Philip wrote: Ken, your links have not helped your contention about there supposedly being matter before the Big Bang began – this is NOT what science believes, per the data and models currently theorized.
I didn’t supply the links to support that; I supplied the links to point out that science doesn’t know what existed prior to the singularity that lead to the big bang.
Philip wrote: Just to note, your first link is broken. And the third and fourth ones don't work either.
Here is the latest accumulation of data of what can be known about the early moments of the universe:
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/top ... eline.html (
reference sources for the linked page: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/sources.html.)
From the linked page: “But from the earliest moment of the universe that is theorized, per the existing data, the closest first moment - of which little can be known, is the Planck Epoch (or Planck Era), from zero to approximately 10-43 seconds. And a Planck length is believed to be the shortest meaningful length, the limiting distance below which the very notions of space and length cease to exist.”
Of course no one knows what preceded the Big Bang. But what emerged from it did not previously exist.
What preceded the Big Bang was the singularity. What emerged from it was the Universe as we know it.
Philip wrote: Particles are not thought to have existed before the Grand Unification Epoch portion of the first moments of the Big Bang beginning.
But they will not say particles did not exist, because they just don’t know
Philip wrote: There are two classes of particle in our universe; bosons and fermions. Fermions make up matter - electrons, protons and other - while bosons mediate the interaction between them. But prior to Grand Unification Epoch (from 10–43 seconds to 10–36 seconds of the Big Bang's beginning moment (“in which the force of gravity separates from the other fundamental forces - which remained unified), and the earliest elementary particles (and antiparticles) begin to be created”) - so, in these early moments of the Big Bang, NO particles yet existed, and thus the Fermions that make up matter did not yet exist.
Just because science cannot claim particles existed, does not mean they claim particles did not exist. It seems you are making a bit of a leap here in order to make a point.
Philip wrote: Fermions cannot occupy the same space and hence things composed of fermions have physical size. So, the first MATTER was composed of those first, previously NON-existing particles that came into existence. So, physics does not believe matter pre-existed the Big Bang! Period! READ up on it! So, Ken, you have a personal belief, and not a scientific one. But that's not your biggest difficulty.
Bruh! I have been telling you
that I suppose matter has always existed, is a personal belief not backed up by science, since the beginning of this conversation! You just now figuring this out now? Sherlock Holmes would be proud.
I’ve been very clear; “I don’t know if or how things began, but I suspect matter has always existed in one form or another”. I’ve never claimed this was backed up by science.
Philip wrote: The Big Bang event itself, and not only the extraordinary things that IMMEDIATELY proceeded from it, show great intelligence from an eternal source. Otherwise, you have time and blind chance – even though the source HAD to be eternal
How do you know blind chance is not responsible?
Philip wrote: – instantly producing extraordinary things that science scarcely can understand. One believing random, blind, non-intelligence can produce such things – HOWEVER long before the Big Bang they might have existed - is just an irrational belief in magic. The Big Bang and the elementary building blocks show, not random chaos, not billions of years of mathematically, immensely improbable things slowly developing, but ALL such things coming into physical existence IMMEDIATELY – with incredible designs, functionality, and instantly obeying complex laws! It's just not rational to conclude that breathtaking complexity immediately proceeded from blind, random things – and this would be true no matter ANY length of time ANY such un-assembled/undesigned/non-functional building blocks might have pre-existed in another, non-physical dimension.
Lastly, as per the unimaginably small space pre-existing all things prior to the first particles, a universe of things of huge mass could not have existed. And, per the studies of the red shifts of star light, and many other studies, while the earliest moments of the Big Bang might not be well understood, reversing the calculated and proven expansion rates, and per many studies and extensive data, show that all of the mass of the universe was once together and that it expanded from a certain, unfathomably small point. Those studies are also how the age of the universe has been calculated. And, again, JUST the right things happened to immediately emerge with such precision – WITHOUT an intelligence???!!! When I think that anyone can believe THAT is possible – it kind of blows my mind!
Philip I can understand your desire that I have an actual position on this issue; because it is easier to refute someone’s position when they have one rather than remaining neutral as I am doing.
I can also understand you using cosmology in an effort to prove the hand of God, you seem to know a lot about it. But as I said before, I know little about cosmology, which is why I am happy to admit I don’t have an answer. If you want to prove God to me, you will have to find another route because I am aware that you could be giving me false information and because of my ignorance on the issue I wouldn’t be able to distinguish it from the truth. And don't assume that because I don’t accept religious claims that I automatically accept everything science says; the same skepticism I apply to religion I apply to science as well. If science makes a claim that doesn’t make sense to me, I will reject it just as I have religious claims.
Ken
