Atheists Want Proof Of God?

[ding]

The universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago. Go ahead and argue against it.

You don't know that, we only know something happened back then. If you suddenly found a puddle of water on the floor would you assume it 'popped into existence'. It may have come from melting ice or condensing steam. There is no way to know seeing only its current state.

Do you know what red shift is? Or cosmic background radiation is?

And what the means in conjunction with Einstein’s field equations?

Both red shift and cosmic background radiation point to an event that happened. Neither reveals what was there before, something or nothing, either is possible and neither has any evidence to support it.

Did you just throw in Einstein’s field equations to obfuscate or is there really some point to mentioning them?

The event itself reveals what was before. The beginning of the universe. The expansion tells us that there was a beginning. The lack of thermal equilibrium tells us there was a beginning.

Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations tells us there was a beginning.

 

[ding]

It appears that the universe having a beginning makes some people very uncomfortable.

It is your assumption sans evidence that makes me uncomfortable.

No assumptions. Evidence.

You are the one making assumptions to reach your conclusion of we just don’t know. What a cowardly way to deny reality.

You’re a flat earther too.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The event itself reveals what was before.

Then...what was before?

 

[ding]

Like science?

No, the way you mangle it up to suit your nonsense.

You mean like 14 billion years ago the universe popped into existence?

Do you still think the earth is flat too?

See? you just throw out any old sentence and think it's relevant.

Well it is a key part of my argument so it is kind of is relevant.

The universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago. Go ahead and argue against it.

That's an opinion, nothing to argue against. You can think what you want. I know, now you're going to say that I'm arguing against science, as though "popping" into existence is neither scientific or rational.

Flatearther sez wut?

 

[ding]

The event itself reveals what was before.

Then...what was before?

The laws of nature.

And no thing. Spirit is no thing. So are the laws of nature.

 

[Taz]

The event itself reveals what was before.

Then...what was before?

The laws of nature.

And no thing. Spirit is no thing. So are the laws of nature.

See? Just total dumbshit fartsmoke. Open a window.

 

[alang1216]

The event itself reveals what was before. The beginning of the universe.

Sorry but that is just absurd. I can begin a trip to Chicago but that doesn't mean I didn't exist before my trip.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The laws of nature.

And no thing.

Haha, we always reach the point where you just make stuff up.

 

[FA_Q2]

The event itself reveals what was before. The beginning of the universe.

Sorry but that is just absurd. I can begin a trip to Chicago but that doesn't mean I didn't exist before my trip.

Sure, but you realize that the standard model places the creation of spacetime at the big bang so the question 'what was before' is nonsensical. There was no before as there was no spacetime.

As absurd as it may sound to you, it is the only thing that fits current observations. We know now that time is not some fixed concept - it can be manipulated and changed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sure, but you realize that the standard model places the creation of spacetime at the big bang so the question 'what was before' is nonsensical. There was no before as there was no spacetime.

Yes and no. While you are right to call that question absurd in the context of our observable frame (like, asking what is north of the north pole, with our frame being just our home planet), it does not then hold that there was no spacetime anywhere. (Just as it does not hold that , should you follow the north pole into space, you will never run into another planet)

 

[FA_Q2]

Sure, but you realize that the standard model places the creation of spacetime at the big bang so the question 'what was before' is nonsensical. There was no before as there was no spacetime.

Yes and no. While you are right to call that question absurd in the context of our observable frame (like, asking what is north of the north pole), it does not then hold that there was no spacetime anywhere. (Just as it does not hold that , should you follow the north pole into space, you will never run into another planet)

Sure, there could have been spacetime in some other context. Or just time. Or just space. There is zero evidence for this though and such would not make sense in our spacetime. It still stands that 'before' the big bang is simply nonsensical in current scientific theory.

There are guesses about multiverse and that may or may not provide some context into the events that caused the big bang but those theories are pretty darn convoluted. Time outside our universe or 'before' the big bang may not even be singular (IOW, more than a single time dimension). Those concepts are well beyond our current possible comprehension just as higher dimensions are. Perhaps we will get there some day but that day is far into the future.

 

[alang1216]

The event itself reveals what was before. The beginning of the universe.

Sorry but that is just absurd. I can begin a trip to Chicago but that doesn't mean I didn't exist before my trip.

Sure, but you realize that the standard model places the creation of spacetime at the big bang so the question 'what was before' is nonsensical. There was no before as there was no spacetime.

As absurd as it may sound to you, it is the only thing that fits current observations. We know now that time is not some fixed concept - it can be manipulated and changed.

We know the standard model is just an incomplete approximation and as you write, time is not some fixed concept. Can it be started and stopped? Reset to zero time?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sure, there could have been spacetime in some other context. Or just time. Or just space. There is zero evidence for this though and such would not make sense in our spacetime.

Which means there is zero evidence to the contrary as well. And any and all of it could 'make sense', as nothing about it can contradict or has contradicted any observation we have made so far, or our local laws of physics.

We cannot yet be certain either way. On that, we seem to be in agreement. Yet, right here in this thread appear several people who seem to know, with 100% confidence, this state of affairs. Weird.

 

[FA_Q2]

The event itself reveals what was before. The beginning of the universe.

Sorry but that is just absurd. I can begin a trip to Chicago but that doesn't mean I didn't exist before my trip.

Sure, but you realize that the standard model places the creation of spacetime at the big bang so the question 'what was before' is nonsensical. There was no before as there was no spacetime.

As absurd as it may sound to you, it is the only thing that fits current observations. We know now that time is not some fixed concept - it can be manipulated and changed.

We know the standard model is just an incomplete approximation and as you write, time is not some fixed concept. Can it be started and stopped? Reset to zero time?

Under current theory it indeed can be stared and stopped, you just need sufficient mass to interact with spacetime. The standard model is incomplete in what it addresses (the 4% of the universe that makes up everything that we know and see) only because we lack a quantum understanding of gravity. The fact that time is not static though is not in question. That it is connected with space is also not in question. That time started at the big bang is rooted in some very solid observations and tests.

Dark energy and dark matter are still outside the standard model though. Those are different problems.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sure, there could have been spacetime in some other context. Or just time. Or just space. There is zero evidence for this though and such would not make sense in our spacetime.

Which means there is zero evidence to the contrary as well.

Well, yes but that is not really meaningful. There is zero evedence to the contrary of Zeus but that is not something to be taken seriously. Time before time is also not somehting to be taken seriously yet.

And any and all of it could 'make sense', as nothing about it can contradict or has contradicted any observation we have made so far, or our local laws of physics.

We cannot yet be certain either way. On that, we seem to be in agreement. Yet, right here in this thread appear several people who seem to know, with 100% confidence, this state of affairs. Weird.

Sure some seem to 'know' but that is why I stayed out of the whole 'energy cannot exist outside of space and time' as that is actually in complete disagreement with current theory AND stating you know as such makes conversation on this particular level pointless

 

[ding]

The laws of nature.

And no thing.

Haha, we always reach the point where you just make stuff up.

You believe it is made up that the laws of nature existed before space and time?

Space and time were created according to the laws of nature.

 

[ding]

The event itself reveals what was before. The beginning of the universe.

Sorry but that is just absurd. I can begin a trip to Chicago but that doesn't mean I didn't exist before my trip.

Do you understand thermodynamics at all? Do you understand that heat flows from hotter objects to cooler object? What do you suppose would happen to the temperature of all objects as time approaches infinity?

 

[ding]

If you boys want to talk about fairytales you should start with the one that makes you believe the universe has always existed.

That’s a fairytale.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, yes but that is not really meaningful.

Agreed, save for saying it cannot be ruled out.

There is zero evedence to the contrary of Zeus but that is not something to be taken seriously.

But there are differences: the concept of zeus is not required to explain anything, nor does it explain anything, nor does anything about it align with any physics or math, and it involves magic. On the contrary, mutliverse theory, cyclical theory, and imaginary time can be useful explanations that do not require magic and align with math and physics. So, going forward, these concepts and that of zeus should not be treated the same way.

"Time before time"

Hawking demonstrated that real.time may, in our frame,have a beginning, while time in general does not then necessarily have to have had a beginning (using imaginary time, a useful concept ). I would say such a mathematical result should be taken seriously.

 

[ding]

The event itself reveals what was before.

Then...what was before?

The laws of nature.

And no thing. Spirit is no thing. So are the laws of nature.

See? Just total dumbshit fartsmoke. Open a window.

Fartsmoke is when people like you and Alan an FF ignore science because the universe popping into existence makes your militant atheism uncomfortable.