frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





The universe requires a Creator.

Debate Information

Think about this. Scientists tell us that the universe had a beginning. They also tell us about the law of causality. Every event requires a causitive event. So I ask you. Who or what caused the universe to exist? Without a Creator, you are forced to admit that the universe created itself. Really?


DrCerealNathaniel_Bcheesycheese



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • searsear 109 Pts   -  
    [quote] "Think about this. Scientists tell us that the universe had a beginning."  MB [/quote]
    Do you need to be told?
    Please name anything that exists that didn't have a beginning.
    [quote] "They also tell us about the law of causality." MB [/quote]
    If I may paraphrase: a causes b.

    But I've followed at least one scientist's account that asserts that there's no scientific law that says a cosmos can't just seemingly burst out of apparent nothing.
    [quote] "Every event requires a causitive event." MB [/quote]
    If that were true, what would cause the beginning of time?

    It's either as you suggest, or history is infinite. Time didn't begin, it just always was.
    [quote] "So I ask you. Who or what caused the universe to exist?" [/quote]
    Even if science didn't have an answer doesn't mean religion must be the answer.
    [quote] "Without a Creator, you are forced to admit that the universe created itself. Really?" MB [/quote]
    Few if any things create themselves.
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    I agree.
    DrCerealNathaniel_Bcheesycheese
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    sear said:
    [quote] "Think about this. Scientists tell us that the universe had a beginning."  MB [/quote]
    Do you need to be told?
    Please name anything that exists that didn't have a beginning.
    [quote] "They also tell us about the law of causality." MB [/quote]
    If I may paraphrase: a causes b.

    But I've followed at least one scientist's account that asserts that there's no scientific law that says a cosmos can't just seemingly burst out of apparent nothing.
    [quote] "Every event requires a causitive event." MB [/quote]
    If that were true, what would cause the beginning of time?

    It's either as you suggest, or history is infinite. Time didn't begin, it just always was.
    [quote] "So I ask you. Who or what caused the universe to exist?" [/quote]
    Even if science didn't have an answer doesn't mean religion must be the answer.
    [quote] "Without a Creator, you are forced to admit that the universe created itself. Really?" MB [/quote]
    Few if any things create themselves.
    @sear said: But I've followed at least one scientist's account that asserts that there's no scientific law that says a cosmos can't just seemingly burst out of apparent nothing.

    I for one would love to hear/read this scientists assertion!? I believe we all would.
    cheesycheese
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Incorrect.

    The OP states " They also tell us about the law of causality. Every event requires a causitive event.".

    In fact science tells us that spacetime is a single linked continuum and therefore when all of space was compressed to a single point all of time was too and there was no time for causality to exist in. To quote. Stephen Hawking: 

    "Time itself must come to a stop [at the singularity].  You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang.  We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in."

    The OP's proposition that science claims "Every event requires a causitive event" is therefore false.


    GandPolaris95cheesycheese
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    sear said:
    [quote] "Think about this. Scientists tell us that the universe had a beginning."  MB [/quote]
    Do you need to be told?
    Please name anything that exists that didn't have a beginning.
    [quote] "They also tell us about the law of causality." MB [/quote]
    If I may paraphrase: a causes b.

    But I've followed at least one scientist's account that asserts that there's no scientific law that says a cosmos can't just seemingly burst out of apparent nothing.
    [quote] "Every event requires a causitive event." MB [/quote]
    If that were true, what would cause the beginning of time?

    It's either as you suggest, or history is infinite. Time didn't begin, it just always was.
    [quote] "So I ask you. Who or what caused the universe to exist?" [/quote]
    Even if science didn't have an answer doesn't mean religion must be the answer.
    [quote] "Without a Creator, you are forced to admit that the universe created itself. Really?" MB [/quote]
    Few if any things create themselves.
    @poco said: Please name anything that exists that didn't have a beginning.

    Infinite/God, .. no beginning nor end, .. Infinite is without borders and Eternal.
    Infinite is conscious, as he told the Prophet Moses: "I Am", a conscious Creator.
  • pocopoco 93 Pts   -  
    you:@poco said: Please name anything that exists that didn't have a beginning.

    Infinite/God, .. no beginning nor end, .. Infinite is without borders and Eternal.
    Infinite is conscious, as he told the Prophet Moses: "I Am", a conscious Creator.


    me:  If you'd see, I haven't commented on this thread until this very posting.  That said, the above quote should not be attributed to me.  thanx.

    Evidence
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    The causality principle only applies to continuous entities, specifically time. "Time" as we define it did not exist before the Universe was born, hence the causality principle does not apply to the "pre-Universe" state of the world (which, strictly speaking, cannot exist in principle, since "time" appeared at the moment the Universe was born; there is no "before the Universe was born").
  • JoesephJoeseph 651 Pts   -  
    I don’t accept that Hawkings and Mlodinow put it pretty well,..........Hawking and Mlodinow argue that just as the universe has no edge, so there is no boundary, no beginning to time. Therefore to ask what happened before the beginning — or even at the beginning — would be meaningless:

    In the early universe — when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory — there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. That means that when we speak of the “beginning” of the universe, we are skirting the subtle issue that as we look backward toward the very early universe, time as we know it does not exist! We must accept that our usual ideas of space and time do not apply to the very early universe.



    No doubt if there was indeed a creator he also needed a creator and if not why not ? 
    MayCaesar
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Joeseph said:
    I don’t accept that Hawkings and Mlodinow put it pretty well,..........Hawking and Mlodinow argue that just as the universe has no edge, so there is no boundary, no beginning to time. Therefore to ask what happened before the beginning — or even at the beginning — would be meaningless:

    In the early universe — when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory — there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. That means that when we speak of the “beginning” of the universe, we are skirting the subtle issue that as we look backward toward the very early universe, time as we know it does not exist! We must accept that our usual ideas of space and time do not apply to the very early universe.



    No doubt if there was indeed a creator he also needed a creator and if not why not ? 

    @Joeseph ;

    For something to pop out of nothing you would need first the "nothing", then you'd need time for whatever popped out of it or it could never happen! So where did the 'nothing' come from?

    Infinite/God is not hindered by the "infinite regress" paradox: "if there was indeed a creator he also needed a creator" .. because; Infinite Is, and He is conscious as in "I Am", .. without beginning nor end. Everything other than God was created by God, starting with His son Word (John 1:1- ), through, and for the son Word God created all things both visible and invisible.

    The 'nothing' is exactly that; a no-thing. Like a blank sheet of paper, it neither adds or takes away from the words written on it. Without the 'nothing', everything would be a huge lump, one 'thing' indistinguishable from another 'thing'.
  • JoesephJoeseph 651 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    You say ......

    For something to pop out of nothing you would need first the "nothing", ....

    My reply ......

    What is nothing ? How do you know something cannot come out of it ? 

    Have you examined nothing and how did you do so 

    You say ......then you'd need time for whatever popped out of it or it could never happen! So where did the 'nothing' come from?

    Infinite/God is not hindered by the "infinite regress" paradox: "if there was indeed a creator he also needed a creator" .. because; Infinite Is, and He is conscious as in "I Am", .. without beginning nor end. Everything other than God was created by God, starting with His son Word (John 1:1- ), through, and for the son Word God created all things both visible and invisible.......

    My reply .....God is “ something “ theists claim something cannot can come from nothing , so we are agreed something possibly can come from nothing 

    You say ....The 'nothing' is exactly that; a no-thing. Like a blank sheet of paper, it neither adds or takes away from the words written on itWithout the 'nothing', everything would be a huge lump, one 'thing' indistinguishable from another 'thing'.....

    my reply ..... Prove it ? 
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Joeseph said:
    @Evidence

    You say ......

    For something to pop out of nothing you would need first the "nothing", ....

    My reply ......

    What is nothing ? How do you know something cannot come out of it ? 

    Have you examined nothing and how did you do so 

    You say ......then you'd need time for whatever popped out of it or it could never happen! So where did the 'nothing' come from?

    Infinite/God is not hindered by the "infinite regress" paradox: "if there was indeed a creator he also needed a creator" .. because; Infinite Is, and He is conscious as in "I Am", .. without beginning nor end. Everything other than God was created by God, starting with His son Word (John 1:1- ), through, and for the son Word God created all things both visible and invisible.......

    My reply .....God is “ something “ theists claim something cannot can come from nothing , so we are agreed something possibly can come from nothing 

    You say ....The 'nothing' is exactly that; a no-thing. Like a blank sheet of paper, it neither adds or takes away from the words written on itWithout the 'nothing', everything would be a huge lump, one 'thing' indistinguishable from another 'thing'.....

    my reply ..... Prove it ? 

    @Joeseph said: What is nothing ? How do you know something cannot come out of it ? 
    Have you examined nothing and how did you do so 

    yes, I have examined 'nothing' extensively, just like I have Infinite, and understand both. It is man in his worship of the Beast system that is driven to alter both, you know, this 'opposite' 'upside down', thingy, worshipping the "Opposer". I mean he wouldn't be called the Opposer if he didn't 'oppose' everything God has created, .. right?

    Joeseph- .....God is “ something “ theists claim something cannot can come from nothing , so we are agreed something possibly can come from nothing

    I just explained that God is not 'something', .. nor is He a 'being', but the Ground of Being.
    "Something", .. any thing and every-thing was created by Infinite, including the thing between all 'things'; the nothing. As I said, nothing has no value, it neither gives nor takes away from the 'somethings', .. that's why it's called "nothing". So God cannot come from a created thing, He Is The Creator.

    Joeseph - ..... Prove it ?

    I did. I think what you really want is for me to 'convince you', like NASA does with flying their rockets sideways, and all the pretty sci-fi pictures of imaginary space. What you want is to be dazzled, like the tourists at Las Vegas who flood the always sold-out Magic Performances.
    Sorry, no-can-do, I don't do MK-Ultra. We Flat Earthers here provide evidence with substance, point out facts. If that's not good enough, and you need magic, go to NASA, or CERN or watch a bunch of "Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins" videos.
    10 years of playing with water and doing backflips in the NASA ISS zero-G planes helped convince a lot of people, so you might want to try that out too?
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    The causality principle only applies to continuous entities, specifically time. "Time" as we define it did not exist before the Universe was born, hence the causality principle does not apply to the "pre-Universe" state of the world (which, strictly speaking, cannot exist in principle, since "time" appeared at the moment the Universe was born; there is no "before the Universe was born").

    @MayCaesar
    Only you need "time" for something like the universe to be born. How can something happen outside of time?

    So it's like this: Millions and billions of Carl Sagan years ago, in a moment in time before time existed, in a point in space before space existed, a Big-Bang that wasn't really a Big Bang, more like a SBD Big Swooshh happened, not really creating the universe because there is no Creator, besides the pseudoscience fact that the universe was already within that little stinker quantum "speck", which Hubble spent his whole life sniffing out and examining the red-shift gasses left over by little stinker, thus our universe was born! Then, .. for no reason or purpose the gravity mixed vacuum started expanding. (You know, because as we see in science, when we mix gravity within a vacuum, it always expands)
    G+V=E (Mix Gravity + Vacuum you get = Expanse)

    Just as E=MC^2 because Energy is same as Mass traveling 186,282 m/p/s squared.
    Or you can write Energy = Mass traveling at 34,700,983,524m/p/s and cosmologists will right away know what you're talking about since they know that nothing, no Mass can travel faster than the speed of light, just ask Einstein, he's the one who said it!?



    Image result for college sweater with emc2 Image result for college sweater with emc2

    And remember to wear your back to school outfit, and don't forget: Back To School means "E=MC^2"

    .. And what else does school mean? Come on kids, who can tell Miss Studenko what "school" means?
     Children all together: "THE GLOBE!!!"

    Related imageImage result for pic of globe in class   "UmmmAahh, ..  I love you Globe Earth"  - Future candidate for trip to Mars


    And here is my friend @Erfisflat ; for yelling out in science class: "The Globe is , don't make any sense!"
    Related image



    Here is me saying in class: "I believe there is evidence for God, .. and I think my friend Erfisflat is correct, the globe is !"

    Related image

  • JoesephJoeseph 651 Pts   -  
    @Evidence


    You say .....yes, I have examined 'nothing' extensively, just like I have Infinite, and understand both.......


    My reply ..... Ok prove than that something cannot come from nothing ? 


    You say .....It is man in his worship of the Beast system that is driven to alter both, you know, this 'opposite' 'upside down', thingy, worshipping the "Opposer". I mean he wouldn't be called the Opposer if he didn't 'oppose' everything God has created, .. right?......


    My reply ......I don’t believe in a god or his opposite 


    You say ....

    I just explained that God is not 'something', .. nor is He a 'being', .....


    My reply .....


    First you have to prove there’s a god before you can make these claims 



    You say .....but the Ground of Being.


    My reply .....That makes no sense 


    You say “Something", .. any thing and every-thing was created by Infinite, including the thing between all 'things'; the nothing.......



    My reply ..... You’re making yet another baseless assertion 


    You say .....As I said, nothing has no value, it neither gives nor takes away from the 'somethings', .. that's why it's called "nothing".......


    My reply .....I asked you to demonstrate that something cannot come from nothing so your statement is of no importance 


    You say .....So God cannot come from a created thing, He Is The Creator.


    My reply - ..... Prove it ?


    You say ....I did. ......


    My reply ..... You didn’t , you made a series of unfounded claims 


    You say .....I think what you really want is for me to 'convince you', like NASA does with flying their rockets sideways, and all the pretty sci-fi pictures of imaginary space.......


    My reply ..... incorrect, you make many claims and like all indoctrinated Christian sheeple can offer not even one shred of evidence for any of your nonsense 



    You say .....What you want is to be dazzled, like the tourists at Las Vegas who flood the always sold-out Magic Performances.....


    My reply .....Certainly not as I know that’s one thing you flat heads  cannot do 



    You say .....Sorry, no-can-do....


    My reply ......I know 




    You say ......don't do MK-Ultra. We Flat Earthers here provide evidence with substance, point out facts. If that's not good enough, and you need magic, go to NASA, or CERN or watch a bunch of "Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins" videos.

    10 years of playing with water and doing backflips in the NASA ISS zero-G planes helped convince a lot of people, so you might want to try that out too?



    My reply ..... That like most your responses makes no sense 

  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Joeseph said:
    @Evidence



    You say ......don't do MK-Ultra. We Flat Earthers here provide evidence with substance, point out facts. If that's not good enough, and you need magic, go to NASA, or CERN or watch a bunch of "Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins" videos.

    10 years of playing with water and doing backflips in the NASA ISS zero-G planes helped convince a lot of people, so you might want to try that out too?



    My reply ..... That like most your responses makes no sense 

    @Joeseph ..... Ok prove than that something cannot come from nothing ? 

    Listen, .. no-thing, so how can you take anything from something that has absolutely no "thing" in it? It's a no-thing, it's there to keep other 'things' separate.


    Joe - ......I don’t believe in a god or his opposite 
    … First you have to prove there’s a god before you can make these claims 

    My answer is no longer to you, but hopefully to someone, maybe some Christian who is truly seeking to knew God!?

    "Infinite is God", so you don't believe Infinite exists?
    Try imagining things in your mind, can you do that? Now where is this "thing" that I asked you to imagine? is it in 'nothing'? Is your mind 'nothing'? Yet there it is, whatever you imagined was taken from your memory that's stored in your brain, and there it is in, .. come on, tell me where is this "thing" that you imagined?
    if you say "in my brain", you are wrong. Maybe say "In my head", but that would be half correct, because your mind/spirit is what makes this body of yours a living soul, .. a living being.

    The correct answer is, .. it is in the infinite mind of yours. God gave of Himself into a body you were born into, which gives life to your mortal "thing"/body.
    Now test if your mind is Infinite or not? You can do this by imagining this sci-fi universe from the outside, you know, starting from the size of an orange, expanding for millions and billions of years throughout infinity (remember not to confuse "Infinite" with infinity) you can easily do this, right? Heck, with little practice you could even imagine multiverses, millions and trillions of them also expanding into infinity and you still have your mind as infinite, with infinite room to expand universes in, and as complex as even Einstein or Hawking can imagine it!
    OK, now if you're not a troll, give me your honest opinion on what I just defined about Infinite/Mind?

    Joe - regarding the phrase: "God is not a being, but the Ground of being" (Paul Tillich - Systematic theology) ....That makes no sense

    First of all, I don't agree with Paul Tillich on everything, but he did make sense to me when he explained who God was when he penned the above statement. But after reading more of what he said, that phrase is the only good one I can use. It makes perfect sense, as long as you don't interpret it with a worldly mind set like many Christians do.
    You may think you're not a Christian, but I have debated with, .. oh hundreds of different people, especially atheists who all think that the Bible, God, and His son Word aka Jesus Christ are "Christian", .. lol. So tell me, do you believe it like that too?

    Evidence -“Something", .. any thing and every-thing was created by Infinite, including the thing between all 'things'; the nothing...….

    Joe -  ..... You’re making yet another baseless assertion 

    Baseless assertion?? .. OK, I think we'll just end it here, until I see you actually gave what I said even a second thought, which I doubt you have, or you're just trolling here!?

    If you want to debate this further, you will have to give me a detailed explanation why you said: "You’re making yet another baseless assertion", otherwise I see that you're just Trolling here.


  • JoesephJoeseph 651 Pts   -   edited August 2018
    @Evidence

    You say.....no "thing" in it? It's a no-thing, it's there to keep other 'things' separate.



    My reply ..... Prove your assertion that something cannot come from nothing then ?


    It should be easy for you ? 




    You say .....My answer is no longer to you, but hopefully to someone, maybe some Christian who is truly seeking to knew God!?


    My reply .... delete it from my post then 


    You continue to preach after saying it’s not for me .......”Infinite is God", so you don't believe Infinite exists?

    Try imagining things in your mind, can you do that? Now where is this "thing" that I asked you to imagine? is it in 'nothing'? Is your mind 'nothing'? Yet there it is, whatever you imagined was taken from your memory that's stored in your brain, and there it is in, .. come on, tell me where is this "thing" that you imagined?

    if you say "in my brain", you are wrong. Maybe say "In my head", but that would be half correct, because your mind/spirit is what makes this body of yours a living soul, .. a living being.


    The correct answer is, .. it is in the infinite mind of yours. God gave of Himself into a body you were born into, which gives life to your mortal "thing"/body.

    Now test if your mind is Infinite or not? You can do this by imagining this sci-fi universe from the outside, you know, starting from the size of an orange, expanding for millions and billions of years throughout infinity (remember not to confuse "Infinite" with infinity) you can easily do this, right? Heck, with little practice you could even imagine multiverses, millions and trillions of them also expanding into infinity and you still have your mind as infinite, with infinite room to expand universes in, and as complex as even Einstein or Hawking can imagine it!......



    OK, now if you're not a troll, give me your honest opinion on what I just defined about Infinite/Mind?


    Joe - regarding the phrase: "God is not a being, but the Ground of being" (Paul Tillich - Systematic theology) ....That makes no sense


    First of all, I don't agree with Paul Tillich on everything, but he did make sense to me when he explained who God was when he penned the above statement. But after reading more of what he said, that phrase is the only good one I can use. It makes perfect sense, as long as you don't interpret it with a worldly mind set like many Christians do.

    You may think you're not a Christian, but I have debated with, .. oh hundreds of different people, especially atheists who all think that the Bible, God, and His son Word aka Jesus Christ are "Christian", .. lol. So tell me, do you believe it like that too?.....


    My reply .... you said it wasn’t for me now you want my opinion , a beliver in the word of Christ is deemed a Christian , most of them including you totally ignore the word but yet call yourselves  “ Christian “


    You say .....OK, I think we'll just end it here, ...



    My reply ...Great 


    You say ....until I see you actually gave what I said even a second thought, which I doubt you have, or you're just trolling here!?


    My reply ..... Most of what you say is just you preaching  you only want to hear yourself you accuse me again of your trolling 


    You say ....If you want to debate this further, you will have to give me a detailed explanation why you said: "You’re making yet another baseless assertion", otherwise I see that you're just Trolling here.....



    My reply ..... I don’t want to hear any more of your preaching so you’re dismissed 


  • Polaris95Polaris95 147 Pts   -  
    So according to your logic, everything needs a causative event right? So if the universe needs a creator, doesn't the creator need one too?? If the "creator" doesn't need one, then why does the universe?
  • Mr_BombasticMr_Bombastic 144 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand
    Excuse me,  but time has to exist for anything to happen. At least in our physical universe it does. Time is a part of the fabric of the universe. So is space.  Therefore time and space did not exist before the big bang.  So,  when and where did the big bang happen? 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand
    Excuse me,  but time has to exist for anything to happen. At least in our physical universe it does. Time is a part of the fabric of the universe. So is space.  Therefore time and space did not exist before the big bang.  So,  when and where did the big bang happen? 
    Excellent question! This, at the first glance, contradiction demonstrates the disparity between rigorous scientific language (math) and our everyday language (which by its nature is ambiguous).

    First of all, allow me to ask a rhetorical question: what is time? This question is much harder to answer than it looks; the concept of time is so deeply ingrained in our minds that we almost take it as an axiom, "it just is", and cannot define it through any other terms. Scientists, philosophers and linguists alike have been struggling for millennia with coming up with a formal definition of "time", and the consensus was never reached.

    One of the best definitions I have thought of is the following: "Time is a physical axis that establishes a one-to-one correspondence between a pair of cause-effect events, and a pair of points on the axis, with the lower value point corresponding to the cause event". To put it simply, if cause A led to effect B, then time of A should come before time of B.
    When we observe the effect B, we can ask, "When did A happen?", and answer it by performing the one-to-one correspondence and finding the point on the time axis corresponding to A.

    Let us apply this definition to the Big Bang. When the Big Bang occurred, time was born. The moment of its occurrence and appearance of time is the same. Let B be the present, and A be the Big Bang occurrence. So we are at B, asking, "When did A happen?" And this question turns out to make no sense: since at the moment of A time did not exist, there is no point on the time axis corresponding to the Big Bang. "When did the Big Bang happen?" question is self-contradictory.
    Similarly, "Where did the Big Bang happen?" cannot be answered, since Big Bang created space.

    ---

    Does this all mean that the Big Bang never happened? Well, yes and no. The Big Bang never happened in a way that there was nothing, and then - boom! - explosion. However, the Big Bang did happen in a way that, say, the 1st second on the global scale featured the existence of the Universe, but the -1st second did not - and it did not even exist. 

    If we extrapolate the "Universe timeline" all the way to the 0th second point, then we will see that the timeline cuts off at that point. It is in this sense that we say that "The Big Bang occurred N seconds ago". However, if you were to construct a time machine, turn the time backwards and watch the Universe all the way from the current moment to the beginning - then you will never see that "the Big Bang occurs" moment. What exactly you will see is not very clear, since at some point very close to the Big Bang modern physics breaks and we just assume that what happened before had to make some sense which we hopefully will learn eventually - but you definitely won't see anything like "Okay, now the Universe is very dense; now it is just a dot; and now it does not exist". Long before you can say the second part of this triad, your mind will cease to exist, or, at least, will not function in a way that is in any way perceivable from your modern brain's perspective.

    ---

    Science is very fascinating. It is also difficult and, at times, incredibly confusing. Our everyday experiences simply do not apply to extreme states of the matter, space and time, so our intuition breaks when we try to describe them - we have to rely on a rigorous math apparatus, and any intuitively understandable interpretation we make will always suffer from oversimplifications and false analogies.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand
    Excuse me,  but time has to exist for anything to happen. At least in our physical universe it does. Time is a part of the fabric of the universe. So is space.  Therefore time and space did not exist before the big bang.  So,  when and where did the big bang happen? 
    That isn't the argument you presented in your OP. There you stated:

    "Scientists tell us that the universe had a beginning. They also tell us about the law of causality. Every event requires a causitive event."

    As shown your claim is incorrect. You have now replaced it with a much different claim: that you - a random internet poster with no known qualifications or experience in the matter besides making false claims about what SC entists say - think that every event requires a causative event. This is a very different claim and so far is entirely baseless.

    Ergo your first claim is wrong and your second claim is irrelevant.

  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @Ampersand
    Excuse me,  but time has to exist for anything to happen. At least in our physical universe it does. Time is a part of the fabric of the universe. So is space.  Therefore time and space did not exist before the big bang.  So,  when and where did the big bang happen? 
    Excellent question! This, at the first glance, contradiction demonstrates the disparity between rigorous scientific language (math) and our everyday language (which by its nature is ambiguous).

    First of all, allow me to ask a rhetorical question: what is time? This question is much harder to answer than it looks; the concept of time is so deeply ingrained in our minds that we almost take it as an axiom, "it just is", and cannot define it through any other terms. Scientists, philosophers and linguists alike have been struggling for millennia with coming up with a formal definition of "time", and the consensus was never reached.

    One of the best definitions I have thought of is the following: "Time is a physical axis that establishes a one-to-one correspondence between a pair of cause-effect events, and a pair of points on the axis, with the lower value point corresponding to the cause event". To put it simply, if cause A led to effect B, then time of A should come before time of B.
    When we observe the effect B, we can ask, "When did A happen?", and answer it by performing the one-to-one correspondence and finding the point on the time axis corresponding to A.

    Let us apply this definition to the Big Bang. When the Big Bang occurred, time was born. The moment of its occurrence and appearance of time is the same. Let B be the present, and A be the Big Bang occurrence. So we are at B, asking, "When did A happen?" And this question turns out to make no sense: since at the moment of A time did not exist, there is no point on the time axis corresponding to the Big Bang. "When did the Big Bang happen?" question is self-contradictory.
    Similarly, "Where did the Big Bang happen?" cannot be answered, since Big Bang created space.

    ---

    Does this all mean that the Big Bang never happened? Well, yes and no. The Big Bang never happened in a way that there was nothing, and then - boom! - explosion. However, the Big Bang did happen in a way that, say, the 1st second on the global scale featured the existence of the Universe, but the -1st second did not - and it did not even exist. 

    If we extrapolate the "Universe timeline" all the way to the 0th second point, then we will see that the timeline cuts off at that point. It is in this sense that we say that "The Big Bang occurred N seconds ago". However, if you were to construct a time machine, turn the time backwards and watch the Universe all the way from the current moment to the beginning - then you will never see that "the Big Bang occurs" moment. What exactly you will see is not very clear, since at some point very close to the Big Bang modern physics breaks and we just assume that what happened before had to make some sense which we hopefully will learn eventually - but you definitely won't see anything like "Okay, now the Universe is very dense; now it is just a dot; and now it does not exist". Long before you can say the second part of this triad, your mind will cease to exist, or, at least, will not function in a way that is in any way perceivable from your modern brain's perspective.

    ---

    Science is very fascinating. It is also difficult and, at times, incredibly confusing. Our everyday experiences simply do not apply to extreme states of the matter, space and time, so our intuition breaks when we try to describe them - we have to rely on a rigorous math apparatus, and any intuitively understandable interpretation we make will always suffer from oversimplifications and false analogies.
    @MayCaesar said:  "One of the best definitions I have thought of is the following: "Time is a physical axis that establishes a one-to-one correspondence between a pair of cause-effect events, and a pair of points on the axis, with the lower value point corresponding to the cause event". To put it simply, if cause A led to effect B, then time of A should come before time of B.
    When we observe the effect B, we can ask, "When did A happen?", and answer it by performing the one-to-one correspondence and finding the point on the time axis corresponding to A."


    So let's see now, if I take a tape measure and point out 3 inches on it, and write it down: 3"  then I can give it to you, right? And of course then, like NASA and their cosmologists, you could than take that 3" and start building your own god, .. err "heaven/space", .. correct?

    Time is like the inches on a tape measure, neither exists. You can't take it with you, or use it. Same like Never neverland, or space. The pair of points on your axis exist if you put it there, and you can start two clocks with different speeds on the gears, and call the hands rotating around a face plate with numbers 1 - 12 on it: "time", but that's all time will be, "hands moving on a clock at different speeds", .. or digits changing at different speeds.

    Now here is where cosmological fantasy can come in, since we now have two clocks creating two different "time", we can say the faster clock just jumped into the future.
    Now let's build on this imaginary time: If two people were holding those clocks, George holding the faster one and Caesar the slower one, George could actually talk to Caesar from the future.
    lol.
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 243 Pts   -  
    this is over my head, but if there was a creation or a big bang, how does that apply to the theory that there's no such thing as nothing?  Empty space was though to have nothing in it until recently.  So in the big bang it had to expand into something as it couldn't expand into nothing, which mean the something that it expanded into was already there and existed before the big bang.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • “The Universe requires a creator.”

    Sure does it is a Unit of space. The solar system does not there is more than one seen and its creator can be mathematic average. The galaxy does not, again there is more than one seen and its creator can be mathematic average.

  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    this is over my head, but if there was a creation or a big bang, how does that apply to the theory that there's no such thing as nothing?  Empty space was though to have nothing in it until recently.  So in the big bang it had to expand into something as it couldn't expand into nothing, which mean the something that it expanded into was already there and existed before the big bang.
    @Applesauce ;
    All we have to do is examine each word and its definition, like: "The basket is empty, there is nothing in it!" .. we know it's not really empty, right? (air, light, radiation, etc.)
    The 'nothing' exists as it is, a "no-thing". It's a thing with no positive or negative value, a no-thing. In other words, "nothing" is just that, and it exists. So let's examine what you said:
    "So in the big bang it had to expand into something as it couldn't expand into nothing, which mean the something that it expanded into was already there and existed before the big bang."

    The Big-Bang story is very poorly thought out, just like the moon landing, the Mars Rover landing, all the pictures of a Globe Earth, planets, and so on, they just made it up, and smacked it into our faces. To sustain these lies, it took hundreds of years, thousands of people, trillions of dollars of constantly 'building' on these lies, or more like science fiction fairytales, which we really can't say they are lies because it's 'make-believe'. The deception is, in trying to pass it off as truth, or even science. It is here that we have to ask:

    First, what was this supposed "speck", .. or this "quantum speck"? Some say it was this entire universe squeezed into a tiny speck, which became so dense, that it exploded with a Big-Bang! Lol.
    Second question, where are the Cosmologist imagining this Big Bang happening in? What medium, since it is after this BB that their Spacetime was created, which as it expanded created a vacuum. yep, .. I mean we all did "vacuum expanding experiments" in school right? You take a small vacuum chamber, suck out all the air, and add "gravity", and Presto! .. the vacuum naturally expands!

    Third, what medium did the "speck" pop out of? Was it "from nothing, into nothing"?

    In science, we have to have a Medium to work in. You cannot create a "theory" without at least some medium to create the theory in, right?
    BUT, .. we CAN create things, all kinds of things in our mind, and once that "thing" is there, then we can use science through experimentation to test it, .
    The "senseless things" that children come up with, we call fairytales, and these don't have to have any "science" behind it because they don't have to actually work in real life.
    But for "things" to actually work, there has to be a lot of "intelligent design" behind it, ..  obviously, right? This is why the Big-Bang and Evolution stories are fairytales, and so is the "science" behind it, like we read about Gene Rodenberry's Star Trek, the same with the Big-Bang in Wikipedia, those explanations of the Big Bang is based on imagination, not "observation". No one observed some 'quantum speck" pop out of nothing and suddenly expand, or a rock evolve life, or one kind of species evolve into another kind, .. but in our imagination, we can make it all up; like these grave robber Satanists who actually claim that "skull and bones of one type of animal, or one type of species change into another if you just wait long enough!"  Sure they do Charlie Brown, and remember Santa rides in a flying sled pulled by flying reindeer!
    And of course here is where Peter Pan can fly too, all kids need is "imagination", .. and umm, .. psst, that secret ingredient; a little Pixy dust just like the stuff that NASA Star Satellites go and collect in space.
    Applesauce
  • Applesauce,

    Empty space has nothing in it space is a mathematic proportion to area. There must be a creator to set an area by distance as volume. Space. If there is no space there is no bang! Big or small, the volume of explosion can be a new space.

    The argument is made using absolute Time which is an area of mathematics as well. Time is the originator or creator of forced relativity and it can have multiple dimension, unlike space which has three basic directions. In order to add area to time to insure it can be measured equally a dimension must be added. The added dimension can then be simplified after use if no longer needed.

    The problem is that Science has plagiarized the mathematic absolute of time and applied it to space and has no idea of how the dimensions of time work. The documented evidence of this grievance is in the decimal state created for the second a me3asuremnt of Time, not space.

    Working on a picture to add which might make this grievance easier to observe.

  • Times occupied Space is D, H, M, S, and plus by mathematic principle.

    Space has Pi, no Absolute Time, and only X, Y, and Z.

    Simply said.

    Absolute Time is a mathematic solution created when turning a circles diameter into its own circumference. (Giving two Circles and no Irrational Pi)

    rights reserved
  • TheocratTheocrat 69 Pts   -  
    The 1st and 2nc Laws of Thermo rule out any naturalistic cause of the universe.  Science 1 - Atheists 0.
    Applesauce
  • I have to make a correction on my post.

    Absolute time is not a mathematic solution when turning a circles diameter into its own circumference.

    Absolute time is a mathematic solution created when a circles diameter, or multiple of diameter is translated into a second circumference Instead of its own. (Giving mathematic form as two relative circles with no Pi as it is removed using algebra.) This means circles may hold a new state that is not shared as fact by all circles, as not every size circle can be place in this mathematic formula. Even though they all are equal by degree, and can be holding  Pi.

    All Rights Reserved.

  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:

    I have to make a correction on my post.

    Absolute time is not a mathematic solution when turning a circles diameter into its own circumference.

    Absolute time is a mathematic solution created when a circles diameter, or multiple of diameter is translated into a second circumference Instead of its own. (Giving mathematic form as two relative circles with no Pi as it is removed using algebra.) This means circles may hold a new state that is not shared as fact by all circles, as not every size circle can be place in this mathematic formula. Even though they all are equal by degree, and can be holding  Pi.

    All Rights Reserved.

    @John_C_87 .. you really should go and work for NASA or CERN down at their LHC Temple, because all they do is make up stories like you do: "Absolute time is a mathematic solution created when a circles diameter, or multiple of diameter is translated into a second circumference Instead of its own", .. lol, .. OK Spock, now go back to listening for quarks or for any near by black holes.

    Related image


    Or, come over here to ASU with Lawrence Krauss in his imaginary "origins project" and tell him how you can turn two diameters of circles into time by removing its Pi, .. I'm sure he will love you for it.
    Or, .. maybe you can come up with a better "gravitational wave video" than what NASA put out:



    Totally ridiculous.
    Oh yeah, .. and please check out the comments below the video, made by this guy named Odon Sabo, no one touched it yet and it's been 2 months!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch