Before Big Bang God or Singularity

There's a BIG difference between a finite universe and goddidit.To quote Prof. hawking: Space News - Latest Space and Astronomy NewsANSWER: The initial state of the universe is determined by a law of science.If you have any further questions re: Prof. Hawking's thoughts on "god" ...The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)You will note that he does not use the term. He simply references LaPlace and Einstein. And, at the very end, slips in a bit of a joke:

Just because GR breaks down at T=O does not mean that is the "beginning". No thanks.

Hi cavediver, Maybe here would be a good time for me to say what I mean about:Something = everything you can see, feel, smell, touch and anything I left out.God Bless,Absence of Any thing = all the things in the definition of something.

---

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

You can believe both. As he says in that very lecture:

quote:

---

If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.

---

That is the kind of thing that we are trying to explain to you - only using much easier to understand language to slowly coax you along. Once you get the gist of that, we might move on to more interesting avenues.

i dont get the statement.surly, T=0 is the beginning.for time to no longer be relevant, then it would mean singular energy. nothing before it. so its the start.as long as a second energy, that did not exist form the same point in time as the first, time would be relevant.so if time is no longer relevant: T=0then we are discussing a singular complex energy, which is the beginning.

---

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

Thank you, Mod. Great quote.I just want to highlight something. Allow me to translate, ICANT. Goddidn'tdoit.

Hi molbiogirl, You do remember about 6 months ago you challenged me to get information from the source.Yes I know what Hawking said about God, it was something to the effect we don't need him.But I am partial to the one about tricks up His sleeve.God Bless, I changed to this for tesla.

---

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

And. Guess what? This is a science thread. "God" is irrelevant. Please stick to science. Your god crap is OT.

Obviously. No. It isn't. And don't call me Surly. This is incoherent nonsense.

ok. what is it? in your words?

---

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

What is what? T=O? When time = zero.

Still have no idea what you are talking about. How does energy span multiple realities? If you're going to take a leap, could you at least shine the flashlight back this way to give me a clue how you got there? I have no idea what a lot of workable energy from which emerged the universe we know has anything to do with intelligence or non-intelligence. The former piece of information cannot be used to conclude anything about intelligence. If we know what intelligence means, then we might conclude intelligence cannot exist during the big bang period. No, the two are not synonymous.

Hi Mod, I know what he said about his unbounded theory including the imaginary time.I think I said somewhere that sounds like Sci-fi. Seems he did also.What does that have to do with what he said about the beginning of the universe.He is trying to find a way to shore up the Big Bang Theory, just like all the other new theories that are floating around out there.So why try to shore it up. Ditch it and get on to the job of coming up with another accepted theory including all information gleaned from the Big Bang Theory so we can debate it.Hawking is talking about one, cavediver is talking about expanding the BBT, You are talking about replacing it. Son Goku says we need a new theory.So what is the problem?Oh I almost forgot the problem. I believe God created the heaven and the earth. Gen. 1:1.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."

so, at T=0, a self contained system of perfectly ordered energy, if not energy, it isn't real. its something. we can say: energy, or call it: something. but not "nothing".is it easier to say at T=0 there was something that was,that existed singularly as one, that all came from it, and that it was ordered?or easier to say energy?if a self contained system that always was , without any time, with a complexity that is beyond understanding of man, yet spawned from it, an entire universe, including at some point in time, man, who has intelligence, can we say that such an ordered complex energy that existed singularly at T=0 with nothing before it, and evolved from its ordered form a sign of a greater intelligence?is a rock gonna make a computer? how then could a super complex timeless something begat an entire universe with no intelligence at all?

---

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

Hi molbiogirl, Could you please give me your definition of "zero".Is it anything like my "absence of anything?"BTW I think tesla mispelled surely.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."