A logical, simple truth with profound meaning

[ding]

Yes. 100%. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium. So matter and energy had a beginning and that beginning was 14 billion years ago as shown by cosmic background radiation and red shift.

Wishful thinking on your part.

No. It’s called science.

Creation science, maybe.

Nope. Physics.

There’s creation physics too?

The universe was literally created from nothing 14 billion years ago. No creation science there at all. Just good old physics, Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics.

 

[Taz]

Science says that it can’t see all the way back to the BB. So that’s a no.

Science proves it in other ways. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation and the SLoT.

Those don’t prove an invisible being.

But since you are agnostic you don’t know that he didn’t create the universe.

Sure, but still no proof for that.

Says the guy who doesn’t know.

I’m agnostic until there’s proof. I’m still looking for some.

 

[Taz]

Wishful thinking on your part.

No. It’s called science.

Creation science, maybe.

Nope. Physics.

There’s creation physics too?

The universe was literally created from nothing 14 billion years ago from nothing. No creation science there at all. Just good old physics, Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics.

Can’t see that far back and you know it.

 

[Hollie]

No. It’s called science.

Creation science, maybe.

Nope. Physics.

There’s creation physics too?

The universe was literally created from nothing 14 billion years ago from nothing. No creation science there at all. Just good old physics, Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics.

Can’t see that far back and you know it.

Lessons on physics from a creation ministry groupie. Now that’s funny.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

i only read the first couple pages

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.

was it a hand of god or was our universe punched through something and were just what violently poured out of the other side of a black hole from another universe ?
which is just a different kind of spin on multi verse.
which means theirs infinite universes and so at one single point where did it all start .
or whatever your personal spin may be.

you could play a million "but what if all went like this" possibilities, probably a billion more that we haven't even begun to imagine .
I got good news I have a pretty good hunch we're all gonna find out after we die
is there an after life ?stories of the human spirit go back centuries
at the beginning of photography they caught apparitions and spirits on film .

The wonders of the universe, god, the human spirit i think its all connected .I think its all far grander then what we could possibly imagine .

 

[ding]

Science proves it in other ways. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation and the SLoT.

Those don’t prove an invisible being.

But since you are agnostic you don’t know that he didn’t create the universe.

Sure, but still no proof for that.

Says the guy who doesn’t know.

I’m agnostic until there’s proof. I’m still looking for some.

That’s what I like most about you. You don’t know anything.

 

[ding]

No. It’s called science.

Creation science, maybe.

Nope. Physics.

There’s creation physics too?

The universe was literally created from nothing 14 billion years ago from nothing. No creation science there at all. Just good old physics, Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics.

Can’t see that far back and you know it.

There you go again denying science.

 

[percysunshine]

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.

What causes you to make that claim?

 

[Taz]

Those don’t prove an invisible being.

But since you are agnostic you don’t know that he didn’t create the universe.

Sure, but still no proof for that.

Says the guy who doesn’t know.

I’m agnostic until there’s proof. I’m still looking for some.

That’s what I like most about you. You don’t know anything.

You’re frustrated. Calm down.

 

[ding]

But since you are agnostic you don’t know that he didn’t create the universe.

Sure, but still no proof for that.

Says the guy who doesn’t know.

I’m agnostic until there’s proof. I’m still looking for some.

That’s what I like most about you. You don’t know anything.

You’re frustrated. Calm down.

If that’s how you need to see it.

 

[Taz]

Creation science, maybe.

Nope. Physics.

There’s creation physics too?

The universe was literally created from nothing 14 billion years ago from nothing. No creation science there at all. Just good old physics, Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics.

Can’t see that far back and you know it.

There you go again denying science.

Science says that.

 

[ding]

Nope. Physics.

There’s creation physics too?

The universe was literally created from nothing 14 billion years ago from nothing. No creation science there at all. Just good old physics, Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics.

Can’t see that far back and you know it.

There you go again denying science.

Science says that.

Would you like for me to teach you about it?

 

[Taz]

There’s creation physics too?

The universe was literally created from nothing 14 billion years ago from nothing. No creation science there at all. Just good old physics, Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics.

Can’t see that far back and you know it.

There you go again denying science.

Science says that.

Would you like for me to teach you about it?

Sure, I could use a laugh.

 

[ding]

The universe was literally created from nothing 14 billion years ago from nothing. No creation science there at all. Just good old physics, Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics.

Can’t see that far back and you know it.

There you go again denying science.

Science says that.

Would you like for me to teach you about it?

Sure, I could use a laugh.

I was hoping you would say that.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

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.

 

[Taz]

Can’t see that far back and you know it.

There you go again denying science.

Science says that.

Would you like for me to teach you about it?

Sure, I could use a laugh.

I was hoping you would say that.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

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.

Put a link to a real site that shows the beginning of the universe. Your ramblings won’t cut it.

 

[ding]

There you go again denying science.

Science says that.

Would you like for me to teach you about it?

Sure, I could use a laugh.

I was hoping you would say that.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

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.

Put a link to a real site that shows the beginning of the universe. Your ramblings won’t cut it.

You are cracking me up you science hater.

 

[Taz]

Science says that.

Would you like for me to teach you about it?

Sure, I could use a laugh.

I was hoping you would say that.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

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.

Put a link to a real site that shows the beginning of the universe. Your ramblings won’t cut it.

You are cracking me up you science hater.

Link to a real science site that supports your claim. I love science, real science. Not your interpretation of what you think science is.

 

[ding]

Would you like for me to teach you about it?

Sure, I could use a laugh.

I was hoping you would say that.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

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.

Put a link to a real site that shows the beginning of the universe. Your ramblings won’t cut it.

You are cracking me up you science hater.

Link to a real science site that supports your claim. I love science, real science. Not your interpretation of what you think science is.

Is it any wonder militant atheists don’t accept the evidence for God, they can’t even accept the evidence for the Big Bang.

 

[Taz]

Sure, I could use a laugh.

I was hoping you would say that.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

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.

Put a link to a real site that shows the beginning of the universe. Your ramblings won’t cut it.

You are cracking me up you science hater.

Link to a real science site that supports your claim. I love science, real science. Not your interpretation of what you think science is.

Is it any wonder militant atheists don’t accept the evidence for God, they can’t even accept the evidence for the Big Bang.

Your personal opinion isn't proof. You really suck at this.

 

[ding]

I was hoping you would say that.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

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.

Put a link to a real site that shows the beginning of the universe. Your ramblings won’t cut it.

You are cracking me up you science hater.

Link to a real science site that supports your claim. I love science, real science. Not your interpretation of what you think science is.

Is it any wonder militant atheists don’t accept the evidence for God, they can’t even accept the evidence for the Big Bang.

Your personal opinion isn't proof. You really suck at this.

You can’t even accept that space and time were created in the Big Bang, so what do you know?