Here you go you dumbs$%&#@

[Maddhattter]

Equally, there is no need to believe the singularity is everything, since it is merely a construct conceived by mankind to support a theory conceived by mankind.

As it stands, the scientific community disagrees with you and if new evidence comes to light, that can and will change.

However, I'm not arguing that you should accept the big bang theory. I'm stating that accepting the big bang theory does not require the belief that the singularity comes from "nowhere" because the big bang theory does not address where the singularity comes from.

Experts can always use the words uttered by Bill Clinton as a starting point in support of hypotheses regarding where the singularity came from, to wit:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

This is about as relevant as someone saying "Well, you could just be a brain in a vat." Sure, it's true that I could be. Though, until the evidence changes and supports that possibility being a valid concern, there's no reason to believe that's the case. Especially when the evidence generally supports the opposite conclusion.

[Gasser64]

This is about as relevant as someone saying "Well, you could just be a brain in a vat." Sure, it's true that I could be. Though, until the evidence changes and supports that possibility being a valid concern, there's no reason to believe that's the case. Especially when the evidence generally supports the opposite conclusion.

And that's about as good as it gets for now. But because of the time we live in, of course there is a problem, even with that. One could simply ask "why"? Why is all this here? To what end? For what purpose? And come to the conclusion that it is possible, that there is some real reason for it being here. Possibly to house and provide for us, and other life that may exist throughout the universe. A logical chain of thought such as that, is as good as any big bang theory even if that theory doesn't address such questions.

I like the fact that the bbt is being challenged by a lot of scientists these days, cause imo it was getting old and stale and kind of boring. I'm ready to hear some new stuff.

[The King]

As it stands, the scientific community disagrees with you and if new evidence comes to light, that can and will change.

However, I'm not arguing that you should accept the big bang theory. I'm stating that accepting the big bang theory does not require the belief that the singularity comes from "nowhere" because the big bang theory does not address where the singularity comes from.

Of course the big bang theory does not require the belief (emphasis: belief) that the sigularity came from "nowhere", or for that matter the belief that there is any singularity at all. It simplifies acceptance of the theory for those so inclined by now ignoring that tough question it raises and instead simply assuming that the universe "is" and always "has been". Magical almost.

This is about as relevant as someone saying "Well, you could just be a brain in a vat." Sure, it's true that I could be. Though, until the evidence changes and supports that possibility being a valid concern, there's no reason to believe that's the case. Especially when the evidence generally supports the opposite conclusion.

I remember a Star Trek episode where Spocks brain was in a globe. That's about as relevant as someone saying "Well, you could just be a brain in a vat."

[Sean88gt]

Y'all let me know when you sort this out.

I've always been amazed at the exercise of 2 groups, so entrenched in their individual beliefs trying to convince the other side that they are wrong and should join the "our-side". There is no winner.

[The King]

I've always been amazed at the exercise of 2 groups, so entrenched in their individual beliefs trying to convince the other side that they are wrong and should join the "our-side". There is no winner.

You have to stay out of the fray, since after all you've been threatened with a fatwa by muhammed himself!

[AnthonyS]

This is not the case. In the current model of the big bang theory, that singularity is everything, not the beginning of it. Under the currently accepted model, we're not even sure that "preceded" is even a valid concept because there is no current scientific theory(there are hypothesis') that states where the singularity comes from.

Again, there is no need to believe the singularity came from nowhere because there isn't any evidence that points to that conclusion.



The big bang never posits an explosion. The big bang theory only posits an expansion. A slow one that took a massive amount of time. So, your analogy is flawed.

However, the idea of the singularity(as far as the big bang theory is concerned) is that everything is compressed into a single point. The very laws of our universe, as we understand them, would ultimately force the particles apart (from a compressed, ordered state to a more chaotic one) just like anything else you compress. So, if the the big bang theory is true, our universe would be the result of entropy acting on the singularity.

That's not even taking into consideration that this is all assuming that you're using the layman's definition of entropy and not the scientific definition. By the physic's definition, there is no problem at all because all energy, matter, etc would have been present in the singularity. As energy cannot be create or destroyed, as we understand it, all of that energy would have been present at the point that the expansion started providing it all the energy available to power is actions. So, entropy couldn't be a problem by that definition either.

The expansion vs. the gravitational pull of the combined mass of the universe requires an input force! Entropy tells you that a force can't come from nothing. There are no perpetual motion machines. Try again..... and fail again. Energy would indeed have to be created by some means in order to cause the expansion against the force of gravity (which we can measure so it too is real). Entropy can be measured so it is also real. The Big Bang is just a "theory" and it can easily be disproven by real tangible scientific measurements.

[AnthonyS]

lol entropy. You couldn't even begin to have an educated conversation on the topic.

You must be a fucking democrat. You don't offer anything to contradict or prove that I'm wrong. You just automatically resort to personal attacks.

[The King]

You must be a fucking democrat. You don't offer anything to contradict or prove that I'm wrong. You just automatically resort to personal attacks.

He's probably not a Democrat, but he can sure 'nuff Google better than most!

[racrguy]

You must be a fucking democrat. You don't offer anything to contradict or prove that I'm wrong. You just automatically resort to personal attacks.

You don't know how the burden of proof works, do you? Of course you don't, you don't understand basic scientific principles so why should logic be any different?

[YALE]

You must be a fucking democrat. You don't offer anything to contradict or prove that I'm wrong. You just automatically resort to personal attacks.

Technically, you're resorting to a personal attack.

[CexMashean]

Technically, you're resorting to a personal attack.

Shut up, you fucking Democrat!

[YALE]

Shut up, you fucking Democrat!

Her dur dur! You're the one with pink hair!

[CexMashean]

Her dur dur! You're the one with pink hair!

i've had blue, red, bleach blond, and green, but NEVER pink!

[Gasser64]

You don't know how the burden of proof works, do you? Of course you don't, you don't understand basic scientific principles so why should logic be any different?

You don't either lol. You think any dumb notion you have must be perfectly valid just because someone can't prove different at the time. Not the case.

[The King]

One of the few posters in this thread who doesn't have to resort to BS and personal insults is Maddhattter. Agree with him or not, he demonstrates a modicum of respect and intelligence in his posts.