Somebody said this to me

[Welsh cake]

"The universe exists.

That's a given.

The universe has a beginning (big bang) and an end (freeze).

There is a scientific distinction between cosmological and cosmogonical ideas.

Cosmogony is concerned with the origin of the cosmos or universe, why it exists or how what we perceive as "reality" came into existence.

The Big Bang model is not a cosmogonical theory. Never has been. Its the prevailing cosmological model of the universe's early development. Only ignorant imbecilic theists with no appreciation for, or insight into, science and the study of our cosmos ever assert otherwise.

All of the available information and evidence we have points to the universe was once a gravitational singularity. This expanded extremely rapidly from its hot and dense state. The expansion is well-modeled by the Big Bang theory, but the origins of that singularity is still an unsolved problem in physics.

As of yet we still don't know what a singularity actually is. Our current understanding of the laws of physics, planck time and mathematics break down when we try to investigate it.

Now, addressing the Big Freeze, our current observations suggest that the expansion of the universe will continue forever, and indeed its accelerating, but this has no bearing on the ultimate fate of the universe, because we simply don't know enough about our cosmos or dark matter and energy that make the majority of it up to make such a bold claim yet. While heat death is commonly accepted by many scientists as its in line with maximum entropy being achieved, there are other theories in physical cosmology that shouldn't be so readily disregarded, such as Big Rip, Big Crunch, Multiverse, False vacuum, Cosmic uncertainty and the Big Bounce for example.

The idea of it collapsing again is absurd, what would cause that?

Its no more unsound or sound than the other symmetric views of the ultimate fate of the Universe. It posits the Big Bang started a cosmological expansion, then assumes that the average density of the universe is enough to slow down and stop its expansion until it begins contracting.

Like with the origin of the universe before the Big Bang event, the end result of a Big Crunch is not known since all the matter and space-time in the universe would collapse into an aforementioned dimensionless singularity, which is still not properly understood.

The universe couldn’t have created itself, as it had to have been in existence first (common sense) in order to have done so. So, something OUTSIDE the universe created the universe.

And here this guy goes off the rails. What does he mean by "created itself" exactly? Is he already implying in a half-arsed argument from first-cause that something or someone created it? The uncaused first-cause? What basis does he have to move the goalposts to outside the universe?

Could be an abstract idea, but have you ever seen a number affect something?

?

What else is outside the universe? Nothing.

And he knows this how exactly?

So, nothing comes from nothing (common sense). Nothing isn’t the creator.

Oh fuck, a fail. Not only is there a failure to understand that "nothing" is not something and meaningless in physics but the "c word" has been invoked also. Its all downhill from here I guess

So, it’s a disembodied mind that created it. It is outside time, space, and matter. It’s a disembodied mind because there is no other answer.

Well isn't that a lovely argument from incredulity? First of all what examples in nature do we have of minds existing outside bodies? None. So why is he foolishly claiming its a "disembodied mind" of all things without any evidence to back up that baseless assertion?

I can create a sand box, and I am not a sand box. I can still interact with the sandbox while remaining separate from it. In the same way, God interacts with us. I attribute this mind to the Judeo-Christian God. The logical answer is there, even if you are blinded to it.

Another fucking fail. Sandbox, in the context he's using the term, describes a testing environment for computer software development. Nothing to do with cosmology or cosmogony. And now the "g word" has also been dragged into this? Specifically the Judeo-Christian myth? Really?

Pathetic. Its a wonder how this guy can even function for so badly following the train of logic to where it supposedly leads.

One of my friends posted this today:

"Why do people think science has any real answers? Today a scientist told me the sun is a star when it's obviously a circle and anyone can see that!"

And they were serious too.

Your friend is retarded and doesn't understand cosmology or geometry.

I suggest if you want to remain friends you avoid engaging them in either topic of discussion.