Summations Only

Yes, indeed. The cat plans to leave some of you cryptocreos mousy attempts at an argument well chewed and dead on the doorstep, Tanya.
Unless, of course, you squeal for protection to your beloved authority before the killing started.

Sorry, Macca. Your still sound all twisted and garbled. In the original you asked the cat to share your credulity as to the possibility of an atom being created out of nothing. You though provided no reason the moggy should become as credulous a cryptocreo as you are.Now you suggest the Cheshire's vision is impaired as he cannot see the colour of the creation event you believe in together with Mr. Hawking and prevaricating cretin Krauss. The cat can indeed neither visualise nor conceptualise such a possibility alleged by these luminaries of popphyz.He takes it you claim to see the colour of the purported event. Can you tell the public how exactly do you conceptualise the creation of something from nothing?
What is it exactly do you see in your mind's eye?

Well done.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

Blue, have you really studied big-bangism? Are you aware of the articles of your cryptocreo faith?
Something expanding into something else is not what that religion claims is happening, if you don't know that. What you claim is something unknown expanding into an equally mysterious pre-existing volume. Your religion, on the other hand, states that it is space itself that is expanding. Nothing pre-exists the process so it is expanding into nothing is your teaching you ignorantly defend.
Try this. It explores the fallacies your religion is based on:
http://www.redshift.vif.com/...lFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf

You disappoint the cat, Dogma. He's been holding you for the least brainwashed among the cryptocreo crowd here. And now you come out with this.Do you reckon the Popes' education is inferior to that of the popphyz Pope Hawking? They know good Latin, his mouth crunches inferior maths. Try Nicholas of Cusa if you want to hear someone speaking that language with proper accent.
Granted he can write a bit of English about turtles and holes. That is, mostly about nothing. Brief history of history.
Face it, that is no reason to take his pronouncements more seriously than that of the pontiff. And face it, the Pope endorses Hawking and Hawking endorses, the Pope. They keep each other in their respective jobs, so need one another. Hawking leaves pre-bang mystery to the Pope, the Pope leaves Hawking alone to spew the post-bang nonsense. Division of labour among the popes.

Taq, those m or peabrain propositions are all crypto-dtching of the big bunk nonsense. For to collide is a verb describing an event resulting from a motion of well-existing objects relative to each other. That contradicts the idea of the space-time creating bang as all motion implies space to be well there already and could be well measured in time. The branes must travel some distances before colliding, you know. That excludes any creations, expansion of the universe as a whole, etc.
Turns the bunk into a non-event. That the mpeabrains themselves are purely imaginary and impossible entities is another matter.

What do you suggest is the ultimate source of the universe?

That is an irrational expectation on your part, Vatican. You are asking what is the source of all existence. To be a source is impossible without existing first. The universe is trapped onto itself irrevocably. That is the only possible conclusion.

I don't see how it's any more far-fetched than conceptualizing something existing "forever". Our ability to conceptualize reality isn't what makes reality. One person's failure to deal with reality doesn't make reality less real.

There is change, and a "singularity" is not "pure nothing", which was the phrase you used. I described something changing into something else. I don't believe in "pure nothing". And I don't equate the known world with the universe. I don't have one, unless you count not believing in nothingness. Are you claiming that when I type "something", I mean "nothing?"I don't believe in pure nothing existing. The word "nothing" is often used casually to mean "nothing that we know of or understand". No-one is in a position, for example, to declare the absence of dimensions other than those we perceive. To say that the known world comes from a literal or pure nothingness is wrong or unsupported. Only in the casual and literally incorrect sense described above did the known world come from "nothing".Reality is something, and literal pure nothingness is irrelevant to our attempts to understand it as, logically, it cannot exist in reality.

Alfi, studying the big bangism and reading srticles is not the same thing. Articles are for simple folk to get a general understanding - or in your case misunderstanding - but that's besides the point. Articles don't teach anything. Sure it does, in fact that is exactly what is taught. It's what theoretical physics is. It's what a unifying theory hopes to acheive. It's what M-theory describes, although without a total concensus. You should try going to school instead of scouring the internet for shitty information if you're so interested in the subject. You won't reverse the entire scientific concensus on the big bangism posting links to things you barely have a grasp on.- Oni

A question isn't an expectation, Crazy Jew. So you're saying that nothing is the source then. Welcome to the club! That actually sounds a bit like the Big Bang theory.Its too bad you more interested in discrediting knowledge than you are in actually discussing anything. Confidence like that can only come from ignorance. The gross errors you make in describing the Big Bang show this to be a lie. You, of all people, are chiding him for evasion. For not providing anything. You!? That's hilarious. You haven't providing a single piece of meaningful text even once. And all you do is lie and obfuscate and just try to discredit knowledge. And now you're bitching because someone else didn't provide enough for you. Wow. You are such a loser piece of shit. Absolutely worthless. Actually, you're worse than worthless because of all the lying and bullshit.You should just be banned.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

If you end up knowing something you didn't know before, how is that not teaching something? What kind of articles are you talking about? Are you even talking about articles that are printed in National Geographic and the ones put out by Nature that are summaries of scientific papers?

Oni, it is you who needs some schooling not the cat. Articles of faith is an expression. It means the sets of beliefs in a faith. Nothing to do with newspaper or magazine articles. Tenets would be a synonym.
Otherwise your advice is stupid. Both the cat and the author of the essay in the link studied bigbangism in fine mathemagical detail so are able to translate its absurdities into plain English.
Which is what you should do too, instead of ignorantly crapping at the mouth.
Hit the books, Oni.

You evade fleshing out you conception of creation of a single atom from pure nothing, Macca. Tell the audience how it's done. What is the physical mechanism apart from your second-hand crypto-creo faith?