₦airaland Forum

Everyday247:
Wow! 😲
You're a theist that believes in the big bang?!
you're the first I've seen on Nairaland.
congratulations! 🎉 👏 🥳

The big bang does not conflict the existence of God.

According to the big bang theory, a singularity expanded into what we know as the universe. But then questions remain:
1. where did this singularity come from?
2. How long had this singularity been around before it expanded in the form of the big bang?

What if someone claims that this singularity has always existed (eternal), how would you counter this?

mathematically it is not possible for the singularity to have existed for all eternity and also physically it is not possible. If the singularity has being there for all eternity what kept it as singularity why did it after eternity dsuddenly exploded remember eternity means endless time, so it makes no logical sense and no evidence what sover for the singularity to have being there for all eternity.
Physicists have tried to work with the model of singularity to be eternal but it does not simply work.
You might think it makes sense but smarter scientists have tried the model but it all failed.

If it worked why do you think atheist scientist like Hawkins could work with it.
The only model that works is a universe that is not eternal.

Off Topic question: As a theist that believes in the big bang:
1. How do you reconcile your religious beliefs that the world is ten thousand years old with the approximately 14 billion years of the big bang theory?
2. if you believe in the big bang theory proposed by science, do you also believe in the theory of evolution also proposed by that same science?
3. I thought Christian theists believed in a 6 day creation not the big bang theory?

The big bang does not conflict the Christian world view. There are different explanation.

Yes it does.
If something doesn't exist, it cannot be found anywhere in the universe, which makes it spaceless.
If something doesn't exist, it won't be found at any point in time (past, presence and future), which makes it timeless.
An event that never occurred is eternal e.g when will someone who was never born die? the answer is never.
Anything that never begun can never end. (can be said to be eternal)

According to you anything that does not occupy space immaterial and times does not exist right?
Answer this question does space exist? If yes which space does space occupy? And According to your world view space must be timeless right and immaterial else where the material that make up space occup?

What's the difference between the statements: " intelligence must come from intelligence" and "Only intelligence can create intelligence"?

seriously, is this even a question? What is the difference between "only a human can give birth to a human" and "every human must give birth to a human"?

This is logical leap. How is something having a beginning evidence for creation?

it is not a logical leap. Having a beginning means it has a starting point, if the universe began to exist then it is not eternal.

If science has not proven the existence of something means it can be either false or true since no confirmation can be made.

Is science the only way to get knowledge? Can you scientifically prove your answer? Can you scientifically prove moral values?

Science is "currently" the only way to prove the existence of something. If there are any other methods of proving the existence of something, they haven't been discovered yet.

have you heard of history? Can science prove that the Nigeria civil war happened?

When and where were they debunked?
And who debunked them?
How were they debunked?

Not outrightly debunked but there is no evidence but as a matter of fact there is evidence against it, which is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Mathematics is an abstract concept. Mathematics is neither sentient nor alive. Mathematics cannot create things. Mathematics cannot think.
Are you saying that your god is abstract?
Or that your god is neither sentient nor alive?
Or that your god can't think?
Or that your god cannot create things?

Evil and goodness are characteristics or properties of things.

Love is an electro chemical process that occurs inside brains.

Consciousness is a process that occurs inside the brains of living things.

Do they exist? What is their material and what space does they occupy?
So love is an electro chemical process? Has it be proven? Provide link.
Has consciousness being proven scientifically, prove link to it?

Human values come from the brains of humans.

So if people do not see anything wrong with rape does that make it OK?
There are many people who don't see anything wrong with it. Since in their Brian rape is OK, does that make it right?

.

CoolUsername:
I'm not saying it's impossible but much like the multiverse hypothesis, doesn't it just kick the can further down the road?

They just raise questions as to what started the cycle or what caused the multiverse to come to be. But we don't have these answers.

However, what we do know is that the universe rapidly expanded 13.8 billion years ago. In the absence of any further evidence, the most logical path to take should be the one with the least assumptions which would be that the universe has always existed in some form. This can then be disproven once evidence suggests otherwise.

Just like what we humans that exist today must have existed in some form in the very distant past I suppose.

Does it not make you think the current universe evolved into being what it is today? The God written about in the Bible does the same by evolving from some angry brimstone and fire your ass thingy, into a meek and gentle forgiving Jesus. Instead of "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy", he said let your other cheek be slapped too. The "evolution of thought", I'd say.

CoolUsername:
I'm not saying it's impossible but much like the multiverse hypothesis, doesn't it just kick the can further down the road?

They just raise questions as to what started the cycle or what caused the multiverse to come to be. But we don't have these answers.

However, what we do know is that the universe rapidly expanded 13.8 billion years ago. In the absence of any further evidence, the most logical path to take should be the one with the least assumptions which would be that the universe has always existed in some form. This can then be disproven once evidence suggests otherwise.

Actually

The universe likely does not have an eternal existence. Key evidence against an eternal universe includes the Big Bang theory, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the expansion of the universe. The Big Bang theory posits that the universe originated from an initial singularity, not an eternal state. The Second Law of Thermodynamics suggests that a universe that has existed forever would have reached a state of heat death, which is not what we observe. Additionally, the expansion of the universe, observed through redshift, indicates that it has a finite age, not an eternal one.

LordReed:
Some people mistakenly think the BB came from nothing. I dunno how they arrive at that since all the descriptions of the BBT include mentions of a hot dense state before the expansion.

Have you not noticed some Christians here have not read their Bible, my Lord? Why would you expect them to know much about big bangs?

Just read someone here telling me "atheists claim the universe is eternal", without realising eternal means, there is God. I suppose he might have come across atheists who fear burning in hell.

Steep:
No it is not logical, to think the universe has always existed, because today would never have existed.
Imagine if you have being trekking from infinity you would never reach your destination because no mater the time there would always be an eternity before your arrive at your destination, so it is illogical for the universe to have an eternal existence.

Depends on how you look at it. The Big Bang is the process whereby spacetime began to rapidly expand. Therefore if all observable space came from the Big Bang, it follows that time did the same.

How do you measure time before the Big Bang? Is it even possible? Time is relative to entropy right so how do we measure time of nothing is changing?

Check out at this scenario: imagine everything in the observable universe was on pause for 10 minutes (in this scenario, you are an outside observer, like a movie viewer). From inside the universe, it would be impossible to notice the passage of the 10 minutes.

I'm of the opinion that time started with the Big Bang. For anything to preceed it that would mean we must have some form of "super time" that things were operating on beforehand. I'm of the opinion that there is no before.

evidence actually goes Against eternal universe. By the way when scientists said the universe began at be big bang, it means before the big bang there was no space an there was no time, what is happening is typical atheists dodging and deflecting, one is saying that the logical thing to do is to follow the least assumption, which have no shred of evidence while rejecting what has evidence. Unknown to him what he thought was least assumption whatever that even mean has being found to be actually illogical.
There was actually no space and time before the beginning of time meaning physics itself could not have existed at all, matter couldn't have existed because the will be no space for matter to exist and there will be no time for matter to existence.
Smarter atheists are actually propounded new theory of higher dimension or multiverses but al these does not actually solve the problem but rather compound it and pushes further.

CoolUsername:
Depends on how you look at it. The Big Bang is the process whereby spacetime began to rapidly expand. Therefore if all observable space came from the Big Bang, it follows that time did the same.

not observable space, BUT Space and time itself.

How do you measure time before the Big Bang? Is it even possible? Time is relative to entropy right so how do we measure time of nothing is changing?

Check out at this scenario: imagine everything in the observable universe was on pause for 10 minutes (in this scenario, you are an outside observer, like a movie viewer). From inside the universe, it would be impossible to notice the passage of the 10 minutes.

I'm of the opinion that time started with the Big Bang. For anything to preceed it that would mean we must have some form of "super time" that things were operating on beforehand. I'm of the opinion that there is no before.

Time is time whether super or duper time. If time does not exist before the big bang then it does not exist. If fact physicts are saying there is nothing like time before the Big bang.

You are beginning to see the problem with eternal universe in whatever shape or form. it does not just work.

Steep:
There might not be a big bang or there might be but however every evidence points to the direction of a universe that has a beginning.

Actually, all the evidence I have considered point to the current universe beginning from an (unknown) state that existed prior to it.

As I and many have mentioned here already, something had to exist to go bang. And some have even dated that big bang when this current universe began to be 13.6 billion plus or minus 200 million years ago. They do not however claim there was nothing before then

As to whether there might or might not have been a big bang, I'd expect there might have had to be. Ordinary, "God said, “Let there be light”", must have produced a monumental bang, not to talk of a bigger bang that might have occured In the beginning [when] Godis written to have created the heavens and the earth. Can't say for certain though, I must say, since I wasn't there to observe it.

Steep:
Alright, what I meant when I said that if the universe has always being then we wouldn't have being. Supposing you were walking on road going to a point at the end of the road but however the road is infinite would you ever get to your destination?

Yes I would ever get to my destination, which you've described as, "a point at the end of the road", which is not infinite by being a point.

Of course, if one had no destination point and had nothing better to do, one might just travel down an infinite road for the sake of it forever, but I don't think there's a continuous road that is infinite enough for one not to arrive at a dead end or die trying.

Steep:
What I mean by infinite is endless time. Sometimes it is used to mean an incredible amount that placing a particular number maybe difficulty but however it is not truly infinite.

So, because its difficult, you just fill the gap with an infinity you yourself know is not true?

I hope you're therefore not surprised I'm not buying, especially since it flags of a fallacy.

Steep:
you seem to attribute intelligence to atheism.
I apologize for the harshness of language.

Would you like to show me where I attribute "intelligence to atheism" please, because I can't exactly say all atheists are intelligent, nor are all theists lacking in intelligence, intelligence being the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

It would be rather unintelligent to claim a person who has acquired the ability and knowledge to replace a defective heart with a good heart lacks intelligence because they go to church on Sundays I'd think, unless one wants to more unintelligently claim all heart surgeons are atheists.

Dtruthspeaker:
No one cares what you call it but what we all know is that increasing view means that where before you could only see the guy standing at the bus stop with his wallet in his pocket, an increased view would be you seeing through that wallet to see the money/monies and the denominations inside that wallet.

Please! One can increase ones view by simply learning the usefulness of square roots instead of thinking it is poison.

That said, an increased view would be you understanding what you see, which is why it is written that "the eye should be the lamp of your body". You can't see fruits without it, and would likely go looking in another persons wallet due to a narrow view.

Steep:
Actually

The universe likely does not have an eternal existence. Key evidence against an eternal universe includes the Big Bang theory, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the expansion of the universe. The Big Bang theory posits that the universe originated from an initial singularity, not an eternal state. The Second Law of Thermodynamics suggests that a universe that has existed forever would have reached a state of heat death, which is not what we observe. Additionally, the expansion of the universe, observed through redshift, indicates that it has a finite age, not an eternal one.

The Big Bang theory has been able to model the universe at t=5.39 × 10^-44 seconds after the Big Bang. Therefore, it has no position on the state of the universe before that.

As for the second law of thermodynamics, entropy only increases with time. Was there time before the Big Bang?

Redshifting is only a function of the expansion of the universe.

Steep:
not observable space, BUT Space and time itself.

I choose my words specifically when making arguments. I used "observable universe" because I am not completely closed off to other hypotheses.

Steep:
Time is time whether super or duper time. If time does not exist before the big bang then it does not exist. If fact physicts are saying there is nothing like time before the Big bang.

You are beginning to see the problem with eternal universe in whatever shape or form. it does not just work.

Re-read what I posted. Real slow this time because you just paraphrased my argument and added smiling emojis.

I am tired of going round in circles.
This has being fun.
Once again this is what I copied from A.i review.

The scientific consensus is that the universe is not eternal. The Big Bang theory is the leading scientific theory for the universe's origin, suggesting it began around 13.8 billion years ago. This model suggests that the universe is not infinite and has a beginning in time.
Here's why the concept of an eternal universe is not supported by current scientific understanding:
Big Bang Theory:
The Big Bang theory posits that the universe expanded from an incredibly hot, dense state, suggesting a finite beginning.
Expansion of the Universe:
Observations of the universe's expansion provide evidence against an eternally static or unchanging state.
Entropy:
The concept of entropy, which dictates that systems tend toward disorder, would suggest that an infinitely old universe would be in a state of uniform temperature, with no structure or life.
Finite vs. Infinite:
The question of whether the universe is finite or infinite is separate from whether it's eternal. The universe could be infinite in size but still have a finite age.
Philosophical Considerations:
While the idea of an eternal universe has been explored in philosophy, it's not supported by scientific evidence.

Is it logical to support what has evidence or what does not have evidence?
I am done.

Steep:
The big bang does not conflict the existence of God.

The genealogy of the Bible (from Adam to Abraham to David to Jesus to today.
places the age of the universe to be about ten thousand years old. while the big bang theory places the universe at about 13.8 billion years ago.

mathematically it is not possible for the singularity to have existed for all eternity and also physically it is not possible. If the singularity has being there for all eternity what kept it as singularity why did it after eternity dsuddenly exploded remember eternity means endless time, so it makes no logical sense and no evidence what sover for the singularity to have being there for all eternity.
Physicists have tried to work with the model of singularity to be eternal but it does not simply work.
You might think it makes sense but smarter scientists have tried the model but it all failed.

If it worked why do you think atheist scientist like Hawkins could work with it.
The only model that works is a universe that is not eternal.

how is it mathematically impossible?
last time I checked laws of physics and Mathematics break down in regular black hole singularities not to talk of a cosmic singularity.
Who told you that it suddenly expanded?
Haven't you heard of the big crunch?
According to the big crunch the universe has been expanding and contracting indefinitely.

The big bang does not conflict the Christian world view. There are different explanation.

what's are these explanations that unify a Ten thousand year old universe with a 13.8 billion year old universe?

According to you anything that does not occupy space immaterial and times does not exist right?
Answer this question does space exist? If yes which space does space occupy? And According to your world view space must be timeless right and immaterial else where the material that make up space occup?

Nope. I'm asking you how one differentiates between a timeless, spaceless and eternal existence and a spaceless, timeless and eternal nonexistence?

For example, what's the difference between unclothedness and wearing clothes that is massless, invincible and intangible?

seriously, is this even a question? What is the difference between "only a human can give birth to a human" and "every human must give birth to a human"?

A human is define as male or female of the homo genus.
So saying "only a human can give birth to a human" means Both male and female can give birth, which is false.
And, saying "every human must give birth to a human" also means that every human must give birth, regardless of whether they are male or female, which is impossible.
Both statements are saying the same wrong thing.

it is not a logical leap. Having a beginning means it has a starting point, if the universe began to exist then it is not eternal.

You've gone off point.
You said that the universe had a beginning and concluded that any thing that has a beginning was created. And then I asked you how is something having a beginning evidence for creation.

Is science the only way to get knowledge? Can you scientifically prove your answer? Can you scientifically prove moral values?

Currently, yes.
Science is the only "known" way to get.
As for proof, you should simply state the the other methods of getting knowledge.

Moral values are based on opinions and beliefs.

have you heard of history? Can science prove that the Nigeria civil war happened?

Yes. we have photos, videos ,sites that contains fortificationds, bunkers, recked military vehicles that were used in the war and unexploded bombs are still being found there.
How do we verify that historical events occurred?
Is it not using scientific methods?

There's no scientific backing the alleged historical city of Atlantis but there's scientific evidence backing the history of the Nigerian civil war which I mentioned earlier.

Not outrightly debunked but there is no evidence but as a matter of fact there is evidence against it, which is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The laws of thermodynamics do not apply to singularities due to the extreme conditions these singularities possess such as extreme density and curvature where our current understanding of physics including thermodynamics, break down.

Do they exist? What is their material and what space does they occupy?
So love is an electro chemical process? Has it be proven? Provide link.
Has consciousness being proven scientifically, prove link to it?

They are characteristics/attributes of things that exists e.g beauty, scary, bumpy etc
The key chemicals involved are oxytocin, dopamine, serotonin, vasopressin, and adrenaline. The cells and regions that play a role include neurons, the ventral tegmental area, nucleus accumbens, prefrontal cortex, and hippocampus. These chemicals interact with neurons in these brain regions to create the complex experience of love and attachment.
When they say someone is unconscious, what do they mean?

So if people do not see anything wrong with rape does that make it OK?
There are many people who don't see anything wrong with it. Since in their Brian rape is OK, does that make it right?

Right and Wrong are opinions.
Opinions exist in human minds.
And opinions are subjective. e.g
That girl Deborah Samuel who was killed for blasphemy in Sokoto, those who killed her claim that what they did was right.
In the Bible, God commanded his people to kill children, women and old people in

- 1 Samuel 15:3 - God commands Saul to attack the Amalekites and kill men, women, children, and infants.
- Deuteronomy 2:34 and 3:6 - God commands the Israelites to kill all the people, including women and children, in certain cities.
- Joshua 6:21 and 8:25 - God commands the Israelites to kill all the people, including women, children, and old people, in the cities of Jericho and Ai.

These actions are condemnable by many but there are some that support this. They believed that what the Israelites did was right.

Steep:
Once again this is what I copied from A.i review.

Is it logical to support what has evidence or what does not have evidence?
I am done.

I logged in this evening and just went through the thread and I just discovered two things:
1. You trust whatever AI says.
2. You accept scientific evidence.

These are good. AI and scientific evidence are fair and unbiased. Let's see what AI has to say about your posts: 👇

Steep:
The order and design of the universe plus the existence of life shows there is a living immaterial, spaceless and timeless personal being called God.

I asked AI if this statement is flawless:
No, the statement is not flawless. Here are some issues:

1. *Lack of empirical evidence*: There is no empirical evidence to support the existence of an immaterial, spaceless, and timeless being.
2. *Assumes God's existence*: The statement assumes God's existence without providing evidence or logical proof.
3. *Unclear definitions*: Terms like "immaterial", "spaceless", and "timeless" are complex and require clarification.
4. *Logical leap*: The existence of order and life in the universe does not necessarily imply a divine creator.
5. *Alternative explanations*: Natural laws, processes, and complexity science offer alternative explanations for the universe's order and life's existence.

The statement presents a philosophical perspective, but it's not a scientifically proven fact or a logically conclusive argument

Steep:
God is timeless and hence doesn't have a beginning.

AI, is this statement flawless?
No, the statement is not flawless. Here's why:

1. *Assumes God's existence*: The statement assumes God's existence without providing evidence or logical proof.
2. *Undefined terms*: The concept of "timeless" is complex and requires clarification. Does it mean God exists outside of time, or that God is not subject to temporal constraints?
3. *Lack of logical connection*: The statement asserts that being timeless implies having no beginning, but this connection is not necessarily logical. One could argue that timelessness might imply a different kind of relationship with time, rather than necessarily having no beginning.

The statement presents a theological perspective, but it's not a universally accepted or logically conclusive argument.

Steep:
The current cosmological science backed up by evidence shows that the universe ( space-time-material) has a beginning. It therefore mean that whatever brought the universe into being is outside the universe (space-time-material). Therefore that being is spaceless timesless and immaterial.
All evidence points that there is a being that is immaterial and outside of the universe that created them.
God cannot be created because he is timeless, God cannot come from anywhere because he is spaceless or else he will not be God.

AI, Is this statement flawless?
No, the statement is not flawless. Here's why:

1. *Assuming a cause*: The statement assumes that the universe's beginning requires a cause, which is a philosophical interpretation, not a direct scientific conclusion.
2. *Jumping to conclusions*: The statement jumps from "outside the universe" to "spaceless, timeless, and immaterial." These attributes aren't necessarily implied by being outside the universe.
3. *Lack of evidence for God's existence*: While the statement claims "all evidence points" to a being outside the universe, the evidence mentioned only supports the universe's beginning, not the existence of a specific being.
4. *Circular reasoning*: The statement defines God as timeless and spaceless, and then uses these attributes to argue that God couldn't be created or come from anywhere. This is circular reasoning, as the attributes are being used to justify the conclusion.
5. *Unsubstantiated claims*: The statement makes claims about God's nature (timeless, spaceless, immaterial) without providing empirical evidence or logical proof.

The statement presents a philosophical argument, but it's not a scientifically proven fact or a logically conclusive argument.

Steep:
According to science life must come from life and non life cannot produce life. Which means all life came from an eternal persistent life and this life is timeless and immaterial.
Intelligence cannot create intelligence only intelligence can create intelligence. However, intelligence is a property of mind and mind is a property of personhood.
Therefore it logical to conclude that a spaceless. Immaterial, timeless and personal being exist who created all things, this is God in basic definition.

AI, is this statement flawless?
No, the statement is not flawless. Here's why:

1. *Misrepresentation of science*: The statement claims "according to science" life must come from life, but scientific understanding suggests life can emerge from non-living matter through abiogenesis.
2. *Abiogenesis research*: Studies show that simple life forms can arise from non-living matter through chemical and physical processes.
3. *Assuming eternal life*: The statement assumes an "eternal persistent life" without evidence or logical proof.
4. *Intelligence creation*: The claim "only intelligence can create intelligence" is a philosophical interpretation, not a scientific fact.
5. *Mind and personhood*: The statement's assumptions about mind and personhood are philosophical and not universally accepted.
6. *Logical leap*: The conclusion that a spaceless, immaterial, timeless, and personal being exists is not logically necessary from the premises.
7. *Lack of empirical evidence*: The statement's claims about God's existence and nature are not supported by empirical evidence.

The statement presents a philosophical argument, but it's not a scientifically proven fact or a logically conclusive argument.

Wahala 😂 🤣
In AI we trust!
More to come.

MORE

Steep:
God and the universe do not belong to same category. Take for example the Sun and the Moon, the moon depend on the Sun for her light but the Sun does not depend on anything for its light, they both depend of different category.
God by definition is untreated eternal but the creation depends on God to have its being.

Whether we wants to agree with this we all know that something must be eternal either the universe or something or someone outside of the universe.

AI is this statement flawless?
No, the statement is not flawless. Here's why:

1. *Analogy limitations*: The Sun-Moon analogy doesn't perfectly fit the God-universe relationship, as it's a comparison between two physical entities within the universe, not between a creator and creation.
2. *Assumes God's existence*: The statement assumes God's existence and definition without providing evidence or logical proof.
3. *Undefined terms*: The concept of "eternal" and "untreated" are complex and require clarification.
4. *Lack of empirical evidence*: The statement's claims about God's existence and nature are not supported by empirical evidence.
5. *False dichotomy*: The statement implies that either the universe or God must be eternal, but other possibilities (e.g., cyclical universe models) might exist.
6. *Philosophical assumptions*: The statement relies on philosophical assumptions about causality, existence, and eternity.

The statement presents a philosophical perspective, but it's not a scientifically proven fact or a logically conclusive argument.

Steep:
only a supernatural power can produce things out of nothing.

AI, is this statement flawless?
No, the statement is not flawless. Here's why:

1. *Lack of empirical evidence*: There is no empirical evidence to support the idea that only supernatural powers can create something from nothing.
2. *Scientific perspectives*: Some scientific theories, such as quantum mechanics, suggest that particles and universes can emerge from nothing or from fluctuations in energy.
3. *Definition of "nothing"*: The concept of "nothing" is complex and can be defined in different ways, which affects the statement's validity.
4. *Assumes supernatural explanation*: The statement assumes that a supernatural power is the only possible explanation for creation from nothing, which is a philosophical assumption rather than a proven fact.

The statement presents a philosophical perspective, but it's not a scientifically proven fact or a logically conclusive argument.

The same AI that you used disproved all your claims.

budaatum:
Have you not noticed some Christians here have not read their Bible, my Lord? Why would you expect them to know much about big bangs?

Just read someone here telling me "atheists claim the universe is eternal", without realising eternal means, there is God. I suppose he might have come across atheists who fear burning in hell.

Par for the course for them.

Steep:
<sub>I am tired of going round in circles.
This has being fun.
Once again this is what I copied from A.i review.

The scientific consensus is that the universe is not eternal. The Big Bang theory is the leading scientific theory for the universe's origin, suggesting it began around 13.8 billion years ago. This model suggests that the universe is not infinite and has a beginning in time.
Here's why the concept of an eternal universe is not supported by current scientific understanding:
Big Bang Theory:
The Big Bang theory posits that the universe expanded from an incredibly hot, dense state, suggesting a finite beginning.
Expansion of the Universe:
Observations of the universe's expansion provide evidence against an eternally static or unchanging state.
Entropy:
The concept of entropy, which dictates that systems tend toward disorder, would suggest that an infinitely old universe would be in a state of uniform temperature, with no structure or life.
Finite vs. Infinite:
The question of whether the universe is finite or infinite is separate from whether it's eternal. The universe could be infinite in size but still have a finite age.
Philosophical Considerations:
While the idea of an eternal universe has been explored in philosophy, it's not supported by scientific evidence.

Is it logical to support what has evidence or what does not have evidence?
I am done.</sub>

With the information we currently have can we conclude that the universe is not eternal?
And here's what I got: 👇

No, based on current information, we cannot conclusively determine that the universe is not eternal. While the Big Bang theory and thermodynamic constraints suggest a finite age, alternative theories and models (cyclic models, multiverse theories, eternal inflation) propose possibilities for an eternal universe. Further research and evidence are needed to resolve this question.

is your AI bootleg or something?

Steep:
I am tired of going round in circles.
This has being fun.
Once again this is what I copied from A.i review.

The scientific consensus is that the universe is not eternal. The Big Bang theory is the leading scientific theory for the universe's origin, suggesting it began around 13.8 billion years ago. This model suggests that the universe is not infinite and has a beginning in time.
Here's why the concept of an eternal universe is not supported by current scientific understanding:
Big Bang Theory:
The Big Bang theory posits that the universe expanded from an incredibly hot, dense state, suggesting a finite beginning.
Expansion of the Universe:
Observations of the universe's expansion provide evidence against an eternally static or unchanging state.
Entropy:
The concept of entropy, which dictates that systems tend toward disorder, would suggest that an infinitely old universe would be in a state of uniform temperature, with no structure or life.
Finite vs. Infinite:
The question of whether the universe is finite or infinite is separate from whether it's eternal. The universe could be infinite in size but still have a finite age.
Philosophical Considerations:
While the idea of an eternal universe has been explored in philosophy, it's not supported by scientific evidence.

Is it logical to support what has evidence or what does not have evidence?
I am done.

Once again restating my point. That's why I asked you to read what I posted before posting AI slop.

Did I or did not say that there is no before? My whole point is that it is not logical for anything to preceed the universe unless evidence proves otherwise.

CoolUsername:
Understand what I'm saying. All the matter and energy required to create them already exist.

The topic is not whether the matter exists, so stop deviating.

The issue is about things which do not exist and you confirm that right now flying submarines do not.

CoolUsername:
They exist in the same realm and are bound by the same laws.

So Steve Jobs uses electricity and batteries to live? And the Camry reproduces little camrys when it collides with another Camry?

CoolUsername:
Matter is defined anything that has mass and occupies space. What is the mass of a spirit particle (if you may call it that)? What is the volume? The burden of proof is on you to make the case for the existence of the Spirit.

Spirit already occupies space as proven by several examples eg when people look at a chair and immediately know that it is occupied by a person even when the person is not there.

And since you people have not been able to hold a spirit, you cannot tell it's mass. However people have acknowledged that some peoples spirits are heavy or light.

Dtruthspeaker:
The topic is not whether the matter exists, so stop deviating.

The issue is about things which do not exist and you confirm that right now flying submarines do not.

Flying submarines do not exist. i'm not debating that.

Dtruthspeaker:
So Steve Jobs uses electricity and batteries to live? And the Camry reproduces little camrys when it collides with another Camry?

Good thing I never said that because that doesn't make any sense. Steve Jobs, the car, and all of us exist in the same world and are subject to the laws of Physics.

Dtruthspeaker:
Spirit already occupies space as proven by several examples eg when people look at a chair and immediately know that it is occupied by a person even when the person is not there.

And since you people have not been able to hold a spirit, you cannot tell it's mass. However people have acknowledged that some peoples spirits are heavy or light.

What? The fact that someone claims to see something doesn't mean it is there. Is that really your best proof? People claim to have seen Bigfoot, does that make it real?

Humour me for a moment, can this chair that is supposedly occupied still be sat on?

Steep:
Here's why the concept of an eternal universe is not supported by current scientific understanding:

You at least wouldn't henceforth go about saying atheists claim the universe is eternal.

Thing is, not even Gods are eternal. Yahweh is only about 3000 years old, which is a blink of an eye in universe time. Evidence shows Gods are created and eventually abandoned and left to die in the Graveyard Of Dead Gods.

Sorry, for the delayed response. I was in transit.

CoolUsername:
Flying submarines do not exist. i'm not debating that.

Ehen! That's settled then.

CoolUsername:
Good thing I never said that because that doesn't make any sense. Steve Jobs, the car, and all of us exist in the same world and are subject to the laws of Physics.

You said they were They exist in the same realm and are bound by the same laws.

So you see, why you are wrong for it is no issue if God, Creator chooses to be near its creation or even live in the same vicinity and realm

CoolUsername:
What? The fact that someone claims to see something doesn't mean it is there. Is that really your best proof? People claim to have seen Bigfoot, does that make it real?

C'mon! Do we believe people's claims for nothing? Is it not because we get to see those same things themselves in precisely the way the other person said he saw it? C'mon.

CoolUsername:
Humour me for a moment, can this chair that is supposedly occupied still be sat on?

Sure! Have you seen people lapping in a bus? The chair was occupied before another person sits on the person occupying the chair.

budaatum:
..Thing is, not even Gods are eternal. Yahweh is only about 3000 years old, which is a blink of an eye in universe time. Evidence shows Gods are created and eventually abandoned and left to die in the Graveyard Of Dead Gods.

Clearly you are talking about the gods you created. And if the gods you created are 3000 old, how old are you people who created such gods? Also, how old is Chineke and Oluwa? You did not mention those ones but calling the names given only in fantasy novels.

CoolUsername:
..Did I or did not say that there is no before? My whole point is that it is not logical for anything to preceed the universe unless evidence proves otherwise.

Logic proves that before an environment is created, A Person called Creator must preceed it.

Dtruthspeaker:
Clearly you are talking about the gods you created. And if the gods you created are 3000 old, how old are you people who created such God's? Also, how old is Chineke and Oluwa? You did not mention those ones but calling the names given only in fantasy novels.

Fantasy novels like the Bible?

Humans, as in Homo Sapien, are like 300,000 years old, but unfortunately did not leave us much record about their gods, which were mostly thunder, lightning, the local river, the oldest tree, a rock, etc.

Anu was created circa 3500BC, 5500 years ago.
Nun was created circa 3150BC, 5150 years ago.
Both are now dead.

Shiva was created circa 3300 BC, 5300 years ago, and still lives since it is still worshipped by some.

Chineke and Oluwa are as old as the tribes that created them, and are relatively new in the history of gods.

budaatum:
Fantasy novels like the Bible?

The bible is clearly exempted and for this reason is why the only time people hear about these dead things is in fantasy novels and no one even took them seriously.

budaatum:
Humans, as in Homo Sapien, are like 300,000 years old, but unfortunately did not leave us much record about their gods, which were mostly thunder, lightning, the local river, the oldest tree, a rock, etc.

Anu was created circa 3500BC, 5500 years ago.
Nun was created circa 3150BC, 5150 years ago.
Both are now dead.

Shiva was created circa 3300 BC, 5300 years ago, and still lives since it is still worshipped by some.

Chineke and Oluwa are as old as the tribes that created them, and are relatively new in the history of gods.

Surely, they all did not create these gods only 1 or 2 did. And surely, those creators did not live more than 150years. So it is only natural for their creations to die along with them

Dtruthspeaker:
The bible is clearly exempted and for this reason is why the only time people hear about these dead things is in fantasy novels and no one even took them seriously.

Most people know that at least the first few chapters of Genesis are fantasy.

Dtruthspeaker:
Surely, they all did not create these gods only 1 or 2 did. And surely, those creators did not live more than 150years. So it is only natural for their creations to die along with them

It is societies of people that create Gods for their society in order to organise it and live peacefully. And the Gods they create live as long as they are worshipped, which in some cases is thousands of years.

Anu was worshipped from 3500 BC to 500 BC, and Nun from 3150 BC to 30 BC. Do the maths and you'd find its much longer than your 150 years.

budaatum:
Most people know that at least the first few chapters of Genesis are fantasy.

Only ivul.e diluded people like you think so.

budaatum:
It is societies of people that create Gods for their society in order to organise it and live peacefully. And the Gods they create live as long as they are worshipped, which in some cases is thousands of years.

Anu was worshipped from 3500 BC to 500 BC, and Nun from 3150 BC to 30 BC. Do the maths and you'd find its much longer than your 150 years.

See how you talking rubbish. No one has seen at any time where a society let me pick a small place like Degema where the society came together to create anything. Not even the sculpture at the centre of the town. So you see, you talk rubbish

Dtruthspeaker:
See how you talking rubbish. No one has seen at any time where a society let me pick a small place like Degema where the society came together to create anything. Not even the sculpture at the centre of the town. So you see, you talk rubbish

No one has seen Yahweh so Yahweh does not exist, or do you not see your diabolical unreasoning?

budaatum:
No one has seen Yahweh so Yahweh does not exist, or do you not see your diabolical unreasoning?

Change of Post!
No one has seen Hammurabi, Socrates or Ovoranmwen yet you all believe he exist. As I said change of Post.