Existence

I think you are the one mistaken, your inability to comprehend a concept doesn't mean this concept is impossible. For example, your inability to understand how electricity is produced in this thread doesn't mean we can't produce electricity. Likewise, your inability to aknowledge that you are wrong even when it's obvious (in this same thread) doesn't mean that you are always right. Of course, as you don't even have the understanding of physics expected of an high schooler, you shouldn't expect to understand things even the greatest physicians have a hard time understanding (like the beginning of the universe). That you dress up your ignorance with word salads doesn't change the fact that you are ignorant either. Luckily, there's a way to remedy ignorance, you must be willing to learn and admit when you are wrong.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

You missed the part of the thread where you affirmed that lightning came from the reaction between positron and electron. Something so absurd that anyone knowing how electricity works should have laughed it off. After having been proven wrong, you never recanted your position and prefered to flee the thread. The point of me bringing up is to show that you don't know much about physics and you would do well to learn a bit about it before believing you can contradict the greatest physicians.Moreover, you asking how "all that exists today could be produced from such non-existence" proves that you understood the others' position as well as you understood electricity. They're not saying that everything came from nothing, it's just that there is no "before" the big bang where there could have been either existance or non-existance. Your question doesn't make any sense in the context of their position.Don't be mistaken, I don't take issue with you being ignorant (we all are to some extant). What I dislike is you not having the honesty to aknowledge when you are wrong (making debate with you almost pointless). That's where my agressivity is coming from I guess, but I don't intend to tiptoe around you as long as you don't try to debate honestly.

Noone proposed this in this thread so why are you asking how matter and energy began to exist again?
It seems you don't have the honesty to address the actual position of those debating you and you'd rather beat up a straw man, not that I should have expected anymore from you.Moreover other, your "solution" only pushes the problem farther back, where did the materials come from?

What the current theory says is not that the universe itself always existed or that it was created from non-existance. It's just that there hasn't been in time in the past when the universe didn't exist, so it wasn't really created from non-existance (as we would understand it anyway). However time doesn't extend indefinitely in the past, thus the universe hasn't existed "forever".This conception of time may seem conter-intuitive but nonetheless the theory of the Big-Bang that explains it has predictions that so far have been verified (Cosmic Background Radiation, repartition of elements...) that's why it's considered scientific. If your explanation can make those kind of predictions, we could consider it but as you're presenting it, it's worthless.

I'm not 100% it's the case but what I was actually explaining you is the POSITION the current theory has. I did it so you would understand there's not only two possibilities:
-the universe always existed
-the universe was created by a previous existance
There's also the current theory that is separate from the two options you have proposed. Wow, you are again asking the SAME question when we already explained to you that it had nothing to do with the current theory.As for the problems you have cited, obviously no theory is 100% correct or without problems but the Big Bang is the model that currently answers the most questions, that's why we're currently use it but it needs either completing or a better theory that may overturn it (theory that has yet to appear).In comparison, your "theory" doesn't even come close since it gives 0 predictions so it's as useful as saying a pink unicorn farted the universe.

Why should we show that when it has nothing to do with our position? How many times will you beat up the same strawman?

How is it a strawman if im presenting our own position and not yours? Most of what I presented wasn't about your position but about how you refused to understand ours.

Science doesn't say it began to exist (in the sense you understand it). What I was pointing out is that there is a third option (the current scientific model) on top of the two you presented. You're basically asking us to defend a position noone here holds, that's the very definition of a strawman.By the way, you're free to present your hypothesis/predictions there. Edited by Son, : No reason given.

First, small nitpick but your next message is not a reply to me but to scientificbob.Actually, in the current theory, neither time nor the universe began in the conventional way but there is effectively a point in time when every other points in time is situated after it.
I just don't see how you can conclude there was existence (or non-existence) before time since "before time" is as nonsensical as north of north pole (hence the analogy Rahvin talked about).The definitions of time you have cited are mostly about our perception of time and even through they are easy to understand intuitively, they are not really adapted to speak about the nature of the universe.
The second definition points out though that defining time (at least with words) has always been controversial.
I don't think I'm learned enough to explain it but I can at least describe the position that physicists hold. What I know though is whereas I don't fully understand their conception of time, it is consistent with reality and I can verify it everytime I use satelite based services (television, gps). It's not because an explanation is hard to understand that it is false and moreover, it's not because you can't understand their position that their actual position is different from what they're telling you.The problem you have is that like everything else with reality, you had a preconceived notion of what physicists thought and when you discover that they don't hold this simple position (against which you were prepared to argue), you deny it like you deny reality. You're pretending that you know their minds better than themselves . You can never admit you could have gotten something wrong. We ran into the same problem with the lightning thread that's why even there you never recanted your position no matter how absurd it was.After so many people tried to explain the current scientific theory, it's obvious you will never understand it (or even try to) so I don't think we could say much more about it. Then, it would be nice if you presented your own theory (with the predictions and all). Edited by Son, : No reason given.

I would like to explain Cavediver's message a bit more, he presented an object with a location whose coordinates are x,y and z in space. You then respond some nonsensical things about x being a point in time, y somehow it's duration and z another point in time, so you can now see why he's thinking you're talking BS. Your answer had nothing to do with his message so he's rightfully wondering whether you even read his post. Of course, if you don't even read the posts you "answer" to, all debate with you is useless. The problem is not that you contradict him but that your "response" doesn't even seem related to his post.

But you first asked about the path of an object in SPACE-time. He responded using four coordinates (x,y,z,t) and you are responding as if he was speaking about a single dimension. How can we hope to have an honest debate when you can't even admit it when you are wrong about MIDDLE-school maths? Moreover, instead of addressing such basic things (yes, middle-school maths are basics), you're trying to cover your mistake with another word salad that had nothing to do with the post.
Otherwise, how do you explain that you used x,y and z as points in time, if you had truly understood his post, you would have explained that to you (x,y,z) are irrevelant and would have used t1, t2 and t3.

Well, time is required as a dimension, otherwise, as I pointed out, all satellite-based services wouldn't work. How can you explain that we can make work so many satellites, have gps if the physicists are wrong?? People can't make you understand this subject for two reasons that are independant of their understanding of the subject:
-you refuse to learn or try to understand ,as demonstrated by your refusal to retract your position on positron/electron being responsible for lightning as well as your refusal to admit you were wrong about middle school maths in this very thread
-you don't even understand middle-school maths or high-school physics making it impossible for us to teach you anything more complex, unless you think that all scientists don't understand those subjects but are still able to make all of today's technology work?You're also stuck on those two irrevelant questions while you have yet to present your own "science".edit: you also can't make a difference between me and scientificbob despite my correction, demonstrating that you barely read the posts you're answering to.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Well, due to internet problems, I couldn't answer sooner, sorry for the delay.I see that people have explained a bit more about cosmology and since I don't know that much about it, I will let them answer those questions instead. I've already told all I could on this subject.What I wanted to point out though is that you still seem to not have explained how gps can work if the theory behind them is wrong? What is your theory and what does it predict? If you answer those questions, it will be easier to see where you come from. Also, I'm still waiting on the retraction in the lightning thread as well as your explanation about your apparent lack of understanding of middle-school maths (turning 3 dimensions into a single dimension for no reasons).

Since I haven't been debating creationnists for as long or as actively as you, my door has yet to suffer through the unfortunate fate yours had to, but it shouldn't take much longer now...

First, sorry for the delay since I was changing ISP, I was cut off from the internet for some times. From now on I should be able to respond faster.For the first point, others have already pointed out that clocks and other things in gps are adjusted according to relativity which posits that time is a dimension of spacetime. They don't use your "theory" about time. If you think your theory is the truth, you should be able to show with maths what your theory actually predicts and why relativity is wrong despite its accuracy.For the second point about lightning, here's what started the thread: You then followed this message with this: After having been proven wrong, you still have not recanted neither did you come back to this thread to dispute it's conclusions. You simply went on to ignore it.
Moreover, now instead of admiting you were wrong, you're making it sound like you were seeking informations that have then been answered, which is plainly false. You were wrong about basic physics and were then corrected by others. Did you really think that noone would check on the thread to see your dishonesty?As for the third point, here is what Cavediver said at some point: You then responded with this from message 84: Here we have cavediver using x,y and z as coordinates in space(3 dimensions). The x,y and z you use to answer are all coordinates in time (a single dimension).After a short exchange between us, I pointed out in message 98 this: Did you really think that noone was able to recheck past messages? Contrary to oral debate, internet discussions leave traces and your usual tactics don't work there even though I'm sure they're very efficient in a church. Moreover, as a self-described chistian, shouldn't you try to be at least a little bit honest? I thought it was considered a sin to lie. Unless your christiannity is also a lie?