Big Bang Theory

[Truth Matters]

The Big Bang is the absolute physical beginning from physical nothingness at the singularity boundary.

All I am asking for is for you to get your puppies out.

Absolute physical beginning

The above statement is not proven, Absolute physical beginning
It can only be an absolute physical beginning if the physical started then, so for the statement to stand, a before where there is no physicality has to be established.

Now on one had I am looking at Sir Roger Penrose amoung others;

Sir Roger Penrose OM, FRS (born 8 August 1931), is an English mathematical physicist, recreational mathematician, philosopher and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.
He is internationally renowned for his scientific work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

On on the other we have a bloke on the web who says his dad was a nuclear physicist.

So all I am asking is your evidence not just an assertion that's the way it is.

physical nothingness at the singularity boundary.

Similarly for this part of the statement to stand there must be nothing at the singularity, but the singularity contains everything of this universe, so by definition it is not nothing. So I don't think I am being out of order in requesting some sort of evidence to back up your statement other than just an assertion; that is how it is.

Where has Penrose disputed the Borde Guth Vilinjkin PROOF of an absolute physical beginning?

Clearly, you don not understand the Big Bang Theory. The singularity is not a thing, it is a boundary. Your idea that some infinitely dense, zero size 'pellet' suddenly exploded is just inaccurate. Where would such a thing exist? There was no space.

You need to come to grips with what the science actually says. I realize the many philosophical Naturalists in science wan't to obfuscate the absolute physical beginning, but the science does not swing on their philosophical biases. The absolute physical beginning is proven. The Naturalists are doing backflips to explain around it, but the science stands firmly intact.

Ironically, it was Penrose that crapped on the Multiverse speculations of Hawking and others, by proving that our Universe would be much smaller than it is if infinite numbers of Universes existed.
M-Theory is nothing more than a speculative defense against the design inference from Fine Tuning confirmations.

[Edwardo Piet]

Science doesn't deal with proof or absolute certainty, it deals with evidence and probability.

The big bang is where existence expanded rapidly. And apparently it still is expanding. I don't see how you get from there to "The big bang comes from God".

[Truth Matters]

[quote='DoubtVsFaith' pid='360787' dateline='1352496042']
[quote='Truth Matters' pid='360767' dateline='1352492718']
Timelessness must exist or you would have an actual infinity of time in the past - a true metaphysical absurdity.[/quote]

There was never a time "before" time of course, because a time "before" time is still time - so time has always existed. And therefore the opposite to time: Timelessness, has never existed and never can.

[quote]Energy is matter (presupposes matter). There is no reason to believe energy exists apart from space and time or causally prior to Physical beginnings. Where would energy exist? There is no physical space?[/quote]


And as I said, as for timelessness, timelessness never exists, and time always exists. "Time always exists" means "time exists at all times" which is a tautology because there can never be a time when time doesn't exist. "Timelessness never exists" means "timelessness doesn't exist at any time at all" which is also a tautology because there can never be a time when timelessness exists. Therefore it makes no sense to say that timelessness ever exists, or that time ever doesn't.

[quote]You miss the point. The inference is from what we DO KNOW from science - the necessity of a causal agency with attributes normally ascribed to God. [/quote] Not only doesn't science have evidence for God but science can't have evidence for God. God is outside the realms of science because he's unfalsifiable.

[quote] God has perfect explanatory power and scope.[/quote] And where is the evidence for this God that is supposed to have this explanatory power?

[quote]Atheist Materialism is simply incongruent with reason and evidence.[/quote] Atheism is the rejection of god(s). It doesn't have to be materialistic.

[quote]It's perfectly in evidence that a metaphysical reality transcends physical reality.[/quote] What constitutes something non-physical to you then?

[quote]Well, yes! But be careful. I agree with the thrust of your statement. However, any such reality would be metaphysical - not physical. This is the stuff Theism believes - not the committed Materialists.
I absolutely believe a metaphysical reality transcends and gives being to physical reality.[/quote]

So do you believe, then, that metaphysical reality is reality that physicists can't detect? That doesn't imply theism.
[/quote

I suppose it is quite possible that some non-physically dimensioned 'time' exists. However it cannot be prime. The physical Time, space and matter Universe we experience is tensed, but has an absolute physical beginning.
Whatever ultimately exists as causally prime, cannot exist contingently in time, but must self-exist. Time has no causal capacity, so we cannot rationally conclude that time is the prime reality. We also know that something must self-exist without beginning in time as causally prime of all things contingent. Nothing cannot cause something, therefore, Nothing cannot exist in time, therefore something exists transcendent to time.

I agree, there is no reason to believe that something can exist without space, as it wouldn't exist anywhere. But in that case how could anything non-physical exist anywhere either? It's the same argument: Where would it exist? Nowhere."

Not unless you get in to metaphysical detection. A metaphysical reality certainly is consistent with God and certainly does undermine the Materialistic understanding of the Universe that Atheists rest upon

{I agree, there is no reason to believe that something can exist without space, as it wouldn't exist anywhere. But in that case how could anything non-physical exist anywhere either? It's the same argument: Where would it exist? Nowhere.}

No, there is no reason to believe something PHYSICAL can exist without space. You are simply conflating categories. Metaphysical behavior is not bound by physical law.

{And where is the evidence for this God that is supposed to have this explanatory power?}

You just got one of the evidences. Did you miss it?

Here is a very cursory outline of some of the best evidences for God. The full arguments and evidences are not NOT adequately explained here. This is a very compacted outline I put together - not comprehensive.

Contingency – God is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing? Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause. Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists. Self-existence is logically necessary. A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime.

Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.

Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.

Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.

Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.


Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?

Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?

Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul.
Chemicals have no moral duties.

Moral Truth / Apprehension of Objective moral truth. Is rape really wrong or just an illusion? Is rape just a natural chemical byproduct caused by electrochemical activity (Atheism) – or an act of will.

Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,.

Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena

Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.

Absolute failure of Naturalism to explain a Finely tuned Universe, Finite Universe, Sentience, Rational truth and natural order, Moral Law (morality), intuition, intention, intelligence, purpose, free-will…

---

[quote='DoubtVsFaith' pid='360809' dateline='1352499105']
Science doesn't deal with proof or absolute certainty, it deals with evidence and probability.

The big bang is where existence expanded rapidly. And apparently it still is expanding. I don't see how you get from there to "The big bang comes from God".
[/quote]

So what? I never claimed otherwise. Mathematics proves an absolute physical beginning. There is no more absolute proof than Mathematical proof.

The Big Bang gets you to the necessity of God's attributes of timelessness, spaceless immateriality with the capacity to bring a contingent Universe into being.

It's certainly one evidence for God - among many.

Now where is your evidence and arguments to justify your belief that No God exists? Why do you believe it?

BTW The Bertrand Russel quote is silly: God doesn't require a cause. God does not begin or exist contingently. God is Prime. Prime self-existence is rationally necessary for the same reason we just discussed. Nothing cannot exist.

---

[quote='Ben Davis' pid='360798' dateline='1352497825']
[quote='Truth Matters' pid='360618' dateline='1352477293']
Then actually debunk me - don't just claim it happened somewhere with some link. Tell me exactly where I am wrong on the science? Try to debunk my arguments and watch how badly things end for you. I guarantee it.[/quote]
No problem. Regarding your claim that the universe has a beginning, you refer to WLC's induction from the 'Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe' claim. That claim is false. No scientist has ever reputably claimed that 'the universe definitely has a beginning' without caveats which make the claim purposeless. In fact, even Vilenkin has been quoted as saying (with Borde & Guth's approval):
[quote]...if someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.[/quote]
The most obvious of the 'subtleties' is that their models can only be applied to the universe in its current state (i.e. expanding etc.) and can make no inference about the possible previous states of the universe due to a lack of data. When their models make reference to the universe, their definition is 'the current, expanding universe from which we can take data'. The best than can be said in favour of your argument using the BGV models is 'the universe may have had a beginning but there's no way to be sure'. This is not the same as saying 'the universe definitely had a beginning'. Since science can't yet tell us that the term 'the universe' must necessarily refer to it's current state, we don't even know if the term 'beginning' makes sense in reference to it.
[/quote]

More rubbish!

Here is Vilinkin's exact quote
======
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)."

======

At what point do you Atheists hold yourselves accountable to fact?

---

[quote='Ben Davis' pid='360798' dateline='1352497825']

No problem. Regarding your claim that the universe has a beginning, you refer to WLC's induction from the 'Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe' claim. That claim is false. No scientist has ever reputably claimed that 'the universe definitely has a beginning' without caveats which make the claim purposeless. In fact, even Vilenkin has been quoted as saying (with Borde & Guth's approval):
[quote]..
[/quote]


Nonsense

Vilenkins quote:
====
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

====

Deal with it

[Edwardo Piet]

I suppose it is quite possible that some non-physically dimensioned 'time' exists. However it cannot be prime. The physical Time, space and matter Universe we experience is tensed, but has an absolute physical beginning.

Time exists at all times, therefore time always exists. Time always exists, therefore time had no beginning.

Time has no causal capacity, so we cannot rationally conclude that time is the prime reality.

Well, time is the prime reality in the sense that it has always existed and has no beginning, because anything "before" time is time. "Before" requires time.

We also know that something must self-exist without beginning in time as causally prime of all things contingent.

What is this? The argument from verbosity? What do you mean by "self-exist"? Doesn't everything exist as itself?

Nothing cannot cause something, therefore, Nothing cannot exist in time, therefore something exists transcendent to time.

Actually nothing can't cause something because nothing can't exist at all because nothing is nothing and can never be something. Nothing can't exist in time or out of time. Nothing can't exist at all. Nothing doesn't exist.

And remember, time is eternal because that means that it has always existed and that means that it has existed at all times, which is simply true by definition.

Not unless you get in to metaphysical detection. A metaphysical reality certainly is consistent with God and certainly does undermine the Materialistic understanding of the Universe that Atheists rest upon

Explain how this is the case, please.

No, there is no reason to believe something PHYSICAL can exist without space. You are simply conflating categories. Metaphysical behavior is not bound by physical law.

All I mean is: What reason do you have to believe that anything at all exists without space? How can something exist nowhere and still exist?

You just got one of the evidences. Did you miss it?

Maybe. Could you perhaps help me out a little?

Contingency – God is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing? Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause.

The explanation for why there is something rather than nothing is simple: because there can't be nothing because non-existence can't exist.

Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists.

Existence always exists as existence.

Self-existence is logically necessary.

I don't know what the "self" part is required for.

A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible.

Yes.

Our Universe began to exist.

Maybe. But existence itself didn't.

Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence.

Maybe, but existence doesn't.

God does not

Neither does existence.

– God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime.

God is unnecessary, existence is necessary.

Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.

Maybe. But doesn't imply God.

---

Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.

---

Where's the evidence of design?

Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.

However improbable life is, the fact we are alive means we obviously live where life is even if it's extremely improbable.

Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.

Explain please.

Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?

Explain please.

Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?

Explain please.

Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul.
Chemicals have no moral duties.

Chemical causation doesn't refute compatabilistic free will. Incompatabilistic free will is impossible anyway. Souls are irrelevant and morality is irrelevant to God's existence.

Moral Truth / Apprehension of Objective moral truth. Is rape really wrong or just an illusion? Is rape just a natural chemical byproduct caused by electrochemical activity (Atheism) – or an act of will.

Morality is irrelevant to God's existence.

Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,.

Personal experience is not sufficient evidence of such miracles.

Absolute failure of Naturalism to explain a Finely tuned Universe, Finite Universe, Sentience, Rational truth and natural order, Moral Law (morality), intuition, intention, intelligence, purpose, free-will…

See this post.

[Truth Matters]

Listen, you are dismissing some very serious arguments with superficial handwaving. You clearly don't understand the arguments and evidences. Of course, I have offered a mere skeleton of outline. You should try to engage and learn them before responding with surface level dismissals.

I can't afford to write a book here, but I can answer any serious objections you may have.

Here is a great place that has lots of free podcasts and answers.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org

[popeyespappy]

Still waiting on evidence that ties your god to the big bang.

You don't think the rational necessity of an immaterial, spaceless, timeless causal agency with the capacity to bring about a contingent Universe is evidence for God?

Atheists ignoring evidence is not a lack of evidence.

I don’t accept your premise of an immaterial, spaceless, timeless causal agent. I don’t accept it because your first cause could just as easily be a material causal agent operating under natural laws in a cosmological model that includes a multiverse/bubbleverse version of the standard model or even just an infinite aged universe model such as some variation of the Rost model. All you have done here is assert that we don’t know therefore god did it. When in reality the correct answer stops at we don’t know.

In any case your answer completely avoided my original question which was what is the evidence that your god, the god of Abraham, is your first cause?

[Truth Matters]

You don't think the rational necessity of an immaterial, spaceless, timeless causal agency with the capacity to bring about a contingent Universe is evidence for God?

Atheists ignoring evidence is not a lack of evidence.

I don’t accept your premise of an immaterial, spaceless, timeless causal agent. I don’t accept it because your first cause could just as easily be a material causal agent operating under natural laws in a cosmological model that includes a multiverse/bubbleverse version of the standard model or even just an infinite aged universe model such as some variation of the Rost model. All you have done here is assert that we don’t know therefore god did it. When in reality the correct answer stops at we don’t know.

In any case your answer completely avoided my original question which was what is the evidence that your god, the god of Abraham, is your first cause?

It doesn't matter whether you accept logical fact. It's still logical fact.

How can a physical cause exist before physics begins - in order to cause physics into existence? The notion is obviously absurd.
How can some infinitely dense zero-sized pellet simply exist out 'there' where 'there' doesn't yet exist? THERE IS NO SPACE.

You need to come to grips with the actual science and mathematical proofs.
You are appealing to wild speculations of Atheist Materialists wishing to explain around proven science. The absolute physical beginning is mathematically proven beyond all mathematical doubt.
You have no evidence or justification whatsoever to believe that physics explains the beginning of the existence of physics.

Per your unanswered question:
I don't need to prove a specific epistemology of God to demonstrate that the common attributes of God are necessary and in evidence to sufficiently explain the Ontology of a physical Universe that began to exist.
In other words, your Epitemological 'question' is an irrelevant red-herring meant to distract from the important Ontological question in contention.

[jonb]

Where has Penrose disputed the Borde Guth Vilinjkin PROOF of an absolute physical beginning?

Did you even bother watching the BBC video did you see who was in it, did you see how he has changed his stance?

Clearly, you don not understand the Big Bang Theory. The singularity is not a thing, it is a boundary. Your idea that some infinitely dense, zero size 'pellet' suddenly exploded is just inaccurate. Where would such a thing exist? There was no space.

The singularity also consisted of space, that is partly why the normal laws of physics do not work in the singularity. What you ask of the singularity is also true of the space we live in where does it exist?

You seem to be using terms, without understanding their meaning, then putting in your own interpretations, and then accusing others of not understanding the terms used.

[Zen Badger]

Suppose for the sake of argument that we accept that the universe had an intelligent first cause( which I'm not BTW, you have yet to provide any actual evidence that this is the case).

Now prove that it is in fact your god that is responsible.

[Truth Matters]

Where has Penrose disputed the Borde Guth Vilinjkin PROOF of an absolute physical beginning?

Did you even bother watching the BBC video did you see who was in it, did you see how he has changed his stance?

Clearly, you don not understand the Big Bang Theory. The singularity is not a thing, it is a boundary. Your idea that some infinitely dense, zero size 'pellet' suddenly exploded is just inaccurate. Where would such a thing exist? There was no space.

The singularity also consisted of space, that is partly why the normal laws of physics do not work in the singularity. What you ask of the singularity is also true of the space we live in where does it exist?

You seem to be using terms, without understanding their meaning, then putting in your own interpretations, and then accusing others of not understanding the terms used.

Jon. I'm always amused as the these Atheistic theoreticians try to modify their positions as they step on each other's Atheistic toes and provide plausible deniability where the actual science wreaks of theological implications. I understand the actual science and really don't care about their struggles to keep from stomping on each other's Atheist toes when the science doesn't fit well with the Materialist narrative.
These are theoreticians Jon. They have a place, but don't put too much stock in their endless dancing and speculations hoping to explain around the science or offend their Atheistic Materialist peers. Pay attention to the actual science and mathematics.

Look, the laws of physics breakdown going backwards because the subatomic strong, weak, electromagnetic forces and gravity are not separated. This has nothing to do with the conditions present pre-Plank time. You cannot have space before subatomic particles exist and separate. Subatomic particles separate AFTER gravity separates from the quantum stage and the Unified stage begins. Basically, you have two stages before space exists and the sub-atomic particle physics begins. We need a Theory of the Unified stage (so called GUT- Grand Unified Theory) to understand pre-particle physics. It would be nice, but don't hold your breath.

In actuality, the "Big Bang" is a misleading term. The event is known to be a sudden coming into being and rapid inflationary event that we now known was precision balanced in a manner that would allow for non-collapse, controlled expansion and cooling, the formation of chemical elements, stellar systems and carbon based life. This is what the Fine Tuning confirmations of the 1970's were all about. BTW, Penrose was among (and still is) those who understand the Fine Tuning best.

I'm not sure what you mean by implying I'm pouring my own definition into terms. I suspect you are among the many who have been misled on what the singularity is all about. Science stops as density reaches infinity (whatever that would be) and zero -size, but that's because physics 'vanishes' going backwards from this singularity boundary condition (point). Reason doesn't. You still need a causal agency. It began to exist. It didn't cause itself.