In an effort to keep a bored mind active today i set to work reading and as i read i found my mind wondering to the point of asking about the origins of the universe and the issue behind creation or "emergence" of the universe and how this came to be.

One predominant school of thought believe the universe was created and that something/someone much bigger than our universe "caused" it to come into existence.

Another left wing school of thought believe that our universe began at a point zero known as the Big Bang which caused what was at that time to expand and the ripple effect chain reaction was what brought about our universe. They attribute this to simple Energy.

However here is my conundrum and it is from the Law of conservation of mass or otherwise called The principle of mass conservation.

The law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system's mass cannot change, so quantity can neither be added nor be removed. Hence, the quantity of mass is conserved over time.

The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form.

So if matter cannot be created nor destroyed why do so many scientists believe in the Big Bang theory?

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the Universe. Under this theory, space and time emerged together billions of years ago after a huge burst of energy BUT the law of conservation of mass is directly against this theory!!

Rather this Law points at something the creation advocates have been saying all along and that is that SOMETHING or SOMEONE "caused" our universe to begin to exist. How you say? Please follow the explanation of this law and it states that ...

"The mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system's mass cannot change, so quantity can neither be added nor be removed. Hence, the quantity of mass is conserved over time. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form"

Well Christians lay claim that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh so Jesus IS GOD.

Quoting from Hebrews 13:8 it states that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" So if Jesus is God then replace Jesus Christ in that verse with GOD and it would read, "GOD is the same yesterday, today, and forever"

That statement about God being the same and unchanging is a perfect match to the law of Conservation of mass which states that The mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system's mass cannot change, so quantity can neither be added nor be removed. Hence, the quantity of mass is conserved over time

Does this not imply that the original Mass behind the "emergence" of our universe though caused a change but is in itself unchanging?

If Scientists claim Energy was behind this then how did this energy begin to exist since same law says energy cannot be created or destroyed? The problem here is the word ENERGY and the moment you replace the word ENERGY with GOD it begins to make more sense.

Energy could not have just appeared it needed to have been in existence already but this would take us to an infinite timeline since energy cannot be created or destroyed. Christians says God has always been. He was not created and cannot be destroyed... Is this not the same as Energy?

They say he created everything else but was himself not created. This means This God "Energy" at a point disrupted the trend Energy follows and caused a "change" in Energy and thus an emergence of matter but thereafter the law of conservation of mass kicked in as everything reverted to status quo as such cannot be repeated.

Just thinking out loud from my head to my fingers as i type this.

I would need some scientific Atheists or some science guru in general to break this down in an attempt at disengaging the above from God and clearly bringing a line of demarcation between ENERGY and GOD. IS ENERGY just ENERGY or Did Energy gain its EMERGENCE FROM GOD WHO IS THE FIRST LIVING ENERGY?

Your thoughts people.

Seun, Lalasticlala, Mynd44 can we have a front page dialogue?

no comment? Too difficult to consider?

Very simple answer: we do not know if our universe is closed, open or isolated.

LordReed:
Very simple answer: we do not know if our universe is closed, open or isolated.

If it was open then energy would have the ability to be created but according to the Law of conservation of mass, this is not so. This is a pointer that right now, our universe is a closed system even though it may not have been the case at the time of "creation" according to Christians or "emergence" of our universe according to the big bang theory of scientists.

Tetehjewels:


If it was open then energy would have the ability to be created but according to the Law of conservation of mass, this is not so. This is a pointer that right now, our universe is a closed system even though it may not have been the case at the time of "creation" according to Christians or "emergence" of our universe according to the big bang theory of scientists.

There is no way to know if our universe is open or closed, if you do have a way to know that please submit your cosmology paper for peer review and stand the chance of winning a Noble prize.

LordReed:


There is no way to know if our universe is open or closed, if you do have a way to know that please submit your cosmology paper for peer review and stand the chance of winning a Noble prize.

Our universe is closed because nobody believes in a multiverse including the scientists. That theory is a dead duck theory and they all know it. This is the only universe there is and for this to exist, something from outside it which was not a part of it "caused" it to be and that explains why that "thing" can influence this universe but cannot be influenced or changed by either its influence of this universe or by the influence of this universe against it as it were.

The only way you would buy into an open universe is if we have a multiverse but sadly we do not

Tetehjewels:


Our universe is closed because nobody believes in a multiverse including the scientists. That theory is a dead duck theory and they all know it. This is the only universe there is and for this to exist, something from outside it which was not a part of it "caused" it to be and that explains why that "thing" can influence this universe but cannot be influenced or changed by either its influence of this universe or by the influence of this universe against it as it were.

The only way you would buy into an open universe is if we have a multiverse but sadly we do not

Look up multiverse theory. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Tetehjewels:


Our universe is closed because nobody believes in a multiverse including the scientists. That theory is a dead duck theory and they all know it. This is the only universe there is and for this to exist, something from outside it which was not a part of it "caused" it to be and that explains why that "thing" can influence this universe but cannot be influenced or changed by either its influence of this universe or by the influence of this universe against it as it were.

The only way you would buy into an open universe is if we have a multiverse but sadly we do not

How are you so sure we don't have a multiverse?

LordReed:


Look up multiverse theory. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

I am already aware of the Multiverse theory and its generally known as a farce and this is because the entire theory is 100% unscientific. It is all built around imaginations and fiction. Science deals with facts and the multiverse has no fact in it. NEXT!

cc samjohnnyB

Tetehjewels:


I am already aware of the Multiverse theory and its generally known as a farce and this is because the entire theory is 100% unscientific. It is all built around imaginations and fiction. Science deals with facts and the multiverse has no fact in it. NEXT!

cc samjohnnyB

Shows you don't know what you are talking about.

LordReed:


Shows you don't know what you are talking about.

From your wikipedia link

Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology, Music and all kinds of literature, particularly in science fiction, Comic books and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternate universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel universes", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "parallel realities", "quantum realities", "alternate realities", "alternate timelines", "alternate dimensions" and "dimensional planes".

The physics community has debated the various multiverse theories over time. Prominent physicists are divided about whether any other universes exist outside of our own.

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry.[11] Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics.[12] Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method.[13] Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.[14]

In 2007, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggested that if the multiverse existed, "the hope of finding a rational explanation for the precise values of quark masses and other constants of the standard model that we observe in our Big Bang is doomed, for their values would be an accident of the particular part of the multiverse in which we live

The words in bold shows i know what i am talking about while you do not. I said and i quote "the entire theory is 100% unscientific. It is all built around imaginations and fiction. Science deals with facts and the multiverse has no fact in it."

Match that to the words in bold from the link you gave. They support my words about the multiverse theory being unscientific and simply fiction.

Tetehjewels:


From your wikipedia link



The words in bold shows i know what i am talking about while you do not. I said and i quote "the entire theory is 100% unscientific. It is all built around imaginations and fiction. Science deals with facts and the multiverse has no fact in it."

Match that to the words in bold from the link you gave. They support my words about the multiverse theory being unscientific and simply fiction.

Nothing in what you quoted indicates that the concept is merely fictional. What it shows is you don't know how science works. Hypothesis are not formed from thin air and when people like Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Sean Carroll and Neil deGrasse Tyson bend their minds towards a hypothesis one can be sure they are not basing it on frivolous fictional concepts. Quantum mechanics is the basis for why these people think there might be a multiverse and no one in the scientific community will claim to know quantum mechanics so well that they can definitively conclude on what it may indicate about the nature of the cosmos.

Besides it is very rich for you a god proponent to call multiverse fiction, real rich.

LordReed:


Nothing in what you quoted indicates that the concept is merely fictional. What it shows is you don't know how science works. Hypothesis are not formed from thin air and when people like Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Sean Carroll and Neil deGrasse Tyson bend their minds towards a hypothesis one can be sure they are not basing it on frivolous fictional concepts. Quantum mechanics is the basis for why these people think there might be a multiverse and no one in the scientific community will claim to know quantum mechanics so well that they can definitively conclude on what it may indicate about the nature of the cosmos.

Besides it is very rich for you a god proponent to call multiverse fiction, real rich.

You are now mentally flailing. The multiverse theory is simply science fiction and cannot be scientifically falsified. This means it cannot be proven via scientific means if it is true or not.

Once this is the case, then it is not a scientific fact and only just the wishes of a mind filled with fiction. End of discussion!

Tetehjewels:


You are now mentally flailing. The multiverse theory is simply science fiction and cannot be scientifically falsified. This means it cannot be proven via scientific means if it is true or not.

Once this is the case, then it is not a scientific fact and only just the wishes of a mind filled with fiction. End of discussion!

The multiverse has more going for it than any god proposition. And it remains hilarious that you a god proponent is using the unfalsifiability of the hypothesis as an argument against it when that would be argument against the existence of your god. Look in the damn mirror.

LordReed:


The multiverse has more going for it than any god proposition. And it remains hilarious that you a god proponent is using the unfalsifiability of the hypothesis as an argument against it when that would be argument against the existence of your god. Look in the damn mirror.

First of all the multiverse does not exist according to science so you made a big fail by claiming it has more going for it. How can something non existent have anything going for it?

When scientists say something cannot be falsified it means it cannot be factually tested and remains an assumption, a fiction, an imagination. Based on this non existence it then cannot argue against the existence of God. Has God claimed to dwell in a multiverse?

I think you are the one who needs to look in a damn mirror and see how confused you are.

Tetehjewels:


First of all the multiverse does not exist according to science so you made a big fail by claiming it has more going for it. How can something non existent have anything going for it?

When scientists say something cannot be falsified it means it cannot be factually tested and remains an assumption, a fiction, an imagination. Based on this non existence it then cannot argue against the existence of God. Has God claimed to dwell in a multiverse?

I think you are the one who needs to look in a damn mirror and see how confused you are.

Your god cannot be tested so it remains an assumption, a fiction , an imagination. That's the damn mirror reflecting your hypocrisy back at you.

LordReed:


Your god cannot be tested so it remains an assumption, a fiction , an imagination. That's the damn mirror reflecting your hypocrisy back at you.

In other words you know nothing. Thanks for your time

Tetehjewels:


Our universe is closed because nobody believes in a multiverse including the scientists.

Nobody believed other galaxies before (Called island universes) including scientists.

You seem to be implying that belief has any bearing on whether something exists or not.

I don't need to tell you how flawed that argument is.

That theory is a dead duck theory and they all know it. This is the only universe there is and for this to exist

You don't know that

something from outside it which was not a part of it "caused" it to be and that explains why that "thing" can influence this universe but cannot be influenced or changed by either its influence of this universe or by the influence of this universe against it as it were.

Up there you said this is the only universe to exist, then right here something outside the universe must have caused it.

Another universe is outside this universe.

So, how do you marge an argument that states something outside this universe must have caused it and the argument that there isn't any other universe but this?

The only way you would buy into an open universe is if we have a multiverse but sadly we do not

This statement is false.

Infinite number of closed universes can simultaneously exist without having any observational consequence on one another.

In fact, every hypothesis of multiverse never imagines and open system but rather closed systems.

Tetehjewels:


I am already aware of the Multiverse theory and its generally known as a farce and this is because the entire theory is 100% unscientific. It is all built around imaginations and fiction. Science deals with facts and the multiverse has no fact in it. NEXT!

cc samjohnnyB

Multiverse is a product of deduction not induction.

Guess what else is derived through deduction? Yes. You guessed well, God.

Your argument above is deduction not induction.

If you invalidate the speculation of multiverse as false because it has no inductive basis (empirical) you automatically invalidate your argument above and your believe in God as farse because they just like the multiverse idea are deductive not inductive.

Don't kill your own argument with unguided confident assertions as this.

johnydon22:
Nobody believed other galaxies before (Called island universes) including scientists.

You seem to be implying that belief has any bearing on whether something exists or not.

I don't need to tell you how flawed that argument is.

You don't know that

Up there you said this is the only universe to exist, then right here something outside the universe must have caused it.

Another universe is outside this universe.

So, how do you marge an argument that states something outside this universe must have caused it and the argument that there isn't any other universe but this?


This statement is false.

Infinite number of closed universes can simultaneously exist without having any observational consequence on one another.

In fact, every hypothesis of multiverse never imagines and open system but rather closed systems.

You seem to be a hoarder of assumptions because all i see above are truckloads of assumptions and wishes you hoped were true.

When i say something/someone outside our known universe influenced it does it have to be a universe? All i said was SOMETHING/SOMEONE

You are here with the same multiverse balderdash. They imagine a closed number of multiverses because that is the only way they can try and rationalize their theory even though it still fails. Good thing you also admit it is an imagination hence a work of fiction.

Finally if you read my post you would realize i never implied belief being a factor to anything. I asked for scientific clarity and as you know, science isn't based on beliefs.

Tetehjewels:


You are now mentally flailing. The multiverse theory is simply science fiction and cannot be scientifically falsified. This means it cannot be proven via scientific means if it is true or not.

Once this is the case, then it is not a scientific fact and only just the wishes of a mind filled with fiction. End of discussion!

Is that thing as you mentioned above that is outside the universe that must have caused the universe scientific?

Can that thing be empirically observed and experimentally falsified?

johnydon22:


Is that thing as you mentioned above that is outside the universe that must have caused the universe scientific?

Can that thing be empirically observed and experimentally falsified?

Read my post again and clear your wrong perception.

All i did was try to rationalize scientific laws using words from the Bible which match it totally. I did not ask for an experimental falsification of "that thing". I rather asked for proof scientifically since a known scientific law refutes the big bang

Tetehjewels:


You seem to be a hoarder of assumptions because all i see above are truckloads of assumptions and wishes you hoped were true.

This is non sequitur

When i say something/someone outside our known universe influenced it does it have to be a universe? All i said was SOMETHING/SOMEONE

Yes. But you are forgetting that another universe is something.

So, how can you say something/someone is outside our universe at the same time typically sure that there isn't another universe?

Saying [something/someone] must be outside this universe is no different from saying there are other universes, because both assertions fundamentally are saying there must be more than just this universe.

Two of your positions are self refuting.

You are here with the same multiverse balderdash.

Lmao. I'm not, I'm here to show you how your positions refute each other.

They imagine a closed number of multiverses because that is the only way they can try and rationalize their theory even though it still fails. Good thing you also admit it is an imagination hence a work of fiction.

It fails - Without showing how.

But something must be outside this universe though. Lol.

Finally if you read my post you would realize i never implied belief being a factor to anything. I asked for scientific clarity and as you know, science isn't based on beliefs.

Oh, you implied belief factors into something and here are your exact words

" Our universe is closed because nobody believes in a multiverse including the scientists"

johnydon22:


Multiverse is a product of deduction not induction.

Guess what else is derived through deduction? Yes. You guessed well, God.

Your argument above is deduction not induction.

If you invalidate the speculation of multiverse as false because it has no inductive basis (empirical) you automatically invalidate your argument above and your believe in God as farse because they just like the multiverse idea are deductive not inductive.

Don't kill your own argument with unguided confident assertions as this.

You are hell bent on making this a God thing but my post isn't. My post is more about the big bang theory and origins of our universe and how the law of conservation of mass cancels it out as rubbish. Yet many scientists still believe that is how the universe began.

This is not a comparison between the non existent multiverse and God. Get it straight please otherwise you will continue arguing erroneously

Tetehjewels:


Read my post again and clear your wrong perception.

All i did was try to rationalize scientific laws using words from the Bible which match it totally. I did not ask for an experimental falsification of "that thing". I rather asked for proof scientifically since a known scientific law refutes the big bang

And in doing so, you employed the use of deductive approach to problems which is the same basis from which multiverse theory is reached.

If by your assertions on this thread, anything that isn't inductively derived (scientific, empirical) must be false then on what basis would you then have us agree that your argument which is purely deduction isn't simply false as you yourself seem to have shown?

Tetehjewels:


You are hell bent on making this a God thing but my post isn't.

No. I'm not.

When you say Something or someone outside the universe

Someone = definition of God
Something = another cosmos, universe.

You can substitute the word "God" on that my comment with "something/someone" the argument remains the same.

My post is more about the big bang theory and origins of our universe and how the law of conservation of mass cancels it out as rubbish. Yet many scientists still believe that is how the universe began.

You are doing a bang of job.

This is not a comparison between the non existent multiverse and God. Get it straight please otherwise you will continue arguing erroneously

Oh no it is not, it is the self refuting position of arguing that a multiverse theory is surely false because it is deductive rather than inductive then presents another deductive speculation that you somehow believe must be truer.

See, it is either something that isn't inductive is completely false, in this case both multiverse theory and your 'something/someone' are completely false.

Or deductive can also have an element of truth, in this case, you would have no basis to say either the multiverse or your 'something/something' are completely false.

You can't have it both ways, it's self refuting

johnydon22:
This is non sequitur

Yes. But you are forgetting that another universe is something.

So, how can you say something/someone is outside our universe at the same time typically sure that there isn't another universe?

Saying [something/someone] must be outside this universe is no different from saying there are other universes, because both assertions fundamentally are saying there must be more than just this universe.

Two of your positions are self refuting.

Lmao. I'm not, I'm here to show you how your positions refute each other.

It fails - Without showing how.

But something must be outside this universe though. Lol.


Oh, you implied belief factors into something and here are your exact words

" Our universe is closed because nobody believes in a multiverse including the scientists"

Just so we are clear. For something to be scientific it needs to have the ability to be proven. My entire post was from a scientific perspective and the multiverse hypothesis is being thrown around by same scientists whose sole aim for science is roving their case factually even when they know that the multiverse hypothesis is plain fiction. This is why many other scientists do not buy into the fiction of it all since it cannot be falsified.

That does not speak of me talking about belief but rather of me wanting to see how scientifically factual it is which it has been shown not to be thus making it balderdash.

Stop trying to lay claim to what i never implied and thus change the entire argument.

Once again that something/someone who might have influenced our universe might not mean it dwells in another universe thus rendering the multiverse true. Until proven it remains an assumption. Are you a belief system kind of person or factual? If factual, then dwell on what you are proficient.

johnydon22:
No. I'm not.

When you say Something or someone outside the universe

Someone = definition of God
Something = another cosmos, universe.

You can substitute the word "God" on that my comment with "something/someone" the argument remains the same.

You are doing a bang of job.

Oh no it is not, it is the self refuting position of arguing that a multiverse theory is surely false because it is deductive rather than inductive then presents another deductive speculation that you somehow believe must be truer.

See, it is either something that isn't inductive is completely false, in this case both multiverse theory and your 'something/someone' are completely false.

Or deductive can also have an element of truth, in this case, you would have no basis to say either the multiverse or your 'something/something' are completely false.

You can't have it both ways, it's self refuting

You are simply trying to win an argument and not prove how the big bang theory would still be a thing despite the law of conservation of mass saying it is not.

Tetehjewels:


Just so we are clear. For something to be scientific it needs to have the ability to be proven.

Yes. That's empiricism. Induction.

My entire post was from a scientific perspective and the multiverse hypothesis is being thrown around by same scientists whose sole aim for science is roving their case factually even when they know that the multiverse hypothesis is plain fiction. This is why many other scientists do not buy into the fiction of it all since it cannot be falsified.

Here you go again. Something isn't false because it isn't inductive.

Induction is a way of scientific confirmation.

Deduction is the primary approach to a problem.

Every scientific theory or law derived today began as a deduction.

So, yes, modern scientific confirmation are based on induction. This, however, doesn't in anyway imply that deductive approaches are completely false as you arguing.

Otherwise, your deductive conclusion of (something or someone) outside the universe must be completely false.

You really do not understand how your premises are not compatible, self refuting.

That does not speak of me talking about belief but rather of me wanting to see how scientifically factual it is which it has been shown not to be thus making it balderdash.

Lol. Another, if it isn't inductive, it must be false. Which I have no problem with except that you also presented an alternative that isn't inductive either which based on this argument must be false then.

Stop trying to lay claim to what i never implied and thus change the entire argument.

I not as much as laid a claim to it rather than furnishing you with your exact quote.

Once again that something/someone who might have influenced our universe might not mean it dwells in another universe thus rendering the multiverse true. Until proven it remains an assumption.

So, you agree, that your (something/something) is as much an assumption as the (multiverse) idea and equally as likely false?

If, yes - then we no longer have any contention.

Are you a belief system kind of person or factual? If factual, then dwell on what you are proficient.

I am rather a person of logic that agree while induction is great at confirmation, deduction is important for truthful approximations.

Tetehjewels:


You are simply trying to win an argument and not prove how the big bang theory would still be a thing despite the law of conservation of mass saying it is not.

Lol. I am not the one throwing around the words like baldadash here.

And I'm rather trying to show you how your own position on deduction is self refuting with your application of same approach.

johnydon22:
Yes. That's empiricism. Induction.

Here you go again. Something isn't false because it isn't inductive.

Induction is a way of scientific confirmation.

Deduction is the primary approach to a problem.

Every scientific theory or law derived today began as a deduction.

So, yes, modern scientific confirmation are based on induction. This, however, doesn't in anyway imply that deductive approaches are completely false as you arguing.

Otherwise, your deductive conclusion of (something or someone) outside the universe must be completely false.

You really do not understand how your premises are not compatible, self refuting.

Lol. Another, if it isn't inductive, it must be false. Which I have no problem with except that you also presented an alternative that isn't inductive either which based on this argument must be false then.

I not as much as laid a claim to it rather than furnishing you with your exact quote.

So, you agree, that your (something/something) is as much an assumption as the (multiverse) idea and equally as likely false?

If, yes - then we no longer have any contention.

I am rather a person of logic that agree while induction is great at confirmation, deduction is important for truthful approximations.

Kindly focus on the pointers from my first post and stop trying to drag me down the path of Gods existence or lack of because that is not the reason for this thread. Thanks

johnydon22:
Lol. I am not the one throwing around the words like baldadash here.

And I'm rather trying to show you how your own position on deduction is self refuting with your application of same approach.

Can you explain why the big bang is still a thing despite being rubbished by the law of conservation of mass? if yes, please do. if no then your attempts at shifting the goal post is not welcome