Before Big Bang God or Singularity

Here, cavediver. Allow me. Got it, ICANT?

Scientists do not give up when a theory has (possibly) fatal flaws.Scientists do not concoct ridiculous explanations ("god") and hand wave away the ugly bits.Scientists get excited when they find the boo boos.Or, at least I know I do.Were scientists to just give up when a (possibly) fatal flaw is detected in a theory (Newtonian physics) and settle for an absurd rationalization (goddidit), then we would be much, much worse off as a species than we are now.Theories have flaws. All of them. No exceptions.Which is why folks on this board fight so damn hard to correct creos who declare that such-and-such is "proven" or a "law".Your ill-informed, god-awful misconceptions about physics -- driven by some pathological need to cram a god into the cracks of physics theory -- are painful to read.I hope that you now understand that you don't understand.And throwing around terms you couldn't define if your life depended on it -- like "string theory" or "unbounded universe" -- doesn't mean you understand one teensy tinsy bit.

Just wanted to add one little thing to what you've said, Son Goku. ICANT. The Big Bang is just a nickname. It does not mean there was an explosion. Let me repeat that. It. does. not. mean. there. was. an. explosion.A singularity is not a "thing". Nothing can "come out of it" because it is a mathematical expression, not a physical object.You seem to think that a singularity is a very, very tiny dot that then exploded into the universe.FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

You are making cavediver's point with your obvious ignorance of basic physics. High school level physics. No physicist would argue that "something came out of nothing".The question shows just how very little you understand. No. What's nonsense is someone who can't even grasp rudimentary concepts purports to speak for Prof. Hawkings (as ICANT has done on too many occasions to count). Evidently not, given your "something from nothing" BS. I'm no physicist and even I can explain this. Please be more specific re: what you don't understand. What part of the analogy don't you "get"?

Hee! You're showing your abysmal ignorance again! See Message 191 or Message 190.Something from nothing!

There's a BIG difference between a finite universe and goddidit.To quote Prof. hawking: Space News - Latest Space and Astronomy NewsANSWER: The initial state of the universe is determined by a law of science.If you have any further questions re: Prof. Hawking's thoughts on "god" ...The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)You will note that he does not use the term. He simply references LaPlace and Einstein. And, at the very end, slips in a bit of a joke:

Just because GR breaks down at T=O does not mean that is the "beginning". No thanks.

Thank you, Mod. Great quote.I just want to highlight something. Allow me to translate, ICANT. Goddidn'tdoit.

And. Guess what? This is a science thread. "God" is irrelevant. Please stick to science. Your god crap is OT.

Obviously. No. It isn't. And don't call me Surly. This is incoherent nonsense.

What is what? T=O? When time = zero.

Wrong. Oh so wrong. Define nothing. And don't say "the opposite of something". Define it in empirical terms. You haven't a clue what a singularity is. Seriously. Not a blooming clue.I suggest you read the thread. It's tiresome to repeat what has already been said. This is incoherent nonsense. Arguments from incredulity do NOT fly in a science thread. This is incoherent nonsense. This is what is technically known as "not even wrong". Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the phrase. It means: You are so far off the mark, you're not even wrong. You're spouting a whole different order of gobbledygook.

Sure.Zero = a mathematical element that when added to another number yields the same number. As a matter of fact, no. Duh. You didn't see Airplane, did you?

Just as I thought. "The opposite of something".I said empirically. Look it up.

Bon chance, mon ami.