Atheist question

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
Your claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.

Kenny,

You do realize that applies to closed systems, don't you?

Yes. An open system would mean matter outside the Universe can act on it. A closed system means matter outside of it cannot act on it. Since the Universe is defined as “All that exists” that would mean there isn't anything outside of it that can act on it thus the Universe is a closed system.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
Your claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.

Kenny,

You do realize that applies to closed systems, don't you?

Yes. An open system would mean matter outside the Universe can act on it. A closed system means matter outside of it cannot act on it. Since the Universe is defined as “All that exists” that would mean there isn't anything outside of it that can act on it thus the Universe is a closed system.

Good. Then you'd have to retract what you said here, right?

Your claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.

You do realize that since the universe hadn't existed yet, DBowling's post does not contradict
The law of conservation of mass.

You do see your error, right?

[Kenny]

It doesn’t matter whether he was saying it as a pejorative, or simply hyperbolizing to make a point; your claim that matter actually came into being is not supported by the Big Bang theory.

So you keep saying...
But it is supported by the positions of both Lemaître and Hoyle in your source material.
And based on the accuracy of your assertions in our dialogue so far, I am inclined to give more weight to the positions of Lemaître and Hoyle than your inaccurate assertions.

When you appeal to source material, it would help your cause if your source material actually supported your claims.

So you insist on getting your information about the Big Bang from someone who doesn't even believe the Big Bang ever happened? Is this the method to your madness? Because if it is it definitely explains a lot!

My quotes came from your source material...
So if your source material is that inaccurate, then as you say...
"It definitely explains a lot."

I’m not saying my sources are wrong; I’m saying you’re wrong. Lemaitre spoke of time and space; not matter. Your claim is about matter so he didn’t support your claim; and Hoyle favored the Steady State theory, not the Big Bang theory. And he only implied matter was created as a joke; and the article was clear that he wasn’t serious when he said it.
So of the two guys you mentioned you agree with, only Hoyle spoke of matter and he didn’t even believe in the Big Bang theory.

And if you think that Lemaître didn't even believe in the Big Bang
well...
That explains a lot too!

Lemaitre isn't the one that claimed matter was created.

So far you have failed to provide one shed of evidence that contradicts my claim that
"science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago."

Your claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

Bingo!!!
You may actually be catching on.

If the first law of thermodynamics says that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
And since the Big Bang theory says that matter, energy, space, and time "came into existence"

Big Bang theory doesn’t say that. If you think it does, provide an outside source that says the Big Bang claims matter came into existence.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
Your claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.

Kenny,

You do realize that applies to closed systems, don't you?

Yes. An open system would mean matter outside the Universe can act on it. A closed system means matter outside of it cannot act on it. Since the Universe is defined as “All that exists” that would mean there isn't anything outside of it that can act on it thus the Universe is a closed system.

Good. Then you'd have to retract what you said here, right?

Your claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.

You do realize that since the universe hadn't existed yet, DBowling's post does not contradict
The law of conservation of mass.

You do see your error, right?

No I don't understand what you are saying. When you say the Universe hadn't existed yet, are you referring to the Singularity prior to it expanding?

[DBowling]

But it is supported by the positions of both Lemaître and Hoyle in your source material.
When you appeal to source material, it would help your cause if your source material actually supported your claims.

I’m not saying my sources are wrong; I’m saying you’re wrong. Lemaitre spoke of time and space; not matter.

Ok so let's see what we can actually agree on then

Do you agree with these three quotes from your source material?

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[55]

This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[25] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[26][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.

Based on the position of Lemaître, would you agree with the following statement?
"Science tells us that at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence"?

Would you agree with me that the natural laws of our universe (or "the laws of physics as we understand them") would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"?

Would you agree with me that an agent responsible for the fabric of space and time coming into existence would by definition operate outside the "laws of physics as we understand them"?

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
Your claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.

Kenny,

You do realize that applies to closed systems, don't you?

Yes. An open system would mean matter outside the Universe can act on it. A closed system means matter outside of it cannot act on it. Since the Universe is defined as “All that exists” that would mean there isn't anything outside of it that can act on it thus the Universe is a closed system.

Good. Then you'd have to retract what you said here, right?

Your claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.

You do realize that since the universe hadn't existed yet, DBowling's post does not contradict
The law of conservation of mass.

You do see your error, right?

No I don't understand what you are saying. When you say the Universe hadn't existed yet, are you referring to the Singularity prior to it expanding?

There was no universe, so there was no law to be contradicted. So your statement is wrong.

[Kenny]

But it is supported by the positions of both Lemaître and Hoyle in your source material.
When you appeal to source material, it would help your cause if your source material actually supported your claims.

I’m not saying my sources are wrong; I’m saying you’re wrong. Lemaitre spoke of time and space; not matter.

Ok so let's see what we can actually agree on then

Do you agree with these three quotes from your source material?

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[55]

This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[25] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[26][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.

Based on the position of Lemaître, would you agree with the following statement?
"Science tells us that at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence"?

I was not disputing that.

Would you agree with me that the natural laws of our universe (or "the laws of physics as we understand them") would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"?

I was not disputing that either.

Would you agree with me that an agent responsible for the fabric of space and time coming into existence would by definition operate outside the "laws of physics as we understand them"?

I don’t understand the concept of space and time coming into existence so I was not commenting on any of that.

[DBowling]

Do you agree with these three quotes from your source material?

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[55]

This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[25] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[26][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.

Based on the position of Lemaître, would you agree with the following statement?
"Science tells us that at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence"?

I was not disputing that.

Would you agree with me that the natural laws of our universe (or "the laws of physics as we understand them") would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"?

I was not disputing that either.

Would you agree with me that an agent responsible for the fabric of space and time coming into existence would by definition operate outside the "laws of physics as we understand them"?

I don’t understand the concept of space and time coming into existence so I was not commenting on any of that.

So we have agreed on two basic principles...
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"

Without claiming to understand the concept of space and time coming into existence and based on #2 above...

Would you agree that "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"?

[Kenny]

Kenny,

You do realize that applies to closed systems, don't you?

Yes. An open system would mean matter outside the Universe can act on it. A closed system means matter outside of it cannot act on it. Since the Universe is defined as “All that exists” that would mean there isn't anything outside of it that can act on it thus the Universe is a closed system.

Good. Then you'd have to retract what you said here, right?

Your claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.

You do realize that since the universe hadn't existed yet, DBowling's post does not contradict
The law of conservation of mass.

You do see your error, right?

No I don't understand what you are saying. When you say the Universe hadn't existed yet, are you referring to the Singularity prior to it expanding?

There was no universe, so there was no law to be contradicted. So your statement is wrong.

So your point is prior to the singularity expanding in what is known as the Big Bang, the laws of physics as we know them didn’t exist at that time so quoting the law of Conservation of Mass is an error because it didn’t apply at that time.
I agree; that’s a very good point. I didn’t think of that; thanks for pointing that out for me.

[Kenny]

Do you agree with these three quotes from your source material?

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[55]

This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[25] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[26][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.

Based on the position of Lemaître, would you agree with the following statement?
"Science tells us that at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence"?

I was not disputing that.

Would you agree with me that the natural laws of our universe (or "the laws of physics as we understand them") would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"?

I was not disputing that either.

Would you agree with me that an agent responsible for the fabric of space and time coming into existence would by definition operate outside the "laws of physics as we understand them"?

I don’t understand the concept of space and time coming into existence so I was not commenting on any of that.

So we have agreed on two basic principles...
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"

Without claiming to understand the concept of space and time coming into existence and based on #2 above...

Would you agree that "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"?

That does make sense to me.

[DBowling]

So we have agreed on two basic principles...
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"

Without claiming to understand the concept of space and time coming into existence and based on #2 above...

Would you agree that "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"?

That does make sense to me.

We now agree on three principles...
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
3. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"

Based on these three principles...

Would you agree that the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy would not be applicable to whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence"?
(I think that is the implication of your most recent response to Rick)

Would you agree that whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence" by definition functions outside of time and space?

[Kenny]

So we have agreed on two basic principles...
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"

Without claiming to understand the concept of space and time coming into existence and based on #2 above...

Would you agree that "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"?

That does make sense to me.

We now agree on three principles...
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
3. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"

Based on these three principles...

Would you agree that the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy would not be applicable to whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence"?
(I think that is the implication of your most recent response to Rick)

Would you agree that whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence" by definition functions outside of time and space?

The big bang theory speaks of space and time as something that has an actual existence. This is a part of the theory I don't understand; it makes no sense to me, I have no idea what that means. I've always thought of space as meaning nothing at all, and time as a system to measure action. But obviously nobody is going to claim "nothing at all" came into existence, or a system began to exist before people existed, so it must mean something else. However I can see your point that if these things did come into existence, it makes sense to believe something outside of it must have caused it to come into existence.

[DBowling]

We now agree on three principles...
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
3. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"

Based on these three principles...

Would you agree that the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy would not be applicable to whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence"?
(I think that is the implication of your most recent response to Rick)

Would you agree that whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence" by definition functions outside of time and space?

The big bang theory speaks of space and time as something that has an actual existence. This is a part of the theory I don't understand; it makes no sense to me,

I don't claim to understand it either.
Because I exist within the natural parameters of our space-time continuum, I don't even have a frame of reference to understand what it means to exist outside of the context of our space-time continuum.
However, the Big Bang Theory tells us that...
at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence

However I can see your point that if these things did come into existence, it makes sense to believe something outside of it must have caused it to come into existence.

So far I think the following five principles can be derived from the Big Bang Theory
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
3. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
4. the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy would not be applicable to whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence"
5. whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence" by definition functions outside of time and space

So to put this all together, would you agree that the Big Bang Theory points to the existence of...
A cause for the fabric of time space coming into existence that functions outside of time and space and is is not constrained by the laws of physics as we understand them.

or to put it more simply
A causal agent that transcends space, time, and the laws of nature.

[PaulSacramento]

The big bang theory speaks of space and time as something that has an actual existence. This is a part of the theory I don't understand; it makes no sense to me, I have no idea what that means. I've always thought of space as meaning nothing at all, and time as a system to measure action. But obviously nobody is going to claim "nothing at all" came into existence, or a system began to exist before people existed, so it must mean something else. However I can see your point that if these things did come into existence, it makes sense to believe something outside of it must have caused it to come into existence.

Space does NOT mean nothing at all and time is not JUST a system to measure action.

We need to be careful in using ONE definition of a word to make that word mean that always.


The big bang refers ONLY the the event in which the quantum singularity started to expand.
It does NOT address how that singularity came to be or what caused it to expand ( and yes, a cause was needed for it to expand).

[Kenny]

We now agree on three principles...
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
3. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"

Based on these three principles...

Would you agree that the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy would not be applicable to whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence"?
(I think that is the implication of your most recent response to Rick)

Would you agree that whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence" by definition functions outside of time and space?

The big bang theory speaks of space and time as something that has an actual existence. This is a part of the theory I don't understand; it makes no sense to me,

I don't claim to understand it either.
Because I exist within the natural parameters of our space-time continuum, I don't even have a frame of reference to understand what it means to exist outside of the context of our space-time continuum.
However, the Big Bang Theory tells us that...
at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence

However I can see your point that if these things did come into existence, it makes sense to believe something outside of it must have caused it to come into existence.

So far I think the following five principles can be derived from the Big Bang Theory
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
3. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
4. the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy would not be applicable to whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence"
5. whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence" by definition functions outside of time and space

So to put this all together, would you agree that the Big Bang Theory points to the existence of...
A cause for the fabric of time space coming into existence that functions outside of time and space and is is not constrained by the laws of physics as we understand them.

or to put it more simply
A causal agent that transcends space, time, and the laws of nature.

Not sure what you mean by Casual Agent, But if we assume there are parameters to space and time, and that they came into existence, at face value it would make sense that something outside of time and space could be responsible for it coming into existence. But in order for that to happen, that something else would have to be active, and whatever actions anything make, time can be applied to that action. After all, how could something exist before time?
As far as something existing before space? Where would this something exist?
This is a part of the Big Bang theory that doesn’t make sense to me.