Evidence for God from Science

I could tell you why I think communication is so hard, but then you'd accuse me of making stuff up about you, so I won't waste my time with that. What I wanted to know relates to this:

Audie wrote:If you assume the premises of cosmo, which I dont, the logical is no doubt unassailable.

There are premises that you don't assume. I wanted to know what those premises are, because there some I take it you DO assume (e.g., that some things are in motion). You made a statement--that you don't assume (questionable word, but I'm not going to read into your language lest I be accused of garbage again -- you make it so, so, so hard to have an honest conversation) some premises. I was curious what those are.

Was being the operative word. It's just boring to try to figure out what word choice and order to use in order to get you to have a reasonable conversation, and not fun when the penalty for getting it wrong is being accused of being a bad person. So I'm not terribly interested anymore.

So do me a favor and tell me again how much I make stuff up about you and make some ridiculous sewer remark. It's hard to care anymore.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I truly don't. I want to know what you are thinking of. I honestly can't imagine. I know every premise of the argument(s) and don't know any that are objectionable on any level. So I really want to know what you have in mind.

I appreciate hearing that you cannot imagine (how or what I think). Having what I supposedly think concocted for me and presented as fact is annoying.

But regarding said premises as cosmo is based on. I dont have original thoughts on the
subject.

Well that's a shame. You fuss at us (me) for telling you what you think, what you say. You dismiss an argument out of hand. And then when someone actually asks you for the basis of your critique, you decide not to tell us after all.

Whatever. I don't know why I keep trying with you at all.

Because you Audie hoping she too turns to Christ one day. Imagine how God feels?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: In short, what was Before the BB, what caused the BB and what caused the singularity is NOT of this natural universe but "outside it".

How do you know this? Is this a matter of "faith" on your part, or do you have evidence that supports this claim about the singularity?

Ken

Do you read that physics link I posted? cause it says right there.

Audie,
Jac asked you to reply to this you posted:

If you assume the premises of cosmo, which I dont, the logical is no doubt unassailable.

You posted that you do NOT assume the premises of the cosmological argument.
He asked you which premises.
You evade that question and, to be honest, as moderator here I am starting to get a little tired of this happening and not just with you ( Daniel is another).
As moderator, I ask you to reply to Jac and to state, plainly, what premises you do not assume.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: In short, what was Before the BB, what caused the BB and what caused the singularity is NOT of this natural universe but "outside it".

How do you know this? Is this a matter of "faith" on your part, or do you have evidence that supports this claim about the singularity?

Ken

Do you read that physics link I posted? cause it says right there.

No I did not see any physics link you posted. Would you mind posting it again?

Ken

It also doesn't make any statement other than:
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.html

The Big Bang is usually considered to be a theory of the birth of the universe, although technically it does not exactly describe the origin of the universe, but rather attempts to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It is just a model to convey what happened and not a description of an actual explosion, and the Big Bang was neither Big (in the beginning the universe was incomparably smaller than the size of a single proton), nor a Bang (it was more of a snap or a sudden inflation).

In fact, “explosion” is really just an often-used analogy and is slightly misleading in that it conveys the image that the Big Bang was triggered in some way at some particular centre. In reality, however, the same pattern of expansion would be observed from anywhere in the universe, so there is no particular location in our present universe which could claim to be the origin.

It really describes a very rapid expansion or stretching of space itself rather than an explosion in pre-existing space. Perhaps a better analogy sometimes used to describe the even expansion of galaxies throughout the universe is that of raisins baked in a cake becoming more distant from each other as the cake rises and expands, or alternatively of a balloon inflating.

Neither does it attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the Big Bang, or even what lies outside the universe. All of this is generally considered to be outside the remit of physics, and more the concern of philosophy.


As for what a singularity is:
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/top ... ities.html

If you click on the singularity macro, you will see the definition ( sorry, I don't know how to paste it here..)

PaulSacramento wrote:It also doesn't make any statement other than:
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.html

The Big Bang is usually considered to be a theory of the birth of the universe, although technically it does not exactly describe the origin of the universe, but rather attempts to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It is just a model to convey what happened and not a description of an actual explosion, and the Big Bang was neither Big (in the beginning the universe was incomparably smaller than the size of a single proton), nor a Bang (it was more of a snap or a sudden inflation).

In fact, “explosion” is really just an often-used analogy and is slightly misleading in that it conveys the image that the Big Bang was triggered in some way at some particular centre. In reality, however, the same pattern of expansion would be observed from anywhere in the universe, so there is no particular location in our present universe which could claim to be the origin.

It really describes a very rapid expansion or stretching of space itself rather than an explosion in pre-existing space. Perhaps a better analogy sometimes used to describe the even expansion of galaxies throughout the universe is that of raisins baked in a cake becoming more distant from each other as the cake rises and expands, or alternatively of a balloon inflating.

Neither does it attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the Big Bang, or even what lies outside the universe. All of this is generally considered to be outside the remit of physics, and more the concern of philosophy.


As for what a singularity is:
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/top ... ities.html

If you click on the singularity macro, you will see the definition ( sorry, I don't know how to paste it here..)

You said:

In short, what was Before the BB, what caused the BB and what caused the singularity is NOT of this natural universe but "outside it”.

You assert this as if it were a proven fact PaulSacramento.
Now I read the links you provided, and I saw nowhere in these links that claims something outside the Universe (whatever that means) caused the singularity that lead to the Big Bang. So again; how do you know this?

Ken

You said:

In short, what was Before the BB, what caused the BB and what caused the singularity is NOT of this natural universe but "outside it”.

You assert this as if it were a proven fact PaulSacramento.
Now I read the links you provided, and I saw nowhere in these links that claims something outside the Universe (whatever that means) caused the singularity that lead to the Big Bang. So again; how do you know this?

Ken

Really?
So something INSIDE the universe caused the BB? caused the singularity? cause it to "expand"?
Where in physics does it state that somethinG INSIDE this universe started the big bang?

I think Kenny is looking as far back as the singularity. Without speaking for Ken, maybe he's thinking that the universe was contained in the singularity, until it suddenly expanded.

RickD wrote:I think Kenny is looking as far back as the singularity. Without speaking for Ken, maybe he's thinking that the universe was contained in the singularity, until it suddenly expanded.

A view like that is not based on science.
EVEN if it was, since the singularity couldn't cause itself to expand ( there is no reason to believe it can do that), it would mean that something "outside" itself would be the cause.

Unless of, course Ken has evidence that a singularity can cause itself to expand, Ken?
And no, "fluctuations" would not account for that because then there would have ot be a cause for those fluctuations.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:I think Kenny is looking as far back as the singularity. Without speaking for Ken, maybe he's thinking that the universe was contained in the singularity, until it suddenly expanded.

A view like that is not based on science.
EVEN if it was, since the singularity couldn't cause itself to expand ( there is no reason to believe it can do that), it would mean that something "outside" itself would be the cause.

Unless of, course Ken has evidence that a singularity can cause itself to expand, Ken?
And no, "fluctuations" would not account for that because then there would have ot be a cause for those fluctuations.

The view that the entirety of the Universe was contained within the singularity that expanded, IS based on science, as a matter of fact, if you go to the very first paragraph of that link you provided, it confirms this. What caused the expansion? Nobody knows.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:I think Kenny is looking as far back as the singularity. Without speaking for Ken, maybe he's thinking that the universe was contained in the singularity, until it suddenly expanded.

A view like that is not based on science.
EVEN if it was, since the singularity couldn't cause itself to expand ( there is no reason to believe it can do that), it would mean that something "outside" itself would be the cause.

Unless of, course Ken has evidence that a singularity can cause itself to expand, Ken?
And no, "fluctuations" would not account for that because then there would have ot be a cause for those fluctuations.

The view that the entirety of the Universe was contained within the singularity that expanded, IS based on science, as a matter of fact, if you go to the very first paragraph of that link you provided, it confirms this. What caused the expansion? Nobody knows.

Ken

Ken, If the expansion was NOT caused by what was inside the universe ( that didn't exist yet) what is the logical conclusion? logical reasoning from where it did come from? if not from inside, then...

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:I think Kenny is looking as far back as the singularity. Without speaking for Ken, maybe he's thinking that the universe was contained in the singularity, until it suddenly expanded.

A view like that is not based on science.
EVEN if it was, since the singularity couldn't cause itself to expand ( there is no reason to believe it can do that), it would mean that something "outside" itself would be the cause.

Unless of, course Ken has evidence that a singularity can cause itself to expand, Ken?
And no, "fluctuations" would not account for that because then there would have ot be a cause for those fluctuations.

The view that the entirety of the Universe was contained within the singularity that expanded, IS based on science, as a matter of fact, if you go to the very first paragraph of that link you provided, it confirms this. What caused the expansion? Nobody knows.

Ken

Ken, If the expansion was NOT caused by what was inside the universe ( that didn't exist yet) what is the logical conclusion? logical reasoning from where it did come from? if not from inside, then...

...from inside the singularity.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:I think Kenny is looking as far back as the singularity. Without speaking for Ken, maybe he's thinking that the universe was contained in the singularity, until it suddenly expanded.

A view like that is not based on science.
EVEN if it was, since the singularity couldn't cause itself to expand ( there is no reason to believe it can do that), it would mean that something "outside" itself would be the cause.

Unless of, course Ken has evidence that a singularity can cause itself to expand, Ken?
And no, "fluctuations" would not account for that because then there would have ot be a cause for those fluctuations.

The view that the entirety of the Universe was contained within the singularity that expanded, IS based on science, as a matter of fact, if you go to the very first paragraph of that link you provided, it confirms this. What caused the expansion? Nobody knows.

Ken

Ken, If the expansion was NOT caused by what was inside the universe ( that didn't exist yet) what is the logical conclusion? logical reasoning from where it did come from? if not from inside, then...

PaulS
When I made that comment that you replied to that lead to this current conversation, I was not speaking on the details of the Big Bang, I was defending myself against the accusation that I go against science because of my views on the Big Bang. Now if you want to discuss the details of the Big Bang, we can do that but that's a completely different conversation than what you originally commented on. Now did you want to change the subject and speak of the details of the Big Bang?

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:I think Kenny is looking as far back as the singularity. Without speaking for Ken, maybe he's thinking that the universe was contained in the singularity, until it suddenly expanded.

A view like that is not based on science.
EVEN if it was, since the singularity couldn't cause itself to expand ( there is no reason to believe it can do that), it would mean that something "outside" itself would be the cause.

Unless of, course Ken has evidence that a singularity can cause itself to expand, Ken?
And no, "fluctuations" would not account for that because then there would have ot be a cause for those fluctuations.

The view that the entirety of the Universe was contained within the singularity that expanded, IS based on science, as a matter of fact, if you go to the very first paragraph of that link you provided, it confirms this. What caused the expansion? Nobody knows.

Ken

Ken, If the expansion was NOT caused by what was inside the universe ( that didn't exist yet) what is the logical conclusion? logical reasoning from where it did come from? if not from inside, then...

...from inside the singularity.

So something INSIDE the singularity caused the expansion of the universe that was inside the singularity?
In short the universe, that didn't exist yet, caused itself to expand?
Probably because it's components existed in the singularity?
Possible of course BUT then why don't we have universe popping up from all those other singularities out there?
Or maybe we do?

One of the biggest issues we have is when we try to FORCE an explanation.

Occam's razor.

Is it more logical to think that something acted upon something else so as to cause it to change or that what had always been that way, suddenly stopped being that way and changed?