Big Bang Theory

[Confused]

Although the big bang theory is famous, it's also widely misunderstood. A common misperception about the theory is that it describes the origin of the universe. That's not quite right. The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe. Did some intentional action lead to the creation?
Another misconception is that the big bang was a kind of explosion. That's not accurate either. The big bang describes the expansion of the universe. While some versions of the theory refer to an incredibly rapid expansion (possibly faster than the speed of light), it's still not an explosion in the classic sense.
Summing up the big bang theory is a challenge. It involves concepts that contradict the way we perceive the world. The earliest stages of the big bang focus on a moment in which all the separate forces of the universe were part of a unified force. The laws of science begin to break down the further back you look. Eventually, you can't make any scientific theories about what is happening, because science itself doesn't apply.
At the earliest moments of the big bang, all of the matter, energy and space we could observe was compressed to an area of zero volume and infinite density. Cosmologists call this a singularity.

This is the point where things seem to get sticky for me. What caused the Singularity to expand into the Big Bang Theory? And what was the origin of the Singularity? Because of the limitations of the laws of science, we can't make any guesses about the instant the universe came into being. Instead, we can look at the period immediately following the creation of the universe. Right now, the earliest moment scientists talk about occurs at t = 1 x 10-43 seconds (the "t" stands for the time after the creation of the universe). In other words, take the number 1.0 and move the decimal place to the left 43 times.

So up for debate, is there any way we can actually study the Singularity and the cause of said Singularity leading to the "Big Bang"? Do we need to insert a God into the process to justify the statement "The universe was created" or is there a competing natural process that can explain it. While I realize that most can say that just because the universe came into existence doesn't mean we need insert a creator to make it happen, take note, I am aware of this. However, this being a religious debating forum, I am looking for any competing religious justification as well and any competing scientific justification. Hence, placing this thread in the "Science and Religion" forum.

So to clarify: For debate:
1) What methodology could we use to study the actual Singularity?
2) Is there any methodology we can use to determine the cause of the Singularity progressing to the "Big Bang"?
3) What does religion hypothesize as being the Singularity? Please note, if you insert God here, you must justify His being the Singularity.
4) What does science have to show in the form of evidence that would negate the insertion of a creator setting off the Singularity to initiate the Big Bang leading to the future universe we now reside it. What does religion have in the form of evidence that a creator was needed to bring the Singularity into existence and is there any evidence that said creator actually initiated the Big Bang?

(Please note, a heavily relied on source for information from this thread came from:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictio ... heory1.htm )

[Confused]

So to clarify: For debate:
1) What methodology could we use to study the actual Singularity?
2) Is there any methodology we can use to determine the cause of the Singularity progressing to the "Big Bang"?
3) What does religion hypothesize as being the Singularity? Please note, if you insert God here, you must justify His being the Singularity.
4) What does science have to show in the form of evidence that would negate the insertion of a creator setting off the Singularity to initiate the Big Bang leading to the future universe we now reside it. What does religion have in the form of evidence that a creator was needed to bring the Singularity into existence and is there any evidence that said creator actually initiated the Big Bang?

(Please note, a heavily relied on source for information from this thread came from:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictio ... heory1.htm )

The fact is we are here, so how did that happen? We can go back to the singularity and then what? Give up? Perhaps some other method of inquery will get us over the hump?

For me it is telepathy. I have defined telepathy as the universal means of communication. It is like another language that we need to learn. I worked out the interpretation of telepathy and I got answers.
Indeed, there is a Creator, he did create our universe, although not from nothing. He brought it over from another form or dimension, or whatever we might want to call it. And yes, it came over like a compressed file on your computer, and began to scatter, and is still in the process of scattering, what we perceive as the expanding universe.
In fact our known universe is but a very small part of the total. What is the rest like? I don't know, but if you want to investigate further, you need to learn telepathy, then ask the Creator yourself, he is accesible. If you were hoping for shortcuts, sorry, I don't have any.

I'm not one to give in to one liners, but huh . Is there some scientific relevance to this post? What do you mean by a universal means of communication? Facial expressions? It has been shown that a smile can universally mean happy (though it can also mean sadistic intents as well). A frown, upset or sad, etc.... But does God give facial expressions? I haven't seen God so I don't know.

How would I learn your definition of telepathy?

[mich]

A couple of nit picks on the OP:

• The word creation implies that there was a time when the thing said to have been created did not exist. Since time is contained in the universe, rather than being external to the universe, it could not have been created.

It seems the implication lies in the fact that no scientific explanation exists for the universe in having evolved from the point of singularity, and it is not due to a temperal lack of scientific understanding, but the very nature of the singularity.
Since the singularity does not possess any of the charateristic of the universe (spacetime, matter, physical laws), the development of the universe from the singularity is indeed an act of creation.
Unless one can explain it to me, I don't see any difference in claiming that the universe came from the singularity or was a creation from God. If one would simply add consciousness within the singularity the Bif Bang theory would be a religio/scientific theory. If one claims that there is no reason for involving consciousness , then my question is,for what scientific reasons do we claim, the singularity as having an infinite density?

What does science have to show in the form of evidence that would negate the insertion of a creator setting off the Singularity to initiate the Big Bang leading to the future universe we now reside it.

Absolutely nothing. For the God hypothesis to be true, there would have to be an undetectable realm, with at least one time-like dimension and presumably one or more space-like dimensions.

Or whether there exists a realm with no spacetime,since we claim God as being eternal and omnipresent; the singularity has such a description. Also, the reference frame of a light particle, being the way the particle of light observes the universe.

Andre

[arian]

Although the big bang theory is famous, it's also widely misunderstood. A common misperception about the theory is that it describes the origin of the universe. That's not quite right. The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe. Did some intentional action lead to the creation?
<snip>

Here is my thoughts on the Big-Bang theory, taken from another thread with McCulloch:

This is a very real problem with atheists. God is something frightening to them, so they simply say: "He doesn't exist"

You fail to understand our reasons for denying the existence of God. Please do not speculate about these things.

These are my observations, not speculations of most atheists. Of course there are much more reasons than just fear, a lot of it is because of the resentment that is created by those calling themselves Christian. I can understand that too.

So if the pin-sized universe was NOT in nothing (as I proved this), then what was it in?

One might argue that nothing is a concept, and since concepts are things, the concept of "nothing" itself is a thing. This logical fallacy is neatly demonstrated by the joke syllogism that contains a fallacy of four terms:

1. A sandwich is better than nothing.
2. Nothing is better than God.
3. Therefore, a sandwich is better than God.

In my glass experiment (Take a glass full of water and place a thin hard plastic over it, flip it upside down, the water remains in the glass no matter what gravity is pulling on it. Small glass, to big glass of water, and as long as the water is sealed air tight, will not 'create' nothing, or a 'perfect vacuum) I demonstrated that 'nothing' or a 'perfect void cannot be created, thus does not exist.

I agree with you on the 'concept' of nothing, like if I had a million dollars, and someone in need asked me for a buck, and I gave him nothing, not a penny, and this mans wife later asked him:

"Did Odon give you any money?"
he would answer; "no"

she could then ask: "Not even a dollar?"

He would say: "No, not even a penny, .. nothing."

The 'nothing' here is the money. Just because I did not give the needy any money does not mean that there is no money, or that money is really nothing. It only means that I did not move that money to where it was needed. I could have a million of it, yet I gave him 'nothing'.

Now the real 'nothing' does not exist, and cannot be created as I have demonstrated. The glass full of water that refuses to come out is waiting for 'nothing' to be created, and we could see it, or at least imagine this should it appear, as a 'void', a 'space' developing between the water and the bottom of the glass. In my mind, I have defined a real physical nothing, and the experiment proves that such a 'nothing' does not exist, because it would not create a 'void' with nothing' in it. So 'nothing' does not, and cannot exist, other than in concepts we described.

It is a misrepresentation of the big bang to picture a pin-sized universe expanding into pre-existing empty space. There was no space for the universe to expand into. Space itself expanded.

Another words, the universe expanded 'nothing' before time, creating space and time?
Where did the nothing go? Or is it still there holding space and time within it? Why am I pushing this? Because I really do 'see' this 'nothing' as GOD who is EVERYTHING. I will try my best to prove this.

As I have just proven with my experiment, 'nothing' cannot exist, and something cannot exist in nothing either. Nothing exists in nothing, thus the universe could NOT have existed in nothing, which proves this 'Big bang' never happened.

The theory of the Big bang is false, baseless, without foundation as far as science goes, for science is the study of the physical world, right?

Now the Big-Bang story does make a cute fairy tale (a come-back to you guys for calling the stories in the Bible, fairy-tales) , but should NOT be confused with science.

I have not read that the pin-sized universe was emitting light, .. so did it?

No. There was nowhere for the light to go.

Well yes, because light cannot exist in nothing, and neither can the pin-sized universe, agreed? This should also prove the hypothesis of the speed of light is wrong, for the speed is imagined to travel in a perfect vacuum, or nothing which is an impossibility in science. We cannot calculate and give a definite, or even a rough answer to a concept that is impossible to achieve or to even comprehand, thus it should not be used as a scientific means to measure distances.

Now the question is, what is the real speed of light?

By these obvious observations, we can throw out the red-shift theory, and come up with a more scientific theory to redefine the size of the universe, .. or at least the visible, observable universe.

We cannot start with nothing.
Nothing can exist in nothing,
Nothing can shrink - in nothing,
And as you said; even light cannot go anywhere in nothing. So obviously, NOTHING can explode in nothing, it has nowhere to explode into.

So according to this, the theory of a big-bang is well, nothing.

In that 'whatever' that the pin-sized universe was residing in, did it emit light? If not, then it was just like a black hole.

No it was not. A black hole exists within the universe, it has mass, spin and energy and it emits Hawking radiation. The universe did not reside in anything.

Thank you McCulloch, I looked up Hawking Radiation in quantum mechanics.

The cat in the box theory was interesting, which led me to quantum superposition. You have once again led me to understand, actually to define my coming to know God better.

If I understand the basics of quantum mechanics (I will need more then a few hours of study LOL) I can already see that this also will prove more on the existence of God. Actually, the more I read on quantum mechanics, the more it is like the way I see the Spiritual realm.

Quantum Superposition actually explains how I came to reading the Bible which revealed God whom I already knew, just wasnt yet aware of it.

Remember in other posts I tried to explain that it wasnt my parents who forced me to read the Bible, which in turn made me (think) I believe in God. Another word, I was NOT indoctrinated into Bible-God, it was by me observing from the outside, as if I wasnt even a part of this world (and most of the time I really wasnt because of the confusion created in my mind from my terrible abuse) and this gave me a perspective apart from me being part of that which I was observing. Quantum Superposition explains this in greater detail, which is almost impossible for me to have understood without this knowledge.

Thanks to you, now I can also understand a little more about the difference between the Black-Hole and the Big-Bang theory. Two separate laws apply, right? Looking at each one separately, but as one, as a whole the way I understand it.

Looking at only one, like the Big-bang theory, creates paradoxes like the ones I explained, that you cannot have the pin-sized universe residing in nothing and explode. You even admitted that even light couldnt emanate from the shrinking universe, then how could it explode, right?

Another paradox is time. If time was created after the Big-bang, the universe could not have been shrinking, much less explode. Too many things would be happening before the big-bang which are distinguishing events that define time.

Now I also proved that 'TIME' had to exist in this 'whatever' that the pin-sized universe was residing in and getting smaller and smaller, by the very definition of time;

TIME
system of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events.

Time did not exist until the first event. There is no North at the North pole.

There is no North Pole without the North Pole either, and without the North Pole we dont have a North, right?

Likewise, you cannot have a Big Bang without getting there. Something had to have happened before the big bang. It was shrinking by a number of things happening to it, right?

The universe shrinking is like traveling towards the North Pole, so north is still a ways off and shows up on my compass. Even quantum superposition fails to explain this, for it can only deal with things already there, not before they happen. Or, predict one thing happening in many places at once. Basic quantum mechanics cannot expain this either, for once you define something and record it; someone has to read this and all kinds of paradoxes arise, and can be created by the inerpreter, right? Besides, even in quantum mechanics you need at least something in motion.

But what I understand you saying is that, you can come from the South (time-existing universe, today) and travel North ( back in time, Big Bang- first event) without the North (big bang) ever having yet come into existence.

So because this creates a problem, they say to ignore everything before the Big Bang, like where and why it happened. This of course creates a huge paradox because science claims to know why and how it happened, only the where part is a puzzle, and is meaningless to be even mentioned.

Well, I mention it, and ironically, scientists dealing with science admit it was in nothing and before time, which is impossible to comprehend, because science deals only with something measured by distinguishing events, or time.

Now they say: Maybe something always existed, only this causes even bigger problems, like the claimed age of the universe for one, counting back to the few seconds after the Big Bang.

Now the questions can arise that; 'How long did the universe exist before the big bang, and in what?'

You said light could not emanate from the pre-big bang universe because light had nowhere to go, so if no light could shine, then no bang could happen either, am I right?
No big bang, then were back to a tiny rock existing in nothing, doing nothing, just waiting for time to come around.

Illogical, I'm sure Spock would agree with me.

and the theory of the big-bang is false.

Thank you for that. You can present your evidence and arguments to the Nobel commission.

Yeah.. right.

The Nobel commission does not deal with spiritually minded people trying to prove that the physical universe is no more real then a dream. They are limited to the carnal mind, rewarding only those pounding their chests in their carnal knowledge of the finite physical universe, which I consider a dream, like a mist, here today, gone tomorrow.

Just look at the responses to my posts, this same thing happens when I talk to Christian Ministers with their Dr. before their names. They admit what I say is Scriptural and true, but would never admit this publicly, and even shun me in their churches so I would leave.

Look how many Christian scientists go to church, and believe in the big bang theory thinking now they have it all covered. What science cannot explain, God will, instead of the other way around; What God didnt mention in the Bible, we should find it in science.
It is in us all to prove the existence of God, but because for the love of sin, we limit our search to the physical realm. "God is Spirit, and only those walking, thinking in the spirit can know Him"

As Always McCulloch, you are a big help in building my faith in the Lord, and I honestly thank you. It is an honor to have crossed paths with you, and you will always be my friend.

Christians with their doctrines and scientists with their theories are always trying to keep God out of the picture, even to a point of denying they are an image of their Creator, claiming to be evolved animals that came about by nothing.

God is not far from any of us and just as the Children of Israel at the foot of the Mountain of God ran when He spoke to them, we do so now too. This is what I meant by atheists being afraid, but you're right, I should not judge like that. Most atheist actually 'question' their beliefs, and most Christians simply accept indoctrination into many false versions of Christianity.

My appologies.


Odon

[McCulloch]

It is a misrepresentation of the big bang to picture a pin-sized universe expanding into pre-existing empty space. There was no space for the universe to expand into. Space itself expanded.

Another words, the universe expanded 'nothing' before time, creating space and time?

Not at all. The word before is a temporal term, implying time. There cannot be a time before time anymore than there cannot be a place outside of space.

Where did the nothing go?

It wasn't there in the first place, so it didn't go anywhere.

I really do 'see' this 'nothing' as GOD who is EVERYTHING. I will try my best to prove this.

You won't get any argument from be about God being nothing. I may have some difficulty grasping everything is nothing though.

As I have just proven with my experiment, 'nothing' cannot exist,

From where I sit, this is tautologically true. If it existed, then it wouldn't be nothing.

and something cannot exist in nothing either.

If nothing cannot exist, then there cannot be something in nothing. Some of these statements are what are called vacuous truths. One should be very very careful rendering logical conclusions from vacuous truths.

Nothing exists in nothing, thus the universe could NOT have existed in nothing, which proves this 'Big bang' never happened.

No it does not. It just shows that your concept of infinite time is incompatible with big-bang cosmology.

Now the Big-Bang story does make a cute fairy tale (a come-back to you guys for calling the stories in the Bible, fairy-tales) , but should NOT be confused with science.

Why don't you let the good people at Johns Hopkins University, University of Cambridge, California Institute of Technology, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Chicago, University of Lisbon, Princeton University and University of Oxford know?

I have not read that the pin-sized universe was emitting light, .. so did it?

No. There was nowhere for the light to go.

Well yes, because light cannot exist in nothing, and neither can the pin-sized universe, agreed?

Agreed. Light cannot exist in nothing. The universe (whatever sized) cannot exist in nothing. The universe does not exist within nothing, it never has and it never will.

This should also prove the hypothesis of the speed of light is wrong, for the speed is imagined to travel in a perfect vacuum, or nothing which is an impossibility in science. We cannot calculate and give a definite, or even a rough answer to a concept that is impossible to achieve or to even comprehend, thus it should not be used as a scientific means to measure distances.

It is sort of like absolute zero. The speed at which light propagates through transparent materials, such as glass or air, is less than the speed of light in vacuum. The ratio between the speed of light in vacuum and the speed at which light travels in a material is called the refractive index of the material. For example, for visible light the refractive index of glass is typically around 1.5, meaning that light in glass travels at c / 1.5 200,000 km/s; the refractive index of air for visible light is about 1.0003, so the speed of light in air is about 90 km/s slower than the speed of light in vacuum. A pure vacuum, like absolute zero, is impossible to achieve, however, as a space approaches vacuum, the refractive index approaches 1. The speed of light in a near vacuum would be infinitesimally different from the speed of light in vacuum. You are jumping to conclusions.

Something had to have happened before the big bang.

Why do you say that? Could it be that nothing happened before the big bang? How could anything happen before time?

Now the questions can arise that; 'How long did the universe exist before the big bang, and in what?'

The universe did not exist before time. The universe does not exist in anything; the universe contains time and space.

You said light could not emanate from the pre-big bang universe because light had nowhere to go, so if no light could shine, then no bang could happen either, am I right?
No big bang, then were back to a tiny rock existing in nothing, doing nothing, just waiting for time to come around.

There was no explosion. An explosion is when something small expands rapidly into the space around it. The universe is expanding. But there is no space around the universe for it to expand into. Space itself is expanding.

[McCulloch]

Unless one can explain it to me, I don't see any difference in claiming that the universe came from the singularity or was a creation from God.

One says that the universe came from something that is completely beyond our understanding and knowledge. The other says that the universe came from a spirit being that has intent, understanding and desires who has communicated to humanity directly.

If one would simply add consciousness within the singularity the Big Bang theory would be a religio/scientific theory.

I doubt that it would be a simple thing to add consciousness to a singularity. I tried it at home. I have a small box of singularities and I've downloaded some consciousness from the web. I plugged in the USB port on the singularities and tried to configure the consciousness and could not get it to work.

If one claims that there is no reason for involving consciousness , then my question is, for what scientific reasons do we claim, the singularity as having an infinite density?

A singularity has infinite density by definition.

Or whether there exists a realm with no spacetime, since we claim God as being eternal and omnipresent; the singularity has such a description. Also, the reference frame of a light particle, being the way the particle of light observes the universe.

For the God to have will and intent, there must be at least one time-like dimension. Will and intent are meaningless outside of time.

[mich]

Unless one can explain it to me, I don't see any difference in claiming that the universe came from the singularity or was a creation from God.

One says that the universe came from something that is completely beyond our understanding and knowledge. The other says that the universe came from a spirit being that has intent, understanding and desires who has communicated to humanity directly.

"Both" hypotheses claim that the universe came from something that is completely beyond our understanding and knowledge. The theist hypothesis goes one step further in identifying a form of consciousness we call God as being the cause of the universe. There is no theory defining how the
singularity caused the universe to exist.

If one would simply add consciousness within the singularity the Big Bang theory would be a religio/scientific theory.

I doubt that it would be a simple thing to add consciousness to a singularity. I tried it at home. I have a small box of singularities and I've downloaded some consciousness from the web. I plugged in the USB port on the singularities and tried to configure the consciousness and could not get it to work.

What is consciousness? Why would there be a need for a brain, do you think?

If one claims that there is no reason for involving consciousness , then my question is, for what scientific reasons do we claim, the singularity as having an infinite density?

A singularity has infinite density by definition.

...and God is creator by definition....why would you claim the singularity in being the cause for the existance of the univese as being more reasonable than God? How "did" the singularity cause the universe to exist? If no answer can be given, then why imply the need for one?

Or whether there exists a realm with no spacetime, since we claim God as being eternal and omnipresent; the singularity has such a description. Also, the reference frame of a light particle, being the way the particle of light observes the universe.

For the God to have will and intent, there must be at least one time-like dimension. Will and intent are meaningless outside of time.

It seems that theology ought to be left to the theologians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity

Theists say that God is eternally existent. How this is understood depends on which definition of eternity is used. On one hand, God may exist in eternity, a timeless existence where categories of past, present, and future just do not apply.

...Augustine of Hippo wrote that time exists only within the created universe, so that God exists outside time; for God there is no past or future, but only an eternal present

Andre

[Janx]

If you cannot falsify a theory one should at least displace it with one that has more evidence in it's favor. The big bang theory explains MANY phenomenon in the present day. So far it is the best explanation for the universe we observe.

The Big Bang is just a deduction from the observation that the known universe is expanding.

Great. Now the Urantia Book has to explain:

Why the universe contains so much light elements?
Where the uniform background microwave radiation is coming from?
Why we have no found stars older than the estimated age of the universe?
Why galaxies closer to the center of the universe are more developed than those at it's edges?

...many other observations explainable through the concept of a big bang.

The universe is eternal. The universe has an eternal core " it is called the Isle of Paradise. It is the biggest and only stationary matter in the whole universe. It is timeless and spaceless in our own sense of these words. It is the nucleus of the biggest and pattern atom of all. This grand atomic nucleus is surrounded by a billion perfect and divine planets encircling it. This whole system is called the eternal and divine universe. Encircling this divine universe is an enormous wall of dark gravity bodies that augments the Isle of Paradise in its gravity grasp of the whole universe. Outside of this system is the beginning of the evolutionary time and space universe " the universe that we can observe.

I like it. Is there any evidence which shows us that there is an Isle of Paradise at the center of the universe? What are dark gravity bodies?

But the totality of the universe is like one living organism. It is breathing " exhaling and inhaling or in other word expanding and contracting with one breathing cycle measured in approximately 2 billion earth years " 1 billion expanding and another billion year contracting. At this time, the universe is exhaling " expanding and it is approximately halfway through its expanding period. So, yes the universe is expanding but it has been like that for half a billion years and it will begin to contract after another half a billion years. There was no Big Bang and there will be no Big Crunch either because it is an eternal cycle.

Excellent. Is there evidence of this constant contraction and expansion? Is there evidence of objects which are trillions of years old? How can we tell it's at the halfway point through it's expansion?

[arian]

It is a misrepresentation of the big bang to picture a pin-sized universe expanding into pre-existing empty space. There was no space for the universe to expand into. Space itself expanded.

Another words, the universe expanded 'nothing' before time, creating space and time?

Not at all. The word before is a temporal term, implying time. There cannot be a time before time anymore than there cannot be a place outside of space.

I don't claim that there is time before time, the definition of 'time' points to it within the Big-bang theory. I explained this over and over again; If the universe was shrinking before the big-bang, then by the definition of time, time existed before the big-bang.

As for 'no place outside of space', you got to be kidding me!

Where did the nothing go?

It wasn't there in the first place, so it didn't go anywhere.

I know you better than that McCulloch, you are one of the smartest people here. But fine, .. when you're ready to tell me, let me know. Besides, .. 'anywhere' could be in a lot of places.

I really do 'see' this 'nothing' as GOD who is EVERYTHING. I will try my best to prove this.

You won't get any argument from me about God being nothing. I may have some difficulty grasping everything is nothing though.

Funny guy as always.

Look, imagine this universe getting smaller and smaller in this 'nothing' where, as you said even light has no place to go.

Now try to visualize a black hole which you yourself said is a mass so great even light cannot escape its gravitation. See the similarities?

Neither one allows light to shine, or escape, because in fact, neither exists.

To keep people to believe in such theories, the black hole is then redefined to somehow 'release' the accumulated mass through quasars, where you can find new births and unicorns, or an abalisk like in the movie 2010 Space Odyssey.

But the 'nothing' that the universe is theoretically ready to blow up in, is left out of science, because they cannot imagine it.

As I have just proven with my experiment, 'nothing' cannot exist,

From where I sit, this is tautologically true. If it existed, then it wouldn't be nothing.

Exactly. This is proof that the universe then existed in something, not in nothing as scientists try to push on us.
Now what is this something McCulloch?

and something cannot exist in nothing either.

If nothing cannot exist, then there cannot be something in nothing. Some of these statements are what are called vacuous truths. One should be very very careful rendering logical conclusions from vacuous truths.

I disagree, for I have proven this as 'fact', that 'something cannot exist in nothing' meaning that the proposed pre-big bang universe was never this small and doing the things they claim it was doing, like getting smaller and smaller.
Even that concept (getting smaller and smaller) would define 'time', which would not fit in with the rest of this big-bang theory, claiming that time came after the big bang.

Are you trying to derail my train of thought here?

Nothing exists in nothing, thus the universe could NOT have existed in nothing, which proves this 'Big bang' never happened.

No it does not. It just shows that your concept of infinite time is incompatible with big-bang cosmology.

I was defining 'time' as a system of distinguishing events. I was not talking about 'infinite time'. The pre-big-bang-universe is claimed to be getting smaller and smaller, which defines 'time' as we understand it in science.

The result: "The Big Bang never happened" and the theory is false, a made up lie.

Now the Big-Bang story does make a cute fairy tale (a come-back to you guys for calling the stories in the Bible, fairy-tales) , but should NOT be confused with science.

Why don't you let the good people at Johns Hopkins University, University of Cambridge, California Institute of Technology, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Chicago, University of Lisbon, Princeton University and University of Oxford know?

That would be like my Brother in Christ 'Arianus' who stood before the 'Church' in 325 AD and proved that the Trinity Doctrine was an evil lie of Satan. I believe he was poisoned.

The only difference with me is that for some reason God has protected me from poison, and every other attack I was subjected to from birth on up??

I have not read that the pin-sized universe was emitting light, .. so did it?

No. There was nowhere for the light to go.

Well yes, because light cannot exist in nothing, and neither can the pin-sized universe, agreed?

Agreed. Light cannot exist in nothing. The universe (whatever sized) cannot exist in nothing. The universe does not exist within nothing, it never has and it never will.

So we agree,.. good. Now all we need to do is agree 'what' this universe resides in, .. or more accurately put, 'WHOM' the universe resides in?

Nothing is no more an acceptable answer, and we agreed on that.

This should also prove the hypothesis of the speed of light is wrong, for the speed is imagined to travel in a perfect vacuum, or nothing which is an impossibility in science. We cannot calculate and give a definite, or even a rough answer to a concept that is impossible to achieve or to even comprehend, thus it should not be used as a scientific means to measure distances.

It is sort of like absolute zero. The speed at which light propagates through transparent materials, such as glass or air, is less than the speed of light in vacuum. The ratio between the speed of light in vacuum and the speed at which light travels in a material is called the refractive index of the material. For example, for visible light the refractive index of glass is typically around 1.5, meaning that light in glass travels at c / 1.5 200,000 km/s; the refractive index of air for visible light is about 1.0003, so the speed of light in air is about 90 km/s slower than the speed of light in vacuum.

I have little or no trouble comprehending this, even before I read it in Wikipedia. I imagined light traveling through water, in the ocean scuba diving. I remember how after about twenty feet it was getting darker and darker, and many times even sooner than that, determined by the visibility created by the rough currents throwing up sand. The water didn't slow the light down, it was eventually blocked by the sand and other microscopic life in the water.

The problem is the assumption that over a hundred years ago, light was given an acceptable speed by shining light through holes on a wheel, reflected by some old mirrors and observed by the naked eye.

Another thing science agrees on is that there is just no way to measure the one-way speed of light, WHY?
Why is it so hard with todays technology to measure something that could not be done hundreds of years ago? Why would it be so hard to measure (as you claim) such 'infinitesimal' difference? Use the knowledge of quantum mechanics, or physics.

Why keep such old primitive estimates, when we have computers that can calculate quantum physics?

Is it because they know that light actually does not slow down, but simply disappears within the elements it shines through? Like in water, the deeper we go, the less light gets past all those elements found in the water, till 'all the light' is eventually BLOCKED, and we have complete darkness.
This is easy to figure out, let's put a flashlight into a cylinder and seal it. If no light gets out, it means light can be blocked.

But this info can blast the theory of the big bang right out of the water. Red shift, .. what a bunch of lies. Look how old the theory is, done with what? The naked eye? What amazing telescopes have they invented hundreds of years ago that we accept some theory that red is further and blue is closer looking at the trillions of stars and galaxies we now know exist? Then now they send microwave-telescopes and infra-red ones, and remaster the computer images to emit whatever light they desire, until it matches the 200 year old assumptions.

Lies built on lies, just as people have been doing it for centuries. One lie creates more lies, mixed in with a lot of half truths, until everyone is convinced of it, including the person who started the lie.

But why?

Because light is wisdom, order, knowledge that is constantly being blocked by atheistic science, until .. as we see it today, the truth is completely blocked out, until as the Bible says, "The whole world is engulfed in darkness". Same thing happens when we put a candle under a bushel, the truth is blocked, and eventually the flame goes out, and we remain in darkness.

A pure vacuum, like absolute zero, is impossible to achieve, however, as a space approaches vacuum, the refractive index approaches 1. The speed of light in a near vacuum would be infinitesimally different from the speed of light in vacuum. You are jumping to conclusions.

What are they saying? That the difference between a vacuum, and a 'perfect vacuum' is only infinitesimally different? So what's the problem then? With todays knowledge and technology, and the advancements made in Quantum Science, that should be no problem to achieve.

No, this is the last driftwood atheists have to hang on to, that light has this 'agreed upon' speed, added with all the other super complex mathematical equations with it, no one will ever figure out that the universe is not really expanding, unless, ... unless someone figures it out from the Bible, compared with facts of the observed universe.

This same simple logic can be used to debunk evolution also. No Big Bang, then there cannot be this tadpole to man evolution either, which means apes remain apes as they were created by their Creator.

Something had to have happened before the big bang.

Why do you say that? Could it be that nothing happened before the big bang? How could anything happen before time?

Exactly. So why do atheists claim that the universe was 'getting smaller and smaller' until it exploded, when as you know, distinguishing events define time?

"Something getting smaller and smaller is distinguishing events, which is TIME"

Fine, then lets redefine the Big bang; "There were distinguishing events ocuring to the universe before the 'Big-Bang', which caused 'time' to to start.

Only problem here is that now we have to re-define the word 'time'. But I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem, with so many deflections and perversions of the 'truth', and with so many walking in darkness, a simple suggestion will do the trick.

Now the questions can arise that; 'How long did the universe exist before the big bang, and in what?'

The universe did not exist before time.

Another words there was no 'Distinguishing Events' before the universe exploded? I agree, the Big Bang is a lie.

The universe does not exist in anything;

Again I agree with you, the universe is NOT in anything, but in 'everything'. if I have 'everything', I could create 'anything', including the universe.

the universe contains time and space.

Again I agree, for God created it that way. What I disagree on is that this Big Bang theory claims there were 'distinguishing events' before the universe contained time and space!

Are you trying to make the universe disappear now? Magic, right? "Look, I have nothing in my hand, right? Now I stuff this towel into my hand like this, and WHALA! It disappeared." But you have to keep your hand moving, or someone will spot the fake fingertip.

You are a good Magician McCulloch, with these theories you made the universe disappear. "Look Odon, seven billion years ago there was no universe, no time, nothing".
Now you try to keep my mind off the obvious question that reveals your magic-trick; "where was the pre-big bang universe residing in, and what was it doing?"

You can stop waving your hand, I already know the trick.

You said light could not emanate from the pre-big bang universe because light had nowhere to go, so if no light could shine, then no bang could happen either, am I right?
No big bang, then were back to a tiny rock existing in nothing, doing nothing, just waiting for time to come around.

There was no explosion. An explosion is when something small expands rapidly into the space around it. The universe is expanding. But there is no space around the universe for it to expand into. Space itself is expanding.

No Big Bang? How about a tiny boom? A popp maybe?

I can imagine a ballon expanding in the 'air'.
Take the air away, and now it's expanding in 'space'.
Take the space away, and now it's expanding in .. what? Nothing? Whatever? A vacuum? A Black Hole? What?

You see, if I can imagine that 'whatever' the iniverse was creating space and time in, then so can you.

In my next post, I will prove to you that what you call; 'whatever' is really GOD.


Thanks again my friend, I am learning, well, I believe I am anyways.

Odon

[arian]

Theists say that God is eternally existent. How this is understood depends on which definition of eternity is used. On one hand, God may exist in eternity, a timeless existence where categories of past, present, and future just do not apply.

Hello Mich.

Not really, categories of past, present, and future do apply, "I knew you in your mothers womb, before you were formed", remember?

If you read Gen 1, you will see that there was time with God; Day 1 God created the heavens and the earth, Day 2 He created the firmament, day 3 He separated the waters and so on.

Only the measurement of time is different for God than for man. For man, time is measured by the rotation of the earth, sun up to sun down, and sun up again, one day.

For God, time is measured by the completion of a part of a set project that He put His mind to. Kind of like; "Today I will do this, when I'm done, I'll call it a day."

Example:

Gen 1:6-8
6 Then God said,"Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
NKJV

We were created in Gods image, so everything we have and live by resembles that of our Creator. As an 'image', not the real thing.

Another words, God is not limited by any outside force, or tiredness, for there is nothing outside, or 'besides God', and He has endless energy. As I said, God alone determines when His 'day' is over, and as we read, it is when He completed a determined project. The day He completes a project could be as long as a thousand years for us;

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
NKJV

...Augustine of Hippo wrote that time exists only within the created universe, so that God exists outside time; for God there is no past or future, but only an eternal present

I believe Augustine was wrong, and here is why;

God/Eternity is NOT some place where all events; past, present and future are all mixed up as in a blender, but the past, present and future are neatly organized into events, and is examined by the Creator as He wishes, at any time He wishes, where He can create better, and more variety of things. If you look at the snow-flakes, the trees, the leaves on each tree, and every human ever created, are different, because our Creator is anything but boring.

God placed/created his character into us all, where we can enjoy this variety in nature, the valleys with their flowering beauty, the mountains in their awesome grandeur, the oceans with all the millions upon millions of different life forms, all for us to enjoy. Why?
Because He enjoys these things too.

There is a Day when God will come and destroy the earth and throw all those that refused to worship Him as their Creator into a place called hell. That 'Day' is already planned out, set after the 'fulfillement' of the predetirmined events.

So the past, the present and future do apply.

Luke 21:24
24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
NKJV

Luke 21:28
28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near."
NKJV

Mark 1:14-15
Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."
NKJV

Take care my friend.

Odon

[Cathar1950]

Mich wrote:

One says that the universe came from something that is completely beyond our understanding and knowledge. The other says that the universe came from a spirit being that has intent, understanding and desires who has communicated to humanity directly.

Mich wrote:

"Both" hypotheses claim that the universe came from something that is completely beyond our understanding and knowledge. The theist hypothesis goes one step further in identifying a form of consciousness we call God as being the cause of the universe. There is no theory defining how the singularity caused the universe to exist.

There a number of theories, some have no need for your straw man singularity or a maker if others forces are at play that are the very nature of existence as becoming. Hawking seems to think there was enough to suggest the universe might not need a creator or creator God. Maybe they are wrong or misunderstand when they insist God need be creator especially when we know full well the connotations and conditions placed upon whatever happens to be conceived as God.

Mich wrote:

...and God is creator by definition....why would you claim the singularity in being the cause for the existance of the univese as being more reasonable than God? How "did" the singularity cause the universe to exist? If no answer can be given, then why imply the need for one?

It is still begging the question. How did God do it?

McCulloch wrote:

For the God to have will and intent, there must be at least one time-like dimension. Will and intent are meaningless outside of time.

Mich wrote:

It seems that theology ought to be left to the theologians.

Which theologians would that be?
Then you need scientists, philosophers and atheists to keep them honest, asking the right questions and down to earth without doubling the problem with some speculative dualism using substance language. As I like to say to my atheist and non-theists, if you dont think about God, or the Divine and Ultimate, some one will gladly do it for you, usually both philosophically and theologically naive. Then demand you know the right theology.
I tend to like Harold Blooms suggestion that Yahweh or YHWH seems to represent reality. I tend to think it might be more of what will be.
But YHWH, however you might speculate is not the same as the Christian Tri-theistic God. Maybe whatever you want to call God isnt the maker and maker is just another feeble attempt at explaining what you admit to be the unknowable.


Mich wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity

Theists say that God is eternally existent. How this is understood depends on which definition of eternity is used. On one hand, God may exist in eternity, a timeless existence where categories of past, present, and future just do not apply.

...Augustine of Hippo wrote that time exists only within the created universe, so that God exists outside time; for God there is no past or future, but only an eternal present

Andre

It also would depend upon what you mean by existence as well as God.
I would like to see God as open to the future as it has not yet happened and remembering everything forever without loss.
One of the mistakes the West and Christians took from the Greeks was notion of an unmoved mover.