Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Big Bang

Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.

Let this truth be sung from the rooftops until people get it.

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 9:42:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.

Let this truth be sung from the rooftops until people get it.

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

What is your view on the energy existing prior? Is it eternal in time or did it have a beginning?
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 9:48:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 9:42:42 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.

Let this truth be sung from the rooftops until people get it.

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

What is your view on the energy existing prior? Is it eternal in time or did it have a beginning?

It doesn't really matter, the point is the Big Bang was not creation ex nihilo. Creation ex nihilo might have been done before that.

As for your question, it probably existed eternally in time.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 10:07:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 9:48:06 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:42:42 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.

Let this truth be sung from the rooftops until people get it.

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

What is your view on the energy existing prior? Is it eternal in time or did it have a beginning?

It doesn't really matter, the point is the Big Bang was not creation ex nihilo. Creation ex nihilo might have been done before that.

As for your question, it probably existed eternally in time.

So you reject all the theories that say any universe that had/has an inflation theory must of had a beginning and cannot be eternal in time? Interesting...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 3:54:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 9:42:42 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.

Let this truth be sung from the rooftops until people get it.

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

What is your view on the energy existing prior? Is it eternal in time or did it have a beginning?

It makes sense that it has existed eternally, possibly cycling between a matter/energy state in space, and an energy-only state with or without space. There are different ideas about what might happen when/if the universe reaches a state of finite expansion; it may rebound back to a single point, resulting in the annihilation of space, or it may stretch to a point of collapse, possibly leading to the collapse of space-time itself. We observe that a property of matter/energy is that it cannot be created, nor can it be destroyed. And while theists commonly choose to jump to pure conjecture about the laws of physics in a non-spacial universe, what we do know with all possible certainty is that matter/energy can't be created as a property of matter/energy. This being true, the energy would have to be eternal.

Great thread, Hematite ! This is a point which needs to be hammered home among theists as there are so many false representations of big-bang common to creationist rhetoric and propaganda campaigns.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 4:01:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 10:07:39 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:48:06 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:42:42 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.

Let this truth be sung from the rooftops until people get it.

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

What is your view on the energy existing prior? Is it eternal in time or did it have a beginning?

It doesn't really matter, the point is the Big Bang was not creation ex nihilo. Creation ex nihilo might have been done before that.

As for your question, it probably existed eternally in time.

So you reject all the theories that say any universe that had/has an inflation theory must of had a beginning and cannot be eternal in time? Interesting...

If you'll do a bit of research I believe you'll find that all currently accepted variations of big-bang start with something pre-existing (a singularity, brane-worlds, or just pure energy). As such, big-bang is not the beginning of the universe, but the "Beginning of the universe AS WE KNOW IT". It's a transformation event, rather than a creation event. Some hold that all of the matter/energy now in the universe was contained in a single point before big-bang, and inflated through the initiation of big-bang. Others suggest a collision of brane-worlds, resulting in energy, some of which converted to matter, and a third suggests energy-only, which began to transform through an unknown causal event, leading to the expansion of space to accommodate the substance of matter, which then merged with time in a loosely interwoven construct known as space-time.

No matter which you analyze, none are actual creation events and none represent the actual "beginning of the universe" from a prior state of nothingness. Such a state is counter-evidenced by the existence of somethingness.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 10:34:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.

Let this truth be sung from the rooftops until people get it.

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

The Big Bang is only a theory that is wrongly perceived by God's people who have no idea how God created us.

We were created as invisible vibrations ( energy ) that have to be processed into illusions to give each individual a perspective of living in a world which we call a universe. In other words, the universe does not exist. It only exists when observed by each individual observer.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 11:46:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 10:07:39 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:48:06 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:42:42 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.

Let this truth be sung from the rooftops until people get it.

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

What is your view on the energy existing prior? Is it eternal in time or did it have a beginning?

It doesn't really matter, the point is the Big Bang was not creation ex nihilo. Creation ex nihilo might have been done before that.

As for your question, it probably existed eternally in time.

So you reject all the theories that say any universe that had/has an inflation theory must of had a beginning and cannot be eternal in time? Interesting...

Why would one have to reject inflation if they believed the energy that gave arise to the current universe always existed?

Secondly what is time? What if it exists outside of time and the big bang, inflation, etc is a manifestation of this energy and the beginning of time?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 8:17:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.

Let this truth be sung from the rooftops until people get it.

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Notice the not having a "before" argument Atheist use was created by St. Augustine when he was thinking about the nature of God.

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Stephen Hawking, who I think may know a bit about the First Law of Thermodynamics, says "Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang". Written in Bible blasting Atheist additions so I would hope Beatts and Hematite could see such a premise is not founded by the 1st LoT.

Here's an article that confirms the Atheist cosmology
http://news.sciencemag.org...
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 8:40:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 8:17:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.

Let this truth be sung from the rooftops until people get it.

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Notice the not having a "before" argument Atheist use was created by St. Augustine when he was thinking about the nature of God.

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Stephen Hawking, who I think may know a bit about the First Law of Thermodynamics, says "Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang". Written in Bible blasting Atheist additions so I would hope Beatts and Hematite could see such a premise is not founded by the 1st LoT.

Here's an article that confirms the Atheist cosmology
http://news.sciencemag.org...

So... you're agreeing with me.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 8:49:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 8:40:50 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/18/2014 8:17:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.

Let this truth be sung from the rooftops until people get it.

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Notice the not having a "before" argument Atheist use was created by St. Augustine when he was thinking about the nature of God.

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Stephen Hawking, who I think may know a bit about the First Law of Thermodynamics, says "Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang". Written in Bible blasting Atheist additions so I would hope Beatts and Hematite could see such a premise is not founded by the 1st LoT.

Here's an article that confirms the Atheist cosmology
http://news.sciencemag.org...

So... you're agreeing with me.

1. I don't know what God your speaking of.
2. In the Bible and major religious text, God does not ex nihilo create things.
3. The assumption that energy and matter are eternal to include a point before the creation of Time and Space, is a nonsequitor. an illogical presupposition that a smart physicist and famous Atheist agree is wrong to accept.
4. No I do not agree with you. Observation inside this universe do not have to hold to the same principles as of this universe in a whole. Time.. hello TIME had a beginning. SPACE.. hello.. SPACE had a beginning. And yet Energy existed? assumption.

Even if I did accept Energy could exist WITHOUT space and time.. the only way to describe the mathematically or classically, or relativity wise and still makes sense of it is as a singularity.

I don't care or have an opinion about the creation of energy ex nihilo. There is just no possible observation or reasoning to discern a creation ex nihilo or not.

But if pushed I would agree on God influencing a singularity.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 10:35:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 8:49:42 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2014 8:40:50 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/18/2014 8:17:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.

Let this truth be sung from the rooftops until people get it.

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Notice the not having a "before" argument Atheist use was created by St. Augustine when he was thinking about the nature of God.

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Stephen Hawking, who I think may know a bit about the First Law of Thermodynamics, says "Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang". Written in Bible blasting Atheist additions so I would hope Beatts and Hematite could see such a premise is not founded by the 1st LoT.

Here's an article that confirms the Atheist cosmology
http://news.sciencemag.org...

So... you're agreeing with me.

1. I don't know what God your speaking of.

A god that created the universe.

2. In the Bible and major religious text, God does not ex nihilo create things.

It depends on interpretation, but I don't see how this is relevant to the topic?

3. The assumption that energy and matter are eternal to include a point before the creation of Time and Space, is a nonsequitor. an illogical presupposition that a smart physicist and famous Atheist agree is wrong to accept.

I don't understand what you're saying.

4. No I do not agree with you. Observation inside this universe do not have to hold to the same principles as of this universe in a whole. Time.. hello TIME had a beginning. SPACE.. hello.. SPACE had a beginning. And yet Energy existed? assumption.


It's not an assumption, it's only logical to assume energy existed before the big bang, because that's part of the theory itself. I'm making no claim on whether energy existed eternally in the past before the big bang or not, I'm just saying that the big bang did not magically create matter/energy, it used what was already there.

Even if I did accept Energy could exist WITHOUT space and time.. the only way to describe the mathematically or classically, or relativity wise and still makes sense of it is as a singularity.


With all due respect, your grammar is largely incomprehensible.

I don't care or have an opinion about the creation of energy ex nihilo. There is just no possible observation or reasoning to discern a creation ex nihilo or not.


Ok, I think I agree with you. That isn't relevant to the topic, however.

But if pushed I would agree on God influencing a singularity.

That's fine I guess.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 4:15:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is interesting, typical and sad. When people post the ridiculous creationist strawman version of big-bang (everything exploding into existence from nothing), Christians flock to discuss it. But when someone posts actual big-bang cosmology, a day goes by with only 12 responses. I guess when theists find out that big-bang is not only conclusively evidenced, but makes perfect sense, they'd rather pretend that it doesn't exist.

And what does that tell us about the desire of theists to understand the truth? It tells us that they have no interest in the truth.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
rajnishncode
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 5:13:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 5:13:10 AM, rajnishncode wrote:
At 7/19/2014 5:12:02 AM, rajnishncode wrote:
asdfasdf

asdfasdf

asdfadsf
Rajnish Savaliya
rajnishncode
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 5:13:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 8:49:42 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2014 8:40:50 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/18/2014 8:17:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.

Let this truth be sung from the rooftops until people get it.

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Notice the not having a "before" argument Atheist use was created by St. Augustine when he was thinking about the nature of God.

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Stephen Hawking, who I think may know a bit about the First Law of Thermodynamics, says "Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang". Written in Bible blasting Atheist additions so I would hope Beatts and Hematite could see such a premise is not founded by the 1st LoT.

Here's an article that confirms the Atheist cosmology
http://news.sciencemag.org...

So... you're agreeing with me.

1. I don't know what God your speaking of.
2. In the Bible and major religious text, God does not ex nihilo create things.
3. The assumption that energy and matter are eternal to include a point before the creation of Time and Space, is a nonsequitor. an illogical presupposition that a smart physicist and famous Atheist agree is wrong to accept.
4. No I do not agree with you. Observation inside this universe do not have to hold to the same principles as of this universe in a whole. Time.. hello TIME had a beginning. SPACE.. hello.. SPACE had a beginning. And yet Energy existed? assumption.

Even if I did accept Energy could exist WITHOUT space and time.. the only way to describe the mathematically or classically, or relativity wise and still makes sense of it is as a singularity.

I don't care or have an opinion about the creation of energy ex nihilo. There is just no possible observation or reasoning to discern a creation ex nihilo or not.

But if pushed I would agree on God influencing a singularity.

asdfasdf
Rajnish Savaliya
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 9:55:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 5:13:34 AM, rajnishncode wrote:
At 7/19/2014 5:13:10 AM, rajnishncode wrote:
At 7/19/2014 5:12:02 AM, rajnishncode wrote:
asdfasdf

asdfasdf

asdfadsf

no way!!
Never fart near dog
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 10:19:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.


Such a shame that all physicists disagree with you.


Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

You only think it's false because of your confirmation bias.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 11:05:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 10:19:44 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.


Such a shame that all physicists disagree with you.


Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

You only think it's false because of your confirmation bias.

Physicists disagree with each other, just like religious people do. That's because they don't have a clue what the Truth is.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 11:29:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 10:19:44 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.


Such a shame that all physicists disagree with you.


Please source where a physicist disagrees with me.


Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

You only think it's false because of your confirmation bias.

Nice ad hominem.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 11:47:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 11:29:28 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 10:19:44 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.


Such a shame that all physicists disagree with you.


Please source where a physicist disagrees with me.

http://www.abc.net.au....

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

You only think it's false because of your confirmation bias.

Nice ad hominem.

It would be ad hominem if we were in an argument then, but we were not.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 11:52:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 11:47:21 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:29:28 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 10:19:44 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.


Such a shame that all physicists disagree with you.


Please source where a physicist disagrees with me.

http://www.abc.net.au....


However, it wasn"t until the 1920s, when Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, that scientists really envisaged an abrupt beginning, a primeval state in which everything was very compressed and flying out of some sort of singularity.

So says your source. Please tell me how a very compressed singularity is nothingness?

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

You only think it's false because of your confirmation bias.

Nice ad hominem.

It would be ad hominem if we were in an argument then, but we were not.

We are, you started one when you said that my statement about the dichotomy is false. I'm not here to get into semantics about what an "argument" is, but you can't just make some stupid jab at me to invalidate my claim that the dichotomy is false.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 12:04:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 11:52:53 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:47:21 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:29:28 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 10:19:44 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.


Such a shame that all physicists disagree with you.


Please source where a physicist disagrees with me.

http://www.abc.net.au....


However, it wasn"t until the 1920s, when Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, that scientists really envisaged an abrupt beginning, a primeval state in which everything was very compressed and flying out of some sort of singularity.

So says your source. Please tell me how a very compressed singularity is nothingness?

Further down in the source, the physicist says "before the Big Bang, there was simply nothing, no time, no space, no energy, no matter."

Your eternal energy idea in your OP is completely rejected by modern physics.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 12:25:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 12:04:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:52:53 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:47:21 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:29:28 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 10:19:44 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.


Such a shame that all physicists disagree with you.


Please source where a physicist disagrees with me.

http://www.abc.net.au....


However, it wasn"t until the 1920s, when Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, that scientists really envisaged an abrupt beginning, a primeval state in which everything was very compressed and flying out of some sort of singularity.

So says your source. Please tell me how a very compressed singularity is nothingness?

Further down in the source, the physicist says "before the Big Bang, there was simply nothing, no time, no space, no energy, no matter."

Your eternal energy idea in your OP is completely rejected by modern physics.

It does not matter how many times you point this out. They are entrenched in the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and use that to explain as reasoning for the eternal non-creating or destroying of matter/energy.. which is the 1st law of thermodynamics. Hence circular argument.

Despite the majority of physicist saying that law does not apply before the big bang.. which is not the beginning. BBT is 1 plank second to a few seconds after T=0. Describing what the universe was like at t=0 is extremely problematic.

This really is just a cafeteria style cosmology. Ignore the Law of Causality that is just as evident as the 1st LoT. Ignore that energies and wave functions operate in a medium of space. If there was no space then the possibilities of the energy being anywhere would be in one spot. A singularity. This would have all the energies wave functions collapsed and existent in what many describe as a Bose-Einstein condensate.

But the man-made tools of math and science fail to describe such conditions.

The BBT shows a progression of movement that when rewound backwards indicates "beginning" to this universe. A ideology that has, for the majority been held by theists, and even expanded to include God creating time, substance, and space.

Atheist would use the eternal nature of the universe as proof there is no-God. No creator. Still many like Krauss, still want the universe to be eternal and cyclic. And then when scientific observations established an universe with a beginning it did not change their hearts.

It does not matter what evidence, scientific or computer generated or natural observation or inductive, the result will be Atheist want to be Atheist. And they have the right to believe what they want and talk about it. Of course they pass this belief off as logical science based and truthful, but majority know better.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 12:34:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 12:04:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:52:53 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:47:21 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:29:28 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 10:19:44 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.


Such a shame that all physicists disagree with you.


Please source where a physicist disagrees with me.

http://www.abc.net.au....


However, it wasn"t until the 1920s, when Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, that scientists really envisaged an abrupt beginning, a primeval state in which everything was very compressed and flying out of some sort of singularity.

So says your source. Please tell me how a very compressed singularity is nothingness?

Further down in the source, the physicist says "before the Big Bang, there was simply nothing, no time, no space, no energy, no matter."

Your eternal energy idea in your OP is completely rejected by modern physics.

They're contradicting themselves, as a singularity of highly compressed "stuff" is not nothing.

Even a search on google yields the first definition:

the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.

Read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Within it is this:

Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu...

That page says this:

According to the big bang theory, the universe began by expanding from an infinitesimal volume with extremely high density and temperature.


http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

That page says this:

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.


Should I keep going, or do you admit that you're wrong?
steffon66
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 12:46:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 9:42:42 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.

Let this truth be sung from the rooftops until people get it.

Also, 1. God or 2. ex nihilo is a horribly, horribly false dichotomy.

What is your view on the energy existing prior? Is it eternal in time or did it have a beginning?

whats your view on god? is he eternal in time or did he have a beginning?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 12:49:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 12:34:05 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 12:04:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:52:53 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:47:21 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:29:28 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 10:19:44 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.


Such a shame that all physicists disagree with you.


Please source where a physicist disagrees with me.

http://www.abc.net.au....


However, it wasn"t until the 1920s, when Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, that scientists really envisaged an abrupt beginning, a primeval state in which everything was very compressed and flying out of some sort of singularity.

So says your source. Please tell me how a very compressed singularity is nothingness?

Further down in the source, the physicist says "before the Big Bang, there was simply nothing, no time, no space, no energy, no matter."

Your eternal energy idea in your OP is completely rejected by modern physics.

They're contradicting themselves, as a singularity of highly compressed "stuff" is not nothing.

Even a search on google yields the first definition:

the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.

Read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Within it is this:

Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu...

That page says this:

According to the big bang theory, the universe began by expanding from an infinitesimal volume with extremely high density and temperature.


http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

That page says this:

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.


Should I keep going, or do you admit that you're wrong?

https://www.youtube.com...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 2:35:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 12:49:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2014 12:34:05 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 12:04:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:52:53 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:47:21 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:29:28 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 10:19:44 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.


Such a shame that all physicists disagree with you.


Please source where a physicist disagrees with me.

http://www.abc.net.au....


However, it wasn"t until the 1920s, when Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, that scientists really envisaged an abrupt beginning, a primeval state in which everything was very compressed and flying out of some sort of singularity.

So says your source. Please tell me how a very compressed singularity is nothingness?

Further down in the source, the physicist says "before the Big Bang, there was simply nothing, no time, no space, no energy, no matter."

Your eternal energy idea in your OP is completely rejected by modern physics.

They're contradicting themselves, as a singularity of highly compressed "stuff" is not nothing.

Even a search on google yields the first definition:

the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.

Read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Within it is this:

Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu...

That page says this:

According to the big bang theory, the universe began by expanding from an infinitesimal volume with extremely high density and temperature.


http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

That page says this:

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.


Should I keep going, or do you admit that you're wrong?

https://www.youtube.com...
There's no such thing as an expanse called the universe. Each of us created beings get to observe our own universe of information that makes us believe we're in ONE universe together that we perceive time, space and matter, which are only illusions by the way.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 3:21:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 12:49:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2014 12:34:05 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 12:04:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:52:53 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:47:21 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/19/2014 11:29:28 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/19/2014 10:19:44 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/17/2014 9:41:02 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo, the whole point is that energy existed prior.


Such a shame that all physicists disagree with you.


Please source where a physicist disagrees with me.

http://www.abc.net.au....


However, it wasn"t until the 1920s, when Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, that scientists really envisaged an abrupt beginning, a primeval state in which everything was very compressed and flying out of some sort of singularity.

So says your source. Please tell me how a very compressed singularity is nothingness?

Further down in the source, the physicist says "before the Big Bang, there was simply nothing, no time, no space, no energy, no matter."

Your eternal energy idea in your OP is completely rejected by modern physics.

They're contradicting themselves, as a singularity of highly compressed "stuff" is not nothing.

Even a search on google yields the first definition:

the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.

Read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Within it is this:

Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu...

That page says this:

According to the big bang theory, the universe began by expanding from an infinitesimal volume with extremely high density and temperature.


http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

That page says this:

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.


Should I keep going, or do you admit that you're wrong?

https://www.youtube.com...
Not much different than the people who cling to the failed God proposal by claiming "Nature = God". In this case it's simply, "Singularity = God and everything else). It's rhetoric... fluff; assertions devoid of evidence.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire