Nutty scientists that proclaim there is no reason for a creator "have no evidence for an eternal universe," or for matter and energy being eternal.

 

[zaybu]

You need to explain. My argument is about time being a parameter for the origin of nothing. If time and energy move toward entropy then how can you consider it to be eternal?

But time and energy don't move towards entropy. It's like saying time and water moves towards milk, would that make sense? Entropy is a different concept than energy. So stop making use of these concepts when you are clueless about them.

 

[Repox]

But time and energy don't move towards entropy. It's like saying time and water moves towards milk, would that make sense? Entropy is a different concept than energy. So stop making use of these concepts when you are clueless about them.

By definition, you are wrong. Here is a quote from Wikipedia. "The four laws of thermodynamics define fundamental physical quantities (temperature, energy, and entropy) that characterize thermodynamic systems. The laws describe how these quantities behave under various circumstances, and forbid certain phenomena (such as perpetual motion)." Energy, of course, is part of the universe, and included in laws of thermodynamics.

More specifically, the First Law encompasses several principles:

• The law of conservation of energy.

This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system remains the same.

• The concept of internal energy and its relationship to temperature.

If a system has a definite temperature, then its total energy has three distinguishable components. If it is in motion, it has kinetic energy. If it is in a field (e.g. gravity), it has potential energy. And it has internal energy which is the sum of the kinetic energy of microscopic motions of its constituent atoms, and of the potential energy of interactions between them. Other things being equal, the internal kinetic energy increases as the system's temperature increases. The concept of internal energy is the characteristic distinguishing feature of the first law of thermodynamics.

 

[Repox]

In error, my posting came out in two parts. This statement however summarizes.

In brief, Energy is a consequence or a product of the entropy of matter.

 

[idav]

In error, my posting came out in two parts. This statement however summarizes.

In brief, Energy is a consequence or a product of the entropy of matter.

Entropy is not an issue for the universe as a sum of it's energy parts. Energy is at zero sum for the universe no matter what goes on within the universe system.

 

[adi2d]

I believe the key concept for understanding nothing is time. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, matter and energy move toward entropy. Therefore, the universe or matter and energy are not eternal. Then, assuming the big bang is true (scientists accept evidence from radiation fallout studies), then we have a time line for the universe. Thus far, science has not proven the existence of matter or energy before the big bang. Don't we call nonexistence nothing?

How did the universe come from nothing? Based on logic, science cannot explain it because nothing has no physical properties. The only explanation is God did it! Scientist have struggled to explain what happened. Therefore we have theories of multiple universes, bubble universes, parallel universes, and bold assumptions that the universe is eternal. All of these theories are without proof. Some atheistic scientists like Hawking have proposed multiple universes as the explanation, while not being able to explain the origin of that first universe, the one that spawned all the others. The key to the problem is TIME. All scientists, including Hawking, accept physical laws but fail to explain conflicts between them and their theories. If time results from the entropy of matter and energy, then it must have a beginning. In the beginning, there was nothing. How can something come from nothing?

There is only one explanation. Only God, a non-material being, can create something from nothing.:bow:

Before you take that bow could you explain how a "non material being" could have an effect on the material world?

 

[zaybu]

By definition, you are wrong. Here is a quote from Wikipedia. "The four laws of thermodynamics define fundamental physical quantities (temperature, energy, and entropy) that characterize thermodynamicsystems.

You've noticed that energy and entropy are listed separately ( hint: they are not the same)

The laws describe how these quantities behave under various circumstances, and forbid certain phenomena (such as perpetual motion)." Energy, of course, is part of the universe, and included in laws of thermodynamics.

More specifically, the First Law encompasses several principles:

• The law of conservation of energy.

This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system remains the same.

• The concept of internal energy and its relationship to temperature.

If a system has a definite temperature, then its total energy has three distinguishable components. If it is in motion, it has kinetic energy. If it is in a field (e.g. gravity), it has potential energy. And it has internal energy which is the sum of the kinetic energy of microscopic motions of its constituent atoms, and of the potential energy of interactions between them. Other things being equal, the internal kinetic energy increases as the system's temperature increases. The concept of internal energy is the characteristic distinguishing feature of the first law of thermodynamics.

For future reference: you don't have to cut and paste what I already know. It's your misconception of energy and time moves to entropy, which is pure nonsense, that we are talking about

What you can say is that the entropy of the universe increases (2nd law of thermodynamics) and one interpretation of that law is that disorder increases as time goes by. But warning, that is one of many interpretations.

Here are other examples:

Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.

The second law is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated non-gravitational physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

 

[Repox]

You've noticed that energy and entropy are listed separately ( hint: they are not the same)






For future reference: you don't have to cut and paste what I already know. It's your misconception of energy and time moves to entropy, which is pure nonsense, that we are talking about

What you can say is that the entropy of the universe increases (2nd law of thermodynamics) and one interpretation of that law is that disorder increases as time goes by. But warning, that is one of many interpretations.

Here are other examples:

If you already know, why don't you understand?

It is not my misconception. Matter and energy are not separate entities, they move and interact together as physical laws demonstrate. There cannot be many interpretations, unless you want to propose a new set of physical laws.

Going back to my original posting, there is no evidence for the universe being eternal. Unless scientist can prove the existence of another cause, God is the only explanation for the big bang.

 

[McBell]

Unless scientist can prove the existence of another cause, God is the only explanation for the big bang.

Only if by saying "god did it" you really mean "I don't know"...

 

[idav]

If you already know, why don't you understand?

It is not my misconception. Matter and energy are not separate entities, they move and interact together as physical laws demonstrate. There cannot be many interpretations, unless you want to propose a new set of physical laws.

Going back to my original posting, there is no evidence for the universe being eternal. Unless scientist can prove the existence of another cause, God is the only explanation for the big bang.

If God gets a first cause exception then so does energy. Time would have existed in some form as it is intwined with the fabric of space.

 

[zaybu]

If you already know, why don't you understand?

It is not my misconception. Matter and energy are not separate entities, they move and interact together as physical laws demonstrate. There cannot be many interpretations, unless you want to propose a new set of physical laws.

Which part of " the entropy of the universe increases (2nd law of thermodynamics) and one interpretation of that law is that disorder increases as time goes by", don't you understand?

Going back to my original posting, there is no evidence for the universe being eternal. Unless scientist can prove the existence of another cause, God is the only explanation for the big bang.

There's no evidence for the existence of God either.

And then who created God? If you say God is eternal, then one can say the universe is eternal.

 

[apophenia]

Unless scientist can prove the existence of another cause, God is the only explanation for the big bang.

Scientists can't prove the Big Bang theory and there is no proof for God either.

So unless you have a better idea than the meaningless word 'god', you may as well admit that no-one has any idea of why everything exists.

The difference between science and religion though, is that although science does not explain the alleged origin of the universe, or account for consciousness, it does produce encyclopedic amounts of useful information vital to human culture, whereas belief in god just produces infantile thought processes.

Have a look at those countries which are most obsessed about 'god'. Political correctness deems that I not mention them specifically, but they are between Europe and China. How is life in those places ?

Short simple answer - appalling.

So the evidence is that the more people think about god, the worse society gets.

 

[Repox]

Only if by saying "god did it" you really mean "I don't know"...

I know God did it. However, the name of the game here is to win the argument for God. Atheist must rely on science for a contrary argument. So, I challenge atheist to prove God doesn't exist, or that science has the answer.