Before Big Bang God or Singularity

No, of course not...

What? Based on your phenomenal understanding of physics? Well, I guess I must concede the point. Well done, you've proved God created the Universe. Are you going to be on TV tomorrow? If so, I'll look out for you.Goodnight

You think you with your armchair musing and infinitesimal knowledge of the subject have managed to understand ANYTHING, never mind 'proving' something in a field of study covered by thousands of the brightest scientists in the world... you have not listened to anything that has been explained to you in this thread. You have your deluded conclusions and you're sticking with them. Well done. I guess it's true about old dogs...What we have proved is that you have an arrogance and pride beyond belief that you will be called upon to explain one day...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Let's try this another way... No, it is not impossible. Why do you claim this?

No, not at all. There are several ideas... No, we're not. Something does not 'come' from nothing. But you are assuming that the thing it comes from has to be 'before'. Why is that? Those outside the field are clueless - just like everyone is clueless about the frontiers of any discipline other than those working at that frontier. No disrespect, Nem, but the No-Boundary proposal is physics so advanced that whatever it 'seems' is immaterial. Let me assure you that there is no pretending, and there certainly is no begging the question. Yes, it definietly does. That is the point of the analogy. At T=0 in classical big bang, or in no-boundary, there is no concept of before. But as I asked earlier, if you are looking for a cause, why does it have to be in the past?

I'm going to sleep, so will reply in the morning...But I'll just leave you with this: Doesn't actually sound like I need to reply; you seem to have it all figured out. In how many other ultra-technical frontier sciences are you an expert, or have you just specialised in this one? goodnight

Yes it would... wow, I forgot that North is straight-up oh dear, it is too late for this level of humour stimulation.

Really? I wish I'd known you were such an expert on space-time physics. Why can it not be in the future?BTW, it is 'definitely' - think of it as de-finite, you won't go wrong again...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

No I did not You should read what I said...I said that I was NOT saying that "there was space-time before the Big Bang"It simply makes no sense. There is no 'before' so it impossible to talk about it.Of course there is space-time. The singularity is surrounded by it. The singularity is a feature of that space-time, and arises because of the nature of that space-time. Simple...

It's an old error of mine, so I always notice it You keep saying this and I have no idea why. Yes, so what? We are talking about theories of space-time and existence here. You don't expect it to be obvious, common sense, and easy to understand did you? I really don't trust the Bible as a cosmology textbook, but even so, how does this negate what I am saying?

I'm not sure what this means - all possible 'froms' are contained within the space-time. Why should it need creating? Why can it not just be?

Although it is vaguely amusing watching you make such proclamations from a position of near complete ignorance, please justify this statement.Why is the Big Bang false?

I thrive off explaining this science to those with a desire to learn, because I love educating (why it was my career for so long) and I love this science (why I was a scientist in this field)But I condescend to those that think they can make bold claims in a field with which they have but the most passing aquaintance - and not only any field but one of the most esoteric and far removed from common sense in the whole of scientific endeavour. No, they don't, especially if they don't mind naively spouting unadulterated bullshit. This is quantum mechanics and general relativity all rolled up together... do you want to dare to tell me what the givens are???? This is my field, and I'm not confident that I would ever claim that something is a given. Let me explain: I think - arsehole I think - oh bugger, how am I going to expalin this...? oh, I know...Sorry to use one of your examples, but it was to hand. I should really be using any of the far worse statements that ICANT repeats in every one of his hundred-odd posts in this thread.That said - look at my post 13, and your reply 101. I don't see many questions there - I see posturing and half-baked nonsense claims. Why? Do you really think you understand what Hawking is saying well enough to be able to claim that he is question-begging??? Really?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

When a gentleman approaches with his underpants on his head, a pencil up each nostril, and announces 'wibble', one's first reaction is typically not 'I must refute this'

Thanks, I can tell It's nice being to sit back and watch you, Mod and Rahvin do the work