Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Jackalope]

[Angrboda]

Bullshit. Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology postulates that the universe need not have a beginning at all. Hawking postulates a singularity, whose causal origin cannot be known. And to the best of my knowledge of Ellis, he doesn't even address the problem in any tangible way. Now you're just making shit up and attributing it to famous physicists. Isn't it a sin in your universe to tell lies like this?

flawed analysis, but nice try though.

---

---

---

The Nature of Space and Time, Hawking stated, "Today virtually everyone agrees that the universe and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang": ref - Hawking, S.W. and Penrose, R. 1996. The Nature of Space and Time, p. 20.

What Hawking thinks "everyone agrees" to is not relevant. I don't care about what everyone thinks. I want to know what Hawking has demonstrated, firstly, and secondly, what he conjectures. A singularity is a well defined concept in physics and your quote mining doesn't change that fact, nor that its existence prior to the big bang implies an absence of knowledge about anything prior to it. Hawking's postulate of a singularity make clear that no "beginning" is asserted by Hawking, as he knows what a singularity is, even if you do not. (ETA: And a glance at the table of contents shows that the chapter you've drawn the quote from is indeed written by Hawking, but is titled, "Classical Theory," and is therefore likely not even an attempt on Hawking's part to describe his own view on the question. I quote from page 5 of chapter 1, Classical Theory, by Hawking, "In this lecture [Classical Theory] I shall review the work in classical general relativity that leads to these ideas [a beginning of space-time]." So he's not even discussing his own views in the quote you cited.)

In this book, the two opponents touch on all these questions ... [Hawking] argues that general relativity simply cannot account for how the universe began.

— Princeton University Press description of

---

---

---

book - The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time - hawking and ellis - "Einstein's General Theory of Relativity leads to two remarkable predictions: first, that the ultimate destiny of many massive stars is to undergo gravitational collapse and to disappear from view, leaving behind a 'black hole' in space; and secondly, that there will exist singularities in space-time itself. These singularities are places where space-time begins or ends, and the presently known laws of physics break down. They will occur inside black holes, and in the past are what might be construed as the beginning of the universe. To show how these predictions arise, the authors discuss the General Theory of Relativity in the large. Starting with a precise formulation of the theory and an account of the necessary background of differential geometry, the significance of space-time curvature is discussed and the global properties of a number of exact solutions of Einstein's field equations are examined". from - http://books.google.com/books/about/The_...gG_KI7Ll8C

This isn't even Hawking or Ellis writing, but looks to be nothing more than a publisher's blurb about the book. This isn't even remotely acceptable evidence of Hawking and Ellis' views on what preceded the big bang. God, you're a douche bag. Googling for hits with keywords and mining quotes is not science, it's the ethically challenged bollocks of the religious apologist with no brain and even less scholarship.

---

---

---

---

[Whateverist]

book - The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time - hawking and ellis - "Einstein's General Theory of Relativity leads to two remarkable predictions: first, that the ultimate destiny of many massive stars is to undergo gravitational collapse and to disappear from view, leaving behind a 'black hole' in space; and secondly, that there will exist singularities in space-time itself. These singularities are places where space-time begins or ends, and the presently known laws of physics break down. They will occur inside black holes, and in the past are what might be construed as the beginning of the universe. To show how these predictions arise, the authors discuss the General Theory of Relativity in the large. Starting with a precise formulation of the theory and an account of the necessary background of differential geometry, the significance of space-time curvature is discussed and the global properties of a number of exact solutions of Einstein's field equations are examined". from - http://books.google.com/books/about/The_...gG_KI7Ll8C

This isn't even Hawking or Ellis writing, but looks to be nothing more than a publisher's blurb about the book. This isn't even remotely acceptable evidence of Hawking and Ellis' views on what preceded the big bang. God, you're a douche bag. Googling for hits with keywords and mining quotes is not science, it's the ethically challenged bollocks of the religious apologist with no brain and even less scholarship.

This is more than someone with such "ethically challenged bullocks" deserves. At this point, anyone with any self respect would either apologize for their piss poor apologetics or simply slink away in shame. Snowtracks do you finally have no shame or does your end truly justify any means?

[snowtracks]

that stubborn point of singularity which conotes creation just won't go away, and consequently the atheists are frantically resorting to cosmological metaphysical speculations that they think somehow can be slipped under the radar but it's not working - an 'a' for effort though.

---

even while you're chortling (which i don't mind) about evil spirits, maybe you can still learn something about them. these supernatural (and as such: not limited the the physics of our 4 dim's of space and time) created entities are fallen angels that are under the control of satan and their major purpose is deception; aka, false religions. their exact numbers in not known but they consist of 1/3 of the angelic realm. their final destiny is hell along with satan, the future antichrist and false prophet.

I see you want the chortling to continue: that's good, because the best way to keep it up is to continue rambling on about the magic time travelling capabilities of demons, while providing zero evidence for them. Assertions heaped atop assertions does not evidence make.

"I see you want the chortling to continue: " didn't say that but makes no differents either way.

[Faith No More]

I think snowball needs a refresher.

From dictionary.com...

shame [sheym]
noun
1. the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another: She was overcome with shame.

[Angrboda]

that stubborn point of singularity which conotes creation just won't go away, and consequently the atheists are frantically resorting to cosmological metaphysical speculations that they think somehow can be slipped under the radar but it's not working - an 'a' for effort though.

[Esquilax]

that stubborn point of singularity which conotes creation just won't go away, and consequently the atheists are frantically resorting to cosmological metaphysical speculations that they think somehow can be slipped under the radar but it's not working - an 'a' for effort though.

The stubborn lack of evidence for a creation just won't go away, and so consequently snowtracks is frantically resorting to making the same assertion over and over again, that he thinks can somehow be slipped under the radar as a replacement for evidence- an 'f' for effort though, you arrogant little shit.

"I see you want the chortling to continue: " didn't say that but makes no differents either way.

Yeah, the only thing that's going to make a difference is you coming up with either some evidence, or some humility. I don't see either happening.

[snowtracks]

that stubborn point of singularity which conotes creation just won't go away, and consequently the atheists are frantically resorting to cosmological metaphysical speculations that they think somehow can be slipped under the radar but it's not working - an 'a' for effort though.

The stubborn lack of evidence for a creation just won't go away, and so consequently snowtracks is frantically resorting to making the same assertion over and over again, that he thinks can somehow be slipped under the radar as a replacement for evidence- an 'f' for effort though, you arrogant little shit.

"I see you want the chortling to continue: " didn't say that but makes no differents either way.

Yeah, the only thing that's going to make a difference is you coming up with either some evidence, or some humility. I don't see either happening.

see what i get for trying to help.

[Bad Wolf]

How are you trying to help? How can what you have been saying, help in any way, shape or form?

[Jackalope]

How are you trying to help? How can what you have been saying, help in any way, shape or form?

What, quote mining and flagrant intellectual dishonesty aren't helping?