Before Big Bang God or Singularity

This thread is way past 300 posts, but as long as the discussion remains productive I don't see why this thread can't stay open. But is it productive? Sometimes I feel like the cosmological questions are serious, other times I feel like some here are playing at, "Let's ask the cosmologists meaningless annoying questions," and have no goal of actually understanding anything.I leave it to the cosmologists to decide. If you think it worthwhile, I'll leave the thread open.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

There is no point in time where the universe does not exist. As T approaches 0, the universe was much smaller than it currently is. When T=0 and for a brief fraction of a second afterwards, conditions were such that our mathematical models of the laws of physics break down, and we call the breakdown a singularity. The singularity is neither an object nor a cause. There you go again with "before." That word doesn't apply - it's meaningless in this context. Stop it, ICANT. You're still asking what weighs less than nothing. That doesn't even make sense. The singularity is what we call a breakdown in the math - it's not an object.T=0 marks the closest point in time to T=0 - it's the North Pole. You're trying to ask "what is closer to T=0 than T-0", which is the same as asking "What's North of the North Pole." "Before" is a term that means "closer to T=0 than the event in question," as it applies to this discussion. You're asking if North caused the North Pole. The curvature of spacetime creates a mathematical singularity. Spacetime simply exists - it requires no cause. Non sequitur. Non sequitur.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

correct. but who has answered me: what is at the north pole?from what came the first cause?

---

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

Hi Rahvin, I assume no explanation either as I am getting none.God simply exists he requires no cause or explanation. Well the scientific answer according to what I have read in this thread and others the Big Bang created the North Pole when it created the earth. Message 335
You say the Universe exists at T=O but its not an object. http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/...a/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.htmlIf space and time were created at the instant of the Big Bang How could your space-time exist at T=O?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."

Except we know the Universe exists - we're in it, and it is objectively observable.Can't say that about god. Parsimony requires he be ignored until objective evidence requires he be included. The Big Bang didnt create anything, ICANT. Weve been over this. The Bang is the name given to the earliest expansion of the Universe, nothing more. Neither did teh bang create Earth - it took billions of years for our sun to form after the Bang, let alone this planet. Youre still confusing the Big bang with your silly 6-day ex nihilo Creation idea - stop it. They aren't related in the slightest. I said the singularity is not an object. It's what we call the mathematical breakdown at T=0. Let's not debate the nature of "existence," either, as that will get tesla started all over again. Stop taking the dumbed-down journalist versions as scientific fact. They're written for the lowest denominator, without any math involved.I don't know that you're ever going to come close to comprehending this.Take this ray:*------------------->You exist on the ray, and can only move to the right. That's your perception of what we call "time," but that's incidental.What color is the ray to the left of the dot? The question doesn't make sense. Did the dot create the ray? No, it's just the farthest point to the left on the ray. You can call it the "origin," but that doesn't mean the point was a "cause." If there is a "creator" for the ray, the direction or even starting point of the ray are irrelevant - I could have created the ray from right to left, for instance, even though you still only perceive it going from left to right. If we say we understand all but the last segment of the ray up to the one just after the dot, and we call that lack of understanding a singularity, does that mean the dot or singularity caused anything?

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Hi Rahvin, Duh, who you confusing me with now? I don't have any silly 6-day creation idea. What you want me to do with it. It is your ray. You created the ray. It did not get there by itself.And you are saying it would not be here if God created it. http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/...a/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.htmlThe article is the property of the University of Illinois. You saying the college did not know what they were doing. Then what created everything then? Did the singularity contain the universe?Is it not an object?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."

The bible agrees actually that the universe is expanding and that God alone is responsible. It kinda makes me wonder the point about where the laws of physics breaks down if all the elements were created at this point in time? It does not appear there ever was a big bang simply that time has expanded, etc....How else do you explain the expansion of the universe faster than lights speed but thru the expansion of spacetime?

ICANT, this is the key to your understanding:from Message 328, to which you did not reply: What, exactly, do you not understand about this analogy/explanation?Be specific, not criptic.... pretty please with Jesus' blessing on top

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

If the "software issue" is not a problem the I suggest we continue... But if ICANT cannot allow the discussion to be productive, then you might as well just shut it down now.I'm doubting that he is seriously trying to achieve an understanding, but is instead, as you've already seen, trying to allow for his god to fit within the gaps, so to speak type. I'm not one of the cosmologists, by definition, but I think it should be up to ICANT. If he cannot move forward then the thread cannot. To me, it seems that he is unwilling, although not unable. He will not allow the gap to be closed on his god, no matter what. If I am correct then thread has no reason to be open any longer.

The specific flavor of your creationism is irrelevant. I see now that making further analogies is irrelevant - you ignore everything posted and scream "god." You dont want to understand. Im saying their press release articles have a loose association with the actual theories so that they can be explained to laypeople, and that means you cant take them too literally. Youre the only one claiming a creator is necessary. The singularity is neither a container nor an object. It's what we call the mathematical breakdown.Im done, ICANT. Im tired of repeating myself and beating my head against a brick wall. I dont know if you just dont want to understand, or if you're genuinely incapable of grasping these concepts in even the most basic way, but its painfully obvious that we arent progressing. You ignore everything we say to you, scream "god" as if it had some relevance, and we rinse and repeat.

Hi Scientist, I will try.I ask "Where did the space and time come from"?Everybody here tells me it just is, and I must believe it just is. That is science.If I believe this I must take everybody at their word as there is no proof that the space-time was there. If I believe it I must believe it by faith.I say God just is. Just about everybody here says "Nonsence" or "Rubbish". That is religion or a myth.If I believe God is I must believe it by faith.What is the difference?You use the North Pole analogy/explanation.I state that the North Pole is in a physical place.I then say the space-time is in a place that does not exist yet.You inform me that the singularity just happens to be a point in Space-time.But this space and time does not exist. Unless I believe by faith it does.You then tell me, "It is not a coordinate in an absence of anything."But if there is nowhere for it to be it has to be in the absence of anything since no thing exists.Do I understand what is being said. YesSingularity existed at a point in the curvature of space-time.GR says it must exist. Because it breaks down and cannot explain what is happening.Just take our word for it.At a very short time after T=O the universe began to expand and has been expanding every since.For this we have scientific evidence.Do I believe this scientific evidence. I believe the universe exists, and that we are here. Other than that evidence I have seen none presented.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."

Hi Rahvin, At T=O GR breaks down and at this point a singularity is there.You then say the universe is there.A very short time after T=O the universe begin's to expand. No I just say things need to be created unless.Everything we see today exists at T=1. Is that the case or is things created over many billions of years?Inquiring minds would like to know,

---

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

Not quite. What we are trying to communicate here is that in the standard big bang model, the universe just is. You don't have to believe what the standard big bang model says about the universe, but you have to believe that it does say that. At the moment you seem to be having great difficulty understanding this. Parsimony. How can spacetime exist in a place at a time (not existing 'yet'?)? It makes absolutely no sense unless you suppose that there is space and time within which spacetime is embedded. This is not the standard model. Of course it is somewhere, you know the coordinates of where it is! The questions you are asking betray you, if you understood what is being said, they'd sound as nonsensical to you as they do to others. GR doesn't say it must exist. GR doesn't work when describing that part of spacetime geometry. The reason we say it doesn't work is because it reaches what is known as a singularity. It is a known mathematical glitch that can show up in a number of fields. The brittleness of glass at various temperatures has been put forward as an example. At a certain temperature, the model that glass can shatter no longer describes glass and the maths reaches a singularity.

Hi Mod, At T=O a singularity exists because GR breaks down and can not tell us what is there. Therefore it is a singularity.Somebody or something declares a singularity to be there.I thought that something was GR because it could not tell us what was there.Is it the "we" (whoever you include) declaring the singularity to be there?Let me ask you a question.Prior to T=O was there an absence of anything?In other words, Did no thing exist?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."

The mathematics of GR 'breaks down' there. Nobody is declaring there is a singularity in the mathematics, there just is. That does not mean there is a 'singularity' in reality, just that there is a singularity in the mathematical model. That just means that the mathematical model isn't completely accurate when describing all of spacetime, just most of it. According to the model we are describing when we talk about T=0, there was no 'prior' to it. Prior doesn't exist at T=0, by definition. If there were a time prior to T=0, it would not be T=0, it would be T>0. T=0 is defined as a point in time for which there is no time period prior to it.You seem to be using the letter 'O' to represent 'zero' in all your posts. Hopefully that isn't causing you trouble, but I though it would be wise to point it out, just in case.