Before Big Bang God or Singularity

One problem that I see here is this:Scientists are geared towards asking questions and testing them. Scientists do not assume any answers.Theologians, by nature of their very belief, assume answers on a daily basis and use other written answers to back them up.Carry on, guys...just thought I would clear that up before our philosophy thread continues!

because the universe is. not maybe is. but is. and it has evolved. not maybe evolved. but has evolved, and is still evolving.this means that you can say absolutely that there was a "before" and by looking at before we find that because we "are" not maybe are, but absolutely are, that the evolution can be followed to a real place where the evolution started from.that real place is T=0

---

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

In a scientific sense, we can only follow where the clues lead us. Thats why we are asking the physicists questions! Don't you mean, in a strict sense, that the real place was T=0?Keep in mind that we humans are finite...at least evidentially.For us to know something with any certainty that happened before we were around would require either insight or proof. Scientists look for proof and a trail to test and reconstruct.Theologians pray for insight, BTW.

well you found an absolute truth in T=0, because no other conclusion is possible, because it would be inviting the possibility you dont exist.so follow the clue.T=0 IS. so whats possible at those coordinates by what we know by all scientific observation of "law"?

---

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

I have no way of knowing if T=0 is true. I assume that it is the best hypotheis that science an/or Cosmology has. I can read what Hawking has to say on the matter, but I am unable to fully comprehend his arguments. Here at EvC, Son Goku and Cavediver both have a better grip on the path that led to the hupothesis of t=0 existing, so that is in essence why we have scientific philosophy threads. My point is that neither side knows anything absolutely because neither side was there at that point. (Unless you believe that all matter past present and future was at that point, in which case I may have been there in some form!

think it out percy, just because a scientist said the world was flat doesn't mean it is. step back form hawking and other scientists and just think about it.i got to get ready for some work (finally!) i hate this time of year everything is dead in this town. okies good luck, i hope you think about what i have said.

---

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

Hi Son, Everybody keeps saying it is a nonsence question.Could that be because they don't want to face the fact they they have no idea how or why it got there? These are the questions you are answering yes to all.Does Hawking say a spacetime is singular?Then this spacetime can not be a part of another spacetime.Does he say gravity curls up spacetime so that it has a begining and an end.It takes gravity to curl up spacetime.Spacetime has a beginning and an end.Does he say that there is a deep connection between gravity and thermodynamics that arises because gravity itself determines the topology of the manifold on which it acts.Gravity determines the topoogy of the manifold on which it acts.Does he say The positive curvature of spacetime produced singularities at which classical general relativity broke down.The positive curvature of spacetime produced singularities.Sumation:Since spacetime has to have a beginning when did the one at T=0 begin?The spacetime at T=0 could not exist in another spacetime.If spacetime if necessary for a singularity and does not exist Gravity can not curl it up.Then if Gravity does not exist it could not curl up spacetime if it did exist.Conclusion:No spacetime.
No Gravity
NO singularity
No Big Bang
No Universe
We are not here.This being the case I have to conclude:Premise 1: Singularity including the Big Bang is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe. FalasifiedGod 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."

Right. As I said, we need a theory that can adequately explain what is going on at T=0. There are some ideas, but nothing is certain. So we should continue exploring, developing theory and testing theories by acquiring new data.

How does saying: "If you want to suggest you are a pantheist you can just say so.", ignore what you said? Why not just say you are a pantheist?

Hi Mod, I had to look that varmint up.Pantheist Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Nope I ain't one of those varmint .I do not equate God with the forces and laws of the universe.God is the force that makes the universe and holds it together. He is the laws.Did you not read, in Him we move and have our being?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."

Either God and the universe are the same thing or they are different things. Which one is it?.abe: I understand that you are a panentheist - which would mean that you are proposing an additional entity.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hi Mod, They are not the same thing and they are different things.The universe is a part of God if there are other universes out there they are a part of God.When He told Moses to go tell Pharaoh to let my people go Moses wanted to know what to tell Pharaoh.God said tell him I AM sent you.I Am denotes all that there is or ever will be.I also believe that God became flesh in the form of Jesus and came to the earth and did a lot of things. In fact He paid my debt so I can live with Him for eternity.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."

You're purposefully being difficult. I don't understand why you would waste time like this.I specifically keep telling you that it is not a physical object that came from somewhere, but just a mathematical artefact of General Relativity. Can you can provide a good reason why you keep saying "where did the singularity come from?"Hawking's derivation uses spacetime curvature to infer the presence of a singularity, which is a breakdown in General Relativity. This is a purely mathematical proof about the properties of General Relativity.
What you are saying is analogous to invalidating 1 + 1 = 2 by questioning who/what created 1.

Hi Son, I am not trying to be difficult on purpose I know I am difficult because I ask hard questions. This is a debate board.So why not instead of insulting remarks you just take [msg262]
and go down it line by line and show me where I am wrong.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."

It isn't that your questions are hard, but that people are having great difficulty finding explanations that make sense to you.--Percy