Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

[Taz]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

Taz, why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Created as in created by god? Because scientists don't say that, or if they do, they have no proof either, so they can bite me.

 

[ding]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

Taz, why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Created as in created by god? Because scientists don't say that, or if they do, they have no proof either, so they can bite me.

Just created, Taz.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

 

[Taz]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

Taz, why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Created as in created by god? Because scientists don't say that, or if they do, they have no proof either, so they can bite me.

Just created, Taz.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

It wasn’t officially created, we can’t know that yet.

 

[ding]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

Taz, why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Created as in created by god? Because scientists don't say that, or if they do, they have no proof either, so they can bite me.

Just created, Taz.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

It wasn’t officially created, we can’t know that yet.

Did question scare you, Taz?

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

 

[Ringtone]

When we can see it, we'll probably know, it will be an exiting time, seeing if any predictions are right. You describing the things we can see, but we're still missing the central piece of the puzzle.

Wait a minute! I need to ask you some questions to make sure I know precisely what you're saying.

You do understand that on the Big Bang model, the Big Bang state observed in the CMB is the immediate aftermath of the break in the symmetry of the grand unification and the cosmic inflation thereof, the latter of which is the massive conversion of the compressed energy of the cosmic, quantum vacuum?

Yes?

But because we cannot directly observe the initial break of the four fundamental forces of nature and the cosmic inflation of the massive conversion . . . we have no evidence or proof that the universe began to exist in the finite past?!

Your first premise supposes that the BB has been observed and that it's what you say. So that's wrong, we can't yet see the BB so can only guess at what happened there.

As for your second premise, as we can't see the BB, we have no way of knowing whether it's the beginning of something, or a continuation of something.

This is getting tiresome. Just when I think we agree on what is observed. . . .

What you keep calling the BB is the initial break of the four fundamental forces of nature and the cosmic inflation of the massive conversion of the previously bound up energy of the cosmic quantum vacuum.

THAT CANNOT BE OBSERVED, and I didn't say it could be observed.

What is observed in the CMB is the immediate aftermath of the emboldened.

 

[Taz]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

Taz, why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Created as in created by god? Because scientists don't say that, or if they do, they have no proof either, so they can bite me.

Just created, Taz.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

It wasn’t officially created, we can’t know that yet.

Did question scare you, Taz?

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Not created by your invisible friend. No scientist says that.

 

[Taz]

When we can see it, we'll probably know, it will be an exiting time, seeing if any predictions are right. You describing the things we can see, but we're still missing the central piece of the puzzle.

Wait a minute! I need to ask you some questions to make sure I know precisely what you're saying.

You do understand that on the Big Bang model, the Big Bang state observed in the CMB is the immediate aftermath of the break in the symmetry of the grand unification and the cosmic inflation thereof, the latter of which is the massive conversion of the compressed energy of the cosmic, quantum vacuum?

Yes?

But because we cannot directly observe the initial break of the four fundamental forces of nature and the cosmic inflation of the massive conversion . . . we have no evidence or proof that the universe began to exist in the finite past?!

Your first premise supposes that the BB has been observed and that it's what you say. So that's wrong, we can't yet see the BB so can only guess at what happened there.

As for your second premise, as we can't see the BB, we have no way of knowing whether it's the beginning of something, or a continuation of something.

This is getting tiresome. Just when I think we agree on what is observed. . . .

What you keep calling the BB is the initial break of the four fundamental forces of nature and the cosmic inflation of the massive conversion of the previously bound up energy of the cosmic quantum vacuum.

THAT CANNOT BE OBSERVED, and I didn't say it could be observed.

What is observed in the CMB is the immediate aftermath of the emboldened.

We don't know that that's what happened since we can't see the BB. And yes, you are tiresome.

 

[ding]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

Taz, why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Created as in created by god? Because scientists don't say that, or if they do, they have no proof either, so they can bite me.

Just created, Taz.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

It wasn’t officially created, we can’t know that yet.

Did question scare you, Taz?

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Not created by your invisible friend. No scientist says that.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

 

[Taz]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

Taz, why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Created as in created by god? Because scientists don't say that, or if they do, they have no proof either, so they can bite me.

Just created, Taz.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

It wasn’t officially created, we can’t know that yet.

Did question scare you, Taz?

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Not created by your invisible friend. No scientist says that.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Which cosmologists?

 

[ding]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

Taz, why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Created as in created by god? Because scientists don't say that, or if they do, they have no proof either, so they can bite me.

Just created, Taz.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

It wasn’t officially created, we can’t know that yet.

Did question scare you, Taz?

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Not created by your invisible friend. No scientist says that.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Which cosmologists?

The ones who believe the big bang was how the universe began, taz. Which is pretty much all of them.

 

[ding]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

Taz, why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Created as in created by god? Because scientists don't say that, or if they do, they have no proof either, so they can bite me.

Just created, Taz.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

It wasn’t officially created, we can’t know that yet.

Did question scare you, Taz?

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Not created by your invisible friend. No scientist says that.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Which cosmologists?

So... Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

 

[Taz]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

Taz, why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Created as in created by god? Because scientists don't say that, or if they do, they have no proof either, so they can bite me.

Just created, Taz.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

It wasn’t officially created, we can’t know that yet.

Did question scare you, Taz?

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Not created by your invisible friend. No scientist says that.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Which cosmologists?

The ones who believe the big bang was how the universe began, taz. Which is pretty much all of them.

Then it should be easy for you to find a proper link. And not that douche video of the guy sitting in the chair talking, lol.

 

[Taz]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

Taz, why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Created as in created by god? Because scientists don't say that, or if they do, they have no proof either, so they can bite me.

Just created, Taz.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

It wasn’t officially created, we can’t know that yet.

Did question scare you, Taz?

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Not created by your invisible friend. No scientist says that.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Which cosmologists?

So... Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

"cosmologists believe the universe was created", prove your premise first.

 

[ding]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

Taz, why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Created as in created by god? Because scientists don't say that, or if they do, they have no proof either, so they can bite me.

Just created, Taz.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

It wasn’t officially created, we can’t know that yet.

Did question scare you, Taz?

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Not created by your invisible friend. No scientist says that.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Which cosmologists?

The ones who believe the big bang was how the universe began, taz. Which is pretty much all of them.

Then it should be easy for you to find a proper link. And not that douche video of the guy sitting in the chair talking, lol.

I'm actually more happy to make fun of you for denying the big bang, dummy.

 

[ding]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

Taz, why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Created as in created by god? Because scientists don't say that, or if they do, they have no proof either, so they can bite me.

Just created, Taz.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

It wasn’t officially created, we can’t know that yet.

Did question scare you, Taz?

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Not created by your invisible friend. No scientist says that.

Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

Which cosmologists?

So... Why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

"cosmologists believe the universe was created", prove your premise first.

dum dum dum dum dum dum

 

[LuckyDuck]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Here's the thing. Our US Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and it clearly states that "congress shall make NO law regarding the establishment of religion." The government does make an exception in the case of a religious order that endangers the life of someone, including members of a religions own flock. Myself, I am absolutely no fan of Islam. It makes other religions look positively forward thinking. But the law is the law and it's allowed to be practiced here.
Those that are opposed to our Bill of Rights are the actual traitors.
On a separate issue, homophobia.....there is highly unlikely that there is ANY SUCH THING as HOMOPHOBIA. That is a term coined by the gay community to paint anyone that is opposed to their lifestyle as being unreasonable and fearful individuals.
A "true" phobia, is an irrational fear. No one is actually scared stiff of gays. My daughter is a perfect example of having a phobia. Her phobia is Arachnophobia. If she sees a spider, she runs screaming from a room and won't re-enter until I go in, kill and remove it. A more appropriate term for those that dislike gays would be, homo-repulsion, or homo-disgust, or homo-dislike.

 

[ding]

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

 

[Ringtone]

Your first premise supposes that the BB has been observed and that it's what you say. So that's wrong, we can't yet see the BB so can only guess at what happened there.

False. I did not say that at all! I said:

You do understand that on the Big Bang model, the Big Bang state observed in the CMB is the immediate aftermath of the break in the symmetry of the grand unification and the cosmic inflation thereof, the latter of which is the massive conversion of the compressed energy of the cosmic, quantum vacuum?​

​

The Big Bang state is the immediate aftermath of the break and the cosmic inflation thereof.
The Big Bang state is the immediate aftermath of the break and the cosmic inflation thereof.

The Big Bang state is the immediate culmination of the break and the cosmic inflation thereof.
The Big Bang state is the immediate culmination of the break and the cosmic inflation thereof.

This is what is observed in the CMB.
This is what is observed in the CMB.

You already agreed that we do observe the immediate aftermath/culmination of the break and the cosmic inflation thereof.
You already agreed that we do observe the immediate aftermath/culmination of the break and the cosmic inflation thereof.

I'm repeating myself because things are not sinking into that head of yours.
I'm repeating myself because things are not sinking into that head of yours.

Then I asked you a question:

But because we cannot directly observe the initial break of the four fundamental forces of nature and the cosmic inflation of the massive conversion . . . we have no evidence or proof that the universe began to exist in the finite past?!​

As for your second premise, as we can't see the BB, we have no way of knowing whether it's the beginning of something, or a continuation of something.

That's the first sensible thing you've said.

Questions:

If it's the beginning of something, what precisely is it the beginning of?​

​

If it's the continuation of something, what precisely is it the continuation of?​

 

[Ringtone]

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

View attachment 469736

 

[ding]

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

View attachment 469736

I like the quotes in your signature. They are very accurate observations.