Workch:
Harvard.edu
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhDT.......154L/abstract

This says nothing about your claim that matter has always existed. Space-time, matter and energy is before the big bang is not science, so when you say that matter has always existed, its also not science.

Workch:
Read from NASA website and stop reading all these quack physics site.

No sane physicist thinks Big Bang was an explosion
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang

It appears to me that you don't fully understand what was being discussed in the link you provided. It is about what happened moments after the big bang that was being talked about. Once again, i will ask you to provide me a source to your claim that matter has always existed

Workch:
I am gonna take some piece of articles from a site that said Big Bang is an explosion? Joke of the century

Both you and the site are confuse. Big Bang wasn’t an explosion either. I help help you with renown physics pages

Nobody is calling the big bang an explosion in the vernacular sense of stuff exploding, I hope that is not the sense you got from my post.

FOLYKAZE:


We return to the part where we both agree that nothing isn't essentially nothingness or zero but something from another perspective.

But were we not told atom is 99.99% emptiness? If that assertion is truth, shouldn't we assume that all matters in the universe amount to nothingness?

I don't think i fully get your question. Can you rephrase it please?

Workch:
You are the person who doesn’t understand Big Bang.

Go to a good physics page and read it.
Don’t get yourself confuse

So long my friend, I have to go now. Search through google if you have the time for articles of whether matter has always existed. Meanwhile you can have a look at this article.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/what-was-before-the-big-bang-everything-you-need-to-know/

Workch:
Matter existed before Big Bang, this is why I am telling you that we know when the universe started expanding which is 13.8billion and not When matter started existing.
Matter has always existed by law
Got that?

Source for the claim that matter has always existed please?

Workch:
ok good, you are contradicting yourself.
Science will never be able to give answers because you looking for a way to insert your deity.

Now this is were you are contradicting yourself, if matter has always existed and you say nothing existed before the Big Bang then where was matter existing in?
If matter didn’t exist before Big Bang it means that the law of conservation of matter and energy is wrong. Which is not the case because there was matter before Big Bang inform of singularity, hence matter existed before Big Bang. While there are mysterious still waiting to be unraveled, it doesn’t mean matter didn’t exist before Big Bang happened. It’s the matter called singularity that expanded to what we call Big Bang. Nothing implies that your god did it.
You do not have answers, you are looking for loopholes to insert your god.

The law of conservation of matter and energy does not apply before the big bang, in fact nothing does. That is why all your claims about before the big bang are just meaningless and contradictory.

Workch:
ok good, you are contradicting yourself.
Science will never be able to give answers because you looking for a way to insert your deity.

Now this is were you are contradicting yourself, if matter has always existed and you say nothing existed before the Big Bang then where was matter existing in?

You do not have answers, you are looking for loopholes to insert your god.

Where did you get that matter has always existed from? Your source please.

FOLYKAZE:


Let me learn from you.


Some months back, I was reading the book, A Universe from Nothing. It was awkward reading it since I wasn't too good with cosmology, physics and mathematics.

But what I found astonishing about the book is that the author argues that nothingness is absurb and impossible. But he summarised that the finite sum equals to 0. Therefore, should we conclude that totality of the whole universe equals zero mathematically and that in plain sense, existential reality is an illusion? Everything is nothing, nothing is everything

Perhaps the comment below made by someone in a similar debate might be of help to you

I think when Hawking and other physicists say "nothing", they don't mean the same "nothing" that the rest of us think of, which is really nothing. Instead, I think their "nothing" still contains the laws of quantum physics which, if I understand it, allow something to appear via a quantum fluctuation. That distinction got a lot Krauss into trouble when he claimed in his recent book that they had solved the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?".

I have a kind of related issue with the idea of "nothing", though, and an idea for getting around the issue of "there would be nothing to cause it". The author says:

"the universe, according to the no-boundary proposal, smoothly expanded from a point of zero size"

It seems like a point of zero size isn't even a point. It seems like zero size means it just isn't there, at least in our reference frame. Said another way, it's "absolute nothing". One might have a concept of a zero size thing point that exists in the mind, but the mind's conception of something is different than the thing itself. It seems like physicists always conflate the mind's conception of things as abstract ideas with the things themselves.

The mind's conception of a zero size point would not be there if there ever were a zero size point in real life such as the beginning of the universe in the no-boundary model. So, for the zero size point at the start of the universe, this means that the beginning of the universe was absolute nothing. But, because you can't go from nothing to something (0 doesn't equal 1), the only way to start from nothing, as the no-boundary model suggests, is if that nothing is really a something in disguise. That is, if you look at nothing from one perspective, it just looks like nothing. But, if you look at it from another perspective, it looks like a something. And, if it's really a something, it doesn't have size zero. Perhaps, it just has zero size when we're perceiving it as nothing but it has size 1 when we're perceiving it as a something?

FOLYKAZE:



Zero is fictional, there is no nothingness, there must be something and some may choose to call that thing God or Creator or Cause.


This colludes with what I posted earlier. But the confused is saying it is my definition.

He simply doesn't understand the subject matter. Lacks proper understanding of material science or the spiritual essence of matter

Why can there be no nothing?

Workch:
The term Big Bang is scientifically coherent and we know what it means, it’s open to speculations only to those who think Big Bang is the beginning of the universe. Probably those who are outside of science.

If all matter always existed then where have they always existed in?
If the universe has not always existed then where did all the matter always exist in?

Outside of our universe? Or where?

Here is where we have a disagreement. Time as we know it started with the big bang, that is why it is scientifically meaningless to talk about time, space, energy and matter before the big bang. So, to say those things have always existed before the big bang shows that you have a flawed understanding of what the big bang is and how is used to explain the standard model of cosmology.

Time zero of the universe is the big bang, what was there or not there before it is anyone's guess. Could it be that the infinitesimally small and infinitely dense primordial atom came into existence by some science we don't understand at the moment of the big bang? Or was it created and infused with all the parameters necessary for our universe to exist? These are question that science will never be able to give answers to other than speculations. But to say that These thing have always existed is not supported by science. If you think it is, I would like to see your source.

Workch:
Then tell me your view instead of busy looking for errors

I have told you my view before in the other thread of yours. There I stated that the simplest state is one of Nothingness, by that i mean absolute nothing, no energy, no space, no time, no matter, no laws, no information, no existence period. The fact that there is something rather than nothing, this to me implies a creator.

Workch:
This one is just contradicting himself

you should point out the contradiction as i do yours, that way we can continue to have a healthy and respectful debate.

Workch:
Why are you in a haste to find errors?

I don't understand your question at all, but if you asking if its my goal to score cheap points against you, then the answer is no. I am genuinely interested in making you see things you might have overlooked in your worldview.

Workch:
You just repeated what I said, maybe you are just in a haste to find errors

You said matter plus antimatter equals nothing. How is that the same thing with what i said?

Workch:
conservation of mass means universe is eternal.
Mass cannot be created nor destroyed, whatever existed before Big Bang is still the same mass with what we have now.

Nobody knows what existed before the big bang, or if indeed anything existed at all. In fact the term before the big bang is scientifically meaningless, its open to all kind of speculation.
The law of the conservation of mass and energy does not mean that the universe has always existed, rather it means that all that exist today was present in some form at the initial state of the universe and nothing about whether the initial state was created

Workch:
We don't know if the universe comes from nothingness. That's not what big bang says.

According to the law of conservation of mass and energy, there havs to be antimatter.

Matter+Antimatter has to equal zero. Well, that brings us to nothingness

This is just wrong science my friend. Matter + Antimatter will annihilate each other leaving zero mass plus lots of energy equal to the sum of their masses multiplied by the square of the velocity of light. This way, matter/antimatter and energy is conserved.
You will be left with energy and not nothingness.

Workch:
Detailed measurement of the “expansion rate”.

You still don't get it

What don't I get? Contrary to your claim that the universe is eternal, I have quoted several source that said the universe is of a finite age. So, what don't I get?

Workch:
Many physics in 19 century maybe and not now.

Big bang is the origin of space and time as we know today. We don't know how the singularity before the universe got there yet.

The universe is eternal according to law of physics

The universe has a finite past and Wikipedia agrees with me as you can see from the quote below

Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang singularity at around 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.[6]

The general scientific consensus is that any conjecture as to what might have been before the singularity, or how it came to be will never be based on science.

Workch:
Nope sir, there's no birth of the universe and matter has always remain constant ever since.

What we know is that the universe started expanding 13.8billion years ago from the already existing matter. Seems you are getting the big bang wrongly

You are just playing with words here. Many physicist commonly use the phrase birth of the universe, or beginning of the universe in the context in which i used it.
Here is an excerpt from phys.org

How was our Universe created? How did it come to be the seemingly infinite place we know of today? And what will become of it, ages from now? These are the questions that have been puzzling philosophers and scholars since the beginning the time, and led to some pretty wild and interesting theories. Today, the consensus among scientists, astronomers and cosmologists is that the Universe as we know it was created in a massive explosion that not only created the majority of matter, but the physical laws that govern our ever-expanding cosmos.


This is known as The Big Bang Theory. For almost a century, the term has been bandied about by scholars and non-scholars alike. This should come as no surprise, seeing as how it is the most accepted theory of our origins. But what exactly does it mean? How was our Universe conceived in a massive explosion, what proof is there of this, and what does the theory say about the long-term projections for our Universe?

The basics of the theory are fairly simple. In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding, and the universe as we know it began.

As to my other question; why is there something rather than nothing?

Workch:
Because matter cannot be created nor destroyed

Tell me how you know God is eternal

But matter had its beginning some moments after the birth of the universe or the big bang according the standard model of cosmology.

The natural order of things is to remain in the simplest state unless acted upon by something external. Absolute nothing is the simplest state, it requires no laws and no finely tuned parameters to exist and to remain stable. So, if there ever was absolutely nothing, there would still be nothing, and nothing could ever exist, because there would be nothing to cause it. Unless of course, there is a first cause, which by definition will be an eternal and intelligent entity i call God.

Workch:
The universe is also eternal. It has always existed, nothing created it.

We know this because energy cannot be created nor destroyed

Please tell me how you know that the universe is eternal, that it had no beginning.

Workch:
Aside from the many holes in the Bible; a very ridiculous book that reasonable people should equate to Spider-Man comic, the idea that nothing created god is ridiculous.

Going by that logic, if everything has to be created then god must also be created by something and if nothing created god, it’s more logical to worship nothing. Nothing is actually the true creator since he created god.

God is eternal, meaning that He exist and has always existed without a beginning. He is unlike any other thing or being, His existence is infinite and unbounded by time. Your statement while true for anything with a beginning clearly does not apply to God whose existence has no starting point.

I and my wife operate a joint account, so the talk of "your salary my salary" does not exist in our home.

Ibkhaleel001:
"Whosoever kills a human being without (any reason like) man slaughter, or corruption on earth, it is as though he had killed all mankind ..." (5:32)

That quote was referring to the children of Israel.

Sibrah:
A prophet that knows his onions. Amen to the curses.

Oyedepo's curse is useless, it has never worked on boko haram and iswap. I don't see it working now.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
MaxinDHouse, Thank you. Now, who is speaking here:
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
Revelation 1:17‭-‬18 NIV

The title “the Alpha and the Omega” applies to Jehovah, stressing that there was no almighty God before him and that there will be none after him. He is “the beginning and the end.” (Rev. 21:6; 22:13) Although Jehovah is referred to as “the first and the last” at Revelation 22:13, in that there is none before or after him, the context in the first chapter of Revelation shows that the title “the First and the Last” there applies to Jesus Christ. He was the first human to be resurrected to immortal spirit life and the last one to be so resurrected by Jehovah personally.​—Col. 1:18.
You can see that Jesus made the statement in the context of his resurrection to Immortal life.

shadeyinka:

Rev 13:8:
"And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Your post is without context, it doesn't address any of the points i raised in response to your original argument. Could you elaborate please?

shadeyinka:

Jesus created all other things including Satan yet He didn't have the authority to discipline his creature!
Jude1:9
9 But even the archangel Michael, when he disputed with the devil over the body of Moses, did not presume to bring a slanderous charge against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

Please refer to
Col 1:16-17 NWT
16 because by means of him all [other]* things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities . All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,

It is true that Jesus Christ has been given all authority by God in heaven and on earth (Mt 28:18), but this was only after his resurrection. The bible tells us in Php 2:8-11 that because Jesus humbled himself before God and was obedient to the point of death, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow.

Yes, Jesus in his prehuman existence in heaven was a powerful being, but the scriptures made it very clear that the resurrected Jesus is even more powerful than his prehuman self because of his obedience to God even unto death.
Angel Michael at the time of Moses had not been given the authority by God to bring judgement to the devil, not that he did not have the power to do so. If you compare Da 12:1 with Rev 12:7 you will see that angel Michael towards the end time, that is the time of the resurrected Jesus seems to be acting in authority. Remember, even Jesus as human allowed himself to be killed by mere mortal men. Does that mean that the human Jesus is not the same person as the resurrected Jesus that has been given the authority to judge the same mortal men?

Is this a joke?

A Spanish man has been sentenced to 15 years in prison after killing his mother and eating her remains.

Alberto Sánchez Gómez, 28, was arrested in 2019 after police found body parts around his mother's home - some in plastic containers.

The court rejected Sánchez's arguments that he was experiencing a psychotic episode at the time of the killing.

He will now serve 15 years for murder and a further five months for the desecration of a corpse.

He has also been ordered to pay his brother €60,000 ($73,000, £52,000) in compensation.

Police arrived at the home in eastern Madrid in February 2019 after a friend raised concerns about the welfare of María Soledad Gómez, who was in her 60s.

During the trial, the court heard that Sánchez, then aged 26, had strangled his mother during a dispute.

He then dismembered and ate parts of her body over the following two weeks, feeding some to his dog.

Spanish media say he had been known to police because of violence against his mother and that he had breached a restraining order at the time of his arrest.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57487868

MaxInDHouse:
Sorry, i only honour PM from my fellow believers not strangers.
So if you have something to say let's share it on the public forum, we are here to preach and teach about Jesus Christ for everyone to gain accurate knowledge of the truth!

I see that you are a Jehovah's Witness, that is what i am also