Four Big Bangs Equal Four Huge Problems For Materialists/Atheists

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you are saying that at this very moment there is ZERO energy in the universe.

Correct, net zero energy. But remember, it's not "me" sayong it, it's what the global scientific community believes is lilkey true. So, to keep from embarrassing yourself, you might want to tailor your discussion of this topic more to our scientific knowledge than to what I had for breakfast. And, to do that, you are going to want to read up on the topic before commenting again.

The scientists who say that the net energy is zero are not saying that energy will equal nothing, they are saying that there are equal AMOUNTS of gravitational energy and matter in balance, two somethings.

Wrong. Scientists are indeed saying that gravity is "negative energy".

 

[edthecynic]

Establishing that something cannot arise from nothing is reason enough to speculate upon what would cause existence to come into existence without the existence of the raw materials of existence. It would seem a certain intelligent intent would be required.

If there was such a thing as nothing, but there is no such thing as nothing. Even a vacuum contains something.

What does a vacuum contain?

Photons and other high energy particles.

Where did they come from?

Energy.

 

[edthecynic]

So you are saying that at this very moment there is ZERO energy in the universe.

Correct, net zero energy. But remember, it's not "me" sayong it, it's what the global scientific community believes is lilkey true. So, to keep from embarrassing yourself, you might want to tailor your discussion of this topic more to our scientific knowledge than to what I had for breakfast. And, to do that, you are going to want to read up on the topic before commenting again.

The scientists who say that the net energy is zero are not saying that energy will equal nothing, they are saying that there are equal AMOUNTS of gravitational energy and matter in balance, two somethings.

Wrong. Scientists are indeed saying that gravity is "negative energy".

And matter is positive energy. They do not cancel each other out and create nothing, they exist together in balance.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And matter is positive energy. They do not cancel each other out and create nothing,

Who claims they do? They simply likely add up to zero. In which case, the creation of the universe did not violate any principle of conservation of energy.

 

[Taz]

Another book of fiction that you get your "science" from?

Most literate people know "Flatland".

Flatland - Wikipedia

I was right, a book of fiction. Got any real proof?

A book of fiction that explains multiple dimensions in laymen's terms. The same way Nineteen Eighty-Four explained an unbridled socialist state.

Well, there's never been a state like the one described in 1984.

Precisely? No. But it was heavily modeled after the Stalinist Soviet Union, with some science-fiction aspects to dress it up.

So you're obsessed with books of fiction, now get back on topic.

 

[edthecynic]

And matter is positive energy. They do not cancel each other out and create nothing,

Who claims they do? They simply likely add up to zero. In which case, the creation of the universe did not violate any principle of conservation of energy.

YOU!

“But this ‘singularity’ was a something, not a nothing. So it doesn’t answer the question of why is there something, whatever we choose to call it, rather than nothing?”

The something this singularity was IS energy, and it has been proven that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So there never was nothing and there never will be nothing.

Sorry, that argument is no longer valid, as scientists are now led to believe that the net energy of our universe is zero.

You are clearly claiming energy is nothing because the net of positive energy and negative energy is zero, the kind of religious crap Ding pushes.

 

[Weatherman2020]

B. Educate yourself on the science of making ice without electricity.

No, you educate us. Tell me how to get ice outside on a 90 degree day, using evaporation. We're all ears, professor. Remember, no machines allowed. Your attempted bait and switch with "electricity" notwithstanding.

C. No one claimed the entire earth was covered in ice.

Okay, then say it: "The world was never, in the history of man, covered with ice."

Go on, state it .

D. Of course there was a global flood.

We know this is false, as much as we know anything. You are simply resorting to magic, which disqualifies you from any rational discussion of the topic.

Vortex tube - Wikipedia

I used this concept in designing a patent processes for applying synthetic bone to medical implants. Room temperature air goes in, -58F air comes out.

They use buildings in India using this design technology to make ice.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

There are key issues that atheists refuse to address, because if they do their position falls apart. Science tells us that the universe came into being via The Big Bang. But how do you get from energy and matter to a self-aware human being? That takes three additional Big Bangs that science cannot explain.



Have you ever wondered why is there something rather than nothing? Yes, it’s an esoteric question and not one any normal person is ever likely to think about without prompting.

So consider yourself prompted because it is an important question, one of the most important of all questions in fact. How important? Well, it’s more significant even than the question of whether a problem is solved if a congressman describes a solution but nobody on C-SPAN is listening?

Or, just to put it in the most personal of terms, why are you here rather than not here?

“Or, to put it in the most personal of terms, why are you here rather than not here?”

Actually, we know why you are here – your folks and you know what. But why were they there rather than not there? Start asking those kinds of questions and eventually you come to this one: Why is there something rather than nothing?

iApologia’s Daniel Currier posesthat question in a slightly different form. He frames it as the “Cosmological Big Bang,” one of the four “big bangs” that materialists/atheists must explain in order to maintain their particular faith:

• The “Cosmological Big Bang”
• The “Biological Big Bang”
• The “Psychological Big Bang”
• The “Moral Big Bang”

The question of the Cosmological Big Bang, however, is not the issue of whenthe universe came into being but rather why it did. As Currier puts it:

“Simply put, from our experience, nothing ever makes something. Everything that begins to exist had a prior cause. Also, the fine tuning of the universe, like carburetors, cars and chainsaws, points to a fine tuner. Finely tuned things ultimately have an intelligent cause.”

Sometimes, materialists/atheists try to resolve the issue by simply defining it as irrelevant, as with this observation by Stephen Hawking from one of his “no boundary” lectures, referenced by Currier from LiveScience:

“Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there’s no way one could measure what happened at them. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang.”

But this “singularity” was a something, not a nothing. So it doesn’t answer the question of why is there something, whatever we choose to call it, rather than nothing?

And just to really give you something to think about, philosopher William Lane Craig points out that science in and of itself must be inadequate to the task of answering this question “if ‘nothing’ is understood in its standard usage because science only deals with what exists.”

“But this ‘singularity’ was a something, not a nothing. So it doesn’t answer the question of why is there something, whatever we choose to call it, rather than nothing?”

That is to say, as Craig continues, “science by its nature is an exploration of the physical natural world and its properties, and there is no such thing as a physics of non-being. Science only studies what exists, so the whole claim that science could explain how something came from nothing, when that word is used in its standard meaning, is absurd.”

Take a few minutes of quiet time to read Currier’s discussion of all four of big bangs. Then come back and share your thoughts with the rest of us.

Four Big Bangs Equal Four Huge Problems For Materialists/Atheists

The late great Reds pitcher Frank Pastore on the issue:

Told you before the matter was settled, we are a project of a science test in another Datamation being test by things that want to see how we end up blowing the whole thing up. They have a strange sense of humor. LOL

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And matter is positive energy. They do not cancel each other out and create nothing,

Who claims they do? They simply likely add up to zero. In which case, the creation of the universe did not violate any principle of conservation of energy.

YOU!

“But this ‘singularity’ was a something, not a nothing. So it doesn’t answer the question of why is there something, whatever we choose to call it, rather than nothing?”

The something this singularity was IS energy, and it has been proven that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So there never was nothing and there never will be nothing.

Sorry, that argument is no longer valid, as scientists are now led to believe that the net energy of our universe is zero.

You are clearly claiming energy is nothing because the net of positive energy and negative energy is zero, the kind of religious crap Ding pushes.

I claimed no such thing. You are delusional. I said that scientists believe that the net energy of the universe is likely zero. That is a fact .and, if true, it is quite easy to get "something from nothing", as we can still see "something" in a universe with net energy of zero.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Study the ancient worlds. Religion in most respects was the science of its time.

Haha, right....just as a horse was the car of it's time. But a horse is not a car, could never be a substitute for a car, and was only used because people were too ignorant to develop cars.

A horse goes from point "A" to point "B", and is intelligent.

A car just does it faster, and is only as intelligent as its driver.

Well that's adorable, but it is still no substitute for a car. Just as ancient magical bullshit is no substitute for scientific method. Religion was the "science" of its time because people were ignorant. That's not any praise for religion.

Indeed. They made be as relatively ignorant now.

Come talk to me in 1000 years.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

B. Educate yourself on the science of making ice without electricity.

No, you educate us. Tell me how to get ice outside on a 90 degree day, using evaporation. We're all ears, professor. Remember, no machines allowed. Your attempted bait and switch with "electricity" notwithstanding.

C. No one claimed the entire earth was covered in ice.

Okay, then say it: "The world was never, in the history of man, covered with ice."

Go on, state it .

D. Of course there was a global flood.

We know this is false, as much as we know anything. You are simply resorting to magic, which disqualifies you from any rational discussion of the topic.

Vortex tube - Wikipedia

I used this concept in designing a patent processes for applying synthetic bone to medical implants. Room temperature air goes in, -58F air comes out.

They use buildings in India using this design technology to make ice.

So science, engineering, and a machine are used. Huh, why not just use miracles?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Most literate people know "Flatland".

Flatland - Wikipedia

I was right, a book of fiction. Got any real proof?

A book of fiction that explains multiple dimensions in laymen's terms. The same way Nineteen Eighty-Four explained an unbridled socialist state.

Well, there's never been a state like the one described in 1984. So I get your point, you have nothing.

Soviet Union was pretty close.

TrumpWorld is much closer.

Crazy too, eh?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Study the ancient worlds. Religion in most respects was the science of its time.

Haha, right....just as a horse was the car of it's time. But a horse is not a car, could never be a substitute for a car, and was only used because people were too ignorant to develop cars.

A horse goes from point "A" to point "B", and is intelligent.

A car just does it faster, and is only as intelligent as its driver.

Well that's adorable, but it is still no substitute for a car. Just as ancient magical bullshit is no substitute for scientific method. Religion was the "science" of its time because people were ignorant. That's not any praise for religion.

Indeed. They made be as relatively ignorant now.

Come talk to me in 1000 years.

At which point, scientific method will not have changed. And neither will the fact atht religion and philosophy were used as an alternative, due to ignorance.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

All things have an origin.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

So current science indicates.

Of course, your science once said that the earth was flat and rode upon the backs of elephants supported by a giant turtle.

Science never said that, but religion DID!

Study the ancient worlds. Religion in most respects was the science of its time.

Religion is NEVER science.

And yet it was known at least 4000 years ago that people are essentially made out of dirt and water.

 

[Taz]

Just because someone like you gives me a cockamamy answer don't end my quest for the real truth. I understand what people are saying to me, I simply don't agree because it's not logical what people tell me. And so you all get upset at me for debunking your answers and call me names. So not only are you not logical, but your infantile.

Infantile? I'm not the guy who thinks that asking about anal sex, cum dribbles, kangaroos, and gay Jesus are simple intelligent questions.

Thats not just infantile. You are a low class vulgarian with nothing better to do than try and shock people by demonstrating just how low you can stoop.

Ok, so you have a better explanation for how a woman could get pregnant 2000 years ago and still be a virgin? Go for it, I'll wait.

Or can you not look at things objectively and discuss them calmly? By your last response, I'd guess "no".

As for roos, that's a valid question. And gay Jesus, well, the signs point to "yes". And I don't have a problem with that, but you sure seem to!

Childish rants straight of of the dumbass atheist book.

So how did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and back again afterwards? Let me guess, a worldwide flood doesn't mean it was worldwide, just regional. Or, it's all allegorical and doesn't mean anything near what's written. Or it was god's magic?

A. More than enough water above and below ground to cover the earth.
B. How can you create ice on a 90 degree summer day without electricity? Evaporation.
C. What happens in a world covered in ice? Shores are connected.
D. Who claims the land masses are the same before and after the flood?

So tell me what’s the downside to a belief in God?

Don’t give me examples of misuse for power, science has been misused. And don’t give me its anti science, some of the greatest minds acknowledge the existence of God.

A. No geologic proof of a worldwide flood.
B. And this is relevant because...?
C. So you're saying that the roos walked over ice from Australia to get to the Middle East?
D. The last time the land masses were together was 250 million years ago. Is this when the flood happened? Is that what really killed all the dinosaurs?

Downside of the belief in god? Thinking that there is solid proof for a god is delusional. And aside from wars between religions and that kind of stuff, religions make women second class citizens. And then not looking further for what is actually out there because your beliefs already said one thing.

 

[Taz]

Ok, so you don't claim it to be the actual truth. Like I said, a theory and that's cool. I like to check out different ideas.

No, you won’t. God terrifies you.

Why would that be? He a judgemental prick or something?

You tell me. The fact you immediately jumped to being held to a standard in your life pretty much answers it.

You're the one who made the claim, you tell me. And where did you get you second sentence? When did I say what?

You called God a judgmental prick. Goes without saying that’s your biggest problem.

No, I asked you if god was a judgemental prick. It was a question.

 

[Taz]

Another book of fiction that you get your "science" from?

Most literate people know "Flatland".

Flatland - Wikipedia

I was right, a book of fiction. Got any real proof?

A book of fiction that explains multiple dimensions in laymen's terms. The same way Nineteen Eighty-Four explained an unbridled socialist state.

Well, there's never been a state like the one described in 1984. So I get your point, you have nothing.

Soviet Union was pretty close.

US is closer.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

So current science indicates.

Of course, your science once said that the earth was flat and rode upon the backs of elephants supported by a giant turtle.

Science never said that, but religion DID!

Study the ancient worlds. Religion in most respects was the science of its time.

Religion is NEVER science.

And yet it was known at least 4000 years ago that people are essentially made out of dirt and water.

No it wasn't, what an absurd thing to say. People are no more made of dirt than they are made of play doh, or crude oil. What an goofy example of "snap to fit" nonsense. The Nostradamus cult would be jealous.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Infantile? I'm not the guy who thinks that asking about anal sex, cum dribbles, kangaroos, and gay Jesus are simple intelligent questions.

Thats not just infantile. You are a low class vulgarian with nothing better to do than try and shock people by demonstrating just how low you can stoop.

Ok, so you have a better explanation for how a woman could get pregnant 2000 years ago and still be a virgin? Go for it, I'll wait.

Or can you not look at things objectively and discuss them calmly? By your last response, I'd guess "no".

As for roos, that's a valid question. And gay Jesus, well, the signs point to "yes". And I don't have a problem with that, but you sure seem to!

Childish rants straight of of the dumbass atheist book.

So how did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and back again afterwards? Let me guess, a worldwide flood doesn't mean it was worldwide, just regional. Or, it's all allegorical and doesn't mean anything near what's written. Or it was god's magic?

A. More than enough water above and below ground to cover the earth.
B. How can you create ice on a 90 degree summer day without electricity? Evaporation.
C. What happens in a world covered in ice? Shores are connected.
D. Who claims the land masses are the same before and after the flood?

So tell me what’s the downside to a belief in God?

Don’t give me examples of misuse for power, science has been misused. And don’t give me its anti science, some of the greatest minds acknowledge the existence of God.

A. No geologic proof of a worldwide flood.
B. And this is relevant because...?
C. So you're saying that the roos walked over ice from Australia to get to the Middle East?
D. The last time the land masses were together was 250 million years ago. Is this when the flood happened? Is that what really killed all the dinosaurs?

Downside of the belief in god? Thinking that there is solid proof for a god is delusional. And aside from wars between religions and that kind of stuff, religions make women second class citizens. And then not looking further for what is actually out there because your beliefs already said one thing.

I never claimed there was 100% in God. I said there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

One issue at a time.

Most of the ocean in this region is 1-200 ft deep. Ice age would have created much lower sea levels. Connect the dots.

 

[Weatherman2020]

So current science indicates.

Of course, your science once said that the earth was flat and rode upon the backs of elephants supported by a giant turtle.

Science never said that, but religion DID!

Study the ancient worlds. Religion in most respects was the science of its time.

Religion is NEVER science.

And yet it was known at least 4000 years ago that people are essentially made out of dirt and water.

No it wasn't, what an absurd thing to say. People are no more made of dirt than they are made of play doh, or crude oil. What an goofy example of "snap to fit" nonsense. The Nostradamus cult would be jealous.

Your spinning faster now.