Cry me a river, you insolent prick. You ask a complicated question, you get a complicated answer. Deal with it. Now you act as if your question hasn't been answered.

False dichotomy fallacy. Your supposition is that the universe was born ex nihilo and you are deriving your dichotomy from this assumption. I have already demonstrated this false so why are we arguing about it. I told you I would be tremendously irritated if it was necessary to repeat myself, and so I am. Hence listen very carefully and if you still are unable to comprehend what I am about to tell you then there is little point in continuing this discussion:

The primary point under discussion is that there is absolutely no reason to suppose the universe was "created' in the first place, and by created we shall mean ex nihilo. In physics, the concept of ex nihilo is widely regarded as wholly incoherent, and dare I say it, I believe it is in theology as well. Hence your dichotomy is based on an incoherent conceptualization (actually two, given that the vague ad hoc of "immaterial" is equally incoherent). So, I invite you to read my post again, for the first time. The primary point being articulated was that the BB does not describe the ex nihilo creation of the universe and that this is a false and incoherent view of modern Cosmology (which you obviously have not studied) and physics (which you obviously have not studied). Hence your entire premise is undermined and there is no need for your dichotomous distinction. All we can say about the BB is that a transition event occured 13.7 billion years ago which produced matter by the principle that matter is interchangeable with energy. The unknown part of the equation is that we do not know what the "prior state" was, or the boundary condition. The fact that hold to your false dichotomy indicates

a) You're stupid

and

b) You can't read

These "choices" you present are based on an assumption which is not only false, but widely regarded to be meaningless. More information is presented on this matter here:

Common cosmological misconceptions.

Hence you merely confirm my point above. Under the criterion under discussion, the universe wasn't "born ex nihilo". Just abandon your fucking premise because I have demonstrated it wholly false. Your assumption is wholly untenable and is the basis for your argument. Being that this assumption is false, you must concede that you are commiting a logical fallacy, something which Hambydammit has already demonstrated. The BB does not describe the ex nihilo birth of the universe. Hence your premise is false and your argument is invalid. If you cannot grasp this you have no business here or in any other debate!

Oh come on. Yeah COOL atheist General needs some writing practice, and so he is, as me, as we all are.  I get most all of it.  Be more helpful. I prefer lots of short paragraphs .....

    Welcome the General , he seems "good".

     Now on to the "god done it" freak fools  ..... Yeah , my atheist story pissed off Jesus say you are idol worshiping hypocrites ..... making shit up ..... Does the concept of the "Infinite Eternal" mean anything to these religious people? Why the silly dogma? Sheezzzz .... Can they not say "I don't know" ?  Obviously not ..... bummer ..... GOD DAMN IT ...... die religion DIE .....

   There nothing to debate about superstition, "God done it",  non-sense .... Just kill it, kindly, and LOUDLY ..... Fuck DOGMA. 

     Bazzzzzzooookas and Rum blasts ....

So to clarify-god doesn't want evetyone to know he exists,thus sending the majority of people to hell.And you wonder why we wouldn't worship him.

Malachi 3:6 - "For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

The blood thirsty,vindictive god of the OT is the same god of the NT.The bible clearly says god is unchanging,you can't ignore the contents of the OT.

Did jesus sound insane?If he existed I would say so. However,provide some proof he even existed before we get too caught up discussing his qualities.

Here's some loving jesus verses for you:

Matt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 10:35-37 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

I think I'll pass on your loving jesus.

The Egyptian gods were worshipped for thousands of years,but now they are viewed at the myths they are.As science and reason progress,religion has less place in soceity. Christianity is slowly on the decline,at least in the conventinal sense. Bible literalists and YEC's are waning. There are christians on this very site that will admit you cannot take the 10 verses of Genesis seriously without running into major problems. Look at the Scandanavian countries,where things like christianity are regarded as tales for children. The struggle is long,but all relgions eventually loose their fame.

God seperates light from darkness on the first day,but doesn't make light producing objects until the fourth.

Plants are made on the third day, before the sun.This makes photosynthesis impossible.

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The moon does not emit it's own light

Leviticus 11:5-6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Rabbits don't chew cud

Leviticus 11:13,19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Bats aren't birds

Leviticus 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you

Birds don't have 4 legs.

Leviticus 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Insects don't have 4 feet.

Psalm 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.

Where's my dragon?

1 Samuel 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

The earth isn't on pillars

I Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Actually,the earth does move.

I see no evidence of jesus' existence.Simple

The bible is supposedly the perfect and complete word of god.It should be the all encompassing sum of knowledge.Since you seem dissatisfied with the science answers given to you,maybe you can convince us from the bible you're right.

What better evidence for god is there than his very words? If you're so confident in it,I don't see the problem

(giving you the benefit of the doubt of a type-o)

Simple english, like the Bible employs?   Have you read that thing?  I'm guessing you haven't, given you haven't been able to process one DG article.  Someone must repackage and spoon-feed that bible to you (pastor? parent?)

I'm irrationally crossing my fingers and hoping that class is a writing class. 

Ok so as I understand it you provided proof that before big bang there was something else in outerspace? And this thing from outerspace may have created the big bang? If I'm not understand this right just please say in a few words what you're trying to prove.

Ok this is off topic but I will comment little about it. Science is only ignorants man tool for discovery of functions. Science can't explain origins. If God is real yes you better believe “science” will bow down, every one will bow down to God. That is all.

This doesn't make sense. Science has proven that Universe has cause and the effect of effect was Big bang. Every scientist know this and they don't dispute this, no one is dumn enough or illogical to say something that has a start doesn't need a cause.

The Universe is not complex? It is complex. You add new data to God by syaing he has parts. God never said he is made up of parts he is a whole being entirely unto himself. There was nothing simple about the big bang. Our math breaks down and we can't get passed the Plank barrier. We can only go as far back as millionths of a second to describe the big bang. What happens when we try to go past the Plank barrier is that out math falls apart and gives you impossible answers and predictions. I will use simple silly exampl. Like math in past Plank barrier says 1+1 = 2087590 or what ever. That is not excatly accurate of whats breaking in math but it is good example of how physics dies in big bang. The energy in big bang was so unpredictable and unknowable it is impossible to figure it out what it was... and you call this simple? Are you serious or more ignorant then a Llama?

You are using evolution to explain the Universe and that is false and annoying. You think it was from simple beginnings to complex ends eh? Wrong. Like I said the big bang was so unknowable and impossible to figure out because of its complexity of energies. The big bang was infinitely hot, infinitely tiny, infinitely mass and you think this is simplicity? Its the other way around my friend. The universe began infinitely complex and got simpler as it expanded and cooled down, it got orderly and predictable and constant forces and laws was finally possible because the complexity and chaos cooled down.

You are trying to equate universe with God as if they are similar. It's like saying author and book must both be made out of pages and have hard cover. How can you say God functions similar to the universe when clearly the many definition of God is that he is outside of his creation. The same as saying a car engineer is outside of the car he created. You cant examine car and say “ok creator of car is made out of metal, glass. He is probably better then car so he can trvale on roads thousands of miles per hour and only need 1 galon of gas for a million miles” Please dont compare apples and oranges. Again God is not made up of parts he is a whole being he cant be divided into lesser parts.. sheesh.

Interesting you are smart guy! I think the energy was only in the singularity what I mean it wasnt like sucked up so it was disperesed ever it only existed inside the singularity. I think the singularity could only have lasted for an instantanous amount of time. This makes brains melt to think about it but I think the singularity came from some eternal dimension and since the singularity has energy and energy brings with it space time it was immedialty ejected from the eternal dimension because they can't co exist kind of like how oil doesnt want to mix with water. The moment it was ejected was the moment it started to expand so thats how singularity only lasted for a instantanous amount of time. Of course this is purely my hypothesis and no way can I prove this. But when I play it in mind from understands of matters, energies and eternal time it makes sense to me.

With my pretend model the energy wasnt created it was ejected from a eternal dimension or eternal power. So it was like the infinitely dimension of energy leaked or purposely ejected energy to create our universe. Its possible energy could have been created though, I know this violates thermal law. I say possible because thermal law is only law for our Universe not law outside of Universe. Its like saying grammer is only law for writing not law for something else or every thing else. So the Universe is its own dimension with its own dimensional laws and thermal law is one of them. This means it was possible for energy to have been created.

I don't know honestly how God did it. Did he create the energy or did he just use his eternal energy and gave some for the Universe in singularity of big bang. Its an interesting question and science can perhaps figure it out one day. I dont know how science can ever breach our dimensional universe we are totally bound and enslaved by the dimension we must exist in. Maybe its possible maybe not time will tell. But this is what I mean that even if God did it science won't stop doing science. It may be even more motivated because to learn the mind of God must be the ultimate of ultimates! Eh? More motivation for science to figure out how God works his “magic”.

Ok I take break now but of course I promise to go down the list and respond to every one. Oh if I ignore your reply its probably because it was talk of theology (mostly bible stuff) or attack of my character or people like me who believe in God. I will only debate the evidence for material origins or God origins.

No, this is not what was said. Why aren't you reading his posts? This is fascinating subject matter. I'm not even mathematically inclined, and I find it interesting.

What being stated is that matter and time were existent before the big bang, but not in a state that resembles what we think of today as matter or time.

Think of a pot of kettle on your stove. It starts as liquid water, but as you increase the temperature and bring it to a boil, it starts to change states. It's still water, but now it's transitioned into a new form with new characteristics.

Why is science in quotation marks, pray tell? You're aware that science has provided you with the luxurious lifestyle you currently enjoy, the words your typing, the medium you're typing them in and the electronic community you're networking with us on?

Science works, and science is very important. These two key traits are not shared by dogmatic religion.

It's curious that 'if God is real, science will bow down', and yet science isn't bowing at all. Is this a sort-of concession, then, that God doesn't exist?

Please read the articles DG spent the time to write for your benefit. The Big Bang is what transitioned the universe into our current state, from it's former state. Theoretical physicists are still examining the prior state of the universe as best the can, but it's a complicated affair and an incredibly difficult field of study to grasp. We don't honestly know all that much about the universe prior to the Big Bang.

It is a logical fallacy, however, to say that because we don't know much about it, we can say whatever we want about it (known as an argument from ignorance). If you have a hypothesis that God did it, that's perfectly fine. But now you must test your theory for it's validity, have your dtata reviewed by scientific peers in your field of study, and ensure your results are both falsifiable and reproduceable. That's called research.

What research have you done so far with regard to your hypothesis? Is there any reason we should give it some weight, or do you feel there's some element of it that can really contribute to the understanding of our universe?

Correct, the universe is complex. And before we start deciding on whether or not God has parts, can hurl lightning bolts or breathe fire, we should first establish whether or not he exists in the first place.

Like DG has already stated, newtonian physics and mathematics break down when dealing with the universe prior to the big bang because the universe was in an entirely different state. Matter and time were still there, but they were not as we known them to be right now.

Llama, the rest of your post is just inflammatory, broken record arguing. Please just actually sit and read DG's post - he puts these things in more eloquent terms than I possibly could hope to. Do it over afternoon tea or while you're on a smoke break at work or something.

well i must agree this sounds real.

now i see that phrase the devils(religion) was to convince the world he didn't exist. so maybe what it was meaning was a riddle like i will always preverse the truth to control people? but who knows

well i must admit that i love to learn. but the number one reason is the universe is way to vaste and not in my lifetime will be explained i don't think and especially by myths to make someone feel special.

but you know i wonder if they find signs of life on mars what that would do. because it would be very interesting and i would love to see it explained. but lets say evolution was 100% proven no questions or things it couldn't explain would religion(devil) finally accept that their creation idea is a myth rather then fact??? but what would scientists that worked on would work on next?

Thanks General - Good points ; Religion (primarily) to control. Basic virtue, wisdom, and morality are clever tools of the religion trade, ..... basically the devil wolf dressed in sheep's clothing, while teaching fear, obedience, "feel special" prejudiced patriotism, idol worship, and false god separation of our selves. There is no Master to worship. All is ONE.

Yeah finding life evidence elsewhere would be great. Evolution basics is 100% proven, and doesn't answer how it began, but offers some clues. Our Science will never end, until we end  ..... It's fun to think we could settle on other planets!?!? Hey maybe some aliens will help save us from extinction !  .....  God of religions sure the hell won't save us!

How you fail to understand the big bang and what the singularity is exactly. yet you keep on saying science says this and science says that. I would love for you to show me where science says there was no energy, specifically those scientists that deal with the big bang, which one says there was no energy. Because the last time I checked the singularity had energy in it....hence how the energy expanded from the singularity which is what scientists call the big bang. The way you explain it is there was absolutely nothing, then bang it all occurred, and saying that scientists are saying this. Which is completely wrong and you haven't bothered to read anything that has bene posted here or anywhere regarding the big bang from actual scientists in this field of study. Again the singularity is infinitely dense, infinitely high temperature and and all the energy in the universe is condensed inside and it was unstable, which is why it expanded and did not remained as a singularity. So nowhere do scientists say there was no energy prior to the big bang, it was all in the singularity (after all temperature is a form of energy last time I checked). So please do provide these scientists that say there was NO energy at all and it's all just occurred magically at the big bang.

Matter did not exist before the BB. Matter is interconvertible with energy, however. Don't you understand? The BB was a transition event. The mechanism it outlined precisely in my post, at least the part which is currently understoond by physics. Please, please just read my post again. I said nothing which is not currently understood by physics, and did not provide a model for the unanswered question of the boundary condition. Most of what I posted has been known in physics for about 100 years. Please just open a physics textbook, or go away. Really. 

Huh? How is this any more than pure assertion? The answer to the question is no doubt complex and intricate and can only be understood in the context of a significant background in physics. Much like I cannot explain to you how to prove Fermat's Last theorem or Navier-Stokes fluid mechanics, or the many other numerous complex phenomenon that exist.

This is ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. If you read my writing, you will note that I take extreme care with my prose. It is always well-constructed, with proper grammar, spelling and coherent ideas. You, by contrast, have no grasp of basic English. You clearly don't take writing very seriously and your writing skills are exceptionally poor. How can you expect others to decipher your ideas if you yourself refuse to put in the time and effort to write properly?

Actually, I have the complete backing of physics on this one. I don't think you understand. This is not a thesis, this is not a proof. What I assembled was mostly physics that has been known since Hubble and Einstein. There was absolutely nothing whatsoever I wrote that is in contradiction to modern physics. Why is this incredibly difficult for you to grasp? All I did was present an overview of modern cosmology. None of these ideas are my own. None of them. Not one. Most have been known since before my birth. If you would only read my post you would realize the following:

1. You presented certain ideas about matter and energy and the BB. These ideas were thoroughly confused and demonstrate you have no understanding of physics.

2. I presented an overview of some portions of modern physics and therefore demosntrated that your ideas are completely incorrect.

Why can't you grasp this? Do you have some reading comprehension problem or are you just retarded?

What don't you understand? The BB was merely a transitional event that occured 13.7 billion years ago. There is nothing in BB theory that describes ex nihilo creation. Your understanding of what you think is currently accepted by physicists is completely incorrect. Completely and totally incorrect.

It appears you therefore need more I shall show you precisely how we determine BB cosmology. Please observe. Perhaps if you understand how we determine modern cosmology, you shall understand what we think about it:

The first person to determine that the universe was expanding was Hubble. The universe is expanding in size, which means, Hubble realized, that it had a moment where it was of infinitely small volume, hence infinite density, which expanded outwards from a point, which cosmologists called the Big Bang. Hubble's constant is called H, and we determine it by examining redshift. The color of light depends on its wavelength, and red has a longer wavelength than white light. Since the universe is expanding, all the galaxies are moving away from each other, which means that when we observe them, they should have a longer wavelength of emitted photons, since the acceleration away from us causes the wavelength of the light to expand (like an accordian). Measuring the redshift by measuring the distance of astronomical objects allows us to determine the rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe.

When we examine distant galaxies, we discover they are moving away from us at a calculable rate. Based on the distance they are from us, the wavelength of light from them which we are observing also changes by a calculable amount. The recessional velocity (the speed at which other galaxies are moving away from us), the distance which galaxies are from us, the redshift, or change in wavelength as a result of this recession and distance, and lastly, the acceleration or the rate at which the velocity is increasing, are all linked by several simple equations, and from this we can easily determine the age of the universe, or rather, how long ago the point was that there was no distance between the two receding bodies, the moment of the Big Bang. Firstly,

v=HD

This is the simplest equation we must understand. The recessional velocity (the speed at which a body is moving from Earth) is directly proportional to the distance it is from us. What connects them is Hubble’s constant, which is exactly what we need to find out.

Omega: That the universe is expanding depends on the density of the universe, and the two constants associated, Omega (Ω) and Lambda (&lambda. This is not to be confused with Lambda in physics, which represents wavelength. In cosmology it has another meaning. At any rate, Newton’s equations, which work perfectly until they disintegrate at the quantum level, dictate that all material bodies have a force of attraction between them which is precisely proportional to the inverse square of the distance between them and the size of the body in question. This is Newton’s Inverse Square Law. Since Einsten’s General Relativity, we have understood that this works because gravity is caused by the distorting effect of material on spacetime, However, surely this means that all material bodies should quickly rush towards each other and crush into a fiery pinprick? No. The reason for this is because the universe, as in space-time itself, is expanding. As we have discovered, the universe is expanding due to Dark matter. Now, this is where Omega comes into play. The density of matter in the universe will determine Omega. Since all material bodies attract, and the expansion of space time forces them apart, there is a fight between Dark Energy and matter, and the density of matter over the universe will determine its ultimate fate.

This will give the immediate density 10^-9s after the BB. As you can see, it is enormous. However, we are interested in the long term consequences of density:

If Omega is precisely zero, then the acceleration of the universe and the gravity of matter will be in precise equilibrium and thus the universe will expand at a precise constant rate. If Omega is smaller than one then the expansion of the universe will wind down, and if it is precisely one, the universe will simply wind down and stop expanding, and if Omega is greater than one, then the density of matter will be overpowering and the universe will accelerate and then crush back into a fiery pinprick, as the universe rushes backwards into a fiery pinprick by parabolic expansion and then contraction.

We have discovered by means of measuring the redshift of supernovae, that none of these things are happening. The universe is not constantly expanding, decelerating, or contracting. In fact, it is accelerating in expansion, which is given by the dotted line on the graph marked accelerating.

The Metric Expansion of Space: this is the most accurate and current model of the universe to date. The expansion of space-time overpowers gravity and hence accelerates in expansion. We can determine the rate at which space-time accelerates using Hubble’s constant. Then, by extrapolating backwards, we can determine the precise time at which the universe began to expand, in other words, if we have the value of acceleration of the universe, we can work backwards and determine the moment of creation, that will be the origin or the singularity on that graph, when the distance between all material beings was negligible, in other words, we can work out when the Big Bang occurred.

The next principle we must understand is z, z is the change in wavelength as observed due to the recession of galaxies. It is defined as( λemitted x λobserved/λemitted). There are simple equations which link v, z, and H, but they only work for close galaxies. When the galaxies measured are too distant, any model which uses z for estimation of Hubble’s parameter must detail the precise change in z, D, and H due to the fact that the light has taken so long to get to Earth. But for close galaxies, these paramaters will not have changed much, so we can estimate v using v=zc, where c is the speed of light. We will not be doing this. For one, close galaxies blueshift due to gravity, which also, obviously, totally distorts any result we may glean by cosmological redshift. For galaxies which are far away, those which we measure redshift, it is possible to input the results into a more precise formula, which helps distinguish Cosmological and gravitational redshift.

 There are multiple ways, as we have seen, to express Hubble’s constant: As functions of velocity, distance, the FLRW metric, and z. As of 2007, all expressive functions of H are in concurrence. It is definitely between 50-90, and precisely where was hotly debated for some time. Now our equipment is very accurate and we have narrowed it down significantly and the best data indicates it is 71.

We need to find q, that is the parameter of acceleration, and in terms of Hubble’s constant, it is:

Q=-H^-2((dH/dt)+H^2)

Now, we have known since 1998 that q is a negative value, and this value must be integrated (not figuratively, as in literally integrated mathematically by means of the ∫ operator), and extrapolate from when the commoving horizon was zero, the moment of the Big Bang.

It is useful to know the 71km/s/Mpc value because it allows us our extrapolation. It allows us to calculate useful values like the Hubble length and the Hubble time. The Hubble lengths is a good value to work with, and is simply the c/Hubble Time, where the Hubble Time is 1/H0. These are crude ways to measure the age of the universe, but are helpful if you want to demonstrate the age of the universe using a calculator and a pen and a data table as opposed to a satellite. If Hubble length is c/H(t), where H(t)=1/H, then H(l)=Htc, which is 300,000/71=approximately 4220 Mpc, since we are working in km/s/Mpc. 4220Mpc is converted into light years by the fact that 1 Megaparsec is 3,262,000 light years, from which we derive: 1.37x10^10 light years or 13.7 billion ly.

Hubble Time is also useful as a rough estimate of the universe's age. The Hubble Time is a useful function of the recessional velocity, where if v=HD, then 1/H=d/v. Since it is a reciprocal, we have to reverse all of the units, and so (converting 71km/s/Mpc to 20km/s/Mly makes it easier), we have to reverse everything, so we end up with 10^6 light years per megalight year, and 9.5x10^12 km per light year, which can be demonstrated like this:

1 Light Second= 300,000km, one light year=3x10^5 x 60 x 60x 24 x 365=9.5x10^12km

The reason we need to add the 10^6 is because the second reciprocal has been changed to km/ly as opposed to km/Mly. This just makes it a lot easier. And since the H constant is in seconds, we need to express the function in seconds. One year contains 3.15x10^7 seconds Now:

 1/20x10^6x9.5x10^12x 1/3.15x10^7, which becomes roughly 1.45x10^10 years, or 14.5 billion years. As you can see, this is a crude method, but is good for quick calculation.

Back to redshift:

Knowing that we now have a much more precise definition of BB theory now, we may continue. The gist is that all the BB says is that the universe expanded from a symmetrical low entropy state which may have been a false vacuum which inflated, via which the force disengagement could have been created and matter could form since it is no longer too excited below Planck temperature.

According to this formula: Tp=mpc^2/k=r(hr)c^5/Gk^2, matter breaks down at the Planck Temperature, 10^32K. It is nonsense to speak of matter being "hotter" since temperature is a measure of particle kinetics. In the low-entropy state, there wasn't any matter, it becomes interchangeable with energy.

Alan Guth, the founder of the inflationary hypothesis, points out that the actual matter/energy content of the universe may be very low (or leaving aside fluctuations from the broken symmetry, essentially zero) because the false vacuum from which the universe as we understand it is conjectured to have come has negative energy, which cancels out the huge positive total of the energy present in the universe. He pointed out that since matter is interchangeable with energy and vice-versa, the universe could have started out of a quantum tunneling event which broke the false vacuum (which, being that it is of absolutely perfect symmetry, has nearly zero entropy, and is hence an extremely unstable state with singularity properties), and released a huge tide of positive energy, canceling out the negative energy, albeit not with perfect symmetry, we still see a small excess of energy (symmetry breaking is poorly understood). It should be noted, however, that Guth's original inflation has been superseded by Russian Physicist Andre Linde's Chaotic Inflation. At any rate, the purpose of inflation is to solve a relatively large problem associated with the universe. It is isotropic and homogeneous. Yet, according to the Big Bang, it should be very curved and non-homogenous. If inflation's rate of initial expansion were correct, then the problem would disappear since the ration of spatiotemporal expansion is so fast that the curvature of the original universe smooths very quickly, on the order of the Planck era. However, this quantum tunnelling event clearly would violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is acceptable though, since it is only for 10^-45 seconds, much less than even one Planck second, and such small, unpredictable events are allowable only for the tiniest intervals of time at the microcosmic level (actually, they are demonstratable with the Casimir effect, as shown by this picture:

We need to understand spontaneous breaking, which relates more to SLOT than to FLOT. Imagine a dam holding back water. This dam is perched on top of a hill blocking a river. If the dam was not there the water would naturally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill. SImple. The water has progressed to a lower energy state, as nature commands. But with the dam there, the water cannot flow downhill. Nonetheless, the water cannot get over the dam, and thus, even though the water is not in its lowest energy state, the arrangement is relatively stable. It is for this same reason that organisms, which are extremely far from chemical equilibirum, do not spontaneously combust. This is the principle of SLOT: Things fall to their lowest energy state. A ball perched on top of a high wall is at a higher energy state than one on the floor. Water being held back by a dam is at a higher and hence more unstable energy state than water which flows freely according to the path of least resistence. SLOT dictates that all things fall towards their lowest energy state, hence: If the dam is cracked and bursts, the water will flow from the false vacuum, the dam, to the true vacuum, the water. This false vacuum may have been the original state of the universe. We also call it a singularity. A singularity is a point where mathematical relationship is not defined.

The universe is believed to have been born out of a singularity after a false vacuum fluctuation, when all the essential forces were unified into one. As the four forces are unified into one, there is no coherent mathematical relationship, also called a singularity. This arrangement is extremely unstable, and as it spiralled asymptotically towards infinity and zero (because it has no mass), it breaks like a dam bursts, and the more stable arrangement (the four forces are broken) is born. The universe today is like a broken mirror, with the four forces ruling it disjointed and separate from each other. This is because the original vacuum arrangement is unstable. It broke, and from it gushed the true vacuum- the universe. This unified state, the vacuum arrangement. Since the false vacuum is unstable, in terms of SLOT, things fall to their lowest energy state and the symmetry is broken. Hence, the universe may have begun with no entropy, and progressed downwards from there. In this state of perfect and absolute symmetry, existence as we understand it would be nonsensical, and being that such a state is incredibly unstable, it would take only the tiniest fluctuation to break the vacuum, and then, by SLOT, the symmetry would break, and from this would spring forth existence as we understand it, with four seperate physical forces.

A symmetry in physics equations is generated by the ability to interchange expressions in an equation. Thanks to Weinberg and Salam, we can interchange all three leptons in an electric field, which gives it SU(3) symmetry. The ruling of the universe is dictated by SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) symmetry, regarding the simplest particles that make up the universe. In the singularity during the Planck era of the universe (10^-43 seconds), the collapse of the false vacuum led to the breaking of the symmetry from SU(5) to what we see today. Symmetry breaking is not properly understood, and very difficult to solve. Whatever caused the false vacuum fluctation, the symmetry broke. Gravity was the first force to disengage, giving a SU(4) x U(1) symmetry. The breaking off of the other three, including electromagnetism, generated the asymmetry we see today, which explains why the electron has a negative charge (the electromagnetic force). There was no charge in the symmetry. None at all. Being that the universe iwas orignally in a state of symmetry, there is no charge in the entire universe. The electromagnetic force works both ways, it attracts and it repels (unlike gravity, which is purely attractive). It's attraction/repulsion is very, very precisely balanced, to the tune of 10^-32 electron volts difference, which is probably experimental error. This is good because the electromagnetic force is tremendously powerful, almost 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times more powerful than gravity (this explains why you can cancel the entire gravity of the Earth by picking up bits of paper with the static electricty of your comb). And that means that if the electromagnetic force was any less balanced, you would be ripped to shreds instantly.

There is no charge in the universe, which might be explained that there was no charge in the vacuum. This is summarized thusly: All of the Cosmological theories postulated by modern day cosmologists attempt to explain how the universe may arise without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics. Of these, one of the most respected used to be Guth's inflation, theroy, which has since been superseded by Linde's. At any rate, for the purpose of this particular exeric,se both inflation theories have hte same postulation regarding how matter and energy came into being. Negative energy necessarily is cancelled out by a spontatnous event, which may violate FLOT for a bare shadow of a moment (1x10^-45s)m caying the collapse of the original symmetry. The next stage associated is called symmetry breaking. The main difference between Linde's and Guth's is that Linde' factors in the idea that inflation ios not a uniform process, so the rates of acceleartion differ for different patches of space and ttime. This explicitly demands Multiverse as a necessary part of Linde's working theory. At any rate, It says that the early (Planck era) universe underwent an extremely fast and intense burst of rapid spatiotemporal expansion after the Big Bang on the Order of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the speed of light.

This does not violate special relativity since empty space has no information. To explain the beginning of the universe, both Guth and Linde to negative-pressure driven quantum vacuum fluctuations to circumvent the First Law of Thermodynamics (not break it), since a true vacuum has a negative energy total, which means that the net energy total of the entire universe is zero, or rather, absurdly close to zero to account for quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations in the Planck era give birth to large scale structures in the Universe (this is demonstratable).For now I simply wish to explain how cosmologists overcome the First Law of Thermodynamics. The negative vacuum pressure effect is demonstrated by the Casimir effect, which relies on the generation of virtual quantum field particles which flit in and out of existence. We can demonstrate the Casimir effect. However, the technology to recreate this is far beyond us, as it would mean creating two metal bolts on the order of the Planck length in separation. The symmetry breaking of inflation Su(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) is the subject of another essay. For now I must continue with my explanation of how Inflation complies with thermodynamics, since it appeals to false-vacuum collapse, which is fully compliant with the first and second laws. A false vacuum is highly unstable due to the quantum field effect, and basic entropy mechanistic probabilities dictate that it will collapse. The creation of a true vacuum is in accordance with basic free energy decay mechanics in entropy. The Casimir effect shows that such virtual quantum particles can destroy the vacuum, and they exist plentifully where nothing else does, but only for periods of time on the order of the Planck length. This does not violate Thermodynamics since it is an extremely short lived and extremely tiny quantum effect. This is verifiable. Quantum virtual particles exist in the vacuum, and they would act as the trigger to destroy the negative energy vacuum, from which the true vacuum and hence matter and energy may spring forth. Guth’s original problem was solved by Linde, where the false vacuum fluctuations would generate many different inflating regions of space time called “bubbles”.

The problem is that the theory necessitates the nucleation of the bubbles (imagine it as analogous to heating water on a stove). While the collapse of a false vacuum would dictate that the expansion of the space between the bubbles would multiply logarithmically faster than the actual bubbles themselves. The universe would expand extremely rapidly, but it would never stop in Guth’s model. Inflation necessitated an extremely fast, but extremely short burst. Guth’s model had no way to wind down the inflation. Linde’s solution was that the expansion which triggered the universe was originally very slow, and accelerated in a scalar-field to become competitively fast compared to actual expansion of space time, and when it does, inflation stops, so the bubbles nucleate and thus the universe heats. For the purpose of this exercise, it becomes necessary to merge inflation with quantum cosmology. The original symmetry would have been broken as a trigger to inflation, and the negative energy associated with the vacuum would have been cancelled by the collapse (Since it is mechanistically so unstable. This means that matter, may arise). Note this is not an explanation of the philosophical problem of why the universe exists, since we have to include things existing before the univirse, the inflaton, the scalar field, etc. but it is a solution to how matter may form without contradicting the first law of thermodynamics. Note that your solution would contradict the FLOT because you believe the universe was created ex nihilo.

This is completely incorrect. You are obviously completely unfamiliar with modern cosmology. For fuck's sake, I just spent the last 10,000 words explaining to why this was not the case. If you are unprepared to make your countercase then you can leave and not come back. The falsehood of your above assertion was precisely the point I was trying to get through your thick idiotic skull. I presented the ideas of the physics community. I did not present my own super-clever new ideas. What don't you understand about this?  If there was nothing prior to the BB, our existence would contradict the first law of thermodynamics, and if this was shown, it would cause the biggest revolution in physics since Newton!

Now, I have one final thing to say:

I am not talking to you anymore, unless you meet the following conditions.

1) Write properly. I hate reading your posts because they are strewn with errors of syntax, grammar and spelling. They are very difficult to read.

2) Read, then respond. If you are unprepared to read what your interlocutor writes, you should not be so hasty to write a response.

Do you realize the absurdity of the situation at hand? I have effectively answered your question. Twice. And here you stand, rambling incoherently with piss-poor writing skills, not answering. Why ask a question if you won't acknowledge an answer?

Well the idea is that God doesn't want to rule the universe with a heavy hand. He may have created the universe the way it is so that his prescence is subtle not in your face and you must believe or your insane. This I don't know but may be a good idea.

The majority of historians and scholors believe Jesus existed and many of those academincs who believe are atheists. I think the collection of his words, deeds and eyewitnesses is rather overwhelming. Thank you for posting but your entire post was about theology when I started this thread for science evidence of god. I did give 2 quick replies which I thought was important even though out of debate.

Well God said he is light but of course even if God wanted to he couldnt explain to us what he is totally. I think of God as a immaterial being of energy, light, thought and feelings. This is all my opinion. The more common vision of God is that yes he is a being of light energy but its energy that's immaterial.

The photon is immaterial so is your mind, just syaing...

I agree science can only say things about material functions but then why do so many atheists like Richardo Dawkins use science as a way to disprove god? I believe science gives us clues of a creator God. It's like the black hole, we can't directly observe it but we see clues that its real. Math says it can be real, then we look at outer space and see giant starts orbiting some invisible heavy gravity mass, more clues of black holes. We can't observe or examine black holes but science sees clues of black holes. I say science sees clues of creator god as well and no clues at all of material creation power.

Thank you general forest but your reply was theology and personal feelings. I did reply to the most evidence centered pargraph in your reply. I dont mind stuff like what you said but this is not what this post was made for.

Runby posting?... hah what a cheap tactic. Explain what I missed or else watch out for brick wall.

heh more respect for Jesus. It's kind of odd but yeah Jesus was an atheists and the ultimate theist at the same time. He was a rebelrouser and a radical, pretty cool eh?

ok thank you but his hypothesis is only that science is very strict on these maters and what he said must be proven not taken by faith to be true. Besides if energy existed in some unknown state we only have 4 states seen it doesn't escape the first cause. Material energy exist in spacetime then what he is saying is also that this energy is eternal. Material things can never be eternal by its very character.

I read his article and what kind of fool are you for reading his hypothesis and thinking that its true? You speak about his idea as if he actually solved the birth of the universe. Are you insane or just being an ass? I'll believe it when his idea gets revied by science community and is PROVEN to be fact.

God is immaterial and science can't examine the immaterial directly. I mean look at it this simple way. You use a physical microscope to examing a physical molecule which physical light aids your inspection to come to a physical conclusion, we're trapped in our physical universe that way. What tool can we use that exists In matter and can exmaine things not made out of matter? I just see clues or evidence of creator god and no evidence at all of natural birth of universe. Science does provide those clues.

I've done quite a bit of “research” or I spent years on this. Again I concede you cant use science to disect God he is above us and out instruments. I just see the evidence of creator God.. now if this is the God of the bible or the God Jesus spoke of is up for debate. I already pointed the evidence if you scroll up you will see a list of it but for your convinience I will post most relevant now...

1. Created universe – It had a start and the start demands a cause and material causes will always need a first cause because it cant be infinte regress. You cant invoke a material origin for the universe because any thing material will need a cuase for it. Only way to escape infinite regress is a non material creation cause or immaterial creation cause.

2. Finely tuned universe – The odds are utterly impossible for good fortune to hit universe to make one that can have life. Odds much greater then 1 to all the atoms in the universe. Two choices either God made it this way or we have an infite universe generating engine pumping out universes till bingo we have a universe that can have intelligent life. Multiverse is science fiction absolutely no evidence for it other they hypothehtical math. Still even multiverse engine needs a first cuase.

Those two are the biggest I guess. I can can also include abiogenesis which is impossible by natrual methods as well but thats superflous. Why bother with how life started if you cant even answer the question how the universe got here with out god. Thank you all for interesing replies, some replies I had to ignore because they had nothing to do about debating evidence for creator god.

You say the universe had a start. That's an unjustified assertion. The big bang is the least recent event we can infer from the available data, but the limits of our ability to infer the past do not set the marker on when the universe came to exist. The universe might have existed in a different form before the big bang.

Your finely-tuned universe argument is pure baloney. The argument makes tons of unjustified assumptions. First, it assumes the physical constants could have wildly different values from what they currently have. Second, it assumes the values are equally likely for a constant. Third, it assumes the physical constants are separate rather than abstract ways of looking at simple principles. For example, the speed of light and the permittivity of the vacuum are interrelated so changing the value of one necessarily changes the other, but the fine-tuned universe argument assumes they are separate and unrelated, which is false. There's no reason to think any of them are genuinely separate as they are mere abstractions. Fourth, it assumes that significantly different values would lead to a universe without life. Fifth, the argument assumes there was only one chance for the constants to get their current values, so they're basically assuming that the idea of a multiverse is false. Sixth, they assume the constants are maleable, that they could have different values at all. All of these assumptions are unjustified and the argument is extremely weak, and I could continue poking more holes in it if I thought it would be worth my time.

You say abiogenesis is impossible through natural methods. Another unjustified assumption. Considering your inability to comprehend what Deluded God wrote to you earlier, I suspect you wouldn't be able to describe any facet of abiogenesis nor the physical principles they rely upon. I think it is fairly obvious to everyone on this forum that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

Your entire post is full of assumptions and bad science. If it were reduced to its bare essentials, it would simply state, "I assume god exists; therefore, god exists!" I'm going to leave my rebuttal at that because I truly cannot find the motivation to continue digging through that huge mound of textual diarrhea that you call an argument.

"SOUNDS MADE UP"          *            *    *

    Yeah , what got us to the moon and back ?   SCIENCE did .....

                 and religion did what ???????????  it showed us DOGMA .....

                                 a sense of the "middle" said a Buddha .... ????????? ahhh !!!

                                               GO Philosophy/Science                                                             *

                                                            FUCK RELIGION and PATRIOTISM

                     *

                                               how far does down go ?

                *

                                                         the last star ?

Many silent readers are also here reading RRS and learning; smart, ignorant, and dumb; and that is a good investment of everyone's time. 

            Thanks to all you posters 

Brother Llama.

From the beginning of human reasoning, to say "Gawed done it" (the Force) is ultimately true. To even describe the "Force" in human personality traits is understandable, and in the sense that we and everything is the "force" is obviously a piece of the truth. To say god is a "he" is the beginning of dogmatic bull shit. Then it just gets worse and fucking crazy nuts.

Religion is basically patriotic prejudice, and a tool of separating people from god or naturalism. We are 100% GOD. To study the "force" and how it works is science. Religion is dangerous and most always ugly. (often called leprocy in the bible folklore)

The "force" is all the reason for everything, and so do imagine the amazing possibilities of the AWE we all share. (science/philosophy)

BUT don't spout imaginative ideas as gospel truth, because it obviously makes you a lying, idol worshiping, crazy, dangerous madman !

 LOL to ya. Ye are God, said atheist Jesus/Buddha. All is ONE, all is EQUAL ..... Da !

I AM an Atheist Jesus fan. Re-read that Jesus philosophy (perverted by religion) all by yourself, please .....  then go heal the church hypocrites ..... please, please , for gawed sakes !