Where do moral laws come from?

[ding]

Oh, I will try to keep up because I can tell that you are such a deep thinker.

The fact that you are drawn to argue with people who believe in God speaks volumes about your beliefs. In effect they give you away. You may even realize one day that you don't believe in God and that your semantic argument was in reality an admission of shame. Come out of the closet, monkey.

Was that an emotional rant?
A monkey can do better than that.

It would be more interesting if you could put forth a rational argument for any claim of intelligence.

No. I thought it was pretty accurate and funny. You are ashamed of being an atheist, as well you should be.

Ashamed? Ha ha!
I am proud of being your atheist.
Those with logical minds realize that i am agnostic like most other scientists.
Again, try to keep up.

And yet you still can't bring yourself to admit you are an unconditional atheist. You are no scientist either.
Silly Beliefs - Agnostics - Valid Stance or Scam?

You certainly do not understand agnosticism. Ingersoll said it best:

"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know."

If you cannot be honest about your ignorance, then it's your emotional problem, but you are ignorant nevertheless.

I have yet to meet an agnostic. That does not mean they do not exist. That only means the moment they start discussing it they reveal themselves as not being an agnostic as you have done.

 

[ding]

Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Cosmology has many views, including those who doubt "inflation" as the sole explanation ...

Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and a lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding, "we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology."

At a conference in 2015, Roger Penrose said that "inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified. BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye."

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics.
.

You didn't quote wiki as your source probably because the majority of that source is positive. See?

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

Inflation theory addresses several problems that had been previously unresolved; the Magnetic-monopole problem, the Horizon problem and the Flatness problem. Five of the six predictions have been confirmed. They are still working on the 6th. You are out of your league here. In fact, I bet you had never heard of inflation theory until today. Google is dangerous for people like you who seek to confirm their biases.

You missed my point. There are various theories on the cosmology data patterns, some are more popular than others. No one theory explains all the observations, and our observations are limited.
No one knows what transpired billions of years ago and what may exist beyond our perceptions.
If you want to believe something you don't know, then you are fooling yourself ... to pacify your emotional insecurities.
.

Every single one of those models tries to match that 14 billion years ago the universe occupied the space of roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom, was in a hot dense state and then expanded and cooled. They do this because that is what the data shows and that is what the solution to Einstein's General Relativity shows. All infinite acting models violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and are impossible. So, no, popularity does not enter into the equation. No other model comes close to explaining the creation of our universe or matches our observations of the universe better than inflation theory. So, no, not all models are equal.

Can you name another model that you think is better?

 

[PK1]

Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Cosmology has many views, including those who doubt "inflation" as the sole explanation ...

Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and a lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding, "we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology."

At a conference in 2015, Roger Penrose said that "inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified. BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye."

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics.
.

You didn't quote wiki as your source probably because the majority of that source is positive. See?

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

Inflation theory addresses several problems that had been previously unresolved; the Magnetic-monopole problem, the Horizon problem and the Flatness problem. Five of the six predictions have been confirmed. They are still working on the 6th. You are out of your league here. In fact, I bet you had never heard of inflation theory until today. Google is dangerous for people like you who seek to confirm their biases.

You missed my point. There are various theories on the cosmology data patterns, some are more popular than others. No one theory explains all the observations, and our observations are limited.
No one knows what transpired billions of years ago and what may exist beyond our perceptions.
If you want to believe something you don't know, then you are fooling yourself ... to pacify your emotional insecurities.
.

Every single one of those models tries to match that 14 billion years ago the universe occupied the space of roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom, was in a hot dense state and then expanded and cooled. They do this because that is what the data shows and that is what the solution to Einstein's General Relativity shows. All infinite acting models violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and are impossible. So, no, popularity does not enter into the equation. No other model comes close to explaining the creation of our universe or matches our observations of the universe better than inflation theory. So, no, not all models are equal.

Can you name another model that you think is better?

This is getting repetitive and boring, esp since my post #457:

Yes, the BIgBang is currently the leading theory. The theory appears to explain observations better than Hoyle's Steady State theory or other proposed explanations, but BB is only a theory.
Even if BB was irrefutable, it would not explain where the "singularity" came from, and if there are other "universes".
There is definitely no "knowledge" of any "beginning".

We are also off this thread's title/topic ... unless you are religious and applying your blind faith. LOL.
I think i'm done here, and will exit circular posting ...

 

[Mudda]

Got a proper link?

"What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

"Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be". This does not pass scientific scrutiny. You still have nothing. Please try again.

Do you realize how stupid you look?

Post a link to a credible site with real proof. Because so far, you still have nothing.

Who knew that Discover Magazine, a magazine devoted to science, was not a credible source?

Just because it's a science magazine doesn't mean that they have all the answers. In fact, they admitted on this one that "Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be". But at least they're honest with their findings, unlike you.

Given that you have zero proof for anything, I find your claim to be most ironic.

The universe had a beginning, just as the Bible told. How this happened, only God knows. Our best answer is that it began by a quantum fluctuation that obeyed the law of conservation and quantum mechanics which existed before space and time.

Do you have any proof that the universe did not have a beginning?

The beginning of the universe and whether the BB was the absolute start has not been definitively determined by science. Only theories exist as of today.

 

[Mudda]

Then link to that, you'll be more credible in your posts. As well as easier to understand, your link had dozens of videos. With linking to their paper, you can directly quote the relevant part and then put the link if we need to investigate further.

I have already quoted the relevant part. You dismissed it. Space and time came into existence through quantum mechanics which followed the law of conservation. Which means these laws were in place before space and time were created just like vile Kim said in the videos.

Got a proper link?

Is it just my imagination or are you just flinging poop like a talking monkey. I mean after all here is the leading cosmologist in the world explaining it to you in print and video and all you can do is fling poop.. Do you have any proof?

Here's my proof. Where's yours?



"What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Are you going to cry now?

"Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be".

Only as to how the universe began. Not that the universe did have a beginning. That, we do have proof of.

Which "proof" is what again? And don't post A ******* VIDEO!!!! lol

 

[ding]

Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Cosmology has many views, including those who doubt "inflation" as the sole explanation ...

Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and a lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding, "we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology."

At a conference in 2015, Roger Penrose said that "inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified. BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye."

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics.
.

You didn't quote wiki as your source probably because the majority of that source is positive. See?

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

Inflation theory addresses several problems that had been previously unresolved; the Magnetic-monopole problem, the Horizon problem and the Flatness problem. Five of the six predictions have been confirmed. They are still working on the 6th. You are out of your league here. In fact, I bet you had never heard of inflation theory until today. Google is dangerous for people like you who seek to confirm their biases.

You missed my point. There are various theories on the cosmology data patterns, some are more popular than others. No one theory explains all the observations, and our observations are limited.
No one knows what transpired billions of years ago and what may exist beyond our perceptions.
If you want to believe something you don't know, then you are fooling yourself ... to pacify your emotional insecurities.
.

Every single one of those models tries to match that 14 billion years ago the universe occupied the space of roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom, was in a hot dense state and then expanded and cooled. They do this because that is what the data shows and that is what the solution to Einstein's General Relativity shows. All infinite acting models violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and are impossible. So, no, popularity does not enter into the equation. No other model comes close to explaining the creation of our universe or matches our observations of the universe better than inflation theory. So, no, not all models are equal.

Can you name another model that you think is better?

This is getting repetitive and boring, esp since my post #457:

Yes, the BIgBang is currently the leading theory. The theory appears to explain observations better than Hoyle's Steady State theory or other proposed explanations, but BB is only a theory.
Even if BB was irrefutable, it would not explain where the "singularity" came from, and if there are other "universes".
There is definitely no "knowledge" of any "beginning".

We are also off this thread's title/topic ... unless you are religious and applying your blind faith. LOL.
I think i'm done here, and will exit circular posting ...

We are discussing what came before the big bang. The best answer we have today is inflation which explains how space and time began. Inflation theory explains the previously unresolved Magnetic-monopole problem, the Horizon problem and the Flatness problem. Inflation tells us that 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. So it is related to the OP because the OP asks the question "where do moral laws come from?" and puts forth the premise that moral laws existed before space and time were created just like physical laws existed before space and time were created. And lastly, you are running away because you couldn't name a better model than inflation.

 

[ding]

"What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

"Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be". This does not pass scientific scrutiny. You still have nothing. Please try again.

Do you realize how stupid you look?

Post a link to a credible site with real proof. Because so far, you still have nothing.

Who knew that Discover Magazine, a magazine devoted to science, was not a credible source?

Just because it's a science magazine doesn't mean that they have all the answers. In fact, they admitted on this one that "Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be". But at least they're honest with their findings, unlike you.

Given that you have zero proof for anything, I find your claim to be most ironic.

The universe had a beginning, just as the Bible told. How this happened, only God knows. Our best answer is that it began by a quantum fluctuation that obeyed the law of conservation and quantum mechanics which existed before space and time.

Do you have any proof that the universe did not have a beginning?

The beginning of the universe and whether the BB was the absolute start has not been definitively determined by science. Only theories exist as of today.

Science is never definitive as it always allows for theories to be altered or replaced when new data or evidence comes along. Unfortunately for you though, the current evidence and belief, which has not been refuted, is that the universe did indeed have a beginning. It has been confirmed in a myriad of ways. Do you have any proof that the universe did not have a beginning?

 

[ding]

I have already quoted the relevant part. You dismissed it. Space and time came into existence through quantum mechanics which followed the law of conservation. Which means these laws were in place before space and time were created just like vile Kim said in the videos.

Got a proper link?

Is it just my imagination or are you just flinging poop like a talking monkey. I mean after all here is the leading cosmologist in the world explaining it to you in print and video and all you can do is fling poop.. Do you have any proof?

Here's my proof. Where's yours?



"What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Are you going to cry now?

"Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be".

Only as to how the universe began. Not that the universe did have a beginning. That, we do have proof of.

Which "proof" is what again? And don't post A ******* VIDEO!!!! lol

Let's see; the red shift, Einstein's theory of general relativity, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, etc.

 

[Mudda]

"Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be". This does not pass scientific scrutiny. You still have nothing. Please try again.

Do you realize how stupid you look?

Post a link to a credible site with real proof. Because so far, you still have nothing.

Who knew that Discover Magazine, a magazine devoted to science, was not a credible source?

Just because it's a science magazine doesn't mean that they have all the answers. In fact, they admitted on this one that "Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be". But at least they're honest with their findings, unlike you.

Given that you have zero proof for anything, I find your claim to be most ironic.

The universe had a beginning, just as the Bible told. How this happened, only God knows. Our best answer is that it began by a quantum fluctuation that obeyed the law of conservation and quantum mechanics which existed before space and time.

Do you have any proof that the universe did not have a beginning?

The beginning of the universe and whether the BB was the absolute start has not been definitively determined by science. Only theories exist as of today.

Science is never definitive as it always allows for theories to be altered or replaced when new data or evidence comes along. Unfortunately for you though, the current evidence and belief, which has not been refuted, is that the universe did indeed have a beginning. It has been confirmed in a myriad of ways. Do you have any proof that the universe did not have a beginning?

You have yet to produce any substantive proof of the claim that the universe began with the BB. Only theories. Too bad for YOU.

 

[Mudda]

Got a proper link?

Is it just my imagination or are you just flinging poop like a talking monkey. I mean after all here is the leading cosmologist in the world explaining it to you in print and video and all you can do is fling poop.. Do you have any proof?

Here's my proof. Where's yours?



"What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Are you going to cry now?

"Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be".

Only as to how the universe began. Not that the universe did have a beginning. That, we do have proof of.

Which "proof" is what again? And don't post A ******* VIDEO!!!! lol

Let's see; the red shift, Einstein's theory of general relativity, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, etc.

Nothing of what you posted claims to know what happened before the BB. Plus, no link as usual, just your opinion.

 

[ding]

Is it just my imagination or are you just flinging poop like a talking monkey. I mean after all here is the leading cosmologist in the world explaining it to you in print and video and all you can do is fling poop.. Do you have any proof?

Here's my proof. Where's yours?



"What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Are you going to cry now?

"Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be".

Only as to how the universe began. Not that the universe did have a beginning. That, we do have proof of.

Which "proof" is what again? And don't post A ******* VIDEO!!!! lol

Let's see; the red shift, Einstein's theory of general relativity, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, etc.

Nothing of what you posted claims to know what happened before the BB. Plus, no link as usual, just your opinion.

Everything I have posted shows we know that the universe had a beginning and that the laws of nature were in place before it began. What proof have posted that it did not?

 

[ding]

Do you realize how stupid you look?

Who knew that Discover Magazine, a magazine devoted to science, was not a credible source?

Just because it's a science magazine doesn't mean that they have all the answers. In fact, they admitted on this one that "Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be". But at least they're honest with their findings, unlike you.

Given that you have zero proof for anything, I find your claim to be most ironic.

The universe had a beginning, just as the Bible told. How this happened, only God knows. Our best answer is that it began by a quantum fluctuation that obeyed the law of conservation and quantum mechanics which existed before space and time.

Do you have any proof that the universe did not have a beginning?

The beginning of the universe and whether the BB was the absolute start has not been definitively determined by science. Only theories exist as of today.

Science is never definitive as it always allows for theories to be altered or replaced when new data or evidence comes along. Unfortunately for you though, the current evidence and belief, which has not been refuted, is that the universe did indeed have a beginning. It has been confirmed in a myriad of ways. Do you have any proof that the universe did not have a beginning?

You have yet to produce any substantive proof of the claim that the universe began with the BB. Only theories. Too bad for YOU.

I think you are confusing me with you. You are the one who has not provided any proof whatsoever. Where is your proof?

 

[Mudda]

"Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be".

Only as to how the universe began. Not that the universe did have a beginning. That, we do have proof of.

Which "proof" is what again? And don't post A ******* VIDEO!!!! lol

Let's see; the red shift, Einstein's theory of general relativity, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, etc.

Nothing of what you posted claims to know what happened before the BB. Plus, no link as usual, just your opinion.

Everything I have posted shows we know that the universe had a beginning and that the laws of nature were in place before it began. What proof have posted that it did not?

You haven't posted any real proof of ANY of your claims, EVER!!

Sad part is is that you know it, and plow ahead anyways, lol.

 

[Mudda]

Just because it's a science magazine doesn't mean that they have all the answers. In fact, they admitted on this one that "Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be". But at least they're honest with their findings, unlike you.

Given that you have zero proof for anything, I find your claim to be most ironic.

The universe had a beginning, just as the Bible told. How this happened, only God knows. Our best answer is that it began by a quantum fluctuation that obeyed the law of conservation and quantum mechanics which existed before space and time.

Do you have any proof that the universe did not have a beginning?

The beginning of the universe and whether the BB was the absolute start has not been definitively determined by science. Only theories exist as of today.

Science is never definitive as it always allows for theories to be altered or replaced when new data or evidence comes along. Unfortunately for you though, the current evidence and belief, which has not been refuted, is that the universe did indeed have a beginning. It has been confirmed in a myriad of ways. Do you have any proof that the universe did not have a beginning?

You have yet to produce any substantive proof of the claim that the universe began with the BB. Only theories. Too bad for YOU.

I think you are confusing me with you. You are the one who has not provided any proof whatsoever. Where is your proof?

What did I claim that needs proof?

 

[ding]

Given that you have zero proof for anything, I find your claim to be most ironic.

The universe had a beginning, just as the Bible told. How this happened, only God knows. Our best answer is that it began by a quantum fluctuation that obeyed the law of conservation and quantum mechanics which existed before space and time.

Do you have any proof that the universe did not have a beginning?

The beginning of the universe and whether the BB was the absolute start has not been definitively determined by science. Only theories exist as of today.

Science is never definitive as it always allows for theories to be altered or replaced when new data or evidence comes along. Unfortunately for you though, the current evidence and belief, which has not been refuted, is that the universe did indeed have a beginning. It has been confirmed in a myriad of ways. Do you have any proof that the universe did not have a beginning?

You have yet to produce any substantive proof of the claim that the universe began with the BB. Only theories. Too bad for YOU.

I think you are confusing me with you. You are the one who has not provided any proof whatsoever. Where is your proof?

What did I claim that needs proof?

That the universe did not have a beginning? That the laws of nature were not in place before space and time were created?

 

[ding]

Only as to how the universe began. Not that the universe did have a beginning. That, we do have proof of.

Which "proof" is what again? And don't post A ******* VIDEO!!!! lol

Let's see; the red shift, Einstein's theory of general relativity, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, etc.

Nothing of what you posted claims to know what happened before the BB. Plus, no link as usual, just your opinion.

Everything I have posted shows we know that the universe had a beginning and that the laws of nature were in place before it began. What proof have posted that it did not?

You haven't posted any real proof of ANY of your claims, EVER!!

Sad part is is that you know it, and plow ahead anyways, lol.

But I have. I have provided expert testimony. I have provided lnks to expert testimony. I have provided video's of expert testimony. You are the one who has provided nothing to counter it. Nada, zip, zilch, zero.

Inflationary universe (Journal Article) | SciTech Connect

http://cds.cern.ch/record/210142/files/199008384.pdf

http://cds.cern.ch/record/213347/files/199012105.pdf?version=1&origin=publication_detail

 

[Mudda]

The beginning of the universe and whether the BB was the absolute start has not been definitively determined by science. Only theories exist as of today.

Science is never definitive as it always allows for theories to be altered or replaced when new data or evidence comes along. Unfortunately for you though, the current evidence and belief, which has not been refuted, is that the universe did indeed have a beginning. It has been confirmed in a myriad of ways. Do you have any proof that the universe did not have a beginning?

You have yet to produce any substantive proof of the claim that the universe began with the BB. Only theories. Too bad for YOU.

I think you are confusing me with you. You are the one who has not provided any proof whatsoever. Where is your proof?

What did I claim that needs proof?

That the universe did not have a beginning? That the laws of nature were not in place before space and time were created?

I said that there's no proof that there was nothing before the BB, and in fact, science doesn't currently claim to know what's before the BB.
And you've shown nothing to prove that the laws of nature were in place before time and space were created. I'd say they possibly were, but I've seen no real proof of that yet.

 

[Mudda]

Which "proof" is what again? And don't post A ******* VIDEO!!!! lol

Let's see; the red shift, Einstein's theory of general relativity, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, etc.

Nothing of what you posted claims to know what happened before the BB. Plus, no link as usual, just your opinion.

Everything I have posted shows we know that the universe had a beginning and that the laws of nature were in place before it began. What proof have posted that it did not?

You haven't posted any real proof of ANY of your claims, EVER!!

Sad part is is that you know it, and plow ahead anyways, lol.

But I have. I have provided expert testimony. I have provided lnks to expert testimony. I have provided video's of expert testimony. You are the one who has provided nothing to counter it. Nada, zip, zilch, zero.

Inflationary universe (Journal Article) | SciTech Connect

http://cds.cern.ch/record/210142/files/199008384.pdf

http://cds.cern.ch/record/213347/files/199012105.pdf?version=1&origin=publication_detail

Ex: posting a link to an inflationary universe is not proof that the universe started with the BB.
And I'm not making any wild claims like you are, I'm on the exact same page as science, what's proven is proven, and what's not yet proven is a theory until proven otherwise. Pretty simple really.

 

[ding]

Let's see; the red shift, Einstein's theory of general relativity, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, etc.

Nothing of what you posted claims to know what happened before the BB. Plus, no link as usual, just your opinion.

Everything I have posted shows we know that the universe had a beginning and that the laws of nature were in place before it began. What proof have posted that it did not?

You haven't posted any real proof of ANY of your claims, EVER!!

Sad part is is that you know it, and plow ahead anyways, lol.

But I have. I have provided expert testimony. I have provided lnks to expert testimony. I have provided video's of expert testimony. You are the one who has provided nothing to counter it. Nada, zip, zilch, zero.

Inflationary universe (Journal Article) | SciTech Connect

http://cds.cern.ch/record/210142/files/199008384.pdf

http://cds.cern.ch/record/213347/files/199012105.pdf?version=1&origin=publication_detail

Ex: posting a link to an inflationary universe is not proof that the universe started with the BB.
And I'm not making any wild claims like you are, I'm on the exact same page as science, what's proven is proven, and what's not yet proven is a theory until proven otherwise. Pretty simple really.

It seems that there is no proof you will accept. You reject expert testimony, you reject written papers, you reject articles interviewing the experts who tell you exactly what I have stated and you reject video interviews of the experts who tell you exactly what I have stated. And you do all of this without having any proof of your own to counter what the experts tell you. Amazing. I'm sure with behaviors like that you won't have any problems in life.

 

[Mudda]

Nothing of what you posted claims to know what happened before the BB. Plus, no link as usual, just your opinion.

Everything I have posted shows we know that the universe had a beginning and that the laws of nature were in place before it began. What proof have posted that it did not?

You haven't posted any real proof of ANY of your claims, EVER!!

Sad part is is that you know it, and plow ahead anyways, lol.

But I have. I have provided expert testimony. I have provided lnks to expert testimony. I have provided video's of expert testimony. You are the one who has provided nothing to counter it. Nada, zip, zilch, zero.

Inflationary universe (Journal Article) | SciTech Connect

http://cds.cern.ch/record/210142/files/199008384.pdf

http://cds.cern.ch/record/213347/files/199012105.pdf?version=1&origin=publication_detail

Ex: posting a link to an inflationary universe is not proof that the universe started with the BB.
And I'm not making any wild claims like you are, I'm on the exact same page as science, what's proven is proven, and what's not yet proven is a theory until proven otherwise. Pretty simple really.

It seems that there is no proof you will accept. You reject expert testimony, you reject written papers, you reject articles interviewing the experts who tell you exactly what I have stated and you reject video interviews of the experts who tell you exactly what I have stated. And you do all of this without having any proof of your own to counter what the experts tell you. Amazing. I'm sure with behaviors like that you won't have any problems in life.

Expert testimony isn't science.
You haven't provided any links to scientific papers in reputable publications or web sites.
Interviews aren't science.
You need to up your debating skills.