Before Big Bang God or Singularity

Hi Percy, Percy I absolutuly, positivily Know something was there and it was God. Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.Many call Him a singularity,Many call Him a singular.Now either there was something there or it came from an absence of anything.So are you saying it came from an absence of anything? That is one good thing about technology I don't have to remember it all at once. I got copies on 2 hard drives on my computer. Percy the problem there is that all the information you can find is 3 to 4 years behind the present. Even on the internet most information is several years old.All the current information is on pay sites and cost around 50 dollars per paper. There are some sites that keep up to date but they don't believe the Big Bang Theory is viable any longer and are into the alternatives.They talk about all the fudge factors that have been introduced to prop up the Big Bang Theory. Dark matter which has not been found yet being one of them.Percy, remember my aim in this thread was to show that according to what I found in the lectuers of Hawking that the singularity could not exist at T=O and therefore was not a better explanation for the orgin of the universe than God.I think I accomplished that goal.
Did I prove anything? NO.
ABE Did I learn anything? Yes.God Bless,God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Whether or not you agree with some particular members of a named philosophy is not really the point, though. My point remains quite firmly in place - your idea is less parsimonious. It would have been easier for you to just have accepted this and said that you are not interested in parsimony. It would be nice if you could get this over with in what remains of this thread since it would conclude it nicely.Which is a better idea? Well that depends on what you look for in an idea. Personally I think an idea should reign in its unparsimonious entities because once you have one, there is no philosophical reason to stop adding more. I think we should stick with what we know and explore the mysteries we can 'see' as opposed to creating new mysteries that cannot, by their very description, be solved.You think that because God seems to solve one problem that is all that matters: it makes the idea much better. My main issue is that it doesn't solve the mystery at all. I don't know who killed this man, it is a mystery, therefore a Djinn killed this man. That hypothesis completely solves the mystery. Therefore it is a good hypothesis. Better than the hypothesis that his brother killed him, which has some contradictory evidence for it which is hard to entangle. Forget hard problems, Djinn are much easier and completely solve the murder case.

You're saying, "I know."I'm saying, "Scientifically, I don't know, and there's no possible way you could know, either." What in the world leads you to think such a thing! In 1919 when Sir Author Eddington verified Einstein's general theory of relativity, it was on the front page of the New York Times within days, and now you're claiming that in the Internet age new information takes years? These sites are not about recent trends in cosmology. Any significant turnabout in cosmological circles would be trumpeted on the front page of the Times on both sides of the pond. Scientifically, God has no merit as an explanation because he is a phenomenon for which there is as yet no evidence, and this discussion is taking place in one of the science threads.I hope that you *are* learning something from this, but it is clear that your main motivation is to find confirmation for your religious beliefs within science, or at least to convince yourself that science does not contradict them. But what's really important is the eternal soul, and that has nothing to do with scientific theories about the origin of the universe.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

T=0 inevitablewhats there? something.chances of a singular something spawning all there is in its complexity by chance?do the math.directed: 100%
chance: same chance as a man in a desert sand storm trying to hit a hole in one with a golf ball and a putting club, and the "hole" is a three in hole on the back side of the moon.so what is the truth?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Hi Percy, Percy I do not need to be convinced that science does not contradict my beliefs. Because they don't.I did not try to make this thread a religious discussion in a science thread.I argued my point that according to what Hawking said:
There could not be a singularity at T=O.
There could not have been space time at T=O.
cavediver agreed with everything Hawking said and then stated there was a singularity at T=O then later said it was not a singularity.
Son Goku agreed with what Hawking said then He said there was something about the size of a pea at T=O.In Message 305 I state: So I guess we can not know if you say so Percy,God Bless,

The title of this thread includes the word God. Not your fault, we probably shouldn't have promoted the thread into the science forums. I did not say we can not know. I said we do not know, and that there are several lines of research in this area.I think your attempts to summarize what Cavediver and Son Goku have been telling you about the singularity and T=0 are also incorrect, but I'll let them speak for themselves.I know that people are not always being consistent in their terminology and that this makes things difficult, but that can't be helped, that happens in all discussions, it only becomes a problem when people don't share a common background. When I'm talking with colleagues on technical subjects they can misspeak in significant ways and I'll still understand precisely what they're saying. They might say, "The C interface won't be confused by the mangling," and I'll know that they could only mean C++, not C, but if they're trying to communicate C++ mangling to you, a non-programmer, that kind of mistake could drive you batty and lead you to all kinds of erroneous conclusions.So lacking a background in physics may be causing you to attach too much importance to the meanings of minor words and phrases, but if you keep at it you should eventually get what Cavediver and Son Goku are saying. But you telling Cavediver and Son Goku what's so about cosmology and how contradictory their views are makes no sense at all and can only get in the way of your understanding.--Percy

No 'think' about it Yes, this is very true; your 'c' analogy is apt. Using Universe to refer to both the 4d entity and the 3d space slice at a particular time causes untold problems when communicating to the layman, but is not even noticable between professionals. However, you will note that I tried a little terminology straightening in my very first post, which was immediately quoted-mined, misunderstood, and misrepresented by our resident pastor. I am thus not too convinced that untangling terminology would be of that much practical benefit in this case... other than to the peanut gallery of course. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Time travel would seem impossible yet the bible talks of God knowing the end from the beginning saying that he is the alpha and the omega.I'm leaning thats a bit why you could not see the pea at T=0 is due to time. If time curves back upon itself there could not be a singularity at T=0 due to the strings of time circling back because nothing had yet been expanded into our present universe until just after T=0.Someone mentioned Hawkins? that time curves back to the the beginning thus believed to be circular? Our universe however appears to be flat so how is this possible not saying its impossible?It just seems that God since the singularity has created a new beginning or at the very least expanded time into our present universe?Since the expansion of nothing can exceed light speed then if time has burped out of the singularity does this make the universe like 6,000 years young possible? If time was released then the entire known universe could be quite young since the singularity? If the universe were actually quite old does the galaxies farther away support it spirals disipated or does the evidence support most galaxies still have spirals in spite of how close or far away the galaxies are from the earth? How does time factor into the spirals of the galaxies, etc...?Think there is a whole lot of questions not that the bible supports the universe is 6,000 years but since time seems to be related seems its expansion might make the universe quite young, if since the singularity not just matter but time was playing a part in the expansion of the universe, etc...P.S. Its almost like the entire universe was designed before T=0 like plant seeds and you get trees(galaxies) etc...?
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

I like peanuts . salted. Let me be your foil to untangle the situation so the rest of us peanut nuts get the real story straight.My understanding . Our equations tell us that at some time T0+10^-40something seconds everything was crunched into a zero dimensional point of infinite energy, infinite gravity. Since this is a nonsensical condition it indicates a hole in our understanding of physics at these extreme conditions. We call this a singularity so we can communicate the condition we are talking about, but, it is not a real physical thing as far as we can tell. We are NOT saying that the universe was spawned from a singularity. We ARE saying that at this point we cannot say what was happening.

Completely untrue - vrtually all of the recent papers are available for free if you know where to look. Here is Hawking's latest on the No-Boundary Proposal from two days ago. Let me know what you think. Once you've digested that, I'll find some more for you... Really? And what are these sites? The singularity has never been an explanation of the origin of the Universe, as you have been told repeatedly so what have you acheived? No, you have not. You have simply completely failed to grasp what has been explained to you ad nauseam. That you insist that you have managed to reason something in this field contrary to what Son Goku and I have been telling you is the height of arrogance. Let me know how you get on with that paper...

Yep, that's a good peanut understanding. Minor quibbles would include:Stressing the 'zero-dimensional' as possibly something odd, when all points are zero-dimensional. The North Pole is zero dimensional, but that doesn't mean anything strange happens there.It is infinite energy density, not infinite energy; and I would possibly advise saying that the energy density grows without bound as you approach T=0.I would avoid saying gravity, as that gives the wrong impression. Space-time curavture grows without bound as you approach T=0.Take these on board, and it's looking rather good.

Hi cavediver, So space-time was present before T=O. I got no problem with that.But where did the space-time come from? No it just happens to be a point on the planet earth.It is not a coordinate in an absence of anything.God Bless,

As you approach it from the positive side, doofus Going backwards in time.... But whats north of the north pole? And the singularity just happens to be a point in space-time.It is not a coordinate in an absence of anything.THANK GOD YOU FINALLY UNDERSTAND

SNAP.Thank you, CS.Not that ICANT will understand.But. Thank you.

Hi Percy, Percy it is very hard to misunderstand yes and no, and yes to all.Percy I know there is a lot of unknowns about anything prior to T=O.Since everything was a molten mass at that time there will be no record to trace.Anything that is put forth before that time is pure speculation, or imagination.It is just as hard for science to prove what happened prior to T=O as it is for me to prove God exists.I think everybody has come close to proving that there are no answers as yet and may never be for science.Let me see how I can do with this one:We suspect there was something prior to T=O.
We do not know what it was.
We have a lot of ideas as to what that something could be.
The Big Bang Theory tries to explain what happened after T=O+.
The Big Bang Theory is the most accepted Theory at the present.
There are other approaches being studied.
Some people do not agree with the Big Bang Theory.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."