Summations Only

Just because the Big Bang was 13B years ago doesn't mean that the Universe began at that point.The Universe as it is now could be one of an infinite series Universes bursting forth in a Big Bang, expanding until heat death eventually shatters all the atoms into nothingness followed by a new Big Bang

Regarding your argument about the God of the gaps, I’m sorry but the argument doesn’t work in this case. I’m not saying the big bang proves the existence of God or the work of a Designer. I’m saying only that the big bang is consistent with the existence of creator God or a Designer. In order to disprove my claim, you would have to show that the big bang is inconsistent with the idea of God or a Designer of the universe.

Regarding your argument about virtual particles, it appears you are trying to argue against the Conservation of Energy. Physicists do not agree with you that quantum fluctuations or virtual particles violate this important law of physics. To quote from Wikipedia In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not the same as (i.e. the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the particle number operators.

Jar, you are attempting to defeat the deductive argument by the Islamic philosopher al-Ghazali. I’m afraid you are jumping ahead of the argument. At this point, all I’m saying is if the universe had a beginning, then the universe had a cause. Even in your statement you do not deny the universe had a cause. All I am saying is the fact the universe had a cause is consistent with the idea of a creator God or Designer. In order to disagree with me, you would have to show that the fact universe had a cause is inconsistent with the idea of a creator God or Designer.

You write: (If you can't swallow that, please tell me what the smallest positive non-zero real number is.) This is a false analogy. There are certain errors in your understanding and/or logic which I think will become plain to you as we discuss the science of the big bang in more detail.

You ask some valid questions We allow the possibility that some god character started the big bang. What's next? How does this assertion help us learn anything about the universe? What can we learn about anything by saying "some god character caused the big bang? These are good questions and deserve answers, but it is too early to answer them at this point. I still need to lay more of a foundation. But as we do, you will come to see how the observations help us learn something about the Designer/Creator and will help us make predictions about the natural world. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

You write If we run the piano roll backward, we hear the singularity: the singularity (pardon my double negative) is not nothing. This is a common misconception I intend to discuss soon.

You comment the mere observation that this universe is compatible with God is not actually informative about this universe. First, I want to thank you for reading my post closely to determine exactly what I am saying. Clear thinking is only possible after careful reading. Second, while the observation I am making may not be actually informative, it is most definitely counter-cultural and an important foundation to later evidence. That is to say, many people who consider themselves to be educated and scientific have not yet come to the realization that a belief in God is quite compatible with the practice and pursuit of science. In fact, many of these people have such a low opinion of religious and/or spiritual people that they will not read their arguments closely to see if they make sense or not. I am trying to get beyond the knee jerk rejection common today so we can make a real scientific exchange possible. I am happy to invite your scrutiny into the evidence and logic as I lay it out.

You write Bang goes a designer. Energy and matter was never created. I’m sorry, Pressie, but I don’t follow your argument. Are you saying the universe does not exist?

In some circles, the cosmology you are describing is known as Big Bounce Theory. While it had some important supporters at one time, it has largely fallen from favor with the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, a discovery which was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2011. See The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics - Press release - NobelPrize.org

The Law of Conservation of Energy says energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed. Energy and matter can’t be created. No creator involved. Energy and matter are inconsistent with the idea of a creator.

I'll make a few points:"compatible with" is not the same as "supports". Which did you mean ?It's a big step from saying that our universe had a cause to saying that that cause was a god, as the term is usually understood. Your OP does not include any support for making that leap.The notion of "beginning" used in your argument would seem to require that there was a prior state where the object in question did not exist. We do not know that to be the case for our universe - and if it is not the case then there is neither need, nor room, for a cause.

quote:

---

Why do you consider the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?

---

The universe is finite [100% so]; it was not infinite 10 seconds ago - it is, and has been, expanding in a compound excelleration.There is no evidence of anything existing pre-BB; not even residual imprints of something which once existed. None of the stars were around way back. The universe's age cannot be measured unless it is finite. The finite factor applies to space, time, energy, forces, light, darkness and pineapples.It is for the above reason there is no alternative to Creationism - it is a scientific conclusion. Beware those slight of hand casino science peddlers who omit stating their preamble up top which universe they inhabit, a finite or infinite one. They have good reason to duck this issue.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

I'm not talking about Bounce.Bounce would require contractions and if you look at my post, I don't talk about contraction.I'm saying that once everything has been completely torn apart down to the subatomic level by expansion, the "end" Universe will be indistinguishable from the "start" at or before the big bang.We talk about an expansion of space/time, but space/time only exists so long as there are detectable objects within "space/time".An "empty" Universe lacks "space/time".

You don't have a firm grasp of what the term "infinite" means.The series of whole numbers is infinite.
It goes on FOREVER.
It, however, has a start point.
It also contains differences. The number 2 is different than the number 3.The Universe can have a start point and can contain differences and still be infinite.