Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The universe we are in right now... had a beginning. Yes, time literally began when space and time came into existence. That's why they say space AND time. It is represented as four dimensions. There was no such thing as time or space before that. That's what we know.Just because the universe has an age doesn't mean that another universe didn't exist 14 billion years before the big bang. We will never know that. So the answer is we don't know. We can speculate that there probably was a universe before ours, which seems plausable, or we can limit our minds and believe time itself started with our universe. Not realizing that if you are right, god too was born 14 billion years ago too. Is that what you are saying? Well then what was go doing 28 billion years ago? If all that there is is our universe, what about before the big bang? I know it is hard to wrap your brain around that and truly the answer is that this time before time is unknowable. But that doesn't mean it didn't exist. But funny you will write it off but not god.That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?No, it doesn't, and your refusal to answer the question about energy conversion proves that you know you're wrong, and just don't want to admit it.That is not the pertinent question. Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal? My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Seriously, what was god doing 1999 billion years ago?
I can perfectly imagine that. I would also imagine that they all too had a beginning.So what your one little universe had a beginning? That's just one universe. One tiny universe.No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy. Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end. As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God. Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.It won't for you. Nothing will.
All in all, Hubble reveals an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe or so, but this number is likely to increase to about 200 billion as telescope technology in space improves
for a total of something in the order of 10^21 (that's 1 then 21 zeros) planets in the observable Universe.
And that's just one universe. There are probably just as many universes as their are galaxies.
Oh, is that too much for you to imagine? Is it easier for you to imagine one universe and an invisible man and heaven?
I'm just saying whatever created us was natural and not perfect, all knowing, caring and watching us.Why do you believe perfection is the standard of measure? Were you not given the rarest gift in the universe? How fucking perfect was that? I think I'll take all that goes with life and be thankful for the gift I was given, bad eyes included.Seem to me your argument is we are too perfect to not have a creator. But I say if we have a creator it isn't a perfect God because we aren't perfect.are you a materialist? science has its limitations don't you agree? how can you measure or weigh an idea or a thought?God.....according to theistsI don't know, what?
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)
"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theological positions, to mean that God is used as a spurious explanation for anything not currently explained by science.
those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."
During World War II the German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed the concept in similar terms in letters he wrote while in a Nazi prison. Bonhoeffer wrote, for example:
how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.
Our Creator is something physical, real and can be explained scientifically. And some questions are unknowable.
Why would a God create an eye that wears out? He could have made the eye better. So he's not a perfect all knowing thing. Must not be
Why that is just as fascinating as the other 89 times you told me this..That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?No, it doesn't, and your refusal to answer the question about energy conversion proves that you know you're wrong, and just don't want to admit it.That is not the pertinent question. Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal? My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
We have observed that all points are moving away from us.
as explained before, all matter is traveling with a trajectory of a finite angle and will all re-converge at the same time at their origin to replicate a new moment of Singularity. BB is cyclical.
We all agree this universe had a beginning but what about God before 14 billion years ago. Certainly there BB and ab. That's pretty big bang after big bangYou mean like believing the universe had a beginning?Sure. However, ideas, and thoughts are personal, and subjective. One can hardly use them as objective evidence of divinity, now can one.are you a materialist? science has its limitations don't you agree? how can you measure or weigh an idea or a thought?God.....according to theistsI don't know, what?
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)
"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theological positions, to mean that God is used as a spurious explanation for anything not currently explained by science.
those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."
During World War II the German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed the concept in similar terms in letters he wrote while in a Nazi prison. Bonhoeffer wrote, for example:
how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.
I'd say whoever created this was one bad ass mother that I wouldn't want to cross.I'm just saying whatever created us was natural and not perfect, all knowing, caring and watching us.Why do you believe perfection is the standard of measure? Were you not given the rarest gift in the universe? How fucking perfect was that? I think I'll take all that goes with life and be thankful for the gift I was given, bad eyes included.Seem to me your argument is we are too perfect to not have a creator. But I say if we have a creator it isn't a perfect God because we aren't perfect.are you a materialist? science has its limitations don't you agree? how can you measure or weigh an idea or a thought?God.....according to theists
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)
"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theological positions, to mean that God is used as a spurious explanation for anything not currently explained by science.
those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."
During World War II the German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed the concept in similar terms in letters he wrote while in a Nazi prison. Bonhoeffer wrote, for example:
how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.
Our Creator is something physical, real and can be explained scientifically. And some questions are unknowable.
Why would a God create an eye that wears out? He could have made the eye better. So he's not a perfect all knowing thing. Must not be
Did you see how many solar systems are in the universe? It's a mind blowing number. There's probably nothing rare about us. More likely typical.
Should i worship thank and respect whatever put me here? Sure I guess I do give thanks for whatever put me here.
But I see no holy book as evidence this thing that caused the universe is anything other than a physical thing that we haven't yet explained.
Are we talking generic God or one who visited? We may never know what generic God is because it might be unknowable. Why does the thing that created the universe have to be a God?
Then you might be talking about a God who visited. That's an entirely different conversation
The only solution to the first cause is the eternal.We all agree this universe had a beginning but what about God before 14 billion years ago. Certainly there BB and ab. That's pretty big bang after big bangYou mean like believing the universe had a beginning?Sure. However, ideas, and thoughts are personal, and subjective. One can hardly use them as objective evidence of divinity, now can one.are you a materialist? science has its limitations don't you agree? how can you measure or weigh an idea or a thought?God.....according to theists
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)
"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theological positions, to mean that God is used as a spurious explanation for anything not currently explained by science.
those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."
During World War II the German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed the concept in similar terms in letters he wrote while in a Nazi prison. Bonhoeffer wrote, for example:
how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.
God is existence. Nothing created existence. Existence like truth and love are eternal.massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.
since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?
What created god?
In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.
Why there is no god
There was never a beginning and there will never be an end!!!! Why can't you understand that but you can imagine yourself living on for eternity? You thirsts are so arrogantI can perfectly imagine that. I would also imagine that they all too had a beginning.So what your one little universe had a beginning? That's just one universe. One tiny universe.No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy. Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end. As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God. Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.
All in all, Hubble reveals an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe or so, but this number is likely to increase to about 200 billion as telescope technology in space improves
for a total of something in the order of 10^21 (that's 1 then 21 zeros) planets in the observable Universe.
And that's just one universe. There are probably just as many universes as their are galaxies.
Oh, is that too much for you to imagine? Is it easier for you to imagine one universe and an invisible man and heaven?
"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - George Wald, Scientific American, August, 1954.I don't know, what?massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.
since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?
I looked up the word existence and it didn't mention God. So existence doesn't help your claims about the god that we know and discuss.God is existence. Nothing created existence. Existence like truth and love are eternal.massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?
since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?
What created god?
In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.
Why there is no god
Yes, there was a beginning. I don't know about the end, but as long as it continues entropy will increase such that when it approaches infinity there will be no more usable energy left in the system. We don't see that. I don't imagine anything about what happens after I die. I imagine dying well.There was never a beginning and there will never be an end!!!! Why can't you understand that but you can imagine yourself living on for eternity? You thirsts are so arrogantI can perfectly imagine that. I would also imagine that they all too had a beginning.So what your one little universe had a beginning? That's just one universe. One tiny universe.No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.
All in all, Hubble reveals an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe or so, but this number is likely to increase to about 200 billion as telescope technology in space improves
for a total of something in the order of 10^21 (that's 1 then 21 zeros) planets in the observable Universe.
And that's just one universe. There are probably just as many universes as their are galaxies.
Oh, is that too much for you to imagine? Is it easier for you to imagine one universe and an invisible man and heaven?
You can't give thanks to something you aren't thankful for. I don't think He cares what you call Him as long as you call Him. Love has always existed as the native state of the trinity.D
I looked up the word existence and it didn't mention God. So existence doesn't help your claims about the god that we know and discuss.God is existence. Nothing created existence. Existence like truth and love are eternal.massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.
since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?
What created god?
In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.
Why there is no god
How is love eternal? Tell that to the martians who lived 3 billion years agoo and thought the universe was made for them. Right now they are dustt. They were lucky to have lived too.
I'll give thanks to whatever put us here. Whatever that is? Nature? I'll worship nature. Do you think God cares if I call him nature?
To each his own.Nope. Our best guess right now is nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. All starting in the space of an atom. Mind blowing stuff. The atoms in your body have existed for over 14 billion years in one form or another..That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
We have observed that all points are moving away from us.
as explained before, all matter is traveling with a trajectory of a finite angle and will all re-converge at the same time at their origin to replicate a new moment of Singularity. BB is cyclical.
And it might not be the same starting point the next time. Maybe another black hole will start off the next big bang. I know there seems to be order but that isn't always the case. When the universe was young it was chaos like a pinball machine when it drops a bonus 10 balls all at once and you try to keep as many of those 10 balls in play and while they are they are all over the place sometimes even banging against each other and causing a chain reaction.
If this chain reaction didn't happen the dinosaurs may never have gone extinct. The trees might not have been all knocked down either. So basically we would have stayed monkey's in the trees. Just like a dolphin's brain is really evolved but they can't build a ship to go to the moon, we wouldn't be driving in cars either if the dinosaurs were still around. Maybe. Who knows. LOL
And my soul will live for all eternity in paradise. I'm a human now but soon I will be a god myself.
.True. At this point I see no evidence. All the things I don't know the answer to don't prove god exists. Fear of the afterlife won't convince me. Wishful thinking won't. Because it makes me feel better isn't a reason to believe. Because it does more good than harm isn't a good reason in fact I believe the opposite. If it makes you a better person doesn't matter. Because most people believe doesn't move me. In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.It won't for you. Nothing will.
In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.
genome: the complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or organism.
the above is for all living beings, what shapes and where did the genome come from and the manufacturing process of organic tissue - before the beings inception ... and please, it is not related to the awful 4th century coup d'etat.
as a spoken language ... the beings existence post operative.
Yes we are. The Bible called this before science did. DNA too.
Greeks had figured out atoms 500 years before Jesus.
It looks pretty darn orderly to me.You get that the universe isn't orderly, right?"Goddidit" is an answer.....if there is a first cause/supreme being then why not call it God? 'nothing' sure doesn't cut it....Ok. and until just over 100 years ago science couldn't answer the question "how does the sun work?"my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'
Science isn't an object or a source...it's a process and method of discovery and knowledge.
No...we don't know how the universe came about or the details. Maybe we never will. But "Goddidit" isn't an answer. It doesn't mean anything more than "We don't know."
If God created the universe...how? and where was God's existence before the universe was created, and can that even be explained in a way that would make sense?
also who or what do you think made the universe so orderly?....who or what created all the scientific laws that govern our physical world? scientists sure don't have the answer to that one...
Bipasses it? You mean it has no effect on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics like I have been telling you all along?I didn't say it negates it; I said it bypasses it. There is a difference.My understanding of understanding of physics and cosmology is just fine. I wasn't the one arguing that gravitons negated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.I reject nothing. I updated your outdated understanding. Guess what? 50 years ago one would reasonably have insisted that petroleum was the only way to power the engine of an automobile, because that was our technical understanding of the time. However were you to try to suggest that, to day, I would quickly, and easily demonstrate how incorrect you are. That wouldn't be "denying science, or engineering"; it would be demonstrating that your understanding of such is woefully outdated.Thank you for proving my point in my signature. "They worship science but are the first to reject it when it does not suit their purposes."And, as ahs been repeatedly demonstrated, your "observations" are decidedly out of date, overly simplistic, and lacking in understanding:In November of 1919, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was confirmed by an eclipse where light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways. In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter. The cosmic evolutionary phase - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles. The stellar evolutionary phase saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust). These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase were controlled by the laws of nature which came into existence with space and time. The data undeniably shows that at the early beginning the universe was hot and dense and has expanded.
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
Big Bang Theory
- First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
- Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
- Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
- Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
That's what I have observed. And don't forget that entropy proves the universe is not eternal and therefore must be of a finite age. So clearly not only do I have a sound scientific basis for my beliefs, I have the scientific consensus. This is objective evidence.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
You really shouldn't try to to make definitive statements about the nature of the universe with only a high school physics understanding of cosmology.
As it is with your understanding of physics, and cosmology.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
I also asked you a question, which you refused to answer, b3ecause it destroys your position. When massless matter is converted into enegy how mauch mass is lost in the conversion?
So, your solution to the illogic of your position is special pleading. Every effect must have a cause...except your mythical God. He's "special". That's what is known as a logical fallacy, my friend.The only solution to the first cause is the eternal.No, because it infers a violation of the First law of Thermodynamics. It implies that there can be an effect without a cause. "God created the universe," Okay. From whence came God. In order for this "God" to have existed, something must have created it. However, that would negate it being God; rather it is just another effect of some other cause.isn't that a valid scientific question?You are preseming that there was an "original cause", or that one was necessary. And your support for this claim is...?my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'Ad your point? The fact remains that these virtual particles can be infinitely created, and destroyed to fuel the "engine" of the universe, wthout affecting the overall mass of the universe, thus without "violating" the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
My mission is to wake people up. To let them they are not crazy thinking it's all made up. It is! And this stupidity is holding us back.And yet you keep coming back here to talk about it.True. At this point I see no evidence. All the things I don't know the answer to don't prove god exists. Fear of the afterlife won't convince me. Wishful thinking won't. Because it makes me feel better isn't a reason to believe. Because it does more good than harm isn't a good reason in fact I believe the opposite. If it makes you a better person doesn't matter. Because most people believe doesn't move me. In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.It won't for you. Nothing will.My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension, I'll let you take time to do a bit of study, and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
How does this prove god exists?
