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

[Polymath257]

So you think something came from nothing?

I don't think the phrase 'came from' is appropriate.

Space, time, matter, and energy are all co-existent. They are what the universe is and the universe 'just is'.

It didn't 'come from' because that implies a process in time and time is *part of the universe*.

I don't think there was a time when there was nothing. If there was time, then there was also matter, energy, and space.

 

[rational experiences]

Process of time. To come into light. Meaning a body type existed previously not alight.

A conscious life living yet dies we know is supported by light.

Eternal type we state always did exist does exist. Doesn't die...no light.

Science light Given to non alight mass. Totally different topic.

Science a process converting mass gets energy by no time no light first....applied time then changed time. Science of humans.

As light in converting mass into energy varies.

If you said at variations burning light energy first cooled stated in time as colder light as mass then burst changed then cooled again. It surely had.

If you claim nothing existed before created form...humans awareness knows the word nothing means no thing.

As any thing means something.

If no thing existed first then was it living...meaning alight. Meaning alive. Alive it cannot then not be a being in science only terms. With light. No says science nothing means darkness first.

They believe also a non alight state existed first.

If something had to exist before then before has to be stated to be highest type. Owning a reason to be changed. Can't be light so science says dark.

Change by consciousness ours says it's either mechanical by being energy cooling into mass by bursting then cooling again. By sun advice....or you are a being who can force it. Like us...humans in science plus machine.

Therefore humans say if a deity exists at least two terms has to exist entity plus machine.

Yet to take from one type involving two types means three types.

If that somebody an entity is loving by no conditions. It would mean owns no motivation to change imposing harm. And no condition in human thinking says unknown.

Identified by being consciously loving as a human knowing reason.

Therefore three types had to pre exist and two types had to be variables one higher than the other.

It was explained to me by my father brother. As he sought to thesis. Therefore as men know they invented human scientific thesis they had.

He infers to the eternal type in thesis. As he wanted to be it. Yet he's human in life in colder light who dies.

Therefore humans know they aren't it.

The position colder light in man's thesis is where he gets energy from himself. A dangerous thought a comparison human to cold mass.

To want to be higher than a human can only portray you knew you left it.

The story is told as I heard it.

The eternal beings....their family.

Language spirit was not any of them personally as it could leave yet come back. Inquistive motive is involved. Meaning conscious and owning motivation. To notice the other type of spirit body that came then left. With them.

So it has to be communication.

Which means it surrounded their bodies as entities. Could arrive then disappear.

A background.

Existing as being. Our living wisdom. Isn't eternal wisdom...we don't know them.

Understanding light in its processes states consumed....so they were not in light. Eternal hence is indescribable. Yet Theists tried to describe it. As they knew they are beings.

They chose to hold the language spirit fixed instead of flow. To look at it.

Stating O got held in bodies. As language flowed. To see what it was spirit flow became halting.

Which was how force imposed change then release then burst...separation as space opened as eternal language burnt. O each body can burst O lose some of itself yet still be held.

O lost its eternal background surround so it couldn't return. Where we said God O bodies came from.

Why spirits can emerge out of burnt eternal earth mass when you convert mass. Proof.

We cannot exist until we do as humans exactly human thought about only...in body we don't go anywhere and exist constantly which is instant. Another proof.

The Theist says instant human once only. A thought one thought yet whole human.

We don't belong with energy types as we bodily die. Another proof.

Our being came out of the eternal only as two parents by amount of spirit released because the O planet heavens filled in empty space. Space is the term Which became the division between eternal and burst creation.

Why all parents owned same body type DNA.

Our body being became lowered by vibrating causes within and became with water.

How it was explained. How water got held as our biology is mainly water.

The burst away status eternal portion lost said a U type eternal sound dropped in eternals body and oooooooo language spirit held fell in where it burst.

So the rest of their body had been protected why it all had not burnt in the incident.

You might claim fanciful story. I saw vision recorded memory of our mother. As she walked out of eternal into life form....first human.

The vision message also said rock and trees changed the physical body also.

Only humans having a spirit experience can claim I was taught. Everyone else just a Theist thinker.

Why groups of human having had an experience joined together first. Then humans interested joined. Spiritual teaching

 

[PruePhillip]

No. The phrase 'came from' indicates a process through time. And that is NOT what happened. There was no time 'before'. no 'process', no 'coming from'.



And those entities would have to be subject to their own laws of behavior, which would simply be another type of physical law. And then the origin of *those* physical laws would be the question.

At some point, there has to be something that 'just is' obeying laws that 'just are'.

The universe seems like a good stopping point for me. Why go further into speculation about entities we have no evidence for?

Exactly, we need to just say, 'We frankly don't have a clue. Nor will we ever.'

Instead of, 'There's no god, we know how animals evolve, how lightning works and how it all got started.'

 

[PruePhillip]

How? You don't get to just claim that it does. You need reason, logic, and evidence. Your response had none of those.

Existance came from non-existance (nothing)
or
Existance has always existed

Do you think 'something' emerged from 'nothing' and then created time? Just that one point - how did all that happen?
If the universe has an end (as we increasingly believe) then it had a beginning. There's entropy studies to suggest a recycling universe cannot exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Existance came from non-existance (nothing)
or
Existance has always existed

Do you think 'something' emerged from 'nothing' and then created time? Just that one point - how did all that happen?
If the universe has an end (as we increasingly believe) then it had a beginning. There's entropy studies to suggest a recycling universe cannot exist.

There are also studies that show a multiverse could have existed forever. Then there is the possibility that time began with the start of the universe . That would also mean that they universe was eternal. We simply do not know yet. There are various possibilities, but none of them seem to require the existence of a God, You have yet to show that there is any need of a God at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly, we need to just say, 'We frankly don't have a clue. Nor will we ever.'

Instead of, 'There's no god, we know how animals evolve, how lightning works and how it all got started.'

But we *do* have clues. We know *that* animals evolve (as do other living things) and a few of the mechanisms. We know a lot about electromagnetism, but less about the weather, so the details of lightning in terms of where are going to be an issue, but how it works is fairly straightforward.

And for 'how it all got started', we are within a second of the start of this expansion phase. That's pretty good, don't you think?

 

[PruePhillip]

But we *do* have clues. We know *that* animals evolve (as do other living things) and a few of the mechanisms. We know a lot about electromagnetism, but less about the weather, so the details of lightning in terms of where are going to be an issue, but how it works is fairly straightforward.

And for 'how it all got started', we are within a second of the start of this expansion phase. That's pretty good, don't you think?

My point in the above is that yes, we DO know of evolution and lightning - but use this to imagine we know how it all began.
Genesis said 'God commanded the earth to bring forth life' and 'God commanded the seas to bring forth life.' - that was a mystery to God believing people for thousands of years.
And the bible was silent, as far as I know, about how lightning worked. It was an incredible shock to God believing people when the lightning rod was invented. But it shouldn't have been.

But T PLUS ONE SECOND of creation (I am a rocket fan!) has this vast, unfathomable canyon with T MINUS ONE SECOND of creation.

 

[Polymath257]

My point in the above is that yes, we DO know of evolution and lightning - but use this to imagine we know how it all began.

Huh? Evolution is a theory about *biology*. it has absolutely NOTHING to do with cosmology and the Big Bang. It has nothing to do with gravity, or quantum mechanics, or anything else we have been discussing.

Genesis said 'God commanded the earth to bring forth life' and 'God commanded the seas to bring forth life.' - that was a mystery to God believing people for thousands of years.
And the bible was silent, as far as I know, about how lightning worked. It was an incredible shock to God believing people when the lightning rod was invented. But it shouldn't have been.

Oh I see. You think anything that disagrees with the Bible is 'evolution'. Sorry, but that is a misuse of the word.

But T PLUS ONE SECOND of creation (I am a rocket fan!) has this vast, unfathomable canyon with T MINUS ONE SECOND of creation.

And why do you think it is even meaningful to talk about t minus 1 second for 'creation'? The whole point here is that in the Standard Model, there literally is no time before the Big Bang. The furthest back you can go is t=0 (and actually, we only have t>0).

Once again, *time is part of the universe*.

 

[rational experiences]

If just a human natural life thinks. Says I claim the end of the universe is also its beginnings. Coldest darkest highest place for self reasoning.

It's relative to what I believe as a human advising the human thinking making false thesis just for a machine that doesn't ever in law exist. Then doubled causes a machine that doesn't exist as reaction.

Is inferred itself...no machine plus no reaction says thinking. So I must state the law in my own human mind. As I'm destructive.

Knowing cosmic law owning ice water freeze history was an asteroid. Not a planet.

Law broken as freeze in mass fusion any type was broken. Earths water not frozen historic on earths origins body then became frozen.

Earth said a man inherited cosmic law never use nuclear thesis ever again. Taught.

As a man I would as a theist persist in stating ice mass is earths God any type as ice now is earths saviour. Inheritor is higher than origin body now. Legally.

Keeping any body cooled. That earth had ever owned as a planet. As sun stone no longer is iced in cosmic law the space warning.

I would make it a direct legal human position against satanic machine scientists. Claiming we're the asteroid law now also...the meaning of a claim men now own the asteroid law on earth. The ice.

Who thesis visionary always puts human man alongside his machine owning controlling by machine. His machine as man part machine. Claim I'm safe I'm with machine. I'm doing all attacks on biology by known advised theist just a human choice.

Knowing already machine use attacks biology as the heavens mass changed.

Knowing any machine is a weapon. As most types inventions can hurt biology as it is used invention by Multi human conditions.

So I own just machines to program a weapon. Mind attack mind coercion. To study biology I know I attack it. I said contact yet machines communicate direct to machines in machine science. So I lie. As lying is party to theorising.

Human behaviour is involved in scientific preaching always. Bad behaviours.

My other machine to make electricity I am owning now by my side makng electricity the only position. As science is just human man's choices. He's already it's creator.

So it owns no outside heavenly involvement. As only human men cause it in machine destruction of frozen and water cooled pressurized earth masses. All laws destroyed already to own electricity.

I theme he says as man direct from space coldest opening position to lightning where my origin idea electricity came from..to lightnings change into electricity by how much space I cause to given earths mass. Giving it the space.

Infinite says burning mass as cooling lightning owner suddenly gets electricity in some infinite future space moment when mass is stopped burning. Right out on the edge of space. Mass stops intense heat burning moment.

Billions of zeros I impose is Where. Mass as energy held to own reactions stops.

Earths coldest gases only supports lightning mass not electricity. In a warm seasonal biology. As the nature body by season can change life's good status.

As old garden trees with dinosaurs a different nature garden. Ours adapted to produce food via the four balanced seasons.

Earth mass can cool underground water entry into burning mass carbon position with no flood above....just below our feet. Ice can get colder but garden food can disappear too. Ignored.

So earth first does not own mans invented creation.

Only men invented electricity.

Man's science is all human controlled earth base changes...so he tries to cool earth base by invented vacuum void cold reasonings. Based on above sun mass lights fuel...dusts. not anything the same now in presence earth base.

As life is now biology in presence.

Why he puts thesis side by side comparing it to his life biology coercing. Using words falsely by intent to coerce. Claiming bio pulse chemistry is electricity when it isn't.

As his choice isn't just the resource. His human lifestyle and greed human behaviours wants are involved. As no machine exists in cosmic law.

Unnatural cooling only as natural law doesn't cool the reaction I want. In machines status.

Men have to artificially cool reaction himself artificial cooling isn't law is why it fails. As law doesn't keep it cooled....advised already. Nuclear position in heavens cooling.

Ground biology living isn't cold enough to keep nuclear safe.

So man by man's science owns mass base of earth change mass heat themselves already.... to get electricity second time opening more space by destroying lots of hot energy masses natural history.

Science only is a man's living position creating electricity.

By all human only human science laws for machines only.

Coercive word use imposes cosmic stories that he's not copying it's just coercive human group methods.

Men only by men's science only invented electricity for men's machines that never existed in any cosmic law.

So men of science are life on earths God destroyer in choice. Directly informed and family known.

Rich human slaves were today in modern life living experiencing were slowly changing family rich divisions into a more mutual agreeable family unity.

As family hierarchy the slaves of old changed by satanist humans. Gave the family slave races rich support.

Who lived in desert sand a destroyed earth rock mass worst position to apply science by earth mass thesis bases. Egyptian family using their own first Egyptian family as slaves.

Everyone was family DNA hurt rich and poor. Want today just slaves only to be the hurt family... all were hurt. As continued Inherited life's position today. Men who work with imposing pyramid theories technology to get richer.

Same story believing slave races should get hurt and not their Egyptian hierarchy that is fake. Just rich humans in control.

Why by vision use impose their life was - an upper level and slave humans _ below them. Just in their heads.

Is fake human thinking first before science the same method kills everyone the same.

All just in the head of human liars thinking thoughts are already imposing their hierarchy by thoughts only and governing statuses.

Who employ paid criminal methods giving criminals a position that no criminal mind should own...hierarchy too.

Why science was given criminal teaching. Stating I will be celibate as no sex means no babies. I think about the first human father's position. And no babies means no human to do any chosen evil act to each other either.

It was agreed then in that miment...so now cover your body sister daughter so I'm not sexually aroused. So they even covered their woman's face. As father could not look upon the beauty of a female and not be aroused.

Said celibacy was his own mans evil answer about all human problems now.

Reasoning where the story was written about science a long time after mind body healed from science caused mutations.

No sex no babies no human suffering experienced either by just human choice. Aware exactly.

 

[joelr]

The temple was not destroyed by the Greeks - it was destroyed by the Babylonians and the Romans.
Maybe one day it will be built again. But if it does I don't recall any mention of it in the bible.
I suggest that the bible has been redacted after 1967, otherwise, how could have it imagined that the Jews will return 'a second time' as Isaiah claimed.
Furthermore Isaiah, amongst others, wrote the Jews will take their land back with the sword, and rebuild the ruined land. They will come out of nations that were their graves.
Jacob stated a line of kings would come from his son Judah, there would be a Hebrew kingdom under the law and it will last till the Messiah.
The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes and the allegiance of the nations is his.

As Daniel stated, Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed by the same "people of the prince" that will kill the Messiah - but this Messiah will not die for himself. This might have been added after the Second Century ?????

I gave 2 sources explaining why Daniel is a forgery. Both PhD scholars. Any evidence against those points with sources? I'm not interested in conspiracy theories or faith in things demonstrated to be myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave 2 sources explaining why Daniel is a forgery. Both PhD scholars. Any evidence against those points with sources? I'm not interested in conspiracy theories or faith in things demonstrated to be myth.

Not exactly a forgery, think of it more of history written as if it were prophecy. And it is dated by when the prophecies suddenly start to go wrong. That happens several times in the Bible. The stories of Ezekiel for example. And even in those old Zeke screws up couple of prophecies.

 

[rational experiences]

Science biology said a long time ago human skeletons were like apes. But human apes by bone structure biological chemistry.

Yet science human thesis put into cosmic space terms and inferences before earth even existed. As if earth was sun mass asteroid...not a planet.

So you ask did human science mutate human biology genesis by men's science?

Oh you mean convert biology genesis via heavenly mass changed to a theoried format to cause it you mean.

So science is only practiced in humans presence as stated applied thesis. Has proved humans proved it and science of humans did it to biology genesis itself!

Seems it did.

A long time after in healing of human life cell genetic new evolved conscious humans began remembering science causes. Told old stories about monument pyramids as they still existed.

Moses stories.

Yes. Seems like why theists applying geology studies archaeology as psychology....consciousness remembered. Ology.

Owned studies. Thesis theisms causes. Stories as just stories as only human Theists told stories first. Some maths data. Proved human men two brothers had caused it.

Rich man first greedy rich man then scientist.

Behaviour of wrong brother two behaviours.

Reason.....Moses written as Egyptian and Rome rich men rebuilt the temple pyramids again. Why the old story was written exactly as men chose to cause it again.

Linked direct to new causes right where it happened after humans healing awareness.

Pyramid monument showed them they had attacked life before with visionary memory. Archaeological proof existed too.

Reason one man lying not owning the heavenly mass. Said he bodily owned every one gas he theoried upon. Existed in heavens.

One man one lying greedy term then tried to convert invent heavens mass to change into one man's one owner only lying one thesis. Stated as one man terms. Not natural mass reality.

The reason why.

 

[joelr]

Not exactly a forgery, think of it more of history written as if it were prophecy. And it is dated by when the prophecies suddenly start to go wrong. That happens several times in the Bible. The stories of Ezekiel for example. And even in those old Zeke screws up couple of prophecies.

Right that is one of the things. But also Daniel himself looks to be fake, possibly a copy of another myth because Daniel looks a lot like Danel, a mythical Ugaritic hero and a lot of Jewish mythology is adapted from Ugaritic and similar surrounding cultures. The epistles by the Babylonian king looks fictional and doesn't exist in Babylonian evidence from the era.
Daniel gets historical events wrong, invents Kings, and gets a lot of other stuff wrong. There is no evidence to a Book of Daniel or any of the stories prior to the Maccabean era. All sorts of stuff like that. There are some papers and posts on that stuff. Also the Carrier/Sheffield debate is printed.

How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery • Richard Carrier


Debating the Authenticity of Daniel: A Discussion with Jonathan Sheffield • Richard Carrier

 

[PruePhillip]

I gave 2 sources explaining why Daniel is a forgery. Both PhD scholars. Any evidence against those points with sources? I'm not interested in conspiracy theories or faith in things demonstrated to be myth.

Did these 'scholars' (and remember, scholars are human, have biases, dispute with other scholars and want to 'prove' their POV's) EVEN TOUCH UPON THE MESSIANIC VERSES?
Did the author of Daniel just get lucky with his make believe prophecy?
Remember, the Jews did not believe their Messiah king would be harmed, or that God's temple would be destroyed. And remember, the Tanakh was 'sealed' after Babylon - that's why the Maccabees never got a mention.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And that quantum stuff is going to be involved in a "theory of everything", which we would need for cosmological origin explanation, is almost certainly going to involve quantum physics, because the obstacle that currently keeps us from such a theory, is the hard problem of unifying gravity with quantum physics.

Sort of. Actually, unifying gravity and quantum theory isn't much more difficult than unifying quantum mechanics and relativity as is done if QFT. With gravity, it's QFT on curved spacetimes. This framework is decades old now, and it doesn't suffer from much more in the way of problems than the QFTs of the standard model.
The problem, however, is that gravity in QFT on curved spacetimes is the classical gravity of general relativity. It is not quantized. So it would be somewhat more accurate to say that the hard problem is quantizing gravity (or finding another solution that is more unified than a quantum field theory for all matter and energy "particles" other than gravitation, which must still be treated classically even in QFT on curved spacetimes).

The big bang is a model that deals with inflation / expansion of the universe.

1) Expansion is not at all the same as inflation.
2) Inflation requires quantum theory, as the inflation mechanism used in our inflationary models are potentials of (quantized) fields, generally scalar-valued (spin-0), like the Higgs. We have no empirical or observational evidence of any inflaton field, scalar or no.

It is of vital importance to note that inflation is a quantum theoretically framework to propose models that can be used in conjunction of the much better established big bang cosmology.

The data that supports the theory from which the multi-verse is a prediction.
Like inflation theory.

Inflationary models are commonly accepted means of explaining certain observed structural features and (inhomogeneous) distributions in the universe. They were developed, however, to address fine-tuning issues with the standard big bang cosmology. Regardless, since they rely on a quantum field we have no empirical evidence for other than that we can use model-fitting to force certain classes of inflationary models to fit the observed structures and matter/energy distributions in the universe, the fact that they tend to create more problems or more exotic scenarios than those they were intended to "fix" is not a bug, not a feature of these models.
“In the modern view, by far the most important property of inflation is that it can generate irregularities in the universe, which may lead to the formation of structure…However, the historical motivation for inflation was rather different, and arose largely on more philosophical grounds concerning the question of whether the initial conditions required for the Hot Big Bang seemed likely or not.” (p. 36)
Liddle, A. R., & Lyth, D. H. (2000). Cosmological Inflation and Large-Scale Structure. Cambridge University Press.

Nobody went out of his way to "model a multi-verse" in. What they were modeling was inflation. The model itself then predicts a multi-verse.

Inflation was proposed specifically to address fine-tuning issues with the big bang. Indeed, inflation was formulated not on empirical grounds nor on some missing component in any theory but specifically because cosmologists were unhappy with the "special" the initial conditions required of the pre-inflationary theory big bang cosmology were, and set about devising some sort of possible physical mechanism that would get us the results we already had, but explain away the fine-tuning problems:

"In the conventional understanding of the Big-Bang model, the universe is taken to be radiation-dominated at early times and matter-dominated at late times, with, as we now suspect, a very late transition to vacuum-domination. This picture has met with great success in describing a wide variety of observational data; nevertheless, we may still ask whether the initial conditions giving rise such a universe seem natural. This is the kind of question one might ask in cosmology but not in other sciences. Typically, as physicists we look for laws of nature, and imagine that we are free to specify initial conditions and ask how they evolve under such laws. But the universe seems to have only one set of initial conditions, so it seems sensible to wonder if they are relatively generic or finely-tuned. Within the conventional picture, the early universe is indeed finely tuned to incredible precision. In particular, two features of our universe seem highly nongeneric: its spatial flatness, and its high degree of isotropy and homogeneity. It might be that this is just the universe we are stuck with, and it makes no sense to ask about the likelihood of different initial conditions. Alternatively, it might be that these conditions are more likely than they appear at first, if there is some dynamical mechanism that can take a wide spectrum of initial conditions and evolve them toward flatness and homogeneity/isotropy. The inflationary universe scenario provides such a mechanism (and more, besides), and has become a central organizing principle of modem cosmology, even if we are still far from demonstrating its truth."
Carroll, S. M. (2004). Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity. Pearson.
I chose this particular source because it is 1) elementary, and a decent text for learning the basics and more importantly 2) Carroll, an ardent critic of any suggestion that fine-tuning implies a creator and of WL Craig specifically, seems is hardly likely to go out of his way to suggest that inflationary models were developed to fix fine-tuning issues and answer questions one only can in cosmology "but not in other sciences" unless he has to, and then is likely to minimize the nature of fine-tuning and overemphasize the evidence for some sort of inflationary scenario rather than the reverse.
Yet here as elsewhere (this is, after all, well-known), we find that the "multiverse" cosmologies that inflationary models lead to are not at all like Einstein discovering black holes by accident. They are problems that won't go away easily.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think the phrase 'came from' is appropriate.

Space, time, matter, and energy are all co-existent. They are what the universe is and the universe 'just is'.

It didn't 'come from' because that implies a process in time and time is *part of the universe*.

I don't think there was a time when there was nothing. If there was time, then there was also matter, energy, and space.

ok, so if I understand you correctly, you think something always was...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, the invention of the imaginary eternal bowling ball is about as imaginary as the cat in Schrodinger's thought experiment which involves a cat in a box.

No. That thought exercise represents an actual demonstrably real quantum phenomenon.

The eternal ball is a hypothetical meant to drive home a bigger point...

It fails at that.

a point of which you have not and cannot debunk/refute and as far as im concerned, it still stands.

Not only did I debunk it, others did also.
Also, your hypothetical DOES NOT EXIST.

It's like trying to argue against gravity with a "hypothetical" (aka: imaginary) hammer with a type of mass that isn't affected by gravity. It's absolute nonsense.

 

[Polymath257]

ok, so if I understand you correctly, you think something always was...

I think that whenever there was time, there was also space, matter, and energy. ALL of these existed whenever any of these did.

The phrase 'always was' is a bit vague. I prefer to say that something existed through all time. This allows for time to be finite into the past.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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

The BGV theorem. Plus, I remember the whole "the universe is 13.7 billion years" before I ever knew about the BGV theorem.

It is kind of difficult to say "there is no time when the universe didn't exist", only to give an actual age of the universe.

Makes no sense.

And when you can find a tenable model which averts the theorem, we would love to see it.

Until then, that is where we stand.

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

See ya around on that tip.

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.

The argument against infinite regress is certainly independent of QM.

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

Please enlighten me on how this is accomplished.

No, it is not. Not even close.

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

I agree.

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.

First of all, who is talking about time "before" that? Not me. And you cannot have change/motion without time, impossible. So you have to explain why would time begin in the first place, and what could be the initiator of time....and nothing which is the initiator of time can also be a product of time.

So again, can you enlighten me on how sometime can be of finite age and infinite at the same time.

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.

That is the point, it cannot exist WITHOUT time...unless of course you have a static/stationary universe with no change or motion whatsoever...and then for no reason whatsoever, a chance occurred (singularity expansion), and thus, time.

So then you have to explain why was there a change at that point, if it had "prior" been in a motionless state for eternity.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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.

First off, it is a theorem...and theorem are difficult to avert....which is why (as YOUR research has demonstrated), all cosmologists can say is..

"Well...QUANTUM GRAVITY"

That is the cheat code...they have to appeal to stuff (equations) that haven't even been worked out yet in order to avert the theorem.

So, what does that say about the theorem?

Hahaha.

Keep trying though...and let us all know once you've worked out those kinks with quantum gravity.

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.

Um, no.

It is more like you having 12 dozen or so decks of cards, and taking all of the cards out the deck and putting them in hat...and then tossing the hat in the air so that the cards are sporadically floating in the air, and as the cards begin to descend to the ground, they are configured into an obvious card house upon landing.

The SLOT states that no such thing will happen. You don't get that kind of order from random, chaotic processes. And to test this theory, buy some cards and see if you even come close, because that is not how entropy works.

This is where you will say "But if you have an infinite amount of time, it will eventually happen".

No, because there was no "infinite amount of time/chances" for it to happen. There was only one shot, one try...and somehow, it was NAILED on the first try...defying the 1/10^10^123 odds that which were calculated by Penrose.

Random processes doesn't defy those odds, but a Cosmic, Intelligent Engineer does.

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.

It is simple. In order for today to arrive, yesterday had to be traversed...and in order for yesterday to arrive, the day before yesterday had to be traversed...and so on and so forth.

If there were an infinite amount of days which lead to today, then in order for today to arrive, an infinite amount of days had to have been traversed...and this is logically impossible, because you cannot count every single point on an infinite line to arrive at a single point (or any point, for that matter).

And if I recall, I asked you elsewhere to tell me the highest number in the set....and I doubt you can provide an answer and in fact, I am 100% positive you can't.

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.

Um no. The KCA is not dependent upon a singularity...however, there are models like the Standard Model of the big bang which features a singularity, but you can also have a model like the Hartle-Hawking model which doesn't feature singularity, but has a beginning, nevertheless.

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

I've addressed everything you've said, sir.

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.

We *know* infinite regression is impossible and this is a fact which is independent of quantum physics.

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

And Jesus is returning, too. You see, I also have hopes.

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

The laws which govern the universe is fine-tuned with mathematical precision. Mindless and blind processes do not give you such precision, but engineers do.

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.

If the universe does not exist, then there is no "within" location to be had.

The origins of space, time, energy, and matter (STEM) cannot itself be a product of STEM.

This is circular reasoning. Thus, fallacious.

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

Quantum gravity (QG) will not give you infinite regress...just like QG won't give you married bachelors or squared triangles.

QM can't save you when it comes to logical impossibilities. So, if it can't help you with infinite regress, then it powerless in light of the KCA.

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.

I am appealing to the best explanation...I have two options..

1. God did it

2. Nature did it

I have evidence against nature doing it, but I have evidence for God doing it.

Therefore, I conclude God did it.

Funny that cosmologists don't agree with you.

I don't agree with a lot of them, either.

It is pure speculation on your part that a designer is required.

No. I have reasons to believe in intelligent design. It is called, inference.

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.

So, lets test this theory...the Mona Lisa painting...is such intelligent design a requirement for such a painting. Yes or no? No filibustering.

Just answer the question, please.

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.

What a minute, where do you get the idea that the BGV very little support in cosmology? Hahaha.

Lets take a look at the wiki link on the theorem...

Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem - Wikipedia.

"Alternative models, where the average expansion of the universe throughout its history does not hold, have been proposed under the notions of emergent spacetime, eternal inflation, and cyclic models."

Newsflash: When you have your peers offering alternative models in order to disprove your theorem...that, in itself, is the support.

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

Syllogism test.

1. Unless something can be scientifically proven...

2. We should be skeptical of its truth value.

Non sequitur. Test failed.