Big Bang Theory

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes, non-existence cannot exist.

So we agree there.

Yet the physical Universe had an absolute physical beginning to it's existence.

Unless existence has always been physical?

Therefore, something non-physical (Immaterial, Timeless, and spaceless existed) as the prime causal agency.

I agree that non-physicality is possible, but I don't see why it is necessary. I agree that spacelessness may be possible but I also don't see why that is necessary either.

As for something timeless, I believe that that is nonsensical. Timelessness never exists. If timelessness ever exists then there is a time that it exists and it is therefore time itself and not timelessness.

The entire physical Universe began. Science has fully established this.

Materialism is not the same as physicality. Matter had a beginning but that's different to physicality according to science, last I checked. Matter had a beginning but energy itself may not have had a beginning, and energy itself isn't the same as matter but it's still physical.

Anyway, let's assume you're right about physicality necessarily coming from non-physicality anyway, rather than physicality always existing. Well, non-physicality exists, but so what? That just means that the physical sciences, and therefore almost certainly all sciences (unless somehow in the far future a branch of science that can detect non-physicality is developed) cannot detect this non-physicality. Well, once again: So what? Science can't detect this non-physicality but that doesn't mean anything supernatural, spiritual, miraculous or godly exists.

Atheists are in denial to deny the absolute physical beginning verified by Big Bang - or pretend it has no relevance in evidence.

If the big bang really does necessarily mean the creation of physicality, how does that do anything for the supernatural?

[Annik]

This poor man/woman is so driven by their schemas about atheism, that they've argued themselves retarded.

[Truth Matters]

Did you not see my post above yours. the big bang may not have been the beginning.

Rubbish! Every single bit of scientific and mathematical evidence (even proof) points to an absolute physical beginning. No scientific evidence whatsoever supports a physical Universe with no absolute beginning.

It's time you guys dealt with the actual science - not the Naturalistic speculations of committed Atheists in science hoping to give some plausible deniability to the actual science.

[Cyberman]

This poor man/woman is so driven by their schemas about atheism, that they've argued themselves retarded.

Absolutely. I wonder, is it worth pointing out to whom it may concern that there's nothing pertaining to atheism that dictates accepting the Big Bang? Likely the majority do so, but the two things are not at all connected.

[Truth Matters]

This poor man/woman is so driven by their schemas about atheism, that they've argued themselves retarded.

You've found yourself unable to answer my questions and completely embarrassed on your protests.

Now you feign pity. How disingenuous.

[Edwardo Piet]

Rubbish! Every single bit of scientific and mathematical evidence (even proof) points to an absolute physical beginning. No scientific evidence whatsoever supports a physical Universe with no absolute beginning.

It's time you guys dealt with the actual science - not the Naturalistic speculations of committed Atheists in science hoping to give some plausible deniability to the actual science.

Physicality that physicists haven't detected or even can't detect is not the same as physicality that doesn't exist.

[Truth Matters]

Yes, non-existence cannot exist.

So we agree there.

Yet the physical Universe had an absolute physical beginning to it's existence.

Unless existence has always been physical?

Therefore, something non-physical (Immaterial, Timeless, and spaceless existed) as the prime causal agency.

I agree that non-physicality is possible, but I don't see why it is necessary. I agree that spacelessness may be possible but I also don't see why that is necessary either.

As for something timeless, I believe that that is nonsensical. Timelessness never exists. If timelessness ever exists then there is a time that it exists and it is therefore time itself and not timelessness.

The entire physical Universe began. Science has fully established this.

Materialism is not the same as physicality. Matter had a beginning but that's different to physicality according to science, last I checked. Matter had a beginning but energy itself may not have had a beginning, and energy itself isn't the same as matter but it's still physical.

So what? Science can't detect this non-physicality but that doesn't mean anything supernatural, spiritual, miraculous or godly exists.

Atheists are in denial to deny the absolute physical beginning verified by Big Bang - or pretend it has no relevance in evidence.

If the big bang really does necessarily mean the creation of physicality, how does that do anything for the supernatural?

Timeless dimensions do not connote time. I don't see the logical basis for your denial.

Timelessness must exist or you would have an actual infinity of time in the past - a true metaphysical absurdity. You must have a prime dimension that is not bound by tensed time but exists transcendent and causally antecedent to our physical, tensed time which comes into existence.


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?

{ So what? Science can't detect this non-physicality but that doesn't mean anything supernatural, spiritual, miraculous or godly exists.}

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. God has perfect explanatory power and scope. Atheist Materialism is simply incongruent with reason and evidence.
It's perfectly in evidence that a metaphysical reality transcends physical reality. Supernatural doesn't mean unreal or sub-rational.

---

Rubbish! Every single bit of scientific and mathematical evidence (even proof) points to an absolute physical beginning. No scientific evidence whatsoever supports a physical Universe with no absolute beginning.

It's time you guys dealt with the actual science - not the Naturalistic speculations of committed Atheists in science hoping to give some plausible deniability to the actual science.

Physicality that physicists haven't detected or even can't detect is not the same as physicality that doesn't exist.

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='DoubtVsFaith' pid='360746' dateline='1352491174']

Hey FaithvsDoubt

I need to run out for a little while. I'll be back to answer.

Good questions

[Edwardo Piet]

Timelessness must exist or you would have an actual infinity of time in the past - a true metaphysical absurdity.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

God has perfect explanatory power and scope.

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

Atheist Materialism is simply incongruent with reason and evidence.

Atheism is the rejection of god(s). It doesn't have to be materialistic.

It's perfectly in evidence that a metaphysical reality transcends physical reality.

What constitutes something non-physical to you then?

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.

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

[jonb]

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.

[Ben Davis]

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.

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):

...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.

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.