The problems of big bang theory. What are they?

Go ahead and blame my english or me - which I'll crack you to smitherens any time. Its my only tongue.Now how about attending the responses with contextual responsa. Tell us how if laws once never existed, that they would still behave lawlessly when they did come into being - tell us how the first entity would incur an expansion or a big bang - who/what would they collide with - and still remain the frst entity? Is my english confusing?

quote:

---

New things can always be. Just because science [rules not laws] hasn't always been or will be, doesn't mean that everything is past our knowledge. The main tree of thought branches into many observers: each can view [know] what there is. Relative size makes for a poor measurement.

---

No sir! This does NOT answer the specific question. Perhaps you need to define NEW to your self in this instant. In the context of new things occuring in the universe, it means new things entering which were not in the universe before; else it is a childish superfluous premise This is certainly not the same as in new application of the existing.I repeat: technically, there is nothing new in the universe; everything was always universe contained. There is no 'some other place' aside from this universe, no matter how one wants to spin it. I provided you with relevant examples: a new song is a new sing - but it was always universe contained. The point here.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

As everyone is aware, evolution is based on CHANGES. Evolving and elevations are the result of changes.Changes says the existing material has undergone an osmosis, mixing part of itself with part of something else [crudely put]. But in all cases, the material changed to or changed from - is already existant. There is technically nothing new from outside of the universe. The only conclusion here is all the changes we percieve as new - are as old as the universe itself; else we could not witness it.Changes is a result of LAWS. Without the law which directs an action, there would be no changes.

quote:

---

Changes in elevations are covered under the word evolution.

---

Changes; inter-changes; osmosis. Your distinction is petty and won't stand up to the fundamental impacts here.

quote:

---

.. mixing part of itself with part of something else [crudely put].

​

No, it doesn’t mean that. Most changes have nothing to do with a membrane as is described in osmosis.

---

Ok. They undergo a change though - your word.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
But in all cases, the material changed to or changed from - is already existant.

​

No, it isn’t. New properties arise through mutations in DNA, for example.

---

Yes, I would say this accounts for 99.9% of cases, namely the seed factor rules. This still means the internal mechanism which produced the changed result is internal of the universe: it is not new. Technically, new = from outside the universe, which violates the finite factor.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
There is technically nothing new from outside of the universe.

​

Is that what you believe? Any evidence? A believe without evidence doesn’t mean much.

---

From where, applies? If one holds a finite uni view, the question becomes mute. If one sees stars producing light, it does not also mean light was initiated by stars; the reverse applies. The stars, like all other products in the universe which are gone by and will go by, are limited to the components of this universe.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
The only conclusion here is all the changes we percieve as new - are as old as the universe itself; else we could not witness it.

​

Not at all. We do see changes giving rise to new properties. Look at changes originating from changes in DNA, for example. A sequence in DNA did not exist before, then they do. Brand new. 13.75 billion years younger than the Universe (give or take 0.11 billion years).

---

Compare with a song, a pineapple or a car. These too never perceptively existed before. However, if one could travel back in time with the same knowledge and kniow how, a car could be made 5000 years ago - or 13B years ago - because the base components always existed. A new human may be unique with its own dna which never existed as a whole before - but when examined more closely, say at the quark levels, there is nothing new here. Our thoughts are likewise limited to the potentials allowed by the constraints of the universe: try and imagine a new color?

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
Changes is a result of LAWS. Without the law which directs an action, there would be no changes.

​

No, not at all. We can’t change the behaviour of energy and matter. We can just describe that behaviour and call them laws. Changes will happen regardless of how we describe them.

---

Fact is, the universe operates on laws. This factors in accidents and random, which are also based on laws, perhaps even more complex ones. Man can one day change the behavior of energy with greater sub-atomic knowledge; one day mankind [humanity] will also be able to move Jupiter 5% to the left. Else we won't survive and not be the dominate entity in the known universe. Past historical prowess affirms this trajectory.

quote:

---

PS, what does this have to do with the Big Bang?

---

This responded to an inferred violation of the BBT. I say the BBT is scientifically an impossibility and violates the most fundamental laws of science. The notion of not knowing what laws applies at the beginning does not resolve the issue, but only pushes the goal post in escapist mode: when the laws do start impacting - then science laws must apply.We are hard wired to accept whatever we are told, with minimal investigation.

quote:

---

Your comments won’t change the fact that evolution does not equal osmosis.

---

That is not essential. The fundamental premise applies, whether seen as changes, inter-changes or osmosis.

quote:

---

I will comment on the following, though:

​

IamJoseph writes:
This responded to an inferred violation of the BBT.

​

Nothing described in the BB theory is violated by anything you mentioned. Your dreams don’t change reality.

---

You have not attended the issue. Show how a pristine singular entity [with no internal or external components] can cause an action? Of course, if one accepts internal components in the first entity, it is not the first entity, which infers an infinite realm - of course this is a violation of a finite universe. Yes/No?

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
I say the BBT is scientifically impossibility and violates the most fundamental laws of science.

​

What you say is very unimportant and also contradicted by reality. The only way for you to be taken seriously is to publish in a relevant scientific journal. Creationist (religious) websites don't count. Discussion forums on the internet neither.
Just remember, word salads won’t impress those real scientists. Empirical evidence is the most important thing that counts for them.

---

You still have not attended the issue. Why rubbish the forum you attend, unless you are not serious about it?

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
The notion of not knowing what laws applies at the beginning does not resolve the issue,..

​

I guess that's why the standard scientific answer to the question of what happened during that first Planck second is "I don't know".
The perceived issues you have, together with what happened during that first Planck second will be resolved by scientific study. Not by word salads or people writing on forums on the internet.

---

Granted they don't know, which I accepted already. The issue remains, what impacts when the laws of science do apply?

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
.. but only pushes the goal post in escapist mode: when the laws do start impacting - then science laws must apply.

​

No, science laws don’t ‘have to’ apply. Scientific laws are our descriptions of what we observe happens in nature.

---

There is no such thing as NATURE - actually.

quote:

---

In instances where empirical evidence contradicting our descriptions of the behaviour of nature is observed, our descriptions of that behaviour are altered. We call that a change of scientific laws or we can even describe new laws.

---

You admit that if the laws we do know of applies, the BBT is an impossibility? Deferring to the issue of not knowing what laws may apply, does not conclude that no laws apply. Its a runaway.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
We are hard wired to accept whatever we are told, with minimal investigation.

​

Maybe that’s what you do. Other people don’t. Don’t project your behaviour on other people.

---

Its not about other people but explaining an issue so we understand the basics, and reject what we cannot explain adequately and according to the laws we do know. You must not forget, the BBT is after all just a THEORY, its not a scientific fact. It is clear whatever knowledge will come by, it will be defined via laws, and the BBT will have to align with them.If its raining from above, we cannot use the arguement we do not know what occurs in the nano second of the rains dropping down. Its not a credible responsa.

quote:

---

you do not understand what is meant by "law". A law is simply a recognition of how things appear to behave.

---

I agree with that - so how do I not understand what a law is? FYI, I said the entire universe works on laws, while there has been a retreat from this, namely to some point when laws never existed or that we have no idea how any laws applied: that does NOT mean no laws existed, only we were unable yet to recognize it We have no choice but to surrender to the threshold when laws did exist. And in the latter, it is not possible to condone an action based on one singular entity.

quote:

---

It is the last thing in physics that can be used dogmatically to state what can and what cannot occur, especially when one is totally ignorant of the domain of applicability of said law. Unless one is fully conversant in the mathematics and physics that underlie any particular law, one would do well to avoid making pronouncements such as yours.

---

I say, very dogmatically, that a pristine one cannot perform an action by and of itself. A deflection here is not science anymore.

quote:

---

That said, if you actually do want to discuss the meaningfulness of energy as a global concept in topologically non-trivial spacetimes, then I will be only to happy to join in. But if the BBT does appear to "break" naive interpretations of the laws of thermodynamics, then so much for naive interpretations...

---

Energy is not a global but universal premise. And energy is reliant on laws, namely on specific attributes embedded into base particles of matter. This says, before the BB could go BANG - there had to be a law which allowed that to happen.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

The issue is not how and if I or anyone else can fully describe a law which made energy possible: this may be impossible even in the next 1000 years. Rather, the assumption inferred it is NOT based on a law which is ridiculous. Everything in the universe is based on laws; we are able to discern some facets of those laws equal to our knowledge status at any given time.The problematic issues arise when we ask questions such as how can a law exist without a law maker/giver. Because this connects with religion, it becomes akin to an aversion. This is understandable, because it stops science dead in its track - although it should not. Science must define without attaching a Creator, else it is not science.At the same time, when we discuss issues of ultimate and original thresholds, we cannot get answers from science - science comes in only after laws are embedded. Science is thus the B-Z and not connected with the A factor. That is my view here.

quote:

---

How do you get from that definition to some bearded wonder in the sky for which there is no empirical evidence?

---

Empirically, there is evidence, namely the sound scientific principle posits cause and effect. Contrastingly, there is a total vacuum in the premise of effect w/o cause.There is no bearded wonder in the sky called nature or random. Which city do they live in and how old are they?

quote:

---

I agree with that - so how do I not understand what a law is? FYI, I said the entire universe works on laws...

​

And that is the problem: it doesn't. Laws are simply our, often misguided, attempts to describe what is happening. They have nothing to do with the Universe itself.

---

Our interpretation may be lacking, misguided or totally wrong, but this does not mean that laws do not exist or turn the universe. Laws contrast random, and are repeatable and dependable - conditional to the conditions which we are in at the time. One can diminish anything by poking holes, but the fundamental principle of laws remains. Newton was advanced and correct for his generation; he became obsolete only by a higher understanding of the law.

quote:

---

Or do you think your god can make 1+1=3 if he so chooses?

---

No, that would contradict the factor of truth, which is aligned with the notion of a creator.

quote:

---

I say, very dogmatically, that a pristine one cannot perform an action by and of itself.

​

How bizarre. What exactly would be a "pristine one"?

---

A singular entity which is indivisible and irreducible, with nothing else around. Here, no action can occur - no expansion - no BANG. Its not bizarre, but the stumbling block of the BBT.

quote:

---

Energy is not a global but universal premise.

​

Energy is a universal concept in that just about anywhere you go in the Universe, you can apply the concept of energy *locally*. It is not a global concept, because you cannot apply the concept of energy across an entire cross-section of the Universe - at least not consistently. And around the Big Bang, you have the entire cross-section of the Universe. And so your concept of energy breaks down.

---

The weak force is all pervasive in the universe. You are confusing mode of energy with energy per se.

quote:

---

And energy is reliant on laws, namely on specific attributes embedded into base particles of matter.

​

No, energy is not reliant on any laws. It is simply a method of counting. And it some circumstances, such as around the Big Bang, that particular method of counting breaks down.

---

Breakdowns cannot apply here. At the BB point there was no products, so why should we speak of laws? We can be sure that in a finite realm, laws also never existed at one time. This says laws were mandated or input on some certain, unprovable level: once they never existed; then they did exist. Repeatable, deendable objects like stars, pineapples and cars work on the premise of laws. But for sure the laws emerged 'after' the universe was initiated. Analogise with a house: first come the base metals [lawless], then the blue prints [laws], then the resultant house.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
A singular entity which is indivisible and irreducible, with nothing else around. Here, no action can occur - no expansion - no BANG.

​

Therefore: god cannot have created the universe.
I concur.

---

You are making a divergent leap from the point of debate. Your post has no relation to how a singular entity can perform an action. Check mate applies.

quote:

---

TBH:
How do you expect anyone to believe you have any grasp of cosmology when you only have a feeble grasp of you own language?

---

Again, a leap and fret from the point of discussion. Wrong also in your new trajectory.

quote:

---

but this does not mean that laws do not exist or turn the universe

​

Irrespective, laws do not "exist" and do not "turn" the Universe. But you are free to believe that they do.

---

Your clinging to a 2-sided protective cloak. Laws do not exist - laws do not control the universe. Does it mean if laws do exist I am right - or are you still the winner?

quote:

---

A singular entity which is indivisible and irreducible, with nothing else around. Here, no action can occur - no expansion - no BANG. Its not bizarre, but the stumbling block of the BBT.

​

No, this is just mumbo-jumbo.

---

Which part? My understsnding of the BB is it assumes a starting point of the universe; and that point is the first one. Basic reasoning says if it contains components it is not a oner nor a first. Yes/no?If it is the first point, it also means there was no components outside either. Yes/no?If it was a singular entity by itself, pls enlighten how it can perform an action?

quote:

---

The weak force is all pervasive in the universe.

​

It certainly wasn't at the Big Bang. It didn't even exist yet

---

I would say it was not around before the BB. Because the BB expansion can only occur by a law which propels it to, and subsequently before this point no laws yet occured.

quote:

---

You are confusing mode of energy with energy per se.

​

no, I can assure you, I am far from confused when it comes to this subject.

---

You are confused about laws applying and what a ONE can do.

quote:

---

But for sure the laws emerged 'after' the universe was initiated.

​

Except that there are no "laws"

---

Is that a new law?

quote:

---

That is not essential. The fundamental premise applies, whether seen as changes, inter-changes or osmosis.

​

Then why write it in the first place? Just for the word salad effect?

---

The distinction between changes and osmosis does not impact on the premise; its divergence.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
You have not attended the issue.

​

Yes, I have. Nothing about the Big Bang contradicts any of the scientific laws. You have to realize that real physicists and real cosmologists, etc. know way more than you and none of them has ever published anything in any scientific publication about the BB contradicting any scientific laws. If one of them did, he would be very famous and very rich.

---

When I suggested the BBT's reliance on a singular entity at its initiation cannot produce any action, this was not contended; instead, the response was WE DON'T KNOW WHAT LAWS APPLIED THEN - OR IF LAWS WERE IN PLACE'. What this says to me is if laws did apply, I am correct - there is a fundamental glitch in accepting a singular entity can perform an action under any laws. Further, if laws do not apply, it does not mean a singualr entity can produce an action. Its a bogus response to a genuine premise not confronted.

quote:

---

Show how a pristine singular entity [with no internal or external components] can cause an action?

​

Another word salad.
From the Concise Oxford Dictionary:
Pristine means: ancient, primitive, old and unspoilt: fresh as if new.
Singular means: 1. denoting a single person or thing, not dual or plural.
2. single, individual, unique, unusual, remarkable from rarity; much beyond the average or degree; extraordinary, surprising, eccentric, unconventional, strangely behaved, possessing unique properties; hence distinguish, individualize.

---

"Singular". Pristine has manofold applications. This is just more deflection.

quote:

---

Seeing that we don’t know whether the Big bang was single, individual, unique, unusual, remarkable from rarity; much beyond the average or degree; extraordinary, surprising, eccentric, unconventional, strangely behaved, possessing unique properties;, we can’t ascribe these features to the Big Bang. For all we know, there could have been lots of Big Bangs before and after the one described in our theory, the one that we think gave rise to our universe. We do know that it was a rapid expansion of space-time.

---

The BBT is made as the initiation premise for the universe. Pluralisung this is another deflection. Why not deal with the premise?

quote:

---

Entity Means: thing’s existence, as opp. to it’s qualities or relations; thing that has real existence.
This word thus excludes any kind of god, because there’s no evidence for such an entity’s existence.

---

Yes, it would exclude any God, which was never intended. I used the premise of an external impacter, namely a trigger factor, which admittedly, opens itself to an independent, precedent force. It remains a scientific premise BTW, far more so than WE DON'T KNOW.

quote:

---

Of course, if one accepts internal components in the first entity,..

​

And if one doesn’t?

---

Then it is not the first or a singular entity.

quote:

---

it is not the first entity, which infers an infinite realm.

​

Maybe it does. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Therefore energy may be infinite.

---

No sir. A finite universe cannot contain an infinite. Its a violation. You should by now see your arguement as breaking down, tho I doubt you will admit it. This can be seen with religionists too, BTW!

quote:

---

You also realize that to say things like before the Big Bang, doesn’t make sense as time itself started then?

---

I accept that time and space, as with energy, never existed at one time. The issue of prior to the BB was not mine; it was offered in desperation by someone else that the laws we know would not apply at that point. I merely responded if that were the case, it still does not support a singular entity performing an action.

quote:

---

- of course this is a violation of a finite universe. Yes/No?

​

For this reason, no.

---

If this universe is finite, nothing it contains can be infinite.

quote:

---

I say the BBT is scientifically impossibility and violates the most fundamental laws of science.

​

What you say is not very important. It is the evidence that counts.

---

Do you infer you have encountered any evidence a singular entity can perform an action? Not so even via voodooism!

quote:

---

The notion of not knowing what laws applies at the beginning does not resolve the issue,..

​

That’s why we do have very intelligent people doing research on the issue. People who actually get and also provide data before they come to any conclusion.

---

If you have done or seen any research negating my premise, you have not provided this.

quote:

---

Granted they don't know, which I accepted already. The issue remains, what impacts when the laws of science do apply?

​

Err, nature.

---

The err is well placed; nature is not. Once there was no nature; there is no nature now.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
There is no such thing as NATURE - actually.

​

That’s strange. You do have to realize that your word salads won’t make the sun, neither the birds nor the bees to disappear. They do exist. nature exists.

---

What actually is nature: tsunamies, ecosystems, volcanos, pineapples? These are works which are driven by laws, not nature. Nature is a metaphor we use instead of godidit; act of nature replaces act of God. Its a placebo so we do not get bogged down in the numerous, contradicting theologies. But there is NO such thing as nature - actually. Its also not a scientific answer.

quote:

---

?
IamJoseph writes:
Deferring to the issue of not knowing what laws may apply, does not conclude that no laws apply. Its a runaway.

​

Certainly not. The answer I don’t know is a very honest and also a very noble answer. It means that wishful thinking won’t be applied to try and get an answer.

---

Not knowing cannot apply here: we do know that a singular entity cannot perform an action; you are saying it can in lala land where laws do not apply - how do you know that or why do you embrace this? You fail to respond to the issue what happens when laws DO apply!

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
Its not about other people but explaining an issue so we understand the basics, and reject what we cannot explain adequately and according to the laws we do know. You must not forget, the BBT is after all just a THEORY, its not a scientific fact.

​

Scientific theories all are considered scientific facts. Like the gravity theory. Like the cell theory. Like the atom theory. Like the germ theory. Like the evolution theory. They all are considered scientific facts. Maybe you should brush up on your science before making ignorant statements like the one you just made?
Anyway, scientific theories are way more realiable to get to the truth than statements like Goddidit, which has been proven wrong over and over again.

---

Not all theories are accepted as facts; many are disputed equally. Many theories have fallen away. I am not just saying goddidit; I am giving scientific reasoning why some accepted theories are wrong. Understand the difference before casting your impression on me. You have not responded or yet attended how a singular entity can perform an action.

quote:

---

Saying I don’t know is way more credible than saying: Goddidit.

---

Agreed. But saying I DON'T KNOW must have meaning. We cannot say we don't know that a singular entity can perform an action. This is not subject to negotiation. It is far more diabolical than godidit.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

The anxst of debate against my premise is telling. It threatens to fell a cornerstone pillar, with scary implications. This occurs when science is treated by many as a religion. The godidit people bashers have become the naturedidit religionists. It is nigh impossible to dent such fire walls, and is now akin to disputing a trinity as a one, or that Moses was not a Muslim - try it sometime, so will go blue in the face before getting any coherent response! Sadly, it is a syndrome becoming a scientific affliction: why else would a science minded person dispute a singular entity cannot perform an action - did I say something stupid!?

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
The distinction between changes and osmosis does not impact on the premise; its divergence.

​

Then why did you use the word osmosis in the first place? I think I know the answer: you used the word osmosis to sound as if you knew a lot about the subject. When you were shown that you were incorrect, you just pretended that the word was not important.

---

It has no impact how one describes a change or elevation.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:

​

Incorrect. Our laws break down when we get to the first Planck second of the Big Bang. We don’t know what happened exactly. Maybe some laws applied, maybe not.

---

Laws don't break down. Better, they yet not existed [Genesis]. If you subscribe to laws breaking down, that is a huge action; then you have the issue how did it return? And remember at this point you have no environment, nature or anything else to rely on. When closely examined it makes no sense whatsoever. Nor does it impact: you still face the issue how a singular items can cause an action when the laws do impact! Your just pushing the goal post to meet the same dead end.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
there is a fundamental glitch in accepting a singular entity can perform an action under any laws.

​

Why? Maybe it did. Maybe it didn’t. Our evidence indicate that it did.

---

How is that possible from any scientific premise? The universe is based on laws - its all we have which can be put on the table and be seen as science. Your answers are unsatisfactory.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
Further, if laws do not apply, it does not mean a singualr entity can produce an action.

​

Why? The evidence we have indicate that the BB happened, whether laws applied or not. Maybe the scientific laws were different then. Maybe not. Maybe different laws applied. Maybe not. Who knows.

---

That is only an admission you loose this debate.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
Its a bogus response to a genuine premise not confronted.

​

It has been answered. The fact that you just don’t want to accept it, reflects badly on you, not on the theory.

---

If your answer had any coherence then I can be accused of that. Not by your answers.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
"Singular". Pristine has manofold applications. This is just more deflection.

​

No, it has been shown to you why in the previous post. The fact that you want to change the meanings of words in your word salads, reflects badly on you. Not on the Big bang.

---

Pristine is fine. I stand by it. Move on.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
The BBT is made as the initiation premise for the universe. Pluralisung this is another deflection. Why not deal with the premise?

​

I actually did deal with that premise. The fact that you don’t want to accept it is a bad reflection on you. Not on the Big Bang.

---

You have not even touched the point.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
Yes, it would exclude any God, which was never intended. I used the premise of an external impacter,..

​

Why? Some things just happen with no external impacter involved. I can refer to quantum mechanics, for example.

---

Now you are coming apart. Your mainstay fulcrum reason is unacceptable: if there was quantumn mechanics at work here, then we are not talking of a pristine, singular, indivisible and irreducible entity. Now we are talking to a construct of components - exactly as I said was a minimum requirement for any action.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
.namely a trigger factor, which admittedly, opens itself to an independent, precedent force.

​

No, not necessarily. Look at quantum mechanics. Some things just happen. No trigger involved. No independent, precedent force involved at all.

---

Your are not attending the issue at all. First you denied any law can apply; now we have multiple items and still my position is denied.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
It remains a scientific premise BTW, far more so than WE DON'T KNOW.

​

No, postulating a trigger, when there’s no evidence for a trigger, is very unscientific.

---

How can it be unscientific when its based on laws - every law and every action we know of as science? You are suggesting all laws be set aside and there is no requirement for an interaction for an action to occur. That is not science.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
Then it is not the first or a singular entity.

​

Why?

---

Like, GUESS!

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
No sir. A finite universe cannot contain an infinite. Its a violation.

​

Why? So far it seems as if there’s at least one infinite entity in our finite universe. It’s called energy.

---

No sir. Energy is not free or infinite, but it depends totally on interaction.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
You should by now see your arguement as breaking down, tho I doubt you will admit it.

​

My argument surely is not breaking down.

---

You have no laws which you respect.

quote:

---

Why? It seems as if energy, for example, could be eternal.

---

Now your arguement rests on infinite energy which predates the universe. And this infinite energy caused the universe to happen - with nothing more than infinite energy functioning by itself for ever. Is there any residual proof of this? Don't answer that.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
The issue of prior to the BB was not mine; it was offered in desperation by someone else that the laws we know would not apply at that point. I merely responded if that were the case, it still does not support a singular entity performing an action.

​

Maybe it’s because you don’t realize that the Big bang could be a singularity only in our Universe? Nowhere else?

---

Where is this 'nowhere else'? So it sounds you admit an action could not have occured with the BB in any other universe, yet you say it could happen in this universe? Which scientific law is that based on?

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
Do you infer you have encountered any evidence a singular entity can perform an action? Not so even via voodooism!

​

Yes. The Big Bang is one example.

---

But you also said there was quantumn mechanics - which works on probability factors, which requires many components to be called quantumn. So your BB is not an appropriate example.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
If you have done or seen any research negating my premise, you have not provided this.

​

The science of physics.

---

Did you not say laws were not yet existent or impacting here - they broke down? I cannot accet the response 'WE DN'T KNOW WHAT LAWS APPLIED' - because we know of no example of an action without an interaction in this universe. Even in magic spells and voodooism, one needs more than one.

quote:

---

No, we’ve got plenty of verifiable, empirical evidence that nature exists. Not one little piece of evidence that any kind of god exists.
IamJoseph writes:
Its a placebo so we do not get bogged down in the numerous, contradicting theologies. But there is such thing as nature - actually. Its also not a scientific answer.

​

We’ve got plenty of empirical, verifiable evidence that nature exists. That’s what science investigates. By definition. It’s called science. Your word salads won’t make nature, the definition of science or the scientific method disappear.
IamJoseph writes:
Deferring to the issue of not knowing what laws may apply, does not conclude that no laws apply. Its a runaway.

---

We have absolutely no evidence nature exists. All we have is human allocation to what is termed nature.The rest of your responses are in same vein. Defections and overturning if laws. Its called denial.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

[quote]Look at creationist websites. There's lots of them. They are the overwhelming majority of people who reject the Big Bang Theory, because they still insist that their particular chosen god (s) created everything[/qupte]Wonderfully wrong. The BB is rejected because it is simply not scientifically possible, and it contradicts a scientific equation in Genesis as well as Creationism - a scientific premise itself.The universe could not have begun with a singularity because then there cannot be an action. Everything begins with a 'duality' as the minimum requirement: it takes two to tango. The BBT is just a means of bypassing the enigma of origins, else we would not be able to proceed. The BBT is a greasy bryclream kidstuff premise: if the universe is exampanding this away, it must have come from that away. That's all it is