# Creation and so forth



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

Science posits some things we now take for granted. For example, nothing can exist prior to itself.

matter/energy/space/time exist. Where did all this “stuff” come from?  Fair question.  Tracing it back with observation and science (particularly physics) we seemingly trace it back to the “Big Bang.” *But where did the initial super tiny blob of whatever it was come from? *

Our reliance on the rules and laws of science breaks down at that point.  We call it by another set of names.  We call it “quantum” physics and make reference to how the normal scientific laws are suspended at such a point. Basically, we speak of something that is literally outside the bounds of science. It is LITERALLY super-natural. (Not in the sense of the “divine” or “magic” necessarily; just in the sense of requiring explanation that is above and beyond our understanding of scientific “laws”.).

The geniuses who work in the fields of quantum physics and theoretical physics may be able — in a fashion — to explain how absolute nothing led to the infinitesimal “thing” that went “bang” thereby crating all matter/energy  and space itself as well as time. But cannot explain the “why” of it all?

What, exactly, perturbed an absolutely empty void where no energy and no matter existed in no space and outside the parameters of time in order to set the Big Bang and all of creation in the cosmos into motion?  *Why would absolutely nothing lead to something?*

(I placed this post in the science section; but I think it might be logically and fairly placed in a religion section, too.)


----------



## fncceo (Dec 4, 2021)

There was obviously *SOMETHING *before The Big Bang... something outside of our 3 Dimensional Universe.

There are several theories along those lines, but no way has yet been imagined to design any experiments to confirm them.

There are still things in this universe that we cannot perceive with our 3D dimensional sense and instruments.  Someday, we may develop the mathematics and instrumentation model those theories .... or completely different ones.

Until then, it remains tantalizing speculation.


----------



## Hossfly (Dec 4, 2021)

I have questions and a few observations. I'll post them later today. I have an early get up and go.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Where did all this “stuff” come from?


Counterspace.


----------



## DudleySmith (Dec 4, 2021)

Science and the empirical method is not really set up to 'prove' events that may not be repeatable. Basic Physics outran the ability of mathematics as a language explaining it a long time ago, back in the late 1960's and 1970's. We may well have just have to rely on Thomas of Aquina's formal logic and definition of 'God' as being as close as we will get. It now seems the West and the East are in a spiral of serious moral and intellectual decline, and yes, they're both joined at the hip, so don't let it keep you awake nights. Other problems are front and center.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

fncceo said:


> There was obviously *SOMETHING *before The Big Bang... something outside of our 3 Dimensional Universe.
> 
> There are several theories along those lines, but no way has yet been imagined to design any experiments to confirm them.
> 
> ...


I can accept that something outside of our known universe preceded it. But that leads us to a similar question. Where did that something come from?


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> Science and the empirical method is not really set up to 'prove' events that may not be repeatable. Basic Physics outran the ability of mathematics as a language explaining it a long time ago, back in the late 1960's and 1970's. We may well have just have to rely on Thomas of Aquina's formal logic and definition of 'God' as being as close as we will get. It now seems the West and the East are in a spiral of serious moral and intellectual decline, and yes, they're both joined at the hip, so don't let it keep you awake nights. Other problems are front and center.


If nothing can exist without being created, where did the Creator come from?  To be clear, that question is not an attempt to be disrespectful of religion. I happen to believe in God. But, out of what did God come?  

We could beg the question and say “from a super God.”  But then, we’d logically ask, from where did the SuperGod come?  Etc. 

It appears that something has to have come literally from nothing. I think that is a way of saying “super natural” since nature and our understanding of science still posits that nothing can exist prior to itself (or nothing can exist without coming from something).

Nowadaya, quantum and theoretical physics appear to suggest that out of a perfect vacuum a form of probability physics says that something can come from nothing.  I’m no scientist. But I get back to a basic question in that case:

what perturbed a perfect vacuum of no matter and no energy in a null space to result in that probability ever happening?


----------



## DudleySmith (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> If nothing can exist without being created, where did the Creator come from?  To be clear, that question is not an attempt to be disrespectful of religion. I happen to believe in God. But, out of what did God come?
> 
> We could beg the question and say “from a super God.”  But then, we’d logically ask, from where did the SuperGod come?  Etc.
> 
> ...



obviously the assumption that there was 'Nothing' is what is false; there was the will of the 'Prime Mover', as per Thomas. That doesn't have to have anything material to start with.

The 'Big Bang' theorized doesn't have to be the first 'Big Bang', either; it could have been just one more of an infinite number of them. There is a lot that Physics will never answer empirically; it is more philosophy than engineering. Maybe it is just barking up the wrong tree to begin with. 'Black holes' for instance are sort of like funnels; where do they go? Do they create other 'Big bangs' on other planes and spaces? There are any number of possible answers, and just because we don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist.

 We can only verify, abstractly, four dimensions. We may need a lot more to get close to an answer, or maybe even only one more, who knows? Why do you need to know in the first place? We have far more than enough problems without getting neurotic over abstract ones.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 4, 2021)

The universe has never been "a perfect vacuum" nor sprung from nothing. When matter gets sucked into a black hole, which genuinely is an (imperfect) vacuum, it can be transformed into energy and sunk into counterspace among other things depending on circumstances. Space has one but dimension, space, which has spatial attributes such as "3D" coordinates, but time is space's simplest and most logical method of measuring A to B over vast distances. Counterspace, having no dimensions, can't be observed or measured and so exists everywhere at once. "Magnetic" repulsion emerges from counterspace. Any gravitational pressure not transformed into heat sinks into counterspace. It's not really all that abstract and makes sense. Just not what we were all taught.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> obviously the assumption that there was 'Nothing' is what is false; there was the will of the 'Prime Mover', as per Thomas. That doesn't have to have anything material to start with.
> 
> The 'Big Bang' theorized doesn't have to be the first 'Big Bang', either; it could have been just one more of an infinite number of them. There is a lot that Physics will never answer empirically; it is more philosophy than engineering. Maybe it is just barking up the wrong tree to begin with. 'Black holes' for instance are sort of like funnels; where do they go? Do they create other 'Big bangs' on other planes and spaces? There are any number of possible answers, and just because we don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist.
> 
> We can only verify, abstractly, four dimensions. We may need a lot more to get close to an answer, or maybe even only one more, who knows? Why do you need to know in the first place? We have far more than enough problems without getting neurotic over abstract ones.


Again, that seems to beg the question. Where did God come from?  To say that He is the Prime Mover is well and good. I think it may even be true. But it still leaves unaddressed “where did God come from?”

One answer is that God is the one entity that has ever been able to exist without causation.  That is literally supernatural.  But to the (questionable) degree to which I grasp the scientific theories, scientists postulate that because of quantum probability it is possible that matter/energy/space/time are the entities  that can spring from nothing. Again, by literal definition, that too would be “supernatural.”  

It seems to me that it has to be one or the other of those two competing supernatural theories that explains Creation.  I default to God mostly because the more we (humans) unravel the mysteries of the Universe, the more we see of amazing “laws” that can describe things we can’t even see.  I am of the opinion (belief) that such laws seem to have an intelligence underlying them.

I am also quite content to hear that others disagree.  As is their right.


----------



## DudleySmith (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> But it still leaves unaddressed “where did God come from?”



Maybe you will find out when you're able to grasp it. It would be pointless to tell you anything now, or it would be in the book.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> Maybe you will find out when you're able to grasp it. It would be pointless to tell you anything now, or it would be in the book.


Have you “grasped” it yet?

I suspect that you are using “know” and “firm belief” interchangeably.


----------



## DudleySmith (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Have you “grasped” it yet?
> 
> I suspect that you are using “know” and “firm belief” interchangeably.



I think you're just running around in circles, saying you don't get the science but demanding scientific answers that make sense or something. Most of us stopped doing that by our junior year in college and starting spending more time trying to get in the freshman class chicks' pants, before they figured out juniors and seniors were mostly still the same pretentious assholes they were in high school and found bikers to hang out with.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 4, 2021)

I wonder if the OP has considered pondering simpler things first? Like why do permanent magnets attract or repel one another? Where does the apparent force originate from and disappear to? Perhaps seeking satisfying, evidence based answers to that sort of thing would help him feel more qualified to proceed down big rabbit holes like this without retreating to tired, magical nonsense explanations in the Science and Technology section.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> I think you're just running around in circles, saying you don't get the science but demanding scientific answers that make sense or something. Most of us stopped doing that by our junior year in college and starting spending more time trying to get in the freshman class chicks' pants, before they figured out juniors and seniors were mostly still the same pretentious assholes they were in high school and found bikers to hang out with.


You “think” wrong.

First, I haven’t demanded any answers about anything.

Secondly, challenging the responses I’ve gotten isn’t running around in circles.

Thirdly, I don’t care which fellows you dated in your sophomore year.

Fourthly, just because what you’ve offered here isn’t blindly accepted as “Gospel” truth doesn’t mean you should be so easily offended.  It’s all just a give and take. None of us is going to resolve the matter here on a message board discussion.

Finally, I find the topic quite interesting. It seems like maybe a few others do too. If you don’t or if you’ve lost interest, cool. Nobody is insisting that you post here or read a single word.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> I wonder if the OP has considered pondering simpler things first? Like why do permanent magnets attract or repel one another? Where does the apparent force originate from and disappear to? Perhaps seeking satisfying, evidence based answers to that sort of thing would help him feel more qualified to proceed down big rabbit holes like this without retreating to tired, magical nonsense explanations in the Science and Technology section.


I haven’t retreated to anything magical. Wtf are you babbling about. Just because you can neither prove the God hypothesis nor refute it doesn’t make you anything special and you shouldn’t necessarily feel like less of an intellect because of it.

Some people a whole lot brighter than us have contemplated these same things and it might surprise you to learn that some physicists walk away feeling as though the existence of God is more likely after their advanced considerations have run their course.

To me, it’s almost a coin flip. But I’ve come down to a belief that there seems to be more reason to assume that their is an intelligence behind it all. I have never suggested that others “should” come to the same conclusion.


----------



## DudleySmith (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> You “think” wrong.
> 
> First, I haven’t demanded any answers about anything.
> 
> ...



You got snarky first, asshole. You just aren't intellectually equipped for these types of discussions is all.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> You got snarky first, asshole. You just aren't intellectually equipped for these types of discussions is all.


No. I sure didn’t ya butt rash.  That would have been you.

And,  as a non scientist and as a non theologian, I am as equipped as most other laymen to engage in the discussion.

I haven’t seen anything from you that speaks to you having much of an intellect. I have seen evidence of your possession of a very thin skin. Go Toddle off.


----------



## DudleySmith (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> No. I sure didn’t ya butt rash. That would have been you.



You have a rich fantasy life in your head. You must be a God yourself. The only issue here is whether you're a Prime Mover or a Prime Moron.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> You have a rich fantasy life in your head. You must be a God yourself. The only issue here is whether you're a Prime Mover or a Prime Moron.


No. That’s not even “an” issue. One issue that does exist is why you are such a shithead troll. Not that it matters.


----------



## DudleySmith (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> No. That’s not even “an” issue. One issue that does exist is why you are such a shithead troll. Not that it matters.



Don't get all butthurt just because you're not the first stupid stoner to confuse himself trying to ponder 'Deep Thoughts'. Next time just buy a book by Jack Handy.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> Don't get all butthurt just because you're not the first stupid stoner to confuse himself trying to ponder 'Deep Thoughts'. Next time just buy a book by Jack Handy.


Ah, poor Dud. Just because you lack the intellect to grasp any of the matters that had been under discussiondoesn’t mean you must whine. It’s ok, Pooh Pooh.

Your idea of a “deep thought” is to troll poorly and imagine folks enjoy your failed effort at wit. Hint:  you’d have to have a wit, first.

Again, go toddle off.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Again, that seems to beg the question. Where did God come from?  To say that He is the Prime Mover is well and good. I think it may even be true. But it still leaves unaddressed “where did God come from?”
> 
> One answer is that God is the one entity that has ever been able to exist without causation.  That is literally supernatural.  But to the (questionable) degree to which I grasp the scientific theories, scientists postulate that because of quantum probability it is possible that matter/energy/space/time are the entities  that can spring from nothing. Again, by literal definition, that too would be “supernatural.”
> 
> ...


God is eternal.


----------



## DudleySmith (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Ah, poor Dud. Just because you lack the intellect to grasp any of the matters that had been under discussiondoesn’t mean you must whine. It’s ok, Pooh Pooh.
> 
> Your idea of a “deep thought” is to troll poorly and imagine folks enjoy your failed effort at wit. Hint:  you’d have to have a wit, first.
> 
> Again, go toddle off.



Jack Handy is your go to guy, seriously; he speaks your language:


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> God is eternal.


Hey. I’m not debating that. I have no actual knowledge.

I am curious though. “Eternal” as In “never ending?”  Or, “eternal” “as without beginning or ending.” If the latter, the concept of existence without need of creation eludes me.

It looks like either Matter/energy/space/time all came into existence without causation OR God did.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> I haven’t retreated to anything magical.


LOL!


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> LOL!


Your lack of comprehension is entirely on you.

I do approve of your self aware username. 👍


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> It looks like either Matter/energy/space/time all came into existence without causation OR God did.


Magical!


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Magical!


Not really.  You seem to believe that something can come from absolutely nothing. I find that quite unscientific. Or, to put into your severely limited parlance, “magical.”


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

Here’s a question for the ponderous clowns like crumblenuts:

Do you tools believe that you are smarter than the scientist who once said:

_"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the Mysterious — the knowledge of the existence of something unfathomable to us, the manifestation of the most profound reason coupled with the most brilliant beauty. I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, or who has a will of the kind we experience in ourselves. I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with the awareness of — and glimpse into — the marvelous construction of the existing world together with the steadfast determination to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature. This is the basics of cosmic religiosity, and it appears to me that the most important function of art and science is to awaken this feeling among the receptive and keep it alive."_


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Science posits some things we now take for granted. For example, nothing can exist prior to itself.
> 
> matter/energy/space/time exist. Where did all this “stuff” come from?  Fair question.  Tracing it back with observation and science (particularly physics) we seemingly trace it back to the “Big Bang.” *But where did the initial super tiny blob of whatever it was come from? *
> 
> ...





			[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
		


If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.  

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description (see the link I posted) which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.


----------



## Augustine_ (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> What, exactly, perturbed an absolutely empty void where no energy and no matter existed in no space and outside the parameters of time in order to set the Big Bang and all of creation in the cosmos into motion?  *Why would absolutely nothing lead to something?*


If you ever find the answer to that, you'll be very famous


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> I can accept that something outside of our known universe preceded it. But that leads us to a similar question. Where did that something come from?


The only solution to the first cause conundrum is "something" which is eternal and unchanging.  For if  "something" is changing it cannot be eternal for it has changed.  Which in reality means that this "something" must be "no thing."  Because "things" like energy and matter are not unchanging and therefore cannot be eternal. 

For any given thing there will be a final state of fact.  Where it will be known that it was always that way and will always be that way even when it was believed otherwise.  This is called objective truth or reality or existence.  Objective truth is an example of "no thing" which is eternal and unchanging.  

So to answer your question where did that something come from?  The answer is no where.  It has always existed and will always exist.  And it isn't a "something," it is "no thing."


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> The universe has never been "a perfect vacuum" nor sprung from nothing. When matter gets sucked into a black hole, which genuinely is an (imperfect) vacuum, it can be transformed into energy and sunk into counterspace among other things depending on circumstances. Space has one but dimension, space, which has spatial attributes such as "3D" coordinates, but time is space's simplest and most logical method of measuring A to B over vast distances. Counterspace, having no dimensions, can't be observed or measured and so exists everywhere at once. "Magnetic" repulsion emerges from counterspace. Any gravitational pressure not transformed into heat sinks into counterspace. It's not really all that abstract and makes sense. Just not what we were all taught.


Does time even really exist?  Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations work equally well in reverse as they do going forward in time.  Yet we have never witnessed time moving backwards.  I think the most we can say about time is that it is a convenient was to mark the expansion of the universe.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

ding said:


> [1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not being a scientist much less a theoretical physicist, I can’t answer that. Instead, I Just ask some questions.

 In a closed universe, where did the matter come from initially?

As I have always understood it, science  actually tells us that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed (although we know they can be changed in form from one to the other). So, in a closed universe, where did the matter/energy stuff come from?  

I made reference earlier to the “probability” conjecture of such things spontaneously coming into existence. But I’m not sure if the spontaneous event can itself occur without some causation. So, if space/time can be curved by gravity, but gravity is dependent upon matter, then there had to be some matter to do that curving in the first place.

Again, I’m not disputing you. I don’t know. I leave that pretending to know thing to the likes of crumblenuts. But I do think that those of us who can’t handle the math of some eloquent mathematical description are at a loss to “see” how these questions don’t apply.

I have been accused here of “demanding answers.”  That’s a false accusation.  But, this doesn’t mean I waive a right to ask more questions in the hope of maybe gaining greater understanding.


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> One answer is that God is the one entity that has ever been able to exist without causation. That is literally supernatural.


It's because of the first cause conundrum, that God or spirit or mind or consciousness (or whatever name anyone wants to give it) IS the most logical explanation.  And the one most supported by our observations of nature itself.  But is "it" supernatural?  Technically our reality is the alternate reality.  It's all a matter of perspective I suppose.  I doubt that God or spirit or mind or consciousness (or whatever name anyone wants to give it) sees "itself" as supernatural.  I suspect that God or spirit or mind or consciousness (or whatever name anyone wants to give it) sees "itself" as quite natural.


BackAgain said:


> But to the (questionable) degree to which I grasp the scientific theories, scientists postulate that because of quantum probability it is possible that matter/energy/space/time are the entities that can spring from nothing. Again, by literal definition, that too would be “supernatural.”


Is it possible that matter/energy/space/time are the entities that can spring from nothing?  Only if a "mistake" is made as there was in the creation of our universe.  If not for that "mistake" our universe should have been filled with nothing but radiation.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

ding said:


> It's because of the first cause conundrum, that God or spirit or mind or consciousness (or whatever name anyone wants to give it) IS the most logical explanation.  And the one most supported by our observations of nature itself.  But is "it" supernatural?  Technically our reality is the alternate reality.  It's all a matter of perspective I suppose.  I doubt that God or spirit or mind or consciousness (or whatever name anyone wants to give it) sees "itself" as supernatural.  I suspect that God or spirit or mind or consciousness (or whatever name anyone wants to give it) sees "itself" as quite natural.
> 
> Is it possible that matter/energy/space/time are the entities that can spring from nothing?  Only if a "mistake" is made as there was in the creation of our universe.  If not for that "mistake" our universe should have been filled with nothing but radiation.


Ok. To clarify: I used “supernatural” to signify ONLY the notion of being outside of what we see as the natural laws of science.  Outside. Above. Beyond.  

I’ve also read that our normal accepted views of natural laws of science seem to breakdown in the quantum realm. An example of that is “quantum entanglement” which is a phenomenon that has already been replicated in some advanced scientific experiments.  That stuff is astounding to me.

I forgot who, but somebody once observed that to a primitive society, our modern technology might appear to be “magic.”  My guesswork leads me to speculate that *just as quantum-level physics seems to violate our natural “laws” of science, maybe the laws of science we recognize also don’t apply in the physics of creation.*. Maybe for the very same reasons?


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Here’s a question for the ponderous clowns like crumblenuts:
> 
> Do you tools believe that you are smarter than the scientist who once said:
> 
> _"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the Mysterious — the knowledge of the existence of something unfathomable to us, the manifestation of the most profound reason coupled with the most brilliant beauty. I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, or who has a will of the kind we experience in ourselves. I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with the awareness of — and glimpse into — the marvelous construction of the existing world together with the steadfast determination to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature. This is the basics of cosmic religiosity, and it appears to me that the most important function of art and science is to awaken this feeling among the receptive and keep it alive."_


Just to flesh this post out:

The quote is from no less a physicist that Albert Einstein, himself. — An Ideal of Service to Our Fellow Man


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Not being a scientist much less a theoretical physicist, I can’t answer that. Instead, I Just ask some questions.
> 
> In a closed universe, where did the matter come from initially?


I'll walk you though it.  You will be dangerous by the end of the tour.  

The short answer to this question is from a quantum tunneling event and it was created from nothing.  

 Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation The three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, _E = mc2_, in which _E_ is the energy of the radiation, _m_ is the annihilated mass, and _c_ is the speed of light.  

Through experiments we have observed paired particles popping into existence and annihilating themselves leaving only radiation.  They always pop into existence as symmetrical pairs.  So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang - the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun - resulting in an enormous compression of material and a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered the cosmic background radiation - a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion _and one_ particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.


Are you familiar with paired production and the cosmic background radiation? You can read these links later.
​







						Pair production - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				


​







						Cosmic background radiation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> As I have always understood it, science actually tells us that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed (although we know they can be changed in form from one to the other). So, in a closed universe, where did the matter/energy stuff come from?


Yeah, I was in the same position until I started studying this stuff.  How can the universe being created from nothing not violate the law of conservation?  It's because the net energy of the universe is zero.  The positive energy of the matter is exactly compensated by the negative energy of gravity.  So matter can be created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation because the net energy of the universe ever changes.  

Here's a short video of a world renowned cosmologist who explains it.


The short answer to your question of where did the matter/energy stuff come from is that it was literally created from nothing; as in there was no pre-existing matter that was used in the creation of the universe.  Which is totally consistent with the Judaeo-Christian worldview of creatio ex nihlo. 









						Creatio ex nihilo - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> I made reference earlier to the “probability” conjecture of such things spontaneously coming into existence. But I’m not sure if the spontaneous event can itself occur without some causation.


As near as I can tell according to science the spontaneous creation of matter from nothing should always result in a universe filled with radiation.  We shouldn't be here.  It's one of the main reasons I believe that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is the constant presence of Mind that has composed a physical universe and imbibed his creation with his attributes that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So to answer your question the spontaneous creation of the universe without causation (equal amounts of matter and anti-matter) would always result in a universe filled only with radiation.

Whereas only a universe that was intentionally created out of nothing using nearly equal amounts of matter and anti matter shows causation.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

ding said:


> I'll walk you though it.  You will be dangerous by the end of the tour.
> 
> The short answer to this question is from a quantum tunneling event and it was created from nothing.
> 
> ...


I have read some of that before. My level of comprehension remains low. (Yeah. I know. Not a surprise.)

i also read that the pairs which ought to have been equal obviously weren’t. We know this much because we are full of matter and anti-matter is quite rare and hard to come by. 

what I’m not seeing  from all of that is what created the subatomic particles in the first place. Where did THEY come from?

No. I’m not “demanding” any answers in case dud is still misinterpreting everything here. But I do remain curious and hopeful that some of the answers (such as yours, *ding) might yet offer me a clearer glimpse. 

I appreciate your efforts. *


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> So, if space/time can be curved by gravity, but gravity is dependent upon matter, then there had to be some matter to do that curving in the first place.


No.  That is incorrect.  The presence of matter creates space and time.  Matter warps or distorts space and time.  They are integrally linked and cannot be separated.  When matter is created spontaneously from nothing gravity is created along with it.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

ding said:


> No.  That is incorrect.  The presence of matter creates space and time.  Matter warps or distorts space and time.  They are integrally linked and cannot be separated.  When matter is created spontaneously from nothing gravity is created along with it.


I feel a nearly compulsive need to qualify my replies with “I ain’t arguing here, but ….”

Matter has mass and dimension. So it has to exist in some “space.”  I’m not sure how it creates the very space it needs to exist In.
Not sure. Lol. I have no clue.

I’m equally lost on how it can create time.

If the warping of space is somehow another way of describing gravity, then it would be matter that some how causes the existence of gravity.  

?


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Ok. To clarify: I used “supernatural” to signify ONLY the notion of being outside of what we see as the natural laws of science.  Outside. Above. Beyond.
> 
> I’ve also read that our normal accepted views of natural laws of science seem to breakdown in the quantum realm. An example of that is “quantum entanglement” which is a phenomenon that has already been replicated in some advanced scientific experiments.  That stuff is astounding to me.
> 
> I forgot who, but somebody once observed that to a primitive society, our modern technology might appear to be “magic.”  My guesswork leads me to speculate that *just as quantum-level physics seems to violate our natural “laws” of science, maybe the laws of science we recognize also don’t apply in the physics of creation.*. Maybe for the very same reasons?


I'm not sure what you mean by normal accepted views of natural laws of science seem to breakdown in the quantum realm.  I believe it is more like there are limitations of the "tools" that we use to describe various physical phenomenon.  In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability.  In other words, quantum mechanics follow the laws of nature and are used when other tools reach their limit of what they can describe.


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> I have read some of that before. My level of comprehension remains low. (Yeah. I know. Not a surprise.)
> 
> i also read that the pairs which ought to have been equal obviously weren’t. We know this much because we are full of matter and anti-matter is quite rare and hard to come by.
> 
> ...


Everyone has to start from somewhere.

The paired particles effectively are nothing.  If the number 1 and the number -1 always were produced in pairs you would always have nothing.

The better question is why were there 1 billion and one matter particles for every 1 billion anti matter particles.  That should not have happened.


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> I feel a nearly compulsive need to qualify my replies with “I ain’t arguing here, but ….”
> 
> Matter has mass and dimension. So it has to exist in some “space.”  I’m not sure how it creates the very space it needs to exist In.
> Not sure. Lol. I have no clue.
> ...


That's cool.  What exactly do you believe those questions have to do with the widely held scientific belief that the big bang was the creation of the universe from nothing?

If you use Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations you end up with all the matter in the universe occupying the space of a single proton and that does not rely on quantum mechanics.  That's the limit of his equations.  

Matter does cause the existence of gravity.  No matter.  No gravity.  

The most we can say about time is that it is a convenient way to mark the expansion of the universe.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

ding said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by normal accepted views of natural laws of science seem to breakdown in the quantum realm.  I believe it is more like there are limitations of the "tools" that we use to describe various physical phenomenon.  In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability.  In other words, quantum mechanics follow the laws of nature and are used when other tools reach their limit of what they can describe.


Lol!  Picture a man who is a weak swimmer without a flotation device falling overboard in the Atlantic during a hurricane. I’d say that person is in over his head.  Almost like me in this thread.

That said: let me ask. If one of the laws of science (as we understand them) says that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then how can the information presumably necessary for two quantum-entangled objects to perform the exact same actions instantaneously, regardless of their distance from each other, be passed instantaneously?


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Lol!  Picture a man who is a weak swimmer without a flotation device falling overboard in the Atlantic during a hurricane. I’d say that person is in over his head.  Almost like me in this thread.
> 
> That said: let me ask. If one of the laws of science (as we understand them) says that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then how can the information presumably necessary for two quantum-entangled objects to perform the exact same actions instantaneously regardless of their distance from each other be passed instantaneously?


I suspect because - like gravity - nothing is traveling any distance.  Because otherwise, gravity would have the exact same problem.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Science posits some things we now take for granted. For example, nothing can exist prior to itself.
> 
> matter/energy/space/time exist. Where did all this “stuff” come from?  Fair question.  Tracing it back with observation and science (particularly physics) we seemingly trace it back to the “Big Bang.” *But where did the initial super tiny blob of whatever it was come from? *
> 
> ...


If you check out YouTube, you'll find out quickly that physicists admit they don't know what the hell they are talking about.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 4, 2021)

Somewhere in the Castaneda books, Don Juan explain to Carlos that, with respect to mankind, the Mexican Seers understood the Universe is comprised of the Known (teeny tiny portion directly accessible to mankind), the Unknown (a tiny sliver that mankind is capable of perceiving and  The Unknowable (mankind simply lacks the necessary skills to perceive this overwhelmingly, vast majority of the Universe)


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

ding said:


> I suspect because - like gravity - nothing is traveling any distance.  Because otherwise, gravity would have the exact same problem.


If 2 quantum entangled objects are a full light year away from each other, and one is turned over at 1 location it is also instantaneously turned over in the other location. The information had to travel from place one to place 2 or else there would be no way for the 2nd object to figuratively “know” that object 1 had flipped.

and it would have to travel a boat load faster than the speed of light.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> If you check out YouTube, you'll find out quickly that physicists admit they don't know what the hell they are talking about.


Lol.

That may be true. I guess in that limited sense, I could be a physicist. 😎


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> If a2 quantum entangled objects are full light year away from each other, and one is turned over at 1 location it is also instantaneously turned over in the other location. The information had to travel from place one to place 2 or else there would be no way for the 2nd object to figuratively “know” that object 1 had flipped.
> 
> and it would have to travel a boat load faster than the speed of light.


I am saying no information is travelling.  Has anyone that you know of proposed how or what is traveling from one object to the other?


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Somewhere in the Castaneda books, Don Juan explain to Carlos that, with respect to mankind, the Mexican Seers understood the Universe is comprised of the Known (teeny tiny portion directly accessible to mankind), the Unknown (a tiny sliver that mankind is capable of perceiving and  The Unknowable (mankind simply lacks the necessary skills to perceive this overwhelmingly, vast majority of the Universe)


I assumed that was just the Peyote talking.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

ding said:


> I am saying no information is travelling.  Has anyone that you know of proposed how or what is traveling from one object to the other?


If the information isn’t  traveling, then how does one object (proverbially) “know” what the other object is doing so far away?


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> If the information isn’t  traveling, then how does one object (proverbially) “know” what the other object is doing so far away?


Same way that gravity doesn't travel.  It's part of the fabric of the existence of matter itself.  It has to be that way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 4, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> I assumed that was just the Peyote talking.



It's actually quite sober and spot on, but yeah, Mescalito might have helped


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 4, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's actually quite sober and spot on, but yeah, Mescalito might have helped


I read A Separate Reality when I was In High school. I can’t pretend I grokked it all that well at the time.  Haven’t read it since.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 5, 2021)

"Magical!" -- Yours Truly


BackAgain said:


> Not really.  You seem to believe that something can come from absolutely nothing. I find that quite unscientific. Or, to put into your severely limited parlance, “magical.”


Funny since I've clearly stated the opposite at least once here while you've been the one busy promoting nothing but the usual steaming pile of preloaded magical hogwash. You have to work at forgetting all that crap, open your mind, and above all actually want to listen and try to understand some things you've clearly never considered. However, you've now succeeded in convincing me that that will never happen. Oh well. Your loss.


BackAgain said:


> Science posits some things we now take for granted. For example, nothing can exist prior to itself.


No, idiot, the egg really did precede the chicken.


BackAgain said:


> It looks like either Matter/energy/space/time all came into existence without causation OR God did.


Magical!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 5, 2021)

ding said:


> Does time even really exist?  Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations work equally well in reverse as they do going forward in time.  Yet we have never witnessed time moving backwards.  I think the most we can say about time is that it is a convenient was to mark the expansion of the universe.


As I said "time is space's simplest and most logical method of measuring A to B over vast distances." So  yes, it's clearly just a human concocted abstraction among others. But also the smartest choice when considering things like "expansion of the universe", deep space travel, the size of distant galaxies relative to ours..


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 5, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> If 2 quantum entangled objects are a full light year away from each other, and one is turned over at 1 location it is also instantaneously turned over in the other location. The information had to travel from place one to place 2 or else there would be no way for the 2nd object to figuratively “know” that object 1 had flipped.
> 
> and it would have to travel a boat load faster than the speed of light.


There's no reason to believe the Aether couldn't support instantaneous information travel longitudinally, rendering "quantum entanglement" superfluous and silly. Quantum mechanics is intellectually insulting bullshit. A longitudinal wave transmitter / receiver (even our brains possibly) could instantly transmit some messages to / from similarly tuned individuals or animals, regardless of distance.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 5, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> "Magical!" -- Yours Truly
> 
> Funny since I've clearly stated the opposite at least once here while you've been the one busy promoting nothing but the usual steaming pile of preloaded magical hogwash. You have to work at forgetting all that crap, open your mind, and above all actually want to listen and try to understand some things you've clearly never considered. However, you've now succeeded in convincing me that that will never happen. Oh well. Your loss.
> 
> ...


Actually, your mind is welded shut. You don’t grasp science. You accept it on faith.  If some scientists claim that the entire universe and everything in it was as small as a proton (or smaller) and rapidly expanded into the Big Bnag, you don’t question anything. You accept in on blind faith and are too dull-witted to ask any questions at all.

I have, by stark contrast, been the one who asks questions. I have come to no firm conclusions and realize I lack information necessary to reach a firm conclusion.  

Your mindless repetition of your baseless and truly stupid claim doesn’t change anything. Since you are accepting stuff you are told but don’t understand, you are the one between the two of us engaged in magical thinking. Not me. At least when I come to even a tentative conclusion, I acknowledge that this doesn’t suffice to make it true.  You?  Not so much.

 You may be all full of yourself, but nobody else is obliged to share that view of you.  Sadly, you offer little of value to this discussion.  I therefore dismiss you as being merely a troll.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 5, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Hey. I’m not debating that. I have no actual knowledge.
> 
> I am curious though. “Eternal” as In “never ending?”  Or, “eternal” “as without beginning or ending.” If the latter, the concept of existence without need of creation eludes me.
> 
> It looks like either Matter/energy/space/time all came into existence without causation OR God did.


Existence, in and of itself, is the issue, _not_ what exists, and logic resolves that issue.

1.  Something does exist rather than nothing!
2.  Hence, something has always existed.
3.  Because an infinite regression of causation (or an actual infinite) is an absurdity and nonexistence is an absurdity, that which has always existed cannot be the spacetime continuum of matter and energy.
4  Hence, the necessary eternal existent is immaterial mind, namely, God.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 5, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Existence, in and of itself, is the issue, _not_ what exists, and logic resolves that issue.
> 
> 1.  Something does exist rather than nothing!
> 2.  Hence, something has always existed.
> ...



Such silly circular references.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 5, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Actually, your mind is welded shut. You don’t grasp science. You accept it on faith.  If some scientists claim that the entire universe and everything in it was as small as a proton (or smaller) and rapidly expanded into the Big Bnag, you don’t question anything. You accept in on blind faith and are too dull-witted to ask any questions at all.
> 
> I have, by stark contrast, been the one who asks questions. I have come to no firm conclusions and realize I lack information necessary to reach a firm conclusion.
> 
> ...


Wow, I hope you feel better.


BackAgain said:


> I have come to no firm conclusions and realize I lack information necessary to reach a firm conclusion.


A man's got to know his limitations. Well do ya, punk? Just listen to yourself:


BackAgain said:


> Science posits some things we now take for granted. For example, nothing can exist prior to itself.


(Again, "Science" actually posits nothing, people do, and here it's all you)


BackAgain said:


> We call it “quantum” physics and make reference to how the normal scientific laws are suspended at such a point.


No, "We" don't. Not all of us. But you do -- just did, typical establishment apologist.


BackAgain said:


> It is LITERALLY super-natural. (Not in the sense of the “divine” or “magic” necessarily; just in the sense of requiring explanation that is above and beyond our understanding of scientific “laws”.).


No, it is literally magic. Same thing. Instead of proposing such trash as though factual, try at least consulting a dictionary once in a while.
magic (from Oxford Languages/Google):


> _adjective_
> 
> 
> 1.
> ...


.......


BackAgain said:


> Actually, your mind is welded shut. You don’t grasp science. You accept it on faith. If some scientists claim that the entire universe and everything in it was as small as a proton (or smaller) and rapidly expanded into the Big Bnag, you don’t question anything. You accept in on blind faith and are too dull-witted to ask any questions at all.


Project much? You know you do. Boy do you wish you could be hot like me, LOL!!

Bubbye!


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 5, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Existence, in and of itself, is the issue, _not_ what exists, and logic resolves that issue.
> 
> 1.  Something does exist rather than nothing!
> 2.  Hence, something has always existed.
> ...


1 & 2 are not “true” necessarily.  Something  does exist NOW. BUT the very question is “where did it come from?”  To observe that something exists NOW does not entail that it always existed.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 5, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Wow, I hope you feel better.
> 
> A man's got to know his limitations. Well do ya, punk? Just listen to yourself:
> 
> ...


I saw that it was you who was putting up a wall of words. So, I didn’t bother to read any further. You remain an absolute void.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 5, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> 1 & 2 are not “true” necessarily.  Something  does exist NOW. BUT the very question is “where did it come from?”  To observe that something exists NOW does not entail that it always existed.


You're not thinking clearly.  

You're literally claiming that nonexistence is possible.  That's absurd.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 5, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> You're not thinking clearly.
> 
> You're literally claiming that nonexistence is possible.  That's absurd.


I didn’t exist for at least billions of years before I got created.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 5, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> I didn’t exist for at least billions of years before I got created.


The logical implications of what you're saying are flying right over your head.
_Existence_ arose from _nonexistence_?!  Please explain.
_crickets chirping_


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 5, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> The logical implications of what you're saying are flying right over your head.
> _Existence_ arose from _nonexistence_?!  Please explain.
> _crickets chirping_


You have misunderstood most of what I’ve said.

Let’s take a step back. For the most part, I have been asking questions, not making many assertions.

That aside, my point is more fundamental.  Before there was a freakin’ thing.  No electrons. No protons. No energy. No matter.

Your proposition is that there never was a “before.”  All this “stuff” always existed.  And my QUESTION is “where did the matter (or the energy) come from?”  You really can’t just say, “it was always there” because then what you’re  doing is saying that something can exist without being created. And that’s not possible according to our understanding of science. The question is “what created the stuff that exists?”

By the way, I’m also not saying that you “are” wrong. Again, I’m asking questions. Perhaps nothing can exist without being created, so all the “stuff” in the universe did come into being by virtue of the Big Bang.  My problem with that is that it just takes the question back one further step: “where did *this*  infinitesimally small ‘point’ of stuff come from?” 

Some smart people (even on this thread) have discussed the possibility that there is a quantum state of probabilities from which existence can “pop up” spontaneously. I have effectively no handle on that at all. (The fact that I can’t grasp it doesn’t make it incorrect; it just means that I may never find an answer that makes sense to me.)


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 5, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> The logical implications of what you're saying are flying right over your head.
> _Existence_ arose from _nonexistence_?!  Please explain.
> _crickets chirping_


He first lacks the critical thinking ability to comprehend the difference between posing a fallaciously loaded question and honestly asking one. Then, while pleading innocent victim, if he doesn't ignore their points altogether, he misrepresents, attacks, and presumes to school those daring to respond. The exception being ding's tiresome spam fest, of course! We've heard this skipping record how many times now?


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 5, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> You have misunderstood most of what I’ve said.
> 
> Let’s take a step back. For the most part, I have been asking questions, not making many assertions.
> 
> ...


Wrong.  I understand you perfectly.  It's you who is missing the fundamental, ontological imperative of existence in and of itself.  The problem of existence is not scientific at all.  It's a metaphysical, mathematical and logical problem. 

Material existence—i.e., the spacetime continuum of matter and energy—*cannot *be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence.  Logic tells us that the universe necessarily began to exist in the finite past; hence, the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence that created everything else that exists is necessarily an immaterial existent.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 5, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Wrong.  I understand you perfectly.  It's you who is missing the fundamental, ontological imperative of existence in and of itself.  The problem of existence is not scientific at all.  It's a metaphysical, mathematical and logical problem.
> 
> Material existence—i.e., the spacetime continuum of matter and energy—*cannot *be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence.  Logic tells us that the universe necessarily began to exist in the finite past; hence, the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence that created everything else that exists is necessarily an immaterial existent.


That’s gibberish. You seriously don’t grasp the import of what you’re attempting to say.

You don’t seem to grasp even the fact that you contradict yourself,

On the one hand you posit that existence traces back to a finite point.  Maybe. But on the other hand you posit that matter and energy always existed. You then seem to simply recognize the inherent contradiction by arguing that initial point pre-existing “existence” was immaterial.

I have to guess that you are attempting to discuss a state prior to the existence of matter.  Ok. But that means that in your view, Matter had to have been created.

Sorry, but in the science we know, Matter can’t be created or destroyed.  Although it can change its state (for example it can be converted into energy), it cannot just otherwise simply cease to exist.

You are so confused you resort to silly sound bites reflecting that you don’t understand what you’re saying.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 5, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> He first lacks the critical thinking ability to comprehend the difference between posing a fallaciously loaded question and honestly asking one. Then, while pleading innocent victim, if he doesn't ignore their points altogether, he misrepresents, attacks, and presumes to school those daring to respond. The exception being ding's tiresome spam fest, of course! We've heard this skipping record how many times now?


Well, I don't want to be too critical.  Some folks simply haven't put the necessary thought into the matter and don't know the pertinent cosmological science.   Ultimately, he's confounding the problem of existence, in and of itself, with the existence of the universe.  He's fallaciously asserting that in order for something to exist, it must necessarily be created, must necessarily have a beginning to its existence.  

False.  Ludicrous.  Absurdity.  

Something _does_ exist rather than nothing; hence, there necessarily exists an eternally self-subsistent, uncreated ground of reality.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 5, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> That’s gibberish. You seriously don’t grasp the import of what you’re attempting to say.
> 
> You don’t seem to grasp even the fact that you contradict yourself,
> 
> ...


Clearly, there's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent cosmology or physics.  There's nothing you can teach me about the laws of thermodynamics and the inherent law of conservation.  They strictly pertain to the physics of prevailing material reality, not to the ontological problem of their origin or existence.  You're very confused.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 5, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> He first lacks the critical thinking ability to comprehend the difference between posing a fallaciously loaded question and honestly asking one. Then, while pleading innocent victim, if he doesn't ignore their points altogether, he misrepresents, attacks, and presumes to school those daring to respond. The exception being ding's tiresome spam fest, of course! We've heard this skipping record how many times now?


I take it all back.  You're right.  The dude's an idiot.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 5, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Well, I don't want to be too critical.  Some folks simply haven't put the necessary thought into the matter and don't know the pertinent cosmological science.   Ultimately, he's confounding the problem of existence, in and of itself, with the existence of the universe.  He's fallaciously asserting that in order for something to exist, it must necessarily be created, must necessarily have a beginning to its existence.
> 
> False.  Ludicrous.  Absurdity.
> 
> Something _does_ exist rather than nothing; hence, there necessarily exists an eternally self-subsistent, uncreated ground of reality.


No. You are fallaciously attempting to distinguish “existence” into constructs that aren’t actually different.

I understand crumblenutzhas no grasp on anything he pretends to be discussing. That’s not surprising anymore. Old crumble is neither particularly intelligent nor honest.

I have a different conclusion as to ringtone. His ignorance is his failure to understand that words have meaning. Unlike crumblednuts, ringtone may be honest. That he is honestly confused shouldn’t dissuade him from trying harder.

He is confused about the notions of existence.  Therefore he labels as “ludicrous” the questions he can’t fathom. Because of his underlying confusion, he can’t handle a proposition such as “nothing can exist prior to itself.”  

From that logical premise (accepted by Aquinas), he derived that God necessarily exists. I don’t know about that. But I do accept the premise as true. In order for a thing to exist it had to have been created.  I believe (but don’t pretend to know for sure) that there has to be an exception.  For either God created everything in the Universe or the Unjverse came into existence without causation.  (If it was created by God, then presumably God came into being without being created.). One way or the other, something had to come first and whichever came first appears to violate the initial premise.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 5, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Clearly, there's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent cosmology or physics.  There's nothing you can teach me about the laws of thermodynamics and the inherent law of conservation.  They strictly pertain to the physics of prevailing material reality, not to the ontological problem of their origin or existence.  You're very confused.


No. What’s clear is that you have come to a conclusion and beyond that your mind is shut.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 5, 2021)

Ringtone says: “Ultimately, he's confounding the problem of existence, in and of itself, with the existence of the universe.”  

The amusing thing here is that ringtone seems to believe that there is a micron’s worth of meaningful difference (as in any genuine distinction) between “existence, in and of itself” and the “existence of the universe.”  

There is not.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 5, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> No. What’s clear is that you have come to a conclusion and beyond that your mind is shut.


For reals, homes, you be talkin' outside your mind, serious wack straight outta Looneytoonville.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 5, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> For reals, homes, you be talkin' outside your mind, serious wack straight outta Looneytoonville.


You are a crashing bore. Numbsjulls like you don’t even recognize that liking AN argument type in the whole ongoing discussion about the Cosmological Argument doesn’t mean that YOUR line of reasoning is correct.  I mean. Sure. You’re arrogant and vain; but there’s no basis for it. In reality, you are exceptionally plodding and uninformed and sadly dim-witted.

If you were even slightly more open-minded and maybe a whole lot more intelligent, you wouldn’t be so defensive in making your assertions.  Your very petty little mind doesn’t even entertain the probability that there are facets of this discussion which you simply are unequipped to even grasp. 

The reason I am asking questions is because I don’t pretend to know. By contrast, you pretend to know. Aquinas and Bertrand Russell made formal arguments with principles of logic. They (unlike you) may have reached some tentative conclusions; but they at least realized that the arguments they made might be subject to counter arguments and further analysis.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 5, 2021)

All USMB members with the username of “ringtone” are assholes

“ringtone” uses the username “ringtone” at USMB.

Therefore, USMB member ringtone  is an asshole.

The foregoing “argument” is perfectly valid. 

I wonder if ringtone has the wit to acknowledge that a formally valid argument is not necessarily “true” despite being valid in form?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 6, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Existence, in and of itself, is the issue, _not_ what exists, and logic resolves that issue.
> 
> 1.  Something does exist rather than nothing!
> 2.  Hence, something has always existed.
> ...


I agree through 3. I could elaborate upon why "spacetime" generally strikes me as an absurd abstraction, but I'll just move on to 4. since agreeing about things seems comparatively uninteresting.

Firstly, I disagree with appeals to "mind" and "God" because both anthropomorphize the issue, intentionally or not, disturbingly similar to how practically every religion's doctrine has. Regardless of how many billions of years before humans existed, "God" supposedly "created" everything with us in "mind" often including "His" own image. Too suggestive of all the crap like that. Though I always add that if one equates "God" with nature, then fine, but if one desires to be clear or unambiguous why not just say "Nature"?

Here's where I've arrived. The Aether suffices. No god or mind need apply. It is the ultimate "Prime Mover" and ubiquitous. Though its force (pressure, influence) varies in vicinities of mass, it appears vastly uniform otherwise, thus our measured consistency of c. So why are we here? What's the point? No, I mean how did we arrive here?

I don't presume any beginning to matter and energy. I agree that matter couldn't exist locally at the moment of the Big Bang. Locally, meaning not within possibly billions of light years of "our universe" which, at the time, was a fraction of peanut in size according to most physicists. Point being, we have no logical reason to believe the actual Universe isn't much the same beyond what we're able to observe.

To the contrary, the harder we look the more the galaxies appear to go on forever. Simpler to presume a local void of matter existed, likely due to being vacuumed up by an enormous black hole billions of years prior. Given the reported expansion and accelerated expansion of our universe, the furthest already disappearing beyond our ability to ever observe them again, why simply speculate that nothing was already out there prior to the Bang?

Well obviously, the cosmological background radiation, says ding. Sorry, no. That can only inform us about what existed right here back to 400,000 years or so after the Bang. All that knowledge tells us is that, prior to the Bang, the (teensy) portion of the Universe we're able to observe didn't exist (materially / spatially).

Energy is another cans of worms because of counterspace, which again I'll spare you the elaboration upon for now. Also the larger Universe could only seem to be expanding while it actually just recycles itself, forming new galaxies as fast as the old ones disappear.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 6, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> I agree through 3. I could elaborate upon why "spacetime" generally strikes me as an absurd abstraction, but I'll just move on to 4. since agreeing about things seems comparatively uninteresting.
> 
> Firstly, I disagree with appeals to "mind" and "God" because both anthropomorphize the issue, intentionally or not, disturbingly similar to how practically every religion's doctrine has. Regardless of how many billions of years before humans existed, "God" supposedly "created" everything with us in "mind" often including "His" own image. Too suggestive of all the crap like that. Though I always add that if one equates "God" with nature, then fine, but if one desires to be clear or unambiguous why not just say "Nature"?
> 
> ...


Well, I don't know what *ding* believes about the cosmological order relative to the Big Bang, but there's no logical or scientific reason to assume that our universe is the first and only to have ever existed.  Notwithstanding, logic tells us that the material realm of being cannot be eternal.  The cosmological order, material existence, regardless the history of its configuration, began to exist in the finite past.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 6, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Notwithstanding, logic tells us that the material realm of being cannot be eternal. The cosmological order, material existence, regardless the history of its configuration, began to exist in the finite past.


Logic obviously suggests some things based upon limited, unverifiable evidence. But what logic really tells us is that "the finite past" is an illogical construct. Cosmological arguments tend to presume a Big Bang beginning which renders them wishful and circular. "Eternity," being equally immune to thorough scientific inspection, is therefore equally illogical. We simply can't know what we'll never be able to see, measure, test, or otherwise conclusively verify. And that's fine by me. I'll take "I don't know" any day over appeals to magic and pure speculation.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 6, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Logic obviously suggests some things based upon limited, unverifiable evidence. But what logic really tells us is that "the finite past" is an illogical construct. Cosmological arguments tend to presume a Big Bang beginning which renders them wishful and circular. "Eternity," being equally immune to thorough scientific inspection, is therefore equally illogical. We simply can't know what we'll never be able to see or measure. And that's fine by me. I'll take "I don't know" any day over appeals to magic and pure speculation.


The Big Bang theory, ultimately, has nothing to do with the cosmological argument.  The notion that it does is a common and unfortunate misunderstanding.

Once again, the problem of existence is metaphysical, not scientific, and the imperatives of logic, mathematics and ontology precede and have primacy over science.  An infinite regress of causation in time or being cannot be traversed to the present, and an actual infinite is an absurdity.  The material realm of being began to exist in the finite past. 

Excerpt from an article I wrote some years ago:

Islamic philosophers seized on Aristotle's terminology and related it to the eternally self-subsistent and wholly transcendent Creator of all other things that exist. They developed two distinct lines of the cosmological argument: (1) the impossibility of an infinite regress of causation, albeit in terms of contingency (the argument of a necessary existent) and (2) the impossibility of an infinite regress in time (the argument from the absurdities of an actual infinite). These are also referred to as the vertical and horizontal versions of the cosmological, respectively, and the ontological justification for both is the logical necessity of eternalism.

Ibn Sina (also known as Avicenna, 980–1037 A.D.) extrapolated the argument from contingency, which was further developed by Aquinas (1225–1274 A.D.).

The Christian theologian and early empiricist philosopher John Philoponus of the 5th Century was actually the first to argue from the impossibility of an infinite regress in _Against_ _Aristotle_ wherein he not only refuted a temporally infinite universe but the credibility of Aristotelian cosmology concerning the composition of the lower heavens and celestial spheres. Following the arguments of Philoponus, Al-Kindi (801–873 A.D.) composed the first formal version of the horizontal cosmological: "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning."

(I don't remember when exactly, but I encountered an article written by someone who wrongfully attributes this formulation to Al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali uses it, but it didn't originate with him.) Aristotle himself understood that an actual infinity is impossible; i.e., the physical universe couldn't be spatially infinite. Philoponus and Al-Kindi argued that precisely because the universe is divisible magnitude as Aristotle points out, nothing about the universe could be infinite. An infinite past would be an actual infinity. Absurdity! Hence, the universe necessarily began to exist in the finite past. Philoponus and Al-Kindi's primary interest was to evince why no divisible entity could possibly be the necessary existent and invited one to conclude that only an indivisible and, therefore, timelessly immaterial entity could be the necessary existent.

While Al-Ghazali (1058–1111 A.D.) wholeheartedly agreed, he was dissatisfied with the unnecessary ambiguity of the argument. Like Philoponus and Al-Kindi before him, he argued that the universe is composed of temporal phenomena preceded by other temporally-ordered phenomena, and given that an actual infinite is impossible, such a series of temporal phenomena cannot continue to infinity. Then Al-Ghazali brilliantly observed that not only must the universe have a timeless cause of its existence, but this timeless cause _must_ be a personal free agent; for if the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical. This would mean that the cause could never exist sans its effect, as from eternity the sufficient causal conditions for the effect to occur are given.

As explained by Craig:



> The only way for the cause to be timeless but for its effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without any antecedent determining conditions. Philosophers call this type of causation 'agent causation,' and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. . . . Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to a Personal Creator.



Hence, Al-Ghazali appends the syllogism per his ontological analysis of the properties of the cause. Known today as the Kalam, it's _this_ version of the argument that came to the medieval Christian tradition through Bonaventure (1221–74 A.D.), and it's this version that's championed by Craig et al. today with the very same philosophical supports for the second (or pivotal) premise, albeit, as decisively supplemented by Al-Ghazali's personal-impersonal distinction. Craig et al. have since mathematically and analogously elaborated on the philosophical supports and formulated a syllogistic expression of Al-Ghazali's ontological analysis.

Note that neither of the main premises were ever changed. Of course, they were never changed! Alex's notion is conceptually absurd, and his chronology regarding the historical development of the Kalam is nonsensical. Only the philosophical support for the second premise, deduced from the first principles of metaphysics, was revised, and the first premise is a metaphysical axiom! Axioms don't require additional proof. They are proofs (or logical necessities) in and of themselves.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 6, 2021)

I appreciate the effort expended in compiling that history lesson. Still no sale regarding where we disagreed previously. My dad used to read to us for at least half an hour every night from the Great Books at the dinner table fifty to sixty years ago. I recall being quite interested in much, bored to not at all captivated with the balance. We were forced to just sit and be quiet but that never really bothered me much. My interest in Aristotle and Plato was mixed. No recall of the other philosophers. Since then I've grown to despise such formal argument, especially after experiencing the drudgery of college Philosophy 101 and Political Science. I've succumbed to peer pressure and adopted other's metaphysical proposals at times in the past, but no more. To me, it all amounts the same sort of wishful, circular, mental masturbation I described before. I don't despise or blame anyone for engaging themselves with such stuff. It just strikes me personally as a waste of time.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 7, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> I appreciate the effort expended in compiling that history lesson. Still no sale regarding where we disagreed previously. My dad used to read to us for at least half an hour every night from the Great Books at the dinner table fifty to sixty years ago. I recall being quite interested in much, bored to not at all captivated with the balance. We were forced to just sit and be quiet but that never really bothered me much. My interest in Aristotle and Plato was mixed. No recall of the other philosophers. Since then I've grown to despise such formal argument, especially after experiencing the drudgery of college Philosophy 101 and Political Science. I've succumbed to peer pressure and adopted other's metaphysical proposals at times in the past, but no more. To me, it all amounts the same sort of wishful, circular, mental masturbation I described before. I don't despise or blame anyone for engaging themselves with such stuff. It just strikes me personally as a waste of time.


There's absolutely nothing circular about the cosmological argument.  That's total bullshit.  The cosmological argument is strictly linear.      

Something exists rather than nothing.
Something has necessarily always existed; existence sure as hell did not arise from nonexistence.  

How the hell could the material realm of being possibly be the eternal existent?  Kiss my ass circular.  

An actual infinite is possible?!  An infinite regress of causation/temporality is possible?!

Really?  Since when?

Naturalists and atheists are damn fools.

The material realm cannot be the eternal existent.

The eternal existent is immaterial.  

End of discussion.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 7, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> There's absolutely nothing circular about the cosmological argument.  That's total bullshit.  The cosmological argument is strictly linear.
> 
> Something exists rather than nothing.
> Something has necessarily always existed; existence sure as hell did not arise from nonexistence.
> ...


Congratulations,

A winner always digs deep to sport just that sort of warm, calm demeanor every time!


----------



## ding (Dec 7, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Well obviously, the cosmological background radiation, says ding. Sorry, no. That can only inform us about what existed right here back to 400,000 years or so after the Bang. All that knowledge tells us is that, prior to the Bang, the (teensy) portion of the Universe we're able to observe didn't exist (materially / spatially).


You don't know what you are talking about.  The radiation era lasted ~50,000 years.  When the universe cooled enough, radiation decoupled from matter which occurred after ~380,000 years.

And the Cosmic Background Radiation informs us of the massive matter / anti-matter annihilations which dominated the radiation era.




			The Early Universe


----------



## ding (Dec 7, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> I don't presume any beginning to matter and energy.


There are only two choices; the universe began or the universe has always existed.

The science is overwhelmingly in favor of the universe beginning.


----------



## ding (Dec 7, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Well, I don't know what *ding* believes about the cosmological order relative to the Big Bang, but there's no logical or scientific reason to assume that our universe is the first and only to have ever existed.  Notwithstanding, logic tells us that the material realm of being cannot be eternal.  The cosmological order, material existence, regardless the history of its configuration, began to exist in the finite past.


He was trying to say cosmic background radiation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2021)

Dogs and cats are both self aware intelligent mammals. Neither have the ability to understand physics and chemistry. We are intelligent self aware mammals. I do believe that there are aspects of this universe that our present intellect is incapable of understanding. Therefore, I have no trouble in saying for some things, I just don't know, and may not be capable of knowing. And that definitely includes the origin of this universe as we know it.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 8, 2021)

ding said:


> You don't know what you are talking about.  The radiation era lasted ~50,000 years.  When the universe cooled enough, radiation decoupled from matter which occurred after ~380,000 years.
> 
> And the Cosmic Background Radiation informs us of the massive matter / anti-matter annihilations which dominated the radiation era.
> 
> ...


Yes, dingbat. *If* "The science" could say "the operative word being *local*" then that's what "The science" would say, since as 9 out of 10 current cosmologists would readily agree, we can only observe (know anything about) what lies within our light cone. But "The science" can't really talk and would really have no interest in doing so if "The science" could because that is simply not what "The science" was ever designed for or intended to do. Quite the opposite, bozo. Be quiet. "Science" literally just means "to study." Sssshush!


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Yes, dingbat. *If* "The science" could say "the operative word being *local*" then that's what "The science" would say, since as 9 out of 10 current cosmologists would readily agree, we can only observe (know anything about) what lies within our light cone. But "The science" can't really talk and would really have no interest in doing so if "The science" could because that is simply not what "The science" was ever designed for or intended to do. Quite the opposite, bozo. Be quiet. "Science" literally just means "to study." Sssshush!


Apparently you will make any argument - no matter how ridiculous - to deny that the cosmic background radiation is proof that the universe was created from nothing, There is literally no other explanation for it.  

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.  Saying the Cosmic Background Radiation informs us of the massive matter / anti-matter annihilations which dominated the radiation era does not mean it spoke to us, dummy.  

So I will say to you again... you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 8, 2021)

ding said:


> He was trying to say cosmic background radiation.


Ah!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 8, 2021)

ding said:


> Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.


Thanks for that desperate dingbat dictionary definition. 

Whoa, OMG, I mistakenly said "cosmological" instead of "cosmic" at one point. Horrors. What's really apparent is that you are both woefully unfit to seriously address the actual point of contention. Pretending to somehow not be a "materialist" in this world is always truly sad. You should really get a room together and protect yourselves from exposure to broader perspectives.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 8, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Dogs and cats are both self aware intelligent mammals. Neither have the ability to understand physics and chemistry. We are intelligent self aware mammals. I do believe that there are aspects of this universe that our present intellect is incapable of understanding. Therefore, I have no trouble in saying for some things, I just don't know, and may not be capable of knowing. And that definitely includes the origin of this universe as we know it.


Nonsense.  The imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us the universe, regardless of its past manifestations if any, began to exist in the finite past.  Men who think, have known this obvious truth for centuries.  Further, the scientific discoveries of the Twentieth Century in cosmology and physics affirm what the former have always told us.


----------



## james bond (Dec 8, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Logic obviously suggests some things based upon limited, unverifiable evidence.


The verifiable evidence is the Bible and that it explains the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  What you want stated as evidence is illogical such as evolution as it is neither observable nor testable.  What was tested was that abiogenesis is impossible by Louis Pasteur's swan neck experiment.  It means creation.

The final conclusive evidence is that atheists and sinners need to die.  Unfortunately, I won't be there to see it, but you can witness what happened to the believers and I.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 8, 2021)

ding said:


> There are only two choices; the universe began or the universe has always existed.
> 
> The science is overwhelmingly in favor of the universe beginning.


As you and I know, it's not only the science that tells us this.  The imperatives of logic, mathematics, and the first principles of metaphysics concur.  As for the science, to the best of my knowledge, you and I are the only ones on this board who are even aware of the pertinent science, i.e., the various proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 8, 2021)

james bond said:


> The verifiable evidence is the Bible and that it explains the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  What you want stated as evidence is illogical such as evolution as it is neither observable nor testable.  What was tested was that abiogenesis is impossible by Louis Pasteur's swan neck experiment.  It means creation.
> 
> The final conclusive evidence is that atheists and sinners need to die.  Unfortunately, I won't be there to see it, but you can witness what happened to the believers and I.


The Bible explains nothing.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> As you and I know, it's not only the science that tells us this.  The imperatives of logic, mathematics, and the first principles of metaphysics concur.  As for the science, to the best of my knowledge, you and I are the only ones on this board who are even aware of the pertinent science, i.e., the various proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem.



Religious extremists often attempt to insert metaphysics among science matters. The first principles of religious extremism involve pompous, grandiose statements where the extremist insists he alone holds some pertinent knowledge not possessed by others. 

Metaphysics comes in three main flavors: philosophical systems, ideologies and religions. In their theologies. religions attempt to create philosophical structures. You might have noticed that science is not included in metaphysics. This should help you understand that metaphysics is aligned with the development of competing philosophical or religious perspectives, not science investigation. The plethora of manmade gods and the mutually incompatible forms of worship, the various humans and animals available to be offered in sacrifice to worship to those gods should give you a clue as to some elements that differentiate metaphysics from science


----------



## james bond (Dec 8, 2021)

Hollie said:


> The Bible explains nothing.


How would you know that . Honestly, I lmao too often here.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 8, 2021)

james bond said:


> How would you know that . Honestly, I lmao too often here.


Uncontrollable laughter is often the sign of a mental illness, Thumpy.


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Thanks for that desperate dingbat dictionary definition.
> 
> Whoa, OMG, I mistakenly said "cosmological" instead of "cosmic" at one point. Horrors. What's really apparent is that you are both woefully unfit to seriously address the actual point of contention. Pretending to somehow not be a "materialist" in this world is always truly sad. You should really get a room together and protect yourselves from exposure to broader perspectives.


You are unhinged.


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Thanks for that desperate dingbat dictionary definition.
> 
> Whoa, OMG, I mistakenly said "cosmological" instead of "cosmic" at one point. Horrors. What's really apparent is that you are both woefully unfit to seriously address the actual point of contention. Pretending to somehow not be a "materialist" in this world is always truly sad. You should really get a room together and protect yourselves from exposure to broader perspectives.


Pretending to not be a a materialist?  Hmmmm...  Spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

You made a much bigger deal out of your error than I did.  I just stated it.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 Woefully unfit to seriously address the actual point of contention?  Hmmmm... how so?

I've spent over 20 years on my broader perspective.  I've forgotten more about the origin questions than you ever knew.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 8, 2021)

Regardless of the exact history of the cosmos_—_whether the prevailing universe is but one in a cyclical series or a multiverse—the cosmological configuration _in toto_ necessarily began to exist in the finite past _ex nihilo_.  Those who grasp the incontrovertible first principles of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics, those who grasp the various scientific proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem, know this. 

Any opinion to the contrary is the la-la of irrationality of ignorance. 

End of discussion.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> As you and I know, it's not only the science that tells us this.  The imperatives of logic, mathematics, and the first principles of metaphysics concur.  As for the science, to the best of my knowledge, you and I are the only ones on this board who are even aware of the pertinent science, i.e., the various proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem.


Oh yeah, you two are definitely the chosen ones, LOL

However, here's a well edumacated response for your bonus edification:


> I can assure you I understand the subject well. It's also worth noting that Dr. Vilenkin has stated numerous times (such as in the quote I've provided above) that the theorem he worked on with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth does not prove that the Universe has a beginning. In fact, it makes no statements about the beginning of the Universe because the BVG theorem does not describe the earliest moments in the Universe's history. It's applicability does not go beyond the geodesic boundary, and nowhere in the original paper is it stated that said boundary is or must be an absolute beginning. In fact, the paper explicitly states that one can go beyond the boundary but must utilize an extension of inflationary physics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Take it slow... so as not to choke on all that crow.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Regardless of the exact history of the cosmos_—_whether the prevailing universe is but one in a cyclical series or a multiverse—the cosmological configuration _in toto_ necessarily began to exist in the finite past _ex nihilo_.  Those who grasp the incontrovertible first principles of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics, those who grasp the various scientific proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem, know this.
> 
> Any opinion to the contrary is the la-la of irrationality of ignorance.
> 
> End of discussion.



There are no incontrovertible first principles of logic or metaphysics that support claims to supernaturalism. The first principle of a valid argument is that the conclusion will be true when a valid premise is true. Religious extremists use a faulty characterization such that they define a presupposed conclusion and then construct a faulty premise derived from metaphysics 

Metaphysics may suggest anything you want because ultimately there is no requirement for the conclusion to necessarily follow a logical progression of ideas from the premise.

Metaphysics is the sacred cow of ID'iot creationer ministries because magic and supernaturalism is not of science. Metaphysics is as useful as tarot card reading when introduced into the realm of science. It produces nothing of any real utility for investigating the natural world and ultimately, no requirement for 'philosophical' arguments to be true or factual.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 8, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Oh yeah, you two are definitely the chosen ones, LOL
> 
> However, here's a well edumacated response for your bonus edification:
> 
> Take it slow... so as not to choke on all that crow.


LOL!

You don't even realize that you just provided a link to an article that falsifies your gibberish. 

By the way, the misrepresentation/misunderstanding of Vilenkin's response to  Stenger on Arizona Atheist's blog is well known by those who have studied the proofs the BGV theorem.  Indeed, Arizona Atheist abandoned his blog in humiliation after word got.

You obviously only read the question, not the answer, in the article you yourself cited, dummy.  Read the entire article:



> Thanks for forwarding this post, Rebecca! Despite its confident--indeed, we have to say, smug--tone, this atheist’s post is riddled with errors, exposing his claim to have studied cosmology “_extensively_” and to “_understand the subject well_” as just so much empty posturing. You needn’t be intimidated by his condescending assertions that “_when you actually understand the cosmology, and when you actually ask real cosmologists. . . , you can see that theistic apologists exclusively misrepresent the BVG theorem._” You may be assured that I and my collaborator James Sinclair have discussed these issues personally (and carried on extensive correspondence) with not only Vilenkin, but also such prominent cosmologists as George Ellis, Christopher Isham, Donald Page, James Hartle, Robert Brout, and many others in order to ensure the accuracy of our work.[1]
> 
> Some of your friend’s mistakes are just amusing, some more serious.
> 
> ...


Misrepresenting the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem | Reasonable Faith


> Neither Susskind nor Guth nor Carroll has been able to craft a tenable model of a beginningless universe. In fact, the Carroll-Chen model advocated by Guth to evade the BGV theorem’s implications features a reversal of time’s arrow in the past, which is not merely non-physical, but implies the very beginning of the universe that Guth wanted to avoid, and Vilenkin takes him to task for it.[6]
> 
> So in 2012 Vilenkin reported: “There are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.”[7] Again, in 2015: “We have no viable models of an eternal universe.  The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.”[8] Again, in 2017: “Many people once again hoped that maybe on a far greater scale the universe is indeed eternal--with ancestor bubbles nucleating ad infinitum into the past. Now, however, we know that this is not possible. And once again, the beginning of the universe must be tackled head on.”[9]
> 
> ...







__





						Misrepresenting the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem | Reasonable Faith
					

Hello Dr. Craig  I hope you can help me to umderstand the observation an atheist guy who studies cosmology said about the beginning of the universe and the.very fact, that christian apologists misrepresent what the BVG theorem:




					www.reasonablefaith.org
				




Also, see:  *








						In the Beginning Was the Beginning
					

By now, there’s scientific consensus that our universe exploded into existence almost 14 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. But that theory raises more questions about the universe’s origins than it answers, including the most basic one: what happened before the Big Bang? Some...




					now.tufts.edu
				




 *


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 8, 2021)

Wow, did I strike a rinse & repeat noive!


----------



## Hollie (Dec 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> LOL!
> 
> You don't even realize that you just provided a link to an article that falsifies your gibberish.
> 
> ...



There are no 'pwoofs'' of the BGV theorem. You have learned well from the charlatan William Lane Craig that if you play fast and loose with the truth, a few of the gullible won't question the lies. 

**


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 8, 2021)

Hollie said:


> There are no incontrovertible first principles of logic or metaphysics that support claims to supernaturalism. The first principle of a valid argument is that the conclusion will be true when a valid premise is true. Religious extremists use a faulty characterization such that they define a presupposed conclusion and then construct a faulty premise derived from metaphysics
> 
> Metaphysics may suggest anything you want because ultimately there is no requirement for the conclusion to necessarily follow a logical progression of ideas from the premise.
> 
> Metaphysics is the sacred cow of ID'iot creationer ministries because magic and supernaturalism is not of science. Metaphysics is as useful as tarot card reading when introduced into the realm of science. It produces nothing of any real utility for investigating the natural world and ultimately, no requirement for 'philosophical' arguments to be true or factual.


Regardless of the exact history of the cosmos_—_whether the prevailing universe is but one in a cyclical series or a multiverse—the cosmological configuration _in toto_ necessarily began to exist in the finite past _ex nihilo_. Those who grasp the incontrovertible first principles of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics, those who grasp the various scientific proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem, know this.

Any opinion to the contrary is the la-la of irrationality of ignorance.

End of discussion.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Regardless of the exact history of the cosmos_—_whether the prevailing universe is but one in a cyclical series or a multiverse—the cosmological configuration _in toto_ necessarily began to exist in the finite past _ex nihilo_. Those who grasp the incontrovertible first principles of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics, those who grasp the various scientific proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem, know this.
> 
> Any opinion to the contrary is the la-la of irrationality of ignorance.
> 
> End of discussion.


Repeating the falsehood that there is a 'pwoof' of the BGV theorem is simply repeating a falsehood. We can conclude that because you can offer no 'pwoof'.

Your silly 'end of discussion' slogan is the rant of a twelve year old who is suffering from hurt feelings / feelings of inadequacy.


See how that works?


----------



## james bond (Dec 9, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Uncontrollable laughter is often the sign of a mental illness, Thumpy.


It's natural laughter which is good for you -- Laughter is good for the soul.

Too bad you aren't the laughter or joyful type.  You are the grumpy.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 9, 2021)

james bond said:


> The verifiable evidence is the Bible and that it explains the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  What you want stated as evidence is illogical such as evolution as it is neither observable nor testable.  What was tested was that abiogenesis is impossible by Louis Pasteur's swan neck experiment.  It means creation.
> 
> The final conclusive evidence is that atheists and sinners need to die.  Unfortunately, I won't be there to see it, but you can witness what happened to the believers and I.



“_The final conclusive evidence is that atheists and sinners need to die_.”

Who else thinks the Jimmy Bond character is a danger to himself and others. He seems to willingly represent himself as a Cult loon, something of a wannabe Jim Jones.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 9, 2021)

james bond said:


> It's natural laughter which is good for you -- Laughter is good for the soul.
> 
> Too bad you aren't the laughter or joyful type.  You are the grumpy.


This, from the hyper-religious loon.

There’s nothing “natural” about religious Cults.


----------



## surada (Dec 9, 2021)

james bond said:


> The verifiable evidence is the Bible and that it explains the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  What you want stated as evidence is illogical such as evolution as it is neither observable nor testable.  What was tested was that abiogenesis is impossible by Louis Pasteur's swan neck experiment.  It means creation.
> 
> The final conclusive evidence is that atheists and sinners need to die.  Unfortunately, I won't be there to see it, but you can witness what happened to the believers and I.



Not exactly.


Evolution doesn't work the way you think it does








						Evolution doesn't work the way you think it does
					

An evolutionary biologist explains all the things you might get into an argument over




					massivesci.com
				



Nov 22, 2020 · This distinction between evolution and creation is especially important in the context of the origin of life. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. It explains how life has changed after it originated. It also explains the origin of new species, most famously described by Darwin in On the Origin of Species. It is generally accepted among evolutionary biologists that all species on Earth have


----------



## james bond (Dec 9, 2021)

Hollie said:


> “_The final conclusive evidence is that atheists and sinners need to die_.”
> 
> Who else thinks the Jimmy Bond character is a danger to himself and others. He seems to willingly represent himself as a Cult loon, something of a wannabe Jim Jones.


Lol.  Everyone _must_ die as we're not in Paradise anymore.  I'm not wishing early death upon the atheists and sinners, but a few may die early due to chance, ill health, or circumstance.  The main point is atheists dying is the only way to prove to them that I am right and they are wrong.  That's in the Bible and science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.


----------



## james bond (Dec 9, 2021)

surada said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> 
> Evolution doesn't work the way you think it does
> ...


I've continued to say evolution is a lie, doesn't work, and now we've discovered it isn't even science.  *It's just an idea with no science behind it like the atheist's belief in the eternal universe.*


----------



## Hollie (Dec 9, 2021)

james bond said:


> Lol.  Everyone _must_ die as we're not in Paradise anymore.  I'm not wishing early death upon the atheists and sinners, but a few may die early due to chance, ill health, or circumstance.  The main point is atheists dying is the only way to prove to them that I am right and they are wrong.  That's in the Bible and science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.


LOL.

You might want to consider some life choices you have made. That you revile the infidel causes you to litter threads in the S&T forums with hard-sell proselytizing. Let go of the hate you harbor for others  and the hate you direct inwards. Don't bring your statements that the infidel must die into these forums. You don't seem to understand that you present yourself as an  intolerant, hyper-religious loon.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 9, 2021)

james bond said:


> I've continued to say evolution is a lie, doesn't work, and now we've discovered it isn't even science.  *It's just an idea with no science behind it like the atheist's belief in the eternal universe.*


You have continued to write false, nonsensical comments that have no reason to be dumped into these threads.


----------



## surada (Dec 9, 2021)

Hollie said:


> LOL.
> 
> You might want to consider some life choices you have made. That you revile the infidel causes you to litter threads in the S&T forums with hard-sell proselytizing. Let go of the hate you harbor for others  and the hate you direct inwards. Don't bring your statements that the infidel must die into these forums. You don't seem to understand that you present yourself as an  intolerant, hyper-religious loon.



Jews, Christians and Muslims are not infidels..They all believe in the same God. Infidel is a French word from the 15th century.


----------



## james bond (Dec 9, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You have continued to write false, nonsensical comments that have no reason to be dumped into these threads.


>>*It's just an idea with no science behind it like the atheist's belief in the eternal **universe. *<<

It's true.  Atheists and their scientists used to believe in an eternal universe.  There was no science behind that belief.

Look at miserable surada trying to claim I do not understand BS evolution.    My post #122 was very satisfactory.  It was like going in and tearing the atheists' and their scientists' hearts out metaphorically.


----------



## surada (Dec 9, 2021)

james bond said:


> >>*It's just an idea with no science behind it like the atheist's belief in the eternal **universe. *<<
> 
> It's true.  Atheists and their scientists used to believe in an eternal universe.  There was no science behind that belief.
> 
> Look at miserable surada trying to claim I do not understand BS evolution.    My post #122 was very satisfactory.  It was like going in and tearing the atheists' and their scientists' hearts out metaphorically.



Oh I am not miserble, you silly ass. Evolution is observable .. They just don't know how life started.









						Evolution doesn't work the way you think it does
					

An evolutionary biologist explains all the things you might get into an argument over




					massivesci.com


----------



## Hollie (Dec 9, 2021)

james bond said:


> >>*It's just an idea with no science behind it like the atheist's belief in the eternal **universe. *<<
> 
> It's true.  Atheists and their scientists used to believe in an eternal universe.  There was no science behind that belief.
> 
> Look at miserable surada trying to claim I do not understand BS evolution.    My post #122 was very satisfactory.  It was like going in and tearing the atheists' and their scientists' hearts out metaphorically.


There's nothing metaphorical about your profound ignorance.


----------



## james bond (Dec 9, 2021)

surada said:


> Oh I am not miserble, you silly ass. Evolution is observable .. They just don't know how life started.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course, you are miserable.  Google has your location history and other private data and can reveal it to the world for a price.

That's a fact, but evolution isn't.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 9, 2021)

ding said:


> Apparently you will make any argument - no matter how ridiculous - to deny that the cosmic background radiation is proof that the universe was created from nothing, There is literally no other explanation for it.
> 
> Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.  Saying the Cosmic Background Radiation informs us of the massive matter / anti-matter annihilations which dominated the radiation era does not mean it spoke to us, dummy.
> 
> So I will say to you again... you don't know what you are talking about.


In mainstream Science!, your own Minkowski-Einstein-"spacetime" terms, here's what "the Cosmic Background Radiation informs us" regarding any "massive matter / anti-matter annihilations which dominated the radiation era" and/or anything else hypothetically associated for that matter, "dummy":


> Because signals and other causal influences cannot travel faster than light (see special relativity), the light cone plays an essential role in defining the concept of causality: for a given event E, the set of events that lie on or inside the past light cone of E would also be the set of all events that could send a signal that would have time to reach E and influence it in some way.


Now take "The *Big Bang* theory" itself, being "the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution", or simply put, it's cause, again according to your own Science!, as that "E" and there you go.

Even Einstein would call the pair of you idiots. He'd say "You don't know wtf you're talking about!" and he'd be right.. even though he didn't either, as Tesla noted when he began ranting about time being capable of warping space and vice versa. "_Nein, nicht, dummkopf! It's zee Aether I tells ya!"_


----------



## surada (Dec 9, 2021)

james bond said:


> Of course, you are miserable.  Google has your location history and other private data and can reveal it to the world for a price.
> 
> That's a fact, but evolution isn't.



Is that some kind of threat? What's wrong with you?

I am a very happy,secure person.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 9, 2021)

james bond said:


> Of course, you are miserable.  Google has your location history and other private data and can reveal it to the world for a price.
> 
> That's a fact, but evolution isn't.


Odd that the fact of biological evolution is fully demonstrated in science. It's Flat Earth believing Christians who are the science deniers.


----------



## james bond (Dec 9, 2021)

surada said:


> Is that some kind of threat? What's wrong with you?
> 
> I am a very happy,secure person.


Nobody cares that you claim to be a "happy,secure person."  Am I happy that liberal extremists, terrorists, and criminal suspects are being tracked?  It has little to do with evolution nor atheist religion.

Law enforcement can't use your "private" data in a court of law, but they can tell if you lied to their questions.  Of course, they can get access w/o pay.

Again, that's fact while evolution isn't.  I ♥ saying that, i.e. the last part lol.


----------



## surada (Dec 9, 2021)

james bond said:


> Nobody cares that you claim to be a "happy,secure person."  Am I happy that liberal extremists, terrorists, and criminal suspects are being tracked?  It has little to do with evolution nor atheist religion.
> 
> Law enforcement can't use your "private" data in a court of law, but they can tell if you lied to their questions.  Of course, they can get access w/o pay.
> 
> Again, that's fact while evolution isn't.  I ♥ saying that, i.e. the last part lol.



Meister

Are you insane? Why on earth would law enforcement come after me?

What exactly are you trying to say?


----------



## james bond (Dec 9, 2021)

surada said:


> Is that some kind of threat? What's wrong with you?


Interesting that you think my post is a "threat."  You and Hollie have said much worse.  Second, you should be angry and blame these com cos that keep and sell the data.  It's an invasion of privacy.  Why don't you get off your miserable butt and contact your congress person?


----------



## surada (Dec 9, 2021)

james bond said:


> Interesting that you think my post is a "threat."  You and Hollie have said much worse.  Second, you should be angry and blame these com cos that keep and sell the data.  It's an invasion of privacy.  Why don't you get off your miserable butt and contact your congress person?



What are you talking about? No one has threatened you. Most certainly I haven't, What "data" are you talking about? What invasion of privacy?


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 9, 2021)

Can the almighty create a stone that he cannot  lift?

If the creator sees everything in advance, then he does not have the ability to change anything.

If he was perfect, then why would he create anything else? Is he so imperfect?

Etc.


----------



## james bond (Dec 9, 2021)

surada said:


> What are you talking about? No one has threatened you. Most certainly I haven't, What "data" are you talking about? What invasion of privacy?


Never mind.  You are too stupid to figure out anything for yourself lol.  I'll never tell you anything of interest again.  Forget it.


----------



## surada (Dec 9, 2021)

james bond said:


> Never mind.  You are too stupid to figure out anything for yourself lol.  I'll never tell you anything of interest again.  Forget it.



Are you IFB?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Regardless of the exact history of the cosmos_—_whether the prevailing universe is but one in a cyclical series or a multiverse—the cosmological configuration _in toto_ necessarily began to exist in the finite past _ex nihilo_.  Those who grasp the incontrovertible first principles of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics, those who grasp the various scientific proofs per the laws of thermodynamics and the BGV theorem, know this.
> 
> Any opinion to the contrary is the la-la of irrationality of ignorance.
> 
> End of discussion.


It is not known using logic, math, nor metaphysics by any discipline or person what happens prior to the first few picoseconds of the origin of the universe.
.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 9, 2021)

james bond said:


> Lol.  Everyone _must_ die as we're not in Paradise anymore.  I'm not wishing early death upon the atheists and sinners, but a few may die early due to chance, ill health, or circumstance.  The main point is atheists dying is the only way to prove to them that I am right and they are wrong.  That's in the Bible and science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.


Jeez you are obsessed with death. Are you doing OK?. I don't want to lose my BFF.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 9, 2021)

james bond said:


> Of course, you are miserable. Google has your location history and other private data and can reveal it to the world for a price.


Good God. This is getting really sick.


----------



## surada (Dec 9, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Good God. This is getting really sick.



Very sick.. He's expressed his beliefs repeatedly.. I think he is IFB.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 9, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Can the almighty create a stone that he cannot  lift?
> 
> If the creator sees everything in advance, then he does not have the ability to change anything.
> 
> ...


Yes, when you talk about an omnipotent being you run into logical contradictions. You can't do much of anything with just words on a piece of paper.
.


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> In mainstream Science!, your own Minkowski-Einstein-"spacetime" terms, here's what "the Cosmic Background Radiation informs us" regarding any "massive matter / anti-matter annihilations which dominated the radiation era" and/or anything else hypothetically associated for that matter, "dummy":
> 
> Now take "The *Big Bang* theory" itself, being "the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution", or simply put, it's cause, again according to your own Science!, as that "E" and there you go.
> 
> Even Einstein would call the pair of you idiots. He'd say "You don't know wtf you're talking about!" and he'd be right.. even though he didn't either, as Tesla noted when he began ranting about time being capable of warping space and vice versa. "_Nein, nicht, dummkopf! It's zee Aether I tells ya!"_


Thank you for proving my point that you believe any response is a valid response.

When you can tell me where and how all that radiation came about let me know.  Because the radiation emitted by the stars since the beginning of the universe is negligible compared to massive amount of cosmic background radiation that we can measure.  Until then in my eyes you will remain an imbecile  who thinks he talks as good game.  Much like fort fun and the other militant atheist trolls.


----------



## james bond (Dec 9, 2021)

surada said:


> Are you IFB?


I am FTW as everyone here knows.

What about the surada and the atheists here?  FTL.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> I am FTW as everyone here knows.
> 
> What about the surada and the atheists here?  FTL.


The nearest abbreviation for FTW that I found in an urban dictionary that makes sense in this context is Fuck The World. That is a rather depressing attitude.
.


----------



## surada (Dec 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The nearest abbreviation for FTW that I found in an urban dictionary that makes sense in this context is Fuck The World. That is a rather depressing attitude.
> .



Freedom That Lasts – Independent Baptist Church





						Freedom That Lasts – Independent Baptist Church
					






					www.ibcbolingbrook.org
				



Nov 28, 2021 · Want to be Biblically mentored through life’s issues? Independent Baptist Church offers Freedom That Lasts, a Christ-centered, Bible-based discipleship ministry. Come learn how you can win life’s battles through Jesus Christ. The group meets at 406 Boughton Road, Bolingbrook, every Thursday evening at 7:00 p.m.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 10, 2021)

surada said:


> Freedom That Lasts – Independent Baptist Church


Thanks. What about FTW?


----------



## surada (Dec 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Thanks. What about FTW?



More games. He doesn't want to admit he's IFB,


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 10, 2021)

surada said:


> More games. He doesn't want to admit he's IFB,


Hmm... I would think he would be proud of that.


----------



## james bond (Dec 10, 2021)

surada said:


> More games. He doesn't want to admit he's IFB,


You really want more games?  I know Amazon technology and servers, so it wouldn't be that hard to.  BOLO for a clue coming your way.

ETA:  Dam.  Just think if I had location histories lol.


----------



## ding (Dec 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> It is not known using logic, math, nor metaphysics by any discipline or person what happens prior to the first few picoseconds of the origin of the universe.
> .


It can be known through logic.  There are only two options; the universe began or the universe has always existed.  By inspection we can eliminate the universe always existing (SLoT).  We can also eliminate the universe being created from pre-existing matter by inspection (SLoT).  Which leaves us with the only possible logical explanation.  That the universe was spontaneously created from nothing.  There's even an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.



			[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
		




			https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 10, 2021)

ding said:


> It can be known through logic.  There are only two options; the universe began or the universe has always existed.  By inspection we can eliminate the universe always existing (SLoT).  We can also eliminate the universe being created from pre-existing matter by inspection (SLoT).  Which leaves us with the only possible logical explanation.  That the universe was spontaneously created from nothing.  There's even an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm very aware of vacuum fluctuations. There is also the Brane Theory in String Theory. But we still don't know the exact physical mechanism. We can only guess at possibilities.


----------



## ding (Dec 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> I'm very aware of vacuum fluctuations. There is also the Brane Theory in String Theory. But we still don't know the exact physical mechanism. We can only guess at possibilities.


With respect to the universe being created from pre-existing matter or from nothing, what difference would that make?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 10, 2021)

ding said:


> With respect to the universe being created from pre-existing matter or from nothing, what difference would that make?


Makes no difference to me. I have no belief in it one way or the other.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 10, 2021)

ding said:


> Thank you for proving my point that you believe any response is a valid response.
> 
> When you can tell me where and how all that radiation came about let me know.  Because the radiation emitted by the stars since the beginning of the universe is negligible compared to massive amount of cosmic background radiation that we can measure.  Until then in my eyes you will remain an imbecile  who thinks he talks as good game.  Much like fort fun and the other militant atheist trolls.


Ah, so pissy personal attack and more mainstream spam about the CBR is really all you've got. Nothing pertaining to what you were supposedly responding to as usual. Sorry for the delay.. Just haven't managed to take you off ignore yet for some reason? But, since you can't respond to anyone reasonably, do run along, and be sure to collect _all_ that "radiation emitted by the stars since the beginning of the universe" for us all to wow, weigh, contrast, and compare to actual things,.. "that _we can_ _measure_",.. son.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Ah, so pissy personal attack and more mainstream spam about the CBR is really all you've got. Nothing pertaining to what you were supposedly responding to as usual. Sorry for the delay.. Just haven't managed to take you off ignore yet for some reason? But, since you can't respond to anyone reasonably, do run along, and be sure to collect _all_ that "radiation emitted by the stars since the beginning of the universe" for us all to wow, weigh, contrast, and compare to actual things,.. "that _we can_ _measure_",.. son.


I'm just giving you what you want.  It's the level you seem to prefer to operate on.  

Again... When you can tell me where and how all that radiation came about let me know. Because the radiation emitted by the stars since the beginning of the universe is negligible compared to massive amount of cosmic background radiation that we can measure.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Makes no difference to me. I have no belief in it one way or the other.


I wasn't asking what difference it makes to you.  I was asking you what difference it makes to determining if the universe was or wasn't created from existing matter.


----------



## surada (Dec 11, 2021)

james bond said:


> You really want more games?  I know Amazon technology and servers, so it wouldn't be that hard to.  BOLO for a clue coming your way.
> 
> ETA:  Dam.  Just think if I had location histories lol.



Is that a threat?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> It can be known through logic.  There are only two options; the universe began or the universe has always existed.  By inspection we can eliminate the universe always existing (SLoT).  We can also eliminate the universe being created from pre-existing matter by inspection (SLoT).  Which leaves us with the only possible logical explanation.  That the universe was spontaneously created from nothing.  There's even an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Using statistical mechanics in a well behaved system to define entropy is one thing. 

Assuming anything about entropy in an extreme non-equilibrium condition at a singularity followed by inflation of an expanding space is quite a different thing. 

I don't think we can eliminate anything on the basis of entropy. What happens at time zero plus or minus a few picoseconds is unknown.
.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Using statistical mechanics in a well behaved system to define entropy is one thing.
> 
> Assuming anything about entropy in an extreme non-equilibrium condition at a singularity followed by inflation of an expanding space is quite a different thing.
> 
> ...


I think you are over complicating it.  Do you believe in perpetual motion or do you believe that the SLoT precludes perpetual motion from happening? Do you believe that the universe can heat up again without any energy being added or do you believe that the SLoT precludes the universe from heating up again without any energy being added?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> I think you are over complicating it. Do you believe in perpetual motion or do you believe that the SLoT precludes perpetual motion from happening?


If you are talking about a perpetual motion machine sitting on a patent attorney's desk, the answer is clear. However it simply is complex near a singularity. 


ding said:


> Do you believe that the universe can heat up again without any energy being added or do you believe that the SLoT precludes the universe from heating up again without any energy being added?


If you are talking about the universe with a substantial volume, then it seems that you are talking about the first law, and "Heat up again" makes no sense. 

I assume you are talking about an oscillating universe. In that case you would presumably have a singularity of implosion. I don't even know how you would define entropy at the singularity. 

.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 11, 2021)

The so-called Laws of Thermodynamics presume a "closed system" -- so ding says "Presto! Magic! The Universe is a closed system! Never mind that it keeps growing bigger and bigger as our telescopes get better and better..

Nope, ding somehow knows exactly how much light has radiated from all those stars in those seemingly limitless, solid walls of new galaxies that no one's ever seen before.. Ding! Same circularly reasoned, braindead spam pasta, different year!


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> If you are talking about a perpetual motion machine sitting on a patent attorney's desk, the answer is clear. However it simply is complex near a singularity.
> 
> If you are talking about the universe with a substantial volume, then it seems that you are talking about the first law, and "Heat up again" makes no sense.
> 
> ...


Yes, I am talking about why an oscillating universe which had no beginning is impossible.  I thought that was obvious.  My bad.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> The so-called Laws of Thermodynamics presume a "closed system" -- so ding says "Presto! Magic! The Universe is a closed system! Never mind that it keeps growing bigger and bigger as our telescopes get better and better..
> 
> Nope, ding somehow knows exactly how much light has radiated from all those stars in those seemingly limitless, solid walls of new galaxies that no one's ever seen before.. Ding! Same braindead spam pasta, different year!


ummmm... ding knows what created the signature of the cosmic background radiation.  Something you keep avoiding discussing.  

ding also knows that nothing becomes more ordered unless work is put into it.  



			[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> With respect to the universe being created from pre-existing matter or from nothing, what difference would that make?


As a practical matter to my life today?  Not much. But you never know.  If that question can ever be answered, it could lead to amazing new science or maybe ways of thinking.

I’m still unclear though. If it came from absolutely nothing, there would have been literally nothing to get the ball rolling.  If it came from something, then on the assumption that no thing can be it’s own cause, the question is still: where did that stuff come from?  

some people point to all the radiation in the universe as the thing that always existed.  But then … where did that come from?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 11, 2021)




----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> As a practical matter to my life today?  Not much. But you never know.  If that question can ever be answered, it could lead to amazing new science or maybe ways of thinking.
> 
> I’m still unclear though. If it came from absolutely nothing, there would have been literally nothing to get the ball rolling.  If it came from something, then on the assumption that no thing can be it’s own cause, the question is still: where did that stuff come from?
> 
> some people point to all the radiation in the universe as the thing that always existed.  But then … where did that come from?


Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

I explained to you where the radiation came from in post #39.  And no, it did not always exist.  



ding said:


> In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered the cosmic background radiation - a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.
> 
> It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion _and one_ particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


>


Your enjoyment of your remaining life will take a turn for the better when you ditch your sour disposition.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.
> 
> I explained to you where the radiation came from in post #39.  And no, it did not always exist.


I enjoy this thread. I do not have enough information to reach any conclusion which I can support. Even if there’s something I find I inately appealing about the notion of a mind which pre-existed all else, I confess I’m still wondering: Where could such a “mind” come from, in the first place?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 11, 2021)

Fun video, weepy. Smell some coffee. Waking up might help you cheer up


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> I enjoy this thread. I do not have enough information to reach any conclusion which I can support. Even if there’s something I find I inately appealing about the notion of a mind which pre-existed all else, I confess I’m still wondering: Where could such a “mind” come from, in the first place?


I addressed that in post #33.



ding said:


> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is "something" which is eternal and unchanging. For if "something" is changing it cannot be eternal for it has changed. Which in reality means that this "something" must be "no thing." Because "things" like energy and matter are not unchanging and therefore cannot be eternal.
> 
> For any given thing there will be a final state of fact. Where it will be known that it was always that way and will always be that way even when it was believed otherwise. This is called objective truth or reality or existence. Objective truth is an example of "no thing" which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> So to answer your question where did that something come from? The answer is no where. It has always existed and will always exist. And it isn't a "something," it is "no thing."


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Fun video, weepy. Smell some coffee. Waking up might help you cheer up


Way ahead of you.  I just got back from the driving range.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 11, 2021)

> An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present {blaa, blaa, blaa} So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.


Quantum wanton condoms! More interesting and compelling? That it wasn't created from nothing. That there's no call or need to pretend FLoT BS can possibly apply to an obviously open system. That no braindead, circular reasoned crap need apply whatsoever. Try enlisting in the space / counterspace recycling program for a happy change.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Quantum wanton condoms! More interesting and compelling? That it wasn't created from nothing. That there's no call or need to pretend FLoT BS can possibly apply to an obviously open system. That no braindead, circular reasoned crap need apply whatsoever. Try enlisting in the space / counterspace recycling program for a happy change.


<ahem>



			[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
		




			https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> <ahem>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Spam, spam, spam, driving range, and spam!


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Spam, spam, spam, driving range, and spam!


<ahem>


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 11, 2021)

And more spam!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 11, 2021)

Will he ever offer anything new?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Yes, I am talking about why an oscillating universe which had no beginning is impossible.  I thought that was obvious.  My bad.


Current observations disfavor an oscillating universe, however the awkwardness of the singularity in handling an imploding universe also exists when handling an exploding universe.

I may come across nihilistic about knowing anything about the origin, but I do think it is a worthwhile game to explore different possibilities as long as you don't become certain that one theory triumphs over all.

You are probably familiar with Brane cosmology and Linde's bubble universes.
.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Current observations disfavor an oscillating universe, however the awkwardness of the singularity in handling an imploding universe also exists when handling an exploding universe.
> 
> I may come across nihilistic about knowing anything about the origin, but I do think it is a worthwhile game to explore different possibilities as long as you don't become certain that one theory triumphs over all.
> 
> ...


How would an oscillating universe leave the cosmic background radiation signature that we can observe and measure?

Same question for Brane cosmology?

What I have been discussing is based upon Linde's work.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Will he ever offer anything new?


I'm pretty happy with how these conversations are going.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> And more spam!


Cool story, bro.  

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> I do think it is a worthwhile game to explore different possibilities


Me too.  But they need to explain how all that radiation came to be.  A universe being created from nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter through a quantum tunneling event does so.


----------



## james bond (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> what difference it makes to determining if the universe was or wasn't created from existing matter.


AFAIK the atheist scientists thought the universe didn't have a beginning and that matter just existed forever.  It really wasn't logical as one would have to have an infinite past and an infinite amount of matter.  They couldn't explain where this matter came from of why it was infinite.  It really wasn't logical.

Today, we know that the universe had a beginning scientifically.  Also, we know there had to be matter as logically we can't have something pop into existence from nothing.  What we disagree on is what was the cause for the starting matter (spacetime, matter) or singularity to exist.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> How would an oscillating universe leave the cosmic background radiation signature that we can observe and measure?
> 
> Same question for Brane cosmology?
> 
> What I have been discussing is based upon Linde's work.


If we were immortal and the universe were collapsing we would see the CMB continually blue shifting. Close to the end of the collapse, it will turn white hot and we would pass through the zone where the universe density is high enough that it is no longer transparent to photons. 

Note: the CMB emanates from the point where the universe has lost enough density so that it is transparent and photons can escape.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Cool story, bro.
> 
> Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning.


Grow up. "First Law":


> The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy *of an isolated system* is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.


What's another term for "an isolated system"? A closed system. Very good. The "known" Universe is obviously neither so you can kindly cut the tired, old, worn out, smelly, dance routine. Thermodynamics does not work in open systems.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> If we were immortal and the universe were collapsing we would see the CMB continually blue shifting. Close to the end of the collapse, it will turn white hot and we would pass through the zone where the universe density is high enough that it is no longer transparent to photons.
> 
> Note: the CMB emanates from the point where the universe has lost enough density so that it is transparent and photons can escape.


What created the radiation in the first place.  That is what I am asking you.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Grow up. "First Law":
> 
> What's another term for "an isolated system"? A closed system. Very good. The "known" Universe is obviously neither so you can kindly cut the tired, old, worn out, smelly, dance routine. Thermodynamics does not work in open systems.


In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.


----------



## james bond (Dec 11, 2021)

surada said:


> Is that a threat?


So timid and cowardly.  Winner, winner, chicken dinner for me.  Loser, loser, now who's dinner for you.


----------



## surada (Dec 11, 2021)

james bond said:


> So timid and cowardly.  Winner, winner, chicken dinner for me.  Loser, loser, now who's dinner for you.



Your threats make you look like a weak man.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> What created the radiation in the first place. That is what I am asking you.


It is analogous to the ideal gas law. Diminish the volume as the universe collapses and the temperature rises. In the case of the CMB galaxies and everything will become a plasma.
.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> It is analogous to the ideal gas law. Diminish the volume as the universe collapses and the temperature rises. In the case of the CMB galaxies and everything will become a plasma.
> .


That does not explain how the radiation got their.  Here's a hint: E=MC^2


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Disregarding neutrinos - which do not interact with other matter - and also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions, our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation.  The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, _E = mc2_, in which _E_ is the energy of the radiation, _m_ is the annihilated mass, and _c_ is the speed of light.

This is where the cosmic background radiation came from; matter / antimatter mutual annhilations.



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## james bond (Dec 11, 2021)

surada said:


> Your threats make you look like a weak man.


Lol, it's you who think they're threats.  What threat did I make?


----------



## surada (Dec 11, 2021)

james bond said:


> Lol, it's you who think they're threats.  What threat did I make?



Damn you are weak. Read your posts.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered the cosmic background radiation - a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion _and one_ particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> That does not explain how the radiation got their.  Here's a hint: E=MC^2


The CMB is thermal radiation. It follows the black body equation. I don't think we are connecting. Are you asking how the energy that produces the radiation got there or what?


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The CMB is thermal radiation. It follows the black body equation. I don't think we are connecting. Are you asking how the energy that produces the radiation got there or what?


Again... you are not explaining what created the radiation in the first place.  I'm not asking how radiation decoupled from matter.  

The radiation was created from matter / antimatter annihilation.  Read posts #195 and 198.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The CMB is thermal radiation.


When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, _E = mc2_, in which _E_ is the energy of the radiation, _m_ is the annihilated mass, and _c_ is the speed of light.

This is where the cosmic background radiation came from; matter / antimatter mutual annhilations.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Disregarding neutrinos - which do not interact with other matter - and also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions, our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation.  The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, _E = mc2_, in which _E_ is the energy of the radiation, _m_ is the annihilated mass, and _c_ is the speed of light.
> 
> This is where the cosmic background radiation came from; matter / antimatter mutual annhilations.
> 
> ...





ding said:


> In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered the cosmic background radiation - a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.
> 
> It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion _and one_ particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.
> 
> ...


Yes, I know all about the Standard Model. I know all about the history of the CMB. And I know about the mystery of the matter-antimatter imbalance.

Believe me you are preaching to the choir. But you are very ambiguous in your postings and I don't know what you are thinking or what your point is.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

It is commonly agreed that [cosmic background radiation] is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate 



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

Yes, as I said I know all that. I still don't know what your point is.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Yes, I know all about the Standard Model. I know all about the history of the CMB. And I know about the mystery of the matter-antimatter imbalance.
> 
> Believe me you are preaching to the choir. But you are very ambiguous in your postings and I don't know what you are thinking or what your point is.


I'm using direct quotes from George Wald, Nobel Laureate. 

My point is that whatever origin theory one comes up with must explain how a massive amount (1 billion times the mass of the universe in matter particles and 1 billion times the mass of the universe in anti-matter particles) came from.  There is only one theory that I know of that addresses this; the universe being created from nothing.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Yes, as I said I know all that. I still don't know what your point is.


I don't believe you did, sorry.  Because if you did you would have recognized the importance CMB plays in explaining the origin of the universe.  It's not a minor detail.  It's center stage.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The CMB is thermal radiation


This is 100% incorrect.  You are describing infrared waves or heat.  The CMB are photons.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

Your focus early on was on the nature of the CMB not so much where the energy came from. So my answer was BB radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> This is 100% incorrect. You are describing infrared waves or heat. The CMB are photons.


The COBE satellite found it very accurately had the shape of BB radiation. So what we saw was very hot red shifted to the microwave region.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The COBE satellite found it very accurately had the shape of BB radiation. So what we saw was very hot red shifted to the microwave region.


What does that have to do with what we are discussing?

Are you arguing that CMB isn't photons?  Because it is; E=MC^2

Are you arguing that CMB is thermal radiation?  Because it isn't.  Thermal radiation is infrared waves or heat.  Right?


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Your focus early on was on the nature of the CMB not so much where the energy came from. So my answer was BB radiation.


Which came from what?  And how much of what?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> This is 100% incorrect. You are describing infrared waves or heat. The CMB are photons.


Far IR is thermal radiation what we see here. It was very hot where it originated. But highly redshifted here.
It has a  wave nature when it goes through space but a particle nature when it was emitted billions of years ago
.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Which came from what?  And how much of what?


I thought we just went through that.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Far IR is thermal radiation what we see here. It was very hot where it originated. But highly redshifted here.
> It has a  wave nature when it goes through space but a particle nature when it was emitted billions of years ago
> .


Dude, just admit you don't know what you are talking about because arguing that the CMB is thermal radiation is 100% incorrect.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> I thought we just went through that.


I need to hear you say it so that I understand that you understand.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Dude, just admit you don't know what you are talking about because arguing that the CMB is thermal radiation is 100% incorrect.


I told you this in earlier posts. This is what I'm talking about. Maybe you will believe it from wikipedia:
_When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with an opaque fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded the plasma grew cooler and the radiation filling it expanded to longer wavelengths. When the temperature had dropped enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms. Unlike the plasma, these newly conceived atoms could not scatter the *thermal radiation* by Thomson scattering, and so the universe became transparent._​
Thermal radiation means it comes from anything that's hot. Thermal radiation isn't always all microwave (eg the sun) It comes with a spectrum called black body radiation. The CMB spectrum maximum was way toward the UV and far from microwave. Like every distant galaxy the radiation was red shifted from that extreme UV all the way down to microwaves. It still had the original shape of the CMB but was shifted so the apparent temperature was 2.7K and not the thousands of degrees of the original source billions of years ago.

You are probably confused by the fact that the CMB is said to be 2.7K. It only appears that way here, but we know better.
.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> I told you this in earlier posts. This is what I'm talking about. Maybe you will believe it from wikipedia:
> _When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with an opaque fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded the plasma grew cooler and the radiation filling it expanded to longer wavelengths. When the temperature had dropped enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms. Unlike the plasma, these newly conceived atoms could not scatter the *thermal radiation* by Thomson scattering, and so the universe became transparent._​
> Thermal radiation means it comes from anything that's hot. Thermal radiation isn't always all microwave (eg the sun) It comes with a spectrum called black body radiation. The CMB spectrum maximum was way toward the UV and far from microwave. Like every distant galaxy the radiation was red shifted from that extreme UV all the way down to microwaves. It still had the original shape of the CMB but was shifted so the apparent temperature was 2.7K and not the thousands of degrees of the original source billions of years ago.
> 
> ...


This is your source of information?  This is why you started talking about plasma and thermal radiation?  No where in this description is the explanation of what CMB is and how it was created.  

Like I said before, you don't know what you are talking about.

Here's a better source.



			The Early Universe
		


You couldn't follow my point (the first three posts of our conversation) - which was clear and concise - because you did not know what CMB was or how it was created.  Now you do.  So that's good.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

james bond said:


> So timid and cowardly. Winner, winner, chicken dinner for me. Loser, loser, now who's dinner for you.


My god. You are really going off the deep end.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> This is your source of information? This is why you started talking about plasma and thermal radiation? No where in this description is the explanation of what CMB is and how it was created.


You emphatically said the CMB was not thermal radiation. Do you disagree with the Wiki citation?
Because if you disagree then all bets are off. But I'm not going to insult you as is your custom.

If you want me to say that the universe came from a sort of vacuum fluctuation with some small asymmetric property of matter/antimatter. Sure that's the best bet, but I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. But when you disagree with some basic physics like the thermal nature of the CMB I pursued that to see if you clearly knew what the physics is.
.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> You emphatically said the CMB was not thermal radiation. Do you disagree with the Wiki citation?
> Because if you disagree then all bets are off. But I'm not going to insult you as is your custom.
> 
> If you want me to say that the universe came from a sort of vacuum fluctuation with some small asymmetric property of matter/antimatter. Sure that's the best bet, but I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. But when you disagree with some basic physics like the thermal nature of the CMB I pursued that to see if you clearly knew what the physics is.
> .


Yes.  CMB is not thermal radiation.  So says E=MC^2.   Thermal radiation is infrared or heat.  

From YOUR link:  Cosmic background radiation is *electromagnetic radiation from the Big Bang*. The origin of this radiation depends on the region of the spectrum that is observed. ... This component is redshifted *photons* that have freely streamed from an epoch when the Universe became transparent for the first time to radiation.



Here are the relevant parts from the link I posted with emphasis added.  

The early universe was radiation dominated
density of radiation exceeded density of matter

After about 50,000 years, the density of matter exceeded the density of radiation for the first time, eventually dominating the universe.
*In the early universe, matter and anti-matter were being created equally out of the radiation*
pair production
pair production is the production of matter and anti-matter in pairs
two photons can produce a pair
particle-antiparticle annihilation (the reverse process) is also possible


Anti-Matter
What is anti-matter (anti-particles)?
A type of matter which has the same mass as normal matter, but opposite charge


particle​charge of particle​anti-particle​charge of anti-particle​proton​positive​anti-proton​negative​neutron​neutral​anti-neutron​neutral​electron​negative​anti-electron or positron​positive​


Matter and anti-matter can be created in pairs from energy *(or electromagnetic radiation)*
E = m c2
E = energy
m = mass
c2 = speed of light squared (here just a constant of proportionality)

For example
energy -------->proton + anti-proton
energy --------> electron + positron

OR matter can annihilate in pairs
proton + anti-proton ----------> energy
electron + positron (anti-electron) ---------> energy



Very early universe (when temperature was 10 billion K)
Due to high temperature *photons* had enough energy to create electron-positron pairs
*Great numbers of electrons and positrons exist in thermal equilibrium with the radiation*

As universe expanded, it cooled
Universe when temperature was 1 billion K
*Photons now have too little energy to create pairs, so electrons and positrons are no longer in thermal equilibrium*

Evolution of Matter

Radiation Era
*(The radiation era lasted for about 50,000 years)*
Planck Epoch
First 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang
No current theory of physics (quantum gravity) exists

GUT (Grand Unified Theory) Epoch
After 10-43 seconds, temperature fell to 1032 K

Quark Epoch
Creation of protons and neutrons continued for about 10-4 seconds
*Temperature drops below 1013 K, and protons and neutrons are no longer produced in pairs*

Lepton Epoch
Ends when the universe is *about 100 seconds old*
*During this epoch, the leptons (electrons, neutrinos, and other light particles) are still produced in pairs, because they are light*
Ends when temperature drops below 1 billion K

Nuclear Epoch (*first few minutes*)
Protons and neutrons fuse into nuclei
By the time the universe is about 15 minutes old, much of the helium had been formed

*Crossover from radiation to matter dominance begins at 50,000 years at a temperature of 16,000 K*



Matter Era
Atomic Epoch
Begins about 50,000 years after the Big Bang
Atoms form and remain intact (electrons attached to nuclei)
Electromagnetic radiation *decouples*
Cosmic Microwave Background appears

Ends 200,000,000 years after Big Bang

Galactic Epoch
Large scale structure and bulk of most galaxies form
Lasts from 200,000,000 years to 3,000,000,000 after Big Bang

Stellar Epoch
Stars continue to form up to today
Extends into the Dark Energy Era


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> If you want me to say that the universe came from a sort of vacuum fluctuation with some small asymmetric property of matter/antimatter. Sure that's the best bet, but I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. But when you disagree with some basic physics like the thermal nature of the CMB I pursued that to see if you clearly knew what the physics is.


I don't care what you believe as long as you can reconcile the existence of CMB with it.  I've done that. 

Like I said before there are only two options; the universe began or the universe always existed.  Despite your objections, the universe always existing violate the SLoT, so that can be ruled out.

So for the case of the universe began there are also only two options; it was created from existing matter or it was created from nothing.  Of these two options we can eliminate the universe being created from existing matter because under that scenario there is no mechanism (i.e. no paired production) to create the background radiation which is massive to say the least; two billion times more matter went into creating the CMB than the remaining matter in the universe. 

I wasn't insulting you.  I truly believe you don't understand the CMB or how it came to be or its significance in answering the origin questions.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> You emphatically said the CMB was not thermal radiation. Do you disagree with the Wiki citation?
> Because if you disagree then all bets are off. But I'm not going to insult you as is your custom.
> 
> If you want me to say that the universe came from a sort of vacuum fluctuation with some small asymmetric property of matter/antimatter. Sure that's the best bet, but I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. But when you disagree with some basic physics like the thermal nature of the CMB I pursued that to see if you clearly knew what the physics is.
> .


Yes, he's always blatantly disregarded everything I've shared from Wikipedia as well. Because his few gods like George Wald said this or that it simply must be so. Why be imaginative? Why think critically? Why question any of the self-flatulating malarkey trickled down upon us from those deemed most worthy in academia? Talking to a wall is more productive. At least they'll shut up and actually listen to a different perspective once in a while.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> I don't care what you believe


They ya go. 'Nuff said.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Yes, he's always blatantly disregarded everything I've shared from Wikipedia as well. Because his few gods like George Wald said this or that it simply must be so. Why be imaginative? Why think critically? Why question any of the self-flatulating malarkey trickled down upon us from those deemed most worthy in academia? Talking to a wall is more productive. At least they'll shut up and actually listen to a different perspective once in a while.


You are just like FortFun.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> They ya go. 'Nuff said.


Leave it to you to take a post out of context, FortFun. 

At least you have surada on your side.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Leave it to you to take a post out of context, FortFun.


Wow, so you really think "I don't care what you believe" calls for context?


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Wow, so you really think "I don't care what you believe" calls for context?


Yeah, especially when you don't finish the sentence.  

I would say that....

_I don't care what you believe _​​_versus_​​_I don't care what you believe as long as you can reconcile the existence of CMB with it. _​
Have two totally different meanings.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Wow, so you really think "I don't care what you believe" calls for context?


Maybe you should ask surada if she agrees with you


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> I would say that....
> 
> _I don't care what you believe _


says "*It's all about ME!!!* I mean, here I am on a public forum simply demanding you answer everything my way or hit the highway. It says you're akin to a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> says "*It's all about ME!!!* I mean, here I am on a public forum simply demanding you answer everything my way or hit the highway. It says you're akin to a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.


Whereas I would say that about someone who intentionally parsed posts to take them out of context for the express purpose of bearing false witness.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> says "*It's all about ME!!!* I mean, here I am on a public forum simply demanding you answer everything my way or hit the highway. It says you're akin to a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.


Seriously, bro... you can't see how...

_I don't care what you believe _​​_versus_​​_I don't care what you believe as long as you can reconcile the existence of CMB with it. _​
...have two totally different meanings?  Seriously?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Whereas I would say that about someone who intentionally parsed posts to take them out of context for the express purpose of bearing false witness.


You would. And did!


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> You would.


Absolutely.  People who bear false witness should suffer consequences, no?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Absolutely.  People who bear false witness should suffer consequences, no?


It's a public forum. Anyone who cares can easily see the entire context. I'm done. Bubbye!


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> It's a public forum. Anyone who cares can easily see the entire context. I'm done. Bubbye!


Which makes it even more strange that you would try to take it out of context and expect to not get called on it.  Bubbye!


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Yes. CMB is not thermal radiation. So says E=MC^2. Thermal radiation is infrared or heat.


Look up black body radiation. Also look up Wein Displacement Law. It will tell you that it is not just LWIR. Look up sun black body radiation. It will show you it radiates well into the UV - short wave.

Einstein's law has absolutely nothing to do with BB radiation. BB radiation was investigated in the mid 1800's long before relativity. You seem to think that the CMB radiation is directly from matter-antimatter interactions, but you never said that directly, So I have no idea what you are thinking. What is happening is that those interactions heat up the early universe, and it's BB radiation from that heat that escapes.


ding said:


> From YOUR link: Cosmic background radiation is *electromagnetic radiation from the Big Bang*. The origin of this radiation depends on the region of the spectrum that is observed. ... This component is redshifted *photons* that have freely streamed from an epoch when the Universe became transparent for the first time to radiation.


You used wrong key words (Cosmic background radiation). We are not interested in radiation that comes from other miscellaneous places. You should have used Cosmic microwave background because that is the subject.

I know your primary interest is how the energy of the big bang came about, but nevertheless if you don't believe in the Wiki quote I cited, then all bets are off. Also physics, including SLoT is  not defined at a singularity. The same as trying to solve the physics at a black hole singularity.... Hasn't been done yet.
.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 12, 2021)

fncceo said:


> There was obviously *SOMETHING *before The Big Bang... something outside of our 3 Dimensional Universe.
> 
> There are several theories along those lines, but no way has yet been imagined to design any experiments to confirm them.
> 
> ...


By paragraph:

Yes, especially for those arguing that the entire Universe resulted from the Bang, "3D" or otherwise
True, but only 3 more generations of ultra-super-duper atom smashers at a cost of 20, 100, and 600 trillion dollars will Shirley do the trick.
I think our observational senses are great. We just need to stop the madness and pick back up where we left off, before Einstein distracted everyone with space warpages and silly particles for every occasion,.. experimentally researching the field of electrical science.
Yup.
But before worrying overmuch about our possible dimensional sense limitations, we should seriously review some of our basic physics premises to ferret out some of the accumulated, distracting rot that's been holding us back. I'll provide just one example for now and hope others can add more of the most obvious ones.

Dividing energy into two distinct classes, namely "potential energy"  and "kinetic energy," serves no useful purpose. It just confuses everyone and thereby everything involved. Energy is just energy. We commonly define it as "the ability to do work" but more simply it's _potential to do work _or just_ potential_. Defining "kinetic energy" as "energy in motion" as we've been taught is just crazy. Motion is always relative and where said motion involves work, the energy is expended simultaneously so there's never any net accumulation of energy (or potential).  

Dropping a ball is not work. As a ball falls it gains momentum (not energy) due to its increasing speed. In fact, it supposedly loses classical "potential energy" as it approaches the Earth's surface or any other point of impact. A falling ball performs no work until it's moment of impact where it finally does some work, incrementally exchanging some of its momentum to produce heat until it either comes to rest or rebounds back up with reduced momentum. At each increment the ball's _potential (to do work)_ remains strictly a function of its height and momentum, never its "motion."

It's mass, elasticity, size (when subject to friction), speed, and direction all "potentially" influence the work a falling ball can perform at any given moment. But at no point does its "motion" actually add anything to its potential (to do work). Neither does its "motion" when someone performs the work of lifting back up again.


----------



## ding (Dec 12, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Look up black body radiation. Also look up Wein Displacement Law. It will tell you that it is not just LWIR. Look up sun black body radiation. It will show you it radiates well into the UV - short wave.
> 
> Einstein's law has absolutely nothing to do with BB radiation. BB radiation was investigated in the mid 1800's long before relativity. You seem to think that the CMB radiation is directly from matter-antimatter interactions, but you never said that directly, So I have no idea what you are thinking. What is happening is that those interactions heat up the early universe, and it's BB radiation from that heat that escapes.
> 
> ...


You are kidding, right?


----------



## james bond (Dec 12, 2021)

surada said:


> Damn you are weak. Read your posts.


I don't have to.  Atheists need to die like you in order to get your proof.  Surprising that I have a feeling that it will be a SHOCKING one for you, i.e. lightning or electricity.

ETA:  Here's an interesting forum -- "These Are The Lies You Were Taught About Electricity".


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> I don't have to. Atheists need to die like you in order to get your proof. Surprising that I have a feeling that it will be a SHOCKING one for you, i.e. lightning or electricity.


Another really sick post.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 12, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Another really sick post.


I don’t think the boy realizes that he self-associates with the very worst examples of religious extremists.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 12, 2021)

Hollie said:


> I don’t think the boy realizes that he self-associates with the very worst examples of religious extremists.


Yes. He is going unhinged. This is not the first time he said atheists need to die.  If he lived next door and said that, I would call the police to have him checked out. A lot of mass killers have left hints on social media like this and were ignored. 
.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 13, 2021)

The tremendous response to my post here has inspired me to return with an encore presentation here:
------
So why do we bother with "kinetic" energy?

Think about it. Many different types of energy are designated as "potential" in nature. In the "Kinetic energy" section, Wikipedia lists "chemical energy, thermal energy, electromagnetic radiation, gravitational energy, electric energy, elastic energy, nuclear energy, and rest energy" as different types, none clearly "kinetic" in nature, but only one is generally described as "kinetic" and treated as an entirely different class (or two if one considers the angular case distinct). Also, though it serves the purpose, I doubt that list is nearly exhaustive. You get the idea. Energy deemed "kinetic" is treated as though somehow special. _Why? Why does it get put in its own separate class?_

Well, excuses are made.. and Wikipedia provides some. First it defines "Kinetic energy" as "the movement energy of an object." _Okay, I'm already getting a headache. You mean all the other forms of energy never move?_ No, not that? _What then? The others don't involve objects?_ NO! Hold on. Relax. _What then?_ "Movement energy" is just code for momentum. Uh, times speed. _What? Yeah, I guess none of the others really deal with momentum. So? That difference requires a whole new classification?_ Wait.. Calm down. There's more.

"Kinetic energy can be transferred between objects and transformed into other kinds of energy." _OMG, you're trying to give me a migraine, I swear! So when this alleged transfer takes place, aren't the "other kinds" also being "transferred" and "transformed"?_ Yeah. _So what makes this "kinetic" variety so damn special?_ Wait!

"Kinetic energy may be best understood by examples that demonstrate how it is transformed to and from other forms of energy. For example, a cyclist uses chemical energy provided by food to accelerate a bicycle to a chosen speed. On a level surface, this speed can be maintained without further work, except to overcome air resistance and friction. The chemical energy has been converted into kinetic energy, the energy of motion, but the process is not completely efficient and produces heat within the cyclist."

_Ah, I see. So this "potential", "chemical" variety of energy gets transformed into the "kinetic" class,.. Wait, did I just get that backwards? But then,.. But then! As the cyclist goes down the hill, her "potential" "positional" energy transforms into this "kinetic" variety as well! I think I'm starting to get the hang.. No. Doh!_ Hey, no worries. This'll surely cheer you up. Since you brought up "positional" energy, that's a great example of how "potential" energy is relative..  In this case to a position! _So this "kinetic" kind isn't relative?_ Well, yeah.. Actually, it's all relative. Of course. But you felt a bit of relief there for a second, no?

_Aaaarghhh!    _


----------



## james bond (Dec 14, 2021)

surada said:


> Your threats make you look like a weak man.


I realized my weaknesses with identity protection and did something about it.  My info was found on the dark web.  Now, I am insured against someone using my info to buy things (hasn't happened) and its privacy protection has erased the dark web info.  Currently, I'm on a protected internet instead of an unprotected or public one.  Furthermore, I am going to a protected web on my phone, too, as I changed phone service providers.

Oh yeah.  Atheists and their scientists still need to die to realize they are wrong lol, but I wouldn't wish their id's were stolen .


----------



## surada (Dec 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> I realized my weaknesses with identity protection and did something about it.  My info was found on the dark web.  Now, I am insured against someone using my info to buy things (hasn't happened) and its privacy protection has erased the dark web info.  Currently, I'm on a protected internet instead of an unprotected or public one.  Furthermore, I am going to a protected web on my phone, too, as I changed phone service providers.
> 
> Oh yeah.  Atheists and their scientists still need to die to realize they are wrong lol, but I wouldn't wish their id's were stolen .



I have absolutely no interest in your identity  nor would I even coyly threaten you as you have me.. You aren't that important in the scheme of things.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 14, 2021)

fncceo said:


> There was obviously *SOMETHING *before The Big Bang



why?

I don't get your reasoning?

If space ends, then why not time?  And if time ends?  Then there is no, "before," or "after."


----------



## james bond (Dec 14, 2021)

surada said:


> I have absolutely no interest in your identity  nor would I even coyly threaten you as you have me.. You aren't that important in the scheme of things.


You can believe anything you want, but you seem to enjoy believing in lies.  I enjoy now being insured when buying stuff online as delivery makes life easier w/no car right now .

To the contrary, I am important to God as I am a believer.  Atheists are important to Lucifer and Abaddon, so it's not like your identities aren't known.


----------



## james bond (Dec 14, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


> And if time ends? Then there is no, "before," or "after."


This doesn't make sense.  If time ends, then we know there was a beginning of time.

If time didn't end, then it means that it is infinite into the future and that there was an infinite past.  The infinite past is illogical and not scientific.  

I don't know about the infinite future being unscientific, but I think it's illogical, i.e. if there was a beginning, then there is an end.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 14, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


> why?
> 
> I don't get your reasoning?
> 
> If space ends, then why not time?  And if time ends?  Then there is no, "before," or "after."



I don't subscribe to the idea that space ends.  Our universe 3D, that we perceive, might be finite but,  I can't wrap my head around what might be past the physical boundaries of our Universe.  Quite probably many -- infinite? -- others?

If you consider the vast number of possibilities, it's hard not to be completely dumb-struck by it.

P.S.  I have no doubt that time, as we humans perceive it, as an arrow, behaves very differently to creatures who perceive things very differently.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 14, 2021)

fncceo said:


> I don't subscribe to the idea that space ends.  Our universe 3D, that we perceive, might be finite but,  I can't wrap my head around what might be past the physical boundaries of our Universe.  Quite probably many -- infinite? -- others?
> 
> If you consider the vast number of possibilities, it's hard not to be completely dumb-struck by it.
> 
> P.S.  I have no doubt that time, as we humans perceive it, as an arrow, behaves very differently to creatures who perceive things very differently.


meh.  I'm of the opinion that the universe, space, is both infinite and finite.

Like an infinite regression.  As you approach the edges, the laws break down, so does time, and everything else.  So?  No matter how fast you appear to be going, or how much distance you appear to be covering, you can never quite cover that last few couple inches to the edge, because you are limited, in how much your speed can/would be, compared to how fast the universe is expanding. . .  

Just my observation of how it would work in our dimension. . . 

Thus?  there is, by definition, NO physical boundary.  It is impossible for anything, no light, no particles, nothing, to pass that boundary.  Not in our dimension anyhow.  

But?  You could still try, forever.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


> meh.  I'm of the opinion that the universe, space, is both infinite and finite.
> 
> Like an infinite regression.  As you approach the edges, the laws break down, so does time, and everything else.  So?  No matter how fast you appear to be going, or how much distance you appear to be covering, you can never quite cover that last few couple inches to the edge, because you are limited, in how much your speed can/would be, compared to how fast the universe is expanding. . .
> 
> ...


You are describing the curvature of space.  That does not mean the universe is infinite.  Those are two different things.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


> why?
> 
> I don't get your reasoning?
> 
> If space ends, then why not time?  And if time ends?  Then there is no, "before," or "after."


Time doesn't really exist.  It's a convenient way to mark the expansion of the universe.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 14, 2021)

ding said:


> You are describing the curvature of space.  That does not mean the universe is infinite.  Those are two different things.





ding said:


> Time doesn't really exist. It's a convenient way to mark the expansion of the universe.











						Cosmological crisis: We don't know if the universe is round or flat
					

An analysis of data from the Planck space observatory suggests the universe is spherical, which would be a major headache for cosmologists




					www.newscientist.com


----------



## fncceo (Dec 14, 2021)

ding said:


> Time doesn't really exist.  It's a convenient way to mark the expansion of the universe.



Our units of time are totally arbitrary, as are our measurements of distance or anything else.

But, it doesn't mean the things we measure with them don't exist.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 14, 2021)

Time exists like miles and meters exist. As an abstraction. Time based upon the speed of light (e.g. light years) is more independent (natural, tied to the universe, or less "arbitrary") since light appears to generally travel at a constant rate having nothing to do with us (or other creatures for that matter).


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 14, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


> Cosmological crisis: We don't know if the universe is round or flat
> 
> 
> An analysis of data from the Planck space observatory suggests the universe is spherical, which would be a major headache for cosmologists
> ...



That is simple, it is in the shape of a klein bottle. most likely if it is not flat.

But if it is, then it is shaped like a Möbius strip.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 14, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Science posits some things we now take for granted. For example, nothing can exist prior to itself.
> 
> matter/energy/space/time exist. Where did all this “stuff” come from?  Fair question.  Tracing it back with observation and science (particularly physics) we seemingly trace it back to the “Big Bang.” *But where did the initial super tiny blob of whatever it was come from? *
> 
> ...


This discussion has persisted in one form or another since man first looked up at the stars.  What is at the end of the university and what comes after the end.  If a big bang started the whole thing,  what came before the big bang and what existed. 

All we really know about the creation of the universe is that it was very, very dense and that it very quickly got much less dense.  

There are a lot ideas, none that really deserves to be called a theory because theories are based on observations and evidence which simple don't exist.  One such idea is that before the Big Bang, the universe was an infinite stretch of an ultra hot, dense material, persisting in a steady state until, for some reason, the Big Bang occurred. This extra-dense universe may have been governed by quantum mechanics.  Steven Hawkins said, "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory and say that time began at the Big Bang,"   All this is just another way of saying, "We have no fucking idea what existed before the Big Bang.  

When man is left with the unexplainable, then he concludes it must be the work 
God.  Helios, the sun god, drove a chariot daily from east to west across the sky and sailed around the northerly stream of Ocean each night in a huge cup. Lightning was a weapon of Zeus. Thunderbolts were invented by Minerva the goddess of wisdom.  Crops failed because the Gods were displeased. Ect, etc.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 14, 2021)

Flopper said:


> This discussion has persisted in one form or another since man first looked up at the stars.  What is at the end of the university and what comes after the end.  If a big bang started the whole thing,  what came before the big bang and what existed.
> 
> All we really know about the creation of the universe is that it was very, very dense and that it very quickly got much less dense.
> 
> ...


Maybe. But if God, where did He Come from?

If the entirety of everything came from an ultimately dense  & infinitely small point, where did THAT thing come from?

Some people say a universal radiation got perturbed. What could have perturbed it? Where did *that* come from?

Some contend that there was a complete total void which got “perturbed” (because quantum physics Theory allows for such a “probability”) and this allowed for the incredibly tiny pinpoint of the stuff of a Big Bang to pop into existence.  Really?  From where?  And wtf could perturb a complete void like that?  And where did *that* thing come from?  

Conclusion:  I don’t know. I have a hunch but no basis to argue that it’s even close.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> AFAIK the atheist scientists thought the universe didn't have a beginning and that matter just existed forever.  It really wasn't logical as one would have to have an infinite past and an infinite amount of matter.  They couldn't explain where this matter came from of why it was infinite.  It really wasn't logical.
> 
> Today, we know that the universe had a beginning scientifically.  Also, we know there had to be matter as logically we can't have something pop into existence from nothing.  What we disagree on is what was the cause for the starting matter (spacetime, matter) or singularity to exist.





BackAgain said:


> I enjoy this thread. I do not have enough information to reach any conclusion which I can support. Even if there’s something I find I inately appealing about the notion of a mind which pre-existed all else, I confess I’m still wondering: Where could such a “mind” come from, in the first place?


Getting a little more basic than the creation of the universe would be the creation of laws of science needed to create the universe. 

And then there is the super alien theory in which a race of super aliens, collective know as God run around the cosmos creating universes.  I think my super alien idea is just as likely as anything else we have discussed.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


> Cosmological crisis: We don't know if the universe is round or flat
> 
> 
> An analysis of data from the Planck space observatory suggests the universe is spherical, which would be a major headache for cosmologists
> ...


I am not a fan of dark matter or dark energy.  I think it's bunk.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Our units of time are totally arbitrary, as are our measurements of distance or anything else.
> 
> But, it doesn't mean the things we measure with them don't exist.


It makes my head hurt.






						Problem of time - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 14, 2021)

Flopper said:


> * * * *
> And then there is the super alien theory in which a race of super aliens, collective know as God run around the cosmos creating universes.  I think my super alien idea is just as likely as anything else we have discussed.


Where did THEY come from?


----------



## Flopper (Dec 14, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Where did THEY come from?


The Super Aliens move back and forth in time and space thus we see them as eternal.  However, I suppose they could be creations of another super race but I'll have to give that some thought after another Martini.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 14, 2021)

Flopper said:


> The Super Aliens move back and forth in time and space thus we see them as eternal.  However, I suppose they could be creations of another super race but I'll have to give that some thought after another Martini.


Meh. It all just begs the question:  _*where did they/it come from?*_

To break that infinite regression, we imagine some beginning. It begins by something that defies what we imagine we “know:” 

Something Or Someone got itself all “created” prior to itsellf.

but … still. Kudos on that drink idea.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> You can believe anything you want, but you seem to enjoy believing in lies.



Oh really now?

Any comment on this lie then?



james bond said:


> I'm no geologist, but do understand uniformitarianism vs. catastrophism and the errors in radiometric dating.
> 
> If there is no religious prefix to science, then stop believing in atheist science such as evolution.  Atheism is a religion.  At least, I am smart enough to realize our religion influences our science.  The facts are that science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.  Also, nothing backs up evolution nor atheism.  It's just a fake religious belief.
> 
> ...



Which as I pointed out before, is not in Kuwait, but in the Chauvet cave in France.






But the rest of us believe "lies".


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 15, 2021)

The Universe

Talk about "The Universe" is ambiguous. At the most cursory level it can be presumed that one is referring to either the "known" universe or the entire business, whatever that may be. Lots left to discover and discuss within the confines of the former while all the gesticulation and pontification about what lies beyond the scientifically "known" part clearly amounts to just that. However, we can at least apply some logic to rule some in and some out. Can't we? Fun stuff.

For instance, under "Universe" Wikipedia immediately states the following:
"The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy."

Okay, so now I'm literally being told that not only space, but also time.. is a form of matter and energy, apparently containing at least planets, stars, and galaxies among other things. <-- Time, that is.. Really? I mean, it's a really long section.. We  just got the thing rolling, fellas.. And you've already done gone and steered it hopelessly far from any logical lanes.. Jesus! I call interference!


----------



## Flopper (Dec 15, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> The Universe
> 
> Talk about "The Universe" is ambiguous. At the most cursory level it can be presumed that one is referring to either the "known" universe or the entire business, whatever that may be. Lots left to discover and discuss within the confines of the former while all the gesticulation and pontification about what lies beyond the scientifically "known" part clearly amounts to just that. However, we can at least apply some logic to rule some in and some out. Can't we? Fun stuff.
> 
> ...


Time is considered a coordinate in the universe. According to the prevailing cosmological model of the Big Bang theory, time itself began as part of the entire Universe about 13.8 billion years ago.   I suppose that means my alarm clock would not work before the big bang but that's ok, since it wouldn't be needed.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 15, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Meh. It all just begs the question:  _*where did they/it come from?*_
> 
> To break that infinite regression, we imagine some beginning. It begins by something that defies what we imagine we “know:”
> 
> ...


You began this thread with the question *But where did the initial super tiny blob of whatever it was come from?*
 I don't remember anybody giving a real answer so I will.  I don't know.  Further no one else does either.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 15, 2021)

Flopper said:


> You began this thread with the question *But where did the initial super tiny blob of whatever it was come from?*
> I don't remember anybody giving a real answer so I will.  I don't know.  Further no one else does either.


I think your answer is honest.  I also assume that you are correct that nobody really knows.  At least not yet.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 15, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> I think your answer is honest.  I also assume that you are correct that nobody really knows.  At least not yet.


The new James Webb Space Telescope which I believe should be in operational this summer should give us some answers to questions about creation of the universe. The data it collects will allow earthbound scientists to better understand the formation of stars and galaxies just after the big bang.  As a NASA engineer said, “When the lights turned on in the universe, that’s what Webb is trying to see,”.  Seeing the very beginning of the Universe should give us insight into creation.


----------



## james bond (Dec 15, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Oh really now?
> 
> Any comment on this lie then?
> 
> ...


Sure, you believe in lies if you're atheist or believe in evolution.  I had the wrong cave, but it and other prehistoric cave paintings and art work around the world shows dinosaurs and humans lived together.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure, you believe in lies if you're atheist or believe in evolution.  I had the wrong cave, but it and other prehistoric cave paintings and art work around the world shows dinosaurs and humans lived together.


And so does the old movie One Million B.C.  so it must be true


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure, you believe in lies if you're atheist or believe in evolution. I had the wrong cave, but it and other prehistoric cave paintings and art work around the world shows dinosaurs and humans lived together.



Uh-huh.  Well, let me know when you find the right cave then.

But really, "it and other prehistoric cave paintings", *even though I already proved beyond a doubt it was a lie?*


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 16, 2021)

Flopper said:


> Time is considered a coordinate in the universe.


I consider it _our_ primary coordinate or measure of space. Again, all is silliness when talking about "the universe" without specificity. The James Webb telescope will undoubtedly tell us more about the Big Bang, but it likely won't inform us any better about the vastness that may have existed at a distance prior and that which may still exist far beyond our powers of observation. It's always simply presumed that we must be at the center of the action, but there's no actual reason to believe other Big Bangs haven't gone on before and haven't been going on elsewhere since ours. Multiple "initial blobs." We don't know. Can't tell. 

The Hubble 2 allows us to see seemingly endless galaxies upon galaxies. However, just how far back in time the most seemingly distant were created seems to amount to a highly biased crap shoot. Cosmologists, being only human, are prone to argue they all must be products or local our Bang, but how will one ever really be able to tell for sure? And we'll likely just see countless more when the Webb gets busy. No end to them. Given the reported acceleration of the continuing expansion, the furthest most likely have already permanently disappeared from our powers of observation due to travelling faster than c away from us.

As has been noted here, cosmologists currently generally "consider" our local "universe" spherical, expanding, and flat. Given spherical, it must have a center somewhere and a maximum volume limited to the sum of its expansions. This volume's radius being measured back in "time" to the Bang in light years. This is why I call it our "primary" coordinate or measure of space. One could theoretically use yardsticks, but it would be mighty clumsy and slow by comparison.


Flopper said:


> I don't know. Further no one else does either.


Bingo.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 16, 2021)

Anthropocentrism keeps us busy shooting ourselves in the foot. We desperately want to believe it's all about us and us alone. That we are unique, powerful, and important. We just need a bigger telescope to seal the deal.. A more massive antenna array.. A $100 trillion atom smasher will surely do the trick..

Nope.


----------



## james bond (Dec 16, 2021)

Flopper said:


> And so does the old movie One Million B.C.  so it must be true


Generally, art reflects reality.


----------



## james bond (Dec 16, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Uh-huh.  Well, let me know when you find the right cave then.
> 
> But really, "it and other prehistoric cave paintings", *even though I already proved beyond a doubt it was a lie?*


This is more important as the evidence adds to that which would destroy evolution.  What it shows is that Neanderthals or so-called "prehistoric" humans were advanced in art.  That doesn't follow the evolution theory of Neanderthals.


----------



## james bond (Jan 7, 2022)

surada said:


> Freedom That Lasts – Independent Baptist Church
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can't even do acronyms right.  FTL (For the Loss) with you lol.

OTOH, it's been FTW (For the Win) with me and my posts versus you and the atheists here, especially in S&T.


----------



## AnkitDS (Feb 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Science posits some things we now take for granted. For example, nothing can exist prior to itself.
> 
> matter/energy/space/time exist. Where did all this “stuff” come from?  Fair question.  Tracing it back with observation and science (particularly physics) we seemingly trace it back to the “Big Bang.” *But where did the initial super tiny blob of whatever it was come from? *
> 
> ...


It is ever existing, whatever was the reason for the big bang. It was before the Bang and it's present even now after billions of years. Matter came into existence after the Bang, but the real question is what forces are behind the creation of all the visible universe. That force was present before the Bang and is still present. The science can never find a way to explain all this. Because that force or energy is beyond the comprehension of our intellect. Science can only talk about what might have happened after the Big Bang but science cannot go beyond.
Love
Ankit


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Science posits some things we now take for granted. For example, nothing can exist prior to itself.
> 
> matter/energy/space/time exist. Where did all this “stuff” come from?  Fair question.  Tracing it back with observation and science (particularly physics) we seemingly trace it back to the “Big Bang.” *But where did the initial super tiny blob of whatever it was come from? *
> 
> ...


AnkitDS BreezeWood


----------



## surada (Feb 11, 2022)

james bond said:


> You can't even do acronyms right.  FTL (For the Loss) with you lol.
> 
> OTOH, it's been FTW (For the Win) with me and my posts versus you and the atheists here, especially in S&T.


You're mistaken. Educated Christians aren't athiests.


----------



## james bond (Feb 11, 2022)

surada said:


> You're mistaken. Educated Christians aren't athiests.


So you say.  Answer this.  Does the Bible say God speaks in His own voice and does things with His own hands?

How does He communicate with you?


----------



## surada (Feb 12, 2022)

james bond said:


> So you say.  Answer this.  Does the Bible say God speaks in His own voice and does things with His own hands?
> 
> How does He communicate with you?


 What does that have to do with education?


----------



## buttercup (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> If nothing can exist without being created, where did the Creator come from?  To be clear, that question is not an attempt to be disrespectful of religion. I happen to believe in God. But, out of what did God come?
> 
> We could beg the question and say “from a super God.”  But then, we’d logically ask, from where did the SuperGod come?  Etc.
> 
> ...



God is eternal. No beginning and no end. So God didn't "come from" anywhere.  Just out of curiosity, are you a new believer?


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

buttercup said:


> God is eternal. No beginning and no end. So God didn't "come from" anywhere.  Just out of curiosity, are you a new believer?


I have believed in God for real since I started giving this topic any real thought. I have come to believe also, however, that God probably doesn’t believe in religion.


----------



## james bond (Feb 12, 2022)

surada said:


> What does that have to do with education?


It means you couldn't answer the question and lied about being a Christian.  We all know this about you surada lol.  Will people believe you if you started claiming you're an atheist?  It doesn't really matter.


----------



## surada (Feb 12, 2022)

james bond said:


> It means you couldn't answer the question and lied about being a Christian.  We all know this about you surada lol.  Will people believe you if you started claiming you're an atheist?  It doesn't really matter.


When you make a fool of yourself, all you can do is accuse someone of not being a Christian.


----------



## buttercup (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I have believed in God for real since I started giving this topic any real thought. I have come to believe also, however, that God probably doesn’t believe in religion.



Well it is true that Jesus had a lot of criticism for false or empty religion. I mean all one has to do is read the New Testament to see that He had the highest criticism for the religious leaders of that time, who cared more about themselves than the will of God.  So you're a believer but not a Christian?


----------



## surada (Feb 12, 2022)

Scientists find Neanderthal ancestor, challenging what we thought about human evolution
					

After studying fossils in Israel, scientists found a new kind of early human that challenges what we thought about pre-Neanderthal groups in Europe.



					www.usatoday.com


----------



## james bond (Feb 12, 2022)

surada said:


> Scientists find Neanderthal ancestor, challenging what we thought about human evolution
> 
> 
> After studying fossils in Israel, scientists found a new kind of early human that challenges what we thought about pre-Neanderthal groups in Europe.
> ...


If you're Christian, then do you believe in the global flood?  This is the main difference in explaining all the sciences relating to the Earth and its formation and evolution.  For example, the layers of the Earth was formed by flood and it does not represent a buildup over time.  What it tells us is the location of where animals died.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 12, 2022)

james bond said:


> If you're Christian, then do you believe in the global flood?  This is the main difference in explaining all the sciences relating to the Earth and its formation and evolution.  For example, the layers of the Earth was formed by flood and it does not represent a buildup over time.  What it tells us is the location of where animals died.


Don’t be an accomplice to science illiteracy.


----------



## buttercup (Feb 12, 2022)

1 Corinthians 1:27–29


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

buttercup said:


> Well it is true that Jesus had a lot of criticism for false or empty religion. I mean all one has to do is read the New Testament to see that He had the highest criticism for the religious leaders of that time, who cared more about themselves than the will of God.  So you're a believer but not a Christian?


I believe in God. I was raised as a Christian. I find the teachings of Jesus to be quite profound. Could they be evidence of His divinity?  I don’t really know.


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

The 





james bond said:


> If you're Christian, then do you believe in the global flood?  This is the main difference in explaining all the sciences relating to the Earth and its formation and evolution.  For example, the layers of the Earth was formed by flood and it does not represent a buildup over time.  What it tells us is the location of where animals died.


Bible flood story is didactic literature. You clearly reject science, education and scripture. God made the mountains on the third day not after the flood.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> You're mistaken. Educated Christians aren't athiests.


The term "educated christians" is an oxymoron. They are members of a religious mafia that is #1 on the planet for producing atheists. Xianity in particular does it better than any other protection racket.


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

badger2 said:


> The term "educated christians" is an oxymoron. They are members of a religious mafia that is #1 on the planet for producing atheists. Xianity in particular does it better than any other protection racket.


Nope. There are educated Christians .. there are a few on this board.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 16, 2022)

buttercup said:


> 1 Corinthians 1:27–29


god is stupid here, by boasting that something was chosen and that others had better not question the pathological choice in his/her non-presence. This approach is why religion in a science forum looks so absurd.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> Nope. There are educated Christians .. there are a few on this board.


This meshes with god's mental disease we have just pointed out with the bible verse. Your argument is that the xian is educated. In what? It's obvious that the xian chooses, stupidly, what it will boast of being educated about, and leave other aspects of its mental illness out of the argument. You have not, like science would do, point out any examples of this supposed xian's education, you simply mouth off the word "educated" and expect the other prisoners to take the bait that they know what education is, just as the theologian pimp would do to the scapegoat-prisoners gathered in pews ("Look at me when I'm talking to you").

Science in particular can't afford to do that. We will next begin to unravel, with the assistance of authors not afraid to name themselves, unlike the bible, where a non-existent, dipshit god assigns the task to Adam to name the animals. The mental illness that is religion, and especially xianity, secretes atheism. Explaining how being fucked up on the lord operates in the victim's head, can be said to be a kind of science if we include psychopatholgies that contradict themselves as verifiable parameters.


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

badger2 said:


> This meshes with god's mental disease we have just pointed out with the bible verse. Your argument is that the xian is educated. In what? It's obvious that the xian chooses, stupidly, what it will boast of being educated about, and leave other aspects of its mental illness out of the argument. You have not, like science would do, point out any examples of this supposed xian's education, you simply mouth off the word "educated" and expect the other prisoners to take the bait that they know what education is, just as the theologian pimp would do to the scapegoat-prisoners gathered in pews ("Look at me when I'm talking to you").
> 
> Science in particular can't afford to do that. We will next begin to unravel, with the assistance of authors not afraid to name themselves, unlike the bible, where a non-existent, dipshit god assigns the task to Adam to name the animals. The mental illness that is religion, and especially xianity, secretes atheism. Explaining how being fucked up on the lord operates in the victim's head, can be said to be a kind of science if we include psychopatholgies that contradict themselves as verifiable parameters.


Actually the effort to keep Christians ignorant was a concerted effort by Cyrus Scofield. It's been successful.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> The
> Bible flood story is didactic literature. You clearly reject science, education and scripture. God made the mountains on the third day not after the flood.


You have no scientific proof that god made the mountains and when that happened, nor how long it took. Science has more evidence of the forming of the earth than the Believer, prisoner of faith, addicte of its stupidity.

No one can easily answer this question that points to the absurdity: "How many christians worked on the James Webb telescope, which was launched on christmas day 2021?"

How will the theologian begin to explain to the flock that god wasn't really all that particular, because other planets like our own have been found? Theo will hardly have to lift a finger to explain to the automatons of protectionism.

'Ideas of disembodied intentional forces may have been engendered by overly sensitive cognitive (detection [italics]), but it was overly sensitive coalitional (protection [it.]) that determined which ideas were maintained and nurtured by human groups. In other words, imaginative ideas about ghosts, gods, or other supernatural agents are easily born in cognition but they must also be borne in cultures. Such ideas multiply rapidly in the mind, but the images that stick around are those that are more easily transmitted across generations and contribute to the cohesion of the group.
....
Archaeological evidence suggests that sometime during the Late Pleistocene, some of these "god-bearing" (theogonic) groups left Africa, eventually out-competing all other hominid speccies and spreading across the Levant and into Europe and Asia. All contemporary humans share a phylogenetic heritage that was shaped by adaptions to this ancestral environment, and that still influences social entrainment practices across cultures today. This helps to explain why religion comes so naturally to most people.'
(Shults, Iconoclastic Theology, p. 13)

Theogonic pathologies are very old, which is still no excuse for mental illness based on fairy tales, coercion, guilt, troubled spirit, etc.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> Actually the effort to keep Christians ignorant was a concerted effort by Cyrus Scofield. It's been successful.


You are poorly educated in the history of the xian pathology. Theo knew that religious thinking was itself crucified on the tree:

'The analogy of judgment was clearly at work in the christological debates that shaped the formulation of the Definition of Chalcedon....If one includes the claim that christ is "like us" (homoion), and the four times it is emphasized that he is "one" (hen), this makes fifteen references to sameness or identity in the single sentence that constitutes the Symbol of Chalcedon!

As with Plato or Aristotle, difference must be conceptually tamed. In their attempts to conceptualize the identity of christ, patristic theologians were clearly constrained by the segmentations of the Porphyrian tree....Plotinus and Porphyry had no need to threaten anyone with excommunication or damnation. For the church fathers at Chalcedon, however, the Unity of the church as a religious coalition was at stake, and so everyone in the in-group must confess One and the Same belief. When one presses too hard at the logical cracks in religious doctrine a little atheism alwayys begins to secrete, even if one's intention is to purify or reform the tradition.'
(Shults, p. 82)


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> The
> Bible flood story is didactic literature. You clearly reject science, education and scripture. God made the mountains on the third day not after the flood.


The didactic lit. is fitting for the religious parts.  Yet, atheism has _nothing_ except maybe don't get caught if you're gonna break the law.  The Christians and creationists say atheists and sinners should get caught when breaking the law, throw the book at them and toss away the key.  If they get the electric chair and poop in their pants when going, then it would be fitting.  Is that why we don't have the electric chair anymore?  I would've ♥ to see what the electric chair would have _evolved_ into. Maybe a giant toilet bowl where the guilty and atheists get flushed down and choke in poo.  Hey, they get to experience what happened during the global flood.

Anyhoo, if God made _all_ the mountains on the third day, then that would've been it and no Earth change. We have no record of the Himalayas and Mt. Everest until later genius. Thus, you got caught with your pants down and I just kicked your a** in front of all these people.


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> The didactic lit. is fitting for the religious parts.  Yet, atheism has _nothing_ except maybe don't get caught if you're gonna break the law.  The Christians and creationists say atheists and sinners should get caught when breaking the law, throw the book at them and toss away the key.  If they get the electric chair and poop in their pants when going, then it would be fitting.  Is that why we don't have the electric chair anymore?  I would've ♥ to see what the electric chair would have _evolved_ into. Maybe a giant toilet bowl where the guilty and atheists get flushed down and choke in poo.  Hey, they get to experience what happened during the global flood.
> 
> Anyhoo, if God made _all_ the mountains on the third day, then that would've been it and no evolution you hypocrite. We have no record of the Himalayas and Mt. Everest until later genius. Thus, you got caught with your pants down and I just kicked your a** in front of all these people.


Lol. You truly are an idiot. Noah's flood didn't create th😆😆mountains... And, the mountains are millions of years old.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> Lol. You truly are an idiot. Noah's flood didn't create th😆😆mountains...


Sure, it did.  The science is on my side and we learn that mountain ranges and its highest peaks can form from catastrophe?  You never heard of volcanoes lmao?  You never heard of undersea earthquakes?  Are you actually saying that mountain ranges do not form from catastrophes?  Do we need a million years for that?

You need to stop calling yourself idiot or else you'll be bashing your head with a steel hammer.  Maybe you should keep doing what you are doing lol.


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

Yes





james bond said:


> Sure, it did.  The science is on my side and we learn that mountain ranges and its highest peaks can form from catastrophe?  You never heard of volcanoes lmao?  You never heard of undersea earthquakes?  Are you actually saying that mountain ranges do not form from catastrophes?  Do we need a million years for that?
> 
> You need to stop calling yourself idiot or else you'll be bashing your head with a steel hammer.  Maybe you should keep doing what you are doing lol.


Yes, the mountains are hundreds of millions of years old.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> Yes
> Yes, the mountains are hundreds of millions of years old.


Lol.  You need to go back and actually read some science.


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> Lol.  You need to go back and actually read some science.


The Dead Sea is 65 million years old.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> The Dead Sea is 65 million years old.


surada.  That's a non-sequitur.  It has nothing to do with what we were talking about with the Himalayas, Mt. Everest and how they were formed.  You're reeling now because I showed everyone here that you are WRONG and don't know what you are talking about.  That's usually the case.

Since you brought it up, how did the Dead Sea form?  More important, what is its significance to science and history, fake Christian?


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

Split 





james bond said:


> surada.  That's a non-sequitur.  It has nothing to do with what we were talking about with the Himalayas, Mt. Everest and how they were formed.  You're reeling now because I showed everyone here that you are WRONG and don't know what you are talking about.  That's usually the case.
> 
> Since you brought it up, how did the Dead Sea form?  More important, what is its significance to science and history, fake Christian?


. Splitting of the Arabian plate. The Himalayas are 50 million years old. you are really ignorant. Did you to school at all?


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> Split . Splitting of the Arabian plate. The Himalayas are 50 million years old. you are really ignorant. Did you to school at all?


Did God create a man or a baby?


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

What





Indeependent said:


> Did God create a man or a baby?


 What a stupid question.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> Split . Splitting of the Arabian plate. The Himalayas are 50 million years old. you are really ignorant. Did you to school at all?


The 50 million years old is BS based on evilution.  Yes, I have a university degree in CS and an MBA.  What do you have?  Clown college?

What is the significance of the split?  I'll assume you don't know what the Bible states oh fake one.


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> The 50 million years old is BS based on evilution.  Yes, I have a university degree in CS and an MBA.  What do you have?  Clown college?
> 
> What is the significance of the split?  I'll assume you don't know what the Bible states oh fake one.


Computer science? It figures. You couldn't pass a geology or history course. The Dead Sea is a continuation of the Red Sea which is still getting wider.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> What
> What a stupid question.


Answer the question.


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Answer the question.


Answer it yourself.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> Computer science? It figures. You couldn't pass a geology or history course. The Dead Sea is a continuation of the Red Sea which is still getting wider.


While you admitted by your silence that you went to clown college.  And you are wrong again.  I passed both geology and history while your evilution cannot provide any history after Judy.  Her mate didn't have a name.  For that matter, there is no geology with evilution either lmao.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> Answer it yourself.


You know the answer.
Why does it bother you that God created a 60 million year old mountain?


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> You know the answer.
> Why does it bother you that God created a 60 million year old mountain?


It doesn't. James claims Noah's flood created the mountains.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> Answer it yourself.


If you knew, then you'd gladly answer it for all of us.  But you're a fake Christian.  What else are you fake at?  Oh yes, science and technology.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> It doesn't. James claims Noah's flood created the mountains.


James!!!!


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> It doesn't. James claims Noah's flood created the mountains.


I don't claim it.  The Bible states it.  Haven't you realized yet why you're a fake x-tian?


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> I don't claim it.  The Bible states it.  Haven't you realized yet why you're a fake x-tian?


Nope. The Bible says God made the mountains on the third day of creation


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2022)

Here:

I didn't think so after graduating, but started learning since 2012.









						Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?
					

Few doctrines in Scripture are as clearly taught as the global nature of the Great Flood in Noah's day. Genesis clearly teaches that "the waters . . . increased greatly . . . and the mountains were covered" (Genesis 7:18-20).  	Through the centuries, few Christians questioned this doctrine. The...




					www.icr.org
				




Of course, surada loves to jump to conclusions.


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> Here:
> 
> I didn't think so after graduating, but started learning since 2012.
> 
> ...


Genesis 1: 9-11.


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> Here:
> 
> I didn't think so after graduating, but started learning since 2012.
> 
> ...


Your link is hysterical.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> Here:
> 
> I didn't think so after graduating, but started learning since 2012.
> 
> ...


You're an accomplice to fraud.


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You're an accomplice to fraud.


It's embarrassing.  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> Genesis 1: 9-11.


And you don't believe in a global flood lol.


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> And you don't believe in a global flood lol.











						Creationism isn’t about science, it’s about theology (and it’s really bad theology)
					

The Creation Museum is a $27 million example of how Christians can lose their way fighting the culture wars.




					www.americamagazine.org


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You're an accomplice to fraud.


You just don't get it.  What else do you get from the Dead Sea?  I'm sure you heard the stories about the Red Sea.  

The global flood had the waters rise up from beneath the seafloor as fountains of the deep.  It's why the creationists came up with plate tectonics.  The fountains of the deep go around the world.  More evidence for the global flood.


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> You just don't get it.  What else do you get from the Dead Sea?  I'm sure you heard the stories about the Red Sea.
> 
> The global flood had the waters rise up from beneath the seafloor as fountains of the deep.  It's why the creationists came up with plate tectonics.  The fountains of the deep go around the world.  More evidence for the global flood.


Salt, but there are salt flats all over the middle east. Fountains of the deep is just poetic language.  Creationism isn’t about science, it’s about theology (and it’s really bad theology)


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> Creationism isn’t about science, it’s about theology (and it’s really bad theology)
> 
> 
> The Creation Museum is a $27 million example of how Christians can lose their way fighting the culture wars.
> ...


More non-sequiturs because your arse was whipped in front of all these people by me.  

It's basically the writer's opinion and not science.  What do you say surada?


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> Salt, but there are salt flats all over the middle east. Fountains of the deep is just poetic language.


It goes to show that you don't understand geology.  I just showed the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.  That is part of the Fountains of the Deep.

Now, with this post you don't understand what "salt" means in the Bible.  It's stated over forty time and spoken by Jesus, o fake one.









						Salt in the Bible- 7 Important Salt Meanings and Biblical Symbolism
					

What does salt in the Bible mean? Discover the meaning behind salt and how to be the salt of the earth according to God’s design.




					thebiblicalnutritionist.com


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> It goes to show that you don't understand geology.  I just showed the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.  That is part of the Fountains of the Deep.
> 
> Now, with this post you don't understand what "salt" means in the Bible.  It's stated over forty time and spoken by Jesus, o fake one.
> 
> ...


Salt is essential for men, animals and the preservation of food. Do you understand symbolism at all?


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2022)

surada said:


> Salt is essential for men, animals and the preservation of food. Do you understand symbolism at all?


The majority and I already know it, but Americans eat too much salt and need to cut down.  This was way before your weak, snide comment.

It goes to show you don't about the US, dumbo.  Things just go over your head.

ETA:  What country needs to add more sodium to their diet?

I doubt there's any, but let's see if you know.


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

It's essential for life in the desert.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Feb 28, 2022)

james bond said:


> And you don't believe in a global flood lol.



She doesn't believe MOST of the Bible.


----------



## james bond (Feb 28, 2022)

surada said:


> It's essential for life in the desert.


Most Americans do not live in the desert.  We can only hope that you'll end up being stuck there .


----------



## surada (Feb 28, 2022)

JustAGuy1 said:


> She doesn't believe MOST of the Bible.


I'm not a fundamentalist or a futurist. I'm a traditional Christian.


----------



## surada (Feb 28, 2022)

james bond said:


> Most Americans do not live in the desert.  We can only hope that you'll end up being stuck there .


Our Western states have deserts.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Feb 28, 2022)

surada said:


> I'm not a fundamentalist or a futurist. I'm a traditional Christian.



No, you aren't.


----------



## surada (Feb 28, 2022)

james bond said:


> The majority and I already know it, but Americans eat too much salt and need to cut down.  This was way before your weak, snide comment.
> 
> It goes to show you don't about the US, dumbo.  Things just go over your head.
> 
> ...


In Bible times caravans sold salt. It was essential for preserving food. In fact, salt was sometimes currency. Have you ever seen any of the salt mines in the middle east?


----------



## surada (Feb 28, 2022)

JustAGuy1 said:


> No, you aren't.


Yes. I have never embraced the Scofield heresy or accepted the rewrites in Hosea Isaiah and Daniel.


----------



## surada (Feb 28, 2022)

james bond said:


> Most Americans do not live in the desert.  We can only hope that you'll end up being stuck there .


Did you cut and run?


----------



## james bond (Feb 28, 2022)

surada said:


> Our Western states have deserts.








What does that have to do with what I said?  This is why I can't help but almost spittin' my coffee out.  Oops, I did a lil lol.


----------



## james bond (Feb 28, 2022)

surada said:


> In Bible times caravans sold salt. It was essential for preserving food. In fact, salt was sometimes currency. Have you ever seen any of the salt mines in the middle east?


I'm not sure how to reply?  It doesn't address what I said.  Do you want me to agree with your non-sequitur or can you explain what it has to do with what I said?

Facts vs. facts?  Mano a womano?


----------



## surada (Feb 28, 2022)

james bond said:


> I'm not sure how to reply?  It doesn't address what I said.  Do you want me to agree with your non-sequitur or can you explain what it has to do with what I said?
> 
> Facts vs. facts?  Mano a womano?


Did you k





james bond said:


> I'm not sure how to reply?  It doesn't address what I said.  Do you want me to agree with your non-sequitur or can you explain what it has to do with what I said?
> 
> Facts vs. facts?  Mano a womano?


From what you said I didn't think you realized how important salt was during Bible times for people, livestock and food preservation.


----------



## james bond (Feb 28, 2022)

surada said:


> Nope. The Bible says God made the mountains on the third day of creation


No, it doesn't lol.


surada said:


> From what you said I didn't think you realized how important salt was during Bible times for people, livestock and food preservation.


I wasn't just talking about it back then.  You didn't even read the link I posted lmao.

Maybe I should move on before I say something sexist like what Darwin said and believed about women compared to men.


----------



## surada (Feb 28, 2022)

james bond said:


> No, it doesn't lol.
> 
> I wasn't just talking about it back then.  You didn't even read the link I posted lmao.
> 
> Maybe I should move on before I say something sexist like what Darwin said and believed about women compared to men.


Thought this thread was about creation.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Feb 28, 2022)

surada said:


> Yes. I have never embraced the Scofield heresy or accepted the rewrites in Hosea Isaiah and Daniel.



You aren't a Christian. You don't believe 90% of the Bible. You are at best a "cafeteria" christian, you just pick and choose what you want to believe.


----------



## surada (Feb 28, 2022)

JustAGuy1 said:


> You aren't a Christian. You don't believe 90% of the Bible. You are at best a "cafeteria" christian, you just pick and choose what you want to believe.


I'm not your sort of Christian.  What church do you belong to? Do your pastors come from the Dallas theological seminary or Moody institute?


----------



## james bond (Feb 28, 2022)

surada said:


> Thought this thread was about creation.


I think it's about what existed before the Big Bang.

From that, we can deduce that evolution has nothing to do with it.  The evos are stupid because they tell us how old the universe and Earth are, but do not know origins nor do they have a history of ape-humans to humans.  They basically need long-time, but there is no evidence for it.

You can claim you're a traditional Christian, but I think you're lying or delusional.  I think many Christians here do not TRUST you.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Feb 28, 2022)

surada said:


> I'm not your sort of Christian.  What church do you belong to? Do your pastors come from the Dallas theological seminary or Moody institute?



Christians do not get to pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible. Just stop with the Schofield crap, it's old. You are not "traditional", you are not Christian. 
Trying to deflect this back to me will not work. You ain't my first rodeo. The largest school of Preterist though resides in Catholicism. Is your pope infallible?


----------

