God Reveals Himself to Man

[ding]

it's what science thinks that matters

What? Are you familiar with science or not. Science already concluded that they are unable to have a truth of this kind. Such a scenario is not scientifically falsifiable. It means whatever you can come up with, science can't tell if it's true or can't tell if it's not true. It is simply because BB (if exists) is a one time event in history. Science by its very nature doesn't have the ability to falsify whatever came up with in this case. That is, science itself doesn't have the ability to tell in the case that a (or any) hypothesis is not true.

In a sense, science has already given up to begin with, of course unless you can make the presumed BB repeats itself in front of humans.

Science at the moment can't see all the way back to the BB, when they can, we'll all have something to talk about. Until then, it's a guessing game.

We have something to talk about now, Mr. science denier.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Shut up with that usual word salad, it proves nothing.

It's called science, Taz. And it proves the universe was created from nothing.

Maybe to you it does, but not to anyone in the real world.

Which part?

All of it.

So red shift is word salad and proves nothing?

Doesn’t prove that the universe came from nothing, it shows that everything is moving away from us.

Hawking explains how it does.

Right on the front of the video it says “theory”. Now go buy yourself a dictionary.

Obviously you didn't watch the video.

I did, it’s a theory. Nothing more. Geez, you’re thick.

You mean like evolution is a theory?

I'm not the one denying science, Taz.

 

[Taz]

The Ancient Rites That Gave Birth to Religion

Sacred beliefs likely arose out of prehistoric bonding and rituals.

The invention of religion is a big bang in human history. Gods and spirits helped explain the unexplainable, and religious belief gave meaning and purpose to people struggling to survive. But what if everything we thought we knew about religion was wrong? What if belief in the supernatural is window dressing on what really matters—elaborate rituals that foster group cohesion, creating personal bonds that people are willing to die for.

Kind of hard to look past the fact that 6,000 years ago they knew the universe was created from nothing and that man was a product of that creation.

We don't know what was at the BB because we can't see that far back. We've been through this before.

Red shift and cosmic background radiation say otherwise.

Link to a scientific article that says that those 2 things prove that the universe came from nothing, and quote the relevant part.

You do realize that you are proving a universe created from nothing supports that God created it, right?

I'm not proving that, wtf are you talking about? And science never said that they could see back that far. Thanks for the link.

Sure you are by opposing the only scientific explanation that fits the observations and doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's how much you think this proves that God created the universe from nothing.

Again... the link you are looking for is called red shift and cosmic background radiation.

Which is why CERN says everything was created 13 billion years ago.

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

As usual, nothing you posted proves that we came from nothing.

What do you think it was created from, Taz?

It doesn't matter what I think, it's what science thinks that matters, and science says that they can't see all the way back to the BB. So nobody knows what the BB was, or how or why it exploded like that.

If you can't come up with an alternate answer than you have no business attacking the answer that was identified just because it offends your sensibilities which is exactly why you are denying the science. You are a modern day flat earther.

I'm intelligent enough to know that we don't know the answer yet. Sure we can speculate, but that's all it is. Like your red shift word salad, it's a guess, no harm there.

There are only two options here; either it began by being created from nothing or it has always existed. That's it. There are no other options. Matter and energy are not eternal.

Of course there are other possibilities, especially the one that we never thought of.

Name one.

I just did.

No, you didn't.

The reason that we never thought of.

That's not an example, dummy. That's a cop out.

It could be a super massive black hole that blows up. That’s 2.

SLoT says otherwise.

The video itself says “theory”. Now shut up.

 

[ding]

The Ancient Rites That Gave Birth to Religion

Sacred beliefs likely arose out of prehistoric bonding and rituals.

The invention of religion is a big bang in human history. Gods and spirits helped explain the unexplainable, and religious belief gave meaning and purpose to people struggling to survive. But what if everything we thought we knew about religion was wrong? What if belief in the supernatural is window dressing on what really matters—elaborate rituals that foster group cohesion, creating personal bonds that people are willing to die for.

Kind of hard to look past the fact that 6,000 years ago they knew the universe was created from nothing and that man was a product of that creation.

We don't know what was at the BB because we can't see that far back. We've been through this before.

Red shift and cosmic background radiation say otherwise.

Link to a scientific article that says that those 2 things prove that the universe came from nothing, and quote the relevant part.

You do realize that you are proving a universe created from nothing supports that God created it, right?

I'm not proving that, wtf are you talking about? And science never said that they could see back that far. Thanks for the link.

Sure you are by opposing the only scientific explanation that fits the observations and doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's how much you think this proves that God created the universe from nothing.

Again... the link you are looking for is called red shift and cosmic background radiation.

Which is why CERN says everything was created 13 billion years ago.

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

As usual, nothing you posted proves that we came from nothing.

What do you think it was created from, Taz?

It doesn't matter what I think, it's what science thinks that matters, and science says that they can't see all the way back to the BB. So nobody knows what the BB was, or how or why it exploded like that.

If you can't come up with an alternate answer than you have no business attacking the answer that was identified just because it offends your sensibilities which is exactly why you are denying the science. You are a modern day flat earther.

I'm intelligent enough to know that we don't know the answer yet. Sure we can speculate, but that's all it is. Like your red shift word salad, it's a guess, no harm there.

There are only two options here; either it began by being created from nothing or it has always existed. That's it. There are no other options. Matter and energy are not eternal.

Of course there are other possibilities, especially the one that we never thought of.

Name one.

I just did.

No, you didn't.

The reason that we never thought of.

That's not an example, dummy. That's a cop out.

It could be a super massive black hole that blows up. That’s 2.

SLoT says otherwise.

The video itself says “theory”. Now shut up.

One that we accept as a fact like evolution.

 

[Taz]

it's what science thinks that matters

What? Are you familiar with science or not. Science already concluded that they are unable to have a truth of this kind. Such a scenario is not scientifically falsifiable. It means whatever you can come up with, science can't tell if it's true or can't tell if it's not true. It is simply because BB (if exists) is a one time event in history. Science by its very nature doesn't have the ability to falsify whatever came up with in this case. That is, science itself doesn't have the ability to tell in the case that a (or any) hypothesis is not true.

In a sense, science has already given up to begin with, of course unless you can make the presumed BB repeats itself in front of humans.

Science at the moment can't see all the way back to the BB, when they can, we'll all have something to talk about. Until then, it's a guessing game.

We have something to talk about now, Mr. science denier.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Shut up with that usual word salad, it proves nothing.

It's called science, Taz. And it proves the universe was created from nothing.

Maybe to you it does, but not to anyone in the real world.

Which part?

All of it.

So red shift is word salad and proves nothing?

Doesn’t prove that the universe came from nothing, it shows that everything is moving away from us.

Hawking explains how it does.

Right on the front of the video it says “theory”. Now go buy yourself a dictionary.

Obviously you didn't watch the video.

I did, it’s a theory. Nothing more. Geez, you’re thick.

You mean like evolution is a theory?

I'm not the one denying science, Taz.

Yes, like evolution is a theory. Good boy. Now shut up.

 

[ding]

it's what science thinks that matters

What? Are you familiar with science or not. Science already concluded that they are unable to have a truth of this kind. Such a scenario is not scientifically falsifiable. It means whatever you can come up with, science can't tell if it's true or can't tell if it's not true. It is simply because BB (if exists) is a one time event in history. Science by its very nature doesn't have the ability to falsify whatever came up with in this case. That is, science itself doesn't have the ability to tell in the case that a (or any) hypothesis is not true.

In a sense, science has already given up to begin with, of course unless you can make the presumed BB repeats itself in front of humans.

Science at the moment can't see all the way back to the BB, when they can, we'll all have something to talk about. Until then, it's a guessing game.

We have something to talk about now, Mr. science denier.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Shut up with that usual word salad, it proves nothing.

It's called science, Taz. And it proves the universe was created from nothing.

Maybe to you it does, but not to anyone in the real world.

Which part?

All of it.

So red shift is word salad and proves nothing?

Doesn’t prove that the universe came from nothing, it shows that everything is moving away from us.

Hawking explains how it does.

Right on the front of the video it says “theory”. Now go buy yourself a dictionary.

Obviously you didn't watch the video.

I did, it’s a theory. Nothing more. Geez, you’re thick.

You mean like evolution is a theory?

I'm not the one denying science, Taz.

Yes, like evolution is a theory. Good boy. Now shut up.

Exactly. One we accept as a fact.

 

[Taz]

The Ancient Rites That Gave Birth to Religion

Sacred beliefs likely arose out of prehistoric bonding and rituals.

The invention of religion is a big bang in human history. Gods and spirits helped explain the unexplainable, and religious belief gave meaning and purpose to people struggling to survive. But what if everything we thought we knew about religion was wrong? What if belief in the supernatural is window dressing on what really matters—elaborate rituals that foster group cohesion, creating personal bonds that people are willing to die for.

Kind of hard to look past the fact that 6,000 years ago they knew the universe was created from nothing and that man was a product of that creation.

We don't know what was at the BB because we can't see that far back. We've been through this before.

Red shift and cosmic background radiation say otherwise.

Link to a scientific article that says that those 2 things prove that the universe came from nothing, and quote the relevant part.

You do realize that you are proving a universe created from nothing supports that God created it, right?

I'm not proving that, wtf are you talking about? And science never said that they could see back that far. Thanks for the link.

Sure you are by opposing the only scientific explanation that fits the observations and doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's how much you think this proves that God created the universe from nothing.

Again... the link you are looking for is called red shift and cosmic background radiation.

Which is why CERN says everything was created 13 billion years ago.

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

As usual, nothing you posted proves that we came from nothing.

What do you think it was created from, Taz?

It doesn't matter what I think, it's what science thinks that matters, and science says that they can't see all the way back to the BB. So nobody knows what the BB was, or how or why it exploded like that.

If you can't come up with an alternate answer than you have no business attacking the answer that was identified just because it offends your sensibilities which is exactly why you are denying the science. You are a modern day flat earther.

I'm intelligent enough to know that we don't know the answer yet. Sure we can speculate, but that's all it is. Like your red shift word salad, it's a guess, no harm there.

There are only two options here; either it began by being created from nothing or it has always existed. That's it. There are no other options. Matter and energy are not eternal.

Of course there are other possibilities, especially the one that we never thought of.

Name one.

I just did.

No, you didn't.

The reason that we never thought of.

That's not an example, dummy. That's a cop out.

It could be a super massive black hole that blows up. That’s 2.

SLoT says otherwise.

The video itself says “theory”. Now shut up.

One that we accept as a fact like evolution.

Maybe jackasses like you do.

 

[ding]

The Ancient Rites That Gave Birth to Religion

Sacred beliefs likely arose out of prehistoric bonding and rituals.

The invention of religion is a big bang in human history. Gods and spirits helped explain the unexplainable, and religious belief gave meaning and purpose to people struggling to survive. But what if everything we thought we knew about religion was wrong? What if belief in the supernatural is window dressing on what really matters—elaborate rituals that foster group cohesion, creating personal bonds that people are willing to die for.

Kind of hard to look past the fact that 6,000 years ago they knew the universe was created from nothing and that man was a product of that creation.

We don't know what was at the BB because we can't see that far back. We've been through this before.

Red shift and cosmic background radiation say otherwise.

Link to a scientific article that says that those 2 things prove that the universe came from nothing, and quote the relevant part.

You do realize that you are proving a universe created from nothing supports that God created it, right?

I'm not proving that, wtf are you talking about? And science never said that they could see back that far. Thanks for the link.

Sure you are by opposing the only scientific explanation that fits the observations and doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's how much you think this proves that God created the universe from nothing.

Again... the link you are looking for is called red shift and cosmic background radiation.

Which is why CERN says everything was created 13 billion years ago.

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

As usual, nothing you posted proves that we came from nothing.

What do you think it was created from, Taz?

It doesn't matter what I think, it's what science thinks that matters, and science says that they can't see all the way back to the BB. So nobody knows what the BB was, or how or why it exploded like that.

If you can't come up with an alternate answer than you have no business attacking the answer that was identified just because it offends your sensibilities which is exactly why you are denying the science. You are a modern day flat earther.

I'm intelligent enough to know that we don't know the answer yet. Sure we can speculate, but that's all it is. Like your red shift word salad, it's a guess, no harm there.

There are only two options here; either it began by being created from nothing or it has always existed. That's it. There are no other options. Matter and energy are not eternal.

Of course there are other possibilities, especially the one that we never thought of.

Name one.

I just did.

No, you didn't.

The reason that we never thought of.

That's not an example, dummy. That's a cop out.

It could be a super massive black hole that blows up. That’s 2.

SLoT says otherwise.

The video itself says “theory”. Now shut up.

One that we accept as a fact like evolution.

Maybe jackasses like you do.

And Stephen Hawking

See?

 

[Taz]

it's what science thinks that matters

What? Are you familiar with science or not. Science already concluded that they are unable to have a truth of this kind. Such a scenario is not scientifically falsifiable. It means whatever you can come up with, science can't tell if it's true or can't tell if it's not true. It is simply because BB (if exists) is a one time event in history. Science by its very nature doesn't have the ability to falsify whatever came up with in this case. That is, science itself doesn't have the ability to tell in the case that a (or any) hypothesis is not true.

In a sense, science has already given up to begin with, of course unless you can make the presumed BB repeats itself in front of humans.

Science at the moment can't see all the way back to the BB, when they can, we'll all have something to talk about. Until then, it's a guessing game.

We have something to talk about now, Mr. science denier.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Shut up with that usual word salad, it proves nothing.

It's called science, Taz. And it proves the universe was created from nothing.

Maybe to you it does, but not to anyone in the real world.

Which part?

All of it.

So red shift is word salad and proves nothing?

Doesn’t prove that the universe came from nothing, it shows that everything is moving away from us.

Hawking explains how it does.

Right on the front of the video it says “theory”. Now go buy yourself a dictionary.

Obviously you didn't watch the video.

I did, it’s a theory. Nothing more. Geez, you’re thick.

You mean like evolution is a theory?

I'm not the one denying science, Taz.

Yes, like evolution is a theory. Good boy. Now shut up.

Exactly. One we accept as a fact.

I don’t, mainly because scientists call it a theory. Gawd, you’re an imbecile.

 

[Taz]

The Ancient Rites That Gave Birth to Religion

Sacred beliefs likely arose out of prehistoric bonding and rituals.

The invention of religion is a big bang in human history. Gods and spirits helped explain the unexplainable, and religious belief gave meaning and purpose to people struggling to survive. But what if everything we thought we knew about religion was wrong? What if belief in the supernatural is window dressing on what really matters—elaborate rituals that foster group cohesion, creating personal bonds that people are willing to die for.

Kind of hard to look past the fact that 6,000 years ago they knew the universe was created from nothing and that man was a product of that creation.

We don't know what was at the BB because we can't see that far back. We've been through this before.

Red shift and cosmic background radiation say otherwise.

Link to a scientific article that says that those 2 things prove that the universe came from nothing, and quote the relevant part.

You do realize that you are proving a universe created from nothing supports that God created it, right?

I'm not proving that, wtf are you talking about? And science never said that they could see back that far. Thanks for the link.

Sure you are by opposing the only scientific explanation that fits the observations and doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's how much you think this proves that God created the universe from nothing.

Again... the link you are looking for is called red shift and cosmic background radiation.

Which is why CERN says everything was created 13 billion years ago.

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

As usual, nothing you posted proves that we came from nothing.

What do you think it was created from, Taz?

It doesn't matter what I think, it's what science thinks that matters, and science says that they can't see all the way back to the BB. So nobody knows what the BB was, or how or why it exploded like that.

If you can't come up with an alternate answer than you have no business attacking the answer that was identified just because it offends your sensibilities which is exactly why you are denying the science. You are a modern day flat earther.

I'm intelligent enough to know that we don't know the answer yet. Sure we can speculate, but that's all it is. Like your red shift word salad, it's a guess, no harm there.

There are only two options here; either it began by being created from nothing or it has always existed. That's it. There are no other options. Matter and energy are not eternal.

Of course there are other possibilities, especially the one that we never thought of.

Name one.

I just did.

No, you didn't.

The reason that we never thought of.

That's not an example, dummy. That's a cop out.

It could be a super massive black hole that blows up. That’s 2.

SLoT says otherwise.

The video itself says “theory”. Now shut up.

One that we accept as a fact like evolution.

Maybe jackasses like you do.

And Stephen Hawking

Video says theory. Idiot.

 

[ding]

it's what science thinks that matters

What? Are you familiar with science or not. Science already concluded that they are unable to have a truth of this kind. Such a scenario is not scientifically falsifiable. It means whatever you can come up with, science can't tell if it's true or can't tell if it's not true. It is simply because BB (if exists) is a one time event in history. Science by its very nature doesn't have the ability to falsify whatever came up with in this case. That is, science itself doesn't have the ability to tell in the case that a (or any) hypothesis is not true.

In a sense, science has already given up to begin with, of course unless you can make the presumed BB repeats itself in front of humans.

Science at the moment can't see all the way back to the BB, when they can, we'll all have something to talk about. Until then, it's a guessing game.

We have something to talk about now, Mr. science denier.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Shut up with that usual word salad, it proves nothing.

It's called science, Taz. And it proves the universe was created from nothing.

Maybe to you it does, but not to anyone in the real world.

Which part?

All of it.

So red shift is word salad and proves nothing?

Doesn’t prove that the universe came from nothing, it shows that everything is moving away from us.

Hawking explains how it does.

Right on the front of the video it says “theory”. Now go buy yourself a dictionary.

Obviously you didn't watch the video.

I did, it’s a theory. Nothing more. Geez, you’re thick.

You mean like evolution is a theory?

I'm not the one denying science, Taz.

Yes, like evolution is a theory. Good boy. Now shut up.

Exactly. One we accept as a fact.

I don’t, mainly because scientists call it a theory. Gawd, you’re an imbecile.

Do you accept evolution as a fact?

 

[ding]

The Ancient Rites That Gave Birth to Religion

Sacred beliefs likely arose out of prehistoric bonding and rituals.

The invention of religion is a big bang in human history. Gods and spirits helped explain the unexplainable, and religious belief gave meaning and purpose to people struggling to survive. But what if everything we thought we knew about religion was wrong? What if belief in the supernatural is window dressing on what really matters—elaborate rituals that foster group cohesion, creating personal bonds that people are willing to die for.

Kind of hard to look past the fact that 6,000 years ago they knew the universe was created from nothing and that man was a product of that creation.

We don't know what was at the BB because we can't see that far back. We've been through this before.

Red shift and cosmic background radiation say otherwise.

Link to a scientific article that says that those 2 things prove that the universe came from nothing, and quote the relevant part.

You do realize that you are proving a universe created from nothing supports that God created it, right?

I'm not proving that, wtf are you talking about? And science never said that they could see back that far. Thanks for the link.

Sure you are by opposing the only scientific explanation that fits the observations and doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's how much you think this proves that God created the universe from nothing.

Again... the link you are looking for is called red shift and cosmic background radiation.

Which is why CERN says everything was created 13 billion years ago.

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

As usual, nothing you posted proves that we came from nothing.

What do you think it was created from, Taz?

It doesn't matter what I think, it's what science thinks that matters, and science says that they can't see all the way back to the BB. So nobody knows what the BB was, or how or why it exploded like that.

If you can't come up with an alternate answer than you have no business attacking the answer that was identified just because it offends your sensibilities which is exactly why you are denying the science. You are a modern day flat earther.

I'm intelligent enough to know that we don't know the answer yet. Sure we can speculate, but that's all it is. Like your red shift word salad, it's a guess, no harm there.

There are only two options here; either it began by being created from nothing or it has always existed. That's it. There are no other options. Matter and energy are not eternal.

Of course there are other possibilities, especially the one that we never thought of.

Name one.

I just did.

No, you didn't.

The reason that we never thought of.

That's not an example, dummy. That's a cop out.

It could be a super massive black hole that blows up. That’s 2.

SLoT says otherwise.

The video itself says “theory”. Now shut up.

One that we accept as a fact like evolution.

Maybe jackasses like you do.

And Stephen Hawking

Video says theory. Idiot.

You will have to watch the video of Stephen Hawking explaining that this was how the universe was created from nothing, science denier.

 

[ding]

The Ancient Rites That Gave Birth to Religion

Sacred beliefs likely arose out of prehistoric bonding and rituals.

The invention of religion is a big bang in human history. Gods and spirits helped explain the unexplainable, and religious belief gave meaning and purpose to people struggling to survive. But what if everything we thought we knew about religion was wrong? What if belief in the supernatural is window dressing on what really matters—elaborate rituals that foster group cohesion, creating personal bonds that people are willing to die for.

Kind of hard to look past the fact that 6,000 years ago they knew the universe was created from nothing and that man was a product of that creation.

We don't know what was at the BB because we can't see that far back. We've been through this before.

Red shift and cosmic background radiation say otherwise.

Link to a scientific article that says that those 2 things prove that the universe came from nothing, and quote the relevant part.

You do realize that you are proving a universe created from nothing supports that God created it, right?

I'm not proving that, wtf are you talking about? And science never said that they could see back that far. Thanks for the link.

Sure you are by opposing the only scientific explanation that fits the observations and doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's how much you think this proves that God created the universe from nothing.

Again... the link you are looking for is called red shift and cosmic background radiation.

Which is why CERN says everything was created 13 billion years ago.

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

As usual, nothing you posted proves that we came from nothing.

What do you think it was created from, Taz?

It doesn't matter what I think, it's what science thinks that matters, and science says that they can't see all the way back to the BB. So nobody knows what the BB was, or how or why it exploded like that.

If you can't come up with an alternate answer than you have no business attacking the answer that was identified just because it offends your sensibilities which is exactly why you are denying the science. You are a modern day flat earther.

I'm intelligent enough to know that we don't know the answer yet. Sure we can speculate, but that's all it is. Like your red shift word salad, it's a guess, no harm there.

There are only two options here; either it began by being created from nothing or it has always existed. That's it. There are no other options. Matter and energy are not eternal.

Of course there are other possibilities, especially the one that we never thought of.

Name one.

I just did.

No, you didn't.

The reason that we never thought of.

That's not an example, dummy. That's a cop out.

It could be a super massive black hole that blows up. That’s 2.

SLoT says otherwise.

The video itself says “theory”. Now shut up.

One that we accept as a fact like evolution.

Maybe jackasses like you do.

And Stephen Hawking

Video says theory. Idiot.

And in the video Stephen Hawking explains how the universe was created from nothing.

He doesn't say we don't know.

 

[ding]

I am glad that science finally agrees with ancient man that the universe was created from nothing.

 

[Taz]

it's what science thinks that matters

What? Are you familiar with science or not. Science already concluded that they are unable to have a truth of this kind. Such a scenario is not scientifically falsifiable. It means whatever you can come up with, science can't tell if it's true or can't tell if it's not true. It is simply because BB (if exists) is a one time event in history. Science by its very nature doesn't have the ability to falsify whatever came up with in this case. That is, science itself doesn't have the ability to tell in the case that a (or any) hypothesis is not true.

In a sense, science has already given up to begin with, of course unless you can make the presumed BB repeats itself in front of humans.

Science at the moment can't see all the way back to the BB, when they can, we'll all have something to talk about. Until then, it's a guessing game.

We have something to talk about now, Mr. science denier.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Shut up with that usual word salad, it proves nothing.

It's called science, Taz. And it proves the universe was created from nothing.

Maybe to you it does, but not to anyone in the real world.

Which part?

All of it.

So red shift is word salad and proves nothing?

Doesn’t prove that the universe came from nothing, it shows that everything is moving away from us.

Hawking explains how it does.

Right on the front of the video it says “theory”. Now go buy yourself a dictionary.

Obviously you didn't watch the video.

I did, it’s a theory. Nothing more. Geez, you’re thick.

You mean like evolution is a theory?

I'm not the one denying science, Taz.

Yes, like evolution is a theory. Good boy. Now shut up.

Exactly. One we accept as a fact.

I don’t, mainly because scientists call it a theory. Gawd, you’re an imbecile.

Do you accept evolution as a fact?

I can actually prove evolution.

 

[Taz]

The Ancient Rites That Gave Birth to Religion

Sacred beliefs likely arose out of prehistoric bonding and rituals.

The invention of religion is a big bang in human history. Gods and spirits helped explain the unexplainable, and religious belief gave meaning and purpose to people struggling to survive. But what if everything we thought we knew about religion was wrong? What if belief in the supernatural is window dressing on what really matters—elaborate rituals that foster group cohesion, creating personal bonds that people are willing to die for.

Kind of hard to look past the fact that 6,000 years ago they knew the universe was created from nothing and that man was a product of that creation.

We don't know what was at the BB because we can't see that far back. We've been through this before.

Red shift and cosmic background radiation say otherwise.

Link to a scientific article that says that those 2 things prove that the universe came from nothing, and quote the relevant part.

You do realize that you are proving a universe created from nothing supports that God created it, right?

I'm not proving that, wtf are you talking about? And science never said that they could see back that far. Thanks for the link.

Sure you are by opposing the only scientific explanation that fits the observations and doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's how much you think this proves that God created the universe from nothing.

Again... the link you are looking for is called red shift and cosmic background radiation.

Which is why CERN says everything was created 13 billion years ago.

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

As usual, nothing you posted proves that we came from nothing.

What do you think it was created from, Taz?

It doesn't matter what I think, it's what science thinks that matters, and science says that they can't see all the way back to the BB. So nobody knows what the BB was, or how or why it exploded like that.

If you can't come up with an alternate answer than you have no business attacking the answer that was identified just because it offends your sensibilities which is exactly why you are denying the science. You are a modern day flat earther.

I'm intelligent enough to know that we don't know the answer yet. Sure we can speculate, but that's all it is. Like your red shift word salad, it's a guess, no harm there.

There are only two options here; either it began by being created from nothing or it has always existed. That's it. There are no other options. Matter and energy are not eternal.

Of course there are other possibilities, especially the one that we never thought of.

Name one.

I just did.

No, you didn't.

The reason that we never thought of.

That's not an example, dummy. That's a cop out.

It could be a super massive black hole that blows up. That’s 2.

SLoT says otherwise.

The video itself says “theory”. Now shut up.

One that we accept as a fact like evolution.

Maybe jackasses like you do.

And Stephen Hawking

Video says theory. Idiot.

And in the video Stephen Hawking explains how the universe was created from nothing.

He doesn't say we don't know.

Did I mention that the video itself says theory on the front of it?

 

[ding]

it's what science thinks that matters

What? Are you familiar with science or not. Science already concluded that they are unable to have a truth of this kind. Such a scenario is not scientifically falsifiable. It means whatever you can come up with, science can't tell if it's true or can't tell if it's not true. It is simply because BB (if exists) is a one time event in history. Science by its very nature doesn't have the ability to falsify whatever came up with in this case. That is, science itself doesn't have the ability to tell in the case that a (or any) hypothesis is not true.

In a sense, science has already given up to begin with, of course unless you can make the presumed BB repeats itself in front of humans.

Science at the moment can't see all the way back to the BB, when they can, we'll all have something to talk about. Until then, it's a guessing game.

We have something to talk about now, Mr. science denier.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Shut up with that usual word salad, it proves nothing.

It's called science, Taz. And it proves the universe was created from nothing.

Maybe to you it does, but not to anyone in the real world.

Which part?

All of it.

So red shift is word salad and proves nothing?

Doesn’t prove that the universe came from nothing, it shows that everything is moving away from us.

Hawking explains how it does.

Right on the front of the video it says “theory”. Now go buy yourself a dictionary.

Obviously you didn't watch the video.

I did, it’s a theory. Nothing more. Geez, you’re thick.

You mean like evolution is a theory?

I'm not the one denying science, Taz.

Yes, like evolution is a theory. Good boy. Now shut up.

Exactly. One we accept as a fact.

I don’t, mainly because scientists call it a theory. Gawd, you’re an imbecile.

Do you accept evolution as a fact?

I can actually prove evolution.

You believe reincarnation is real because people claimed they were reincarnated.
You believe the Theory of Evolution is a fact.
But you don't believe the universe began by being created from nothing even though Stephen Hawking told you it did.

Brilliant.

 

[ding]

The Ancient Rites That Gave Birth to Religion

Sacred beliefs likely arose out of prehistoric bonding and rituals.

The invention of religion is a big bang in human history. Gods and spirits helped explain the unexplainable, and religious belief gave meaning and purpose to people struggling to survive. But what if everything we thought we knew about religion was wrong? What if belief in the supernatural is window dressing on what really matters—elaborate rituals that foster group cohesion, creating personal bonds that people are willing to die for.

Kind of hard to look past the fact that 6,000 years ago they knew the universe was created from nothing and that man was a product of that creation.

We don't know what was at the BB because we can't see that far back. We've been through this before.

Red shift and cosmic background radiation say otherwise.

Link to a scientific article that says that those 2 things prove that the universe came from nothing, and quote the relevant part.

You do realize that you are proving a universe created from nothing supports that God created it, right?

I'm not proving that, wtf are you talking about? And science never said that they could see back that far. Thanks for the link.

Sure you are by opposing the only scientific explanation that fits the observations and doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's how much you think this proves that God created the universe from nothing.

Again... the link you are looking for is called red shift and cosmic background radiation.

Which is why CERN says everything was created 13 billion years ago.

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

As usual, nothing you posted proves that we came from nothing.

What do you think it was created from, Taz?

It doesn't matter what I think, it's what science thinks that matters, and science says that they can't see all the way back to the BB. So nobody knows what the BB was, or how or why it exploded like that.

If you can't come up with an alternate answer than you have no business attacking the answer that was identified just because it offends your sensibilities which is exactly why you are denying the science. You are a modern day flat earther.

I'm intelligent enough to know that we don't know the answer yet. Sure we can speculate, but that's all it is. Like your red shift word salad, it's a guess, no harm there.

There are only two options here; either it began by being created from nothing or it has always existed. That's it. There are no other options. Matter and energy are not eternal.

Of course there are other possibilities, especially the one that we never thought of.

Name one.

I just did.

No, you didn't.

The reason that we never thought of.

That's not an example, dummy. That's a cop out.

It could be a super massive black hole that blows up. That’s 2.

SLoT says otherwise.

The video itself says “theory”. Now shut up.

One that we accept as a fact like evolution.

Maybe jackasses like you do.

And Stephen Hawking

Video says theory. Idiot.

And in the video Stephen Hawking explains how the universe was created from nothing.

He doesn't say we don't know.

Did I mention that the video itself says theory on the front of it?

Yes, just like Evolution has Theory of in front of it, Taz.

 

[ding]

So much science and so little time for Taz to deny it all.

 

[ding]

If the universe wasn't created from nothing there would have been no mutual annihilation of anti-matter particles and matter particles and there would have been no cosmic background radiation as the cosmic background radiation is the radiation left over from the mutual annihilation of anti-matter particles and matter particles.

 

[ding]

If the universe wasn't created from nothing there would have been no expansion of the universe because the expansion of the universe was caused by the the mutual annihilation of anti-matter particles and matter particles - which can only be created by a universe being created from nothing - whose massive release of energy provided the energy to propel the remaining matter particles outward.