Reyginus:
I'm answering your question. How can the universe always be when your Big Bang theory claims the universe came from a Singularity? Or you don't know that? Do you admit the Big Bang Theory is nonsense maybe I'd give my own reason?

The Big Bang knows next to nothing about that singularity.

Again, it states nothing of where it came from, if it did indeed come from somewhere, etc.

Somewhat related-The Big Bang Theory also knows very little about the nature of the universe during early stages of the expansion

I'm hesitant to ask why you call it nonsense, but OK. Since apparently it will answer my queshon (it won't)

wiegraf:


The Big Bang knows next to nothing about that singularity.

Again, it states nothing of where it came from, if it did indeed come from somewhere, etc.

The Big Bang Theory also knows very little about the nature of the universe during early stages of the expansion

I'm hesitant to ask why you call it nonsense, but OK. Since apparently it will answer my queshon (it won't)

Time to define what we are talking about. This is from Google:

'Definition of big bang theory :

a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density — compare steady state theory'

Do you agree or disagree with the above definition? If yes, you can post your definition and source so we begin next stage.

Reyginus:
Time to define what we are talking about. This is from Google:

'Definition of big bang theory :

a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density — compare steady state theory'

Do you agree or disagree with the above definition? If yes, you can post your definition and source so we begin next stage.

No. It's quite weong

It wasn't an explosion per say. That point referred to expanded. As a result, you can't go to any single point and say this is where the Big Bang occured: it occurred (and is still occurring) everywhere

Anyways, wiki

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[5][6][7] The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state,[8][9] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Hubble's Law.[10] If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they have been verified, there is a singularity. Some estimates place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.[11] After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies.

wiegraf:


No. It's quite weong

It wasn't an explosion per say. That point referred to expanded. As a result, you can't go to any single point and say this is where the Big Bang occured: it occurred (and is still occurring) everywhere

Anyways, wiki

If I wanted to be mischievous I'd post another link where explosion and a beginning was talked about.

Your Wikipedia explanation talks about a possible extrapolation to a singularity to give our Universe the age of 13.8 billion years. I don't see how you'd agree with this and the universe will still be the uncaused cause.

Age suggests a beginning. If our Universe began to exist about 13.8 billion years ago then our Universe cannot be the first or uncaused cause. The uncaused cause cannot begin to exist at any time. It is logically impossible.

Reyginus:
If I wanted to be mischievous I'd post another link where explosion and a beginning was talked about.

Your Wikipedia explanation talks about a possible extrapolation to a singularity to give our Universe the age of 13.8 billion years. I don't see how you'd agree with this and the universe will still be the uncaused cause.

Age suggests a beginning. If our Universe began to exist about 13.8 billion years ago then our Universe cannot be the first or uncaused cause. The uncaused cause cannot begin to exist at any time. It is logically impossible.

We've done this before, for pages sef: that's one reason I'm hesitant to ask you why. Which kind unreasonableness be Dis?

If you're not happy, after all these years, feel free to post your definitions. mayhaps I'll address them.. .

I likely won't, but at least try and read sources on the article I posted, or even just google "was the BB an explosion? ", for your chrissakes! Heck, how would the cbr work if it didn't occur everywhere??

However, and another reason I hesitate to ask about BBs nature is, as you somewhat finally note - it doesn't really matter to my immediate point.

BB or another theory? Moot. All that matters is why in the universe do you just arbitrarily decide whatever it is that it began as can't be uncaused yet your god!? can??

For instance, assuming BB, if it extrapolates a singularity, why can't it have lasted forever? Or why couldn't it have had a precursor(s) of some sort that lasted forever?? That is impossible yet your god, in all its allegedly glorious complexity, isn't??

And again, who says timelessness of the type you speak of must necessarily be a property of your uncaused cause? That it can't be first and uncaused at the same time? I've already told you there are problems and nuances to that notion....but meh

wiegraf:


We've done this before, for pages sef: that's one reason I'm hesitant to ask you why. Which kind unreasonableness be Dis?

If you're not happy, after all these years, feel free to post your definitions. mayhaps I'll address them.. .

I likely won't, but at least try and read sources on the article I posted, or even just google "was the BB an explosion? ", for your chrissakes! Heck, how would the cbr work if it didn't occur everywhere??

However, and another reason I hesitate to ask about BBs nature is, as you somewhat finally note - it doesn't really matter to my immediate point.

BB or another theory? Moot. All that matters is why in the universe do you just arbitrarily decide whatever it is that it began as can't be uncaused yet your god!? can??

For instance, assuming BB, if it extrapolates a singularity, why can't it have lasted forever? Or why couldn't it have had a precursor(s) of some sort that lasted forever?? That is impossible yet your god, in all its allegedly glorious complexity, isn't??

And again, who says timelessness of the type you speak of must necessarily be a property of your uncaused cause? That it can't be first and uncaused at the same time? I've already told you there are problems and nuances to that notion....but meh

It's simple logic. I don't know why you can't see it. Whatever is the beginning of all cannot have a beginning. How's that difficult to agree with?

Reyginus:
It's simple logic. I don't know why you can't see it. Whatever is the beginning of all cannot have a beginning.

Lol . Logic eludes the atheist . Don't let him overheat .

Reyginus:
It's simple logic. I don't know why you can't see it. Whatever is the beginning of all cannot have a beginning. How's that difficult to agree with?

I've already told you that logic is flawed (remember? How could something work within time without some sort of beginning, a first instance? A starting point? That in itself highlights the contradiction of your eternity)

But it doesn't matter as, and once again, even if I accept your logic, why can't the universe be it??

You say BB has a beginning? Fine. That doesn't mean the singularity had one.....

Nor does it mean its precursor(s), if it had such, necessarily had a beginning, no?

This is very simple reyginus.....

wiegraf:


I've already told you that logic is flawed (remember? How could something work within time without some sort of beginning, a first instance? A starting point? That in itself highlights the contradiction of your eternity)

But it doesn't matter as, and once again, even if I accept your logic, why can't the universe be it??

You say BB has a beginning? Fine. That doesn't mean the singularity had one.....

Nor does it mean its precursor(s), if it had such, necessarily had a beginning, no?

This is very simple reyginus.....

How does one know that logic is flawed? By what means did he arrive at that? Should such be treated as a logical argument and if not why treat it at all? If yes then he contradicts himself. I'd let that pass.

Maybe I misunderstand you. Yeah. Something can work within time without contradicting eternity. Is energy eternal? First law of thermodynamics. Does it contradict eternity?

God, the Christian Yahweh, does not exist in the same dimension as we do. If God trully exists, if scientist searched the entire physical universe he'd never be found in it. My physics defines time as distance over speed. Spirit? Speed? Distance? Physical?

Time as a physical quantity recognizes a space to exist. God doesn't recognize any space to exist. Your argument would have been better targeted at the truth of God's existence. Once he exists your argument holds no water.

Yeah. It doesn't mean the singularity has one but has it? Can we did up articles on this singularity and compare? What article? The ones you agree with alone, the ones I agree with or the one the science community agree with?