Dolorosa wrote:

Longloadr, You REALLY have no blinking clue what either of these statements are about or what is the Big Bang theory. NOT ONE of these statements is contradictory to the theory. What these people do is work to expand it by providing more detail, ideas of its mechanics, and the conditions pre Big Bang and within a few unknown split moments at its beginning.

Incorrect analysis from you!
Correct analysis from the BBC
BBC analysis...They would be easier to dismiss as the half-baked musings of the lunatic fringe were it not for the fact that some of the very people who constructed the everything-from-nothing big bang model are themselves starting to dismantle it.
Why are the ideas half baked?
The ideas from the scientists still deny laws of physics, (2nd law of thermodynamics) but they are recognizing that the Big Bang model does not work. Stephen Hawkins and others attempt to deny the law of cause and effect.
As I suggested... Perhaps they should at least consider that the universe was created, and then we don't have any problem with cause and effect or any other law.

Longloadr wrote:

Dolorosa wrote: Longloadr, You REALLY have no blinking clue what either of these statements are about or what is the Big Bang theory. NOT ONE of these statements is contradictory to the theory. What these people do is work to expand it by providing more detail, ideas of its mechanics, and the conditions pre Big Bang and within a few unknown split moments at its beginning. Incorrect analysis from you! Correct analysis from the BBC BBC analysis...They would be easier to dismiss as the half-baked musings of the lunatic fringe were it not for the fact that some of the very people who constructed the everything-from-nothing big bang model are themselves starting to dismantle it. Why are the ideas half baked? The ideas from the scientists still deny laws of physics, (2nd law of thermodynamics) but they are recognizing that the Big Bang model does not work. Stephen Hawkins and others attempt to deny the law of cause and effect. As I suggested... Perhaps they should at least consider that the universe was created, and then we don't have any problem with cause and effect or any other law.

Longloadr, you are talking about BBC not the scientific establishment, and a popular science program designed for general public with their preconceived notions of what nothing is. Again, try to actually read up on what the Big Bang theory's claims are and how the above mentioned scientists' research relates to them and the theory. I'm not even going to dignify your laws of physics comment with a reply because you have absolutely no foundational understanding of what they are and arguing about them with you would be as constructive as building Hawking (with a 'g') a pedal operated wheelchair.

How about you consider that there are physical laws at hand of which we may not yet be aware that gave rise to our Universe? Then you wouldn't have any problems with the cause and effect of our Universe coming into being.

There are several ideas for the origin of our universe, but as others have said, it is a complex subject. This should not blind us though to the massive progress that has been made in scientific cosmology, particularly in the last 40-50 years, especially due to rapid advances in observational cosmology and instrumentation. Anyone who knows about the history of any science knows science usually makes the best progress when an idea is created that can be tested after it makes quantifiable predictions. Thanks to advances in observation, modern astronomy and cosmology are definitely much more rigorous scientifically than in the past. I would agree some of the more esoteric areas of cosmology like the 'multiverse' hypothesis do seem to verge on the realm of the metaphysical, as does speculation about what existed 'before' the universe came into being. I would prefer a simpler model where the universe arises due to some intelligible prior cause science can understand, than an infinite number of uncaused prior universes that have no prior explanation and cannot be observed. Be that as it may, it is possible asking 'before' questions is meaningless, since time and space came into existence with the universe. As with a lot of things in advanced physics and cosmology, our commonsense picture of the world needs to be discarded and we have to let theoretical intuition formalised by mathematics to take over.

Greg3001 wrote:

There are several ideas for the origin of our universe, but as others have said, it is a complex subject. This should not blind us though to the massive progress that has been made in scientific cosmology, particularly in the last 40-50 years, especially due to rapid advances in observational cosmology and instrumentation. Anyone who knows about the history of any science knows science usually makes the best progress when an idea is created that can be tested after it makes quantifiable predictions. Thanks to advances in observation, modern astronomy and cosmology are definitely much more rigorous scientifically than in the past. I would agree some of the more esoteric areas of cosmology like the 'multiverse' hypothesis do seem to verge on the realm of the metaphysical, as does speculation about what existed 'before' the universe came into being. I would prefer a simpler model where the universe arises due to some intelligible prior cause science can understand, than an infinite number of uncaused prior universes that have no prior explanation and cannot be observed. Be that as it may, it is possible asking 'before' questions is meaningless, since time and space came into existence with the universe. As with a lot of things in advanced physics and cosmology, our commonsense picture of the world needs to be discarded and we have to let theoretical intuition formalised by mathematics to take over.

Very well put. And I have to agree the question of reduction which we impose on the Creationists (i.e. who created the Creator) rings true in the case of the 'infinite number of uncaused prior universes'. However, there is a multiverse theory that does not require infinite reduction. I may well be mistaken, hopefully Carlos or Ari would pop in to correct me if I am, but Andrei Lindle's 'chaotic inflation' seems to take care of this problem.

So, Longloadr, since you are an expert in everything, can you show us conclusively which law if any and especially the second law of thermodynamics are vulnerated by the big bang theory?

Sunny-Smile wrote:

So, Longloadr, since you are an expert in everything, can you show us conclusively which law if any and especially the second law of thermodynamics are vulnerated by the big bang theory?

I'm an expert?? ha, Thanks. (What does vulnerated mean? )
I'm saying that these new theories which bring in the element of eternity, are not possible with 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I'm not an expert, and willing to hear you explain how matter and energy might have existed for all of eternity past.
I also said that the existing Big Bang theory that everything (matter, energy and time) came into existence as an uncaused cause is not scientifically possible. (Although S. Hawkins and others deny the law of cause and effect)

Lysholm wrote:

I can't see how anyone of the quotes either proves or disproves that the Universe was created.

Correct... Because they are discussing beliefs and differing hypothesis.

Longloadr wrote:

I'm saying that these new theories which bring in the element of eternity, are not possible with 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I'm not an expert, and willing to hear you explain how matter and energy might have existed for all of eternity past. I also said that the existing Big Bang theory that everything (matter, energy and time) came into existence as an uncaused cause is not scientifically possible. (Although S. Hawkins and others deny the law of cause and effect)

What a lot of gibberish I'm disappointed in you Longloadr. You are not even attempting to make any sense nowadays. Listen, that's absolutely fine if all you wanted was to aggravate, but where is your Christian spirit? You're just so angry lately Is it because a bunch of kids half your age are constantly embarrassing you here by pointing out your mistakes?

And, FYI, matter spontaneously comes into existence all the time, you should google it. Whilst you are there brush up on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Dolorosa wrote:

And, FYI, matter spontaneously comes into existence all the time, you should google it. Whilst you are there brush up on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

?? yes...and???
What does that have to do with anything? Energy can 'create' matter, but how does that relate to anything in this thread? Where does the energy come from? And, since you mention the second law.....I think you are the one who needs to brush up on the 2nd law..... It allows for an increasing order within a given system but with a decreasing amount of energy. Thats a simple explanation amongst many ways of defining it.
No matter which big bang model you use... you have to deny known physical laws.

Longloadr wrote:

No matter which big bang model you use... you have to deny known physical laws.

I won't add the word this time then.

Why is it a problem in that we have to question currently known physical laws at all? We need to be questioning them. We need to question everything. It's what we do. Measure a near infinite amount of times, cut exceedingly rarely. Tomorrow we might have a better understanding. Tomorrow we might theorize something else entirely. Tomorrow God might reveal itself overtly. Tomorrow I might stop posting in the Science section.

We're crawling towards an understanding on so much out there, micron by micron. No need to make a leap of er....oh damn...just because we can't afford to be patient because our own personal clocks are ticking.

Quite often what fails us is our language when it comes to expressing stuff about things like time, first causes and the like. We have trouble simply finding words. God is a theory in this instance (first cause, if one is needed), one of many that are in competition. But it's just that, one of many.