Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

The above is likely correct but to simplify for us layfolk I believe for the purpose of this discussion the singularity would be the point or points when mathematical solutions to space-time equations are undefineable such as T=0 to T=10-43. The physicists are sure to set me straight if mistaken.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

And a lot theoretic foundational data is assumed in a Planck's time if that's what the singularity is. The physicists will likely weigh in here if the singularity is not a plank's time to set us straight on that.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hi LikesToKnow. ILyx22. Anyhow, you say in an iffy fashion.1. Aren't the iffies relative to the Buzsaw Biblical Universe Hypothesis (BBUH} what makes it unfalsifiable?2. Isn't a lot of the foundational data relative to the Expansionist Universe Theory (EUT) assumed from the unfalsifiable Planck Epoch of T=0 to T=10-43; data such as the Superforce of the unification of the forces of the Universe, the alleged hyper-expansionist epoch, etc? If so, doesn't that jeopardise the falsifiability of Expansionist Universe Theory?3. The BBUH defines space having no properties except eternally existing static boundless area in which all else in the universe exists, including all forces, having no properties capable of expansion. Observable expansion is accounted for by increasing distances between things in the universe.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Neither hat nor arse. Imo that space has no properties capable of expansion is refutable and better minds than mine would agree to that, though likely too off topic to debate here in depth.The increase of distances relative to things in the observable area of the universe could be effected by work of the designer/creator, could be temporal and/or regional relative to the entire observable and non-observable ares of the universe.Imo expansionists assume too much uniformability relative to how the uiverse was billions of years far removed.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

So you, the physicist are asking me, the layman why distances between things in the universe are expanding when you have no sure foundational data on why/when the alleged expansion of space began. Is that correct? If so, aren't we coming full circle to my contention that we both espouse unfalsifyable POVs? Edited by Buzsaw, : Update Message Title

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Reread what I'm positing, that both POVs are unfalsifiable since your POVs foundational underpinnings such as when/how/if spacial expansion began and when/how/if separation of the Superforce singularity of forces began, etc.My POV is unfalsifiable since I cannot verify the existence of the ID omnipotent designer/creator who's ability is allegedly to expand things in the universe via work as well as to manage/design every aspect of the universe.Both POVs have evidence for lending credence to them, mine being the phenomena of complex design on earth and in the cosmos, compatibility with the LOT science laws as well as corroborating evidence of the credibility of the Biblical record. Yours has evidence based on a somewhat uniformitarian model and your definition of the properties of space.So far as I have thus far ascertained you can't verify when/how the expansion began, the gravitational forces originated and allegedly separated from an alleged superforce etc but you insist on me verifying when/how the ID omnipotent designer came to be and the mechanics of how he worked to effect his purposes and plans for the universe.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

1. My statement to which you are responding says mine has evidence lending credence to it. There can be supportive evidence to unfalsifiable hypotheses. Right?2. Your evidence is based on a definition of space far different than mine; yours having properties which are questionable as to whether they are spacial properties or whether they are properties pertaining to things/forces occupying space.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How many times have I stated the work/manage factor relative to my hypothesis being effected by the intelligent omnipotent designer which you persistently refuse to acknowledge? I've explained how this does not contradict 2LoT. Where have I effectively been refuted on this thus far in this thread?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a bare asserted claim on your part; nothing but your biased opinion which refutes nothing. Your analogy is a red herring.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Straggler, the corroborative evidence I was referring to was the evidence supportive of the Biblical record from which I draw my hypothesis. This evidence is falsifiable, evidence such as fulfilled prophecy, archeological data, and much more.The more evidence I have supportive of the Biblical ID supreme creator's existence, the more support my hypothesis has.It was claimed that Greek myth was as viable as my hypothesis but I responded that it was a red herring analogy, etc.As well, there are science aspects of my hypothesis which are considered by many as more supportive to my hypothesis than the expansionist POV; such aspects as complex order observed on earth and the cosmos, gravity and the other forces, harmony of things pertaining to systems in the universe and on earth, etc.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

LikesToKnow, just suppose for a few minutes that an omnipotent supreme creator such as is depicted in the Biblical record was proven to exist. Then post on this thread works by this verified creator/designer which the BBHU would require that run contrary to 2LoT.Correct me if I missed it, but I don't recall any single aspect of my hypothesis which has been shown to violate 2LoT. All I remember getting are these substanceless statements such as yours here, relative to my BBUH and 2LoT.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

L2no, seriously the more U respond, the more I admire your intelligence. Whether or not I agree with your POV, the above segment of your message is typically profound so far as productive input relative to topic discussion and debate. The words, axiom and arbitrary are significant relative to my response.1. Though I see ample evidence for regarding an omnipotent supreme creator as an axiom, I'm here at EvC pitting my axiom against speculation of everything and anything capable of falsifying my omnipotent supreme creator axiom. So far nothing has come close relative to scientific LOTs, archeology, personal experience, written historical record and all other observational evidence.2. The laws of nature relative to complex design fit nicely into my axiomatic POV. My hypothesis is not a nebulous collection of disparate pieces. It is totally literal and distinctive relative to the Biblical model/record. I'm ready and willing to address reasonable arguments to the contrary. How is BBUH less compatible to 2LoT than the spacial expansionist theory? My hypothesis never has entropy decreasing via work contrary to 2LoT, the omnipotent supreme being just that; omnipotent.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

In an eternal universe finite amounts of time become a figment of the imagination where the fat lady never sings. Omnipotence extends equalibrium infinity via work of the source of energy. Neither are infinite relative to 2LoT. How is it in violation of 2LoT? Edited by Buzsaw, : fix quotes

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hypotheses have to be refutable? Isn't that the prerogative for proof? Who among us has that? Specific and verified?1. Model being a 2D balloon model, bogus to a 3D Universe.
2. Properties of space originating from T=0 where properties of space = all that the universe consists of including all energy? T=0 absolutely required for spacial expansionist POV.

(abe: You BBists often apply a bogus 2D analogy) having both an outside of and a before. Why (abe: do you do this)? Because there is no possible bonafide model for your theory of no outside of or before.Your theory satisfies none of the LOTs. Why?
1. Because your source of energy was part and parcel of spacetime at T=0.
2. Every temporal system must have a zero to be temporal.
3. There was no mechanism for equilibrium at all since there was allegedly no outside of and no before the expansion.
4. There was only expansion; nothing to equalize; no A and B; just expansion, violating 2LoT.
5. Having no outside of and no before, your temporal system had no place to have happened and no time to have happened, violating all science as well as common sense and logic.
6. Space, energy, matter and time all had to have just magically popped into existence as properties of space at alleged T=0, contrary to 1LoT.
7. IMO, your alleged theory of temporal expansion, having, by necessity to have had a zero factor is grossly more magical than my eternal energy designer unbounded space hypothesis, no matter how much QM, math, etc you apply to it.The bottom line here in this whole debate is that BBists apply forces and things to the properties of space so as to make it allegedly expand, curve, etc.Imo, space is simply infinite boundless area in which all forces and things exist. Thus the universe is infinite so far as time and size, having no dimensions. Dimensions apply only to things in the space/area of the universe.The BBUH necessitates a supreme omnipotent designer; yes. that's magical but the most logical of the two magicals.So called Biblical evolutionist BBists as well as YUC (Young Universe Creationists all have major biggie problems:1. The Biblical god, Jehovah, is Biblically eternal/infinite. That can't be possible in any temporal universe hypothesis or theory since, as I've documented, Jehovah has a certain dwelling place in the heavens.
2. There being no outside of eliminates the notion as some have posited in the past that somehow God exists outside of the universe.Scientific Conclusion (for theists and deists): The Universe is either infinite or their god/gods are temporal.Call it magic but I maintain that the the existence of an infinite omnipotent designer creator would always have more energy than his creation. Yes it would magically comprise a perpetual motion machine, if you will. After all, imo, extensive evidence exists relative the likelihood of higher dimensions of intelligence in the universe than we have on earth as they are manifested on earth, like other forces unseen by the naked eye, both the good and the evil realm. All human cultures of history have acknowledged that in one way or another.Imo, the multipresent spirit of God, the Holy Spirit receives energy from emmited light and other forces etc as well as expending energy where desired by God. This is evidenced by the rest day Sabbath which God applied to himself and to intelligent creatures. When Jesus healed the woman who secretly touched his garment from the crowd he said that virtue/energy had been expended from him when healing was effected upon the woman who had exercised faith.All creation praises God/Jehovah except the evil. Perhaps that moves energy as well. I don't know. As in all POVs there's the unknowns.You people require all the answers from ID creationist, but consider all of your significant unknowns as trivial. How about some balance? Edited by Buzsaw, : as indicated Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted in contextEdited by Buzsaw, : Update message title.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Your analogy obfuscates and deceives, having neither an outside of or before which a balloon has. It has an outside source of energy to effect it's expansion and sets up an illusionary model for advancing the notion that space has properties capable of expansion and curvature. All the more reason to consider your analogy as bogus. I figured you could figure that out all by yourself.All energy and matter observed today once allegedly compacted as properties of a submicroscopic speck of space beginning at T=0 having no outside of or before contrary to all LoTs of science. Where did I say my eternal system had to have a zero? I said your temporal system must have a zero.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

ICant, you're obviously confused about my position. You need to go to the OP on page one and read what my position is.Quoting myself from the message to which you responded, note the word, alleged. Read up on why I made that statement and you will see clearly that that is not my position. It is what the BBist position is as I understand it; the position which I am working at refuting as less scientific than my own POV. Thus the "alleged."My position is that the T=0, which is needful for the BB temporal universe is a scientific impossibility, being less possible than my own hypothesis which I am claiming to be compatible with all of the LoTs.What the BB theory implies relative to T=0:
"All energy and matter observed today once allegedly compacted as properties of a submicroscopic speck of space beginning at T=0 having no outside of or before contrary to all LoTs of science."This thread is not about your Universe position which makes no sense or logic whatsoever for the following reasons:
1. The word term universe pertains to all that exists.
2. God lives within the cosmos of the universe with things around him and a throne to sit on having hosts of angels and other beings around him.
3. By definition, no universe can possibly have an outside of. Therefore (as I already stated) there had to have either always been a universe or God is temporal, having a beginning (of course, not Biblical). Why would God need to create what he already existed in? {Please reread up on my position.)Please read my position on the properties of space, having no properties capable of expansion or curvature.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.