vaxx:
My claim can only become erroneous if your rebuttal is in anyway accurate,my evidence are tautology at best not necessarily the absolute truth, it is subjective,There is no absolute truth anywhere. Everybody validate or makes claims all the time, because each word that are used in their claims comes from just one source, you, or some other individual..

Some claims are untrue. An example is, 'Prince Harry is the current President of Nigeria', and it does not matter how strongly I, in my subjective right, make that statement, it is untrue, and everyone knows it to be untrue. Yet, as you claim, truth is subjective, even though you will probably claim Prince Harry is most certainly not the current President of Nigeria. And I might have difficulty providing objective evidence to prove it is a true and valid statement if you were to ask me for evidence to collaborate my assertion. Surely, both our contradicting statements regarding whether Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria or not cannot be true. So how is truth subjective in this case especially when it fails to correspond to objective reality?

Now look at the statement "Muhammad Buhari is the current president of Nigeria". It's still my subjective opinion, but I can provide objective evidence, like a statement from the Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, confirming it is true. Or would that not be objective enough for you?

vaxx:
Even if you have a solid scientific truth, like gravity, there is total and constant change across the entire Universe, so the parameters are never fixed.

Oh my! I think you mistake 'parameter' to mean something else! No one is suggesting they are fixed. However, we fix them in order to take measurements or make observations. This is the same error I tried pointing out in your driver analogy. You fixed the parameter as "permission was required from another driver, who required permission from another driver ad infinitum". Then you complain that the driver never gets to drive since another driver's permission will constantly have to be sought. If you wanted a driver to drive, why set up the parameter in the first place?

It is the same error butter makes in claiming all effects have a cause. If all effects have a cause, how come you nullify that statement with the exception. Once you have, it makes the initial statement "all effects have a cause", invalid, since by his own admission, at least one effect, god, has no cause.

Now, take the following statement about Gravity, the universal force of attraction acting between all matter:

On Earth all bodies have a weight, or downward force of gravity, proportional to their mass, which Earth’s mass exerts on them. Gravity is measured by the acceleration that it gives to freely falling objects. At Earth’s surface the acceleration of gravity is about 9.8 metres (32 feet) per second per second. Thus, for every second an object is in free fall, its speed increases by about 9.8 metres per second.

The 'parameter', which is the limit or boundary which defines the scope of a particular process or activity (gravity in this case), is 'Earth'. Basically, on 'Earth', 'gravity is about 9.8 metres per second per second'.

Now read the following:

At the surface of the Moon the acceleration of a freely falling body is about 1.6 metres per second per second.

Different 'parameter' - the moon, different measurement of gravity - 1.6 metres per second per second.

vaxx:
To what degree can we access the absolute truth is the question we can only tackle and not the absolute truth itself.

What "absolute truth" are you referring to exactly?

Using your words, it is an absolute truth that gravity is the universal force of attraction acting between all matter. It is incontrovertible, and a truth that has been extensively determined.

Its actual quantity, which is location dependent, as opposed to person dependent, while not constant everywhere, is not subjective at all. No one can stand on the moon and claim a gravitational force of 9.8 metres per second per second and hope to be taken seriously! Not by people with brains, at least!

Gggg102:



it was triggered by quantum fluctuations.

the immense amount of energy is a result of the big bang.

What is quantum fluctuations? Explain it to everybody

Gggg102:


where does it state that the singularity needed an immense form of energy.

Do you know what a particle accelerator is?

Butterflyleo:


What is quantum fluctuations? Explain it to everybody

quantum fluctuations: temporary change in energy of a point in space due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Gggg102:


quantum fluctuations: temporary change in energy of a point in space due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Good and how does a particle accelerator work

Butterflyleo:


Good and how does a particle accelerator work

All these questions and arguments.....


Since you have been debating from page 1 about the big bang, did you notice that neither you nor your opponents could link the big bang directly to God?

In short, you have no scientific basis for God.

Butterflyleo:


Do you know what a particle accelerator is?

it accelerates particles to near light speed.

where in the NASA article was the amount of energy in quantum fluctuation in the big bang implied?

what NASA diagram shows is

quantum fluctuation- big bang -immense amount of energy released- this energy started expanding and cooling to form everything in the universe which is still expanding.

superhumanist:


All these questions and arguments.....


Since you have been debating from page 1 about the big bang, did you notice that neither you nor your opponents could link the big bang directly to God?

In short, you have no scientific basis for God.

You are clearly confused

Gggg102:



it accelerates particles to near light speed.

where in the NASA article was the amount of energy in quantum fluctuation in the big bang implied?

At the bolded, HOW!

Butterflyleo:


You are clearly confused

Confused? Only a confused person would argue that there is scientific proof for God. Butterflyleo, where is your Nobel prize? How come you havent won an award for such a new discovery.

Butterflyleo:


At the bolded, HOW!

Particle accelerators use electric fields to speed up and increase the energy of a beam of particles, which are steered and focused by magnetic fields. The particle source provides the particles, such as protons or electrons, that are to be accelerated. The beam of particles travels inside a vacuum in the metal beam pipe. The vacuum is crucial to maintaining an air and dust free environment for the beam of particles to travel unobstructed. Electromagnets steer and focus the beam of particles while it travels through the vacuum tube.
Electric fields spaced around the accelerator switch from positive to negative at a given frequency, creating radio waves that accelerate particles in bunches. Particles can be directed at a fixed target, such as a thin piece of metal foil, or two beams of particles can be collided. Particle detectors record and reveal the particles and radiation that are produced by the collision between a beam of particles and the target.




now where was the amount of energy in the quantum fluctuations that caused the amount of energy in the big bang implied?

Gggg102:


Particle accelerators use electric fields to speed up and increase the energy of a beam of particles, which are steered and focused by magnetic fields. The particle source provides the particles, such as protons or electrons, that are to be accelerated. The beam of particles travels inside a vacuum in the metal beam pipe. The vacuum is crucial to maintaining an air and dust free environment for the beam of particles to travel unobstructed. Electromagnets steer and focus the beam of particles while it travels through the vacuum tube.
Electric fields spaced around the accelerator switch from positive to negative at a given frequency, creating radio waves that accelerate particles in bunches. Particles can be directed at a fixed target, such as a thin piece of metal foil, or two beams of particles can be collided. Particle detectors record and reveal the particles and radiation that are produced by the collision between a beam of particles and the target.




now where was the amount of energy in the quantum fluctuations that caused the amount of energy in the big bang implied?

I am schooling you now so pay attention. Who derived the big bang model?

Butterflyleo:


The singularity isn't the first cause because quantum fluctuations impacted the singularity. This is pretty elementary.

then we might as well say quantum fluctuation is the first cause.

Butterflyleo:


Quantum fluctuations is not even the first cause because something made it impact the singularity. Why did it deem it fit to impact this singularity with just the right amount of energy to cause the big bang and an inflation to what we now know as our universe.

Now you have crossed into the realm of science fiction. My OP does not deal with science fiction but is strictly on pure verifiable science.
You are now assuming!
Science clearly says that our universe began from a singularity which was impacted by quantum fluctuation FULL STOP.

Butterflyleo:


Did you just say superior argument?

These are the facts which you are obviously blind to (Mr superior argument)

1) Science says our universe has a beginning

2) Science says our universe came from a singularity

3) Our universe was not existing prior to this singularity

4) An immense energy impacted this singularity which caused the big bang and then our universe came about.

5)This energy was alien to our universe and was so immense, we cannot recreate it in our known universe.

Based on this, IS THE UNIVERSE INFINITE?

WAS THE ENERGY THAT IMPACTED THIS SINGULARITY A PART OF OUR UNIVERSE WHEN IT DID OR IT WAS FROM OUTSIDE OUR UNIVERSE.

Number 1-5 are all false.

The big bang traces the universe's history up till a certain point. It would do you well to stop reading "pop science" for the masses and start reading proper science. The big bang theory is not a conclusive one

There is no true beginning of the universe. If you factor in quantum physics, the big bang theory becomes murky.

Here is an article for you to read
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Here is another one pointing to the fact that the big bang is not the beginning after all
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/#2966ba2955df






You should be careful with how you interpret scientific theories

.

Butterflyleo:


I am schooling you now so pay attention. Who derived the big bang model?

Georges Lemaitre.


where was the amount of energy in quantum fluctuation in the big bang implied?

Gggg102:


then we might as well say quantum fluctuation is the first cause.

Quantum fluctuations is not even the first cause because something made it impact the singularity. Why did it deem it fit to impact this singularity with just the right amount of energy to cause the big bang and an inflation to what we now know as our universe.

Gggg102:


Georges Lemaitre.


where was the amount of energy in quantum fluctuation in the big bang implied?

Who was Alan Guth?

Butterflyleo:


Who was Alan Guth?

Have they schooled you so much that you resort to questions that do not even relate to the op in any form?

Butterflyleo:


Quantum fluctuations is not even the first cause because something made it impact the singularity. Why did it deem it fit to impact this singularity with just the right amount of energy to cause the big bang and an inflation to what we now know as our universe.

Now you have crossed into the realm of science fiction. My OP does not deal with science fiction but is strictly on pure verifiable science.
You are now assuming!
Science clearly says that our universe began from a singularity which was impacted by quantum fluctuation FULL STOP.

Gggg102:



Now you have crossed into the realm of science fiction. My OP does not deal with science fiction but is strictly on pure verifiable science.
You are now assuming!
Science clearly says that our universe began from a singularity which was impacted by quantum fluctuation FULL STOP.

Who was Alan Guth

Butterflyleo:


Who was Alan Guth?

inflation theory



now where is the amount of energy in quantum fluctuation in the big bang implied?

superhumanist:



Have they schooled you so much that you resort to questions that do not even relate to the op in any form?

I thought that I am the only one that missed this. It is a shame that some of my fellow christians try to claim science proves religion through deceptive means.

Religion and science are two separate fields. One deals with the physical and the other deals with spirituality

Gggg102:



inflation theory



now where is the amount of energy in quantum fluctuation in the big bang implied?

Now these are his words and this was one of the ways the model was derived by NASA in addition to whatever information they had.

In late 1979, a Stanford physics postdoc named Alan Guth offered an explanation for the explosive force behind the Big Bang. Guth’s intellectual leap stemmed from theories in particle physics, which held that at extremely high energies — far higher than could ever be reached in a laboratory — a special state of matter would turn gravity upside down, rendering it a repulsive rather than an attractive force

Do you doubt that?

This was why I asked you how a particle accelerator works

Butterflyleo:


The singularity isn't the first cause because quantum fluctuations impacted the singularity. This is pretty elementary.

then we might as well say quantum fluctuation is the first cause.

Butterflyleo:


Quantum fluctuations is not even the first cause because something made it impact the singularity. Why did it deem it fit to impact this singularity with just the right amount of energy to cause the big bang and an inflation to what we now know as our universe.

Now you have crossed into the realm of science fiction. My OP does not deal with science fiction but is strictly on pure verifiable science.
You are now assuming!
Science clearly says that our universe began from a singularity which was impacted by quantum fluctuation FULL STOP.

...Try again.

Gggg102:


then we might as well say quantum fluctuation is the first cause.





Now you have crossed into the realm of science fiction. My OP does not deal with science fiction but is strictly on pure verifiable science.
You are now assuming!
Science clearly says that our universe began from a singularity which was impacted by quantum fluctuation FULL STOP.

...Try again.

The law of cause and effect implies this because unintelligence does not produce orderliness such as was done by this energy which brought about the big bang and our universe.

Can we get intelligence from non intelligence?

WHAT CAUSED THIS EXTREMELY HIGH ENERGY?

Gggg102, thanks for engaging with butter on this thread. Know that there are many reading and learning.

AllNaijaBlogger:



I thought that I am the only one that missed this. It is a shame that some of my fellow christians try to claim science proves religion through deceptive means.

Religion and science are two separate fields. One deals with the physical and the other deals with spirituality

Butterflyleo is a dishonest christian. Just look at how he has been dodging and weaving with mental gymnastics. He is trying to lie that science proves that God is behind the big bang.

budaatum:
Gggg102, thanks for engaging with butter on this thread. Know that there are many reading and learning.

After reading that comment from allnaijablogger, it is indeed a blessing that Gggg102 calmly discussed with Butterflyleo.

Anyone can see who the dishonest christian apologist is.

Butterflyleo:


Now these are his words and this was one of the ways the model was derived by NASA in addition to whatever information they had.



Do you doubt that?

This was why I asked you how a particle accelerator works

-In physical cosmology , cosmic inflation , cosmological inflation , or just
inflation , is a theory of exponential
expansion of space in the early
universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10 −36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to sometime between 10 −33 and 10 −32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the Universe continues to expand, but at a less rapid rate.-


inflation started 1*10^-36 seconds after the singularity like I said before. the energy in the inflation is different from quantum fluctuation. before 1*10^-36 seconds, science can't say what happened for now at least.

superhumanist:


After reading that comment from allnaijablogger, it is indeed a blessing that Gggg102 calmly discussed with Butterflyleo.

Anyone can see who the dishonest christian apologist is.

So suddenly science cannot explain God yet you have been asking for scientific evidence for God even on this thread. Its either you are very dumb or you do not even know how dishonest you have been on this thread.

Kindly stop desperately trying to derail