TMB wrote:Why have you assumed that your position is therefore better? You have made an assertion that material demonstration is superior to undemonstrated theory. Can you support this assertion without using the basis of the assertion itself? ie. Stay outside the system to validate it.

Seeing/knowing vs. Not seeing/believing. Which is better? Seeing and KNOWING is indeed much superior in every way to NOT seeing and believing.

And as stated previously, many here mistakenly and blindly accept UNdemonstrated theory to be fact.

TMB wrote:Since you appear to offer the above as support for your position that something cannot come from nothing, you should at least provide the steps that got each person to this point...

Who is best able to defend their position and the steps to get there but themselves. However, knowing human nature, people who are uncomfortable with 'not-knowing' tend to make stuff up - adding tidbits of genuine scientific discoveries to buttress what is otherwise entirely UNdemonstrated and UNverified fiction which they preach as being oh so close to fact. So much half-ass 'pop science' for armchair science buffs gobble it all up. Sad situation these days.

surreptitious57 wrote:The scale of the observable universe and the fact that it is expanding beyond light speed means any observation can only
be provisional and therefore inductive. When the map is changing faster than technology or knowledge can actually keep
up with it then absolute statements are basically meaningless. Knowledge is more easily acquired over far smaller scales

Physics breaks down at the Big Bang and black holes cannot be investigated from within. The former problem may only be temporary but temporary can be a very long time indeed. There is a finite limit to all knowledge and scientific knowledge
is no exception to this. So at some point in the future untestable hypotheses may just become the norm. Now it is already happening such as with the multiverse hypothesis for example though potential falsification is where the bar is set for now

But when that is either no longer possible or less significantly so will science swop evidence for speculation or will it simply observe without trying to offer up any explanations ? A complex dilemma future generations shall have to find an answer to

Finally, an honest assessment.

And I'll add that sadly many so called skeptics accept the whole Big Bang as fact or at least 90% fact - while it is wholly UNTESTABLE and highly speculative, which shows the basic human need to believe in something, no matter how UNtested, UNdemonstrated, UNverified, and flimsy. No critical thinking allowed.

group·think
/ˈɡro͞opˌTHiNGk/Submit
noun NORTH AMERICAN
the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility.

Cito di Pense wrote:

truelgbt wrote:
So when I go to bed at night, I might as well say to myself, I don't know how the world began, neither does anybody else, and I need to 'accept' not knowing. Accepting not knowing is way more honest than accepting a half-baked theory, much less defending that half-baked theory which most on this thread are actually doing.

Accepting is lazy; there is much more you could learn, but you decline to do so. I don't assume by any means that you are here with theological priorities you haven't mentioned. You might just be some carp who failed basic science and never tried again.

So if I 'accept' the big bang instead, is that lazy too? What about all the other forum members who 'accept' the big bang. Are they lazy? 'Accepting' has nothing to do with effort or laziness. To me, 'accepting' not knowing how the universe got to where it is today is simple honesty to self - as opposed to 'yeah, I KNOW that it happened this way or that - which is self-deception. Self-deception in this regard seems popular on this forum. Sad.

hackenslash wrote:The Big Bang is a fact. It is a simple fact that the universe is expanding. This is observed, unequivocal, and without meritorious opposition of any sort.

Correction: The Big Bang is not a fact. Was that a joke? The only thing that is a fact is that the universe is expanding. Expansion is the ONLY fact. That's it. Everything else is conjecture.

Before you flame me, just for fun let's see how many other forum members believe the Big Bang in its ENTIRETY is a fact. Anybody else out there accept the Big Bang as FACT? lol.

Many topics related to the Big Bang are 'THEORETICAL'', NOT FACTUAL. Case in point (one of many definitions on the net):

dark en·er·gy
noun
PHYSICS: a THEORETICAL repulsive force that counteracts gravity and causes the universe to expand at an accelerating rate.
"Einstein's THEORIES allow for the possible existence of dark energy"

Why is it that many people defend the big bang as though it were an established fact when so many topics related to it are ENTIRELY THEORETICAL? Very SAD !

double post

truelgbt wrote:

hackenslash wrote:The Big Bang is a fact. It is a simple fact that the universe is expanding. This is observed, unequivocal, and without meritorious opposition of any sort.

Correction: The Big Bang is not a fact. Was that a joke? The only thing that is a fact is that the universe is expanding. Expansion is the ONLY fact. That's it. Everything else is conjecture.

The fact that galaxies are further apart today than yesterday leads inexorably to the fact that galaxies were closer together yesterday. This is not a conjecture.

Before you flame me, just for fun let's see how many other forum members believe the Big Bang in its ENTIRETY is a fact. Anybody else out there accept the Big Bang as FACT? lol.

The early, hot and dense phase of the Universe is observed in the Cosmic Microwave Background. This is not a conjecture.

Many topics related to the Big Bang are 'THEORETICAL'', NOT FACTUAL. Case in point (one of many definitions on the net):

dark en·er·gy
noun
PHYSICS: a THEORETICAL repulsive force that counteracts gravity and causes the universe to expand at an accelerating rate.
"Einstein's THEORIES allow for the possible existence of dark energy"

Correct. We don't know what is causing accelerated Universal expansion but General Relativity theory can account for it in a single term added to the field equations. How is this a problem for anyone working in these areas?

Why is it that many people defend the big bang as though it were an established fact when so many topics related to it are THEORETICAL? SAD !

The observations show an early, hot dense phase; various theories try to account for all the observations. This is not a difficult idea. Perhaps you can follow the reasoning below...

In proximity to massive objects, all objects fall towards that object at the same rate. (Observation.)

Theories to account for this:
1. F = G m1 m2 / r2 (Newton)
2. Guv = Tuv (Einstein)

Which theory accounts for the ballistic trajectories of canon fire with sufficient accuracy to blow you out of the water?

Which theory accounts for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury to match observations best?

Which theory is correct?

truelgbt wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:The scale of the observable universe and the fact that it is expanding beyond light speed means any observation can only
be provisional and therefore inductive. When the map is changing faster than technology or knowledge can actually keep
up with it then absolute statements are basically meaningless. Knowledge is more easily acquired over far smaller scales

Physics breaks down at the Big Bang and black holes cannot be investigated from within. The former problem may only be temporary but temporary can be a very long time indeed. There is a finite limit to all knowledge and scientific knowledge
is no exception to this. So at some point in the future untestable hypotheses may just become the norm. Now it is already happening such as with the multiverse hypothesis for example though potential falsification is where the bar is set for now

But when that is either no longer possible or less significantly so will science swop evidence for speculation or will it simply observe without trying to offer up any explanations ? A complex dilemma future generations shall have to find an answer to

Finally, an honest assessment.

And I'll add that sadly many so called skeptics accept the whole Big Bang as fact or at least 90% fact - while it is wholly UNTESTABLE and highly speculative

You keep using the term Big Bang incorrectly.

The big bang is a fact.

The origin of the universe from nothing is not a fact.

That's because the big bang actually just a theory for the expansion of the universe we see from a time in the past when it was much smaller, denser, and hotter.

Do you understand?

You are confusing the big bang (the expansion from a hot and dense state, which is the fact), with the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing (which is a speculative extrapolation). You keep doing this despite the fact that I have explained to you multiple times that those two are not the same thing.

Why do you have such a hard time learning new things? Can new information sink into your skull or are you just going to drone one brainlessly?

truelgbt wrote:

hackenslash wrote:The Big Bang is a fact. It is a simple fact that the universe is expanding. This is observed, unequivocal, and without meritorious opposition of any sort.

Correction: The Big Bang is not a fact.

Correction: The Big Bang is a fact. Because the Big Bang is the theory that describes the fact that the universe is expanding, and has been doing so for over 13 billion years from a very hot and dense state.

Was that a joke?

No he was serious, because he is also right.

The only thing that is a fact is that the universe is expanding. Expansion is the ONLY fact. That's it. Everything else is conjecture.

I agree, but that IS the Big Bang theory. Are you capable of learning this? Can you in fact get that to sink in? YOU ARE USING THE TERM BIG BANG INCORRECTLY. YOU ARE CONFUSING THE BIG BANG, UNDERSTOOD TO BE A THEORY OF EXPANSION, WITH THE BING BANG UNDERSTOOD AS A CONJECTURE ABOUT AN ABSOLUTE BEGINNING FROM A STATE OF NOTHINGNESS.

The Big Bang theory does not say there was an absolute beginning.

Do you understand?

The Big Bang theory does not say there was an absolute beginning.

Did it work this time, did it sink in?

The Big Bang theory does not say there was an absolute beginning.

Is it taking hold? Will a time come when you can make it stick in your brain?

Before you flame me, just for fun let's see how many other forum members believe the Big Bang in its ENTIRETY is a fact. Anybody else out there accept the Big Bang as FACT? lol.

The Big Bang is a fact. For reasons already explained.

Many topics related to the Big Bang are 'THEORETICAL'', NOT FACTUAL. Case in point (one of many definitions on the net):
dark en·er·gy
noun
PHYSICS: a THEORETICAL repulsive force that counteracts gravity and causes the universe to expand at an accelerating rate.
"Einstein's THEORIES allow for the possible existence of dark energy"

Why is it that many people defend the big bang as though it were an established fact when so many topics related to it are ENTIRELY THEORETICAL? Very SAD !

Because they understand what the word Big Bang means. They, unlike you, understand that the Big Bang theory is a theory that describes the expansion of the universe from a hot and dense state, and the predictions this theory makes, and the observations that have corroborated those predictions.

You however keep laboring under the delusion that the big bang theory says that the universe came into existence out of nothing. It does not.

truelgbt wrote:

Correction: The Cosmologists quoted and listed in the OP said the "universe sprang from NOTHING

It's almost like you didn't read the post in which I comprehensively eviscerated this assertion. No cosmologists in your list said this.

truelgbt wrote:
many so called skeptics accept the whole Big Bang as fact or at least 90 per cent fact - while it is wholly
UNTESTABLE and highly speculative which shows the basic human need to believe in something no matter
how UNtested or UNdemonstrated or UNverified and flimsy

The Big Bang is happening NOW and will carry on happening until the expansion of space finally stops
So it wasnt just something that happened I4 billion years ago but something that has carried on since

Also light can be detected as far back as the Cosmic Microwave Background which was only 380 000 years after the BB

surreptitious57 wrote:The Big Bang is happening NOW and will carry on happening until the expansion of space finally stops

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem

You owe it to yourself to try to understand the major points in this article.

The universe appears to be expanding from our vantage point, and what observations and maths we've come up with tend to buttress that view. Back a long time ago something happened, we're not sure what. When the Intergalactic Federation decides we're advanced enough to handle it they'll tell us all about it, but to them we're just cute little ground apes monkeying around with sticks and flinging poo. If they ever read these threads they'll probably quarantine the entire solar system.

laklak wrote:The universe appears to be expanding from our vantage point

If ever there was someplace in the universe that is a vantage point, this has to be it. The sun shines out of the ass of that vantage point.

God's Little Acre, no lie.

To continue with the theoretical nature of cosmology:

Many factors related to the Big Bang are 'THEORETICAL'',
NOT FACTUAL. Case in point
(one of many definitions on the net):

dark mat·ter
noun
ASTRONOMY:
(in some cosmological THEORIES) nonluminous material that is POSTULATED TO EXIST in space and that could take any of several forms including weakly interacting particles ( cold dark matter )
or high-energy randomly moving particles created soon after the Big Bang ( hot dark matter ).


Here's another good one: Dark matter: A particle invisible to light but endowed with gravity. But because none of our detectors or experiments have ever seen dark matter directly, this has caused many to doubt its existence.

Here's another one:

Many factors related to the Big Bang are 'THEORETICAL'', NOT FACTUAL. Case in point (a few of many
definitions on the net):

Virtual particle

In physics, a virtual particle is a TRANSIENT fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, but whose EXISTENCE IS LIMITED by the uncertainty principle.

Since a 'virtual particle' is NOT an established fact of science, definitions will differ widely:

Definition 1)
A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle.

Definition 2)
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways.

Why is it that many people defend the big bang as though it were an established fact when so many topics
related to it are THEORETICAL and with so many differing and sometimes opposing views?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

truelgbt wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The OP is making the same basic mistake creationists do when they try to attack the BB via the law of conservation of energy. truelgbt, that law only applies to closed systems. We have no evidence that this is the case with the universe.

You have no evidence EITHER WAY whether its open or closed.

Which does nothing to refute the point that has been made. If you have no evidence that the universe is a closed system, you have no sound basis to assert that the law of conservation energy applies.

truelgbt wrote: You have committed yourself to an open system not because of evidence or lack but you have chosen so that you can make your reasons to believe in the Big Bang work for your position.

Stop making shit up about your interlocutors. It will only serve to demonstrate intellectual dishonesty on your part.

truelgbt wrote:Humans tend to pick and choose those things which tend to support their presuppositions.

Oh look, more generalized accusations...
Also, are you a human?

I asked you for evidence that the system is open as you claim. I don't see any effort on your part to verify this unverifiable claim of yours, only a short rebuttal that I cannot claim its closed. If you really believe the Big Bang you would KNOW FOR CERTAIN why it should be considered an open system but apparently you don't so... around we go....