There was no big bang

ZeusAres42

jesusisGod777 said:

I love when Jesus is Right! 

I'm afraid the Jews were right; Jesus was never the messiah! Looks like you're following the wrong religion.

ZeusAres42

Anyway, in regard to the Big Bang all that is, is that it's best model we have so far from understanding the universe as we know it.

xlJ_dolphin_473

@janesix
It is false that you cannot get something from nothing. I will explain why. 
If a particle, or matter, collides with an antiparticle, or antimatter, the result is nothing. They annihilate each other. They are gone. The same process can occur in reverse, producing an antiparticle and a particle from nothing. If this process happens repeatedly, but with a very slight excess of particles, then the particles will annihilate all the antiparticles, and the antiparticles will annihilate most of the particles. This is how we end up with more particles than antiparticles. This is how matter was formed, and more specifically how a specific amount of matter was formed: 10 to the power of 50 tonnes.

This diagram illustrates it better than I could say it myself.
Anyway, that is how something can in fact be created from nothing.

MayCaesar

@xlJ_dolphin_473

This is not technically accurate. Particles cannot just annihilate with nothing produced. When, say, an electron and positron collide, there is a chance that they will destroy each other and produce a pair of photons preserving their energy and momentum- this is known as "particle annihilation". We like to say that particles just disappear and are converted into pure energy, but from the strict physical perspective there is no such thing as "pure energy", as all energy has some carrier having it.

However, the virtual particles, born in vacuum and temporarily violating the energy conservation law, indeed can be seen as forming out of nowhere - and then disappearing into nowhere.

In any case, even though we are not aware of any exact physical processes that cause nothing become something, or something become nothing, on a large time scale - there is nothing prohibiting such processes from existing in principle. As far as logic goes, there is no reason to assume that "something" and "nothing" should always be continuous states that cannot evolve into each other.

piloteer

@janesix

At what time were you planning to give us any evidence that the big bang did not happen? You yourself cannot be considered the determining factor of whether the big bang took place, and you cannot prove that we can't get something from nothing because you cannot see everything that exists in the universe, and you have not been able to do that for the entirety of existence, so you cannot give any accurate information on what actually has happened, is happening, or will happen in the universe, because you weren't here in the past, and you only have access to less than one percent of one trillionth of the universe now, and you won't be here after you die, so your testimony is impotent. Just because we see a bunch of words written here with an avatar, it doesn't prove to us that you actually exist. You could just be a programmed set of posts that was created in a troll farm in Russia and there is no actual you. You'd probably do just as good of a job by living in a dark forgotten closet for the entirety of your life and claiming light doesn't exist because you never saw it. You were never going to accept any evidence about the big bang, so why'd you even bother leaving your closet to create this thread?

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

• You can't get something from nothing. Therefore the universe must have always existed. Change my mind.

How do you go about proving you cannot get something from nothing? Talking about time before the Big Bang is meaningless as time came into being with the Big Bang , it’s like asking what is north of north 

Funnily enough Stephen Hawking said the same thing haha.

JesusisGod777888

A question observing logical fallacys

Evolution asserts the origin and evolution of the universe is the Big Bang model, which states that the universe began 

1. Evolutionary Scientists assert the universe had a natural cause or natural beggining, prior to the existence of physical material substances.

2. The assertion, in definable terms, suggests the universe had a physical cause despite the fact that the physical cause of the universe was not in existence at the time the universe began to exist

3.The assertion defines the universes existence as the result of a physical process.

Question

How is the universe asserted to have a physical cause, despite the fact that the physical cause of the universe was not in existence at the time the universe began to exist

Considering that something can not be it's own cause and effect as

1. Anything that does not exist, does not have a potential effect on it's own existence.

And

2. before something exists, it's lack of existence effects the potential to be it's own cause.

Question assessing the Logical Fallacy of darwins tree

Darwin's tree of life

1. All animal species that are asserted as the product of an original single physical cause or process are evolutionarily isolated on the tree

 2. When reviewing the tree the assertion is that species become evolutionarily isolated/adapated to their environment over time 

3. As a result all transitory species are subject to evolutionary isolation/adaption, despite the fact of never being observed.

 Question

Considering the ape or more asserted primitive species are currently observable how is it possible If the most primitive ancestor is evolutionarily isolated, and observable,  that the more recent ancestors asserted to human beings are not, when subject to the same conditions that evolutionarily isolated the ape or other species

The overview of the question is how do more recent ancestors become extinct while much more primitive ancestors are asserted to be evolutionarily isolated?