Why would a God even need a hell?

[ding]

Sure it has and sure it does. Can you prove it isn't and doesn't? I'll wait.

That's not how scientific scrutiny works. If it can't be proven scientifically, then you have nothing. Nobody needs to disprove anything. You are disproven when you can't meet the standard of scientific proof.

And nothing has been proven to be existing before the BB. Nor does anything of the BB tie in scientifically to a god.

Not true. You do not know how science works. If they Eddington had not observed the shift of the star's position during the eclipse, Einstein's theory of realtivity would have been proven wrong. So you see, dipstick, science does prove negatives. Try again. Can you prove the laws of nature did not exist before space and time? I'll wait.

That's like saying "can you prove that god doesn't exist?" God is not a scientific theory. Neither is name calling. So do you have a link to a science leaning site that proves that there was something before the BB? Or is that just a personal delusion?

I didn't ask you to prove that God doesn't exist. I asked you to prove the Laws of Nature were not in place before space and time. Two different things.

Then do you have a link to real scientists with real science explaining what they found and how they found it?

Before the Big Bang?

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

 

[ding]

Sure it has and sure it does. Can you prove it isn't and doesn't? I'll wait.

That's not how scientific scrutiny works. If it can't be proven scientifically, then you have nothing. Nobody needs to disprove anything. You are disproven when you can't meet the standard of scientific proof.

And nothing has been proven to be existing before the BB. Nor does anything of the BB tie in scientifically to a god.

Not true. You do not know how science works. If they Eddington had not observed the shift of the star's position during the eclipse, Einstein's theory of realtivity would have been proven wrong. So you see, dipstick, science does prove negatives. Try again. Can you prove the laws of nature did not exist before space and time? I'll wait.

That's like saying "can you prove that god doesn't exist?" God is not a scientific theory. Neither is name calling. So do you have a link to a science leaning site that proves that there was something before the BB? Or is that just a personal delusion?

I didn't ask you to prove that God doesn't exist. I asked you to prove the Laws of Nature were not in place before space and time. Two different things.

Then do you have a link to real scientists with real science explaining what they found and how they found it?

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. If it is a periodic 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. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. 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.

 

[Mudda]

That's not how scientific scrutiny works. If it can't be proven scientifically, then you have nothing. Nobody needs to disprove anything. You are disproven when you can't meet the standard of scientific proof.

And nothing has been proven to be existing before the BB. Nor does anything of the BB tie in scientifically to a god.

Not true. You do not know how science works. If they Eddington had not observed the shift of the star's position during the eclipse, Einstein's theory of realtivity would have been proven wrong. So you see, dipstick, science does prove negatives. Try again. Can you prove the laws of nature did not exist before space and time? I'll wait.

That's like saying "can you prove that god doesn't exist?" God is not a scientific theory. Neither is name calling. So do you have a link to a science leaning site that proves that there was something before the BB? Or is that just a personal delusion?

I didn't ask you to prove that God doesn't exist. I asked you to prove the Laws of Nature were not in place before space and time. Two different things.

Then do you have a link to real scientists with real science explaining what they found and how they found it?

Yes, all of their work is based on observations that every point in the universe is moving away from us and that the solution of the general theory of relativity shows that 14 billion years ago our universe started in a hot dense state “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom” and expanded and cooled. Every single model uses this as their history matching. Even the cyclic models which no one believes anymore because they violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

My goodness.... you are one of those flat earthers you were ridiculing just a few minutes ago. Thank you for proving my point that "They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes."

I asked "do you have a link to real scientists with real science explaining what they found and how they found it". You said "yes" then didn't provide one. Want to try again?

 

[Mudda]

That's not how scientific scrutiny works. If it can't be proven scientifically, then you have nothing. Nobody needs to disprove anything. You are disproven when you can't meet the standard of scientific proof.

And nothing has been proven to be existing before the BB. Nor does anything of the BB tie in scientifically to a god.

Not true. You do not know how science works. If they Eddington had not observed the shift of the star's position during the eclipse, Einstein's theory of realtivity would have been proven wrong. So you see, dipstick, science does prove negatives. Try again. Can you prove the laws of nature did not exist before space and time? I'll wait.

That's like saying "can you prove that god doesn't exist?" God is not a scientific theory. Neither is name calling. So do you have a link to a science leaning site that proves that there was something before the BB? Or is that just a personal delusion?

I didn't ask you to prove that God doesn't exist. I asked you to prove the Laws of Nature were not in place before space and time. Two different things.

Then do you have a link to real scientists with real science explaining what they found and how they found it?

Before the Big Bang?

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Did you even read the link? It doesn't say what was before but merely poses the question. to quote your link, "Whatever physics preceded the Big Bang left the Universe in this state."

So that's strike one.

 

[Mudda]

That's not how scientific scrutiny works. If it can't be proven scientifically, then you have nothing. Nobody needs to disprove anything. You are disproven when you can't meet the standard of scientific proof.

And nothing has been proven to be existing before the BB. Nor does anything of the BB tie in scientifically to a god.

Not true. You do not know how science works. If they Eddington had not observed the shift of the star's position during the eclipse, Einstein's theory of realtivity would have been proven wrong. So you see, dipstick, science does prove negatives. Try again. Can you prove the laws of nature did not exist before space and time? I'll wait.

That's like saying "can you prove that god doesn't exist?" God is not a scientific theory. Neither is name calling. So do you have a link to a science leaning site that proves that there was something before the BB? Or is that just a personal delusion?

I didn't ask you to prove that God doesn't exist. I asked you to prove the Laws of Nature were not in place before space and time. Two different things.

Then do you have a link to real scientists with real science explaining what they found and how they found it?

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. If it is a periodic 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. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. 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.

To quote you "If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning." That's what's known as a guess. Even wishful thinking. But not fact.

 

[Mickiel]

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

 

[Mickiel]

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

Science was once a child of the church.

 

[Mickiel]

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

Science was once a child of the church.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II) | The Institute for Creation Research


Is God Real?

 

[ding]

Not true. You do not know how science works. If they Eddington had not observed the shift of the star's position during the eclipse, Einstein's theory of realtivity would have been proven wrong. So you see, dipstick, science does prove negatives. Try again. Can you prove the laws of nature did not exist before space and time? I'll wait.

That's like saying "can you prove that god doesn't exist?" God is not a scientific theory. Neither is name calling. So do you have a link to a science leaning site that proves that there was something before the BB? Or is that just a personal delusion?

I didn't ask you to prove that God doesn't exist. I asked you to prove the Laws of Nature were not in place before space and time. Two different things.

Then do you have a link to real scientists with real science explaining what they found and how they found it?

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. If it is a periodic 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. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. 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.

To quote you "If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning." That's what's known as a guess. Even wishful thinking. But not fact.

No. That is what is known as Einstein's general theory of relativity. The solutions to his equations show that the universe started in a dense hot state and then expanded and cooled. The red shift confirms this solution. The 2nd law of thermodynamicss confirms the universe had a beginning too. Inflation theory tells us how it is possible for matter and energy to pop into existence according to the laws of quantum mechanics without violating the laws of conservation but you are too ignorant and stubborn to accept it.

 

[Mudda]

That's like saying "can you prove that god doesn't exist?" God is not a scientific theory. Neither is name calling. So do you have a link to a science leaning site that proves that there was something before the BB? Or is that just a personal delusion?

I didn't ask you to prove that God doesn't exist. I asked you to prove the Laws of Nature were not in place before space and time. Two different things.

Then do you have a link to real scientists with real science explaining what they found and how they found it?

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. If it is a periodic 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. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. 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.

To quote you "If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning." That's what's known as a guess. Even wishful thinking. But not fact.

No. That is what is known as Einstein's general theory of relativity. The solutions to his equations show that the universe started in a dense hot state and then expanded and cooled. The red shift confirms this solution. The 2nd law of thermodynamicss confirms the universe had a beginning too. Inflation theory tells us how it is possible for matter and energy to pop into existence according to the laws of quantum mechanics without violating the laws of conservation but you are too ignorant and stubborn to accept it.

Show me links to scientific sites or papers that prove that there was nothing before the BB. All you have are theories, and you even keep using the word over and over again.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Ya know, it's kinda cute to watch DINGbat try to explain physics by using religion.

 

[Mickiel]

Christians need hell, not God.

 

[ding]

Ya know, it's kinda cute to watch DINGbat try to explain physics by using religion.

You got that backwards. But considering I have forgotten more than you will ever know about science, I'll cut you some slack.

For instance did you know that you were present when space and time were created? You were literally there. We all were. Every soul who has ever walked this planet was present for the birth of space and time.

But the really interesting thing is that your comment came right after I posted a comment about general relativity and its role in our understanding how the universe evolved. I can't imagine the idiocracy of someone who supposedly worships science like a god, shitting all over science.

 

[Mickiel]

Christians need hell, not God.[/QUOTE


Christians needs to see humanity suffer and hurt forever; they train their people. to want that.

 

[MuslimHeaven]

I thought it was a place for the infidels.

 

[Mickiel]

I thought it was a place for the infidels.

You thought like lit. Don't believe the error slide of religion. Hell is their garbage can for people they don't like.

 

[Mickiel]

Why would a God need to threaten his people?

 

[ding]

Why would a God need to threaten his people?

Don't you have a thread that is based on your belief that God is hiding from us because of us? Can you please get your lies straight?

 

[Mudda]

Why would a God need to threaten his people?

Don't you have a thread that is based on your belief that God is hiding from us because of us? Can you please get your lies straight?

That sounds about right, god is hiding from us because he's ashamed of his creation and is trying to pawn it off on his buddy satan.

 

[ding]

Why would a God need to threaten his people?

Don't you have a thread that is based on your belief that God is hiding from us because of us? Can you please get your lies straight?

That sounds about right, god is hiding from us because he's ashamed of his creation and is trying to pawn it off on his buddy satan.

Well you are the expert on shame.