The Bible Lies. As does The Qur'an

[Taz]

"Of course I don’t know it all. I never said I did. "

...you don’t see me disparaging religion like you do. Your own actions prove that you do think you know it all.

I ask questions and generally get stupid answers. I'm agnostic, the only ones here who admit they don't know.

You misspelled asshole.

But you act like you do know.

By definition, saying someone is wrong is knowing.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that you have a theory without any proof whatsoever. That's why I'm an agnostic. Geez, you don't get the whole agnostic thing, do you? If you can prove your theory to me properly, I'm open to believing it. Can't be any fairer than that.

Existence itself is proof. The first and second laws of thermo are proof. Red shift is proof. Cosmic background radiation is proof. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations are proof.

But proof of what? The god of a book? Um... no.

 

[Taz]

In my humble opinion.

​

​

Why is a staff member violating USMB rules? There is no evidence provided in the OP, just a baiting and polarizing OP.

"Zone 2": Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads.

Are you butthurt?

 

[ding]

...you don’t see me disparaging religion like you do. Your own actions prove that you do think you know it all.

I ask questions and generally get stupid answers. I'm agnostic, the only ones here who admit they don't know.

You misspelled asshole.

But you act like you do know.

By definition, saying someone is wrong is knowing.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that you have a theory without any proof whatsoever. That's why I'm an agnostic. Geez, you don't get the whole agnostic thing, do you? If you can prove your theory to me properly, I'm open to believing it. Can't be any fairer than that.

Existence itself is proof. The first and second laws of thermo are proof. Red shift is proof. Cosmic background radiation is proof. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations are proof.

But proof of what? The god of a book? Um... no.

And you accuse me of moving goalposts?

 

[Taz]

I ask questions and generally get stupid answers. I'm agnostic, the only ones here who admit they don't know.

You misspelled asshole.

But you act like you do know.

By definition, saying someone is wrong is knowing.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that you have a theory without any proof whatsoever. That's why I'm an agnostic. Geez, you don't get the whole agnostic thing, do you? If you can prove your theory to me properly, I'm open to believing it. Can't be any fairer than that.

Existence itself is proof. The first and second laws of thermo are proof. Red shift is proof. Cosmic background radiation is proof. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations are proof.

But proof of what? The god of a book? Um... no.

And you accuse me of moving goalposts?

Your proof doesn't add up to anything.

 

[flacaltenn]

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Not true on paper, especially against the backdrop of our history, and not true in practice.

Ebola is far from alone as a living thing that we share this planet with that still kills Monkeys despite the emerging technology to fight it that has cost Monkeys so dearly to learn.....

Every Civil Right struggle that ever made the news was made "in God's name". People of faith leading the way. True for Hindus as well. Whom you DID NOT trash. Or even the beliefs of American Indians -- who you did not trash.

You don't have to take religious writings LITERALLY to get value out of scriptures. KIDS Literature is fiction but more often than not HAS A MORAL to it. So you oppose moral PARABLES and stories?

Beyond that -- I SUPPORT people of faith for their DISCIPLINE and humility. It takes a lot to get up and dressed on Sunday to go hear inspiring words. Or spend 2 weeks in Central America with your church mates building livable habitat for people. And people of faith have religious culture and heritage that TIES generations together. What you got Chief?

People of faith realize the fragile nature of man-made decisions and laws. They find this out in Concentration Camps and forced ghettos and times of war and strife. Or whenever the GOVT that supposed to PROTECT THEM from evil BECOMES the worst imaginable evil. Or when the LAW is used as a weapon against them. The HUMILITY part is recognize the failings and the ARROGANCE of secular humanists who believe in the omniscience of man..

What you started here is neither humble or disciplined. How did that happen?

 

[flacaltenn]

The blood shed over these three books. The Torah, The New Testament and The Qur'an.

Monkeys wielding the will of God. Justification in the Name of (insert your preferred Deity here).

It breaks my heart.​

The "blood shed" came from circumstances where RELIGION became intimately ENTANGLED with man-made govts, dictatorships and "royalty".. Most ALL of those wars and conflicts had STATE backing. That's why our Constitution WISELY solved that issue in their very first document.

It's the PERVERSION of making KINGS and QUEENS and morons like L'il Kim Chee in NK ---- "divine". And forcing the state "church" to endorse THEIR power.

Name me a fully Church or Mosque or Temple backed war of "bloodshed".

 

[ding]

You misspelled asshole.

But you act like you do know.

By definition, saying someone is wrong is knowing.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that you have a theory without any proof whatsoever. That's why I'm an agnostic. Geez, you don't get the whole agnostic thing, do you? If you can prove your theory to me properly, I'm open to believing it. Can't be any fairer than that.

Existence itself is proof. The first and second laws of thermo are proof. Red shift is proof. Cosmic background radiation is proof. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations are proof.

But proof of what? The god of a book? Um... no.

And you accuse me of moving goalposts?

Your proof doesn't add up to anything.

We were discussing what came before the creation of space and time, Taz. The answer is a vacuum; a curious void which held potential.

Proof of this comes from existence itself aka the first and second laws of thermo, red shift, cosmic background radiation and Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations.

Now do you understand?

 

[ding]

You misspelled asshole.

But you act like you do know.

By definition, saying someone is wrong is knowing.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that you have a theory without any proof whatsoever. That's why I'm an agnostic. Geez, you don't get the whole agnostic thing, do you? If you can prove your theory to me properly, I'm open to believing it. Can't be any fairer than that.

Existence itself is proof. The first and second laws of thermo are proof. Red shift is proof. Cosmic background radiation is proof. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations are proof.

But proof of what? The god of a book? Um... no.

And you accuse me of moving goalposts?

Your proof doesn't add up to anything.

Science says otherwise.

1. 1st Law of Thermodynamics
2. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
3. Red shift
4. Cosmic background radiation
5. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations

What part of this science do you not believe tells us that space and time had a beginning?

 

[Taz]

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that you have a theory without any proof whatsoever. That's why I'm an agnostic. Geez, you don't get the whole agnostic thing, do you? If you can prove your theory to me properly, I'm open to believing it. Can't be any fairer than that.

Existence itself is proof. The first and second laws of thermo are proof. Red shift is proof. Cosmic background radiation is proof. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations are proof.

But proof of what? The god of a book? Um... no.

And you accuse me of moving goalposts?

Your proof doesn't add up to anything.

Science says otherwise.

1. 1st Law of Thermodynamics
2. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
3. Red shift
4. Cosmic background radiation
5. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations

What part of this science do you not believe tells us that space and time had a beginning?

Which doesn’t have anything to do with what might have been before the BB.

 

[ding]

Existence itself is proof. The first and second laws of thermo are proof. Red shift is proof. Cosmic background radiation is proof. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations are proof.

But proof of what? The god of a book? Um... no.

And you accuse me of moving goalposts?

Your proof doesn't add up to anything.

Science says otherwise.

1. 1st Law of Thermodynamics
2. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
3. Red shift
4. Cosmic background radiation
5. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations

What part of this science do you not believe tells us that space and time had a beginning?

Which doesn’t have anything to do with what might have been before the BB.

It has 100% to do what happened before the big bang as there was nothing before that. It literally had to have a beginning. It wasn't just sitting there waiting to expand and cool.

 

[Taz]

But proof of what? The god of a book? Um... no.

And you accuse me of moving goalposts?

Your proof doesn't add up to anything.

Science says otherwise.

1. 1st Law of Thermodynamics
2. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
3. Red shift
4. Cosmic background radiation
5. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations

What part of this science do you not believe tells us that space and time had a beginning?

Which doesn’t have anything to do with what might have been before the BB.

It has 100% to do what happened before the big bang as there was nothing before that. It literally had to have a beginning. It wasn't just sitting there waiting to expand and cool.

None of that proves that you know what was before the BB. You should propose your theory to the Nobel committee, lol.

 

[ding]

And you accuse me of moving goalposts?

Your proof doesn't add up to anything.

Science says otherwise.

1. 1st Law of Thermodynamics
2. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
3. Red shift
4. Cosmic background radiation
5. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations

What part of this science do you not believe tells us that space and time had a beginning?

Which doesn’t have anything to do with what might have been before the BB.

It has 100% to do what happened before the big bang as there was nothing before that. It literally had to have a beginning. It wasn't just sitting there waiting to expand and cool.

None of that proves that you know what was before the BB. You should propose your theory to the Nobel committee, lol.

Of course I know. 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. If it is a periodic 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. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. 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.

 

[BreezeWood]

The HUMILITY part is recognize the failings and the ARROGANCE of secular humanists who believe in the omniscience of man..

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.


especially when their political views are disguised as a religion and repeated throughout the centuries without a single deviation - for the good. how they lament the recent revival of free Spirits, as that of the 1st century.

 

[Moonglow]

Your proof doesn't add up to anything.

Science says otherwise.

1. 1st Law of Thermodynamics
2. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
3. Red shift
4. Cosmic background radiation
5. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations

What part of this science do you not believe tells us that space and time had a beginning?

Which doesn’t have anything to do with what might have been before the BB.

It has 100% to do what happened before the big bang as there was nothing before that. It literally had to have a beginning. It wasn't just sitting there waiting to expand and cool.

None of that proves that you know what was before the BB. You should propose your theory to the Nobel committee, lol.

Of course I know. 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. If it is a periodic 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. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. 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.

Not if it's a perpetual motion machine.

 

[flacaltenn]

The HUMILITY part is recognize the failings and the ARROGANCE of secular humanists who believe in the omniscience of man..

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.


especially when their political views are disguised as a religion and repeated throughout the centuries without a single deviation - for the good. how they lament the recent revival of free Spirits, as that of the 1st century.

Well there's humanism and there's secular humanism. The first is no different really from Ayn Rand Objectivism, which I admire greatly. The LATTER however is a POLITICAL movement inspire by great animus for people of faith and take "reason and critical thinking" to a very cultish level. The big difference is TOLERANCE of ideas and others. Of which -- i would guess you have little.

So which came first? -- the world religions or current political dogma?. Don't bother answering BECAUSE that's a trick question. Obviously the tenets of faith for these religions have changed little. But the POLITICAL spirits change on a breeze. So there is nothing INHERENTLY political in most ALL of these religions. Or evil...

YOU worship the state. And the premacy of man-made law. And put your faith in every shaky deal offered to the people of world to represent their interests. And go RUNNING to State for every indignation you see that needs correction KNOWING that the people in charge are omniscient and wise and rationale and have ALL the answers. And to be skeptical of any of that OR religious, makes you stupid and primitive.

That's the epitome of arrogance right there. What man can fix and solve and divine is limited and flawed. THAT'S A FACT. But yet it's the basic belief of secular humanism. And they know no humility at all about playing God.

 

[BreezeWood]

The HUMILITY part is recognize the failings and the ARROGANCE of secular humanists who believe in the omniscience of man..

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.


especially when their political views are disguised as a religion and repeated throughout the centuries without a single deviation - for the good. how they lament the recent revival of free Spirits, as that of the 1st century.

Well there's humanism and there's secular humanism. The first is no different really from Ayn Rand Objectivism, which I admire greatly. The LATTER however is a POLITICAL movement inspire by great animus for people of faith and take "reason and critical thinking" to a very cultish level. The big difference is TOLERANCE of ideas and others. Of which -- i would guess you have little.

So which came first? -- the world religions or current political dogma?. Don't bother answering BECAUSE that's a trick question. Obviously the tenets of faith for these religions have changed little. But the POLITICAL spirits change on a breeze. So there is nothing INHERENTLY political in most ALL of these religions. Or evil...

YOU worship the state. And the premacy of man-made law. And put your faith in every shaky deal offered to the people of world to represent their interests. And go RUNNING to State for every indignation you see that needs correction KNOWING that the people in charge are omniscient and wise and rationale and have ALL the answers. And to be skeptical of any of that OR religious, makes you stupid and primitive.

That's the epitome of arrogance right there. What man can fix and solve and divine is limited and flawed. THAT'S A FACT. But yet it's the basic belief of secular humanism. And they know no humility at all about playing God.

.

And they know no humility at all about playing God.

that certainly is not your religious brethren ...

in fact there is no time in history the religious have not been at the forefront of tyranny and persecution including the present. History is not your friend.

 

[flacaltenn]

The HUMILITY part is recognize the failings and the ARROGANCE of secular humanists who believe in the omniscience of man..

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.


especially when their political views are disguised as a religion and repeated throughout the centuries without a single deviation - for the good. how they lament the recent revival of free Spirits, as that of the 1st century.

Well there's humanism and there's secular humanism. The first is no different really from Ayn Rand Objectivism, which I admire greatly. The LATTER however is a POLITICAL movement inspire by great animus for people of faith and take "reason and critical thinking" to a very cultish level. The big difference is TOLERANCE of ideas and others. Of which -- i would guess you have little.

So which came first? -- the world religions or current political dogma?. Don't bother answering BECAUSE that's a trick question. Obviously the tenets of faith for these religions have changed little. But the POLITICAL spirits change on a breeze. So there is nothing INHERENTLY political in most ALL of these religions. Or evil...

YOU worship the state. And the premacy of man-made law. And put your faith in every shaky deal offered to the people of world to represent their interests. And go RUNNING to State for every indignation you see that needs correction KNOWING that the people in charge are omniscient and wise and rationale and have ALL the answers. And to be skeptical of any of that OR religious, makes you stupid and primitive.

That's the epitome of arrogance right there. What man can fix and solve and divine is limited and flawed. THAT'S A FACT. But yet it's the basic belief of secular humanism. And they know no humility at all about playing God.

.

And they know no humility at all about playing God.

that certainly is not your religious brethren ...


View attachment 204281


in fact there is no time in history the religious have not been at the forefront of tyranny and persecution including the present. History is not your friend.

So you're going back to the 17th century? OK -- BUT normalize those morals and ethics, because the world was a rough place. The enlightenment hadn't even dawned yet and the Huns were'nt quite dead and buried.

Let me repeat. What man can fix and solve and divine is limited and flawed. And 300 years ago, man was EVEN MORE incapable of "divining" anything. Less religion than superstition and mass hysteria. Besides, Salem was virtually a THEOCRACY at that time. So the power of govt was USURPED by religion. As I said, that's since been fixed.

Now the Inquisition was CLEARLY State sponsored as well. Wouldn't have had the power to inquisit without divine KINGLY and QUEENLY approvals.

 

[BreezeWood]

The HUMILITY part is recognize the failings and the ARROGANCE of secular humanists who believe in the omniscience of man..

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.


especially when their political views are disguised as a religion and repeated throughout the centuries without a single deviation - for the good. how they lament the recent revival of free Spirits, as that of the 1st century.

Well there's humanism and there's secular humanism. The first is no different really from Ayn Rand Objectivism, which I admire greatly. The LATTER however is a POLITICAL movement inspire by great animus for people of faith and take "reason and critical thinking" to a very cultish level. The big difference is TOLERANCE of ideas and others. Of which -- i would guess you have little.

So which came first? -- the world religions or current political dogma?. Don't bother answering BECAUSE that's a trick question. Obviously the tenets of faith for these religions have changed little. But the POLITICAL spirits change on a breeze. So there is nothing INHERENTLY political in most ALL of these religions. Or evil...

YOU worship the state. And the premacy of man-made law. And put your faith in every shaky deal offered to the people of world to represent their interests. And go RUNNING to State for every indignation you see that needs correction KNOWING that the people in charge are omniscient and wise and rationale and have ALL the answers. And to be skeptical of any of that OR religious, makes you stupid and primitive.

That's the epitome of arrogance right there. What man can fix and solve and divine is limited and flawed. THAT'S A FACT. But yet it's the basic belief of secular humanism. And they know no humility at all about playing God.

.

And they know no humility at all about playing God.

that certainly is not your religious brethren ...


View attachment 204281


in fact there is no time in history the religious have not been at the forefront of tyranny and persecution including the present. History is not your friend.

So you're going back to the 17th century? OK -- BUT normalize those morals and ethics, because the world was a rough place. The enlightenment hadn't even dawned yet and the Huns were'nt quite dead and buried.

Let me repeat. What man can fix and solve and divine is limited and flawed. And 300 years ago, man was EVEN MORE incapable of "divining" anything. Less religion than superstition and mass hysteria. Besides, Salem was virtually a THEOCRACY at that time. So the power of govt was USURPED by religion. As I said, that's since been fixed.

Now the Inquisition was CLEARLY State sponsored as well. Wouldn't have had the power to inquisit without divine KINGLY and QUEENLY approvals.

.

What man can fix and solve and divine is limited and flawed.

no, that is humanities destiny to accomplish the apex of knowledge and judgement - The Triumph of Good vs Evil or perish ... your problem is the answers are all sectarian.

 

[ding]

Science says otherwise.

1. 1st Law of Thermodynamics
2. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
3. Red shift
4. Cosmic background radiation
5. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's field equations

What part of this science do you not believe tells us that space and time had a beginning?

Which doesn’t have anything to do with what might have been before the BB.

It has 100% to do what happened before the big bang as there was nothing before that. It literally had to have a beginning. It wasn't just sitting there waiting to expand and cool.

None of that proves that you know what was before the BB. You should propose your theory to the Nobel committee, lol.

Of course I know. 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. If it is a periodic 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. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. 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.

Not if it's a perpetual motion machine.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes that.

You’ve been watching too much Star Trek.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

It has 100% to do what happened before the big bang as there was nothing before that. It literally had to have a beginning. It wasn't just sitting there waiting to expand and cool.

It literally had to have a beginning ...


the above response is a joke from beginning to end ... the corruption of delusional religion is bad enough, when they promote those fallacies proven through history as evil their motive is to alter the actual realities science proves otherwise at their displeasure.