Existence

Not to respond for cavediver, but for me...in the Free For All forum, we can get away with showing the lurkers exactly how absurd, stupid, ignorant, and stubborn you and your crackpot ideas actually are. Besides, it's hard to let a crank like you just spout off nonsense like your circular "existence caused everything that exists to come into existence" without mocking you at a minimum.

Hi Son, How do you know time doesn't extend indefinitely in the past?What is time anyway and how do we determine time? Everybody is not as sure about the ability of the BBT as you are.Here is a list of problems with the BBT.

quote:

---

Shortcomings of the Standard Cosmology
Despite the self-consistency and remarkable success of the standard Hot Big Bang model in describing the evolution of the universe back to only one hundreth of a second, a number of unanswered questions remain regarding the initial state of the universe.

​

The flatness problem
Why is the matter density of the universe so close to the unstable critical value between perpetual expansion and recollapse into a Big Crunch?

​

The horizon problem
Why does the universe look the same in all directions when it arises out of causally disconnected regions? This problem is most acute for the very smooth cosmic microwave background radiation.

​

The density fluctuation problem
The perturbations which gravitationally collapsed to form galaxies must have been primordial in origin; from whence did they arise?

​

The dark matter problem
Of what stuff is the Universe predominantly made? Nucleosynthesis calculations suggest that the darrk matter of the Universe does not consist of ordinary matter - neutrons and protons?

​

The exotic relics problem
Phase transitions in the early universe inevitably give rise to topological defects, such as monopoles, and exotic particles. Why don't we see them today?

​

The thermal state problem
Why should the universe begin in thermal equilibrium when there is no mechanism by which it can be maintained at very high temperatures.

​

The cosmological constant problem
Why is the cosmological constant 120 orders of magnitude smaller than naively expected from quantum gravity?

​

The singularity problem
The cosmological singularity at t=0 is an infinite energy density state, so general relativity predicts its own breakdown.

​

The timescale problem
Are independent measurements of the age of the Universe consistent using Hubble's constant and stellar lifetimes?

---

SourceSo all is not as perfect as preached at EvC. I attempted to start a thread where I would have presented my creationist hypothesis of the beginning but was denied promotion.So here I am argueing that existence has existed for eternity in the past and will extend into the future for eternity.In other words existence is eternal as claimed for God in the text presented in the OP.If there is no eternal existence my argument will fail.So prove me wrong by presenting the mechanism that can cause energy and matter to begin to exist where there is an absolute existence of no thing.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."

Hi Rahvin, But you did dispute that Stephen Hawking wrote what I quoted. No.My concept of the Universe is that the universe is an entity that is composed of many parts that is held together by a super energy in existence which has existed for eternity. Is this the only universe, maybe, but maybe not.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."

Hi Rahvin, You can mock and make as much fun as you desire too. Just don't get in a huff if I from time to time push back and deliver the same.Now if you really want to show me up present a mechanism by which existence could begin to exist.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."

I'm not 100% it's the case but what I was actually explaining you is the POSITION the current theory has. I did it so you would understand there's not only two possibilities:
-the universe always existed
-the universe was created by a previous existance
There's also the current theory that is separate from the two options you have proposed. Wow, you are again asking the SAME question when we already explained to you that it had nothing to do with the current theory.As for the problems you have cited, obviously no theory is 100% correct or without problems but the Big Bang is the model that currently answers the most questions, that's why we're currently use it but it needs either completing or a better theory that may overturn it (theory that has yet to appear).In comparison, your "theory" doesn't even come close since it gives 0 predictions so it's as useful as saying a pink unicorn farted the universe.

Why should we show that when it has nothing to do with our position? How many times will you beat up the same strawman?

Hi 1.61803, Hmmmm...I thought the BBT was supposed to be an explanation of what happened to the universe from T=10^-43 to present. No. I prefer energy as it would occupy much less space. Can you immagine how big a pile of matter it would take to create the universe?But regardless the matter had to exist eternally or it had to begin to exist. Yes this is one hypothesis called string theory but why they call it theory I do not understand as the hypothesis has not reached concensus. But if there is no existence, there is no quantum levels as there is no existence for them to exist in. Sure it could just exist.But according to science if that was the case it would be a dead universe.That was the reason that it was necessary for the universe to have a beginning as it could not be a static universe when discovered it was expanding.But that is not acceptable to the Scientific community as that requires a creator. So it became necessary to come up with a way for the universe to exist without having a beginning from nothing.So Hartley and Hawking came up with the instantion removing the necessity of God, which did not get much following.Then along came the String Theory so called to get rid of the problem of a beginning.The problem is there has to be existence for either of these to work. Well no they do not spring from nothing.Because if there is no existence there is no place for the vaccum to exist for these particles of matter and anti-matter to spring from as nothing exists.The problem here is that no one can fathom what no thing, non-existence or an absolute absence of anything is.If no thing exists then no thing exists or can exist without beginning to exist. For that a mechanism is required.Can you present such a mechanism?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."

Hi Son, But this thread is not about the current theory.In this thread I asked the question concerning existence. I have stated several times that existence is eternal thus energy and matter is eternal and the universe has existed in some form for eternity.I gave scripture to support my position.Either the universe has always existed in some form or began to exist.Science says it began to exist.To affirm the universe began to exist as Science say all you have to do is present a mechanism that can bring energy and matter into existence which would refute my argument.So don't think of it as refuting my argument but as supporting the scientific method of the beginning to exist of the universe.You could also figure out how the instanton hypothesis or the so called String Theory could work without there being existence for them to begin in.If you have no intention of refuting my argument, why bother to post? Since I have not been allowed to present my hypothesis you have no idea how much evidence I can present to support my position.I have a mechanism for the creation of the universe for starters and Science does not have one.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."

Hi Son, But it has everything to do with the universe existing.I am not beating on a strawman in my thread but you keep inserting your straw man and trying to present it as my argument.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."

How is it a strawman if im presenting our own position and not yours? Most of what I presented wasn't about your position but about how you refused to understand ours.

Science doesn't say it began to exist (in the sense you understand it). What I was pointing out is that there is a third option (the current scientific model) on top of the two you presented. You're basically asking us to defend a position noone here holds, that's the very definition of a strawman.By the way, you're free to present your hypothesis/predictions there. Edited by Son, : No reason given.

You are again contradicting yourself.If the universe always existed in some form, then you do not need a mechanism to get to existance from non-existance. Since non-existance in that context doesn't exist.
Since the universe always existed in some form.You can't have your cake and eat it to.

But you stated that you believe that the universe always existed in some form. Therefor it wouldn't need to "begin" to exist.Get your thoughts straight before spewing contradictory assertions.Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given.

---

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people" - Dr Gregory House

Sure. It is also the current theory that suggest our universe is a product of this Big Bang. Unless you have another theory that refutes this. Of course. Those would be two options. Until one can accept that on a quantum level things to not exist you will not be able to "fanthom" how existence is perpetual, or how a wave function can manifest reality. The creation of our universe from a quantum fluctiation known as the big bang is the current scientific theory. If a religious person wants to think they're God was responsible then thats fine. If the same person wants to say the universe has always existed thats fine too.

Why would anyone want to do this when you have been repeatedly told that this never happened? No, the Universe has "always" existed. It is just that "always" may not be as long as you think it is. No, it does not. SWH uses the word "beginning" loosely. He does not ever (in my knowledge) say that the Universe began to exist. Of course, the present form of the Universe may well be said to begin to exist from a prior form, but that is a trivial point. It does not say... They were never "brought into existence". Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.