[Silent One]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Can you explain what you are talking about here? Matter exploding? By the way, the Big Bang was 14 billion years ago ... you need to stop adding zeros to your figures

I think hes saying that, if all matter was at this certain point of singularity, and it always was there, why did it "decide" to explode into the universe at the time it did. If everything is set in stone, then who set it in stone to explode the tiny point of all matter at that moment and not a zillion years earlier?

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

There is this really cool law of physics called angular momentum. There is also another cool law called Inertia.

So if the small rotating speck was rotating counter clockwise, everything in the universe would be going counterclockwise.

Let me explain in this diagram:
The red speck in the middle is the whole universe before the big bang. The blue "planets" are everything in the universe. All would be spinning the same direction. (as you can see if you use your imagionation)

WHAT DID I TELL YOU ABOUT CITING DR. DINO, GSUS RAWKS?

This is IN NO WAY how the Big Bang works. If you are actually interested AT ALL about learning what scientists believe, DO NOT consult Kent Hovind. Read a science book instead. If you like, I can recommend some for you at an appropriate level (I work for an encylopedia written for kids your age).

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Why do you believe physical things cannot be eternal? Are you aware that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed? Isn't that the same thing as "eternal"?

I believe all physical things can be created and destroyed By God I think God created everything. And he will destroy it all and make a "New Jerusalem"

Yes, this is what I think. Remember how I asked you to prove there is such a thing as randomness or chance? I think the course of the universe is set in stone; "randomness" only exists from our perspective.

Randomness does exist only in our perspective.

Metaphorically speaking, God is this Stone into which the course of the universe is set.

So before God there was God?
So there was not actually a "before God." God encompasses time, so you cannot say there's a before God, right? It's like saying something is north of the north pole.

This is what many prominent scientists, such as Stephen Hawking, believe about the universe.

There was no before God. I was trying to answer your question in terms of how you asked it. Before the Present there was past. Before God created, there was still God. He has always been and always will be.

No, it really didn't. According to relativity, time and space are part of the same fabric. All of space and all of time were contained in the Big Bang singularity.


It was always there. There was never a point in time when it did not exist. Just like your God.


The same thing that made your God.

Yes but relativity itself (in my opinion) is just a philosiphy. Time and Space are similar. As But if space stopped going on time would too? Therefore space is infident?

How did all of infinity fit inside a circle?

Can you explain what you are talking about here? Matter exploding? By the way, the Big Bang was 14 billion years ago

What triggered the big bang? Could the same thing have triggered it a few billion years earlier?

... you need to stop adding zeros to your figures

But I like zeros!

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by Qingu

WHAT DID I TELL YOU ABOUT CITING DR. DINO, GSUS RAWKS?

This is IN NO WAY how the Big Bang works. If you are actually interested AT ALL about learning what scientists believe, DO NOT consult Kent Hovind. Read a science book instead. If you like, I can recommend some for you at an appropriate level (I work for an encylopedia written for kids your age).

Ooooh. thats what my science book for atheists says...

are atheists inconsistant?

Who is Dr. Dino? Kent Hovind?

[Gsus_Rawks]

Since the net energy of the universe is zero

Science cannot prove universal negitives.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Silent One

First of all, the big bang is not known, its a theory. Or were you there to witness it?

Let's talk scientific terminology.

In science, when we say "theory," we don't mean the word as in "it's just a theory!" When regular people say "theory" they mean something that's guesswork or conjecture. When scientists talk about theories, they mean frameworks that are proven and held to be true by the body of scientists.

The Big Bang is a proven theory. It is predicted both by relativity and by measurements in several fields of astronomy we have taken, including the Cosmic Microwave Background and Hubble's red shift. There is no evidence that contradicts the Big Bang theory (although it's possible that we will discover evidence that does falsify it later--this is an important part of what a "theory" is: it must be falsifiable.)

In the same way, heliocentrism is a proven theory. Relativity is a proven theory. All of these are useful, predictive explanatory frameworks that fit all known data we have.

What is time? To me, time began the moment I was born. Before I was born time didn't exist.

That's an interesting definition. I'm older than you: did time exist for me before you were born?

There is no before God because God always was.

There is no before the Universe because the Universe always was.

I'd love to know how anyone can even try to prove that.

It's actually quite easy. Take the positive energy of the universe (exists as, for example, electrical charges in particles) and subtract the negative energy of the universe (for example, gravity). You get zero. This idea is also supported more abstractly in quantum mechanics.

I am not sure if scientists accept it fully, since we're still not sure about dark energy/matter, but there is strong evidence that, strangely enough, the sum of existence=the sum of its opposite.

[Silent One]

Originally Posted by Qingu

There is no before the Universe because the Universe always was.

But ... I thought the Universe wasn't always, because the big bang was the creation of the Universe .. or am I confusing something here?

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by Qingu

That's an interesting definition. I'm older than you: did time exist for me before you were born?

No... It didnt.
Not according to what you are saying at least.

There is no before the Universe because the Universe always was.

Not to the people you are debating with. The Universe was Created

It's actually quite easy. Take the positive energy of the universe (exists as, for example, electrical charges in particles) and subtract the negative energy of the universe (for example, gravity). You get zero. This idea is also supported more abstractly in quantum mechanics.

I am not sure if scientists accept it fully, since we're still not sure about dark energy/matter, but there is strong evidence that, strangely enough, the sum of existence=the sum of its opposite.

Quantum is a big word. It has less letters than "thirteen" however

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Silent One

I think hes saying that, if all matter was at this certain point of singularity, and it always was there, why did it "decide" to explode into the universe at the time it did.

It's like asking why the north pole "decided" to start expanding as one travels southwards.

If everything is set in stone, then who set it in stone to explode the tiny point of all matter at that moment and not a zillion years earlier?

Your question is dependent on a prior conception of time.

In order for someone to have set the universe in stone, that someone must have been around before the universe, right? The problem is there is no such thing as "before the universe."

There is no "a zillion years earlier." The universe is what it is.

A better way to understand all of this is to think of the universe--past, present and future--like the surface of the earth. It's shaped like a globe. Excpet that you have to try to visualize time as a dimension in space. So pretend that Time is actually the south/north axis, and Space is actually the east/west axis.

The Big Bang is like the north pole. It's the "earliest" point in time because it's the furthest "north." The north pole is a single point that contains all of "space" in it as well. If you travel "south," the surface of the earth expands (like the Big Bang explosion) and eventually smooths out.

The trick is to stop thinking about things in terms of time and causation. If time is a PART of the universe, you cannot talk about what caused the universe, or when. This is very confusing, but again, you are used to it: you think of your God in the exact same way: a being that is uncaused, eternal, and encompasses time and space.

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by Qingu

The Big Bang is a proven theory.

False. The big bang is NOT a proven theory. We cannot see the big bang, we cannot see the effects of the big bang. It is more likely creation happened.

You cannot study the intangible.

Creation NOR Evolution is a proven theory.

If either were, the other would be rejected.

In my opinion creation is a proven theory, in yours its the opposite.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Silent One

But ... I thought the Universe wasn't always, because the big bang was the creation of the Universe .. or am I confusing something here?

You are confused. The Big Bang is often described as the creation of the universe, or "an explosin out of nothing."

That's not what it is. The Big Bang is simply the earliest known state of the universe. It is a singularity--very similar to what is found in the centers of black holes--that contained all of spacetime and matter/energy in it. The Big Bang is a "bang" because in the fractions of nanoseconds after this earliest point in spacetime, the universe expands due to its own density in an explosion (like when stars explode in supernovae except a much larger scale).

The physics of both the singularity and the resulting explosion are predicted by Einstein's relativity and are supported by the evidence we've gathered, as I said before.

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by Qingu

It's like asking why the north pole "decided" to start expanding as one travels southwards.


Your question is dependent on a prior conception of time.

In order for someone to have set the universe in stone, that someone must have been around before the universe, right? The problem is there is no such thing as "before the universe."

There is no "a zillion years earlier." The universe is what it is.

A better way to understand all of this is to think of the universe--past, present and future--like the surface of the earth. It's shaped like a globe. Excpet that you have to try to visualize time as a dimension in space. So pretend that Time is actually the south/north axis, and Space is actually the east/west axis.

The Big Bang is like the north pole. It's the "earliest" point in time because it's the furthest "north." The north pole is a single point that contains all of "space" in it as well. If you travel "south," the surface of the earth expands (like the Big Bang explosion) and eventually smooths out.

The trick is to stop thinking about things in terms of time and causation. If time is a PART of the universe, you cannot talk about what caused the universe, or when. This is very confusing, but again, you are used to it: you think of your God in the exact same way: a being that is uncaused, eternal, and encompasses time and space.

No. Time cannot start. That is unreasonable, What event triggered the start of time? there wasnt 1 nanosecond before that?

The Universe cannot exist without God.

[Silent One]

Originally Posted by Qingu

The trick is to stop thinking about things in terms of time and causation. If time is a PART of the universe, you cannot talk about what caused the universe, or when. This is very confusing, but again, you are used to it: you think of your God in the exact same way: a being that is uncaused, eternal, and encompasses time and space.

Exactly, so my question is if when all these scientists are thinking about the creation of the universe and they are able to stop thinking in terms of time and causation, why are they so hardheaded as to not accept the possibility that before time there was God? Although I already know the answer to that.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

Yes but relativity itself (in my opinion) is just a philosiphy.

Your opinion is quite wrong. Relativity is a proven theory that is used every day by scientists. You need to learn more about science before you make generalizations like that.

Relativity certainly has philosophical implications. But it is more than a vague philosophy. We use it.

Time and Space are similar. As But if space stopped going on time would too? Therefore space is infident?

Time and space are not similar; they are part of the same fabric of spacetime (like the front and back of your blanket arepart of the same blanket).

It's possible that spacetime is infinite but this does not appear to be the case. Most scientists believe that spacetime is finite but boundless. Again, try to visualize spacetime as the surface of the earth. The earth's surface has a finite area--but it doesn't have any "edge." You can't walk off the surface of the earth.

How did all of infinity fit inside a circle?

A circle contains an infinite amount of points.

Also, the big bang was not a circle, and I don't think spacetime is infinite anyway.

What triggered the big bang?

The same thing that "triggered God"

Could the same thing have triggered it a few billion years earlier?

There is no such thing as a few billion years before the big bang.

It's like you're asking "couldn't there be a city a thousand miles north of the north pole?"

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Silent One

Exactly, so my question is if when all these scientists are thinking about the creation of the universe and they are able to stop thinking in terms of time and causation, why are they so hardheaded as to not accept the possibility that before time there was God? Although I already know the answer to that.

Many of these scientists are Christians who do believe that God is somehow metaphysically responsible for the Big Bang or the natural laws of the universe. It is impossible to disprove the existence of such a being.

Stephen Hawking put it best. In A Brief History of Time, he said that his model of the universe does not rule out the existence of God. It just makes God unnecessary, as the universe would not need an external cause--it would just BE.