Op-Ed from a Prophet

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and inflation theory tell us that space and time had a beginning.

* But only the space and time we can ever observe, from our little perch.

You always like to leave that part out.

 

[ding]

Background radiation, red shift, Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations, First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and inflation theory tell us that space and time had a beginning.

What do you have that tells us it didn’t?

I didn’t say it didn’t, I said science can’t currently see all the way back to the BB. English doesn’t appear to be your first language.

That’s because there is nothing that says space and time did not have a beginning.

I win again.

I said science can’t yet see the beginning. You win the idiot award. Again.

And yet science tells us that space and time had a beginning, right?

Because it seems you want to argue it didn’t and that science doesn’t tell us it did.

You have zero evidence to back it up. You lose again.

Let me say it another way. Telescopes have yet to see all the way back to the BB. Look it up.

But we can observe red shift and cosmic background radiation and they confirm Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations.

 

[ding]

Thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and inflation theory tell us that space and time had a beginning.

* But only the space and time we can ever observe, from our little perch.

You always like to leave that part out.

And yet we have all the things we can observe and the equations that describe the expansion of the universe.

 

[Taz]

I didn’t say it didn’t, I said science can’t currently see all the way back to the BB. English doesn’t appear to be your first language.

That’s because there is nothing that says space and time did not have a beginning.

I win again.

I said science can’t yet see the beginning. You win the idiot award. Again.

And yet science tells us that space and time had a beginning, right?

Because it seems you want to argue it didn’t and that science doesn’t tell us it did.

You have zero evidence to back it up. You lose again.

Let me say it another way. Telescopes have yet to see all the way back to the BB. Look it up.

But we can observe red shift and cosmic background radiation and they confirm Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations.

Not what I was saying, I simply was saying that science can’t yet see all the way back to the BB. Making it speculation what’s there.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you heard one note from Mozart then you heard Mozart with your own ears, right?

Correct. The CMB is, it seems, a direct observation of the photons decoupled during recombination. But, keep in mind, this happened after the "big bang", or the inflationary period. But this state that we observe from 13.7 billion years ago is precisely what we would expect to see afterathe big bang. So it is more like we are observing the applause AFTER the concerto.

 

[ding]

That’s because there is nothing that says space and time did not have a beginning.

I win again.

I said science can’t yet see the beginning. You win the idiot award. Again.

And yet science tells us that space and time had a beginning, right?

Because it seems you want to argue it didn’t and that science doesn’t tell us it did.

You have zero evidence to back it up. You lose again.

Let me say it another way. Telescopes have yet to see all the way back to the BB. Look it up.

But we can observe red shift and cosmic background radiation and they confirm Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations.

Not what I was saying, I simply was saying that science can’t yet see all the way back to the BB. Making it speculation what’s there.

Which means nothing because we have lots of evidence and observations which tell us that matter and energy had a beginning.

 

[ding]

If you heard one note from Mozart then you heard Mozart with your own ears, right?

Correct. The CMB is, it seems, a direct observation of the photons decoupled during recombination. But, keep in mind, this happened after the "big bang", or the inflationary period. But this state that we observe from 13.7 billion years ago is precisely what we would expect to see afterathe big bang. So it is more like we are observing the applause AFTER the concerto.

Thus proving that space and time had a beginning. I rest my case.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yet we have all the things we can observe and the equations that describe the expansion of the universe

Correct. But we shouldn't be silly enough to assert with any certain ty that our little local universe is all that exists, has existed, or ever will exist You do,indeed,make this assertion. And it's why all your blathering about physics supporting the existence of a god is an exercise in futility. Amd it always will be. It's your dubious first premise.

 

[Taz]

I said science can’t yet see the beginning. You win the idiot award. Again.

And yet science tells us that space and time had a beginning, right?

Because it seems you want to argue it didn’t and that science doesn’t tell us it did.

You have zero evidence to back it up. You lose again.

Let me say it another way. Telescopes have yet to see all the way back to the BB. Look it up.

But we can observe red shift and cosmic background radiation and they confirm Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations.

Not what I was saying, I simply was saying that science can’t yet see all the way back to the BB. Making it speculation what’s there.

Which means nothing because we have lots of evidence and observations which tell us that matter and energy had a beginning.

And it could be a massive black hole that exploded after a total contraction of the previous universe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thus proving that space and time had a beginning.

*The space and time we can observe.

And no, it does not prove that. You are simply incorrect. There are solutions to the universe that include the big bang while also not ascribing a beginning to our own space time. Without a singularity, and with preservation of information.

So no, you're wrong.

 

[ding]

And yet we have all the things we can observe and the equations that describe the expansion of the universe

Correct. But we shouldn't be silly enough to assert with any certain ty that our little local universe is all that exists, has existed, or ever will exist You do,indeed,make this assertion. And it's why all your blathering about physics supporting the existence of a god is an exercise in futility. Amd it always will be. It's your dubious first premise.

Where did you get the idea that I said this is the only universe? I don’t know if it is or if it isn’t.

Blathering? No, not blathering. Evidence. Lots and lots of evidence.

 

[K9Buck]

Thus proving that space and time had a beginning.

*The space and time we can observe.

And no, it does not prove that. You are simply incorrect. There are solutions to the universe that include the big bang while also not ascribing a beginning to our own space time. Without a singularity, and with preservation of information.

So no, you're wrong.

If you died and then found yourself in Heaven, would you be pissed off?

 

[K9Buck]

The universe had a beginning. The evidence supports this belief. There is ZERO evidence of another universe.

And atheists still can't explain first cause.

 

[ding]

Thus proving that space and time had a beginning.

*The space and time we can observe.

And no, it does not prove that. You are simply incorrect. There are solutions to the universe that include the big bang while also not ascribing a beginning to our own space time. Without a singularity, and with preservation of information.

So no, you're wrong.

And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shoots each and every one of them down. But some of them are just mathematical tricks to avoid a singularity. Which is in and of itself a product of math to begin with. The singularity doesn’t really have any meaning in and of itself.

But keep in mind that every mental masturbation you embrace to avoid the inevitable still has all matter and energy occupying a tiny space and then expanding and cooling. Every single one. Sounds like a beginning to me even if it offends your sensibilities. I believe it offends your sensibilities because it does prove space and time were created. And you know it.

 

[K9Buck]

Thus proving that space and time had a beginning.

*The space and time we can observe.

And no, it does not prove that. You are simply incorrect. There are solutions to the universe that include the big bang while also not ascribing a beginning to our own space time. Without a singularity, and with preservation of information.

So no, you're wrong.

And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shoots each and every one of them down. But some of them are just mathematical tricks to avoid a singularity. Which is in and of itself a product of math to begin with. The singularity doesn’t really have any meaning in and of itself.

But keep in mind that every mental masturbation you embrace to avoid the inevitable still has all matter and energy occupying a tiny space and then expanding and cooling. Every single one. Sounds like a beginning to me even if it offends your sensibilities. I believe it offends your sensibilities because it does prove space and time were created. And you know it.

He's a disciple of ABG theory, anything but God!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where did you get the idea that I said this is the only universe?

Oh, allow me to be corrected. So you do think that all we can observe may not be all there is, and that evidence (not proof, please correct this egregious error on your part going forward) that our observable spacetime had a beginning is not actually good evidence (and certainly not "proof") that all there is had a beginning.

Good, glad we're on the same page. Carry on. But, I'll be watching you.

 

[ding]

Thus proving that space and time had a beginning.

*The space and time we can observe.

And no, it does not prove that. You are simply incorrect. There are solutions to the universe that include the big bang while also not ascribing a beginning to our own space time. Without a singularity, and with preservation of information.

So no, you're wrong.

I’m wrong that space and time had a beginning? I guess that means you believe space and time existed forever, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shoots each and every one of them down.

100% incorrect. That's why not only are they viable theories, but are actually starting to gain favor over the idea of a singularity.

Ding, you are being kind of a weaselly little liar. You have never bothered to read up on any of these theories, nor have you ever tried (or do you even have the capacity) to sort through them and chill them with mathematics. Please spare me the dog and pony show, thanks.

 

[ding]

Where did you get the idea that I said this is the only universe?

Oh, allow me to be corrected. So you do think that all we can observe may not be all there is, and that evidence (not proof, please correct this egregious error on your part going forward) that our observable spacetime had a beginning is not actually good evidence (and certainly not "proof") that all there is had a beginning.

Good, glad we're on the same page. Carry on. But, I'll be watching you.

No, you are wrong about that too. Any multiverse which exists would have had its own beginning just as our universe had its beginning.

Matter and energy cannot be the cause of creating space and time. The only thing that can create matter and energy is no thing. Spirit is no thing. Spirit can create space and time.

There is no limit on the number of space times spirit can create.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, let's review all the ways you have been wrong and have had to be corrected:

1) the CMB is a snapshot of the universe well after the big bang, not a direct observation of the big bang itself.

2) the evidence at hand only refers to the spacetime we could ever 9bserve,not strictly "all there is"

3) the CMB is not "proof" of a beginning to our spacetime, but only evidence of the states predicted by our laws after a rapid inflationary period

4) we are not certain that our universe had a strict beginning , and the theories iy did not our actually favored ober those proposing a singluarity