Universe Race

As I understand it, no one knows "what is going on" at T=0, or "what is there". Once you "reverse" the universe in time to the very last "known" instance where the known mathematics and formulas still hold and do not break down, you can't go back any further in any meaningful way because we simply do not know what it would "look" like or how it acted. It is so wildly different after "reversing" past the last explainable instance that you might as well ask what God's "face" looks like.T=0 is simply a theorized "starting point", a conceptualization of the universe's "birthday". Correct me if I am mistaken, but couldn't we, with the currently accepted physics, "reverse" the universe back infinitely, getting smaller and smaller with no end in sight? Something about a zero-dimensional curve or some such? If this is so, it sounds kind of ridiculous without a creator. I thought infinities were non-sense scientifically speaking. I don't see how some people think they are better off or more justified in putting faith into this instead of God. Haven't they broken down into resorting to near sci-fi like theories like Stringtheory to try and explain the inconsistencies between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? I don't know, it just seems kind of fishy to me.Doesn't Superstring Theory/M-Theory give some sort of minimal size for the singularity? What impact does this have on the Big Bang model?Please excuse me if I am not conducting myself in an appropriate manner, this is my first time posting.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : Spelling error.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : Sorry for all the edits.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : I just MADE a mistake with my last edit where it was fine before. Pfft. I wish they wouldn't show this list.

I am well aware of this possibility. I do not think by any means that proof of the Big Bang Theory, or proof of anything further such as String Theory, would contradict the concept of a God. Nor do I understand the people who have this idea in their head. I see nothing that is in direct conflict. Who am I to question God's methods? In fact, I would like someone to explain to me why this would contradict the concept of God. Please, do not think I am that close minded. Look at what I said above. Perhaps I should have clarified what I meant. When I said I didn't understand how some people could feel more justified with having faith in the Big Bang rather than God, I didn't mean the Big Bang couldn't have happened WITH a God. What I meant by "some people" was those who HATE and REJECT the concept of God with passion because to them it seems ridiculous, but then they turn around and embrace things like the Big Bang Theory and String Theory whole heartedly with full force. To me this doesn't seem any more "out there" than God. In fact, no matter what is proven to be reality, it simply strengthens my faith, because how could something as magnificent and elegant as the Big Bang happen without THE God. I find it hard to swallow that things are the way they are "just because".And to Chiroptera:Thank you for the clarification. Aren't the best candidates thus far String/M-Theory and Eleven Dimensional Super Gravity? What other ones are there? And I know we have yet to obtain the technology to probe matter to the insane energy levels needed to prove or disprove these new theories. But I have feeling that we never will. And even if we did prove that the smallest constituents are one-dimensional "strings", or 1-D "strings" and 2-branes and 3-branes and 4-branes etc, I think we would eventually find more glaring problems, and a need for something more fundamental. And if we found and proved that, eventually we would again need something more fundamental for everything to fit together. I have a feeling that this chain will never stop, and those who are relying on it to reveal to them some sort meaningful answer as to their relevance in existence or lack thereof are in for an extremely rude awakening once the Lord returns.Am I getting too far off topic? I'm sorry.ICANT:The universe IS NOT the size of a pea at T=0.... right? Once it has reached that size most of it's expansion is already complete. Saying that the universe is the size of a pea and then understanding that there is NO time OR space at T=0 is asinine. A definitive size would indicate existing space. Before the instance of t=10^-40 ANYTHING is possible... the "shapes" could have gone through a series of changes, or things could have come into and gone out of existence. Things that are simply incomprehensible. T=0, for all intents and purposes, means existence=0. Or not even that. It is simply a theorized start used to make calculations. Am I way off here?Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.

You don't know, and you refuse to make any assumptions, and are simply waiting for the "facts". The thing is, you'll never know, and if somehow we did figure out with "undeniable" scientific proof I guarantee you it is not the true way. It is simply the evil one clouding your fragile human mind with convincing lies. If you rely totally on your senses and logic you will play right into his hands. Stop trying to make human reason equal with God. Accept that there are things that will not and can not be explained, except through Him. Think with your heart. In the biggest of pictures, science is nothing but an organized system of ignorance. This will all be clear to every one of us when the time comes.

I would hardly call it a rambling. It was clear and coherent. Nor am I opposed to technological progression, within moral reason. Otherwise, I wouldn't be on a computer. Technology has brought many good things to humanity, such as medicines. So please soften your know-it-all tone. Being an atheist doesn't require being a smug asshole, although that can be hard to determine from these forums.I hardly think my view would be demolished. But making a thread about it would be pointless, since all the arguments presented to me would follow in the "Well, I can say that a pink unicorn is behind you and using your theist logic you can't prove me wrong, but by using our holy sacred science you can prove me wrong", vein.I am not against science, as I said it had brought us many wondrous things, that is why I clarified saying "in the biggest of pictures", as in, when the end comes, you will know how foolish it is to take it as a determining factor to whether there is a creator or not.Yes, this was off topic, and I apologize. I shall refrain from doing such things in the future.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.

In a broad sort of way, yes. I have "made up my mind" that there is a creator, for many reasons I shouldn't go into for fear of being punched by an admin.In a specific sort of way, no. I too submit the answer of "I don't know", because I am not so foolish as to assume I know the exact methods or nature of the Lord. Of course I feel emotional distress. Not toward the topic, because in my opinion the big bang is an accurate description of what God caused to take place. I do however feel emotional distress toward those in here who do not follow God, for I am concerned about the fate of their eternal soul. Is it not natural for one to care about others? If you are talking about the big bang, then it's fact. If you are talking about my post, then of course it is an assumption. It is uncertain speculation. Something I wish many worshipers of the physical would share. God forbid! My main point in all this was to say that you shouldn't be so cocksure about ANYTHING! I don't see how you could peg me to be one of those arrogant know-it-all religious fanatics who think that their own personal view of God is the only correct one. I have the same stance toward the physical world. Things aren't always what they seem, friend. Personal belief. And the specifics of my beliefs aren't set in stone. There are so many possibilities. I am not making a statement of facts. It is speculation conveyed in a confident manner. I am confident in the words of Jesus the Christ, and I chose to speak confidently. I am in no way saying that THIS IS THE WAY IT IS. For as many that blaspheme with science, twice as many blaspheme with distorted religion. The road to hell is paved with preachers. So if it seems like I am making a declaration of fact, just know that there is uncertainty in there. Only God knows the facts. Brother, I didn't call you ignorant. I called science ignorant in relation to God's words. The evidence is all around you, but you refuse to see with your eyes. If only the truth was as simple as human logic... Did you not read what I actually typed? I said atheism does NOT require bad manners, but looking at a lot of the atheists on here, that can be hard to see. The prime example of this behavior is Taz, who resorts to hurtful jokes and sarcasm even when unprovoked. And to your comment that you just directed towards me personally. Tell me, did I resort to such childish behavior in my posts? I don't think so. You are just proving my point. I did nothing to provoke a personal insult like that, aside from you disagreeing with my beliefs, and your frustration from making assumptions about my beliefs. I'll admit, I shouldn't have used the word "asshole", and I shouldn't have lumped a group of people together. That comment was 99% directed towards Taz. From seeing many of his posts on here, it boggles my mind that he isn't permanently banned. Isn't there rules about how to treat other people here?------------------------------------------Anyway, in conclusion ICANT, your attempt to shine light upon the darkness of those who do not believe is ill-fated. Science has gotten so far, and just because it hasn't got to the point of answering what the universe was before t=10-40, doesn't mean it never will. And just because it hasn't yet doesn't prove that any divine being had a cause in it's creation (according to them, which is the main point you are trying to make, is it not?). And no one is making any assumptions out to be fact, for that goes against the very nature of science. Nothing is glaringly wrong or "fudged" with what has been scientifically verified up to this point.Anyway, it is impossible to prove/disprove God by these means, which was probably God's intention, since if we could verify his existence through evaluation of the physical then there would be no point in the concept of faith. Perhaps we could one day verify, and with that discovery, Christ would return. That's just random speculation though.I said "in conclusion", because all the falsely accused "problems of the big bang" that you have brought forth have been explained to you in detail, multiple times, and all your attempts to show that the universe has a creator have been smashed, which is unavoidable here. I'm sure anymore "fudge factors" you could think of could easily be explained to you, but you would first need extensive knowledge in the subject to really understand what is being said. Otherwise you wouldn't understand, and would keep insisting that there are problems with the theory, which has already happened many times. Maybe you should look for the answers outside of these forums? I don't really see how you could possibly milk this thread out anymore than it has been.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.