Serious question for atheists.

[ding]

CERN is bogus and doesn’t make any sense?

Alexander Vilinken is bogus and doesn’t make any sense?

But you didn’t answer my questions. Do you reject the evidence of red shift and cosmic background radiation?

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You throw out a link to CERN and expect me to see if there's anything there that's relevant to the discussion. It's up to YOU to lay out your argument with links to the proper spot of the website after you've quoted the relevant passage. Proof of the BB coming from nothing isn't a general link to CERN, do you get that?

I've already provided the link and pointed you to the section that explains how we know the universe had a beginning.

I am now asking you very specifically what evidence you reject.

Do you reject the evidence of red shift and cosmic background radiation?

I never rejected the part about the universe having a beginning, like, sure, everything has a beginning. What I say is that we can't see all the way back to the BB, so we can't know if the BB was the absolute start, or that it was a continuation of something.

We absolutely can know it wasn't a continuation of something. How do you believe the continuation of something put all the matter and energy into a tiny space where it then began to expand and cool?

No we don't know that, science doesn't pretend either. Just you.

Nope.

 

[ding]

CERN is bogus and doesn’t make any sense?

Alexander Vilinken is bogus and doesn’t make any sense?

But you didn’t answer my questions. Do you reject the evidence of red shift and cosmic background radiation?

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You throw out a link to CERN and expect me to see if there's anything there that's relevant to the discussion. It's up to YOU to lay out your argument with links to the proper spot of the website after you've quoted the relevant passage. Proof of the BB coming from nothing isn't a general link to CERN, do you get that?

I've already provided the link and pointed you to the section that explains how we know the universe had a beginning.

I am now asking you very specifically what evidence you reject.

Do you reject the evidence of red shift and cosmic background radiation?

I never rejected the part about the universe having a beginning, like, sure, everything has a beginning. What I say is that we can't see all the way back to the BB, so we can't know if the BB was the absolute start, or that it was a continuation of something.

We absolutely can know it wasn't a continuation of something. How do you believe the continuation of something put all the matter and energy into a tiny space where it then began to expand and cool?

.

put all the matter and energy into a tiny space

- the "tinny space" of, the moment of singularity - had no matter.

singularity was the moment of final transition from one state to another - compressed matter to energy - energy to matter - as a cyclical event.

Matter is composed of energy. It all started as sub atomic particles.

It can’t be cyclical because the same force that compressed the universe would have kept it compressed.

Not to mention cyclical universes violate the SLoT.

 

[Taz]

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You throw out a link to CERN and expect me to see if there's anything there that's relevant to the discussion. It's up to YOU to lay out your argument with links to the proper spot of the website after you've quoted the relevant passage. Proof of the BB coming from nothing isn't a general link to CERN, do you get that?

Here you go.... again.

How do we know the Big Bang happened?

Astrophysicists have uncovered a great deal of compelling evidence over the past hundred years to support the Big Bang theory. Among this evidence is the observation that the universe is expanding. By looking at light emitted by distant galaxies, scientists have found that these galaxies are rapidly moving away from our galaxy, the Milky Way. An explosion like the Big Bang, which sent matter flying outward from a point, explains this observation.

Did you know that the static on your television is caused by radiation left over from the Big Bang?
Another critical discovery was the observation of low levels of microwaves throughout space. Astronomers believe these microwaves, whose temperature is about -270 degrees Celsius, are the remnants of the extremely high-temperature radiation produced by the Big Bang.

Interestingly, astronomers can get an idea of how hot the universe used to be by looking at very distant clouds of gas through high-power telescopes. Because light from these clouds can take billions of years to reach our telescopes, we see such bodies as they appeared eons ago. Lo and behold, these ancient clouds of gas seem to be hotter than younger clouds.

Scientists have also been able to uphold the Big Bang theory by measuring the relative amounts of different elements in the universe. They've found that the universe contains about 74 percent hydrogen and 26 percent helium by mass, the two lightest elements. All the other heavier elements -- including elements common on earth, such as carbon and oxygen -- make up just a tiny trace of all matter.

So how does this prove anything about the Big Bang? Scientists have shown, using theoretical calculations, that these abundances could only have been made in a universe that began in a very hot, dense state, and then quickly cooled and expanded. This is exactly the kind of universe that the Big Bang theory predicts.

And for the umpteeth time....



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.




There. I have explained it to you and provided links to my sources.

I never said that the BB didn't happen. You want to try to prove that it all came from nothing.

Where else could it have come from. Matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium?

Inflation theory answers the question of how the universe could have a beginning. It's the only theory that does. There is no other theory which addresses this issue.

Inflation theory tells us that the universe popped into existence from nothing.

It's called science. You reject it.

Science THINKS it may have come from a singularity or even nothing, but admits that they don't actually know. I watched a program on it the other day. You're the only one who thinks we know. But "where else could it have come from?" isn't any kind of proof.

I just shared the links, Taz. You actually have to look at them.

I follow what real scientists say, not your smelly fartsmoke.

 

[ding]

Here you go.... again.

How do we know the Big Bang happened?

Astrophysicists have uncovered a great deal of compelling evidence over the past hundred years to support the Big Bang theory. Among this evidence is the observation that the universe is expanding. By looking at light emitted by distant galaxies, scientists have found that these galaxies are rapidly moving away from our galaxy, the Milky Way. An explosion like the Big Bang, which sent matter flying outward from a point, explains this observation.

Did you know that the static on your television is caused by radiation left over from the Big Bang?
Another critical discovery was the observation of low levels of microwaves throughout space. Astronomers believe these microwaves, whose temperature is about -270 degrees Celsius, are the remnants of the extremely high-temperature radiation produced by the Big Bang.

Interestingly, astronomers can get an idea of how hot the universe used to be by looking at very distant clouds of gas through high-power telescopes. Because light from these clouds can take billions of years to reach our telescopes, we see such bodies as they appeared eons ago. Lo and behold, these ancient clouds of gas seem to be hotter than younger clouds.

Scientists have also been able to uphold the Big Bang theory by measuring the relative amounts of different elements in the universe. They've found that the universe contains about 74 percent hydrogen and 26 percent helium by mass, the two lightest elements. All the other heavier elements -- including elements common on earth, such as carbon and oxygen -- make up just a tiny trace of all matter.

So how does this prove anything about the Big Bang? Scientists have shown, using theoretical calculations, that these abundances could only have been made in a universe that began in a very hot, dense state, and then quickly cooled and expanded. This is exactly the kind of universe that the Big Bang theory predicts.

And for the umpteeth time....



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.




There. I have explained it to you and provided links to my sources.

I never said that the BB didn't happen. You want to try to prove that it all came from nothing.

Where else could it have come from. Matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium?

Inflation theory answers the question of how the universe could have a beginning. It's the only theory that does. There is no other theory which addresses this issue.

Inflation theory tells us that the universe popped into existence from nothing.

It's called science. You reject it.

Science THINKS it may have come from a singularity or even nothing, but admits that they don't actually know. I watched a program on it the other day. You're the only one who thinks we know. But "where else could it have come from?" isn't any kind of proof.

I just shared the links, Taz. You actually have to look at them.

I follow what real scientists say, not your smelly fartsmoke.

I got it from them. So your argument is with them.

 

[Taz]

I never said that the BB didn't happen. You want to try to prove that it all came from nothing.

Where else could it have come from. Matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium?

Inflation theory answers the question of how the universe could have a beginning. It's the only theory that does. There is no other theory which addresses this issue.

Inflation theory tells us that the universe popped into existence from nothing.

It's called science. You reject it.

Science THINKS it may have come from a singularity or even nothing, but admits that they don't actually know. I watched a program on it the other day. You're the only one who thinks we know. But "where else could it have come from?" isn't any kind of proof.

I just shared the links, Taz. You actually have to look at them.

I follow what real scientists say, not your smelly fartsmoke.

I got it from them. So your argument is with them.

You don't know WHAT'S going on.

 

[ding]

Where else could it have come from. Matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium?

Inflation theory answers the question of how the universe could have a beginning. It's the only theory that does. There is no other theory which addresses this issue.

Inflation theory tells us that the universe popped into existence from nothing.

It's called science. You reject it.

Science THINKS it may have come from a singularity or even nothing, but admits that they don't actually know. I watched a program on it the other day. You're the only one who thinks we know. But "where else could it have come from?" isn't any kind of proof.

I just shared the links, Taz. You actually have to look at them.

I follow what real scientists say, not your smelly fartsmoke.

I got it from them. So your argument is with them.

You don't know WHAT'S going on.

I know that science tells us that the universe had a beginning and that it was created from nothing and it scares you.

 

[Taz]

Science THINKS it may have come from a singularity or even nothing, but admits that they don't actually know. I watched a program on it the other day. You're the only one who thinks we know. But "where else could it have come from?" isn't any kind of proof.

I just shared the links, Taz. You actually have to look at them.

I follow what real scientists say, not your smelly fartsmoke.

I got it from them. So your argument is with them.

You don't know WHAT'S going on.

I know that science tells us that the universe had a beginning and that it was created from nothing and it scares you.

Science doesn’t say that we came from nothing and you can’t show that. It’s a theory.

 

[ding]

I just shared the links, Taz. You actually have to look at them.

I follow what real scientists say, not your smelly fartsmoke.

I got it from them. So your argument is with them.

You don't know WHAT'S going on.

I know that science tells us that the universe had a beginning and that it was created from nothing and it scares you.

Science doesn’t say that we came from nothing and you can’t show that. It’s a theory.

It’s called a quantum tunneling event. And yes, it does.

 

[Taz]

I follow what real scientists say, not your smelly fartsmoke.

I got it from them. So your argument is with them.

You don't know WHAT'S going on.

I know that science tells us that the universe had a beginning and that it was created from nothing and it scares you.

Science doesn’t say that we came from nothing and you can’t show that. It’s a theory.

It’s called a quantum tunneling event. And yes, it does.

Because you say so?

 

[ding]

I got it from them. So your argument is with them.

You don't know WHAT'S going on.

I know that science tells us that the universe had a beginning and that it was created from nothing and it scares you.

Science doesn’t say that we came from nothing and you can’t show that. It’s a theory.

It’s called a quantum tunneling event. And yes, it does.

Because you say so?

You misspelled cosmologists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science doesn’t say that we came from nothing

Correct. Science only says it is possible. And the reaction of the religious nutters to this is to say one of two things:

1) it came from nothing. Nothing can can from nothing. Therefore, A god that came from nothing made the universe, so it therefore did not come from nothing.

Obviously, #1 requires a complete suspension of all of one's faculties of logic, honesty, and integrity. And shame as well, really. Or, they say:

2) Therefore, what existed before was NOT nothing, since nothing comes from nothing.

Clearly , in both cases, they insist something that they could not possibly know the truth of: that nothing can come from nothing. And they then call that, "common sense".

Thats a good time for all of us to remind ourselves that the "common sense" of these religious nutters also told them that demons caused disease, women and blacks were subhuman, and childfucking was A-OK.

 

[Taz]

You don't know WHAT'S going on.

I know that science tells us that the universe had a beginning and that it was created from nothing and it scares you.

Science doesn’t say that we came from nothing and you can’t show that. It’s a theory.

It’s called a quantum tunneling event. And yes, it does.

Because you say so?

You misspelled cosmologists.

Again, no link. **** you, idiot.

 

[ding]

I know that science tells us that the universe had a beginning and that it was created from nothing and it scares you.

Science doesn’t say that we came from nothing and you can’t show that. It’s a theory.

It’s called a quantum tunneling event. And yes, it does.

Because you say so?

You misspelled cosmologists.

Again, no link. **** you, idiot.

How many times does this make, Taz?

 

[Taz]

Science doesn’t say that we came from nothing and you can’t show that. It’s a theory.

It’s called a quantum tunneling event. And yes, it does.

Because you say so?

You misspelled cosmologists.

Again, no link. **** you, idiot.

How many times does this make, Taz?

At what time in the video does he prove quantum tunnelling shows that we came from nothing?

 

[ding]

It’s called a quantum tunneling event. And yes, it does.

Because you say so?

You misspelled cosmologists.

Again, no link. **** you, idiot.

How many times does this make, Taz?

At what time in the video does he prove quantum tunnelling shows that we came from nothing?

Did you watch the video?

 

[Taz]

Because you say so?

You misspelled cosmologists.

Again, no link. **** you, idiot.

How many times does this make, Taz?

At what time in the video does he prove quantum tunnelling shows that we came from nothing?

Did you watch the video?

Point me to the relevant part first.

 

[ding]

You misspelled cosmologists.

Again, no link. **** you, idiot.

How many times does this make, Taz?

At what time in the video does he prove quantum tunnelling shows that we came from nothing?

Did you watch the video?

Point me to the relevant part first.

The whole 3 minutes and 16 seconds he explains quantum tunneling. What do you think inflation theory is based upon?

So here is a cosmologist explaining how the universe was created from nothing in 3 minutes and 16 seconds.

 

[ding]

#winning

 

[Taz]

Again, no link. **** you, idiot.

How many times does this make, Taz?

At what time in the video does he prove quantum tunnelling shows that we came from nothing?

Did you watch the video?

Point me to the relevant part first.

The whole 3 minutes and 16 seconds he explains quantum tunneling. What do you think inflation theory is based upon?

So here is a cosmologist explaining how the universe was created from nothing in 3 minutes and 16 seconds.

So he’s explaining his theory. Talking isn’t empirical proof.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You misspelled cosmologists.

Again, no link. **** you, idiot.

How many times does this make, Taz?

At what time in the video does he prove quantum tunnelling shows that we came from nothing?

Did you watch the video?

Point me to the relevant part first.

No need to watch, unless you want details . The speaker says it is possible that the universe came from nothibg, contrary to ding's lies and misrepresentations of his own linked material. Oh, and the whole point is to explain how this is possible without any help from magical sky daddies. It's an odd choice of video for Dithering Ding to post, as it contradicts his bullshit on literally every single level.