Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

[sealybobo]

...Time is just a human construct. It doesn’t actually exist

What means you say 'god is a liar'.

Worst case of quote mining ever .

1. There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
   
   The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
   
   The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
   
   See also: Visualisation of Bible Contradictions (must read), Argument from the Bible, Criticisms of the Bible, Consistency of the Bible, A Compendium of Disbelief, Deconversion: The Bible and A History of God (both must watch), BBC The History of God.
   
   Origins of the Bible: PBS Buried Secrets, CH4 Who wrote the Bible? (a must watch).
   
   “Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” – Isaac Asimov
   
   
2. Biblical Jesus was real.
   There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.
   
   All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
   
   The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
   
   The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
   
   Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.
   
   The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:
   

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Most biographers never met the person they write about. What's your point?

Most biographers aren't making extraordinary claims of magic or divinity about their subjects ..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Before the Big Bang, there was no space

You could not possibly know this. Thats part of the topic.

 

[james bond]

Except it doesn’t say the universe is flat. And even if it did, how did they come up with this knowledge before telescopes?

It just goes to show sealybobo has no idea about the Bible. First and foremost, it is God's word so that is the ultimate knowledge. It says the universe is like a scroll. Ancient peoples would understand this just like we do today. A scroll is flat, curved at the top and bottom edges and is bounded. Science showed that the universe is flat when many thought it was saddle shaped. The creation scientists are waiting for the curved edges to be shown as the curvature of space time and the bounded universe with edges at the boundary. It means that our galaxy is at the center and not centerless.

I can only hope that sealybobo believes in God one day and realizes that if God created the universe and everything in it, then this isn't the real world. It's God's world that is the real world and this is just an illusion. This is all in the mind.

The Bible is gods word? That’s not true but shows how delusional you are. The Bible was written by men who never even met jesus

smh. How wrong can you be? You missed it before getting to the first turn. Am I not right that this physical world is all in your mind? Why can't you take anything with you? You can be buried with your possessions and still not be able to take it with you. Once you are gone for good, then you are whisked away immediately to Hades or the land of the dead. It shows that your life is a spirit. Your consciousness will still work. Thus, it is not I who is delusional. Science backs up God's word and that's what we find.

I asked how can evolution be 180 degrees different from creation science? The only overlap I see is with natural selection. There has to be some knowledge of what the Bible says or else how does one explain the differences? We know the Bible came first and during ancient times. Yet, it's still relevant today or how else do I win these arguments? If evolution was valid, then low brow atheists would be able to make a valid argument? You took a wrong turn right out the gate and seem lost because you've lost God.

 

[toobfreak]

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the National Geographic's Star Talk show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.

Pretty funny. I actually have studied QT and GUT fairly extensively as I have the life and works of Hawking. Of course he's dead now, but he began his career essentially confirming, clarifying and establishing the Big Bang, and now in one of his final moments he is saying it never happened! Of course time had a beginning, it must have, as did the universe, nothing phenomenal can have an infinite quality! But neither does that mean that there was a time before time.

What he was saying is that the big bang may just be the start of our observable universe.

You need to watch this episode: New discoveries are causing astronomers to question if the Big Bang really happened, and using the latest science, they investigate if it wasn't just the start of our universe but many mysterious multiverses.

Did the Big Bang Really Happen? | How the Universe Works

Well of course the Big Bang was the start of this observable universe! That goes without saying! Before the Big Bang, there was no space and without space you cannot have time.

You don't know what was before the big bang. Stop making shit up.

Why do you say I'm "making shit up?" If I can't know then why do you think Hawking or anyone else knows? All he has is his own theories as well. Before his illness, he was just an obnoxious, precocious, partying kid. He was a great laugh at parties. Besides, all I said is what is widely believed in the industry, the expansion of the Big Bang was the expansion of space and therefore the expansion of the observable dimensions of our universe. If you knew anything about cosmology, you'd know that.

 

[james bond]

Time is a condition of a current event.

Time exists ONLY in terms of motion. Distance = speed X time or transposed time = distance/speed, for example.

Close, but no cigar. Motion exists because of time. We know this from particle-wave theory. Space and time had to come first or there would not be quantum or any particles in motion providing energy and entropy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If I can't know then why do you think Hawking or anyone else knows

Hawking doesnt claim to know. He claims to know only what mathematics show as possible.

 

[toobfreak]

Before the Big Bang, there was no space

You could not possibly know this. Thats part of the topic.

You couldn't possibly know what I know.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You couldn't possibly know what I know.

Wrong. I can be confident you have no magical abilities which elude the rest of us.

 

[toobfreak]

If I can't know then why do you think Hawking or anyone else knows

Hawking doesnt claim to know. He claims to know only what mathematics show as possible.

Really? I have Hawking's doctoral thesis as well as the last paper he wrote on the matter before dying, and have read them. I've been studying QT and all of the people in the field going back to Maxwell and the first theories on the propagation of light. Have you? I know exactly what Hawking thought and claimed. I'm pretty sure YOU DON'T.

 

[toobfreak]

You couldn't possibly know what I know.

Wrong. I can be confident you have no magical abilities which elude the rest of us.

Never said a word about magic, jackass. Go pick up a book on the topic then get back to me. I've not claimed anything not widely believed by most in the field, idiot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If I can't know then why do you think Hawking or anyone else knows

Hawking doesnt claim to know. He claims to know only what mathematics show as possible.

Really? I have Hawking's doctoral thesis as well as the last paper he wrote on the matter before dying, and have read them. I've been studying QT and all of the people in the field going back to Maxwell and the first theories on the propagation of light. Have you? I know exactly what Hawking thought and claimed. I'm pretty sure YOU DON'T.

Who goves a shit what you claim to have read? The arguments and data stand on their own. Your unargued claims stand on nothing.

 

[progressive hunter]

If I can't know then why do you think Hawking or anyone else knows

Hawking doesnt claim to know. He claims to know only what mathematics show as possible.

Really? I have Hawking's doctoral thesis as well as the last paper he wrote on the matter before dying, and have read them. I've been studying QT and all of the people in the field going back to Maxwell and the first theories on the propagation of light. Have you? I know exactly what Hawking thought and claimed. I'm pretty sure YOU DON'T.

Who goves a shit what you claim to have read? The arguments and data stand on their own. Your unargued claims stand on nothing.

funny thing is they dont call it the big bang anymore,,,its now called the big expansion,,,

they had to do that because they proved the big bang was debunked several times

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If I can't know then why do you think Hawking or anyone else knows

Hawking doesnt claim to know. He claims to know only what mathematics show as possible.

Really? I have Hawking's doctoral thesis as well as the last paper he wrote on the matter before dying, and have read them. I've been studying QT and all of the people in the field going back to Maxwell and the first theories on the propagation of light. Have you? I know exactly what Hawking thought and claimed. I'm pretty sure YOU DON'T.

Who goves a shit what you claim to have read? The arguments and data stand on their own. Your unargued claims stand on nothing.

funny thing is they dont call it the big bang anymore,,,its now called the big expansion,,,

they had to do that because they proved the big bang was debunked several times

Every word of that is wrong on every level. And you knew that before you posted it, but you post false shit intentionally for attention. Because you are a troll.

 

[progressive hunter]

If I can't know then why do you think Hawking or anyone else knows

Hawking doesnt claim to know. He claims to know only what mathematics show as possible.

Really? I have Hawking's doctoral thesis as well as the last paper he wrote on the matter before dying, and have read them. I've been studying QT and all of the people in the field going back to Maxwell and the first theories on the propagation of light. Have you? I know exactly what Hawking thought and claimed. I'm pretty sure YOU DON'T.

Who goves a shit what you claim to have read? The arguments and data stand on their own. Your unargued claims stand on nothing.

funny thing is they dont call it the big bang anymore,,,its now called the big expansion,,,

they had to do that because they proved the big bang was debunked several times

Every word of that is wrong on every level. And you knew that before you posted it, but you post false shit intentionally for attention. Because you are a troll.

and yet you provide nothing to prove that,,,

dont get mad at me,,all I did was repeat what evo's claim

 

[toobfreak]

If I can't know then why do you think Hawking or anyone else knows

Hawking doesnt claim to know. He claims to know only what mathematics show as possible.

Really? I have Hawking's doctoral thesis as well as the last paper he wrote on the matter before dying, and have read them. I've been studying QT and all of the people in the field going back to Maxwell and the first theories on the propagation of light. Have you? I know exactly what Hawking thought and claimed. I'm pretty sure YOU DON'T.

Who goves a shit what you claim to have read? The arguments and data stand on their own. Your unargued claims stand on nothing.

Look cupcake, as usual, you cannot have any sort of intelligent or serious discussion here on USMB because some troll like you comes along every time and attacks anyone who claims to know anything about anything. I've noticed that is a habit of people who don't know shit about anything! Worse, people like you always do it with no actual supporting evidence of their own. I should have known better. I guess I'm used to discussing topics with actual professionals who are intelligent and educated---- here, any discussion devolves instantly into a pissing contest of insults and personal attacks. If I ran USMB, I'd throw your ass off. I moderate elsewhere and simply wouldn't put up with shitheads like you.

I thought I'd throw some thought-provoking dialog in here about space and time for the edification of people curious to know and maybe have some interesting dialog, but you're not interested in discussing it. You're not interested in debate. Like every other topic, you think you are right about everything and everyone else is an idiot. You don't care my background? My education on the topic? Every argument and data "stands on its own?" I've made no argument, presented no data. You stopped them before they ever began. I thought I'd try to put forth some basic understanding of some of the fundamental concepts of cosmology, things you can find in a dozen books on the topic and IMMEDIATELY I'm told I can't possibly know that? I won't waste any further time on you, someone who argues just to argue, without making any actual claim or presenting any data of your own, you have the nerve to tell others what they don't know before they even say anything? Go jack off, funnyboy. Now you can tell everyone that I backed down when challenged and ran. Score one for the asshat.

 

[Hollie]

If I can't know then why do you think Hawking or anyone else knows

Hawking doesnt claim to know. He claims to know only what mathematics show as possible.

Really? I have Hawking's doctoral thesis as well as the last paper he wrote on the matter before dying, and have read them. I've been studying QT and all of the people in the field going back to Maxwell and the first theories on the propagation of light. Have you? I know exactly what Hawking thought and claimed. I'm pretty sure YOU DON'T.

Who goves a shit what you claim to have read? The arguments and data stand on their own. Your unargued claims stand on nothing.

funny thing is they dont call it the big bang anymore,,,its now called the big expansion,,,

they had to do that because they proved the big bang was debunked several times

When you spend your time trolling fundie Christian ministries, you will be uneducated as to such things as the Big Bang.

That term has long been nothing more than a phrase that developed traction and became a part of the dialogue. It's misleading. Legitimate scientists / astrophysicists, (obviously excluding the charlatans at your crank fundie ministries), describe a major disruption to time and space followed by the expansion of the universe.

There is no indication that a magical / supernatural unionized collection of gods had any involvement.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

because some troll like you comes along every time and attacks anyone who claims to know anything about anything

I said you cpuld not possibly know what you claimed as true. That wasn't a perspnal attack. But you immediately went full retard as though it was. So, piss off, crybaby.

 

[hadit]

Except it doesn’t say the universe is flat. And even if it did, how did they come up with this knowledge before telescopes?

It just goes to show sealybobo has no idea about the Bible. First and foremost, it is God's word so that is the ultimate knowledge. It says the universe is like a scroll. Ancient peoples would understand this just like we do today. A scroll is flat, curved at the top and bottom edges and is bounded. Science showed that the universe is flat when many thought it was saddle shaped. The creation scientists are waiting for the curved edges to be shown as the curvature of space time and the bounded universe with edges at the boundary. It means that our galaxy is at the center and not centerless.

I can only hope that sealybobo believes in God one day and realizes that if God created the universe and everything in it, then this isn't the real world. It's God's world that is the real world and this is just an illusion. This is all in the mind.

The Bible is gods word? That’s not true but shows how delusional you are. The Bible was written by men who never even met jesus

That's disengenuous. The entire Old Testament was written before He assumed human form as Messiah. There are actually only a few books written by those who met him.

What books?

I know you're eager to say the gospels weren't written as first hand accounts, but the first three, and the book of Revelation, were. Like was written by the doctor who accompanied Paul on his trips. It is possible that Paul actually met Jesus in the flesh, but he didn't mention it, and that would have been something he probably would have.

 

[sealybobo]

Except it doesn’t say the universe is flat. And even if it did, how did they come up with this knowledge before telescopes?

It just goes to show sealybobo has no idea about the Bible. First and foremost, it is God's word so that is the ultimate knowledge. It says the universe is like a scroll. Ancient peoples would understand this just like we do today. A scroll is flat, curved at the top and bottom edges and is bounded. Science showed that the universe is flat when many thought it was saddle shaped. The creation scientists are waiting for the curved edges to be shown as the curvature of space time and the bounded universe with edges at the boundary. It means that our galaxy is at the center and not centerless.

I can only hope that sealybobo believes in God one day and realizes that if God created the universe and everything in it, then this isn't the real world. It's God's world that is the real world and this is just an illusion. This is all in the mind.

The Bible is gods word? That’s not true but shows how delusional you are. The Bible was written by men who never even met jesus

That's disengenuous. The entire Old Testament was written before He assumed human form as Messiah. There are actually only a few books written by those who met him.

What books?

I know you're eager to say the gospels weren't written as first hand accounts, but the first three, and the book of Revelation, were. Like was written by the doctor who accompanied Paul on his trips. It is possible that Paul actually met Jesus in the flesh, but he didn't mention it, and that would have been something he probably would have.

No they weren't. And I love it how it doesn't even dawn on Christians that God/Jesus/and His Apostles did not write the bible.

In the case of Revelation, many modern scholars agree that it was written by a separate author, John of Patmos with some parts possibly dating to Nero's reign in the early 60s.

Bible scholar Bart Ehrman began his studies at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Originally an evangelical Christian, Ehrman believed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. But later, as a student at Princeton Theological Seminary, Ehrman started reading the Bible with a more historical approach and analyzing contradictions in the Gospels.

Ehrman, the author of Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them),

These differences offer clues into the perspectives of the authors, and the eras in which they wrote their respective Gospels

Students taking a college-level Bible course for the first time often find it surprising that we don't know who wrote most of the books of the New Testament. How could that be? Don't these books all have the authors' names attached to them? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the letters of Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2 and 3 John? How could the wrong names be attached to books of Scripture? Isn't this the Word of God? If someone wrote a book claiming to be Paul while knowing full well that he wasn't Paul — isn't that lying? Can Scripture contain lies?

When I arrived at seminary I was fully armed and ready for the onslaught on my faith by liberal biblical scholars who were going to insist on such crazy ideas. Having been trained in conservative circles, I knew that these views were standard fare at places like Princeton Theological Seminary. But what did they know? Bunch of liberals.

What came as a shock to me over time was just how little actual evidence there is for the traditional ascriptions of authorship that I had always taken for granted, and how much real evidence there was that many of these ascriptions are wrong. It turned out the liberals actually had something to say and had evidence to back it up; they weren't simply involved in destructive wishful thinking. There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren't.