What is evidence?

[ding]

Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else and is evidence that the universe is expanding.

Background radiation is the finger print left behind from the initial expansion of the universe and is evidence that the universe at one time occupied a tiny space.

The solutions of Einstein's theory of general relativity - which has been proved in a myriad of ways - confirms that the universe did expand and start from a tiny space.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium in the universe and is evidence that the universe did have a beginning.

 

[Taz]

Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else and is evidence that the universe is expanding.

Cosmic radiation is the finger print left behind from the initial expansion of the universe and is evidence that the universe at one time occupied a tiny space.

The solutions of Einstein's theory of general relativity - which has been proved in a myriad of ways - confirms that the universe did expand and start from a tiny space.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium in the universe and is evidence that the universe did have a beginning.

Who are you talking to?

 

[Czernobog]

Red shift, background radiation, the theory of general relativity and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tell us that the universe was created.

And since that time matter and energy has only changed form until beings that know and create arose.

Those are words. Why do those things constitute "evidence"? What. Is. Evidence?

I already told you that. Anything which is tangible can be used as evidence.

Why? Why can it be used as evidence? What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"?

 

[ding]

Red shift, background radiation, the theory of general relativity and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tell us that the universe was created.

And since that time matter and energy has only changed form until beings that know and create arose.

Those are words. Why do those things constitute "evidence"? What. Is. Evidence?

I already told you that. Anything which is tangible can be used as evidence.

Why? Why can it be used as evidence? What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"?

Why? Because it exists in reality.

Why can it be used as evidence? Because information can be garnered from it.

What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"? Anything which is tangible and information can be garnered from.

For instance:

Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else and is evidence that the universe is expanding.

Background radiation is the finger print left behind from the initial expansion of the universe and is evidence that the universe at one time occupied a tiny space.

The solutions of Einstein's theory of general relativity - which has been proved in a myriad of ways - confirms that the universe did expand and start from a tiny space.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium in the universe and is evidence that the universe did have a beginning.

 

[ding]

Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else and is evidence that the universe is expanding.

Cosmic radiation is the finger print left behind from the initial expansion of the universe and is evidence that the universe at one time occupied a tiny space.

The solutions of Einstein's theory of general relativity - which has been proved in a myriad of ways - confirms that the universe did expand and start from a tiny space.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium in the universe and is evidence that the universe did have a beginning.

Who are you talking to?

Not you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Red shift, background radiation, the theory of general relativity and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tell us that the universe was created.

And since that time matter and energy has only changed form until beings that know and create arose.

Those are words. Why do those things constitute "evidence"? What. Is. Evidence?

I already told you that. Anything which is tangible can be used as evidence.

Why? Why can it be used as evidence? What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"?

Why? Because it exists in reality.

Why can it be used as evidence? Because information can be garnered from it.

What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"? Anything which is tangible and information can be garnered from.

For instance:

Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else and is evidence that the universe is expanding.

Background radiation is the finger print left behind from the initial expansion of the universe and is evidence that the universe at one time occupied a tiny space.

The solutions of Einstein's theory of general relativity - which has been proved in a myriad of ways - confirms that the universe did expand and start from a tiny space.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium in the universe and is evidence that the universe did have a beginning.

Unfortunately for your declarations, we have come a long way since the 1700s. No lomger is that evidence of any beginning, in our standard model of cosmology. It simply does not hold for large scales, past a certain point in the past. I.E., no thermal equilibrium.

 

[ding]

Red shift, background radiation, the theory of general relativity and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tell us that the universe was created.

And since that time matter and energy has only changed form until beings that know and create arose.

Those are words. Why do those things constitute "evidence"? What. Is. Evidence?

I already told you that. Anything which is tangible can be used as evidence.

Why? Why can it be used as evidence? What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"?

Why? Because it exists in reality.

Why can it be used as evidence? Because information can be garnered from it.

What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"? Anything which is tangible and information can be garnered from.

For instance:

Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else and is evidence that the universe is expanding.

Background radiation is the finger print left behind from the initial expansion of the universe and is evidence that the universe at one time occupied a tiny space.

Background radiation is the finger print left behind from the initial expansion of the universe and is evidence that the universe at one time occupied a tiny space.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium in the universe and is evidence that the universe did have a beginning.

Unfortunately for your declarations, we have come a long way since the 1700s. No lomger is that evidence of any beginning, in our standard model of cosmology. It simply does not hold for large scales, past a certain point in the past. I.E., no thermal equilibrium.

So you are saying that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not predict that as time approaches infinity that the universe will not approach thermal equilibrium?

So you are saying that red shift doesn't show that everything is moving away from everything else and is NOT evidence that the universe is expanding?

So you are saying that Background radiation is NOT the finger print left behind from the initial expansion of the universe and is NOT evidence that the universe at one time occupied a tiny space.

So you are saying that Einstein's theory of general relativity do not predict that the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of the atom and then began to expand and cool?

So why the does CERN still say on their website that the universe had a beginning?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

 

[hobelim]

I answered your question by showing evidence for beliefs based on the bible is not the same thing as scientific evidence..

Shouldn't you ask why no one is giving you the answer you are looking for?

Listen up...

ITS A STUPID QUESTION.

like you are expecting evidence for a talking snake that can be captured on video or dissected in a laboratory as if you didn't have the sense to decipher such an extremely complicated metaphor intended to teach children lessons..

You saying that there is no evidence for God is like saying there is no evidence for Karma which is like saying there is no evidence for cause and effect.

numbskull.

Fuck off. It isn't a stupid question. You insist that The Bible is "evidence". Why? What do you consider the term evidence to mean? If it is such a stupid question it should be an easy one to answer.

Fuck off yourself.

I didn't say the bible is evidence .

I said the bible provides evidence for biblical beliefs.

People say Jesus claimed to be God. Where else are you going to look for evidence that would support that belief?

schmuck.

Why do you believe the Bible provides evidence? What do you believe the term evidence to mean?

since evidence means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." when discussing beliefs that are claimed to be based on teaching in the bible evidence that would either support or refute those beliefs would have to be found in the bible.

Well, the Bible would in fact, be useful as evidence of whether a particular belief that is claimed to be "biblical" is, in fact, in the bible. However, who cares? "I believe in God, because he in in the Bible". When one examines the bible, low and behold, God is mentioned in the bible. Woohoo, your belief is "biblical". That doesn't make it factual.

So, we're back to my original question. What is evidence? If your entire body of evidence for believing in the existence of God is, "It's in the bible", you can understand why those of s who are not Christians might find that evidence...less than compelling, right?

Your logic is impeccable as it may apply to those who might profess such a belief but thats not what I have said or am saying.

And of course such evidence is less than compelling. I do not base my experience of God on anything other than experience.

What I would suggest to you or anyone who seeks proof that what is reported in scripture is true is to first seek to understand the subjects of heaven and earth, angels and demons, the living and the dead, and all of the wild beasts of the field that the lord God had made, kosher law, ritual sacrifice, the resurrection etc., subjects that are hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

If you don't understand what they were talking about, you wouldn't know where or how to look for proof of God.

The more you humble yourself like a little child challenged to learn the moral of a fairy tale and study the subject free of preconceived ideas, assumptions and resentments based on what confused people have said, the more you will see with your own eyes and perceive with your own mind the volumes of knowledge, like treasure from the ancient past, hidden in short sentences, brief paragraphs and fantastical stories.

The more you can perceive that which was hidden the more you will be able to perceive that the hand of the living God has been intimately involved in your life for your entire life even if in the past you never saw a thing..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fuck off. It isn't a stupid question. You insist that The Bible is "evidence". Why? What do you consider the term evidence to mean? If it is such a stupid question it should be an easy one to answer.

Fuck off yourself.

I didn't say the bible is evidence .

I said the bible provides evidence for biblical beliefs.

People say Jesus claimed to be God. Where else are you going to look for evidence that would support that belief?

schmuck.

Why do you believe the Bible provides evidence? What do you believe the term evidence to mean?

since evidence means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." when discussing beliefs that are claimed to be based on teaching in the bible evidence that would either support or refute those beliefs would have to be found in the bible.

Well, the Bible would in fact, be useful as evidence of whether a particular belief that is claimed to be "biblical" is, in fact, in the bible. However, who cares? "I believe in God, because he in in the Bible". When one examines the bible, low and behold, God is mentioned in the bible. Woohoo, your belief is "biblical". That doesn't make it factual.

So, we're back to my original question. What is evidence? If your entire body of evidence for believing in the existence of God is, "It's in the bible", you can understand why those of s who are not Christians might find that evidence...less than compelling, right?

Your logic is impeccable as it may apply to those who might profess such a belief but thats not what I have said or am saying.

And of course such evidence is less than compelling. I do not base my experience of God on anything other than experience.

What I would suggest to you or anyone who seeks proof that what is reported in scripture is true is to first seek to understand the subjects of heaven and earth, angels and demons, the living and the dead, and all of the wild beasts of the field that the lord God had made, kosher law, ritual sacrifice, the resurrection etc., subjects that are hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

If you don't understand what they were talking about, you wouldn't know where or how to look for proof of God.

The more you humble yourself like a little child challenged to learn the moral of a fairy tale and study the subject free of preconceived ideas, assumptions and resentments based on what confused people have said, the more you will see with your own eyes and perceive with your own mind the volumes of knowledge, like treasure from the ancient past, hidden in short sentences, brief paragraphs and fantastical stories.

The more you can perceive that which was hidden the more you will be able to perceive that the hand of the living God has been intimately involved in your life for your entire life even if in the past you never saw a thing..

Let me shorten that up for everyone:

Just close your eyes and use your imagination, until you have fooled yourself.

Now see, wasn't that quicker and more to the point? I'm always here to help!

 

[ding]

Fuck off. It isn't a stupid question. You insist that The Bible is "evidence". Why? What do you consider the term evidence to mean? If it is such a stupid question it should be an easy one to answer.

Fuck off yourself.

I didn't say the bible is evidence .

I said the bible provides evidence for biblical beliefs.

People say Jesus claimed to be God. Where else are you going to look for evidence that would support that belief?

schmuck.

Why do you believe the Bible provides evidence? What do you believe the term evidence to mean?

since evidence means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." when discussing beliefs that are claimed to be based on teaching in the bible evidence that would either support or refute those beliefs would have to be found in the bible.

Well, the Bible would in fact, be useful as evidence of whether a particular belief that is claimed to be "biblical" is, in fact, in the bible. However, who cares? "I believe in God, because he in in the Bible". When one examines the bible, low and behold, God is mentioned in the bible. Woohoo, your belief is "biblical". That doesn't make it factual.

So, we're back to my original question. What is evidence? If your entire body of evidence for believing in the existence of God is, "It's in the bible", you can understand why those of s who are not Christians might find that evidence...less than compelling, right?

Your logic is impeccable as it may apply to those who might profess such a belief but thats not what I have said or am saying.

And of course such evidence is less than compelling. I do not base my experience of God on anything other than experience.

What I would suggest to you or anyone who seeks proof that what is reported in scripture is true is to first seek to understand the subjects of heaven and earth, angels and demons, the living and the dead, and all of the wild beasts of the field that the lord God had made, kosher law, ritual sacrifice, the resurrection etc., subjects that are hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

If you don't understand what they were talking about, you wouldn't know where or how to look for proof of God.

The more you humble yourself like a little child challenged to learn the moral of a fairy tale and study the subject free of preconceived ideas, assumptions and resentments based on what confused people have said, the more you will see with your own eyes and perceive with your own mind the volumes of knowledge, like treasure from the ancient past, hidden in short sentences, brief paragraphs and fantastical stories.

The more you can perceive that which was hidden the more you will be able to perceive that the hand of the living God has been intimately involved in your life for your entire life even if in the past you never saw a thing..

You don't need to know that stuff. You only need to humble yourself to see Him.

 

[Czernobog]

Red shift, background radiation, the theory of general relativity and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tell us that the universe was created.

And since that time matter and energy has only changed form until beings that know and create arose.

Those are words. Why do those things constitute "evidence"? What. Is. Evidence?

I already told you that. Anything which is tangible can be used as evidence.

Why? Why can it be used as evidence? What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"?

Why? Because it exists in reality.

Why can it be used as evidence? Because information can be garnered from it.

What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"? Anything which is tangible and information can be garnered from.

For instance:

Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else and is evidence that the universe is expanding.

Background radiation is the finger print left behind from the initial expansion of the universe and is evidence that the universe at one time occupied a tiny space.

The solutions of Einstein's theory of general relativity - which has been proved in a myriad of ways - confirms that the universe did expand and start from a tiny space.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium in the universe and is evidence that the universe did have a beginning.

The thing is, none of those apply when the expansion of the universe began. The physical conditions in this period cannot be explained by physical knowledge that we have now, this difficulty is due in particular to the fact that the four forces that govern today's nature - gravitational force, electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces - were not independent but unified in one fundamental force.

During the era of Planck matter does not exist yet, the universe, apparently empty, populated by thousands of particles and antiparticles, called virtual, that are created from nothing by stealing a small amount of energy to the universe and to disintegrate about 10 -22 s after, returning to the universe the little energy they had "stolen" is this extremely short period of life that distinguishes them from normal matter particles. This particular phenomenon can be explained by a principle of quantum mechanics known as the Heisenberg inequality E ≥ ~ t / 2

 

[ding]

Red shift, background radiation, the theory of general relativity and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tell us that the universe was created.

And since that time matter and energy has only changed form until beings that know and create arose.

Those are words. Why do those things constitute "evidence"? What. Is. Evidence?

I already told you that. Anything which is tangible can be used as evidence.

Why? Why can it be used as evidence? What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"?

Why? Because it exists in reality.

Why can it be used as evidence? Because information can be garnered from it.

What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"? Anything which is tangible and information can be garnered from.

For instance:

Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else and is evidence that the universe is expanding.

Background radiation is the finger print left behind from the initial expansion of the universe and is evidence that the universe at one time occupied a tiny space.

The solutions of Einstein's theory of general relativity - which has been proved in a myriad of ways - confirms that the universe did expand and start from a tiny space.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium in the universe and is evidence that the universe did have a beginning.

The thing is, none of those apply when the expansion of the universe began. The physical conditions in this period cannot be explained by physical knowledge that we have now, this difficulty is due in particular to the fact that the four forces that govern today's nature - gravitational force, electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces - were not independent but unified in one fundamental force.

During the era of Planck matter does not exist yet, the universe, apparently empty, populated by thousands of particles and antiparticles, called virtual, that are created from nothing by stealing a small amount of energy to the universe and to disintegrate about 10 -22 s after, returning to the universe the little energy they had "stolen" is this extremely short period of life that distinguishes them from normal matter particles. This particular phenomenon can be explained by a principle of quantum mechanics known as the Heisenberg inequality E ≥ ~ t / 2

Be honest. Do you understand anything you just copied in?

 

[Czernobog]

Those are words. Why do those things constitute "evidence"? What. Is. Evidence?

I already told you that. Anything which is tangible can be used as evidence.

Why? Why can it be used as evidence? What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"?

Why? Because it exists in reality.

Why can it be used as evidence? Because information can be garnered from it.

What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"? Anything which is tangible and information can be garnered from.

For instance:

Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else and is evidence that the universe is expanding.

Background radiation is the finger print left behind from the initial expansion of the universe and is evidence that the universe at one time occupied a tiny space.

The solutions of Einstein's theory of general relativity - which has been proved in a myriad of ways - confirms that the universe did expand and start from a tiny space.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium in the universe and is evidence that the universe did have a beginning.

The thing is, none of those apply when the expansion of the universe began. The physical conditions in this period cannot be explained by physical knowledge that we have now, this difficulty is due in particular to the fact that the four forces that govern today's nature - gravitational force, electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces - were not independent but unified in one fundamental force.

During the era of Planck matter does not exist yet, the universe, apparently empty, populated by thousands of particles and antiparticles, called virtual, that are created from nothing by stealing a small amount of energy to the universe and to disintegrate about 10 -22 s after, returning to the universe the little energy they had "stolen" is this extremely short period of life that distinguishes them from normal matter particles. This particular phenomenon can be explained by a principle of quantum mechanics known as the Heisenberg inequality E ≥ ~ t / 2

Be honest. Do you understand anything you just copied in?

Actually, I do. The universe was so dense, and so hot (around 10324 K) in the beginning that the four force3s of the universe were compressed into one megaforce, if you will. Now, the details of the Heisenberg inequality formula, I will admit that I only understand the basics, as I described them - that particles basically bounced in, and out of existence taking in, and giving off minute amounts of energy so quickly that the effect would appear to be "energy from nothing".

Why? Have I gone beyond you? If so, then maybe we should both just back off to "I don't know how the universe came into being, but instead of just saying, 'God did it,' maybe we should wait until science has a chance to understand it,"

 

[ding]

I already told you that. Anything which is tangible can be used as evidence.

Why? Why can it be used as evidence? What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"?

Why? Because it exists in reality.

Why can it be used as evidence? Because information can be garnered from it.

What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"? Anything which is tangible and information can be garnered from.

For instance:

Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else and is evidence that the universe is expanding.

Background radiation is the finger print left behind from the initial expansion of the universe and is evidence that the universe at one time occupied a tiny space.

The solutions of Einstein's theory of general relativity - which has been proved in a myriad of ways - confirms that the universe did expand and start from a tiny space.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium in the universe and is evidence that the universe did have a beginning.

The thing is, none of those apply when the expansion of the universe began. The physical conditions in this period cannot be explained by physical knowledge that we have now, this difficulty is due in particular to the fact that the four forces that govern today's nature - gravitational force, electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces - were not independent but unified in one fundamental force.

During the era of Planck matter does not exist yet, the universe, apparently empty, populated by thousands of particles and antiparticles, called virtual, that are created from nothing by stealing a small amount of energy to the universe and to disintegrate about 10 -22 s after, returning to the universe the little energy they had "stolen" is this extremely short period of life that distinguishes them from normal matter particles. This particular phenomenon can be explained by a principle of quantum mechanics known as the Heisenberg inequality E ≥ ~ t / 2

Be honest. Do you understand anything you just copied in?

Actually, I do. The universe was so dense, and so hot (around 10324 K) in the beginning that the four force3s of the universe were compressed into one megaforce, if you will. Now, the details of the Heisenberg inequality formula, I will admit that I only understand the basics, as I described them - that particles basically bounced in, and out of existence taking in, and giving off minute amounts of energy so quickly that the effect would appear to be "energy from nothing".

Why? Have I gone beyond you? If so, then maybe we should both just back off to "I don't know how the universe came into being, but instead of just saying, 'God did it,' maybe we should wait until science has a chance to understand it,"

Not quite. The early universe was composed of subatomic particles but very rapidly evolved to hydrogen and helium as it expanded and cooled.

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

And none of that has to do with what we are discussing which is evidence that you are rejecting.


Oh... and BTW, the 2nd Law of Thermo still proves that the universe had a beginning.

 

[Czernobog]

Why? Why can it be used as evidence? What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"?

Why? Because it exists in reality.

Why can it be used as evidence? Because information can be garnered from it.

What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"? Anything which is tangible and information can be garnered from.

For instance:

Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else and is evidence that the universe is expanding.

Background radiation is the finger print left behind from the initial expansion of the universe and is evidence that the universe at one time occupied a tiny space.

The solutions of Einstein's theory of general relativity - which has been proved in a myriad of ways - confirms that the universe did expand and start from a tiny space.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium in the universe and is evidence that the universe did have a beginning.

The thing is, none of those apply when the expansion of the universe began. The physical conditions in this period cannot be explained by physical knowledge that we have now, this difficulty is due in particular to the fact that the four forces that govern today's nature - gravitational force, electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces - were not independent but unified in one fundamental force.

During the era of Planck matter does not exist yet, the universe, apparently empty, populated by thousands of particles and antiparticles, called virtual, that are created from nothing by stealing a small amount of energy to the universe and to disintegrate about 10 -22 s after, returning to the universe the little energy they had "stolen" is this extremely short period of life that distinguishes them from normal matter particles. This particular phenomenon can be explained by a principle of quantum mechanics known as the Heisenberg inequality E ≥ ~ t / 2

Be honest. Do you understand anything you just copied in?

Actually, I do. The universe was so dense, and so hot (around 10324 K) in the beginning that the four force3s of the universe were compressed into one megaforce, if you will. Now, the details of the Heisenberg inequality formula, I will admit that I only understand the basics, as I described them - that particles basically bounced in, and out of existence taking in, and giving off minute amounts of energy so quickly that the effect would appear to be "energy from nothing".

Why? Have I gone beyond you? If so, then maybe we should both just back off to "I don't know how the universe came into being, but instead of just saying, 'God did it,' maybe we should wait until science has a chance to understand it,"

Not quite. The early universe was composed of subatomic particles but very rapidly evolved to hydrogen and helium as it expanded and cooled.

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

And none of that has to do with what we are discussing which is evidence that you are rejecting.


Oh... and BTW, the 2nd Law of Thermo still proves that the universe had a beginning.

Since the laws of physics, as we understand them, didn't operate until after the initial expansion, how do you propose the 2nd Law of thermodynamics even applies to the Big Bang?

 

[ding]

Why? Because it exists in reality.

Why can it be used as evidence? Because information can be garnered from it.

What do you mean when you use the term "evidence"? Anything which is tangible and information can be garnered from.

For instance:

Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else and is evidence that the universe is expanding.

Background radiation is the finger print left behind from the initial expansion of the universe and is evidence that the universe at one time occupied a tiny space.

The solutions of Einstein's theory of general relativity - which has been proved in a myriad of ways - confirms that the universe did expand and start from a tiny space.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot exist forever without thermal equilibrium in the universe and is evidence that the universe did have a beginning.

The thing is, none of those apply when the expansion of the universe began. The physical conditions in this period cannot be explained by physical knowledge that we have now, this difficulty is due in particular to the fact that the four forces that govern today's nature - gravitational force, electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces - were not independent but unified in one fundamental force.

During the era of Planck matter does not exist yet, the universe, apparently empty, populated by thousands of particles and antiparticles, called virtual, that are created from nothing by stealing a small amount of energy to the universe and to disintegrate about 10 -22 s after, returning to the universe the little energy they had "stolen" is this extremely short period of life that distinguishes them from normal matter particles. This particular phenomenon can be explained by a principle of quantum mechanics known as the Heisenberg inequality E ≥ ~ t / 2

Be honest. Do you understand anything you just copied in?

Actually, I do. The universe was so dense, and so hot (around 10324 K) in the beginning that the four force3s of the universe were compressed into one megaforce, if you will. Now, the details of the Heisenberg inequality formula, I will admit that I only understand the basics, as I described them - that particles basically bounced in, and out of existence taking in, and giving off minute amounts of energy so quickly that the effect would appear to be "energy from nothing".

Why? Have I gone beyond you? If so, then maybe we should both just back off to "I don't know how the universe came into being, but instead of just saying, 'God did it,' maybe we should wait until science has a chance to understand it,"

Not quite. The early universe was composed of subatomic particles but very rapidly evolved to hydrogen and helium as it expanded and cooled.

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

And none of that has to do with what we are discussing which is evidence that you are rejecting.


Oh... and BTW, the 2nd Law of Thermo still proves that the universe had a beginning.

Since the laws of physics, as we understand them, didn't operate until after the initial expansion, how do you propose the 2nd Law of thermodynamics even applies to the Big Bang?

It doesn't. It applies to the universe not being cyclical. If it isn't cyclical then it did have a beginning.

 

[ding]

You didn't see that coming?

 

[ding]

Besides... if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

Alexander Vilenkin

 

[Czernobog]

The thing is, none of those apply when the expansion of the universe began. The physical conditions in this period cannot be explained by physical knowledge that we have now, this difficulty is due in particular to the fact that the four forces that govern today's nature - gravitational force, electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces - were not independent but unified in one fundamental force.

During the era of Planck matter does not exist yet, the universe, apparently empty, populated by thousands of particles and antiparticles, called virtual, that are created from nothing by stealing a small amount of energy to the universe and to disintegrate about 10 -22 s after, returning to the universe the little energy they had "stolen" is this extremely short period of life that distinguishes them from normal matter particles. This particular phenomenon can be explained by a principle of quantum mechanics known as the Heisenberg inequality E ≥ ~ t / 2

Be honest. Do you understand anything you just copied in?

Actually, I do. The universe was so dense, and so hot (around 10324 K) in the beginning that the four force3s of the universe were compressed into one megaforce, if you will. Now, the details of the Heisenberg inequality formula, I will admit that I only understand the basics, as I described them - that particles basically bounced in, and out of existence taking in, and giving off minute amounts of energy so quickly that the effect would appear to be "energy from nothing".

Why? Have I gone beyond you? If so, then maybe we should both just back off to "I don't know how the universe came into being, but instead of just saying, 'God did it,' maybe we should wait until science has a chance to understand it,"

Not quite. The early universe was composed of subatomic particles but very rapidly evolved to hydrogen and helium as it expanded and cooled.

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

And none of that has to do with what we are discussing which is evidence that you are rejecting.


Oh... and BTW, the 2nd Law of Thermo still proves that the universe had a beginning.

Since the laws of physics, as we understand them, didn't operate until after the initial expansion, how do you propose the 2nd Law of thermodynamics even applies to the Big Bang?

It doesn't. It applies to the universe not being cyclical. If it isn't cyclical then it did have a beginning.

Since the Second law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply at the event horizon, you can't make that determination, especially when you factor in the possibility of quantum tunneling.

 

[Czernobog]

Wasn't expecting that, were you?