RE: Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?
April 4, 2010 at 9:26 pm
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2010 at 9:30 pm by tavarish.)
(April 4, 2010 at 6:00 am)roundsquare Wrote: KCA: SHOWING counter examples of spurious deduction does not in anyway take away from the kca, accept maybe in your head. you have to tackle the kca on its own merits, because not all deduction is erroneous. you attempted to do by stating that energy had always existed and to give a boost to your statement you cited the law of conservation of energy. what this shows is your ignorance regarding the big bang.
This should be good.
(April 4, 2010 at 6:00 am)roundsquare Wrote: the big bang doesnt contravene the energy laws by holding that energy was created which you disagree with, because the energy laws only apply within the universe, just like gravity this is a physical law and has no application outside the physical universe.
And what exactly does this have to do with this discussion? I'm pretty sure the Big Bang only describes the rapid expansion leading from a super-dense initial condition. This has to do with this universe, not anything outside of it.
(April 4, 2010 at 6:00 am)roundsquare Wrote: the physical laws govern everything in spacetime, not the origin of spacetime itself.
Provide evidence for your claim.
(April 4, 2010 at 6:00 am)roundsquare Wrote: energy requires a medium e.g. vacuum. there was however no vacuum, no space prior to the the big bang.
there was a point when all the distances in the universe was shrunk to zero. thus in short the law is not violated by the big bang because the whole spacetime arena in which it holds came into being.
Your understanding is severely lacking, it's getting a bit discouraging to go on with conversations in which I need to explain how your assertions actually work.
There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:
* The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
* BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
* The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronom...#secondlaw
(April 4, 2010 at 6:00 am)roundsquare Wrote: The law only holds for isolated systems like the universe, which did not exist prior to the singularity, because there was no universe no isolated system, no system at all.
The universe WAS the singularity.
The standard Big Bang model is singular at the time of the Big Bang, t = 0. This means that one cannot even define time, since spacetime is singular. In some models like the chaotic or perpetual inflation favored by Linde, the Big Bang is just one of many inflating bubbles in a spacetime foam. But there is no possibility of getting information from outside our own one bubble.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
Please provide evidence to support your assertion that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang. The fact that we can't perceive what came "before" the Big Bang doesn't mean the universe didn't exist in a timeless state, nor does it necessitate a creator.
You're trying to demonstrate to me that conservation of energy didn't apply "prior" to the Big Bang, while simultaneously making the case that cause and effect did. I'm telling you that we don't know what, if anything existed before the universal expansion, therefore we cannot make a claim. To posit that something necessarily happened, and that it had specific qualities and traits, demands evidence.