Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Before Big Bang God or Singularity
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 166 of 405 (453146)
02-01-2008 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by ICANT
02-01-2008 2:04 PM


Re: Re=T=0
OK at this point, where did it come from?
Ask where did the point 3 inches from your nose 5 seconds ago came from. It is the same answer. The question should not be 'where did the singularity come from?' but 'is spacetime self-existing or do dimensions exist that cannot be readily accessed by us, within which some event happened that lead to the existence of the spacetime that we call the universe?'
Once you ask the right kind of questions, and understand why they are the right kind of questions, you might get (and understand) the right kind of answers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 2:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 3:05 PM Modulous has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 167 of 405 (453147)
02-01-2008 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by ICANT
02-01-2008 2:13 PM


Re: Space-time
very well. it does sound better.
john 1:1 and the science of the singularity are both talking bout the same reference point of T=0
the problem is, many Christians do not realize the reality of God, and science has not pursued the singularity in full by asking :
order? chaotic? intelligent? not intelligent?
this dispute is about T=0 and what it is, and so should be examined for the truth of what can or cannot be said of it by what reality is.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 2:13 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 168 of 405 (453152)
02-01-2008 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Rahvin
02-01-2008 1:54 PM


Re-Beginning
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
The Big Bang was not the "beginning" of the Universe as you're stating. Nothing was "created in the Big Bang. The Bang is what we call the expansion of the Universe from the Singularity to what we see today - not a scientific verification of your "creation ex nihilo" fantasies.
So the Big Bang was not the beginning. I know that, I got it from a reliable source Genesis 1:1.
But I found this:
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
Hawking on the beginning.
Public Lectures - The Beginning of Time
In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.
I also found this:
Best Paytm Cash Earning Games in India | Free Apps to Win Cash online
For thousands of years, people have wondered about the universe. Did it stretch out forever or was there a limit? And where did it all come from? Did the universe have a beginning, a moment of creation? Or had the universe existed forever? The debate between these two views raged for centuries without reaching any conclusions. Personally, I'm sure that the universe began with a hot Big Bang. But will it go on forever? If not, how will it end? I'm much less certain about that. The expansion of the universe spreads everything out, but gravity tries to pull it all back together again. Our destiny depends on which force will win." ”Stephen Hawking
How did the universe really begin?
Most astronomers would say that the debate is now over: The universe started with a giant explosion, called the Big Bang. The big-bang theory got its start with the observations by Edwin Hubble that showed the universe to be expanding. If you imagine the history of the universe as a long-running movie, what happens when you show the movie in reverse? All the galaxies would move closer and closer together, until eventually they all get crushed together into one massive yet tiny sphere. It was just this sort of thinking that led to the concept of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand. Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10 -43 second (10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second) after the Big Bang. Before this time all four fundamental forces”gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces”were unified, but physicists have yet to develop a workable theory that can describe these conditions.
So what am I supposed to believe. That is the reason I keep asking the question. Where did it come from?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Rahvin, posted 02-01-2008 1:54 PM Rahvin has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 169 of 405 (453158)
02-01-2008 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Modulous
02-01-2008 2:17 PM


Re: Re=T=0
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
Ask where did the point 3 inches from your nose 5 seconds ago came from.
Nice, But it existed there regardless to where my nose was at that moment.
Modulous writes:
The question should not be 'where did the singularity come from?'
Maybe, But since according to cavediver it cannot exist
Message 34 Message 111
There are three messages That I state according to cavediver and Hawking that the singularity could not have existed in the first place to expand into the universe.
Thus I claimed in Message 91 according to my OP.
My original question:
Message 1
In this topic I would like to discuss which is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. God or the Singularity including the Big Bang.
Message 91
Premise 1: Singularity including the Big Bang is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe. Falasified
Premise 2: God is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe.
Maybe, Maybe not but not falsified. This is the scientific answer.
I believe that premise has been proven to me because I received it from a reliable source. God. Genesis 1:1
Now my conclusions in premise 1 are based upon what Hawking says and what cavediver said.
Would you care to refute my conclusions that are based upon those two learned men or are we going to dance around here for another 130 plus post with my conclusions still not refuted.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 2:17 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-01-2008 3:32 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 172 by cavediver, posted 02-01-2008 3:34 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 174 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 3:42 PM ICANT has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 170 of 405 (453160)
02-01-2008 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Hyroglyphx
02-01-2008 1:39 PM


Re: ... In the beginning
thus far you seem to condescend to people without giving explanations.
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 one needs be an expert with the givens
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.
If they are not, then an explanation as to why not would be helpful -- far more so than condescending to people.
Let me explain:
If there is no actual singularity, then there was no beginning.
I think - arsehole
Surely if there is no actual singularity, then there was no beginning?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-01-2008 1:39 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-01-2008 3:38 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 187 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-01-2008 6:01 PM cavediver has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 405 (453161)
02-01-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by ICANT
02-01-2008 3:05 PM


Re: Re=T=0
Would you care to refute my conclusions that are based upon those two learned men or are we going to dance around here for another 130 plus post with my conclusions still not refuted.
When someone refutes your conclusion and then you just repeat it again, that doesn't mean that it is not refuted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 3:05 PM ICANT has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 172 of 405 (453163)
02-01-2008 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by ICANT
02-01-2008 3:05 PM


Re: Re=T=0
Would you care to refute my conclusions that are based upon those two learned men or are we going to dance around here for another 130 plus post with my conclusions still not refuted.
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'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 3:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 4:00 PM cavediver has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 405 (453165)
02-01-2008 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by cavediver
02-01-2008 3:22 PM


Re: ... In the beginning
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)
I'll go on record saying that I've learned a whole hell of a lot from you without ever receiving a condescending tone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by cavediver, posted 02-01-2008 3:22 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by cavediver, posted 02-01-2008 3:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 174 of 405 (453168)
02-01-2008 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by ICANT
02-01-2008 3:05 PM


Re: Re=T=0
Nice, But it existed there regardless to where my nose was at that moment
That's right, and the singularity existed at T=0 regardless of where your nose was at that moment.
Maybe, But since according to cavediver it cannot exist
No he didn't. You just think he did. I'm not going to argue what you think he said with you, you can discuss it with him.
Premise 1: Singularity including the Big Bang is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe. Falasified
A premise that was not held prior to this thread by those participating. As cavediver said in his first post:
quote:
The Big Bang/Singularity is not the origin of the Universe, it is merely one end of it.
Premise 2: God is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe.
Maybe, Maybe not but not falsified. This is the scientific answer.
Actually the scientific answer is that this premise is unfalsifiable and unverifiable, and some would argue that this renders the premise meaningless.
Would you care to refute my conclusions that are based upon those two learned men or are we going to dance around here for another 130 plus post with my conclusions still not refuted.
You've set up A false dichotomy between two models. When people explain to you a third one, you take that to mean that the first one is falsified. You then explain that since one model is falsified that means there seems to be only one option remaining.
However, you have still failed to understand and engage the third model (and a few others that have been put forward). The 130 plus posts have been trying to get you to understand this model so that you can correctly engage with it and raise any objections you might still have.
This alternative model has been explained to you on a number of threads, but you have still not grasped it. It is a difficult model to understand, I accept that. However you can't adequately criticize a model you don't understand - you at least understand that, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 3:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 4:07 PM Modulous has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 175 of 405 (453174)
02-01-2008 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by New Cat's Eye
02-01-2008 3:38 PM


Re: ... In the beginning
I'll go on record saying that I've learned a whole hell of a lot from you
Thanks, I can tell
It's nice being to sit back and watch you, Mod and Rahvin do the work

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-01-2008 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 176 of 405 (453175)
02-01-2008 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by cavediver
02-01-2008 3:34 PM


Re: Re=T=0
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
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'
I thought I read somewhere on here that this was a creationist tatic. If you can't say something of substance insult or scream Goddit.
Look I have never claimed to know anything about science. God is a different story.
I may be dumb but I am not stupid.
I took your word's and concluded the singularity could not exist according to your answers to the questions I asked.
I took Hawking's word's and concluded the singularity could not exist according to those statements.
So you are telling me I am not capable of taking your answers and the statements of Hawking and coming to a correct conclusion.
If that is the case would you please take your my questions and your answers and go through them one at a time and explain whatever it is that I am not understanding.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by cavediver, posted 02-01-2008 3:34 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by cavediver, posted 02-01-2008 4:22 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 177 of 405 (453177)
02-01-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Modulous
02-01-2008 3:42 PM


Re:Models
Hi Mod,
Message 1
ICANT writes:
In this topic I would like to discuss which is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. God or the Singularity including the Big Bang.
Which is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe?
God
or
Singularity including the Big Bang.
This is what I am discussing.
You want to discuss another model start a thread and I will look at it.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 3:42 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 4:32 PM ICANT has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 178 of 405 (453183)
02-01-2008 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by ICANT
02-01-2008 4:00 PM


Re: Re=T=0
I took your word's and concluded the singularity could not exist according to your answers to the questions I asked.
I took Hawking's word's and concluded the singularity could not exist according to those statements.
So you are telling me I am not capable of taking your answers and the statements of Hawking and coming to a correct conclusion.
Yes, finally, this is exactly what I am saying.
Not becasue you are stupid or dumb but simply becasue it is not possible to extrapolate from analogies. The real language of this subject is mathematics - and rather complex mathematics. I am translating the mathematics into some vague words and pictures so some of the ideas can be explained to non-cosmologists/mathematicians. Hawking is doing the same thing, though aimed at a slightly different audiance. Our analogies only correspond to each other in part - we have our different ways of explaining the subject. So there is no way you can combine what we are saying to conclude anything. Even your chance of successfully extrapolating from what either of us are saying in isolation is extremely remote - the language we are using is not designed to be used to make predictions. For that you need the real mathematical language. Sad but true.
If that is the case would you please take your my questions and your answers and go through them one at a time and explain whatever it is that I am not understanding.
I can do that, but I need you to promise to stop running off with mad conclusions - in my first post in this thread, I presented quite a bit of information and given the responses I sorely regretted getting involved in this thread. I'm doing my VAT return, so time is at a premium this weekend.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 4:00 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 4:48 PM cavediver has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 179 of 405 (453189)
02-01-2008 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by ICANT
02-01-2008 4:07 PM


Which is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe?
God
or
Singularity including the Big Bang.
You might as well have a thread where we discuss what is the best explanation for the origin of the universe:
A Gigantic alien sneeze
OR
Jupiter, 2012AD 5th February, 17:15 GMT, as defined by David Walsh, 3 Warburton Road, Hull.
The Gigantic alien sneeze wins every time because the second option is not a proposed origin of the universe.
A more sane argument might be
Is the universe as we know it, self-existing?
Did it originate out of a higher dimensional 'universe' which itself is self-existing?
Did it originate out of the creative influence of a self-existing deity?
Did it originate out of the creative influence of a deity who was in turn created by a self-existent mega-deity?
If you are going to compare models, make sure they are comparable first

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 4:07 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 4:43 PM Modulous has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 180 of 405 (453193)
02-01-2008 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Modulous
02-01-2008 4:32 PM


Re-Models
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
Is the universe as we know it, self-existing?
Did it originate out of a higher dimensional 'universe' which itself is self-existing?
Did it originate out of the creative influence of a self-existing deity?
Did it originate out of the creative influence of a deity who was in turn created by a self-existent mega-deity?
How can you discuss these when everything stops at T=0.
Modulous writes:
If you are going to compare models, make sure they are comparable first
Mod the last time I checked this was EvC. Evolution verses Creation.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : selling

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 4:32 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 5:05 PM ICANT has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024